 So, as many of you who are paying attention know that we have a billionaire currently trying to buy his way into the White House to replace the first billionaire that managed to buy his way into the White House. And you know, this really is a disgrace. If you care about democracy, then you have to speak out against oligarchs trying to buy their way into politics. And Nina Turner did this on MSNBC. She described how bad this is for democracy. But a problem is that she correctly pointed out that Mike Bloomberg is an oligarch. And MSNBC clown Jason Johnson proceeded to scold her for using that naughty word to describe him. Close viewers watching in our last segment may have heard Bernie surrogate Nina Turner call Mayor Bloomberg an oligarch, to which our own Jason Johnson took exception. State Senator Turner from Ohio is still listening in Des Moines because she wanted a moment to respond. Nina? Senator. Thank you. Thank you so very much. You know, it's just ironic to me that somebody would defend the wealthiest people in this country over the work in people in this country. We need real campaign financial reform to the extent that a Mayor Bloomberg can totally finance his campaign. He doesn't have to go out to the people. He doesn't have to build a movement. He doesn't have to talk to people. He can buy his way. This is the same attitude that the elites, maybe Jason likes the word elite over oligarch, but it's the same attitude that the elites had in 1930 against FDR. All of them lined up against him and he said, I welcome your hatred because he was standing up for the people. And that is the same message that Senator Bernie Sanders has to the everyday people of this nation that I welcome the hatred of the elites because I am standing up for you. So cry me a river for the wealthy people in this country. I mean, if you work for a candidate who's part of the 1%, I have no problem with criticizing the system. The system that allows Mike Bloomberg to make all the money that he makes, the system that allows him to buy what he wants to buy, the system allows him to buy himself into the administration and buy himself into the debates is a problem. But to call him an oligarch, I think, is a misnomer in this environment. And again, you're working for somebody who's part of the 1%. Do you call him an oligarch? No, you don't. You say he's a rich guy because just because somebody has a tremendous amount of money doesn't mean that they're not necessarily representing the people. And if you want to use the term elite, you can use whatever kind of term that you want to use. But at the end of the day, the enemy of this country, the enemy of the poor, is not just everybody who happens to be rich, it is a capitalistic system that abuses people. And if you want to speak about that, that's fine. But if you want to name call people, that's not going to help Bernie if he becomes a nominee and he's going to need Mike Bloomberg's money if he's going to need Mike Bloomberg's money down the road. This is all I'm talking about. This is all I'm talking about. I'm not defending rich people. I'm not defending rich people. I'm not defending rich people. I know this works on Twitter because that's how you guys operate. But when it comes to actual campaign politics, it makes sense to actually describe people for the positions that they have. Is this about a word, Mason? Is this about a word? No. It's not just about a word. It's about the implications of it. And it's about criticizing the system versus criticizing individuals. Like I said, I wouldn't call Bernie Sanders an oligarch if he happens to be part of the 1%. I would say he's somebody who's wealthy. But you know what? He just got there and he got there from selling his books. He just got there to age a 78 years old. Okay. Let me end this. I just want to break this. I do like this debate because it's a debate. It is. And I like debates. Number two. Do you want to change your words for all of that? No, I'm not changing. He doesn't tell me what to say and how to change my words. My words stand. Well, Brian, it's back to you. I think that's the decisive conclusion of this back and forth. Can I say something about this? Please. Please. A frequent guest on my show. I think this is a really important debate. And I'm really glad you didn't let it get boiled down to the use of a word. It is not about a word. Here's the other enemy. And I understand different views about the system. The enemy is the guy in the Oval Office who thinks there were good people on both sides of Charlotte's bill. The enemy is a guy in the Oval Office who just got a permission slip to cheat in presidential elections. The enemy is a guy who called his generals dopes and losers who he didn't want to go into battle with. That is the enemy. And I am nauseous when I see Democrats fight amongst themselves. And I know that Republicans get no say. I've said I'll vote for, if y'all pick an automobile, I will vote for it. But I feel so wary when I see these really, really intense fights around someone trying to help y'all win. My thing is this, and like I said, I'm an American citizen. I have no particular loyalty to the Democratic Party or any other party like that. But what I do think is this. I do think that if you're trying to build a coalition to get Donald Trump out of office, this sort of cute red meat stuff is fine on Twitter, but it's not how you're actually supposed to be operating a campaign. You can fight Mike Bloomberg on the issues. You can talk about stopping Frisk. You can talk about the fact that people who work for Bloomberg had to sign an NDA so they can't talk about things he's done. That is all fair and reasonable. But when you reduce this to name calling instead of policy, you're doing the exact thing that Bernie supporters complain about. It's like just calling him a socialist. Can I tell you what Republicans would do? A Republican would take Mike's money and say, help me kill Trump. Wow. I mean, I'm sure that Mike Bloomberg is going to be very proud of you when he sees this, Dr. Johnson. Hopefully he'll offer you a spot on his campaign and in his administration. Hope he sees this, bro. I mean, way to be a billionaire bootlicker. Like that was almost unhinged the way that he melted down at a word, oligarch, which mind you, that's the correct definition for Mike Bloomberg. I'm going to read you the definition. A ruler in an oligarchy, or especially in Russia, a very rich business leader with a great deal of political influence. If that word cannot be attributed to Mike Bloomberg, then the word has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. He has a great deal of political influence so much so that he's trying to buy this election. And he just announced that even though he's out raising everyone, he's going to double the amount of money that he's spending. What is he approaching like a quarter billion dollars? So if he's not an oligarch, nobody's an oligarch. That word has no meaning. So this weird like unhinged reaction, this overreaction to Nina Turner here