Who pays for NATO?


There is no NATO army. National forces are under national command. When called upon, Allied nations volunteer
their troops, equipment or other capabilities to NATO-led operations and exercises. Each member state pays for its own armed forces,
and covers the costs of deploying its forces. But together, the Allies get a lot more security
for a lot less cost than they would if they had to do it alone. Each member contributes a small percentage
of its national defence budget to NATO.

How Former American Presidents Get Rich from Speaking at Corporate Events


You are watching the story. Every Monday we bring you a deep dive into the fascinating lives of incredible people. Welcome to ALUX.com! The place where future billionaires come to get inspired. If you’re not subscribed yet, you’re missing out. Hello Aluxers and welcome back. The president of the United States receives a $400,000 per year salary in office in addition to other benefits like an annual expense account, a $20,000 entertainment stipend, and a travel account. With salary and benefits combined, the total pay comes to about $550,000 every year. But, believe it or not, most former presidents can earn that amount in just a matter of hours giving speeches at corporate events. But exactly how much do former presidents get paid and which president was the first to capitalize on his presidential status after office? Today we’re telling the story of how former American presidents get rich from speaking at corporate events. But first, let’s look at all the benefits a president automatically gets when leaving office. After a president leaves office, the benefits of having held the office certainly don’t end there. In fact, it’s safe to say that former presidents are set for life. They receive a lifetime pension, which is set annually by Congress. As of 2018, that amount was just over $210,000. Presidents who resign also get the pension, but presidents who are removed due to impeachment forfeit all benefits. Former presidents receive seven months of transition payments in addition to the pension to assist with the transition back to private life. This amount is also determined by Congress. They are given staff and office allowances of up to $150,000 a year. They also receive free postage for life. All travel related to the former president representing the United States government is fully paid for. Other benefits include secret service protection, covered medical expenses, and state funerals. Yet, all these benefits add up to just a fraction of what former presidents make by giving speeches. So, let’s see where this practice began. The first president to capitalize on his former presidential status through paid speeches was Gerald Ford, who was president from August 1974 to January 1977. Ford was a strong believer in free enterprise, so when he found that corporations would be willing to pay to hear him speak, he ran with it. Ford started out charging $10,000 a speech, which then escalated to $20,000 and then 40,000. He was highly criticized by many who felt he was exploiting his position as a former president, but his response was that he was now a private citizen and it wasn’t anyone’s business how he made his money. Ford’s net worth upon entering office was $1.4 million. After leaving office his net worth eventually reached 7 million. In 1979, the Washington Speaker’s Bureau was founded, which led to skyrocketing speaker’s fees. The agency represents George W. Bush and his wife Laura today. But, let’s take a look now at the most recent presidents to leave office and how much they earn from paid speeches. The former president who has earned the most money from the paid speech circuit, along with his wife, is Bill Clinton. When Clinton entered office in 1993, his net worth totaled $1.2 million. Since leaving office in 2001, he and his wife have given more than 730 speeches for a combined total of $153 million. That’s an average of over $210,000 per speech. He personally gave about 650 speeches for a total of $132 million. About 40 of these speeches were given to big banks like Goldman Sachs for a total of $7.7 million. When Clinton was recently asked about his earnings from his speeches, he replied, “I gotta pay the bills.” Clinton’s net worth is now about $80 million. When George W. Bush was getting ready to leave office in 2009, he told a reporter that he planned to “replenish the ol’ coffers” by giving paid speeches. He mentioned that he could make ridiculous money and stated that his father, George H.W. Bush, made 50 to $75,000 per speech. When George W. Bush entered office, he wasn’t poor by any means. He entered office with $20 million, primarily earned through his oil business. Now his net worth is more than 40 million, and a good chunk of his post-presidential earning have come from giving paid speeches. In the 10 years since he’s left office, Bush has given more than 200 paid speeches at a cost of $100,000 to $175,000 per appearance. The total he’s earned from this part-time work is likely more than $30 million. When asked about his high-dollar speeches, Bush replied, “Everybody’s got to make a living.” The corporations Bush has spoken in front of vary greatly and include the National Grocers Association, the Bowling Proprietors’ Association of America, global wealth management funds, and universities. When Barack Obama entered office in 2008, his net worth totaled $1.3 million. Obama made about 20 million while he was in office, primarily from book sales. When he left office, his net worth was about $12.2 million. Since then, he has been presented with several opportunities that are majorly boosting his bank account. He signed book deals worth $65 million. He and Michelle signed a multi-year contract with Netflix for an undisclosed amount, but other similar deals have totaled up to $100 million. Obama also stands to make an unprecedented amount on the paid speech circuit. One of his first speeches after leaving office was a $400,000 60-minute speech for the Wall Street investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald. This was followed by another $400,000 speech for the money management firm Northern Trust Corporation. In his first 10 months out of office, he gave at least nine paid speeches, likely earning over 3 million dollars for approximately 9 hours of speaking. In May 2019, it was reported that he earned nearly $600,000 for a speech at a conference in Bogota, Columbia. His current net worth is estimated to be $40 million, but it is expected to continue increasing significantly year after year, largely due to the paid speeches. But why are corporations willing to pay so much for a one-hour speech? Why are corporations eager to spend so much money to bring in a former president to speak at their events? Well, in the vast majority of cases it certainly isn’t because the speeches are so compelling or even inspiring. It’s thought that most of the former presidents recycle the same basic ideas slightly customized according to the target audience. They can get away with this because most of the time their contracts state that their speech is not to be recorded in any way. But there are a couple reasons why former presidents are so in demand. For one, their fees can actually be lower than other celebrities like actors, athletes, and well-known inspirational speakers. Another reason is that former presidents are universally known, and those familiar names can be a big draw for a wide variety of events. There is also the chance that the media will report on the speech and give added exposure to whatever corporation is hosting. Public speaking is an integral part of many professions, particularly if you are running your own business. Whether you’re in front of a large crowd or pitching an idea one-on-one, you have to be able to communicate your thoughts effectively. If you want to brush up on your public speaking skills and learn from some of the most successful speakers in TED talk history, check out the book Talk Like Ted by Carmine Gallo. Even better, you can hear this insightful book on Audible without paying the $21 cost. Just go to alux.com/freebook and sign up so that you can get the audiobook version for free thanks to our partnership with Audible! While researching this story, we’ve come across this incredible quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson we’d like to share with you that goes like this: So never underestimate the power of your words and the importance of being able to effectively communicate your ideas. Now that we’re wrapping up this up, we’d like to know: Considering how wealthy presidents get after leaving office, Let us know what you think in the comments. And, of course, for sticking with us until the end here’s that bonus we owe you: Before the presidential pension was established in 1958, a number of former presidents struggled financially. One example is Thomas Jefferson, who sold over 6,700 books to the government for $23,950, which he used to settle his debts. And it was these books which helped form today’s Library of Congress. Thank you for spending some time with us Aluxers. Make sure to like and subscribe so you never miss another video. We also handpicked these videos which we recommend you watch next. You can talk to us on all social media or ask a question on our website ALUX.com! Thank you for being an Aluxer and we’ll see you back tomorrow.

