that issue. your signature, senator, is to have a plan for everything. except this. no plan has been laid out to explain how a multitrillion-dollar hole in this medicare for all plan that senator warren is putting forward is supposed to get filled in. and the thing is we really can deliver health care for every american and move forward with the boldest, biggest transformation since the inception of medicare itself. but the way to do it without a giant multitrillion-dollar hole and without having to avoid a yes or no question is medicare for all who want it. we take a version of medicare, we let you access it if you want to, and if you prefer to stay on your private plan you can do that too. so let s be clear. whenever someone hears the term medicare for all who want it, understand what that really means. it s medicare for all who can afford it. we can pay for this. i ve laid out the basic principles. costs are going to go up for the wealthy. they re going to go up for big corpor
tone. but isn t it the case that primaries are messy and political, you know, politicians want to make arguments against each other and part of the primary process is having it out? i think so. we should have it out on policy. i have a lot of differences with my fellow primary folks from everything like gun licensing all the way to having a bold plan on criminal justice reform. but we have to do it in a way that learns from the lessons of last time. this is not going to be an election any of us can win alone. we need to unify this party and the way we talk about people we have to be careful because it says more about what kind of leader we re going to be than they re going to be. what were the lessons of last time? there were a lot of lessons of last time. mitt romney excuse me, donald trump got about the same number of votes as mitt romney. and we shellacked mitt romney. fewer than mitt romney. there was something wrong with us having all democrats all hands on deck all activa
and it could result literally in the threat to safety of human beings who are participating in the process of justice. there is not a part of you civically, constitutionally that is concerned about the precedent of a private company taking the platform away from the president of the united states or some other elected official? free speech does not condone or protect threats to the safety of other human beings. and so that is what we are talking about. let s be really clear what we re talking about, because this can go into some abstract law school debate. but the reality of it is, we re talking about donald trump weaponizing twitter in a way that could result in real consequence, including death. and we have to they can that seriously. do you think he puts people s lives in danger when he targets them in tweets? absolutely. do you think he knows that? does it matter? then you might as well ask me do you think he knows that when he
what this country that s the greatest military power in the world believes about that anymore. you used to think the republican party was more in favor of that kind of intervention tough on russia. tough on russia. all of that. cold warriors. but now it s donald trump s party and so it doesn t believe in that anymore. and then you heard the democrats who are supposed to be the peacenik party. you know, all calling for bringing the troops home, yet criticizing donald trump for doing that. he obviously did it in the wrong way. he did it, you know, in a way that no one could countenance or support or no one with any sense. and it s going to end up in the massacre of the kurds. but nonetheless, you get down to the fundamental policy, it s not to have what tulsi not to fight what tulsi gabbert called these regime change wars and others called endless wars or whatever. in london or paris or moscow, you know, i d say make up your
absolved, because there are other mediums on which he could do it. the reality is it s unfiltered direct to the american public what he speaks on twitter, and he has weaponized his words in a way that could result in harm to other people. and maybe i m just kicking in as a former prosecutor, but i know that these real people, including members of congress who have been the target of his threats are in fear of their lives and their safety. and that should be taken seriously, and there should be accountability for that terms of a private corporation that is facilitating it. all right. senator kamala harris of california, good to have you tonight appreciate it. thank you. back to you in new york. interesting conversation there. she is still having a good night. i think she just made that argument even better there than she did on the debate stage, and she made it pretty well on the debate stage. her point is not abstract. no. caesar siac, there are people seeking to carry ou