was incredibly stupid. And I mean, like I thought it was really, really rude of them to shut Nina Turner out of the conversation and then go on to discuss this further without Nina Turner when he's the one who's trying to berate her for using the word oligarch. I mean, MSNBC is such trash that the country would collectively gain at least 15 IQ points if the entire channel just went away. I mean, that's how bad it is. Now, the MSNBC pundit did the typical, well, would you look at the Republicans? I mean, Mike Bloomberg, he may be trying to buy democracy, but look at the Republicans. Listen, pointing to the Republicans and showing us how bad they are, that doesn't help bolster your case. The incompetence of Democrats. I mean, it just, it's amazing to me that they refused to try a new strategy. They refused to try to win over voters and they're not speaking out against a serious threat to our democracy. Mike Bloomberg is literally trying to buy his way into politics. If you care about democracy, then you have to speak out. You have no choice because it's already the case that we're functionally an oligarchy, right? A 2014 Princeton University study from Dr. Gillens and Page, they both found that when you look at policy outcomes, normal Americans have a statistically insignificant impact, whereas special interests and elites, they dictate what policies get passed. It's no wonder why the only major legislative accomplishment of Donald Trump is a tax cut that just so happens to disproportionately benefit the rich. It's because they dictate policy outcomes. This is oligarchy. This is a plutocracy. So for you to browbeat someone and scold someone, frankly, for calling that out, it's just, it's pathetic. It is absolutely pathetic. But remember, this moron is the same person who said that Bernie supporters aren't really supporting him based on policy. Okay. The one presidential candidate who is the most substantive, who is glued to policy, doesn't have his base of support because of the policy. So, I mean, what is it? Is it because we think he's hot? Is it because he's so charismatic? I mean, what the fuck is it if it isn't the policies? Dr. Jason Johnson, explain that to me. I mean, what an idiot, but I'm sorry. I don't mean to name call because he takes offense to name calling. He's all about civility and respectability when we have fascist in the White House. And all of this talk about strategy on MSNBC has led to him winning in the first place. But let's, let's do all that again. And let's not call an oligarch an oligarch. Let's not call a spade a spade because that's a little bit too impolite. Don't offend the ruling class, please, because I want a job in Mike Bloomberg's administration one day, or maybe at Bloomberg, the news agency that he also happens to own. He also said, Nina, you work for a candidate who's part of the 1%. So he, he tried to compare Bernie Sanders to Mike Bloomberg. Like imagine that Bernie Sanders with a net worth of two, $3 million to Mike Bloomberg who has more than $50 billion in net worth. Imagine that. Imagine thinking that these two individuals are comparable in any way, shape or form. Imagine that. And furthermore, the thing about Bernie Sanders is he's not self-financing his own campaign. He's not winning by just flooding the airwaves with his own cash. He's winning because he's winning over the people. That's why. He's raising money from small grassroots donors. The only reason why he's a millionaire is because he won over the working class. So to say that this is a false equivalent is an understatement. And it's a dumb hacky talking point that we've heard before. On top of that, he says you can use whatever kind of term you want to use. The enemy of this country, the enemy of the poor, is not just everybody that happens to be rich. It is a capitalistic system that abuses people. And if you want to speak about that, that's fine. But if you want to name call people, that's not going to help Bernie. And he's going to need Mike Bloomberg's money. Oh, OK. See, we can't offend the ruling class because we really need them to finance Bernie Sanders general election fight against Donald Trump. Except back in 2016, Mike Bloomberg was saying or floating the idea of running against Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump as an independent. So do you honestly think he's going to support Bernie Sanders? And furthermore, what makes you think we want that money? Hillary Clinton outraged Donald Trump by what? Two to one? She's still lost. Money cannot be people power. A lot of times it drowns out the airwaves. But if we want to win, we have to galvanize the electorate. And we don't do that with money, with ads. The ads are going to reach people who are disproportionately older, who are already going to vote. But if we want to win, we bring out young people. So I'm sorry. We don't need Mike Bloomberg's money. We don't need it. And Nina says, rightfully so, it's ironic that you're defending somebody who's buying his way through democracy. Exactly it. It's indefensible. Like if you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention. Or you're stupid. Like, to just sit back and not think that what Mike Bloomberg is doing is problematic, or to even go so far as to defend him is disgusting. He claims that, oh, it's this capitalistic system. Right, why is the system the way it is? Riddle me of this. Why is the system so fucked? It's because there is class warfare that is being waged on us by the ruling class, by individuals like Mike Bloomberg, who buy off politicians, use their money to buy power and influence, and then what happens? All the policies that get passed are what they want to get passed. This isn't me just talking out of my ass. This is political science research. You should know this because you're a doctor. Now, he decided to get a little bit snappy at Nina. He said, I know this works on Twitter because that's how you guys operate. So in other words, he's still butthurt that he got ratioed on Twitter the last time when he talked shit about Bernie Sanders supporters and just, you know, he had this dumb argument that we don't support Bernie based on policy and he's still a little bit angry at that ratio there. So he's taking the time to own Nina Turner now, except you're not owning anyone. You look like a dumbass yelling at Nina Turner, not allowing her to speak when she is the one who has won over the hearts and minds of working class people. You're not convincing anyone by defending an oligarch who's trying to buy this election. And since they didn't give Nina Turner the last word, I'm going to give her the last word here. So she tweeted this out afterwards. I may not have a PhD yet, but I do have the good sense of knowing what makes for oligarchy. Anyone caping for a billionaire with a media company able to buy endless ads and influence party rules halfway through is precisely a perpetrator of the corrupt system, i.e. an oligarch. And there's nothing left to say. Nina Turner is right. This petulant MSNBC clown is laughably wrong.