-
Unknown A
Every day that we do not have a mea culpa from Cenk Uygur is a disgrace. It is completely disqualifying to have Cenk in any position of respectability of influence in the Democratic Party. Until and unless there is a complete disavowal of his former beliefs and optimism, I will continue to bring attention to this matter. Why? Who cares about tyt? I care about tyt. This is why. It is a great contrast between weak Democrats and strong Democrats, Capitol capitulators and base Democrats. Tyt, which is supposed to be strong opposition truth tellers, are servile to the MAGA framing and MAGA narrative. Hey folks, please like comment and subscribe. It really helps out the channel. And to sign up for our anti oligarch Pro Republic newsletter, subscribe to the Weekly Patriot in the Description okay folks, so we've seen the Trump administration now in action for weeks since the inauguration, taking all sorts of measures which in my mind have been completely corrosive of our system of government, of liberal principles, and really of the rule of law in general.
-
Unknown A
Completely in line, by the way, with Project 2025 goals, with what was predicted by many left wing commentators, supporters of Kamala Harris and Joe Biden. Essentially the people who have been doom saying about the potential ramifications of a second Trump term have been vindicated every step of the way by the recent decisions by the Trump administration. And I want to bring my audience and recall them to a certain group of left wing commentators under the brand name of TYT who had a kind of a different approach in the wake of the 2024 election and frankly before it as well. If you recall, Cenk Uygur, while initially supporting Kamala Harris and advocating for her to be elected after the election, signaled something different, signaled optimism. And here I'm not misquoting him. He said that he was more optimistic than ever when Trump won the election, even though he supported Kamala Harris.
-
Unknown A
Curious, right? He said he was more optimistic than ever because his mortal enemy had been defeated. His mortal enemy, that is to say, Kamala Harris and the mainstream media in his mind, had been defeated. You should question the premise of that statement. First and foremost, the notion that mainstream media had been defeated. When the most mainstream media media organization right in the United States is Fox News. And they certainly supported Trump. When you think about talk radio and local news, they all supported Trump. When you think now about the in general conservative media, which some of it's new, but a lot of it has these kind of old actors, the Blaze TV types The Charlie Kirk's of the world, they all supported Trump. And so I'm actually not sure what the category of mainstream media encompasses in Jenkins mine, other than I guess cnn, which has been a lot more ambivalent these days.
-
Unknown A
MSNBC and, and I suppose what else would they consider mainstream news? Abc. But in general, the thesis was that they were defeated. And so what were the political enemies of? Of Jank Uygur? They're his mortal enemies. Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi as mortal enemies. Now, now notice when you use the term mortal enemy and contrast it with someone who's not your mortal enemy, the obvious and clear implication for anyone who speaks English is that one enemy is worse than the other, right? If your mortal enemy has been defeated and you are now optimistic, the obvious implication, an implication that by the way could be rebutted with a direct statement after the fact, is that in retrospect, not prospectively so, I don't want to hear about Cenk Uygur's support during the campaign, but in retrospect, one person was a better outcome than the other. That is to say Trump, who is not your mortal enemy, was the better option than Kamala Harris.
-
Unknown A
There is no better way to read that statement. And if it should not be read that way, there should be a clear statement contradicting that interpretation after the fact. But you haven't seen that clear statement after the fact. You have not seen a set of tweets that put into context and that assure the American people, no, no, Trump is the greater evil than Kamala Harris. Trump media is a bigger enemy than quote, unquote, mainstream media as defined cnn, msnbc. When I say mainstream media, I mean this. That has not been the tack taken by Cenk Uygur or tyt. Their approach has been to double down and to go on an apology tour or a Hopium tour or optimism tour expounding on the potential benefits of a Trump administration. The title of the stream is TYT is MAGA News. How can I say that? I say that because they have been saying, washing and promoting the potential of the Trump administration, despite the obvious and now evident corruption, malfeasance and danger that a Trump administration would pose, is posing and will continue to pose to the American people.
-
Unknown A
So that's why they're MAGA News. They're giving you a framing that is pro maga, that is basically up playing opposite of downplaying the benefits of the Trump regime. And the key to the thesis that Cenk has been providing everyone is the following, that okay, you can't rely on any Republican politician. So already, you know, where's the optimism if you can't rely on any Republican politician and you can't even rely on Trump himself, because Trump himself is really just a version, a fake populist in Cheng's mind, a fake populist who is just as bought as these other Republicans. He just has this kind of more charismatic nature about him. So you can't trust the Republican politicians, you can't trust the Republican pundits, you can't trust Trump himself. But the people that you can trust are the MAGA populist base, the new base that he has to present.
-
Unknown A
He has to say the base is different than it was in 2020 and 2016. Otherwise this case doesn't make sense. Of course, because Trump, we had four years of him and we didn't see this kind of situation in the first administration or in the aftermath where there's kind of push towards greater populist policies. Now what are some of these populist policies? Cutting defense spending. Big one. Greater promotion of Palestinian interests is another explicit one, less war. And the protection of key pro consumer, pro worker populist agenda items that protect both right wing populists and left wing populists. Those are some of the key things that Cenk, Uygur and Tyt say. This is where the right wing populist base will step up because they don't agree. So says Cenk, with Wall street speculation, Wall street greed, they don't agree with defense contractors and foreign involvement. They don't agree with the kind of pro Israel stance at the Republican Party to a man has taken or that indeed Trump has positioned himself as the more pro Israeli candidate.
-
Unknown A
And they're going to rise up. And Trump, because he looks to his base, he listens to the base. And so even though I don't trust Trump, so says Cenk, I am optimistic about a future where Trump can actually get us some major policy wins. An assumption you immediately have to critique is the notion that this is a different base than what we saw in 2016 and 2020 in electoral terms. There might be some truth to that in the notion that like okay, the people like Dave Portnoy, Joe Rogans, these are the type of people, influencers that are here that weren't there before. And I'm not going to deny that. What I deny is that they're part of the tail that's wagging the dog. To the extent that there are new members of the MAGA base or coalition, they are disaffected or they are low information.
-
Unknown A
That's not a slight on them, it's just a accurate characterization. They're not as plugged in. They're not reading line items on the budget. They're not keeping a closer eye on this than they are, you know, whatever gambling sponsor they have, if they're an influencer or on their day to day egg price situation. Right. You would think they are primarily voters who are apathetic in the day to day political environment. They probably have not even heard certain things that are happening in Israel, Palestine or certain things that are happening in foreign conflicts or indeed about the internal political struggle at the Office of Management and Budget or the opm, these kinds of agencies. How many of these individuals know? So the MAGA base, to the extent that it's new, isn't comprised of ideologues. It's comprised of swing voters, low information voters. An influencer class that is disaffected, unaffected or not interested in the meat and potatoes of politics.
-
Unknown A
The MAGA true MAGA base is the same as it ever was. Evangelicals and Republicans and members of the Trump cult. That's the first assumption. The second assumption is that Trump is looking to the MAGA base for his cues. Now he's a savvy guy sometimes he'll, he'll, you know, take a look at them for his own ends. But he is the one who's marching and influencing the base. He is able to get from them loyalty on policy items that they never even considered. In fact, that's part of what people say is Trump's genius, is that he's able to move so many people on items that no one ever considered to be important. He'll often say no one even thought about it. No one was even thinking about it before I thought about it. And to a certain extent that's true. It is true that who was talking about taking over Greenland in the public sphere now there were, you know, academic papers, there are some people talking about it in the wonk discussion.
-
Unknown A
But in terms of mainstream politics, Trump has been a leader there. He's actually influenced people to take his position and take it more strongly where before they didn't maybe even care about it. Same thing with, on a lot of these other, like renaming the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. Some of these tariff policies, some, yeah, I get it. Some tariffs have been. People have opposed them for years and that's part of why he won originally. But the kinds of tariffs that he's proposing, he's brought people on board on them ideologically, even when it's not in the interest of the specific voter that's doing it. Similar thing with a lot of these actions related to, related to funding and spending, where he's moved people, he's convinced people, people care about what Trump thinks. So the directionality is much more skewed in favor of the base taking the direction from the leader as opposed from the leader taking direction from the base.
