Ana Navarro Condemns Trump as a “bigot” who “does not represent Republican values”


We’re really excited for tonight. Afterwards, we’re gonna be having more discussions in the tavern at 8 p.m., and
we’re gonna have some really great discussions on ads and also I’m
personally very excited just as like a Hispanic woman here at AU, having like
gone through a bunch of different experiences here, I’m really looking
forward to hearing your guys’s perspective on the elections, and just in
general how it’s like to be in politics as a Hispanic woman. – So Anna you have
been outspoken about Donald Trump as a Republican, and I saw story in The New
York Times today where Mitch McConnell and other people in the Republican
leadership are getting worried that Trump’s ratings are dropping, and they
may begin to flee him because people have been hoping there would be ticket
splitting, but that may not be the case – at least, that’s the concern. I just
wondered how are you feeling about Donald Trump today, and also what do you
think of the Republicans who, some of whom came out against him, many of whom
have been ambivalent about him. What do you think about people who have not
really come out against him, given your strong views? Look, I think first of all,
how do I feel about Donald Trump today. I feel about Donald Trump today the same
way I felt about Donald Trump June 15, 2016. I think he is a bigot, I think he is
disgusting, I think he is racist, I think he is divisive, I think he is hostile, I
think he is a misogynist. I think he is sexist, I think he’s a bad human being, I
think he brings out the worst in us and I think he’s not a Republican. I think he
does not represent Republican values and I think he has claimed my party’s
nomination by some fluke of nature, and because this is a very weird surreal
year. But he is not a Republican. I was a Republican when he was a Democrat. I was
a Republican when he was an independent, and I’m gonna continue being a
Republican, when he gets bored of being a Republican, which I hope will be very
damn soon. Now how do I feel about Republicans, look I think everybody’s got
to do what they think they need to do and I realize that for me it’s different
than for somebody who is in elected office. – You’ve been talked about your
point of view and then we I want to – Well, I like Django Unchained,
I am unplugged, unfiltered you you know, just.. – What is so wrong about
what he’s done about immigration? I just want to get you to say that. Well, i’ts more than immigration, it’s – look
you can, you can have a different point of view than I do on immigration, just
don’t – do you really have to call Mexicans rapists out of the gate, do you
really have to go to the Republican convention and have Joe Arpaio? Do you
really have to have your Hispanic outreach be a picture of you eating a
taco bowl? Do you really have to question a judge’s
ability to do his job just because his parents happen to have been born in
Mexico? Do you really have to pick a fight for one week with a gold star
family? Do you, who haven’t seen the inside of a gym in a decade, have the
gall to call a beauty queen fat, to pick a fight that’s lasted now a decade, with
Rosie O’Donnell… I mean, where do I start? This is – my issue with what Donald Trump
is not about immigration, if he wins I hope he builds a wall that start
somewhere be you know right north of Miami and leaves me the hell alone. My
issue with him is that I think he’s not fit to be President, he’s unpresidential,
I think his rhetoric has thrown this process down the gutter. It has cheapened
the process, it has cheapened the office, and I”m very worried about what he has
set loose in America. The level of anger, the level of hostility, the level of
racism that I feel out there under the guise of it not being politically
correct, we can say anything we want now? Because being politically correct is out
of fashion and under the guise of that, he’s been vulgar, he’s been crass, he’s
been divisive, he’s been everything that a US president should not be.

Chuck Todd on 2020 “Wildcard” Candidates –and Why Politics Today is like “Back to the Future”


JANE HALL: How do you think this is all going
to play out, and what impact is it going to have on the 2020 election? CHUCK TODD: My new favorite political pundit
is Doc Brown from “Back To The Future.” There’s a part where I think it’s end of the
first back to the future he picks them up, and they’ve got to go into the future. And they’re like, “Oh there’s not enough road.” And he’s like “Roads, where we’re going there
are no roads.” That’s the way I feel about where we’re headed. JANE HALL: Really? CHUCK TODD: Anybody who tells you what’s going
to happen? Give me a break. If I could make one bet right now, the only
bet I’d be comfortable making is that somebody not named, Sanders, Warren or Biden will be
the top 3 finishers in Iowa – that candidate could be the person X that everybody is wondering
“Who would be the alternative to Biden if Biden collapsed?” Here’s what I’d say, If somebody finishes
third not named Warren, Biden or Sanders then I think that person becomes a big deal. JANE HALL: And you don’t want to fill in the
blank. CHUCK TODD: Well no, on paper there’s two
candidates best positioned to be that person right now. Pete Buttigieg, financially, and I think he
plays well in Iowa, he’s one of the few – people forget – Iowa Democrats are more religious
than average Democrats. Democrats as a whole are a little more secular
than the country as a whole. But in Iowa many Democrats are still weekly
church goers. So is Pete. He is comfortable talking about God, in ways
that you see the other candidates are not. So I would just – I think Pete has a chance
to do better in Iowa. He’s built for Iowa. I don’t know how Pete gets past South Carolina
but that’s another story. But to get Iowa – I think Booker has a chance
to be that candidate out of Iowa too, he’s got a very good campaign. And I think the person that is going to – that
could be the wild card here if Bernie starts to recede is Andrew Yang. JANE HALL: Andrew Yang, wow.You heard it here
first folks? CHUCK TODD: I’m not saying Andrew Yang is
going to be the nominee or anything. But Yang – there’s a part of the Bernie base
and the Yang base that interacts. The people that haven’t left Bernie for Warren,
haven’t left Bernie for a reason. I’ll let you guys decide what that reason
is. They’re more likely to go to Biden or Yang
than Warren. So what I would say is, I think Yang is somebody
that I would not be writing off – he may not be able to win a single primary – but if you
told me he finished third on caucus night, I wouldn’t be floored.

