 This is the Humanist Report with Mike Figueredo. The Humanist Report podcast is funded by viewers like you through Patreon and PayPal. To support the show, visit patreon.com forward slash humanist report or become a member at humanistreport.com. Now enjoy the show. Welcome to the Humanist Report podcast. My name is Mike Figueredo. This is the 188th edition of the program. Today is Friday, April 12th and before we get into the show, I want to take some time to thank all of our newest Patreon, PayPal, and YouTube members, all of which signed up just this last week to either support us for the first time or increase their monthly pledge. And that includes Denison Y.T., Glenn Cock and Jean Lloyd, Kathleen Lowy, Nutt Ringheim Lund, Marshaun Todd, Miranda Dewey, Terrence McLaurin, and Yvonne Wolman. So thank you so much to all of these kind individuals. If you'd also like to support the show, you can do so in a number of ways. You can visit humanistreport.com slash support. You can go to patreon.com forward slash humanist report or you can click join below any one of our YouTube videos. So let's go ahead and start the show. This week on the Humanist Report podcast, Mike Gravel launches his 2020 presidential campaign. Bernie ruffles feathers over his stance on open borders. Donald Trump invokes the same anti-semitic dual loyalty trope that Ilhan Omar was accused of using. President Obama scolds progressives once again. Media blasts Bernie Sanders repeatedly about his tax returns. Pete Buttigieg isn't the progressive media want you to think he is. Kirsten Gillibrand isn't practicing the progressivism she preaches. Journalists pounce on Bernie Sanders' new Medicare for all bill. One journalist's stupidity literally left Bernie Sanders speechless. And Candice Owen's stupidity left America speechless. And finally, we close out the week with a discussion about the arrest of Julian Assange and what this means for press freedom, net neutrality's chances of passing in the Senate and whether or not Howard Schultz is dumb or just disingenuous. So these are the topics that we will talk about on today's show. I hope you guys enjoy the program. Former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel at 88 years old has officially launched his 2020 campaign. And this is a very unorthodox presidential campaign and it's unorthodox in the sense that he doesn't actually want to be president. He simply just wants to get enough individual donations to qualify for the debates and then make sure that he pushes the overton window to the left influence dialogue in a positive way in a left wing way that emphasizes anti imperialism, anti interventionist US foreign policy. And there's other issues that he wants to push the envelope on. And this is a really interesting candidate. And he essentially cultivated this really large online following primarily by dunking on the other 2020 candidates. And I'm not going to lie to you guys. I'm kind of living for it. Just to give you a few examples here. This is what he says about Pete Booty, Judge, say what you will about Booty, Judge, but at least the latest narcissistic product of the best schools to rule Macron style over a decaying country, mired in poverty and addiction will speak Norwegian. It'll be cool if you if you want a vision of the future under Corey Booker, imagining a boot stamping on a human face forever. And every once in a while, it stops for an inspirational lecture on how we should never stop dreaming. The Beto campaign will pierce new frontiers in meaninglessness. Makes sense. So he's absolutely savage. I don't think I've ever met a more ruthless 88 year old and I love it. Now, the way that his campaign itself materialized is also interesting to me, because as vice's Harry Cheadle explains, according to Splinter and Politico, a crew of lefty teenagers in New York State reached out to Gravel, who they had heard about thanks to the podcast, Chapo Trap House, to ask if they could set up an exploratory committee for a presidential bid. And he said he'd be OK with it. And here we are now. He is officially launching a full fledged 2020 presidential campaign. And he recently dropped his first ad and he put out one of the most robust and progressive policy platforms I've ever seen. It's certainly the best in the field currently. But we're going to talk about all of that. But first, this is his ad. But let's maybe bring up the topic of the day, which is the Green New Deal. How much will this cost? That's unclear. How will we pay for it? Unknown. It's not realistic. Because there's no way to pay for it. It's immoral. The younger generation now tells me how tough things are. Give me a break. No, no. I have no empathy. I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons. I think Medicare for all is one of the possible paths. So I decided I was going to start prosecuting parents for truancy. This was a little controversial in San Francisco. He did ask you yes or no. Would you support free college for all? I am not for free poor year college for all. No. Human beings. Are being killed as I speak to you tonight. Killed as a direct result of policy decisions we as a body have made. This approach of war on drugs has not succeeded. We've spent billions of dollars on it. And we fill up our prisons to the point where we're the embarrassment of the world. We're supposed to be a democracy. We've got more people in prison, 2.3 million people in prison. We spend more as a nation on defense than all the rest of the world put together. This whole nation should be a sanctuary for the world. I'm ashamed as an American to be building a fence on our southern border. That's not the America that I fought for. Our soldiers died in Vietnam in vain. You can now, John, go to Hanoi and get a Baskin Robbins ice cream cone. Why do they hate us so in so many places around the world? Because we kill so many people want them. Oh, Joe, I'll include you too. You have a certain arrogance. You want to tell the Iraqis how to run their country. And we can get off a gas plane in five years and we can get off a carbon in 10 years. All we got to do is want to do it. Just get out into their country. They're asking us to leave and we insist on staying there. The military industrial complex not only controls our government, lock, stock and barrel, but they control our culture. It's time to make some waves for change. I'm Mike Ravel and I'm running for president. Now, that by far is my favorite ad of the race because it shows not just the weaknesses in the current crop of 2020 candidates, but it shows that even back in 2008, when we weren't as privy to just how bad the Democratic Party was back then to it shows that they were still pretty bad. It shows Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton laughing at what he had to say. I love the ad. Now, I want to get to his policy platform because that to me is really his biggest strength, and it's why he's my favorite candidate so far. So when you look at his platform, there are four different planks. Overall, there's a foreign policy of peace, attacking poverty and inequality, justice for all and fundamental political reform. Now, when you go to policy and peace, you can see that everything he says here is incredibly progressive. So first of all, he wants to rejoin the Paris climate agreement, reverse the withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council, rejoin the Iran nuclear deal. These are all, I think, standard Democratic Party positions. But here's where he takes it a step further. He is strong about nuclear nonproliferation. He wants to sign and ratify the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. Now, he also wants nonaggression abroad. So I mean, there's there's plenty of planks here. I'll link to it down below, but he vows to not invade any sovereign countries such as Venezuela. And here's what's really important, something that's lacking in even Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard's platforms and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles or drones for military purposes, as these have consistently resulted in horrific civilian casualties and fatalities, close Guantanamo Bay and pay reparations to all untried detainees past and present. He wants to rename the Department of Defense, the Department of War, abolish the US Space Force and the militarization of space and commit to a parody budget for a supposed Department of Peace between that and the Department of War. He wants to bring every single troop home and he wants reparations for communities negatively impacted by US bases abroad and close all military bases abroad. I mean, this is this is amazing. He wants to cut military spending by 50 percent. He wants to join the International Criminal Court, something that I've been advocating for since I was a college student and I learned about just how important the International Criminal Court is and how so many past presidents have decided to not join it because they don't want to be bound by potential war crimes and prosecution for that oppose Israeli apartheid. He wants to end military aid to Israel, not stifle BDS. He wants to recognize Palestinian statehood or call for a plural state in which Israelis and Palestinians all enjoy full and equal rights. Something that I think is fantastic, although we'll kind of get into why he may not necessarily be the best messenger because we know that this is going to be weaponized against him. So I'll explain that later. He also says he wants to end support for Saudi Arabia, make war constitutional again, a peaceful solution to the Korean Peninsula. Now let me go back and we'll touch on some other things here. Attacking poverty and inequality. He is supporting full reparations to American descendants of slavery and Jim Crow and redlining Native Americans as well. He's proposing 30 billion per year for from government coffers. This is really important. Decriminalizing sex work for education reform, protect parents, protect our children. And this is with regard to education preschool, a baby box program, which gives every new parent or not necessarily every new parent, but every new child a box with the essentials, which I think is a great idea. Economic support for the least advantaged. He wants a national health service system. So this is further than single payer. This is more along the lines of what Britain has with the national health system. One point five trillion in infrastructure, a fifteen dollar minimum wage. There's a lot here and I'm not going to get into all of this. Green New Deal, public banking for all automatic tax filing. There is a lot. So I mean, if I had to construct my own ideal platform for what I'd want to see a presidential candidate advocating for, that's basically it. It's virtually perfect, virtually perfect. It's the strongest, most progressive platform by a mile and a half of anyone running. And yes, that includes Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard as well. So by far, he's my favorite presidential candidate. And I get that he doesn't actually want to be president. He plans to drop out and endorse Bernie Sanders after he makes it to the debates. But he doesn't want to be president. He just wants these policy issues to be talked about. Totally respected. And I love what he's doing. So the question is what everybody's thinking. He's literally perfect then. Is that what you're telling me, Mike? He's perfect. We finally found the perfect candidate. Not necessarily. He's not perfect. There are some flaws, not necessarily flaws, I'd say, but pretty big red flags that make me feel a little bit uneasy. So first of all, he said this in 2016 on Kevin Barrett's radio show, quote, there's no question in my mind that 9-11 was an inside job. Yeah, not not something I want to hear a presidential candidate say. I think that this type of conspiracy mongering is it's problematic. We need to be training people in the United States and educating them more specifically to use logic and base their political positions and ideas off of evidence. So the conspiracy theory thing is a problem. And he said this on a show of someone who is essentially a lesser known Alex Jones, light type person who is a conspiracy theorist who is pretty anti-semitic. Now, he's anti-semitic because this is someone who is a known Holocaust denier. Additionally, Gravel has also spoken at Lyndon LaRouche sponsored events, which is known for anti-semitism and conspiracy theories. Now, that's not to say that Gravel himself paraded any of their views. Rather, he contends that he used their platform to promote his own anti-imperialist views. And his campaign has since come out and disavowed Kevin Barrett. And they also said that Mike Ravel has never been a Holocaust denier anti-semitic and he just felt the need to bring his anti-imperialist views to whatever platform would be willing to host him. So one, the fact that he disavowed Kevin Barrett is important to me, but we do need further clarification about his position on whether or not he thinks that 9-11 is an inside job because it's not. That's a conspiracy theory. And please do not promote misinformation. That's that's something that I find incredibly harmful right now. So with that being said, look, people have got to make their own decision about this. I still overall can overlook this, even if I find it troubling, because we're supporting him for a very narrow task. We're not saying we want him to be president. We're saying we want him to make it to the debate stage to influence the discussion in a meaningful way, in a progressive way. And I think it's important that even individuals who are progressive, like Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren, but mostly Bernie and Tulsi, he can have a real positive influence and really expose some of their shortcomings that I think they need to correct because they both currently support drones. And if he can influence them to move away from that position and challenge them from the left, I think that there's real value in that. So if you can overlook that, then I would encourage you to give him a buck. He just needs 65 individual donations. I believe he's at just over 7000 so far. So so long as you throw him a dollar, he will qualify for the Democratic Party debates in, I believe, June and July, at least one of them. But it's going to be important to get him on the debate stage in spite of these red flags. But with that being said, you know, this is certainly an interesting candidate and you can't deny him the fact that he has the most progressive platform. I think that any Democratic socialist or social Democrat has got to acknowledge objectively speaking that he's outflanking Bernie and Tulsi and Elizabeth Warren from the left. And I think that's great. Any positive influence that, you know, can be had on these candidates that we already support, I welcome it in spite of the shortcomings. So I'll leave that there. Mike Revelle certainly has piqued my interest and I hope he does make it to the debates. Senator Grevelle at a forum earlier this year, I want to get this right. You said it doesn't matter whether you are elected president or not. So then why are you here tonight? Shouldn't debates be for candidates who are in the race to win the race? Ryan, you're right. I made that statement, but that's before I had a chance to stand with them a couple of three times. It's like going into the Senate. You know, the first time you get there, you're all excited. My God, how did I ever get here? Then about six months later, you say, how the hell did the rest of them get here? And I got to tell you, after standing up with them, some of these people frighten me, they frighten me. When you have mainline candidates that turn around and say that there's nothing off the table with respect to Iran, that's code for using nukes, nuclear devices. I got to tell you, I'm president of the United States. There will be no preemptive wars with nuclear devices. To my mind, it's immoral and it's been immoral for the last 50 years as part of American foreign policy. Let's use a little moderator discretion here. Senator Gravel, that's a weighty charge. Who on this stage exactly tonight worries you so much? Well, I would say the top tier ones, the top tier ones. They made statements. Oh, Joe, I'll include you too. You have a certain arrogance. You want to tell the Iraqis how to run their country. I got to tell you, we should just play get out. Just play get out. It's their country. They're asking us to leave. And we insist on staying there. And why not get out? What harm is it going to do? Oh, you hear the statement, well, my God, the soldiers will have died in vain. The entire deaths of Vietnam died in vain. And they're dying in vain right this very second. You know what's worse than a soldier dying in vain is more soldiers dying in vain. That's what's worse. Bernie Sanders was asked about his supposed activism for open borders. And since he does not support open borders, since that's a straw man, he shot down this notion that he supports the idea of open borders. This is what he had to say specifically. We're to have open borders on our society today. How would you deal with the social services connected with opening the borders, such as health care, medical care, and who do you think is suggesting opening the borders? Well, you're an activist for opening for... No, I'm not. I'm afraid you may be getting your information wrong. That is not my view. Okay, I apologize. Thank you. I think what we need is comprehensive immigration reform that is not simply you're quite right. If you appoint as you open the borders, my God, you know, there's a lot of poverty in this world and you're going to have people from all over the world. And I don't think that's something that we can do at this point, can't do it. So that is not my position. Now initially, when I saw this video, I didn't think anything of it because I think it's obviously the case that Bernie Sanders does not support open borders. However, mainstream media along with neoliberal