-
Unknown A
That's another problem with the directionality. So theoretically, prospectively, there were already issues, as I saw them structurally, with the prediction that he was going to make, especially because talk is cheap and we saw the first four years of Trump and what they entailed. And so actions speak louder than words. To what extent was Trump being pro populist in the first term? That's why he has to invent this story about how the base is different. Cheng did. But now we have damning evidence that no right wing populist base, as Cenk defined it, uprising is coming. Let me list out some of the actions we have taken or that have been taken by the Trump administration and you tell me if there has even been an inkling of a right wing populist uprising challenging Trump. Let's start first in terms of international politics. What do we have here?
-
Unknown A
We have a proposal from Cenk, from, sorry, from Trump to annex Gaza for the United States. Now, you could say that's all posturing positioning, but the Israelis have taken that as a signal that it's a fait accompli. We're going to go into Gaza, do whatever we want with it, or we have the sign off from the boss to do so. He has signaled willingness to accept greater incursions by Israel into the West Bank. Tanks are now rolling into the West Bank. Have you seen any concerted opposition to Trump on these issues other than like from the gripers or like people like Dave Smith who don't matter and for whom, you know, his support of Trump is already over determined. He's not going to repudiate Trump for that stuff. There'll be some grumble, grumble, grumble. But there has not been a concerted effort to truly pressure Trump.
-
Unknown A
By who? By his base who is reveling and saying at every opportunity, Trump is doing exactly what we're asking him to do. Yes, we priced this in. We already knew it. There is no tangible response that has stymied Trump's international policy. And where it's not Israel, where it's places like Greenland and these other areas, they all support increased pressure on our allies and these kinds of messaging on territorial expansion. So there's not been a response there from the right wing populist space. We have now evidence that Trump is gutting or attempting to gut key protections in terms of the populist agency model. Right, the cfpb, the nlrb, the FTC agencies and programs that are designed to protect workers, consumers, to investigate corruption on Wall street and by speculators. Trump has ordered his Department of Justice to stop enforcing the fcpa, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
-
Unknown A
That's bribery abroad. So the signals have been strongly that Trump is going to increase the amount of corruption and stop enforcing regulations, protective measures in favor of the people, of the workers, of the common citizens, in favor of the oligarch buddies, the oligarch buddies that he's installed in key roles across the administration. He's on the horn today, or I should say he's talking to reporters saying there are some really good Russian oligarchs. There's some good Russian oligarchs that I like. It's not a joke. He's willing to sell green card status for $5 million to oligarchs explicitly. So where's the uprising on that? That's an issue that involves immigration in some sense. That's supposed to be an animated issue for the right wing populist space. Have you heard a word of criticism today about that from the right wing populist space or a concerted effort to pressure him in any way?
-
Unknown A
None. Certainly not for the cfpb. They think the CFPB is corrupt. They think the CFPB is unduly restricting the free market. They buy into this propaganda. They think that the NLRB under Biden is like, I don't know, a communist tool. They don't give a shit or they're just not tuned into that stuff. So in terms of the domestic protective side of these agencies, they want to destroy these agencies. There's been no uprising. And now let's go to defense spending and then we'll go to the one I wanted to go to. Pete Hegse said we're going to have an 8% cut across the board on defense spending. And Cenk, desperate for a win, desperate for a narrative that's going to keep alive this ultimately futile hope of his, welcomes it initially and says, wow, this is great, 8% cuts. But of course, that is just a sham to get people like him and and other either witting or unwitting stooges of the regime to signal out of both sides of their mouth.
-
Unknown A
That's Just cheap talk. The 8% cut won't happen. Or to the extent that it does happen, it'll just be moving money around to other programs within the Pentagon's overall budget, as they've already said. In fact, the Senate Republicans have agreed to, with Trump's apparent like support, he said the Senate Republicans are doing great things. $150 billion increase in the Pentagon budget. And of course they're not going to cut the military, because any good autocrat is not going to cut the military. He needs the military on his side. And so it is preposterous to think that an anti Democratic authoritarian wannabe like Donald Trump is going to cut the military. Not going to happen. Especially when you have defense contractors running his administration, people with close financial ties to the defense industry in places of authority. It's not going to happen. And they've already signaled the 8% cut is not really a cut, just moving money around.
-
Unknown A
They're going to increase military spending, that's clear. And now you have this spending situation, budget situation in the House of Representatives. Just today, the House approved the kind of framework of the new budget under Trump. And that framework includes the following big ticket items. $4.5 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years. That's a $19 trillion increase in the deficit, sorry, in the debt. And a few trillion dollars every year in the deficit. No care whatsoever, is there? What's the concerted effort, the populist effort on that front? These taxes that are going to disproportionately. Tax cuts disproportionately affect and benefit the rich corporations. Many regular Americans are going to have their tax increased, actually, by some estimates. Where's the big uprising on that? And what's one of the big ticket items they're going to cut? Medicaid. 850 or so billion dollars in Medicaid. So I just want to make sure you guys understand that that's, that's gutting Medicaid.
-
Unknown A
There does not exist that much fraud, waste or abuse, which is how they're trying to sell. That's just a lie, by the way. It's a lie. If you believe that, you'll believe anything. $850 billion or so in Medicaid. That's approximately the annual budget of the military. So think about that. Everyone talks about how big the budget of the military is. That's how much they're cutting from Medicaid. And what is Medicaid for? Medicaid is health care for, and coverage for poor people, for disabled people. It is a major source Of I think something like 20 plus percentage of individuals in this country have some connection to Medicaid. It's a massive cut for the average American in their health care access. One of the big ticket items from the Affordable Care act was the Medicaid expansion. Medicaid, which is run by the states and they're going to cut it.
-
Unknown A
Where's the populist uprising over that? They're supporting these pro oligarch, pro billionaire moves. There was an effort by Democrats to limit and say billionaires cannot receive the benefit of these tax cuts and the Republicans shot it down. Where is the ground cell of opposition? There is none because there won't be because these people support Trump. Now there will come a time, in my opinion, when the material conditions of individuals will degrade because of Medicaid will being lost potentially if it is passed, ultimately will degrade because of these different agencies being gutted and not being able to do the good work to protect the American people. But to the extent that there is a loss of support that you're already starting to see, it's not coming from the MAGA populist base. It's coming from people who are ordinary people who may have voted for Trump in the past or was giving him a second chance that are not as plugged in, that are not as tuned in.
-
Unknown A
In other words, it will not be a strictly speaking partisan or ideological opposition, but one based on material reality and the conditions on the ground or people losing their specific jobs. But the way that Cenk will characterize it is going to be that it's an ideological right wing base uprising. No, that's what I need to caution you against is the notion that Trump's loss and support is going to be associated by Cenk with I was vindicated. No, that's not what's happening here. The loss of support that Trump may face will be not an ideological one related to MAGA and him going too far against the MAGA wishes. It will be Democrats coming home, independents coming home, and independent, unaligned people, low information people realizing how much of a up Republicans are and their inability to govern. That's what's going to happen. But he's going to try to paint the narrative to say I was always right.
-
Unknown A
But I want to be clear right now from the ideologues, from ideological perspective, there has not been a right wing populist uprising. When will Tanker admit that he's wrong? I'm calling him out right now. Admit you were wrong. The major issues that you have laid out where you would see the most potential for optimism of specifically the right wing populist base. Converting Trump, Moving Trump. When is it going to happen? When can we know enough to know that it's not going to happen? When are you jankin, admit that you are completely and totally wrong and that you were told for weeks and weeks and weeks and weeks that what you were selling was copium, what you were selling was hopium. It wasn't real. It was all your vibes and intuition that were completely and categorically false. Every day that we do not have a mea culpa from Cenk Uygur is a disgrace.
-
Unknown A
It is completely disqualifying to have Cenk in any position of respectability of influence in the Democratic Party until and unless there is a complete disavowal of his former beliefs and optimism. And I will continue to bring attention to this matter. Why? Who cares about tyt? I care about tyt. This is why it is a great contrast between weak Democrats and strong Democrats, capitulators and base Democrats. Tyt, which is supposed to be strong opposition, truth tellers are servile to the MAGA framing and MAGA narrative. They're selling hopium to their audience when they should be selling resistance opposition. They should be energizing the base, not slowing them down, making them less vigorous. They should be trying to lift everyone up in the sense of strong Democrats and the people against maga. I have my own problems with Democratic leadership. A lot of us do. The polls show that Democrats are not satisfied with leadership to the extent that they were talking about their leadership in these kinds of tones, the Democratic leadership, and saying, hey, these guys don't know what they're doing.
