AOC Takes A Shot At Biden

>>Freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
fired a shot at Joe Biden. This was when she was asked about a Biden
presidency to which she responded, God.>>In any other country, Joe Biden and I would
not be in the same party, but in America, we are. Now this was in an interview with New York
Magazine. I wanna give you some more context so first,
let’s take a quick look at the article itself. One Year in Washington, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
reshaped her party’s agenda, resuscitated Bernie Sanders’s campaign and hardly has a
friend in town. But let me just be clear about something. She might not have many friends in the Washington
establishment, but she has a lot of constituents and voters who are rooting for her and we’re
certainly among them. Now here’s how that line came up in the article. She said the Congressional Progressive Caucus
should start kicking people out if they stray too far from the party line. Other caucuses within the Democratic Party
in Congress require applications, Ocasio-Cortez pointed out. But they let anybody who the cat dragged in
call themselves a progressive. There’s no standard, she said. And I totally agree with her on that. I mean, we had Democratic presidential candidates
claiming that they were progressives while they were supporting fascist regimes in India. I mean, that’s not progressivism, like it’s
just->>Well, it’s easy to label yourself something,
yes.>>Yeah, exactly.>>And it’s easy to also imply that you support
the same, like if I were to ask you who among the Democratic primary contenders supports
the Green New Deal? Well, technically all of them, I guess, do
you think it means the same thing for all of them?>>Of course not.>>100% not, which is why we need to dig deeper.>>So she says the same goes for the party
as a whole. She was quoted as saying Democrats can be
too big of a tent. And we certainly know that. I know that this year in particular, when
I say this year I mean over the last six months, has been difficult in labeling myself a Democrat. Because there are members in Democratic leadership
who have enabled Donald Trump to an extent that I’m beyond uncomfortable with. And so identifying as part of the same party
has been incredibly difficult, but the way that the primaries are set up if you’re not
a registered Democrat in certain states, you cannot vote in the Democratic primary. And it’s gross that we have a system that
set up that way.>>Yeah, I hate that the party allows in people
who are so like at least ideologically violent to what it needs to accomplish for its constituents. But I feel like I identify with the Democratic
Party for the same reason AOC says that she has. We’re the actual Democrats, we embody the
spirit of the Democratic party going back way longer than the relatively recent neo-liberal
pro-corporatist thing that’s been, you know it’s been around for three or four decades,
but a big part of the Democratic Party and Democratic leadership. But farther back there, like, the part of
party that was able to get so many reforms for working Americans, that’s what the Democratic
Party needs to be. And just because some of these people are
running for office for the first time, and the party’s currently filled with these ghouls,
doesn’t mean that we don’t have the right to take it back.>>Yeah, you’re right. And we need to fight aggressively for that. Now people were not happy with what Representative
Ocasio-Cortez had to say about Joe Biden, and her views on the Democratic Party having
too much, casting a giant tent when it comes to ideology. And so since people gave her crap about it,
she defended her analysis. And she said, quote, yeah, I don’t know why
people are up in arms about this. Many other countries have multiparty democracies,
where several parties come together in a coalition to govern. In another country, I’d be in a Labor Party. Our primary field would cover two to three
parties and she’s absolutely right about that. Look, people have this visceral reaction to
Ocasio-Cortez because she has this incredible ability to call out the Democratic Party for
its devastating flaws and be effective in doing it. And so I think that that’s a great defense
of the point that she was trying to make. But she should also know that there are people
who are intentionally being obtuse. Like there are people who are intentionally
pretending like they’re dumb and they don’t understand what she’s saying, she didn’t say
anything controversial there.>>Yeah, it’s just true, learn about other
countries, I don’t know what to tell you. But that she has that ability to call out
the Democratic Party and specifically Democratic leadership, while also showing how it should
be done. She’s not just a critic. She is driving the conversation. She is organizing people and getting people
involved in this. That’s why you’re gonna see so many candidates
that were, some inspired by Bernie Sanders, others inspired by AOC. She’s in there as a critic, but she’s also
showing the way it should be.>>Absolutely.

