SIO200: Democratic Debate, Round 2, Night 1

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:28 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Serious Inquiries Only, this is episode 200! Alright, wow, we got there. I'm coming back at you, I know, this a lot of episodes at once, but as I said a couple times over those weekend episodes, I am trying to get to somewhat close to a full July to kind of make up for that slump and that decline in production. That's a nice euphemism, non-production, that I had for like a month. So, but also, I mean, this is the regularly scheduled day. So seeing as how the first night of the second round of debates was last night, I thought it would be good timing to talk about that. And then I will see if I can sneak another one in.

0:01:15 Thomas: Might just be, might just catch up almost for what a whole month should have been all at once. Hopefully there's time for you all to listen to it. If not, you can always keep it in that queue and check it out at your convenience. That's the beauty of podcasting. Let's see. Anything to talk about before we get into it? Still, that Facebook group, a lot of people joined up. That is awesome. It is going how I was hoping it would go.

If you want to join the people who have joined up by joining the group, it is facebook.com/groups/SIO members. That link is in the show notes. Yeah, I highly recommend it, thanks to everybody who did just answer any one of a question to make sure you're not a bot or somebody trying to like sell stuff, and then, uh, then you're in. It could be a cool little place to discuss topics for episodes and everything like that.

Well, all right, let's talk about this debate. I mean, honestly, I'm not going to talk that much about the debate because we're just doing the same thing we already did, but what, you know, like, it really, there's, I was not even looking forward to watching this because it's like, all right, we still have 20 candidates and we've changed like one, one dropped out, one got added, roughly I think, maybe it was one or two, and we're just gonna do the same horrible thing we do where we let people talk for 4.3 seconds and then cut them off and then try to get them to just try to hurting cats the whole time and getting them to say this, and it's CNN, which I've come to the conclusion that I hate CNN. I just really don't like them. I don't think they're fake news in the way that Trump says obviously, I'm guessing I dislike them for far different reasons,

0:03:00 Thomas: But I also just can't stand CNN so I'm not a big conspiracy guy or anything, and I think that there are a lot of okay actors, you know, like people with integrity who work at CNN, but I also think it's true that the network profits from Trump being in office. The network profits from people being riled up and heated up and engaged and fearful and all that stuff. I think that's, I'm not saying anything new. I'm not saying any thing that we don't all know, I think. But I think just seeing this debate sort of, for me, I don't know, made it more obvious. For example, I mean, we got this set that is like something from the Superbowl, you know, they go to the debate stage and then, then they're even bragging about it in certain different places, you Know, like Twitter and stuff. And like, did you know it took, uh, oh, I'll pull it up.

0:03:56 Thomas: It's like, it took you know 53 semi trucks or something to, to assemble it. Uh, you know, like why, why would I want that? Why is that a good thing? Thing. Why would that be something you would brag about? For me, that'd be like, why? Yeah, here it is. It took a space. It was a spaceship like set that according to CNN's Oliver Darcy took a hundred people, eight days to build and involved nine 53. Oh, sorry. I mixed up the numbers. Nine 53-foot semi trucks. I probably thought it was 53, nine foot trucks. 53 much much smaller trucks that wouldn't have been as, as efficient. Um, but still nine 53-foot semi trucks.

0:04:42 Thomas: And, uh, and when you look at it, it's like, oh, wow, there's, there was a lot of money that went into that. Where's all that money coming from, you know? Um, and it's, it's literally politics as theater. Like it's a theater with a huge Superbowl halftime show set. And it just, it's too put together.

And I don't know, you know, I didn't talk about this at the time because it, it was kind of, you know, off, but there was the whole drawing the names to see who would be matched up and then, like, pausing because CNN is doing all this, like, they're in charge of all this, they're drawing names to sea is going to be paired up on which day, and then they're stopping midway through to like analyze what they've already decided and like do some punditry on that and it's such a, there's something about it that's deeply disturbing to me, and it, I don't, and it also feels like there's just nothing we can do about it, you know, there's certainly nothing I can do about it, and and even if most people are probably a little fed up with it, I imagine if you, if you asked your average Democrat, like, what, what they think of this CNN Super Bowl halftime show profitable marketing game show, whatever words you want to use with this.

It just, we're just in such a horrific time in American history, in my opinion, like the president is leading chants of "send her home" about members of Congress who live here, who are citizens, all because they are a different color from him and from the, you know, from from the Republican base.

0:06:26 Thomas: It's disgusting and disturbing, divisive racism on an explicit degree that we haven't seen in quite a while. I mean, obviously, it's not unprecedented in our nation's history, but it was something that we thought was maybe on a steady trajectory toward getting better, and at least publicly. To say nothing of, yeah, there's still structural problems, Of course, that's what I talk about on the show a lot, but like at the very least, I thought we were, you know, maybe eight years ago or so, or 10 years ago now by now, I thought we were at least moving in a good direction, like societally and in terms of like decorum. I didn't anticipate a future president of the United States leading racist chants.

0:07:17 Thomas: You know, I just didn't, you know, even with a negative view of the state of race in this country, I still didn't think that would happen, but it has. And to see all that, to see what Trump's done, to See the Family Separation, to Sea Concentration Camps and all this stuff, and then to see CNN, like, treating it like a marketing opportunity is just, it's just gross. You know? It's weird. Weird. I don't know. These, these candidates should be getting on the stage to try to make a case of who's the best to end this madness. And instead it's, it's like, Whoa, game show. Who's going to be on top after this debate? 2020 Democratic debate.

0:08:02 Thomas: There was, I watched the debate. I, you know, I recorded it actually, cause I was out, and then I started the recording and I had to fast forward to, I, I checked it, 13 minutes in by the time the debate started, it was a bunch of, it's almost like the Super Bowl, it's like hours of pre-game show, it was a bunch, like, highly produced videos about the, you know, it was almost like "previously on Lost," and it gives you all the breakdown of the last thing and trying to up the tensions and everything. Thing. Can't we just have, like, I don't know, PBS handle all this. I just, it's, I don't need it to be so icky. Just ask a question, get a discussion going. And furthermore, as much as I'm, I'm like pretty decidedly, I dunno what the word is.

