Loading summary
Transcript94 lines
- [00:00]
Warby Parker Ad
Every idea starts with a problem. Warby Parker's was glasses are too expensive. So they set out to change that. By designing glasses in house and selling directly to customers, they're able to offer prescription eyewear that's expertly crafted and unexpectedly affordable. Warby Parker glasses are made from premium materials like impact resistant polycarbonate and custom acetate. And they start at just $95, including prescription lenses. Get glasses made from the good stuff. Stop by a Warby Parker store near you.
- [00:30]
Ryan Reynolds
Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. With the price of just about everything going up, we thought we'd bring our prices down. So to help us, we brought in a reverse auctioneer, which is apparently a.
- [00:40]
Mint Mobile Ad
Thing Mint Mobile unlimited premium wireless.
- [00:43]
Danielle Moody
30.
- [00:43]
Andy Levy
30. Get 30, get 20.
- [00:45]
Danielle Moody
20.
- [00:45]
Andy Levy
20. Better get 20.
- [00:45]
Danielle Moody
20. Everybody get 15. 15. 15, 15. Just 15 bucks a month.
- [00:49]
David Sirota
Sold.
- [00:49]
Ryan Reynolds
Give it a try@mintmobile.com SOL switch upfront.
- [00:53]
Joshua Block
Payment of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slower after 35 gigabytes of network's busy taxes and fees extra. See mint mobile.com.
- [01:03]
David Sirota
Folks. Welcome to another episode of as the World Churns. I am Danielle Moody, one of your co pilots and joining me as always is the incomparable Andy Levy. Andy, my dear friend, we start out today with, you know, the possibility of us going into World War three with the world's stupidest and most dangerous people, which is amazing as it seems right now Republicans are publicly having a divide or some would say a civil war. I don't know if it's a civil war, but there are definite difference of opinions, particularly inside Trump's cabinet and personalities outside in the MAGA sphere. Tulsi Gabbard, our national security advisor, recently on social media has said that we don't need to get involved with Iran and that the warmongers are on a tear. Donald Trump apparently does not like that. He doesn't like anyone disagreeing with him. You know, and what's funny to me is that people have said signs of intelligence show that you surround yourself with people that have differing opinions so that you can formulate your own. So we absolutely know that Donald Trump filling his entire cabinet with bootlicking sycophants is a testament to his lack of intellect and critical thinking at a time when those are the two fucking skills that we need the most in this moment, neither of which the leader of this country possesses. So there are talks about the fact that Tulsi Gabbard is getting frozen out from conversations because she disagrees with Donald Trump. And funny enough, multiple times this week I'm agreeing with the worst fucking Republicans on the planet. First it was Marjorie Taylor fucking Greene who also said that we have no business going to war. And I said, Jesus Christ. Then it's Tulsi Gabbard. Then it's also Tucker Carlson. Has hell frozen over? Are we the leftovers? What is happening here? When these are the people that I'm like, oh yes, Trump, listen to them.
- [03:20]
Danielle Moody
The amazing thing here also is that you've got Tucker Carlson calling Fox News a propaganda hose that is aimed at manipulating elderly viewers, which is true, but for Tucker Carlson to be saying that is unbelievable. And you've got you mentioned mtfg, Marjorie Taylor fucking Green. And she also was out there saying that people are being brainwashed by Fox News and by the New York Post, basically by the Murdoch properties. And she also says, she calls them propaganda. This is just unreal. And if the subject of this weren't the possibility of dropping big ass bombs on another country, this would be hilarious because you've got all these people. To some extent, I do think this is a MAGA civil war. It remains to be seen if everyone ultimately will fall in line, because they generally do. But I have seen a lot of people who supported Trump, if not only because, but, but as one reason, the fact that they believed him to be someone who was going to keep us out of foreign wars.
- [04:43]
David Sirota
Correct. America first, if you will.
- [04:45]
Danielle Moody
Exactly, exactly. Now we can sit here and discuss to what degree those people are idiots for believing that Donald Trump is a man of peace. They are not coincidentally the same people who seem to think that Donald Trump believes in free speech. And sadly, a lot of them are like former friends of mine who I now am just in shock as to how gullible they have been over all of this. But the point is, I've seen a lot of them really turn on Trump for this because they are absolutely shocked that he would consider going to war with Iran, that he would consider in effect going to war with another country at the behest of another country. That not a country that is threatening to invade us, but a third country Israel has a problem with. These people seem to be shocked that, that, that Trump would countenance getting us involved in a war that sort of doesn't involve us. And of course Trump is out there talking about, we're back to Iran is building a nuke again. And of course this is the same guy that, you know, broke off talks with Iran over building nukes years ago. So the bottom line is, I do believe this is a bit of a civil war and it's getting a little ugly. But the question is, will all these people going to war with Trump scamper back to him like they usually do?
- [06:08]
David Sirota
I mean, they're going to scamper back to him, but at the end of the day, to your, to your earlier point, like, we're talking about I believe and I could be off, we're Talking about over 90 million people in Iran, right? Like, we're not talking about, like, a place with no people, right? And so this is a conversation about how, once again, we're using lies to justify mass murder. Because I don't know how many times we've been told about Iran, you know, building nukes in Iran, doing X, Y and Z, only to find out that that is not the case. Right. I don't know. And I've said this before, America's foreign policy is built on racism and discrimination, right? Like, that's. That's it. Israel has the right to defend itself, but no other country in the Middle east has the right to defend itself. Israel has the right to have nukes, but no other country in the Middle east has the right to have nukes. And why is that? Right? Because we don't want Muslim nations having nuclear weapons. And why is that? Oh, because we've been brainwashed and indoctrinated into believing that Every. All the 2 billion members of the Islam faith are terrorists in waiting. Right? And so that has been. That has been this. This delusional sense of who these people are, who this region of the world is. Is flattened by racism and discrimination, and then saying that we have to put on these kind of sanctions, put up this type of front in order to keep these people small like that. That to me is. Is like, it has been the case from regime to regime to regime in these United States, regardless of Republican or Democrat. But here you have Donald Trump, who is the world's stupidest man, who can be swayed in one way or the other based on the nice little things you want to whisper into his ear, who has a desire right now, after millions of people marched against him on his birthday and his military parade, looks stupid, that he wants to look big and strong. And because of the desire to look big and strong and because of the ego stroke that he is so desperately in need of, he's potentially putting us on the brink of the annihilation of humanity. And there are people inside of his party that are like, wait a minute. This isn't Just about Iran. They're saying that they're going to retaliate on our American bases, which means that we're going to lose American lives. For who? For why, for what? Exactly. And no one can actually, including him, articulate the reason why we would be going to war on behalf of. Of Israel. No idea.