Has the Left Reached a “Hard Fork?”

All right, let’s see what is on the minds
of folks in the audience. Don’t worry, I’m not taking phone calls right now. I know that
that would be the absolute worst nightmare for many in the audience. We’re not, it’s
Thursday. We’re not taking phone calls. Phone calls will be tomorrow. You don’t have to
turn off the show. I am talking about the David Pakman show [email protected]
slash R E. D. D. I. T. a few posts that came to my attention. A lot of people ask me about
this. Eric Weinstein recently tweeted about the left. I think the left has reached a hard
fork. Those that want to explore extreme wokeness,
open borders, anti whiteness, apologizing to homophobic, misogynist, theocracies worlds
without men, reparations for slavery, cancel culture, et cetera. Need to branch off and
good luck. You’ll need it. Listen, here’s my view about this is there I, I wouldn’t
call the left having, I don’t believe the left has reached a hard fork. I think that
on the highway of the left, it’s not even an off ramp. It’s like one of those driveways
that usually says for authorized vehicles only that aren’t really supposed to turn off
of. It’s not actually an exit. It’s not the highway splitting and there are some people
on the left who are going in that direction. I maintain that, um, that group is smaller
than many make it out to be and disproportionately loud, particularly on the internet. But again,
in the same way that those of us in internet culture don’t understand where are all these
Biden’s supporters. But then when you go into the real world,
you see there’s lots of people that you just don’t really hear from, uh, in the online
political mill. You who support Joe Biden, that’s a reality. It’s not an endorsement.
He’s not my guy. I’m just telling you, Joe Biden does have more support than you would
glean from being online. This wing of the left, this sliver of the left, as I call it,
has less support than you might believe if you spend a lot of time on Twitter and on
Reddit. So I, I don’t agree with Eric Weinstein that it’s a hard fork, but I’ve pointed out
that there are people on the left who, uh, who share the priorities that he’s listing
there another post, uh, about my hair. And we’re actually going to talk about this a
little bit later. I knew David’s hair was reminding me of someone, please reassess head
symmetry and hair goals in 2020. Uh, God bless. Sorry for the S post and there
is a picture of Gumby. Yeah, there, there have been some technical issues we’ve been
experiencing with my hair over the last few days and I’m actually going to talk about
it, uh, on tomorrow’s program, so I don’t want to short circuit that conversation now.
And lastly, there was a shirtless picture of me that went up on my Instagram a couple
of years ago. I think it was me jumping into a pool in Northwestern Spain, uh, or in, in
Spain, not in Northwestern Spain. And there are more and more calls for that opposed that
says it’s been almost two years since shirtless. Pacman pics have surfaced. David should post
more shirtless pics on Instagram for the people. Yeah, it’s a not happening anytime soon, but
sometimes, incidentally, there will be a picture very, very zoomed out where I am, uh, maybe,
maybe shirtless. Um, join the discussion. I suggest participating
in the one about the hard fork on the left rather than about my hair or shirtless [email protected]
slash R. E. D. D. I. T

Caller: What’s Wrong with Dem Debates Being Skewed Right?

