 This is the Humanist Report with Mike Figueredo. The Humanist Report podcast is funded by viewers like you through Patreon and PayPal. To support the show, visit patreon.com forward slash humanistreport or become a member at humanistreport.com. Now enjoy the show. Welcome to the Humanist Report podcast. My name is Mike Figueredo and this is episode 245 of the program. Today is Friday, June 12th and before we get started, I want to take some time to thank all of our newest Patreon, PayPal and YouTube members, all of which either signed up for the very first time to support us this week or increased their monthly pledge. And that includes Brian Hevlin, Constance Weismith, Christian Garcia, Glenn Stone, Helix Chaga, Jared John, Kristen Cooper, Leanza Tupfer, Manchevel, Michael, Michael Petzold, Paul Draver, Samantha Caldwell, Ted Fitzpatrick, Trev and Zhao Lu. So thank you so much to all of these kind individuals. If you'd also like to support the show and join the independent progressive media revolution, you can do so by going to humanistreport.com slash support, patreon.com slash humanistreport or by clicking join underneath any one of our YouTube videos. So we've got another jam packed episode for you all this week. We will continue our coverage of police brutality in America as well as the nationwide protests and discuss the need to defund the police and how police spending is absolutely out of control in a lot of cities in this country. Also, police officers in some cities are now targeting medics, which would be considered a war crime if this were happening overseas in a war. We'll talk about that. Also, Stuart Varney clutches his pearls over Lego suspending marketing for police sets. Ivanka Trump complains about free speech after her father's authoritarian crackdown on peaceful protesters. And on the subject of Donald J. Trump, we'll talk about how he's bungled the response to protests, which is why Joe Biden has taken a pretty sizable lead over him at the moment. We'll discuss why Charles Booker is the candidate you want to take on Mitch McConnell in Kentucky. We'll discuss Elliot Ingalls' criticism of AOC for endorsing his opponent, Ed Markey's primary race against Joe Kennedy, the third in Massachusetts. And finally, we'll close the show by talking to 2020 candidate for the United States Senate, Lisa Savage and how ranked choice voting in Maine has changed the game for Green Party candidates such as herself. That's what we've got on the agenda for today's episode. Hopefully you all will enjoy the show. Let's just get right to it. So all of the civil unrest, the uncertainty, the worry about our economic situation post COVID-19, this is all working out in Joe Biden's favor. About three or four months ago, before the pandemic, if you asked me who I thought would be winning in November, I'd say if it's between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, I think that Trump is the favorite, but now a lot of things are changing and Joe Biden is benefiting from this. So as you can see from real clear politics polling averages, Joe Biden now has an eight point national lead over Donald Trump. And just a couple of days ago, CNN put him at 14 points ahead of Donald Trump. Now this is probably an outlier poll, but it likely points towards a new trend because Donald Trump is just incapable of exhibiting any sort of leadership whatsoever during times of crisis. And this is working out in Joe Biden's favor because I think quite frankly, people are just sick of it. And Donald Trump is only fanning the flames in this country. I mean, if you are a president, you are supposed to give us the platitudes, tell us the nice things that make us feel all warm and fuzzy, but Donald Trump is doing the polar opposite. So this is helping Joe Biden. Certainly, I think that part of the reason why Joe Biden is doing better is because he's not very visible as a nominee. And at first I criticized him for not being visible because if you become the Democratic Party's nominee, in fact, he just officially clinched the nomination. You have to speak up. You have to show the American people that you're a leader, but it looks like he doesn't actually have to do anything. He just has to sit back and watch the country burn. And you know, Americans just have to see that Donald Trump is clearly unequipped to deal with this. And Joe Biden rises in the polls. It's really interesting to see this. Now, I do wanna give you a little bit of a caveat. At this point in time in 2016, we also saw that Hillary Clinton had a pretty sizable lead over Donald Trump, although I will say nobody has had a lead this far over the Republican at this point in time. It doesn't matter who it is, Obama, Hillary Clinton, in recent history. So this really is huge. Joe Biden has a giant lead and he's not just increasing his lead in the rust belt states that Hillary Clinton lost, but he's also possibly on the cusp of flipping Texas blue because they're now statistically tied in Texas. Donald Trump and Joe Biden are statistically tied and most voters in Texas support mail-in voting and Donald Trump has been railing against that I think very common sense policy, especially during a pandemic. So Trump continues to put his foot in his mouth and even if Joe Biden is also putting his foot in his mouth almost every time he opens his mouth, he's doing it less frequently than Donald Trump. And so long as we keep up this pace, then he's looking good. Now, once again, I wanna forewarn you because Hillary Clinton was doing so well at one point in time that there was talks of her winning in a landslide or even possibly flipping Utah. But here's one thing that I do wanna say. At this point in time, in June of an election year, polls aren't something that I think we should dedicate much attention to and a lot can change between now and November, but this is a current snapshot of what's happening in the country. So it's important in so far as it tells us how people feel Trump is responding to the plethora of crises that we're now facing and it's obvious that he's not doing that great of a job. And if you think he is doing a good job, and I question your sanity, but just the mere fact that Joe Biden is actually increasing the lead that he has already had on Donald Trump is making Donald Trump lose it. He tweeted out, if I wasn't constantly harassed for three years by fake and illegal investigations, Russia, Russia, Russia and the impeachment hoax, I'd be up by 25 points on Sleepy Joe and the do nothing Democrats. Very unfair, but it is what it is. CNN polls are as fake as they're reporting. Same numbers and worse against Crooked Hillary. The Dems would destroy America. Now it's funny he says that because America is crumbling currently. The country is on fire and he's sitting by doing nothing and when he actually chooses to speak out, he's pouring gasoline on the fires that already exist. So Donald Trump has proven that he is not capable of being a leader at all and it's astonishing. It really is astonishing. And his authoritarian crackdown, I don't think is going to bode well for him in November if people remember that because the fact that you threaten to use the United States military against American citizens that really is something that is unforgivable that every single person needs to remember. Trump bungled the response to COVID-19 and he's currently fumbling as we need someone to be a leader to heal the wounds that are open in this country. But more importantly, if you don't wanna be a leader, you at least have to respond to protesters and as they say defund the police, he says, no, I'm gonna actually increase funding. So he's basically spitting in the eyes of the protesters and sure, Joe Biden also said he would not support defunding the police but there's a difference between saying I don't necessarily support what the protesters are pitching to us and Trump saying, I'm gonna do the opposite of what you want. Like in a functioning democracy, if you see mass protests erupt across the country and spread throughout the globe, then what you do is you listen to them, you respond to them. He encouraged, I think maybe it was Venezuela or Iran to actually listen to the protesters. Maybe it was Hong Kong. One of these countries, he encouraged their leadership to listen and now what is he doing? Absolutely nothing. What little he's heard from the protesters, he's saying, I wanna do the opposite of what you want and it's why he is starting to lose ground and when you rail against mill and voting, when this is something that benefits people including Republicans, then it shows that you're tone deaf and his keep America great slogan this time. I mean, how can you say that America is currently great and we wanna keep things the way that they are? How can you make that your slogan? It's why Make America Great Again actually landed in 2016 because people acknowledged that the country wasn't in good shape, right? And that's why his vague slogan of Make America Great Again, you can kind of attribute meaning to that. You don't necessarily know what it means, what he means by that. I think it has racial connotations to be honest, but voters didn't see it that way. So now you can see that he hasn't changed up the strategy and it's hurting him. So if he keeps this up, he will lose this election in November. And one thing that I've been thinking about throughout the course of all of this is, let's say Joe Biden actually does beat Donald Trump, we are absolutely going to expect a shit show if that happens because I think we can already anticipate how Donald Trump will behave. He's going to say that the election was rigged. He's going to say that the results were illegitimate. There may be protests, albeit on the right, in defense of Donald Trump, will he refuse to leave the White House? I don't know if it'll come to that, but it's going to be a shit show. And right after that, if Joe Biden is elected, he will not have the legitimacy that other presidents have because I think Donald Trump will try to do everything in his power to contest the election results. I don't necessarily know what I mean by contest. I think he'll complain about it on Twitter for sure. But what does that mean functionally speaking? Does that mean that he just says I'm not going anywhere? I mean, I don't necessarily know, but it's going to cause a lot of civil unrest depending on what he does, assuming that he isn't able to catch up with Joe Biden and he does actually lose. I mean, what's that going to look like? And it doesn't help that Joe Biden is a weak candidate that a lot of Democrats don't actually support themselves. So I mean, regardless of what happens in this election, we as a country, as Americans got our work cut out for us because there's so much that needs to be addressed in this country that hasn't been addressed. And you kind of see all of the frustration bubbling up currently, it's all spilling over. So look, it's going to be interesting. I wish I could say that I'm watching this election as an outside observer, but this is our country. We're watching all of this. So as it crumbles, it's incumbent on us to pick up the pieces and try to figure out how to fix all of this. And either way, it's going to be a long road ahead of us to kind of repair the country and actually get us to a point to where we're making some progress again. But either way, Trump is not handling the fact that he is now losing according to polling by a pretty large margin. And if he keeps fumbling being a leader in the way that he is currently, I think that these results are going to hold, but we'll see because there's a lot of time between now and November. So I want to talk about a story that absolutely made my blood boil. This is the pinnacle of irony, of hypocrisy, and it speaks to every single thing that's wrong with American politics. So Ivanka Trump, who is in a position of power in the White House due to nepotism, was scheduled to speak at the virtual commencement of Wichita State University Tech. And at this commencement ceremony, she was supposed to give these students a bunch of flowery encouragement words that is supposed to lead them into the future. Yada, yada, yada. Well, they said, you know what? No, we don't want to hear her speak. We're in the midst of nationwide uprising