- Bourgie, bourgie, bourgie.

America, you and me have seen
some shit this last year.

And, you know what,

I mean that both
figuratively and literally.

Back in May you ate too
much at Chili's one time

and you looked in the bowl afterwards,

and there's never been
an election like this.

There's never been a reason to think

there would ever be an election like this.

Is this an election, or is this dancer?

Or is this an elaborate
simulation that none of us opted

into and have no way of getting out of?

Is this the Matrix?

Is this Tron?

Is this Sword Art Online,

but without the weird incesty stuff?

Oh, wait, there's weird
incesty stuff, sorry.

I forgot.

Why is it the time that
everybody understands

that establishment in politics
are the mechanism by which

the status quo, which is
not beneficial for anyone

but the richest of the
rich, is perpetuated,

is the election where we're presented

with a significantly worse alternative?

You know what?

All these Transformers movies have sucked.

I'm not gonna go see another one.

This is the last straw.

Well, what movie do you wanna go see, man?

You know what, imaginary Tommy Chong,

let's go see Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Four minutes into the film.

Fuck!

So, here we are, Teenage Mutant Ninja,

I mean, the worst election ever.

Now, I'm not gonna tell you
you have a moral obligation

to do the same thing that
I'm doing, because you don't,

but I'm also the one who gets to be very

smug when everything goes to hell,

which, by the way, will be
of very little consolation.

Anyhoo.

In this corner, we have the challenger.

Donald

Justice

Trump!

(gagging)

And, in this corner, we
have the defending champion

by virtue of being an
incumbent political party,

Hillary

Dennis Rodman

Clinton!

(gagging)

Don't blame me for this, I
voted for Bernie Sanders.

He had a fucking bird land on him.

Also, he talked about policy all

the time and had good ideas.

But he had a bird land on him.

Oh well, I guess hindsight is 2020.

(intense rock music)

But that's anti-establishment
with both a brain and a heart.

We aren't dealing with that.

We are dealing, however,
with Donald J. Trump.

He started his campaign at
the top of an escalator,

rode it down in perhaps the
worst executed symbolism

of all time, and said that
Mexicans need to be walled out

of the country because they're rapists.

That was essentially the main takeaway

of his announcement speech.

Over the following year,
he managed to say something

bad about pretty much every group,

except for straight, white cis men.

Donald Trump has done
and said so many shitty

things over the last
year that I'm not even

worried about trying to list them.

I'm more worried about trying
to even remember all of them.

It's a fool's errand and that
was part of the strategy.

Be a dizzying force of shittiness.

But in all honesty, those
things are symptomatic

of what Donald Trump actually is.

Donald Trump is totalitarian.

He's riding around on his big boy dictator

bicycle with training wheels on it.

Did you just say fascism?

Well, no, but I'm definitely gonna.

So there's an absolute
load of people who support

fascism that also support Donald Trump.

And I didn't just say load to be obscene.

I actually meant there's
just a lot of people.

But you have a dirty mind
and you thought it anyway.

I actually meant it that way.

Whether they're KKK leaders
who believe that it should

be legal to discriminate
against some citizens,

denying them rights, and
indeed not treating them

like people, to actual
out fascists and dictators

from convicted neo-Nazi
terrorist Don Black

to Russian fascist Aleksandr Dugin

to even North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un

whom, contrary to popular belief,

Seth Rogen has not actually killed.

There's a swath of actual
fascists and dictators

that endorse Donald Trump,
but those are endorsements.

What about Trump himself?

Does he endorse Donald Trump?

(laughs)

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist that one.

Well, he's not only praised Saddam Hussein

who was in charge of gassing
hundreds of thousands

of his own citizens, he
likes to retweet quotes

from Italian dictator, Benito Mussolini,

he picked a neo-Nazi white
supremacist leader as a delegate,

he said the following on torture.

- We're gonna have to get
much tougher as a country.

We're gonna have to be a lot sharper

and we're gonna have to do
things that are unthinkable.

- And I quote, "Even if it doesn't work,

"they probably deserved
it anyway," end quote.

He thinks the Geneva
Convention is a problem

and needs to be changed, and hell,

let's just go all the way back to 1989,

back when Donald Trump
bought full page ads

in all the most prominent
New York newspapers

in an attempt to get four Black kids,

age 13 to 16 sentenced
to the death penalty

because he watched the tapes
of police coercing them

into confessions and just thought, uh,

I can take this at face value,

in fact, I'm gonna take this at face value

despite the fact that DNA evidence came

out and exonerated all of them.