-
Unknown A
They're not being strong enough against Trump. On that we're agreed. But that's not what they're doing. What they're trying to do is continue this fake narrative that the real villains are the Gavin Newsoms of the world, the Nancy Pelosi's of the world, and all the ineptitude on the Democrat side, that that's the ultimate evil here as opposed to the ultimate evil here. The ultimate villains are the MAGA movement. That's the problem. What's the poison? What's the metaphoric cancer? Is MAGA itself, The MAGA elites and the MAGA ideology. That's the cancer that's the problem. That's what's not right here. Not this esoteric establishment that you can't even define, not the donor class as you will define it. It's MAGA that's the problem. They're the villains. And if you accept the framing that they're not the villains, you are MAGA news. I repeat, if you cannot establish and advocate MAGA as your enemy and make the battle lines clear as day that we're here and they're there, that's the distinction that matters.
-
Unknown A
And anyone who would obscure that distinction, that clear distinction between right and wrong, Republic and autocracy, they are doing a service to maga. And as an additional point, TYT was the biggest left wing alternative news space. So of course it's relevant to say what a betrayal to say don't listen to this clown. That's the difference between them and Majority Report. There are other differences, them and Kalinske. You either get it or you don't. Recognizing this crucial distinction between MAGA and not MAGA doesn't mean we're gonna agree on everything else. But it is the key moral difference here between the media sources that I just spoken about. Until we have a complete and total disavowal by Cenk, Uygur and TYT of the previously held position related to optimism, related to the MAGA right wing populist based uprising, until that is disavowed, they should not have any influence, any position of respect in democratic party situations in the culture.
-
Unknown A
There needs to be a reckoning and a recognition by these thought leaders. Hey, we blew it. We were wrong and we wasted time being wrong and we wasted energy that we don't have right now. Being wrong and that every moment being spent on this fantasy is a distraction. Brings us to Anna Kasparian. You guys have heard of Anna Kasparian, she's the co host of tyt. Altogether different problems, which is she has lost her mind. Lost her mind. Indistinguishable from a MAGA right wing pundit. And so we're gonna take a look, get some react content on a recent video of hers attacking Emma Viglund, other left wing critics. Needless to say, Anna Kasparian did not vote for Kamala Harris. Remember that she did not vote for Kamala Harris. Every time you hear her try to criticize the regime, whenever you hear her cry over the children of Palestine when their territory starts to become taken from them, as it will increasingly become taken from them, remember who she didn't vote for when Medicaid gets cut.
-
Unknown A
Remember what she didn't do to help prevent that outcome. Doesn't matter if you think, okay, your vote is in a state like California. Not the point. She went to vote, she voted for some things, but she was unwilling to do that crucial step that everyone needed to take to prevent the worst of all possible outcomes which occurred. So now we'll take a look at this recent video of Anna Kasparian's and we'll react to it because she has lost her mind.
-
Unknown B
Last week, Emma Viglen and Sam Seder of the Majority Report thought it would be fun to put out a more than 18 minute long video chastising and mocking me for my willingness to admit that I was wrong in part for. For downplaying the possibility of Donald Trump implementing Project 2025 upon winning the election.
-
Unknown C
People have admitted that they made a mistake.
-
Unknown A
All right, back on tyt, checking out with you guys, more news.
-
Unknown B
So I just want to address something. I was wrong about Project 2025. Maga hates Project 2025. And I thought that Donald Trump actually.
-
Unknown A
Maga hates Project 2025. Imagine saying that with a straight face. Imagine saying Maga hates Project 2025. Have you talked to MAGA people? Do you think MAGA people hate Project 2025? Completely off. If you've talked to any MAGA person, you understand they love Project 2025. They love the key part of Project 2025. What is the key part of Project 2025? The centralization of executive authority. The destruction of the safeguards on our democracy. The destruction, for example, of the administrative state and the internal checks in the executive branch against tyranny. But also the checks on the other branches from the other branches of Congress. Sorry, of the government, the courts. The MAGA people are saying we should impeach the judges who are issuing these orders, staying and enjoining Trump actions. The base totally supports the unilateral exercise of authority by the executive branch to stop congressionally approved funding.
-
Unknown A
They believe this kind of doge narrative that this is all about getting waste, fraud and abuse. That's the key part of Project 2025. And they love it. They love it. The second part of what she just said. And I'll play this part again one last time and then we'll also to check the volume here.
-
Unknown B
Maga hates Project 2025. And I thought that Donald Trump actually cared about his base because in his first term he seemed to be swayed by his base.
-
Unknown A
Wow. So I just want to. I need to go full screen for this because this truly is remarkable. Did you hear that? I thought Trump cared about his base because in the first term it seemed like he cared about his base. Folks, that is the direct opposite. And I know they're different people, but I just want to make that clear. That is the direct opposite of Chank's position. You realize that, right? Jake's position is Trump did not listen to the MAGA base in the first term, that Trump was a fake populist in the first term and that we can't actually extrapolate what happened in the first term to this term because the base has changed. You guys recognize that, right? That this is a core disagreement with Cenk on the fundamentals of his optimism. On the one hand, you have Cenk saying the base has changed and so you can't extrapolate the non populist actions by Trump in the first term, which I guess now Anna is saying that he was a populist in the first term and so the new Trump is optimistic.
-
Unknown A
He's optimistic about the new Trump because he, he relied on this new part, this new base, which is different. So she is now saying that that's not the case and that she was wrong and that now he isn't listening to his face. He was in the first term, but he's not now, which is the opposite of the framing that Cenk wants to suggest. What's more is not only in retrospect is she's completely flipping Cenk's premises. She's saying in the present tense, I was wrong. Trump does not listen to his base. Also in direct conflict with Cenk's stated position, which he has not repudiated yet, which he has not made a mea culpa for yet. That in other words, at this point in time it is clear to Anna Kasparian that Cenk was wrong. You guys understand that, right? So to Anna Kasparian, who's more right wing, who didn't even vote for Kamala, who's a member of the TYT network, major member, she is now convinced Cenk was wrong because Cenk's whole position is Trump will listen to the MAGA base if he's pushed.
-
Unknown A
And what Anna is saying is Trump doesn't. It's clear Trump does not care about the Mac and base. So if it's clear to you and it's clear to me and it's clear to Anna Kasparian that Cenk is wrong about the MAGA right wing populist base, why isn't it clear to Jank himself? You guys get me there, right? So when even your I would. I'm very close to saying that your almost MAGA co host is telling you, hey, he clearly doesn't care about his base. Don't you think that's an interesting moment to take an introspection and say, huh, maybe I was wrong. When are we going to get the mea culpa from Tank?
-
Unknown C
Actually, Maga hates Project 2025.
-
Unknown B
Where's the evidence of that?
-
Unknown A
What, completely accurate.
-
Unknown C
Like, what is, what is this MAGA that they speak of?
-
Unknown B
You know what? Sam is totally right. It is he who understands the MAGA base better than anyone else.
-
Unknown A
I mean, so, nice argument, Anna. You're just gonna be snide and sarcastic and say, oh, he's saying he understands. He's the MAGA whisperer, by the way. Like you apparently are trying to take the crown for and saying that you understand MAGA when you have no clue. When you say something as stupid as they don't support Project 2025. So what's your argument?
-
Unknown B
In fact, the guy goes out of his way to engage in dialogue with Trump voters. He seeks to understand where their hearts and minds are at.
-
Unknown A
He went on Tim Pool, you know, if searching to where their hearts and minds are means going on other shows, right wing shows, he did it. You went on Glenn Beck and basically glazed him. So to what extent are you more get into the hearts and minds of MAGA people than Sam Cedar, except to the extent that you're pandering to them?
-
Unknown B
Here he is touting his openness to understanding people who vote differently than he does.
-
Unknown A
Also, he didn't say that. What he said was, they support, you know, where are you getting this idea that they don't support Project 2025? In a way, it's an internal critique. He's not saying that I have the special sauce. He's saying, where are you getting this idea that they don't support Project 2025? And the response is, oh, he thinks he's the whisperer of maga. No, the question is, where do you get this idea, which I think is delusional, that the MAGA base Doesn't support Project 2025?