Meghan Will Move Back To L.A. When Trump’s Out Of Office, Gets Torched


Meghan Markle and her brow-beaten husband
Prince Harry ditched their jobs as Senior Royals and claimed to want to become “financially
independent.” New reports say Markle is hoping to permanently
move to Los Angeles when President Donald Trump is “out of office.” Well, that’s when Meghan got a rude awakening
as Americans torched her. Don’t miss this. Americans aren’t amused with Meghan Markle’s
antics. In fact, the D-list actress turned Duchess
who is now on the verge of being stripped of her “royal” status is overplaying her
hand with Americans. Reports are alleging that Markle was burning
up her phone hoping to get someone inside the Trump administration to give them permanent
security when they move to Los Angeles. That’s ended badly. Remember, Meghan was politically outspoken
prior to her marriage to Prince Harry — British royals are supposed to remain above the political
fray — denouncing Trump as “divisive” and “misogynistic.” “You don’t really want that kind of world
that he’s painting,” she said prior to the 2016 presidential election. She also refused to meet Trump when he visited
Buckingham Palace. So, how can she be surprised at the president’s
reaction? Trump is on the record supporting the Queen
and blasting Meghan and Harry. During an interview with Fox News’ Laura
Ingraham, the president was asked about the scandal dubbed Megxit. “I think it’s sad,” said Trump. “I do. I think it’s sad. [The Queen’s] a great woman.” “She’s never made a mistake if you look,”
he added. “I mean, she’s had like a flawless time.” “You think Harry should go back, come back
[to the family]?” Ingraham asked. “Well, I think, you know, I don’t want
to get into the whole thing,” Trump said. “But I find it, I just have such respect
for the Queen. I don’t think this should be happening to
her.” Meghan, who is running the show, reacted badly
to Trump’s words. “Part of the change was to involve a move
to ‘North America’, according to their announcement. This was initially interpreted as a reference
to Canada, where Elizabeth II is still Queen and Harry still a senior royal, as Meghan
has already traveled there with the couple’s son,” Breitbart reports. However, the Daily Mail now reports having
spoken to sources who believe Meghan’s “long-term plan” is to bring Prince Harry with her
to Los Angeles, where her mother Doria Ragland still lives, but only after Donald Trump is
no longer U.S. President. “It’s by no means an immediate thing but
there is a long-term plan to end up back in the U.S. with a second home in Canada, where
they will also spend a great deal of time,” claimed the newspaper’s source. “The couple used the words ‘North America’
in their statement about where they planned to live deliberately. It doesn’t pin them down to any one place,”
they added. Americans made it clear they don’t want
Markle and her disgraced prince living in the United States, especially after disrespecting
the president. “What absolute phony frauds. We Don’t need more #elitistFrauds moving
to the best country in the world to lecture & Insult 60+ million of us… #PhonyFrauds Reports: Harry and Meghan Want
to Move to LA – Once Trump Is Out of Office,” tweeted Colin O’Brien. — colin o’brien (@ceotri) January 13, 2020 “Good luck with that President Trump not
going anywhere losers!!” tweeted Linda Bibeau. Reports: Harry and Meghan Want to Move to
LA – Once Trump Is Out of Office. — Linda Bibeau (@LindaBibeau2) January 13,
2020 “HARRY & MEGHAN, THE SPOILED BRATS, have
to WAIT 5 MORE YEARS!!” tweeted Deborah Green. — deborah green (@NewaiGreen) January 13,
2020 “Dear U.K. please take back these two twits
as we are already sick of them!” tweeted Robert Philmore. — Robert Philmore (@PhilmoreRobert) January
13, 2020 “Good. That will be until 2025, if they are not divorced
by then. What do they have to contribute to this society,
anyway? We don’t need their tabloid seeking attention
and radical Left views. Stay out!” tweeted “VoxPopuli.” — VoxPopuli (@RealisMundi) January 13, 2020 “As if their marriage will last until January
2025!” tweeted Twitter user “JCD.” — jcd (@jcd1974) January 13, 2020 “Just because @realDonaldTrump made a sympathetic
reference to the British Queen…? That must have set the Duchess’ hair on
fire!!” tweeted Samantha Adams. — Samantha Adams (@Samanth78662568) January
13, 2020 “They have a long wait. America does not want them. If they can’t handle the UK they can’t
handle the states,” tweeted “Jackie O.” — JackieO #MAGA (@TheMsDlr) January 13,
2020 So not only are the Canadians rejecting Markle
and Harry but now she has pissed off the majority of Americans. By next week, there won’t be a continent
on earth who will be welcoming them at all. This entire royal scandal was a long time
coming. As previously reported, Meghan’s a real
schemer. After an underwhelming cable TV career, at
36-years-old she knew her time in Hollywood was at an end. But her voracious ambition to become one of
the most admired women in the world was just beginning, and Harry was her ticket. Markle has zero ability to recognize that
when you trash the president, who over 60 million Americans have voted for, you are
trashing them, too. No one wants her back in the United States,
and the Brits are finished with her, so Meghan Markle better wise up before its too late. She’s just disrespected the beloved Queen
and the popular American president, and she’s running out of English speaking countries
to live in.