All of them.

The actual rapist was
caught, but as recently

as a few weeks ago, Donald
Trump implied he still

thinks these people are
guilty and should have

been sentenced the death penalty.

That's not on evidence.

That's just on suspicion.

If you watch the tapes of
these kids quote unquote

confessing to these crimes,
and to be very clear,

I have, they were clearly coerced.

But you know what?

They're Black kids.

And not, like, middle class Black kids.

They had tough lives.

They didn't have the ability to fight back

either monetarily or quote
unquote social capital-wise.

And although he had no
stake in the situation,

Donald Trump saw an opportunity
to look tough on crime.

For a real estate developer
who needs a reputation

to be constantly allowed to
build and build and build

and have officials look the
other way as he exploits

undocumented immigrants
for labor, well, it helps.

Look at this upstanding
member of the community.

Look how little he tolerates rape.

It's terrible when our
white women get raped.

Did I say white women?

I just meant women.

(laughs) There's no racial element here.

Stop implying there is.

Well, I'm so sorry white ass bourgie,

but racism and fascism go hand in hand.

And so does yelling about keeping

people safe with law and order.

Hmm, Donald Trump would
take legal action against

people that he thinks did
something that he doesn't like.

It doesn't matter if there's
evidence that exonerates them,

he deems them guilty and he
is the arbiter of justice.

Tell me that's not fascist.

Go ahead.

And while Donald Trump
exploits the white ass bourgie,

Hillary Clinton is the white ass bourgie.

♫ Bourgie, bourgie, bourgie can't you see

♫ You white assholes elect Hillary

Yeah, I know that's a
little confrontational

and I am actually white myself.

But it wasn't wrong, was it?

Neoliberal capitalism is
the application of the free

market, not only to economic constructs,

but social constructs as well.

I did an entire very important documentary

on the marketplace of ideas
and how it's very literally

applying neoliberal capitalism
to how we societally agree

on what ideas are valid and what aren't.

Here's the problem with that.

We don't live in a situation
where everybody is represented

equally, and in order for
a marketplace of ideas

to reach consensus that actually
represents all viewpoints,

that would have to be the case.

Framing the determination
of validity of concepts

and ideology through a free
market metaphor makes us look

at it as a monetary
transaction that dehumanizes

and gamifies social interaction
and it creates a currency.

That currency is not validity.

It's attention.

We pay attention and we gotta stop.

But let's put aside the fact
that lopsided representation

means whatever gets most
attention is considered

valid and assume that it actually works

the way it purports itself to.

Even a legitimately reached
consensus is not the most

efficient means of social
or economic progress.

Just because we all agreed it was time

to finally give gay
people rights doesn't mean

that was the right time
to give them rights.

I'm thinking maybe it
should have happened before.

You know, because gay
people, like other humans

who have human rights, are human.

Other humans that had to
fight for their rights,

Black people who were awarded personhood,

which, yeah, that's not absurd,
giving people personhood,

and then for another century had

to fight for their own human rights.

Despite a supposed conclusion to that,

they are still required
to fight for their rights

because consensus hasn't been reached.

If we societally decide
this shit via a marketplace

of ideas, consensus is
always the deciding factor

whether it's reached
in some sort of magical

fairway, or the way we actually reach it,

which is whoever gets the most attention.

There's no process,
there's no methodology.

Just a big ol' aggregate of all opinions.

When the middle finally
aligns with, hey, you know,

these people ought to have rights,

gee golly gosh, then they have rights.

And there is no more powerful politician

at the moment who more deeply believes

in these ideals right
now than Hillary Clinton.

To bring up gay rights once again,

Hillary Clinton waited until
2013 to support gay marriage,

long after consensus had been reached.

In 2011, a consensus believed
that marriage equality

should be the law of the land,
and that majority has been

maintained in every single year following.

She had to make sure that
consensus was gonna stick.

And that's probably one of
the easiest ones to point out,

but there's more than a few others.

There's the Trans-Pacific Partnership,

the Keystone XL Pipeline,

whether or not the Simpsons
should be renewed again.

OK, that's not up to her.

Various environment issues,

yada yada, goes on and on.

The specifics don't matter
as much as the ideology,

which is that framing
everything monetarily,

despite the fact that it
shouldn't be, is fine.

In fact, it's not just fine.

It's how everything is
and should never change.

I'm not going to tread on
anything that could be construed

as even vaguely conspiratorial
about Hillary Clinton.