‘The Squad,’ Democrats lead new charge for DC to become the 51st state


SEEKING CLIMATE JUSTICE.>>THANKS, ANITA.>>Shannon: THIS IS A FOX NEWS ALERT. WASHINGTON D.C. POLICE ARE LOOKING FOR SUSPECTS AFTER SEPARATE SHOOTINGS LEFT TWO PEOPLE DEAD AND SERVE INJURED. THE DISTRICT DEALS WITH AN UPTICK IN CRIME AND CORRUPTION, DEMOCRATS ARE LEADING A NEW CHARGE FOR STATEHOOD. CHAD PERGRAM TAKES A LOOK AT THE FIRST HEARING ON THIS ISSUE IN 2 FIVE YEARS. HI, CAD.>>EVERY STATE GETS TWO STATUTES. WASHINGTON D.C. ISN’T A STATE, SO IT ONLY GETS ONE. THIS IS FREDERIC DOUGLAS. HE WAS A NOTED ABOLITIONIST AND LIVED IN WASHINGTON D.C. IF WASHINGTON D.C. BECOMES A STATE, IT WILL BE KNOWN AS WASHINGTON DOUGLAS COMMON WEALTH. LIBERALS SUPPORT STATE HOOD NOR DC. RASHEEDA TALIB SAYS SHE WILL FLY A FLAG WITH 51 STARS OUTSIDE HER OFFICE.>>REPUBLICANS OPPOSE MAKING D.C. A STATE AT THE FIRST HEARING ON D.C. STATEHOOD IN MORE THAN 25 YEARS.>>CONGRESS CANNOT ADMIT D.C. AS A STATE. IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT, THERE’S A REMEDY AND IT REQUIRES AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.>>THE GEOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS ARE SPELLED OUT IN SECTION 8 OF THE CONTUSION. IT OUTLINES A FEDERAL DISTRICT NOT EXCEEDING TEN MILES SQUARE TO SERVE AS THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. HERE’S THE PROBLEM FOR D.C. IT HAS IN VOTE ON THE HOUSE FLOOR AND NO SENATORS. IT’S NOT A STATE. SO IT CAN’T. THE CITY HAS NO VOTE IN CONGRESS YET ITS RESIDENTS PAY FEDERAL TAXES.>>TAXATION ROUTE REPRESENTATION IS A CATCHY HASHTAG.>>SOME QUESTION THE WISDOM OF FURTHER EMPOWERING D.C. OFFICIALS. CHARLES ALLEN WANTED TO FREE FELONS FROM JAIL. ANOTHER UNPLEASANT FACT FOR REPUBLICANS, IT’S A FOREGONE CONCLUSION THAT D.C.’S LONE HOUSE MEMBER AND TWO SENATORS UNDER STATE HOOD WOULD BE DEMOCRATS.>>IT’S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHY CONGRESS ADMITTED CONGRESS AND ALASKA IN 1959.ONE STATE WOULD BE DEMOCRATIC, THE OTHER REPUBLICAN. OVER TIME THINGS CHANGED. ALASKA EMERGED AS THE REPUBLICAN STATE AND HAWAII AS THE

Sen. Chris Murphy On President Donald Trump’s Problem With Spies | All In | MSNBC


