 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 humanistreport or become a member at humanistreport.com. Now enjoy the show. Welcome to the Humanist Report podcast. My name is Mike Figueredo and this is episode 216 of the program. Today is Friday, November 1st and before we get started, I wanna take some time to thank all of our newest Patreon, PayPal and YouTube members, all of which signed up for the very first time to support us this week or increased their monthly pledge. And that includes Bill Dunnett, Crobe Magnan Gramps, Daniel Perez, Garrison Rucker, James Gengler II, Jessica Olokowski, Jimmy Cochro, Luxo Media, Maeve Carroll, Tamanisha John, Taylor and Terry Hamilton. So thank you so much to all of these kind individuals. If you'd also like to support the show and join the independent progressive media revolution, you can do so by going to humanistreport.com slash support patreon.com slash humanistreport or by clicking join underneath any one of our YouTube videos. So this week on the Humanist Report podcast, Rashida Tlaib officially endorses Bernie Sanders and Ilhan Omar explains why she endorsed him over Elizabeth Warren. And at an Iowa forum, they absolutely love Bernie Sanders and wasn't too keen on Mayor Pete. Meanwhile, Bill Maher and his panel bashed Bernie Sanders, but on the view rapper Ti, even if he may not necessarily be a supporter of Bernie Sanders per se, admits Bernie Sanders really is the best bet to beat Donald Trump. And on the subject of Donald Trump, he was booed at the World Series and establishment hacks predictably clutched their pearls at said booing. Also, support for Medicare for All is actually going down while support for a public option is on the rise among Democrats, likely thanks to the lies spread by individuals like Joe Biden and Mayor Pete. And while we're on the subject of elitist Pete, his campaign is pushing a dangerous generalization about black voters in order to explain why he's failing to win their support. Fox News attacks Democratic front runners for participating in society, yet criticizing society. And finally on the show, we'll close the week by talking to 2020 congressional candidate Jason Colm from Washington's second congressional district. So that's what we've got on the agenda for today's show. Hopefully you guys will enjoy it. Let's go ahead and get right to it. Well, we all knew it was coming, but now it's official. Over the weekend, Rashida Tlaib endorsed Bernie Sanders at a rally in Detroit, and her pitch for Bernie Sanders was expectedly brilliant. Take a look. We deserve someone who writes the damn bills. So that entire clip that I just showed you was 37 seconds long, but she spoke for maybe five seconds, give or take. Now, the reason why I played that for you is because I want you to see just how crazy the crowd was going. I mean, at every single one of these rallies, the crowd is incredibly enthusiastic, incredibly passionate, and it's not just this rally. I mean, at the rally in Queens, we all saw where more than 25,000 people showed up with Michael Moore and AOC and Bernie Sanders, the crowd was going, wow, this passion and enthusiasm is exactly what you need to propel you to victory because Donald Trump supporters, they are mobilized. They're galvanized. They're gonna come out and support Bernie Sanders. So what we need is a Democratic Party nominee who's going to do the same on the left, get people who usually tune out of politics, engaged and bring them into the fold, turn non-voters into voters. And all signs point to Bernie Sanders being the one candidate who can actually get people involved. That is incredibly important and pay attention to these rallies because it shows you that there's something happening in this country and it's happening with regard to this political revolution that Bernie Sanders created in 2016 that is slowly but surely bleeding out to other countries. We're seeing this type of populist grassroots movements pop up in Brazil, of course, this happened before Bernie Sanders with Lula de Silva but it's happening in Canada to an extent with Jagmeet Singh. It's happening in the UK with Jeremy Corbyn. So Bernie Sanders, when he talks about political revolution, he's talking about it in terms of the United States but I think that this really does have the potential to change the world and have an international type of movement and really reverse this wave of neoliberalism. And the reason why I started thinking about this in terms of the international context is because of Rashida Tlaib's endorsement of Bernie Sanders. So something that she said in here really was important to me. So let's listen to her official endorsement. This was after the rally and I want to talk about it because there are implications of this that I think are really broad and extend beyond the United States. Ammo Bernie is what I like to call him which Ammo means Uncle Arabic. I think Ammo Bernie, when he saw just not myself, my other sisters in service being attacked by this president, this bully. For him, there was no hesitation. He jumped on board and said, what can I do to uplift you all? What can I do to support you all? The fact that he truly believes that women like us, women that this institution hasn't been ready for, that we feel supported and from day one, he's always made us feel like that. I am endorsing Ammo Bernie Sanders because he's not gonna sell us out. He understands that it's not just about policies and about words, but it's gonna be also about completely transforming the structures in place that is hurting American people. For me, representing the third poorest congressional district in the country, he is in many ways pushing back against this really painful oppression. It's been incredibly inspiring to see his unwavering support for the same ideals that I have about people over profits. He is speaking about that mother that is tired of walking by blighted homes, tired of having to send their child to a school that doesn't have clean drinking water or fighting just for the right to literacy right now that's happening in Michigan. I mean, there is something incredibly inspiring about someone that we know is not gonna sell us out. That's not going to bow down to these structures that are so built on racism, built on choosing those that are wealthy that he's consistent in saying that he's with us first. You will always choose us first. My family has never ever really come together on a lot of political issues honestly after the passing of my father, but I'm a Bernie seems to be able to unite us. So that last point was so important because she says that my family, you know, we don't agree on much, but Bernie Sanders is the one thing essentially that we agree on. And of course I'm paraphrasing, but think about this. This is a Palestinian woman saying that her family doesn't agree on much, but the one thing that they agree on is that Bernie Sanders, a Jewish American politician is the real deal. That really sends a powerful message to the world that both Muslim women in Congress are endorsing a Jewish presidential candidate. That is a powerful, powerful message, right? And what it goes to show you is that this progressive ideology, this movement that Bernie Sanders catalyzed, this really is the one thing that is unifying people. I mean, candidates like Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden, they try to talk about bringing people together, but Bernie Sanders is actually doing it. He is bringing together people from all walks of life unlike any other candidate. So if you truly want to unify the country, Bernie Sanders is someone who is demonstrating that he's doing that right now and Rashida Tlaib's endorsement is helping to demonstrate how he's getting that done. Now on top of that, she also said that Bernie Sanders is not gonna sell us out and she reiterated that sentiment saying, there's something incredibly inspiring about someone you know is not going to sell us out. This is really important because during this primary, we're trying to figure out who's the best, right? I mean, we already know who's the best, but voters more broadly speaking in this Democratic Party primary, they're trying to see who's the best candidate and a lot of people who participate in primaries, they're the most politically engaged, they're the most active and they're usually more left-leaning, right? A lot of them at least. So when she says we're not going to be sold out by someone like Bernie Sanders, that's really important because essentially what she's communicating to you is that he is the best candidate if you truly want progressive policies to be implemented because his starting position is the strongest. Not only is he stronger on almost every single issue, in fact, I'd argue every single issue than Elizabeth Warren, but we know that he's not going to sell us out because he hasn't already started to compromise before negotiations even began and he's been advocating for these same policies for decades. So that's someone who you can actually trust. Like when a politician comes to our side and they acquiesce and they say, look, I endorse this policy that you want me to support, that's great and we should give them credit where it's due, but there's a difference between giving them credit and knowing that they're going to fight for something, right? And that's where we don't really have to worry about Bernie Sanders. We know that when he says he's going to fight for Medicare for all, he means it. He's actually going to fight for Medicare for all. Whereas when Elizabeth Warren says she's going to fight for Medicare for all, well, that could mean well, she's going to fight for a path to Medicare for all and maybe we don't do Medicare for all now, but we implement some type of healthcare reform that gets us on that trajectory towards Medicare for all rather than just going directly there. Now, I hope that if she's elected, she proves me wrong, but the fact that I have doubts demonstrates why she's not as good as Bernie Sanders and it's not because I'm just overly cynical and I'm skeptical about Elizabeth Warren because I'm a Bernie Sanders sycophant. No, this is based off of their history. This is based off of their records and who's been advocating for this solidly forever? I mean, Elizabeth Warren back in 2012 when she was running for the Senate, she wavered on Medicare for all after previously writing an op-ed supporting it. And then in 2017, she endorsed it. And in 2019, she started to waver and then she fully endorsed it again out of debate. Look, there shouldn't be a question in my mind that you're going to fight for the policies that you are saying you support. There shouldn't be a question there. And when Rashida Tlaib says that Bernie Sanders isn't going to sell us out, that's what she's talking about, I think. So overall, this endorsement is great. The fact that three fourths of the squad endorse Bernie Sanders, it goes to show you that this is a movement with momentum. The most vocal progressives in Congress are backing Bernie Sanders. And if you are progressive, if you want us to get on that trajectory of social democracy and actually put humanity at the focus of our policy and not what large multinational corporations and donors wants, I mean, it's obvious. It's Bernie Sanders, right? As Michael Brooks would say, everyone else in this race is a distraction. Fight for Bernie Sanders, vote for Bernie Sanders. He's the clear choice here for progressives, for the left. So as many of you know by now, Bernie Sanders recently received arguably the most important endorsements of the 2020 race. He was endorsed by three out of the four members of the squad, AOC, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib. So this matters because to have some of the most vocal, visibly progressive members of Congress back your campaign that demonstrates to voters that you really are the most progressive, that you really are the real deal. However, if you're Bill Maher, then you're going to somehow find a way to spin this as a negative for Bernie Sanders. Not kidding. Bill Maher in this clip that I'm about to play for you is going to argue that not only is this not good for Bernie Sanders, it's actually good for Elizabeth Warren that they endorsed Bernie over her. So you're going to see him interview Chris Cuomo. They're both going to pontificate about why this really isn't a big deal. And if anything, it's better for Warren. And it's going to be one of the most inseparable clips from Bill Maher that you've seen in quite some time. So let's watch. And then I have quite a bit to say about this because this really is rich-splaining 101. You're going to see two out of touch assholes talk about something that they really know nothing about. So three-fourths of the squad came out for Bernie Sanders. Yes. Yes, they did. I laugh at that because I don't know how that squad thing actually happened. Like, I don't know why we're calling a bunch of freshmen some kind of entity of influence in a system they just got into. Because they do have a lot of influence. They have a lot of social media influence. They have political cachet. The media loves to talk about them. But I think you have to put points on the board if you're going to earn your office. Get things done for your constituents, not just for your own profile. Is... OK, my question was... Louis! I love you. Imagine if that were his name. That was so Italian of you. I take no offense. No, you should. But is that the squad coming out for Bernie? First thing I thought was, that's good for Elizabeth Warren. Because? Because it makes him to the left of her and she needs to move to the middle. And what always happens, it's not unusual in politics, you know this, I'm sure all of you do also, is that primary takes you to a polar position within your party and then you try to fight your way back to the center. I think what's going on with the Democratic Party is a little bit more extreme than we've seen in the past. We had a poll not too long ago that said if the person running against this president identifies as socialist or can be identified reasonably as socialist, they lose by six points. So I think labels matter in politics. They do. I think the Senator Sanders has a tough time in defining socialist as a good thing to a capitalist society that doesn't like the idea of that kind of distribution of assets in general. Even in his own party, I don't think it really goes. I think they got a tough task. That was awful. That was completely and utterly insufferable for a number of reasons. So the first thing I wanna touch on is Chris Cuomo downplaying the significance of their endorsements and their membership in the party. He says, I don't know why we're calling a bunch of freshmen some kind of entity of influence in a system they just got into. You have to put points on the board to get things done for your constituents, not just for your own profile. Now, first and foremost, this is incredibly insulting to say. He's insinuating that they don't actually care about policy, that they really are doing more to promote themselves than the policies that they care about. But I mean, if this were actually the case, don't you think that there would be an easier route for them to take if they did, in fact, care more about self-promotion? I mean, if they chose to sell out to special interests and start taking money from special interests and raising money for elites, that would be a way to advance in party leadership. That would be a way to get praise from the mainstream media. But because they're remaining principled, that demonstrates that they truly do care more about their constituents than anyone else. And second of all, ask yourself this, if you think that they're not influential. Why are we talking about the Green New Deal? Why are presidential candidates having to pledge their support to the Green New Deal? It's because of AOC. Why are we even considering student loan debt cancellation? It's because of Ilhan Omar and Bernie Sanders co-introducing legislation to do just that. So to dismiss them as not having much influence because they're freshmen, that means absolutely nothing because think back to 2010, how influential the Tea Party was at moving the Republican Party to the right. Now, were they truly grassroots? No, they were propped up largely by the Koch brothers, Americans for prosperity. But what they did, even if they