Congresswoman grills billionaire CEO over pay disparity at JP Morgan


So where we left off
was this woman had – and I apologise, you’re going
to need to follow aurally – she had $2425 a month,
she rents a one bedroom apartment. She and her daughter sleep
together in the same room. In Irvine, California, that average
one bedroom apartment is going to be $1,600. She spends $100 on utilities,
take away the $1,700 and she has net $725. She’s like me, she drives a 2008
minivan and has gas – $400 for car expenses and gas –
net $325. The department of agriculture
says a low cost food budget, that is ramen noodles.
A low food budget is $400. That leaves her $77 in the red. She has a Cricket cell phone,
the cheapest cell phone she can get for $40.
She’s in the red $117 a month. She has after school childcare
because the bank is open during normal business hours.
That’s $450 a month. That takes her down to negative
$567 per month. My question for you, Mr Dimon,
is how should she manage this budget shortfall whilst she
is working full-time at your bank? – I don’t know that all your
numbers are accurate. – That number is a starter …
Is it generally a starter job? She is a starting employee.
She has a six-year-old child. This is her first job. – You can get those jobs
out of high school. – She may have my job
one day. She may but but, Mr Dimon,
she doesn’t have the ability right now to spend your $31m.
– I’m totally sympathetic. She’s short $567.
What would you suggest she do? – I don’t know. I’d have to think
about that. Would you recommend that she take
out a JP Morgan Chase credit card and run a deficit? – I don’t know and I’d have
to think about it. Would you recommend that
she overdraft at your bank and be charged overdraft fees? – I don’t know, I’d have to
think about it. So, I know you have a lot of … – I’d love to call her up and have
a conversation about her – financial affairs and see if we
can be helpful. See if you can find a way
for her to live on less than the minimum
that I have described? – Just be helpful. Well, I appreciate your desire
to be helpful but what I’d like you to do is provide a way
for families to make ends meet, so that little kids who are
six-years-old, living in a one bedroom apartment
with their mother, aren’t going hungry at night
because they’re $567 short from feeding themselves,
clothing – we allowed no money for clothing, we allowed no money
for school lunches, we allowed no money for field trips, no money
for medical, no money for prescription drugs. Nothing.
And she’s short $567 already. Mr Dimon, you know how to spend
$31m a year in salary and you can’t figure out how to
make up a $567 a month shortfall. This is a budget problem
you cannot solve.

With the House walking over its impeachment work to the Senate, what happens next?


