 This is the Humanist Report with Mike Bigaredo 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 Humanist report.com Now enjoy the show Welcome to the Humanist Support podcast my name is Mike Bigaredo and this is episode 200 of the podcast that is insane to me 200 episodes in four years of the Humanist Report. This is certainly, you know a milestone I'll likely be doing a live chat doing like a Q&A or something because you have to do something to celebrate because 200 episodes That's absolutely huge. So today is Friday, July 5th And before we get started I want to take some time to thank all of our Patreon PayPal and YouTube members that helped us get To 200 episodes and that includes Angelique Brandsdor, Arpeggie Mode, Bruce Barnum, Christopher, Danny Ray Chryster, Dee Sarley, Felix Gonzalez, Gunn Invalid, Jim LaRocca, Judith Aldridge, Lori Christian, Lian Garcia, Leo Kowitski, Matthew Grantham, Nelson Pagan and Vincent Chav So all of these people either sign up to support us for the first time or increased their monthly pledge And if you would like to join these kind individuals you can support us by going to humanistreport.com slash humanistreport.com slash support how to think about it Or you can go to patreon.com forward slash humanist report 200 episodes, and I can't even get the same intro right that I've been saying for years So anyways, let's get to the show on today's episode Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gives us an inside look at the humanitarian crisis occurring and migrant detention facilities otherwise known as Concentration camps Nancy Pelosi gives Mitch McConnell a legislative victory for no reason whatsoever Mike Cernovich accuses Bernie Sanders of inciting violence against Donald Trump Fox News hosts admit they're nothing more than Republican Party hacks and Bernie Sanders sets the record straight once and for all about Medicare for all and a new poll confirms What we've all been saying people don't care about keeping their private health insurance They care about keeping their doctors also Marcos Molitz says Attacks Bernie Sanders for being a good candidate not even kidding So we'll talk about that and finally we closed out the week by talking to congressional candidate Makayla Wilkes of Maryland's fifth district who's taking on incumbent Steny Hoyer So that's what we've got on the agenda for today. I hope you guys will enjoy the show Let's go ahead and um get to the news stories So to everyone who was clutching their pearls and trying to tone police Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez because she dared to describe These migrant detention facilities as concentration camps I've got a story for you that you should definitely be more outraged at Because the language that I'm going to discuss that is being used should absolutely shake you to your core because there was recently an expose of a Facebook group that has more than 9,000 members all of which from customs and border protection who are saying very horrible things about lawmakers and the migrants at these facilities as A.C. Thompson of pro-publica reports members of a secret Facebook group for current and former border patrol agents Joked about the deaths of migrants discussed throwing burritos at Latino members of Congress visiting a detention facility in Texas on Monday and Posted a vulgar illustration depicting representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez engaged in oral sex with the detained Migrant according to screenshots of their postings in one exchange group members responded with Indifference and wisecracks to the post of the news story about a 16 year old Guatemalan migrant who died in May While in custody at a border patrol station in West Loco, Texas One member posted a gif of Elmo with the quote oh well Another responded with an image and the words if he dies he dies Created an August 2016 the Facebook group is called I'm 1015 and boasts roughly 9,500 members from across the country 1015 is border patrol code for aliens in custody the group described itself in an online introduction as a forum for funny and Serious discussion about work with the patrol remember you are never alone in this family the introduction said now again 9,500 CPB agents here now Let's go over some of these posts because we have a couple of screenshots I can't show you all of them because they were incredibly not safe for work And it's gonna get this video not just demonetized but deleted if I show you them But let's go over a couple here you see this post here and comments advocating for someone to throw a burrito at Latina lawmakers which obviously is racist now I'm sure that the same people who are advocating that we throw burritos at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Scream at the top of their lungs whenever a fascist is milkshaked But you know if we are assaulting someone who we don't like that's perfectly acceptable now There's posts of them sharing photos of a man with his daughter that we all saw that was released recently Who died now we were all horrified and appalled by this photo But the poster here was joking about how these were floaters in other words these were pieces of shit That's the way that he reacted to the photo that made us all appalled He called them pieces of shit essentially What a disgusting group of morally reprehensible human beings Every single person who was tone policing and clutching their pearls at AOC when she used the word concentration camps I need you to clutch your pearls now at this I need you to be outraged at this because this is demonstrably worse language to be used And it's particularly disgusting because it's being used by people who oversee these migrants at these detention facilities They're joking and laughing about migrants dying when these same people Oversee these facilities. Where's the outrage? Where's the outrage? Are we going to get you know an entire week worth of news off of the language used here? I don't know so it's clear that they didn't like the idea that AOC was going to go to these migrant detention centers because obviously she has a very large platform she could draw attention to these human rights abuses here and She went anyway, even if they clearly didn't want her to go if they were joking about throwing burritos at her She still went so I'm gonna talk about what she found here But she did respond to this Facebook group and what she said was absolutely poignant She tweeted out this isn't about a few bad eggs. This is a violent culture She added 9,500 CPV officers sharing memes about dead migrants and discussing violence and sexual misconduct towards members of Congress How on earth can CPV's culture be trusted to care for refugees? Humanely PS I have no plans to change my itinerary and will visit the CPV station today There are 20,000 total customs and Border Patrol agents in the United States 9,500 almost half that number are in a racist and sexually violent secret CPV Facebook group They're threatening violence on members of Congress. How do you think they're treating caged children plus families? Exactly exactly it. So every single person who tone police day OC who denounced milkshaking fascists We have an instance where this group is threatening to burrito members of Congress Are you gonna call this out? Or are you just going to be quiet here? Are you going to tone police these people here? Or are you just gonna tone police people because of the language that they use to describe the atrocity that's going on? I think we all know and what I'm getting at is that the right there are a bunch of hypocrites So I'm gonna read you a series of tweets from AOC for describing the situation and how bad it is in these detention centers Just left the first CPV facility I see why CPV officers were being so physically and sexually threatening towards me Officers were keeping women in cells with no water and had told them to drink out of the toilets This was them on their good behavior in front of members of Congress now. I've seen the inside of these facilities It's not just the kids. It's everyone people drinking out of toilets officers laughing in front of members of Congress I brought it up to their superiors. They said officers are under stress and act out sometimes no Accountability after I forced myself into a cell with women and began speaking to them one of them described their treatment at the hands of officers as Psychological warfare Waking them at odd hours for no reason calling them whores, etc Tell me what about this is due to a lack of funding now I'm on my way to Clint where the Trump administration was denying children toothpaste and soap This has been horrifying so far. It is hard to understate the enormity of the problem We're talking systemic cruelty with the dehumanizing culture that treats them like animals What's haunting is that the women I met today told me in no uncertain terms that they would experience Retribution for telling us what they shared They all began sobbing out of fear of being punished out of sickness out of desperation lack of sleep trauma despair CPV made us check our phones But one woman slipped me this packet to take with me It says shampoo, but she told me that this is all they give women to wash their entire body nothing else Some women's hair was falling out. Others had gone 15 days without taking a shower. So, you know, what's happening here We've had numerous people Go to these migrant detention facilities and explain how bad the situation is and AOC is telling us They're literally drinking toilet water But please whatever you do, don't call them concentration camps for the love of God Don't call them that because that's too far. That's what's offensive Don't call them concentration camps if you want to know how the right responded to AOC essentially Breaking this news about CPV officers telling them to drink toilet water Well, do you think that the right had any human compassion whatsoever and they were outraged? Well, no, they weren't outraged at the treatment of the migrants in these detention facilities Unsurprisingly, they were outraged at the language AOC used because Washington examiner journalist Anna Giaccarelli She gave us the scoop on a real scandal Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Screamed at federal law enforcement agents in a threatening manner during a visit to a U.S. Border Patrol facility in El Paso, Texas Monday afternoon and refused to tour the facility according to two people who witnessed it So that's the real scandal to right-wingers So if you see something that is deeply disturbing where a humanitarian crisis is going on If you don't describe that the right way, then you're the bad guy You're what we should focus on not the humanitarian crisis itself After we get this story here about the Facebook group and how these migrants are treated and how women are so fearful of even Telling what's going on to a member of Congress because of retribution You know, you would think that everyone in the country would stop and realize what are we doing? This is horrible. We are treating these people like animals worse than animals You would think that that would be the response, but I'm sure everyone on the right will just ignore this Entirely they can see how barbaric the government is and they get more outraged at the way that people describe Said barbarity than the outrageous thing going on itself. That's the right. These are the people Who we have to deal with who we're supposed to come together with and work with Unbelievable So while we were all focused on the first 2020 Democratic Party primary debate We didn't really realize what Nancy Pelosi had done She just gave Mitch McConnell a gigantic legislative gift And this is on top of