Democrat Far Left Push Makes 'Never Trumper' Declare Support For Trump
Democrat Far Left Push Makes 'Never Trumper' Declare Support For Trump. The Democrats are beyond losing their supporters. In one story published in the Wall Street journal a man who refused to vote for Trump in 2016 has now declared he will be supporting the president in 2020.It's something we have been hearing a lot, #walkaway. The campaign which calls on Democrats to abandon the party and join the Republicans. In the WSJ Story the man says its not about Trump but about a counter punch to the absurd positions being pushed by the Democrats.It seems like 2016 is playing out again in repeat and the Democrats and media have learned nothing. Outside of the Democrats far left, social justice pandering, we are seeing media smear the actual popular candidates Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang.Media is claiming that Russian bots are propping them up to try and upset the process so Kamala Harris of Joe Biden can;t win. This premise is absurd.If the Democrats don't get their act together then they will not be able to win in 2020. Or as it was written in the NYTimes "Democrats will lose the elections, and they deserve to"
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I want to start with what I think is the most important statement of this video.
Democratic friends, if you go on like this, you're going to lose the elections and you'll deserve it.
And this story is an op-ed from the New York Times, Bret Stephens, a wretched start for Democrats.
The party seems interested in helping everyone except the voters it needs.
Yes.
The Democrats have gone super far to the left.
They're not paying attention to what happened in 2016.
And they're too concerned with reaching out to the people who are guaranteed to vote for them.
The progressive wing of the Democratic Party are going to vote Democrat no matter what.
The Democrats need to get the moderates on their side.
And they're trying to do the opposite.
Now, I want to come back to this op-ed.
Because I actually want to start with this story, this opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal.
There's a few things that I'm going to break down in this video.
I basically want to talk about how they learned nothing from 2016.
In my opinion, they're still cheating.
I've got stories pulled up where they're smearing Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang.
Because they didn't learn any, uh, the media, how they played the game, you know, with Bernie and Hillary.
They seem to be working, to a certain extent, with the Democratic Party.
And I'm speaking specifically about Donna Brazile questions with Hillary.
It's complicated.
I don't want to rehash 2016.
The point is, the media is smearing the actual candidates that grassroots individuals like, and they're propping up people that people don't like.
Okay?
And they're pushing far-left politics that people don't care for.
So let's take a look at this story from the Wall Street Journal.
The 2020 Democrats lack hindsight.
They ignore reality and march in lockstep with their base.
Did they learn anything from 2016?
I'm gonna have to say that's a hard no.
It's really interesting.
Peggy Noonan writes that she received letters from somebody, one guy who stayed out of the 2016 election, but has decided now to support Donald Trump.
And this plays into the video I did yesterday, where a Washington Post reporter overheard someone say that they didn't think they were a Democrat anymore.
Once again, we're hearing the exact same thing.
Do you guys know about the WalkAway campaign?
They'll tell you it's a hoax.
They'll tell you it's a fringe group.
Well, it keeps happening.
Before we read this, make sure you go to timcast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do is share this video.
YouTube no longer suggests my videos on YouTube for whatever reason.
So I rely on you guys.
If you think the video is worth watching, please share it.
Peggy writes, I've received tens of thousands of letters and other communications from Trump
supporters the past few years, some of which have sparked extended dialogues. Two I got after last
week's column struck me as pertinent to this moment, and they make insufficiently appreciated
points. A gentleman of early middle age in Kansas City wrote to say that he'd sat out of the 2016
election because he was dissatisfied with both parties.
But now he's for Donald Trump, and the reason runs deeper than politics.
America's elites in politics, media, and the academy have grown oblivious to the average Joe's intense disgust at being morally instructed and preached to.
Quote, Every day, Americans are told of the endless ways they are falling short.
If we don't show the proper level of understanding according to a talking head, then we are surely racist.
If we don't embrace every sanitized PC talking point, then we must be heartless.
If we have the audacity to speak our mind, then we are most definitely a bigot.
These accusations are relentless.
We are jabbed like a boxer with no gloves on to defend us.
And we are fed up.
We are tired of being told we aren't good enough.
He believes the American people are by nature kind and generous.
They would give you the shirt off their back if you were in trouble.
And that, quote, in Donald Trump, voters found a massive sledgehammer that pulverizes the ridiculous notion that Americans aren't good enough.