-
Unknown C
We can't take the power back without talking to Trump voters and making them realize their mistake.
-
Unknown A
Well, wait, so let's pander to them first.
-
Unknown C
Pick your battles. Doesn't have anything to do with talking to Trump voters.
-
Unknown A
Yeah. Or not flattering.
-
Unknown C
You just decided to make some weird connection there. We can't take the power back without talking to Trump voters and making them realize their mistake. Actually, no, we can't. There's millions and millions of other people who need to be motivated to get into the fight that I am coming from the polymarket studio, insulting them and lumping them all together as the worst among them doesn't help either. I don't know when we have done that with all 78 million people, but, oh, I got news for you. The percentage of those who voted for Mitt Romney, they also, they can suck. My. I don't care about any of that. Like, I don't care about any of that.
-
Unknown A
So in that clip, where is Sam suggesting that he knows better than everybody on how to reach MAGA folks? What he's clearly saying is that convincing MAGA voters or Trump voters isn't necessary to win an election. And what he's saying is not absurd. Let me say it one more time. What he's saying is not absurd. That Democrats could spend a lot less on as opposed to convincing Trump supporters, convincing people who didn't vote. Now, I happen to think that there's also a convincing problem the Democrats have. But it's not an absurd thing to say that we don't have to convince all Trump supporters. That's not an absurd thing to say. In fact, with respect to canvassing, the traditional canvassing efforts, my understanding is that you don't go looking for people to convince on the other side. It's to get your people to come out or people who are kind of like middle.
-
Unknown A
And so that is not, to me, an absurd conclusion. And it's not him trying to claim greater knowledge of how to talk to MAGA or what their beliefs are. And it's not in contradiction with what he said in the first clip. And so they're just like basic errors here. And it betrays a poverty of thinking that has characterized Anna's entire career.
-
Unknown B
Astute analysis. There you have it.
-
Unknown A
Astute. Why don't you tell us what's wrong with the analysis when he says, I don't really care to convince all these people. I think our efforts are best used elsewhere. You say astute analysis. What's wrong with that analysis?
-
Unknown B
Actually, Sam Seder, noted expert on Trump.
-
Unknown A
Voters, who he could be an expert on Trump. There's no contradiction in being an expert on Trump voters and not feeling the need to convince them. What's the contradiction there? You just invented this whole line of argumentation that he never made.
-
Unknown B
He won't talk to and has no interest in understanding. Got it. But it's worth asking why Trump would repeatedly deny supporting project 2020.
-
Unknown A
So there's nothing else on that. Right. So my defense for Project 2025 not being supported by MAGA folks is that you said that we don't need to convince MAGA folks. What is the connection between those two concepts that Sam wants. First of all, even if it's true that Sam's a huge hypocrite and Sam doesn't know how to talk to MAGA folks, all that is doing is saying that Sam is not credible. How is that supporting your position that the Trump loyal faithful MAGA base don't support Project 2025? It's just completely disconnected. Unless you want to make that connection more obvious. You disagree with Anna's statement, but then you also reference it as a reason Chang should admit he's wrong. Isn't that contradicting? If Anna's wrong, then that would actually support Cenk's stance. I disagree with the notion that the base has changed and I also disagree with the notion that Trump was pro populist in his first term because I think that the base has stayed the same and they've not been pro populist and Trump wasn't listening to the base, the base was listening to Trump.
-
Unknown A
So I disagree with both of them. But I still think that it's a basis for Chink to re examine his own priors and to note that they're inconsistent with each other. Hope that makes sense. Alexa. So just to be clear, I'll just repeat it one more time. Alexa. I disagree with Anna's statement because Anna implies that the directionality is Trump is listening to the base. I think the directionality is flipped at the the base is listening to Trump. And also I disagree with the characterization of the base as being this kind of pro worker, pro populists kind of base as opposed to just pro Trump base. So there are two aspects of Anna's statement I disagree with. And then I also disagree with Cenk in the notion that he thinks that the base has significantly changed and the notion again repeated that Trump is in any way beholden to the base as opposed to the other way around.
-
Unknown A
So I hope that that clarifies but it still should be a signal for Chang that hey, maybe the Trump not listening to what you think the base is saying is clear to Anna and therefore should be clear to you. And there to be clear, there are some people in the MAGA base who are grumble, grumble, grumble, grumble about Israel or about some this thing or the other. It's just not like any significant concerted effort, it would never affect how they're going to vote.
-
Unknown B
So it's worth asking why Trump would repeatedly deny supporting Project 2025 on the campaign trail.
-
Unknown A
Because he's a liar. Like imagine saying that, right? Why would Trump say something like, totally inconsistent with what he's doing. Imagine in present year being someone in the media saying, huh? Why would Trump disavow something that he actually, like, totally supports? Can you guys just, like, take a second and just be, like, in awe of how someone can, even with a straight face, go in front of a camera and say, why would Trump downplay project 2025? Maybe because Trump isn't trying to appeal to his base. Maybe because his base is already bought in. Maybe because. And just stick with me here. Trump is trying not to scare moderate independent voters. Oh, you guys get me, right? So I think the style of argument that we're about to get is, if it were popular among the bag of base, why would Trump feel the need to disavow it?
-
Unknown A
Maybe because Trump doesn't need to appeal to his base because they're his base. Like, do you get that maybe the base is the base and maybe Trump's grip on the base, the historically powerful grip on the base, isn't his primary concern in an election where the moderate, independent, less connected voter presidential election is what needs to move the needle. And you've already priced in that you're going to get your base. And that Trump has never lost his base. In fact, among Republicans, his approval rating has been like 91%. So you're cooked, Anna. You're completely cooked. The fact that he is disavowing Project 2025 without fear of reprisal, reprisal from the conservative base should tell you something that they're bought in.
-
Unknown B
Was it to appeal to libs like Sam Cedar? Or maybe it's because he knew his base doesn't support large swaths of the policy agenda laid out in the project's 900 page document.
-
Unknown A
Bro, imagine that were your conclusion. Imagine your conclusion was, oh, he's disavowing project 2025 because his base would be upset, as opposed to maybe I don't want to make abortion the issue of the campaign to scare off independents, Independents and moderates and people that he can sway who aren't already gonna vote for him. Imagine thinking that the only option is he's trying to appeal to libs or his own base. No, they don't. They know that he's not gonna get libs and they know they're going to get their base. There's this other group of people that they want to get. So how can you be this deluded and think that, yeah, he's really going after his own base that he already has. That's her argument for why they don't like Project 2025? Because obviously anything Trump would say is to not alienate his own base. You're just, there's a circularity there.
-
Unknown A
Why is it that he, like, why is that your conclusion? So your proof for why he's not trying to pander or, sorry, that he is trying to pander to his base is the fact that he did something.
-
Unknown B
So to say that Trump is implementing Project 2025 isn't even fully accurate because, well, there's a lot that he doesn't agree with that's in that doc.
-
Unknown A
So are you walking back when you said Trump has no intention of implementing Project 2025, or when you repudiated that and said you were wrong, Are you walking back that you were wrong? Because here what you're saying is like, you're not exactly wrong, but you pretty unequivocally said you were wrong. So now you're questioning the fact that whether or not he's trying to implement Project 2025. And to be clear, the key component of Project 2025 is the breaking down of the checks on the executive. That is the scariest part of Project 2025. That is the Republic ruining facet of Project 2025. There are other conservative principles in there that obviously matter. But the radical, the incredibly radical position that everyone was talking about, in addition to some of the policy stuff, was the breakdown of the internal checks on executive and the external checks on the executive.
-
Unknown A
And so now you're kind of diluting your own walk back and saying, maybe he's not implementing Project 2025. Who knows? It's kind of ambiguous. And so now you're kind of walking.
-
Unknown B
Back your walk back and said that he won't actually pursue after getting elected. He said these things.
-
Unknown A
Yeah. You're still going on with his word too. Like, like. And she thinks this is a good point. We're just going off of Trump's promises and his statements that are often in contradiction with each other. That's her evidence for why it's clear that he's not implementing Project 2025, why the base doesn't like it sitting there like a idiot looking at the camera.
-
Unknown B
For example, Project 2025 wants to eliminate every single tax bracket and replace it with just two brackets.
