 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 humanist report 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 the 192nd episode of the program. Today is Friday, May 10th and before we get into the show, I want to take some time to thank all of our newest Patreon, Paypal and YouTube contributors, all of which signed up to become a member for the first time this week or increased their monthly pledge. And that includes Adam Zayas, Andy P, Chris Ward, Dax McCoy, Devin the Deviant, Ellen Smith, Ansar Beckick, Hunter P, Jennifer Heinrich, John Jewel, Julian Lopez, K. Ken, Krishan Chander, Kurt Egg, Linda Corey, Ron Carroll and the Critical Dump. So thank you so much to all of these kind individuals. If you'd also like to support the show, you can do so by visiting humanistreport.com slash support or by checking out patreon.com forward slash humanist report. And underneath any one of our YouTube videos, you can click join and that gives you access to some of our videos before they go live. And you also support the show. So this week on The Humanist Report podcast, we'll talk about the differences between Biden and Bernie when it comes to healthcare. Why the electability arguments being used against Bernie Sanders are falling apart. A new UN report warns about a million species going extinct due to human activity. Neocons in Trump's administration want war with Iran and Venezuela. Rachel Maddow's use of McCarthyism is now extending to legitimize John Bolton's regime change narrative in Venezuela. How the new anti-abortion heartbeat bills popping up in various states could very well be the death of Roe v. Wade. John Hickenlooper compares Bernie Sanders' policies to Joseph Stalin's. Republicans think Bernie is the most beatable 2020 candidate. And we'll talk about the second choice for Biden supporters and that may surprise you actually. And finally, we closed the week with my ranking of 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates. And I'll talk to 2020 presidential candidate Mike Revelle. So that's what we've got on the agenda for today. I hope you guys all enjoy the program. So last week on the program, we talked about this rivalry that's currently brewing between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, specifically when it comes to the issue of healthcare. And according to a Washington Post article, Biden's team reportedly told Bernie Sanders team to quote, bring it on when it comes to this healthcare debate, which I think is foolish because healthcare is arguably Bernie Sanders greatest strength. But nonetheless, they think that their guy Joe Biden can best Bernie here. Now, to give you an update fast forward a week later, how is this going? How is this debate playing out? Is Joe Biden really communicating a more clear vision for the future of America when it comes to healthcare? Well, expectedly no, he has completely and utterly face planted because at a rally in Iowa, he had the chance to articulate his vision for healthcare reform in America. And here's how that went. According to Mark Caputo of Politico, Joe Biden has a healthcare plan but doesn't quote, have the time to completely lay out all the details. Yet there's time for relatively lengthy anecdotes about how his dad long ago was unable to secure a loan to help send him to a school he wanted to attend. And time to describe a New Yorker cartoon that hung in his office, or to praise President Obama to remember the untimely death of his beloved son Bo and a crowd favorite to bash Donald Trump. In other words, if it comes to platitudes and personal stories, Joe Biden has all the time in the world to talk about that. But when it comes to healthcare policy, a policy that is the number one issue for a large portion of Americans, he doesn't have time to talk about that. So what was the point of you challenging Bernie Sanders? Why did your team essentially instigate this debate and this rivalry if you don't even have time to lay out an alternative vision to Bernie Sanders? Because we all know Bernie wants Medicare for all and you clearly disagree with that. So what's your vision? He doesn't have time. Politics is about policy. But he doesn't want to talk about the one thing that a presidential candidate theoretically should want to talk about. And to be clear, it's not just healthcare where Joe Biden is completely empty and vacuous because he also has a proposal for college debt, but no specifics on that either because quote, I don't have time. I don't want to keep you standing any longer. He said this to a crowd of people in Iowa. The former vice president's ideas on climate change and foreign policy also a work in progress. So he didn't choose to run because he has this policy agenda that he wants to implement to help Americans. He's running because to him politics isn't about policy. It's about personality and persona and him challenging Bernie just contributes to this narrative, this character that he's building, this straight talking, no nonsense, tough guy who will put anyone in their place because he's just so tough. But I mean, in actuality, he's someone who doesn't care about policy. He's completely devoid of substance and people like him presumably because he just gives people the feels. That's it. He talks nicely. He talks about platitudes and he makes people remember the time when American politics was a lot more stable during the Obama years. And to support Joe Biden, you tacitly have to admit or even explicitly in some cases that you actually don't give a damn about policy. And the reason why he has so much street cred, the reason why he's so arrogant and wants to challenge Bernie when it comes to healthcare, even if he doesn't even want to talk about healthcare is because he has elites. He has cable news pundits and celebrities backing him up. For example, watch this interview with Alyssa Milano on MSNBC. She literally admits that it's not about policy. That policy isn't why she's supporting Joe Biden over everyone else in the field. You have what, 20 plus candidates now. She's choosing Biden not because he has the best policies because to her policy doesn't really matter so much. Look, there's nobody in the world that wants progressive policy to be set in place more than I do. But this primary to me is not about policy. It's about beating Trump. Period. That's it. End of story. We need to nominate someone that is going to beat Trump. And bring honesty and integrity and dignity and truth back to the United States of America. Empathy, compassion, all these things that I want to teach my children growing up in this great country. We need someone that's going to represent that to the best of their ability and fight Trump. And it's not about who's going to make the best president. It's really about who's going to beat this man, this horrible, horrible president. Now ask yourself this, why would someone like Alyssa Milano, who is seemingly intelligent, support someone, a political person when they don't actually want clearly to lay out their policies? Well, think about it. She's comfortable. She has economic security. So regardless if Joe Biden or Donald Trump wins, she's going to be doing just fine. And this is why a lot of celebrities support these vacuous, centrist politicians. George R. R. Martin also supports Joe Biden claimed that his introduction video or his announcement video, if you will, was completely kick ass and he loved it. And ask yourself, why would someone like George R. R. Martin, who's clearly a genius, who's brilliant, who's extremely creative, would support someone as empty as Joe Biden? It's because he's comfortable when you look at the net worth of these individuals. They are so comfortable that it doesn't matter to them what Joe Biden says he's going to do or what he's not going to do. They support him because he makes them feel good. Just hearing his voice really harkens back to the days of the Obama era when Democrats were in power. So the reason why these people don't care about policy and they don't care that Joe Biden is not talking about his ideas. They don't care that he literally said, quote, I don't have time to talk about health care is because they're extremely comfortable. People actually looked past all of these analyses from celebrities and cable news pundits. They'd see that Joe Biden is nothing more than not just an empty suit but a shill for the health care industry. Because when you look at reports from Vox, for example, it's clear that the health care industry is literally betting on Joe Biden to save their ass. They literally view him as a savior. Basically the last choice or the last person who could save the country from Medicare for all. Just suppose what we hear from the health insurance industry about Joe Biden and all the nice things that they have to say about him with what we hear when it comes to Bernie Sanders and how the health care industry responds to him. Well, we know that when he reintroduced his Medicare for all bill, health industry stocks tanked. And on top of that, investors were shook and insurance providers that offer Medicare Advantage plans felt compelled to increase benefits just to prove to Bernie Sanders who they are terrified of that they're not completely useless and, you know, maybe they don't only care about profit. Maybe they're willing under the right amount of pressure to adapt and increase benefits. So that's how the health insurance industry responds to Bernie. Please don't kill us. But when it comes to Joe Biden, please save us. He's the savior, but yet he can challenge Bernie to a debate on health care. And then the next week say, you know what? I don't have time to talk about policy and he still gets support. It is unbelievable. Joe Biden is as vacuous as politicians nowadays can possibly be. And the only reason why this passes is because people still look to the Obama era with rose colored glasses. They view it nostalgically. But I hope people will realize that Joe Biden lacks vision. He may seem like he's a tough guy. He may huff and puff, but in actuality, none of that means anything if he's not willing to be a tough guy and stand up to the special interests who he needs to stand up to. So for example, listen to what Bernie Sanders says about health care in an interview with ABC. He was asked about Medicare for all and he described exactly what's wrong with Joe Biden's approach because what Joe Biden wants is to maintain the status quo. Here's what Bernie Sanders says to that. Biden says that he would like to see a more incremental approach, fix Obamacare, provide a Medicare option for anybody, but allow people to still have private health insurance if they want. Why not do an approach like that? I'll tell you why. Because the system today is truly dysfunctional. We have 34 million people with no health insurance, even more who are underinsured. The drug companies are ripping us off every day, charging us the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. And yet at the end of all of that, Jonathan, we are spending twice as much per capita on health care as do the people of any other country. That is a situation that really cannot be defended. You can't spend so much money and get so little value. Medicare right now is the most popular health insurance program in the country, but it only applies to people 65 years of age or older. All that I want to do is expand Medicare over a four-year period to cover every man, woman and child in this country. It will save the average American a significant amount of money, give them freedom of choice with regard to the doctor or hospital they want to go, and substantially lower the cost of prescription drugs. But to do that, you would eliminate private health insurance in the country. For basic needs, yes. So what do you say to the firefighter in Iowa who has a health plan that they like and doesn't want to give up that health plan? What I would say is there are tens of millions of people every single year who change their health insurance programs. They may leave their job, their employer may give them a new set of policies, new company. And what I would say is that if you want stability, if you want a better program, a more comprehensive program, with no deductibles, with no co-payments, with no premiums, which will cost your family less support Medicare for all. But 180 million or so people have private health insurance in a lot of them? But the only difference, and I look, we are taking on the insurance companies and we're taking on the drug companies. If you know they formed an organization, they're going to spend tens and tens of millions of dollars trying to frighten the American people. The only difference that people will see in a Medicare for all as opposed to United Health. Now the guy who runs United Health, I think, made $83 million in profits last year. And not in profits, but in personal compensation. He does not like Medicare for all. I can understand that. The guy who was head of Aetna put a deal together with CVS, a merger, made $500 million in the merger. He does not like Medicare for all. I got it. But for the average American, the only difference you will see is a change in your card. It will say Medicare rather than United Health or Blue Cross. So what you just heard there was someone with an actual vision who has a very specific plan to stop medical bankruptcies, to stop deaths in this country due to either a lack of health insurance or due to someone who has insurance, but they need a particular procedure that would save their lives, but their health insurance company doesn't want to pay for it. That's someone with a vision. That's someone who is not just educating people about what to expect with his policy, but educating them about the propaganda that is being disseminated at the behest of health insurance companies. He's explaining that, look, these companies have a financial interest in existing, obviously. So they're going to tell you everything. They're going to fear monger and make it seem as if Medicare for all isn't in your best interest. But let me tell you why this is in your best interest. So Bernie Sanders is able to respond to all of these objections because when you have a clear vision, you're able to hold that vision up to scrutiny. But Joe Biden, he doesn't have time to talk about healthcare, not because he doesn't have enough time. I think that it's obvious when you're running a presidential campaign, all you have is time to talk about policy. But he just doesn't want to talk about policy because in order to talk about his vision, he'd essentially have to defend the status quo, which he wants to do, but that's indefensible. When you have a system in this country, even post Obamacare where individuals, thousands of which are dying every single year are going bankrupt, that is indefensible. But contrast that with Bernie Sanders and he can defend his vision because he has a vision that actually works and he's not doing it because he wants to appease the health insurance industry and his donors. He's doing it because this is what he knows needs to happen in order to stop the healthcare crisis in this country. So listen to the way that he responds to objections to Medicare for All or some shortcomings, potential shortcomings, hypothetical shortcomings that it may have. There are some trade-offs aren't there? I mean are people going to be able to see the doctor? Can you guarantee, can you make that guarantee? Absolutely. Like Obama, you'll be able to see, you'll be able to keep your doctor. Absolutely. Look, the truth is right now, you may have an insurance plan that the doctor you really like is not on that network. You cannot see the doctor. You want, in many cases, under the current plan, under Medicare for All freedom of choice with regard to any doctor, any hospital you want to go to. Well, what if everybody wants to see Dr. Sanders here in the morning and there's more people... But that's the same problem we have today. There's got to be trade-offs though, right? But that's, look, if you have a really popular... Look, every other major country on earth, in one form or another, has a national health care plan. In every instance, they are far less expensive than is the case right now. So if you have a popular doctor right now under your current policy, it may take you a while to get in there. But under Medicare for All, freedom of choice with regard to doctors, with regard to hospitals substantially lower prescription term costs. We cannot defend jobs. In fact, we cannot sustain a system in which the cost of health care continues to soar and we spend so much more than any other country. And by the way, our health care outcomes, in terms of life expectancy, in terms of dealing with many diseases, is not particularly good compared to many other countries. So what he's doing here is incredible. He is educating people and this is something that no other politician is really doing. He's saying, look, all of these potential objections that you're bringing up, these are issues that exist currently. Oh, you want to see a specific doctor or you need to see a specialist? Well, if that individual is not in your network, too bad you can't under our current system. Oh, there's a really popular doctor and everyone having coverage will make that individual more difficult to see. That's still kind of an issue. I mean, me personally, I have a doctor that I was recommended by someone in my family that I have not been able to see because this individual has been booked since forever. So what he's doing is he's explaining that all of these points that are being made against Medicare for all, they're nothing but propaganda. It's bullshit. So this rivalry going back to the beginning of the video that was initially referenced last week by the Washington Post. This is just a microcosm of a bigger issue because this isn't just about a debate between Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden when it comes to healthcare. This is a fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. You have one individual that makes people feel good that wouldn't really do anything to change their lives, but celebrities and elites love him. But then you have another individual who is new, someone who is introducing things that are unfamiliar to us but would actually fundamentally change our lives and take the party in a new direction, get them off of this pro-corporate trajectory. But yet, it's all about personality in politics nowadays. It's all about the person who has the correct persona, who's the right character to take on Donald Trump. Well, guess what? This isn't just about who can defeat Donald Trump. This is about who can change the country because that's what matters most when it comes to politics because I hate to tell all of these centrists this, but if you feel uncomfortable with the President Donald Trump now, imagine the offering we'll get from Republicans after another four to eight years of neoliberalism. We'll get someone far worse than Donald Trump. President Louis Gohmert or President Ted Nuget. Because as you can see, the Republican Party is becoming more and more cartoonously evil because they have answers for people who are desperate due to neoliberalism. What neoliberalism does is it breeds radicalization because it strips people of their dignity, economic security, and they end up opting for someone who's a demagogue, who's going to tell them whatever, who will say it's the immigrants who are making your life miserable, and they will be susceptible to that message so long as we keep getting Democrats who aren't offering an alternative vision. What we all know, what's easy to see if you're a normal American, the current trajectory that we're headed on is not even manageable. We have climate catastrophe. We have healthcare crisis in this country where every single year thousands of people die and if we don't change course drastically, then things are going to get a lot worse. Americans know that and they're willing to opt for anyone who is saying we're going to do things differently. Even if it's in the wrong direction, they just know that change is necessary and they may not necessarily be able to grasp the intricacies of what's going on and what's happening. But if Democrats don't understand that, if they don't grasp what they need to do, the country and the party long term will be worse off. So when it comes to this rivalry between Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, there's no competition. But what's sad is that Joe Biden can be arrogant and say, bring it on Bernie, I'll debate you on healthcare, even if he has no policy proposals, even if he cannot compete with Bernie because he has the elites and the celebrities and the pundits to back him up. And it's sad. So obviously, if you truly want to beat Donald Trump and more importantly defeat fascism and white supremacy and Republican Party extremism, you've got to go for someone with the real vision and there's one person in this race that truly not just has an alternative vision, but has a very specific plan as to how he's going to carry that out. It's Bernie Sanders. So if you'll recall back in 2016, one of the main arguments that pundits and elites would use against Bernie Sanders was this argument about electability. Do you progressives care more about purity? Or do you actually want someone who can go up against the Republican and win, who's battle tested, who's a pragmatist and knows how to get things done? In fact, let's look at this article from Barney Frank, who wrote that wishful thinking won't win the White House, meaning that, you know, if you're progressive, you shouldn't vote for Bernie Sanders because what you need to realize is that these are not practical positions for anyone to take. So if you want to win, you got to be more like Hillary Clinton. You've got to be more centrist. Well, as it turns out, they were wrong. The people who said that Hillary was more electable than Bernie Sanders, they were wrong because she lost. When you put up a boring, vacuous centrist against the Republican, what you do is you suppress turnout. Because if you really want to win, what you need to do is replicate Stacey Abrams' strategy and register new voters, bring out your base, get people involved who kind of checked out, who have been politically apathetic. Because you don't like the way that people visualize politics, really the elites is there's this group of voters and winning is about winning over people in this group. But they don't think outside the box. They don't think that there are other people who don't vote who you need to go after, which is why they made this argument. Electability. Barney can't win. Hillary can. So what's the argument that they're using against Bernie Sanders now in 2020, seeing that he's running up against another boring, vacuous centrist. Take a guess. This same exact argument that they used in 2016. And I'll give you an example of that. So the CNN headline reads, Biden's run embodies the big question of Democratic primary. What's more important, policy or beating Trump? Now, this kids is what I like to call a false dichotomy. These are not things that are mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd argue that they're inextricably linked. Because if you want to win, you need to have a robust policy platform because people don't care about personal stories and nice anecdotes. They want someone who's going to tell them exactly how their policies will benefit their lives. But for whatever reason, this new consensus in DC has emerged where policy is almost a bad thing. The most policy substantive candidates are somehow a liability. In fact, Nate Silver literally claimed that the desire to focus exclusively on policy substance is actually somehow elitist because rank and file voters don't care much about policy. Imagine that they're going so far out of their way to defend people like Joe Biden who have zero policy substance and they're now saying that those of us who care about policy are elitist. Well, isn't your assumption they're elitist? Isn't that actually pretty condescending to think that normal voters don't care, presumably because they're too dumb to care about policy? Not everyone is going to be a policy wonk, but people do care about policy. What they care about is how your policies will impact their lives. So to say that they don't care and it's elitist is absurd. But nonetheless, this is what we're seeing all at the behest of Joe Biden because he is policy free because he lacks substance. They have to do what they did back in 2016 for Hillary Clinton now for Joe Biden and defend the fact that he is vacuous. Rather than challenging Joe Biden to do better rather than making him actually put up policies, they're just saying, well, look, he's more electable because he's vacuous. Okay, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. And we already tried that back in 2016 and it didn't work out. But nonetheless, keep saying that. Now, I don't want to get too bogged down in this discussion about, you know, who has more policy and who doesn't. But the reason why I'm talking about it is because it relates to this broader theme of electability and going back to 2016. What was another thing that they said about Bernie and why specifically we shouldn't vote for him? Why he'd be a liability going up against the Republican? Well, the reason why we were supposed to not vote for Bernie is because the fact that he is someone who self identifies as a socialist is going to hurt him in a general. And the same things they said then are being echoed now. So in an ABC News interview, somebody asked him, you know, is that title of Democratic socialist going to hurt you? Here's how we responded to that. Trump seems to want to run against you. And certainly he wants to run and Republicans want to run against socialism. Okay. Is it time for you to disavow that label? I mean, given that. You know, the problem is, and on a television interview, it's hard for me to describe in depth what we mean by that. When social security was created, what did the Republicans call it? Called socialism. When Medicare was created, what did they call it? Again. Medicaid was created. Anytime you do things for the people and you stand up to the wealthy and powerful, you'll be labeled this, that, and the other thing. But this isn't a label you embrace. But all of the issues that we are talking about, raising the minimum wage through a living wage, guaranteeing healthcare to all people, making public colleges and universities tuition-free, these are ideas that in one form or another are in fact supported by the American people. So in talking about democratic socialism, you've often pointed to countries like Denmark as kind of the models. And you've acknowledged that Denmark taxes are a lot higher in Denmark. And in your words, you said, well, it is difficult to become very rich in Denmark. No one is allowed to be poor. So is that your goal for America where no one is allowed to be poor, but it's also difficult to become rich? Well, look, we're always going to have rich and poor. But it is insane and grotesque that three families own more wealth than the bottom half of America. That the top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 92%. That 49% of all the way from coast to top 1%. Look, we want companies to be profitable. That's good. But we don't want CEOs to make 300 times what their workers make. And I think you see that in many countries, including Scandinavia. You want a vibrant economy, but you want working people and the children. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on earth. You got 20% of elderly people living on social security benefits of less than 13,000. This is the richest country in the history of the world. We can and must do better than that. The reason why I personally don't believe that that socialist label will hurt Bernie Sanders is because he's owning it. And whenever he owns it, whenever somebody asks him to clarify what he means by that, even though he's more of a social Democrat, but he says, look, Democratic socialism to me is implementing policies akin to social security, which is incredibly popular, taking a policy like Medicare and improving it and then expanding it. This is what I mean really when I say I'm a Democratic socialist. But just, you know, at face value, just looking at this superficially, I think it makes sense for someone to assume that being a socialist will hurt you in the general election, because obviously Republicans will exploit that, they'll weaponize it, and they'll fear monger nonstop, which is why someone like Joe Biden makes it very clear that he's not a socialist. In fact, this article states that he told Donald Trump, I'm no socialist. He's a capitalist, and thus it is logical for one to deduce that he is more electable. Except the problem with this line of thinking is that just saying you're not a socialist doesn't really do much, because Republicans aren't willing to engage in a good faith discussion about the merits of socialism versus capitalism. This is nothing more than a tactic. Anything that they don't like, they attach that socialist label to. They did this to Obamacare from the very beginning, and they still stand by that. In fact, a 2017 article by Conservative Review still referred to Obamacare after it's been implemented, after we know what to expect as socialism and claimed, literally, that it fulfills Marx's vision. So it doesn't matter if you try to convince them that you're not a socialist, they're still going to say, but you're a socialist. And after Joe Biden went out of his way to communicate to people and Trump and Republicans that he's no socialist, can you guess what the Republicans are calling him? A socialist. As Tala Axelrod of The Hill writes, Vice President Pence hammered former Vice President Joe Biden and other leading 2020 Democratic presidential contenders as advocating a socialist agenda. I think the choice that we face in the country today is a choice between freedom and socialism increasingly. President Trump has been advocating an agenda that's built on the principles of freedom in the marketplaces, lower taxes, less regulation, more access to energy, better fair trade deals, Pence told CNBC on Friday. But increasingly, whether it be Joe Biden, whether it be Bernie Sanders, whether it be Elizabeth Warren and others in their party, they're advocating a socialist agenda of more government, higher taxes and the same tired policies that created the malaise of the last administration where you saw less than 2% economic growth, Pence said, hold on, hold on, hold on. I thought we were told anyways that Joe Biden is more electable and that Bernie Sanders is more of a liability because he claims he's a socialist. But yet Republicans are still calling Joe Biden a socialist after he said he's no socialist? It's almost as if Republicans don't really give a damn and they're just going to use that word against you to galvanize voters. It doesn't matter. So you can call yourself a socialist, you can call yourself the Easter Bunny. Republicans will call you what they want to call you, what they think is going to help them win and that's what this is about. So anyone who is trying to claim that that socialist label makes Bernie Sanders a liability, I think it actually makes him the better bet because at least he's owning it and he is always giving the opportunity to explain what he means. Whereas Republicans will just say Joe Biden's a socialist and then they think he's trying to hide it. I mean, it's obvious. The fact that Mike Pence would put Joe Biden in the same category as Bernie Sanders and even Elizabeth Warren is preposterous. But nonetheless, that's what they will do. That's what they have been doing and they will do what they need to do to win. And that's what people really don't get. These pundits in DC, they think that, you know, it's more strategic to position yourself as a centrist. It's more strategic to be a pragmatist and try to appeal to the median voter. And in their view, the median voter is just someone who is directly in the center of Republicans and Democrats. But the problem is that that's actually not mainstream because they're failing to realize that both parties are incredibly out of touch with average voters. More people are independent now than Republican or Democrat because the parties don't represent them. So anyone who uses socialism and this electability argument to bolster their claim that you should opt for someone like Joe Biden as opposed to Bernie Sanders, one, either they're incredibly misinformed or two, they're trying to gaslight you. Because first of all, to say we need a centrist to beat Trump is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. We literally just tried that. I mean, I say this all the time on the show, but I have to say that because they don't get it. They still say the same thing. We need a centrist. You know, if we elect someone who's far left, who's fringe like Bernie Sanders, we're going to lose. Except if your argument is that we need someone who is mainstream to be able to win against Trump, then they're undercutting their own argument because what they fail to see is that Bernie is mainstream. Bernie Sanders is opting for policies that are populist, meaning they are supported by most people. Federal jobs guarantee, Medicare for all, $15 minimum wage, tuition for your public colleges. These are all policies that are supported by most Americans, meaning their mainstream. But yet people will say, you know what? He's still far left. He's not electable and he's a liability. Maybe it's the case that they don't actually care about electability. Maybe they're just trying to lie to you because they know that Bernie Sanders is a threat to the status quo. Understand that a lot of the elites, the celebrities who push this electability narrative, they're comfortable economically. And a lot of Democratic Party establishment figures, I believe that they'd actually be more comfortable losing with Biden than winning with Bernie Sanders. Because Nancy Pelosi, for example, knows that if Democrats win, that means they'd actually have to do something, which means this would put their base up against their donors. And they don't want to do that. They don't want to offend their base and their donors. So they'd probably feel more comfortable just straight up losing. And a lot of elites probably feel more comfortable with Trump than Bernie Sanders because even if Donald Trump is technically anti-establishment, there's still enough people in his ear that can control him. Whereas with Bernie Sanders, a lot of these special interests who bankroll both parties know that the gravy train will be over if Bernie Sanders gets elected. So if you see someone who is pushing this electability argument, understand this. They were wrong before. And we have absolutely no reason to trust their judgment again, especially if they're advocating for the same strategy that led to Donald Trump's victory in the first place. So if the saying Bernie's not as electable as a centrist, they're either dumb or they're gaslighting you and you should be wary of this individual because they're not looking out for your best interests. They're looking out for their best interests. When a lot of people talk about or visualize the apocalypse or the end of the world, I believe they're thinking about it in terms of like that Hollywood perspective that's been embedded in our minds. You think about, you know, deep impact. You think about these movies where there's like an asteroid coming and it's one single event that will lead to mass extinction and there's hysteria, there's panic and that's the way that people think about it. And it's scary to think about, you know, large portions of the population dying off or a lot of other species, non-human species going extinct. But what people feel to realize is that we're actually undergoing a mass extinction right now currently. But the reason why we don't actually recognize that that's happening is because it's extremely subtle. It's not happening in the way that Hollywood presented it to us. It's happening in a much more insidious way and a new report by the UN really quantifies how bad this is. And this report is chilling. It's sent chills down the back of my spine because it's really been difficult to acknowledge the extent that humans have wreaked havoc on the planet. This report does that. Now, according to Isabelle Garrison of CNN, she explains that one million of the planet's eight million species are threatened with extinction by humans, scientists warn Monday, in what is described as the most comprehensive assessment of global nature loss ever. Their landmark report paints a bleak picture of a planet ravaged by an ever-growing human population whose insatiable consumption is destroying the natural world. The global rate of species extinction is already tens to hundreds of times higher than it has been on average over the last 10 million years according to the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, a UN committee whose report was written by 145 experts from 50 countries. So let's just pause for a moment and try to take in these numbers because whenever we start hearing these types of numbers, you know, that's extremely difficult to visualize because humans are a lot more capable of grasping small-scale events. But let's just think about this. 145 experts from 50 countries are telling us this, so the implication is obviously this is not political. Nobody's motivated here. This is science. And the rate of species extinction, I mean, species are pretty much always going extinct, but the rate that it's happening now is tens to hundreds times higher than it has been on average over the last 10 million years. It is difficult to conceptualize what that looks like. So let's just say the white rhino. That's a species that, you know, extinction is happening, but it's happening twice as fast. If we say it's happening twice as fast, we can kind of grasp that it's happening really, really fast. But if we say it's happening tens to hundreds of times faster, that's such an unfathomable rate that it makes it easy for people to almost just tune out because that's so difficult to grasp. But really what we can take away from this in order to, you know, get this more concrete visual of what's happening is that species are dying really, really fast. And we're the cause. We're the cause. Now for some additional details, more specifics. According to the report, the average abundance of native species in most major land-based habitats has fallen by at least 20% mostly since 1900. More than 40% of amphibian species, almost 33% of reforming corals and more than a third of all marine mammals are threatened. The picture is less clear for insect species, but available evidence supports a tentative estimate of 10% being threatened. At least 680 vertebrate species had been driven to extinction since 16th century and more than 9% of all domesticated breeds of mammals used for food and agriculture had become extinct by 2016 with at least 1,000 more breeds still threatened. It's devastating. And a lot of people may think about this in terms of, wow, well this means I can no longer appreciate the beauty or the cuteness of, we'll say, a polar bear. They'll no longer be around for me to admire, for me to watch in these nature shows, but it's a lot more complex than that. The way that nature works and the ecosystem works is that these species don't exist in a vacuum. One species going extinct impacts the food chain. It impacts the environment and other species. And ultimately, that trickles up to us and impacts us directly. So even if you can kind of put that out of your head and think, well this is about these animals and these amphibians, understand that this has implications, deleterious consequences for human beings as well. Now there are five main drivers. And as the IPBES points out, these drivers include changes in land and sea use, overfishing, overconsumption, direct exploitation of organisms, climate change, pollution, invasive species. And these are all things that are interlinked. So by tackling one, you can affect other ones indirectly. So for example, if you tackle pollution, that's obviously going to be a net benefit for climate change. But this is really difficult. We're over-consuming, we're over-fishing, we're over-polluting. And in short, we're having a devastating impact on life on the planet. And in turn, we're undermining our own survivability. We're undermining the overall habitability of our planet and its chilling. This is one of those articles where I feel like I'm not a very good political commentator. I don't know what to say. I don't have any answer. There's no solution. I don't know. This is a wicked problem to where even if you got the brightest minds in the world together and they came up with the exact outline as to what we need to do to stop the hemorrhaging, then there's this question of political will. What do we do to get governments, plural governments, to come together and face this crisis? This planet-wide crisis. And are they willing to do that? I can't do anything. I can't add to this conversation. I can encourage you as an individual to take action and do things to mitigate, you know, this issue. I can say reduce your carbon footprint, go vegan. But even if we all individually do what we can, the fact remains that this is an issue that needs to be addressed by governments. Human beings in and of themselves are not capable of addressing this on an individual level. We have to address this at the government level. And where to even start is another question. This is not one of those issues where it's going to happen like climate change. Like we already know that climate change is happening, but it's something that we can still kind of try to mitigate or at least stop the worst of what climate change has to offer. But what this report tells us is that it's not like there's this mass extinction event that's coming. It's happening right now. We are in the midst of a mass extinction event. We may not be able to feel it. We can go on with our lives and watch Netflix and complain about Game of Thrones Season 8, which we all should by the way. But with that being said, what's happening is devastating. I'm thinking about this in terms of like a couple generations from now. My great niece who was born a couple of months ago, what her grandchildren will have to deal with because we, our generation, millennials and Gen Z, we know that the apocalypse is coming. But it's just a couple generations forward who will have to live through this. And maybe it's the case that the planet survives. Human beings make it out of this, that we don't become the victims of this current extinction event. But either way, things will have to change. We're not going to be able to consume at the rate that we're consuming because we live on a planet with finite resources. We're not going to be able to pollute and destroy the planet because of corporate profits. Things have to change if we're going to survive. The problem is that humans don't necessarily, or probably the suspected, won't have the will to take action until it's too late. But I don't know. I mean, all that I can do as a political commentator is give you this information and allow you to do with it as you will. But as long as we're knowledgeable and we know about what's happening, that's just the first step. You can't solve a problem unless you know what's happening, but understand, this is chilling. And it's really pretty crazy to think that we're living through a mass extinction. This hasn't been the best week for people who are non-interventionist or anti-war activists like myself because there's been a number of really troubling developments and I think we all know that the first is that North Korea tested a missile. Now, I don't necessarily think that this poses a threat to us. However, we already know what's going to happen. The media is going to try to go Trump into being more hawkish and people within the administration, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo will probably try to escalate. That being said, I actually have to give Donald Trump credit because his instinct here is actually correct. Him trying to pursue peace and seeking out a diplomatic solution, even if we all know that he's in over his head. Even if we all know that he doesn't really have the slightest idea as to how to actually achieve something comparable to the Iran deal with North Korea. The fact that he's trying is important. I'd rather him try even if it's a failed effort because I think that that's preferable to him threatening to bomb them on Twitter again. Now, as we all could have predicted, the media is trying to portray Trump as weak since he's technically allowing this to happen and since he's not really doing anything about it. And of course, this is all just them pushing him to be more hawkish with regard to North Korea when, thus far, at least for the better part of the last year and a half or so, he's been pursuing the correct ideal. I don't want to say strategy because I don't think he really thinks strategically, but nonetheless, in not trying to provoke them, that's good. But the media is trying to change that. Now, on top of the North Korea situation, the United States inexplicably sent aircraft carriers and bombers to the Middle East after Israel reportedly warned U.S. intelligence about a quote credible threat that is posed from Iran, which gave John Bolton the opportunity to threaten them yet again, saying that they'll be met with quote unquote unrelenting force if they attack us or one of our allies. And the United States is responding in the way that we'd expect them to respond because you have a bunch of neocons in Trump's administration, such as John Bolton, who wanted to see Tehran quote liberated as early as 2019. So these are people who are psychopaths in Donald Trump's ear trying to influence him to be more hawkish towards Iran. And now all of a sudden they're taking a very escalatory approach in taking our aircraft carriers and bombers and putting them in the Middle East, which essentially is them sending a message to Iran. They're trying to intimidate Iran. Now, what's the best method here in the event they really are planning something, which they're not. Israel has said this many times, but let's say, hypothetically speaking, Iran does want to do something. They want to attack U.S. forces in Syria. What do we do? We talk to them. That's what you do rather than resorting to war rather than trying to look for reasons to overthrow their regime for a second time because we did this before. Maybe try diplomacy. But see, Donald Trump wants to try that with North Korea, but when it comes to Iran, which is the real goal for neocons in his administration, he's just kind of letting them do what they want. Now, another area which is incredibly troubling with regard to foreign policy and international issues is the situation in Venezuela, because as we all know, the U.S. is salivating over their oil reserves. Donald Bolton said on Fox Business, on national television, that wouldn't it be great if we got in there and we were able to have U.S. oil companies take control of their oil reserves. Wouldn't that be amazing? They're saying the things that they're supposed to keep to themselves, but they're saying it out in the open. So for months now, we've been trying to overthrow Maduro and install our preferred puppet, Juan Guaido, who is going to play ball with us. Now, what Guaido just did was he called for people to take to the streets in order to really show that he is a force to be reckoned with. And Maduro needs to step down. And really, this was a message to the military, hey, I've got all of these people on my side. I've got the U.S. government on my side. So if you're going to choose sides, make sure you pick the winning horse. Turns out that failed. So what is Trump's administration doing? Well, Mike Pence is now trying to convince the military with both a stick and carrot approach to abandon Maduro. Now I'm going to play the short Reuters clip for you that kind of gives you a brief rundown of the situation. In a speech on Tuesday, U.S. Vice President Mike Pence will try to persuade Venezuela's military to turn on their leader. That's according to