Mr. Trump doesn't buy the guilt narrative.
It's surely not about the men at this point.
It stopped being about Trump long ago.
It is about that counterpunch that has been missing from our culture for far too long.
The culture of accusation, he says, is breaking us apart.
A reader who grew up upper middle class in the South writes of the politics of the situation.
His second wife, also a southerner, grew up poor. She is a former waitress and a bartender
whose politics he characterizes as pragmatic liberal.
The story goes on to say that in 2015 Trump announced and this woman who grew up poor
said Trump will win.
He asked her later on how she knew, and she said, because he speaks my language.
The Democrats certainly don't.
Now, I want to move on because I don't want to read too much.
But, she points out exactly why the Democrats, in my opinion, deserve to lose.
She says, What Night One did was pick up the entire party and put it down outside the mainstream and apart from the center.
This is what the candidates said.
They are functionally, in terms of the effects of their stance, for open borders.
They are in complete agreement with the abortion regime.
No reservations or qualms.
No sense of just or civilized limits.
They are all in on identity politics.
One candidate warned against denying federally funded abortions to a trans female, of which is biologically male and would never need one.
Two said they would do away with all private health insurance.
Every party plays to its base in the primaries and attempts to soften its stands in the general.
But I'm wondering how the ultimate nominee thinks he or she will walk this all back
if it's too extreme for America and too extreme for big parts of its old base that the uh they
say if it's too uh okay it is too extreme for America and too extreme for big parts of its old
base that the Democrats forgot in 2016. It was as if they were saying hi middle America people who
used to be Democrats and voted for Trump.
We intend to alienate you again.
Go vote for that jerk.
We don't care.
The Democrats have shifted so far to the left that it's become unrecognizable to the average American.
And the simplest way I've explained it over and over again, as I did yesterday and the days before, is that if you were a Democrat who voted for Obama both
times, you are now closer to the Republican Party than you are to the Democratic Party. And
this means the people, middle Americans who are not super political, who voted for Barack Obama,
are looking at the Democrats saying, I have no idea what they're on about. So what ends up
happening? The Democrats are pandering to the people who will already vote for them.
You don't need to win over the people who are progressive.
They're going to vote for you no matter what because they hate the president.
Orange man bad.
What you need to do is convince the people who did vote for Trump to vote for you.
What people don't seem to understand in the far left or the progressives is that it's not about whether the Democrats endorse any of these positions.
It's about whether they can convince enough people not to vote for Trump.
None of them get it.
They all went up on stage and raised their hands in favor of providing medical benefits, Medicaid benefits, to illegal immigrants.
It makes no sense.
It can't be.
Bernie Sanders contradicted himself.
So I'll tell you what's going to happen.
They made the point in the Washington Post op-ed, and it's a good point.
They're pandering to the base right now because they need the most active Democrats to vote for them so they win the nomination.
What do you think will happen when one of these people is standing next to Donald Trump and they say, well, I believe undocumented immigrants should not be deported, should eventually become citizens, and should get government healthcare?
And then Trump's going to be like, that's mathematically impossible.
We already can't afford universal healthcare.
Now you want to add a hundred plus thousand people per month?
To universal healthcare?
We already can't afford it.
How will we afford that?
And not only do we have those 100,000 that we're seeing now coming at the border with the migrant crisis, you're also talking about incentivizing people to come, saying, no one will stop you, no one will deport you, and you'll get free health benefits.
That's going to result in a doubling, a tripling, who knows how many people are going to pour in.
You're going to have people in Mexico who are going to be like, I got to go to the doctor.
I'm going to cross the border for the next few days to get treatment.
And then they'll go back to Mexico.
You're going to have people who literally just come here for health care tourism.
It makes literally no sense.
Now this New York Times piece, I'm not going to read too much into, but you get the point.
Bret Stephens is saying basically the same thing.
He starts by saying in Spanish to make a point.
He says, this is what he says.
A party that makes too many Americans feel like strangers in their own country.
A party that puts more of its faith and invests most of its effort in them instead of us.
There you go.
He says they speak Spanish.
We don't.
They are not US citizens or legal residents.
We are.
They broke the rules to get into this country.
We didn't.
They pay few or no taxes.
We already pay most of those taxes.
They willingly got themselves into debt.
We are asked to write it off.