>>>TONIGHT THERE ARE NOW>>>TONIGHT THERE ARE NOW MULTIPLE CREDIBLE REPORTS THAT MULTIPLE CREDIBLE REPORTS THAT IN 2017 THE UNITED STATES IN 2017 THE UNITED STATES EXTRACTED A PRIZED HIGH LEVEL EXTRACTED A PRIZED HIGH LEVEL SPY FROM RUSSIA AMID FEARS FOR SPY FROM RUSSIA AMID FEARS FOR THIS PERSON’S SAFETY. THIS PERSON’S SAFETY. FEARS THEIR IDENTITY COULD BE FEARS THEIR IDENTITY COULD BE COMPROMISED. COMPROMISED. THEIR INFORMANT IS BLOOEFBELIEVE THEIR INFORMANT IS BLOOEFBELIEVE HAVE INARTICTEDTERACTED REGULARL HAVE INARTICTEDTERACTED REGULARL PUTIN. PUTIN. CNN WAS THE FIRST TO BREAK THE CNN WAS THE FIRST TO BREAK THE STORY ABOUT THE DECISION TO STORY ABOUT THE DECISION TO REMOVE THE FORMER FOREIGN REMOVE THE FORMER FOREIGN RUSSIAN OFFICIAL AFTER THAT RUSSIAN OFFICIAL AFTER THAT INFAMOUS MAY 2017 OVAL OFFICE INFAMOUS MAY 2017 OVAL OFFICE MEETING IN WHICH PRESIDENT TRUMP MEETING IN WHICH PRESIDENT TRUMP DISCUSSED HIGHLY CLASSIFIED DISCUSSED HIGHLY CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WITH THE RUSSIAN INFORMATION WITH THE RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER THEN RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER THEN RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR. AMBASSADOR. THE DECISION CAME AMID, QUOTE, THE DECISION CAME AMID, QUOTE, CONCERNS TRUMP AND HIS CONCERNS TRUMP AND HIS ADMINISTRATION REPEATEDLY ADMINISTRATION REPEATEDLY MISHANDLED CLASSIFIED MISHANDLED CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE AND COULD INTELLIGENCE AND COULD CONTRIBUTE TO EXPOSING THE CONTRIBUTE TO EXPOSING THE COVERT SOURCE AS A SPY. COVERT SOURCE AS A SPY. CNN’S REPORTING WAS FOLLOWED BY CNN’S REPORTING WAS FOLLOWED BY PIECES IN NBC NEWS, “THE PIECES IN NBC NEWS, “THE WASHINGTON POST” ALL OF WHICH WASHINGTON POST” ALL OF WHICH ADVANCED THE STORIES IN VARIOUS ADVANCED THE STORIES IN VARIOUS WAYS. WAYS. IT ULTINATE MEQUOTE, WAS NOT THE IT ULTINATE MEQUOTE, WAS NOT THE REASON FOR THE DECISION TO REASON FOR THE DECISION TO REMOVE THE CIA ASSET. REMOVE THE CIA ASSET. BUT “THE POST” AND “THE TIMES” BUT “THE POST” AND “THE TIMES” REPORTING OFFICIALS GREW WORRIED REPORTING OFFICIALS GREW WORRIED AFTER INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS AFTER INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS REVEALED THE SEVERITY OF REVEALED THE SEVERITY OF ELECTION INTERFERENCE WITH ELECTION INTERFERENCE WITH UNUSUAL DETAIL IN PART BECAUSE UNUSUAL DETAIL IN PART BECAUSE THIS ASSET WAS THE AMERICAN THIS ASSET WAS THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT’S BEST INSIGHT INTO GOVERNMENT’S BEST INSIGHT INTO THE THINKING AND ORDERS FROM MR. THE THINKING AND ORDERS FROM MR. PUTIN. PUTIN. JOINED NOW BY DEMOCRATIC SENATOR JOINED NOW BY DEMOCRATIC SENATOR CHRIS MURPHY. CHRIS MURPHY. WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF ALL THIS, WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF ALL THIS, SCEPTER IN. SCEPTER IN.>>I THINK YOU ARE EXPOSING A>>I THINK YOU ARE EXPOSING A CONFLICT THAT IS IN INHERENT IN CONFLICT THAT IS IN INHERENT IN INTELLIGENCE GATHERING. INTELLIGENCE GATHERING. THE MOST IMPORTANT INTELLIGENCE THE MOST IMPORTANT INTELLIGENCE OFTEN ULTIMATELY DOES NEED TO BE OFTEN ULTIMATELY DOES NEED TO BE MADE PUBLIC IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS MADE PUBLIC IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS FOR PUBLIC POLICY MAKERS TO BE FOR PUBLIC POLICY MAKERS TO BE ABLE TO MAKE DECISIONS. ABLE TO MAKE DECISIONS. AND SO IN THIS CASE IT MAY BE AND SO IN THIS CASE IT MAY BE THAT THIS INTELLIGENCE ABOUT THE THAT THIS INTELLIGENCE ABOUT THE WAYS IN WHICH RUSSIA AFFECTED WAYS IN WHICH RUSSIA AFFECTED THE 2016 ELECTION WAS SO THE 2016 ELECTION WAS SO IMPORTANT THAT IT ULTIMATELY DID IMPORTANT THAT IT ULTIMATELY DID HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED IN ORDER TO HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED IN ORDER TO MOVE THE PUBLIC AND POLICY MOVE THE PUBLIC AND POLICY MAKERS TO ACTION. MAKERS TO ACTION. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS OFTEN. OFTEN. AND OFTEN LEADS TO INTELLIGENCE AND OFTEN LEADS TO INTELLIGENCE SOURCES HAVING TO BE WITHDRAWN SOURCES HAVING TO BE WITHDRAWN OR CHANNELS SHUTDOWN. OR CHANNELS SHUTDOWN. BUT I ALSO THINK IT STANDS TO BUT I ALSO THINK IT STANDS TO REASON THAT THE PRESIDENT’S REASON THAT THE PRESIDENT’S LOOSE LIPS ABOUT INTELLIGENCE LOOSE LIPS ABOUT INTELLIGENCE LIKELY CHILLS OUR ABILITY TO LIKELY CHILLS OUR ABILITY TO GATHER THIS INTEL ABROAD AS GATHER THIS INTEL ABROAD AS WELL. WELL. AND WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS A AND WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS A PROBLEM WITH IS NOT HUMAN PROBLEM WITH IS NOT HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, IT’S JUST ANY INTELLIGENCE, IT’S JUST ANY INTELLIGENCE THAT CONTRADICTS INTELLIGENCE THAT CONTRADICTS WHAT HE WANTS TO BELIEVE. WHAT HE WANTS TO BELIEVE. AND SO IT ESPECIALLY PUTS IN AND SO IT ESPECIALLY PUTS IN JEOPARDY THOSE THAT ARE JEOPARDY THOSE THAT ARE COLLECTING INTELLIGENCE ABROAD COLLECTING INTELLIGENCE ABROAD THAT ULTIMATELY IS GOING TO BE THAT ULTIMATELY IS GOING TO BE AT ODDS WITH TRUMP’S WORLD VIEW AT ODDS WITH TRUMP’S WORLD VIEW WHETHER IT BE IN RUSSIA OR NORTH WHETHER IT BE IN RUSSIA OR NORTH KOREA. KOREA. SO I THINK IT’S LIKELY THAT BOTH SO I THINK IT’S LIKELY THAT BOTH OF THESE SCENARIOS THAT HAVE OF THESE SCENARIOS THAT HAVE BEEN PLAYED OUT AS TO WHY THE BEEN PLAYED OUT AS TO WHY THE ASSET WAS WITHDRAWN COULD BE ASSET WAS WITHDRAWN COULD BE TRUE. TRUE.