-
Unknown A
Bro. Trump literally said, right. If we're going to all just office statements. Trump literally said we want to get rid of the income tax. Do you guys remember this? So if we're just going off Trump's statements, Trump is literally talking about getting rid of income tax.
-
Unknown B
15 for anyone making under $168,000 annually and 30% for those earning more than that. If this is the first time you're hearing about it, it's because Trump hasn't mentioned it and isn't likely to pursue it. And are we going to pretend like Trump read a 900 page document?
-
Unknown A
Bro? Whether Trump read the document or not isn't the argument. The question is, will the MAGA base support or hate Project 2025? If anything, the notion that Trump hasn't read Project 2025, that agenda, maybe you can say, all right, the pro, the. The base doesn't know Project 2025. Like the fact that she's even saying, did you even hear about this? Did you even know about this? Probably not, right? The fact that she's saying that, like this is an esoteric thing that no one's read, then how can you say that the MAGA base hates Project 2025? Right? If your position is no one's really read it, it's kind of this thing that, you know someone is being implemented, someone is not being implemented, then your position can't be that the Maga base hates Project 25. It would be that they haven't read it or it's not widely known, or it's kind of ambivalent.
-
Unknown A
You guys feel me. You get me, right? How can you say they hate it? If really what you're indicating and signaling is that there's not a deep comprehension of many of these policies. And again, completely ignoring the fact that the key central pillar of Project 2025 is this executive branch consolidation. So it just makes no sense, really.
-
Unknown B
He does, however, plan to extend his 2017 tax cuts for individual filers. Trump also wants to lower the corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%, which I've spoken out against.
-
Unknown A
Okay. And she clearly doesn't have the, in my opinion, the bandwidth to keep track of the argument. The argument isn't that you're in favor of Project 2025. Me thinks the lady doth protest too much. The argument, Anna, isn't that you're in support or against any particular policy of Project 2025. I know that you're now aligning yourself with a lot of things of the MAGA base, but that's not the accusation. The accusation is the MAGA base is in support or not in support of some of these policies. And so you saying that you've spoken out against this unless you're indicating that you're part of the MAGA base, which you know, time will tell. I suppose not Exactly.
-
Unknown B
Responsive Project 2025 also proposes cuts to Medicaid. What does Trump have to say about that?
-
Unknown A
Social bro. She's not going to argue, right, that Trump is against cuts to Medicaid when he's literally on the phone today pressuring Representative Sparks to sign and pass on. Sorry to vote for. She's one of the holdouts. The House budget framework that cuts 800 plus billion dollars for Medicaid. And she's going to point to the Sean Hannity interview and say he's not going to cut Medicaid. They just passed the framework resolution and Trump was instrumental in getting that across the finishing line and pressuring congresspeople. And it's just an astounding stupidity, an astounding ignorance. You see why I call it MAGA news. You see why you must understand. $800 billion billion dollars. That's a million billion.
-
Unknown C
Social Security won't be touched. Other than this fraud or something we're going to find it's going to be strengthened but won't be touched. Medicare, Medicaid, none of that stuff is going to be touched.
-
Unknown B
Nothing.
-
Unknown C
Have to. Now if there are illegal migrants in the system, we're going to get them out of the system and all of that fraud, but it's not going to be touched.
-
Unknown A
Oh my God.
-
Unknown B
Meanwhile, look, touching Medicare or Medicaid, super unpopular. And maybe Trump is just saying that publicly while behind closed doors he's telling Republicans who are currently working on a budget that they should totally slash Medicaid.
-
Unknown A
That's exactly what they turned out.
-
Unknown B
No, wrong. That's not what's happening. That is exactly what previously weighed in privately against cutting too heavily into Medicaid, telling House Republicans at a closed door meeting earlier this month that he wants to be very careful with Medicaid. His public remarks on Hannity represented a broader and more forceful assertion of that red line. Nonetheless, Trump's Agenda and Project 2025 do have a great deal of overlap, especially in regard to the dismantling so far.
-
Unknown A
Right of the things that were Trump. Remember, this is about the MAGA base, not necessarily even just about Trump. But so far the instances in which Trump has gone away from Project 2025 are, you know, tax specific, like percentages of taxes, which again, he's in favor of major tax overhaul which would be in line with a broader Heritage foundation, you know, tax benefits going up to the rich people. That's obviously like in line. He's also like in favor of now or stated. If we're going by his words, we should get rid of the income tax. Okay, so not really that different. He's making it more beneficial for the rich and aligning with less taxes. And the other one is he's more in favor of Medicaid. He's not going to allow for Medicaid cuts when that's literally what he just did behind closed doors, literally pressuring specific representatives to pass the budget measure that would introduce the largest cut to Medicaid that we've ever seen.
-
Unknown A
In fact, so large. So large that it's like, close in scale, if not, you know, within some billions of dollars of the military budget annually. That's exactly what just happened. Those are the two instances that she's pointed to of Trump not being aligned with Project 2025, where he's arguably going further than Project 2025 on the tax cuts and where he's absolutely targeting Medicaid. And in fact, his, his dog, Elon Musk is also targeting Social Security. And just wait for that thing of.
-
Unknown B
The administrative state, which his base actually does like.
-
Unknown A
But how his base likes Medicaid.
-
Unknown B
Anyone be in favor of scaling.
-
Unknown A
What's your evidence that the base likes Medicaid? The base consistently votes for people who want to gut Medicaid. The bases are the Republicans. What the is wrong with you? Republicans consistently vote for douchebags that want to cut what they've termed entitlements. And you're sitting here on your network arguing that the MAGA base, which are Republicans and which vote for Republicans, don't support cuts to Medicaid. Have you lost your mind back on.
-
Unknown B
Government agencies that are full to the brim with unelected career bureaucrats who get to create, judge and enforce their own policies and rules. How could this be?
-
Unknown A
So now you're just justifying Project 2025, you're saying, yeah, they're. They are in favor of the centralization of power and the cutting back of the administrative state, specifically, for good reasons. That's what you're saying right now, and I'm sure you're about to show us some clips of why it's a good idea what DOGE and these other entities are doing with respect to illegally, unconstitutionally attacking the agency. So now you're not even arguing the point. You're just saying it's a good idea to do some of the stuff that DOGE and these other, you know, institutions are doing. You're not even addressing Sam's notion that there, that he was, you know, bewildered as I am at your contention the MAGA base hates Project 2025. Now you're just saying they're right to support some aspects of Project 2025. And let me give you some examples. You see, when I say she does not have the bandwidth, she does not have the chops, the skill necessary to even keep a coherent thought in her mind for longer than a minute.
-
Unknown B
A scathing review of the CDC finding the agency repeatedly botched its pandemic response and failed to meet the mom crisis. The cdc long under fire for its.
-
Unknown A
Guidance on masking and vaccines over the last two years. It's just really confusing. There are more than 10,000 chemicals and additives allowed in food in the U.S. often in small amounts, but many have not been evaluated by the FDA in decades. The majority are safe, but some chemicals allowed here have been banned overseas after research has linked them to cancer and developmental or behavioral issues. Is the food industry basically policing itself?
-
Unknown B
I would say yes.
-
Unknown D
45% of the FDA's overall budget now comes from the companies it's reviewing. And 65% of the FDA's budget specifically for human drug regulation comes directly from Big Pharma itself. The historic $2 billion payout by the U.S. department of Agriculture to black farmers and other farmers of color who experience discrimination when applying to the US Farm loan programs.
-
Unknown A
The lender who was a federal employee who was employed by government spat on me. I was called the N word from the same official. So I do a lot of work surrounding environmental justice issues here locally as far as activism goes. And I've done research fellow at the local epa. The admin at a time when I was a research fellow were primarily comprised of people who are affiliated or directly coming from the Department of Defense. And they put in a lot of restrictions as to like what the researchers get to which PFAS compound the researchers get to study.
-
Unknown C
Right.
-
Unknown B
Is the EPA turning a blind eye to these dangerous forever chemicals and why?
-
Unknown A
Unfortunately, the EPA is not turning off the tap of these chemicals from the polluters. The polluters who knew they were poisoning their workers in the 60s and their neighbors in the 70s and ultimately all of us. And their continuing to allow these polluters to send their PFAS wastes not only into our rivers but to our wastewater treatment plants where then they are then sold to farmers who unknowingly contaminate their fields.