the passes that she keeps giving to Donald Trump time and again Because we already know that she refuses to impeach Donald Trump no matter what you can't convince her It doesn't matter that there's more than 10 instances of obstruction in the Mueller report It doesn't matter that Donald Trump is in violation of the emoluments clause or violated campaign finance reforms She doesn't want to impeach. Okay, so if you don't want to impeach Maybe you can use the influence that you have as Speaker of the House to draw attention to some of these really serious Allegations recently that have been lobbed against Donald Trump. So as you all know, Trump was recently accused of rape So as Nancy Pelosi going to use The influence that she has to draw people's eye towards that to at least have the public hold them accountable Not really because here's what she said about that as well. I haven't spent any time on that She said raising her arms in frustration. I don't know the people you're referencing I don't know the person making the accusation. I haven't paid that much attention to it Okay, well, that's kind of weird because you're in a position of power and this is a very serious accusation So you think that being from the opposition party you would draw people's attention to this So that way we know what the president is doing so we can hold him accountable But nonetheless, she doesn't care she gives them political victory after political victory But as I alluded to she just gave them a legislative victory because she could give them as many political victories as she wants to And that's still horrible. It makes the party look like shit. However, when you start giving them policy concessions That's when you're doing real damage and you need to resign and she did that and she did it in a really explicit and disgusting way Presumably because she wanted to just wrap up and go on vacation for the fourth So what did she do? Well, a Zach Carter of Huffpost explains as horror stories Detailing conditions at the border began piling up this week McConnell passed a bipartisan bill Expanding funding for Trump's immigration authorities by 4.6 billion Progressive Democrats in the house including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Wanted to include some basic humanitarian safeguards on that money But Pelosi citing resistance from self-described moderate Democrats decided instead to just pass the Senate bill No strings attached the Trump administration's immigration atrocities cannot of course be chalked up solely to financial constraints It's flagship immigration deterrence policy Separating children from their parents was not adopted out of budgetary desperation But under Pelosi's guidance the official Democratic Party response to the Trump administration's Abusing immigrant children is to give more money to the agencies the Trump administration relies on to abuse Immigrant children. She just gave Mitch McConnell exactly what he wanted with zero pushback. I Mean and as I read the story I'm reminded of all the mainstream media news pundits who always praise Nancy Pelosi Marcos Molitzas of the Daily Coast Delivered her thousands of flowers and were always told how effective she is as a leader in how she always gets Donald Trump and gets under his skin But then you see things like this She's not an effective leader. She's a feckless leader as is Chuck Schumer who was also incredibly weak But in an interview with Jake Tapper on CNN AOC explained why she thinks this probably passed It's because well, you know, they all want to get out on the fourth and I'll leave so let's just not even debate this Let's just give them what they want so we can all be done. The House bill passed resoundingly There were only four Democrats that defected including myself from that bill and the reason I defected is because I needed to send A message to my constituents and my folks back home And in fact my constituents asked me to vote no on the bill But if it ultimately came down to it if we needed to if we needed a hundred percent every single Democrat to vote on this bill We could do it with the amendments But the problem right now and the question at hand right now is that Mitch McConnell sent us a bill and we're just putting a Big check mark on it instead of even trying to negotiate. I have indicated that I'm willing to stay here I don't need to go home on vacation. I don't need to go home to July 4th weekend I will stay here all weekend to make sure that we get this thing done And instead what Mitch McConnell is doing is that he's relying on the time pressure of recess to try to ram through a bill That is completely Irresponsible to the American people answer those kids on the border so understand Nancy Pelosi She could have used the majority that Democrats hold in the house to her advantage to get protections For human beings Laid out explicitly But she didn't do that presumably because she cared more about Getting this all done in time for everyone to take the fourth off This reminds me of when Chuck Schumer Fast-tracked a bunch of Donald Trump's judicial appointments last year because he wanted to give Democrats running for reelection the opportunity to Campaign I mean how much longer are people gonna defend Nancy Pelosi? How much longer will this continue to take place? She just gave Mitch McConnell a gigantic legislative gift and she is Refusing to impeach Donald Trump in other words what she's doing is she's allowing someone in power to be above the law Not even opening an impeachment inquiry. I Don't know how anyone Can be okay with this it makes no sense to me But here we are we're in a situation where we have such an ineffective faceless leader that gives Republicans all that they want But because we care more about civility and decorum. That's okay It's disgusting. I Hope that the stories that AOC shared today of People having to drink toilet water in these migrant detention facilities. I hope that that makes Nancy Pelosi feel like shit I hope that that keeps her up at night knowing that she has the power to do something and she could have possibly done something But she didn't I hope that that's on her conscience So I found another example of a right-winger doing exactly what the left is always accused of doing Getting too outraged at something that isn't really worthy of outrage We're always accused of being too easily offended too overly sensitive getting triggered by everything and we're called snowflakes However, when the right does it they're not called snowflakes because their outrage is totally justifiable So when they get triggered by you desecrating the flag or kneeling during the national anthem That's okay because they find that offensive that any and everything that they deem as too offensive Is in fact objectively too offensive, but whenever you get outraged usually in cases of Injustice that's not okay because you're a leftist and being on the left Automatically makes you a bad faith actor So obviously I'm being facetious But I want to share an example of right-wing outrage that definitely won't be called out By people who oftentimes denounce the outrage machine and cancel culture I'm talking about alt-right fuckhead Mike sternovich who got really really triggered at something that bernie sanders put out on instagram He tweeted the bernie sanders campaign is using footage of an assassination attempt Against trump as a political ad. This is a direct incitement to violence By bernie sanders now. What is this incitement to violence? He's talking about um this This is an open and shut case bernie sanders is definitely inciting violence against donald trump Okay Let's try to entertain this for a little bit. Um, first of all bernie sanders himself has been in situation Where somebody has rushed the stage and tried to take away the microphone from him. Do you know how bernie sanders responded? He tried to shake their hand. He didn't run or freak out like donald trump But bernie sanders has been in situations like that So you'd think that he wouldn't try to minimize instances of direct threats of violence like this But he still posted that meme So is bernie sanders essentially making light of a very serious situation where donald trump was in danger? um No, because if you talk to the person who tried to rush the stage That day he is very clear that he was not trying to harm donald trump This is what he said about his reasoning for rushing the stage back in 2016 What were you thinking? I was thinking that Donald trump is a bully And he has nothing more than that. He is somebody who is just saying a lot of bold things He's making bold claims But I can see right through that and I can see that he's truly just a coward And he's opportunistic and he's willing to destroy this country For power for himself. All right. Well, that's your motivation But what were you thinking at that moment? Why did you do what you did? I was thinking that I could get up on stage And take his podium away from him And take his microwave from him And send a message to all people out in the country who wouldn't consider themselves racist Who wouldn't consider themselves approving of what type of violence donald trump is allowing at his rallies? Uh and send them a message that we can be strong We can find our strength and we can stand up Uh against donald trump and against this new way if he's ushering in of of truly just violent white supremacist ideas Were you if you had made it to that stage were you going to attack him? No, not at all Now that clip is widely available. Mike Sertovich could have done a quick google search to determine whether or not That was a credible assassination attempt on donald trump, but he didn't He not only accused bernie sanders of inciting violence, but he then claimed that that was an assassination attempt Facts do not matter to the right. They don't matter at all They don't care about it and they also don't care about their own hypocrisy because they could be as easily offended And not care bernie sanders shares this harmless instagram meme and all of a sudden A right-winger wastes no time calling that an incitement of violence Do you understand this double standard here? This is what happens all the time This is a microcosm of a broader issue because the left will get demonized as Fascistic because they're milkshaking fascists However, the right will literally kill people and commit the overwhelming majority of domestic terrorist attacks But they still find a way to demonize the left as the ones who are more violent The right has a different set of standards for you than they have for themselves because they are incapable of introspection Again, if they find something too offensive, then we shouldn't laugh at them because all of their outrage is morally justifiable and socially justifiable But when you speak out against genuine instances of injustice Socially and culturally well, you're just being a snowflake because things you like are bad and things they like are good These are bad faith actors and this is why there can be no alliance between the left and the right in any capacity We have to defeat these people politically and socially because if we don't then you can deal with a set of double standards for everything They can be outraged But you can never be outraged the far right can do a majority of violence in this country and literally kill people Meanwhile, we're all focusing on antifa regardless if you agree or disagree with our tactics This is the way that the right Is able to monopolize political discourse and create whatever narrative that they want And even if we push back against the mainstream media, we have no money on our side David Dole did a video where he talked about how, you know, these right wing