were a small block within the Republican Party was absolutely substantial. All you need is a large enough block in Congress to actually exert influence and you can accomplish change. Now, I'll admit that the block in Congress is still relatively small, right? But they're the most popular for a reason. It's because they're talking about things that people care about, Medicare for all, student loan debt cancellation. Nobody else in Congress really, it's demonstrating to people that they actually care that they're listening. So for you to downplay it, Chris Cuomo is incredibly smug and elitist. Like to say that, it really is rich-blaining. Now, Bill Maher then chimed in and said the squad coming out for Bernie first thing I thought was that's good for Elizabeth Warren because it makes him to the left of her and she needs to move to the middle. So this is idiotic on a number of levels, right? First of all, Elizabeth Warren would disagree with you because she was aggressively courting the endorsements of squad members like AOC. Now, second of all, during a primary, if you move to the middle, that's not going to bode well for your campaign. You can ask Amy Klobuchar how that's working out. Talk to John Delaney and see how his centrism is helping him in this primary. Out of all of the three front runners, two of them are the most progressive in the race. You have Joe Biden, sure, you can make that case. He is filling the space of the centrists in the party, whatever. He also has a lot of name recognition and a lot of Biden supporters admit that they support him because they think that he's the most electable. Incorrectly so, but nonetheless, during a primary to shift to the center, if you want to lose, then shifting to the center is a great way to do that. So Bill Maher doesn't know what he's talking about. He is giving them horrible advice, horrible advice because if that strategy was conducive to electoral success, then most centrists wouldn't be stuck at 1% indefinitely. But Chris Cuomo assured him that the pivot is a thing and he says, what's going on in the Democratic Party is a little more extreme than what we've seen in the past. Now, think about how one dimensional this line of thinking is. Do you ever hear people talking about the Republican Party in the same way? Do we ever talk about how far to the right the Republican Party has shifted? No, for whatever reason, even though the Overton window is so far to the right that we elected a literal fascist, we're still talking about how far left the Democratic Party is. Donald Trump moved the entire Republican Party to the right and he didn't pivot in the general election. Let me remind you and guess what happened? He's still won. So why is this worry about not being moderate enough something that only centrists worry about, that only centrists fear monger about to the left? Well, this hinges on their worldview because according to them, winning elections is about flipping as many undecided centrist voters as possible, not about exciting the base. So the way that they view elections is, there's always this fixed block of undecided centrist voters and in order to win the general election, you've got to win over that fixed block. Now, this is something that Democratic strategists would agree with, right? A lot of Democrats agree with this, but between 2008 to 2016, Democrats lost more than a thousand seats in state legislatures across the country, specifically because this is the strategy that they pursued. It's always about winning over moderates, but in trying to shift right and appeal to moderates, what have Democrats done? Well, they shifted so far to the center and the right that they left a lot of space open on the left and they abandoned their base. People stopped showing up because it seems like they care more about winning over Republicans than they do about winning over us. So rather than actually pursuing an electoral strategy that will be conducive to victory by going after non-voters by exciting the base, what Bill Maher and Chris Cuomo are advocating for is for them to pursue the same strategy that led to them being wiped out. It's like 2016 never happened and empiricism isn't a thing and we can never learn from the past. Unbelievable, like in 2019, I shouldn't have to be talking about the viability of a strategy like that. Like we should all acknowledge collectively that running to the center is a horrible idea for Democrats, but this is still something that they're doing. Republicans never worry about running too far to the right. Democrats and elites always fear monger about the left pushing the party too far to the left. It's, I'm over it, right? It's insufferable. I'm so fucking sick of it. I'm done with that. On top of that, Chris Cuomo invoked the fear of socialism and how that could potentially be a hurdle for Bernie Sanders. Now I get that when you look at some public opinion polls, voters tend to not want to vote for a generic socialist. But first of all, that doesn't necessarily mean that they won't vote for Bernie Sanders because a generic socialist with no connotations attached to it is different from a politician who was one of the most trusted and popular senators in the country. And on top of that, they're not acknowledging that this election will largely be decided by young voters because a new YouGov poll found that seven in 10 millennials say that they would vote for a socialist. And 50% of millennials and 51% of Gen Zers have an unfavorable view of capitalism. Now, most people pay more attention during the general elections. And if a self-declared democratic socialist is at the top of the ticket, even if you may worry about whatever hurdles that poses, you can expect young people to turn out, which means that this will increase our chances of beating Donald Trump. Like young voters have essentially decided elections by turning out or not turning out. So if we have someone who's a self-declared democratic socialist, people are gonna turn out and vote for him and guess what's gonna happen? We increase our chances of beating Donald Trump. Now I've got bad news for you. If you are worried about that socialist label being attributed to Bernie Sanders, because he is a self-declared democratic socialist, any Democrat is going to be a socialist. Mitch McConnell even referred to Joe Biden as a socialist. So it doesn't matter who the nominee is. They could be as right-wing as you want them to be. Republicans will by default say that they are socialists because that's what they do. They said Obama was a communist who was a center right neoliberal. So it doesn't matter who the democratic party nominee is. The political toxicity of that label is still going to remain consistent. But I would argue that Bernie Sanders would fare better because he is a self-identified democratic socialist. So by not running away from that label, he actually has the ability to take it and own it and actually redefine it and not allow Republicans to define it for him. But that's just one part of Bill's Bernie bashing because there was another part where a panelist condemned Medicare for All and Bill Maher, of course, agreed with him. You seen as a way to help more Americans. I'll tell you one thing though. You tell 160 million Americans that they can't have their choose their private insurance. You're going to lose an election. And these people are smoking crack. You know, to get about not even, not even paying being able to pay for it, $34 trillion. My grandfather was a cop, okay? And my mother was a school teacher and they worked really hard to put me in a position where I can buy the kind of insurance I want. And if I can't or the people on this panel, I can't buy it for my children, we are going backwards. We're fucking Denmark, okay? So that of course was Donnie Deutsch. He is a multi-millionaire with a net worth of $200 million and his logic is completely ass backwards. He's basically saying that if we have a Medicare for All single-payer system, healthcare is free at the point of service, coverage is comprehensive and universal. We're actually going backwards. That makes no sense because it's idiotic. We're not going backwards if we get Medicare for All. We're going forward because if we end a system where healthcare is a commodity and 30,000 people die every single year to stop that, we're not going backwards. We're going forwards. You disingenuous hack. But this is someone who we should expect to lie because he already admitted on Morning Joe that he would literally vote for Donald Trump over Bernie Sanders. He would vote for fascism before he votes for socialism. That's what he admitted before having to walk it back because according to him, socialism would be bad for this company. I mean country, his words not mine. So this logic is so stupid but I found the perfect response on Twitter because as Jonathan Copeland said, if we replaced the lead pipes in Flint, 96,000 people will be kicked off their current water sources. And that's exactly right. You're framing an upgrade as losing something and that's fucking stupid. If somebody took away my PlayStation 4 and gave me a PlayStation 4 Pro, would I say you took away my PlayStation 4 or would I say you upgraded my PlayStation 4? Like that's probably not the best analogy but I mean, the point still stands. He literally said that if you tell 160 Americans, million Americans that they can't choose their private insurance, then you're gonna lose an election. I mean, you're just being disingenuous. You are being intentionally deceitful. That or you're really, really stupid but I would argue that he knows at least that a Medicare for all system, it wouldn't lead to people losing health insurance but he wants you to think that so that way he can help drive down support for it. So I mean, look, Bill Maher's show has become insufferable for Bernie Sanders supporters which is interesting because back in 2016, Bill Maher purported to be a Bernie Sanders supporter albeit tapently, right? He didn't really seem to be very enthusiastic about Bernie Sanders because he didn't think that Bernie would be able to beat Hillary Clinton but this time, you know, in 2019, when Bernie Sanders is in the top three out of a field of what? 20 plus candidates and he actually has a shot of winning. He's raising the most money. He has more than a million volunteers. All of a sudden Bill Maher is saying actually maybe he's too left wing for the country. Unbelievable. Bill Maher used to be someone who actually provided a somewhat different take and alternative look at American politics. He was more anti-establishment and now his commentary is indistinguishable from a lot of the other commentary we see from corporate media pundits. And a lot of what he says is exactly the same as what you'd hear from Fox News. So Bill Maher is absolutely atrocious and we just have to prove him wrong and get Bernie Sanders elected. But even if Bernie Sanders is elected, I still don't think that Bill Maher is going to admit that he's wrong because he just likes to rich-splain and never listen to normal Americans, right? He's in that elitist bubble. He is a multi-millionaire. So he just likes to hear himself talk at this point. And I can't watch Bill Maher unless it's to hate watch him and shit on him, you know, on my show because he's just, he's that bad now. He's that bad. So we already know who Ilhana Omar supports for president in 2020. Of course it's Bernie Sanders. She endorsed him. Her endorsement video is absolutely inspiring and beautiful. But in an interview with Mehdi Hasan of The Intercept, she spilled a little bit of tea on the other 2020 Democratic Party primary contenders and I wanted to share her take because I agree with mostly everything she says here and she really is proving to be one of my favorite members of Congress. So as Charlie Nash of Mediaite writes, Representative Ilhan Omar threw shade at 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, Representative Tulsi Gabbard, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and former Vice President Joe Biden during an interview with The Intercept's Mehdi Hasan in which she said it would be tragic if the Democrats had to choose between Biden or Buttigieg. In a rapid fire section of the interview, Hasan asked Hillary or Tulsi, referring to Hillary Clinton or Tulsi Gabbard, to which Omar shot back, none. That is the right answer, Hasan replied to audience laughter and applause. In response to the next question, Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg, Omar again claimed none. But if you had to pick one, if one of them is the candidate for your party, who would you rather it be? Questioned Hasan, prompting Omar to remark, so you're saying if something tragic happens and they ended up being the nominee? After being repeatedly asked for an answer, Omar concluded, I don't know, it's hard, none comes to my head. Later on, after being asked to choose between Senator Lindsey Graham or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Omar replied, I don't know, and said the questions are difficult to answer because it's hard to choose between people who you have no respect for. Damn, she has no chill. So the one thing where I slightly disagree with her is when it comes to Tulsi Gabbard and Hillary Clinton, I do think that's a pretty easy choice, Tulsi Gabbard. And I say this as someone who no longer supports Tulsi Gabbard, right? I went into the primary, very optimistic and naive supporting Tulsi Gabbard. I bought a shirt, I bought a pen, I donated it to help get her on the debate stage, but with time, she started to shift to the right. She came out against Medicare for All. She voted against BDS. So I'm just over Tulsi Gabbard at this point, but I still would choose her over Hillary Clinton any day of the week. But moving on to Joe Biden and people to judge, this actually is pretty tough. And for her to say this would be tragic if one of them were the nominee, I totally agree. Because I believe that if one of them were the nominee, Donald Trump gets a second term, period, end of story. And I went into this primary thinking Joe Biden was the worst option. I'm starting to shift a little bit. I think that Pete Buttigieg might actually be worse than Joe Biden. I mean, Joe Biden at this point, he's just flailing. You know, it seems like he can't collect his thoughts. He clearly shouldn't be running. And I just kind of feel bad from a human standpoint, even though I can't stand him. But Pete Buttigieg, he's so smug, he's arrogant, he's elitist, there's something about him that I just know will turn out voters. It's that elitism, right? This smug sense of superiority that he has, it's the same thing that turned me off about Hillary Clinton. And if he is the nominee, which I don't think he will, but if he were to win, I mean, Donald Trump is going to curb stop him in the general. Because Donald Trump is going to do his same fake populist appeal. Pete Buttigieg is going to try to be overly wonky and talk about how he speaks 52 languages. And voters aren't going to come out and support him in the Democratic Party because he is campaigning against the issues that we support, Medicare for All. He is a new neoliberal in different clothing. He's not gonna fly. So if you really want to beat Donald Trump, you've gotta have a populist change candidate who can galvanize the Democratic Party voting base, get them out. It's not Pete Buttigieg, it's not Joe Biden. So if I had to choose between them, I'm kind of with her where I would be conflicted. Now, when it comes to the choice of Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell, of course, this is kind of a bizarre hypothetical because that wouldn't actually happen. But if I had to choose, I would be torn again too because on one hand, Lindsey Graham in the past has had his moments where he was somewhat reasonable, but he also supports basically every single war ever. Mitch McConnell is just a tyrant. So I mean, these are horrible hypothetical situations that I don't want to think about because they likely will never come to fruition. But in this primary, if it were to come to Biden and Buttigieg, which is a possibility, but it's unlikely, that really would be terrible. So I'm glad that Ilhan Omar isn't biting her tongue because what a lot of Democrats do is they'll say, well, you know, I endorsed candidate X, although I will say that look at all the wonderful