They don't pay the premiums for private health insurance.
We're supposed to give up ours in exchange for some VA-type nightmare.
They didn't start enterprises that create employment and drive innovation.
We're expected to join the candidates in demonizing the job creators, breaking up their businesses, and taxing them to the hilt.
I don't necessarily agree with everything he said, but he's making a point that I think needs to be heard.
A lot of these Democrats were pandering to people who are not voters.
Why would you need to claim you're going to provide all these benefits to undocumented immigrants and a path of citizenship?
They don't vote.
Right?
I guess they're virtue signaling to the far left?
Great.
Well, you just told American voters, I'm not speaking for you.
Why would they vote for you?
Well, let's move on.
I got a few things I want to point out.
The cheating.
The media collusion.
But this is another op-ed that plays into the statements of just prior.
Andrew Sullivan says the Democratic candidates are in a bubble on immigration.
It essentially rehashes a lot of the points brought up.
People of intellectual honesty are all saying right now, dude, the Democrats went on stage and endorsed open borders.
Worse still, they're endorsing essentially a permanent underclass of people who are pseudo-citizens.
So what?
The rich urban elites can profit off of their backs?
It's a nightmare.
But I want to get into the media collusion and the lies.
Jeffrey Miller tweets, He's not wrong.
We are quite literally seeing 2016 play out all over again.
in polls, you must be a troll.
They can't even imagine thoughtful, honest citizens deviating from their narrative.
Think about that for a minute, Vox.com.
This attitude is how your narrative loses.
He's not wrong.
We are quite literally seeing 2016 play out all over again.
I kid you not.
I literally, I see it.
I see 2016 all over again.
They're pandering to the woke far left, saying things that regular Americans don't care for, and then the media is demonizing the actual popular candidates.
Bernie Sanders was the popular candidate for the Democrats.
He should have won.
They stole it from him.
We know they did.
Bernie doesn't have the same appeal anymore.
He's pandering to the far left, and he's playing up identity politics, and he's lost people like me who supported him greatly in 2016.
Now I'm actively supporting Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang.
I think a lot of their policies are bad.
I don't agree with everything they say, but Tulsi Gabbard speaks on principle, And her main priority is stopping America from getting involved in foreign war.
I believe there are massive private interests that make money off war.
They want us to engage in these conflicts.
It's not a good thing for us.
You want to argue healthcare and everything else?
By all means, let's allocate the funding towards war, towards domestic policy.
I like Gabbard for this reason.
I disagree with a lot of her other policies, but I think there is a moral position that I can't get past, in that the United States has war machines blowing people up.
So that's important to me.
But she's principled.
She said, I think it was on Bill Maher, she said that these other politicians stick their finger to the Twitter wind, and then change their position depending on what people are saying.
And she doesn't play that game.
And I believe it's true.
Andrew Yang, same thing.
Here's the thing.
What is NBC doing now?
Look, I'm not telling you to like Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew Yang, by no means.
I'm just explaining, like, I think there's a real reason people support them.
They're common sense individuals, they're outsiders, and they're speaking to a real base.
They're speaking principle.
NBC News writes, Trolls target online polls following first Democratic presidential debate.
Users from pro-Trump communities on 4chan and Reddit implored fellow members to vote for lower polling candidates, specifically Tulsi Gabbard and Bill de Blasio.
The story makes the argument that it was 4chan and the Donald or whoever else that were telling people to give Gabbard your power to make it look like she was actually doing better.
And this is great.
Here's what they say.
The results from the poll on Drudge Report, where Gabbard netted almost 40% of the vote, despite previously polling at less than 2% in national polls, created coverage in itself.
The politics blog The Hill and the Daily Mail wrote about Gabbard's performance in the poll, with the Daily Mail calling Gabbard the shock winner in the first poll after the debate.
As more mainstream outlets pick up the methodology, uh, pick up the methodology, methodology, oh my god, methodology, I'm gonna skip that word, the questionable polls, The likelihood that they will be covered by more prominent news media and political figures increases.
With no publicly available data set, it's not possible to know just how heavily potential manipulation factored into the results.
The Drudge Report didn't respond to NBC News emails requesting comment or clarification on its online voter fraud potential measures.
It's an online poll, dude.
Chill.
Well, it turns out this guy who wrote this is, my understanding, he's an activist.