0:08:50 Thomas: I like, kind of like Jake Tapper, but not too much. Like I sort of a little bit like Jake Tapper and that's as far as it goes. Like, I won't hate him actively. I'm okay. That guy tries to be pretty fair. I've heard him do some interviews and stuff. And I tend to, you know, I mean, I think he belongs to a different era. Like he's trying to be super objective centrist journalist guy at a time when I just don't think you can do that. But still, like, I don't, I Don't, uh, I, I don't hate people when I think they're genuinely trying to do something like that. Uh, versus people who I think are cynically doing that or disguising themselves as centrist when they're really trying to advance a right-wing agenda. I don'T think he's doing any of that, but then then we get this debate started and we get all of the, we get like what?

0:09:37 Thomas: 10 minutes of Jake Tapper trying to get this soundbite for Republicans. It's so weird. Okay, so let's get into it. I guess we, we again get into this healthcare debate that doesn't really seem to be a good use of anyone's time. Um, it's something I genuinely have questions about and I've done a little research, a little bit here, to try to just for me to figure out like what I think about it, because we have several different plans. You know, we've got, and they're all named similar things, so that also becomes very frustrating. They're all kind of named after bills that didn't go anywhere, that, you know, that we've gotten Medicare for All, Medicare for America, Medicare for Medicare's say, I don't know. They're all different. I think the first two were real. And then it turns into like Medicare for Some, and maybe all eventually, Medicare here, Medicare there.

0:10:26 Thomas: They all have, have Medicare in them. We've settled on that. That's kind of interesting. That wasn't always the case. We're kind of settled on on that, I don't know, it must have been some, some testing or what, but we are, it seems, seemingly everybody's into providing everybody health care, and good, like, as much as there were that, this, this debate really was, if you watched it, it really was, was moderates versus progressives, i.e. Warren and Sanders, pretty much versus everybody else. And then, like, I think Buttigieg is, my read on Buttigieg, and I like Buttigieg, and he said some things that I really agreed with and I'll highlight later. So no ill will toward really, really any of these candidates except Marianne Williamson and, and, uh, Bullock is aggressively mediocre.

0:11:19 Thomas: Like what, what is that guy? How is he on that stage? I don't understand it. Uh, I'm not a fan. Everybody is hating on, uh.

0:11:29 Thomas: Hating on our favorite, uh, Delaney, who, who really just got murdered by Elizabeth Warren. Uh, Warren had the best line of the night on that. Like, why do you go to through all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to tell us what we shouldn't try to do? Like, what we, you know, and she had another good line that I think was, it was not in that, it was, it was slightly at a different time, where she said, you know, we, we can't be scared. She's like, I get what we're all scared, uh, and, and it's a scary time and everything, but we can't let our fear make us try to vote for somebody that who doesn't inspire us. It was a message of don't settle for somebody you think maybe could win a purple state who you don't even really believe in because you're so scared.

0:12:17 Thomas: And it was really effective. I think Warren had an incredible night. You know that I like Warren. She's my favorite. But even considering she's my favourite, I'm still amazed at how well she does every time at these. She is just good at this. She's really good. Every one of her answers, she starts, she frames the problem. She has an example to illustrate the problem, and then she turns to solutions. And she's so good at sticking to that problem-solution format. And it's not BS, too. It comes from having studied all these issues and having very deep, informed opinions on them, in my opinion. That's why she's my favorite. I mean, I'll come out and say it. I'm not trying to hide it from anybody. She's my favourite. But, you know, there are other candidates I like. I'm actually Bernie.

0:13:03 Thomas: I'm remembering why I voted for Bernie in the '16 primary. Like, there's something about Bernie. I do like Bernie. I like Bernie so much more than I like the people who like Bernie. I don't know why that is. I don't feel like I have that same experience with anyone else, you know, like I can't think of another candidate who I like so much better than I liked their supporters. I dunno what it is, you know, I mean there's candidates I don't like who have supporters I don't like, but that's kind of, that goes hand in hand. It's weird that Bernie himself, you know, he yells and he does all that and he's got, got blustered. But he's also, you know, I do respect that he's genuine. I do respect that his harped on the same issues for so long. So people, he makes people feel like they can trust him, because it's been, you know, it's been a hundred years of him kind of sitting outside both parties.

0:13:56 Thomas: You know, he's an independent. So sitting to the left of both parties and complaining about things that he should be complaining about, like complaining about money in the system and corporations and all that. And he has a very consistent message that he has lived up to in his career. So for that reason, I'm not going to be terribly upset if Bernie is the candidate. I would gladly embrace him in the general, just as I will every candidate except for Marianne Williamson and Biden. Obviously, I'll vote for Biden, him, but I just really don't want it to be Biden. But, you know, I like a lot of candidates. Bernie would be up there. Bernie might be my second pick, actually, now that I think about it.

0:14:41 Thomas: But anyway, sorry, I keep getting, I wander off into all these thoughts. Let's talk about this questioning that I got to. We're on, that's right, healthcare. That's the first issue right out of the gates. And we we, we face this familiar problem, all these different, you know, the, the difference seems to come down to, do we get rid of private health insurance or do we allow it to continue? And I just don't, I still haven't found a way to feel that strongly either way. You know, we all want healthcare for everybody. I think everybody on that stage does, you know, I don't trust some of the moderates. Um, you You know, I certainly, you know, like Hickenlooper, Delaney and Steve Bullock, I don't trust them.