- [09:01]
Danielle Moody
Well, but. But that's the thing that the. The nuclear threat, quote, unquote, is the COVID for this. You know, I'm not Islamophobic, but I wouldn't be thrilled with a theocratic state like Iran having a nuclear weapon. But the point is, this was Tulsi Gabbard back in March. She said, the intelligence community continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon. And Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. So for all these Republicans to now be out there talking about Iran's nuclear program, it is clearly a cover. And it is a cover for, as you said, for doing what they want, which is to bomb Iran. And it is a cover for doing this on the behest of Israel, which we absolutely should not be doing. But in order to make it seem like. Like there's a direct threat to us, we are now pretending that our entire intelligence assessment doesn't exist. This feels familiar for some reason. It feels like. It feels like it was not that long ago that we got in a war with a country and bombed the shit out of them.
- [10:23]
David Sirota
Began with an eye.
- [10:25]
Danielle Moody
Yeah, yeah. And also began with asserting that they had, you know, weapons of mass destruction. Weapons of mass destruction that I guess we're still looking for, but we haven't found them as of yet. So, yeah, this all feels very, very familiar. Danielle. Danielle, we talked in the first half of this segment, we talked about how there seemed to be some MAGA people turning against Fox News. Another person who is not happy with a division of Fox News is Donald Trump himself. He's not happy that a Fox News poll found that while 53% of Americans approve of Trump's handling of border security, 53% disapprove of his handling of immigration. This comes on the heels of a Quinnipiac University poll from just about a week ago showing that Trump's approval rating on immigration was at 43%. Basically, what we are seeing is that the polls are not great for Donald Trump when it comes to immigration, and that all the things that he is doing and all the reckless and illegal actions that he has ordered ICE to take are actually not playing well with a majority of the American people. And you know, this is interesting one.
- [11:59]
David Sirota
I constantly say that like I take polls with a grain of salt all the time because again, it has to do with how you ask the questions, who you're asking the questions to and what mechanism with which you're asking those questions. But if we're connecting the dots between Fox's latest poll and the Quinnipiac poll that we discussed last week, what we're seeing is exactly what you said, which is that people disapprove in large numbers of what Donald Trump is doing. And his signature issue is immigration and deportation. And on his signature issues of immigration and deportation, a majority of the country is not behind him. Majority of the country, you know, is not aligned with picking people up without due process, kidnapping them on the middle of the street, handcuffing, arresting, punishment public officials and seeing just the, the, the, the, the kind of crumbling of our institutions, our safety nets, and having military thugs and hooded bandits on the street like ICE is not favorable among Americans. So this pushback that he's having to Fox, because again, FOX is state tv, right? State TV has been there to fit fan Donald Trump and tell him that he's amazing and everybody loves him and all of these things, but even in their own polling, they can't put out the lies that he wants them to put out to say that everyone is on board. And we just saw with our own eyes at least 6 million Americans around the country, in 2000 different cities and towns across the country marching. And what was the core issue? That they're marching on ice. Get the fuck out of our cities and get the fuck out of our towns. Who brought them there? Donald Trump. Right. And it wasn't just folks in, in the, in the blue cities like New York City and LA and what have you. It was places all over the country, particularly in red, in red states and like small red towns that now have waitresses and workers that have gone missing that were beloved parts of the community. You're seeing these write ups in the New York Times and in other places, right? So. Oh, we didn't vote for this. The fuck you didn't. You absolutely did vote for this. But I think the fact is, is that again, we're about 150 days into Donald Trump's second regime, which is amazing because I myself am 150 years old, so I don't understand how we're just 150 days in. But this is again, supposed to be your honeymoon phase where you're, where you still have, right, the, that you still are kind of riding the high of the election that you won. And what we are seeing, once again is that Donald Trump does not have the mandate that this administration came out and said that they had, that the American people gave them.
- [14:57]
Danielle Moody
Yeah. A couple of quick points. One, I have to say, for 150, you look fantastic, Danielle.
- [15:03]
David Sirota
Thank you. Holding it together with duct tape and a prayer.
- [15:06]
Danielle Moody
Andy, whatever your skincare regimen is, it is working. The second thing I'll say is just Fox News polling is sort of independent of the Fox News nightmare, and they are generally a very respected polling organization. So much to the chagrin of a lot of the FOX News personalities, because as you point out, the FOX News polls tend to be fairly reliable as polls go, because they're actually run by professionals and not by ideologues. But the third and I think most important thing. Well, no, you looking fantastic is the most important thing. But the second most important thing is that what we need to take from these polls is that Democrats need to get off their asses and stop conceding the issue of immigration to Republicans. Because what we've seen historically, or at least over the past, I don't know, 10, 20 years, is that Democrats at best come across as Republican light when it comes to immigration. They still want to do, or they still say they want to do sort of all the things that Republicans do, but maybe a little less of it or maybe do it a little more tactfully or in a nicer manner, more politely. But ultimately, they still want to remove people from this country and they still want to talk about a strong border. And all the rhetoric that Republicans use, Democrats fall right into that trap. And maybe if we keep seeing polls like this, maybe Democrats will get it into their head that a lot of people in this country think that immigration is a net positive. And that applies whether you have masked thugs out on the street kidnapping people and deporting them or not. Like, either way, there are a lot of people in this country who recognize that immigrants are good for this country and we should be welcoming to immigrants. And so I really hope that a lot of these Democrats who seem to be beholden more to, you know, what the polls say and what they believe the American people think than on having any sort of principles. I hope they will look at this and see that, you know, oh, you know what, maybe I can actually go out there and talk about immigrants as a net positive for this country and that the idea of deporting them is bad. So that's what I hope for here.
- [17:48]
David Sirota
Daniel, I want you to have hope. And I want you to hold fast to it. I know, but I really, really don't think that that hope is gonna float. Do you know what I'm saying? Like, I think that Democrats are pretty much a lost cause and that anytime that Republicans have been able to call them soft on crime, soft on immigration, Democrats are just fucking soft in the head at this point. Point. Like they have no backbone, they have no pushback. I'd like to believe that, oh, this gives them ammo, but are they putting the ammo inside of a leaded pencil? Unclear.
- [18:26]
Danielle Moody
Yeah, no, it's a fair point. And I know that, you know, I have sort of a reputation as a cockeyed optimist and you know, and I really, I do need to moderate that and be maybe a little more cynical. I think I'm just not cynical enough.
- [18:41]
David Sirota
I don't understand how I haven't rubbed off on you in the last like three years. But you know, get with the program.