a senior administration official who told Reuters that Pence's address at the State Department will offer incentives for soldiers to switch sides. And warnings to Venezuelan magistrates who don't. People of Venezuela are seeking to reclaim freedom and democracy in their nation. A nation impoverished by dictatorship, socialism and oppression. The U.S. supported opposition leader Juan Guaidó's call last week to overthrow socialist president Nicolás Maduro. But the White House watched him frustration as anti-government protests petered out and Maduro appeared firmly in control of the armed forces. The president's made clear that no option is off the table. The U.S. administration repeatedly said it was considering different ways to achieve a peaceful transition of power but offered few specifics. Well, guess what? Now they're starting to get into the specifics. Because as Matt Laszlo of Vice News explains, with Venezuela still in turmoil after last week's failed military coup headed by opposition leader Juan Guaidó, the Trump administration is scrambling to find a way to dislodge President Nicolás Maduro. Some are talking openly about using the U.S. military to assist Guaidó and his ragtag opposition. And that has lawmakers in both parties worried. On Sunday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the administration is preparing for the option of using American armed forces for more than merely supporting the drive to bring humanitarian aid to the hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans on the brink of starvation. Now, please understand that when we talk about humanitarian aid, when we talk about the suffering in Venezuela because of Maduro, the media and the U.S. government doesn't actually care about suffering and impoverished Venezuelans. They're politicizing their suffering. They're also not giving you the full context. They're not telling you that we're actually responsible for a large part of the instability in Venezuela currently. Because back in 2014-2015, I think it was, the United States government teamed up with Saudi Arabia and Israel to artificially drive down the price of oil which undercut Venezuela, which cut off their revenue stream. Now, in part, it's idiotic that Venezuela didn't try to diversify their economy. It was largely propped up on oil. But nonetheless, since they didn't, since they were forced to compete with an international market, they had to lower the cost of oil, and of course that led to less revenue for their government, which led to political instability as the economy suffered because of that. And then when there were mass protests because of the political instability that we caused, well, then what did we do? We imposed sanctions to punish the Venezuelan government for the way that they responded to the instability that we caused. So we're part of the problem, but yet we're saying, oh, we care about these suffering Venezuelans and we just want to get aid to them. It's all a trick and I would love to say don't fall for it, but a lot of people have already fallen for it. So think about some of the broad themes here that we often see when talking about, you know, Venezuela, when talking about Iran. We hear about this concept of liberation and freedom and democracy. And we're also talking about taking preemptive action in order to address what is a credible threat to us. That's what we're saying when it comes to Iran. Now I want to play a clip from 2003. It's a compilation of Bush administration officials talking about why we need to invade Iraq. And this was before the Iraq war. It was the lead up to it and try to see if you notice any similarities in terms of the broad themes that they used then. And if it's similar to what we're seeing now when it comes to Venezuela and Iran and the rhetoric with which we discuss these countries. We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. The reed we get on the people of Iraq is there's no question about what they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein. And they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that. The White House hopes to call for a vote on the deadline resolution early next week. If it passes then by March 17th as a senior official Saddam Hussein will finally be out of final opportunities. But even if it doesn't pass the president has left no doubt that he's ready to go to war. Sound familiar? We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. So we need to invade Iraq because they pose a threat to us. Well, all of a sudden we're deploying aircraft carriers to the Middle East because Iran poses a threat to us according to Israel. The people of Iraq want to get rid of Saddam Hussein. What do they tell us about Venezuela? The people of Venezuela are taking to the streets. They're marching. They want to get rid of Maduro. They want us to intervene. So do you understand all of the same themes are always reused each time we want to invade another country? And right now we're in that process where they're trying to build a case and legitimize this war effort. That's what we're seeing in Venezuela. We're now there openly talking about a military option since the carrot approach hasn't worked. So now we're moving on to the stick approach. And we're seeing this also with Iran where we are intimidating them. So understand what Donald Trump's administration is doing. This is nothing new. It's what we saw back in 2003. So I would like to tell you don't buy this. I'd like to say that the US media is going to be educating people, but essentially they're doing the bidding of these warmongers who want to invade these other countries. Now this doesn't necessarily mean that Donald Trump's administration will invade Iran or will invade Venezuela or take military action in either of these two countries. But do they want to? Yes. If they feel as if they have legitimacy from the American people and if they can do it without taking too much backlash, would they do it unquestionably? So the whole point of this video is for me to tell you watch what they're doing because what we're seeing now is exactly what we saw in the lead up to the Iraq war. And we know how that played out. We know how Libya played out. We know how all of these regime change wars turned out. Not great to say the least. So don't let them do it again. It's incumbent on us to stop them before another regime change war gets started. I think it's safe to say that Rachel Maddow is officially the left wing equivalent of Sean Hannity. She's also the MSNBC equivalent of H.A. Goodman because she really found this one issue that drove ratings. It got her views and clicks online and it made her incredibly popular. It essentially made her period. And because she found this one issue, she chose to stick to it because monetarily speaking, it behoved her to do just that. Now I don't have to tell you guys what that issue is. We all know which issue I'm talking about. Communism. Russia. Assault by Russia. Russia. Russia. Russia. Putin despises the West in general and the United States in particular. Soviet Empire. Russia. Russia. They're the adversary. They want to bring us down to Soviet Union. Okay, that's all for that show. That was from one show. Yeah. So it's safe to say that she talked about Russia nonstop for two years because that's what helped her. And tremendously, it gave her a huge ratings boost. She actually became number one at numerous points over the course of the last two years because a lot of people look to her as the person who would give them coverage of this Russia story that they were so captivated by. After Mueller's investigation concluded and the report was put out and confirmed that this collusion theory was bogus, which essentially was the driver of the mystery. This treason hypothesis. Well, what happened? Obviously it was the case that MSNBC and Rachel Maddow's ratings specifically tanked. Because I mean, you're watching, you're tuning in every single night for two years and the things she told you that was going to happen, didn't happen. And so obviously that's a disappointment. And in cable news, ratings is everything. If you don't have good ratings that can threaten you existentially. So Rachel Maddow, she knew that she had to make a choice after the Mueller report came out. Am I going to pivot now and actually do my job as a journalist and educate my viewers about the issues that they need to hear about? Or am I going to try to milk this Russia Gates story a little bit longer in order to see if I can still salvage this story, get a little bit more views and clicks? She chose the latter. And now what's happening is this Russia story has graduated. It's no longer just about Russia and how they're controlling Donald Trump. Now it's about Russia bad and the United States needs to always take an adversarial stance against Russia, no matter what. So here's what she said recently about Russia. And what you're going to see here is she's going to take this issue, the story that she's been covering, and she's now going to weaponize it to attack Trump. But simultaneously as she's attacking him, she's trying to go to him into intervention in Venezuela. Literally this is an MSNBC host, a supposed left winger who's going to side with John Bolton here. How do you come to work anymore if you were John Bolton? Regardless of what you thought about John Bolton before this, his whole career and his track record, just think of John Bolton as a human being. This is what John Bolton, human being, thought his job was this week. Again, whether you like what he's saying here or not, this is what they've had him out there saying. The Trump administration has also made the claim that Russia is very much involved in propping up the Maduro regime. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told my colleague Wolf Blitzer yesterday that there was a plane waiting to take Maduro to Cuba, but the Russians talked him out of it. What exactly is the Russian role here? Look, the Russians like nothing better than putting a thumb in our eye. They're using the Cubans as surrogates. They'd love to get effective control of a country in this hemisphere. We've made it clear to the Russians in a lot of conversations at a lot of different levels, some of which are going to continue today. Why we think this behavior is unacceptable to us. Yeah, you thought that was your job, but it turns out not at all, not after Vladimir Putin gets done with President Trump today. He is not looking at all to get involved in Venezuela other than he'd like to see something positive happen for Venezuela. Putin doing anything in Venezuela? Who said Putin's doing anything bad in Venezuela? Who have you been listening to? I'm with him. He says he's not. I mean, John Bolton, God bless you. Good luck delicately and carefully shaving around that impressive mustache when you have to look at yourself in the mirror in coming days, Mr. National Security Advisor. I mean, this is who you're working for. You thought your job was to push Russia back because of what they're doing in Venezuela. The President spent an hour on the phone with Vladimir Putin today. Putin told him he's not in Venezuela, so now the new position of the U.S. government is that Putin's not in Venezuela. He officially belongs on Fox News because it was always a sure bet that if you tuned in to Fox News, they would always take the pro war stance because they have defense contractors that advertise on their stations. And of course you'd expect MSNBC and CNN to do this, but never to the extent that Fox News does it, never explicitly in the way that Fox News does it. Siding with John Bolton. Now, if she wants to agree with John Bolton about the extent to which Russia is influencing the situation in Venezuela, fine. But the underlying implication in that segment was that this is bad and as a result, because this is bad, then subsequently what should logically follow? We take action to stop that influence in Venezuela, to stop Vladimir Putin from meddling in Venezuela. If she were a real journalist, she would be asking why we're in Venezuela and why we're allowed to meddle in Venezuela, but Russia isn't. Why is it just assumed that us being in Venezuela is inherently good and Russia being in Venezuela is inherently bad? Maybe all countries should leave Venezuela alone, maybe all countries should stop meddling, but over the course of the last couple of years, she was screeching about how Russia meddled in our election and here she is explicitly advocating for us to meddle with Venezuela's affairs. This is about the oil. Now, Rachel Maddow should be telling people about this. She's smart enough to know what's really happening here. But what is she choosing to do? She's making the choice to not tell people the truth and instead to focus on the aspect of this story that will get her the most ratings. If you can spin this and make it about Russia and not about the US empire intervening in another Latin American country, well, that's better for ratings than just telling people the truth. So this is what a sellout looks like, ladies and gentlemen. Rachel Maddow has sold her soul for ratings and views and she knows that she brought people along on this ride, this Russian ride, and she is determined to convince you that Russia is the greatest threat to international peace and security. And if we don't fight them at every step of the way, fight them at every turn, be overtly adversarial, then that's inherently evil. And yet conservatives have the nerve to say that there's this liberal bias. Someone who's advocating for war on MSNBC, I wouldn't call them liberal. I would call that individual a conservative tool of the military industrial complex who is doing exactly what they want her to do. Add to this case that Trump has currently tried to build that legitimizes their potential military efforts in Venezuela if it comes to that. Shame on Rachel Maddow. And what's devastating is that I know a lot of lefties in person who still absolutely adore and respect Rachel Maddow and they take whatever she says as gospel. And this is what she's doing. Because she has that legitimacy, this makes her particularly even more dangerous, I'd argue, than Sean Hannity. Because I think a lot of people can look at Sean Hannity and dismiss him because this guy is clearly cuckoo for cocoa puffs. Rachel Maddow is seemingly intelligent. She's articulate. She knows what she's talking about, presumably. So for her to do this, that makes her uniquely dangerous because the people who have legitimacy and parrot this type of propaganda, this pro-war propaganda, they're especially dangerous. If you don't remember who Brian Kemp is, allow me to refresh your memory. Brian Kemp is Georgia's current governor who stole the election from Stacey Abrams. As Secretary of State in Georgia, he used his authority to put up barriers that stopped people who wanted to vote who would have likely voted for Stacey Abrams from voting. And essentially what he did was try to get people to not vote because he knew that with this race being so close, the more people that voted, the less likely he would be to win. But he cheated, he won, and now he's the governor, and he's back in the news because he just recently signed a very controversial heartbeat bill into law, which is the most draconian ban on abortion yet. Now as the Washington Post reports, Republican Governor Brian Kemp of Georgia signed a controversial heartbeat bill into law on Tuesday outlawing most abortions once a doctor detects what some call a fetal heartbeat in the womb. Usually about six weeks into a pregnancy, Kemp said he is upholding his promise to enact the toughest abortion law in the country. Now what's the most obvious thing about this bill? It is brazenly unconstitutional. Because the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade in a 7-2 decision ruled that states cannot regulate pregnancies within the first trimester. Women have full autonomy over their bodies within that first trimester. And this was affirmed in 1992 in KCV Planned Parenthood. So he's going out of his way to regulate pregnancies in the first trimester knowing that this is unconstitutional. Ask yourself why he's doing this. Well, if you'll recall, last year Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court giving conservatives a strong five justice majority. So basically what he's doing here is he's passing this law that he knows is unconstitutional and he's basically challenging people to sue him. You don't like this law? Sue me. Because what happens? They can appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court and now with that strong five justice majority, they can overturn KC. They can overturn Roe v. Wade here. So he knows that this law is illegal. But this isn't about the legality of this particular law. It's about getting abortion overturned, getting Roe v. Wade more specifically overturned in all 50 states. So that way in the event states want to impose their own abortion laws like the heartbeat bill, they will now be able to constitutionally do that if he gets his way. So understand that this is what that's all about. This isn't about him signing this bill into law and fulfilling a campaign promise. He knows that he wants to catalyze a challenge to Roe v. Wade. He wants the challenge of the cases that upheld abortion. And what's sad is that this may actually be a successful strategy. This could ultimately be conducive to nationwide overturning of abortion laws. Now let's just take a moment to picture what that would look like in practice if that actually happened. Let's say in 2021, the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade, they reverse course, move away from that precedent, and states now have the autonomy to regulate the first trimester of pregnancies however they want to. How many states do you think would just outright ban abortion within the first year even? At a minimum of a dozen, but probably more. So understand what they're doing here. This is strategy. He knows that this can't stand, but he wants it to be challenged because he knows that this ultimately will have a net benefit effect in the event he gets his way. It's tricky, but certainly it's disgusting. Because the reason why we allow women to have full autonomy over their bodies and the reason why the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade ruled that states can't regulate pregnancies that early is because the fetus is still developing. It can't feel pain yet. And for you to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her own body is the biggest overreach of government ever. But these small government conservatives don't care about hypocrisy because their hypocrisy is a feature of modern-day conservatism. They don't care. It's just about getting their agenda implemented, and they'll do it by whatever means necessary. So it's tricky, or strategic is what I was trying to say, but it's dirty. It's absolutely dirty. So I took my mother to see deep throat. So if you'll all recall, John Hickenlooper is the 2020 presidential candidate who thoroughly embarrassed himself at a scene in Town Hall when he admitted that he watched porn with his mom. For three minutes, he explained how he took his mother to see deep throat. So at that point, I think pretty much his campaign was over. You're done. You're a weirdo. Like, how do you not dodge that question? How do you not swap that away and say, look, I'm not here to talk about that. I'm here to talk about the real issues. But he answered it. He took the bait, and he went on to explain in great detail at great length how this happened. So the dude is an imbecile. And the weirdo. I mean, if you're watching porn with your mom, I'm sorry, but you're weird. But now he's back in the news, and to nobody's surprise, he is embarrassing himself again. Why? Because he's comparing Bernie Sanders' policies to Stalin. Makes sense. Not kidding. So as Travis Moran of New Hampshire Union Leader reports, while former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper speaks often about his disdain for negative attacks on his opponents, the Rocky Mountain governor turned Democratic presidential candidate laid out an economic platform on Friday that seemed to take direct aim at fellow 2020 contender, Senator Bernie Sanders, for his Democratic socialist agenda. While Sanders was not name-checked in the prepared remarks Hickenlooper delivered while announcing a six-point economic development plan at St. Anselm College, the two-term governor launched multiple attacks on socialism branding the idea quote, no better today than it was 100 years ago and invoking the dictatorship of the Soviet Union. You have to hand it to the GOP for achieving the near impossible said Hickenlooper just years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, their greedy mismanagement has revived the lure of socialism for a whole generation of Americans. Who would have imagined the Koch brothers and Donald Trump could help resuscitate the discredited ideas of Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin. The apparent references to Sanders didn't stop there, with Hickenlooper going on to criticize elected officials in Washington who would demonize the private sector to score political points branding universal health care and guarantee jobs to policies supported by Sanders as hazardous to the American people. These are certainly big ideas. They are also not good ideas said Hickenlooper. They would bloat the federal government. They would massively raise taxes. They would depress economic growth and let me assure you in the end they would hurt working people. So if I'm understanding him correctly, the idea here is that Republicans are so repugnant that people are now opting for Marxism and Stalinism. They've been so turned off by conservatism and capitalism that they're going to the opposite end of the spectrum. That's essentially what I think he's trying to communicate here. But if you think that Bernie Sanders is a Marxist or a Stalinist, you're just stupid. I don't want to be condescending to John Hickenlooper here, but this is a really stupid thing to say. Bernie Sanders isn't even a Democratic socialist, and I really wish that he wouldn't call himself that. He's more of a social Democrat. So what he's advocating for is to replicate some of the policies and the good ideas that we see in Scandinavia. Take what other countries do right like Australia or Canada when it comes to health care and emulate their success here. That's all he's advocating for. But you're saying that what Bernie wants is on par to what we saw with the Soviet Union? What an idiotic thing to say. This guy is a former governor, and he's saying that social democracy is akin to Stalinism. John, suspend your campaign. I mean, you already made a fool of yourself when you explained how you watched porn with your mom, but this is next level stupid. Now, he's kind of trying to give himself plausible deniability since he didn't name-drop Bernie Sanders, and he's saying, look, I'm not talking about Bernie Sanders. I respect Senator Sanders. I respect his followers and their enthusiasm. But we know what you were doing. You were trying to prime people to think about Bernie's policies as Marxism and Stalinism, when that is absolutely not the case. And it's a really dumb point to make. Now, state representative from Colorado and Bernie Sanders supporter, Emily Serota tweeted out this about his statement. It is disheartening to see Colorado's former Democratic governor, John Hickenlooper, liken the push for policies like Medicare for All, tuition-free college and a Green New Deal to the policies of Joseph Stalin. This is unacceptable and embarrassing for our state. Yeah, if somebody from Oregon said this, like if Kate Brown, governor of Oregon, compared Bernie's policies to Stalin, I would be embarrassed because that's such a stupid thing. It's so far removed from the truth that you can't really respond, like you can't dignify that with, you know, a thorough nuanced comeback. You just have to stop and laugh at that person because they're clearly misinformed. And really with John Hickenlooper, I don't think that he is that dumb. I think he just knows what