centrists are trying to weaponize his answer and turn it into a thing. And there are plenty of examples of them doing this, but let me just show you this one here from Max Boot who says, Bernie Sanders is truly the democratic Trump. So understand what's happening here. Back in 2016, when Hillary Clinton reportedly said that she supports open trade borders, she was attacked because she was quoted as saying open borders. Now people were taking her out of context because she wasn't saying I support open borders with regard to who we allow into the country. I support open trade borders. It's basically the hallmark of neoliberalism. So that was a controversy because she supposedly supported open borders. But now it's also a controversy because Bernie Sanders doesn't support open borders. So really what this demonstrates is that there is absolutely no consistency whatsoever from the mainstream media and centrists because suddenly we're all supposed to accept that it is the correct position to be in favor of open borders because Bernie Sanders is against it. Now are there people on the left that actually do support open borders? Sure, but it is a fraction of the aggregate left, but by and large, most lefties, most socialists that I know do not support open borders. Is it an ideal that we can strive towards one day? Sure, I think in a perfect world, in an ideal situation, open borders would be fantastic. But currently when global capitalism reigns supreme, when we already see open borders for trade, for capital, for war, I think that adding human beings to the mix would simply open the doors to more exploitation. So even though lefties like myself can philosophically say one day open borders would be great, I think a lot of us, most of us have this position that open borders currently under the current international system would not be something that we support because it's just not pragmatic. It would lead to more problems. And even if people make a moral and philosophical argument in favor of it, those people are just the small minority. But I watched a video from Kyle Kalinsky who talked about this. And I think that he points out a really important thing that we see happening all the time with regard to Bernie Sanders. What they're trying to do is weaponize this issue against Bernie Sanders. And since oftentimes Fox News on the right have to strum man the left since they don't really have a substantive rebuttal to the policy arguments we make, since there's really not that many people on the left who currently support open borders. What they have to do is they have to try to go the left into turning against Bernie Sanders. So we then attack him for saying he's against open borders so that way they can then say, aha, I told you that the left was in favor of open borders. Do you see how crazy they've become? Do you see how far left and unhinged they are now? This is the modern left. That is exactly what they're trying to do. And I think we need to be savvy enough to acknowledge the nefarious agenda that people in the mainstream media and the right and centrists all have because they want to take down Bernie Sanders. They're trying to use this as evidence to validate the strawman that they've created. Now there are legitimate criticisms of the way that Bernie Sanders answered that question. Even if I personally support more lax immigration laws and I think we need to do what we can to reduce the barriers that prohibit freedom of movement, I do worry just from a foreign policy perspective because what did the Bush doctrine do? It essentially tried to get rid of borders when it comes to war. It said we are allowed, the United States, we can unilaterally go wherever terrorism is and we don't need to get permission from the United Nations. We don't need to get congressional approval. The United States executive branch can unilaterally go wherever there is terrorism, which essentially gives them the green light to disrespect borders. Now when it comes to a country like Pakistan and the reason why I'm in favor of borders, having borders, having a nation state, committing to this idea that we respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries is important because that's what bolsters Pakistan's legal argument because we're doing drone strikes in Pakistan's backyard and their courts have ruled that these drone strikes are illegal and they are. So even if we don't recognize Pakistani law as the United States, we'll objectively speaking, they're illegal. We are not allowed to be conducting drone strikes in their backyard and we are terrorizing Pakistani civilians. If you read articles, I actually wrote a grad paper about this. The psychological toll that our drone strikes is having on individuals in Pakistan is really disgusting. Whenever it's sunny outside, children are afraid to go outside because that means that there's gonna be more drones patrolling the skies. They hear the buzzing, they have PTSD because of it. They know people who were bombed or injured by drones and we're terrorizing these people. It's horrible. So the reason why I think that borders in this day and age are important is because that imbues Pakistan with this legal authority to say we do not condone what you are doing and you're not respecting our borders. Now, I would love to say that we're able to disentangle the human aspect of borders. That is people moving across borders and the war aspect, but currently there's just too much unforeseen consequences that could come up, that could go wrong, that leads to human beings being exploited even more, which is why I just think that this is Pandora's box, but with that being said, as I stated, do we do what we can to reduce the barriers that exist that currently prevent the freedom of movement? Absolutely, because I believe in fairly lax immigration laws. And I think that people who were impacted by our country's imperialism should essentially be given an expedited immigration process. So if you're from Iraq, if you're from Syria and US imperialism has ruined your life, then I think that we should hear your case first. We should prioritize you and we should make sure that citizenship for you is a priority. So I do think that working within our current conception of what a nation state is and abiding by borders, we do what we can to allow for the free flow of people across borders if they wanna explore the planet that they live on, but at the same time, I don't support this idea. And I think that Bernie Sanders, even if he probably could have worded this in a better way, open borders is functionally something that is going to do more harm than good. It's basically a right-wing ideal because we already have open borders for capital and trade and now war essentially. But if we open up borders for the movement of people, even if that is philosophically and intrinsically a left-wing ideal in its application, it's gonna serve the interests of right-wingers and libertarians and global capitalism more than anything. So this is what I'll say, you can disagree with Bernie Sanders here, you can disagree with him semantically, but by and large, don't take the bait and don't try to give the right, the ammunition that they're looking for to demonize the left. There are some people online that are trying to take the bait that's being set by centrists and neoliberals who are trying to find some way to outflank Bernie Sanders from the left, even if they don't genuinely agree with that left-wing ideal. But like Max Bout, who's an anti-Trump Republican, he's a right-winger, he's saying, look lefties, Bernie Sanders isn't lefty when it comes to open borders. And it's incredibly disingenuous. And I want people to be more savvy and acknowledge that outflanking Bernie Sanders from the left is something that we need to listen to from good-faith actors and not bad-faith actors. So if I say Bernie needs to do better when it comes to drones and he needs to have a better response to this question about drones and what he would do as president, that's me being a good-faith actor and actually challenging him genuinely from the left. But to listen to people like Max Bout, who's challenging him from the right and is jumping to the left, to hit him from the left, you've gotta acknowledge that this is all part of an underlying agenda to delegitimize him because he is the front-runner. It's now currently the case that mainstream news outlets are acknowledging rightfully so that he is the front-runner. So you're gonna see this more and more. They're gonna take whatever policy position they can outflank him on the left from and try to get him to look bad. Don't take the bait. You can disagree philosophically, but acknowledge that most people on the left have a real substantive argument as to why we're against open borders currently. You can disagree with that and still argue for that position, but don't take the bait. Now, since I showed you an example of a bad-faith argument from Jennifer Rubin, I put that up on the screen, I do wanna show you an example of someone who's a good-faith actor who supports Bernie Sanders, who took issue with the way he answered that question because I do think that this is a more nuanced way. You should respond to Bernie Sanders if you disagree and not basically pounce on him in a way that the establishment wants you to. So Daniel Denver, who is a Jacobin writer, says, "'Bernie's comment on open borders was bad. It was politically unnecessary. It played into a right-wing nativist trap and it was deeply misleading. Immigration flows from Mexico, for example, had never been primarily shaped by border enforcement. Rather, these flows have been the product of political economic realities in both countries, including migrant networks slash pathways shaped in significant part by U.S. capital. Capital only favors open borders for capital, not for people. The history is clear. The advance of neoliberalism and its opening of borders for free movement of capital has coincided with the brutal and lethal hardening of borders for the third world workers. That's not a coincidence. This serves capital twice. It A, foments a segmented labor force ripe for differential exploitation and B, it creates a useful scapegoat for the misery capital imposes. Bernie needn't call for open borders, though that like worker control of means of production is my goal. The open borders question is often a misleading one because it presupposes that there are only two options. Zero border controls or today's dystopian reality of border militarization. Bernie can demand a more open border without demanding open borders now. When Bernie is asked about open borders, he needs to respond wrong question. In the last three decades, we have nearly quintupled the size of our border patrol and built hundreds of miles of border wall, of a border wall, a measure that I voted against in 2006. In doing so, we have militarized the border beyond recognition, which has caused thousands of migrant deaths in the desert and harmed millions in borderlands communities. People who have told me that they don't want to live in a police state and don't want to be cut off from their Mexican sister cities, to which they have such deep longstanding social and economic ties. We have Trump today in part because we have had decades of scapegoating undocumented immigrants for the harms caused by an economy and government controlled by the 1% for their excessive benefit. It's no coincidence, NAFTA was accompanied by a massive crackdown on illegal immigration. Roman manual put it clearly to Clinton in a 1996 memo. The US, they believed had to crack down on illegal immigrants to quiet opposition to free trade. And so we must de-militarize the border and ensure that it is open to asylum seekers fleeing economic devastation and violence, a situation created by our country's policies in Central America. And with regard to Mexico, they are our next door neighbor and US business has for more than a century relied on recruiting and exploiting Mexican migrant labor. It is a moral and hypocritical to suddenly say that Mexicans, our neighbors are not welcome here. People say that Mexicans should come legally. Do you know how many years a Mexican relative of US citizen has to wait to do that? Mexicans need sufficient legal pathways to migrate so they can reunite with their families. If you are against unauthorized migration, you must provide Mexicans with the way to migrate legally. We must push Bernie, but he is already easily the best Democratic primary candidate on immigration. He voted against 2006 Secure Fence Act unlike Obama Clinton and Biden. He voted against the 2007 reform bill that included Recony Enforcement and Guest Worker Program. Voted against 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which greatly expanded power to detain and deport. He was one of just 87 members of House to Vote No on Catastrophic Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Bernie stood in solidarity with Central American revolutionaries during the 1980s. It was the US backed dirty wars, the murderous and even genocidal destruction of these revolutions that is at the root of today's migration crisis. Bernie must do better on immigration and he can. So I think that this is the perfect example of a good faith critique of Bernie Sanders argument because after not really thinking much about his answer, I do think that Daniel makes a phenomenal point that Bernie Sanders does need to come up with a better response if he's asked about this question because I think that more nuance is completely appropriate for this type of question because this is a very loaded question and it's a controversial topic that is ripe for mischaracterization and straw manning. But to be fair to Bernie Sanders, I don't think he was prepared to mount a comprehensive defense as to why we should have closed borders. I think he was just shooting down this notion that he supports open borders because he doesn't, that's a straw man. So I'll leave it there. Over the weekend, President Donald Trump spoke to a crowd of Jewish Americans in Las Vegas at an event sponsored by the Republican Jewish Coalition. And would you look at that? Sheldon Adelson, GOP mega donor, was in the front row listening to him speak. Now throughout the course of this event, throughout the course of Donald Trump's speech, he spoke about Jewish Americans in a way that is problematic. He invoked a trope that Ilhan Omar was just criticized for supposedly using a couple of weeks ago. Now, did Sheldon Adelson, who was sitting in the front row, again, stop him and call him out for this? Absolutely not. So what is it though? Let's get to what he said. What did he say that was so problematic? Here's a little clip of his speech. I stood with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Benjamin Netanyahu. How is the race going, by the way? How is it? Who's gonna win the race? Tell me, I don't know. Well, it's gonna be close. I think it's gonna be close. Two good people. Two good people. But I stood with you Prime Minister at the White House to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. The Golan Heights is something I've been hearing about for a long time, the Golan Heights. So I was talking to Ambassador Friedman and not about this. They've been trying to get that approved, as you know, for 52 years they wanted recognition from me. Now it was subtle, but in case you missed it, what he said there was he referred to Benjamin Netanyahu as, quote, your Prime Minister to a crowd of Jewish Americans. Benjamin Netanyahu is not their Prime Minister. They're Americans. So obviously this is troublesome because this is an anti-Semitic trope that suggests that Jewish Americans have dual loyalty to Israel and that they view Benjamin Netanyahu as their Prime Minister when they're not actually living in Israel. They're Americans. So the problem is that people are gonna chalk this up to Donald Trump just being Donald Trump and making an honest mistake. However, he did this multiple times. So as the intercepts Robert Mackey explains, later in his address to the Republican Jewish Coalition gathering, Trump referred a second time to American Jews as if they were Israelis by saying that a victory for Democrats in the 2020 election, quote, would cripple our country and very well could leave Israel out there all by yourselves. Several journalists expressed discomfort as Trump went on to suggest that his Jewish supporters should explain to some of your people in business and finance that they should stop opposing his imposition of tariffs on imported goods. Yeah, these are your people, Donald Trump. These are Jewish Americans. You're speaking to an event sponsored by the Republican Jewish Coalition. There are no Republicans in Israel. So obviously, if Ilhan Omar said what Donald Trump said, there would be universal condemnation. But because, you know, since we live in a fair world, the media, since he said this, has been ripping him apart nonstop. Republicans have come out to unequivocally condemn what he said Democrats have been la... Oh, I forgot. We don't live in a fair world and none of that happened. You know, aside from the Anti-Defamation League, vocalizing some concerns and, you know, a few peeps here and there, there was pretty much silence. And again, just a couple of weeks ago, Ilhan Omar was accused of invoking an anti-Semitic trope when she said, look, maybe it's the case that American lawmakers, not Jewish people, but American lawmakers have dual loyalty because they're taking money from lobbying firms like APAC, and then they're doing the bidding of their donors. We do the same thing when it comes to the NRA. We call out the Republican Party for being beholden to them and progressives call out Democrats for being beholden to Wall Street. So money in politics is an issue, and that's what she was speaking to, but nonetheless, she was accused of invoking an anti-Semitic trope. In other words, she was taking out of context and smeared because of it as an anti-Semi. Now, Ilhan Omar noticed all of this, of