-
Unknown B
Whoopsies.
-
Unknown A
Imagine. I just wanted to put you in the headspace right now, Vanica Sparing. Imagine walking through those clips of clear instances where more regulation is needed to solve externalities, to solve collective action problems. Capture of agencies corruption, potentially Some insider dealing with some of the agencies where basically the problem is under enforcement or lack of enforcement in some of these areas. Imagine pointing to a bunch of compilations and examples of that and concluding that, huh, maybe Project 2025 has a point, that we should get rid of all these agencies and make them all politicized and open them up to, you know, influenced by all of the billionaire oligarchs that we're going to install in these positions of authority that are even more conflicted in the various industries that they occupy. Imagine looking at all those instances of lack of regulation, lack of transparency, lack of oversight, lack of checks, and saying, huh, maybe the people that want to gut these agencies fire everyone that's in there.
-
Unknown A
Maybe they have a point and we should be doing that even more. Imagine, you know, the government that is currently like firing everybody in these various agencies where they're talking about, you know, getting rid of all the independent oversight, all the inspectors general, where there's obvious conflicts of interest in many of these different areas, to say nothing of Elon Musk with the FAA and other agencies that are literally overseeing him. Imagine you watch that entire compilation and your conclusion is, huh, don't these MAGA base people have a point that they want to get rid of this whole thing? And she's smug about it when that entire compilation devastates her own argument. Her own argument, I guess that Project 2025 has some really great ideas that the MAGA base should be in line with when she started this by saying the back of base hates Project 2025.
-
Unknown A
So which is it? Do they love it? Do they hate it? Do they love some of it and hate other parts of it? If they love some of it and hate other parts of it, it sounds like a little bit more nuanced than your contention that they hate project 2025. Sounds like you needed to do a longer distillation of maybe some parts they disagree, some parts they like. And by the way, it's all been bullshit. They despise Medicaid. They think that people on Medicaid are lazy. That's why they want to cut it. That's why they vote for politicians who want to cut Medicaid, okay? And they also support lower taxes. Absolutely preposterous thing to present to your audience as a point in an argument where you were trying to show the opposite, that the base hates Project 2025 and you showed a compilation saying they're right to like it.
-
Unknown A
That's why they do. But the clip compilation shows why you shouldn't support Project 2025. So at every level, it's insanity.
-
Unknown B
Now, if you watch Beavis and Butthead on the Vanguard YouTube channel, which the majority report hilariously streets as some authoritative source, you'd think that TYT is totally in favor of the Trump administration gutting federal agencies. Except we're not.
-
Unknown A
Okay, so now the argument has literally just become what TYT is in favor of. You can tell by the way, the conflation now between the MAGA base and TYT as a network is more than just a chip on their shoulder. They feel a kinship with the MAGA right wing populist base. That's who they're trying to approve, like approve of. And so she's forgetting that there is this pretense that they're not aligned and they haven't done this switch. But constantly just shifting into what TYT supports, what she supports, I think gives away the game a little bit here. And regardless. So are you saying that they are right to want to gut the agencies or not right to want to gut the agencies? Then why did you smirk at the end of that clip compilation? Say, huh? Very interesting. Who put these clips together?
-
Unknown B
Two things can be true at the same time. These agencies have been deeply corrupted, do engage in waste, and should be reformed. But treating the federal workforce as if they're Twitter employees is a disastrous way to handle it. As we've been learning in recent years.
-
Unknown A
MAGA loves. They love this shit.
-
Unknown B
Let's hear what Emma has to say about my on air correction. It is not.
-
Unknown C
It is not the prediction. People make predictions all the time, right?
-
Unknown D
I was wrong in my prediction about the election.
-
Unknown C
But you know, poly market bet here.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
-
Unknown C
We can't tell. Yeah, yeah. There was abundance, amount of evidence of this. And even if your opinion, not prediction, opinion was, I can't see them doing this is pretty radical. The idea that you would mock people for believing it and saying it was a conspiracy theory. The people had Trump derangement syndrome. I'm sorry. Give me a break.
-
Unknown B
Apologies. I forget that Sam usually doesn't let Emma get a word in edgewise, but I'll address what she said in that video in a second. But before I do, that's not true.
-
Unknown A
Emma talks on this show. I mean, what does that even mean?
-
Unknown B
Did I, Sam, Did I mock voters who were worried about Project 2025?
-
Unknown A
Is that what he said?
-
Unknown B
I don't remember doing that. What I do recall is chastising Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party for offering nothing to voters other than incessant fear. Mongering about Trump. I also remember criticism, the media who simply regurgitated anything.
-
Unknown A
So fear mongering, you're calling it fear mongering. So you're blaming Kamala Harris for fear mongering on stuff that you just apologized that Trump is doing that you were wrong about, but you're still saying that the Harris campaign was fear mongering. The obvious implication, by the way of fear mongering is you're unjustifiably, you know, exaggeratedly or without sufficient basis causing like a panic or fear where you know you shouldn't. Right. You just apologized for being wrong about that. When you're now continuing to suggest that Harris was like doing something wrong by calling attention to things that were absolutely on the cards and where the media, by the way, was being incredibly snaky about this whole situation. Some people, even unlike cnn, like continuing to suggest that it's plausible that Trump was not in favor of these policies. The media actually was complicit in the downplaying of Project 2025.
-
Unknown A
As you were. Did something happen in the glitch?
-
Unknown B
I'm sorry, the Democratic Party claimed. I also found it fascinating that as the whole of the Democratic Party imagine.
-
Unknown A
I just want to step back even further. Can you imagine having to issue a public apology on this? Right. Which is, you know, fine, it wasn't a really good apology and it was continuing a different kind of either lie or misapprehension related to the MAGA base. But can you imagine acting this smug in retrospect about an issue that you've just admitted that you're wrong about and you're acting this smug and entitled and trying to lord over other people and maintain both that you were wrong, but they were also stupid for some reason that, you know, you can't quite elaborate. So, like, what did. If you're maintaining that what you did was still right or everyone else was still dumb, what actually have you walked back like, okay, I was wrong. But everyone else was also wrong, even though they were more accurate than me in this particular area.
-
Unknown B
I just don't understand engaging in said fear mongering. They were also playing part in a massive cover up about Biden's mental decline.
-
Unknown A
Oh my. It's. I mean, it's literally right wing news. It's MAGA news, Complete MAGA news. What can I say? So now we're no longer talking about Project 2025. We're now talking about Biden's cognitive decline. And your contention is that the media did not sufficiently focus on Biden's cognitive decline. That's your contention. An issue which, by the way, was well known to the public prior to the election, during the primary campaign, during president. You know, Biden's actual term in office that was relentlessly talked about in mainstream media. Yes. Even before the debate performance. Yes. Even before. I'm going to say it again. Yes, even before the debate performance. You've just shifted topics from Project 2025 to this narrative that no one was talking about his cognitive decline. When you guys are saying that, it's blatantly obvious, right? That's, that's a circle that I can't square either.
-
Unknown A
It's so obvious that Biden has mental decline. Everyone knows it. And yet they've been bamboozled by what Anderson Cooper, when consistently everyone, even among the Democratic Party said that Biden is too old to be in office. Who was actually bamboozled in the sense that who thought that Biden was like mentally fit for office in. And were like deluded by the media into thinking otherwise? Name me the population. But again, red herring. I mean, you're just changing topics and now you're accusing them of covering for Biden when these guys are like pretty consistently criticized Biden for a lot of shit.
-
Unknown B
I mean, just think about it. Democracy is under threat. We, the Democrats insist that this corpse.
-
Unknown A
So, so now this is just a general attack against Democrats on the democracy front. Basically saying, who are you, who are you Democrats to be lecturing about democracy? Who are you? Don't you know that the threat of Biden's age is, you know, a Democratic threat? To the same extent that Trump's like efforts to subvert the Constitution are, That's a democratic threat. False equivalence here. And what she's probably going to get into is the Kamala Harris situation. Oh, yeah, aren't you guys, Isn't it a democratic threat to, you know, follow the processes on the, the rules that you set out, the DNC set out, as opposed to what? Violating those rules, unaligning the delegates in violation of the rules, in violation of the contest that occurred. That's the really democratic process, right. Is when a candidate drops out is to not follow the rules that everyone agreed to.