the truth is because, again, he's a former governor and he's just trying to prime people. This is a strategic way of getting people to think about Bernie Sanders and associate him with Stalinism and it's, you know, it's a tactic, but it's a dumb one and he's just making himself look foolish because what you're doing is you're using a GOP line of attack on Bernie Sanders. You're essentially doing the Democratic Party equivalent of Venezuela. And you're not making Bernie look worse, John. You're making yourself look like a huge fucking dumbass because, wow, what a stupid thing to say. So lately I think it's evident to all of us that Bernie Sanders has not been quiet about just how bad Joe Biden's record is and lately he's been politely talking about how his record, just objectively speaking from the standpoint of someone who's progressive, is leagues ahead of Joe Biden's record. He talks about how he was against the Iraq War whereas Joe Biden voted for it. The same is true for NAFTA. The same is true for the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the bankruptcy bill, permanent normal trade relations with China. So what Bernie Sanders is doing here is what you should be doing in a primary. Now is the time to duke it out. Now is the time to present your platform and your record to the American people and allow them to decide who's the best, who's the strongest. If you're not doing this, then you're not in it to win it. But Bernie Sanders has been vocal about this and he's carrying on, you know, and I think the nicest way possible because if I were in Bernie's shoes I would be a lot more negative than he's being but I think that he probably has the better strategy here in trying to keep it civil. But nonetheless, down in Brazil, a Fox News contributor now was asked about Bernie's strategy here and he had some things to say about it that I took issue with. So take a look at what she had to say. Joe voted for the war in Iraq. I led the effort against it. Joe voted for NAFTA and permanent normal trade relations, trade agreements with China. I led the effort against that. I think if you look at Joe's record and you look at my record, I don't think there's much question about who's more progressive. You might be able to start getting used to this. Senator Bernie Sanders taking a shot at Joe Biden. Meanwhile, real clear politics average of polls shows Biden nearly 24 points ahead of Sanders and everybody else. Wow. Donna Brazil, former interim chair for the DNC. Fox News contributor, how you doing? Good morning to you. Good morning. So they're starting to fire inside the tent. How do you feel about that? Oh, it's going backfire. People know Joe Biden. Joe Biden came walking to Union Hall. He can go to a corner grocery store and go to church in a black church. Joe Biden is one of those candidates that people know. They respect him. They know his record of leadership. And while there are many progressives in the race, Joe Biden is someone that has not just good values, but he's somebody who can speak to progressives as well as moderates and conservatives. Are you saying Bernie Sanders should back off then? I'm saying it didn't work in 2016 with what an establishment candidate called Hillary Clinton. She received four million more votes. I'm just saying that perhaps the best way to win if you're not Joe Biden is to go out there and just talk about your record of leadership, talk about the things that you hope to do to help the American people. But to attack Joe Biden simply for being Joe Biden, that's not going to work. This is politics. I mean, you know, I mean... Of course it's politics. You know the way that works. A Democratic strategy is quoted on the Hill. Here we go. I think people's initial reaction. The concern is that he's at a step with the primary electorate. Oh, well, I don't know that. What were you shooing away there? Was that a Louisiana fly? No, that was not a Louisiana fly because they don't fly that high. They're gut level flies. This was like a big bee that just came after me. So I don't... You know me. I don't like things to fly in my face. I thought you were shooing me away, okay? Honey, no, not you. Ronald McDaniel was with us two hours ago, right? You ready for this? Roll it. Give this a listen. Here she is. Head of the RNC. I think he's a temporary front runner. He's gotten a balance because of name ID, because he just launched his campaign. Obviously, he's well-known around the country. He has not faced any tough questions, and he certainly hasn't hit that debate stage with those other 20 candidates. How about that? Well, let me just say this. I've been around the block a time or two, and let me tell you something. Joe Biden has also been around the track a time or two. All I'm saying, Bill, is that Joe Biden is a strong candidate, but this is not a cakewalk. He's going to face a lot of competition, and you have some people like Kamala Harris and, of course, Elizabeth Warren and others that believe that the party should go in a different direction. So I'm looking forward to the debates as well. So the overall point that she was trying to make is that if Bernie's plan here is to criticize Joe Biden's record, it will ultimately backfire. She said, quote, to attack Joe Biden simply for being Joe Biden, that's not going to work. But that doesn't really make sense, Donna, because he's not attacking Joe Biden based on personal characteristics. He's not attacking Joe Biden for being Joe Biden. He's saying, look at Joe Biden's record. His record is terrible. He voted for the Iraq war. There are hundreds of thousands of deaths on his hands, on his conscience, because he lacked the foresight to see that Bush was lying us into a war. He was in support of the crime bill. He wrote it and he championed it and he didn't acknowledge how this would lead to mass incarceration. But the reason why Donna Brazil can't comprehend why this is a good strategy for Bernie is because she genuinely doesn't believe that Joe Biden is as bad as we're telling her he is. She said that Joe Biden is someone who can speak to progressives as well as moderates and conservatives. Factually incorrect. He is the antithesis of what progressives are looking for in a Democratic Party politician. He is essentially a conservative and I think that what she doesn't realize is that progressives like myself, we don't view Joe Biden as just another friend, someone who we don't necessarily agree with all the time, but for the most part, at the end of the day, we have the same mission. No, that's not our perception. That's your perception. Joe Biden is the enemy. The Democratic Party establishment, they are our enemy. Just because we're forced to share a party with them because the opposition is insane doesn't mean that we have to like them. They are our enemy. And we are to oppose corporate Democrats and centrists and neoliberals as much as we oppose Republicans. Because they're not looking out for us. They don't have the same goals that we have. Joe Biden is against Medicare for all. Health insurance companies are betting on him to save the country, quote, unquote, save the country from Medicare for all. Whereas Bernie Sanders has them shitting their pants. Bernie Sanders has providers of Medicare Advantage plans increasing benefits to kind of communicate to Bernie, please don't kill us. We can provide some value here. We don't just care about profits. So do you understand here? She doesn't get that they are not our friends. They're not our allies. They're our enemies. And sharing a party for purposes of defeating Republicans does not mean that every time, you know, we are doing this debate about who has the best record at the end of the day, we're going to hold hands and sing Kumbaya. If Joe Biden wins and becomes the Democratic Party's nominee, that's a lose for progressives. Now, is he preferable to someone like Donald Trump? Absolutely. Was Hillary Clinton preferable to someone like Donald Trump? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that doesn't suggest that if they win, progressives win because their ideology is at odds with our ideology. And that's what she fails to understand. Now, one thing I want to talk about here. So the Fox host, he said the concern is that Joe Biden is out of step with the primary electorate. And I'm actually surprised that a Fox news host brought that up. But at first I was a little bit irritated with Donna Brazil because it looked like she condescendingly like swatted away that notion, like she kind of flicked her wrist. And I'm like, really, you're going to be that arrogant and dismiss that notion that we have legitimate criticisms. But I went back and I watched it and she literally was swatting away a fly like a big ass fly. You know, if you look at this from a perspective of strategy, if you are behind in the polls, which Bernie Sanders is one of the key strategies that you should be suggesting is to play offense, make the person ahead of you play defense and attack them. You don't have to be vindictive. You don't have to resort to ad hominem attacks but attack them and show people why they're garbage. Show people why they're not the best candidate and why you are. Now you do have to navigate carefully. And I think that Bernie Sanders is cognizant of this fact because political science research does show that oftentimes when you play offense, this can also affect your perception. So if people view you as someone who's being too negative, this can hurt you. But I think that what Bernie Sanders is doing here by politely saying, look, I like Joe Biden. He's my friend, but this is his record. This is mine. I think this is a great strategy, objectively speaking. So with that being said, I don't agree with Donna Brazil, but I do think it's important that we highlight why she's wrong. Because what she's saying here is not true because I don't think she understands progressives. She doesn't get it. She still believes wrongly so that Hillary Clinton defeated Bernie Sanders just because there was this disagreement and she won 4 million more votes than Bernie Sanders. And she talks about how Bernie Sanders calling out Hillary's poor record in 2016 didn't work. But I mean, it could have worked. You're the one who told us, Donna, about how the DNC was thoroughly in the tank for Hillary Clinton. I mean, she literally was controlling their press releases. You're the one who told us that. You gave us more details about how they tip the scales against Bernie Sanders. So maybe it could have worked. He made up a 60-point deficit. So just strategically speaking, I think that Bernie Sanders is doing the correct thing here, but it's in the interest of the establishment, in the interest of Democratic Party elites like Donna Brazil, who I believe is a super delegate, to say don't do this, Bernie, because she knows that this will be conducive to a victory potentially if he keeps this up. Because there's nothing wrong with saying that your record is better than Joe Biden's. This is what we expect. And anyone who thinks that a primary is about holding hands and singing kumbaya, they're just not in it to win it. And I get why you would want to keep this civil, because we all have a vested interest in defeating Donald Trump. But if you have a primary that gets especially brutal, that still doesn't necessarily mean you're gonna lose, because look at the 2016 primary on the Republican side. It was brutal, Trump still won. Back in 2008, it was extremely brutal between Obama and Clinton, and Obama still won. So people essentially, this is the way that I view this, when they say Bernie, play nice, don't talk about Joe Biden's shit record, all they're essentially advocating for, actually is for us to unilaterally disarm. Let's have you stop saying bad things about Joe Biden, but we're gonna continue to have our stooges in the media talk badly about you and try to quote unquote expose you and criticize you nonstop. Well, we're not gonna fall for it and we're not gonna take that bait. We're gonna continue doing what you should be doing in a primary. And that is calling out the poor record of Bernie Sanders' opponents. So there's an article in Politico that I want to talk about, because the Republican Party, they have a clear choice as to who they want to run against in 2020. Now, according to this article, Republicans pray for Bernie as Democratic nominee. Some GOP lawmakers would like nothing more than a Democratic socialist to be the opposition's presidential nominee. Now, to me, I don't think they're being 100% truthful here. Like we all know back in 2016, Hillary Clinton had this Pied Piper strategy where her and the Democrats would try to prop up Donald Trump because they thought that he was the more beatable Republican. And what Republicans are trying to communicate here to you is that they want to do the same for Bernie. They want to keep talking about Democratic socialism. They want to put his ideas front and center because they think he's the easiest to beat. So let me read you the article and then I'm going to tell you what I think is really going on here. As Bergus Everett writes, Republicans like their chances of keeping the Senate in 2020 but there's one thing they think would all but seal the deal. Bernie Sanders as the Democratic presidential nominee. Some GOP incumbents are practically cheering him on. Confident there's no way a self-described Democratic socialist could win a general election against President Donald Trump and that he'd drag other Democrats on the ballot with him. It would be good for us to have a nominee like that said Senator Joni Ernst who is up for re-election next year and sounded downright giddy about the prospect of Sanders representing Democrats at the top of the ticket. Trump and the Senate GOP have explicitly designed their 2020 strategy around Sanders beating the anti-socialism drum incessantly and attempting to tether every Democrat on the ballot to what they call a creep away from capitalism and toward collectivism. And though he's consistently trailing former Vice President Joe Biden at this early stage, some top Republicans said they sincerely believe Sanders has a legitimate shot at winning. A lot of people think that in that crowded field he could break out said Senate majority whip John Thune. He added, if we can run a race against a person that's an out of the closet socialist and promoting socialist ideas it's a great contrast for us. The strategy shows Republicans are much more comfortable talking about Sanders and tying other Democrats to his brand of socialism than they are in defending this year's meager legislative agenda, but Republicans could be making the same mistake Democrats made four years ago when Trump launched his presidential campaign and they began salivating over the prospect of a Senate sweep. So on one hand, to try to look at this objectively speaking, I think that if you have a situation where the economy is running smoothly, we all know that it's not going so well for ordinary Americans, but if you can get the media to kind of parrot this claim that the economy is working wonderfully, then historically it has been the case that incumbent presidents have benefited from economies that are working well. So what they essentially are going to be pitching is look why would we change things up when the economy is going great, unemployment is slow, and why would you want to fundamentally change the economy in the way that Bernie Sanders does when it's currently working out for you. But the difference here is that the economy isn't actually working out for normal Americans. They're hurting. Americans are struggling. They're living paycheck to paycheck. So what Bernie will be able to do is touch on these aspects that other normal politicians would otherwise miss because if you're someone like Joe Biden or Amy Klobuchar, you're out of touch with normal Americans, so you won't know how to respond when Republicans try to run on this good economy. This quote-unquote good economy. But Bernie actually will be able to peel away the layers and reach straight to voters and ask them how they're doing in this so-called good economy. And it's not too well. Now get into the article. Do I believe that Republicans actually want to run against Bernie Sanders? Yes and no. On one hand, I think they're stupid enough to believe that this is a good idea because if anybody is going to beat Donald Trump it's going to be Bernie. I honestly believe that he has the best chance at beating Donald Trump, even if nobody is a sure bet. But I do think that they're naive enough to think that maybe it would behoove them to have Bernie be the nominee, but at the same time a large part of this I think is them bluffing. And the reason why I believe that's the case is because in this very first sentence they kind of showed their cards. Quote, Republicans like their chances of keeping the Senate. Really? You like your chances of keeping the Senate? You do realize that Republicans have to defend 22 seats. Whereas Democrats only have to defend 12. So if you like your chances, you're just delusional. Maybe they do keep the Senate. I don't know, but I'm just saying that the odds aren't in their favor just looking at the number of seats they have to defend. So I think that when I see them say things like this they're trying to act overconfident in order to scare Democrats because they know that Democrats are more than willing to try to sabotage their own if they think it'll help them win. So what Republicans here are trying to do, if they really are this strategic in playing three-dimensional chess, I think some are they're trying to go Democrats into going to greater lengths to sabotage Bernie Sanders because what they're saying is, look guys you don't want Bernie Sanders to be the nominee because we're going to kick your ass if that's the case. But really what they may be doing is just getting Democrats to do their job for them because they know Bernie actually is a threat. Bernie Sanders would have won in 2016 had he gone up against Donald Trump. I think most people can see that with a brain who looked at the numbers and I think that Republican Party strategists they're more strategically savvy than Democrats so they've got to be cognizant of this fact they've got to know that this isn't really a fight they want to have if they want to keep the White House odds are their best bet is going up against another corporate Democrat because we saw what happened Trump can beat a corporate Democrat. Donald Trump can beat someone who's a centrist so wouldn't they want to replicate the winning strategy for them wouldn't they want Democrats to put up someone like Biden well of course they do so what they're doing here is this is kind of something you have to read between the lines with to understand they want to pretend like they're not afraid of Bernie when in actuality they're bluffing that's all that they're doing now looking at hypothetical matchups it's very clear that Bernie Sanders obviously according to aggregate polling data is beating Donald Trump now that could change but currently he's outperforming Donald Trump so really I mean they should be careful what they wish for and Bernie Sanders pretty much echoed that same sentiment saying I would suggest they underestimate me at their own peril and I hope they do Sanders said in an interview Republicans are unlikely to run on their own forward-leaning agenda he added so they have to figure out some boogeyman that they think they can run against and that's exactly it because look do you honestly think that they're going to withhold from this socialist boogeyman strategy if Joe Biden is the nominee of course not my pence just claimed about a week or two ago in an interview that Joe Biden like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren he's advocating for socialist policy so they're not just going to say oh well shoot I guess her hands are tied now that Biden is the nominee and we can't run on this socialist boogeyman of course they're going to run on the socialist boogeyman this is going to be their strategy it's always their strategy so why are we to believe that they're not going to use the same strategy they've used to run against Joe Biden again look for people like Joni Ernst I think that when she's supposedly giddy if I could hear her talk I'm sure that we'd hear a nervous laughter because if Bernie Sanders was at the top of the ticket he would galvanize younger voters he would get independence to come out and vote and when more people turn out Democrats win and if a presidential candidate if the person at the top of the ticket does really well then that actually has a very positive effect on down ticket races so I think that they're not as dumb as they're leading on some certainly are but when they say this when they say they're praying for Bernie to win when they're essentially saying that Bernie's their Piper not buying it I think they know what's coming if Bernie's the nominee he has a phenomenal chance of beating Donald Trump and if I'm wrong and they actually do truly believe this then like Bernie said underestimate him at their own peril because I want them to underestimate him I think it's evident that Joe Biden is still sailing and he's riding high on this announcement boost that he got and data indicates that he actually has cut into Bernie Sanders support base meaning that people who would otherwise be supporting Bernie Sanders are now supporting Joe Biden since he decided to enter now that is weird but nonetheless this is what the data indicates so my instinct when I see this is we need to try to grapple with this reality and take away from this information that allows us to reach these people because if you would have supported Bernie had Joe Biden not entered the race then that tells me that you don't necessarily know about the policy differences now there's a couple of polls that came out that asked Joe Biden supporters who would be their second choice in the event Joe Biden decided to not run now before I tell you the results if you had to guess who would it be someone like Kamala someone like Beto O'Rourke, Pete Buttigieg because ideologically speaking they're more closely aligned however according to a Harris X poll that's not actually the case according to Biden supporters their second pick at 27% is surprisingly Bernie Sanders so Joe Biden is number one Bernie Sanders is their number two in third we have Kamala Harris at 15% Beto O'Rourke in fourth at 11% Pete Buttigieg following closely with 10% worn at 8% Gillibrand at 7% and Booker at 6% now instinctively you've got to be thinking this must be an outlier this must be the one poll claims that Bernie Sanders really is Joe Biden's support base's second choice right well no because according to a poll by the morning it found that largely the same holds true because Bernie Sanders is still Joe Biden supporters second choice at 31% Kamala again is in third with 13% and here Elizabeth Warren jumps a little bit and she is their fourth choice at 10% now one more poll that I want to show you is from Monmouth which was conducted in mid April and it found that if Joe Biden didn't run Bernie would have gained an additional 7 points so taken as a whole what this data indicates what it tells us is that even if it's hard to believe there's considerable overlap between Joe Biden's base of support and Bernie Sanders base of support and maybe not the core base of support but nonetheless there's overlap there now it's weird if I were a mainstream media news pundit what would I chalk this up to well I'd say you know we can explain this away by the fact that voters just gravitate towards the old white men and that's why they're opting for Joe Biden as their number one and Bernie Sanders as their number two and possibly vice versa but that's not actually what I think is an oversimplification in fact I don't think it explains this at all what I think is happening here is that Bernie Sanders now probably has the second highest name recognition and what we really underestimate often times in politics is how powerful an advantage candidates have if they have name recognition I mean look at 2016 Donald Trump defeated 17 or 16 republican