and her father is an authoritarian who is disrespecting the protesters who are speaking out on behalf of George Floyd, who are speaking out against police brutality. So save it, we don't want to hear from you. And before I show you Ivanka Trump's response, I want you to hear the reasoning from one of the students who shared her reasons as to why she didn't want to hear from Ivanka Trump and she wanted this speech canceled. Take a look. I think at a time when black communities and allies throughout the United States and even the world at this point have been risking their lives to prevent the system at large from perpetuating such pervasive injustice and violence, Douglas Huttag invited the person who's a senior advisor and the daughter of a man who has a platform, the power, the resources, and the ability to heal our nation and truly work towards deconstructing the system. But obviously none of that has conspired. I think that Ivanka Trump has been important in terms of, you know, as her father continues to incite violence against the very people that want into it. And I think that seeing her is really the definition of a performative allyship. She has talked about equality. She has spoken on solidarity and unity and achieving justice, but that's all completely unsupported by any policies or tangible contributions or constructive change. So I think that inviting someone of that caliber to a university and university affiliate that wants to support students of color and, you know, in a platform and environment of inclusion and equity and justice, it sends a very different message to the students and faculty there. Yeah, I think that her reasoning is sound and I agree with her. If I, you know, attended that university, I wouldn't want to hear from Ivanka Trump. I wouldn't want to hear from someone who is going to say one thing, but it's currently doing things, supporting harmful policies being implemented by this administration. Now I want to show you Ivanka Trump's response. You know, CNN kind of gave it away if you read the Chiron, but her response was very interesting. She tweeted out, our nation's campuses should be bastions of free speech, cancel culture and viewpoint discrimination are antithetical to academia. Yeah, the daughter of Donald Trump just tweeted that out. Okay. Ivanka, do you want to know what is supposed to be a bastion of free speech? The United States of America, but that didn't stop your dad from having his attorney general use chemical weapons to violently crush protesters in front of DC so a path could be cleared so your father can take a photo op. America is supposed to be a bastion of free speech. The fact that these students didn't want to hear you speak and the event was subsequently canceled is not an attack on free speech at all. It is people protesting you because they disagree with the way that you and your father are handling the current protests. You want to know what is a threat to free speech? When your father threatens to use the United States military against its own people to violently crush protests. Do you want to know what's a threat to free speech when police officers in military gear across the country crush peaceful protests because most of them are peaceful. They crush peaceful protests, use chemical weapons and institute these Orwellian curfews. Also, they have an excuse to crack down. That is the real threat to free speech. And I think this speaks to everything wrong with the SJW agenda, right? Or the anti-SJW narrative that we've been seeing to be more specific. You know, we had the tendency over the course of the last couple of years to frame these instances of protests against speakers on college campuses as an attack to free speech. Meanwhile, the actual government is cracking down on free speech, literally violating the First Amendment. And these free speech warriors, people like Tim Pull and Dave Rubin, have nothing to say. But that's just YouTubers, right? Those are all demagogues online who are just saying what they think people want to hear so they can get clicks, views and money in return. This is especially outrageous because this is coming from someone who is in a position of power, who actually can affect change in this country, influence Donald Trump to not be such an authoritarian. But while her dad was cracking down on peaceful protests, you wanna know what she said about that? Jack fucking shit. Did she try to influence him to be less authoritarian? To use restraint when dealing with protests? To maybe, I don't know, not use chemical weapons against peaceful protesters in DC. So her dad could get a photo up. I mean, she didn't give a shit about all of that. But now she has the nerve to claim that this is an attack on free speech and that college campuses are supposed to be a bastion of free speech. Go fuck yourself, you imbecile. The United States of America is supposed to be a fucking bastion of free speech. What a whiny, entitled little fucking brat you are to complain about a college campus canceling your commencement speech. When your father is the president of the country and he's cracking down on peaceful protests, do you even care at all about that? I mean, this is why nepotism is a problem, right? Because it leads to people assuming roles of power when they know nothing. They know nothing. And Donald Trump is not qualified to be president. He has no previous governmental experience. But the fact that his kids are even that much dumber than him and they say things like this, they assume power and then they complain about free speech as that administration cracks down on free speech. I mean, get out of here. Get out of here, this is ridiculous. Ivanka Trump, I would say should be ashamed of herself, but she has no shame. I mean, this is someone from within Trump's administration an authoritarian proto-fascist administration that is gravitating towards violent fascism who is basically the nice face to Trump's fascistic policies. She's the one who tweets out gay pride. She's the one who talks about women's rights when in actuality, she is not just an enabler, but she is an individual who allows these types of policies to go into effect because she puts that nice face to fascism, right? Fascism is still fascism, even with the pretty face. The policies that the administration that she works for are enacted are functionally fascistic. If you crack down on peaceful protesters, if you use chemical weapons against them for a photo op, that is fascism and she's allowing it to happen. But to her, the real issue is cancel culture. How about we stop canceling fucking protests? How about we allow peaceful protesters to be able to make their voices heard? How about we stop worrying about college campuses and what they're doing and look at what the government is doing? How the government responds and we see how they're responding. Trump wants to crack down on these protests. In a leaked call with governors, he used the word dominate multiple times saying you have to dominate these protests. He wants to send in the troops, but this nitwit is saying it's actually the, you know, SJWs on college campuses cancel culture. That's the real threat to free speech. Your speech was canceled, but you're not canceled. You're still going to work for Donald Trump. You're still going to be, you know, in the White House, you're going to have a career. You're going to have millions and millions of dollars. So with all due respect, actually with no respect, shut the fuck up Ivanka Trump. This is a really important time because as a country, we are currently undergoing a mass political awakening. We're forced to grapple with the role of police because, you know, when you see video after video after video of police brutality, you can't just sit there idly by in ignorant bliss, right? Now that white people are finally privy to the knowledge that black Americans have had for centuries about the police, now we're forced to grapple with the role of police in our society and how we're going to transform the current system because obviously the status quo isn't working. And because we live in a capitalist society, large multinational corporations are forced to adapt to societal changes because if they don't, they go out of business. They lose money. I mean, could you imagine if Nike, for example, supported segregation in 2020, it's almost unthinkable, right? Because they don't want to lose that money. It's difficult for Chick-fil-A to continue to be vehemently anti-gay in this current political era because that's not socially acceptable. So large corporations are forced to adapt if they want to be relevant, right? Because if you don't adapt to social changes on a capitalist system, you do lose money. And Lego is one company who is deciding to at least read the room a little bit because they've decided to stop marketing their Lego White House set as well as their Lego City police sets because during a time of worldwide protests against police brutality, you know, toys that glorify police and subsequently brainwash children arguably into thinking that their force is for good in society, you know, it might be a little bit inappropriate right now. So as a result, this is a private company who said to all retailers, don't, you know, market these sets. You can still sell them, right? You can sell the police sets, but don't market them. Don't advertise them in your weekly store ads. And this is something that I think they should do. They should reevaluate these toys because I think that this is a tool to brainwash children. It's something that we have to think about, right? We have to think about the way that culture, you know, helps to reinforce what we've been taught about the political institutions that we've all come to know. But putting all that aside, Stuart Varney of Fox News reacted to the news that Lego would be suspending marketing for a period of time. And he was absolutely against it. He was appalled and he clutched his pearls as we expected him to. I'm staying on this protest theme. It's infected the toy industry. Lauren, am I right in saying that Lego is stopping ads for police kind of Lego characters? And it's White House kit. So Lego sent an email to online companies saying temporarily, at a respect for what's going on across the country, stop marketing for about 30 Lego sets that have emergency vehicles, police cars, the White House. In those sets, you can still sell them, don't advertise for them, their recommendation. Legos is also donating $4 million to organizations that support black children and educating all children about racial inequality. So this is another example of many retailers, many companies essentially putting their money where their mouth is. They're saying we should do more and they're donating money to do more. Yeah, maybe so, but it's sending quite a message to children, isn't it? You may not have toys that are police officers. Can't do that. I mean, that's flat out anti-police material. You know, right-wingers, you officially have to stop calling left-wingers snowflakes when you have segments like this. And in case you were wondering, they posted this segment to YouTube and likes, dislikes, as well as comments were disabled. Because I think he realized that, you know, this is a little bit of a ridiculous overreaction. He said, this is flat out anti-police material. Stuart, it's Legos. It's not that big of a deal. None of this will lead to societal change, nor will it lead to maintaining the status quo. What Lego chooses to do is completely inconsequential to what's happening currently in the country. If they choose to overmarket police Lego sets, not gonna make a difference. If they choose to remove all of their police Lego sets from the shelf, not gonna make a difference, it doesn't matter. So why would you, you know, use any of your energy to be outraged about this when there are real injustices happening throughout the country? I mean, this is a time where all of us should force ourselves to be introspective, to actually feel a little bit uncomfortable thinking about our role and how we prop up and maintain white supremacy, even if we thought we were allies, force ourselves to do better. It's a time where we all should be thinking bigger about what types of transformational changes we want to apply. But