course, because it's a double standard. And she tweeted about this saying, my Lord, forgive my people, for they do not know. Couldn't have said it better myself. That's exactly it. Trump says something that is obviously troublesome at a minimum to be extra charitable here. He said something that was ignorant. Silence. Ilhan Omar makes a point and then gets straw manned, taken out of context, and we see universal condemnation by mainstream media, by both parties. Tells you everything you need to know and why progressives such as myself warned people like Chelsea Clinton about not taking seriously the arguments of bad faith actors that just wanted the Democratic Party to turn against one of their own for their own political reasons. So President Obama's back. He's back in the news, and it is because he gave a speech where he basically pulled down his pants and took a hot steaming dump on progressives. The very people, mind you, that helped him get elected in the first place, myself included, because I was actually a part of the Obama coalition because when he said that we need to do politics different than we've been doing it and not allow lobbyists to control what we're doing, I believed him. But now, this is what he's saying about us. And one of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives in the United States, maybe it's true here as well, is a certain kind of rigidity where we say, ah, I'm sorry, this is how it's gonna be. And then we start sometimes creating what's called a circular firing squad where you start shooting at your allies because one of them is straying from purity on the issues. And when that happens, typically the overall effort and movement weakens. So I think whether you are speaking as a citizen or as a political leader or as an organizer, whether you're in the nonprofit space or in civic space or you're in the political arena, you have to recognize that the way we've structured democracy requires you to take into account people who don't agree with you. And that by definition means you're not gonna get 100% of what you want. Thanks, Obama, appreciate it. So what he's getting wrong here is conceptually he's incorrect because we're not forming this circular firing squad and firing at people who are our allies. What he doesn't acknowledge is that members of the Democratic Party establishment are not our allies. They are our enemies to be opposed. Nancy Pelosi is a barrier to progress. Chuck Schumer, Steny Hoyer, all of these Democratic Party leaders, Sherry Bustos, head of the DCCC, they are barriers to progress. They're not our allies. They are our enemies. Now, you have to be nuanced and acknowledge that are they better than Republicans? Are they the only thing that stands in between Republicans and them taking power? Absolutely, but with that being said, they are not allies. And we have to be truthful about that. The Democratic Party is not our allies. Now, is it possible to maybe take control of the Democratic Party and get them to change direction since they're headed in the bad direction? You know, a more corporatist-centrist direction? Absolutely, that's possible, but we need to be clear. Democratic Party establishment leadership is not allies. So if we're taking shots at them, if we're criticizing them, if we're trying to push them to the left, it's not a circular firing squad because they're not on the left. They're in the center and we are on the left and we're demanding that the party at large moves back to the left. Now, just objectively speaking, when he says that incrementalism is kind of what happens, that's true, but what he's not acknowledging is that there is a theory in political science known as punctuated equilibrium theory, which posits that for the most part, we have institutions, America was essentially built to make incrementalism the norm. However, once in a while, maybe once in a generation, once per century, that equilibrium is challenged. It's punctuated by a burst of rapid change that subverts the norm of incrementalism. A couple of examples of this came in the form of the Reagan Revolution. A gigantic example, I think probably the most crystal clear example came in the form of the New Deal with FDR. So even if it's the case that our political system is designed specifically to encourage incrementalism and make change just happen at a slower pace in general, it's still the case that there are moments in time where that dam has basically got a burst and allow for rapid change. We're at one of those moments. Now is not the time for incrementalism. Now is the time for rapid change because if we do not change rapidly, it will be the end of us. Literally, I'm not being hyperbolic. I'm not being chicken little because now is not the time for incrementalism when it comes to an issue like climate change. The IPCC gave us 12 years to act. Now is not the time for incrementalism when it comes to healthcare because people are dying every single year. Millions are losing their health insurance. Millions more are becoming underinsured. Now is not the time for incrementalism. When there are numerous crises that we have to address quickly to call for incrementalism is a backwards approach and it really demonstrates why Obama was a colossal disappointment and why people like myself no longer support him after voting for him twice. The first time I can give myself a pass on, but in 2012, you know, I should have known better but there was no Democratic Party primary. And I kind of, I had this naive belief that maybe after he's reelected he could just go full Chomsky, you know, because he doesn't have to worry about reelection. So, you know, what's the fear? I was wrong, I was naive, but now it's clear that the Democratic Party establishment is openly saying what they used to kind of keep to themselves, shut up progressives. What we do is we move at a slow pace and we do incrementalism. That's what we do. If you don't like it, shut up, you're being pure. No, it's not about being pure. It's about having standards. Every single person has standards. So I'm really sick and tired of Obama because, you know, it's irritating that he still has a relatively high approval rating while he continuously shits on the left. And I think it's because there's this juxtaposition, you know, of Trump and Obama. Obama was the last president and there was a lot of stability and no change and now with Donald Trump, there's still really no change but there's a lot of instability politically and it's easy to love Obama if you're dealing with someone like Donald Trump who is basically losing his mind, you know, on a daily basis. And I'm not trying to psychoanalyze him. I'm just saying the dude is unhinged. So it's easy to see why people love Obama and they view him nostalgically with rose-colored glasses, but if you try to remove those rose-colored glasses and you see him for what he is, he was a moderate Republican and you don't have to take my word for it, take his word for it because that's actually how he described himself. The truth of the matter is, is that my policies are so mainstream that, you know, if I had said the same policies that I have back in the 1980s, I'd be considered a moderate Republican. Approximately two months have passed since Bernie Sanders promised to release 10 years worth of tax returns in a CNN town hall with Wolf Blitzer and the media has gone out of their way to remind you that he still has not released his tax returns. You have V.T. Digger reminding you that he has not yet released his tax returns. WCAX reminding you that he has still not released his tax returns. You have CNN reminding you in a six-minute segment that he has not released his tax returns. Trevor Noah asking him about it in an appearance on The Daily Show. CNN dedicating another six-minute segment, reminding Americans that he hasn't released his tax returns. And the problem is that as time passes by, it's fueling more and more speculation about whether or not Bernie Sanders even wants to release his tax returns at all because most likely he's a millionaire for selling lots of books and maybe it's the case that he wants to hide that fact from us. And as MSNBC asks, could Bernie Sanders' tax returns drive his supporters away? So basically what we're seeing with the media really harping away on this issue is them trying to make something that's not a thing, a thing. And it's evident that they're actively trying to increase the salience of this issue for us. Now, to be clear, do I believe that Bernie Sanders should release his tax returns? Absolutely. Do I believe that it's kind of Bernie's own fault that the media is even speculating in the first place because if you just released the tax returns then you shut them up? Absolutely, Bernie shouldn't have taken this long to release his tax returns. But with that being said, is it also the case that Bernie Sanders is unfairly being held to a different standard than pretty much every other presidential candidate? Yeah, that's also the case because there's just been what four candidates so far that actually have released their tax returns. Jay Inslee, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand and Elizabeth Warren. So when you have more than a dozen other candidates who haven't released their tax returns, why is all of the focus being put on Bernie here? Why is the spotlight on him and not being equally distributed to the rest of the candidates? Well, you have to remember that the media is currently trying to construct this narrative that equates Bernie Sanders with Donald Trump. If you'll recall, last week we talked about a Washington Post article by Dana Milbang where he claimed Bernie Sanders is the Trump of the left. So by specifically focusing on Bernie Sanders not releasing his tax returns, this adds to the narrative that maybe he isn't too different from Donald Trump. Maybe since Donald Trump refuses to release his tax returns because he's obviously hiding something, maybe the same is also true for Bernie Sanders. But I'm here to tell the media on behalf of all progressives and if you think that I don't speak for you too bad because I'm gonna do it here now that we do not care what's in Bernie Sanders' tax returns and they're trying to promise to believe that there's going to be some bombshell, namely a bombshell that he's a millionaire, but no shit, he sold millions of dollars worth of books, millions of dollars worth. So I'm not gonna be surprised if his tax returns prove that he's a millionaire. I'm expecting him to now be a millionaire. What I care about is that he's consistent with regard to policy, that he doesn't suddenly say, well, you know what, now that I'm a millionaire, fuck you, I got mine, I'm no longer in favor of taxing millionaires. If he suddenly changed his policy positions, then that'd be an issue because what we care about is millionaires paying their fair share. And so long as he is going to hold himself to that same standard, there's no problem here. But again, the media is trying to make you think or at least arouse suspicion about the possibility that Bernie Sanders maybe isn't delaying the release of his tax returns just because this is something that his wife Jane is doing by herself and they don't have an accountant. Maybe he's doing it to actively hide something. And I think that that is, it's disingenuous and it shows that they really don't have very much to hammer Bernie Sanders for. So they've kind of carved out this area where they feel as if they can attack him. And I think justifiably so because again, he should have released his tax returns by now. But basically this is the response that they're expecting. They're trying to get you to believe that something as suspicious as there. And then once he puts out his tax returns and it shows that he's a millionaire, then they're gonna say, well, would you look at that progressives? He's a millionaire. But again, it's not gonna be surprising to progressives and I don't think it's going to be an issue. So now he recently talked about when he will be releasing his tax returns. He gave us an updated timeframe as to when he's gonna do this to put all of the criticism and speculation to rest. And as Zach Budrick of the Hill reports, quote, we are going to release 10 years of our tax returns and we hope that on that day, Donald Trump will do the same. He continued. Sanders acknowledged in the interview that he is a millionaire attributing it to his book sales. The newspaper noted that his most recent book, Where Do We Go From Here? was published last year. Quote, I wrote a best-selling book, he told the Times. If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire too. Sanders and other Democratic presidential candidates have sought to release their own financial information in an effort to push Trump to release his tax returns. During the 2016 election, Trump cited an IRS audit as his reason for not releasing his tax returns. The agency has said audits don't prohibit individuals from releasing information about their own finances. So there's no reason to speculate. He says, I'm a millionaire because again, sold a lot of books and we're gonna release them on Monday. So I'm glad that he's finally doing this. I hope he actually does it because if he doesn't, then pundits in the mainstream media will have a conniption fit. But he needs to do it and I think he will and I'm glad that he is finally going to do it and understand that a lot of the information that we want that the media seeks about his finances, it's available in Senate financial disclosures already. So this desire to fuel speculation is especially disingenuous knowing that the media is already cognizant of this fact that they can look up this information. And back in 2014, when he was running for president, he released his 2014 tax returns and Politico described it as just as boring as Bernie Sanders claimed it would be. So really there's no there there and it's frustrating that the media is obviously trying to make this an issue. But at the same time, I've gotta call it like I see it and say it's kind of Bernie's fault because before he announced that he was going to run, if he didn't have his tax returns already prepared, he knew this would be an issue and he should have done more to kind of quell the criticisms he should have foreseen. But with that being said, the fact that it's going to happen is important. I'm just curious to see what the media will move on to next because it's not like this is gonna put to rest all of the criticisms of Bernie Sanders. They're gonna still continue to attack him because obviously he poses a threat to the status quo and the elite class which media pundits are part of. So don't think that this is going to be the end of the media's criticisms of Bernie Sanders. Simply put, they're just gonna move on to the next thing and it's as simple as that. Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg is currently surging and I think that he's surging largely because the mainstream media and the pundit class has unquestionably fallen in love with him and to give you a snapshot as to how in love with him they are, cable news gave him as much coverage as Bernie Sanders who's the current front runner in the Democratic Party primary field. So this is a perfect example that demonstrates how powerful the mainstream news media is because they can take someone who on a national level is completely unknown and turn that person into a political icon simply by covering them a lot, giving him more coverage than other candidates. It's also the type of coverage that they're giving to him because more so than any other candidate, Pete Buttigieg has gotten a lot of puff pieces about him, including in The Daily Show with Trevor Noah who did a segment about him and literally said nothing bad about him and Trevor Noah claims, quote, I'm being serious, there's no dirt on this guy which just shows that Trevor Noah and his team didn't do their research and additionally, CNN's Chris Eliza ran a nearly seven minute long puff piece on Pete Buttigieg and explained that he's having his moment and he's currently surging in the polls and we're seeing the makings of a political superstar while not mentioning that really the reason why he's surging, the reason why this phenomenon is currently taking place is because of the mainstream media. Now this begs the question, why do pundits in the mainstream media love Pete Buttigieg so much? And I think it's because he's replaced Beto O'Rourke as the establishment's best bet to possibly dethrone Bernie Sanders because Beto's campaign, I mean, even though he is a prolific fundraiser, he's not really drawing very many large crowds like Bernie Sanders is so they need the next best thing that they can prop up to compete against Bernie Sanders to thwart off this threat that Bernie Sanders poses to the status quo. And he's what I'd like to call a palatable progressive and he's progressive to them in the sense that he can pass as a progressive to a pretty large portion of the public. Is he actually progressive is the question because he certainly wants you to think that he's progressive and even if he's tried to avoid labels, he says if he was forced to if his arm was twisted, he would self-identify as a pretty staunch progressive. And the media certainly wants you to think that he's pretty progressive. We're told over and over again just how progressive he is. Now it's odd because the media often attacks what they call the far left, which they're also claiming he's part of, yet simultaneously reaping endless praise on him. So what's going on here? Is he actually a progressive? Well, what makes a progressive? A large reason why someone like Bernie Sanders is appealing is because of his fundraising. And when you look at Pete Buttigieg's fundraising methods, it's easy to see that he's not very progressive in the specific area. When he was running to be the DNC chair in 2017, he had a pack and he now has Democratic Party mega donors doing fundraisers on his behalf. And he made it very clear that he's not shutting out the possibility