establishment candidates because every single person in the country knew who Donald Trump was and now who has the highest name recognition in the democratic field Joe Biden Bernie Sanders so if you're a voter and you just kind of vaguely think that all of the candidates are ideologically similar who are you going to choose if you're not necessarily 100% behind candidate will you say you know Joe Biden I liked him I thought that you know the last eight years under Obama were okay so my second choice I guess would be Sanders I don't think that they've put much thought into this and I don't think this is about policy I mean it's obviously not about policy because ideologically you have Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders who are complete opposite so it can't be about policy so in my mind this is about name recognition and the reason why Bernie Sanders is their number two is because they just know who Bernie Sanders is now he's the most popular politician in America so what this tells us is strategically the way that we combat this and we make Bernie their number one is we educate these people about policy if we are going and knocking on doors for Bernie for phone banking and text banking for Bernie we have an opportunity to convert these voters because this tells me that they haven't decided to back Biden 100% and they're still gettable all we have to do is educate them about Bernie's platform about his record and I think these people are winnable now another factor that I think is helping Biden here is he's still coasting off of the nostalgia from the Obama years but what we need to do as Bernie supporters strategically is convince these people that there's a real fundamental difference between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders and how Bernie would actually improve their lives whereas Joe Biden is about maintaining the status quo and how he's actually vulnerable if electability is what people care about which is another aspect and maybe they're voting for Joe Biden because of electability we need to convince them that we just tried this strategy we just tried running a centrist like Joe Biden in 2016 and we have a reality television show star as president so what we need to do is get someone who is the antithesis of Donald Trump because that's going to be our best bet that's going to be our ticket to the White House so this is certainly a poll that is weird it doesn't make sense at first but if you think about it just going off of name recognition that is such a powerful force and now thankfully it's working to our advantage to a degree however Joe Biden he just he has more name recognition than Bernie and as a result in spite of his garbage record this is really benefiting him being part of the Obama team is benefiting him so grapple with these polling results look at this data and don't just reject it try to adapt and figure out a way to reach these people because this is a good sign if Bernie is their number two they just are misinformed about the policy differences between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders so the goal as Sanders supporters is to reach them and ultimately convert them now there's still time the debates I think really is going to make or break this primary but we need to do what we can to get the message out that if you are in support of these popular policies like Medicare for All Biden does not support them Biden does not believe we should legalize marijuana nationwide he's out of touch so we have to tell them and educate them about Joe Biden and I think it's as easy as that now maybe we'll get other results that demonstrate maybe it's not name recognition maybe you know it's some other reason but nonetheless this is what we have currently to work with and we need to use this information to our advantage and when these people over simply put win them over so there's this trend that I've been seeing on YouTube lately that I really like entertaining where other YouTubers will rank things that you know are of interest to them characters in Game of Thrones fast food restaurants other YouTubers and I thought that since this is a political YouTube channel it would make sense for me to kind of do my own ranking of the 2020 Democratic Party primary contenders and as you can see here we have the different categories we have the S tier which is obviously the best it's top tier and we have the F tier which obviously is the worst of the worst now this is not me ranking them based on numbers I think that we all know that Bernie Sanders is my first choice but this isn't me saying this is my number one my number two so on and so forth this is essentially me just categorizing the candidates based on how good they are so let's go ahead and get started okay so the very first one we have here is Governor of Washington Jay Inslee thus far I'm not super impressed by him he hasn't really laid out anything other than saying that he wants to tackle climate change which is phenomenal this is a really important issue but the problem is that why would we opt for him when there are other people who are better when it comes to this issue I mean Bernie Sanders is championing the Green New Deal Tulsi Gabbard has introduced her own climate change legislation the off act so why would I choose him over them when there are better people on this issue but nonetheless the fact that he wants to raise awareness about this issue is still important so he's certainly not S tier he's not the worst of the worst but I'm going to put him in about mid range I'm going to put him as C here because you know I just I'm not interested in what he has to say if you're only talking really about one issue and you don't have the credibility needed on that one issue okay so the next person here is Mike Gravel former Alaska senator meme god and I've said this before in the program I actually agree with his platform more than pretty much anyone else better it's better than Bernie's it's better than Tulsi's just objectively speaking so in my view this really is S tier because he has the gold standard he has the best platform in my view and he goes further than people like Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard even when it comes to their strengths like he supports not using drones which is something that is incredibly important to me he explicitly is saying that Chelsea Manning Edward Snowden and Julian Assange should be pardoned now Tulsi Gabbard has also spoken out about this but just overall when you look broadly at his platform I think he has the best now I feel comfortable putting him in the S tier because he actually doesn't want to be president but just objectively speaking if I had to rank the candidates based on how good their platform is I mean if I don't put him in S tier I feel like this would be a crime next person Andrew Yang so I like Andrew Yang I was part of the Yang Gang from the beginning I have an Andrew Yang pin or actually two of them over here and I think that he is extremely honest he's truthful however I just don't agree with the policy ideas that he's proposing he doesn't support Medicare for all he's in favor of a public option instead and I'm worried about his version of universal basic income I think that if you're introducing universal basic income and it's supplementing existing social safety net programs and you don't have to choose between UBI and Social Security I would support him a lot more he'd be like nearly top tier for me but because he's not doing that yet until he proposes a plan to improve Social Security lift the cap on taxable income then he's not a first choice for me we'll just say that so I'm going to put him in B tier he still has a lot of great ideas like Reagan choice voting and what not but his main pitch of UBI I don't agree with the way he wants to implement that moving on we have Mary Ann Williamson so this is someone overall who I think she's a really nice person she doesn't support Medicare for all she made this clear in an interview on the Jimmy Dore show and if you don't support Medicare for all I'm sorry I lose interest in you but with that being said she still has one strong policy that I really do support she believes in reparations for American descendants of slavery now I actually think her plan is fairly meager she's pitching 100 billion over 10 years so 10 billion per year I think that they're owed more than that I think we can do better and also I don't know that she's been explicit about that being a check so I don't know for sure like I previously gave her credit for being the best on this issue but I'm not 100% sure so I'm going to put her in B because this is the tier where you have one policy that I really like but overall I just can't get behind you because you don't check the boxes that I need you to check namely Medicare for all and also I think she needs to lay off the platitudes because it is irritating to me she talks a lot about you know love and what not but you've got to read the room this is not an election where running on love quote unquote love whatever you want to mean by that is going to win like we are in a burn shit down era in politics we don't feel love we feel hatred and we want someone who's going to destroy the establishment and you know I said the same thing about Beto O'Rourke with his platitudes so the same is going to be applicable to Mary Ann Williamson next person here Elizabeth Warren so I like Elizabeth Warren however with that being said the problem that I have with Elizabeth Warren is that she won't unequivocally support Medicare for all I mean she's cosponsored Bernie's Medicare for all bill but anytime she's asked about it she runs away from it she says well yeah I also cosponsored you know a public option bill and lowering the age of Medicare down to 55 and I don't like that however I still think she's a phenomenal candidate she proposed canceling some student loan debt she keeps coming out with these really innovative policy ideas that I hadn't previously thought about and I like her the one thing that scares me about Elizabeth Warren is I don't know that she'd have the political courage to fight for anything like we saw how she didn't have the courage to endorse Bernie Sanders she didn't have the courage to stand up for the Standing Rock activists back in 2016 when they were being brutalized by militarized police so I worry about her willingness to fight with that being said I still think that she is good enough to be an A tier because I genuinely believe that she's principled fighting for what she wants to get implemented is a whole other story but with that being said you know I like Elizabeth Warren next person Eric Swalwell so this Felicia is one of the 1000 centrists who is running and basically he's running on gun control which is an issue I can get behind but every single candidate supports gun reform so this isn't really something that you're really setting yourself apart with like when it comes to someone like Tulsi Gabbard I think it's incredibly brilliant for her to run on ending regime change wars because you have like one or two other candidates if we're being extra charitable who believe that we should do this so that's innovative this isn't very innovative to me and also he's more of a centrist he doesn't support Medicare for all he's just not great overall I'm gonna put him in the E tier because I don't think he is the worst of the worst there's certainly worse out there but he just you know better than Eric Swalwell next person is Bernard I am a brother of the Bernard you all know it looks like you know behind me a Bernie Sanders fan club but Bernie Sanders is someone who I've supported since 2010 when I saw his epic filibuster on the House floor and I just I just knew that this guy was principled and the more you dig into his record the more you love him he supports Medicare for all he's the strongest on Medicare for all which is my number one issue and for that you've got to give it up to him now there are things that I disagree with Bernie Sanders on he has got to improve when it comes to Israel Palestine but with that being said sadly he's still one of the best he doesn't support BDS but he still is more forceful and condemning Israel and what they do to Palestinians the way that they kill them indiscriminately he called Netanyahu a racist and also he has previously stated he'd support drones now he did make it clear that he'd take precautions to minimize civilian casualties but nonetheless just end the program it's illegal Congress has not declared these drone wars so the executive should not be able to unilaterally wage war this is the whole point of Bernie Sanders you know touting you know his bill on Yemen which was fantastic but with that being said these disagreements aside they're not deal breakers by no means and these are just a couple of disagreements I agree with Bernie Sanders on the overwhelming majority of policies and I think that he's the one person who actually knows how to get his legislative agenda implemented in the event he becomes president he's the only person who truly wants to get us to social democracy and even if his platform in and of itself is not as good as microbells just out of pure strategy out of consistency he's definitely S tier phenomenal candidate as you all know I mean it's not like I have to convince you guys because you already know how I feel about Bernie but he's great next person another Felicia here we have Tim Ryan now Tim Ryan if you recall he challenged Nancy Pelosi in I believe 2016 or maybe it wasn't 2016 basically he was running against Nancy Pelosi to be speaker but even if we don't like Nancy Pelosi as progressives because she's a conservative if you could believe it he was challenging her from the right so he's a conservative I see no reason why he wants to run I don't think there's really a place for him so I'm going to put him in the F tier he's basically the worst that we can possibly do I don't care and really he's not that much different from Eric Swalwell Swalwell here but I mean what are you running on like at least with Eric Swalwell he has something that he's running on like he says I want gun reform because that's the one thing that won't offend the plethora of special interests that contribute to his campaign because he's not going to be taking money from you know GOA or NRA but I mean it's something what is Tim Ryan offering what is he running on I don't know I don't know what it is you know incrementalism more neoliberalism no thanks so not not cool with him Beto O'Rourke this is someone who he's bad he's just so bad he's pretty much an empty vessel I feel like he doesn't have any ideas any platforms and if you put him in power what he's going to carry out his agenda will essentially be dictated by his advisors he'd be the left equivalent of Donald Trump now he has some great ideas he wants to legalize marijuana awesome he did support Medicare for all and then once he decided to run flipped on it he however is raising money based on bundlers he is teaming up with oligarchs who donates democrats he's just someone who is not consistent and overall has a very conservative record now in the race against Ted Cruz I was incredibly supportive of him because I would literally I would support a turd over Ted Cruz and I'm not being hyperbolic if you gave me the choice between Ted Cruz and a literal piece of shit I would vote for that piece of shit over Ted Cruz so I mean I supported him back then but in 2020 I don't know why he's running and I don't think he knows why he's running and it shows why he face planted because he is a vacuous he has nothing so I'm going to put him in the C tier certainly not the worst of the worst certainly not the best of the best I'm kind of I kind of want to move him to D tier because he's really bad yeah I'm going to move him to D tier just because I don't know what he's running on besides legalizing marijuana which I support I don't know what he's running on I don't know why Beto O'Rourke feels like he's the person who you know should win when he doesn't really have new ideas okay so let's go to Seth Moulton another one of the Felicia's I consider the F category the Felicia category a bunch of white dudes with basically the same policy I mean they should really I saw a tweet about this these guys should all be running as one person because they're the same fucking person but Seth Moulton he's someone who tried to challenge Nancy Pelosi from the right and that failed spectacularly I believe he got booed by his own constituents at a town hall he recently came out against Medicare for all and said he supports a public option in addition to the ACA I just I don't I don't know why he's running there's no really one signature issue that sets him apart so he goes in the F tier the only reason why and to be clear the reason why I'm not putting Swalwell in the F tier is because I mean these guys don't have something that they're running on that is noticeable at least again Swalwell says guns that's something that tells me that you have one reason for running even if it's something that isn't that innovative you know or wouldn't be super transformative it's something you know so credit where it's do but yeah Moulton is one of the Felicia's the next person is Wayne Massam now this is someone who I don't know too much about but I will say this he is basically an incrementalist he doesn't support Medicare for all he you know he wants to get dark money out of politics he he's more of an incrementalist with the exception of one policy that is amazing he goes further than Elizabeth Warren when it comes to student loan debt cancellation he actually straight up is adopting Jill Stein's policy we take the 1.5 trillion that 45 million Americans or 44 million Americans hold cancel all of it full stop now for that I'm going to put him in the B category because that is such a bold thing to run on that I've got to give you credit there because if you are running on something that bold that really does set you apart like look at these people we have in the B category we have Yang he's running on UBI which I support in theory just not necessarily his implementation we have Williamson who supports reparations I think it's not the best reparations proposal that we can come up with it's still something that I support and we have Massam with um student loan debt cancellation so in the B tier what I kind of see here um based on my own trend of categorizing these people is they're by and large you know they have one big policy that really sets them apart from the rest of the field and I think it's fair to put Massam in this category um so we have Amy Klobuchar another Felicia candidate um I don't know why she's running um I don't know why she chose to eat salad with a comb and I will never get past that I'm sorry never ever ever going to get past that um I don't know where to put her let's see she's certainly in the Felicia category I think she's part of the white men who should be running as one person but with that being said she actually is proposing some policy ideas she's like a boring version of Elizabeth Warren where she's talking about you know having these savings accounts for your uh tuition it's incredibly bad just incrementalist neoliberal nonsense but I mean it's she's trying I guess so I'll put her in the E category I guess I don't know see she kind of it could go either way she could be in the F category she could be in the E category but I'll be extra kind and I'll put her in the E category just because she has given me joy because of this salad with a comb kerfuffle that I can't stop talking about and uh thinking about next person John Hickenlooper he watched porn uh with his mom F he also compared Bernie Sanders policies to Stalin's um so I think that he's just not a bright guy um former governor of Colorado I think would know the difference between Stalin and Bernie but nonetheless he is uh feigning ignorance here and he watched porn with his mom nope Kamala Harris oops I just flipped her sorry hang on okay Kamala Harris she is someone who I consider her the best of the worst she's definitely a corporate democrat but she stands out among all of the other corporate democrats because she I believe is more politically astute she's more savvy when it comes to strategy and she knows that she has to do two things one she knows she can't piss off her donors in the democratic party if she wants to win but she also knows that she can't piss off progressives like Hillary Clinton did if she wants to win so she's savvy she knows what she's doing and she's certainly more charismatic than the other corporate democrats I'm gonna go ahead and put her in the seat here um if there was any democrat that stood out or really that remained you know let's just picture this situation where it is March and there's two candidates left and Bernie was there obviously running against another corporate democrat which is what I think will probably happen that's how the race will be consolidated one progressive one corporatist I would hope it's Kamala Harris because at least she is better than the rest of them okay next person Kirsten Gillibrand pretty much the same is true for Kirsten Gillibrand she comes out in favor of really bold policies like abolishing ICE but at the same time even though she knows like Kamala that she can't piss off progressives and her donors simultaneously and she's trying to walk this fine line the problem is that she goes against her own better judgment like she just had a fundraiser with a big pharma executive that's completely unacceptable in 2020 in an anti-establishment election so for that she's not as good as Kamala Harris in my view um she also doesn't want to get rid of the filibuster and I just don't think she's as malleable as someone like Kamala Harris like worst case scenario Kamala Harris is elected well that's actually not the worst case scenario but in not the best case scenario where Bernie is elected I think that Kamala would be easier to persuade to do certain policies than Kirsten Gillibrand because when she's elected I feel like she just pretty much told us to fuck off whereas with Kamala Harris I think she would be more mindful of the fact that she needs to maintain the support of the progressive base if she wants to be you know effective as a leader because if you lose our support we're not going to make phone calls for you we're not going to come out in canvas for you so Harris knows this Harris is more aware she's more in tune with the base I think so for that reason I think that Gillibrand she kind of is in this detail where just not great but not the worst next person Tulsi Gabbard now Tulsi Gabbard is someone who I really really admire she is just she carved out this lane for herself and you've got to give her credit she's running on ending the regime change wars now like Bernie Sanders I don't think she's perfect I wish that she would include ending the drone war as part of her platform but with that being said she's pretty much an amazing candidate she's nearly perfect now I do have other criticisms of Tulsi Gabbard but none of them like Bernie Sanders are deal breakers but with that being said Tulsi Gabbard for my number one issue she doesn't speak to this enough she's one of two people that hasn't backed away from Medicare for all but what I'm looking for is for her to explicitly say we need to do away with private health insurance companies because that's really the way that you secure a very stable single-payer system now she doesn't necessarily have to say let's make private insurance supplemental insurance illegal but I mean the goal is to craft a single-payer system that is so good that they basically go out of business and when it comes to you know more elective procedures things that you might need to finance like braces or breast augmentation for example things that aren't of concern for your health I mean you finance this you don't really need insurance for that either but with that being said I'm not gonna get too nitpicky because Tulsi is phenomenal she's an amazing candidate I'm gonna put her in the A tier now she's here with Warren for me and I kind of feel like she's a step