He's written pieces in the past that smeared the people who are saying learn to code, and he was doing it to benefit his friends.
It's a very complicated story.
He also apparently used to work for the Daily Beast, to which he links to, shamelessly.
But here's what they're doing.
First of all, Tulsi Gabbard was the most searched for candidate following the first debate on Google.
You wanna know why she won the debate?
Because people genuinely liked what she had to say?
She was- This is USA Today.
Tulsi Gabbard was the most searched candidate on Google after the Democratic debate in Miami.
Don't you think that could translate into people su- Like, that's- People searched for her because they supported her, what she was saying.
They were like, oh wow, she's saying something that resonates with me.
And then conservatives on Drudge were like, yeah, I really do think she spoke truth.
You know, she was the better candidate.
She was principled.
She challenged people.
She knew what she was talking about.
If we see the Google search trends, there is a good reason to believe people genuinely thought she did a good job.
But of course, they'll say it must have been the trolls, because she was polling too low, because they didn't learn from 2016.
Vox launders the information, saying, the Democratic debates helped demonstrate the dubiousness of online polls.
Gabbert and Yang were the big winners, on Drudge at least.
They then go on to say, how did Yang win?
He didn't really speak.
Recycling the NBC story about where they claim, you know, online trolls and 4chan and all that.
And you should know, Vox received a huge investment from NBC.
You wanna know why Andrew Yang won polls as well and was considered prominent?
Not because he couldn't... It's not because, you know... Well, I don't know how to phrase this properly, but I'll say this.
It's specifically because he was silenced.
So listen.
LetYangSpeak was trending on Twitter after Yang accused NBC of cutting his mic.
A viral video shows him speaking and you hear nothing.
Uh, his name was, uh, uh, Andrew Yang's name was also trending on the first day.
Because Yang was being cut out, people started talking about him, and they likely started saying, you know what, he's, I think he needs a leg up.
Listen, it's not about 4chan and trolls and bots, as they're trying to claim, it's about real grassroots support on the internet, and the media is trying to play it off, they're trying to smear them, No, no, no.
It's the fringe alt-right supporting them.
They're trying to upset.
They don't want Biden or Kamala Harris to win.
No, people really like Tulsi Gabbard.
The progressive left, the actual honest ones, they like Tulsi.
And then you have moderates and centrists, common sense Democrats, who like both of them.
They're the popular moderate candidates, even though they're not necessarily moderates themselves.
So yes, they have real support.
But we're seeing 2016 all over again.
From the Democrats insulting the people they need to vote, going too far left, and the media ragging on those who actually have the power, the potential, to come out on top.
Now we have this one.
Twitter bots amplify far-right conspiracy about Kamala Harris during debate.
Same game.
Same game.
Does this remind you of 2016?
It sure does for me.
Now, with that first op-ed I showed you, where a now-Trump supporter was saying they didn't like Trump in the past, but they're going to vote for him anyway.
I'm seeing that sentiment.
I kid you not.
I'm not trying to be hyperbolic.
I'm not saying it's every person in the country, but I'm hearing this over and over again.
That there are people now who are just saying, you know what, they're going to vote for Trump anyway because the Democrats have lost the plot and they don't deserve to win.
Interestingly, they say Twitter bots are amplifying the conspiracy theory, but it was a black conservative who brought up questioning Kamala Harris' ethnicity in the first place.
Now, I don't care for arguing about her ethnicity.
I'm not gonna argue, I don't care where she was born or what her race is.
She is certainly a woman of color, fine.
But if it was an American black individual challenging her, shouldn't he have the right to?
No.
We all know how identity politics work.
You are underprivileged and marginalized if you're a person of color and you're on the left.
But heaven forbid you're a Candace Owens, and then all of a sudden they're gonna call you all the names in the book.
So Jeff Giesa made this point on Twitter.
He said, let me get this straight.
A black man questions how to regard Indian Jamaican Kamala Harris in the context of African American identity and gets savaged by white liberals and media for birtherism?
Yes, birtherism began trending.
He says, it seems Ali started the perfect controversy.
The reaction amplifies his message.
It really does.
And now we can see... Here's what I think is going on.
With how the debates are playing out, what the DNC has in store, the media, like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, the op-ed writers, they're bringing up a really important point.