>>I DON’T NORMALLY THINK THE>>I DON’T NORMALLY THINK THE PRESIDENT IS SORT OF VIRTUE PRESIDENT IS SORT OF VIRTUE ETHICIST WHO HAS BRIGHT LINES ETHICIST WHO HAS BRIGHT LINES AND MORAL DOS AND DON’TS. AND MORAL DOS AND DON’TS. BUT THIS REPORTING FOREIGN SPIES BUT THIS REPORTING FOREIGN SPIES CAN UNDERMINE HIS PRINCIPLE CAN UNDERMINE HIS PRINCIPLE RELATIONSHIPS WITH OUR LEADERS RELATIONSHIPS WITH OUR LEADERS AND THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES WE AND THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES WE SHOULDN’T BE DOING THAT TO EACH SHOULDN’T BE DOING THAT TO EACH OTHER, WE SHOULDN’T BE SPYING ON OTHER, WE SHOULDN’T BE SPYING ON EACH OTHER. EACH OTHER. WHICH IT SEEMS LIKE A PERSON WHICH IT SEEMS LIKE A PERSON WHO’S NOT, YOU KNOW, TOO WHO’S NOT, YOU KNOW, TOO FASTIDIOUS ABOUT MORAL FASTIDIOUS ABOUT MORAL TRANSGRESSION. TRANSGRESSION. I WAS SURPRISED BY THAT VIEW. I WAS SURPRISED BY THAT VIEW.>>WELL, I THINK THAT’S SIMPLY>>WELL, I THINK THAT’S SIMPLY BECAUSE SOME OF THE MOST BECAUSE SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT HUMAN INTELLIGENCE IMPORTANT HUMAN INTELLIGENCE THAT’S BEEN HANDED TO HIM THAT’S BEEN HANDED TO HIM CONTRADICTS THE WAY IN WHICH HE CONTRADICTS THE WAY IN WHICH HE WANTS TO SEE THE WORLD. WANTS TO SEE THE WORLD. HE WAS BEING GIVEN INTELLIGENCE HE WAS BEING GIVEN INTELLIGENCE REPORTS GIVING HIM DEFINITIVE REPORTS GIVING HIM DEFINITIVE PROOF PUTIN MAY HAVE BEEN PROOF PUTIN MAY HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY OVERSEEING THE DIRECTLY OVERSEEING THE INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION WHICH LED TO DONALD ELECTION WHICH LED TO DONALD TRUMP’S ELECTION. TRUMP’S ELECTION. HE WAS GIVEN PLENTY OF HE WAS GIVEN PLENTY OF INTELLIGENCE TO TELL HIM KIM INTELLIGENCE TO TELL HIM KIM JONG-UN WAS INDEED REALLY A JONG-UN WAS INDEED REALLY A HORRIBLE PERSON NOT WORTHY OF A HORRIBLE PERSON NOT WORTHY OF A FACE-TO-FACE TETE-A-TETE WITH FACE-TO-FACE TETE-A-TETE WITH THE PRESIDENT BUT THAT’S NOT THE PRESIDENT BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT HE WANTED TO HEAR. WHAT HE WANTED TO HEAR. I THINK IT STANDS TO REASON HE I THINK IT STANDS TO REASON HE ULTIMATELY DOUBTS HUMAN ULTIMATELY DOUBTS HUMAN INTELLIGENCE BECAUSE A LOT OF INTELLIGENCE BECAUSE A LOT OF THE HUMAN INTELLIGENCE HE’S BEEN THE HUMAN INTELLIGENCE HE’S BEEN GETTING TELLS HIM THINGS THAT GETTING TELLS HIM THINGS THAT AREN’T INTERESTING TO HIM. AREN’T INTERESTING TO HIM.>>YOU TWEETED THIS IN THE WAKE>>YOU TWEETED THIS IN THE WAKE OF BOLTON’S VERY PUBLICLY OF BOLTON’S VERY PUBLICLY HUMILIATING DEPARTURE, I’M HUMILIATING DEPARTURE, I’M LEGITIMATELY SHAKEN BY THE GRAVE LEGITIMATELY SHAKEN BY THE GRAVE INSTABILITY OF AMERICAN FOREIGN INSTABILITY OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY TODAY. POLICY TODAY. COUNTER POINT ALSO JOHN BOLTON’S COUNTER POINT ALSO JOHN BOLTON’S GONE. GONE.>>RIGHT, AND I THINK MY>>RIGHT, AND I THINK MY STATEMENT MAYBE LACKS SOME STATEMENT MAYBE LACKS SOME SUBTLY NECESSARY IN THESE SUBTLY NECESSARY IN THESE MOMENTS. MOMENTS. OBVIOUSLY JOHN BOLTON’S OBVIOUSLY JOHN BOLTON’S DEPARTURE AND HOW WE EVALUATE IT DEPARTURE AND HOW WE EVALUATE IT IS DEPENDENT ON WHO REPLACES IS DEPENDENT ON WHO REPLACES HIM. HIM. SO WE CAN ASSUME THERE’S NO ONE SO WE CAN ASSUME THERE’S NO ONE WORSE THAN JOHN BOLTON — WORSE THAN JOHN BOLTON –>>YES, THAT’S A DANGEROUS>>YES, THAT’S A DANGEROUS ASSUMPTION. ASSUMPTION.>>IT’S A DANGEROUS ASSUMPTION>>IT’S A DANGEROUS ASSUMPTION TO MAKE. TO MAKE. SECOND, IT’S IT COULD ALSO BE SECOND, IT’S IT COULD ALSO BE TRUE TRUMP IS PICKING VERY BAD TRUE TRUMP IS PICKING VERY BAD PEOPLE FOR THESE JOBS BUT IT’S PEOPLE FOR THESE JOBS BUT IT’S ALSO DANGEROUS TO CYCLE THROUGH ALSO DANGEROUS TO CYCLE THROUGH PEOPLE SO QUICKLY THAT IT MAKES PEOPLE SO QUICKLY THAT IT MAKES IT REALLY HARD FOR US TO BE IT REALLY HARD FOR US TO BE CREDIBLE IN THE WORLD ON THINGS CREDIBLE IN THE WORLD ON THINGS THAT ARE NOT THAT CONTROVERSIAL, THAT ARE NOT THAT CONTROVERSIAL, AND THERE ARE PLENTY OF THINGS AND THERE ARE PLENTY OF THINGS WE DON’T FIGHT ABOUT THAT THE WE DON’T FIGHT ABOUT THAT THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR AND NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR AND SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND STAERKT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND STAERKT OF STATE REPRESENT THE WORLD OF STATE REPRESENT THE WORLD ABROAD ON. ABROAD ON. YOU CAN’T BE CREDIBLE ON ANY OF YOU CAN’T BE CREDIBLE ON ANY OF THOSE ISSUES IF YOU’RE PUSHING THOSE ISSUES IF YOU’RE PUSHING PEOPLE THROUGH THESE POSTS SO PEOPLE THROUGH THESE POSTS SO QUICKLY. QUICKLY. I’M I’M RAISING THE POINT WE I’M I’M RAISING THE POINT WE SHOULD BE UPSET JOHN BOLTON WAS SHOULD BE UPSET JOHN BOLTON WAS ERVIN THAT POSITION BUT ALSO BE ERVIN THAT POSITION BUT ALSO BE UPSET THE PRESIDENT WAS MOVING UPSET THE PRESIDENT WAS MOVING THESE PEOPLE THROUGH THESE JOBS THESE PEOPLE THROUGH THESE JOBS SO QUICKLY BECAUSE THAT DAMAGES SO QUICKLY BECAUSE THAT DAMAGES OUR CREDIBILITY ON ALL SORTS OF OUR CREDIBILITY ON ALL SORTS OF STUFF THAT DEMOCRATS AND