candidates that we have and compare them to the Republicans, the Republicans, they're the true enemies. Yeah, there are enemies, right? But so are some of these Democrats. I mean, Pete Buttigieg is actively driving down support for Medicare for all the lies that he is telling about Medicare for all is working. That's someone who's not my ally in any way, shape or form. That's my enemy. That's someone who we have to defeat and vociferously argue against. Now I couldn't find the video portion of this podcast. You can find the full audio version. I'll link to that down below. But I do want to play a clip where Ilhan Omar talks about a candidate that she does support, Bernie Sanders. And she explains why she's supporting him over Elizabeth Warren. And what she says is absolutely brilliant. It's a very interesting event in the last few days. Both of you, Ilhan and Michael, came out and endorsed Bernie Sanders. Let me ask each of you then to kick off. Why Bernie Sanders? And especially for the progressive listening here in the room and at home, why Bernie Sanders and not Elizabeth Warren, Ilhan? For me, I'm one of those people who is inspired by the movement Bernie build. That's what initially inspired me to run for office. Bernie is someone that I share incredible values with. And as you know, we have been doing a lot of work together. We introduced our student debt cancellation together. And this week, we introduced another revolutionary bill together to make sure that there are universal school meals for all of our kids. You know, when I think about Bernie, I think about someone who's not building, who's building a movement and not just running for president. There was an America that I dreamed about. There's an America that I think we deserve. And Bernie is the only one who shares that vision for the America we all want. He's building a movement and not just running for president. That right there really is a key distinction because I don't want a normal president to be elected. You can be progressive, you can check all the boxes, but I really need you to acknowledge right now that we have to get the change needed to save the country. And you can't do that with normal legislative processes. You can't just propose a bill and cross your fingers and hope that it passes. That's not gonna be conducive to you being successful as president. We need someone who's going to be organizer in chief, Bernie Sanders, very explicitly is saying, I have a strategy to galvanize the American people and get them to turn out, to where if we can't pass a policy that the American people supports, they show up in DC. They camp out in their state legislatures. We get this passed using sheer force of will using the American people. That really is what distinguishes Bernie from Warren. In any other election year, in a post Bernie presidency, I think Warren would be a fine choice, but we need someone who's going to be a revolutionary, who's going to get us on that trajectory of social democracy and actually give us a real political revolution in the way that FDR and Ronald Reagan did. Now, I don't support Ronald Reagan's policies, but you can't deny that what he accomplished was effectively a political revolution because he changed discourse, right? He moved it away from the new deal and he kind of established this new political consensus to where it was so popular. Being a right wing, trickle down economics promoter was so popular, it became the status quo to where even if you were a Democrat, you couldn't challenge that. You had to be a third way Democrat like Bill Clinton, right? And run to the right. That's what FDR made Republicans do, but on the left. And that's what Reagan made Democrats do. But on the right, we need Bernie to do what FDR accomplished. So yeah, everything that Ilhan Omar says here, very interesting, the tea that she spilled on 2020, it's good stuff. I'm not necessarily only focused on the horse race, but it is interesting to me and entertaining to a degree. And to hear her say that, it is fascinating because I respect her. And I like hearing where she stands on these issues and what she thinks about the candidates because she is someone who I respect. All right, so I wanna talk about TI because lately he's been on a roll. So first of all, he exposed Candace Owens for the fraud and political hack that she is. And on top of that, he recently appeared on The View and he had a really astute political analysis. So he talked about the 2020 election and who he believes is the candidate who was best suited to beat Donald Trump. And this clip shows me that more so than most celebrities, he really does seem to have his finger on the pulse of America. And I've got to share it with you because what he says here, not only is it correct, but it's something that the audience of The View desperately needs to hear because they usually don't really get that great of political analysis there. But TI said something that made a lot of sense, I think. And he broke it down in a way that I hope will resonate with their audience. So I'm not gonna take this as an endorsement of the candidate he's gonna talk about. Nonetheless, what he says, spot on. Who do you like now? I mean, for me, it's anybody but Trump, 2020. Okay. That's what we said. Yeah. Yeah. Any one but Trump. Let's say any functioning adult. Yeah, you know, anyone who's fair and decent and, you know, not an international embarrassment. Yeah. But if I may just go a little further, is there anyone you think who could actually beat him, really? Right now, I think that the only person that I see who has a base that's strong enough to oppose him is Bernie. Bernie Sanders. Yeah. Wow. He's not, Biden has got bigger numbers. Biden's got bigger, I think that Bernie's base is more passionate. I think they're more passionate. That's true. And I think that, you know, he's the complete antithesis of what Trump represents. Yes, that's true. Yeah. But I think he's gonna have to have a strong vice president, you know, because a lot of people see that his age and his health is a factor. So I think a strong vice president could relieve some of the doubt that exists. Maybe Amy Klobuchar. Perhaps. Or Andrew Gilliam. Oh, you like Gilliam. Yeah, I do. Andrew Gilliam, oh yeah. So that was great. Now, it doesn't necessarily seem like he's willing to just straight up endorse Bernie Sanders, but consider this, T.I., if you're watching, which he's not, but if you were to see this, he said that in terms of who he's supporting, quote, it's anybody but Trump. Yet simultaneously he thinks that Bernie Sanders is the only one with the base strong enough to oppose Trump and that Bernie is the antithesis of Donald Trump. So if you put these two things together, then all signs point to Bernie as the best bet. So why not just make it official? Why not just endorse him? You can perform at Bernie's rallies. There'd be a lot of excitement. Why not? If you want to defeat Donald Trump, I mean, you have a large platform. A lot of people respect you, endorse Bernie. But, you know, not to get too far into that, you know, what he says is great. So he talks about how Bernie Sanders has the base to oppose Donald Trump. That is absolutely true. And what's important about Bernie Sanders is he's pursuing a strategy that other Democrats haven't pursued in quite some time. Democrats have been wiped out because what they've been trying to do is they go after moderate and Republican voters, right? They visualize the electorate as this fixed block of people who are in the center, who are always undecided, who they have to win over and they win them over by going to the right. But what Bernie Sanders is doing is he's trying to excite the base because he realizes that in shifting to the right, to court, moderate voters, the Democratic Party has left this space wide open from the left and the left feels abandoned. They feel like they don't actually have a party that represents them. So what has happened? People have stayed home. But with Bernie Sanders, he actually is doing everything he can to get out non-voters, people who don't usually participate in politics. I mean, I've shared this anecdote before in the program, but my mom, she's in her 60s. She has never voted her entire life, not once, although there's one candidate in 2016 that got her to register to vote. Bernie Sanders, no other candidate has demonstrated to her that they're actually going to fight because her view was, look, these people, they get in office after promising everything and then they sell us out and it's just, she felt like it was worthless, right? And we live in the state of Oregon, where voting is easy, but that's how disenfranchised she fell. That's how disenchanted millions of people across the country feel with the system. So rather than courting Republicans and undecided voters, what Bernie Sanders is doing is he's trying to excite the base that exists knowing that Democrats win if they get their base to turn out because when voters turn out as high, when young voters show up, Republicans lose, period. T.I. recognizes that and that's what's really important. Now, I don't agree with everything. So, Joy Behar pointed out that, well, Biden's got bigger numbers and I think that T.I. made a phenomenal point that Bernie's base is more passionate, but on top of that, I would argue that Hillary's base or Hillary's numbers was, it was comparable at this point in time in the race. She was beating Donald Trump in head-to-head matchups. Biden, can you imagine, like what's gonna happen if Biden is the nominee? That will suppress the base. Democratic Party voters will not be enthusiastic about voting for Joe Biden. Young voters will not want to come out and vote for Joe Biden. So in the event Joe Biden is the nominee, I would predict that Donald Trump would be the favorite. It's not a foregone conclusion that Joe Biden would lose because I think that if Obama came out and started to really campaign for Joe Biden and Joe Biden was just hidden away, that could make a difference theoretically, but I'm not so sure. You know, I think that Joe Biden is the worst case scenario. If he's the nominee, Trump has a great shot at getting re-elected. So, looking at the numbers now, sure, I think that that's useful to an extent, but you have to understand what facilitates electoral victories for Republicans. It's when the Democrats stay home. Nobody's going to be excited to vote for someone like Joe Biden, who is just another neoliberal who isn't really offering anything to voters. Now, TI then goes on to make another strong point about how Bernie Sanders should pick a really strong VP to kind of ameliorate the concerns that voters have about his health and his age. And I do think that that's a solid point, but Joy Bayhard then chimes in with a really weird recommendation. She says, oh, like Amy Klobuchar. I mean, what is it with centrists and Amy Klobuchar? She's pulling at 1%. Like, you want to excite the base, right? You know this, right? She's pulling at 1%, and then Bill Maher said the same thing. I'm looking closely at Amy Klobuchar. She's pulling at 1%. Why do you think she's a good option? I mean, it's painful, right? These elites are so out of touch and they just hear themselves talk and they never listen to any views that contradict their own. They never hear counterarguments. So they just rich-splain and they give Democrats bad advice and it's so frustrating. Amy Klobuchar is pulling at 1%. Nobody wants her to be the VP. Nobody wants her to be the president. She's not politically viable. She's not electable. Stop. But a TI didn't have the best option. He did float Andrew Gillum and that's someone who Elizabeth Warren is actually reportedly looking at. Andrew Gillum, I definitely supported him over Rhonda Santis obviously in 2018 in Florida. And I will say this. When it comes to electability, I do think that Andrew Gillum is a good debater. I think he's a good campaigner. Although, ideologically speaking, he's not as good as Bernie Sanders. So I think that Bernie Sanders needs to make sure that he doesn't undercut his populist appeal by selecting someone who would potentially be co-opted by the establishment. And in the general election, there were some signs that Andrew Gillum was starting to move away from his progressive ideals. He did the pivot as strategists would say. But if I'm Bernie Sanders, I think that there's more than enough qualified women to where I would choose a female VP if I'm Bernie Sanders. And he already kind of hinted that that's what he's looking at. But really, even though my first choice, individually speaking, would be Nina Turner, obviously, if I'm Bernie Sanders, I think the smartest choice for me to win would be to pick Elizabeth Warren because strategically you have to understand that Elizabeth Warren, she has the support of Hillary and Kamala supporters, Democratic Party loyalists, for whatever reason they really love Elizabeth Warren. So I think in order to unite the party, going into the general, you pick someone who simultaneously can bring in centrists who are skeptical, but who your own base wouldn't feel as if you are sacrificing ideological principles. And that person, I think, would be Elizabeth Warren. But I mean, there's a number of phenomenal options. There's Pramila Jayapal, Barbara Lee, Zephyr T. Chow, Nina Turner, of course. You know, Nina Turner is my number one. She always will be my number one choice. In fact, I think I support her more than Bernie Sanders. But with that being said, Andrew Gillum's probably not the best choice, but everything else, I don't wanna discount what Ti said there. His political analysis was actually pretty astute, pretty spot on for a celebrity, for someone who's rich, who you'd kind of expect to be out of touch. So, you know, what he's saying is great. I just wish you'd make it official and just endorse Bernie Sanders. We know you want to, Ti, I don't know why you're not, but Bernie is the one best chance we have at defeating Donald Trump. I think that Elizabeth Warren has a solid chance, but she's not as sure of a bet as Bernie Sanders would be. Bernie Sanders isn't a foregone conclusion. I think that he could lose to Donald Trump, but I think that in terms of just his chances, he'd have a 70, 75% chance of beating Donald Trump, just based now where we are. So Ti's right. And if you wanna beat Trump, Bernie's your ticket. So a number of 2020 presidential contenders showed up to the People's Action Forum in Iowa and the receptions that they received varied from very good to pretty bad. Now I wanna show you two clips, one from Bernie Sanders and the other from Pete Buttigieg. Now they were both asked about healthcare and what they would do to make sure that people actually get healthcare, not just access to healthcare, and make sure that people no longer die or go bankrupt in this country if they don't have health insurance. What you're going to see is a really different response based on the answers that they give. So Bernie Sanders is going to give an answer that they love. Pete Buttigieg, not so much because he's gonna give his usual spiel about Medicare for all who wants it. And it's obvious that the crowd isn't feeling what he's saying. So much so to the point where they actually start shouting Medicare for all at him during his answer. Mayor Buttigieg, you've said that competition can create a glide path to universal coverage with almost 30 million without healthcare with over 40 million who are underinsured with most Americans that cannot afford a $400 emergency cost. How are you going to help folks like Bre and prevent deaths like Jesse's as president? Well, thank you. We have accepted the unacceptable for far too long in this country. You should never have to ration needed medical supplies in order to get by. It is completely unacceptable as is people dying because of inadequate medical care. We are the only developed country in the world that tolerates this. So what I propose is that we create a public alternative. One that everybody can afford. One that is backed with the subsidies that are required to make sure that income is not a barrier to cost. One that caps out of pocket costs and make sure that 8.5% of income is the maximum that you pay. Now, as a progressive, I believe that public alternative will be better than any of the private ones. But instead of commanding people to take my alternative, I'm gonna let people