 All right, so let's start with the clip from the Young Tokes, and I guess here we go. Is a GOP operative. And recently during an interview, he had some interesting things to say about Bernie Sanders and what the future holds for the Democratic Party. Take a look. Frank Lund's found in an online survey of 1,000 people that 52% of Hillary Clinton voters agree with the statement, I prefer living in a socialist country to a capitalist country, compared to just 16% of Donald Trump voters. No, 16%. Asked about the... 16% of Trump voters would prefer living in a socialist country. I mean, okay, I mean, it's not 52%. Of course, that adds up to 79. I don't know what happened to that at 21%. Maybe they didn't know. They didn't have an opinion about whether they wanted to live in a socialist country. It just tells you a little bit about Trump's voters. The next statistic is even more shocking. The proposal to impose a 70% marginal tax rate on the top 1% of taxpayers, 79% of Clinton voters agree. And look at this. So do 46% Trump voters. Now let's be clear here, because I know the first thing everybody's going to jump on. Oh, it's the mainstream. This is Fox, Fox. And they're not citing a New York Times poll. They're not citing some, I don't know, left-wing poll. This is a Frank Lund's poll. Frank Lund's is a GOP poll taker, right? He is a GOP guy. He's a GOP, he spends a lot of time helping the GOP frame the debate, use the right words. He's the guy who came up with death taxes rather than estate taxes because that is more powerful. He talks a lot about what words the GOP should use. We'll see him on the TV in a few minutes talking about a little bit about that. And note 46%, almost half of Trump voters say that we should increase, again, according to a Republican poll done by a Republican, say that we should increase taxes to 70% on the top 1% of Americans. I'm not making this up, Frank Lutz. This is the ball. 79 of Hillary voters. Now, that, if you add that up, that as a majority of Americans is my guess. Majority of Americans, according to this particular poll, supports 70% tax rate on the top 1%. All right, let's see what Frank Lutz is to say about this. And veteran Republican poster Frank Lunds joins us now. Before we get to more numbers, are the media kind of soft on socialism? By which I mean giving pretty favorable press to Democrats like Bernie Sanders and AOC and while being pretty tough on the flaws of capitalism and the excesses of big corporations. I have to do is read the New York Times business section. Typically seven stories, six of the seven will be hostile to a corporation or hostile to capitalist. This is absolutely true, right? Absolutely true. The mainstream media, New York Times, even, I mean, CNBC might be an exception, but almost all of them constantly run stories, antagonistic to business, to corporations, have commentary that is hostile to the idea of markets, never mind, you know, full blown capitalism. So absolutely, he's right that the mainstream media or the much of the media is very sympathetic towards left-wing candidates, very antagonistic towards markets. As we know it, and in fact it's gotten so bad that I've actually started to say that people stop trying to defend capitalism. It's economic freedom. Note that. All right. Don't use the word capitalism. Use economic freedom. Now this is, this is the same thing I hear about selfishness, right? Don't use the term selfishness. Use something else. I don't know. Self-actualization of some bogus term like that. Not that self-actualization is solely bogus, but as a replacement of self-interest, I think it is. It's as if, right, it's as if. If you only use the different term, people would say, oh my God, yes, I now get it. I get Iron Man's morality. I get Helmholtke's code of ethics. I get reason, purpose, and self-esteem. Yes, that's it. It was just that selfishness term that was blocking my consciousness from the truth of reality. And the same with capitalism. Oh my God. If only we used free markets, right, it would, it would, everybody would get it. Separation of economics and state, absolutely no question. The thing, the barrier that's, that's between us and them is that capitalism is a dirty word. Really? I'm not even sure that's true, but you just saw a poll. He just ran a poll. This is a Republican we're talking about. He just ran a poll showing that 46% of Republicans, never mind everybody else, thinks not that capitalism is bad. That wasn't what the poll was. Think that 70% tax rates on the top 1% is a good idea, right? So if you talk to those people about free markets instead of about capitalism, that's going to change their mind. Well, people object to the content of these ideas, not to the term we use to describe them, to the content of capitalism. And the poll illustrated that 16% of Trump voters, I assume Republicans, would rather live in a socialist country. I mean, what more is there to say? Right? Like keep going. You want to know what's economic freedom? Not having to worry about