#WashWeekPBS Extra: Discussing the intersection of politics and the environment


ROBERT COSTA: Fires in the Amazon rainforest to the receding white ice of the Arctic. Climate change confronts global leaders. This is the Washington Week Extra. Hello. I’m Robert Costa. Tonight we discuss the increasingly urgent intersection of politics and the environment. It was a week of promises, acrimony, and environmental upheaval. G-7 countries pledged 20 million (dollars) to help fight record fires raging in the world’s largest rainforest, the Amazon, but President Bolsonaro of Brazil initially rejected the offer. Meanwhile, President Trump skipped the G-7’s climate meeting. It was the latest act of defiance by President Trump. In 2017 the president pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accord, and has made rolling back environmental regulations a priority. He opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil exploration, and The Washington Post reported this week the administration will open 17 million acres of Alaska’s Tongass National Forest to logging and mining projects. And that news comes as Alaska is facing its hottest summer on record with very little rainfall and over 600 forest fires consuming millions of acres. Joining me tonight, Vivian Salama, White House reporter for The Wall Street Journal; from Anchorage, Nathaniel Herz, environment and politics reporter for Alaska Public Media; and from New York, Henry Fountain, climate reporter for The New York Times. Thanks so much for being with us today. Vivian, really appreciate having you here; and Nat; and Henry, it’s excellent to have you at the table as well. Nat, you’re up in Anchorage dealing with some real difficult issues. How are the forest fires up there, and how is it affecting Alaska? NATHANIEL HERZ: Well, you can see – you don’t have to look very far; you can just look over my shoulder and see the wildfire smoke that’s infiltrated the city. Normally you’d be able to look out and see, you know, pretty spectacular mountains just outside of town, but right now we’re pretty socked in. You know, the wildfires have burnt a few dozen homes north of the city in the Mat-Su, and then south of the city we have another wildfire that’s really gigantic burning in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge that’s been burning all summer. Both of those wildfires have basically snarled traffic on two of the state’s major highways. We’ve had major impacts on tourism – you know, tourists getting stranded, cruise ships almost having to make detours to go pick up stranded passengers, and then even things like groceries and shipments of freight getting blocked at various points. So it’s definitely been a pretty disrupted summer here by the wildfires. ROBERT COSTA: Beyond the fires, how is Alaska feeling the effect of climate change? NATHANIEL HERZ: Well, you know, I’ve traveled sort of from one end of the state to the other this summer. You know, I started, I was in Kaktovik, which is inside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, earlier this summer, and they’ve got, you know, increased polar bears coming into town because there’s less sea ice. Out in the Bering Sea they’re seeing unprecedented warming and diminished sea ice, that people are worried that – there are really huge commercial fisheries in the Bering Sea. Like, if you go to McDonald’s and buy a Filet-O-Fish sandwich, that fish is probably coming out of the Bering Sea; it’s pollack, and they’re worried that those fish are basically starting to swim north to cooler waters. And then you go to the southern end of the state and they’re in a drought. And you know, I was paddling a river earlier this summer and there’s a glacial lake that used to be blocked by icebergs that now they’re able to run motorboats into because that ice has diminished. So really from one end of the state to the other it’s kind of hard to find a place that isn’t seeing pretty dramatic impacts, especially this summer. ROBERT COSTA: Henry, you’ve reported on ANWR – the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge – and the Trump administration’s exploration there. What would the environmental impact of more exploration be in that area? HENRY FOUNTAIN: Well, the initial exploration would be things like seismic studies, perhaps some exploratory wells, and that would all require infrastructure – roads, drill pads, room for crews, et cetera, et cetera. So the big fear is even a little bit of exploration activity could cause long-lasting damage, for instance damaging the tundra, leaving scars on the tundra that would last for decades. ROBERT COSTA: And when you think about the Trump administration more broadly, you’re seeing an administration that’s not focused on climate change. Beyond Alaska, how is that illustrated, in your eyes? HENRY FOUNTAIN: Well, as you mentioned, Mr. Trump pulling the United States out of the Paris Accord, not showing up to the meeting last week, all those – all those acts that sort of demonstrate that he’s just not interested in the subject. It’s interesting, when the subject of climate change comes up he tends to talk about – not about actual warming of the Earth, but about the quality of water and pollution – water pollution and air pollution in the United States, which are really not the same thing as climate change. So it starts at the top. He is not interested in the subject, he’s called it a hoax, and it’s trickled down throughout the administration. Obviously, we have reported – all of the news organizations report about all the rollback of policies and regulations, and that’s a big part of it as well. ROBERT COSTA: Vivian, you’ve reported on the Trump administration’s rollbacks of these regulations. What’s driving it inside the White House? Is it an ideology, is it an affiliation, an affinity for business? VIVIAN SALAMA: Both, actually. The Trump administration, one of its first orders of business was to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, President Trump describing it usually as a bad deal. But also he believed that it was impairing the rights of a lot of businesses, and we just saw this week where he decided to withdraw from an Obama-era rule that essentially curbed emission of methane and he said again it was something that was impairing oil and gas industry from being able to thrive. And so a lot of it is driven by business, but also there is – there is an ideology behind it in his mind where he has questioned whether or not global warming is real or a hoax. He has repeated – but then again he’ll come out like this week at the press conference at the G-7 and say I’m an environmentalist, a lot of people don’t know that. And so his view of what environmentalism is is really sort of different from a lot of people, but he insists that he’s doing this with the environment in mind, essentially, at the end of the day. ROBERT COSTA: And Nat, we’re looking at Alaska having a heatwave, one of the hottest summers on record. Is that part of a trend throughout the world, and how is it affecting Alaska? NATHANIEL HERZ: Yeah, I mean, I think we’ve seen – we’ve seen record temperatures like this – earlier this summer we set a record high temperature for Anchorage; the previous high ever recorded in Anchorage was 85 degrees and this summer we hit 90 degrees. You know, this month has been, I think, the driest August on record. So you know, I think it’s really – we want to be careful about sort of saying that any particular moment in time or sort of short-term period of weather is reflective of climate change. But certainly the long-term projections are calling for things like we’re seeing here in Alaska this summer. And, you know, I think we’ve had – we’ve had efforts by the government here to – the state government – to, you know, sort of prepare for climate change, set climate policy. That was under the previous governor’s administration. In the past year, that’s actually been reversed by the Republican governor who’s come in and disbanded a state climate commission. And right now there’s actually no state-level climate policy, but there are any number of local efforts working to adapt to climate impacts and figure out, you know, how are we going to deal with some of the major effects that we’re seeing around the state. ROBERT COSTA: Henry, when you look at the Amazon and how President Bolsonaro of Brazil is handling this crisis, what’s your big take-away? What matters, as a reporter? HENRY FOUNTAIN: Well, what matters is what’s going to come in the future. I think, you know, the Amazon’s gotten a lot of attention in the last couple of weeks. A lot of the activity, the clearing of land through fire, has been going on for a long, long time. And in some ways the number of fires, it’s much worse than last year. It’s not necessarily much worse than a couple years ago. But the big concern, and as a reporter what I am interested in is, what’s going to happen in the years ahead? And obviously Bolsonaro, he’s made it clear that he wants to develop the Amazon. He wants mining companies, farmers to have more or less free hand to do economic activity there. So that’s really – it’s not so much what’s been going on in the last couple of weeks, because that’s pretty similar to what’s been going on for the last 20 or 30 years in some ways. It’s what’s going to happen in the future. ROBERT COSTA: And, Henry, you’ve written about how rainforests, these tropical rainforests, have been endangered long before the fires began in the Amazon. HENRY FOUNTAIN: Yeah. I mean, forests disappear for a lot of reasons. In the Amazon, as I said, people have been clearing land through fire for centuries, essentially. They’ve been doing it around the world, in fact. So it’s not that this is a new thing. The issue is, is it going to get worse? And that’s the concern with the new administration in Brazil. ROBERT COSTA: Nat, I know you need to leave soon, but the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. What’s its future? We’re talking so much about the Amazon, but the Tongass is right there having its own issues. NATHANIEL HERZ: Yeah. This is, I think, a really interesting story regardless of sort of what side of it you’re on. I mean, the Tongass, you know, just to put it in perspective I believe it’s slightly larger in area than the state of West Virginia. So we’re talking about – it’s a huge archipelago of mountains and ocean. It’s a spectacular area. You know, in the past decades it was a really productive area for natural resource extraction, especially timber. But you know, the Clinton administration in the ’90s, though the Roadless Rule, really clamped down on that. You know, it’s really debatable whether the lack – the sort of decline of the timber industry in the Tongass more recently is because of regulation or because of market forces, and the fact that Alaska is distant from some of the markets in Asia. But in any case, there’s still a lot of political pressure by the shrinking logging industry to promote, you know, more loose timber regulation in the Tongass. The thing that’s happening at the same time is there’s a really robust tourism industry in southeast Alaska in the same area. And you know, you’ve got an exploding cruise ship industry and, you know, smaller scale people coming for glacier tours, and fishing, and things like that. And the owners of those businesses are saying, you know, we don’t want our customers coming in here and seeing clear cuts. And so you know, there’s a – while there’s a big political effort to open the Tongass more to timber, there’s also been a really robust pushback on the part of this new and growing industry of tourism in southeast Alaska, saying: This is our future. Our future is not cutting down old growth timber, which is a finite resource. I think, you know, that – the timber industry over the past couple years has definitely found a more sympathetic ear in this federal administration, and in Alaska’s congressional delegation. But I think that battle is not decided. And I think it’s going to continue to rage and could very likely get reversed under a Democratic administration, if the election goes a different way in 2020. ROBERT COSTA: Nathaniel Herz, environment and politics report for Alaska Public Media. Really appreciate you being here. And before Henry and Vivian go, big picture, step back. President Trump, 2020, Democrats running for president are talking about climate change. What’s next politically in this country when it comes to climate change? VIVIAN SALAMA: The president has doubled down and really believes that he is helping businesses, and that’s the priority, and is viewing a lot of these climate policies with skepticism. And so so long as he’s bringing in business obviously he’s going to get that sector – segment of the population on his side. But in the meantime, it’s been a major alienating factor among our – with our allies. And this is something that he’s getting pushback from everywhere that you look. In Europe, he was the one absent person from the climate session this week at the G-7. Allies really pressing him about the issue, even with regard to taking Brazil more seriously and pressing Bolsonaro. President Trump and Bolsonaro have a rapport together and they really wanted him to take the lead on this issue, as the United States has traditionally done. And so really down the line it’s a question of is the U.S. losing its position as that global leader in, you know, this effort to control climate and see if we can – we can regulate policies that are damaging to the environment. And President Trump has kind of stepped away and shied from that role. ROBERT COSTA: Henry, final word to you. When you look beyond the U.S., is climate change policy and politics taking hold in a different way in different countries? HENRY FOUNTAIN: Well, a lot of other countries are really leading on the issue, whereas the United States has stepped back from addressing the problem. And so it’s a very powerful political force in a lot of countries, particularly in Europe where they’re seeing a – you know, they’ve experienced disasters this summer with bad heatwaves. So it’s, I’d say, large – parts of elsewhere in the world maybe not so much, but certainly in Europe it’s a really front and center issue. I think in terms of the United States, a lot may depend on what happens over the next year or so. If there’s – for instance, this hurricane, Dorian, that’s approaching Florida, if that’s a really bad one, if there’s a couple of other really bad hurricanes, if there’s some bad flooding, all of which is somewhat linked to climate change, I think you might see the administration may have to start addressing the issue because of what the population is experiencing. ROBERT COSTA: I want to thank my guests, Vivian Salama of The Wall Street Journal and Henry Fountain of The New York Times, and of course Nat Herz. That’s it for this edition of the Washington Week Extra. You can listen wherever you get your podcasts or watch on the Washington Week website. While you’re online, check out the Washington Week-ly News Quiz. I’m Robert Costa. Thanks for joining us and see you next time.