decide. Because the moment that that alternative is there, everybody can access healthcare. Now, for some reason, and union members are a good example, some folks don't prefer my public alternative. Okay, it's not important to me in principle that your healthcare come from the government. It is important to me in principle that you get healthcare no matter what. I think the public alternative will be better and everybody will opt into it over time. But, and right now, the insurance you might have seen the healthcare lobbyist put out a statement condemning my plan as too much government. But if they come up with something better, we'll see. I just don't think it's gonna happen and I trust you to make the decision. Thank you, Mayor. We have a follow-up question. Can I just remind folks to please be respectful? So, hey folks, can we allow our speaker to ask the follow-up question? Thank you. Thank you. I'm on your side, guys. A market-driven approach has meant that 45,000 people die a year without healthcare. That a $6 vial of insulin is being sold for $300. We know as president you will be Commander-in-Chief. Will you be the Healer-in-Chief? Count on it. Thank you. I just told you. And look, not everybody will agree with me, but I think the public alternative will be better. I believe the public plan we create will be the best one. I just don't think we have to command you to take it because if I'm right, you'll take it. So that was absolutely great to see because they know that Pete Buttigieg is full of shit. The industry talking points that he's using, they weren't buying it. And understand what he did there. He took a shot at Medicare for all. He said, instead of commanding people to take my alternative, I'm going to let them decide. So he's, again, lying about Medicare for all by trotting out this choice argument, but this is not real choice. Choosing between private and public healthcare is not choice. That's the illusion of choice. Where choice comes in, where it matters most to people is being allowed to choose our doctors in hospitals. Medicare for all maximizes choice. His version of healthcare reform restricts choice. Let me repeat that. It restricts choice. Because let's say, hypothetically speaking, you buy into his public option and you wanna see a doctor who is pretty close and who has great reviews on Yelp. Well, if that doctor is not in your network, if they don't accept Medicare, then guess what? You don't get to see that doctor. So he's lying to you about choice. He's misrepresenting what you want and he's not listening to you. We say we want choice when it comes to healthcare, when it comes to choosing our doctor and he comes back with this bogus false choice of private public. That's not what we want. We wanna choose our doctors in hospitals. We want the freedom to go where we want. We want the freedom to see a doctor even if we don't have money for a copay. But yet he's saying, he's the one in favor of choice. He's lying. Now on top of that, he said it's not important for me that your healthcare come from the government. It's important to me in principle that you get healthcare no matter what. Now the issue with this worldview is that he views healthcare as a commodity in the same way that video games and clothing and shoes are commodities. He thinks healthcare is also a commodity. He thinks that it is and rightfully should be a money making venture. That that for profit motive in healthcare, it's not corrupting our entire system. There's no problem with it because I don't really care if you get healthcare from a private company or the government. What matters is you get healthcare. So in other words, he doesn't believe that there's any issue with the commodification of healthcare and he doesn't want to change that. Now he pitched Medicare for All Who Wanted, which is a public option. And after he gave his answer, the crowd chanted Medicare for All and that was music to my ears. Anytime Pete Buttigieg says this, he says Medicare for All Who Wanted, people need to chant Medicare for All because here's the thing. He knows that Medicare for All is popular. So that's why he named his plan, Medicare for All Who Wanted, when it's a public option. He's trying to steal the popularity of that Medicare for All label and disingenuously argue to you like his plan, argue that his plan would maximize choice. This man is a liar. He's full of shit. He's disingenuous. And the reason why he's no longer in support of Medicare for All after previously being for it is because, surprise, surprise, he started taking large sums of money from the healthcare industry. The only person in the entire 2020 race to take more money from the health industry than Pete Buttigieg, Donald Trump, yeah. So this person does not have your best interest in mind and they gave him a second chance to give a better answer because the market-based approach to healthcare has been a failure. So they let him answer the question again. You know, they asked what he'd specifically do to address their problems, but he refused to answer the question. He said, I just told you. Right, but your answer wasn't sufficient. Hence why they're giving you a second chance to answer the question and address our specific concerns. He didn't do that. And that's why the crowd shouted Medicare for All at him. Now, we're gonna contrast what you just saw. Pete Buttigieg had his answer with Bernie Sanders' answer. So he was also asked a question about healthcare. Now pay attention to the crowd's reaction as he gives this answer. And also look at Bernie Sanders' face because you can see just genuine excitement about healthcare as he talks about it. Like there's a big smile on his face. He knows he's gonna give a phenomenal answer that's truthful and the crowd's gonna love it. Watch and see the difference here, not just in his answer, but the way the crowd reacts. Our question to you today is how will your healthcare plan eliminate the financial and other barriers to care for people like Josh? And how can you make sure that all of us have access to the highest quality healthcare professionals so that none of us get left behind? I am happy to tell you what I think you already know, Kathy, that I am the author of the Medicare for All Single Payable. I have believed, I have believed for my entire adult life that healthcare is a human right, not a privilege. We have a system today which is not only dysfunctional, it is incredibly cruel. And its cruelty is not just that 87 million people are uninsured or underinsured. It is not just that 30,000 people die each year because they don't get to a doctor when they should. It is not just that 500,000 people go bankrupt every year because of medical bills. It is a system designed to make billions for the insurance companies and the drug companies who charge us by far the highest prices in the world for the prescription drugs that we need. It is a system that last year made $100 billion in profits for the healthcare industry. So my bill is pretty simple. We start off with Medicare, which is the most popular public health insurance program in the country. We expand it to cover dental care, hearing aids and eyeglasses. We make sure that there are no premiums. We've got rid of premiums. No co-payments, no out-of-pocket expenses. In Canada, if you have a heart transplant and you're in the hospital for a month, you come out not owing a nickel, that's what I want in America. And when we talk about comprehensive healthcare, we're certainly talking about parity regarding mental health as well. And this program is paid for out of the general tax base. And the vast majority of the America people, except the very rich, will be paying far less for the healthcare they get right now than they are currently paying. Our job now is to have the guts to stand up to the greed and corruption of the insurance industry and the drug companies and tell them we're coming after them, healthcare is a human right. So I mean, the difference was clear. The crowd loved him and the two people that were disappointed obviously and Pete Buttigieg's answer were behind Bernie Sanders standing up and cheering for him because you know when someone is telling you the truth and not trying to lie, not trying to gaslight you, Bernie Sanders gave an answer that's phenomenal and he addressed their specific concern. He addressed the failure of a market-based approach to healthcare reform. Bernie Sanders made it very clear that his goal is to decommodify healthcare, meaning that we're not going to have a healthcare system that is driven by the goal of maximizing profits. We're going to make this about the delivery of healthcare and we can't do that unless we get the profit motive out of the system entirely. That's what Bernie wants to do. So he's not saying you can choose between private and public, he's saying I'm giving you the most choice by empowering you to see any doctor in the country by having healthcare as a right of citizenship, period, end of story. Now on top of that, Bernie Sanders also distinguished between his plan and Elizabeth Warren's plan. He didn't cite her by name, but he mentioned that mental healthcare will also be at parity with physical healthcare. It's going to be free at the point of service. Now, if you look at Elizabeth Warren's plan on her website, she doesn't really say that mental health will be free at the point of service. She essentially says that she'll reform the industry in a way that gives us affordable access to mental healthcare, which tells me she doesn't take mental health as seriously as Bernie Sanders, which is disappointing because mental healthcare is healthcare. And if you're going to look at healthcare reform to leave out mental healthcare, but have everything else be free at the point of service, that's almost insulting, you know? So Bernie is the real deal. I don't know what else to say. If you trust Pete Buttigieg, then I really don't know what to tell you. There's one person in this race who we can trust the most when it comes to healthcare and Medicare for All. And that is Bernie Sanders and the crowd knows it. The crowd saw through Pete Buttigieg's nonsense and they realized that Bernie Sanders is the one way we're ever going to get Medicare for All. If Bernie Sanders isn't elected, then I don't think we're ever going to get Medicare for All at the rate we're going, because anyone who said they supported Medicare for All going into the primary no longer supports it. And the one other person in the race that supports it, Elizabeth Warren, I don't really trust that she's going to fight for it. So if we want Medicare for All, we've got one shot. It's Bernie Sanders. That's it, until somebody else comes along and runs for president, maybe AOC. I just can't ever see it feasibly getting passed without a fighter for it. You're taking on an entire multi-billion dollar industry. You're taking on not just Republicans, but your own political party. So we don't just need a fighter. We need the best fighter imaginable to get Medicare for All passed. It's Bernie Sanders. It's not Pete Buttigieg. And I'm glad that the crowd saw that he is full of shit. So before the Democratic Party primary, support for Medicare for All was starting to really rise. There were some polls that showed that it surpassed 70%. And it got to a point where we actually started to see a bipartisan consensus emerge because a Reuters-Ipsos poll found that a slim majority of Republicans supported Medicare for All. Now fast forward to the 2019 Democratic Party primary. And it has been attacked relentlessly by not just Republicans, but corporate Democrats who are going out of their way to spread lies about Medicare for All at the behest of the industry. And the reason why I say at the behest of the industry is because you see people like Pete Buttigieg, for example, who has kind of become the chief opponent to Medicare for All. He previously supported it. Like if you go back to February of this year, you can see him advocating and making the case for Medicare for All. But then he started to take money from the health insurance industry. And then lo and behold, now he's changing his tune. And now he's arguing against it, as is Joe Biden, as is Amy Klobuchar. But the problem with their arguments against Medicare for All is that they're not making good faith arguments against Medicare for All. They are lying about Medicare for All. And this is having a substantial impact on public support for Medicare for All. So to give you an example, this is basically what we're dealing with when it comes to attacks on Medicare for All. Candidate Pete Buttigieg has unveiled his plan to remake the U.S. healthcare system. Buttigieg wants to offer every American coverage under the federal Medicare program, but doesn't wanna force anyone to give up their private health insurance plans. Everyone is eligible. Even if you currently get your insurance through your employer at work, you'd still be able to buy into this public option if you wanted. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren believe that we have to force ourselves into Medicare for All, where private insurance is abolished. There are 160 million Americans who get their insurance from their employer. So union workers are a little skeptical because they see that as a loss of a benefit that they fought hard to obtain in the workplace. He's trying to focus on choice, not infringing on people's freedom to make that decision voluntarily. As you now have an increasing number of Democratic presidential candidates who are signing up for Medicare if you want it. Mayor Pete said Medicare for All who wanted. That's a much better formulation. Working towards a universal healthcare system, but it doesn't wipe out private insurance. So that is now one of three ads from just one presidential contender on the left, supposedly, in the Democratic Party primary who's lying about Medicare for All. He literally quoted someone who says Medicare for All quote, infringes on people's freedom. That is a bold faced lie because what would Medicare for All actually accomplish? Well, it would give people more freedom because you can see any doctor you want to, networks would be gone, and guess what? It's free at the point of service. So if you don't have any money to your name, you can still go see a doctor. No copays, no deductibles, no monthly premiums, free at the point of service. So by saying it infringes on freedom, that is a lie that has manifested from within the industry that this shill is now repeating. So these are the types of disingenuous attacks that we see on Medicare for All that we've been dealing with. And to be fair, it's not just Pete. It's also Biden. It's also Klobuchar. It's John Delaney. But Mayor Pete has essentially been the face of the anti-Medicare for All movement from within the Democratic Party. Now, the reason why I'm talking about these attacks on Medicare for All is because they're actually having an effect. They're working. They're actually successfully driving down support for Medicare for All, and they're doing it quickly. Now, simultaneously, as they lie about Medicare for All and drive down support for Medicare for All, support for a public option is actually increasing. So they're winning. So if you look at this poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation, support for Medicare for All was at an all-time high of 59% in March of 2018, and hovered around 56%, reaching a high of 57%. But as the primary advanced and voters saw Democrats, fear monger and lie about Medicare for All pretty brazenly, well, they successfully managed to drive down support for Medicare for All because it has since dropped to 51%, and opposition to Medicare for All rose to 47%. Now, when you juxtapose that poll with this one, support for a public option has sharply increased since around the time the Democratic debates started to take place, from 65% to 73%. That's an eight-point jump. So it goes to show you that these industry talking points, they work, they're effective. And when Republicans attack Medicare for All, that's one thing, but to hear Democrats attack it, that actually legitimizes the right-wing talking points because people trust Democrats more with healthcare than they do Republicans. So to hear them say something like Medicare for All infringes on your freedom, that actually resonates with people, unfortunately. Now I know what