youtubers They pay hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising. Meanwhile, the left is not So they are able to take A narrative that is backwards and factually incorrect and spread it because they have the money behind them But getting back to the original tweet here To say that bernie sanders was inciting violence Here's what I say to that grow the fuck up snowflake stop being too easily offended and easily triggered So after the first 2020 democratic party primary debate, there has been so much confusion About medicare for all and specifically what medicare for all entails because there were two very specific questions asked on both nights Would you abolish private insurance now on night one? Elizabeth Warren and bill de Blasio were the only two candidates on stage that raised their hands and said yes We would abolish private and on night two Bernie sanders and kamala harris were the only two candidates that raised their hands and said that they would abolish private But peak confusion I think came After the debate when kamala harris seemingly backtracked and claimed, you know what maybe I'm actually not in favor of abolishing private Because I was confused by the wording of the question and when they asked if my support of medicare for all means that I would get rid of Private insurance. I thought they were talking about my own private insurance Sure, jam Now maybe it's just me, but I don't really find that too persuasive given that she Debated on the second night and she already should have anticipated that question But nonetheless, here's what she had to say about medicare for all and abolishing private insurance On health care last night You were asked to raise your hands the entire panel 10 of you If you believe eliminating private insurance should be part of the medicare for all proposal You and bernie sanders both raised your hands You've been asked and sort of clarified this question a couple of times over the course of the campaign So once and for all, do you believe that private insurance should be eliminated in this country? No, you don't no I raised your hand last but the question was would you give up your private insurance? For that option and I said yes. Oh, I think you heard it differently than others then I'd probably because that's what I heard Sorry, but I just don't believe her because all of the other candidates knew What lester holt was asking and this isn't the first time that kamala harris has been wishy-washy with regard to medicare for all Back in january, if you'll recall She proclaimed proudly so at the first scene and town hall that she did that she would get rid of private insurance under medicare for all Let's eliminate all of that. Let's move on less than 24 hours later She backtracked and said, you know, actually I believe that there are many paths to medicare for all and now she I'm assuming landed on the permanent position of I support medicare for all but I also support keeping private supplemental insurance So now this begs the question What the hell does medicare for all actually entail? Can you still technically support medicare for all? And support keeping private supplemental insurance Or do you actually need to be one of the people that raised your hand and said yes I will get rid of private insurance. Well, I'll put it this way If you have cosponsored bernie sanders bill or premilla jaya paul's bill Then you haven't read the bill if you don't explicitly commit to getting rid of private insurance Because the bill is designed to do just that get rid of private insurance Now there has been so much confusion over this bernie sanders literally had to come out and clarify If you support medicare for all I repeat if you support medicare for all Let's get on the same page and agree to get rid of private So he had chiquille bruster of nbc news tweet out bernie's answer He says bernie sanders put out a new statement seemingly responding to kamala harris walking back her perceived support for medicare for all Via hand raised idem debate of abolishing private insurance through medicare for all And here's what bernie sanders said specifically quote Let us all be very clear about this if you support medicare for all You have to be willing to end the greed of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries That means boldly transforming our dysfunctional system by ending the use of private health insurance Except to cover non essential care like cosmetic surgeries And it means guaranteeing health care to everyone through medicare with no premiums No deductibles and no copays it is imperative that we remain steadfast in our commitment to guarantee health care as a human right And no longer allow private corporations to make billions of dollars in profits Off americans health care now chiquille asked a very important follow-up Because it seems like what kamala is saying is that she wants to have her cake and eat it too She wants you to think she supports medicare for all but she also Wants to be able to have this caveat where you know, I support supplemental insurance as well Here's what chiquille asked bernie last night. I asked senator bernie sanders Why he believes it is necessary to abolish private health insurance And if allowing insurance companies to operate privately under his plan could be a potential compromise He said no multiple times So shack said one of the central divides over medicare for all is the idea of private insurance and abolishing private insurance Could that be a potential compromise to at least allow them to bernie then interrupted saying no no No, and he went on to explain how abolishing private means you still keep the same doctor Now shack followed up again Asking why abolish those private insurers though to which bernie sanders then responded saying Because at the end of the day what the current system is is dysfunctional And if you want to provide health care to all people in a responsibly cost effective way You cannot have an insurance industry dominating health care in america I mean, what is the function of the health care industry? Is it to provide health care? No, it's to make money and the top five companies made 20 billion dollars of the last five years The top 10 drug companies made 69 billion and yet we have a situation where one in five americans Cannot even afford the medicine they need you got to take them on you cannot have health care for all As a human right under the current system So you heard it right there from the horse's mouth He couldn't be more clear if you support medicare for all you need to commit to getting rid of private insurance So that means that if you are one of the candidates on stage that did not raise your hand either you don't actually support medicare for all Or you are uninformed about the details of the bill that you supported in congress or in the senate Details matter details are incredibly important and for those who are confused Let's clear up the confusion by just doing something a little bit crazy Let's read the bill. So when you go to section 107 of bernie sanders medicare for all bill It states very clearly that duplicative care is prohibited It states quote it shall be unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits Provided under this act or an employer to provide benefits for an employee Former employee or dependence of an employee or former employee that duplicates the benefits provided under this act So very clearly it outlaws duplicative care now. We'll talk about the specific implications But there's also a follow-up here section 107 b states quote Nothing in this act shall be construed as prohibiting the sale of health insurance coverage for any additional benefits Not covered in this act. So I get why there's a lot of confusion It seems contradictory for bernie sanders to say well, if you support medicare for all You need to commit to getting rid of private because it says right here This is not to be construed as prohibiting the sale of health insurance However, we need to talk about the way that this bill is designed and what it intends to accomplish because ultimately the goal of this bill Is to get rid of private health insurance companies So if it outlaws duplicative care, that is anything covered under medicare for all Cannot be offered supplementary through a private health insurance company Then what's going to be left? Well, let's look at the actual bill and see what it provides We'll look at section 201 and as you can see here the benefits are comprehensive like this is true universal health care It covers virtually everything almost everything is covered here So there's not really going to be need for supplemental insurance of any kind and even the washington post Who's no fan of bernie sanders writes quote It's worth noting that sanders plan would be more sweeping in its coverage than just about any existing universal health care system For instance, canadians must buy private insurance for prescription drugs dentists and optometry while britain has a parallel private system that about 10 of the population Participates in so think about that what bernie sanders and promilla jaya paul's bill does is it offers health care coverage that is so comprehensive If we get that bill passed as it is we will have a stronger universal health care system than canada and the uk Now let's get back to this prohibition on duplicative care And let's put two and two together So if duplicative care is outlawed by medicare for all but simultaneously if medicare for all covers basically everything What's the implication of that? We're effectively getting rid of private health insurance companies. See you don't have to explicitly outlaw them To accomplish the same goal what we're essentially doing the way that these bills both bernie's and jaya paul's are designed Is to basically regulate these private health insurance companies out of existence So we make a bill so comprehensive and then outlaw duplicative care that There's nothing left for them to do they don't have any way to offer some type of supplemental care because Everything is covered under bernie sanders medicare for all bill so going back to section 107. Yes I understand it very clearly says that it doesn't prohibit the sale of health insurance coverage for any additional benefits not covered But you see the thing that's important is that it covers everything It's better than canada's it's better than britain's so that's a good thing We don't want to water down our own medicare for all bill to find some way to accommodate these For-profit health insurance companies that just want to rip you off. No, we are constructing a universal health care system That covers everything So if there's not going to be much left for them to do Then we're effectively getting rid of them because they're not going to stick around if they can't profit off of health care But that's a good thing. But mike. I know the I already know what you're going to say You're going to comment saying mike. What if I want a facelift bernie sanders medicare for all plan doesn't cover cosmetic procedures like a facelift And yes, that is correct. So you've got me there However, this still doesn't necessarily mean that we will be keeping Private insurance companies because let's ask ourselves this let's say hypothetically speaking. I wanted to get a facelift How would I pay for that? Am I going to be able to find a private insurance company that will cover the cost or even a fraction of a percent of the cost of that facelift? um No, that's that's not going to that's not going to happen because they can't profit off of a facelift So what you'd have to do is you would have to finance these types of procedures Where you get a type of credit card like care credit