deb haaland and javier bester will be confirmed, just like others were confirmed today.garland will be confirmed as our next attorney general despite all the republican senators standing up and intoning solemnly about how much they're horrified by any behind. white house trying to influence the workings of department prosecutors. you can actually read the republican senators' lock her up, lock her up tattoos through their shirt sleeves. while they are making these pious arguments as if this is something they have strong principled feelings about after they never once peaked about president trump burning the justice department down in terms of interference. lock her up, lock her up. anyone who is arguing to you that democrats need to move over to the republican senators on confirmations, withdraw any confirmation that's republicans don't like, anybody who is telling that you democrats need to move over to the positions of republican senators on policy and start doing things that they say they want instead of what president biden and the democrats campaigned on and what th

essentially big you know paraphrasing here and between the lines that you know russia has to learn oh oh bester in ways for it to be genuine legitimate partner of the west in this case particularly the european union your take are all i am going to liberalism consists on some very good ideas about the central role individual rights share.

essentially you know paraphrasing here in between the lines that you know russia has to learn oh oh bester new ways for it to be a genuine legitimate partner of the west in this case particularly the european union your take are all i am going liberalism consists on some very good ideas about the central role of individual rights shareholdings honestly the sort of similar role in society. to the point i was making last of the really international system contrary to the couples from power politics and sense that a liberal international system in europe effectively meant that we would keep some of this block all it takes and also making russia responsible for its own exclusion by not living up to the west ideals and also to some extent greed reshape.

essentially big you know paraphrasing here in between the lines that you know russia has to learn oh oh bester new ways for it to be a genuine legitimate partner of the west in this case particularly the european union your take. they're all i going to liberalism consistent some very good ideas about the central role of the individual which shareholdings obviously to service a role in society the point i was making was that the really international system contra would be couples from power politics and in a sense that a liberal international system in europe effectively meant that we would keep some of this block all it takes and also making russia responsible for its own exclusion by not living up to the west ideals and also to some extent 3 reshaping the relations so again the e.u. nato they tend to conceptualize some softness you know socializing agents they are the teacher some liberalism in russia student so under this format you have you know it's for for a sovereign equality and indeed we don't under this format we don't really discuss russian policy since to discuss their behavior so a

ahead john well is just overdone infotainment if people aren't run in can convince a bunch of novices bester is to pile into a stock they do it all the time as for the argument that the fed has that did this that's laughable that's the case what happened in japan japan's at 0 rates for how many decades worth the stock market there were the stock market in europe despite the fact that the central bank there has been trying to allegedly goose it for all this time u.s. shares are abnormally high b is largely because of 5 to 7 companies if you take out microsoft and apple 'd and google equity returns 'd aren't that great over the past year or more broadly this notion that there is war or 2 sides against each other markets misunderstands what markets are markets are a combination of bulls and bears and the passions of the bulls who wildly go into a star or blunted by the pessimism of bears who at the. stocks get one downs this notion that a bunch of small investors ganged up on hedge funds on the way to some victory for the little guy is just so ridiculous and how we know it will be ridiculous sh

. >> still, the filly bester has its defenders andu,jy amongst i strongest defenders are members oh!ú and i'm really struck by the divergence of the view of the filibuster, between the general public, who favor getting rid of the filibuster because they favor certain pieces of legislation passing, versus a lot of senators themselves who are reluctant and only slowly come to, if not at all, eliminating thfilibuster. they do know what they're talking about. that the filibuster promotes bipartisan ship and moreover, it allows them to block bad bills. every senator right now whether democrat or republican knows that it's possibly only a matter of two years before they flip from the majority to the minority and so they're always -- they always crave the filibuster for that moment when they flip into the minority. how do you explain the fact that so many senators who do want to get things done, democrats in particular, still cling to the filibuster? >> yeah, and they are category experts but it's important to understand that their motives here may not always be the right ones. there's a he

i would be -- i'm uncomfortable with the idea we do away with the full bester and i have been very uncomfortable with what the filibuster has become. the idea of the filibuster initially when it emerged in the 19th century was and it's not in the constitution, it was created by the senate itself as a check on the passions of the moment, and yet it was very, very seldom used. now, ultimately took on a bad odor because when it was used, in our century, our past century, i'm sorry, the 20th century it was used primarily to thwart civil rights legislation, and so it was something that liberals, being civil rights people who believe in civil rights-want he that legislation passed and didn't like the filibuster for obvious roaches and that led to reform. used to be two-thirds you needed two-thirds. and reform pushed forward by walter mondale, the later presidential candidate for the party in 1984. wanted to get rid of the filibuster but knew that wouldn't be possible so they reformed it, and it was -- instead of two-thirds, which would be 67 votes in a full senate, became 60 votes irrespect of who was