JUDY WOODRUFF: The House of Representatives
voted today to send articles of impeachment against President Trump to the Senate, setting
the stage for an intensely partisan battle ahead. Capitol Hill correspondent Lisa Desjardins
begins our coverage. LISA DESJARDINS: Today, a historic walk across
the Capitol that Washington waited nearly a month to see, House officials crossing to
the Senate to signal and spark the impeachment trial. The newly appointed House managers, members
of Congress who will prosecute the case, walked behind the House clerk, who delivered a message
setting the trial in motion, this timing determined by the House speaker. REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): We are here today
to cross a very important threshold in American history. LISA DESJARDINS: On the floor of the House
chamber, Nancy Pelosi defended her decision to hold back the articles of impeachment until
now. REP. NANCY PELOSI: Don’t talk to me about
my timing. For a long time, I resisted the calls from across the country for impeachment
of the president. LISA DESJARDINS: She said the president’s
actions regarding Ukraine gave the House no choice. Republicans, led by California’s Kevin McCarthy,
fired back that Democrats are motivated solely by politics. REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): This is not a
moment this body should be proud of. If, as Speaker Pelosi likes to say, impeachment is
a national civics lesson, let’s use this blunder as a teachable moment. REP. NANCY PELOSI: Good morning, everyone. LISA DESJARDINS: With the new phase of impeachment
comes the newly announced team of House managers. The group of seven, nearly half the size of
that appointed in the 1999 Clinton impeachment trial, includes Democrats Adam Schiff and
Jerry Nadler, the two chairmen who led the impeachment hearings. It’s also made up of two former lawyers, a
former police chief, and a former judge, as well as Representative Zoe Lofgren, who was
in Congress for both the Clinton and Nixon impeachments. Those managers have some new evidence today,
with the release of documents last night obtained from Lev Parnas. He’s an indicted associate
of Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani. Those include his handwritten note about the
Ukrainian president, saying, “Get Zelensky to announce that the Biden case will be investigated,”
also a letter displaying Giuliani’s first outreach to the newly elected president, stating
Giuliani was working — quote — “with Trump’s knowledge and consent.” And a copy of text messages between Parnas
and Ukraine’s top prosecutor, which appear to show they were tracking the whereabouts
of former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. She was later recalled by President Trump. Democrats say that’s the kind of information
that the delay in starting the trial has brought. REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY): New documents
and additional witnesses have emerged that unmistakably point to the president’s guilt. LISA DESJARDINS: On Twitter, President Trump
charged Democrats with a con job and questioned the timing of the new evidence, writing: “All
of this work was supposed to be done by the House, not the Senate.” On the Senate floor, on the precipice of the
trial, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell dismissed the House investigation. SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): It was not, Mr.
President, some earnest fact-finding mission that brought us to where we are. This is not
about the nuances of foreign assistance to Eastern Europe. This has been naked partisanship
all along. LISA DESJARDINS: The Senate will transform
into an impeachment courtroom soon, when senators are sworn in for the trial. JUDY WOODRUFF: And Lisa is here with me now,
as inch closer to this historic trial. So, Lisa, tell us a little bit about what
we know about the thinking on the part of Speaker Pelosi in choosing this group of managers. LISA DESJARDINS: My reporting is, there was
a lot of thought over who would do this. There were many members who wanted this opportunity,
who knew this case, who were on the two committees involved. In the end, they picked a small team that
they felt would both be good in representing the message and the substance of what they
are pursuing here with the articles of impeachment. There is also another factor here. They wanted
this team to look different than the 1999 team. Let’s take a look at that 1999 Republican
impeachment team that prosecuted the articles against President Clinton. There you see 13 of them. Now, the photos,
I think, show what Democrats are trying to do here. Let’s look at the team that they
have appointed for this impeachment trial. There you are, seven. There were no women
in 1999, no people of color prosecuting that case. Here, you have a team that looks more
like America. And that’s the point that Democrats are trying to make. They also said they thought
that large team in 1999 was just too unwieldy. They want this to be more focused. JUDY WOODRUFF: So clearly, Lisa, White House
— folks at the White House watching all this very, very closely. What do we know about
what they’re expecting at this point? LISA DESJARDINS: What we don’t know is who
will be representing the president next week when this trial starts in earnest with the
opening arguments. They had a call. A senior administration official
said they will announce that when they’re ready. They also said that they do not think
witnesses should be allowed for the House team, because they think the House has had
its opportunity to gather evidence. However, the White House also said they think the president
should be able to call witnesses, because they do not think he has had the chance to
do that in a fair manner yet. JUDY WOODRUFF: So they’re still saying, we
need to call witnesses? LISA DESJARDINS: They’re saying the White
House would like to call its witnesses. JUDY WOODRUFF: Right. So, as you reported, as we heard, new evidence
coming out from this associate of the president’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, a man named Lev Parnas. What do we know about that? LISA DESJARDINS: Right. Well, as we reported in the story, these are
a lot of his own notes, his conversations with different people. Democrats look at this
evidence and say, these are more dots connecting the president directly to what was going on
in Ukraine, and that the president himself was part of Giuliani’s efforts for their reasons
that they think were corrupt. Republicans say , no, wait a minute. This
is just someone who worked with Giuliani. We don’t know if this person is truthful.
We also don’t know if Giuliani really did talk to the president or not, or if he was
just relaying that. Republican say this is not the direct piece
of evidence that Democrats see. JUDY WOODRUFF: And so we don’t know whether
that’s going to be introduced or part of the Senate trial. LISA DESJARDINS: It’s interesting. It actually has been forwarded. It will be
forwarded when all the evidence comes over to the Senate. And it is some something that
is actually leading to some confusion today. Maine Senator Susan Collins, a significant
potential swing vote, said it was perplexing that the House presented this evidence now. But we will see what happens. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, as we wait for the trial,
what do we look for tomorrow? LISA DESJARDINS: Right. OK. Let’s start with
the order of events. Tomorrow at noon Eastern time, that’s when
the House managers will come in and formally present the articles of impeachment. They
walked them over tonight, but because of how the rituals and rules of the Senate go, they
will formally present them tomorrow. They will be read out loud just after noon. Then, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern time tomorrow,
5:00 — sorry — 2:00 p.m. Eastern time tomorrow, that’s when we will see Chief Justice John
Roberts sworn in as the presiding officer of this trial. He will then, in turn, swear
in the rest of the Senate as essentially jurors, and that will close out sort of the formal
opening of this trial. It’s interesting, Judy, that that’s not the
only business the Senate is going to conduct tomorrow. We also expect the Senate, before
all of this, to perhaps vote on this large USMCA, U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade deal. And early next week, Judy, there could be
a vote on war powers, limiting the president’s war powers in regards to Iran. All of those
are things that we’re watching. And we know, Judy, right now, the American
public is split on impeachment. So it’s going to be interesting to see how these two sides
try to focus that opinion. JUDY WOODRUFF: For sure. And what you’re saying suggests the Senate
leadership wants to make it clear they’re doing other business at the same time they’re
dealing with… LISA DESJARDINS: I think that’s part of it. But I think the truth is, the Senate wants
to get these things done. If they don’t do this U.S.-Mexico trade deal now, then they
would be in the middle of a trial. It would be much harder to do for another two, perhaps
more weeks. JUDY WOODRUFF: Understand. Thank you. Lisa Desjardins, thank you. LISA DESJARDINS: You’re welcome.