Let’s go next to, uh, let’s go to Mike from
Georgia at the seven Oh six area code. Mike from Georgia. What’s going on? [inaudible] Hey David, how are you doing? Good, thanks. Okay. So, uh, I had a question. So, um, we hear a lot about, um, you know,
in the debate that they asked, uh, right-wing framed questions. But don’t we need a right-wing frame questions
if we’re going to be taking on, you know, the uh, the Republican establishment or really
just the establishment as a whole. Yeah. So, so you’re asking a very important question. So here’s the thing, some during, during democratic
debates, the point is to best figure out who of the democratic candidates, really it’s
for two things. Whose policies do you most agree with? And we are also making judgments about electability. We are imagining the candidates on the stage
debating Donald Trump. So it seems like what you’re pointing out
is at a certain point, the democratic nominee is going to have to face Trump and is going
to have to face Republican arguments. Therefore, isn’t it logical for the moderators
to be making some of those Republican arguments in questioning the Democrats? Is that sort of what you’re saying? Yeah, yeah. That’s basically what I’m saying. Here’s the problem with it. When the moderator is framing up a question
for all of the people on the stage that’s not about asking a particular candidate how
something about their policy will work. When you frame the entire question in a way
that is a Republican slant, you’re in a sense discrediting the fact that this is even being
discussed in particular terms and that’s why it’s so problematic. If you have different Democrats up on the
stage and someone wants a public option for health care, someone wants Medicare for all,
some someone wants a phased in Medicare, you know you have all these, all these different
things. You want that to be debated in a way that
is sort of fair and neutral and let the candidates frame their positions and if they want to
bring up what it is that Donald Trump wants to do, fine. When the monitor moderators a priori frame,
the entire question where the logical answer, the right position is one. That is what Republicans are advocating for
or more to the right. Not only is it not the point of the democratic
debates, it also is helping the more conservative candidates up on the stage. And so we just don’t want it. That’s not the role the moderators were supposed
to have. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, that, that definitely makes sense. Um, I always just kind of found a hypocritical
that they’re supposed to come off as a neutral force and yet they seem to go in more towards
a, uh, a Republican direction or really setting up all these trap questions that you can’t
really, you can’t really wiggle your way out of unless you attack the framing of the question. That’s another good point, which is that it
took to properly handle that you’re putting the candidates in a position where they either
have to go after the moderators for the framing, which they should do. And I’m glad when they do it, but that takes
time away from actually figuring out who onstage has the best policy. And so it’s also a distraction in that way. Oh yeah. And, and that’s kinda like my, my problem
with debate other than the fact that I don’t know how much they’ll, they’ll change the
course of the election. Cause I mean, I feel like most people kinda
have an idea of who they want to vote for. Yeah. At this point in the game, this late in the
game, the debates will do very little to change public support other than if someone blunders
terribly and they will then be hurt. But it is very difficult at this point in
the game to really gain very much by doing well in the debates because people are mostly
familiar with the candidates and with their positions. Yeah. All right, well you pretty much answered my
questions, so thank you very much David. All right, thanks Mike. Great to hear from you.

Elizabeth Warren STEAMROLLS Meghan McCain on The View

Hey, I have some really interesting video
for you. Elizabeth Warren appeared on the view yesterday. The view is this, a multi host talk show that’s
really become a pretty prominent place for democratic candidates. Really for news makers of all kinds of elected
officials, celebrities, whatever. But the democratic candidates have been stopping
at the view and talking about their campaign platforms and why they believe they should
be the 2020 democratic presidential nominee. The hosts are sort of politically diverse. The notable right-winger on the show is the
daughter of the late Republican Senator John McCain, Megan McCain, and she mixes it up
with some of the left-leaning guests. So yesterday Elizabeth Warren appears a democratic
Senator from Massachusetts running for president. And one of her notable policies, one of her
most well known policy proposals as part of our campaign platform is the wealth tax attacks. That would be a 2% tax on wealth above and
beyond 50 million us dollars. And she was on the view and joy Bay har wanting
to hear about the wealth tax and wanted to say, how will it work? Will it affect the middle class? And Megan McCain kept trying to interrupt
and Elizabeth Warren takes the approach of pretend I can’t hear a word she sang. And as Megan McCain is increasingly and visibly