you're thinking. This is just the overall voting base, Democratic Party primary voters, they still support Medicare for All, right? Well, yes, they do overwhelmingly so, thankfully. But even though 71% of Democrats overall still support Medicare for All, that's actually down 10 points overall since January of this year. So the takeaway is that all of the lies that are being told about Medicare for All, all of the fear mongering, it's working. Not just among the general electorate, but among Democratic Party primary voters. They are successfully driving down support for Medicare for All and driving up support for a public option. And let me just say this, a public option is an impediment to Medicare for All. I'm not gonna say it's a zero-sum game that you can't have one without the other, but a public option is a catch 22 and it puts up a barrier to getting Medicare for All one because if we get that, then we're not gonna be talking about healthcare reform again for what, another decade? Because they're gonna say, we already did. A public option, isn't that good enough? And they're gonna move on to other issues that they view are more pressing. And on top of that, hypothetically speaking, let's say that we get a public option. So you're still not decommodifying healthcare because the issue with healthcare in America is that there's this for-profit motive. But if you keep the profit motive in place and you just add a public option, well, you're still disproportionately having a healthcare system that's based on the market, which means that if you can't afford a public option, you get denied healthcare. You still die if you get sick and you don't have money. And on top of that, these health insurance companies, what they're going to do is market cheaper plans to younger people, to healthy people. And then everyone who's sick will be pushed off onto the public plan and then it will be overburdened and underfunded as a result. And then once it collapses, what's gonna happen? Then Republicans and corporate Democrats are gonna look at us and point and say, aha, I told you so. I told you that government-run healthcare doesn't work and you didn't believe me, but now look. And then the cause, the fight for Medicare for All will be that much more difficult when they point to that failure for the public option. So you've gotta understand, now is the time to sound the alarm. These lies have to be called out and they have to be called out ferociously. We have to get loud. Anytime we see Pete Buttigieg on Twitter lie about Medicare for All, we need to ratio that tweet. Anytime we see an ad like this ran by someone like Joe Biden, we need to dislike it and we need to share the word with people because this absolutely is so frustrating to see. Like for the last couple of years, we've been doing everything in our power to raise awareness about Medicare for All, elevate the salience of healthcare. We've been making calls to all of our elected officials but now because a couple of sell-outs wanna get elected because they're taking money from the industry, well, they're driving down what you worked hard to accomplish. Don't let this stand. Don't let Pete Buttigieg or Joe Biden or Amy Klobuchar or any other shill have their way. We worked really, really hard to build up public support for Medicare for All and educate people about what's at stake. And now that could be squandered based on an election where you have so many bad faith actors trying to save the private industry and keep healthcare a commodity when it shouldn't be a commodity. Video games are a commodity. Clothing is a commodity. Healthcare, that's a human right. So don't let them lie, call them out and call out anyone who uses these same talking points. Now is the time we have to educate people because this cannot stand and this is incredibly worrying to me. It's no secret that Pete Buttigieg is struggling to attract black voters and I think that part of this is due to his lack of name recognition nationally but if you are a black American who's actually aware of his campaign, then what reason do you have to vote for him? Because his outreach to black voters has been abysmal up until this point. He doesn't engage with communities of color. He rarely talks about black issues. And on top of that, there's been a number of scandals that really demonstrate his apathy towards black Americans. There's his mishandling of a police officer shooting of a black resident. His firing of South Bend's first black police chief for threatening to release tapes that presumably expose internal racism within South Bend's police department. He also planned a fundraiser with Chicago's former city attorney who was involved in the shooting cover-up of Laquan McDonald. Now he did cancel after he was criticized by enough people but it just goes to show you that this individual is a horrible ally to the black community if you could even view him as an ally altogether but that's just the tip of the iceberg. And the issue is that rather than him taking responsibility for poor outreach to black voters and not having an actual robust black agenda, the narrative is starting to shift. Rather than the narrative being Pete Buttigieg fails to reach out to black voters, the narrative is becoming black voters fail Pete Buttigieg. And apparently they're not supporting him because maybe they're homophobic. This is the new narrative that is being promoted. And as Derek Clifton of Out Magazine explains, the South Bend Indiana mayors campaign commissioned three 90-minute focus groups that included a total of 24 likely black voters in Columbia, South Carolina who at the time hadn't decided on their preferred candidate. The July 21st report which was obtained by McClatchy DC and released today indicates senior campaign officials were briefed with key findings from Benenson Strategy Group, a political consulting firm. Among the findings from the small focus groups, the report's authors noted that the voters knew little about Buttigieg and only a handful of participants knew who he was at the time. Yet his sexuality, quote, was a barrier for voters who preferred that his sexuality not be front and center while campaigning, while other members of the focus group felt Buttigieg's experience as a gay man may allow him to relate to black Americans' struggles with discrimination. So the narrative after this report was released was that Pete Buttigieg doesn't have the support of black voters because of them, not him. They're the ones with the problem, not him. So first and foremost, this sample size is obviously not enough to denote general applicability. Not only is it factually and statistically incorrect, but this is incredibly destructive and potentially divisive because this is an attempt to pit two marginalized communities against each other, all that the behest of a failing presidential candidate who's garbage, who's not looking out for anyone. Now, his campaign insists that this is being misrepresented and that the focus group only focused on his sexuality briefly and other factors were also talked about. But the thing about these types of narratives is that it doesn't really matter. Once a narrative is out there, once the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, it's difficult to put it back in. So now there's this generalization about black voters that they're homophobic. How despicable is that? How disgusting is that? And now it's too late because this focus group has largely revealed that some people in this focus group don't like Pete Buttigieg because of his sexual orientation. Some maybe like him more because he can kind of identify with their struggle and discrimination. But once a narrative is out there, it's so hard to undo that. And the issue with this is that the mainstream media is now parroting the same line of attack against black Americans that maybe they're not supporting Pete Buttigieg because they're homophobic. Now I wanna play a video clip from CNN where they essentially talked about this focus group and the results from it. And not only do they parrot that harmful narrative that black voters are homophobic, but Michael Smirkanish is going to try to actually legitimize this point that black voters must not be supporting Pete Buttigieg because they're homophobic. This is incredibly destructive, take a look. Ever since launching his presidential run, Mayor Pete Buttigieg has struggled to gain support among African-American voters. In the latest Quinnipiac poll, voter judge is polling at about 10% among black voters, his support drops to four. The reason might be his sexuality according to focus groups conducted by his campaign over the summer among black democratic voters in South Carolina. The focus groups found that, quote, being gay was a barrier for these voters, particularly for the men who seemed deeply uncomfortable even discussing it. It was not necessarily a red line that they would cross, but their preference is for his sexuality to not be front and center. And among the larger African-American community, 51% support same-sex marriage. That's actually the lowest support of any demographic group. Another point many in the focus groups made was that Buttigieg's sexuality could impact his electability as the report from the focus group states, even though many made it clear that they personally didn't have a problem with the mayor's sexuality, they felt like others would have a problem with it and weaponize it. Only one voter from the focus groups said she was considering voting for Buttigieg while all but one said they were considering voting for former Vice President Joe Biden. And this hesitation of black voters in the focus group to support Buttigieg is reflected in his poll numbers in South Carolina. In that early primary state, Buttigieg has 1% support among black voters, a key voting bloc he is sure to need if he hopes to win his party's nomination. Joining me now is the chair of the Democratic Black Caucus of South Carolina, Johnny Cordero, who spoke one-on-one with Buttigieg about running as a gay candidate. Tell us a little bit about that conversation that you had with Mayor Pete. Good morning, Michael. Thank you so much for having me. Hi. Mayor Pete has, we've had several conversations and one-on-one conversations. We've had him in South Carolina to meet with black voters. And what has actually happened is he called me for advice. And I mean advice about how he was doing in South Carolina and how he could improve his situation. And I said to him very clearly that I don't think that people generally, and I certainly do not have anything against him one way or the other with regard to his sexuality. I think that's frankly a non-issue and let me explain what I mean by that. It's not a secret. Everybody knows that the mayor's sexual preference. And more importantly, it is clear that he is not ashamed of it in any way, nor should anyone be. We love who we love. That's a simple fact. The problem is that the significant problem, I think, is more so that he does not known in the community. That's really what his problem is. What he needs to do is to get in and talk to people, get behind closed doors and talk to people and answer questions and for them to get to know them. He appears to me to be an honest man, a man of integrity. He's certainly qualified to be president of the United States and I think he should be given every opportunity to do so. But those who complain, go ahead, yes sir. Yeah, I was gonna say, of course he should. Of course he should, that goes without saying. I'm just trying to read the political tea leaves. I mean, when his own focus group says being gay was a barrier for these voters, especially the men, do you think that's inaccurate? I'm gonna say yes, that's inaccurate. But let me understand, let me explain this. It's inaccurate in the sense that what people would do when they get in the voting booth is something else and I'm saying that African-Americans in South Carolina and I believe nationally will stand up for a candidate who is honest and straightforward and authentic and I think that that will dissipate, that will melt, that issue will not become as important. He has other issues that maybe present more difficulty for him but in terms of whether or not African-Americans will vote for him, will not vote for him simply because he's gay, I think that's overblown. What Johnny Cordero said there was mostly correct. I don't agree that Pete Buttigieg is qualified but I think that the reasons he cited for Pete Buttigieg's lack of support is largely due to name recognition and you know, a lack of voter outreach. But what Michael Smirkonish tried to do is not fight against this narrative, right? He tried to legitimize that narrative. He cited polls about support for same-sex marriage and showed that black voters, they don't support same-sex marriage as much as other minority groups. Now, if you look at data and statistics, we can easily debunk this narrative that black voters are homophobic because that's just, that's not true. They're not supporting Pete Buttigieg because Pete Buttigieg is a shit candidate but for the mainstream media outlets to parrot the results of this and generalize about an entire group of people based on the findings from one focus group is absolutely appalling. It's destructive and it's morally reprehensible. Like even if all 24 of these focus group participants said that they explicitly won't support a gay person, that still doesn't mean that the aggregate community of black people are homophobic. So why are we allowing this focus group to be a reason why we generalize against an entire group of people all that we have of a corporate candidate who has done zero outreach to the black community? Why are we doing that? And look, let's just be clear here. These people are deluding themselves if they think that being gay won't actually be an issue for Pete Buttigieg in the general election because as a gay man myself, I acknowledge that Americans are still very homophobic but that doesn't necessarily mean that he'd lose specifically because he's gay because I think that if the policies were there, Americans would vote for him in spite of any homophobia that may still be lingering and that certainly doesn't mean that black voters aren't supporting him because he's gay or not gay and it's deeply concerning to me that this false narrative is now being parroted by the mainstream media who is supposed to be educating people, who's supposed to be dispelling these types of myths about entire communities of people. I mean, I shouldn't have to explain why generalizing about a group of people and saying maybe they're homophobic because they don't support this shitty candidate is harmful, I shouldn't have to explain this. I mean, imagine in 2016 because in 2016, Bernie Sanders, he also didn't have the support of black Americans. Let's imagine if Bernie Sanders said, you know what, the reason why I'm not supported is because black voters are anti-Semitic. The mainstream media would rightfully call out Bernie Sanders because they'd say, look, that's your own failure. Your inability to appeal to black voters is because of you. Now, Bernie Sanders is winning over more black voters because he has higher recognition and guess what? He actually has a black agenda but would a judge on the other hand since the establishment loves him, since he's their golden boy, the media loves him, well, they're actually trying to lend credence to the claim that maybe black voters are homophobic for not supporting people to judge. I can't believe that this idea is even being entertained. It's just, it's unbelievable to me. The lengths that pundits in the media will go to to run interference for corporate candidates, it's just, it's mind boggling for me. And look, I wanna play a clip from a panel of LGBTQ voters. 