And it's that the Democrats need to win over the people who voted for Barack Obama and then voted for Trump.
But they're even losing people who refused to vote for Trump.
You have people who refused to vote for Trump now saying they're going to do it.
You have the walk-away campaign.
The Democrats are losing this.
What they've argued, the progressives, people like Cenk Uygur and the Young Turks, is that they're trying to wake up populist left-wing individuals who normally don't vote.
That could work.
Don't underestimate that.
That could lead to a democratic victory.
But I believe if it's a one-for-one loss, loss and gain, meaning for every independent they lose to Trump, They gain a progressive, Trump is expanding his base.
Get it?
When you have somebody who refuses to vote for Trump and you've done something that convinces them to vote for Trump, you have now gained a progressive voter, you're hoping, but you've lost a former Democrat voter and Trump has gained a voter, meaning Trump is going up one and you're staying where you are.
I don't think they understand this.
So ultimately, I think this is, you know, and look, there's other stories I don't want to read because I'll get in trouble on YouTube.
But let's just put it this way.
The rhetoric is escalating.
They're accusing Trump of all sorts of crazy things.
You now have a story published in Salon that refers to Trump.
Literally, it's an article headline saying it's time to compare Trump to a certain World War II era politic- politician, if you know what I
mean.
Um, the H name. I'm gonna avoid saying it because YouTube will crack down on my video.
I'd much prefer you get to hear what I have to say than I get myself, you know, censored.
But let's wrap- let's wrap all this up.
The Democrats are embracing insane policies.
They're not going to be able to walk this stuff back when it comes to the actual debates with Trump.
Middle Americans are now saying they would rather vote for Trump because they need a counterpunch to how insane the Democrats have gotten.
The Democrats are in some kind of crazy bubble when it comes to immigration.
I have no idea what they're talking about anymore.
And this will not, they will not save themselves from this.
And now they're playing the same silly game.
Tulsi Gabbard and Yang supporters are all bots and trolls.
It's all fake.
Sorry.
You're losing it.
You've lost the plot.
You've gone off the rails.
You are chasing woke Twitter.
I like to re-quote what Tulsi Gabbard said.
They're putting their finger to the Twitter wind and just saying whatever they're saying on Twitter.
Twitter's not real life, I'm sorry.
Tulsi Gabbard has real support, and so does Andrew Yang.
And there are even skeptic, like anti-feminist types, right?
Like the people on YouTube, who are called reactionary, who challenge the social justice warriors.
They're saying they're for Gabbard now!
Tulsi Gabbard went out and said she opposes, she said identity politics is divisive.
I certainly don't think she's perfect, but she has real support from moderates and centrists who challenge the regressive left.
That's real potential to win.
Tulsi Gabbard is probably the only Democrat, in my opinion, who could get Republicans and Democrats together.
Even though she is a bit, she's like a social Democrat, she is further to the left, she still speaks and talks about important issues like war that get people like, look, I disagree with her on the $15 minimum wage.
But the war issue is seriously important, especially as we're broaching some major conflict with Iran.
We're standing on the precipice, and we need a president, a commander-in-chief with real military experience, who speaks on principle when it comes to foreign policy.
And that is big.
And she gets my respect because of that.
But more importantly, Tulsi Gabbard is principled, and is rejecting a lot of this silly nonsense, and she gets my respect for that.
She's not perfect.
She deserves criticism.
So does Yang.
But they're gonna lie, they're gonna cheat, and they're gonna steal.
Yang's mic was cut off.
That's my- I believe it.
I've seen the video.
Google it.
Google- Google proof Yang's mic was cut off.
You will see him talking and no sound comes out.
We know the game they're playing.
They don't learn from 2016.
I think their plan They're putting up Biden to show him as the old guard.
They have Kamala Harris tear him down, so that way she takes the limelight from Biden.
Biden's got all of this clout.
She's going to now go after him, and it's going to shift to Kamala Harris.
I did say I think Kamala Harris would be the nominee.
I'm not entirely sure.
I don't want to make a hard bet, but I think she will be the nominee.
And then they will have a strong Democratic woman of color up against Donald Trump.
She's already tried walking back her statement about private health care.
She raised her hand.
My understanding is that she raised her hand for abolishing private health care, something that most Americans do not agree with.
And then later, after the debates, it's just a statement saying, oh, she meant people could choose.