A Trump GOP Nomination Terrifies the Republican Establishment | THE CIRCUS | SHOWTIME


Hohlt: Everybody around
this table that I know, we’ve been in
every Presidential campaign probably since 1980,
in various degrees. And in Trump’s problem,
he doesn’t have a compass. You don’t know
what his compass is. McKinnon:
And how problematic is that
for the future of the party? I think
before it’s all over, it’s gonna be
hugely problematic. I talk to people
all of the time, as I’m sure everybody
around the table does, and they say,
“why don’t you Republicans do something
about this guy?” I’m sorry.
This is not the Soviet Union. We can’t call a meeting
and decide Trump is out. Kaufman: And we hate that. [ Laughter ] Deny dictatorship —
Who’s for it? Trump is doing well
for one reason. He understands the climate
and the culture of America today better than
anybody at this table. Halperin:
How do you feel about the fact
that the Republican nominee may be someone
that none of you know? Rogers: Shell-shocked.
Bewildered. Republicans are hierarchical,
respectful of authority, and we fall in line, and Trump has interrupted
that cycle. Donald Trump,
nobody thought of him as any kind of
political leader until six months ago. He’s not articulate. He’s not poised.
He’s not informed. All he has going for him
is a lot of votes. Why hasn’t
any of that hit home? Here we are.
Here we are. I think everyone kind
buying into this, he’s inevitable,
and that he can’t be stopped. I believe he can be stopped. What are you doing or plan to do
to stop him? -He’s working with cable.
-Yeah. Exactly. What are you doing?
We’re working on it. We were effective in Iowa, and that was enough
to knock him into second. McKinnon: None of us know
who you’re talking about. -Our Principles PAC.
-Katie Packer. What’s your role
in that PAC? Polling which is
non-public record. But which
concerns you more — that he’d lose the general
if he were the nominee or how he’d do
as President? Losing the election. What we’re facing is a choice
between Hillary and Trump. Goeas:
So what you’re saying is a vote for
the least of two evils. Do you know for sure Trump would be a better President
than Hillary Clinton? No, but it’s a risk
that I’m willing to take. If we get off
into splitting our party, we can’t
put it back together. Humpty Dumpty
won’t come back together. Weber:
That’s the great dividing line,
that question right there. ‘Cause you care more about him
being President. I’m scared of him
as President. I think he’s
an authoritarian figure. To deport 12 million people, build a wall
on the Mexican border, and impose a religious test on people
coming into this country is so violative
of everything I believe about America
and the Republican Party/ Rogers: I travel
around the world a lot, and Trump
is a laughingstock. The world,
whatever that is, is at peace
with Hillary Clinton. The next President’s
gonna decide the direction of the Supreme Court
for four years at minimum. Do you really want
to give it to her? Mrs. Warren will be beating
the crap out of here to make sure
it’s some lefty pinko. So you know that’s a fact.
Lefty pinko? Hohlt: I mean,
what does that mean? But you’re right. In the end,
that’s the question. I’ve never voted
for a Democrat. I’ve never voted for anyone
other than the Republican for the President of
the United States. This would not be
an easy thing for me. More Martinis?