frustrated with being unable to get a question into Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren just keeps talking, steamrolling
Megan McCain and Megan McCain becomes visibly annoyed with this. It’s an interesting strategy. So let’s take a look at the video. You’ll be able to get most of what is going
on from the audio as well. You’ll hear Megan McCain continually trying
to talk, so it’ll start with joy Bay. Har asking Elizabeth Warren about the wealth
tax. You will see and hear Megan McCain try to
interrupt multiple times and Warren just keeps on going like a freight train. McCain starts to interrupt about halfway through. It doesn’t go well. Take a look. Yeah, well let’s talk a little bit about the
tax plan. I think it’s time for a wealth tax in America. [inaudible] on the top one 10th of 1% $50 million and
above your fortune. In other words, your first 50 million is free
and clear, but on your 50 millions and first dollar, you’ve got to pitch in 2 cents and
2 cents on every dollar after. What about them? Now, it’s not the middle class one 10th of
1% I don’t have plans to increase taxes on the middle class. Okay. I figured out how to do every plan I’ve done
out there without increasing taxes on the middle-class, but look at what a two-cell
wealth tax would do for us. Universal childcare for every baby in this
country. [inaudible] billion dollars into our public schools make
it a real [inaudible]. So college $50 billion for store black colleges
and universities. [inaudible] Trump just said that we spent
$2 trillion on the military. I said, I don’t want anyone ever to ask Elizabeth
Warren how she’s going to pay for medical [inaudible] Elizabeth Warren straight up pretending that
Megan McCain simply doesn’t exist. Megan McCain ends up sort of like the person
in the corner that nobody’s listening to. Now, I don’t know if this is childish, but
I did find it very satisfying to watch Elizabeth Warren just ignore Megan McCain and you can
agree or disagree with Elizabeth Warren’s plan for a wealth tax, but the handling of
it is just delightful here. Now at the same time, this is a TV show and
I find it compelling the way that it was handled, but I have no problem with challenging Elizabeth
Warren on her wealth tax. There are arguments to be made that it’s politically,
uh, unlikely to become a reality. You can make the argument that it won’t work,
whatever, right? I mean that’s all fine. We can debate that. That’s great. But Elizabeth Warren should be allowed to
at least explain the plan without interruption and a lot of right-wingers, I was looking
online, a lot of right-wingers are just furious with Elizabeth Warren saying, Warren is in
the wrong. Warren won’t let Meghan McCain speak. Warren is the guest joy Bay. Har asked Warren about the policy and Elizabeth
Warren is explaining it and she can’t get through her explanation without Megan McCain
interrupting three or four times. Now, I do think that there’s a lesson here
when people try to prevent you from even explaining your position with bad faith interruption
attempts. Maybe you just talk past them and you don’t
allow them to interrupt you. And Elizabeth Warren running a clinic on that. There was one point at the very end of this
segment which I want to watch again with you were Megan McCain looked so frustrated, she
actually looks off set at someone and looks very awkward. Check it out one more time. I would not be surprised. You know sometimes on these shows that I know
a lot of people who have worked on network and television shows like this and often the
relationships between the hosts behind the scenes get very weird and there are times
where the hosts aren’t even talking to each other except on the show and all communication
between them off the air is happening between representatives. I’m not saying that that’s what’s going on
here, but when I saw you were going to see it here, when I saw Megan McCain look off
to the side, I in a fraction of a second, the scenario that appeared in my mind is she
is disgusted and furious with how she is being treated in terms of how much time she’s being
given or whatever on the show. And she looked to whoever is her representative
or whichever producer has taken her aside and is kind of giving them the, see this is
what I’m talking about. You’ve got to fix this for me. Sort of look, could it be a complete fantasy? But in any case, take a look at the uh, Meghan
McCain reaction here looking off stage. But when that trust just said that we spent
$2 trillion on the military, I said, I don’t want anyone ever to ask Elizabeth Warren how
she’s going to pay for medical care. [inaudible] yikes. I feel like the tiniest bit bad for Megan
McCain, but come on, let Elizabeth Warren explainer plan. Then you can cite whatever talking point you
want to cite in opposition. And please Ken, some Republicans, some right
wing pundits. Please ask Trump, administration officials,
how are you going to pay for the Iran war? Please ask them because when the left tries
to do good things, you can disagree with Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax approach. You can disagree with Bernie Sanders, Medicare
for all plan or whatever. How are you going to pay for it? We can’t afford it is the, it’s on repetition
from Republicans. And when you want a pointless war to help