of taking bribes from Wall Street because as Politico's Ben White reports, Pete said in an interview that he would not shy away from seeking Wall Street cash, quote, but I'm not sure they would be too wild about me anyway, he said noting that he too is focused on small dollar grassroots donors. In other words, he's willingly making himself susceptible to corruption by opening the door to these bribes that Wall Street will unquestionably give him if he starts to win some primaries. So I don't think that the descriptor that the mainstream media and he gives himself of progressive is appropriate, but that's just based on fundraising. What about the policy? Because there are various policies that I think really are the hallmark of progressivism, modern day progressivism anyways. And these policies include Medicare for All and tuition-free public colleges and universities. So what does he say about these policy ideals? Well, at Asina and Town Hall, here's what he said about Medicare for All. That's why I believe we do need to move in the direction of a Medicare for All system. Now, I think anyone in politics who lets the words Medicare for All escape their lips also has a responsibility to explain how we could actually get there. Because as you know, from working on this day in and day out, it's not something you can just flip a switch and do. In my view, the best way to do that is through what you might call a Medicare for All who want it set up. In other words, you take some flavor of Medicare, you make it available on the exchange as a kind of public option and you invite people to buy into it. There's another name for the policy that he's describing. It's called a public option. But if you'll notice what he's doing here, he is taking that name, Medicare, and he's attaching it to his non-Medicare for All policy because he knows that Medicare for All is incredibly popular, but yet he wants you to think that he supports Medicare for All when in actuality, he's not saying that he's going to do Medicare for All. He's saying that his goal is a public option, Medicare for All who wanted, although it's a goal for him further down the line. So one day we can get to Medicare for All, but we've got to have a stepping stone first. And to him, that is a public option, Medicare for All who wanted. It's incredibly misleading, it's disingenuous, and really it's a bait and switch. But moving on to another really, I think important progressive issue, tuition-free public college and universities. Recently at Northeastern University, he said that he does not support this. And this is the reasoning he gave. At the end of the day, Americans who have a college degree earn more on average than Americans who don't. And as a progressive, I have a hard time getting my head around the idea that a majority who earn less because they didn't go to college would subsidize a minority who earn more because they did all the way to 100%. I think some of that subsidy is justified because it's an investment in our whole future. But I think expecting somebody to pay zero might go further than what's reasonable, especially if we have robust ways to get your student loans forgiven anyway if you're willing to commit to some kind of public service or career in teaching. So I know it's not the most popular answer, but hopefully it can be viewed as a reasonable one. Now for those of you who don't know, what he just used was a right-wing justification for not supporting tuition-free public college. Because think about this, what do Republicans say when it comes to healthcare? Well, why should the healthy subsidize the healthcare costs of the sick? Why should we have to pay taxes that go towards public education if we don't have any kids in public schools? This is a conservative argument that Republicans make against our social safety net, and it is right-wing at its core. But here he is lying to you, saying that subsidizing free college is something that forces more disadvantaged people to subsidize the tuition of elites. What he's leaving out here is that rich people and elites are not going to benefit from public colleges being tuition-free because they're already going to send their kids to private institutions, elitist Ivy League schools. So it's important that people are given the opportunity, disadvantaged people who normally can't afford college to actually get into college if they work hard and have tuition be free, because for a lot of people, it's a non-starter. You can't even consider college because the cost of tuition now is a non-starter. So what he's trying to do is weasel his way out of supporting a progressive policy, but he's invoking a right-wing justification for him not supporting something that is overwhelmingly progressive. Now, what about the Green New Deal? We've gotten a lot of indications from him that he loves the Green New Deal and he supports it. He's spoken very kindly about it, but when you look at his platform, according to Jeff Stein of the Washington Post and what he received from Mayor Pete, well, the Green New Deal was conspicuously absent in favor of quote, comprehensive climate change plan. And that sounds wonderful, but we have to know what that plan is. If you're running for president, I don't expect you to one day come up with a plan from the jump you should be in favor of a plan, but there are other policies that are, I think, intentionally vague. He says that he supports Medicare for All but wants to keep private insurance. Okay, what does that mean? Because that doesn't necessarily make sense. Do you support the public option that you alluded to supporting at the CNN Town Hall? What does that mean? He says that he has a plan for automation's impact on jobs. Okay, great, but I don't care if you plan to have a plan. I care that you give us the specifics of your plans now, not just promise to have a plan eventually. I mean, how are you going to market yourself to voters by saying, look, I promise you, I'm gonna come up with a bunch of sweet plans. You can't see them right now, but I'll have a plan, just trust me. It's absurd. So there's a real lack of policy details here that I think characterizes his campaign the most. And he was actually asked about this in an interview with Vice News and he's leaving out the policy specifics intentionally. He literally said that platitudes should be prioritized over thorough policy specifics. Don't take my word for it, take his word for it. You definitely speak very progressively, but you don't have like a lot of super specific policy ideas. Part of where the left and the center left had gone wrong is we've been so policy led that we haven't been as philosophical. We like to think of ourselves as the intellectual ones, but the truth is the right has done a better job in my lifetime of connecting up its philosophy and its values to its politics. Right now, I think we need to articulate the values, lay out our philosophical commitments and then develop policies off of that. And I'm working very hard not to put the card before the horse. Is there time for that? You know, they want the list. They wanna know exactly what you're gonna do. I think it can actually be a little bit dishonest but I think you have it all figured out on day one. Look, I think we're all, anybody in this race or conversation is gonna be a hell of a lot more specific and policy oriented than say the current president. But I don't think we ought to have that all kind of locked in on day one. Yeah, you absolutely should have that locked down on day one because if you don't run with any policy specifics in mind, why are you choosing to run for president? For example, Bernie Sanders claims that his campaign was initially catalyzed because he doesn't see anyone who's talking about progressive policy ideals. He ran because of the policy. But you're putting platitudes first. You're essentially burying the lead, which is something that a presidential candidate should not do. So that to me was an embarrassing thing for a so-called progressive to say. But the thing is that Pete Buttigieg isn't progressive. It's not just that he isn't progressive enough for me. It's that he's not progressive. He is a centrist. And he even outflanks Barack Obama from the right sometimes because he stated that he was troubled by Clemency for Chelsea Manning, a hero who's a whistleblower that exposed the United States government's war crimes. He continues to repraise on Israel as their government massacres Palestinians and carries out a literal modern day apartheid. And after Israel just murdered Palestinian protesters recently, he then praised them subsequently for their security arrangement as, quote, moving in clear-eyed, and he then chastised Democrats that spoke out against Israel's brutal response to peaceful protests. So I don't think I would say someone who does that is very progressive. I'd say the opposite is true. He's just another centrist Democrat, like a lot of other individuals in the field. It's just that he's a lot more effective at coding his words in a way that makes it easier for progressives to digest. And he sneaks in these more centrist ideals in between some bold policies, like wanting to abolish the electoral college and having, I think, a pretty solid plan to pack the Supreme Court and depoliticize it to an extent, but at the same time, if you look at him to his core, he's not progressive. And I think this is highlighted in a recent article for Current Affairs by Nathan Robinson, where he basically read Pete Buttigieg's book and took him at his own word and realized this guy is not progressive at all because as mayor of South Bend, it's evident that he rarely converses with ordinary people and instead just surrounds himself with political advisors and local elites. He also seemed eager to eliminate jobs, for example. In his book, he talks about getting rid of the job that trash collectors do and replacing them with mechanical arms on vehicles, not to mention the eviction rate in South Bend, Indiana is three times higher than the national average. There's enormous wealth disparities between whites and blacks. Homelessness and gentrification are giant issues in South Bend that Pete Buttigieg hasn't addressed appropriately and perhaps the most grotesque anecdote Nathan Robinson writes about that he got from Pete Buttigieg's own book was his plan to repair or demolish a thousand houses in South Bend within a thousand days in order to solve a problem that the city had with abundant vacancies. Nathan writes, make repairs or have your house flattened? Wait, who were the people who were unable to make repairs? Were they by chance poor? Also, how do these houses become vacant in the first place? Where people evicted or foreclosed on look a little deeper into the coverage and you'll find that this was not simply a matter of efficient and responsive government but a plan to coerce those who possessed dilapidated houses into either spending money or having the houses cleared away for development. Community advocates in poor, often African-American or Hispanic neighborhoods began to complain that the city was being too aggressive in finding property owners over code enforcement. The city leveled fines that added up to thousands of dollars in certain cases to pressure homeowners to make repairs or have their houses demolished. Buddha judges autobiography does not discuss the social implications of his plan. He brags about his audacious goals and ambitious initiatives but questions of justice and injustice are absent. So just stop and think about that. This is how he chose to respond to an issue of there being too many vacancies in South Bend. Now throughout the book, Nathan notes that Pete doesn't really talk about the issues in South Bend, the rampant homelessness, which is a crisis, poverty, wealth disparities. He doesn't talk about this. Instead, he focuses on himself. And additionally, on top of that, Mayor Pete has been criticized for not tending to the homelessness crisis, especially last year when temperatures were extremely low and it was cruel to not act when there were people in your city sleeping on the streets and there was also a scandal that led to calls for his impeachment after he fired South Bend's black police chief for reportedly blackmailing five white police officers because they were apparently caught on tape using racial slurs. And Robinson also talks about Buddha judges apparent lack of moral judgment and explains that, you know, even though Pete Buddha judge rightfully opposes the Iraq and Vietnam wars, he only opposes them on the basis of them being impractical. He doesn't oppose them based on them being immoral. And throughout the course of his book, Nathan notes that there's this underlying lack of moral clarity. There's this ambivalence towards the morality of certain political issues. And being a former military intelligence officer, you'd think that he'd have something to say about the U.S. empire. You'd think he'd speak out against it because you can see how, for example, a candidate like Tulsi Gabbard frequently talks about her experience as a veteran shaped her worldview. And that's why she's vehemently against the U.S. empire. It's why she speaks out vociferously against the regime change wars. But for whatever reason, there's this moral ambivalence or possibly moral obliviousness that Mayor Pete Buddha judge has. Now, to be fair, he did write about the moral outrage he felt when the governor of Indiana, Mike Pence, at the time signed a bill into law that let businesses discriminate against LGBTQ Americans. He also talks about being morally outraged with Donald Trump's immigration policy. But the problem is that overall, he just seems to disregard moral issues or remains apathetic to them when there are things that should theoretically trouble someone who is a self-proclaimed progressive. For example, he worked for the consulting firm McKinley, which is a morally reprehensible organization that works with dictatorial regimes around the world. They pushed OxyCon that worked with Saudi Arabia, which is a murderous regime. And they also work with big pharma companies like Purdue, which just rips off Americans. So, I mean, you'd think that Buddha judge as a progressive, as a so-called progressive would be speaking out about this, but he just feigns ignorance when it comes to his former employers on ethical actions. Now, to be fair, I don't wanna convey to you that he's the worst candidate ever because I'm not saying that. I don't think he's the worst candidate ever, but I'm just simply saying that if we're looking at this claim that he is a progressive, both by himself and the mainstream media, it just doesn't hold up to even the most minimal amount of scrutiny. All you have to do is a quick Google search and you'll learn that this guy is not progressive. He's a centrist. But again, he's not the worst candidate. He was previously criticized for using all lives matter in response to a question about black lives matter. But I think that he had a relatively thoughtful response to explain why he used the term all lives matter. What I did not understand at that time was that that phrase, just early into mid, especially 2015, was coming to be viewed as a sort of counter-slogan to black lives matter. And so this statement that seems very anodyne and something that nobody could be against actually wound up being used to devalue what the black lives matter movement was telling us, which is what we needed to hear because unfortunately, it was not obvious to everybody that black lives were being valued the same. And so that is the contribution of black lives matter. And it's a reason why, since learning about how that phrase was being used to push back on that activism, I've stopped using it at that time. So I thought that was a pretty thoughtful response. I don't know if he's just pretending to be ignorant again, but at least he demonstrated that, you know, the reason why we don't like when somebody responds to black lives matter with all lives matter is because they're trying to shut down the conversation. I think that that, you know, it's good that he noted that. So in no way am I claiming that he is the worst of the worst. I think probably the worst 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate is Joe Biden. In the event he enters the race, which it seems like he will, but when it comes to this question of whether or not Pete would a judge is progressive, the answer is no. It's an unequivocal no because he's not a progressive. That's just the fact. He is nothing more than another elitist, centrist, technocratic bullshitter who wants to lie his way into the White House by pretending to be more progressive than he actually is. So I pulled a couple of clips from Kirsten Gillibrand's town hall and CNN because I think that she is someone to look out for. And I know that she isn't necessarily pulling too well just yet, but I think that what she demonstrated over the course of this town hall is that she is incredibly slick. I think she's extremely charismatic and she reminds me of Hillary Clinton if Hillary Clinton was more strategically savvy and didn't piss people off every single time she opened her mouth by saying something smug or elitist because what Kirsten Gillibrand does is she says something that makes progressives feel satisfied with her answer, but she's saying this all while remaining firmly in the camp of corporate America. Now let me explain what I mean by that. So recently a pharmaceutical executive named Sally Sussman hosted a fundraiser for Kirsten Gillibrand. So in my view, that's something that I deem disqualifying. After you've done a fundraiser, a private fundraiser, a multi-thousand dollar fundraiser with a big pharma executive, what little interest I already had in you, it vanishes. And I think she knows that that pissed off a lot of people. So she was asked about this surprisingly to CNN's credit at her town hall and the answer that she gave was really, really interesting to me because even if she still defends her decision to have