I'm just going to say that on
a deep philosophical level,

I completely disagree with
Hillary Clinton's ideology.

It may reach some of the same
conclusions that I would.

For instance, I believe
that reproductive rights

are massively important and women

should always have the right to choose.

And if I said that around Hillary Clinton,

I would not get in an argument.

And I'm not going to question
that ideological conviction.

I am going to say that a
large portion of the time

these conclusions are
reached because it's mutually

beneficial for people
as well as corporations,

or at least non-controversial
to corporate donors.

Now, we could get into
pinkwashing and probably talk

about abortion for a very long time,

but Hillary Clinton has been pretty

consistent on that issue at very least.

And while her conclusion
on reproductive rights

has remained pretty steadfast
throughout the years,

the conclusions that she's come
to on various other topics,

from healthcare to fracking
to marriage equality,

maybe you get where I'm going with this,

but they don't always stick.

See the originally had a
public option Obamacare.

And if your convictions depend
on a marketplace of ideas

which does not discount anybody's opinion,

it just enters it into an aggregate,

which is done if working as stated,

averaged out to create
a societal consensus,

well, then the worst parts
of that enable people

like Donald Trump who know
how to exploit a system

that is based entirely
on who gets attention.

Who gets attention
better than Donald Trump?

No one.

My center belief that
gives me so much beef with

neoliberal capitalism is that
I don't think money should

be what drives society and
I don't think you do either.

So obviously the solution is
to vote third-party, right?

Gary Johnson, Jill Stein,
they're both against that stuff.

Wait, Gary Johnson wants
to defund public schools

and completely disband
all entitlement programs

entirely dissolving even the
idea of a social safety net.

If you have no money, fuck you.

It's your fault.

Go die in an alley.

But Jill Stein's a progressive, right?

She wouldn't do that.

Oh, right, the way she
says that vaccines are good

is in the vaguest possible
way as to leave the door open

for anti-vaccers, which most
likely make up the majority

of the California voters
that put the Green Party

on school boards in California,

which by the way are the
vast majority of the hundred

offices that the Green
Party holds nationwide.

School boards in California.

At least you know there would
be a Congress completely

filled with Green Party
electees that would be.

Oh wait, no wait,
actually, all the electees

would just be in California
on school boards.

It'd just be Republicans
and Democrats in Congress

who would likely determine
as their best interest

to undermine any third-party president.

Not that I want anybody
who is even vaguely vague

on vaccinations in the oval office.

But hey man, a vote for the third-party's

a vote against the system.

♫ Dee do dee do dee dee do dee do dee dee

♫ Dee do dee do do do dee do do dee do

♫ Do do do do do do

Well,

no.

Third-party votes are not
votes against the system.

They are votes that the
system is designed to devalue.

To get a presidency, a
candidate has to get 270

votes in the electoral college.

In a two-way split,
that's essentially getting

the majority of votes,
except you can't really have

a two-way split in a three party race.

The first time a third-party
reaches a majority of votes

in the United States is going
to be a three-way split.

And the second time and the third time

and the fourth time and
probably as many times

as it takes to realize that
simply having the popular vote

doesn't mean getting the third-party in.

But in a three-way
split, most likely nobody

will get to 270 electoral votes.

The only way that could
happen is if the third-party

gets more votes than
the other two combined

and that's not going to happen.

There are way too may
registered GOP and DNC voters.

And since nobody's getting to 270,

our Constitution says that
the House of Representatives

votes on who becomes president.

And do you think the
Republican controlled house

is going to vote for Jill
Stein or Gary Johnson?

Oh yeah, I'm sure they're gonna shake up

the political binary
they both benefit from.

The fact of the matter is
they have been given the right

not to elect those people
by our founding fathers.

Do you want to know what
I think needs to happen

in order for a third-party
vote not to be a waste?

Well, I'm saying it anyway.

We need to abolish the Electoral College

and there's numerous organizations

out there dedicated specifically to this.

But I don't think an
organization is the answer.

I think a progressive political
party with a main agenda

of abolishing the electoral
college and implementing

a new voting system, like
instant-runoff voting

or ranked voting, both
of which have been proven

to create more democratic
results, needs to run

and be elected to congressional
seats in large numbers.

Large enough to start
pushing Electoral College

abolition amendments to the Constitution,

which doesn't necessarily mean a majority,

just enough people to create
a mandate that members

of the other political
parties also have to follow.

To just ram somebody into the Oval Office

would essentially require a large,

impossible majority of people to give up

the way things have been
done their entire lives

and if you went with the
current third-parties,

either vote for a party that wants to slip

the social safety net out from under you,

or a party of ant-vacs
parents in California.