And then they will pay for that procedure and then you pay them back in monthly installments And then you pay interest on top of that That's what we do now if you want a facelift and that's what we would continue to do Under a medicare for all system. So do you understand if we don't use insurance companies for facelifts now Why would we be arguing that? They're going to exist to provide us with like facelifts and breast augmentation surgeries when they don't do that anyway Because again, let's remember what these companies are about these insurance companies They're not going to cover something unless they believe they can make money. So here's the thing What do you think is going to happen? Let's say we get medicare for all past, right? It's passed as it is and we don't water it down and we outlaw duplicative duplicative care explicitly Do you think it's more likely that these health insurance companies are going to take a magnifying glass And go over this medicare for all bill and see where the gaps are so they can offer coverage for you know these This dozen or so procedures hypothetically Or will they just likely go out of business? You and I both know that if they can make enough profit The investors are going to bounce and they're going to go on to the next money making adventure therefore They're probably just going to go out of business. So do you understand? We are regulating them out of existence. So if you support medicare for all this should be a goal for you And we shouldn't be arguing. Yeah, you know We're going to keep supplemental too because if we do that we're making an argument for the health insurance companies There's virtually nothing that we will need private insurance companies for if we get medicare for all and understand if you accept the premise That private health insurance companies can and should exist Under a medicare for all system Then you've already compromised before negotiations began because you're buying into the premise That maybe there should be a role for private health insurance companies And if you do that if you give them an inch They're going to take a mile because that's how capitalism works They're going to say oh So you think that there should be a role for us Well, should it be this big or this big or this big or this big? Do you really want to open that door because I don't want to open that door I want to shut out all these capitalistic forces that will pick at whatever weaknesses in our medicare for all system And I want them gone completely. We neutralize the threat and we get the profit entirely out Of the health care system. That's what we should be arguing in favor of not trying to find a way To make an argument on behalf of the health insurance companies unwittingly because I think that that's what we're doing If we're trying to rationalize different ways that you know These private health insurance companies can still exist And I think that adam gaffney of the nation put it best Quote the only way to make room for a significant role for private insurance in the american context Is to make the public system Pultrier or skimpier to impose onerous copays and deductibles or to let the rich Preferentially displace working-class people from hospital beds and doctors offices But it doesn't seem to make sense to punch holes in your own floor Just to create work for a carpenter that is particularly true if your floor is your health care And your carpenter is an extractive insurance giant. Exactly. We don't need private health insurance companies We need to get rid of them completely and argue that that's what we should be doing And force republicans to take a stand where they are the ones defending these for-profit health insurance companies that only exist To profit off of us and rip us off But you see I think a reason why there's so much confusion here is because as americans We can't grapple with the reality of a health care system where private insurance doesn't actually exist So what we end up doing is trying to find ways To think of things that they can do well, maybe they can do this maybe they can do that But what we need to do is grapple with the reality that if we truly care about the delivery of health care specifically and Exclusively, then there's no role for private health insurance companies So if you support medicare for all then you should agree that bernie sanders and premillage ipols bills Are stronger because they're designed to get rid of private health insurance companies Rather than going out of our way To argue that they can and should still exist under medicare for all in order to make people who don't really understand it Feel better that isn't very productive as leftists We need to be educating people about why getting rid of private is a good thing and here's the thing Let's say hypothetically speaking that there is a weakness in bernie sanders medicare for all plan Is it designed so technically there can be Some role for private insurance. So let's say hypothetically speaking. It doesn't cover hip replacement surgery It does but just for argument's sake. Let's say that It doesn't cover that and we removed that from the bill can a private insurance company technically step in and fill that gap and offer insurance for that Technically, yes, they wouldn't again because they're not going to offer insurance for one procedure like a facelift like anything Because again, they're only going to offer you coverage if they can profit off of you But a private insurance company can technically do that. So how do we make this argument as progressives? Do we say well, look, you know what if a private insurance company wants to take care of that? That's fine No, that shouldn't be our argument our argument should be let's strengthen medicare for all to stop These private insurance companies from stepping in and filling that role if there's any perceived weakness or actual weakness in these bills Then we shouldn't argue. Hey, let's let private insurance take care of that We should be arguing to improve medicare for all even more. It's already incredibly solid and strong But if there's any weaknesses, we shouldn't just instinctively pivot to saying hey, okay I found something for you to do private insurance companies. We should be arguing. All right, let's improve the bill That's what our line of argument should be and we all need to get on the same page about this So the candidates like Kamala Harris who are hell-bent on saying look, I promise you you'll be able to keep private If that's what you want. They're fundamentally misunderstanding the text of the bill that they co-sponsored that or they're not realizing That they're unwittingly buying into the propaganda from the insurance companies that are pushing this idea That people care about their private insurance when they don't care about private They care about keeping their doctor in fact a new poll from morning consult confirms that they care about keeping their doctor Not their private insurance So let's use that information to our advantage knowing people care about keeping their doctor And that their private insurance company. I mean talk to anyone You're not going to find a single person who cares about etna or signa or blue cross blue shield Nobody cares about that. They want to keep their doctor. So let's use that to our advantage And let's let republicans defend the private health insurance companies We don't need to do that as progressives. That shouldn't be our place So any candidate who did not raise their hand again Either they don't truly support medicare for all or they're misinformed and it's not just the people on the debate stage Love them to death, but roe conna was also incorrect about this and he said look warren and bernie's plans They allow you to keep supplemental or do supplemental in lieu of medicare for all something along those lines and paraphrasing But roe that's not actually correct And even if roe is arguing in good faith and he's trying to find ways to sell medicare for all He doesn't have the details correct He previously claimed medicare for all would save 17 trillion dollars because if our current system costs 49 trillion And medicare for all costs 32 trillion then if you minus 49 trillion from 32 trillion Then that's the savings of 17 trillion except this was based off of an article That was completely incorrect in its math and the author of this article had to retract everything because our current system Costs 59 trillion dollars overall not 49 trillion and that 32 trillion statistic refers to the increase in federal spending of Healthcare services, but wouldn't you know account for the decrease in state and local spending as well So it's incredibly misleading and i'm not trying to pick on roe conna because he absolutely means well And he's arguing in good faith and he's trying to figure out ways to make medicare for all more appealing But if we don't get these facts right that are basic facts Then the republicans are going to attack us for that so we need to know our numbers We need to know about the details of the plans that we actually support And we need to make sure that we protect ourselves against republican party attacks by citing what medicare for all actually is It's about going forward all of us getting on the same page and acknowledging that medicare for all is about getting rid of private insurance That's a goal otherwise. What's the point? Why would we need to construct a system so robust so comprehensive if we're still trying to think of ways in our head To have private health insurance companies do something We don't have private supplemental firefighter insurance So it's equally insane to still allow supplemental insurance for Private health insurance companies. So we don't need them. We just don't and look even tulsi gabbert. She was wrong on this She didn't raise her hand now. Here's one thing that i'll say about tulsi She's been consistent here and she's never backed away from the position of medicare for all So i would assume that like roe conna. She just doesn't know about the details here but you have to Not contort and find a way to you know rethink what medicare for all is Just so it aligns with the candidate that you support what you need to do is get the candidate To move to what objectively is the true position What is factually going to happen if we codify medicare for all into law? And if we do get medicare for all it gets rid of private health insurance companies But that's a good thing. That's what we need to defend and inevitably when negotiations happen That duplicative coverage ban is going to be the very very first thing that republicans are going to pick at But we need to argue vigorously from the position that we will not compromise and allow any private insurance companies None and sure will legally allow them to exist technically, but will they under medicare for all? Probably not. So let's argue from a position of strength and that we're not going to accept any compromises and let's not compromise before negotiations for medicare for all even begin because if you say that we should allow for supplemental insurance Then that's what you're doing. You're compromising. You're saying i'm carving out a role under my Version of medicare for all or my vision for medicare for all where there is you know some type of necessity or need for private insurance companies But that's harmful. We need to get rid of them and if you support medicare for all you should get rid of them So elizabeth warren even if she raised her hand. I'm sorry. She's been too wishy-washy on medicare for all She's been waffling back and forth. I just don't trust her on this build a blazio He endorsed hillary clinton in 2016 over bernie sanders the candidate