Buttigieg: We Can Win, And We’ll Really Have To Work For It | Morning Joe | MSNBC


THEY WILL BE STUCK IN WASHINGTON FOR THREE SOLID WEEKS SHOO ONE FOR THREE SOLID WEEKS SHOO ONE WHO IS NOT GOING TO BE STUCK IN WHO IS NOT GOING TO BE STUCK IN WASHINGTON FOR THREE SOLID WEEKS WASHINGTON FOR THREE SOLID WEEKS IN MAYOR PETE WHO HAS BEEN IN MAYOR PETE WHO HAS BEEN SITTING BY LISTENING TO US WHILE SITTING BY LISTENING TO US WHILE WE WERE TALKING AS IF HE WEREN’T WE WERE TALKING AS IF HE WEREN’T THERE. THERE.>>VERY IMPRESSIVE.>>VERY IMPRESSIVE.>>THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING>>THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING WITH US. WITH US.>>THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU.>>WHAT HAS STRUCK US, WE WILL>>WHAT HAS STRUCK US, WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE DEBATE IN A TALK ABOUT THE DEBATE IN A SECOND, BUT WHAT STRUCK US ABOUT SECOND, BUT WHAT STRUCK US ABOUT THE IOWA FIELD AND THE POLLS THE IOWA FIELD AND THE POLLS THAT HAVE BEEN OVER THE PAST THAT HAVE BEEN OVER THE PAST COUPLE WEEKS IS HOW OPEN IT IS, COUPLE WEEKS IS HOW OPEN IT IS, HOW FLUID IT IS. HOW FLUID IT IS. ANY OF FOUR CANDIDATES CAN VERY ANY OF FOUR CANDIDATES CAN VERY EASILY BE SEEN AS NOT ONLY EASILY BE SEEN AS NOT ONLY WINNING IN IOWA, BUT YOUR RECENT WINNING IN IOWA, BUT YOUR RECENT POLLING IN NEW HAMPSHIRE SHOWS POLLING IN NEW HAMPSHIRE SHOWS YOU CAN WIN THERE, TOO. YOU CAN WIN THERE, TOO. TELL US ABOUT THAT AND WHAT THE TELL US ABOUT THAT AND WHAT THE NEXT THREE WEEKS LOOK LIKE FOR NEXT THREE WEEKS LOOK LIKE FOR YOU. YOU.>>YEAH, WE KNOW TWO THINGS, ONE>>YEAH, WE KNOW TWO THINGS, ONE IS THAT WE CAN WIN AND THE OTHER IS THAT WE CAN WIN AND THE OTHER IS THAT WE WILL REALLY HAVE TO IS THAT WE WILL REALLY HAVE TO WORK FOR IT. WORK FOR IT. IT’S FUNNY WHEN I’M ON THE TRAIL IT’S FUNNY WHEN I’M ON THE TRAIL I’M MEETING SOME VOTERS WHO I’VE I’M MEETING SOME VOTERS WHO I’VE SEEN FOR ABOUT A YEAR NOW, THEY SEEN FOR ABOUT A YEAR NOW, THEY ARE THE SAME ONES WHO OVER THE ARE THE SAME ONES WHO OVER THE SUMMER WERE SAYING THINGS LIKE, SUMMER WERE SAYING THINGS LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU ARE IN MY TOP YOU KNOW, YOU ARE IN MY TOP SEVEN, WE WILL SEE AS I GET TO SEVEN, WE WILL SEE AS I GET TO KNOW YOU. KNOW YOU. NOW THEY ARE IN DECISION MODE. NOW THEY ARE IN DECISION MODE. OTHER FOLKS WHO I THINK HAVE OTHER FOLKS WHO I THINK HAVE FELT LIKE THE PROCESS WAS SO FELT LIKE THE PROCESS WAS SO OVERWHELMING OVER THE LAST YEAR, OVERWHELMING OVER THE LAST YEAR, IT’S JUST NOW THAT THEY’RE IT’S JUST NOW THAT THEY’RE TUNING IN. TUNING IN. BUT WHAT THEY ALL HAVE IN COMMON BUT WHAT THEY ALL HAVE IN COMMON IS THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT THIS IS THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT THIS ELECTION IS GOING TO MEAN FOR ELECTION IS GOING TO MEAN FOR THEM. THEM. I THINK IN THE END EVERY I THINK IN THE END EVERY ELECTION IS ABOUT THE VOTERS’ ELECTION IS ABOUT THE VOTERS’ FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION, HOW IS MY FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION, HOW IS MY LIFE GOING TO BE DIFFERENT IF LIFE GOING TO BE DIFFERENT IF YOU ARE PRESIDENT INSTEAD OF YOU YOU ARE PRESIDENT INSTEAD OF YOU OR YOU OR YOU. OR YOU OR YOU. BEING ABLE TO CONNECT WITH BEING ABLE TO CONNECT WITH VOTERS DIRECTLY ON THE GROUND, VOTERS DIRECTLY ON THE GROUND, TALKING ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO TALKING ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO TURN THE PAGE FROM JUST THE TURN THE PAGE FROM JUST THE EXHAUSTION AND THE CYNICISM THAT EXHAUSTION AND THE CYNICISM THAT WE’RE DEALING WITH IN DONALD WE’RE DEALING WITH IN DONALD TRUMP’S WASHINGTON AND ACTUALLY TRUMP’S WASHINGTON AND ACTUALLY DELIVERING SOLUTIONS ON DELIVERING SOLUTIONS ON EVERYTHING FROM HEALTH CARE TO EVERYTHING FROM HEALTH CARE TO JUST MAKING SURE PEOPLE GET PAID JUST MAKING SURE PEOPLE GET PAID MORE. MORE. THAT’S WHERE WE’RE CONNECTING THAT’S WHERE WE’RE CONNECTING AND WE WILL CONTINUE DRIVING AND WE WILL CONTINUE DRIVING THAT MESSAGE AND HAVING THOSE THAT MESSAGE AND HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS ALL THE WAY UNTIL CONVERSATIONS ALL THE WAY UNTIL THE VOTING BEGINS AND BEYOND. THE VOTING BEGINS AND BEYOND.