above Warren in my view like I've been struggling genuinely about who's my number two if there was like a tier between S and A I would probably put Gabbard there and leave Warren in A and the main reason why I do this is because Gabbard doesn't run away from Medicare for all like Warren and Gabbard is also someone who is strong like I genuinely believe that if she says we're gonna end regime change wars if she gets elected she's ending the regime change wars and if the establishment and media wanna fight her on that she's not gonna back down from that fight because I believe that Tulsi Gabbard she has political courage she endorsed Bernie Warren did not she went to Standing Rock in 2016 Warren did not so Gabbard really she sets herself apart by being bold by being strong by being courageous and by really just having this amazing platform when it ended regime change wars and if you watched an ad that she put out where somebody went to one of her rallies and was crying because of her stance on regime change wars and how much that meant to this person she really had this intimate moment where she hugged that person it was phenomenal Tulsi is really she's great so she's definitely A tier um with Elizabeth Warren okay John Delaney one of the Felicia's who should be running as one person F tier he really is not running on anything and there's no excitement for his campaign like if you look at some of the photos that he's posting on his twitter there's like five people that show up to his events like literally I don't know why he's running he he's just seemingly an anti-trump person and wants to get elected to restore decorum okay but what does that do for us he's basically the same largely the same policies as Trump but nicer who cares I want change and he doesn't want to change the system so he's basically worst of the worst next person Julian Castro I'm gonna put him in C I think that this guy is a weasel but he's not the worst of the corporate democrats he actually is paying lip service to the idea of medicare for all however I don't believe he actually implemented I don't believe he would fight for that he's talking a big game when it comes to reparations don't believe he'd actually push for that in fact he criticized Bernie for not going far enough on reparations when he basically signaled support for the same thing that Bernie Sanders supports so this guy is a weasel but with that being said I think he like Kamala knows he needs to at least at a minimum pander to progressives but you've got to give him credit for the effort at least I guess actually I'm kind of rethinking C do I move him to D yeah I'm gonna move him to D this dude is a corporate democrat he came from Obama's administration he's a corporate democrat okay next person Pete Buttigieg he is D actually you know what he may even be E actually no I'll tell you why I'm going to put him in D so even though he's a centrist he does have some good ideas that I support first of all he supports getting rid of the electoral college don't need to support him for that though because Elizabeth Warren agrees he also has a really good court packing plan that would add six more justices to the supreme court but also move to recognize the supreme court I really like that plan however he's not going in this category in the B tier with Williamson and Yang because the problem with Buttigieg is even though he has this one policy that I really like he also has some ideas that I absolutely disagree with like first of all he's not great on Venezuela he basically is pro meddling he floated the idea of compulsory national service fuck out of here hate that idea hate that policy and he also said that candidates need to talk more about their values and put that front in center rather than talking about policies no thank you okay Cory Booker he's someone who I'd also put in the D tier he's basically indistinguishable from the rest of these people in fact you know what you could make the case that he belongs in E tier basically because of that vote for or the vote against Amy Klobuchar's bill and it's funny that she's lower than him to allow us to import cheaper prescription drugs from Canada but the difference is that he cosponsored Medicare for all will he actually deliver Medicare for all as president no way because he's already moved away like Kamala Harris from it but he's just a lot more corporatist than someone like Kamala Harris I think and they're both corporatist but there's something unique about Booker in that he's such a slime ball that I really don't believe anything that he has to say so with Kamala I believe that she'd get in and she'd try to maintain at least some level of support from progressives like she'd offer us a few concessions whereas Booker would just be another Democrat like Bill Clinton and Obama where he's just going to work to appease his donors so we got a couple left Joe Biden Joe Biden is F tier he essentially is the worst of the worst in fact if I could put him in a lower tier than F I would do it because Joe Biden has basically been on the wrong side of every single issue while Bernie Sanders was protesting segregation he was making speeches in favor of segregation functionally he was on the wrong side of history when it comes to DOMA he voted to federally ban same-sex marriage now he's come around and I welcome your revolution but nonetheless at that time Bernie Sanders was on the right side of that issue he voted for NAFTA he was in support of the TPP he voted for permanent normal trade relations with China he's basically a hawk he's a conservative corporate Democrat this guy is a paper tiger he likes to talk tough he likes to make it seem as if he's the best bet to go against Donald Trump because he has a big mouth but that doesn't mean anything you just have a big mouth and that's that so Joe Biden is the worst of the worst and I truly hope that Democrats defeat him because in the event he becomes the nominee we're replicating the same strategy that cost us 2016 and I say us loosely because I don't necessarily associate myself with Democrats I'm more of an independent but I have to register as a Democrat because I'm in a closed primary state so I'm not going to be able to vote for Bernie if I don't register as a Democrat so temporarily at least for all intents and purposes I'm a Democrat and if we don't beat him we replicate the same strategy in 2016 put up a corporatist who we know Trump has the capacity to defeat not a fan last person here Bennett he's a senator and he's another Felicia basically running on the same thing that the rest of the Felicia's are running on I'm going to put him in F tier and largely for the same reasons that you know I categorized Seth Moulton and Tim Ryan here as well he just isn't really running on anything it's more incrementalism it's you know these half measures and if you're not running with these big ideas to fundamentally change the system or if you come up short there if you're not running with one really strong policy proposal then why are you even running so in this category here F and E these people these eight people should all be running as one person because they're functionally the same thing and I'm fully aware of the fact that you could almost put Buddha judge and a work here but because they have a couple of good ideas like you know we have abolishing the electoral college legalizing marijuana also legalizing marijuana that's why they're kind of in this category and with the E category you know we have these neoliberals proposing incrementalist ideas but I mean it's something these guys aren't doing shit they're basically just they're running because they're running there's no driving core ideology behind them they're vacuous they're vapid they're you know they're not talking about policies what are you running on why are you running so overall let's just kind of take a moment here because we have everyone now and for the most part as you can see just overall I'm not too big of a fan of most of the contenders half of the field is in you know these lower because they suck they're not great but in this higher tier you know it's you're never going to have a candidate who is perfect who agrees with you on everything but with these four candidates we're pretty damn close like we're pretty fucking close I mean you have Bernie Sanders who is a revolutionary who actually wants social democracy which in my view is important and just getting us on the trajectory of social democracy even if he gets one one hundredth of his agenda implemented I think is better than what everyone else is proposing you have Elizabeth Warren and Tulsi Gabbard who I would love to vote for in the event they won I would enthusiastically support either one of them and then you have Mike Ravel who has a phenomenal platform but doesn't actually want to be you know president but if he's going to promote progressive policy ideas on that debate stage I'm behind it and then you have people who I generally admire probably Miss Sam less so than Yang and Williamson but you know there one bold idea isn't enough to get my support and then you have these mid-range candidates who are just yeah don't like them but um they're certainly the best of the worst here so that is my thoughts on this I'm curious to know how you guys rank the candidates and listen I'm fully aware of the fact that many people will disagree with this and you can disagree you could really make the case in some instances that the E people belong in the F tier you can make the case that Warren and Gabbard belong in the S tier you can make the case that Sanders belongs in the A tier and Mike Gravella alone should be in the S tier there's a lot of ways that you can cut it but this is just my personal view by and large these four candidates here they're my people I like them and um I think they're great so I know it's going to kind of be like a pain in the ass to type this out in the comments but I am curious to see how close we agree and I also want to know what other political commentators think so I hope to see Kyle Kalinsky, Rational National Jimmy Dorre, Nico House, Tim Black Kim Iverson, Anna Kasperian Michael Brooks I want to see everyone do the same thing um just because I'm I'm curious because you know this is it's tricky we have so many candidates running that I think that these types of exercises it is helpful because when you kind of can put them all out here like this and really visualize what tier they belong in and how good of a candidate they are I do believe it is helpful but with that being said people are probably going to disagree with this and that's perfectly fine um but you know this is this is my categorization this is how I rank the candidates but I'm curious to know what you think and I'm sorry you know I don't like name drop dropping other political commentators because you're almost always going to leave someone out which pisses people off so if I left you out then I don't mean any harm by it I'm not doing that on purpose but um you know I'm curious to see how other people would categorize the candidates my next thing I think is I'm thinking about ranking them just one through 21 22 however many people are running and seeing you know who's my number one and who is my number 22 because that's something that's also interesting but I'm still genuinely struggling when it comes to who's my number two or number three if you include you know Gravel but I don't really put him as my number one because he doesn't actually want to be president so I've ranked Bernie as number one and I'm still I go back and forth and I like Warren and Gabbard because on one hand I like Warren's student loan debt cancellation plan but I like that Gabbard talks more about regime change wars I trust that Gabbard will fight and has more courage than Warren so it's a struggle for me you know I've gone back and forth so I don't know how I would rank them I'd probably still tie them overall because they're both excellent candidates and I like them both very much I bought t-shirts for them both I bought buttons for them both and I love them you know Bernie's definitely my number one um and yeah after that it gets a little bit tricky but anyways I'm gonna stop talking this is my rankings two of the country's most popular politicians are teaming up to introduce legislation that I think is actually really phenomenal and it's innovative and if this were to pass it really would be great so as Renee Merle of the Washington Post reports Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez will introduce legislation on Thursday to cap credit card interest rates at 15% a steep reduction from current levels Americans have more than 1 trillion in credit card debt according to the Federal Reserve in addition to a 15% federal cap on interest rates for credit cards and other consumer loans states could establish their own lower limits under the legislation it would also allow the U.S. postal service to get into the banking business including offering savings and checkings accounts so that last little bit there I really like Bernie Sanders floated this idea I believe back in 2016 I want to say and I love the idea of allowing the U.S. postal service to basically act as small community banks I think that's a fantastic idea and capping the interest rates of credit cards really is important when you see how high these interest rates really are so if you have good credit then you're looking at about 17-18% interest rates if you have poor credit you're looking at nearly 25% interest rates so even if you have good credit no blemishes on your record you're still going to be looking at a 17-18% interest rate for credit cards that is absolutely astronomical and it's easy to see how these companies are ripping Americans off because this is necessary and this actually isn't a new proposal because back in the 1980s this was the cap that was imposed on credit unions so basically what Bernie Sanders and AOC what they're doing is they're just saying look let's go back to the way things were this is the same thing that they are doing when it comes to new tax proposals like AOC is saying look let's go back to the time when the marginal tax rate was 70% now in actuality it was higher it was more like 90% but by basically saying let's go back you're trying to not scare people because anytime there's this new sweeping change people tend to think well look I don't know how this is going to affect me personally so I'd rather just opt for no change rather than change that I'm unfamiliar with so what they're doing here is really clever they're basically saying we're just going to go back to a time when things worked because we knew what that policy produced the results were fantastic so that's all that we're proposing and I think that that's a clever way to govern if you are trying to cultivate popular support for your policy now the banking industry made more than a hundred billion dollars based on interest rates and fees last year alone and that's a 35% increase since 2012 so this is a much needed change and I'm really glad that they're teaming up because it's nice to see the two most popular politicians in America do something and introduce a policy that is one needed but two will likely get public support because they're introducing it so I love this love that they're teaming up here I love that AOC is endorsing this idea as well I'd like for her to endorse a particular politician currently so maybe think about that AOC be nice if you give Bernie Sanders a helping hand especially now that Biden is surging and we all know that Biden would be awful but nonetheless getting back to the subject at hand love the policy idea I think it's brilliant and I want more 2020 presidential candidates to keep pushing the envelope every single week we should be seeing new ideas I think Elizabeth Warren really is setting the bar in terms of introducing new policies and this is really what you've got to do if you want to garner interest for your presidential campaign you've got to keep it fresh you've got to keep the policies coming and this is what Bernie's doing and I'm glad that he's teaming up with AOC here they're a great combo and I hope that this will get passed if Democrats are able to take back the Senate in 2020 so CNN's Alison Camarota had another one of her voter panels and I always find these incredibly fascinating and really insightful because even if the sample sizes of these are small it's still important for us to look at these anecdotes and try to take away whatever information that could be helpful because we need to be talking to average people who aren't necessarily in our bubbles she talked to a small group of six voters from the state of Pennsylvania and this really left me conflicted I'll say that because on one hand it gave me hope but it also simultaneously crushed that hope so we'll start out with the good and end on a negative note which maybe won't be the best idea but I think that it's better to talk about this first part so one of my fears going into 2020 and why I thought that Donald Trump is probably stronger than he was back in 2016 even if we've seen that his presidency has been a disaster is because incumbent presidents always benefit just because they have that incumbent advantage and second of all historically speaking if you just look at presidential elections whenever the economy is performing well the incumbent president always benefits from that however my theory was that Donald Trump wouldn't necessarily benefit from the good economy because this economy it may be going really well for the stock markets and whatnot but just because large multinational corporations are bringing in record profits doesn't mean that ordinary Americans are doing great and my initial thought was that this economy won't benefit him because normal people aren't feeling the benefits of what is supposed to be a thriving economy and what this panel showed me was that they actually they get it they don't feel the benefits of the Trump economy and they vocalize that and this gave me hope that Trump won't get that incumbent and good economy advantage take a look how do you guys feel about how the economy is doing in Pennsylvania I mean the economy by all metrics is booming being in Pennsylvania do you feel it why are you shaking my head because we know the statistics show one thing but everybody I talked to okay they're struggling to pay their mortgage to put their kids through college to meet a middle class is struggling and that's a fact it seems that the gap is widening there's so many people in Pennsylvania that are doing better but they were already doing marginally well and then there are people who are falling off the ladder who are losing hope every day but again there's the inequity and to me that's the problem I guess the question is will the president Trump be able to win on that this time because the economy is doing so well do voters feel it enough that he will have an easy path to a second I don't think so no I don't feel like it at all because like you're not you're not voicing the voice of the people when you say that it's booming like it's who are you speaking for I work with kids I talk to parents every day who cannot get by live check to check and are working three different jobs trying to support one child that's not fair and then you have me with my experience I dropped out of college I had to I couldn't afford it my mother couldn't afford it so it's just like you can't come to my face and tell me something is booming and I'm not where I'm supposed to be I'm thankfully still in college and I'm very fortunate to be there when I graduate I cannot imagine that I will not be paying off my student loans until the day I die what's your plan for that great question I don't know literally I don't know I I mean we live in a society that tells kids to go to college and I think that is fine and now there's a huge bubble of debt and none of us have any idea what we're gonna do about it we're not feeling this economic boom because they're struggling to get their kids through school to pay the mortgage to pay the bills we need a candidate that understands the struggle who's not somebody who's rich and had a silver spoon in their mouth but understands what it means to raise a family to struggle in America so that was really insightful and it honestly made me feel a little bit relieved because Donald Trump should not be given credit for an economy that is working out fantastically for elites but the poor are struggling they're living paycheck to paycheck and this is what these people said one person said the statistics show one thing but everybody I talked to they're struggling to pay their mortgage to put their kids through college exactly so people in the media they can talk about how wonderful the economy is doing under Donald Trump and how low the unemployment rate is but if people aren't feeling the benefits of a good economy they're gonna know it you can't gas like them here because they know first hand whether or not this economy is working out well for them and if their paychecks aren't any bigger you can't ladder them and convince them that that isn't actually the case another person said you're not voicing the voice of the people when you say it's booming who are you speaking for I work with kids I talk to parents every day who can't get by they live check to check they're working three different jobs to support one child so you can't come to my face and tell me it's booming when I'm not where I'm supposed to be that was great insight there because this really is how normal people feel and the people who I talk to who aren't necessarily politically savvy they're saying the same thing they're saying I'm struggling I can't get by I can't afford the prescription that I need I'm struggling to pay rent and the girl who made this point said that she dropped out of college and then there was another person who said that he's still in college but doesn't really know if he's going to ever be able to pay off his student loan debt and thinks that he'll be burdened with it forever and somebody said look people are not feeling the economic boom so this gives me hope that if Donald Trump chooses to run on the Trump economy and I'm assuming he will it's not going to resonate with people because back in 2016 he had the credibility as an outsider to say look politicians haven't been looking out for you which is why you're so desperate they've been passing NAFTA and now they want to pass the TPP but now if he's going to run on the Trump economy and say look how great you're doing they're going to be able to recognize wait I'm not doing so great I'm not actually doing as well as you're telling me I'm doing because I see that the rich are getting richer I see that large multinational corporations are making record profits but my paychecks are still the same so this gives me hope but now it's time for us to completely destroy that hope because these people they've adequately diagnosed the problem but do they know what the solution would be take a look at who they're going to opt for are they going to choose a candidate who's actually going to fundamentally transform the system so we aren't desperate so we aren't living paycheck to paycheck not so much I know it's early days but if the election were held today who would you vote for? Elizabeth Warren without question she has policy plans she knows what she's doing she knows where she wants to go she has a bold vision for the future and she wants to bring all of us with Joe Biden I love Kamala Harris I like Bernie I like Elizabeth Warren I think Elizabeth Warren is probably the smartest but I'm going with who I think in the long run is going to present a vision who's going to unify the country? Pat? Kamala Harris I think she provides a contrast to what Trump is I think she provides a great opportunity to win definitely Kamala Harris not only is she a woman but she's also a woman of color she has the energy she has the plan she has the mindset to go against somebody so disgusting I will vote for her as well although I love her Elizabeth Warren's ideas and why do you like Kamala Harris more than Elizabeth Warren? just the fact I