who actually supports medicare for all don't trust him Tulsi gabbert she should have raised her hand, but she didn't but she has been consistent On saying she supports medicare for all which means something which tells me that maybe she just is kind of like Where she's trying to argue in a position that is seemingly going to make her argument more valid and you know be able to Stand up better against republican party scrutiny But what matters are the details the one candidate who has been consistent who's been the strongest on medicare for all Objectively speaking is bernie sanders So at the end of the day we all need to get on the same page and follow bernie's lead here our message Collectively as members of the progressive left should be abolish private Keep your doctor or you can use uh doctor stay private goes away something along those lines Not oh no no i promise you we're not going to get rid of you know private insurance There's going to be some role that shouldn't be our message Because it's misleading and you're getting people to focus on the wrong thing We shouldn't be focusing on keeping supplemental insurance and emphasizing that small little portion of section 107 b Because again medicare for all is designed to effectively get rid of these private insurance companies Again, you don't need to ban them to accomplish that goal of regulating them out of existence So let's argue from the position of strength that we want to get rid of private insurance companies And if you want to defend private companies you can do that But understand that they're not very popular and the american people according to the morning console poll they're with us Not with you If you want to keep private because people want to keep their doctor and medicare for all absolutely is designed to let that happen because we Dismantle this idea of networks and we turn america into one giant network Abolish private keep your doctor. That's what our messaging should be because it's factually correct And it is in line with both medicare for all bills in the house and the senate Pramila Jayapal and bernie sanders. They didn't just come up with these designs for these medicare for all bills You know on a whim last year These bills are the latest iterations of medicare for all proposals that have spent decades being fleshed out by medicare for all Experts and activists. So for those of us to step in and say we need to find some role for supplemental I promise you we won't totally eliminate them. I mean we're kind of undercutting the grassroots and what they've been fighting for We don't need a profit motive and these you know these for profit companies in our system trying to corrupt it Trying to get medicare for all to offer less so they can come in and profit off of offering us more the goal Say it with me is to abolish private but keep your doctor Let's all get on the same page here because it's important details matter And if a candidate doesn't support getting rid of private then please educate them and don't just Accept that they have the correct vision for medicare for all because they may be misled I know ral Khanna is incorrect here, and I know tulsi gabbert probably means well, but she's not correct here Let's try to get them on the same page as bernie sanders and pramila Jayapal Who are the architects of these bills who drafted these bills with the feedback of people Fighting for medicare for all for decades with the experts So please let's get the messaging right abolish private keep your doctor. That's simple For people who have been watching the humanist report for years You know how popular medicare for all is we are at a state in american politics where public support for medicare for all Is larger than 70 percent and more than 50 percent of republicans supported So these numbers are absolutely Huge the movement that we've seen over the last four years has been incredible But what's interesting is that you only really hear people in indymedia talk about this But mainstream news pundits. They don't ever really talk about just how popular medicare for all is In fact, they only started to even touch any polls with regard to medicare for all Once they figured out a way to refute public support for medicare for all So now what they'll often say is well, look sure medicare for all is popular. I'll give you that However, if you ask people if they'd still support medicare for all if that means that we'd be getting rid of their private insurance Then support does in fact decrease now That's how they argue against medicare for all But if you're a mainstream news pundit, then you should be educating people and telling them what's in these bills And what kept them from doing that presumably is this overt conflict of interest these cable news shows They have advertisers in the private insurance industry So of course they don't want to argue for medicare for all or even give you the objective details because they know That that would lead to them losing money because that's less advertising dollars because of course You know these health insurance and big pharma companies, they're not going to advertise on stations who are basically Explaining to people how they're getting screwed by these private health insurance companies But what I hypothesized and argued for because it was obvious is that The reason why you see support for medicare for all go down Isn't because people care about their private health insurance company Like you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who's vigorously defending blue cross blue shield The reason why people care about their private insurance is because they link that to their doctor They think that these two things their doctor and their insurance are inextricably linked But that shows us that we have an opportunity now to educate people and tell them No, you're not going to lose your doctor If we switch to medicare for all just because you're losing your private insurance because that's not the way that you know Medicare for all would work when you have a private insurance Industry in america there are various networks But as this user from reddit points out when we switch to medicare for all we're going to have one giant Collective network and under this one singular network, of course you will be able to see whatever doctor you want So you'd have more freedom under medicare for all than what we currently have But again, the reason why there's this confusion in the first place is because mainstream media was not educating people They weren't explaining what medicare for all entails again, presumably to appease their health industry and pharmaceutical advertisers The problem is you know as progressives we can argue until we're blue in the face But one we don't have platforms as big as anyone in mainstream news and up until this point We haven't had the hard data to back up this point that people link You know their doctor to their private health insurance provider So it's hard to persuade people when you don't have the numbers yet You can just make an argument based on a hypothesis And even if it may be a very credible and persuasive hypothesis You still need numbers and facts and hard data to back it up. So we've never had that Until today when a new poll by morning consult confirmed what we've all been saying To nobody's surprise who've been paying attention as this headline from common dreams explains People don't like insurance companies. They like their doctors poll shows majority of voters support abolishing private insurers If they can keep their providers now when you look at the poll here Support for medicare for all actually dips when it's framed in a way that emphasizes that the role of private health insurance companies will be reduced However, it surges when you add the explanation that private insurance goes away But the doctors will stay Support becomes stronger than ever in that instance because as we all know because we deal with these private health insurance companies Nobody likes them. So if you tell someone, hey, what if I told you that we get rid of these private health insurance companies? You don't have to deal with them, but you still get to keep your doctor They're gonna say a deal Which is why so many republicans Even supported because we all know as working glass americans We know the headache that is produced with these health insurance companies We know how they rip us off and we have to pay our monthly health insurance premiums As well as deductibles and it's just it's so infuriating and frustrating. We don't need to do this And we don't like it and this poll finally confirms What we've all been saying dammit feels good to be vindicated Now getting to jake johnson of common dreams author of this article He writes in a statement to morning consult senator bernie sanders presidential campaign said these numbers only affirm what the senator has said many times People don't like insurance companies. They like their doctors and their hospitals Despite what the pharmaceutical and insurance industries will tell you the campaign said medicare for all is the only proposal That gives americans the freedom to control their own futures Change jobs start a family start a business and keep their doctor as morning consults Your serum maraud noted the new data shows that voters concerns about virtually abolishing the private insurance industry Can be mitigated by clarifying that losing private insurers would not affect access to preferred providers And this is such a big deal. This poll is so important because these health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies They just lost their number one talking point Because they continuously sighed. Oh, well, you know people they support medicare for all until you tell them You're gonna get rid of their private insurance but now They don't like you This poll confirms that they like their doctors and when you educate people Support for medicare for all is stronger than ever. This is a really really huge deal. This is incredibly important I think we all knew that if we phrase the poll in this way This is the result that would be produced. It's just a matter of Is there going to be a single poll and a pollster that steps up and frames this question in a non-biased way? And finally credit where it's due morning consult did just that So now if I could make a prediction, here's what they're gonna argue against. They're gonna say, okay Well, sure we have medicare for all you get rid of private insurance companies and you get to keep your doctor But wasn't this promise made before didn't brock obama say before that you can keep your doctor? And then what happened? Hundreds of thousands of people lost their doctors See the difference is obama was working within the private health insurance system And he regulated them in a way that eliminated skinny plans that charge people an arm and a leg But didn't actually provide them with sufficient coverage. They were basically scams. They were getting ripped off So by getting rid of these plans, it means that you're effectively eliminating someone's insurance regardless of how good or bad Their new insurance will be which thus means that if you get a new insurance provider, it may be technically better Yes, but you're almost certainly going to be in a different network Hence, you're gonna have to select a different doctor So that's where obama went wrong when you work within the confines of the private health insurance industry Then they get to dictate the terms of our healthcare system But under medicare for all what we need to be stressing is that networks would no longer exist Because we're not playing by the rules of these private health insurance companies We're all one big network now