0:15:31 Thomas: And, you Know, so, so I, I'm not voting for that. I don't support those people. But like, they say they want to provide healthcare to all. And that's good. Like, at least we've moved so far left that that's kind of taken for granted. But then there's the, there's what comes after that. You know, the details that I think will matter, but I also don't think, I don't, how do I say this? The details will absolutely matter, But I don't think we as voters can tell how they re going to matter right now. You know? Like, I think what will happen is A, if we don t win the Senate, none of this matters. It absolutely does not matter. Almost none of it matters. If we don't win the senate, then what matters is we need to have a democratic president so that we get the Supreme Court, you know, if anything happens, so that RBG can retire safely and we can all breathe a gigantic sigh of relief.

0:16:26 Thomas: That's a lot of the stress in my own life. It's just hoping she can make it to then. And, you Know, if anything, heaven forbid happens to any other liberal justice, that kind of thing, that's monumentally important. There's also going to be a ton. Well, I say a ton, there's also gonna be a lot that a Democratic president can undo that Trump has done. Now, that won't fix the lives of people he's ruined, and he's ruined countless lives, but we can at least stop ruining some lives that are being ruined. And we can do a lot at the border. We can do a lot of stuff. You guys probably know all this. Apologies if I'm saying anything you already know from either me or opening arguments or something. But once it comes to health care, I mean, there's just no chance without the Senate that we're doing any of this.

0:17:13 Thomas: There is just no chance. 0.0% chance. We can patch up Obamacare, perhaps. Maybe we could do something. But we're not going to do anything bipartisan because we don't live in that era anymore. I've referenced it before, but I'm looking back at my bookshelf here. What is it? Insecure Majorities is the book I've reference. Before, we are in a different time than we were in the 90s and before, where since power can go either way, I'll give just a 20-second summary in case you haven't read that book. Since power could go eitherway to either the Democrats or the Republicans, there is no longer any incentive to work together and to give either party a win.

0:17:59 Thomas: In the past, Democrats had control for a very long time and Republicans were sort of comfortable. There's some interesting anecdotes in that book about how comfortable Republicans were being the minority party and how Newt Gingrich really turned that all around in the 90s. And credit to evil genius NewtGingrich. I mean, talk about an evil genius. There's people who are evil and maybe lazy, and then there's people are evil and effective. I would put Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, Bill Barr. Those are the scariest people. Evil and competent and effective. And he certainly was that. And Newt Gingrich decided, like, he just absolutely beat the crap out of rhetorically and publicly out of other Republicans who didn't want power, you know, were like comfortable making little deals and doing little compromises.

0:18:52 Thomas: And, uh, once they won that landslide wave election in '94 and changed the balance of pretty much all of history after that, because it came out of nowhere and just was an absolute beat down and changed the the House for the first time in however long it was, very long time, that changed everything. So now it looked like any either party could at any time perhaps have power again. And so so that that that game theory dynamic is, we will just not give you any wins. That's what happened with Obama. And there's also a racial component to that, but it's it's not just that. It's also this new era. And the two kind of go hand in hand, of course, with the with the polarization and Fox News and all that. But, like, this idea that, like, we do not need, and Republicans have an advantage because Republican ideology is more about government not doing things.

0:19:47 Thomas: So they have the inherent advantage. They have the systemic advantage. They have to gerrymander advantage. They have Electoral College advantage. They have the Senate advantage in the fact that red states with a couple of horses get two senators, and then California with five hundred thousand million billion people get two senators as well. They have all these advantages, and not the least of which is the fact that they're happier if nothing gets done. Then Democrats are, Democrats want to fix problems, they want to make stuff happen. And Republicans just say, "Nah, you're not doing anything." And this is all my way of saying, if we don't win the Senate, there could be nothing less meaningful than a debate between Medicare for All and Medicare for America, or whatever the two plans are. It will make no difference.

0:20:33 Thomas: So we have to win the Senate. We have to Win the Senate. Bang on a little metal thing. Sounds weird. I don't know why I did that. But just to make the point, we have to win the Senate. Otherwise, that doesn't matter. Matter. And again, no, I've said it again. I won't repeat myself. It will be important to have the presidency, but we have to win the Senate. So assuming we do, assuming we do take the Senate, what's going to be the difference? Well, I started to say about Buttigieg, I do like Buttigieg as a person. I think he's a great speaker. I think he does a great job. And I think the comparisons to Obama are in some ways right on. Just rhetorically, I mean, he does a good job, a very good job of setting up when he gets a question, when he gets an issue, whatever it is, he speaks clearly.

0:21:24 Thomas: He speaks in a way that's calming. He speak in a ways that lays it out and presents what he thinks. My only problem with Buttigieg right now is he doesn't have enough policy for me. I think, this is my opinion, and if you want to argue with me, feel free. You can do all the arguing you want, but it's my My view, based on how long it's taken on his website to get anything going, to really take clear positions, I think he's waiting to see where he can compete, and that is another complaint of mine about this whole process. It feels a lot less based on what matters, what issues, or rather what solutions are going to be most effective, and it feels more like, all right, well, that candidate's saying this.

0:22:10 Thomas: So I got to say something different because we can't just say the same thing. Otherwise, why would they choose me? So we need to find these little differences. We need to take these little positions. And then if somebody's already done that, like they've staked out their position, you have to define yourself around them, you know, and it's just a, it's a product of elections. And, and once again, kind of a game theory thing where it's, it just how it has to be. I guess I I don't really know the solution to it, but it feels like, for me, I don't totally trust Buttigieg's policies to be as progressive as I want them to be because I think he's still triangulating, in my opinion. I think maybe he's still being patient and waiting to see. I also think Kamala Harris I really don't trust. I trust her even less than Buttigieg.