whether or not you can pay for a treatment you need to stay alive. That's economic freedom. So today, today's, all right. So interesting what she's saying. So economic freedom is having the freedom to have the money to, you know, get, be able to eat, get decent housing, get a decent education. And this is an important, again, I think we're going to talk a lot about concepts today. This is important because freedom is one of those terms that everybody is for, right? I mean, she's for freedom. If you ask her if she's for, she'd even say she's for economic freedom. And Frank, let's just be economic freedom. And I'm for economic freedom. And yet none of us mean the same thing by that term. If you, if you go in front of a group, a hundred people, audience of Marxists, and you ask them are you for freedom? Every hand in the room will go up. If you go in front of a room of Keynesians, you know, pragmatists, middle of the voters, you ask them, who's here for freedom? Every hand will go up. If you go in front of a group of conservatives, libertarians, and certainly in front of a group of objectivists, everybody will raise their hand when they're asked if they're for freedom. And the reason is, is because that word means nothing really to most of these people. What does she mean by freedom? Into the left usually means getting what you want, being able to do whatever you want. And indeed the left recognizes that we don't have freedom because like you want to fly and you can't because you don't have wings. So you don't have the freedom to fly. I mean literally flap wings and fly, not go in an airplane. Freedom is doing whatever you feel like doing. It's doing whatever you want to do. And when asked audiences, what is freedom, including libertarian or conservative audiences? It takes a while before I get the right answer. And most of the answers come back as doing what you want, but is it? Because you might want things that don't make sense. You might want the irrational. You won't want the metaphysically impossible like flying. You might want lots of things. And yet you're not going to get them. And freedom can't mean you being able to get them when it's impossible for you to get them. This is the whole argument that the left always makes about you can't be free on an empty stomach. And if freedom man means in any sense getting what you want, then it's true. If you don't have money, you can't get a lot of stuff. And if you're hungry and don't have the money to eat, then you can't have the stuff that you need. And therefore you're not free. So you can't have the stuff that you want. Never mind need. And you're never free according to that definition. Because again, the metaphysical limitation sometimes on what you want, and sometimes what you want is so important that nobody's going to allow you to get it. And that's a restriction in your freedom. So you see how that definition of freedom just falls apart. It just becomes meaningless. But the left uses it constantly. And nobody ever calls them on it. Nobody ever says, well, what do you mean by that's not freedom? You can't have. I mean, freedom can't mean doing what's impossible. So what does freedom actually mean? If you ask conservatives or Republicans or on the right, people on the right, they mostly don't know. They mostly don't bother defining. They mostly struggle with the definition that the left provides. And they don't have an answer. They don't have an answer to it. Freedom actually means the absence of coercion. Freedom is the ability to act based on your own judgment, free of coercion. And it's the freedom of coercion, which is essential. And it's acting based on your judgment. It's not getting stuff. It's not what you want. It's the action. So it's a, I don't know if you call it a negative concept, but it's the idea of the lack of coercion. And that's what freedom means. So we're free when the government or our neighbor is not pulling a gun on us and restricting our ability to act for our own well-being. And that's what the left has no clue about. So she goes on and on about economic freedom means poor people are not, they can't be free because they can't get what they want. So not having to worry about whether or not you can afford a roof under your head. That's economic freedom. I love how he's trying to rebrand capitalism because, yeah, there's been some pretty negative news coverage of these massive multinational corporations that in a lot of cases pay nothing in federal taxes. Amazon would be a good example of that. So here's another, I mean, here's another, you know, you could go on and on with these guys. I mean, because they just spout such nonsense and such BS. Amazon, Amazon didn't pay federal taxes in 2018. Why? Well, one, because in spite of the fact of having massive revenue, it made a relatively small profit and the reason it made a small profit is primarily because it invested a huge amount of the revenue it received. I mean, there were expenses, obviously, but then they invested a huge amount of the revenues