So it doesn't matter that you'd lose blue cross blue shield You keep your same doctor because every doctor will be under one unified network Again, let's throw up the graphic from the reddit user who did a phenomenal job Just simply illustrating what medicare for all would mean. We will all be under one network So even if obama did a disservice to healthcare activists by, you know, vigorously arguing that you can keep your doctor if you like it Um, or maybe he said you can keep your insurance either way. He really He chipped away at the trust that people have for this claim So we are going to have to go, you know, the extra step to make sure that people understand medicare for all But what we need to stress is that we're not playing by the rules of the private health insurance companies because We are changing the rules of the game and we're redesigning the rules We're blowing up the game and we're getting rid of these private insurance companies. So all doctors We're you know, we're erasing these network lines and you can see anyone you want to and under medicare for all You will have more freedom than ever So this poll is so important that we need to be stressing this over and over whenever you see a mainstream news pundit You know promote this lie and this insurance industry talking point that well, you know People don't actually support medicare for all because it means that you know It's going to get rid of their private insurance companies show them this poll And correct them because they're wrong and they are arguing On behalf of these health insurance companies probably because there's a monetary advantage to be gained in making that argument As many of you know Donald Trump became the first president to cross into the dmz and meet with north korean dictator kim jong-un Now i'm of the belief that he's in Way over his head and he's probably too stupid to conduct diplomacy effectively in a way that would yield some sort of deal Similar to the iran nuclear deal However, that doesn't mean that i don't give him credit for trying because i think that he does deserve credit here for initiating dialogue with north korea And i'm saying that especially knowing the way that donald trump operates. He's either hot or he's cold So if he's not you know talking to kim jong-un then the alternative would likely be that he is threatening to Wipe them out on twitter So um if you're gonna ask me which version of donald trump i'd prefer i'm gonna go for the trump version that isn't threatening to uh nuke them on twitter and is trying to talk to them And look, let's all admit to ourselves as lefties We need to be confident enough to acknowledge that in the event obama or bernie sanders did this We would be applauding him. So i'm not going to be a hack. I'm not going to say oh well because it's donald trump And i don't like trump. You know, this is bad. I'm not going to shit on it Again, we can be objective and understand that he doesn't necessarily know what to do To construct a deal that's effective, you know or in any type of peace agreement I don't think anything will be codified and if it is then great i'll applaud him for that But just the effort in and of itself i think is commendable because you know, this is someone who's a belligerent man child So if he's trying to do peace I'm okay with that and I hope everyone else will get on the same page And be okay with that as well because we're not hacks We have objective standards as members of the left for what is good politically and bad politically and diplomacy and peace Is always going to be my preference So let's not be hacks, but fox news. Um They admitted that they're hacks. I don't know why they said this but in a recent episode of the five They literally admitted that if there wasn't a republican party president that was doing this and if it was someone else They would be denouncing it but because donald trump did it. They were celebrating it I can't believe they admitted this but take a look Greg, um, but sometimes you need a symbolic moment So for everybody to take notice the other thing that president trump is able to do Is he got everyone who stopped talking about the democratic debate? Interesting, which maybe helps the democrats. Yeah, you know, um I don't I of course they're going to attack him That's what you would do and I and let's be honest if it were the adversary Uh an adversarial from your party on the other side doing it during you we would do the same How dare obama meet with a dictator with no preconditions? Exactly Yeah in 07 So, um, but if so I want to just attack attack a couple of the criticisms If you see diplomacy as a weakness, what does that leave you with? We know that there are tyrants and creeps in this world You can't hold two thoughts in your head that there are Rough customers in the world and you got to talk to them So you can do you can keep those and and and you can then your goal is to remove the psychological barriers Or the threats that are perceived by the adversary who thinks that maybe you want to kill them Trump has removed that he's saying look, we're not we're not interested in blowing you up You don't need to have these uh these nuclear items um But I mean Casting diplomacy as a zero-sum game We talked to him therefore we lose something Right. So what did we lose? Did we lose money? Did we lose land? Did we lose lives? No Well, we lost our status in the world While we've elevated his status that if that's how you value these things no wonder we've made no progress What a fascinating admission like I I can't believe they'd actually say that it's not shocking I don't think anyone will be surprised by this But what they're essentially admitting is that we are the propaganda arm of the republican party And if our team does something it's good by definition because we're on the same team And we're going to support our team no matter what and hate the opposing team no matter what I mean, that's the definition of being a political hack and again I cannot believe they admitted this. So gutfield said let's be honest here If it were an adversary from your party doing it Oh, we would do the same and then water said how dare obama meet with a dictator with no preconditions Uh gutfield then said Exactly and then gutfield was correct in saying, you know diplomacy isn't a zero sum game We're talking to someone doesn't necessarily mean we lose something That's a solid point and I can't believe that I'm saying this but I agree with gray gutfield on something However, isn't it a little bit shocking that he would move away from that position in the event of president Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or Tulsi Gabbard was doing this Isn't that a little bit shocking? I mean, why Do people feel the need to be so tribalistic and adhere to team politics when the goal of politics Is the formulation of policy? I don't care about politics for the drama I care about politics for the policy because crafting good public policy Is the main goal of government. It's governance. That's the whole point But they're admitting here Actually, I just want to root for my team because that's what I'm paid to do How embarrassing How fucking embarrassing Wow Wow Now look, I'm not just going to shit on the you know fox news here because many democrats have been Incefrably hacky here as well So there were actually a number of democrats that slammed donald trump for meeting with kim jong-un They called it a photo op which it is but that doesn't really matter Biden accused him of coddling dictators Kamala Harris claimed that north korea was a threat that should be taken seriously totally disagree and even bernie sanders Who is you know, usually better on these issues and has previously given donald trump credit for initiating dialogue with north korea He claimed that this was a photo op now again Let me remind you that we have a man-baby president and if he is not Initiating dialogue then he's going to be threatening to nuke them on twitter because either way He has to come away Seeming as you know, someone who is victorious in a situation Either the stronger one or someone who was able to negotiate some sort of deal whatever the details may be So let's use our knowledge of donald trump and how petulant he is to our advantage And commend him here because if he's not going to be talking to kim jong-un He'll likely be threatening to bomb him and I get that this may seem like a false dichotomy and maybe that's true Maybe that's correct. But this is the way that donald trump has previously behaved. He's hot or he's cold He's either threatening them or he's talking to them. This is what donald trump does. This is the way he operates So look, I just want people to stop being hacks and I want them to be consistent And say this policy is good regardless if my team does it or the other team does it That's really what politics is about right Everybody has got to agree on an objective standard of what good governance and good policy is and we just can't get people to agree to that But we need consistency here Not team politics and we need to stop Conceptualizing these other countries who are smaller who will not attack us as threats Because we're the threat to them and the only way they're going to be a threat to us or one of our allies Is if they think that an attack on them is imminent. That's it so I think that Overall, you know, what we just need to do is encourage good policy and trump is like a child So he needs positive reinforcement So it makes me worried whenever politicians will shit on him for doing something that We'd all be applauding obama on the left, you know, if he did But you know, unfortunately it goes both ways Republicans are just as hacky because they admitted here on fox news You know, we wouldn't be applauding obama if he were the one to do this I mean, it's just embarrassing people. Come on. Let's stop being hacks. Let's stop being overly tribalistic And let's just let's encourage people to do the right thing regardless of the team that they're on and you're on How about that? I am so glad that I'm supporting a candidate Who is not very controversial who has been consistent throughout the entirety of his career Because imagine like supporting someone like joe biden where you are constantly trying to find a way to explain something He said that's offensive or try to find a way to you know Interpret what he said more charitably. It's just a headache. So bernie sanders has been consistent Which is why, you know, when you see some of the attacks on him They come off as unhinged and quite frankly idiotic Because if you don't have a good reason to attack someone then you're gonna kind of look like a hack If you attack them for something that really should be applauded in politics So these are the types of attacks that we see lobbed against our candidate bernie sanders And boy are they downright just fucking dumb. What do you make of the bernie sanders observation by dugthor now? Has has worn basically eclipse sanders in your world of sort of progressive Fundamental economic change politics Yeah, absolutely the problem with bernie sanders is that he has the exact same message He had four years ago and that message didn't get him to victory four years ago Not sure why he's not trying to calibrate that particularly in his field and one of the arguments His supporters make and the campaign is making too is that everybody is quote stealing his message as though maybe bernie invented liberalism But point aside bernie deserves a lot of credit for mainstreaming a lot of those ideas But he has done nothing to build his own base of support And why stick with bernie who says divisive as he is when there are more appealing Inclusive candidates in the field