0:22:57 Thomas: I think she's amazing rhetorically. I admire her debating. Debating. There will be a lot to be excited about if she is the candidate, but I also am very worried. Well, I'm getting ahead of myself. This is tonight's debate, so maybe I'll talk about that at a later time. But that's how I feel about Buttigieg. But I do feel like one place where he did a good job was triangulating and seeing, okay, here's the debate with this Medicare for All stuff. And Buttigieg's position was, I am kind of taking the best of both worlds. We're going to phase this in, and if, you know, Bernie and Warren are correct that it's best to have Medicare for everybody, then my plan will see that, you know, and kind of react to that, and then we will do that.

0:23:43 Thomas: But it's sort of like a phasing in thing. And again, I just, I don't know how to feel that strongly about this. Do you? Do you have any, like, strong feelings about which precise health care plan? I know I want everybody to have health care, and I know that I would rather be more single payer. I personally, I don't care that much if private insurance still exists in some form, you know, like maybe it's a supplementary thing, maybe, as long as everybody has a good baseline of care, and that's the important part. I want everybody to have a good baseline of care. I want it to be free, basically. I mean, we have to pay taxes for it and everything, but I want everybody to be covered. I think we should have universal health care. I think that most of the the candidates want that. But if, you know, if we do something where, if you want to spend some extra money, if you have the ability to spend some extra money and buy some supplemental health insurance, that'll maybe get you, I don't know, get you in faster or something.

0:24:40 Thomas: I mean, that, to me, that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to kind of have a little bit of that in there. But again, only under the assumption that that's not taking away from anybody else's care. Like I want everybody to have that solid baseline first. And I, you know, I don't know. But like, I could be convinced either way. I just think so much more is going to depend on to get back to the Senate. It's going to be on the Senate, assuming we have control of it. I'm pretty worried. Here's what I'm worried about. This is a major theme of this debate. And this is what I am worried about I am a progressive, but I'm starting to be a little more worried than I was about just the facts of how elections happen, how they're won in this country.

0:25:27 Thomas: And by that, I mean, it's such an impossible calculation. You know, there's so much that goes into it. And sometimes some people want to focus on, you've got to energize the base. You've got to excite young people and progressives, and that's how you will win because you keep people excited and that'll overcome. And that could be true. And then on the other side, you have, no, no. We need to be more moderate because it's these people in these purple states. It's Ohio. It's Minnesota. It's Wisconsin. It's those purple states that you never know which way they'll go. Though. We need to make sure we are staying in the middle to win those.

0:26:12 Thomas: And I am starting to become worried that that could be true. I don't know that that Could be true? I'm a little worried, though. Because, unfortunately, based on, you know, an article that's really scaring me that I shared in the Facebook group, facebook.com slash groups slash SIO members, which is Trump's Electoral College edge could grow in 2020. What I worry about is that increased turnout, which we previously might have thought, well, that just wins everything. I mean, if you increase turnout, we're so locked up all the time. It's so 50-50 that if you can increase your side's turnout by just even a tiny amount, then you should win a landslide. Well, when it comes to presidential elections, what that has looked like is you increase turnout in states that are already solidly blue.

0:27:07 Thomas: So California, you know, in states like that, where it doesn't do anything other than mean you won what should be the way it matters, which is the popular vote, but it's not. And so if that's the case, like maybe that is the case. Maybe exciting that progressive youth, you now, young people kind of rock the vote thing, maybe doing that, all that I get you is a bigger popular vote victory and still an electoral college loss. I'm incredibly worried about that. I don't want that to be true. I want us to be able to campaign on the most progressive of progressive stuff because that's what I want to happen. But I really worry about it. But even assuming we get through that, let's say Bernie or Warren or somebody more progressive gets in.

0:27:54 Thomas: I'm actually also very worried that it won't turn out the way we're all hoping, like even with a Democratic Senate. I think Democrats, because there's a reason that Obamacare was as limited as it was. There are a lot of reasons. Some of them good, some of them bad. But I'm sort of thinking about it this way. We all assume that Republicans are the best at being as evil as possible at all times. And oftentimes they are. Mitch McConnell is extraordinarily good at being evil. But we also need to remember that there's a lot they just didn't get done. They get almost nothing done, actually. They get very little done because, yes, they all have ours by their names.

0:28:40 Thomas: But for two years, they had every branch of government and did almost nothing. They couldn't repeal Obamacare fully. They couldn't do any number of plans that I know they all want to do, or at least some number of them wanted to do. And they barely got that tax that, remember that tax bill that just gave a bunch of money to the richest corporations to buy back their stock? They got that done, barely, because that's like the one thing they agree on. But there's not a whole lot else they got done. And it's because it's more complicated. Parties are more complicated than just saying that we got the red team and the blue team. And this is why I actually don't really think the two-party system is a problem. I mean, people talk about, oh, I wish we had another party.

0:29:27 Thomas: I wish you had more options. You know, you could be, you have this party, that party. And I think that's really just by another name, the same thing, personally, because you've got the Freedom Caucus and you've got the centrists and you're already have those little factions. Elections, and yes, they're sort of caucusing together in a way. It's almost like a coalition government in a multi-party country. It is almost like that already, because the Tea Party right won't go along with certain stuff, and then you have got the same, I think to maybe a slightly lesser degree, or maybe I am not sure. On the left, it might be a similar thing, where right now we are seeing it, where you have Nancy Pelosi, and you have a lot of people who want impeachment to happen, but then they're like the more progressive edge.

0:30:16 Thomas: And yes, they, they sort of, they caucus with the, with the with Democrats, like they're on the Democrats, sort of like how Bernie does, you know, and even though he's independent. But then when it comes to these major decisions, it's not a given. It's not, it's not granted. In fact, it's rare that you have them all on the same page. And I worry that even with full Democratic control, there could be purple state Democrats who just say, yeah, sure. I know that maybe you ran on Medicare for all and you were able to win the presidency, President Sanders or President Warren. But in my state, people don't want that. So sorry, you don't have my vote. And they won't even be wrong. Like that's it's just a problem with our system.