- [18:48]
Danielle Moody
Yeah, it's early.
- [18:51]
Warby Parker Ad
What makes a great pair of glasses? At Warby Parker, it's all the invisible extras without the extra cost. Their designer quality frames start at $95 including prescription lenses plus scratch resistant, smudge resistant and anti reflective coatings and UV protection and free adjustments for life. To find your next pair of glasses, sunglasses or contact lenses or to find the Warby Parker store nearest you, head over to warbyparker.com that's warbyparker.com hey, it's.
- [19:22]
Ryan Reynolds
Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. Now I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited Premium Wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills but it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea. For the commercial. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment.
- [19:44]
Joshua Block
Of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first 3 months only. Speed slow after 35gb of networks busy. Taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com.
- [19:55]
David Sirota
Folks I am very happy to welcome to as the world Churns the floor founder and the editor and chief of the Lever, David Sirota who is also an Oscar nominated writer and worked on Bernie Sanders presidential campaign and your latest piece. David, I have lots of thoughts about how to end Democrats civil war. First. Do you believe that Democrats are truly in the midst of a civil war right now or. Or do you feel like there is a clarifying that is happening around who should actually be in charge of the Democratic Party.
- [20:36]
Andy Levy
I definitely think it's a, it's a chaotic moment for the, for the Democrats. I mean, they, they don't really have a coherent, cogent party wide message other than Donald Trump is bad. That's telling the public what the party is against, not necessarily telling anybody what the party is actually for. It's not really clear what the party is for. And I do that this is part, this has been part of the Democratic Party's problem for a long time that the party has trouble coherently expressing and communicating what it is for because it is constantly caught between trying, trying to appease its donor class, but also speak to the grievances and outrage of the voters. And the problem is, is that lots and lots of voters, I think, feel angry about the things that the donor class is doing. So if you're trying to make the donor class happy and also speak to the grievances of the public, you end up, if you try to serve both, both of those groups, you end up sounding incoherent or having no other message than Donald Trump sucks. And that's just not enough. And so I think this question of which side is the Democratic Party on? Is it a donor oligarch party for a, kind of, a, kind of what you might think of as the old Rockefeller Republican Party?
- [22:11]
Danielle Moody
Right.
- [22:11]
Andy Levy
The old Rockefeller Republican Party was a, was sort of an elite country club Republican party that didn't win lots of elections. It was kind of a permanent minority party. Is that what the Democratic Party is? Or is the Democratic Party going to move, try to move back to some updated new version of a new Deal Democratic Party that actually tries to represent the economic interests of the working class? And I think that is effectively the war going on inside of the Democratic Party between the factions. And I think the jury's out on who's going to win that battle.
- [22:47]
David Sirota
You know, and one would argue that the people with the most money, right, have the bigger microphone and then therefore can be the one can be declared the winner. So we're seeing this play out right now in New York City with the mayoral race between Zorin and Cuomo. Zorin is a person of the, of the people, workers party in all the ways. He is the antithesis of Cuomo that is establishment, backed by billionaires. I will put aside all the sexual harassment, the stealing of money during COVID all of those things. But you see how the forces in power are aligning against Zorin because they see him as a threat to their power. And I wonder when you're looking at this, when you're looking at that as a, as kind of a microcosm. And we also in your piece, you look at Kamala Harris and, and the inability of her campaign to call out and be totally anti oligarchy, and that being what I think was also a hindrance that Gaza and, you know, and, and some, and some other missteps that were made in her short amount of time. How do you see these, how do you see the public looking at these two kind of examples and saying, if Kamala Harris had gone full anti oligarchy, do you think that that would have resulted in something different? Do you think that New York City is a test case for if, if that are our establishment Democrats kind of looking and saying, let's see how this plays out. Because if Zorin is able to hold on and Cuomo isn't ranked at all, right. Or is ranked low in, is that the blueprint then for how this party moves forward?
- [24:45]
Andy Levy
I think the ultimate question is how much money does it take to defeat in. When you look at New York, how much money does it take to defeat a populist message? And I, so I guess what I'm getting at is I don't think it's zero sum. I think that, that the fact that Zoran Mamdani is even competitive in this race at all, let's take that as, as, I mean, that is, that is incredible unto itself in the sense of when you look at how much money is being spent against him, the fact that he is competitive in polls in this race shows how much anger there is out there at the current economic status quo. I mean, think about New York City. It is, it really is a microcosm, a kind of extreme microcosm. It is a City where 1 in 4 people are living in poverty and where 1 in 24 people are millionaires. Right? We're talking about unbelievably extreme levels of wealth inequality in a city where if you're in the 1 in 4, you can barely afford anything. The candidate, Zoran Mamdani is getting outspent by a super pac that has one super PAC alone has raised $24 million. So barely able compete on the airwaves, right. In terms of buying television ads to communicate a message. And yet the message is so strong that he is able to nonetheless be competitive and make this a competitive race. So the question is, is the message enough to overcome the resources being thrown against him? And to be clear, the resources are so aligned against him precisely because of the kind of message that he is Offering a message that says, we're going to raise taxes on millionaires. The affordability crisis is a problem. Oligarchy is a problem. The billionaire class is a problem. Right. So this is a. It is kind of a pure test of how much money, from the oligarch's perspective, how much money do we need to spend to overcome an incredibly popular message in a city that has become an economic dystopia. Right. And so at the end of the day, if the election is extremely close, oh, we spent $30 million. Okay. So it takes $30 million to eke out a victory in a situation where one in four people are living in poverty against a candidate who's running a populist message. Right. We're going to learn what the threshold is. But I would say we have to step back and say this is how broken our politics are. Right. I mean, really. We did an audio series at the Lever called Master Plan about the legalization of corruption, the legalization of the buying and selling of. And what that means for democracy. New York is experiencing that right now. You have a city with one in four people in poverty where somebody giving voice to that has a chance to win, but ends up aligning. And I'm not obviously not blaming him, but ends up aligning the collective power of the oligarchy to stop it and to be clear, to try to distract the discourse from a discussion about people's economic lives that they're living. I mean, I. I'm not in New York, but I. I look at it from afar and I say, I don't understand. As an example, I don't really. I mean, I do understand, but I put it this way. It is shocking that a city where one in four people are living in poverty and one in 24 people are millionaires, and if you're not a millionaire, you can barely afford anything, if at all. And yet much of the discourse in the final week of the campaign is about how each candidate feels about a foreign country on the other side of the world. Right?
- [28:40]
David Sirota
Yeah.