She didn't know what abolishment or something like that.
Yes.
That's how the game is played.
She wants the Democrats in the audience to see her signal, and then later put out a statement to try and capture the moderates again.
Not gonna work.
We'll see what happens, but I will end by saying this.
If this is the game the Democrats are gonna play, if the media is gonna play this game, well then you know what?
They do deserve to lose.
As the first op-ed I pulled up said, Plain and simple.
Democratic friends, if you go on like this, you're going to lose the elections, and you'll deserve it.
Let me know what you think in the comments.
We'll keep the conversation going.
Look, I could talk for 10 years on what's happening right now.
I've got a ton of articles pulled up, but we'll save it for the next segments.
They'll be at youtube.com slash timcastnews starting at 6.30 p.m.
For those listening on the podcast, that's basically the rest of the show.
The order is different.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all in the next story.
Following the Democratic debates, I thought it'd be interesting to talk about something that most of the Democrats support.
Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.
I like talking about this issue because it's typically associated with the left and doesn't always make sense.
There are some circumstances where I think it's absolutely a good thing, and some circumstances where I think it's not.
Now, I've supported Tulsi Gabbard and Yang.
Tulsi supports an increase.
Yang doesn't.
This is a really interesting thing I'd love to talk about.
But before we talk about my personal opinions and how I feel on the issue, take a look at this Wall Street Journal opinion, this op-ed.
The $15 minimum wage will put me out of business.
My employees already make $22 an hour with tips.
A new bill will force me to fire them all.
I did a video about the minimum wage.
I can't remember when the last one I did was.
It was a while ago.
But I was talking to an accountant who said that in New Jersey, A lot of businesses are panicking because they're increasing the minimum to $15 an hour, which means their labor costs are going up 30-40% very, very quickly.
He said many of these businesses are opting to shut down because they can't absorb that cost that quickly.
What he explained was you have to consider it's not just the wage increase,
it's also the taxes, the insurance, and everything that comes along with an increased wage.
And he said you also have to consider that a lot of small businesses really do struggle.
People don't seem to understand, like especially on the left, profit doesn't mean that you're
throwing around extra money.
When a business makes 50k in profit, that typically goes to the family of the person running the business like a portion of their salary.
So they might pay themselves a low salary and the profit is the money they make for their business.
Like the example I give is If it costs me $20 to make a birdhouse and I sell it for $25, the $5 profit is what I get to keep for doing the work.
Now, I can choose to pay myself $5, then it costs $25, I sell it for $30, I still make $10.
So you have to understand, it's not super simple.
The issue here is, many Democrats, in my opinion, they look at the issue and say, why don't we just give people more money?
I actually had a conversation recently where someone said, why don't we just print money and give it to people?
And I'm like, okay, great.
Yeah, go to Venezuela.
Let's see how that worked out.
So, let's take a look at what this guy has to say as to why he thinks the minimum wage is bad, and then I'm going to... I mostly agree with this guy, but I do want to rebut and talk about some of the benefits of doing minimum wages correctly.
Larry Fox writes, Want to earn a living wage in Alabama?
Try working in a full-service restaurant.
I'm a restaurant franchisee with nine locations throughout Alabama and Florida, and my tipped employees report an hourly wage between $18 and $28.
Inclusive of base pay and gratuities.
That's more than a living wage for a single adult in Alabama as calculated by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Unfortunately, some well-meaning members of Congress are trying to pass a minimum wage bill that would destroy my business model.
Tipped employees are currently paid a lower base wage and are legally guaranteed to earn at least the minimum wage with tips included.
My employees average roughly three times the relevant minimum wage when tips are accounted for.
But Rep.
Terry Sewell has introduced one of several bills that would upend the system.
Under her bill, employees would have to earn at least the minimum wage before tips.
A handful of states, Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, have adopted this approach.
Were it to take effect in Alabama, it would represent as much as a 600% increase
in the hourly cost of paying a tipped employee to work for me in pursuit of a living wage.
Ms. Sewell could cause my employees to lose their incomes entirely
by forcing me to shut down my business.
Now, not every business would be shut down by this, but yes, this will negatively impact a lot.
The challenge here is that business models are built around the existing structure of government and
policy.
Some changes are disruptive and could destroy a business 100%.
And I'll say this to my friends who are like server staff.
