 As much as I loathe corporate media, they are clever because they can get people to think about things without actually saying it explicitly. So one example is the way that they've been priming viewers to view Bernie Sanders as the Trump of the left, so to speak. Now they never say this directly, but they want you to think about Bernie Sanders as a type of left-wing Trump who will bring about, you know, the same level of irrationality and political instability that we are dealing with right now. And the last example that we saw came from MSNBC when they asked Bernie Sanders at a debate whether or not it's appropriate for his crowds to be chanting lock him up with regard to Donald Trump. Now it's a question that has zero substance, but they asked it because they want you to think that Bernie Sanders is just like Donald Trump. It's a false equivalence, but nonetheless, this is how they kind of delegitimize Bernie Sanders because they know that lefties dislike Donald Trump. So if you kind of paint Bernie as a Trumpian figure, well that delegitimizes him in the eyes of some left-wing viewers and it's a strategy that I think actually is relatively successful. Now the overall anti-establishment appeal that Bernie Sanders has I think is going to help him, but we still have to look at what they're doing because this is incredibly brazen. And they used to be a little bit more subtle, but increasingly as the primary goes on and they get more desperate to defeat Bernie Sanders, they are becoming a lot more brazen. So the last example that I saw besides the debate came from Lisa Friedman of the New York Times who claimed that Bernie Sanders' Green New Deal is like Donald Trump's border wall. It's as unrealistic and irrational as Trump's border wall. Obviously, false equivalence because one plan wants to save the planet, another is xenophobic and wants to keep immigrants out. Nonetheless, she wants you to think that Bernie and Trump, they're just like each other, ones on the right, ones on the left, and the argument is incredibly sloppy and lazy. Nonetheless, the New York Times published it and we're going to dissect it. She argues, Yet the criticism does not appear to bother many of the young voters who will have an important role in selecting a Democratic presidential candidate and who overwhelmingly place climate change at the top of their priority lists according to polls. David Victor, a professor of international relations at the University of California San Diego and a climate adviser to Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana called that the big challenge for serious policy in the Democratic Party. Quote, the progressive wing wants radical change and climate change is one of those areas where this has really been the most palpable, he said. The Sanders plan claims to deliver radical change, but it can't work in the real world. Now just in those couple of paragraphs, there's so many problems with this. Comparing Bernie Sanders' Green New Deal to Donald Trump's border wall, it's idiotic. Because there's no way that we can compel Mexico to pay for a policy that we want, right? We don't have jurisdiction over Mexico. Bernie Sanders, however, can compel fossil fuel companies to pay for climate change adaptation and mitigation policy because we can tax them. We can't tax Mexico, but we can tax fossil fuel companies and implement reforms that would change the way that our economy functions, move us away from a fossil fuel focused economy onto a green economy. In fact, there are countries that are already doing this. China is doing this. So for her to compare that to Mexico, Trump's call for Mexico paying for our border wall, that's not just disingenuous. That's dumb. That's a dumb thing to say. And we get it. You want to compare Bernie to Donald Trump because you think that that's going to turn off voters. But in doing that, you're just making yourself look stupid because this isn't going to appeal to anyone. Like who's going to think that these two policies are even in the same league? One wants to save the planet. One is xenophobic. Like this is this is just dumb. And she also says that Bernie Sanders Green New Deal is politically impractical and unfeasible. Whenever there's this really enormous political challenge, there's going to be naysayers who are either too lazy or too afraid to take action. But the thing about that is usually like if you're going to say what other people said, you would provide like a hyperlink so we can look at what they said specifically about Bernie Sanders Green New Deal. But she did not link to anything. She just pulled that out of her asshole in hopes that you wouldn't do your research. Now, of course, later on in the article, she goes on to unsurprisingly quote Democratic Party strategists and people who are just going to shit on Bernie Sanders. But she doesn't make a real persuasive argument here and she ends up undercutting the legitimacy of her argument. Not that there was much there to begin with by quoting David Victor, who was Pete Wooded Judge's climate change advisor. Now, the reason why she quoted him specifically is because she wants to one proper Pete Wooded Judge indirectly by making it seem like he's surrounding himself with people who are more practical, more realistic. But in actuality, who is David Victor? Well, this article from Hill, he tells you everything you need to know about David Victor. Quote, Pete Wooded Judge climate advisor is a fossil fuel funded witness for the Trump administration against children's climate lawsuit. So congratulations to prop up your argument against Bernie Sanders Green New Deal. You cited a literal fossil fuel shill. The New York Times published this. Are you proud of this work? I mean, this isn't the best messenger to argue against the Green New Deal. If you're going to bring on climate scientists to argue about Bernie Sanders Green New Deal and how there's areas for improvement, because I'm sure that there are, then do that. But you're quoting a fossil fuel shill who's working with Pete Wooded Judge, who isn't serious about climate change mitigation. What scientists are telling us is not only that we now have 11 years to act, but we need World War Two level political mobilization to actually stop a climate catastrophe. Bernie is here trying to meet the demands of scientists and you're choosing to shit on him and say that his Green New Deal is just like Donald Trump's border wall plea. It's that unfeasible and politically impractical. Shame on you. Shame on you. And throughout the article she cites people who smugly dismiss Bernie Sanders Green New Deal. It's just it's downright shameful. This is why people don't trust the media. Because you're not even trying to be honest. You're quoting a fossil fuel shill who of course is going to shit on Bernie Sanders plan. Who's in bed with Pete Wooded Judge who of course is going to shit on Bernie Sanders plan. If you want to have some type of good faith criticism, then that's fine. We're not against criticism. Bernie Sanders is not above criticism. Objectivity is important. And if there's genuine ways that he can craft his Green New Deal that would improve it and make it more effective, I'd be all for it. But you're citing a fossil fuel shill and you're comparing him to Donald Trump. I mean, there's nothing left to say about this. Shame on this author. Shame on the New York Times for publishing garbage like this. This is what we have to deal with. Disingenuous people who are bad faith actors who aren't actually trying to make a good faith case against the Green New Deal. She's arguing against it by using what shills have to say about the Green New Deal. Yeah, sorry, but these people are the last people who I want to hear from. Disgusting. The Humanist Report is fake news. Mike only cares about crazy Bernie and his wacky socialist ideas. Sad. Very sad. I'm unsubscribing.