0:31:08 Thomas: It's like, it's not enough to have the votes in just sheer numbers. It's because of our stupid system, which who knows, maybe it's better than it could have been. I don't know. But you need to have The Right Votes in the right places for some... It's so frustrating. So those purple Democrats might not be wrong when they don't vote for whatever plan. And I don't know what we're going to do to deal with that. I think right now during debate time, nobody wants to either. Either nobody wants to think about that or they just avoid it because there's nothing you can really say. You know, like all you can if somebody asks you about it, all you can say is, well, we will make sure to work with the whatever and get it done.

0:31:54 Thomas: I'll get it down. I will convince them, you know, and like maybe Maybe you will, I guess, but there's nothing, there's not really any way I can evaluate that, you know, like how, how do we decide if anything that would lean you more toward like a moderate, I, I don't know, or somebody who you just think has a history of getting compromise and getting legislation through the Senate or the house or something. I don'T know. It's so my point is, I DON'T think going back to what I said about this whole thing, I think I think that the difference in plan will matter, but I don't think we have the information right now to make a decision that matters, which is why, by the way, in the end, this is again why I favor Elizabeth Warren so heavily, because I think she just is smarter.

0:32:41 Thomas: I think she is, has more understanding of everything than pretty much any candidate. And I would trust her the most to get stuff done to see, okay, well, uh, I can't get, you know, whoever's support if I, uh... If I do this. So, therefore, maybe we can find another way to get this done. Maybe I can find a way to do it. Get something done through executive action. I just trust her more to do that kind of thing. And I don't think it's a question so much of conviction. You know, like a lot of the, again, going back to the Sanders appeal, and a lot OF appeal that different people have for their candidate of choice is that they trust their candidate. They trust, just like I, you know, I'm saying I trust Warren, but I'm seeing it a little differently.

0:33:30 Thomas: A lot of voters I'm seeing are worried about the fact that like, well, okay, sure, this person says they want this, but maybe they, you know, how hard will they fight for this? Or are they just saying that out of political convenience? That's actually not so much my worry as, so like a lot of people's fear is, and I think this might be based on, personally, this is just my opinion.

I think this is maybe based on a more conspiracy theory view of how stuff has gone wrong in the past. When you look at Obamacare and the fact that it wasn't single payer and all that stuff and it wasn't, you know, there wasn't public, like all that's up and how it didn't turn out exactly how we wanted, my opinion is because the country prevented it, because Republicans were able to fight tooth and nail and get everybody in the whole, you know, in their whole base scared to a death of health care reform, and a bunch of people lost elections because of that. But there are other people who think, well, it's because Obama sold out to the insurance companies. He sold out the pharmaceutical companies.

0:34:44 Thomas: And I just, I mean, I'm not 100% sure, but my judgment is that's not the problem. I don't really think that's how it tends to go down even. And I think it's more the case that in these purple states that could kind of go either way, those representatives and those senators have to figure out what they can get away with. We can't just take for granted that every person with a D by their name is on the same page as our personal politics. So I guess that's why I'm slightly less, slightly less. I mean, I still want to feel like the person I'm voting for is sincere. Don't get me wrong. We all want to feel that way. We all feel like they're saying what they mean and mean what they say and all that.

0:35:32 Thomas: But I guess I have, if I were to just look at like the, I don't know, the prior assumptions maybe, like the Bayesian priors and all of that, I'm a little less worried about a Manchurian candidate Democrat who secretly doesn't care about reform than I am of them just not not being able to do it because of the structural reasons and because of the Republican party. Like that's, that's more my worry, which is again why I, why I prefer Elizabeth Warren. And if, you know, someone make a case for me, if there's a case that you think that that another candidate would be better in the face of Republican resistance than Elizabeth Warren, I'm open to that case, because in the end, I just want a good outcome.

0:36:18 Thomas: That's all I care about. I want the best outcomes. I want to reduce income inequality. I want to give everyone health care. I want all this stuff, you know, and I will treat anyone who's arguing with me in good faith that we all want this stuff, as long as you return the favor and don't think I'm secretly like paid by big pharma or something, we can have a good faith debate about who will be best to make that happen and why. But I should point out, you know, the argument does go the other way. Um, as much as I'm, it's my fear that we need to be more purple in order to beat Trump, that's my year, 'cause I don't want it to be true. And I especially don't want like, you know, my favorite progressive candidate to win the nomination and then lose to Trump.

0:37:05 Thomas: That would be absolutely devastating, but there is, it does go other way, you know, like we could, we could nominate that purple candidate and then have them lose to Donald Trump because you didn't excite enough progressives. Now, I would also be extremely mad about that, because if you are a progressive, if you are someone who genuinely cares about outcomes, then you need to still vote for whoever the candidate is, because Trump is hurting people very badly. And this, I would hope this argument is done to death, but the idea that you're going to make a bunch of people suffer and die and be separated from their families and all this stuff for another four years because the candidate wasn't quite left enough for you, that's horrible.

0:37:52 Thomas: So like, but it goes either way, you know, like, and it's impossible, because you look at these polls, and even if you thought in your mind, I want to vote for whoever best will beat Trump, we don't have that information. You might, you know, they always cite the head to heads. Oh, there's the head-to-head polls. There's the heads of that poll. It's more complicated than that. For one, you don't know how that's going to change going forward and in the wake of a general election campaign where they're directly going head to head. Like you just don't, you can't predict that, you can try, but you'd probably be wrong. It's, it's impossible. And then furthermore, you know, the Electoral College is just so complicated. The, the calculations that go into like, yes, you might have a five point advantage.