think she represents something else she's not the typical white woman like Elizabeth and I see her like she will bring people together and that's what we need if the election were today I would vote for Joe Biden I worked for the Obama campaign I have a lot of positive feelings towards the Obama Biden years I feel like everybody says oh we need to go forward we don't want to go back I want to go back to those eight years I think those eight years were some of the best eight years that we've ever had as a country and so I feel like when you're scared and I'm scared and to me Joe Biden is home we're doomed first guy said Elizabeth Warren I can respect that just based on his position that was the guy that said look I'm gonna have this student loan debt until I die Elizabeth Warren is proposing a student loan debt cancellation plan it's not 100% cancellation like Jill Stein or Wayne Massum but nonetheless it's still a phenomenal plan I have been practically begging Bernie to get on board with something like this he didn't so now Elizabeth Warren swooped in and she filled that space and it's benefitting her so I can understand that one then the next lady she talks about all these people she admires Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders but then ultimately she says she's opting for Joe Biden because he has a vision take a moment and ask yourself what is that vision because I don't know what his vision is do the same policies as Trump for the most part maybe nominally better but for the most part do what he's doing metal in Venezuela continue the drone war but do it nicely while not doing mean tweets what is that vision like Hillary Clinton he doesn't have a vision he's running because he's the vice president he has the most name recognition he has a pretty solid chance of winning but what is his vision how will he actually benefit you what's his vision to make your paychecks bigger to make sure that people don't have to live paycheck to paycheck so I would like to follow up because I genuinely like I'm not trying to be a condescending prick in asking these questions asking earnestly I want to know like I want to pick their brains further and ask them because these are the people who we need to be reaching out to but more on this the next guy says that he is opting for Kamala because she is a good contrast with Donald Trump and can win again pretty vague if you said that Kamala has a really good policy when it comes to decriminalizing sex work and I'm on board with that that would make sense to me but I mean what policy is making you want to support her because if you all acknowledge that the economy isn't working because there's been a lack of policy to tend to these issues that need to be addressed then why would you not think that a policy solution would be the most appropriate I just I genuinely am confused the next girl said Kamala because not only is she a woman she's a woman of color she's a woman of energy and a plan to go up against Donald Trump okay the next guy says Kamala is better than Warren because she represents something else she's not a typical white woman Kamala will bring people together so largely based on identity okay now the last woman I want to read the quote to you what she said specifically because even if you don't agree what she's telling us we need to hear because this should be something that we address when making our pitch for Bernie she says I have a lot of positive feelings towards the Obama Biden years everyone says we need to go forward not back I want to go back when you're worried you want to go home and to me Joe Biden is home now I get that this is contradictory because if you acknowledge that people are struggling and maybe that's largely the reason why Trump was elected why would you want to go back to a time when nothing was getting accomplished now I get that you can say you know maybe Obama could have done more but he was working against obstructionist Republicans that didn't want any of his agenda to be implemented but then I'd respond by saying well he had a super majority for his first couple of years and maybe him not capitalizing on that opportunity to pass sweeping reforms maybe it made people feel less inspired so what she's saying here it doesn't make sense to me but what she's doing is she's rationalizing her support for Joe Biden he's the safe bet to her he makes her feel nostalgic about a better time and this is really what I suspected voters who support Biden Biden would say they would vocalize this they'd say Biden is someone who he brings back these feelings of American political stability and just decorum and people you know feeling safe and not having to worry about what the president tweets every single morning so these are people who they're well intentioned right these are not bad people even if what they said is seemingly contradictory and absurd in in many ways I don't want to call them absurd but the reason why I think we need to not just laugh at them and try to tailor our message to them is because if we don't get these people on our side we lose we have to convince these people that if you're worried about the state of the economy for normal Americans we've got to get in a candidate of social democracy who will fundamentally change the system or at least put us on that trajectory of changing the system we need to convince them that if we get another status quo neoliberal candidate then this could lead to another Donald Trump and that maybe the conditions that led to Donald Trump had something to do with Democrats not being bold enough not inspiring the base to get out and vote for them so this is what I hope we'll take away from this as progressives as brothers of the Bernard that we don't shame these people we don't laugh at them because this is the rationalization that we should be hearing about because we can't just assume that oh well they support Joe Biden because they're vapid this is their line of thinking and we've got to find ways to respond we've got to tailor our message to them so that way what we are saying resonates because they're not shutting the door to Bernie a lot of them like that one lady who said she supports Joe Biden she said I like Bernie so these are winnable people and it would be who of us to not just shrug and say these people are misinformed because I think genuinely they are misinformed about the broader issues and the conditions that led to Donald Trump but don't laugh at them convince them win them over that's what we've got to do because if we lose that's on us it's incumbent on us to win these people over and that's what I hope that people will realize and that's what I hope people will try to do they're winnable, they're gettable they're not foolish people they are rationalizing it in a way that doesn't make sense to me but nonetheless this is their rationalization and we've got to listen and try to respond in a way that gets them to our side the Alabama State Senate just tried to sneak through one of the most insane draconian and raisinly unconstitutional anti-abortion laws yet and we all know that this week Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed I believe the fourth heartbeat bill in the nation into law so they're getting more and more extreme but what they introduced and tried to push through in the Alabama State Senate is bananas so as Arlen Parse explains this bill that they're trying to push would make nearly all abortions a felony punishable up to 99 years in prison so I mean what we're seeing here is them basically trying to emulate the theocratic regimes in the Middle East so this is them living up to the expectations of the religious extremists in the TV show The Handmaid's Tale and if you haven't watched it basically it's a show about what would happen if Mike Pence was a dictator and was able to implement whatever he wanted in the United States that's basically what the show is about in a nutshell and we're kind of seeing that play out here now what's crazy about this is not only does it demonstrate how tyrannical the Republican Party is becoming but they tried to pass this without even holding a roll call vote so I mean when they tried to push this through you're gonna see I'm gonna play you a video here where the other lawmakers were like what are you doing wait stop you you can't do this so take a look because shit got crazy that is just unreal now thankfully the bill was delayed if I had to guess I'd say it probably will ultimately end up passing and they're just completely at this point disregarding the Constitution disregarding Supreme Court precedent disregarding Roe and Casey they don't care because they are trying to provoke a constitutional challenge that's what they want because they ultimately would like to see Roe v Wade overturn this is what they're doing I talked about this in the video that I made about Brian Kemp signing the heartbeat bill into law and this is what states across the country are trying to do which is why we're seeing so many heartbeat bills pop up now with the Georgia law where he essentially signed a bill into law Brian Kemp that is that effectively banned abortions after six weeks think about how insane that is just step back and think about that so if you are two weeks late on your period and you're a woman you can't have an abortion how bizarre is that how insane is that it is a fetus that has not developed a nervous system is not capable of feeling pain is not viable outside of the womb and a woman may not even know she's pregnant but it's already too late for her to have an abortion that is fucking insane it's insane and anytime I post one of these videos I love how the conservatives always comment saying oh well you're just a baby killer Mike oh okay so you're pro-life and you have more credibility right so why aren't you screeching about the bombs that we're giving to Saudi Arabia to drop on babies in Yemen that's okay right so I think that what you need to understand if you aren't able to fathom why liberals don't like this and think that you're a hypocrite is because you have no problem when Donald Trump murders babies and children in the Middle East and North Africa and drones them but when it comes to fetuses that's what you would care about so maybe if you were more consistent in your quote unquote pro-life position people would actually take you more seriously but because you're an idiot and you were duped by what is obviously a wedge issue that republicans are trying to exploit will you think we're the baby killers no motherfucker you're the baby killers you're the one for baby killers like Donald Trump who's dropping bombs on the Middle East and North Africa who killed an American girl in his very first military raid that he botched he's currently loosening the restrictions on the rules of war so they don't have to worry about killing innocent civilians and you're gonna care about undeveloped babies you're gonna talk about fetuses get the fuck out of here if you're pro-life you've gotta be consistent buddy otherwise you don't get to call yourself pro-life Ben Shapiro will rant and rave about this and how this is the moral thing to do meanwhile go back to 2002 he has articles where he literally talks about not giving a shit about civilians that are being killed now he'll say you know I was young I was naive and I've since moved away from that well you still like wars you still support every single war so you don't get to call yourself pro-life and support wars or at least remain silent when it comes to wars or even if you're not as equally outraged about wars because I would just respectfully disagree with you if you didn't support abortion but you were at least consistent in your view and you also rejected wars but conservatives don't do that they don't do that and then they have the nerve to call liberals baby killers so this is just infuriating and we all know why they're doing it this is about the end game they want Roe v. Wade overturned and this is just a means to an end they know that these policies can't stand because they're against the constitution but their goal is to change that permanently thanks for coming on the program well thank you for having me I was just complimenting Senator Gravel before he came on about his twitter game and he tells me that this isn't actually him which is a little bit disappointing but nonetheless whoever is running your twitter they're amazing I just got to start by giving them the kudos there well not only that they're articulating via their own intelligence and betting the issues that we both agree on so there's nothing at variance it's just that you've got younger persons certainly more enthusiastic and more energy than I can muster at this point in my life so it's good it's good I want to talk to you about that because this originally to run for president I mean this wasn't your idea this is something that was brought to you by individuals who wanted you to run after they saw your performance in the 2008 debates and for those of you who haven't seen this I'm going to play a short clip of Senator Gravel basically railing against Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and this is the clip that initially got me on board because I was a little iffy at first like who's this Mike Gravel guy watch this clip and then you're going to understand why there's so much hype around him Senator Gravel at a forum earlier this year I want to get this right I said it doesn't matter whether you are elected president or not so then why are you here tonight shouldn't debates be for candidates who are in the race to win the race Ryan you're right I made that statement but that's before I had a chance to stand with them a couple three times it's like going into the Senate you know the first time you get there you're all excited my god how did I ever get here then about six months later you say how the hell the rest of them get here standing up with them some of these people frighten me they frighten me when you have mainline candidates that turn around and say that there's nothing off the table with respect to Iran that's code for using nukes nuclear devices I gotta tell you I'm president of the United States there will be no preemptive wars with nuclear devices to my mind it's immoral and it's been immoral for the last 50 years as part of American foreign policy there's a little moderator discretion here Senator Gravel that's a weighty charge who on this stage exactly tonight worries you so much well I would say the top tier ones top tier ones they made statements oh Joe I'll include you too you have a certain arrogance you wanna tell the Iraqis how to run their country I gotta tell you we should just play get out just play get out it's their country they're asking us to leave and we insist on staying there and not get out what harm is it gonna do oh you hear the statement well my god the soldiers will have died in vain the entire deaths of Vietnam died in vain and they're dying in vain right this very second you know what's worse than a soldier dying in vain is more soldiers dying in vain that's what's worse okay so let me ask you this senator what was it then made you agree to this because if I were in your shoes if I were 88 years old if these kids came up to me and said hey let's run for president I tell them no way so what made you believe that this was the right decision when they called and it was David Oaks they called and asked me if I'd run for president and I said to David with a snicker David do you realize how old I am and I'm 88 but I'll be 89 I'll be 89 next week next Tuesday at my birthday happy birthday thank you and so what David did I was really not into it but David sent me a communication that included the list of issues that he was concerned with and at the top of the list was the issue of creating a legislature of the people that's what I've been working on for the last 25 30 years and so when I saw that saw that at the top of his list I really got my attention at that point in time and so now it became a question of how we're going to do this and so he asked if he could use abacus to my twitter well I developed a twitter in the 08 presidential period and also facebook I never used them I'm just not into they say and so I had no problem giving him access they took a lot of activity to be able to get them authorized to do this but it was a question of my just trusting him and trusting his associate Henry Williams and there's nothing that they've done to cause me to question that decision that I made in point of fact I'm just so proud of the way they gave me originally veto proof on anything that they were doing I've only exercised it once and that was well twice one was to not use the F word which obviously I use privately but I don't think it's a good public image for them or my campaign to have the other was to limit the amount of negative on other candidates we need to get our message across we don't need to address the other messages but it's a normal situation of critiquing some of these other candidates when they go too far and so I don't mind doing that I don't really want them to do that but I think I can do it and get away with it because they can critique me if they want there's no barrier to that at all we got in and what confirmed it with me was I had friends that would call me and say God prevail you're just doing a great job on Twitter and I said well great job being done by these kids because they understand the issues that float my boat and they're exercising their judgment and amplifying those issues in an intelligent fashion I can't tell you how fortunate I am that David Oaks is 17 years old he's just finishing high school and I'm going to go on to Oxford Henry Williams is a freshman at Columbia and all the others are young plus they admit to me that there are professionals that have contacted them and said we want to help Pro Bono and they admit that a lot of these professionals know a lot more about campaigning than they do but by the end of this exercise they'll be pretty sophisticated on campaigns and as we go forward sure it was the break that we really needed because we need to bring attention to the empowerment of the people I often use the comparison that what's the most important virtue that a person could possess most important one is courage if you don't have courage you won't have the tools to implement the other virtues that you may have and so it's the same thing what's the most important thing in human governance the law the law we all live under the law and so we give a monopoly to representative government in lawmaking both in lawmaking and in the Constitution so if you're ever going to want to see a change a fundamental change in representative government have to become a lawmaker and I have the whole procedure to bring that about with a constitutional amendment and with a a federal statute which is the legislative procedures to which the people will be empowered to act upon so that's what floats my boat I've been at it for 25-30 years and that's what the kids understood as to how to get me involved and run for president was to be able to exercise a communications process to bring people's attention to that the answer is not just electing somebody to public office the answer is to empowering themselves to make laws in partnership with their representatives I certainly can get on border with that but I want to ask you where are you guys at 25,000 individual donors to get you on the debate stage so you can put this agenda front and center so where are you guys at approximately in that process well all I can do is give you an approximation because I don't follow it on the daily basis they do and we're talking about maybe 25-30,000 signatures so we're probably halfway there okay so what we've learned is that we could you know well I lost my the point I had what you call a senior moment what I want to ask you is I want to play devil's advocate here because on one hand I do understand the need to take what you're saying to a national stage but on the other hand certainly in my lifetime this is probably the best crop of presidential candidates because we have a number of really progressive people running who I support and admire you know Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, Elizabeth Warren so let me ask you this what do you say if somebody says well Mike I see what you're doing but you're just taking time away from the candidates who actually want to be president how do you respond to that objection very simply because I have a better concept of what needs to be done here Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie into some degree warned I endorse I donated to Bernie last election and I think that Tulsi has the finest gravitas and the delivery of intellectual ideas of anybody I've ever heard of but now what is it that I bring to the table I'm not sucking up their oxygen because obviously I won't win any more than 20 some odd others won't win they're not going anywhere but so what's important is let's say Bernie's got an agenda let me ask you a question do you think he's going to get his agenda enacted if the Democrats don't get a hold of the Senate what's going to happen to his agenda yeah it's not going to go anywhere absolutely right so so if so even if they got the Senate when the last time the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate was when they passed Obamacare at the time that it came out of the committee 70% of the Americans wanted the public option then they were put there they made the judgment that well we don't think we can sell that that's crap if you don't reach out you'll never get it and so what I'm advocating is that we elect the progressives the most progressives to office which would be Bernie and Tulsi in my mind and then we equip them with the ability to get their agenda enacted into law it's not going to be the Congress it's going to have to be the American people who can be able to make laws so if you ask the American people are you for single-payer healthcare now when overwhelmingly are you for doing away with the the let me get some issues out that I would continue do you want to repeal the electoral college you think that would pass by the people and of course that would benefit cleaning up elections then I want term limits for all federal judges you know so if we got a bunch of bad judges on the Supreme Court the sooner we can turn a limit then the sooner we can clean that up and then you can go on to other issues like the right it should be in the Constitution the right to healthcare the right to education the right to economic security these should be in the Constitution of the United States I've got a process to bring this about and all it is it's a constitutional amendment and a legislative procedures act that is enacted by the people the Congress will never enact this the elites who control our society will fight this tooth and nail but with the constitutional amendment we don't have to worry about them so basically your goal is to get them to adopt this amendment that will empower the people this reminds me of I don't know if you've heard of Wolfpack it's essentially a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics and their goal is to get two-thirds of state legislatures to sign on to this to get a constitutional convention and basically ban money from politics is this kind of similar to that in strategies so with all due respect to these people it's a fool's errand if you're going to provide a if you're going to go through the trouble of getting a constitutional amendment you better empower the people to be able to make other amendments so if you do this one and of course what they're trying to do is to control money via law that's not going to happen you control this process by a constitutional amendment and that's what they failed to do well that's what Wolfpack is about they do want to ban it by constitution like ban money in politics how are they going to get the constitutional amendment enacted well with the two-thirds of state legislatures that's the strategy so I'm asking if that's your what they're talking about is article 5 which is a monopoly by representative government to deny