Donald Trump get reelected or to distract from impeachment, it may be Rand Paul says,
we can’t afford this, but come on, someone’s stand up on the right and say, how are we
going to pay for this war? Uh, and don’t do it. By the way, in the thinly veiled, xenophobic
way, we’re Tucker Carlson, DHEA. We talked about Tucker Carlson the other night
saying this is totally misguided in Iran and that we have domestic problems to focus on
Tucker’s right, except he wants to focus on all the wrong domestic problems, including
ones that aren’t actually problems. So I would love to see a Republican just stand
up, have a spine, and seriously say, Hey guys, how are we going to pay for this? How are we going to pay for this? And does this make any sense whatsoever? If we believe in checks and balances, I’ve
not seen any serious Republican politician do that so far. Make sure you’re following the David Pakman
show on Instagram at David Pakman. Show continued clips and coverage of all of these stories
and more. There will be back right after the

Bernie IS Biden’s BIGGEST Threat

>>Bernie Sanders has not only been rising
in the polls, but if you look at some of the early states, like Iowa and New Hampshire,
he is performing incredibly well. In fact, he’s tied with Biden in some of these
polls. Now, the establishment-minded folks, first,
pretended like they were ignoring Bernie, didn’t take him seriously. But now considering the fact that he’s outraised
all of his opponents in the Democratic side, obviously, and he has the most small dollar
donors than anyone else on the Democratic side. Establishment Democrats are starting to panic
and that is noted in various pieces, but I’m gonna focus on the Associated Press and Politico. Now the Associated Press reported, establish
reminded Democrats are warning primary voters that the self-described democratic socialist
would struggle to defeat President Donald Trump and hurt the party’s chances in premier
house, Senate and governors’ races. Less than a month before Iowa’s kickoff caucuses,
the doubters are being forced to take Sanders seriously. So they obviously should have taken him seriously
from day one, they should have taken him seriously since the 2016 election when he was able to
close this massive gap between himself and Hillary Clinton. He was an unknown politician from Vermont. But it was his policies, it was his vision
that inspired voters to rethink what could be in this country, right? And so if they don’t want to take him seriously
that’s on them. But what I’m more concerned about is now that
they do take him seriously what kind of games are they gonna play to try to crush him? And he’s been incredibly resilient so far. I have a lot of faith in him. However, I also know that the corporate arm
of the Democratic Party is rather vicious and will stop at nothing to smear someone.>>The frustrating thing, we’ve seen over
the past couple weeks all these articles where they look at as polling, and they say, my
god, he’s actually, he’s performing pretty well. They look at the general election polling
showing him doing well, especially in some of the states that Hillary Clinton lost against
head to head against Donald Trump. You can’t look at his fundraising and not
be impressed by that. But they’ve only moved so far they’ve moved
far enough to, hey, Joe Biden or whoever’s that’s more, in their lane, you need to be
worried about this, but not to. And maybe that means something. Maybe the fact that Sanders is doing so well
actually represents something about the potential Democratic voters in a general election. Maybe it says something about, man, if we
really wanna beat Trump, maybe this is the guy to get behind.>>Yeah.>>They can acknowledge all these factors,
but they can’t acknowledge what it represents, all they can see is that it’s an obstacle
to Joe Biden.>>Absolutely, look, they recognize that there
is something that really resonates with Democratic voters and independent voters by the way. The only problem is what he represents conflicts
with what their donors want. And I think that’s the main reason why they
push back against him so aggressively. Every argument that you’ve heard from establishment
Democrats against Bernie Sanders is easily debunkable, right? And oftentimes doesn’t even make any sense. Their argument is, he’s so to the left that
he would have no chance in the general even though after the 2016 election, polling indicated
that he was the most popular politician in the country, okay? And there are Trump supporters who said they
would’ve voted for Bernie Sanders. So they ran Hillary Clinton. She lost to Donald Trump. What makes them think that this time around
someone who is arguably worse than Hillary Clinton, I mean, look at Joe Biden and hit
not only his record, but what he’s running on today. What he’s running on today is, I’m doing nothing
for you. I’m not gonna change anything. Right, anyone who dares to question him about
that, he responds in a combative angry way.>>Yeah, that you like your corn pop, won’t
come down, Joe.>>Right, exactly. And so what makes them think that he’s a more
viable candidate as opposed to Bernie Sanders. The truth is they don’t even believe that,
what they got they need to appease their donors. And that’s really at the heart of this. So let me give you more. And it goes beyond donors as well. I mean, they’re thinking about their own careers,