Why Trains are so Expensive


This is a Wendover Productions video made
possible by Videoblocks. Get an exclusive 7 day free trial of Videoblocks
with up to 140 free stock footage clips for your videos by using the link videoblocks.com/future. Before I start, I want to quickly mention
that I started a podcast with Brian from Real Engineering called “Showmakers.” In the very first episode which is out now
we chat with none other than Hank Green. I’d really appreciate if you give it a try
and the link is down in the description. Trains are expensive. So expensive, in fact, that on three of the
most travelled routes in three countries—New York to Washington in the US, Edinburgh to
London in the UK, and Paris to Lyon in France—they’re pretty much the same price as the plane. These routes start at $49, £30, and €30
respectively on the train and $52, £13, and €53 on the plane. On a longer route like New York to Chicago,
the difference is even more pronounced: $59 for the plane, $108 for the train. And that’s keeping in mind that trains are
subsidized or government run in almost every country while airlines are highly profitable
commercial enterprises. The planes flying between DC and New York
are $49 million dollar machines, while the trains traveling the route cost no more than
$10 million total. The plane has to burn 1.7 gallons of fuel
per mile flown (3.9 liters per km) while the train relies on cheap, clean electric power. All this therefore begs the question, why
are trains so expensive? Now, I mentioned that fares between DC and
New York start at $49, but that’s far from the average price—$73. Let’s look at the expenses that go into
that fare. The single largest expense for Amtrak is staffing. Trains require a lot of people to operate. 85,000 passengers journey on Amtrak daily,
but for that Amtrak employs 20,000 people meaning that, daily, Amtrak requires one employee
for every four passengers. On top of that, the majority of those working
for Amtrak are highly specialized, unionized workers who demand high salaries. Amtrak’s financial reports tell us that
they spend $105,000 per employee, but that’s not to say that everyone at Amtrak is making
six figures. Taxes and benefits typically cost an employer
30-40% of a salary so the actual average salary for an Amtrak employee is around $75,000. These salary costs are so high that they account
for over a third of the ticket price between DC and New York—$25.82 total. The cost of employees is so high for train
operators largely because trains are so slow. For a flight from DC to New York, an airline
would only have to pay employees for an hour of work while Amtrak has to pay their employees
for three and a half hours of work. The difference is even more striking on long-haul
routes—Chicago to Los Angeles for example. An airline would have to pay for four hours
of work, while Amtrak pays for 44 hours of work. In addition, trains have physical infrastructure
to maintain along the journey—the rails. Airlines also have infrastructure to pay for
on each end—the airports—but between those they just use the sky, which is free. Amtrak only owns 730 miles of the 21,000 miles
of track they use, but they still indirectly pay for the employees who maintain those 20,000
miles of rented track through the fees charged by the track owners for their use. The next largest cost for train operators
is that of the trains themselves. Trains aren’t that expensive compared to
airplanes, but they still cost millions of dollars. The locomotive pulling the train from DC to
New York costs $6.5 million dollars and then each one of the passenger cars costs an additional
$400,000. With a seven car train, that works out to
$9.4 million dollars which accounts for $9.67 on this particular ticket. The other part of infrastructure—rails—costs
Amtrak an additional $3.66 on this ticket. Railroad tracks are extraordinarily expensive
to build—typically more than $1 million per mile—but on routes like DC to New York,
they’re just used so much that the per train or per ticket cost is negligible. Amtrak is a business, so it also needs to
pay to run the business. $2.15 of this ticket goes to administrative
costs, and then another $1.31 to advertising. Moving on, trains are extremely safe compared
to cars, but you’re still more than 3 times as likely to be killed on or by a train than
a plane. Trains do occasionally crash, and they also
crash into people. When this happens, Amtrak often has to pay
a settlement to the victims, and the fees associated with that account for $0.79 of
the DC to New York ticket. That does mean that when traveling between
DC and New York, in essence, you’re paying $0.79 in order for Amtrak to kill or injure
people. Those were all the major costs to run a train,
but there’s still another $5.91 on that ticket that just represents other minor costs. So the total expense for Amtrak to run that
train is $50.14. The remaining $22.86 is pure profit. You see, the train from DC to New York, the
Northeast Regional, is one of the few Amtrak routes to make a profit. The demand, speed, and frequency of the train
helps it succeed financially where other routes failed. Per passenger per mile, Amtrak makes eight
cents of profit on the northeast regional, the low speed train, and 29 cents per passenger
mile on the Acela Express, the high-speed train. These profitable routes help pay for Amtrak’s
unprofitable routes… and there are a lot of them. Some routes like the Sunset Limited between
New Orleans and Los Angeles lose as many as 21.7 cents per passenger per mile, and when
passengers can travel 2,000 miles on that route, that’s a lot of loss. As I mentioned, that $49 fare is not the average
ticket price to travel between DC and New York. The $49 fare is the price at which Amtrak
starts selling tickets, but as the date of travel nears, the price can increase to hundreds
of dollars. That might seem like price gouging, but its
actually a way to make sure everyone can afford a ticket. That’s not to say Amtrak and other train
companies are these altruistic organizations trying to bring travel to the masses—it
just makes more money. Especially with trains where it costs the
operator roughly the same to transport 5 passengers as it does to transport 500, the operator
always wants to have as many seats as possible filled, even if that means selling cheap tickets. In a perfect world for the operator, they
could ask every potential passenger what the maximum amount they’d be willing to pay
for a journey is. If they adapt the ticket price to every passengers
maximum price then they can fill each seat with passengers paying the highest possible
amount. However, in practice, nobody would ever answer
the question truthfully so it would never work. Ticketing systems, however, try to ask this
question subliminally. Going back to that route from Edinburgh to
London, the operator, Virgin Trains East Coast, sells three types of tickets—advance, off-peak,
and anytime. The advance tickets range anywhere from 30
pounds to 140 pounds, the off-peak fares cost 137 pounds, and the anytime fares cost 148.50
pounds. For the advance fares, there are a certain
unknown number of tickets at different price levels on sale and once they’re gone, they’re
gone. For example, there might be 15 tickets at
30 pounds and once they’re sold, the price would increase to 35 pounds, then 40, 45,
and so on a so forth. That encourages those who can buy early to
buy early. Normally that means tourists. Tourists tend to plan far in advance and are
more budget conscious since they’re paying their own costs. They’re also more likely to travel down
to London on the often cheaper plane since they’re less attracted by the convenience
of the train. These advance fares are only valid for the
exact route, day, and time bought which is fine for leisure travelers, but business travelers
typically want more flexibility. Buying advance fares often doesn’t work
for business travelers since their plans are only made a few weeks or days in advance and,
since they don’t personally pay for their tickets, its no problem for them to pay for
the convenience of taking the train on a flexible ticket. That’s why they often pay £148.50 for an
anytime ticket. With these, you can just hop on a train whenever—it
doesn’t matter if its in 10 minute or 10 days. You just step on the train and take a seat. The middle ground between those two is the
off-peak single which lets you take any train that arrives in London after 11:17 am or is
on the weekend. These fares are still geared towards business
travelers, but by restricting against the early morning trains they give a discount
to those who can avoid the busiest morning trains.. For each of these fares there are equivalents
in first class—the advance first fares range between 40 and 200 pounds, the off-peak fares
are 185.50 pounds, and the anytime fares are 236.50 pounds. On top of that, young, disabled, and elderly
people get up to 1/3 off their fares with a rail-card. This all means that there are essentially
12 different types of tickets for sale and that one person heading to London might be
paying 20 pounds while the person sitting right next to them is paying 200 but what
they’re really paying for is convenience. Now, back in the US, if Amtrak only operated
profitable lines, their route map would look like this, but the routes that don’t make
money are the ones that really matter. Amtrak serves over 500 destinations in 46
states—many of which are small towns with no other means of public transportation. While trains are normally the more expensive
means of transport, they are less expensive than planes to service small communities. The small airports in the rural parts of America
are extraordinarily expensive to operate. Even if there are just two or three flights
a day, they still need a runway, terminal, security, and air traffic control while a
rural train station needs barely any infrastructure or maintenance. In fact, it’s cheaper to fly from Chicago
to London ($741) than it is to fly from Havre, Montana to Chicago ($811 May 17-22) whereas
Amtrak brings passengers from Havre to Chicago for only a few hundred dollars—much more
in budget for the average resident of Havre who makes only $22,000 per year. Of course this is a political issue, but a
part of why trains are so expensive is to allow train operators to fulfill obligations
to serve small communities who need solid transport links. Research has shown that ease of access to
transport has a stronger influence on whether someone will earn more than their parents
did than the level of crime in their area or whether they grew up in a two-parent household
and so keeping trains running through rural America is incredibly important. Next time you take the train from DC to New
York, just keep in mind that that $22.86 of profit goes to making sure that someone from
Havre can get to Chicago for less than you can fly to Europe. So you see this number? That’s how much these last few seconds would
cost if I were buying footage from a traditional stock footage provider. Luckily, I get my footage from Videoblocks
where with their membership you can use as many of the 115,000 clips in their unlimited
library as you want. Since I started Wendover Productions, I’ve
used 686 clips from videoblocks—almost every piece of footage you see in my videos is from
them—and that means that I’ve saved $54,194 with my Videoblocks subscription. Without Videoblocks, there’s no way that
my videos would look as professional—I simply would not be able to afford it—and whether
you already have a youtube channel or plan to start one, Videoblocks will do amazing
things for your production value. I can honestly say that it’s one of the
best purchases I’ve ever made and I’ve used Videoblocks since day one. You can try out Videoblocks exclusively for
seven days with the link videoblocks.com/future—that is not a publicly available trial—so please
go try them out. Not only is that a great way to help Wendover
Productions make more videos, you’ll also get a chance to use what is truly an amazing
service. You can also support Wendover Productions
on Patreon here, follow me on Twitter @WendoverPro, watch my last video here, check out my fan-moderated
subreddit here, and lastly subscribe to this channel by clicking here. Thanks again for watching and I’ll see you
in two weeks for another Wendover Productions video.