I mean, Stuart Varney, he only has one setting and it is to be offended and defend capitalism at all costs. But hey, if you're gonna be a capitalist, it's a private market, right? If Lego as a private company decides that they don't wanna market police propaganda to children, that's their decision. Do you want the big government to step it and stop them from doing that? I mean, he's not implying that to be fair. But I just, I don't get why a news organization would spend any time covering Legos. But again, this is Fox News. Back in 2018, we covered how they were outraged because I believe it was a bakery in Denmark. They decided to have gender, gingerbread people cookies that were gender neutral. So I mean, you can't really expect this news outlet to not be completely idiotic. But I mean, this is ridiculous. This is Legos. And Stuart Varney is clutching his pearls at Legos. Oh, give me a fucking break. Grow up, focus on things that matter. What Lego chooses to do or not do is not going to have an impact on our lives. It's not gonna make a difference. So just let it go and stop being such a snowflake. Growing up, we were taught that police officers were supposed to protect and serve. They were supposed to serve at the pleasure of their communities. But today, when you look at all the videos that we see from protests across the country, they don't look like they're serving at the pleasure of their communities. They look like an occupying force. They're increasingly militarized and excessively violent. They're using chemical weapons against American citizens oftentimes who are peacefully protesting. And even public officials, members of city council in Seattle, for example, like Shama Sawant, are reporting that they are being tear-gassed in New York. You have elected officials being pepper sprayed. So they're completely out of control. And as they get more and more out of control and tyrannical, who's gonna rein them in? They're not following the laws. They're not abiding by the constitution and the guarantee that we have to peacefully protest. So what do we do? Why are we allowing this to happen? Well, last week we talked about how tear gas isn't allowed in times of war because it falls under the category of chemical weapons. So the question is, if we're not allowed to use tear gas in a war because that would be considered a war crime, why are we okay with police officers excessively using it here at home? And we shouldn't just not be okay with them using it excessively. We should be not okay with it at all because it's a chemical weapon and it is state sanctioned violence that we should never be okay with. We should never feel comfortable when we see the sight of police officers using a chemical weapon against protesters. So there's got to be some framework where we judge their actions. And I think that if they're going to look like a militarized force, if America is going to look like a war zone, then I think that at a minimum, we should expect them to abide by the laws of war. They shouldn't be allowed to use tear gas. And another area where what they're doing would be illegal in war is when it comes to targeting medics because in a war, you are never supposed to target any hospitals. You're not supposed to bomb medics who are assisting people on the battlefield. And as article 24 of the Geneva Convention states, medical personnel exclusively engaged in the search for or the collection transport or treatment of the wounded or sick or in the prevention of disease, staff exclusively engaged in the administration of medical units and establishments as well as chaplains attached to the armed forces shall be respected and protected in all circumstances. If a military isn't allowed under international law to target medics, then of course we shouldn't allow police officers in the United States to do that, right? Target medics who are assisting wounded protesters, except that's happening. That's happening. Take a look. What is this? Help! Citywide curfew will be in effect. Other than essential workers, no further effects are needed. Okay, now you understand. At 8 p.m., a citywide curfew will be in effect. Other than essential workers. Delhi, Mike, I'm filming you. We're not here. The doctors here are helping people. See the shame of this night. We will be enforcing the law. Please leave the area peacefully and you will not be harmed. So what you just saw, if just for a minute you suspend reality and pretend as if that was taking place in Iraq or Afghanistan, that would be war crimes. In other words, what American police officers are doing is tantamount to war crimes. But yet we allow it to happen. They are arresting medics who are assisting wounded protesters. And on top of that, they are arresting them and using the curfew as justification to arrest them when if you're an essential worker, the curfew doesn't apply to you, right? Medical workers, medical healthcare providers, these are essential workers. So the curfew in theory isn't supposed to apply to them, but yet you saw that. You saw them destroying supplies that volunteers brought to the medics that were at a medical tent. And look, this is all people who are associated with the protest, but if you're just a healthcare worker and you're driving home from work after a long shift, even if you have nothing to do with the protest, they still might go after you as well. Take a look at this. She wearing scrawls. Look at it. What is it? What's your name? I don't know nothing. I've been affected for no reason. I've been affected for no reason. So I mean, this should outrage everyone. This is supposed to be a free country. Does that seem like freedom to you? Does that seem like democracy to you? For them to arrest a tax-paying citizen who is on her way home from work or going to work? I don't know what it is, but she is a healthcare worker. She had scrubs on. So clearly she's an essential worker. Why are you arresting her? It's because functionally, they are above the law. They don't abide by the laws created by politicians. They are above the law. They think that they create the laws or anything that they do by definition is good because they are officers of the law and enforcers of the law. And we can't allow this to happen. And Jeffrey Young of HuffPost, I think, put it best. He says, even in their combat-ready armor with their combat-style rifles and combat-looking vehicles, police officers aren't soldiers and aren't trained like soldiers. But if they want to dress up like soldiers, they should be expected at a minimum to follow the same rules soldiers do. Yeah. Now, of course, the answer is we shouldn't have militarized police officers intimidating and violently brutalizing communities that they're supposed to be protecting. We should demilitarize the police, defund the police. But so long as we're going to have militarized police officers roaming the streets in the United States of America, I don't think it's too much to ask for them to be held to the same standard as our military official are held to. If you target a medic, that's a war crime. So why is it not a crime for police officers to target medics here at home, which is not a war zone last time I checked? It's unacceptable. And it's why I think that calls to defund the police and even abolitionist arguments are really important because we have always just kind of been on one setting in America, right? We take this incrementalist approach because that's all we know. That's what our institutions will allow. But think beyond the parameters of what is within the Overton window, expand the scope of thinking, have some imaginative responses to what's happening. We have to radically transform the way that we even conceive of policing in America. And we're not going to do that by opting for some milk toast approach. We have to think outside the box and we have to find ways to have some sort of institutional check on police officers if as a society we agree to keep them because this is not acceptable. You should not be assaulting taxpayers that are paying your paychecks. It's completely unacceptable. So again, we shouldn't have militarized police, but if they wanna pretend as if this is a war zone, then they should be held to a higher standard as if they are in a war zone. They should be prosecuted for using chemical weapons against Americans and targeting medics. That's completely unacceptable. And I don't even know what to say. This is just, it's demoralizing and depressing to see this. You think that human beings would not want to do this. There'd be some sort of mechanism in the brains of these police officers that makes them not want to target medics and use tear gas against people, but they've dehumanized the people that they're supposed to protect. This is not just a matter of a couple of bad apples. This is a culture of anti-blackness. It's a culture of them feeling as if they're always under siege and they're above the law and since they feel as if they're threatened, they could do whatever they want, use whatever force necessary, even if it's excessive, it's unacceptable. And we have to do better. And what we're seeing with these protests, I think it's important that we listen to the protesters and we don't pontificate about what they need. They're telling us what they need and we have to listen to them. I think that all of my liberal friends have got to come to terms with the fact that incrementalist approaches to police reform have failed. I mean, mandatory body cameras, implicit bias training. These are all approaches that have failed. And as a result of this obvious failure, I think that the protesters are opting for a more radical approach and they've come up with a simple but really powerful message, defund the police. And I absolutely agree with this because people can see firsthand how defunding education affects their communities. We've hollowed out social safety net programs. So if we defund the police and we use the money that we take away from police and we funnel that back into our communities, back into social programs, back into education, we can see the impact that that might have, right? If we actually follow through with this. So it's a really powerful and important message. And on that note, David Sarota in an op-ed for Jacobin lays out why so many people are responding positively to this message. It's because police spending is, in fact, out of control. And as a result, we've got to defund them. He writes, defund the police has become a nationwide mantra and for good reason. Budget data from across the country show that spending on police has far outpaced population growth and drained resources from other public priorities. Basically, our cities have been siphoning money from stuff like education and social services and funneling the cash into ever larger militarized security forces. Nationally, the numbers are stark. Between 1977 and 2017, America's population grew by about 50% while state and local spending on police grew by a whopping 173% in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to data from the Urban Institute. In other words, the rate of police spending growth was triple the rate of population growth. Chicago and New York embody the trends. The former has been losing population over the last decade. At the same time, Mayor Rahm Emanuel grew the police budget by 27% during his eight-year term to the point where Chicago now spends more than 38% of its general fund on police. Those increases coincided with the spate of police brutality scandals, as well as budget cuts that resulted in teacher layoffs and the mass closure of Chicago public schools. And yet, Chicago's new mayor, Lori Lightfoot, has been pushing a new 7% increase in the police budget. In New York, it's a similar story. Back in 2008, the city spent 4.1 billion on its police force, according to city council documents. 