No, I kind of think we
need a new third-party,

and let's face it, that's not gonna

happen before November 8th.

In fact, this binary is going to be valid

for at least this presidential election.

And if you're watching
this after the election,

hey, wasn't I right?

Didn't we elect one of them?

Look, if you're that
emotionally attached to

the Electoral College, I
might still have an idea.

But it still involves
amending the Constitution,

so you're not getting out of that.

But we could index the total
number of necessary votes

based on how many candidates are viable.

Like, just say there's three candidates

and they're all within striking distance

of each other in the polls consistently.

There's 538 total electoral votes.

And in a binary, you need 270 to win.

What if we set that majority at 185?

I mean, it'd have to be
based on scientific polling

that consistently put us in a situation

where this was a likely popular vote.

But I'd accept that.

Certainly it's not perfect,
but still it's something.

I haven't really heard
a whole lot of ideas

as to how to do this if I'm
gonna be completely honest.

Whenever anybody says we
need a third-party in,

all they do is just tell people
to vote for a third-party.

It's been designed not
to work like that, OK?

We literally can't have
a third-party president

until we amend the
Constitution to make a system

that accommodates a third-party candidate.

That's what I want to do, OK?

So just to be crystal clear

I'm not advocating against
third-party candidates.

I'm actually advocating that we do that.

But let me say something that isn't nice.

It's a hard truth and it sucks.

We're not going to be able to do that

before the 2016 presidential election.

No, our choice, if we could
really call it a choice,

is between Donald Trump
and Hillary Clinton.

People have been telling me to vote

my conscience since early 2015.

And in 2016, I did.

I voted for Bernie Sanders because

I think he was the best candidate.

I think he gave a shit
about regular people.

And when I say regular people,

I don't mean straight, white, cis dudes.

There's one major party
candidate that in 2016

is associated with the
nation's first major party

transgender candidate for the U.S. Senate,

and it's not Hillary Clinton.

And we know it's not Donald Trump.

But Bernie Sanders'
post-campaign organization

called Our Revolution is
spending time and money

to get Misty K. Snow elected
in Utah of all states.

No, at this point I'm not
going to vote my conscience.

I'm voting pragmatically.

Sorry.

Between an orange fascist in training

and the literal symbol for
the economic and social system

that hasn't just destroyed
this country's economy,

but also our trust in people.

It's not that it's made folks
greedy or selfish or awful.

It's not that we chose to make every

conversation we have into a job interview.

It's that if you don't act that
way, you can't get anywhere.

And I hate that.

But I still picked the
neoliberal capitalist.

And it's not because I think
she's gonna do a great job.

It's not because I think she's
going to pull a Pope Francis

and end up being a stealth progressive

like Michael Moore seems
to think that she might.

I don't entertain that.

I'm voting for Hillary
Clinton for the same reason

scammers want old people to
continue using Windows 95.

Because the status quo is exploitable.

Donald Trump proved that.

Progressives need to realize that

neoliberal capitalism is Windows 95.

And where Trump was the scammer,

progressives could be the
kid that comes in and says,

"Grandma, holy shit, we
really need to upgrade this.

"This is not safe.

"Like, how is this still running?

"Seriously, I'm looking at this.

"How is this running?

"Nothing should be working.

"This is terrible.

"No, don't worry, I got some time.

"I'll upgrade it for you."

But what Donald Trump will become if he

is given power is not exploitable.

You don't Donald Trump totalitarianism.

Whoever's in power already did.

I'm not gonna tell you how to vote.

I'm tired of being told
how to vote myself.

But I am gonna say that this system

compensates for any action that isn't

for either Donald Trump
or Hillary Clinton.

No matter what you do,
you're helping one of them.

But what this system is not
set up to compensate for,

I believe, is the kind of
person that Donald Trump is.

I don't think checks and balances

are going to work with him.

He's too good at getting people

to do what he wants them to do.

And Hillary Clinton is not.

If you think Hillary Clinton's
ideology or methodology

are dangerous or destructive
or just not correct,

wouldn't you rather have
the person who had trouble

beating Donald Trump, ineffectively trying

to apply that ideology and methodology?

If you're a progressive,
wouldn't you rather have an in

because you won't have
an in with Donald Trump.

Instead, you'll get the best wall,

a huge wall, an amazing wall,

a luxurious wall.

I mean, I hope you like walls.

He does.

(rhythmic hip hop music)