a fundraiser, the policy solution that she proposes is so good that I think that she may actually be able to distract people from the fact that she did something that was overly corrupt in the first place. I know that you speak very passionately about supporting Medicare for All, but you also have a long history of taking campaign and lobbying money from pharmaceutical companies, a lot of whom manufactured drugs at prices that I could not afford without insurance. Are you committed to questioning your contradiction in supporting Medicare for All while remaining close to drug companies? How exactly do you plan to reform these practices and can we expect to see the change reflected in your Senate votes and if you're president? Well, my voting record, I stand up to the drug companies. I've sponsored legislation to stand up to the drug companies and I'm not beholden to donors. That's why I'm in favor of publicly funded elections. It's also why I don't take corporate PAC money. It's why I don't take federal lobbyist money and it's why I don't wanna have an individual super PAC. I believe if you wanna restore this democracy into your hands, you're gonna have to get money out of politics. You're actually gonna have to fight for publicly funded elections. So I'm not beholden to any industries and my voting record proves it. So given the optics of being too cozy with pharmaceuticals and the point that Scout was making, why did you allow a Pfizer vice president to host a fundraiser for you? Because she's my friend and I've known her for lots of years and she supports my positions on LGBTQ equality and she supports my positions on women's rights and women's empowerment. So individuals will support you for all sorts of reasons and you don't wanna undermine an individual's right to participate but it's one of the reasons, because you've made that assumption, it's one of the reasons why we need to get money out of politics because it corrodes people's belief that our democracy is strong. So you want publicly funded elections. It's the quickest and best way to restore people's faith in our democracy. That to me was just a masterful dodge. It was art. It really was a form of art because what she does to get you to forget about the fact that she just did a fundraiser with a pharmaceutical executive whose company rips people off and who just gave their CEO a 61% pay raise. She wants you to forget about that and she invokes a really bold, progressive policy. She says that's why I support publicly financing elections, all of them. And the only other person who really talks about this is Bernie Sanders and she said it unequivocally. She said I support publicly financed elections, full stop. She didn't add in the caveat that I want to get money, dark money out of politics. She just said I want to get money period out of politics. And I think that that is absolutely a great way to get people to forget about the fact that you're not serious about wanting to get corruption out of politics because again, you just attended a fundraiser with a pharma executive. So why should we believe you? Because if she's willing to cozy up to big pharma executives like Sally Sussman who's a multi-millionaire and a campaign bundler, then obviously if she's friends with these types of people, these powerful individuals, obviously she's going to be susceptible to their influence. So if she does one day become president and proposes legislation to publicly finance all elections and get money out of politics, don't you think that since she's friends with them and they have a vested interest in fighting that, that they have at least some influence over her and could potentially get her to reverse course? Of course. So what we need is less talk and more action because she's not practicing what she's preaching. She's saying exactly what she needs to be saying when it comes to getting money out of politics but simultaneously she's participating in the corruption and the process where money does corrupt our political system. If you're doing private fundraisers with big pharma executives, that's part of the problem. So you can't identify the problem and still participate. You have to practice what you preach. She's not doing that, but she's slick because she's saying what you want to hear and she's hoping that saying the right thing will be a big enough distraction from the fact that she's not walking the walk. I think it's really brilliant. It's a great way to dodge this issue. It's a great way to kind of distract you from the core issue that I think plagues her overall campaign, but it's lazy. It's absolutely sleazy. Now on the note of healthcare and big pharma she was asked about whether or not she would support the abolition of private insurance companies. Now the person kind of worded this in a way that may be misleading because I don't think Bernie Sanders is explicitly saying that we ban private health insurance companies. He's just saying we should construct a Medicare for all plan that's so good that they would go out of business because nobody would need private insurance. We fill all the gaps with our Medicare for all system that makes those private health companies unnecessary and hopefully non-existent. So, you know, besides the framing which I think is a little bit problematic, here's what she says overall and what she says is very unclear with regard to her stance on Medicare for all. Hi, Senator Gillibrand. Yeah. My name is Comron. I have two heart conditions and a spine condition that have required me to get life altering surgeries throughout my childhood. And if my family wasn't able to afford those surgeries if my family couldn't pay for a pacemaker and two steel rods in my back, I wouldn't be alive today. So would you abolish the private insurance industry that has taken advantage of people like me? Well, first of all, thank you for being so brave. And thank you for sharing your story with all of us. It's bravery of yours that inspires me to work harder every day to take on the insurance companies to make sure healthcare is a right and not a privilege. That's why I am for Medicare for all and I believe that the best way to get there is let people buy in and that was how we get to single payer over a very short transition period. I think part of the corruption and greed in Washington is the insurance industry as the middleman for healthcare because they don't necessarily care about which surgeries you need or which medicine you need or how many days in the hospitals you need. Ultimately, they're for profit companies and they have to care about their bottom line and their shareholders. And I think that's the misalignment in healthcare today. I don't think you can actually get to universal coverage unless you have a not-for-profit public option that is focused solely on human health. Would you be able to say, though, that an option that you support would be able to get him everything that he needs without his family paying a dollar extra with no wait time and no, okay, well, pacemakers aren't included or something like that? You should ask anyone in America who has access to Medicare. It covers the things you need. It certainly covers the medications. It covers the surgeries, the hospital stays, everything you need. And I think if people bought in at a price they could afford, like 4% of income, that would work. And if you matched it with your employer and you had a choice over the way we wrote Senator Sanders' bill, I got to write the transition piece or work on that piece. We had a buy in over four years. I think most Americans, if you do your number crunching in your own head, 4% of your income, yeah, it's probably less than you're paying now. And people will choose it. I would choose it in a New York minute. And I think if you've got to Medicare for all, what you're gonna do is have economies of scale, which will bend the cost curve. You'll have all Americans have access to preventive care, which bends the cost curve. And then you need to actually get some costs out by ending fee for service, making sure our doctors can work on a continuum of care model like they have at the Mayo Clinic. And make sure that you get the price of pharmaceuticals down. That means taking on the drug companies. So I do want to talk to you about that because we have a question about pharmaceutical prices. The Medicare today, back to greed and corruption, the reason why Medicare patients don't have the lowest cost for drugs is because under George W. Bush, they negotiated in the dead of night to make sure that drug manufacturers would never have to negotiate in bulk with Medicare. So first of all, it's important to note that she did not answer his question. She did not unequivocally say that I'd support getting rid of the private health insurance companies. We're not expecting her to say we're gonna pass the law making them illegal. We're just saying that you're going, we want you to commit to a bill that would make them unnecessary and therefore go out of business because your Medicare for all plan is so strong. She didn't answer the core question. Now, additionally, if you'll notice she talked about a Medicare buy-in as a way to get to Medicare for all. But the problem is that you don't need to establish that unnecessary step in between our for-profit system and Medicare for all. You can just go directly from our current system to Medicare for all. But I don't know if she's saying that a Medicare buy-in would just be established once we pass Medicare for all and simply serve as a transitionary necessity. Once we pass Medicare for all and until we get to there, I think that it feels anyway that she's being intentionally unclear because I think she's trying to leave herself room for plausible deniability. So if she's ever elected and she doesn't do Medicare for all and she gives us a public option, then she could say, I never fully committed to Medicare for all. I supported Bernie's bill. I co-sponsored it, but at the same time, I also co-sponsored other half measures. I said I supported a public option. So I didn't lie. It's not a lie, technically. I'm not going back on my campaign promise. I'm doing what I said I was going to do. It seems like that's the case, but also she's leaving room for interpretation that she actually does support Medicare for all and she only supports Medicare buy-in as a means of establishing that as a necessity during the transition process. But when you hear someone like Pete Buttigieg talk about Medicare for everyone who wants it, he just says, you know, or he implies certainly that Medicare for all is more of a long-term ideal, but now we should just do a Medicare buy-in. Now I don't know if she's saying that. So she needs to be clear, but I think that this room for interpretation is really, it's a tactic, right? She's trying to be purposefully vague to give herself enough room to make you think she supports Medicare for all, but also allow her to weasel out of it if she doesn't pass it, if she's elected. And again, because of her relationship with pharmaceutical executives like Sally Sussman, my default position with respect to Kirsten Gillibrand is always to be overly skeptical of every single thing that she says, because if you're friends with someone who has a vested interest in maintaining the for-profit status quo that we currently have, I can't trust you. I have to be skeptical of you because I'd be a moron and I'd be really naive to not be skeptical of what you're saying. So overall, she is someone who is clearly politically astute. She is strategically savvy, perhaps more so than a lot of her colleagues, more so than Beto O'Rourke, certainly more so than Pete Buttigieg, but she's one to watch because she talks in a way that allows her to firmly keep her feet rooted in two different camps, the establishment corporate wing of the party and the progressive wing. And she'll adopt really bold policy proposals while simultaneously probably behind closed doors, promising her donor something else. So I don't trust her one bit. And if you're gonna do fundraisers, then I don't think it's irrational or unreasonable for us to question your loyalty and if you're serious about Medicare for all, because we've been fucked over how many times now Barack Obama said he supports a public option, he didn't even push for it. So we've been screwed over in the post Obama era of Democratic Party politics, we're not going to interpret anything a politician says charitably. We're going to expect you by default to betray us and it's your job to prove to us that that's not the case. And in my opinion, she hasn't done that. It's clear she is another bullshitter and I don't trust her. Sorry, stop doing fundraisers with big pharma executives. I don't care how lovely a person Sally Sussman may be personally. I don't care that she supports LGBTQ rights. I mean, how progressive to support LGBTQ rights in 2019. She's still a big pharma executive who's fucking over Americans ripping people off. That doesn't make you a good person. Overall, you can have these good qualities about you and be supportive of equality in a more equitable society. But if you're still ripping off Americans and profiting off of pain, you're not a good person. And to be friends with them, to want to be friends with a shitty person like that, I just, I'm sorry, I can't trust you. So as you all know, Bernie Sanders just reintroduced his Medicare for all bill and he actually included some much needed additions that were lacking from the 2017 version. And one of those inclusions was something that I was desperately hoping for which is coverage for long-term care. So here's what the Huff posts Daniel Moranz and Jonathan Cohn say about it. Quote, the latest version of Medicare for all includes coverage of home health aides, job counselors and other supports that allow disabled and elderly people to live on their own outside of nursing homes or other institutions. The new bill is also winning praise from representatives of the disability rights community who worked closely with Sanders on crafting the provisions for home and community-based services which today are typically available only for people whose low incomes qualify them for Medicaid and even then only on unlimited basis. Previous versions of the Sanders bill did not include this coverage. We are grateful to Senator Sanders for including home and community-based long-term services and supports as part of the Medicare for all bill, said Nicole Jorwick, Senior Director of Public Policy at the ARC. The all includes people on waiting lists for these services all over the country. Sanders envisions moving all people into the new government insurance program over the course of four years. That is a key difference between his bill and the latest version of house Medicare for all legislation which Representative Pramila Jayapal introduced in February and which calls for a transition of just two years. But in most respects, the bills are similar and on a similar political trajectory. The new version of Jayapal's legislation includes enhancements, including better coverage of long-term care for the elderly and disabled. So the inclusion of long-term care was crucial and I'm glad that he added that. I am a little bit disappointed to be honest that the transition period is four years and that he didn't bring his bill to parity with Pramila Jayapal's to make it two years but this isn't going to be the last iteration. Hopefully when it is reintroduced when he's one day president, these bills will match but one way or another they're gonna have to be reconciled to get passed and codified into law but nonetheless, this is great. I'm glad that he reintroduced this because we need to know where the other Democratic Party senators are at and as far as I know, it seems like it has the same number of co-sponsors including some of Bernie Sanders primary opponents, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, the same people and from my understanding Kirsten Gillibrand actually wrote certain provisions with regard to the transition period. So even if it's the case that they're simultaneously co-sponsoring other half measures and that doesn't necessarily communicate to me that they're serious about actually getting Medicare for all, nonetheless, their support is still important and them lending their support is only good for our cause. So with that being said, I'm glad, I'm happy that he reintroduced this and while we all should be celebrating, unfortunately I feel a little bit disheartened to be honest because the way that the media is depicting this legislation, it's overwhelmingly biased. So I wanna give you an example of that. One of them came from an article that Politico published by Adam Cancran where he literally overly suggested that Bernie Sanders reintroducing this now is actually divisive. He literally suggested that. Now, why would a bill that would actually save lives, thousands of lives of Americans every single year be divisive? Well, it's because currently Trump is attacking the Affordable Care Act and Democrats of all stripes came together, they united behind this renewed sense of urgency to defend the Affordable Care Act. So by Bernie Sanders saying, let's do Medicare for all, that's apparently divisive. He says, Senator Bernie Sanders tried to stake his position as the leading progressive in a crowded presidential field on Wednesday by rolling out a new Medicare for all plan in the process reopening divisions among Democrats after President Donald Trump united them with his renewed assault on Obamacare. Now, Mr. Cancran also points out how the critics were supposedly shitting on this bill saying that it's a pipe dream and that it would cost $30 trillion. And I just gotta ask the question, are you serious, Adam Cancran? Are you actually a serious journalist? Because what you're saying here, it's either showing one of two things, you're stupid or you're disingenuous. And I honestly don't know which one is worse because to say that Bernie is divisive for introducing a healthcare plan that the overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party's own based supports to say that that's divisive, you're fucking delusional. You're downright delusional if you honestly think that that's the case because you're the one who's being divisive. The Democrats who don't support what their own base wants, they're the ones that are being divisive. And I love how he included that some critics are saying it's a pipe dream. Oh, are they really saying it's a pipe dream? Are they really? I've never heard that before. I've never heard them call it pie in the sky. He also says here that critics are saying it could cost, you know, $30 trillion. And Bernie Sanders isn't specifically say how we can pay for that. Well, let me ask you this dipshit. How much does our current system cost? Whenever somebody says that Medicare for all costs $30 trillion, please respond by asking them how much they think our current system costs. It costs $60 trillion. So understand when they use that $30 trillion or 32 trillion figure, they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. That doesn't refer to the cost that refers to the shift that we will make. Because of course, if you move to Medicare for all, you increase federal spending, but at the same time, you decrease state, local and individual spending. So to say that Bernie Sanders Medicare for all plan has a price tag of $30 trillion, you're demonstrating that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and you're a journalist. Do your motherfucking job for once. Do your fucking job. $30 trillion is not the cost of Medicare for all. Overall, it would cost about $57 trillion. And this is according to a conservative estimate by the Mercatus Center. So for everyone who's saying Medicare for all will cost $32 trillion. Ask them how much our current system costs and wash their eyes glaze over because they're just regurgitating the same fucking thing they've heard a million times in mainstream media from other clueless assholes who don't know what the fuck they're talking about. But I'm not just picking on Adam Cancron here because there was another example from the New York Times where journalist Cheryl Gay Stolberg says, Medicare for all is not passing this Congress. Its cost is still unknown. The mechanisms to pay for it is still the subject of debate. But behind Mr. Sanders choreographed theatrics were the unmistakable politics of 2020 and his campaign for president, a campaign that never really ended with the election of Donald J. Trump. So to her, this is nothing more than a choreographed stunt. It's theatrics. That's all this is. Let me ask you this, Cheryl. Do you have any clue what you're talking about? Any clue. If you weren't promoting a policy that will be a gigantic change to our healthcare system, do you not think it's important to maybe get a headstart and start trying to build a coalition before you come to power so you will be ready to pass it? But instead you call it theatrics. But isn't what the Democratic Party doing now theatrics when they're trying to get everyone to forget about Medicare for all and defend the ACA when their bill to defend the ACA will not come up for a vote in the Senate? Mitch McConnell will block it. So that's not theatrics, but what Bernie Sanders is doing is theatrics according to this hack, get the fuck out of here. I am so sick of these hacks in mainstream media pretending as if they're intelligent and trying to pass off their smug dismissal as astute political analysis. It's not astute. You're a fucking moron, Cheryl. You're a dipshit. What you're doing is you are lying and gaslighting people because you don't support Medicare for all. So I'm sure that to you, you have health insurance, you're perfectly comfortable. But what you're honestly saying and what you should be honest about, what all journalists who are against Medicare for all should be honest about is the fact that they don't care about objective journalism. They are in favor of keeping the status quo where thousands of Americans die every fucking year. So your pro-death, you want to maintain the pro-death status quo where people die all because you think that it's more important for health insurance companies to make profits off of these people. What a sick, sadistic fucking system that is indefensible that these dipshits in mainstream media are defending because they're comfortable. So fuck you, I got mine. It's disgusting and it makes me irate to read about these fucking morons, these fucking idiots, these douchebags who think that they're being smart and witty when all they're doing is being useful idiots for the fucking establishment, for the machine, for the for-profit health insurance companies who are profiting off of people dying in this country. But they're fucking okay with that because they make a lot of money being shills and being useful idiots for the status quo and it's fucking morally reprehensible. And I'm so sick of it. I'm so sick of these supposedly intellectual people judging us peasants for demanding that we don't die if we get sick as they judge us from their ivory tower and deem what Bernie's doing choreographed theatrics. Go fuck yourself. Go fuck yourself. Absolutely insane. Now, Bernie Sanders, he responded to this claim that he's being attacked for, that why are you reintroducing Medicare for all when we should be focusing on Obamacare? And I don't think he could be more clear. It's because it's not gonna fucking pass. So here's what he had to say. You did an interview with Chris Hayes recently and he asked you about the Democratic House Bill to show up the Affordable Care Act and you said that you're not a fan of that because you support Medicare for all and single payer. So if it came up in the Senate, would you not vote again? It's not gonna come up in the Senate. See, that's the point. Here is the issue. I think ultimately as a nation, we have got to conclude what I believe is true is that the current healthcare system is dysfunctional in the sense that we are spending twice as much per capita on healthcare as do the people of any other nation. And you've got 30 million people uninsured. More than that, underinsured. We pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs and our healthcare outcomes in terms of life expectancy or how we treat many diseases is not as good as many other countries. The function of this healthcare system is to make huge profits for the insurance companies and the drug companies. That's gotta end. And we need a healthcare system based on guaranteeing healthcare all as a right in a cost effective way. That's Medicare for all. So to answer your question in that legislation, if good legislation is passed in the House and ain't gonna come to the Senate, Mitch McConnell's not gonna take it up. So my job right now is to keep this country focused on the real solution, which is that you have Medicare right now works well for seniors. We need to improve it for seniors. We need to expand it for everybody. So do you think that Democrats shouldn't in Congress shouldn't be spending time strengthening the Obamacare because the system is just too dysfunctional? I think the focus really has got to be and I think most Democrats believe that and many Republicans as well. It is not complicated. Is healthcare a human right for all Americans? I think yes. How do you provide healthcare to all people in a cost effective way? Right now this system is so wasteful. We waste hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars in administration, in profiteering, for the drug companies and the insurance companies, outrageous compensation packages. That's not what healthcare is about. It should be quality care for all people in a cost effective way. That's Medicare for all. And are you willing to finance Medicare for all through deficit spending or do you think it needs to pay for itself entirely? No, we'll take a look at that, but it will be financed through progressive taxation. Now one of the things certainly that will happen is you're gonna turn on your TV soon. You see these 30 second ads. Bernie Sanders wants to raise all your taxes and all this stuff. What they will forget to tell you is that you and your employer will no longer be paying any health insurance premium. You're not gonna have any deductible. You're not gonna have any copayment and you're gonna have access to more benefits, more services, more care than you have right now. Under our plan, the average American will be paying significantly less for healthcare than he or she is paying right now. There you have it. I don't think he could be more clear. He shouldn't have to be the one to regurgitate the same thing about Medicare for all over and over and over and over and over again, but because our mainstream media is fucking garbage because it is dog shit, it's fucking useless and it misinforms people willfully. He has to do their job for them. They're not actually challenging the status quo, the health insurance industry who he's going to war with who advertises on these networks. So he's got to do their job for them and he can't possibly be more clear. Why would we shift our focus on a policy that wasn't good to begin with that is already sinking? It's a sinking ship. So why don't we move on and when we take power rather than trying to bring back this zombie that's already dead, let's move towards the permanent solution that will save lives but they don't want to do that. They don't want to do that. So he has to repeat over and over again facts about Medicare for all because the media is too dishonest to educate people about it. Yeah, this is why America is in such a fucked state because of the media, because of the media. It's disgusting, it's morally reprehensible and I don't know how these people, how these liars sleep at night. I really don't. So as you all know, Bernie Sanders just reintroduced his Medicare for all bill and he's been doing kind of a media tour to promote it and he was interviewed by a reporter at CBS this morning and he was asked a question that doesn't make any sense. He essentially was asked if he'd be willing to water down his healthcare proposal in order to make it more palatable to Republicans. Now, if you know anything about politics, you know that that's an idiotic question to ask in the first place. I reject the premise of it because that's what Obamacare was. He literally used their own policy, Romney Care, a policy plan that was cooked up by the Heritage Foundation and they still rejected it. It was passed along party lines, Obamacare was. So there's nothing that you can propose to Republicans that will get them on board. So to begin with, I mean, the premise of the question is flawed itself but nonetheless, Bernie Sanders proceeds to answer it and then he's quickly cut off because the reporter interjects with one of the dumbest things. I kid you not, I have ever heard, if not the dumbest thing I've ever heard when it comes to healthcare. Take a look. You know, the president has now said that he wants his party to be the party of healthcare. I know. Have you considered doing some version of this that you know would get some semblance of Republican support? Well, right now, look, let's be clear. President wants his party to be the party of healthcare. Unfortunately, apparently what he means by that is throwing 32 million Americans off of the health insurance they have. I don't know. But isn't that what you're planning to do too? Because you've been moving them into Medicare for all? I mean, if they have insurance right now. Wait a minute, what is that? President's plan and what he has supported throws 32 million people off of healthcare. No alternative. We provide healthcare to every man, woman and child in this country. I think maybe slightly different concepts. We guarantee healthcare to all. He throws 32 million off of healthcare. Off of the affordable care app. Off of the affordable care app. And they have no alternative. Probably in the recesses of their minds, their alternative is junk insurance, which means we're gonna give you a head. We got a deal for you, man. We're gonna give you really, really cheap insurance. Really a bargain. Oh, by the way, there's a huge deductible. There's a huge copayment. And it doesn't cover very much. But you know what? It's cheap. I don't know what to say. That was literally the dumbest thing I have ever heard anyone say in mainstream news about Medicare for all. And I have combed through hours worth of footage on Fox News when it comes to this issue. I've watched countless mainstream media segments. And that, by a mile and a half, is the dumbest thing I have ever fucking heard. Let me ask this reporter something. I don't know if he's gonna see this video. And if he does, I hope that his feelings are heard because he deserves it. Are you stupid? And I'm not asking you that to be a prick. I'm genuinely asking this as an earnest question. Are you stupid? Because do you not see the difference between a positive and a negative? How is expanding coverage to 100% of Americans where healthcare becomes free at the point of service in any way comparable to people losing healthcare? It's like saying you don't see the difference between someone who's getting married and someone getting divorced. I don't understand, and I'm being 100% serious, I don't understand how this reporter has a job because he's clearly really fucking stupid, and I mean that. I usually don't like to resort to ad hominem attacks, but if you say something like that, if you can't spot the difference between Medicare for all and people losing insurance, you are too stupid to be a reporter. Politics is not something you should be involved in in any way, shape, or form because you're dense. My fucking head nearly exploded. And you could tell that Bernie Sanders had nearly exploded in that same clip because it was so stupid. It was a level of stupidity that is so unfathomable that you can't help but be genuinely shocked by hearing him say that with a straight face. But isn't that what you're planning to do too? Because you've been moving them into Medicare for all? I mean, if they have insurance right now. Wait a minute, what is it? What the hell did you just say? I mean, I am honestly baffled. I've watched this clip numerous times and I still, I'm shocked by the level of ignorance from this reporter. This is a CBS news reporter. This isn't some fucking, you know, offshoot small news organization. This is from CBS, supposedly one of the most reputable news organizations in the country. And their reporter literally doesn't see a difference between giving people healthcare and taking it away. It's baffling to me. I'm genuinely shocked. This is the first time that I've ever heard the Medicare for all act be described in this way because we've seen Medicare for all be framed as anti-Obamacare and wanting to destroy the ACA while pretending, you know, that Medicare for all isn't vastly superior. But this is the first time I've ever heard someone equate Medicare for all universal coverage with people losing their healthcare. Now along those lines, if we accept that switching to Medicare for all where healthcare is extended to 100% of the population and is literally free at the point of service, if we constitute that as losing something, then how should we respond? If getting rid of the private health insurance company means you're losing something, how do we respond? I think that Bernie Sanders did come up with a really persuasive answer, but he's gonna have to repeat this time after time because as you can see, there's a lot of disingenuity in the mainstream media and they're going to try to not just take him out of context but be openly deceptive about what Medicare for all would do. So this is Bernie's answer. And what if I have a private or employer-based insurance program right now and I like it? Well, you may be one of the millions of people who leaves your job this year and you're gonna leave your private insurance. You may be one of the many millions of people who finds that their employer has gone out and got another insurance company to cover you. You're gonna have to change that. But essentially, under Medicare for all, all people will be covered by Medicare. So bottom line, if I liked my program right now, I wouldn't be able to keep it. Well, often you don't have much choice about that. If you're working for somebody else, you're working for CBS, maybe tomorrow CBS will get a new insurer for you. You don't have much to say about it. In fact, Medicare for all is more stable. On the Medicare for all, you go to the doctor you want, freedom of choice regarding doctors and the same with regard to hospitals. Many Americans don't have that because the doctor you may wanna go to may not be in your network. So in my view, I think that that was virtually a perfect answer because he explained really well and really artfully that you're not losing anything. People don't actually like their insurance. The reason why they like their insurance is because they view it as a means to an end. They wanna keep seeing the doctor that they've been seeing. Now with private insurance, there's no guarantee. So with Medicare for all, if you truly wanna see the same doctor, then you need the stability. You should want the stability that Medicare for all grants is because for me, I've lost my doctor multiple times throughout my life because I've switched insurance providers. So if you don't want that to keep happening, then you should also be advocating for Medicare for all. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. You have more stability under a Medicare for all system. Now the problem with our current system is that even if you like your doctor and you think that your insurance is good, you may not even know that you're underinsured until you find out that you need a procedure that your health insurance provider is unwilling to cover. I mean, the system that we have is just, it's regressive, it's absurd. So I don't know how anyone can defend it, but here we have a CBS journalist or reporter, whatever he calls himself, I call him a dipshit who doesn't seem to know that there's a real meaningful difference between gaining Medicare for all, making healthcare free at the point of service, and taking away the health insurance that they have by destroying the ACA. So we've got to talk about this Candace Owens clip because as you all know, she recently testified before Congress and Republicans for whatever reason felt as if she would be a good person to invite to testify about white nationalism. And white supremacy. Now, if you'll recall, she was actually one of the individuals who was cited in the shooter's manifesto who just carried out the terror attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. So not really the best person to ask if the rhetoric she uses is influencing people to activate their hatred for individuals they deem the other in violent ways. Not the best person to talk to on this issue, but nonetheless, Republicans invited her and she was questioned before Congress. Now, Ted Liu, someone who generally irritates me, I got to give him credit here because he played a clip of her in front of her where he uses her own words against her. And I think it kind of highlights the absurdity of Republicans just inviting her to testify in the first place. And he plays a clip of her talking about how Hitler wouldn't have been so bad if he just contained his genocide to Germany and didn't expand and become a so-called globalist. And her reaction, she is visibly angered by him playing this clip of her own words. Take a look. In congressional hearings, the minority party gets to select its own witnesses. And of all the people that Republicans could have selected, they pick Candace Owens. I don't know Miss Owens. I'm not gonna characterize her. I'm gonna let her own words through the talking. So I'm gonna play for you the first 30 seconds of a statement she made about Adolf Hitler. I actually don't have any problems at all with the word nationalism. I think that it gets, the definition gets poisoned by a leaders that actually want globalism. Globalism is what I don't want. So when you think about, whenever we say nationalism, the first thing people think about, at least in America, is Hitler. He was a national socialist. But if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, okay, fine. Problem is that he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German. Everybody to be speaking German. All right, so my first question is to Miss Hirschinoff. Miss Owens said, quote, if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, okay, fine. The problem is that he wanted, he had dreams outside of Germany. So when people try to legitimize Adolf Hitler, does that feed into white nationalist ideology? It does, Mr. Liu. I know that Miss Owens distanced herself from those comments later, but we expressed great concern over the original comments. That is bonkers to me. You've got to understand, to even have that thought manifest in your mind, you have to be one, completely delusional and have absolutely no knowledge of history whatsoever. Or two, actually kind of believe that Hitler wasn't as bad as everyone thinks he is. Do you understand what she said in that clip and why it's so absurd? She said that Hitler just doing nationalism, I guess to oversimplify what he was doing, it wouldn't have been so bad if he just contained what he was doing to Germany. Candice, do you understand what he was doing in Germany? Are you aware of the fact that he was murdering Jews? He was putting them in gas chambers, Candice. Do you not know that that happened? And then this dance gets upset that her own words were used against her. Maybe don't say stupid things like that to begin with, but certainly don't get mad when people use your own words against you because that's batshit crazy. What you're saying, Candice, is lunacy. And she has a history of saying unhinged irrational lies. During that same hearing, she claimed that the Southern strategy was made up. It never happened. What? You're just gonna claim that the Southern strategy never happened? Are you delusional? Like this is a serious question. I'm asking earnestly, are you delusional? Because you are completely disregarding history and whatever blanks you have left out in your head, you just fill them with your own bizarre beliefs that aren't attached to reality. I mean, someone this ignorant, you'd think they wouldn't have a chance to gain as large of a platform as she has, but because she's fueled by right-wing billionaire money, she can basically say as much idiotic things as she wants and get away with it. Like for me, if I said something really stupid, there would be consequences. People would leave the show. I would lose viewers. I would potentially lose patrons, depending on how bad the thing I said was. But for her, she never has to worry about that because she has that cushion of right-wing billionaires propping her up. So she can say things, just completely insane delusional things like Hitler wouldn't have been as bad if he just stayed in Germany, which is insane and still go on, have a show on whatever. I don't know what she has. She has a new show. I don't know if it's on PragerU. I don't know if it's on Fox News's online Netflix type system. I don't know, but she can still go on and have a career. It's absolute insanity to me that people like this are taken seriously. People like this are called to testify before Congress by one of two major parties. I mean, this just really speaks to how insane and awful American politics is in 2019. This is what we have to deal with. Someone like Candice Owens is called to testify on white nationalism. I'm sorry, but if we're gonna talk about white nationalism, Candice Owens is the last person that I think I wanna hear from on this issue. The last person that I wanna hear from, especially after she tried to legitimize Hitler in a very direct way and then had the nerve to get angry when Ted Lu played her own words back to her. I mean, get the fuck out of here. You're delusional, you're ignorant, Candice, and you're only here because right-wingers are using you as a tool. So recognize that because that's all you are to them. They don't care about you, they're using you as a tool. So I hope you can sleep at night knowing that you are one of the country's biggest sell-outs, Candice, because that's what you are. So we have some absolutely chilling news regarding freedom of the press, and I'm sure that most of you watching already know that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was arrested today, and his arrest came after Ecuador revoked his asylum status, which then allowed UK authorities to come in and arrest him at the behest of the US government who issued a warrant for his extradition. So this is a really important story, and I hope that everyone is concerned about this and is as concerned about this as I am, because regardless of how you feel about Julian Assange, the implications of this with regard to freedom of the press are broad. So to give you just the basic facts of the case, CNN reports the US Department of Justice confirmed Assange had been indicted on a single charge of conspiring to steal military secrets with Chelsea Manning. The former army intelligence analyst who supplied thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks, the Department of Justice said that the indictment signed on March 6th last year and unsealed Thursday alleges Assange conspired to assist Manning in cracking a password on classified Department of Defense computer systems. Now there are two additional things that I think we need to make clear here. First of all, this has nothing to do with the 2016 election, nothing. This is about the 2010 Manning Leaks where Chelsea Manning gave Julian Assange information that exposed war crimes that our government was doing. This was information that was obviously in the public's interest because our tax dollars were funding these crimes. So I think that we have to know about this. So that's important. So if you're still bitter about the 2016 election, you have to put your feelings aside here because this is more important than that. Second of all, it's not illegal for a journalist to publish information that was leaked or stolen. However, if they assist the whistleblower with that process, then that's really the only caveat where the government can get them. And they are claiming that Julian Assange did in fact assist Chelsea Manning. However, if you look at the details, that charge is actually very dubious because first of all, as Aaron Matei points out, the attempt to get the password to these computers wasn't even successful. And this is evident based on the language that they use claiming that in the event she, quote, would have been able to obtain these passwords, then it would have been the case that Julian Assange had assisted her successfully. Now, second of all, before he even allegedly attempted to assist her with this process, she had already provided him with information before he supposedly tried to help her crack the password. So those are two really key details here which makes this charge completely dubious. Now, third, the Department of Justice claims that he actively encouraged Manning to provide him with more information after she had already given him stolen documents. But as Glenn Greenwald points out here, this is a standard procedure for a journalist. It's literally them trying to criminalize journalism because if you are a journalist, then obviously you're gonna want more information because you're building a story, you're building a case. So the fact that he was encouraging her to get him more information, that's a non-issue. That's just him being a good journalist. So these charges against him are absolutely dubious and it really doesn't seem like they have a case against him but nonetheless, if they want to convict him, they're gonna find some way to do it which is troubling because think about the implications of this. In the event, a US journalist, for example, publishes leaked information about the Saudi government and Saudi Arabia then encourages the US government to extradite that American journalist to Saudi Arabia. Isn't that problematic? Isn't that troubling? Because if we're setting up this new precedent where governments are complying with foreign extradition requests of their own citizens, then the implications that this has for journalism globally, it's horrifying because if you're a journalist and you fear that you will be prosecuted for whatever dubious reason for publishing leaked or classified documents which is protected under the Constitution, but if you're worried that they're going to get you because they're going to claim that you assisted in that process, then what does this do? It's going to dissuade journalists from seeking out this information that they need to publish. It's going to dissuade them from wanting to release this information that is in the public's interest which means that they're not going to be an effective check on government tyranny and government abuse. So the implications from this are absolutely vast and I'm honestly shocked that so many liberals even are celebrating this. I mean, what we're witnessing here is an overt attack on freedom of the press and we're watching democracy die before our very eyes. We're slipping into authoritarianism and I'm not being hyperbolic. Democracy in America has been dying now for years but I mean, it hasn't happened rapidly. There's no sudden change, no revolutionary change and it's happening really gradually so it allows people to adjust to it. It's as if you were to throw a frog in a boiling pot of hot water. It would immediately jump out because it would notice how hot that a boiling pot of hot water is. But if you just stick a frog in a pot of water and then you gradually turn up the heat, well it's going to be able to adjust to the gradual temperature increase and not really know that what's being done to it is harmful and that's really what we're seeing here when it comes to American democracy. And if you can't have freedom of the press then democracy cannot thrive. Now, another thing that I want to touch on here is that when Julian Assange initially published the Manning leaks, Obama's Department of Defense chose to not prosecute WikiLeaks itself because they were worried that obviously that would pose a threat to freedom of the press. Now, they aggressively went after Chelsea Manning but they chose not to go after WikiLeaks because they didn't want to set this precedent that allowed for journalist outlets to be prosecuted for the publication of classified documents because obviously that is protected under the First Amendment. However, when Trump came to power it was evident that there were people in his circle hell bent on taking down WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. And after previously saying how much he loves WikiLeaks Trump is now playing dumb saying that he doesn't know anything about WikiLeaks. And ask yourself this, after it's widely believed that WikiLeaks was releasing the Clinton emails at the behest of Donald Trump and creating this imbalance of information where we knew what the DNC was saying but not what the RNC was saying after it was widely believed that WikiLeaks was doing this to assist Donald Trump. Well, why would Trump officials then turn around and want to prosecute WikiLeaks knowing that they were assisted? Well, it's because WikiLeaks exposes information about the US government. And if you're part of the US government and you're doing some really shady war criminal activities abroad then obviously you wanna try to silence anyone who could potentially be a threat to your power and hegemony and that's what we're seeing. That's why Trump's administration wanted to go after WikiLeaks. And the reason why Donald Trump is playing dumb now is because he already has authoritarian tendencies. This was evident since before he got elected when he was running as a candidate we knew that he was warning that he wanted to bring back libel laws. And he often refers to the press as the enemy of the people. So of course, if he thinks this will set a new precedent where he can then prosecute journalists who publish harmful information about him then he's going along with it and playing dumb when it comes to this issue. So it's odd to me to see this unholy alliance between the Democratic Party loyalists the resistors if you will and Trump's administration because this is harmful and they don't care that this is about the 2010 leaks where Manning exposed US war crimes. They're just glad that Julian Assange is being brought down. That's all that they're happy about. They're just glad it's happening after screaming about wanting to protect freedom of the press. I mean, this is literally only empowering Donald Trump to more aggressively crack down on the press. So I mean, this is absolutely troubling. And I want to read to you the ACLU statement because I think they do a good job at putting this all into perspective. Ben Wisner, director of the American civil liberties union speech, privacy and technology project issued the following comment in response. Any prosecution by the United States of Mr. Assange for WikiLeaks publishing operations would be unprecedented and unconstitutional and would open the door to criminal investigations of other news organizations. Moreover, prosecuting a foreign publisher for violating US secrecy laws would set an especially dangerous precedent for US journalists who routinely violate foreign secrecy laws to deliver information vital to the public's interest. Wisner added, criminally prosecuting a publisher for the publication of truthful information would be a first in American history and unconstitutional. The government did not cross that Rubicon with today's indictment, but the worst case scenario cannot yet be ruled out. We have no assurance that these are the only charges the government plans to bring against Mr. Assange. Further, while there is no First Amendment right to crack a government password, this indictment characterizes as part of a criminal conspiracy, the routine and protected activities journalists often engage in as part of their daily jobs such as encouraging a source to provide more information. Given President Trump and his administration's well-documented attacks on freedom of the press, such characterizations are especially worrisome. Now on top of that, I do wanna share some reactions from people in the political world because I think they provide us with some really valuable insights. So Edward Snowden tweeted out images of Ecuador's ambassador inviting the UK's secret police into the embassy to drag a publisher of like it or not, award-winning journalism out of the building are going to end up in the history books. Assange's critics may cheer, but this is a dark moment for press freedom. Tulsi Gabbard tweeted out, the arrest of Julian Assange is meant to send a message to all Americans and journalists. Be quiet, behave, toe the line, or you will pay the price. Calcolinsky tweeted out, if you hyperventilated over Trump screaming fake news and calling media hacks mean names, then you should be at DEF CON one over the literal arrest of a man who exposed your government committing war crimes with your money and in your name. This is the real threat to press freedom and that's absolutely it. Anyone who purports that they are free speech warriors, the Dave Rubens and Ben Shapiro's of the world, they should be screaming the loudest right now. But let me just say this, I am incredibly proud of Progressives because they've been the most vocal here about this. So this is something that is incredibly important that we have to fight and speak out again. So I'm gonna link you to the WikiLeaks Defense Fund and that'll be in the description box if you wanna donate additionally. If you live in DC, if you live in the UK, there will be planned protests. So at the time I'm recording this, I don't have specific information but if you're able to attend those, that would be absolutely phenomenal. What we have to do now, all we can do really is make as much noise about this as possible, share this information and share to people the consequences that this will have and most importantly, educate them because people don't know that this really could be incredibly problematic going forward when it comes to freedom of the press. We really shouldn't have to spell this out for people but in a really polarized environment where everything is left versus right, we've gotta step back and understand that this is about democracy, this is about freedom of the press and everyone should be outraged and shaken to the core over the arrest of Julian Assange. For whatever reason, Howard Schultz is back in the news again. He's appearing on a cable news program relatively frequently again and this communicates to me that cable news for whatever reason is still taking him seriously. They're still treating him as if he's a serious political contender in the 2020 election when I think he's demonstrated over and over again that he's a joke. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He's not interested in the formulation of public policy. He doesn't even have any original policy ideas. He just is complaining about the prospect of his own taxes being raised and he's complaining about things that he doesn't wanna see happen. We know he doesn't like the Green New Deal. We know he doesn't like Medicare for All but he hasn't proposed alternatives. He hasn't proposed alternatives and if you're running for president wouldn't you want to come up with a platform, things that you wanna see happen yourself? And think about how much of a joke this guy is and why nobody should take him seriously. At a recent Fox News Town Hall, he literally suggested that he would put an empty chair in the room when he's negotiating in the event he becomes president and that empty chair would represent the American people. I would bring the people into the room. I would say you could not come in here with ideology or ego. What I wanna do is I wanna put an empty chair in the room and that chair represents the American people. Hahahaha. Now on top of that when he was on Velshey and Rule recently on MSNBC he was finally called out And really, I think Owen, but he was called out because he's characterizing American political polarization and both parties supposedly moving to opposite ends when they're both moving to the right mind. You and Republicans are getting more crazy, but nonetheless, he is trying to frame this as just an American problem. And the reason why there's so much instability in American government is because both parties are extreme. But what Ali Belchi did was he pointed out what you're describing here is not unique to the United States. Bifurcation is happening everywhere because income and wealth inequality is a global problem. And when he was confronted, he melted down because he's a billionaire. How dare you confront him? How dare you not take this guy who's clearly clueless seriously? A lot of Americans knew this a long time before you really rich guys started talking about how bifurcated America is. And that's where we are today. So do you get why some people don't really think that you've got all the answers, that you rich guys who are, I don't know who told you that America's bifurcated. Somebody came to you and told you that there's a problem because the rest of America's been living it. I appreciate you calling me a rich guy, but I grew up in federal, I grew up in private. But now you're a really, really rich guy. I'm self-made and I built a company that employed over three million people in the last 40 years and gave healthcare, ownership, and free college tuition to every employee. What you get when you rich guys can get into the bifurcation conversation that the rest of us have been having for decades. Yeah, but this is about a lack of leadership and a government of two sides, Democrats and Republicans, who are unwilling to face the issues and solve America's problem. Why do we have a $22 trillion debt? Why do we have a healthcare crisis? Why do we have K through 12 that's not working? Why is our standing in the world not working? Because of both parties' ideology and unwilling to work together. That's why I'm considering running for president. But that's true. Why is Britain bifurcated? Why is France bifurcated? Why is Germany bifurcated? Why were the Arab countries bifurcated? It's not actually about Democrats and Republicans. It's about rich people who don't pay taxes, who don't understand that it's not about charity. It's actually about wealth distribution. Right? That's your explanation. Why is Britain bifurcated? Wait, now we're gonna talk about what's going on. No, but you're telling me that our bifurcation, economic bifurcation in America is because of Democrats and Republicans not agreeing on policies? Why is Britain bifurcated? I'm talking about the lack of leadership and understanding of the fiscal responsibility of elected officials to do the right thing for the American people. So in each case that I just outlined, but that's not the answer in all those countries, even yet the world is bifurcated. I'm not here talking about all these countries. But you're saying that the reason we're economically bifurcated is because of Republican and Democrat policies. And I'm telling you, it's a global issue of wealth concentration, not actually about political disagreement on policies. You wanna talk about each country? You wanna put China up here? No, but I think we can cut this any way you want, right? How many rich people in America could have the wealth of the bottom half of society? How many rich people in the world have the same wealth as the bottom three and a half billion in society? Oxfam says it's under 10. Listen, I didn't create the policies that we are now under. So the guy's a moron. The guy's an absolute moron. And I've been using a lot of ad hominem attacks lately. So I'm going to try to rein it in just so you know, but I mean, I genuinely believe that he is clueless. Like I don't think he's intelligent because if you just listen to him talk, it's like he doesn't know anything about politics. He doesn't know anything about politics. He reminds me of someone who read a book or watched one documentary and based his entire worldview off of that. But I mean, it's probably not even that complicated. It's just, he saw that AOC was proposing a 70% marginal tax rate. He got offended and decided, you know what, I'm gonna jump in the race myself and stop these new progressive politicians from raising my taxes. It's probably that simple, but I don't know. However, after basically assuming rightfully so, I think that he's clueless, now there's a question in my head. Is he really clueless? Is he dumb or is he just being disingenuous? And the reason why I'm now questioning his intelligence and whether or not he is actually just actively lying or if he really is that clueless is because he put out a medium post about Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All plan that is so bizarre. If he really is that stupid, then I honestly feel bad for him. So this is what he says in a medium post. Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All proposal would strip health insurance coverage for more than 180 million Americans and cost taxpayers more than 32 trillion to implement. That's actually not true. With no way to pay for it, no chance of getting bipartisan support in Congress and the potential for significant ramifications in treatment and innovation, also not true. This proposal confirms what we already knew. Sanders and the far left wing of the Democratic Party are out of touch with reality. Being a leader requires making hard choices and being honest. Bernie Sanders' plan doesn't either and only serves to advance a far left agenda. What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. Now, before we get to the substance here, if you can locate any of that here, I just got to show you that he tweeted out this article and it got ratioed to oblivion. And, you know, of course, I had to partake in that because if I have an opportunity that presents itself to me, that allows me to dunk on Howard Schultz, I'm gonna take it. Now, I love how with that last sentence there, he's basically implying that Bernie Sanders, he's not about being a true leader, he's just doing the bidding of big poor. That's what it seems like he's saying. You know, he's standing up for big America, the American people lobby who just wants their will implemented. I mean, what a joke. And he, again, like a CBS This Morning reporter I talked about recently on the program, he characterizes the expansion of healthcare to 100% of Americans where it's free at the point of service as stripping health insurance coverage. Do you not understand how stupid you sound, Howard? I mean, this is why I genuinely now am wondering is he just dumb or is he being disingenuous? Because if you're the CEO of a company like Starbucks, you have to have at least a little bit of intelligence, right? So to say something this absurd, I mean, I can't help but question is he really this fucking stupid? I genuinely don't know. I'm still leaning more towards he's just dumb, but I think you also have to throw in a little bit of disingenuity as well because to say something like this, to describe the expansion of healthcare as stripping away healthcare, I don't know, I don't know what it is. Dumb, disingenuous. I honestly wanna hear what you guys say. So I will be reading the comments because I'm perplexed. The response and the objections to Medicare for All, they're getting so absurd that it's comical. If I had to construct a parody, that's what it would look like. That's something I would say. Now, he also says that it would cost taxpayers 32 trillion to implement. Well, riddle me this genius. First of all, how much does our current healthcare system cost over 10 years? It costs $60 trillion. How much would a Medicare for All system cost? It would cost less than that. It would save Americans two trillion overall over 10 years and that's according to a conservative, libertarian, coke-funded study by the Mercatus Center. So there are other more accurate studies that demonstrate it would save us even more. So it's not gonna cost us. What's costing us more now is paying that private monthly health insurance premium where when we see a doctor, we have to pay more for co-pays. We have to pay for our deductibles. And in some instances, we can't even get the care that we need. If we need a particular procedure, your health insurance company is at liberty to act as a death panel and deny you the coverage that your doctor says you need. How insane is that? So not only would Medicare for All be more efficient, it would reduce administrative costs, but it would save us money. So he clearly, I don't think he's read anything about Medicare for All. He just parrots the same idiotic line about that 32 trillion figure that he hears everyone else talking about. The 32 trillion figure, it speaks to the money that we have that's already swirling around in our health system. So the 32 trillion, what that signifies is that if you switch from private to Medicare for All, federal spending will increase, but at the same time, state and local spending, individual private spending, it decreases. So that difference is the 32 trillion, but it doesn't speak to the overall cost of our health care system, which is 60 trillion. So this guy's an idiot, or is he? Is he just disingenuous? I kind of feel like it's a combination at the same time, he's all so clueless. So Howard Schultz, I mean, he's someone that he would just go away if the mainstream media stopped interviewing him, stopped covering him. And I know that I'm part of the problem, but since he is coming on cable news programs and he's disseminating this misinformation, I feel as though I'm compelled to say that what he is talking about is factually incorrect. It's deceitful. So he's like Sarah Palin. Once the media stopped, he would be like Sarah Palin as my hopes. Once the media stopped focusing on her, she went away. If we do that with Howard Schultz, he would just go away. So either way, it doesn't look like he's going away anytime soon because I'm assuming he's a good ratings driver. So what the life needs to do is boycott Starbucks. And I'm not talking about these conservative-esque boycotts where you burn your Nikes. I'm talking about a real organized effort because this guy, if you hit him where it hurts, he'll understand that Americans mean business when we tell him to fuck off. And Starbucks rightfully tried to distance themselves from him, but he still holds majority shares. So if we boycott Starbucks, that still affects his wallet. It affects him personally. So that's something that I think we seriously need to consider, not some half-baked boycott. We need a real organized effort to boycott Starbucks. I know I've stopped going to Starbucks. I don't go there very frequently anyway because I think paying $5 for a burnt coffee is just too much. But I think that we all need to, we need to really make some noise because he's not going away unless we take action. And boycotting Starbucks, I think would be a really effective way at getting this dude to shut the fuck up once and for all. So as you all know, the house recently voted to fully restore net neutrality in a 232 to 190 vote. And this is phenomenal news, even if we're pretty certain that it's not going to make it through the Senate. Nonetheless, this still demonstrates that at least on this one issue, Democrats are getting it right because they face planted on so many issues. But on this one issue, they seem united and they seem as if they are aware of the fact that net neutrality is still incredibly important to the American people. And I mean, it's a no-brainer. I'm actually a little bit, well, I guess I'm not surprised, but I'm taken aback by the fact that Republicans are choosing to really die on this hill, it seems, because when your own party overwhelmingly supports something like net neutrality, doesn't it seem counterintuitive to basically go against the will of your own party? So I mean, they're doing it anyway, because this is what Republicans do. They never necessarily think about what their constituents want. Rather, they're thinking about what their corporate donors want. And of course, we all know that Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, they all want this bill to die and like good little puppets, Republicans are assisting them in that mission. Now, what's interesting is that last year, net neutrality passed in the Senate, but it did not pass in the House. It ended up dying in the House and it passed in the Senate by getting support from even some Republicans such as Lisa Murkowski. There are two others and I'm now blanking on their name, but now it's the case that it passed in the House and it's going to die in the Senate most likely. And the reason why we know that is because the human turtle himself, Mitch McConnell, is saying it's dead on arrival. So as Jordan Carney of the Hill reports, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that the Senate won't take up a net neutrality bill currently before lawmakers in the House, dead on arrival in the Senate, McConnell told reporters about the fate of the House bill. The bill would reinstate regulations put in place by the Federal Communications Commission requiring internet service providers to treat all web traffic equally. So I'm not sure if I've ever said this on the show before but I endorse Mitch McConnell's 2020 opponent. Don't know who it's gonna be, don't care who it's gonna be. Almost anyone in the country would be better than Mitch McConnell, anyone. Any corporate Democrat, even a moderate Republican, I'll take a literal tickle me Elmo, put that fucker in his chair. It'll be better than Mitch McConnell because all he does is act as a roadblock. He's essentially the Snorlax of American politics. He blocks whatever Americans want to see happen. That's all he does. And it's beyond infuriating because for something like net neutrality, which 90% almost of American support, the fact that you would so willfully and smugly dismiss it saying it's dead on arrival and you're not presumably even going to allow for a vote on it, it's infuriating. So I don't understand how the Republican Party's own base isn't speaking out about this more forcefully but nonetheless, it's absolutely despicable. And I can't stand Mitch McConnell. So the problem is that there's even some Republicans who support net neutrality, who would vote for this in the Senate, but presumably he's not even gonna allow for that. But I mean, this is par for the course for Mitch McConnell. This is what he does. He just blocks pretty much everything and he does the bidding of his corporate overlords. It's disgusting. So that's where we are. It passed in the House expectantly and will most likely die in the Senate. Let's just think about in the event it actually did pass the Senate. What would happen if it got to Trump's desk? Would he sign it? Almost certainly he would veto it. There's a chance that maybe he would be oblivious and sign it into law. But I mean, I wouldn't hold my breath but the important thing is that it gets a vote regardless but it doesn't seem like Mitch is even gonna allow for that. So I'm sure he's gonna be getting a lot of campaign contributions from Comcast and Verizon and AT&T because he's doing exactly what they want him to do. 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. As usual, I wanna send a thank you to all of our Patreon PayPal and YouTube members. And I also wanna thank all of our listeners on iTunes and SoundCloud. Hopefully you guys enjoyed the show. I'll see you all next week. I'm Mike Figueredo. This has been The Humanist Report. Take care. You could support The Humanist Report at patreon.com slash humanistreport. But trust me, I'd have way more supporters at Patreon if that was my podcast said.