they received. One in R&D. They're the largest investor in research and development, I think in the United States, probably in the world. Second, second, they building warehouses. I mean, they get the deducted expenses of building those warehouses. It's a massive expense. Third, they pay their employees overwhelmingly in the form of stock options and stock, which is priced, given how expensive the stock is, very, very high. So there's a lot of expense associated with employee compensation, more than just salaries, but also all the stock and the stock options. And third, because for a long, long, long time, Amazon was losing money. And when you lose money according to the American tax code, you can roll over, you don't pay taxes the year you lost, and you can take those losses and roll them into the future. You get what's called a tax credit, and you can roll them into the future so that when you do make money, you don't pay taxes, because for a long time, you act to actually absorb all those losses and invest more and more and more capital into your company. And the tax code recognizes that big deal. Indeed, Amazon paid a huge amount of taxes. Local, state, and what do you call it, employment taxes. So security, Medicare for its employees. Massive, billions and billions of dollars. But no, they're never going to mention that. It's all that bad news about those evil corporations. Notice how they use, how they manipulate it. And it's not that she's against cronyism. She's never mentioned that. She's just against corporations and that they don't pay enough taxes. That's the other thing. I mean, what is the virtue of paying taxes? Why is paying taxes the measure of virtues? You hear this from, by the way, and this is another area where the left is so similar to the right. What is Trump complained over and over and over again about Amazon? He tweets about the fact that they didn't pay taxes. Trump and the young Turks agree that the system we have today is broken. Why? Because Amazon didn't pay taxes last year. Of course, we know that Trump incredibly values revenue, taxes, because he keeps boasting about the amount of revenue, taxes that they have received from his tariffs. So again, notice the similarities between left and right. They both value government, value government spending, value taxation, cost of taxation. They both accuse Amazon of being bad somehow, because Amazon is not paying taxes. All right, let's keep going here. Amazon paid nothing in federal taxes in 2018, meaning that you and I paid more in federal taxes than one of the biggest corporations in the country. It's insane. Maybe because they created massive numbers of jobs, maybe because they've actually producing something, maybe because you're not investing in R&D and you're not employing anybody. And it's not insane at all. It makes complete and out of sense if you had any understanding of economics. The world has ever seen, in fact. So I'm greatly amused by Howard Kurtz, who used to, by the way, be on CNN and Washington Post, saying, oh my God, the mainstream media, they're so hard on capitalism. And they love socialism so much. Notice this. I mean, these are the moments where I ask if we live on the same planet. Every time I turn on television, I see anchors on CNN. I'm not talking about just Fox News. I'm talking about CNN, et cetera, yelling at some progressive, aren't you a socialist? Isn't it just like Cuba and Castro and Venezuela? Where's the part where they like socialism? I've never seen that on television. Notice, I mean, I find this always interesting. Because obviously, most of the people I interact with and most of the people who are on my chats and on my shows and I guess at conferences and stuff are people who bitterly, constantly complain about how the mainstream media is on the left. And I think they're right because I think the whole American political map is on the left. I think the right and the left on the left. And therefore, of course, mainstream media is going to be on the left. But notice that people like Young Turks, what you'd call the progressive side of the Democratic Party of the left, thinks that the media is too pro-capitalist, too pro-corporations, too pro-right. And part of the reason for this is that the media and 90% of all politicians are basically pragmatists. They're not capitalists, they're not socialists. They're all statists. They're all about the same. There's no big difference between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. The difference is they're a really minor on almost every important issue. And they're squabbling in between. And I think we can identify them all as being in a sense on the left, being left on economic policy in a sense of all of them being statists. But the people who are progressives look at them and say, you're just pragmatists of the center. You like corporations. And the people on the right look at it and say, yeah, you're just all leftists, but really they're all just nothing. And they're all just consistently the