>>SO THE DISCUSSION THIS>>SO THE DISCUSSION THIS MORNING A LOT OF IT HAS BEEN MORNING A LOT OF IT HAS BEEN ABOUT THE DEBATE LAST NIGHT AND ABOUT THE DEBATE LAST NIGHT AND WHETHER ALL THE CANDIDATES ON WHETHER ALL THE CANDIDATES ON THE STAGE ANY OF THEM LOOKED THE STAGE ANY OF THEM LOOKED LIKE THEY COULD TAKE ON DONALD LIKE THEY COULD TAKE ON DONALD TRUMP. TRUMP. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION TO YOU IS SO I GUESS MY QUESTION TO YOU IS BUTTIGIEG VERSUS TRUMP, WHAT BUTTIGIEG VERSUS TRUMP, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? DOES THAT LOOK LIKE?>>WELL, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IS>>WELL, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IS YOU WILL HAVE DONALD TRUMP YOU WILL HAVE DONALD TRUMP STANDING NEXT TO SOMEBODY WHO STANDING NEXT TO SOMEBODY WHO ACTUALLY BELONGS TO THE KIND OF ACTUALLY BELONGS TO THE KIND OF INDUSTRIAL COMMUNITY THAT HE INDUSTRIAL COMMUNITY THAT HE TALKS ABOUT ALL THE TIME, BUT TALKS ABOUT ALL THE TIME, BUT HAS CLEARLY WALKED AWAY FROM. HAS CLEARLY WALKED AWAY FROM. YOU KNOW, THE DECISIONS HE’S YOU KNOW, THE DECISIONS HE’S MADE, THE ECONOMIC POLICIES MADE, THE ECONOMIC POLICIES WHERE AS FAR AS I CAN TELL THE WHERE AS FAR AS I CAN TELL THE ONLY PROMISE HE’S KEPT WHEN IT ONLY PROMISE HE’S KEPT WHEN IT COMES TO ECONOMIC POLICY WAS A COMES TO ECONOMIC POLICY WAS A GIANT TAX CUT FOR CORPORATIONS GIANT TAX CUT FOR CORPORATIONS AND THE WEALTHY. AND THE WEALTHY. MEANWHILE, MANUFACTURING IS IN MEANWHILE, MANUFACTURING IS IN ITS OWN RECESSION AND SO MANY ITS OWN RECESSION AND SO MANY FOLKS IN COMMUNITIES LIKE MINE, FOLKS IN COMMUNITIES LIKE MINE, EVEN IF THEIR WAGES ARE GOING UP EVEN IF THEIR WAGES ARE GOING UP IT’S NOT NEARLY AS FAST AS THE IT’S NOT NEARLY AS FAST AS THE COST OF HEALTH, COST OF COST OF HEALTH, COST OF LONG-TERM CARE, COST OF LONG-TERM CARE, COST OF RETIREMENT. RETIREMENT. WHEN I’M STANDING NEXT TO THIS WHEN I’M STANDING NEXT TO THIS PRESIDENT I WILL BE ABLE TO PRESIDENT I WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT. SPEAK TO THAT. IF HE TRIES TO TOUGH TALK HE IF HE TRIES TO TOUGH TALK HE WILL HAVE TO DO IT STANDING NEXT WILL HAVE TO DO IT STANDING NEXT TO SOMEBODY WHO IS A WALKING TO SOMEBODY WHO IS A WALKING REMINDER OF THE PRESIDENT’S REMINDER OF THE PRESIDENT’S DECISION NOT TO SERVE AND TO DECISION NOT TO SERVE AND TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HIS STATUS AS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HIS STATUS AS THE SON OF A MILLIONAIRE IN THE SON OF A MILLIONAIRE IN ORDER TO GET OUT ON BONE SPURS. ORDER TO GET OUT ON BONE SPURS. I’M JUST GOING TO BE A I’M JUST GOING TO BE A FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT KIND OF FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT KIND OF CANDIDATE AND I THINK THAT’S CANDIDATE AND I THINK THAT’S WHAT WE NEED BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK WHAT WE NEED BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THIS PRESIDENT AND HOW HE GOT AT THIS PRESIDENT AND HOW HE GOT HERE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A LOT HERE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A LOT OF FOLKS WHO DON’T EVEN LIKE OF FOLKS WHO DON’T EVEN LIKE HIM, BUT VOTED THE WAY THEY DID HIM, BUT VOTED THE WAY THEY DID BECAUSE OF A SENSE OF NOT JUST BECAUSE OF A SENSE OF NOT JUST EXHAUSTION, BUT FRUSTRATION AND EXHAUSTION, BUT FRUSTRATION AND SENDING A MESSAGE TO WASHINGTON. SENDING A MESSAGE TO WASHINGTON. THIS IS OUR CHANCE TO SEND A NEW THIS IS OUR CHANCE TO SEND A NEW MESSAGE, ONE THAT WE WON’T STAND MESSAGE, ONE THAT WE WON’T STAND FOR THE DIVISIVENESS, THE LIES, FOR THE DIVISIVENESS, THE LIES, THE CRUELTY AND THAT WE’RE GOING THE CRUELTY AND THAT WE’RE GOING TO REENTER OUR POLITICS AROUND