-
Unknown A
That's what should have been done. And in that context, the Democrats are hypocrites. This is the same low tier shit that you expect from the right wingers that I debate. It is MAGA news stay in the.
-
Unknown B
Race to give us the best chance of beating Trump and saving democracy. But since Emma brought it up, let's address the fact that Inaccurate predictions are totally okay, but only when she's wrong.
-
Unknown A
They literally said their reasoning that inaccurate predictions, you know, we should not dwell on them, except to the extent that there's circumstances that justify us dwelling on them. For example, being a. To people who got it right, that could be something that justifies it in terms of election predictions. You know, all these polls, you know, econom boy got it wrong too. I see him in the chat. I got it wrong. A lot of it's for fun, this election prediction for. For like people who have access to the same information, right? The betting markets and the polling aggregates and all that stuff. That's. And people kind of understand that. Take it in stride. The same Alan Lickman. Right. And you guys understand that it was this incredibly close election. Yes, it was a close election. Even the one where Trump swept all the swing states. This was a close election, as was predicted.
-
Unknown A
So Emma's thought was, well, I think the headwinds are turning with Kamala Harris, and I think that she'll pull it out and I think the margin will be enough in every swing state. And she was wrong. But that's not the same kind of prediction as, in my opinion, where she's using the models and her own priors and it's all kind of astrology anyway. In the context of an election prediction where people are expected to, you know, to just give out their take and see it's almost even for fun, as opposed to this kind of downplaying of individuals political intentions, policy intentions given clear initiatives at play, prior conduct and staffing decisions by the Trump campaign at that time, there's a big, in my opinion, difference in the nature of the prediction of the election based on a lot of these other models and, you know, not putting a great deal of confidence in it and where there isn't this kind of assured bet one way or the other, versus a prediction where all of the clear and obvious signs were this was the policy.
-
Unknown B
In the lead up to the presidential race, Emma declared that her final electoral college prediction is that Harris sweeps all seven swing states and ekes out a victory in Iowa. My only reservation is that I don't want to jinx the results, but I'm trying to avoid the trappings of magical thinking. Well, Emma, the magical thinking is what led you to think that Harris would sweep all battleground states.
-
Unknown A
And what about your magical thinking, Anna? Your magical thinking about Project 2025, for which you apologize? If you're gonna have that hubris at Emma Viglund, why isn't that Directed at you as well. Why isn't your mocking tone directed at yourself? In this entire video, you've downplayed the significance. You said I wasn't really wrong because he's not really implementing Project 2025 and the MAGA pace. You know, they have kind of a good reason for supporting some elements of Project 2025. It's actually pitiful. I mean, it's not even a coherent string of arguments.
-
Unknown B
Not that you cited superstitious, jinxing. And of course, Trump, not Harris, went on to win all swing states and the popular vote. The average of polls clearly showed Harris trailing Trump. She ran a horrific campaign.
-
Unknown A
So that's not entirely true. I think there's different averages. I think near the end, some of the. I think the polling averages had not RCP. I think538 polling average had COMEL up. I think New York Times polling average had come up. Yeah. So I don't even think that's true.
-
Unknown B
Stood for nothing, was unpopular with anyone who was paying attention and wasn't even nominated through a democratic process. She was anointed. How's that for saving democracy?
-
Unknown A
But you, I mean, that's a lie. The process that brought about Kamala Harris was the primary contests in 2023 and 2024. That was the process. The process awards delegates an indirect election. So you're not actually voting for a candidate. Let me repeat that. When you vote in your primary or in your caucus, you're not actually voting for a candidate. You are voting for a set of delegates. I hope that I just lose you guys. And so the only democratic thing to do when a candidate drops out is to allow the delegates who have been elected by the people to vote themselves according to the rules of the process. Unless you think the will of the voters as expressed through their vote for delegates ought not be respected, we ought to completely take away the power of the delegates that by the rules were voted for.
-
Unknown A
That's democratic, Right? Imagine this situation, for example. I give this situation all the time and there's no answer for it among the people who are like, oh, my God, indirect elections for president. We have those. Imagine that Donald Trump had won, as he did the election for the electors, and in between, when he was voted for in the actual general elections in each of the states and inauguration day, he drops out or resigns or dies. Is the democratic thing to get rid of, annul the right of the electors to vote? Or is the democratic thing to allow the electors who were voted on by the people to cast their ballot however they want? What's the more democratic thing to do to annul the entire election for electors? Everyone understands this in the context of the presidential electors. It's the same system, in essence, with the delegates.
-
Unknown A
What's the more democratic thing to do? Okay, all these contests mean nothing. Or did they mean something in the context of the presidential vote for electors? Everyone who would be a Trump supporter in that context would say, of course you have to let the Trump electors vote because you have to respect the contests that happen in the states, and that's who you voted for, and everyone would understand that. And in fact, if you didn't go by that and you said, oh, no, we just have to cancel the whole electoral vote for president and we have to have a new contest to have a new election, everyone would say, that's anti Democratic. You're undoing the election that already occurred for the Trump electors. And so she's continuing to spread this MAGA narrative that this was a coup. Complete garbage. Complete bullshit. Hasn't thought about it. What happened was respecting the will of the voter in a formalistic and real sense.
-
Unknown A
Now, could there be new procedures in the future? 100%. But it is not up to the DNC to subvert what actually occurred by fiat because one insider said so or because the DNC chair said so. That would be anti Democratic. Would be, let's make new rules. Even though we had all these rules in place, let's make new rules.
-
Unknown B
You worked very hard to launder her reputation and sell her to Americans. So much so that I thought maybe, just maybe, all those Kamala Harris ads that interrupted your YouTube videos were possibly clouding your judgment. But you say you were delusional all on your own.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, we voted for Kamala Harris because we didn't want to vote for, like, an autocrat who sucked and was going to Institute Project 2025. And so we supported her because that's the right thing to do. You didn't support her because I don't know why. Maybe you're evil. Maybe you don't really see the value or difference between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. And if you can't see that difference or if you think that Trump is gonna be better, I mean, what's wrong with you?
-
Unknown B
And you know what? I'll take your word for it. But since we're on the topic of issuing corrections, one of your viewers is curious about something that you've said.
-
Unknown A
And by the way, this is all supposedly in response to the MAGA Project 2025 thing. And so now it's Just like a free flowing attack on everything that I guess they've been wrong about before.
-
Unknown B
They're you're going to correct it. One of your viewers wants to know that since I admitted I was wrong, can Majority Report admit? Oh, I love wrong. Saying there wasn't a Venezuelan gang that.
-
Unknown A
Took this is a call out to Anna Kasparian, please. Let's have a discussion, you and me, about this specific issue about the Colorado apartment takeover narrative. If you are so confident in this, why wouldn't you have a live discussion with someone about the Colorado gangs taking over apartment complexes? Why not have a discussion about it? If you are as confident as you.
-
Unknown B
Are over an apartment complex in Colorado, even though residents were coming out and saying that was going on.
-
Unknown A
Has she acknowledged my existence? Yes. Yes.
-
Unknown B
I haven't heard a peep from the Majority Report. Well, you know what? That's actually a great question. Majority Report seem to direct their audience to harass me for months for accurately reporting that story.
-
Unknown A
Accurately. Accurately.
-
Unknown B
Story was updated to include a horrific incident in which trend at Aragua gang members literally kidnapped and tortured a couple that lived in that Aurora, Colorado apartment complex. Majority Report couldn't be bothered with it.
-
Unknown A
So just to be clear, guys, I just want to be 100% clear. If crime happens, a violent crime happens in an apartment complex, that means that the gang has taken over the apartment complex. Didn't you know that? So if there's a murder in an apartment complex, whoever did the murder has taken over the apartment complex. Did you know that? But by the way, yeah, 100%. I will definitely debate Anna Kasparin on that specific issue any day of the week and twice on Sunday at all.
-
Unknown D
A Colorado apartment complex plagued by suspected Venezuelan gang activity in the spotlight again after a brutal kidnapping.
-
Unknown A
They were pistol whipped, they were beat, they were victimized, they were terrorized.
-
Unknown D
Police say on Monday night, more than a dozen people approached a man and a woman, forcing them into an empty apartment where they were held against their will and the man was stabbed. The two victims were released by the assailants after they promised not to call police, authorities say. Police say 19 people were initially detained in connection to the attack. Tonight, 16 are in immigration and Customs Enforcement custody, according to an ICE spokesperson.