12 years later, the city is spending 6 billion on its police force. That's a 46% increase during a period in which the city's population growth was essentially flat. A new report by New York City Comptroller, Scott Stringer, notes that in the last five years alone, spending on police rose by 22%, driven by a 6% increase in the number of officers on the force. All this happened during a period when the city experienced many years of budget cuts to social services and schools. Indeed, as Public Citizen points out, New York's police budget is now more than the city spends on health, homelessness, youth development and workforce development combined. These are hardly anomalies, as illustrated by a Center for Popular Democracy report looking at 12 major cities. That analysis concluded that governments have dramatically increased their spending on criminalization, policing and mass incarceration, while drastically cutting investments in basic infrastructure and slowing investment in social safety net programs to the point where today, police spending vastly outpaces expenditures in vital community resources and services. So this is a really important article because it paints a really clear picture for us, right? If a state's population is remaining static, as is the case with New York, but yet their police budget increases, then what does that tell us? As the years go on, more and more we are over-policing states. And if you've got a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. In this case with the police officers, if you have more militarized equipment and gear and there's more of you now, then of course you're going to over-police communities and we're going to see more instances of police brutality. So this is incredibly important to know because it makes sense why people are calling for the police to be defunded, right? As teachers across the United States are forced to buy supplies for their students with their own money, we have police that keep getting upgrades to gear, more military-style gear that they're using to police our communities. Why are we letting this happen? Why are we taking money out of the pockets of our educators and putting that in the hands of people who are policing and they're doing a shitty job at that? Well, I mean, the answer is it's because I think mayors across the country, local officials, they are afraid of police forces. They have too much power. And so what we're kind of seeing with calls to defund the police is in the same way that I call for the military budget to be cut by 50 to 60, maybe 70%, we're seeing this happen at a local level where these inflated budgets of police precincts and police offices are needing to be redirected into the community. Rather than spending money on military police, use that money for social services in the community. Use that money to improve our schools. Because guess what? Over-policing communities is not going to lead to a reduction in crime. There are other socioeconomic factors that we have to look at here, right? We have to decriminalize drugs and sex work. We have to make large strides towards criminal justice reform, not just pumping more and more money into police departments. That's not gonna do anything, right? So that's why I think that defund the police is such a powerful message, because it's clear, it's concise, and when you hear it, you get it, right? You see, oh, my kid's school has been defunded. It's dilapidated. I mean, funding has been cut. But the police officers, on the other hand, I could see firsthand how they always have brand new vehicles that they patrol our cities with. I can see how they have more riot gear, right? They never run out of tear gas canisters, whereas healthcare workers are running out of masks and PPE. I mean, people see this firsthand, right? It elicits this type of visceral reaction where something just kind of clicks and you realize, oh, this is a really easy step into stopping the issue. Now, I think that defund the police is a simple message, but it does require more. But just at face value, I think that it resonates with people because you get it, it's self-explanatory. You defund the police because if they don't have the resources and the personnel to over-police our communities, then obviously we're going to see less instances of police brutality, you know? Communities won't feel as if they are being occupied by a force who isn't actually looking out to serve and protect, right? They have power, so they just use that power. It's human psychology. So I think this is really important and I think that looking at the details here, the data more specifically, like David Sorota did, is a really key component into changing public opinion because even though public opinion might not support policies like abolish the police and I'm not sure necessarily what people feel about defunding the police, but I do know that a majority of Americans thought that it was justified for the third precinct of Minneapolis to burn to the ground. So people understand that change is needed currently and I think that starting here, starting with the budgets, these bloated budgets of police departments in cities across the country, that's a really great start, but we've got to go further and really expand our thinking, expand the scope of what we think is possible or even can imagine as a possibility. We have to change the way that we, you know, look at this concept of policing and really reexamine it in a different way. You know, take policing out of the conversation and actually figure out ways to have government officials respond to the needs of their communities. That's the whole point of police or that's supposed to be the point. It's to serve and protect, but if police offices aren't serving and protecting, if we see video after video after video after video of them abusing their power, you can't just sit idly by and keep opting for incremental changes when they've clearly failed because if the incremental changes would have worked, then don't you think they would have taken effect by now? Because how many times have we been calling on police reform? You know, civil rights activists have always been calling for it, but you know, during the Ferguson era when Obama was president, I mean, you see these types of incrementalist approaches be implemented, but did we ever see the police be demilitarized? Did we see less instances of police brutality? No, absolutely not. So the incrementalist approach has failed as it usually does. And now we've got to get more radical. We've got to listen to the people in the streets currently. And I think that they are really driving this conversation in an important direction and I'm all for it. Defund the police. That's a really important first step. So Mitch McConnell is up for reelection this year and I cannot stress how important it is that we oust Mitch McConnell. This is serious because for all of the criticisms that I have of Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell is arguably worse than Donald Trump because Donald Trump is basically just a mouthpiece for all of the fascistic policies that we're seeing. But Mitch McConnell is the enforcer. Without Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump wouldn't be nearly as effective as he is now. Mitch McConnell is the reason why Donald Trump is able to stack the federal judiciary. It's because he has Mitch McConnell doing his bidding for him. And up until recently, Mitch McConnell was actually the least popular senator in the United States of America. But Susan Collins did pass him. But nonetheless, I mean, he is a very disliked individual. So the question is, if he's so unlike, if he's so destructive, why does he keep getting elected? Now, I think that Republicans like him because strategically, Mitch McConnell is very savvy. He's effective. He gets things done. He gets their far-right extremist agenda implemented. He makes it a reality. That's why they like him. So why is it that Democrats can't find someone who's competent enough to oust Mitch McConnell given the threat that he poses? Well, let's go back to 2014, which is the last time when Mitch McConnell was up for reelection. His challenger was a woman named Alison Lundergan Grimes, who thought that she'd be able to beat Mitch McConnell by out-Republican-ing him. And she wouldn't even admit that she voted for Barack Obama because apparently she didn't want to lose any credibility among conservatives that she thought that she built up. So I mean, she lost. It was a huge defeat. And it wasn't really that surprising. Now, fast forward to today. And Democrats are opting for someone who's even worse, who's effectively running as a pro-Trump Democrat. Yes, you heard that right. A pro-Trump Democrat whose argument to the people of Kentucky is, listen, Mitch McConnell hasn't actually been able to implement Donald Trump's agenda. So all of the good parts of Trump's agenda that he talked about in 2016, Mitch McConnell has been a hurdle to that. So I'm gonna get in and actually enable Trump to do all of the good things. Right? Well, I mean, you can see that Donald Trump hasn't been wanting to do any of the good things. I mean, think about infrastructure, for example. The only thing that we saw proposed or floated was some type of hyper privatized version that was endorsed by the Koch brothers of infrastructure rebuilding. So I mean, this argument isn't going to land with Democrats, right? So we need a progressive alternative. Now, earlier this year, I talked to an individual named Stephen Cox who had the right policies. And I think that his criticism of Amy McGrath was sound, but his campaign just never got off the ground. There was no campaign infrastructure, no team. And his Twitter account went dark because his campaign just kind of imploded. So the question is what now? Stephen Cox is seemingly nowhere to be found. So are we just stuck with Amy McGrath? Well, no, because we actually have not just an alternative to Amy McGrath, but one of the best options that anyone could hope for in terms of a politician running for the United States Senate. His name is Charles Booker. And what we're seeing with this race is something special is happening here. At least in Kentucky, Democrats seem to be waking up because they're unequivocally rejecting the corporate Democrat that the national party is trying to shove down everyone's throats. And Charles Booker announced that he's received the endorsements from most of the state's Democratic party. That includes the legislative state Black Caucus as well as state house leadership and nearly half of the entire Democratic Caucus in Kentucky. So you have a progressive standup and say I'm gonna take on Mitch McConnell and members of the state Democratic Party in Kentucky are saying, all right, we're not gonna opt for Amy McGrath, even though the national party wants her, we're gonna go with Charles Booker. Now you might think how progressive is he if all of the establishment figures within Kentucky are lining up behind him? Well, see for yourself. Look at his platform here. It goes further than Bernie's in some respects because he supports Medicare for All, a Green New Deal. He also supports a universal basic income, which is especially important during a pandemic. Cannabis legalization, criminal justice reform, basically anything you'd hope for from a progressive. So he decided to step up to give the people of Kentucky a real alternative. This is what is needed. And I just wanna give you a taste of who Charles Booker is because he decided to make his voice heard in Kentucky's house when they were bringing up the issue of abortion and one person decided to compare it to lynching, literally. This was his response. He kept going even after his mic was cut. Listen, I stood up probably for the first time in the state's history, gave a monologue about what it would mean to be shot as a black man. Talked about Senate Bill 150. Talked about lynchings. Told you how my family was lynched, how someone would compare that to abortion. What a rollercoaster I've been on this session. I've laid all my stories out for you. I explained to you how these types of laws, like 150 would kill people in the same folks that wanna have the audacity to vote yes now, voted for that legislation. Gentlemen, I apologize. My life matters to speaker. My life matters to speaker out of them. Your three minutes are up. That was really powerful. And it's so special and important to watch because it's really rare when you see elected politicians actually care about anything. Like we've become so accustomed to politicians that are focus group driven, you know, thumb pointing ghouls and they're just robotic, right? They don't believe in anything. So when