Most of them, like, that I talk to, do not agree with these bills.
Like, I have a friend who makes, like, 200 bucks in four hours, and they told me, like, no way, dude.
Like, it's not that hard of a job, relative to some other jobs they've worked, like working at Starbucks, for instance.
It's relatively easier, and you make way more money.
Especially if you're working a high-end restaurant.
Like, if you... Imagine this.
High-end restaurants.
Like, I don't know what their base pay is for their staff.
Depending on how high-end, some of these guys, some of these servers, women included, you see what I'm doing there, could be trained.
Like professional, they put the cloth over their arm, they pour your water.
Man, they get like 200 bucks a table.
The tips are huge.
So, I'm sure these people aren't even thinking about a minimum wage.
So, he goes on to write.
Despite the widespread popularity of restaurants, sales in Alabama totaled $9 billion last year, according to the National Restaurant Association.
The NRA.
I'm kidding.
The public has surprisingly little understanding of how the business works.
In my restaurants, we sell a six-piece plate of chicken wings for $10.
Customers typically assume we keep $6 or $7 in profit from the sale.
In fact, our profit on that six-piece is closer to 50 cents, after accounting for food and labor costs, rent, overhead, and other expenses.
He goes on to say, That he gets 5% on each customer, while his servers get 20% or more in tip income.
If that doesn't seem shocking to you, consider this.
According to Deloitte's Restaurant Industry Operations Report, labor costs are about a third of a restaurant's budget.
Now imagine if a household expense that takes up a third of your income, maybe a mortgage payment or rent, increased by 600%.
You'd probably be panicking.
So am I.
I've pondered my options, and there are no good ones.
My customers are price-sensitive.
Increases in the wholesale cost of chicken have already forced us to raise menu prices, and there's not much room to offset even a modest increase in my employees' base wage through further hikes.
Some restaurants have embraced self-service technology.
The Fox Business Network profiled a New York City franchise who cut its multi-restaurant staff of 3,000 by one-third through the use of tabletop ordering devices.
You ever go to Red Robin?
I gotta say this.
I am in no way affiliated, but man do I love a good burger at Red Robin.
They got excellent sides.
But there's a reason I bring up Red Robin.
Not because I think you should eat their delicious cheeseburgers.
I'm seriously kidding.
But no, they have tabletop kiosks.
So does Olive Garden.
And a bunch of restaurants.
So I've gone to, I was eating at Olive Garden a few months ago.
And we sat down, like we had seated.
And then they had the little thing on the table.
And we just punched in what we wanted to order.
And then the person brought it to us.
And then when we were done, I paid the auto thing.
That simple.
They could seriously get rid of most of their server staff now and replace it with little tabletop kiosk things.
Now, I think one of the things I like about going out to eat is the service and the experience.
I don't go to restaurants because I'm hungry, for the most part.
It's a win-win.
It's like, if you're hungry, you go, but you also get to experience the atmosphere.
You have someone come and they take care of you, they bring you what you need.
It's an experience.
You know what I mean?
If I was just hungry, I'd go to like a fast sandwich shop like, you know, Jimmy John's or something and just be like, make me a sandwich, I'm hungry.
But when I'm done working, I like to go and sit down and have like a meeting with my friends and coworkers and talk about the day, enjoy the atmosphere and have someone else, you know, worry about the food, getting it back before taking our order.
I like it, it's enjoyable.
You know, it's not something you do all the time, going out to eat.
Some people go out too much.
But you go out every so often because you're going out for the experience, right?
In which case, I think there would be something great, there's a lot to be lost if they replace waitstaff with laptops and tabletops and kiosks and all that stuff.
But I'll tell you what, it'll happen.
If you, I assure you, if they pass this bill, this guy, he's not going to shut his business down.
He needs money too.
But I bet he will cut a third of his staff, send that money he cut to his other employees to give them the minimum wage increase they need, and then put kiosks on the tables.
Let's read on.
He says, In my case, I'd almost certainly have to close up shop and look for another line of work.
That would be a tragedy for my roughly 600 employees.
Our staff tends to be young, and they appreciate the flexible schedules that allow them to go to school or attend to other priorities.
Some of my long-time employees have worked their way up in the company.
Our current director of training got her start waiting tables.
Ms.
Sewell has positioned herself as a moderate on the minimum wage.