0:38:37 Thomas: But what if that's all in these states that don't matter, that are already decided? And as we saw with Hillary, what if you have some slight liabilities in certain purple states that give the electoral college advantage to Trump? It's it's really hard to predict. It's almost impossible. So it does go the other way. And I don't know. I don'T know what's the right answer there. Again, my biggest fear is that we do need to elect a more purple candidate, but that could be wrong, too. That could backfire, too, you know? People say that's what happened with Hillary. I don't think it is. I think Hillary's policy positions were incredibly progressive. Maybe she was perceived as more centrist, but, I mean, she wasn't, which then, I guess, lends another complication to it, because if we have to go based on not what their positions are, but how people are seeing them.

0:39:29 Thomas: And then you have to guess that are people seeing this person is progressive, but not this person. That adds another layer of complexity. In the end, we all just need to show up for whoever the candidate is. And it's as simple as that. Perhaps now would be a good time to go back into the debate. Again, I didn't care much about this. That's why I'm not talking too much about it. I'm just giving you my thoughts as a voter here and as a consumer of, as a Democrat and as somebody who's following all this. But I will say Buttigieg had some great moments for me, and I, you know, I hope he has a future. I would want him to commit to being a little more progressive for my tastes, but I'm not going to be that sad if he has an long future in democratic politics, and maybe that will include the presidency someday. I kind of don't think it'll be in 2020, but who knows.

0:40:22 Thomas: He's rhetorically very gifted, and it's so weird. I see some atheists who are turned off by his use of, you know, the Bible and talking about Christianity, but I absolutely love it because what he does is he just shows every time he shows how hypocritical Republicans are about their religion.

And he had a great line where he talked about, I think it was in response to what Republicans are going to say if you, I don't know, increase taxes or try to increase handouts or something like that. And he just cited the fact that like, yeah, remember when Jesus said you should treat the poor nicely, essentially? I mean, it's that kind of stuff. I love it. I don't know. I think it's great.

Because newsflash, Christianity is still going to be around in this country for a long time to come. And for me, I would love it if, yes, I would love if people became irreligious, but that also doesn't guarantee that they're going to be good people or progressive, as we've seen. But I also would love that if conservative Christians turned into progressive Christians. That would be great. If people who actually looked at what Jesus taught in the book allegedly, but whatever, it's all there, how how it's written.

And if you accept that as Christians should, you know, as atheists don't, you know we're skeptical about it, but whatever, playing along their lines, along their game, look at the words he says. And the number one theme, the number one theme of the Bible, of the New Testament that I got from reading the entire thing, which I did for my podcast Thomas and the Bible for five or six years, I read that whole stupid thing.

0:42:04 Thomas: There is no message that is more unambiguous than that Jesus hated rich people. It's amazing. It's over and over and over. It's like, well, if you're wealthy, you're not getting into heaven. Oh, see that person who just, you know, there's all these parables. Hey, see that person who just donated like, I don't know, a potato chip to the church? Well, they just gave up like their only potato chip. Whereas you, rich guy, sure, sure, you gave $200 or whatever the biblical currency would be, but like, that's nothing to you. Whereas that person, they just gave up their only potato chip. Yeah. I mean, these memories are not obviously entirely accurate, but that's the gist of it. And so those examples, like if you have a dollar and that's your only dollar in the world, and you give that dollar to the church, you were giving so much more than a rich guy who's got whatever, a million dollars and gave like $100,000 to the church.

0:43:01 Thomas: And Jesus is very consistent about this, like incredibly, impressively consistent about that in the Bible. And I love how Buttigieg uses that. You know, it's something that, frankly, you know, because yes, I would love to get an atheist candidate in there, and that's cool, but I also think it's valuable to, what I wish all of the candidates who are Christian would do. Like in my, you know, in the perfect world, we get rid of religion. I understand all that. But in the real world where that's a very long ways off and where most candidates are Christians, I wish the Democratic candidates would do that more. You know, if we had been doing this for decades, maybe it would have made a difference.

0:43:48 Thomas: If we get up there and and say, hey, I know you right-wingers are all, well, you'd say it better than that, but hey, Republicans, you're very Christian. I respect that. But like, have you read the thing where they say, help the poor and do all this stuff? I mean, it's unambiguous. It's right there. So I love that about Buttigieg. Another thing I loved about Buttigieg was he had a fantastic little speech about the Republicans calling stuff socialism. You know, that was the question. It was something like, oh, aren't you, the Republicans are going to, you know, call us socialists. And he said, if we, he said essentially, Buttigieg said, look, if we get up here and we adopt socialist policies, the Republicans are going to cry socialism. But if we get up here and we adopt Republican policies, guess what the Republicans are going to do?

0:44:36 Thomas: They're going to cry socialism, they're crying socialism no matter what, that's what they do. And what he said then was, so let's just take policy positions, not, and it's sort of like, close to what Elizabeth Warren said, which is let's take some policy positions, not out of fear of what the Republicans will say. Let's take them because we think they're the best positions. And I think that's where he said my Medicare, whatever plan. But, but what it was very effective. Like it's, it's a great point to say, stop being afraid of what Republican Fox news is going to say. We know they're full of shit. We know they're going to say whatever. It doesn't matter. Stop being afraid of that. Start adopting the policies that you think are best. It was very, very effective. Um, so I like Buttigieg, you know, I like it. Well, as usual, I've spouted off forever.

0:45:23 Thomas: Uh, let me get to some other specifics. Here's one thing that's interesting trade policy. It is, it is actually the case. And as shocking as this is, it's actually the place that Trump's Paul trade policy is closer to Warren and Sanders than anyone else. But I don't, I know that sounds, sounds scary. I don't actually think think that's a bad thing. Trade is one of those weird issues where Trump was almost right, but for the stupidest possible reasons, you know, it's like, it's like when you're playing poker against somebody who has no idea how to play poker, but they accidentally beat you, you know, and like you have to point it out to them.