same. I mean, there's no big difference between CNN and Trump, not on the issues. Not really. All right. I've ever seen on television is that one attack after another after another, without even defining what socialism means, which goes to the next point about the poll. They're like, oh, even 46% of Trump voters want taxes raised for the top 1%, all the way up to 70% marginal tax rate, which AOC suggested. And you wanna know what the number is for all Americans here. I'm gonna go to graphic 28, okay? This is scary. In a different poll, 76% of Americans believe the wealthiest Americans should pay higher taxes. No, we quarters of the country says the rich should pay higher taxes. By the way, is that socialism? No, we had a marginal tax rate of 70 all the way up to 91% in America. He's right. Under Dwight Eisenhower. I don't remember anybody calling Dwight Eisenhower a socialist or... He doesn't say nobody actually paid that rate, but it's true. From the 50s until Ronald Reagan, we had marginal tax rates over 60% and in some cases during certain parts of that period, certainly during Eisenhower, actually Kennedy lowered them, over at 90% marginal tax rates on Americans. Now, nobody actually paid that. There were huge loopholes, all kinds of exclusions, deductions and so on. But yeah, I mean, it's all one big mixed economy and the details are somewhat meaningless. You either fighting for principle or you're not. And 70% marginal tax rate is not that radical. We've had it in America before and it's not necessarily socialism. Socialism is a lot more than that, but it's all statism. It's all statism. Right? We had it under Kennedy. We had it under Johnson. We had it all the way through Reagan. We had those rates. So calling of socialism is wrong and if you are calling of socialism, apparently the American people love it because three quarters of them says yes. American people want socialism. They don't wanna call it socialism because so much of their identity of the American people is tied up with capitalism was tied up with antisocialism. They want socialism but they won't call it that. Basically it's the bottom line. If you ask them policy by policy, they want socialized medicine. For years I said, and people objected, but I said the American people object to Obamacare not because they want free market healthcare. They object to Obamacare, many of them because it didn't go far enough because it didn't socialize medicine. Enough. American people want, unfortunately, sadly, depressingly, they want more statism. They want the policies of the left even if they don't vote for the left because for many Americans, for example, illegal immigration is a bigger issue than taxes or healthcare stuff. Like I said, I vote for Donald Trump under their guise that he will fix the illegal immigration issue and fight for them on that. But there's no big difference in terms of what Americans actually want or what seemingly is a majority of Americans. Oops. Tax on the rich and the reality is the only thing that's stopping it is the corruption because if you lived in a real democracy and three quarters of the people wanted something, you'd have it. But instead, not only do we not have it, we cut taxes on the rich. The exact opposite of what the American people wanted. Why? Because the media is controlled by people who are rich. See? By multi-billion dollar corporations. And our politicians through the donations are controlled by billionaires, millionaires, and most importantly, corporations. Now in the next video. Yeah, you'll notice corporations are the ultimate villain. The ultimate villain. And by the way, I see this often on the right as well. The same kind of attitude towards corporations, those corporations. And you get it a little bit from Trump, at least when it comes to Amazon or it comes to, and you get it a lot from people all the time about Silicon Valley, those corporations and Silicon Valley. And spooky stuff. Spooky stuff when it comes from both sides. Talks about his predictions for this upcoming election. Half of Trump voters supporting AOC's 70% marginal tax rate and you wouldn't know that from the coverage. You would think it's purely a left-wing position. It's because the public is really frustrated about being forgotten or left behind. And those two motions which elected Donald Trump are alive and well, not just on the right, but also on the left. The public is forgotten and it's being left behind, right? I mean, I think there's a lot, that is absolutely right. But why do they feel like they've been left behind? Mostly because they keep hearing it from the intellectual elites. People keep telling them they've been left behind. People keep giving them statistics about being left behind. But if you actually examine their lives, if you actually examine the lives of working Americans, if you actually look at the data, if you actually look at the facts, if you look at the quality and standard of living of an American today, as compared to what it was 40, 30 years ago, it's dramatically