their own ambitions, and are they likely to get positions in Bernie Sanders administration?>>Change the tune fast, maybe.>>Let me just tell you, Neera Tanden is not
gonna be in Bernie Sanders administration. And she’s still real salty that Hillary Clinton
lost because she lost out on a cushy job in the White House, which is a great thing. So let’s move on to some of the specific statements,
okay. Phil Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel jumped in
on this and said, you need a candidate with a message that can help us win swing voters
and about battleground states. The degree of difficulty dramatically increases
under Bernie Sanders candidacy. It just gets a lot harder.>>No specifics, how? Why does it get harder? If he is able to outraise all of the other
Democrats, all the other Democrats with small dollar donations? He has more individual donors. He’s not funded by super PACs. He doesn’t average donation is $18. He’s outraise every single one of them. So what makes you think that he doesn’t have
a shot at beating Trump?>>They don’t have to say, unfortunately. I think it was the Washington Post. Everybody’s passing around that, I’m a Republican
and I think Democrats should give me someone I’m comfortable voting for, that op-ed that
just came out, and a lot of people read that headline. They’re like, who is that for? It’s around the manual. It’s for someone who actually still believes
that that strategy would work. Yes, to get swing voters you need a centrist,
like Hillary Clinton because it worked. It worked really well in 2016
>>Yeah, it’s ridiculous. No one believes this. No one believes the arguments that they’re
made>>By the way, and he worked for Obama. Obama was the guy who was trying to present
himself as far more left than he was. And Obama won in states that Hillary was incapable
of. So even on his face, even if he believes that
secretly you should campaign as a leftist, but then actually rule as a centrist. He can’t pretend that he doesn’t understand
the appeal of running a left campaign. Because he’s seen it work in practice.>>100%, exactly. I mean, Obama certainly presented himself
as a bold progressive. Now part of the problem was he didn’t have
much of a record as a Senator. The people could refer to see if he was telling
the truth. And look, 2008 was very different. People were desperate to get rid of Bush and
Bush era like policies. And so John McCain wasn’t a likable candidate
at that time and people took a chance and really believed Obama’s messaging. But now, I just think the electorate is different
and they’re looking for records, they’re looking for evidence, they’re looking for receipts,
and they want detailed policies.>>Yeah.>>So let me give you more. I’m gonna skip ahead and talk a little bit
about what these Sanders critics originally thought with Elizabeth Warren in the race. And I love this part of the story because
it was exactly what we predicted, right? Cenk and I talked about this a lot on the
show. Several Sander’s critics noted that he has
largely escaped intense scrutiny throughout the campaign. We all know that’s untrue. In part, because some assumed that Massachusetts
Senator Elizabeth Warren, another progressive Firebrand, was a stronger candidate who would
cannibalize his support. With Warren’s candidacy struggling to maintain
momentum, however, those assumptions are now being questioned. So they were really relying on Elizabeth Warren
to destroy any chance of Bernie Sanders becoming the nominee. But that didn’t work because unfortunately
Elizabeth Warren, kind of back pedaled on some of her progressive policy proposals,
specifically Medicare for all, I think that really tanked her campaign. So maybe don’t listen to the centrist advising
you and your campaign because I think the party, meaning the voters, have moved to the
left.>>Yeah, and I don’t think they predicted,
first of all, how many people would be in the primary. But of those people, how that would then shake
out in terms of who’s taking who’s support. It’s pretty easy to show that there’s at least
some overlap between Warren and Sanders. But there’s definitely overlap between Biden
and some of these other candidates, Buttigieg and things like that. And probably a little bit Warren, too. If she does back off some of the bigger, bolder,
progressive plans, then she’s not gonna lose the more centrist of her supporters, she’s
gonna drop some people that may go back to Bernie. But she’ll still hold on to the people who
are probably more likely to vote for Biden if she weren’t there.>>Yeah, you’re absolutely right about that. I think that’s what happened already.>>Yeah.>>To some extent.>>And really fast.>>Yeah.>>I will say, this sort of candidate arithmetic
is very difficult to do. If you actually look at who second choice
is. One of the most mind-blowing things that’s
been consistent throughout the last year is that generally, like Bernie Sanders and Joe
Biden, people generally think of the other candidate as their second choice. I know it doesn’t make any sense to people
who pay attention hardcore to the news, but a lot of people who like Joe Biden also kind
of like Bernie Sanders and vice versa.>>Yeah, it is kind of incredible.>>It’s weird. Just take it up with the polls.>>There was this conversation that I heard