0:46:09 Thomas: I think that's a, it's in The Office. I think it's a, uh, what's his name in the, the Office, where he's, where you, like, he has to point out, like, "oh no, you have a full house, you just beat me," and and they kind of win, but for the dumbest reasons. They don't even know, like, what you were trying to do, or they don't even have a good strategy. It's like that with Trump. I mean, he was anti every trade deal because he's an idiot and he thinks that, like, trade deficits are bad when really they're not. They have nothing, they're, he, in every book I've read about the Trump White House, there's accounts of people trying to explain trade deficits to him over and over and over, and he just doesn't get it. But I've already covered that. So he's wrong for the stupidest reasons, or sorry, he's right. He's right for the stupidest reason.

0:46:55 Thomas: He is right for the wrong reasons. And what's interesting is this has this is a bit of a real difference in Democrats within Democrats. And I'm not certain I know the exact detailed right answers to all this. It's complicated. But there have long been the kind of the free trade Democrats that would be like Bill Clinton and those sorts. And then people who are going to be more protectionist, sort of like Trump is being, but hopefully for way better reasons and using methods that will actually yield progress instead of just using tariffs in the dumbest possible way. That makes no sense. So rest assured, what Trump is doing is stupid and not the right answer.

0:47:45 Thomas: But he might not be necessarily doing the wrong thing in saying we need to tear up these trade deals, but for different reasons. And those reasons are that free trade, while it does have a lot of benefits, and this is why this is a tough thing for me personally. I can see both sides of this, because when we open up trade with country X, whatever, whatever you know, quote-unquote, I wouldn't say third world, but like lower on the GDP scale, you know. Know, a country that's smaller, that, that has lower wages and all that. On one hand, there are really good moral arguments about why we shouldn't be profiting on the backs of oftentimes child labor and like low, you know, low wages and all this stuff.

0:48:36 Thomas: And I absolutely agree with that. But the other side of it is it's actually like worse for those people if we don't give them access to that. You know, like the jobs they would have without American corporations in there might well be very much worse. And it's one of those really tough arguments where, like, both sides is kind of bad. I think it's, I imagine that there will be a lot of anti-capitalists who might write to me and say that I'm full of crap and it's just exploitive and we ought to whatever. Ever. But like, it is the case that, like, free trade does lift the floor for a lot of people.

And for someone like me who cares more about outcomes than about purity, I do care about the fact that people have been lifted out of poverty. Like that's good. I want people to be lifted out of poverty, but I suspect that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and others may have a good way to to try to walk that line and get us the best of both worlds there, you know, like negotiate to make sure that our trade deals, because the problem with our trade deals isn't that they aren't profitable enough for us. That's not the issue.

That is what Trump thinks the issue is. Oh, we need to make more money off of these things. No, that is not it. For me, and I think Elizabeth Warren probably laid this out best in the debate, but also I think Bernie agrees and it will be interesting to get more than 4.3 seconds of each of their sides on this. That would be nice, CNN, to get like four minutes of their sites.

0:50:13 Thomas: That'd be cool. That'd Be a Way to Make a Decision. But anyway, making trade deals require certain things of these countries. You require certain labor conditions, you know, certain human rights conditions, and really going hard on that would be great for the world. And maybe it would be the best of both sides of what I talked about there. You know, like maybe that's the way to kind of split that baby, except in a better way. Not the negative connotation of that, but that would be a good way to both get access to these markets and have these other countries gain access to us, but in a way that brings everybody up and still ensures that there's hopefully less exploitation and all that stuff. So it's not best for GDP, like it'll be worse for our GDP to not just benefit on the backs of super cheap labor and all that.

0:51:11 Thomas: But I, for one, don't care if our GDP is a tiny bit lower, but that people are living better, you know, because GDP is not a good measure of our overall well-being. It's a measure of, you know, oftentimes it's just a measure of how well the richest people are doing. And so if we can have the richest people do a little less well, but then some poor people are doing better, that's fine with me. So anyway, I thought that was a that's an interesting debate. And it's kind of funny that the progressive side in the end functionally is kind of the same as Trump in in like, you Know, not really, but kind of like it's it just was interesting to me. It's going to be interesting to see that play out, especially in the general election.

0:52:00 Thomas: You might have some interesting arguments ahead of you there. But anyway, I thought that was interesting. I do want to say something in fairness. So in the last debate, I did hit pretty hard on Bernie because he had two pretty stupid unconstitutional proposals. One was the rotating Supreme Court justices. That's unconstitutional. And, and also we should be glad it is because then Trump would have already done it to us and have an all conservative court. But, but anyway, uh, the other one was the other one, I already forget what the other one Was, but go back and check. But he had two things that were, that were unconstitutional slash just really, in my opinion, dumb. But I got, I have to, in fairness, I've got to say that that I hadn't considered.

0:52:49 Thomas: I hadn't even thought about the fact that Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax could very well be unconstitutional. So I tried to do some research on this, and I realized I'm not a constitutional lawyer. Maybe I'll see if I can get Andrew to sound off, but I can tell you this: it's not clear cut either way. So some people think that the federal government only has the right to tax income and, like, transactions, and the Constitution prevents you from taxing something like this, you know, like the states would have to do it, or it would have to be part of apportionment, which is where it got to a point where I didn't, I don't get it. I'll be honest, I'm, I'm not a constitutional scholar. I didn't really understand that part of it. Like, there was something where if you tax, if the federal government taxes not based on income, like a direct tax, then it has to go into apportion, like somehow you have to give it back to the states or something.

0:53:41 Thomas: I don't know. But anyway, the point is it goes back and forth and some people are like, well, no, but this is based on, you know, one Supreme Court decision from 1895 that wasn't even a good decision. Like some people are like, no. This will be fine. But I think it's at least worth mentioning. Now, I would imagine that since Elizabeth Warren is a constitutional lawyer, she probably has a good handle on this. But, I will say this. I realized partway through reading this that it didn't matter because we will have a conservative Supreme Court. So, even though it's probably 50-50 or even if it's like 60-40, you know, like this should be constitutional. The court's going to say no, you know, like the Supreme Court's going to say, no, sorry, we're not letting you tax wealth, which is a problem for Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax.