higher. But they hear constant drumbeat from both left and right that we have lost manufacturing jobs. Sure, but we've gained other jobs. More people are working today in America than ever before. There is, you know, we've lost all these manufacturers. Not true. We manufacture more stuff today than we ever have in American history. Wages are down. Not true. If you take into account the whole package offered to employees, including benefits and everything else, all driven by the way by government, not by business, not by corporations, not by the market. So this whole notion of Americans left behind, which Republicans buy into, which Trump capitalizes on and feeds, constantly feeds, and that the left buys into it, constantly feeds and has solutions for, again, what's the difference between left and right? People are being left behind. They're working class Americans are being left behind. It's just not true. Not true. Not true when you look at the data. And again, if you want to look at that data, if you want the evidence of that, pick up my book. Equal is unfair because we document it all there. We document the rise in the standard of living over the last 30 years. We document the flaws, the empirical flaws, and all the studies showing the decline, so-called decline in wages and standard of living of the middle class. But when you hear it over and over again, and what is true when you have elites talking about issues you don't care about, and as nationalism and tribalism rise, which again, both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for, left and right are responsible for, then the fact about the individual's quality of life dissipate, they disappear. And at the end of the day, what you get is my group is losing at the expense of some other group. It's group warfare. And that's unfortunately the tragedy of what it is America today. The reason why Bernie Sanders did so well in 2016 and why I'll be blunt with you, I think he's the most likely nominee in 2020. Yes, so look, Frank Luntz is the top Republican pollster. In the post game today, I'll tell you about how I applied to work for him when I came out of college. What? Remember back then I was a Republican. God, you made a lot of mistakes. I did, man, lots of mistakes. Anyway, tyt.com slash join to become a member and get the last half hour of the young tourists where we talk about topics like that. But he's not dumb, okay? He might be Republican, we might not agree with him, but he's an awfully smart guy and he's been right about a lot of the issues, both in terms of framing that. But also from time to time, giving them a heads up of the imminent danger. And in their case, yes, he's right. Bernie is the most likely to win and because of that untapped anger, frustration, that is legitimate. It is legitimate. And so Luntz, again, is correct about this. So yeah, so the Republican is predicting that the Democrats will dominate Bernie Sanders, which makes a lot of sense. You know, I think that's right. I think Bernie Sanders to a large extent taps in to the same fears, the same concerns that Americans voted for Trump have. Primarily fears and concerns that have been fueled by the whole inequality debate, all inequality discussion. And primarily by the tribalism. Now, whether the Democrats will actually nominate a white male, whether the Democrats will actually go for, you know, a 70-something year old guy, I don't know. I mean, I have a feeling that he's not going to win. Somebody else will win. I'm not sure who. Partially because identity policy has gone even beyond Bernie Sanders. And it'll be focused on gender and race much more than he thinks. But imagine an election between Bernie and Trump. I mean, what do you do? What do you do in an election like that? So, you know, I think that would be fascinating if it happens. You know, I don't know. I don't know what you do in an election like that. You know, it's hard to tell who will win because I think to a logical extent they do indeed appeal to a common group. And it's who can convince those 16% of Trump supporters who would like to live under socialist country, I think they might go to Bernie. But then you've got a whole bunch of people in the center who didn't vote for Bernie because he's too left and might vote for Trump. And I don't know. I think it's a toss-up. If Bernie and Trump go up, I'm not sure who wins at all. At all. Yeah, I mean. So, Frank Lutz is predicting that's what's going to happen. It's going to be interesting to watch. The rest of his statement, though, and I'm curious to hear what you think about it. Lutz believes that it's a great thing for Trump to have Republicans if Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic nomination. No, see that's- I think this is actually pretty good. So he wears two hats, right? One is doing polling that helps Republicans either know the danger that's coming. Hey, it turns out there's finally a left wing that is going to tap into that same resentment and frustration that the American people