on Michael Brooks’ show, this is months and months ago. But it was such a good point that I think
we often forget, especially as people who work in the news and we eat this stuff up
every day. Look, most Americans who aren’t like hyper
aware and paying like super close attention to politics and everything that’s happening. If you give them a survey on various political
issues, it’s really like a hodgepodge of all sorts of different things that are inconsistent,
right? And so you can’t think that all voters are
consistent on all issues. People have different life experiences, different
preferences, different worldviews. And so, I mean, look, it might not make a
lot of sense to us, but people have different opinions on various policies, so I could see
how someone might like Bernie Sanders and then also later support Biden, vice versa. I don’t get it, but-
>>Yeah.>>People are not necessarily super consistent
on the issues. And I wanted to read a quick comment from
our member’s section. Lib says, it’s class warfare, period. I think you’re commenting in regard to this
story and I think you’re right, right? This is about an economic message that resonates
across party lines. That’s the thing about Bernie Sanders that
I think is incredibly powerful. He talks about how this economy is rigged. He talks about the frustrations and the anxieties
of Americans. And we feel it. We feel it every day, even if you have a stable
job and you’re not too worried about where you’re gonna end up at the moment. We see it around us. We see people living on the streets and increase
number of homeless people. We see people who are dying. Hundreds of thousands of people have already
died as a result of the opioid epidemic. Even in my neighborhood, I see people shooting
up heroin. And the homelessness problem is series like
we see poverty all around us and those economic anxieties are real. And while the Robin manuals of the world are
not worried about those things because there are, sitting up on their ivory towers and
they’re not concerned about all this stuff. The vast majority of Americans are and when
they hear a politician in a very intelligent and digestible way explain what’s happening
economically to them and how we can fix it. It’s powerful. It’s much more powerful than Biden getting
angry because someone’s asking him a hard question that he doesn’t like.

Is Stuff Worth Doing if SCOTUS Will Strike Down?

Let’s get back to the phones for the last
time in 2019 at (617) 830-4750. Why don’t we go to, uh Oh I don’t know. Let’s go to our caller from the three three
six area code. Who’s calling today from three three six. Hi David. This is Dylan from North Carolina. Hey Dylan. What’s going on? I’m doing pretty well. I was just thinking longterm policy, you know,
with this whole Kavanaugh situation, the Supreme court being as it is, I’m really concerned
as to what kind of new things will come down the pipeline. And I’m wondering if maybe Democrats, I don’t
want to say should give up on some issues, but may be a lost cause. I want us to talk about specifically gun control. Um, I’m wondering if the resources we use
and specifically getting assault weapons bans, magazine capacity bands are, are, you know,
I see a lot of people in the community, especially the gun community, they want to counteract
these laws and the second amendment sanctuary cities, you know, I guess my question to you
is, is should we not focus more on women’s rights, gay rights, stuff like that and whether
or not any legislation we get in, I mean, what are the chances of it being able to be
held up, especially with the Washington DC band being overturned? No, I think that, so a couple things. Number one, we should be fighting for everything
all the time because they can’t stop everything. First and foremost, that’s, that’s the, that’s
just a reality that we have to understand. Number two, remember the Supreme court does
not hear every case. And so a lot of these things take a very,
very long time to really be good to get all the way up to the Supreme court. If the Supreme court is even going to hear
it, particularly if we’re able to remove Donald Trump in 2020, we’ll have a, a, a democratic
house. Even with a Republican Senate, there are still
things that can be done. There are things that can be done at the state
level. Uh, universal background checks is one that,
um, uh, is less likely that the Supreme court would even choose to get involved in because
there, there appears to be at least far less constitutional argument there. And so I, I reject the idea that we shouldn’t
be fighting these things. Sure. We have a conservative Supreme court and depending
on what happens in November of 2020, it may become even more conservative, but the Supreme
court is not going to stop everything. It is not going to hear every case. And there is huge progress that can be made. Uh, and it’s, it is sort of, I mean, listen,
it’s hard enough to get stuff done at the state level and with a divided house and Senate,
the idea that we shouldn’t even do it because the Supreme court might hear it and reverse
it. I don’t think make sense whatsoever. Okay. All right. Well I appreciate your answer. All right. Thank you so much for the call. A great to, great to hear from you. Hope to hear from you again.