you see someone who actually is passionate, who, you know, you can see the passion and desire to affect change on his face, you really have to hang on to those people and cherish them. So last week, we talked about democratic lawmaker from New York, Elliot Engel, who showed up for the very first time in his district in months and he was caught on hot mic saying this. I mean, that pretty much tells you everything that you need to know about Elliot Engel. Now, he recently got himself in even more trouble because in a recent candidate forum, he was talking about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's decision to endorse his primary opponent, Jamal Bowman. And the rhetoric that he used maybe was just a wee bit hyperbolic. This is what I'm talking about. This is not a dictatorship. This is the democracy. We shouldn't have one person from high, even though she's a colleague of mine, think that she can annoy whoever is elected to Congress. That's not what democracy is all about. So I'm tried and true. I've been there. I've worked hard. I've done things for people. As I said to people, two-year term, I asked for a renewal of my contract for another two years. I mean, what else is there to say? Has he not already shown his true colors to every single person in that district? He is equating a political endorsement with dictatorship. Now, I think it's good that AOC endorsed Jamal Bowman. I wish that she would endorse more primary challengers. But if, according to him, an endorsement is comparable to dictatorship, which doesn't even make sense. That's part of democracy. That I'm sure that he's going to denounce the endorsement that Nancy Pelosi gave to him, correct? He was also endorsed by the Congressional Black Caucus. So I'm sure that he's going to reject their endorsement wholeheartedly, right? And while we're at it, while we're talking about democracy and really strengthening our democracy, then I'm sure that last year, when the DCCC was going to war with vendors who were working with candidates who were primary and corporate Democrats, that he was on the side of the people speaking out against the DCCC. I'm sure that earlier this year, when there were widespread reports about superdelegates wanting to subvert the will of the people if Bernie Sanders did, in fact, end up with a plurality of delegates, you know, he aired on the side of democracy and wanted the people to make their decision and didn't want institutions and individuals influencing the democratic process. Oh, wait, he said nothing about any of those instances of undemocratic behavior. From the democratic party. So I mean, what we're dealing with here is a whiny, entitled, elitist Democrat who thinks that that seat is owed to him. Nevermind the fact that he didn't set foot in his district once during a global pandemic, but now he's angry that since he's not there, his opponent is getting endorsements of other lawmakers. Well, maybe you should be there. Maybe rather than complaining about the fact that you have a primary opponent, you actually just try to do better, actually propose legislation that your constituents want. Try to actually perform, do your job. But no, he just wants to keep that seat warm. It doesn't matter that he's not making a difference. He just wants to be there because he's been there forever. I believe he's been there since 1988, which is basically the entirety of my life. What have you done, Elliot Angle? What have you done? Besides implement terrible policies and propose terrible policies? What have you done? Nothing. So the fact that he has the nerve to whine about AOC's endorsement and equate that to a dictatorship saying that an endorsement is not democracy or it flies in the faces of democracy, whatever he's trying to imply. I mean, what an imbecile. This guy is clearly not fit to be a lawmaker. Someone that stupid who thinks that an endorsement is comparable to undermining democracy does not deserve to be in a position of power. Support Jamal Bowman. Go to BowmanforCongress.com, donate to him and help him defeat this ghoul because Elliot Angle doesn't actually care about the people that he's supposed to represent. He's been in Congress for decades and he hasn't done anything. And now that he finally has someone who's challenging him, who's forcing him to campaign and actually set foot in his district, you see the way that he unravels and melts down. He can't handle the fact that he's actually being challenged. He can't handle the fact that democracy actually is playing out because he has a competitive primary opponent. It's absolutely ridiculous. He's insufferable. And the people in his district need to realize that this isn't someone who cares about them. He's not even doing the bare minimum. He's just warming the seat in Congress but doesn't actually want to fight for them. Doesn't actually want to improve their lives. So I mean, the people in this district will be making this decision shortly. They deserve better. So support Jamal Bowman and actually get yourself a representative because you currently don't have one. You don't have one. He's not a representative. This is the absence of leadership. This is a coward who is just looking out for his own career. He's made that incredibly clear during the course of this primary. And if you vote for him, then I'm sorry, you're part of the problem. He doesn't care about you. So stop supporting Democrats like this. 99% of the time, if there was a primary challenger to an incumbent Democrat, I am supporting the primary challenger. But in the instance of a US Senate race in Massachusetts, this is a different story. So Joe Kennedy, the third is challenging Ed Markey. And in the event he were to be successful in defeating Ed Markey, I mean, this would be a huge loss for the country. Ed Markey is by no means perfect, but I can tell you this. He's much better than Joe Kennedy. Joe Kennedy is a milk toast corporate Democrat who doesn't even believe that we should legalize cannabis. This is clearly someone who's just looking out for his own career and he doesn't actually have any interesting thoughts. He's just there because of his last name. He's there because, you know, he's coasting off of the Kennedy legacy that he thinks will eventually get him into the White House. But Ed Markey has actually been someone who's been a fighter for the people. He co-sponsored Medicare for All. And I think that he was one of the loudest voices on our side when we were fighting to save net neutrality. And on top of that, he sponsored the Green New Deal with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. So as far as I'm concerned, there's nobody better than him that's running. So I support Ed Markey. We don't need him to be primaried when especially it's someone like Joe Kennedy. Like if we're trading up and we're getting a Democratic socialist who is maybe more vocal than Ed Markey. Okay, that's fine. But I think we would be, you know, more savvy if we used our time challenging other more problematic Democrats. So this primary doesn't need to take place. But I wanna play a clip from a debate that these two men had because it really shows you how Joe Kennedy, he's a phony. I think that Ed Markey does a phenomenal job at exposing how much of a fake Joe Kennedy is. Because all of a sudden, Joe Kennedy is trying to convince people that he is a progressive when in actuality, he's not very progressive. He's a Johnny Come Lately and it's all lip service. It's an attempt to placate the left. But watch how masterful Ed Markey is in exposing what a fraud Joe Kennedy is. Take a look. When Bernie Sanders and I introduced Medicare for All in 2017, Congressman Kennedy did not sign up. Took him two years to sign up. What did he do in the weeks after we introduced that bill in 2017? He went to Detroit to a Crane's business council. And when asked about Medicare for All, he analyzed its prospects. And what he said was, even if we had the House, the Senate and the presidency, he didn't think Medicare for All could ever pass. He said, it was better to just think about incremental change. That's not leadership. That's not vision. That's not standing up and fighting for what you believe in. That's how you get the votes. That's what I do on environmental issues. Well, I just came up and I fight to make sure that we get the vote. I really enjoyed that clip. And Ed Markey tweeted this out and good for him. I would be using this clip myself. If I were running for office, if I was a campaign manager, this is a good clip. This is really important. And I like it for two reasons. First of all, it really shows how Bernie Sanders has influenced political discourse, at least within the Democratic Party. He may not have been the Democratic Party's nominee in 2016 and 2020, unfortunately, but we're still talking about Bernie Sanders. His legacy will last decades. And that's really important. But Ed Markey really showed everyone how this isn't someone who believes in anything because back in 2017, Ed Markey cosponsored Medicare for All when Bernie Sanders introduced it, but Joe Kennedy was not a supporter of Medicare for All. All of a sudden, as he's trying to win the Senate seat, he's supporting it, right? He's paying lip service to the idea of universal healthcare. And he says he supports Medicare for All, but it took him two years, two years to jump on board with it after it's been introduced. And now he is bringing Pramila Jayapal onto his YouTube channel to try to educate people about Medicare for All, but where were you during the 2020-2019 primary process? If you are truly as progressive as you want people to think you are, why didn't you endorse the person who is championing Medicare for All, Bernie Sanders? You said nothing. You said absolutely nothing. Why weren't you there from day one? And I think that Ed Markey put it best. He says that Joe Kennedy, after this bill was introduced, talked with business leaders and said that even if Democrats control all of government, he thinks it's better to just talk about it, to think about an incremental change. No, no, that's not good enough because that tells us that you're only taking this position, this Promenade Care for All position for purposes of political expediency. No, unacceptable, completely unacceptable. And one thing that scares me about this race is that Joe Kennedy actually has the support of a lot of prominent Democrats, unlike other primary challengers to incumbent Democrats. So he could actually defeat Ed Markey and we'd be trading down. We'd be getting someone who is less progressive to a higher level of office. That would be awful. Now, one area where I disagree with Ed Markey is he gives himself a little bit too much credit. He says when Bernie Sanders and I introduced Medicare for All, I mean, let's pump the brakes there because that was Bernie's bill. You definitely get all the credit for the Senate version of the Green New Deal. You get all the credit in the world for standing up for net neutrality, but that's not your bill, but still the fact that you supported it. That's all I really care about. So this race is, it's interesting, right? Because usually the Democratic Party is against primary challengers, but it seems like they don't really take much of an issue with Joe Kennedy here. And you even have people who I thought were progressive like Jamie Raskin holding fundraisers for Joe Kennedy to elect him over Ed Markey. So it just, it doesn't make sense to me. I get that Jamie Raskin and Joe Kennedy are colleagues, but I mean, I don't care about your interpersonal relationships in Congress. I just want policies past that are good, period. So if you're not gonna help us, step aside, okay? So Joe Kennedy is someone who the establishment propped up. We know that he gave a response to Trump's State of the Union and it looked like he was drooling all over his lips. It just grows sloppy. Like I'm sick of Democrats who are very obviously only looking out for their own careers, saying what they know we wanna hear, but not actually delivering policy results, okay? Ed Markey actually has a track record of stepping up when the left needs him, right? He was there screaming about net neutrality when Joe Kennedy wasn't saying much. He was there for the Green New Deal Senate version when Joe Kennedy wasn't