It’s Time to Pay Back Puerto Rico: The Daily Show


In the past few weeks, we’ve
seen a multitude of hurricanes hitting the Caribbean
and the U.S. And though the storms
have moved on, millions are still dealing
with the effects. We turn next here
to the catastrophic damage in Puerto Rico, home to
3.5 million American citizens. Hurricane Maria, the worst storm
to batter that island in nearly a century. REPORTER:
All over the U.S. territory, these American citizens
are struggling to survive. No running water,
gas is scarce, and they could be without power
for months. That’s right.
Due to Hurricane Maria, much of Puerto Rico
has no running water, limited gas, and no power. And although having no power
may be okay for Democrats, it’s not okay for an island
full of people, all right? And since-since Puerto Rico
is a part of the United States and its citizens
are American citizens, the man they are looking to
for answers is, unfortunately,
President Trump. And the good news is, the good news is
he knows where Puerto Rico is. We’ve gotten A-pluses
on Texas and on Florida and, uh, we will also
on Puerto Rico. But the difference is
this is an island sitting in the middle
of an ocean. And it’s a big ocean. It’s a very big ocean. (laughter) It-it is a big ocean.
Yeah? Yeah? You know what?
I know it seems like President Trump doesn’t know
what he’s speaking about, but that’s just because
he doesn’t know how to speak. You see, the essence of what
he’s trying to say is true, and that is, compared to states
on the mainland, it’s harder to get help
to Puerto Rico. That is what he meant to say.
You know what I’m thinking? Instead of stressing ourselves,
we should just accept that Trump cannot speak English,
okay? And from now on,
we just get him a translator like we do for foreign leaders. We’ve got an A plus… MAN (translating):
While states such as Texas and Florida are easily
accessible, there are vast
logistical difficulties in delivering essential
supplies and services to an island
approximately 1,000 miles from the U.S. mainland. You see? Presidential.
Presidential. Now, look, the truth is
President Trump’s response to this disaster
hasn’t been perfect. He tweeted some (bleep)
about Puerto Rico. He wasn’t quick to get rid off
the Jones Act, but… but he hasn’t been
the only reason that Puerto Rico is struggling
right now. Because as it turns out, there are at least
some emergency supplies that are reaching Puerto Rico. The problem is,
once they reach the island, there’s another issue. WOMAN:
Supplies have arrived, but they’re not
getting delivered to the three point four million
American citizens on the island. MAN: More than 3,000
shipping containers are sitting at the Port of San Juan. In these containers, we have
medicines, there’s water. MAN: The governor,
Ricardo Rossello, told us there’s a shortage
of truck drivers to deliver the essentials. If you want to help drive
a truck here in Puerto Rico, here’s a number the governor’s
office just gave me. Well, wait. Wait a second. Puerto Rico just needs
some truck drivers? Maybe Trump can help
after all, huh? -(laughter)
-Come on! He spent his whole presidency
learning to drive trucks. Finally it paid off! Yeah! Yeah, and you guys thought
he wasn’t being presidential. -That was practice.
-(laughter) Now I know this isn’t
a popular phrase on this show, but in Donald Trump’s defense… “Boo! Boo!” “Aah, tweet, tweet, Trevor.
Aah!” “Centrist shill!” “Tweet, tweet. Boo!” Thank you. -In his… in his defense…
-(laughter) …the federal government
is responding to the crisis. America’s military is boosting
its efforts to help Puerto Rico. FEMA is asking
for military vehicles to clear roads
and bring in supplies. 10,000 responders, more than
four and a half million meals, four point six million liters
of water, and they’re working to reopen some of the necessary
airfields and access. In addition to FEMA and the
Department of Homeland Security, the Army Corps of Engineers
is now in Puerto Rico working on restoring
the electrical grid there. And the Navy is sending
their floating hospital, the Comfort, which should
arrive next week. Man, you’ve got to be impressed with how much
the U.S. military can do, especially the part about
having a hospital on a ship. That is amazing, right, unless you’re suffering
from seasickness. Then they can’t really help you. Like, they’re the problem and
the solution at the same time. “Take this. Now you’re sick.
Take this. Now you’re sick. This is not going anywhere.” Uh, could-could there be
more help? Sure. One thing that isn’t helping is that nearly half of Americans,
though, don’t even realize that Puerto Rico is a part
of the U.S. And that matters,
because Americans who know Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens
are twice as likely to support the federal
government sending them aid, which is a raw deal
for Puerto Ricans, if you think about it, right? Imagine if half
of your family didn’t know that you were a part
of their family. -(laughter)
-That would suck. I think there’s a term
for it, actually. It’s called “Tiffany Syndrome,”
and it’s not fair. -(laughter and groaning)
-It really isn’t fair. Just half of them don’t know. And if… And as if that wasn’t enough, there’s another thing that is
working against Puerto Rico. The mayor of San Juan, Puerto
Rico is now begging for help, but many there feel like
they’re just getting overlooked. Some experts say donor fatigue
is a real thing here. So many people jumped in to help after hurricanes
Harvey and Irma. They say, people are now
feeling hopeless, like their donations aren’t
really making a difference. That’s right.
One of the saddest things is, people are not giving aid
to Puerto Rico the way they did
for Texas and Florida, because they’re suffering
from donor fatigue. And I’m sure we can all
understand the feeling. It’s probably happened to you.
I know it’s happened to me. You know, on a day you walk by
a homeless person on the street, and you go like, “You know what?
I’m feeling generous.” You look in your wallet,
you’re like, “I’m giving them everything.
Everything. “I’ve got 50 bucks in my wallet.
Take it all. Yeah!” And then you turn the corner and
there’s another homeless guy, he’s like, “Hey,” and you’re
like, “Aw, man. Okay, uh… “you should have
seen me earlier. “I gave… you… like… “Wow, if we go back,
maybe we can try… “Aw, man,
maybe we can split it… All right, I’m sorry, man.”
And you have to move on. And I know people don’t want
to do it, but it’s how we feel. And look, people,
I know it feels like that there’s a new hurricane
every week. The truth is, though,
everyone still needs to help. Right? And it’s no excuse
that we get fatigued for letting Puerto Rico
fall through the cracks. And don’t think of it
as a donation. Think of it
as paying Puerto Rico back for all they’ve given us. “Despacito.” (laughter) Lin-Manuel Miranda. -(laughter, cheering)
-Jennifer Lopez. (whooping, applause) Like, you realize if everyone
who listened to “Despacito” just gave one dollar
to Puerto Rico, that’s billions. Billions. We just…
That’s all we should do. If you’ve ever listened
to “Despacito,” give a dollar. Yeah. If you’re a fan
of Hamilton… -(applause, cheering)
-Yeah. Yeah. If you’re a fan of Hamilton,
give a dollar. If you’ve ever fantasized
about J.Lo, give a dollar. Yeah. And you know what? Fine, I’ll be the first
to admit, fine, okay, J.Lo, fine,
I will give my dollar. There. There we go.
I have fantasized. There you go. -(laughter)
-So… All right, fine, maybe it was more than one time. -(laughter)
-But the point is… Okay, fine, you know what,
I’ll write a check, ’cause I can’t afford to just
keep giving out dollars here. Mr. Trevor Lopez. There you go. The point– don’t judge me.
We’ve all fantasized about J.Lo. She’s amazing, okay? -(applause)
-Triple threat. But look, the truth is,
for those of you at home, if you can donate, no matter
how small it is, please try. Go to one
of these worthy charities. Your fellow Americans
could use the help.