- [28:40]
Andy Levy
Like, this is the democracy crisis that the discourse isn't about. I can't afford anything to live in my own city. That the oligarchs that the power of money to. To drive and influence through the media, through ads, influence. What the discussion is, what, what people think they are voting on is not necessarily the economic crisis in their daily lives. It's what do the candidates think about the country of Israel on the other side of the world? And my point is, I don't care what side of the Israel Palestine debate you're on. It is a problem when your municipal election about how to fix your economy, et cetera, et cetera, isn't mostly about your, your local community. And I say that it's a particular problem when, I mean, this is not even a federal race. Right. They're not making foreign policy. Right. They're making municipal policy. So this is the bait and switch. This is how money controls elections. It controls the focus and the discourse and what we think elections are about. Now, I will say I don't know if their trick is going to work. This trick of, oh, this election is about every other issue other than the economic dystopia right here in New York City. I don't know if their trick is going to work. That's why it's such a fascinating race to see if all the money and.
- [30:04]
David Sirota
The tricks can work, you know, because that, because that is what money affords you the ability to do is change the narrative.
- [30:10]
Andy Levy
Exactly.
- [30:11]
David Sirota
And put all of the resources behind whatever narrative that you want to put out. And then people, I mean, you know, I actually equate it to in the movie the Devil Wears Prada where she's holding up the sweater and says, like, this sweater is cerulean. And like it was decided for you in, in this room by a group of people that, like, that this was going to be the color of the season. Right. And that, and that is how our politics is run at a very basic level. You have a group of donors that get into a room at a very expensive restaurant, have a very expensive dinner and decide the, these are the three issues that the people are going to care about. And we're going to infiltrate their, their mind and their, you know, and their day to day. We're going to push it through social media, we're going to push it through the airwaves, we're going to push it through television. And then all of a sudden I'm sitting around at a table with barely any food on it, medicine I can't afford, talking about who is for Israel or who is for Palestine. And I don't even understand how I got into this position in the first fucking place when I have an eviction notice on my door.
- [31:16]
Andy Levy
It's such a good point. And we should understand that it comes out of the old science of advertising. I mean, really, if we want to get deep about this, right. Advertisers understand, you know, the most sophisticated corporate advertisers, right. For, for whatever product they're selling, they're not just selling the product. They're selling and creating the demand for the product. They're not just saying, you know, you need this thing. They're actually using their advertising to try to create your demand for a thing that you didn't even know you. You wanted or you don't necessarily need. So it's the same thing in politics. An election, you know, in a vacuum. An election for the mayorship, mayoralty of New York should probably be about how do we make sure fewer than one quarter of our population is in poverty. How do we make sure people can afford living their daily lives. That should be in a vacuum, what an election should be about. But the way money works is it can essentially try to buy the terms of the debate and buy thus. And so what the election is perceived to be about. And that, to my mind, is the democracy crisis. Now, I want to be clear, I'm not all gloom and doom about this. I want to go back to a point that we just made that we were just talking about. A candidate is being wildly outspent, wildly outspent with a very simple message. This city is unaffordable. It's unacceptable that it's unaffordable and that candidate is competitive. So I, I am optimistic. Not necessarily about this election, like, I don't know what's going to happen in New York's election, but I am optimistic that more and more people have caught on to the sleight of hand, that more and more people are not buying the bullshit. They understand that they are being fed bullshit. Now, the problem is, is where does that realization go? Where does it get channeled into? I think Donald Trump has done a really good job of channeling it into his movement. Waking up from the fact that you're being fed bullshit, where that outrage is channeled, that's the contest for the future of this country.
- [33:33]
David Sirota
You know, and here's the thing, is that, like, Donald Trump has done a very good job of funneling that into white grievance, that if we just get away with, if we just go get rid of all of the undocumented people, all the people of color, all the queer people, all the trans people, all the people with disabilities, then your life is going to be better. Except here's where I think that the breaking is coming. And we saw that with the no Kings protests and millions of people in this country and millions around the world marching and saying, you know what? What I realize is that you've passed all these policies to stop trans people from playing sports and using the bathroom. And guess what? I still can't fucking afford my medication. And guess what? My mortgage rate is still really high, right? And so you've gotten rid of all these undocumented people and you're sending them to these foreign gulags to die for no other reason than trying to make a better life for themselves. And guess what? My food prices have gone up. And guess what, like, things have become increasingly more unaffordable, right? So what I think initially, right, because I believe that racism and misogyny will always trump things in this inside of America. But what, what those that voted for white grievance recognize is that nothing in their lives have actually changed over the last five months. And to be fair, I should say change for the better, because they have changed. They've been changing for the worse. And all of the projections show we haven't hit bottom yet, right, because the tariffs actually haven't really taken hold. And now we're on the verge of World War iii. And so when I think about what you're offering in your piece, which I think is important, is, is can Democrats come to this middle ground? Can we get from this abundance propaganda is what I'm going to call it, because I really just believe that it is Reaganomics in a different fucking outfit in a different, in a, in a different century. That's all that it is. Everything that Ezra Klein and that they offered in that book, I'm just like, this all sounds eerily familiar. I'm old enough to, I'm old enough to not actually fall for the rope. A dope in the, in this like, nuanced language because you want to use the word abundance. And then people feel full and good about it. On the other side of that is the populist argument that Democrats have never fully really wrapped their hands around. And for the reason is because they get money from the same fucking people that the Republicans get money from. Exactly. And so you have just this small group of people, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and AOC and a few voices that have tried to say, hey, hey, hey, let us say stop with the division with identity and, and, and, and with race and with all of these other things, because we have a common enemy, right? It actually is the billionaire class. But I think now, David, what is really interesting is that I think for the first time, I don't know, is the wool coming off of people's eyes? Do they really believe that? Wait a minute. It isn't the undocumented person down the street that's been picking the vegetables that I am able to afford and put on My table. And it isn't the trans person that. Oh, by the way, most Americans don't even know a trans person. So it isn't this boogeyman that is stopping me from actualizing my version of the American dream. Do you think that that wool coming over the eyes then release releases us from the idea that we have to compromise? That like, could the people and their desire to actually live full and and truly abundant lives weigh out what the oligarchs actually want and are pushing?