leading on climate change. Ed Markey was there when Bernie Sanders desperately needed people to support Medicare for All and you didn't support the House version. It was John Conyers at the time and you only now are jumping on the bandwagon now that it's popular. I mean, I'm sick of this. I'm so sick of this. We need people who actually care about policy and they have that as their priority and not their career, but unfortunately with politics, you have a bunch of sociopaths who don't really believe in anything, just trying to make some career advances and it's this disgusting, it's really disappointing. Well, that's why we have to sound the alarms and support people who are actually doing good work for us. I don't agree with Ed Markey on everything. There's some areas where I disagree with him, but given the choice between him and Joe Kennedy III, I'm going with Ed Markey every single time. He's the better option and he's a pretty solid senator. So yeah, this is an unnecessary primary challenge and I hope that Joe Kennedy III loses. Folks, I am here with some absolutely fantastic news. It's not often that I get to bring you good news, but boy, do I have some good news for you. Paula Jean Swarajan has just won her Democratic primary. She will now be facing off against Republican Shelley Moore Capito in November. I cannot stress how huge this is for the progressive movement. This is a huge victory for us. And I honestly am shocked not that she won because I believed in her. I knew she was running a fantastic campaign, but it's almost surreal to experience any victory in this era in American politics. And she didn't just win, she won pretty comfortably. Now, some things were a little bit bizarre throughout the process as the results came in. For example, as Brand New Congress points out, the Washington Post just reported for a while that she had zero votes. They reported the correct percentage for Richard Ojeda, but did not report her votes. If you go to NBC News, they didn't even have a picture for her, which is weird because she is a candidate now with quite a bit of name recognition. So they should have at least one photo for her. And the New York Times took forever to call this, but none of that matters because she won and this is huge. This is absolutely huge. She is a fighter and out of all of the people who are running for Congress, I can tell you she's one of the real ones. I think that we have so many great candidates this year, but she's one of them that I believe in the most because this is a fight for survival, the way that she talks about politics, the way that she is able to articulate the issues that West Virginians are dealing with because she's lived it. I mean, this is exactly what the country needs, what West Virginia needs is someone like her. Now, I had people when I was tweeting about the results coming in, ask me why I wasn't rooting for Richard Ojeda, why I didn't support Richard Ojeda. And I will link you to my interview that I did with Paula Jean Swaringian down below. We just did this interview a couple of weeks ago, so it's still relevant. And there's a couple of reasons why I don't support Richard Ojeda. So first of all, back in 2018 when he was running against Carol Miller, I thought that he ran a fantastic campaign and I was rooting for him. Although I did have my reservations, I had my skepticism when he announced that he was running for president. And then come to find out, he was wishy-washy on Medicare for all. He admitted that he supported Joe Manchin over Paula Jean Swaringian. When you go to his website, he doesn't actually really have a platform. He was refusing to debate Paula Jean Swaringian. He wasn't really consistent when it comes to coal and what he would do. But I don't wanna beat up on Richard Ojeda because it's over now. He's out of this race. Maybe there's a position he can run for in the future. But just to kind of explain my position and why this is good, why the progressive one in this instance, Paula Jean Swaringian is the progressive, the true progressive. And she is a fighter for people in West Virginia. And I don't know much about Richie Robb, but I know I have the utmost faith in Paula Jean Swaringian. So now we turn our eyes to November. We have to try to flip that seat. And man, this is going to be a really tough battle. This is a statewide race. This isn't like house races that we've been fighting for, which we've kind of become more comfortable with. This is a statewide race. It's gonna be tough. But if you live in West Virginia, now is the time to sign up. And if you don't live in West Virginia, you can phone bank for Paula Jean Swaringian. You can not just make calls for her. You can, I believe, text bank for her. I don't know if she has that set up yet, but I'm sure that she will now that she's going up against the Republican. And let me just say that every single penny counts, I know that we're all struggling during a pandemic. But if you have money to donate to Paula Jean Swaringian, she's gonna need that boost right now. Because if we wanna win, she's gonna need to make national headlines. And you can already see the reluctance of mainstream media to cover her appropriately, not having a picture of her, refusing to call it until the very, very end. This is going to be a tough battle, but guess what? Paula Jean Swaringian can win. And if she wins and makes it to the U.S. Senate, you now have the best senator in the United States. I would argue she's better than Bernie Sanders. So as a country, if we actually want change, if we want legislation enacted that reflects the will of the people, this is our best bet at doing that. And I cannot tell you how hard we have to fight to get her elected because this is a game changer. If she were to win, this would be a game changer. And think about this for a minute. Let me be petty if you'll indulge me. She lost her primary against Joe Manchin back in 2018. She won her primary this time. But imagine her confronting Joe Manchin as a fellow senator, a fellow senator, a colleague, not just a constituent or an activist. She would push him to do better because once you actually become a U.S. senator and you're representing a state, she's going to be able to hold him accountable more easily. So I just cannot tell you how thrilled I am with these results. Apology and Sparangin pulled it off. And I honestly don't even know what to say. When I saw the results, I got chills. I was in a sense of disbelief and my heart was pounding watching the results come in and she won. This is really, really great news. Congratulations to Apology and Sparangin. We're rooting for you and we're just getting started. We're gonna fight for you because we know that if she wins, she's bringing us to Congress with her. Hello, everyone. I am here with Lisa Savage, a U.S. Senate candidate running for the Green Party. And this is a really interesting race because for those of you who don't know, Maine passed ranked choice voting just a couple of years prior. So this is a race where Lisa Savage could possibly be the first member of Congress that is a Green Party member. So this is really exciting. Lisa, thank you so much for coming on the program. Thanks for inviting me. So tell us how ranked choice voting has affected your race in particular and how this actually is really giving you a chance to change the country. Yes, well, ranked choice voting is very much in play in this election for various reasons. One of them being that the incumbent, Susan Collins, is the least popular senator in the United States now. And the way ranked choice voting works in Maine is that if someone gets a majority of the votes in the first round, then the elections over, they won and ranked choice voting doesn't really kick in. But it's unlikely that Susan Collins will pull that majority. We don't know who the Democrats will nominate yet. That primary was postponed a little bit to July 14th, but I have ballot access and it looks like another candidate has ballot access so it looks like there will be two independents on the ticket. I'm calling myself an independent Green now because we tried to get ballot access as a member of the Green Party, which I was, but the rules for third party ballot access in Maine are quite onerous and we had a very good team and a lot of volunteers in the field and paid gathers. We just, the external circumstances were such that it was impossible and recognizing that I unenrolled as a Green, which many Green candidates have had to do before me and people said, it's okay, we know you're still Green in your heart. Didn't change my policies or my platform at all. And then the rules changed quite a bit for ballot access, where we needed twice as many signatures, but we had much longer times to collect them. And we were able to use Super Tuesday. Maine doesn't usually have a Super Tuesday primary, but it did this year and stand outside the polls and we gathered over 9,000 signatures in one day. We only needed 4,000. And so we have turned those in and we're able to be on the ticket. Now, who the Democrats will nominate will probably be a really key factor because there's a very Bernie Sanders-like candidate in this race whose platform and values as expressed are very similar to my campaign, Medicare for All, demilitarized Green New Deal, solve the student debt crisis and guaranteed minimum wage, all that progressive changes that we really need to see in this country. However, that candidate, Betsy Sweet, probably will not get nominated. The Democratic Party in Maine has already indicated that their favorite is a candidate named Sarah Gideon. I don't think she necessarily is going to appeal to the Betsy Sweet followers. She's a very corporate Democrat and she's already raised tens of millions of dollars outside of the state for her run. So we are very likely to appeal to Maine's very independent electorate. The biggest party affiliation in Maine is no affiliation, unenrolled. We have a history of electing independent candidates. The other senator for Maine is Angus King. He is an independent and he was a two-term governor of Maine as an independent. So I think that we have a good shot at it and with rank choice voting in play, we could definitely win the election. Yeah, this is incredibly exciting. I think that this is one of the key races to watch in 2020, not just because Susan Collins is someone who absolutely has to lose her seat and we'll talk through that, but because this really is showing the importance of rank choice voting to where you have a phenomenal Democrat running and if she isn't able to win that primary, it's not like voters who are progressive and left-leaning are shut out of this race. You still have an option. And so I'm wondering, have you and Betsy Sweet work together at all in terms of if she does win the primary, are you guys going to do a type of campaign like we see in other countries with rank choice voting where you have vote me one, vote them two? How have you guys coordinated at all? Because I know you guys have a very similar message. It's possible that we will coordinate. We haven't done any formal coordination yet. We've certainly appeared in several candidate forums together. We were, we ran into each other back when we used to be able to campaign in person and she was very friendly and welcoming. So I think it's entirely possible that if she gets the nomination, we will at least consider such a strategy. You know, rank choice voting has already overturned an unpopular GOP incumbent in the state of Maine. I live in the second district, which is the northern low-income, low-population part of Maine and Southern Maine is much more populist, much more progressive. And we had Bruce Pollakwin as our representative in Congress. And in 2018, he was challenged by Jared Golden who had been served in the state legislature for a while, but did not have a lot of name recognition, fairly young candidate, and there were two independents running. And those independents polled enough that what happens in Maine is, so let's say there were four candidates on the ticket that time. When the first round of votes is counted, whoever got the least number of votes has crossed off the ballot. And they look at, okay, people that picked that candidate first, who did they pick second? And those