Court Lets Trump Steal Military Funds To Pay For His Border Wall


In a horrible ruling earlier this week, the
US court of appeals in New Orleans voted two to one to allow Donald Trump to steal money
from the US military in order to fund his border wall. This could be as little as $2.1 million, billion
dollars, excuse me, or it could be as much as a little over $6 billion that the two judges
on this panel said, sure, Mr. Trump, you can go steal money from these military projects
and use them to fund you’re completely useless and not needed border wall. So the two judges out of the three judge panel
who voted to say yes, Trump, you can have this, one of them not surprising was a Trump
appointee. The other was a Ronald Reagan appointee and
I want to hit on that point just a little bit here. A Reagan appointee from the 19 friggin 80s
is still sitting and serving on a court in the United States and clearly basing their
rulings on their party affiliation because the law US law is very clear about the was
what the president can and cannot do with military funds, once Congress has voted on
them. If he wants to change the allocation for what
military funds have already been allocated for by Congress, when they vote on it, he
has to get congressional approval and if Congress does not approve, he cannot divert that money. If he declares a state of emergency, which
he has, then he is free to use a little bit of that money, but he must also tell Congress
what it is for and since it’s from the military, the military has to be the one to do the actual
project and none of those things are happening. He’s hiring private contractors. People who’ve donated to his campaign are
getting rich off this, so he’s clearly not following the very clear rules set forth in
US code. And the two Republican judges on this panel,
one of whom has been sitting there since the 1980s just said, sure, go ahead. We don’t care. We’re Republicans and Republicans stick together
and that’s all we base our rulings on. But back to the idiot sitting on that court
since the 1980s let me hit on that for just a moment because that absolutely pisses me
off. This is why we need term limits. There is nobody in this country who was appointed
in the 1980s who should still be serving on a court today. They shouldn’t have been serving on a court
10 years ago, and to be honest, they shouldn’t have even been sitting on a court 10 years
after that. We have got to put judicial term limits in
place, now. The next president of the United States has
to make that a priority because there is no way in hell that somebody who’s been sitting
on a bench since the 1980s still has the same kind of mental clarity that they had when
they were first appointed. There is no way that they have the same acute
legal mind that they had when they were appointed. People’s cognitive abilities, once they hit
a certain age, begin to decline, that’s science. That’s not an attack on whoever this judge
is. I’m not going to name them, but it’s not an
attack on them. That’s basic human biology. This person should not be there, and their
partisanship with this particular ruling just goes to prove that even further. So now, Donald Trump, the administration already
issued a response, a statement to the world declaring a victory here saying, here we go,
folks. Buckle up. We’re about to build this unnecessary and
useless wall because this court with a Trump appointee and a Reagan appointee says that
we can ignore the established laws of the United States and steal money from the military.