12 people who are talking about the Democratic party primary in 2020 election, they sat down for a vice news panel. And if we're going to say that 24 black voters in one focus group or three focus groups are enough to denote general applicability, then we also have to say that this group of 12 LGBTQIA plus voters also denotes general applicability. And using that same logic that CNN used to imply heavily so that black voters must not support Pete Buttigieg because they're homophobic. We also have to suggest that maybe LGBTQ plus people who also aren't feeling Pete Buttigieg must be homophobic as well. Because when they were asked whether or not they support Pete Buttigieg, well, guess what? They weren't too keen on elitist Pete either. Mayor Pete is gay. He's been on the cover of magazines with his husband. Does having somebody who's gay running right now, does that make you want to vote for him? I think you should vote on policy. I get asked that question all the time. It's great to have a gay candidate, be great to have a lesbian candidate or trans candidate. I'm looking at the policy. Everything else is peripheral. I could not care less. I mean, the fact that he is gay doesn't, I think there's such division in the LGBTQ or queer and trans, whatever you call it community between gay and trans, trans and cis. That doesn't mean he has my back as a trans person. It doesn't mean that he will have trans-affirming policy and support those who are marginalized in the trans community. It means nothing to me that he is a gay person because he's also cis and he's also white and he's holding all of those identities and experiences at the same time. So I would love to see some firm policy proposals that include trans people and non-binary people. We haven't even talked about that yet, but I haven't seen that yet. I don't know why I'm not more excited about him than I am. There's something missing. I'm surprised that everybody is so anti-peat. I mean, I think, I know a lot of sort of peat-curious conservatives who think he is. Who thinks he is. Is it like bi-curious? Yeah. That is the most oppressed group in this country. And one of the main reasons is that I think, you know, I think he's very progressive, but he's tonally moderate. And I think even just listening to us, I mean, everybody's so angry all the time to have somebody who is somewhat aspirational and who is trying to make a pitch for something better and something more uniting. Like why is that so terrible? I think it's nice. So there you have it. LGBTQIA plus voters also don't support Pete Buttigieg. I don't support Pete Buttigieg. My husband doesn't support Pete Buttigieg. I guess we're all homophobic because we don't support Pete Buttigieg. Do you understand why that's problematic? Why we can't use a small sample size of people to generalize about an entire community who is intellectually and ideologically diverse? Do you understand why that's harmful and divisive and potentially destructive? It's just, it's maddening to me that this narrative has any weight behind it at all. It is deeply, deeply offensive to suggest that black voters don't support Pete Buttigieg because they're homophobic. No, that's not what it is. They don't support Pete Buttigieg like most Democratic Party primary voters because he's a shitty candidate who's not looking out for normal Americans. He's looking out for the interests of his donors and the rich people who he keeps meeting in the Hamptons. So if he truly wanted to win and reach out to black voters, maybe rather than doing all of these fundraisers in the Hamptons, you meet with them in the community and you listen to them, not talk at them, but you listen to them, hear their concerns and respond accordingly with policy. But Pete Buttigieg, he's not doing that. So if Pete Buttigieg is failing to win over black voters, who do we blame? We blame Pete Buttigieg, not the black voters. We don't generalize and suggest that these black voters must be all homophobic because they don't support this garbage candidate. To nobody's surprise, Fox News has once again decided to attack Democrats for big government, socialism, participating in society. That's right. So if they claim that they care about climate change, but yet they participate in society by traveling, by flying in planes and private jets, well, they must be inherently hypocritical. Now, I've covered this argument before. They've made this argument time and again, but they've somehow managed to make the argument sound even dumber than the last time when they made the same exact argument. Take a look. Flying high, 2020 Democrats candidates taking to the campaign trail to push their plans for climate change, while at the same time spending big on private jets in order to do it. Spending in private flights by Democrat presidential candidates soared over the past three months from roughly $680,000 in the second quarter to more than 2.2 million in the third fundraising period. According to the FEC, Joe Biden spent the most on private flights, 924,000 with Bernie Sanders at 360,000 and Liz Warren, 132,000. They've got to get from place to place, but should they get a pass on this one? What do you think, Gary? They absolutely should not. Look, David, maybe I'm being cynical or maybe it's my old age or older age, but each of these candidates are total hypocrites. Look, if you sat them down over a beer or a wine or whatever, I guarantee you they don't care about climate change. What they do care about is getting elected and climate change is a buzzy issue right now. I think we all can agree on that. But if you sat down also over that same beer or wine and asked them, well, what causes climate change? What specifically can we do? They don't have an answer. You know why? Scientists don't have an answer out there. So they raise this buzzy issue, they fly around, they act as hypocrites to get votes because that's the thing to do. They don't have a solution though, other than we're all gonna eliminate cows and cars and stuff like that. It's all silly, it's all nonsense, but this is the age we live in where that's what you have to do to get elected. Gary, my friend, first of all, of course they're hypocrites. Second of all, I don't think there's anything funny about the comment you made. Scientists do know what causes climate change, but, David, I have the solution, I have the solution. We need to pass a law that's the way other countries have to dramatically shorten the campaign season. That will mean less money. Now you're onto something. The Republic will be in better shape as a result. Good luck. We are in agreement. I thought he was Amtrak, Joey, they started calling him Gulfstream Joe, if he keeps it up. He's got the biggest plane, right? I wonder if he's gonna buy that new G700 that just came out, that is a snazzy politicians vehicle. Okay, yeah, we all joke about it. Al Gore obviously used to spend, that was a lot of, he started this whole thing with his documentary, his house was much bigger than most Americans' house. Used to tremendous energy. He bought jets. Look, at the end of the day, the voters would have to pay for energy. You gotta stop the masses from consuming energy, and that's why they think they can target energy companies or rich people. That energy companies just deliver energy to people that wanna consume it. Ultimately, the price would have to go radically up to everybody, their voters, not just the rich with their jets or the Rolls Royce. That's a very small percentage, as we know from the inequality graphs of the world. The average person and the politicians for the green jet that don't wanna face the reality that it's not the energy companies, it's the consumer, and they would have to pay a lot more and live in a much smaller house than they want to, and a lot smaller than Al Gore's house. And without debating the impacts or effects of climate change and what causes them, I just think it's a bad look. Like, do as I say, not as I do. If you're gonna talk a green deal, then live green. So it's just, of course, to me, it seems like hypocrisy, but in politics, what isn't? Well, it's not only politics. Adam, you got all those folks down in the South part of your state in Malibu and everything, living right on the beach, and those properties are going like wildfire, I'm told by real estate agents, so they're apparently not worried about global warming. Is that a joke about the fires? No, no, no joke, it's the truth. No, I mean, the average age of these people is probably, they probably have fewer years ahead of them than they do behind them, so you're criticizing them for using their vast wealth to buy homes to enjoy. Criticizing them for not doing as they say and as they do. I mean, they're just hypocrites. They're total hypocrites on this. Do they honestly believe that they're convincing anyone with this argument? I just feel like if you're going to argue against Democrats and you really wanna make this a climate change-based argument, then you appeal to your audience by citing some stupid shit about the deficit and fear mongering about the debt and how much the green new deal would cost. But with this, I mean, it just seems overly hacky, right? Because we can say the same thing about Republicans and how hypocritical they are. Like Rand Paul denounces single payer Medicare for all, yet he flew to Canada to have a surgery. Donald Trump is against immigration, but yet his wife is an immigrant. I mean, we can go on all day. So the hypocritical argument isn't the best thing to trot out if you're a Republican because they are the embodiment of hypocrisy. But nonetheless, they made the argument. So let's address it. Quote, if you sit them down over a beer or wine, I guarantee that they don't care about climate change. What they do care about is getting elected. Now, this is true about pretty much 99.9% of politicians. And I'll grant you that maybe this is the case for Joe Biden. I don't think he cares at all about climate change. He just doesn't, right? He just wants to get elected. He wants power. But when it comes to Bernie Sanders and even Elizabeth Warren, they care about climate change. I genuinely believe that they actually do want to fix the planet. They want to make sure that our planet is habitable for future generations. I mean, if you go back and look at Bernie Sanders record, he was talking about climate change in the 1980s when nobody else was talking about it. He was educating children in classrooms about climate change. There was nothing to be won politically for him back then. He wasn't going to run for president back then. If he had ambitions for a higher office, don't you think he would have ran for office in the 1990s? I mean, they care, right? They genuinely care. Now, I get that you see politicians normally as detached, but on the left, we actually have some politicians who care about the issues. AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Bernie Sanders, Pramila Jayapal, Ro Khanna. These are people who actually care about the issues. Now, if you're a cynical individual who knows about American politics, I get it, right? Everyone's corrupt, nobody cares about policy, but there are people on the left who do care about policy. We know Bernie Sanders means what he says, and Americans don't agree with you. Hence why they view him as not only the most popular politician, but the most trustworthy, according to some polls. Now, he also says, if you sat them down and asked them what causes climate change and what we can do, they don't have an answer. Wanna know why? Because scientists don't have an answer. I mean, I just don't know what to say to this. It's such a simple idiotic argument that I really don't even know how to respond because it's almost self-defeating. Of course, scientists know what's causing climate change. We call it anthropogenic climate change, and the cause is literally in the name. People. Specifically, we know who causes it. 100 multinational corporations are responsible for 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Not only do we know the cause, we know the source, and scientists know this. So for you to just say, oh, well, these are just ignorant people. They're just talking about climate change because it's politically expedient. You're wrong, and you're a liar. He then says, we don't have solutions other than to eliminate cars and cows. What a lazy, hacky argument. These presidential candidates are not saying that. Bernie Sanders, if you look at his Green New Deal, where does it say that he wants to eliminate cows? In fact, let's extend that to Joe Biden even. Where does Joe Biden say he wants to eliminate cars and cows? Is there any Democrat in office who says we should eliminate cars and cows? Now he's gonna point to the fact sheet that was trying to be funny that AOC's office released, but what did Republicans do? They took that literally. Now, what AOC's office said was since we can't eliminate farting cows and airplanes, we have to do these things, cut emissions in other areas to get to net zero. So even in the joke that they put out, they weren't even saying we should eliminate cows, but what did they take away from that? They wanna eliminate hamburgers. They wanna get rid of cows. They wanna ban airplanes. All they have are lies. They have to be disingenuous because they know that we have the winning argument. They know that the Green New Deal polls very well. So that's why the only way that they argue against us is by lying and strawmanning us. Now, another panelist fear mongered about how climate change mitigation would ultimately affect consumers because if you crack down on large multinational corporations with additional taxes and regulations, then they're just gonna pass that cost off onto consumers and he clearly hasn't been listening to any of the solutions that are being proposed because what is the Green New Deal doing? It is trying to make us a global leader in green, clean, renewable technology. That means we invest in wind, solar, hydro. We stop these subsidies to fossil fuel companies. And rather than just allowing China to become a global leader, we become the global leader in green technology, which is the future like it or not. But then one panelist chimed in and said, if you're gonna talk Green New Deal, then live green. This is such a convenient argument to make because they say it and they don't expect us to push back and I get that, right? Because this is kind of difficult to push back against because it just, it makes sense, right? Oh, of course, if you're gonna talk the talk, then of course you should walk the walk. I get that. The problem with this argument is that it's overly simplistic. It's a gross oversimplification because what's the thing about capitalism? There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. And even if all of us as human beings, we all cut our carbon footprint to zero. And I'm not talking net zero, I'm talking zero. We stop emitting greenhouse gas emissions. We're not gonna solve this climate crisis because again, 100 corporations are responsible for 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions. So this is an issue that cannot be solved at the individual level. This requires governance. This is a wicked problem that governments have to solve because it requires power and authority. Human beings have no control over taxation and regulation. Hence why we need governments to take action. Hence why we are directing our pressure at governments worldwide because they're the ones who can save the planet. But I mean, this is Fox News. It's almost, like it feels counterproductive to even try to respond to their criticisms as if I'm gonna persuade them because Fox News viewers, they've already drunk in the Kool-Aid so they're just gonna hear this and it's gonna be music to their ears. They're preaching to the choir. But this disinformation, it really is problematic because we have 11 years left to act and there's zero sense of urgency from mainstream media. Fox News is still not even really accepting the reality of anthropogenic climate change and it's just, it's frustrating at this point. These people are a threat to the planet because if you are not with us, you're against us because we need all hands on deck. And for you to still be at this area where you are denying climate change, I mean, what are you doing? We are witnessing a mass extinction event. Oceans are heating up, coral reefs are dying, the ice caps are melting, wildfires are ravaging, California, hurricanes are getting more common and they're becoming more intense and you're still plugging your ears and closing your eyes and pretending like there's no problem. I mean, at what point do they ever admit that they're wrong? I don't think they ever will because these people are not normal. They're psychopaths and they're liars and they care more about the industries that they represent than actually saving the planet that we live on. Bad news for you, without a planet that's habitable, none of