votes are then transferred to those candidates. That will go to another round if someone still doesn't have a majority of votes. So in that race, it did go two rounds. Both the independents were eliminated and their votes redistributed and Jared Golden took the seat. The logic behind this is that I am the opposite of a spoiler in this type of race because someone who votes first for me is very unlikely to put Susan Collins second. And somebody who ranks the Democrat first whoever that candidate may be is very unlikely to rank Susan Collins second. So those second choice and third choice of votes can be very significant. Yeah, and I wanted to talk to you about this because Susan Collins, I really feel like there's a real opportunity here to oust her. And she is someone who needs to go. Now, why do you think, I mean, there's a number of reasons. So this is kind of a loaded question, but why do you think she needs to go? I think that the most recent betrayal of voters that people can remember is that she voted for Brett Kavanaugh after kind of leading voters on for weeks, pretending as if she wasn't sure and was undecided when we all know that this was a foregone conclusion. But I mean, can you talk through some of the policy reasons why this seat has got to be taken away from her? Sure thing. Kavanaugh was definitely the turning point for most voters who became disenchanted with Susan Collins. I know many centrist Democrats, people I've taught school with over the years who have voted for Susan Collins in the past because she was a guaranteed vote they felt for women's reproductive health rights, children's issues like education and healthcare for children, and that she could be counted on, Collins could be counted on to cross the aisle and vote with Democrats on those issues. So people would vote for her. When she upheld Brett Kavanaugh's nomination and he ascended to the Supreme Court, all those people that I've spoken to were like, done. Now, I never voted for Susan Collins. She's way too conservative for me. But interestingly, I had a virtual house party a couple of weeks ago with some retired postal workers and they have been very disaffected with Susan Collins since 2006 because she was the sponsor of that legislation that undercut the US Postal Service by insisting that its pension fund be funded out 75 years, which is an absurd requirement that no company or other public entity has to meet. And they know that that was the beginning of taking an axe to the US Postal Service. So it was interesting to me that that way predated Kavanaugh, since the Kavanaugh hearing it has been evident that Susan Collins always votes with the Trump agenda. And that's not very popular in Maine. She's always presented herself as centrist, independent minded and so forth. But she lost me with Jeff Sessions. When she glowingly introduced a blatant racist candidate for attorney general of the US to her Senate committee, I was like, I'm completely done at that point. That was before Kavanaugh. But since Kavanaugh, the very bad tax bill that robbed from the poor and gave to the rich Republicans pushed through Congress, Mainers didn't like that. So that lost her even more popularity. And the whole impeachment debacle also was not good for her. She's adopted now this kind of, oh, I'm not sure, or oh, I think the president learned his lesson. She doesn't walk the walk anymore. And Maine voters, that does not sit well with the Maine electorate. Yeah, to me it seems like, and I'm not in Maine. So it seems like the Kavanaugh debacle really was the mask off moment to where she revealed she's no centrist. She tows the Republican party line. She is a loyal vote for Republicans. And so, but people in Maine, they've been putting up with her for a long time. And it's nice to see that there's options now and not just like one good option. There's a multitude of options. And in the event that seat were to be taken away from her. And let's say, best case scenario, she's out and you win, how would you, assuming Biden is able to win, affect change because you would be the only green in Congress. So what would that look like? How would that be different? I'm assuming that you would caucus with Democrats to a degree, but in terms of challenging them, there's not very many progressive United States senators. You would be standing alone with Bernie Sanders, Jeff Merkley. I mean, maybe Elizabeth Warren if you characterize her there. So how would you affect change? Because I feel like there would be an attempt to marginalize you as a U.S. senator from the Democrats. Like, do you think that Chuck Schumer, for example, would try to bring you in the fold and work with you? Or do you think you'd kind of be iced out? How would you navigate that? And this is a really tough question because you're not there, but this is something that I've always wondered about because we have this two-party duopoly that's incredibly dominant. And one thing that has been 100% clear is that Democrats and Republicans have no interest in even trying to be fair to third and fourth parties. So how would you try to affect change as a U.S. senator from the Green Party if you were elected? It's a valid question. And I'll just preface my answer, though, by saying, I think that we might see a lot of change at the ballots this November. I think that it might be more than just a handful of New England senators with that very progressive title. I certainly hope so. But at any rate, it's an interesting strategic question that you ask because actually when I win the election, I will still be unenrolled. I will not be in the Green Party the day I win the election because I am unenrolled right now. I am running as an independent Green. Do I want to reenroll as a Green as soon as I'm able to do that? Sure, I do. And there's nothing illegal about doing it. I can do that at any point after the election is over. But it affects who you caucus with because independence half to caucus with a party, I guess is a rule for the Senate. I'm not sure if it's true of Congress as a whole. Whereas if I were Green Party, I have the power to form my own caucus. Now, would I be able to do that or not? Good question kind of depends on who's in there. People sometimes ask me the question, on your first day in the Senate, what are you going to do? Well, I've had several jobs in my life. And on the first day in the job, you find out who your support people are and you thank them and express your gratitude for their support and you learn where things are and so forth. I jokingly answer this question by saying, first day in the Senate, I call Bernie and I meet with constituents from Maine that are in town visiting in Washington DC because I'm not going to take any corporate money or any corporate lobbyist money or any corporate CEO money or any super PAC money where they launder the corporate money. So you can claim like Sarah Gideon does, I don't take corporate money, but of course she is. If I get elected, the people of Maine are sending me there and they are the people that I should be meeting with. They are the people that I need to hear from about, okay, you trusted me enough to be the voice for our general consensus in Maine about what needs to be done. And I take that very seriously, that would be a sacred trust to me that I would really, really need to always be listening to my constituents. Maine's not a very big state. There's like 1.3 million or 1.5 million at this point and some of those are little children and so forth. So to be in touch with your constituents in Maine is doable. And so I care a lot more about those retired postal workers worried about their pension than I do about Chuck Schumer. Let's just put it that way. That's a good answer. So you mentioned Sarah Gideon and what's really interesting about this race, I think probably the most fascinating dynamic is that the usual narrative has been flipped. So usually there's this argument from the Democratic establishment that the Green Party is taboo. You have to stay away if you wanna beat that Republican. But in this instance, Sarah Gideon is the one who is jeopardizing the ousting of Susan Collins. And there was an article I covered on my program a couple of weeks ago that talked about how the GOP is planning to spend big, especially on this race, to weaponize the Democratic Party's hypocrisy with regard to Tahrir. Because a couple of years ago, Sarah Gideon was rightfully, I think, calling out Kavanaugh and the Republicans line then, but now is silent, won't actually address this. So the GOP is going to try to weaponize that issue against her if she's the nominee. And it seems as if the establishment really is betting on her. The Democratic establishment is betting on her. So explain why in the event, if voters are gonna go with traditionally who is viewed as the safe choice, why that's a really bad bet and why in this instance, the safe choice is not the safe choice. Well, rank choice voting lets you vote your values rather than your fears. So you don't have to make the safe choice for your first pick. You can pick who you really wanna vote for first and you can make your safe choice as your second pick. And that's one of the beauties of that system, I think. But it's a very good point about the me too. Some strategists here that have run for elected office before that are kinda senior advisors on the campaign have said, Lisa, you're the only one who's gonna be able to talk about me too because the Democrats can't talk about it. The Republicans can't talk about it. It's another feature of Maine that we have a lot of women represent us in Congress. It's not that unusual. So in this race, all the leading candidates are women. It's not super unusual. It does make for an interesting me too type environment. So I don't know exactly what the final consequences of that particular aspect of this election will be but it should be interesting. Okay, so I wanna talk to you about how you would legislate. Your party is very progressive. I think that you check all the boxes for anyone who supported Bernie Sanders supporters. How would your platform go further? Because that's one thing that I've always admired about the Green Party is that some of my key criticisms and disagreements with Bernie Sanders, the Green Party actually kind of addresses them. For example, support for BDS, explicit support, reparations. So how does your platform differ a little bit and how would you push the more, I don't wanna say extreme, but I think the more left-wing ideals that aren't being addressed by the progressives who are currently in Congress and in the Senate, how would you get that on the national agenda? Well, I used to lead with demilitarized Green New Deal because that is, I was an anti-war organizer here in Maine for many years before becoming a candidate. And one of my issues and campaigns here for the last five years has been the conversion of Maine's weapons building industry to building solutions to climate change. And that is a win-win for climate because building weapons systems is horrible for the climate and driving climate change using those weapons is driving climate change. But if you also were building something that addressed our energy needs in a way that wasn't a driving climate crisis, that would be a second win. Demilitarized because of those aspects and also because the very good question, how are you gonna pay for it? The Pentagon budget is this ginormous elephant in the room at all times. And most people in the US have no idea how much of their discretionary tax dollar each year goes to the Pentagon and it's very wealthy contractors. I don't lead with that anymore because in this public health crisis, if we have not understood why the need for a comprehensive single payer universal healthcare system for every resident of the US is of crucial importance for our security. Even at this point, it's a more urgent security need than the climate crisis. I don't know how people could not understand how important that is. When we look at the example of other countries, people tend to focus on personalities and okay, the current chief executive in the White House is not capable of leading in this type of crisis. We all know that. But really the failure is that we should have a national healthcare system in