- [37:11]
Andy Levy
Well, I think, I think yes, there is going to be and there is right now a realization that Donald Trump is a circus that is not solving people's problems in their daily lives. Right. Like Donald Trump is offering up the old bread and circuses. I would argue that the abundance folks are offering up a different version of it, that they're saying the government is the problem, the government is the barrier. The government, unions, the left, quote, unquote, is the barrier to Americans prosperity. Our oligarchs behind us are not the problem. Donald Trump, Donald Trump says immigrants, gay people, liberals, academics, et cetera, et cetera, they're the problems, not the oligarchs behind Donald Trump. The commonality is, is that the oligarchs are the ones being defended. And that is not an accident. The reason I think that has not. The realization that this is all a bait and switch has not redounded to the political benefit of the Democrats yet is because I also think that even if you realize this is all bullshit, all of this political noise is bullshit to defend the oligarchs behind the curtain. If there's no alternative, if there's no real alternative to that, then you're not necessarily going to support the fake alternative, which is a Democratic Party that doesn't really yet stand for much of anything. What's gone on, frankly the last 20, 30 years is I kind of see it as lots of people say, okay, listen, both parties are offering me nothing on the economy. They're, they're not offering to really make my life, my life any better. I can't see exactly how they're going to make my life better. So all politics really must be then is just a culture war circus. It's just a circus about identity and culture and etc. Etc. And so I'm either not going to participate in pol. Because it's all, it's not meaningful, or if I participate, I'll just participate based on which side of the circus. I like knowing that no one's that, that it's not really about anything that affects my actual daily life. And I think that's why you've seen so many people drop out of the political process. Because, because it's like they don't got time, they don't have time for it, right? Like, like, like I, I don't have a lot of time lately to, to, to watch reality TV shows, so I don't watch a lot of it. I think a lot of people say politics is just one big reality show. No, no one's really. And look, I, I, I might once in a while it might entertain me, but like, I'm not going to take it seriously because nothing there is actually promising or offering any way that it's going to actually positively impact my life. But I think that's the opportunity, right? I do think there's a yearning out there for a politics that is meaningful. And I think that's because things have gotten so bad. I think again, I'll go back to the New York race, right? And I would broaden it out to Bernie Sanders too. I mean, I worked for Bernie Sanders, right? The fact that Bernie Sanders was able to be a competitive candidate. He didn't win, but able to be a competitive candidate, the fact that Mamdani is able to be a competitive candidate, the fact that AOC was able to be a competitive candidate and actually win that congressional race, they had all of the odds stacked against them. In a previous generation, they may have been completely fringe candidates who never had any shot at all. But the fact that they, they are competitive says that the anger, the visceral anger and desire and yearning is real because it's able to, that anger is, is persisting despite the best efforts of the billionaire class to keep it down and keep people demoralized and disillusioned. So I don't know what's going to happen in this election. But I, and, and I agree with, I mean, I saw Zoron say, you know, there are no moral victories. I don't think if he loses, you know, loses in a close race, it's a, quote, moral victory. But I do think if it is, if the results show that the race was competitive, if I was an oligarch, if I was a billionaire, I'd be sitting back saying, you know, I'm, I guess I'm glad we won this race. But, you know, the, the, the tide seems to be turning. That anger is not going away. Like there's only so much we can do to keep it at bay, right? And so a hundred percent, I look at this, I try to take like the, the Longer view of history. Right, the longer view of history. And, and, and I, so I, I, I, maybe that makes me, maybe that makes me sort of a crazy optimist, but that's how I look at it.
- [41:56]
David Sirota
Look. And I look, we will leave it there today. And, but I appreciate the optimism because I do believe that given everything that feels very dark and is very bad that there is a great awakening that is taking place and taking shape inside of this country and sometimes things have to get incredibly bad in order for people to recognize, wait a minute, how did we get here? Right? I wasn't present, I wasn't showing up. And also I've been fed a bunch of lies, right? And I'm exhausted by it and I'm exhausted by both parties doing it. And that's how power goes back into the hands of the people.
- [42:39]
Andy Levy
I mean it's not, I would add one last thing. It is not a coincidence that the New Deal came out of the Great Depression.
- [42:46]
David Sirota
Depression.
- [42:47]
Andy Levy
I just think that's a very, you know, and I'm not, I don't think either of us are wishing that things get worse in order to get better. But I do think, I mean the old, you know, the old cliche, it's always darkest before the.
- [43:00]
David Sirota
Yeah, right.
- [43:01]
Andy Levy
Like I, the New Deal comes out of the Great Depression because the, the public realized that the bullshit that the corporate class of the 1920s was feeding the public was bullshit. And out of that came the policies that, that truly made this country great. Right? I mean they weren't perfect, right? They, you know, the civil rights movement hadn't happened yet and that took another, you know, 30, 40 years to, to, to, to really come to fruition in the 1960s. But the point is, is that the policies that built the middle class of this country when this country was not the sort of economic 1% versus 99% dystopia, it came out of something horrible. And so I look at that and I say, you know what, it's bad now, but good things can come out of the bad.
- [43:50]
David Sirota
David Sirota we will leave it there today folks. The piece is how to end Democrats civil war and it is up right now at the lever. I appreciate you and hope to have you back on soon.
- [44:03]
Andy Levy
Thank you. Thanks so much.
- [44:06]
Warby Parker Ad
What makes a great pair of glasses at Warby Parker? It's all the invisible extras without the extra cost. Their designer quality frames start at $95 including prescription lenses plus scratch resistant, smudge resistant and anti reflective coatings and UV protection and free adjustments for life to find your next pair of glasses, sunglasses or contact lenses. Or to find the Warby Parker store nearest you, head over to warbyparker.com that's warbyparker.com Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile.
- [44:38]
Ryan Reynolds
With the price of just about everything going up, we thought we'd bring our prices down. So to help us, we brought in a reverse auctioneer, which is apparently a thing.
- [44:47]
Mint Mobile Ad
Mint Mobile Unlimited Trimmium Wireless 3030 get.
- [44:50]
Andy Levy
30 better get 202020 better get 2020.
- [44:52]
Danielle Moody
Better get 15151515 just 15 bucks a month.
- [44:55]
David Sirota
Sold.
- [44:56]
Ryan Reynolds
Give it a try at mintmobile.com Switch.
- [44:58]
Joshua Block
Upfront payment of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of network spizzy taxes and fees extra. See mint mobile.com.
- [45:10]
Danielle Moody
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court upheld the state of Tennessee's ban on trans minors gender affirming medical care in a 6, 3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts. Here to walk us through what this means is Joshua Block, a senior counsel with the national ACLU's LGBTQ and HIV projects and someone who is no stranger to arguing before scotus. Josh, thanks so much for joining us.
- [45:31]
Mint Mobile Ad
Thanks for having me. Happy to be here.
- [45:33]
Danielle Moody
So before we get into the court's decision, can you briefly explain what was before the court in this case, U.S. v. Scrometti.