-
Unknown A
Who Econo Boy says that's why Luigi is not the CEO of UnitedHealthcare. I mean, it's kind of like you guys remember Harry Potter when you beat a wizard in a duel with the Elder Wand. There's a new wielder of the elder Wand. It's kind of like that. Demi says who? Colorado representative. Are you from Colorado?
-
Unknown D
Demi says they are all Venezuelan nationals in the country without authorization.
-
Unknown B
Prior to that. The Aurora.
-
Unknown A
Look at how smug she is. That is not establishing your narrative. Crime happens in many places. Crime happens in apartment buildings all the time. In fact, I would be surprised if there's a single apartment in the United States or you know, building, let's say major apartment building where a crime didn't happen once.
-
Unknown B
Police department had already arrested 10 Trenda Aragua gang members from the same building.
-
Unknown A
Wow.
-
Unknown B
Take a look at that. That's a lot of mug shots for a Venezuelan gang that definitely does not exist and definitely were not victimizing other migrants in addition to low income Americans in that same apartment complex.
-
Unknown A
Oh, oh, so now gang activity that you're acknowledging who's denying that gang activity occurred? That's not the claim. The claim was that the gang had taken over an apartment complex. That's the claim. And that we needed to send in the military to reclaim American land that had been unlawfully captured by a standing gang.
-
Unknown B
Lex, that totally didn't happen. Oh, but by the way, that's not all. Earlier this month, this month ABC News had this headline, quote, ICE carries out raid in Colorado 100 members of Venezuelan gang targeted for arrests. Alleged members of Trent Aragua were arrested at an.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, gangs exist, gangs get stopped. Gangs should be enforced against. Doesn't mean your claim is true.
-
Unknown B
Aurora APARTMENT COMPLEX so I'm just really curious, super curious. Is ABC News funded by Polymarket and that's why they're reporting these news stories. Are they making it up?
-
Unknown A
Bro, I actually can't handle this.
-
Unknown B
I mean it's just how many gang members do you need to take over a single apartment complex?
-
Unknown A
You tell me. See, I understand taking over an apartment complex to be being in effective control, essentially being the one who is getting money, having kind of standing control, you know, being able to make all of your commands felt in the apartment building, having complete authority. That's what I understand a takeover to be. But as was reported on wait, one of these buildings like wasn't even available and wasn't even occupied at the time this occurred. And the other buildings, there is no evidence that rent was being paid to the gang as opposed to the landlord. And where there absolutely was gang activity, but it didn't amount to so much control over the apartment buildings that reasonable people would categorize that as a takeover and certainly not as was being portrayed by Trump in the media where they were like there was like this stand down with the Cops and the cops had kind of like let a gang control blatantly an apartment.
-
Unknown B
But look, that's not all. Does Emma have the integrity to admit that she was wrong to gaslight everyone about Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass austerity measures, namely her decision to cut the budget.
-
Unknown A
Oh my God.
-
Unknown B
Department that had already been chronically.
-
Unknown A
Please, please, please, please. On this issue specifically, I would gladly have a debate with Annika sparing on it a trillion percent. If you're confident in this, have a discussion. If you're confident that you have the facts and by the way, your entire narrative is I want to have difficult conversations with people who think differently than me. I think differently on this very topic. Happy to have a discussion on the fire department in L. A and the austerity measures of Karen Bass with respect to the fire department in the specific years that you are referencing. 100% willing to do it staffed and underfunded.
-
Unknown B
She put this up on Twitter. Lots of people are spread.
-
Unknown A
It is not accurate. Correct. Emma is based, completely based. Emma vindicated emma correcting this $17 million.
-
Unknown B
Fire budget cut and it's just not accurate. She then included a comical thread to bolster her claim.
-
Unknown A
Comical thread that completely debunks your.
-
Unknown B
The thread made no sense.
-
Unknown A
100% made sense. The thread made 100% sense. And I added to the base and repository of knowledge by pointing out that the funding increased. In fact, it wasn't a 17 million decrease. It was many tens of million dollars more thanks to my intrepid reporting. Of which there's no response from Anna. See, it's not unclear. You just compare the line items, the overall budgets, and you notice that in current year it's higher than in past year.
-
Unknown B
And it was clear that Emma didn't even bother to read the thread that she herself quote tweeted. She was even called out by other lefties like Sam Sachs who correctly stated that Emma was sharing an incoherent thread she couldn't have possibly read.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, it's not incoherent, it's true.
-
Unknown B
And then when told the actual facts, doubles down and accuses everyone of lying.
-
Unknown A
To help the right 100%. You are. And if you don't believe that Emma, I mean Anna have a discussion.
-
Unknown B
She still hasn't deleted the post. She was retweeted.
-
Unknown A
She shouldn't.
-
Unknown B
Emma's right 5,000 times. I checked today. It's still up. And therein lies the heart of the issue with majority report. Anyone who has a thought or belief that deviates even slightly from their doctrine is just a right winger and right wingers could never make any legitimate points, right? We must all worship the all sanctimonious Majority Report and their ideological dogma at all costs, even when there's evidence proving them wrong.
-
Unknown A
I have evidence proving you're wrong, Anna. Debate me.
-
Unknown B
Although I can't decide if people like Emma are really this cultish with their politics or if they're just terrified by their own audience.
-
Unknown C
DSA Josh, I live on the west side of la. All the criticism that conservatives are directing towards Mayor Karen Bass is 100% motivated by white nationalism and violent misogyny. They're fascists. Full stop.
-
Unknown B
Hey, DSA Josh, you're unhinged. And guess what? I'm elated that you watch Majority Report. They deserve you. As for Tyt, we're going to correct the record when we get something wrong and I'm positive it will happen again in the future because we're human. And guess what? Humans make mistakes. Emma is also susceptible to making mistakes. And that would be totally fine if she showed a modicum of humility and corrected herself. Instead, she plays the role of hall monitor. She polices what one can say, what they should believe, who they can talk to and what they can talk about. It sure is ironic for someone who claims to loathe cops so much, but that's the role she and others like her play in the left wing and everyone's sick of it.
-
Unknown A
Thanks for watching. No one's buying it. Anna. Unhinged Tyt Unhinged Tyt MAGA News completely, completely cooked. Practically everything in that video that we just watched was utterly loathsome. It started with trying to defend the contention that MAGA was against Project 2025. I explained how she completely failed at that. Then getting into the kind of who was wrong about what when, you know, the election prediction. Comparing that ridiculously in my opinion, to the prediction that Trump wasn't going to do Project 2025, kind of doubling back on her own apology that Trump is not implementing Project 2025 or that he is, and basically saying, well, it's more complicated than that, indicating that there are some basis to believe that like Project 2025 is important and good, or at least some aspect of it is good. And so again throwing into doubt the notion that MAGA base feel strongly one way or the other, which is at least Anna's position initially that Maga hates Project 2025 so at no point justifying that, if anything, right?
-
Unknown A
At most you can say that they're ambivalent or they they're, you know, accepting it piecemeal, but no justification whatsoever for that. And then the kind of distraction on the point about Kamala Harris being elected through improper process, when that was the only appropriate process that could have been utilized in that moment, given that the votes already occurred and that there had been rules that were agreed to and that getting rid of the delegates would have been a kind of complete usurpation of the votes that actually took place and would nullify votes that actually took place. No, not dissimilar to what would take place if you just, like, annulled an election for president because the candidate dropped out in between when the electors were initially decided and when they cast their votes. And so all of this is just complete red herring, not at all addressing the merits of what the Majority Report are saying.
-
Unknown A
And then the final piece about Emma, I guess, like, generally being unwilling to accept when she was wrong, including two areas where she was not wrong and where I'm happy to stand ground and defend her positions on those areas and to, in fact, say that Anna is wrong. And Anna's continuing to promote MAGA narratives that are unjustified by the facts. And that the fact that she's unwilling, I'm guessing, to have a hard conversation with someone who knows why these are fake narratives indicates to me that she's not very confident about those beliefs and just is hoping that people will get distracted by the semantics or stories that sound similar but that don't actually support the ultimate conclusion. And so it's a complete despicable performance. Obviously, we talked about Chang at the beginning of this. That's my take on things. How are you guys doing?