the interests that you represent, that you show for are going to be able to exist. They all go out of business because no planet means no economy. No economy means no corporations can exist. Now the problem with that argument is that they don't care because they're all old and it's gonna be too late when they realize what's at stake. So all around it's just sad. It's what we expect from Fox News but it's certainly something that I still feel as if we need to call out whenever we see it because this is harmful. This is literally fake news and it's just, it's really, it's a threat. I'll put it that way. It's a threat to humanity. Donald Trump recently got a much needed ego check when he appeared at the World Series and this happened. I thoroughly enjoyed every second of that and my favorite part was after the announcer made it clear that Donald Trump was in attendance. Like you can see the look on his face. He was genuinely excited. He looked like a kid on Christmas because this is someone who craves attention. He just wants people to adore him and I'll give him credit. He held it together for quite some time because once people started booing he was still smiling and clapping but towards the end of that video you can really see the look on his face that it was starting to get to him. Like you can see that he was dying inside after he heard the booze and that they weren't stopping anytime soon and it was crushing his soul and I'm not gonna lie, seeing that look on his face, it warmed my heart. Is that okay to admit? I'm not sure that it's okay to admit that but look, I don't care. I hate what politics is doing to me but this is a loathsome human being who I think is just pure trash. But for those of you who like me enjoyed that, there was more because at another portion during that game his face showed up on the big screen and once the crowd noticed that he was there again or was reminded that he was there they chanted something that probably got under his skin. That was absolutely glorious and I hope that he heard them and was able to make out their chant and I genuinely hope that his feelings were heard because look, this is someone who is such a bad person. He's bombing babies, he's caging children. So not only should he actually be locked up for committing crimes against humanity but this is someone who should be impeached for being one of the most, if not the most corrupt presidents in American history because he is objectively, if you have a moral compass, a bad human being. He vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have ended US complicity in Saudi Arabia's genocide in Yemen. This is someone who's so greedy that his only major legislative achievement was a tax cut that he signed into law for himself. He's a bad person. So I mean, it's not just that he should be booed at the World Series, that wasn't enough. For the rest of his life, he should fear that everywhere he goes, he will be booed. He should be embarrassed to show his face in public. Any restaurant that he attends with his family, he should be worried that they're gonna kick him out and boo him because that's how loathsome this individual is who's not just doing irreparable damage to the country but to the planet as well. Like he still won't even acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic climate change and he undid what little progress we made towards taking action to fight against climate change. This person is a piece of shit. So I have absolutely no desire to defend him and talk about civility and respectability. Fuck him. I'm glad he was booed and I hope that this hurt his feelings and ruined his day quite frankly. Luckily for Donald Trump, all he has to do is wait a couple of years and he won't have to worry about being run out of restaurants or public spaces because in our culture, we really like to worship elites and if he just waits a couple of years, then the establishment will welcome him back with open arms. In fact, they're already showing us signs that that is what they are in fact going to do given by the response to this because while most people didn't really care, there was already some pro-clutching that we saw from establishment bootlickers. Nate Silver of 538 is one of them who tweeted, it's really amazing how many Libs can't even permit Trump to have one good day. Nobody will remember this stuff by Tuesday after US forces kill perhaps the world's most wanted terrorist, unbelievable. First of all, doing one good thing doesn't undo the hundreds of bad things that you've done and furthermore, if the shoe was on the other foot and Hillary Clinton showed up to the World Series and Republicans booed her, do you think that they would say the same thing? Do you think that if she just killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi that'd be saying, look, let's give her a little bit of a break. I, she just did something good. Of course not because Republicans are absolutely ruthless and it's only the center and the left who self-censors and says, look, maybe you were the ones who should be more respectable as this fascistic clown car of a party is ruining the country and the planet. No, stop with the pro-clutching. This is a bad person who's doing bad things. Don't feel bad for him because he was booed rightfully so. He should be booed everywhere he goes, but I don't wanna focus too much on Nate Silver because he wasn't the only establishment bootlicker who clutched his pearls at Donald Trump being booed because on Morning Joe, they did the same thing. Again, I speak to the lock him up chance. Again, it's just, it's un-American. It started with Donald Trump. In fact, he's made it a centerpiece of his campaign rallies. We find it sickening when it happens at his rallies. I find it kind of sickening to watch people leering at the president. We are Americans and we do not do that. We do not want the world hearing us chant, lock him up to this president or to any president. That's what I'm saying. Let's hope as we move forward, maybe this is one less fascist tactic he and his supporters use during chance that you were going to actually imprison your political opponent. So let's leave that behind and just... I don't. We'll see if the Astros are gonna finish it off in Houston. I don't know. Shut the fuck up. I'm so tired of all of these political hacks who are just so disingenuous and all they want to do is cater to elites. It's so insufferable to me. They call this un-American. That's what they call this. They also said we do not want the world to hear us chant, lock him up to this president or any president. Why not? We should be chanting lock him up to all of our previous presidents, especially George W. Bush. But we live in a culture where it doesn't matter all of the horrible things you've done. If you are an elite, we just love you. We adore you. In fact, we'll be friends with you like Ellen and when people actually call you out for defending someone who's a war criminal, you're going to turn into a copyright troll and try to silence any criticism of you because that's American culture. We're sick of ants. We worship elites because that's kind of the type of culture that capitalism fosters. We are taught to worship people with money and power and anyone who dares to question that, anyone who dares to call for one of these elites to be held accountable for their actions and their crimes, well, that's bad and you should be more respectful because these people are better than you clearly. I'm sick of that. I'm sick of the pearl clutching. Shut the fuck up. Nobody wants to hear pearl clutching. If you don't like that Donald Trump was booed, then I don't know what to tell you. We're not gonna be nice to a fascist, okay? This fascist, like I said, should be worried that anywhere he goes for the rest of his life, he's going to have to deal with booze. But of course, if he does, there will be people like Morning Joe, like Nate Silver, who will defend him because these are power worshiping sick events and they really are insufferable. Like I'm so sick of them. So Donald Trump should be booed and him being booed was good. I really shouldn't have to say this because we shouldn't have sympathy theoretically for fascists, but that's where we're at in America right now, unfortunately. Hello, everyone. I'm here with Jason Cole running in Washington State's second congressional district. He's running against a corporate Democrat named Rick Larson and he is here to talk about his campaign. Jason, thank you so much for coming on the program. Thanks so much for having me here, Mike. Appreciate it very much. You know, Washington State is my neighbor as an Oregonian. So I feel very interested in your politics because usually what happens in Washington, it does affect Oregon. Like you guys legalized cannabis and then a few years later, we legalized cannabis. So you're kind of like the big brother slash big sister state. So we need to make sure you guys do well. So you set an example for a little brother slash little sister. Well, we love Oregon up here in Washington and on that note, I'll let you know that I was one of the top volunteer signature getters for I-502, the past cannabis here back in 2012. I stood outside the local farmers market for weeks and weeks and weeks on end getting people to sign that petition. So we were very excited that we along with Colorado were first in the nation to legalize. And I will add to that also is that with my congressional run, it's definitely something that I'm going to push at the federal level, should I be elected? That's great. So I just found out about your campaign and everything you say is incredibly on point and this new crop of candidates, like I was impressed in 2018, but this new cycle, you guys are all so bold. And I love this so much. Like it actually makes me feel optimistic not to sound too corny, but like we need people to step up and run and so many people have really answered that call. So why did you decide to run? Because politics isn't necessarily the funnest thing, putting yourself on the line to run for Congress, not the easiest thing, requires a lot of self-sacrifice and dedication. What made you want to challenge a corporate Democrat? Well, I've been an activist my whole life. I've been, I got started in sort of street activism when we invaded Iraq back in 1990. I was a freshman at the University of Washington. I got out in the streets with people who were anti-war activists then and I continued that kind of activism through the Iraq war in 2003. I marched, you know, every year I've marched on the anniversary of the Iraq war. I've marched with the Answer Coalition to support Palestinian rights. A lot of that stuff goes on in Washington state. I actually missed the WTO protests in Seattle and that was a big one. I was kind of sad to have missed that, but that's the kind of thing I've been involved in. I have had my fingers in the Green Party and I'm a member of DSA, I'm a dues-paying member of DSA and when Bernie announced in 2015, I had been listening to him on brunch with Bernie for Tom Hartman for years and it was very much a drop everything and what can I do to help Bernie get elected? And so I got myself involved in volunteering for Bernie here in Washington state, managed to get myself elected to the Washington State Democrat Central Committee where I have been pushing progressive values. I think a lot of people don't know that in Washington, while people kind of look at us as a progressive state, our representation is not at all progressive. They're very corporate, they're very centrist and my fight with the state committee, which is pretty much an arm of the DNC at this point in Washington, has been to question why we keep electing these corporate-centric right-wing Democrats who take industry money when Washington is a progressive state, we have progressive values, our state platform, which I helped write, is a progressive platform, but our representation really doesn't match that. I fought for Sarah Smith, as I was telling you a little bit earlier, to get vote-builder access. I fought hard for her on the state committee, didn't make any friends doing that, and she didn't get it, but my fight really is to have our representation in Washington match what the Democratic Party says it stands for, and I think what the people in Washington want the Democratic Party to stand for, and which it currently does not stand for. And I'm curious as to what you think you'd be able to accomplish, because we're starting to see this type of block emerge within the Democratic Party in D.C. The squad, AOC, Ilhan Omar, Pramila Jayapal and whatnot. So we already see that even if they lack the numbers, really from a qualitative standpoint, they really have done a phenomenal job at influencing discourse for the positive, for the better. And I'm just curious, what do you think it would take? Because I don't foresee a situation where we get a progressive speaker of the House anytime soon. I don't foresee a situation where progressives actually have a solid majority, but if we have a strong enough block, if our numbers are big enough, I actually do see that really having a substantial impact in the same way that the Freedom Caucus and Tea Party kind of transformed the Republican Party. So what do you think it would take and how would you, as an individual, fight to change the National Democratic Party if you're elected? Well, the reality is people like Pramila Jayapal and AOC, they are driving the conversation right now. I, in terms of my platform, what I support, I support what they are supporting, I support Medicare for All. I'm actually extremely disappointed and this is one of my beefs with the representation in Washington State, but out of seven Democrats we have representing us here in Washington, Pramila is the only one who supports Medicare for All. Adam Smith has said he supports Medicare for All because Sarah kind of pushed him to the left back in 2018, but as he is on the stump for reelection, he's really not talking about Medicare for All, he's talking about strengthening the ACA and he's kind of walking that thing back. And so my goal is to take the values that have been put on the table, Green New Deal, affordable housing, workers' rights and Medicare for All and those kind of things and make sure we keep pushing that conversation forward. I don't envision in Congress right now any point where those values are going to start to recede. So the goal now is just to keep flipping these seats and driving that conversation forward. As you said, we've got a fantastic block of people running and I'm connected with all these people on Twitter, we talk back and forth on Twitter, candidates from New York, candidates from Florida, candidates from Maryland and so on, candidates right in Oregon. And we, people are being very bold about the changes that they need to make. People a few years ago may not have been comfortable saying something like, billionaires shouldn't exist. I think people are very comfortable saying that right now. So that is now is the time not to walk any of that back, now is the time to keep pushing it forward and driving it forward. That's really what I intend to do. What Pranilla and AOC have put on the table, I wanna be there to support. Yeah, and that's great to hear. One thing about Washington, I will say even if you guys are a very progressive state without the representation, we've seen so many phenomenal candidates emerge out of Washington state. Dorothy Gaskay, Sarah Smith, Jason, I'm blanking on his last name, a different Jason. No, Joshua Collins. Yes, yes, you're Jason. So there's a lot of progressives that are emerging from Washington state. And it's so nice to see like people all over the country, they're stepping up and they're just ordinary people. And that's really, I think what's lacking currently there's so many elites and oligarchs in Congress currently and you really see the way that that influences them in terms of like how they respond to constituents if they even talk to them at all. So to see just normal working people get involved, it is encouraging to see. Now let me ask you this because we're to this point now where we've been pushing for these policies for a number of years, Medicare for All and whatnot. Feasibly, what can be accomplished within a year? Let's say you're elected. We increase the squad block a little bit larger and best case scenario, we