are feeling, that we've been using this entire time while we've been telling Democrats to run corporate friendly people because they're idiots and they'll listen to us, right? And then he wears a second hat, which is helping Republicans, because that's his job. He's a poster that frames things to the advantage of Republicans. He's the one that came up with a lot of the terms you know now, like the death tax instead of the estate tax, etc. So when he says, oh, it'd be great if Bernie Sanders won the general election. He's wearing the second hat. Meanwhile, he's like, no, no, no, no. He said, no, we would have real trouble if it was Michael Bennett from Colorado. Michael Bennett's a total pro-corporate, pro-rich Democrat who would present no problem at all, just like Hillary Clinton in the general election. Luntz knows that. It's fascinating to listen to these Democrats, I mean to these progressives, kind of on the left. Anything that smacks from business, they hate. Anything that smacks from free markets, they hate. These are the real socialists. These are the real committed guys. And it's fascinating to actually listen to how they analyze I think, how they analyze kind of who they would support, what they think is good and what they think isn't, and who would win and who would lose. You know, it's going to be interesting because Bernie is kind of self-spoken Trump business. I think Bernie could get pretty aggressive. I think it would be very entertaining to have a Bernie versus Trump election. And it's really, it would be really interesting. I also think turnout would be quite low. I think a lot of people would stay home in an election like that. But it is interesting. These are the guys who animate AOC. This is the kind of viewpoint that animates AOC in much of the kind of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. You know, Dave Rubin was part of this team, was part of the young Turks before he left or right. Okay, we're going to have, there's less than a minute he had to finish himself. Common trick on Fox News. Oh, please don't pick Michael Bennett. That would be dangerous for Republicans. But Bernie Sanders, yeah, we would love to face him, even though he's going to win. And it's like, he's super popular, even with Trump voters, even with Fox News viewers. So, but yeah, we want, we think Michael Bennett's the real danger. Sure you do, sure you do. I guarantee you've asked Frank Luntz behind the scenes and he was being honest. He'd say, are you kidding me? We're going to get our clock cleaned by Bernie Sanders. It'd be his dream to run against somebody like Michael Bennett. That poses no problems for him at all. He's like, that idiot had bought into our talking points. He'll repeat the things I framed 20 years ago. And so will Klobuchar and so will all the establishment. So to them, kind of establishment Democrats are, you know, are sellouts. They're Republicans. Just as I think to me, all Republicans are sellouts to the left. All right. Somebody said that in the polls, Bernie is way behind Biden. You know, I think that's true, but what is it now? Oh, it's 2019. The election is in November, 2020. I think if Bernie's going to have a hard time because he's male and white, I think that Biden is going to have a much bigger time with that. You know, it's going to be, it's going to be interesting. It's going to be, I think the Democratic field is fascinating. It's going to be interesting who emerges. It's, they're going to have the first few debates this summer are going to have like 20 people on the stage and it'll be interesting to see who actually stands out and who managed to capture the imagination of people. And I think Biden's going to be in the race, but I'm not sure that the Democratic government can win, can motivate young Democrats, can motivate minorities to come out and vote. And the fact is that Democrats want to win, they have to get, they have to get certain segments of the population to vote, primarily young people. And I just don't see Biden as doing that. And I think a lot of Democrats know that and they're going to be looking for an alternative candidate. And it's way, way, way, way too early now. I mean, Trump wasn't even on the radar this early, certainly wasn't leading the polls this early in terms of who is going to win the Republican nomination. So I think it's a mistake to look at polls right now and come to any kind of conclusions in terms of who's going to win and who not. I think Biden, somebody says Biden can win because of the anti-Trump vote. I think that's right. I think Biden is the one Democratic candidate who could attract a significant anti-Trump vote. Whereas I don't think Bernie gets that. Bernie gets the Trump... Bernie can win not because of an anti-Trump vote. Bernie can win because of Trump's supporters who are actually more in line with Bernie than they are with Trump. Particularly if Bernie actually is honest about immigration and he says his real views about immigration. You know, he's pretty much anti-immigration.