and there's a bunch to choose from That was beautiful To be able to twist yourself In a way that gets you to frame Consistency as a negative. I mean That's bold, you know, you got to applaud marcos here For being such a big hack that he's literally trying to argue against consistency Wow Now we know why he doesn't like bernie sanders I mean, I think that the picture here it points it out. He is an establishment sycophant He delivered thousands of flowers to nancy polosi. Why? He loves power. He sucks up the power and he's all about protecting the status quo While being portrayed in mainstream media as a representative of progressives No, he's not a representative of progressives. He is the opposite He is in favor of the establishment, which very much is not kind to progressives Which is very much about maintaining our corrupt Capitalistic system where people are exploited and the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer So let's look at what he says here He says warren has eclipsed bernie sanders Now you can make the case that sure she eclipsed him with regard to polling But in terms of policy in terms of progressive moment momentum Has she eclipsed bernie sanders? No, not for me at least Because first of all, my number one issue is medicare for all And elizabeth warren has gone back and forth back and forth back and forth. She introduced a bill in april That is about Reregulating the private health insurance companies. In other words, she wants to do obama 2.0 But she also supports medicare for all. She co-sponsored bernie sanders medicare for all bill So there's absolutely no coherency there. She doesn't have a vision for health care Which is one of the most important issues for voters. So to say that she has eclipsed bernie sanders You certainly can't say that about health care. Now. What about foreign policy? um, well No, she hasn't eclipsed bernie sanders there as well Because anytime she talks about foreign policy, I like her less So what we're seeing here is marcos who really really wants elizabeth warren to have eclipsed bernie sanders But that doesn't necessarily make it a reality. Now again, if you're arguing based on polling the last couple of polls I believe showed that she is starting to pass bernie sanders and you can make that argument But that's not the argument. He's making he's making an argument that she's better than him on the policy And he even said that quote one of the arguments that bernie supporters make and that the campaign is making Is that everybody is quote stealing his message as though maybe bernie invented liberalism Burnie deserves a lot of credit for mainstreaming those ideas, but he has done nothing to build his own base of support First of all, that's complete and utter horseshit. He has built his own base of support Hence why when he relaunched his campaign earlier this year 40 percent Of his donors were new donors second of all He demonstrated that he has the courage to talk about issues that were previously seen as taboo Medicare for all was something that nobody wanted to talk about Elizabeth Warren Kamala Harris because they knew that even if they didn't take money From health insurance companies or that much money from health insurance companies They still would be attacked by them and their opponents would still be bankrolled by these companies So everybody was a coward. They were too afraid to stand up for these issues until bernie sanders came along And popularized these ideas that says something the two debates that we saw both nights The entire conversation was driven by the agenda set by bernie sanders By bernie sanders, but then he says Why stick with bernie who's as divisive as he is when there are more appealing inclusive candidates in the field First of all, bernie sanders is inclusive Second of all, um, why would we go with someone as opposed to bernie because he's the real deal? He supports medicare for all and he has supported medicare for all for his entire life He's been consistently anti-war. He is talking about social democracy in a fundamental way changing the system The other candidates aren't talking about it that way And for you to say he's divisive He's only divisive because you're looking for reasons to be angry at him because you don't like him because he threatens the status quo That you like to worship So what an idiotic attack, you know, imagine being outraged that a candidate Is too consistent to the extent where you feel the need to criticize them for said consistency What a joke it just shows how strong bernie sanders is as a candidate if they have to attack attack him for being Too consistent understand he is doing something right. So keep up bernie because um I definitely want to be you know the type of candidate if I ever run for congress one day That gets attacked because I'm too consistent I think it's better than the flip-floppers on issues like medicare for all like kamala harris and elizabeth warren Hello everyone. I am here with mackayla wilkes. She is running against a political behemoth known as sanny hoyer In marilane's fifth congressional district and she's here to talk about her campaign mackayla. Welcome to the show Hello, thanks for having me. Thank you for coming on I've been watching your campaign since the beginning and I knew that there was something special about you One because anyone who's running for congress, you know, that takes a lot of work But anyone who challenges someone like sanny hoyer Um, that takes even more work and you are going up against a machine a democratic party leader What made you want to run for congress and take on sanny hoyer? Uh, well for one my life experiences and also feeling like there are people who are left out of the Conversations in the halls of congress. I feel like for the last 40 years We have not been represented and we need someone who's going to represent our interests other than the interests of corporations Right and you're actually running a very principled campaign. You're not taking corporate PAC money. This is grassroots funded So you are admittedly at a disadvantage. You're taking on someone in leadership position who has you know, these institutional advantages and monetary advantages How do you think you're going to be able to pull off an upset like aoc did? How can you beat him? What tools do you have at your disposal that kind of gives you the advantage in terms of grassroots activism and whatnot? Um, just the fact that I resonate with so much so many of our constituents Um, and not only that, you know, it's all about getting out there and speaking with the people and with this race A key to it is going to be increasing voter turnout. Um for sure um, so Basically for me, it's just getting out there talking to voters talking to people who are politically disengaged Because I can't see standing where you're knocking on doors or Standing in the middle of a mall or you know a parking lot trying to talk to people seeing what their issues are Uh, and for me, that's what grassroots is Because if you're not taking money from corporations, you don't owe them anything If you're only taking money from the people those are the only people who you owe And what I love is that you really when you look at mackayla's platform to speaking to speak to the viewers for a moment her platform is more fleshed out than most 2020 presidential candidates and That it shows that she is grassroots because you don't have to walk on eggshells So you don't offend this particular industry or this special interest You are for the people and it shows now contrast you with steny heuer This is basically I've argued for a while He's the worst of the worst and what's horrifying about standing and why we need to take him out is because He is poised to be the next speaker of the house. Yes, and he's worse than Nancy Pelosi. So can you explain the people Why we have to prevent this from happening? We have to prevent this from happening because steny heuer is just for one. He's horrible um He all the way up until maybe recently I think it has something to do with what I said But did not support the impeachment of donald trump And he's just he's a centrist and he's just such a horrible person You know, he he puts his nose and other people's and in and other people's races like amy valela and one guy Who they had a recording of him in the intercept? He's just horrible He's against medicare for all if you look at his funding less than two percent of his contributions come from small donors And if you look at how much he gets hundreds and thousands of dollars just in the first court of alone only 185 dollars came from small contributors All right, so Yeah He is just absolutely horrible And I feel like right now with the progressive movement because this is a movement I feel like having a centrist democrat As the speaker of the house to be the Something that we just absolutely do not need we cannot risk that in this moment in time Especially right now when there is a potential that donald trump may be president again Like there's a people actually are they they're gonna vote for him again. Do we want? Uh standing whore as speaker of the house if this happened No Yeah, he's bad in every conceivable way. I mean on the policy substance It's just it's not there. He's not looking out for the constituents in maryland's fifth when it comes to holding republicans accountable He doesn't support impeachment when there's 10 different instances of obstruction in the muller report. He's weak He is a shill for special interests And I just like if you know about mackayla wilks in this district It's a no-brainer like i'm voting for you, you know, and unfortunately i'm not in this district But I think that if people learn about you if they just know who you are and what you stand for that's going to be enough Even if you have this monetary disadvantage so one thing that I wanted to ask you about because you know If you run for congress when This is a really politically volatile time when there's so many issues What do you focus on because you have a great robust platform? But if you were taking like three issues that you're going to fight for within the first year What do you think those would be in terms of like what you're going to prioritize and push for? Um, my three issues would be medicare for all The brain new deal and then of course criminal justice reform. That's great. That's great. Now, let me ask you About a couple of other issues. This is just rapid fire questions If you can give like a yes or no, maybe Um, I try to do this with the candidates to put them on the spot because I think people like this And I think it's fun. So okay when it comes to student load that cancellation. Would you support that? Absolutely because I have a lot of it. So I know that's good Okay, what about rank choice voting? Absolutely reparations for american descendants of slavery Absolutely. Um, how about electoral reform? So we move from a one parties or two party system to multi party system So we basically get more people elected to each district more than one we get two or three Would you support something like that? I definitely would because one thing that's with me I always say that representation matters and having a multi party system would definitely mean Uh multiple representation for other people other than just democrats and republicans because that's needed Right, absolutely. How about breaking up big tech like facebook google? Of course When it comes to the legalization of marijuana, I know that you support that would you support the decriminalization or potentially legalization of psychedelics Absolutely just from the research that I've seen about it. Um, you know how it helps people suffering from PTSD Um, I think