0:54:29 Thomas: You know, if she, I love the proposal, and I think it's probably still worth her doing it, you, and saying, like, especially because of how much it makes the case that income inequality is bad in this country. Country, you know, and she even said this herself last night. But like, how bad of a sign is it? And I think I said this, you know, when she first came out with this proposal, I actually think I tweeted this very thing, which is, like, just goes to show how imbalanced things are that a 2% tax on wealth above $50 million could pay for, like, all the, just a utopia, you know, like, just the idea that that's how wealthy some people in this country are. And imagine getting up in arms about a 2% tax on wealth over $50 million.

0:55:20 Thomas: And I love how she put it last night. She was like, hey, your first 50 million. And she actually was kind of addressing the richest candidate on stage, which is Delaney. And he says, tell you what, you can keep your first $50,000,000. That's yours. But the 50 million and first dollar, we're taking two cents of that. And it just goes to show how minor that should be, you know, and that, that anyone could be up in arms about that is amazing, but they will be, it'll be attacked as socialism and you're taking everybody's hard-earned 50 million first dollar and all that. But, uh, but anyway, it might be unconstitutional. Uh, I still think it's good of her. What was I saying? I still think it's a good plan.

0:56:03 Thomas: It's a plan that I like and would be great. And also it's a plan that outlines the problem in addition to providing a solution. Like it, it's not just the policy problem and the policy solution. It's also like a meta statement about the problem because of how easy it would be to solve with this. You know, like if, if income inequality weren't so bad, maybe this wealth tax wouldn't be that effective. You know, like there wouldn't be that many people with a gajillion dollars to tax. So I love that it illustrates its own usefulness there. Um, but it, but I bet you that if we got president Warren and we got a blue Congress that if they pass this law, I, I imagine that the court will strike it down because it is 50, 50 or 60, 40 or even, or whatever.

0:56:54 Thomas: And we have a conservative activist court that just will do what it does. So therefore I, you know, she's going to need a backup plan or two to fund all, all her stuff. Now, I'm not too worried about that. She's got all kinds of plans. I think she can just, she could probably just say at that point, well, if they're going to say this is unconstitutional, I disagree.

But OK, we'll just get the same thing done with more taxes on capital gains and a higher income tax bracket, and maybe get rid of loopholes, like, they'll just do it, do it a different way. But I think it's worth, in the interest of fairness, saying that she is proposing something that's like debatably unconstitutional, nobody's, you know, it's not a 100% settled debate, like, like Bernie's was that, that's unconstitutional, but it's worth saying. All right, what else, I, uh, I watched the Ingraham Angle just for fun on this debate because I thought, why not, why not see what the Republicans are saying. And, uh, freaking Giuliani is up there with his, with his jet black hair at the age of 105. That's pretty cool. I don't know when that, when did that happen? All of a sudden he's got this jet black air going. I make fun of him because I can't stand him and he's the evil person.

Uh, but anyway, I just want to say one thing, I guess. Um, I could go on, but I realized I'm already, I've already gone on too long. I've already rambled too long, but maybe I'll bring it up if I do one on the next debate, because there's stuff they talk about here that is interesting to debunk.

0:58:30 Thomas: But one thing that's really frustrating is they go over and over again on this talking point that you could debunk yourself within 15 seconds of searching it. So the talking point is this: look at all these liberals, look at all these Democrats who want to decriminalize border crossings. That means they're open borders. This is almost a direct quote from Giuliani, by the way. That means it's open borders, that means MS-13 is going to come over the border, they're going to kill you, they're gonna kill me. I'm not exaggerating, this, this is the argument, they want to decriminalize it, that means open borders, decriminalize it, that means open borders. And I thought to myself, well, I don't think that's true, but maybe I'll just check, just in case, I, who knows, maybe I'm living in a bubble. So I'm going to just Google this real quick. And, uh, no, decriminalizing border, border crossing does not mean open borders.

0:59:22 Thomas: Done. Already done. Fact checked you. That's probably five years of Fox News segments that could be avoided with just a simple Google search. It doesn't mean open boarders. They're lying. They know they're lying, they know they are just spinning, well I think they know their lying, their just spinning it to try to get people afraid of brown people, it doesn't mean open border, borders, it just means that border illegal border crossing will be punished civilly instead of criminally, that's all. I mean, so it just mean, like, okay, you still, it's still not an open border, like they still can deport you, you know, send you across, arrest you, they can still do all that stuff. It's just not a criminal thing, it's a civil infraction, that's how, that means it's just amazing to me how many lies are repeated on Fox News that are based on the most easily checkable thing.

1:00:17 Thomas: It's so staggering how pathetic that is and how harmful that is to our country and to all of our family members who are obsessed with Fox News. All right. Well, yeah, like I said, I mean, I have gone way longer than I intended, as always. Thank you for listening so much. If you want to support the show, please do so, uh, that is patreon.com/seriouspod. I'm excited about the future of this show. I really am. I'm on a good wave of energy, I think hearing from so many of you really did help. I'm also excited for, uh, for future potential collaboration that's happening, uh, you know, you never know how anything's gonna work out, um, but it could be really cool, uh, it's something I'm exciting about, and just thank you for making this show happen with your donations, with your sharing, with everything you do.

1:01:06 Thomas: It only happens because you do it. And I can't thank you enough. So thank you. And with that, let's enjoy a meaningless debate. Another meaningless debate on a Super Bowl halftime show stage. I think it's probably starting right now as I finish this recording. So there you go. We'll get part two going. All right. I'll see you next time, everybody. Thank you so much.