Rebranding White Nationalism: Inside Richard Spencer’s Alt-Right


Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory! Our lived experience is being a young white
person in 21st century America. Seeing your identity be demeaned. I’ve lived in this multicultural mess my
entire life, and I’m trying to get out of it. I hope you’re feeling alright, I know it is
early on a Saturday. I’ve just had a headache for a week. I don’t think it’s from having too much to
drink last night, it’s just the winning. It’s too much winning. We’ve crossed a Rubicon in terms of recognition. We aren’t quite the establishment, but let’s
start acting like it. We’re trying to break through the largest
taboo of our times: identity for people of European heritage. We need to make it permissible to think as
we want, and to not have double-standards and racial discrimination institutionally
against white people for example. This needs to go. Racist has basically come to mean anything
to the right of Karl Marx. Anyone who sort of cares for their people
or is not self-hating, self-abasing and thinks white people need to be exterminated. No Donald Trump, no KKK, no fascist USA! Who is meeting here? National Policy Institute. What is that? It sounds vague, right? It sounds boring. It could be anything. Well, that’s their plan. Everyone knows what the American Nazi party
is. Everyone knows what the Ku Klux Klan is. But National Policy Institute? It sounds like some boring office around here
somewhere. Actually, they are white nationalists. The alt-right, they take sometimes very direct
inspiration from the hate groups of old. This sub-culture has grown in message boards
specifically like 4chan and reddit. A younger generation of mostly white males
reinforce each others’ notions based upon a white identity politics, as well as an overall
reaction to what they call political correctness. They are trying to recruit youth for the long haul. Hello? Gotta run, bye. Uh, yeah. Everyone just wants a piece. Before the Trump campaign, I would get a media
request maybe every quarter or so. At this point, I get a media request effectively
every day. One philosophy is, “Oh, these guys hate you. They’re a bunch of shitlibs,” or whatever. My philosophy is, effectively, that there
is no such thing as bad publicity. I just want to go down a list of things, and
you tell me if they are okay or not okay: Graffiti that says “Make America White Again.” Look, graffiti is illegal. The slogan, Make American White Again. I don’t have a huge problem with that, people
are just expressing their opinion. The alt-right has existed long before Trump. We were doing a lot of thinking, but no one
was really paying attention. Maybe if you were less charitable you would
say we were engaging in intellectual masturbation. Trump definitely energized the alt-right. He was elected because of the immigration
issue, which is fundamentally an identity and race issue, let’s be honest. Because we have this connection with them,
we can inflect his policies. We are trying to change the world, and we’re
going to do that by changing consciousness and by changing how people see the world and
how they see themselves. It’s my great pleasure to welcome Millennial
Woes. Millennial Woes is just the kind of person
we want in the alt-right. Millennial Woes, you could kind of say that
about me too, we’re kind of the hipster whisperers. And so it’s my pleasure to welcome Millennial
Woes to NPI. I went to art college in London, coming from Edinburgh, in Scotland. Edinburgh was virtually 100% white. The halls of residence was extremely multi-racial
and multi-cultural, and I find that very dizzying and horrible. I didn’t like it. Two or three years ago, I finally came to
understand what is called the Jewish Question. That there are problems with the Jewish people. And that was difficult because I didn’t really
want to become an anti-Semite. The biggest right-wing cliche. I started my YouTube channel at the very start
of 2014. I was on welfare, I was very depressed, and
so on. I had a lot of questions about the world. I thought I would make 15 or 20 videos, no
one would watch them, and I would just stay on the dole forever, on welfare, being miserable. That’s what I thought. But, as it happened, it took off. By the standards of the alt-right, I would
say that it’s the biggest channel in Europe. Women shouldn’t have the vote, because if
you do give them the vote, they will mess up your psychological defenses and your legal
systems, your protocols, your culture, and make it vulnerable. Hi, I’m Adele Stan, with the American Prospect,
and I’m curious what you would like to see Trump do, first thing, right off, as soon
as he takes office. I guess I don’t need to answer that. I wanted to be a theater director, I wanted
to do all this avant-garde stuff. And that’s how I thought of myself. Experiencing the 9/11 era, I became very skeptical
of that whole flag-waving period, let’s all hold hands and get low-interest mortgages
and go shopping on credit card debt to save America. I knew that we had to get away from the conservative
movement. By mid-2008, I was using this term alternative-right,
or alt-right. And in 2010, I founded alternativeright.com,
and I think I was more or less there. These are typical diversity images, I don’t
think these will be surprising to anyone. Essentially, diversity is going to be wonderful, it helps whites. You can have new friends. I also have big dreams. Reviving the Roman Empire, it would be an
empire that would be welcome to Italians, to Scots, to Russians, to white Americans,
to Finns, etc. To have a safe space for all Europeans around
the world. Yes, I actually have faced discrimination. I remember being at an all black community
in Louisiana one time, and I went to a McDonalds and ordered a coffee, and I was waiting for
10 minutes, no coffee. Well, multiple people came in, black and hispanic,
they would order coffee and get coffee, and I was like, “Whoa. This is what it feels like.” I’m not claiming that I am victim, I found
that kind of amusing, to be honest. These people have drawn blood from this man’s
face. These scum. To be white is to be a striver. A crusader. An explorer and a conqueror. We don’t exploit other groups. They need us and not the other way around. For us, as Europeans, it is only normal again
when we are great again. Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory! I don’t see myself as a marginal figure who
is going to be hated by society. I see myself as a mainstream figure. If you greeted someone in 1985 and said, “Oh,
all gays should marry,” you’d probably get you’d probably get a lot of laughs. Maybe in 10 years from there, you’d get fewer
laughs and maybe even a couple supporters. By 2015, gay marriage is popular. What is possible has shifted. That’s what the alt-right is doing. It’s thinking those political ideas that aren’t
possible yet, and imagining a reality in which they are.