- [45:43]
Mint Mobile Ad
Sure. So you know, what was before the court was the constitutionality of a law in Tennessee that's similar to laws that swept the country in the past couple of years. Before 2001, no state had a law prohibiting gender affirming medical care for minors. Arkansas was the first one. Everyone was horrified by it. The Republican governor vetoed it. But in the course of just two to three years, basically cookie cutter bills, you know, were were passed by GOP controlled legislature after GOP controlled legislature, often with supermajorities that could overcome gut gubernatorial vetoes. These laws banned medical providers from providing care that would be inconsistent with a minor's biological sex is the term used or you know, sex designated at birth. But the, the specific phrase was inconsistent with their their sex. And these laws were, you know, on their face, you know, designed to Prevent people under 18 from getting a gender affirming medical care. Though all the professional medical organizations in the United States have long supported this care as being medically necessary. And even in countries that have sort of tightened protocols for the care, no country has ever banned it the way that these laws were doing. At least none of the European countries that had recently restricted care. This is a complete and categorical ban. These laws are really devastating for families of trans kids in Tennessee and in elsewhere. I mean, these are kids who have received these medications to allow them to live as who they are. A lot of kids, you know, from an early age have, you know, the trans boys who have always lived as boys from like a very early age, trans girls who have always lived as girls. These laws would forcibly detransition them. And it's no surprise that, you know, families have done everything they could to challenge these laws, to get care out of state, or to relocate their families if they need to. We've had basically refugees.
- [47:56]
Danielle Moody
That's unbelievable. Okay, so this case winds its way, or wends its way up through the court system, ends up at the Supreme Court and a 6, 3 majority, that's Chief Justice Roberts joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, says that a state can in fact ban this medical care. And tell me if I have the reasoning correct, because in Tennessee's case, the law doesn't single out trans people in the sense that it prevents doctors from prescribing these so called puberty blockers to all minors, trans or cis, to treat gender dysphoria. Is that right? So that even though the law was clearly written with trans people in mind and will affect trans people overwhelmingly, the people who crafted this law were very careful maybe to make it apply to all minors for like just this reason.
- [48:46]
Mint Mobile Ad
I know, I don't think they were very careful. The thing is, these medications are given to cisgender minors to treat all sorts of medical conditions. They just can't be given to trans minors for the purpose of treating gender dysphoria. So if you're a CIS woman who has a medical condition that causes excess hair growth, like facial hair growth, you can get the same hormones to stop that excess hair growth. But if you're a trans woman who has hair growth as a result of their sex designated at birth, you can't get the same medication. Same thing with puberty, delaying medication. So the idea that this applies equally to trans people and CIS people is like saying a ban on same sex marriage applies equally to straight people and gay people, that no one, whether they're gay or straight, can marry someone of the same sex. And that, that is actually an argument that was made to oppose the legality of marriage for same sex couples. And of course, everyone, including the Supreme Court, recognized that that was bullshit. Right? And so. But they're accepting precisely the same argument here when used against Trans kids. The idea that everyone is prohibited from gender transition is ridiculous because the only people that need gender transition care are trans folks.
- [50:08]
Danielle Moody
Yeah, well, that's what I'm getting at is that Robert's logic here seems, and the logic of the, of the majority is basically saying that this law on its face does not discriminate against trans people. Am I correct? And that's what, that's what they are saying.
- [50:27]
Mint Mobile Ad
That that is, that is what they, they are saying. And I think that the fact that it seems like a confusing way to paraphrase is because it's such a tortured reason. But you know, and again, the same thing now, which is used not just against marriage for same sex couples, but also marriage between interracial couples. He said everyone, no matter their race, is prohibited from marrying someone of a different race. And what's, what's really critical here though is that, you know, Justice Sotomayor takes them to task on this and like says that this is exactly the same, you know, bullshit reasoning that have been rejected in all these other contexts. And the court in Roberts, what's really critical is he actually agrees with her that in all those other contexts this type of reasoning wouldn't work. And he says, but we're going to accept this reasoning here in the specific context of medical treatments. So he's basically carving out a medical treatment like exception to common sense. And it's super frustrating because it's sort of a because I said so response. But you know, at the same time, it's important to recognize that, that he does acknowledge that for other things like taking a job inconsistent with your sex at birth, taking wearing clothing inconsistent with your sex designated at birth, he agrees that that would be trans discrimination. He's just saying for medical treatments we're going to have this, you know, special arbitrary rule.
- [52:00]
Danielle Moody
So explain something to me. What is, there's a phrase that's been, that, that's being used a lot in this decision and in talking about this decision and that it's a phrase called heightened scrutiny. Can you explain what that is and why it's so important here?
- [52:15]
Mint Mobile Ad
So scrutiny, of course, means like looking closer at something. And so most laws, you know, like economic regulations, just get a very deferential review by the court. It's called rational basis review. And the law is presumed constitutional. And the court doesn't actually look at the underlying evidence supporting the law. The court just says, oh, could someone rationally think that this law makes sense even without looking at the evidence to see what the facts actually show? All that matters Is could someone rationally sort of guess that this might make sense? And that's rational basis review. There are some laws, though, that get heightened scrutiny. The court looks closer at them. And for those laws, the court presumes they're unconstitutional and the government has to come forward with actual evidence supporting it. So they can't just say, we think this. They have to prove it. And so this sort of heightened scrutiny for laws began with laws discriminating on the basis of race. So if you're going to discriminate on the basis of race, it's presumed unconstitutional. They have to prove why it's absolutely necessary to do that. But that a heightened scrutiny also applies to laws discriminating on the basis of sex. So if you're going to treat. If you're going to have some generalization about, you know, men and women being different or having different desires or skills, they need to actually prove it. They can't just, like, base it on assumptions or, you know, old, you know, habits of thinking. And so in this case, what's really important is every single court that has actually looked at the evidence under heightened scrutiny that said, okay, let's have some expert testimony. Let's look at what, what are they saying about this care, and is that actually true? Every single court to apply heightened scrutiny has said that these laws are unconstitutional. The only courts that have said this law is constitutional. Constitutional are ones that are doing so by applying rational basis review and not looking at the evidence. So if the evidence for banning this care was so strong, then they should be able to survive height and scrutiny. But they can't. They can't pass the height and scrutiny test. And so the Supreme Court and then some other courts that have upheld laws like this are saying, we're not going to apply heightened scrutiny. That usually applies to laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual. Instead, we're going to apply rational basis review. And you don't have to prove anything. You can just as long as it's. We think that this is sort of rational speculation and we're going to accept it. And that's a really, you know, dangerous stance to have when it comes to, you know, laws that, like, discriminate on these grounds. Because, you know, the whole. One of the whole reasons why discrimination occurs is sometimes people pass laws not fully understanding, you know, what it means to be trans. And you need to take a hard look to see if assumptions are really correct.