get a Bernie Sanders president. Do you think it would be feasible to get something like Medicare for All passed in that first year or Medicare plus something else? Like what do you think we can actually accomplish if we strengthen that block in Congress within like a year? I think we can accomplish Medicare for All in this cycle. Already half of the Democrats have signed on to Medicare for All. I think Medicare for All is very feasible. Of course, we've got the old establishment like Nancy Pelosi pushing back on it, essentially saying it'll never happen. And I fully disagree with that. I think the understanding now about how dysfunctional our system in is not in just not delivering the healthcare that people have a right to, because healthcare is a human right, but also all of the peripheral stuff that goes along with not getting healthcare, the bankruptcies that come along with it. It's ridiculous that we are, I don't know if you remember when SICO was released, Michael Moore released SICO back in 2007. I am a Michael Moore devotee and I held a house party and we sat around watching that movie and were stunned at how bad our healthcare system served the American people compared to all these nationalized healthcare systems around the world. So that information has been on the table and it's been there for the American public to digest for close to 15 years now. And I really believe that people are ready for it. And the only resistance we're getting is from the people who stand to lose their profit from it and that's, the bottom line is that is who our current representation is standing up for. And when I look at my opponent, Rick Larson's FEC filings, I see exactly why he's standing up or standing against single payer healthcare. He has hundreds of thousands of dollars of contributions from the healthcare industry. And he's not even the worst in terms of contributions from healthcare in Washington state. I mean, he's far worse in other areas, defense and fossil fuels and the transportation industry. I mean, Boeing is big here in Washington state and he's really doing work for them. But he's taken money from the healthcare industry and he is standing against Medicare for All and pretty much that's what all of our democratic representation here in Washington is doing. I think people are ready for a change and I definitely think we can get it passed, especially under Bernie Sanders presidency. And I also wanted to say that if Bernie Sanders does get the nomination, which is something I'm fighting hard for here in Washington state, I believe it makes the path for myself and all of these other blocks of progressive candidates nationwide so much easier. I would totally agree with that. And I kind of wanted to touch on your campaign itself because this is grassroots funded. You are not like your opponent. He's bankrolled by all of the special interests. But my question for you is, what do you think it would take to make you competitive aside from like a Bernie Sanders nomination? I'm curious because Joshua Collins, he said something that really made a lot of sense. If you can raise like 10% of the funds that can really make you competitive. And for me, what I kind of see this and feel free to correct me as is like, this is about name recognition because everyone just kind of defaults to Rick Larson because he's just, he's the incumbent. So we just vote for him. And he's been there for 20 years? He's been there for 20 years. So what do you think it would take in terms of boosting your name recognition? Because I truly believe that every single progressive and every single district would win if they got the name out to enough people. So what do you think is the best strategy for not just yourself, but progressives across the country in terms of getting that name recognition heightened enough to defeat a very hugely funded corporate backed candidate? Well, one of the things, one of the things you've got to do and this is where I feel like I have an advantage over a number of other progressive candidates in that I have involved myself in the Democratic Party for the last four years. Now I'm a DSA member, but I've been pushing progressive values in my local district, in my county and statewide as part of the state committee. So there are five counties and nine legislative districts that overlap or intersectional with my congressional district. And I know most of the chairs of those parties. I have the support of my own legislative district party chair and other county party chairs. I mean, they all know who I am. Sometimes they're hesitant to support me because I'm very edgy when it comes to progressive politics and they look at the state party and go, okay, have I support Jason? Am I gonna get myself in trouble here? So they're walking a fine line, but the reality is a lot of them already support me. And they are going to be talking with their membership about my campaign. So that's one of the things. So those local party endorsements are going to be extremely helpful to me. I'm not gonna get all of them, but I will get some of them. And at that point, I believe I will get the party resources that were denied to Sarah Smith back in 2018 because one of the arguments for the state party was, well, Sarah didn't have, she didn't do the work to get any of the party endorsements that overlap congressional district nine where she was running. So they denied her those resources. They're not gonna be able to do that for me. As far as funding goes, grassroots, I think a lot of people sort of who haven't donated to political campaigns before or not really sure how that works or not really sure whether their money is going to help. And grassroots campaigns are funded by small donations, but the importance there is recurring donations, $5 a month, $10 a month. I have already got my campaign staff unionized through the IBEW. We are the first campaign in Washington. I'm not sure we're the first campaign nationwide to do that with this new progressive block, but I believe unionizing my campaign is very important. But the way we get those workers paid because that's how your campaign operates is through those grassroots donations. I'm not taking any corporate PAC money. So if people go to my website, it's callforcongress, F-O-R, not the number four, callforcongress.com. There is a donate link there. And just sign up to give me five bucks a month or give me 10 bucks a month or give me 27 bucks a month if you can afford it. And I know contributing to Bernie Sanders is really important right now too, which is something that I do as well. But that's how it's run. It's not, I wanna take $200 from this person or $500 from that person. I want 10,000 people to give me $5 a month. If I can raise $50,000 a month that way from 10,000 people, I have plenty of money to go up against the million dollars. Rick Larson literally raises and spends a million dollars every cycle even when he doesn't have a challenger. So that's how it's done. Yeah, that's really important to say that because I think that a lot of people they, I think at times rightfully so swear off, the local party apparatus, they try to subvert that system because they just kind of view it as corrupt and whatnot, but really building those inroads that does matter. And I think it's important to really try to win over people in your area first to propel yourself and to kind of protect yourself against any local shenanigans. Because like you alluded to, yeah, Sarah Smith, she was disadvantaged. I believe she talked about that on my show. She came on multiple times. But yeah, it's difficult because we're all trying to navigate a post corporate money world whereas before, it was just, if you run for Congress, you take corporate PAC money, but now there's so many candidates who are not doing that and they're choosing to remain principal to prove to people that it's them who they're fighting for, not these large multinational corporations. So I think that we're kind of learning more as we go along just collectively as a movement. So I like to kind of pick the brains of everyone who's running because you all kind of have something really unique in terms of insight to contribute into how we can all be successful. But I wanna ask you this because everyone who has followed your campaign and knows anything about you, they know that you check all the progressive boxes. Like you're a DSA member, so you're not just one of these centrist progressives who likes to say you're progressive but in actuality you're not. So I mean, you are, if somebody watches the Humanist Report, they can rest assured that Jason Kahl will be someone who appeals to them. But what's your issue that you think is kind of like your pet issue? Because every one candidate who I've spoken to, they've kind of brought something unique. Like one really was focused on gun violence, one Medicare for all, one climate change. What's something that is really important to you aside from all the standard progressive things that we all kind of collectively support? You know, it's kind of funny to say that because I really do fight for all of these issues. Medicare for, if I had to say anything, it would be some single payer healthcare. I think it is the most important thing. And I am a board member of the activist group, Whole Washington. And Whole Washington is the volunteer, fully volunteer donation group that is trying to get single payer on the ballot in Washington state. And if people know how Canada got there and nationalized healthcare, it actually started in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan developed a single payer healthcare program. It was proven to work. And then the other provinces in Canada latched onto that and eventually it went federal, national for Canada. We are hoping in Washington state to do exactly the same thing. Now, if we can get it at the federal level, that's great, then our work is done. But if we can't get it at the federal level, we are gonna put that as a ballot initiative again in Washington to be on the ballot in 2020 so that we have a state single payer system that we can prove that it works because I fully believe that public option, I reject any notion of a public option because I believe a public option is designed to kill single payer. What a public option will do is it will take the neediest and the least able to afford that care. It will crash the system within a couple of years. The system will be overburdened and underfunded. And then the corporatist will be able to come in and say, look, single payer doesn't work, public option didn't work. Now we're gonna continue gouging you on health insurance premiums. So that is the really fundamental reason that I think we've gotta reject any public option and move straight to single payer. So we can show that that works here in Washington if it doesn't happen at the federal level, that we're hoping then for a domino effect if we just can't get it straight up Medicare for all federally. So that is my biggest issue. Aside from that, climate change is huge for me. I've been an environmental activist for a long time also. On the state committee, what's really nice is I get to get my fingers into all of these issues. I've been writing resolutions. I wrote resolutions to reject the DCCC, blackballing of vendors, which pass. I wrote the resolution to reject corporate PAC money from the healthcare industry and the pharmaceutical industry and it passed. My platform committee, I was the chair of my county platform committee back in 2018 and we wrote the reasonable firearms control resolution which if you think of all the regulations that progressives would want on firearms, we got them all into this resolution. The only thing that we couldn't get in was an insurance requirement. And the reason we couldn't get an insurance requirement in is there's no insurance company that offers liability insurance for homeowners and their firearms. And that right there should tell you that the insurance companies know how dangerous firearms are. They simply won't insure them. So we didn't get that, but those are the things that I have been involved in. So I know it's sort of the standard, this is the range of progressive issues, but I think I've been on the front of fighting for quite a few of them. Housing justice, my platform team created what is now on the books in Washington state as the housing justice platform. It didn't exist before my team brought it to the state platform. So there are really so many things that it's hard for me to define one, but if I picked my top two, it would be Medicare for all single payer, whether at the state level or the federal level and the climate crisis. Yeah, I think you and I are a simpatico right there. And I love the way that you explain single payer and why we need to opt for that instead of a public option. Because a public option, I think you're right. It kind of has been this diversion tactic to, well, let's try a public option and then graduate to Medicare for all. But we already know the way that these corporate funded Congress people will operate. They're of course going to tell you how bad government run healthcare is once it's watered down and underfunded. They did this with the VA. And they use that as an example. So yeah, it's nice to really not just advocate for something but educate people. I think that is something that is really lacking. And you know, it's why I think it's important for us to each kind of have like our own pet issue. Because if we really focus on the details and getting the facts right, I think it really helps us not just in terms of legitimizing us, but convincing people. Because if you have the knowledge and the facts and somebody doesn't support it, they can't really argue against it if you know what you're talking about. So at this point, we're preaching through the choir. I want to tell everyone who's watching to go and support Jason Kahl, phenomenal candidate. And even if you don't live in Washington state, if you live in Oregon, for example, or wherever, you can donate to him. And even if you just have a dollar to spare, that one dollar is putting in, you know, just the small down payment into a future, into a Congress person that can fight for you. So I'll let you get the last word Jason and make your last pitch. Okay. So my website is callforcongress.com. You can find me on Facebook and Twitter, both at callforcongress. All of it is F-O-R, not the number four. I'm open to anybody emailing me. My personal email is Jason at callforcongress.com. If you've got questions, you want to talk about platform issues, I'm willing to engage with people who want to dig a little bit deeper into what I'm about. I have fully fleshed out issues on my website. And, you know, I'm running against a guy who has, you know, raised and spent a million dollars in every cycle he takes. He's taken almost $2 million in his career from the defense industry, from the fossil fuel industry, from the transportation industry. He is doing their bidding. He is not standing up for the people of Washington state. And I think they, my tagline for my campaign is demand better. So hashtag demand better. And I think we can do a lot better than what's representing us right now. All right, well, we'll leave that there. Jason Kahl running in Washington's second congressional district against Rick Larson. Thank you so much for coming on, Jason. Appreciate it very much, Mike. Catch you later. Well, that's all that I've got for you guys today. Thank you so much for tuning in. If you've been at this far in the program, as usual, we're not gonna end the show without thanking all of our Patreon, PayPal, and YouTube members for supporting the show. And, you know, thank you all so much. It truly means a lot to me. Usually, I will just, you know, I'll film daily. So I'm a little bit more tired than usual. But since it's a shorter week, I'm just filming everything in one sitting. And I've realized that my endurance to like record, it's gone down pretty substantially since I switched to daily videos. But, you know, it is what it is. Hopefully you guys still enjoy the show. It's still, you know, kind of therapeutic to have this one gripe session about politics. So I hope that you guys found it as, you know, useful as I found it. So anyways, I'm just rambling. I will talk to you all later. Take care, everyone. I'm Mike Figueredo. This is the Humanist Report. Bye-bye.