There Are Signs for Tulsi Gabbard

Let’s go next to our caller from the four
Oh four area code who’s calling today from four zero four. Hi, this is Simon from the Davenport, Iowa
area. Hey, Simon, and what’s going on today? Hi. So a big fan of the show. I’ve been watching for two years now. Thank you. Um, so you may find this interesting. Um, so Tulsi Gabard has some signs up in the,
uh, area. And, uh, you know, I see like she would, she’s
doing the most she can with like the money that she has left. You know what I mean? Like I feel like she’s, she’s like doing like
a last push, like they’re placed in like a certain way where it’s like you might think
that, you know, they’re just placed in that, you know what I mean? I have no idea what you’re talking about. So Telsey has signs and the signs are good
or the signs are not good or what, what are the signs are desperate sign of different
desperation. They do. Yeah. That’s what I’m trying to say. That they seem like they’re signs of desperation. And, um, so that’s the first thing. Second thing is that was a little weird. The second thing is, uh, yeah. Okay. So I’ve been, uh, looking at your, um, commentaries
on, um, uh, Bernie’s chances of passing Medicare for all. Okay. Um, and I see like you’re missing a factor
and that factor being, um, that in the event we have a president Sanders, he is, um, saying
that he’s going to rally the people together. Um, towards the goal of Medicare for all it
maybe get out in the streets. And I feel like that’s really what’s going
to be the, the, the thing that tips it over the edge in the end. So what are your thoughts on that? I feel like you’re missing a factor. I’m not missing it. Um, I am just aware of the reality that in
the United States, um, there is a long history of throwing just enough of a bone to the people
to prevent the serious type of protest, mass rallies in urban centers, strategic, um, absences
from work in order to cripple industry. There’s a history in the United States of
the establishment and the corporate powers that be doing just enough to prevent that
from happening and keeping people, keeping workers in a precarious enough state so that
they lack the wherewithal and resources to do that because they make the calculus of,
well, they threw me a bone and I can’t really afford to do that. So instead I’m just going to go to work. I completely appreciate the idea of Bernie
Sanders. If elected saying, listen everybody, this
is an emergency. We need to pass Medicare for all right now. I think that it is just a miscalculation to
imagine that Bernie doing that is actually going to generate, uh, the type of activism
that will Medicare for all past given the degree to which the corporate powers that
be and the Republican party and insurance companies will activate against it. I’m not dismissing the power of activism. I’m not a do I, I just am, uh, less idealistic
than some others and people can disagree with me and that’s totally fine. Um, but I just don’t see that as likely. I would love to be proven wrong, you know,
to be clear, I’m not saying I would be against that. I think it would be great to actually see
a president say, Hey, everybody, we’ve got to do this thing. The thing is called Medicare for all, and
here’s what you need to do. That would be lovely. I just don’t think it’s going to happen. My prediction may be wrong and I would love
to be wrong. I, it’s not that I’m missing it, I just don’t
have the same interpretation as you of you as you do. Have the likelihood that that will, we’ll
get it. Get it done. Okay. David, thank you very much. Um, yeah, have a good day. All right. You too. Thank you so much.