the people to amend the constitution so how would you go about getting a constitutional amendment we get a group of people that accept the text of a constitutional amendment and they go out and raise several hundred million dollars and conduct a national election they will permit people to vote to empower themselves to make laws and at the same time as they do that they turn around and they equip the people with the legislative procedures act so that just enacting the people to make laws without deliberative procedures is creating anarchy and so this is where a lot of these people fall off the rails and not thinking through this whole process and I don't say this with disrespect I say this with the fact that I have 12 years of elective office I am a history buff and I've been at this for 30 years but how do you get them to even get this on the ballot because we can't have a national referendum so we've got the states so how do you say that again now so how do you get your constitutional amendment because if you're saying that you want people to vote to give them the power well how do you do that because you can't do this federally so you have to go state by state so I'm just curious about the strategy well first off you got to not do it federal because if you did it within the government of representatives you're going to get sabotaged do you think for a minute the elites would permit and get involved in this without sabotaging it we see this with initiative laws across the country well we can't have a federal referendum is what I'm saying so how do you wait so why can't you have a first off it's not a referendum a referendum is what government feeds to the people what we're talking about is people taking the initiative so you and I and a few of our friends we decide that we're going to be the group that's going to go out and create an opportunity for the people to vote on this subject so what does that mean a voting in a national election is going to cost millions of dollars so we've got to raise a lot of money but if there's people committed to this that money will come forward so now what we do is we take this proposal a constitutional amendment and a legislative procedures act an amendment and a law we put that before the people and we raise the money to be able to put it before the people and we use the modern technology very simply do you want to be empowered to make laws like the people who hold the monopoly on that process today in representative government that's a question to you do you want to and of course you would vote yes because you're informed I would vote yes now we've got to get a standard we've got to get at least 50% of the people who voted in the last presidential election we're talking 70-80 million people and we can leave the election going on so maybe 100 million people want to vote to empower themselves to make laws the minute we read the standard of what election president we then declare this the law of the land and I would like to see the politicians basically as a group they're cowards I'd like to see them go ahead and fight the people 80% of the people who want to be empowered to make laws it's going to be Katie when you say that the elites will campaign against of course they'll campaign against this but they've got to turn around and get the message across that you are too dumb to be able to make laws let these representatives that you don't know anything about manipulate you into voting for them and so the only time you have power is on election day when you go into the booth and you click the switch that's it after that you're stuck all you got to do is beg, plead and protest for the next two, four and six years and I like this idea of empowering people but here's the problem that I have how do you sell this to people within 30 seconds or a minute on a debate stage because it's a relatively complex scheme to kind of just pull off so how do you condense that message and get to the debate and explain it to people so that way one they understand it not just what it is but also the strategy how do you do that because this seems extremely complicated well do you know something have you focused on the details of how you make laws in congress that's very complicated yeah that's all I've copied that's exactly what I've copied in the legislative procedures that I've tweaked it so it works for 100 million people so if you're prepared to say oh this is too complicated but then what you're doing right now is even more complicated and dysfunctional so what you can say is do people want to pay that much no they don't want to pay that much attention to it but enough people hopefully will pay enough attention to it because you want to correct what's going on you know that the government's dysfunctional right now so what are you going to do with the people that act no differently than they've been acting for the last 100 years 300 years stop and think science has moved ahead from the discovery at the beginning of the industrial revolution science has moved ahead with discovery and change beyond our imaginations what about the structure of government it hasn't moved an inch beyond it's founding in 1787 and what it was then was a device to perpetuate slavery and set up the device for genocide against the indigenous people of the continent this is just the beginning and so what you see the murderous imperial society that we control today no different than what it used to be so what we need to do is to advance human governance to the level that we have scientific advancement and we have to do that otherwise we'll commit suicide and that's because of the advance scientifically in the nuclear capability of planetary destruction right and look I'm on board with this idea I know you're on board but you wouldn't be talking to me yeah absolutely no and I'm definitely interested but I'm just trying to think about this in terms of how you really get that attention that you want I mean do you drop a web address to senatorgravel.com I do what I do what I'm doing right now I'm talking to you you have influence within your footprint but on a debate stage on that national stage when the spotlight's on you and they say Senator Gravel explain this are you going to say well look here's just the quick rundown but for more info go to Mikegravel.com what I'm failing to grasp is how do you sell this to people I mean the American people for the most part they're misinformed by propagandists a lot of people think judge Judy's on the supreme court so how do you get something like this across to people in a very precise way when it's so difficult when you're going to be up against other candidates when the moderator is going to want to cut you off how do you cut across that how do you get this across well real simple first off I'm under no delusions I get into debates I'll be lucky if I get six five five six seven minutes what can you do in that period of time yeah do you think I can explain the whole legislative procedure the way the congress works no of course not so so what you do what I what I do is what I've been doing I try to articulate it as best I can so that people can be aware of it so I can talk about issues like the nuclear suicide pack that our nation is on or how the suicide pack exists for the implosion of the planet as a result of the environmental problems that we're not addressing so I can I can talk to those and also point forward that look at you're not happy the way things are going you're being by a minority okay I'm talking about ruling by majority of the people now if you don't want to buy into that that's your problem all I can do is do the best I can and that may not be adequate it hasn't been adequate for the last 30 years and it may not be for another 30 years but it may be maybe just right now that the people are so fed up with the crap of what's going on in Washington and government that maybe they would take a look over there and say hey maybe there's something too what Gravel is saying so I don't know all I can do is the best I can but communications responsibility is yours I'll have a book out in mid-summer you take that book and you understand it read it through two or three times here it took me 30 years to get this table and and and it would be the height of arrogance to think that you can read through what I've spent 30 years at and you can understand it totally know what you do is you go in and you ask questions and if I'm still around I'll be responding to those questions in great detail what we need is to get this book the title says it all human governance the failure of representative government and a solution quote the people there's only two venues for change one is the government which is dysfunctional and rules us by a minority of elites and the other is the people and the people don't have the power to make laws because that was categorically designed to not permit the people to make laws by the framers of the constitution because they knew the people would not buy into slavery and we have the example of what happened in Massachusetts to prove that so so since the founders got it wrong and so it really serves the elites who control us as a minority to lionize the founders that walk on water they didn't walk on water they were elites that provided for their own sustained power and the continuation of their power by their progeny this is what we have and I'm not denigrating them I'm just saying they were human beings like we have human beings today so basically that's not enough we need and it's to understand this is where you can help understand what is the central power of government any government it's always the people no no it's the law the people live under the law so now the question becomes who makes the law well under the representative government which is all we have in a world today don't talk to the tyrants forget them just representative government the people who make the law have a monopoly on making law those are the people you elect so the point I was making with you is that on election day the only power you have is to give your power away and so once it's gone all you can do is write a letter to your congressman to protest in the streets over what they're not doing right go through the charade or elect some more people to public office who are stuck into see it's not that we're electing bad people there's a lot there's enough yeah it's that probably disagree with that and family bad people or Trump bad people but no what's going on is that we I just got another senior I forgot the point I was making well listen I'll just I'll say this because I'm on board with it and what I'm kind of grasping is that this is essentially to plant a seed to get people thinking about power structures differently to get them to think about governance and really self-governance differently and and I can absolutely respect that my the way that I'm thinking about this in terms of how you sell this is all about your debate strategy on that stage because basically this is what your so let me shift gears a little bit here so one of the things that I disagree with you with is your stance on 9-11 being an inside job I actually don't want to talk about that because you actually had a disagree well no no listen you talked to David Pakman about this for about 17 minutes and I think that I heard it yeah I watched it and I agree more with David Pakman than I do you to be honest however let me say this I don't care like you and that's not a deal breaker because what I want is for you to get your message and your platform across because I think if you have a robust platform I don't care if you have these other views that I disagree with but let me ask you this strategically speaking you're going to be called on and the first question that they're going to ask you we both know it it's going to be senator Gravel you've made some controversial remarks you claim that you have no doubt that 9-11 is an inside job how do you respond to that question on a debate stage real simple I say are you not aware of the fact that the commission that was created by Bush was first to be chaired by Henry Kissinger does that not give you an inkling that there was something going on that he was he was acceptable because he's the classic cover your behind government the second thing is going to be does it not disturb you that the commission never even acknowledged the existence of building 7 coming down by controlled demolition does that not raise a question does it not raise a question that this was the excuse that the neocons put forward to be able to as they articulated in a letter to be able to have a situation like the pro harbor to energize the people to fight the war on against terror which is not a war which is a war for infinity does it not disturb you a little bit to wonder when you follow the money that the chief beneficiaries of 9 11 are the military industrial complex does not make you suspicious but I'm asking for a second let me finish all I'm asking for is that we have a new commission to look at this we had three commissions look at the press with Kennedy assassination what's so wrong sure I say it's an inside job I don't know who the insiders are I'd like a commission to look at this again and maybe tell me who the insiders are well what's so wrong with that why can't you accept that another commission not politicians I would insist that members of the commission the last three president heads of the United Nations should be on that commission and scientists and not politicians we don't need any more politicians covering our backside what we need is to going after the truth and right now yes the whole point in me asking you this hypothetical is to see how you'd answer that question and I think that you and I both know that the way that corporate media works is they don't want to give you the time to talk about your platform so what I was hoping that you would do if that question came up is completely dodged it's water away and jump straight to your platform not even get into it because to me it doesn't matter like I don't care about that position you know what I mean so good advice and I'll tell you what when you see me in debates I'll assert myself with all due respect that's not the question you should be asking me yeah that's not like a good way to handle it I think that would be fantastic because this is the way that I when I hear you talk about this I think okay I disagree but I it's not a like I said it's not a deal breaker I don't care enough because your platform is what I care the most about but the initial thing that worry me was that this is the one thing that we're going to take away from this debate they're not going to let you get out the rest of your platform they're not going to let you talk about your agenda we'll see we'll see how the debate goes but if you got a taste of what the way the debate goes just look at the last debate right which is why I'm also I am confident yeah living on what I'm living on and what the what our campaign is living on is what I said in the last last debate and isn't it interesting that all the problems that we had at the last debate before Obama got elected and now Trump that nothing is changed yeah is that does that give you a message is to have let's have another election get all these people elected to can do all these things they can't do these things they Obama wasn't able to do it Trump isn't even worse so what we what we need is a new device a new structure that permits the issues that we want to be dealt with to be dealt with that's what I want you to say on the debate stage that's what I want to say on the debate stage regardless if they ask you about because they want to get like they want to draw you in so you just talk about 9 11 you talk but that's what I think would really be something that makes a success is if you don't even you pretend as if you're the host of that debate and you just take charge and you talk about your platform I think that is what I want to see is that what they did in the way that's exactly what you did in the way so I just want to make sure we I just want to make sure we don't change good I haven't got a little older little every so often I'll have some senior moments but I think people will understand the senior moments because they don't attract they don't attract from the message we all have brain parts what I was harking back 11 years ago and I had a book citizen power and and I'll have another book out that I can point to and here is the blueprint to solve the problem good and we are your assessment is spot on spot on and and so you you got to understand that you have a venue of communication and you're using that venue and now by trying to get into what I'm talking about in human governance that you're using that venue that I think it is a very positive way so so don't don't worry about the fact that how the people are going to get this you just keep communicating absolutely and the people that I've learned a long time ago that people are not not at all they're very bright knowledgeable all they're going to do is focus on the issue and so it's so tough to make a living today and raise a family and all that that they don't have time to reflect but but now if you put things in front of them they'll begin to reflect on it now no question we got 25 percent of the people that may be dumbest fence post I don't know but Trump is there but then you got 75 percent of the people that are open open yeah they they're just misinformed a lot of the time by cable news misinformation we said the problem is mainstream media who owns mainstream media it's the military industrial complex Wendy and they sneak stuff in they put forth some some facts that if you understand the dynamics of what's going on you can use those facts against them here like right now in the news today was a Trump which is Bolton and the Secretary of State a religious not at best they're the ones that are making the case that we've got it that Iran is a threat to us Iran's not a threat to us never has been we're the ones that damaged them when we took out Mosaddek when they had a representative government so no but why today we're moving the fleet into threaten and scare scare the leadership of Iran will they react I hope not when I was in Iran and we're talking and made a couple of speeches and spoke to the intelligence community elements of it I said hey just be patient you know we're very immature in what we're doing as global imperialist just be patient and you know there's the old saying that what can the powerful do whatever they want what can the people who don't have power they suffer what they have to and so that's what we're stuck we are the global imperialist and whether it's Venezuela whether it's Iran you name it and of course we use our sanctions our tool of war and so right now we are murdering thousands of young children who are being denied medicines and economic survivability in Venezuela when you come back when you compare that to what China's done by moving 600 million people from poverty to middle class and you then read the papers about oh the threat is coming from China that's just crap that's just crap China is in my mind performing a better service to the global economy than is the United States because we're misusing the power we have with the dollar and I'll tell you the dollar being reserve currency is going to disappear and because things are afoot to change that abuse of power that we have and that's the foundation of how we can sanction people how we can do things to them and so once we don't have that power anymore our sanctions won't be worth a thing. Right well let me say this the one thing that sold me on what you're doing is your debate performance in 2008 I actually feel bad that back in 2008 that was the first time I was old enough to vote and for whatever reason you weren't on my radar but I'm writing that wrong now and second of all the thing that I liked was your platform I said on my show is basically the gold standard it's better than Bernie's it's better than Tolsey's it's better than Warren's your platform is phenomenal so I don't want your platform to go away once this process is complete once you go on the debate stage so my one plea to you and your team is to put that platform online basically if you can't get out what you need to have people know that there's a resource they can go to a website or Twitter to see what you're talking about and what issues they're not being informed about and with that being said I will leave you with the last word to make your pitch to people as to why they should just chip in a buck to help you get on the debate stage one just go to the debates that occurred in 08 and if you like what I said then you just like what I'm going to say at the new debates secondly to your other question is what happens after the debates orders going to be continued first off I have a book out there only all any deals with direct democracy it doesn't deal with like citizen power deal as was a polemic plus direct democracy this is only going to deal with that and it's not going to be any more than 80 pages so you could read it in one sitting and if you want to then re-read it again because it will take you're absorbing the concept of what's involved and so that opportunity now secondly here we got David and Henry and what they got several hundred other supporters including yourself that you can now continue the battle the campaign to educate the people and so we will have plans I've got plans in my mind for these kids which have demonstrated their ability to organize and communicate and that's what it takes to bring about a national election that will give you the opportunity to vote for a constitutional amendment and a legislative procedures act that will equip you to make laws to address the problems that you think are so important all right putting me on and you've given me some good ideas and I can assure you that David Oaks and Henry will absorb them too after the debates they're going to be coming out here to visit with me or all visit with them when I'm back east but I don't intend to travel until it's two debates I'm keeping my powder dry as what happened with William McKinley who up until recently you know people went out and traveled in the old days you didn't you sat at your front porch and your minions went out there and so that's what's going on I don't have a front porch but I got a patio so this is a patio campaign and David is David and Henry are the co-chairmans it's a fabulous job I rely on their judgment so you'll see us again and you'll see them again because you're going to want to interview them they've got the message just as well as I've got the message I look forward to covering their congressional campaigns absolutely so I look forward to you dunking on the corporate Democrats on the debate stage Mike thank you so much for coming on the program Mike Gravel tell us your website www.mcgravel.org don't get mixed up I've got Mike Gravel.us but this is the campaign one and just go to that one and you can contribute a dollar I need you to contribute a dollar and that's not much to pay to get me on the debates I'll entertain you that much you'll get a dollar for me for sure you pay $5 to rent a movie on Amazon you could pay a dollar to watch Mike Gravel dunk on corporatists on the debate stage well said all right we'll leave that there thank you so much for coming on well that's all that I've got guys I hope you enjoyed the show it's another long episode but these are getting longer and longer and I get that sometimes it's hard to listen to a soy boy talk for like four hours at a time but just break it apart listen to like half at one point and then the other half later is broken up and put up on YouTube every single week so that's another way to do it but regardless for those of you who stayed and loved the show thank you so much before we leave I want to send a shout out and thank you to all of our Patreon, PayPal and YouTube members and thank you to everyone who listens loyally every single week on iTunes and SoundCloud that's it I'm Mike Figueroaido this is the Humanist Report Podcast I'll see you all next week take care