- [55:08]
Danielle Moody
And in fact, the plaintiffs in this case did say that this should be granted heightened scrutiny. Right. But Roberts just Basically said, no, yeah, yeah.
- [55:19]
Mint Mobile Ad
He said, we're going to have. We're going to have an exception when it comes to medical conditions because, you know, sometimes, look, sometimes you do need to take someone's sex into account, like for medical condition. I think, you know, there's some medical conditions that you're maybe at greater risk for if you're sure one have one sex assigned at birth versus another sex assigned at birth. You know, no one is saying that, that you can never take someone's sex assigned at birth into account when it comes to medical treatment. All we're saying is that you need to have a good reason for doing it and that that should pass heightened scrutiny. And so, you know, what our argument and what Justice Sotomayor, like, argues forcefully in the dissent is that you got to apply the same standard that you apply to every other type of sex classification. And in fact, this is the first time in 50 years that the Court has had a law that expressly, you know, discriminates on the basis of sex, expressly says you can have this treatment if your sex assigned at birth is male but not female. It's the first time in 50 years that the law that the Court has not applied this heightened scrutiny to one of those laws. And that's a really bad sign when it comes to, you know, how the Court is going to respond to other types of discrimination. And right now, it's just an exception for medical care, which is bad enough, and we're going to work our hardest to make sure that exception stays narrow. But if you take it more broadly, that undermines sort of the foundation of equal rights on the basis of sex that the Court has protected for 50 years.
- [57:03]
Danielle Moody
Something I read, and I want to make sure that I have this right, is that in Robert's decision, the court basically, he slash. The court did not rule on whether or not discrimination against trans people should receive heightened scrutiny. Right. Like, as an overall class, it's very narrowly tailored to this law. Am I right about that?
- [57:25]
Mint Mobile Ad
You're absolutely right. And I think that's really of critical importance that both sides put in front of the Court this question about what is the standard of review for laws that discriminate on the basis of the discriminate against transgender people. The other side argued that as a general matter, those laws just get rational basis review. And we argued, as a general matter, they get heightened scrutiny. And so the Court went out of its way to say, we're not going to answer that question for other contexts. So we're only focusing on this narrow Medical context. And some of the justices who concurred, like Barrett and Alito, wanted to go further and wanted to say, we're going to say rational basis review for everything. And it's really significant that the majority didn't go there. So for all sorts of other discriminatory laws out there, the standard of scrutiny is still an open question at the Supreme Court and lower courts. There are four different courts of appeals that apply heightened scrutiny to discrimination against trans folks. And in those circuits, they're going to continue applying heightened scrutiny. They have not. Those decisions have not been overruled. And that's just a really crucial point. Protecting folks.
- [58:43]
Danielle Moody
You mentioned Amy Coney Barrett, and I have seen people saying that her concurring opinion is potentially scarier than the opinion that the Chief justice wrote for the majority. Is that why?
- [58:57]
Mint Mobile Ad
Possibly there's two routes to heightened scrutiny. And this is like if you thought heightened scrutiny was sort of a technical thing, like I'm about to, you know, the listeners can sort of, you know, skip ahead, you know, three seconds or something like that. You know, one way is to say that trans people are sort of a discrete and insular minority that's a victim of discrimination and need extra protection. The other route is to say that what the Supreme Court has said when it comes to protection against firing people, that when you discriminate against someone for being trans, you're necessarily treating them differently than someone with a different sex designated at birth. So it's actually a form of sex discrimination. You're saying if, you know, you were. If your sex designated at birth was male, then you can't wear dresses. If your sex designated at birth was female, then you can. So it's like a very specific sex classification. So Justice Barrett's opinion says that trans folks don't get their own protection as a. As a vulnerable minority. I don't see her decision as actually resolving whether it would be sex discrimination in other contexts. Okay, but it's still. It's still certainly discouraging. And I know that, you know, some folks have thought that, you know, she, in some areas, has been a more moderating voice than some of the other justices. But, you know, I don't think. I don't think this is one of those areas.
- [60:31]
Danielle Moody
Right. So, okay, what does this mean overall? And obviously, first and foremost, what does it mean for trans folks in America? This particular case, I guess, only applies to this Tennessee law. But are there nationwide repercussions for this? As you pointed out, I think 25 states have categorical bans on gender affirming medical care. So obviously, this is not good for trans folks. How bad is it?
- [60:57]
Mint Mobile Ad
Yeah, so, well, so these are bans for medical care for minors, first of all, which is an important. Sure, sure. It's an important distinction because the Next Frontier attempts to ban for adults also. The immediate result is obviously horrifying and terrible. These laws were unthinkable five years ago, and now through half the country, trans minors can't get medical care that's really essential for them to, you know, be living and thriving. And so I don't think you can, like, just wash away the devastating impact of this. And I think it's important for folks to, you know, understand that at the same time, there are still tools available to protect folks for the. For the time being. And we don't want to, you know, comply in advance and read the Supreme Court decision as saying things that it doesn't actually say. So, first of all, this is a law that only focuses on minors, not adults. Second of all, it's a law that is just focusing on constitutional equal protection claims. It says you have to treat everyone equally. It doesn't talk about claims involving, you know, sort of a fundamental right for parents to provide medical care to their kids. It doesn't talk about other statutes like the prohibit sex discrimination in employment and in schools and in other contexts. And then it doesn't provide any support for the federal government to be doing anything, because there is no federal law that prohibits gender affirming medical care for minors. So what we've seen is, you know, the court in this case says it's up to the democratic process in these states to determine whether to ban gender affirming medical care for minors. But what President Trump has done is he, since the day he came into office, has tried to usurp the democratic process and try to ban this care unilaterally. And we've had to go to court to get injunctions to stop him. So if what Scrometti says is that this is up to the democratic process, then that means that we gotta let follow the laws that Congress has passed and not that the. Not what the President wants to just say in an executive order. And there's absolutely no federal law prohibiting medical care for transgender minors in any way. And it's important to remain super clear about that, because they want to make this illegal with just a stroke of the pen instead of actually getting Congress to pass something. And we're going to fight tooth and nail to protect the ability of folks in states where this carrier is legal to Continue getting it.
- [63:43]
Danielle Moody
Well, Josh, thank you so much first for coming on the podcast, but also just for all the work you and the ACLU are doing on this. And you know, obviously we live in scary times right now for everyone, but trans people seem to have it particularly bad these days. And it's, it's just, it's just an awful, awful situation. And I'm thankful that at least there are people like you out there and groups like the ACLU out there fighting the good fight. Thanks again for coming on and explaining all this to us. I really appreciate it.