it's definitely worth putting in the time and research and the efforts to see how that can help us Um, because to me, I think it would be more natural than Pills, you know something that's man-made just just as marijuana I mean i'm all for that anything that will Help us out and then not contribute to the ova crisis That's great. Now, let me ask you a little bit about foreign policy. Um, so when it comes to venezuela Do you support any type of sanctions or are you just basically unequivocally no meddling? Um, I would not I don't want to meddle with anything that they've got going on I think we've done enough of that. I think the outcome of us doing that has not been good Um, so I don't think that we need to meddle in what's going on in venezuela So when it comes to israel palestine, um, there is a push to ban BDS and this has been something that some of them have have been doing I know that ben cardin who was chelsea manning's opponent in 2018 He tried to push for criminalization of bds Meaning that if you support bds, we're not going to give you these types of government contracts Would you be against that? I would absolutely be against that. Um, I feel like that that is that's unconstitutional You cannot do that. That's taken away someone's right. Um I can't no I would definitely be against that. That's a no for me. That's great So you so you're a free speech warrior in the true sense unlike the people who claim to support free speech But are silent about that. Um, I like talking about all these issues because as we go through these issues I think that a lot of people who watch they realize. Oh this person basically checks like all the progressive boxes You're not taking corporate PAC money and I think that it's clear that You're the real deal. So if you were to get in and you defeated steny heuer We already know like we saw what happened to aOC. You would be the new fox news target You know until the next wave of candidates. How do you think you would fight against that like? Going on against like the right wing and all of these progressive policies that you stand for How do you think you would combat that and how would you also stand up to the opponents within your own party? Like Nancy Pelosi because she's going to try to twist your arm and say mackayla vote for me Otherwise, I won't give you you know this committee appointment How do you fight these establishment forces as a progressive and how do you remain principled? Like can you just give me a little bit of information about your background on why you think you are You're a strong enough person to be able to resist all of these um evil forces in government Uh for one if I was to be told like you said, oh, we're not going to give you this appointment on this committee or whatever I've always been an outcast my whole life. Uh my background. I'm an outcast probably right now You know, I was previously incarcerated before I mean now I'm running for congress So that's going to be nothing new to me. I will always stay true To my progressive values. I have no choice to because this isn't about politics. It's personal to me Uh, so it will always come back to my roots And it will always come back to the reason why I'm running and the people that I'm fighting for and as a matter of fact I'm not even fighting for them. I'm fighting with them because I'm still with them Like it's me my family my mom my sister my neighbors, you know, my friends We're all in this together. Uh, and that's Basically, that's what I that's what I plan on doing. Um, it's just go back to my roots and go back to why I'm you know running and as far as fox not really worried about fox. They're a joke to me. So I mean free advertising Free advertisement. Hey, I mean, you know, like I said, I've always been an outcast my whole life. Um, just because I I don't have the typical background of what a politician may be Just off of my upbringing and things that I've been through uh, but I mean, I feel like Like with aoc there's always going to be Someone or there's there's always going to be people that are going to doubt you and especially when you're going against the establishment You're going against the machine, you know, because I always tell people uh, this one lady told me Yeah, we need a fresh set of eyes in congress. Um, we need new ideas These are new ideas and I'm like these aren't new ideas These are ideas that I've been around that I have been ignored but now People are upset because we're bringing these ideas to light and We're bringing awareness to people and finally letting people know that you're getting screwed and we have to do something about it So it just comes with the territory. I mean, I'll always be a social justice warrior. So bring it on Hell, yeah, I love that and the reason why I like to ask candidates this question is because Just seeing, you know, that change like with aoc she was a regular person and then she became this political, you know, um target psychologically speaking that's got to take a toll on people and Part of the reason why people are frustrated with politics Is that they see these people who who they talk a big game But then when they get in they either become co-opted or they kind of just become silent So I think that part of vetting candidates is really seeing how they will be able to stand up what will be inevitable Just harsh scrutiny and quite frankly just getting basically beaten over the head every single day It's tough. But I you know people like you the fact that you are, you know, a self-proclaimed outsider I think that's a benefit because everybody loves a good underdog story. Like I love the underdog story I'm always rooting for the underdog who is less likely to you know Make it than someone who has had a sober spoon like, you know, steny heuer So let's talk campaign infrastructure frequently because I want to know where you're at I know you've been running for a couple of months. Can you talk about how many people you have volunteering? And what it's looking like so far in terms of donations and what we all can do To help you because we may not live in Maryland So tell us where you're at and what is needed how the movement can, you know, help benefit your campaign Okay, uh, so right now we have just a little over 30 volunteers That are staffing for the campaign Right now we are on the ground works of the campaign getting out canvassing I've been going to malls shopping centers. I've been going to various meetings from different organizations Just spreading the word about this campaign So that's what we're doing right now because going against someone so such a so entrenched as thinning He has so much unnamed recognition It's important to get out there fast so that people can know who I am and know what's going on But as far as if anyone wants to help out with the campaign definitely donations are always welcome because we are grassroots and so the people definitely like are a big big part of This campaign because I need their dollars To make this campaign work. Um, but not only that I need for people to spread the word Um, if anyone is interested in phone banking, that's fine Just retweeting stuff on twitter sharing stuff on facebook. Just getting the word out to anyone and everyone That you can will definitely help this campaign because if this happens And what I won't say if but when this happens and when we beat steny heuer This will be the beginning of a political revolution for sure Yes, and I love to hear that and one thing that I always like to stress is This isn't just about people in maryland's fifth congressional district Like we just saw how ilhan omar sponsored student loan cancellation That doesn't just affect people in her state and her district that affects me that affects you So this is a nationwide movement and it's so important for all of us Even if you have a dollar to spare that is one more dollar that goes towards this movement That could potentially help get someone like mackayla in congress who's going to be a fighter for you So what do you want to just end on? What's your last pitch to my viewers in terms of why they should support you? Over steny. I don't think you have to do much to convince them, but um, what do you want to end on? Um, I just want to let people know that I always say that represent. Sorry. Here's sasha That representation absolutely does matter. I feel like we've had enough of the corporate politicians It's time to take our government back and make it work for us the way that it was intended to Um, I think that we need to get the corruption out of politics so that people can trust us again And that's what this campaign is about and that's what i'm about is getting the corruptness out Getting people who think that the government doesn't work for them to show them that it does and just show them that when you vote That is your voice. You know, you have an opportunity. This is an opportunity right here right now And it's not just me. It's other races. You know, I've been talking to I know you spoke with joshua collins I've been talking to like anthony clark from illinois. It's great. So it's it's really a progressive movement And this is just to anyone. Uh, this is an opportunity Don't pass this opportunity up because we cannot go another term with corruptness We can't go another term with someone who's not going to care about us The time is now we need to take it and go with it Uh, and I'm ready to fight. I've been ready to fight. I've been fighting all my life And now I'm ready to keep on fighting just in congress Uh, and if anyone wants to help out you can donate to my campaign on my website at www.mikaela2020.com Uh, and each of my social media handles are at meet mikaela and that's about mck a y la Well, look, I'm convinced And I'm gonna be rooting for you. I've already been kind of watching your campaign The minute I found out that there was a challenger to steny hoyer I was on board like on day one So thank you for running because this is difficult You are dedicating so much time and energy to this Um And it really is meaningful the fact that you would take on someone who a lot of people Generally speaking in the establishment would think well, you know, we can't we just can't challenge him You know, it's not our turn. Thank you for speaking up and not quote unquote waiting your turn And challenging him because that's important representation matters and thank you to sasha as well I was telling mikaela before this interview began that um, we were talking about dogs My dog will sleep outside the door and he'll snore so loud sometimes that the microphone actually picks it up So if you're ever wondering why you hear like this weird noise in the background that sounds like someone's snoring It literally is snoring. So um, it's always nice to include, you know, the dogs as well Well, thank you so much mikaela. It was nice talking to you. Thank you Well, that's all that I've got for you guys today. Thank you so much for tuning in If you've made it this far in the episode, thank you so much for watching And if you've listened to us via itunes or soundcloud, thank you so much. I appreciate your viewership as well Well, that is uh, everything uh, stay tuned for more details about the live show that I will be doing a live q&a to celebrate 200 episodes But for now, I hope you guys all will enjoy, you know, the Long weekend hopefully that you'll get with fourth of july weekend and just, you know Let's uh, take a break from politics maybe because I think that that will be important So that way we can keep ourselves Rejuvenated and we don't feel the need to you know, check out because we get a little bit too worn out or um beaten down So i'm done talking. Um, that's it. I'll see you all next week. Take care