place with the authority, the resources, the forward planning to address a pandemic that health experts have been predicting for years that eventually some sort of global, probably viral infection would become very challenging. The whole health insurance industry as a, I'm one of those people that thinks profit and healthcare should not even be in the same sentence together. Not every human action is appropriate for profit and healthcare would be one of them. And we see that we have about a 30% inflation rate on what we pay for healthcare. But it's usually framed by conservatives as this sort of virtue thing where, well, if you have a job and therefore have good healthcare then you're a good American who's doing the right things and have a work ethic and all. And if you don't have those things, it's some sort of personal individual failure of yours. Completely overlooking the fact that like, maybe it's a stay at home parent raising their children. Maybe it's somebody who's working in a field where healthcare doesn't come along with the job but it's an important field and they wanna work. It's a public health issue. If all of us don't have adequate healthcare then none of us have adequate health policy in a pandemic. Right, and I'm glad that you brought up a pandemic because what we've seen has been wholly inadequate. And there's now this growing sense as the virus is actually increasing in certain states, a number of states, I think more than a dozen at this point. There's the sense that we have to hurry up and reopen when we know that that is possibly a really, really bad idea because it could spread. And so much of the left I think is an agreement that reopening isn't the correct solution but there is this urgent need to reopen among just citizens because they're hurting, like they can't pay their rent. So what do you think the proper response would be and how do you feel Congress has addressed this? Like just using the Heroes Act for example, if it came to the Senate, would you support that bill knowing that there's some good but a lot of bad? Like what would you do in this instance? What do Americans need in your view? The Heroes Act would be a really hard one because it does finally bail out the states and the municipalities and the school districts and there are gonna be layoffs that will make the current unemployment situation mild by comparison. If those entities do not get relief from the feds for all the tax revenues that they have not been able to collect, Maine in particular will be in deep water. But I really don't like the Heroes Act because I really don't like that it bails out lobbyists. It bails out the lobbying organizations that spend their time and money whining in dining Congress to buy influence with them. They don't need to bail out, that's a terrible idea. So I'm really glad I don't have to vote on that one because that would be a hard one. I do think that the bills that have been passed so far have been a largesse to the corporations that put legislators there and very little for the people. I just got my husband and I got our stimulus check last week, it's okay, we're doing all right. But there are people that were desperate for that stimulus check that didn't get it. One one time stimulus check, other wealthy countries are giving every adult $2,000 a month in recognition that if you tell people to stay home, very many of them won't be able to work and earn income anymore and they will need a way to feed themselves and be able to stay home. In America, we've got all this pressure to reopen, reopen because there's no way for people to live if they lost their jobs or they lost their health insurance and also if they're a small business owner, which Maine has a predominance of small business owners, they employ many people in Maine, how are they supposed to pay their bills, pay their mortgage, pay their rent? It's a real conundrum. Our governor has put together a council for planning for the recovery of the economy after the pandemic is over, whenever that will be. And it's stacked with business people. It looks like it reads like the Chamber of Commerce. There's like one labor representative on it. There are a couple of people of color, the native community has some representation, but it's basically, the word recovery in that context means the people that used to be making good profits before the pandemic, they wanna get back to where they're making good profits again. And we're seated here to plan for that. But I've been a school teacher in this part of Maine where I live for 25 years and I'm just retiring right now in order to devote myself to the campaign full time. And the people around here were not doing well economically before the pandemic came along. The families of the children that I work with as a reading interventionist in this very small rural elementary school, they were already, even if they had jobs, even if they had a car and a way to get to jobs, they were just one mistake or accident illness away from their whole financial house of cards collapsing. Very many of the children in my school experienced food insecurity regularly, housing insecurity. They may have health care through the state, but many of their adult family members don't have adequate health care. Almost no one has dental care and that really people's ability to work and participate in regular life. So we were not in good shape before the pandemic came along and it has just shined a spotlight on this growing chasm between the haves and the have nots. I was a history major politically, that is a dangerous place to be. When you start to have Nancy Pelosi showing off her $12,000 refrigerators, two of them packed with expensive ice cream and that's her stay at home plan and people are literally starving. Childhood food insecurity has gone through the roof since the pandemic started. That's a very politically unstable situation. It always makes me wonder, did these people not read history that they never study revolutions and the kind of conditions that bring about regime change or they just think they're immune to it? They're in the bubble of Washington DC? That's what everyone warns you about. Once you get there, you'll be in the bubble and you'll stop being able to see things clearly. Yeah, it's striking. I remember the refrigerator video as well and I watched it like twice in a row because I was so shocked. Is this happening? It seems like this is a parody. I wanted to ask you on the note of COVID-19, I've talked to dozens of candidates running for Congress across the country and if you're a candidate who is grassroots driven, you are rejecting corporate PAC money and all money from large multinational corporations. COVID-19 basically, it changed everything about your race. You kind of had to throw out the entire playbook that you use as a grassroots candidate. So being a candidate yourself who's running for a statewide office, you're running to be the Senate and represent the entire state. So it's not just a district. How has COVID affected the way that you campaigned? Yes, it's an interesting question. Luckily, most of the people on my campaign team are much younger than I am and very tech savvy, many of them. So it's been a learning experience for me. I have to learn a new app a week, at least, maybe sometimes a new app a day, but we have been able to pivot a pretty successfully to using online tools to do our house parties. We have a weekly volunteer orientation that has new people coming in every week and sort of getting up to speed and learning. I always attend that because I feel like they need to see. The candidate knows I'm here. The candidate cares that I am working on this campaign. In some ways, it enables us to draw a volunteer support and fundraising support from other like-minded greens or independents and progressives around the planet. Really, many of our supporters are in other states in the country. We have a very key volunteer who's living in Mexico. She's a US citizen, but she's living on a retirement income and it goes farther there. We have a really great volunteer who's also a US citizen who's living in England right now, getting a master's degree. It's been kind of interesting because aside from the time zone thing, does it really matter that you're in Chicago and I'm in Maine right now? So it's offered some opportunities as well as some challenges. It's hard to not be able to go out and shake hands with people, look them in the eye, give them a hug if appropriate. That is limiting. But for instance, we had an event last week as a fundraiser, we did an art auction. Many of my supporters are artists, Maine is a very artist rich state. And so several big name artists and some other up and comers donated works to our campaign and then we held a Zoom auction, a live auction where people bid on the work and it was a really funny event. Many people, we encouraged people to come even if they didn't wanna bid and people said that was so interesting, the art was really exciting. Some of it was political, some of it wasn't. And so those are the type of, we would never have done that on Zoom or it not for the pandemic. So yeah, it's been interesting. That's really exciting. The art bidding is actually a really great idea that hopefully other candidates will hear this and kind of take you up if they are artistic and whatnot. I'm not artistic at all, so I wouldn't be able to participate. But I mean, if they have staffers that can do that or contribute in some way to where they can bid goods, that's really interesting. Okay, so anyone who's watching this by now, I think they're incredibly excited because I've covered Green Party Politics for quite some time on my channel. And it's really exciting to see whenever we on the cusp of making a really huge advance, this is huge, it could be a game changer. So tell us what we can do to support your campaign right now and where we can go, what websites and all the donations. What can we do? Sure, thanks. Well, this has been a really exciting week because we've been collecting endorsements and Chris Hedges had already endorsed me. And then we heard today that he's running for Congress in New Jersey as a grain. So that's super exciting. But our website is lisa4main spelled out F-O-R, main, M-A-I-N-E dot org. And any place, you know, if you go to the website, you can find out more about what we've been up to. You can volunteer, you can make a donation there. You could find the address to make a donation by Postal Mail if you wanna support the post office in that way. And we welcome everyone who wants to join the team. One of the things I have in my experience is I was a union negotiator for my teacher's union for several years in a row. And I am a spokesperson for this team. I am not like the campaign. I have a huge group of people, very smart, very dedicated people that are behind me and that I'm representing as the front person. So we welcome your involvement and we have people that are ready to find out what are you good at? What do you like to do and match you up with some effective actions you could take to support the campaign? Well, thank you so much. We've been talking with Lisa Savage running for the US Senate in the state of Maine in an attempt to oust Susan Collins. We will be watching this race closely. Stay tuned for more details. Well, that's it. Hopefully you guys enjoyed the program. Thank you so much to my guest, Lisa Savage. I just wanna say before we go that I talked with Lisa before all of the uprising broke out across the country before George Floyd was murdered. So that's why we didn't discuss police brutality. Otherwise I would have loved to speak with her about that because she basically is a policy machine. She would have known exactly what to say. So I would have loved to hear what she had to say. Maybe I'll bring her back in the future, but I just wanted to make that clear. But as usual, we're not gonna end the show without thanking all of our Patreon, PayPal and YouTube members for helping the show not just to survive, but thrive as well. You all are absolutely just invaluable and I can never tell you how much I appreciate your support. Well, that is everything. Thank you all so much for tuning in. I'm Mike Figuaredo. This has been the Humanist Report. I will see you all next week.