- [64:15]
Mint Mobile Ad
Thanks for having me.
- [64:18]
David Sirota
All right, Andy, as we close out yet another apocalyptic week in these divided states of America, how are you closing it out with your fuck that guy?
- [64:30]
Danielle Moody
Well, people around the country may not know this, but there's a mayoral election in New York City going on. I know it's never talked about. We try to keep it quiet.
- [64:42]
David Sirota
Very, very under wraps here.
- [64:45]
Danielle Moody
Very under wraps. You know, it's not over covered in the media at all across the country. But I'm going to talk about it because what we've got right now are two leading candidates. One is a ghoul named Andrew Cuomo who should be in prison, and the other is a gentleman named Zoran Mandani who is a member of the Democratic Socialist Party. And everyone is thinks that that's very scary. Not everyone because he's doing well in the polls, but there are people who think that that's scary. And there are particularly people on the right who think that that's scary. And I want to talk about a guy named John Katsametidis. I think I pronounced that right, but if I didn't, I honestly don't give a fuck because he sucks. He owns, among other things, a of supermarkets, grocery stores that's based in Manhattan called Grist. He has now come out and said that he may have to close or sell his chain if Mandani gets elected because Mandani apparently is going to open city run supermarkets for free. So what I want to say here is Christini sucks. Grist is gross. Possibly the worst supermarket chain in New York City. And it, and it has competition for that, but it's awful. I for seven years lived directly across the street from a Gristide's and I routinely walked six blocks to a. I think it was a food emporium because the graffiti's was so bad, it was dirty, it had horrible stock. And people in New York will tell you this, this was not just one Grastide's that happened to be Subpar. It's a shitty grocery store chain run by a shitty person. So if he wants to close them, yay. Don't. Don't threaten like. That's another reason to vote for Mamdani, as far as I'm concerned. But we are seeing a lot of this in New York. We're seeing. There is this guy, Bill Ackman, Mike Bloomberg, all these people are getting behind Andrew Cuomo because they are terrified of an actual progressive being mayor of this city. And they know damn well that Andrew Cuomo will help them, will be good for the billionaire class in New York. So, yeah, so my fuck that guy is. It's John Katz and Matitas, but it's also, in general, the New York billionaire class that is pouring money into Andrew Cuomo's campaign. Andrew Cuomo, who again, should be in prison, credibly accused of sexually harassing dozens of women, lied about people dying in nursing homes during COVID and the role he played in that. And these people are all supporting him. So fuck all those guys.
- [67:39]
David Sirota
You know, so I have an interview, you know, with David Sirota, and we. We talk about this race and how the mayoral race is shaping up, and it's basically billionaires against everybody else. And that's essentially like, how the world has shaped up right now, which is its billionaires against the rest of us. And the fact that the billionaire class is throwing their money behind Cuomo isn't. Should be enough. If you know nothing about Zoran Mamdani, then, like, my thought is the billionaires are backing Cuomo. The billionaires who keep your rent high, who keep everything out of reach. One in four New Yorkers is living in poverty. And we want to have conversations about. Well, it's really not about, you know, the billionaires. It's really about regulation. It's really about X, Y, and Z and make it be about everything other than who is the cause of the problem. And the only way to get rid of that problem is to get rid of the people that continue to provide them with power, which is Andrew Cuomo. So fuck that guy. Fuck Gristedis. It is gross. And that's what it should be called, the gross grocery chain. Because I have never gone in one and been like, oh, it's nice and clean in here.
- [69:01]
Danielle Moody
So, yeah, yeah, yeah, it's gross steedies.
- [69:05]
David Sirota
Gross Steedies.
- [69:07]
Danielle Moody
There you go. All right, Danielle, close out this week. Who you got? Who's your fuck that guy?
- [69:13]
David Sirota
You know, I wish that I could one day pick somebody new, but unfortunately, I can't. Not this week. So it has been announced that the Trump administration is closing down in 30 days the LGBTQ suicide hotline 988, which his administration, in a bipartisan fashion, voted to have after data revealed that LGBTQ youth face different issues and require the folks that answer the phones, the counselors that answer the phones require different types of training. And this is a community that is incredibly marginalized, has much higher rates of suicide and attempted suicide, depression, alcoholism than their straight and cis peers. And so 988 was created and the Press Conference 3 button, after you dial 988 sends you directly to a counselor that is trained to help you. 1.3 million LGBT youth across the country utilize that hotline. Donald Trump's administration has decided to end that hotline and effectively put the lives of LGBTQ youth at risk. On top of which, in this same week that that is happening, the Supreme Court has decided to uphold the lower court's decision in Tennessee to ban gender affirming care for trans youth, which again, doctors have said that treatment for gender dysmorphia, which includes hormone blockers, which includes surgery, is life threatening saving treatment. And so what this administration has absolutely said clear, is that we don't care queer kids if you live or if you die. And we're going to ensure that any time is spent will be filled with trauma and tragedy. And so for that reason, this administration, Donald Trump, they're fucking homophobic, transphobic pieces of shit that call themselves pro life, but are anything but that. Say that they're for the children, but are anything fucking but. Fuck those guys. Each and every single fucking one of them.
- [71:36]
Danielle Moody
But look, at least they had the courtesy to not do all of this during Pride Month, right?
- [71:43]
David Sirota
Oh, but about that.
- [71:45]
Danielle Moody
Yeah, yeah. And the one thing I, I mean, all of this just fucking sucks. HHS Health and Human Services put out a statement on this. And what they said was, as reported by Mother Jones, the statement said that the hotline will now focus on serving all help seekers and no longer Silo LGB Youth Services, LGB Plus. So they've dropped the T. Correct. They just simply want to erase trans people from the planet. If you don't think that this is a Nazi esque tactic and a Nazi esque goal, I can't help you. Fuck those guys.
- [72:31]
Warby Parker Ad
Every idea starts with a problem. Warby Parker's was simple. Glasses are too expensive. So they set out to change that. By designing glasses in house and selling directly to customers, they're able to offer prescription eyewear that's expertly crafted and unexpectedly affordable. Warby Parker glasses are made from premium materials like impact resistant polycarbonate and custom acetate, and they start at just $95, including prescription lenses. Get glasses made from the good stuff. Stop by a Warby Parker store near you.
- [73:01]
Andy Levy
USAA knows dynamic duos can save the day like superheroes and sidekicks or auto and home insurance. With usaa, you can bundle your auto and home and save up to 10%. Tap the banner to learn more and get a'@usaa.com bundle restrictions apply.