But I don't think she, her staff, or many of her colleagues understand the economics of the full-service restaurant industry and the substantial tip income that employees in the industry already earn.
If this bill passes, they'll soon be hearing from a lot of ex-restaurant owners like me, not to mention angry tipped employees who want to know where their income has gone.
I don't think that's true.
I think you're going to find a bunch of server staff fired not knowing why they were fired.
Now, I think one of the things that, this is actually really funny, the famous coffee shop in New York, where Ocasio-Cortez worked, I could be wrong, you know, go back and check, it's been a while since I read the story, but my understanding is they shut down because of the minimum wage increase.
That the staff, the cost skyrocketed, so they just closed down shop.
And apparently Ocasio-Cortez used to work there.
Kind of ironic, you know?
It's like a fire truck on fire.
Let's talk a little bit about minimum wages.
Here's the thing.
In this circumstance, it's very specific.
He's talking about the server industry.
And he's talking about how a rapid change would upend his business model.
That's why the restaurant industry has been mostly exempt from these bills.
A lot of base pay could be like six, seven bucks an hour when the state minimum is like ten bucks.
So they pay less because, you know, tips are supposed to make up the difference.
And then if they don't get tips, then the business has to cover that.
So it is a different industry.
But here's the thing.
There are some circumstances where it makes absolute sense.
If we did a national minimum wage increase, we would have to do it very slowly.
We would have to, before we, so here's what I would actually think would have to happen.
There would have to be like a two-year warning, like, heads up, it's coming.
Then, a gradual increase, which is more like a hockey stick, like an exponential increase to reach that point.
This is kind of what a lot of the jurisdictions do.
They'll say, we're gonna increase to 15, and that means next year we're going up 50 cents, 50 cents a year until we reach 15.
So it's not immediate.
And I think that's kind of okay.
But you have to make sure, you know, the reason... Let's do this, actually.
Let's do this.
Let's jump over here real quick.
I got this thing from Politico.
I want to talk about why I believe Yang has the right answer.
So we can see here, raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.
Basically everybody.
And you've got Tulsi Gabbard in there.
Where's Tulsi?
There's Tulsi.
I like Tulsi.
Tulsi's great.
Tulsi and Yang, two Democrats I support.
I do not support Tulsi's plan for a federal increase to $15 an hour.
I believe that ignores the needs of individual jurisdictions and economies.
We have a national economy, but jacking up the minimum wage nationwide It ignores that, you know, the cost of living in rural Idaho is dramatically different from New York City.
So saying a blanket sweep of a minimum, it does nothing.
Because 15 bucks an hour in New York is nothing, but 15 bucks an hour in a rural, you know, rural Idaho or whatever is substantially more powerful.
Rent is going to be cheaper, cost of living will be cheaper, and so what we're really trying to figure out is how to increase the purchasing power of the average American.
Everyone.
Yang says, leave the minimum wage up to the states.
Now he's got a UBI plan, which is very controversial, and I think it's an interesting plan.
I'm not 100% for it, but Yang has some of the most comprehensive domestic policy positions I've ever seen.
He's got a huge list.
I respect that.
He's right about the minimum wage.
His position is that you leave it to the states.
Yes, I agree.
The needs and the costs of Wyoming are dramatically different to the needs and the costs of New York State.
We can't have a blanket sweep across the entire country.
That's why we have different jurisdictions.
So Yang gets this one right.
In fact, he straight up said wage minimums will be much less necessary under UBI.
Now, you want to argue UBI?
I mostly oppose it for a lot of reasons.
But what I like about Yang is that he's got a bunch of other positions I agree with, and
I think what would happen if he did get elected is, and I'll say this, no way, they're cheating
him.
That's the video I have for later today, the cheating's going on.
But what I think would really happen is a conversation on automation.
Yang's coming out with a big ask, much like Trump has done with the wall.
You say, I've got this big grandiose plan, and then you negotiate back on something smaller.
But I also want to stress, just a side note as it pertains to UBI, what Yang is proposing may actually reduce our welfare costs.
May.
So I was looking at the numbers and I found that Um, the best numbers I could find is that we give, on average, like $750 per capita to people who, uh, are on welfare.
Maybe not per capita, per person.
And, uh, a thousand bucks a month would be a slight increase, but could potentially, uh, be a reduction based on, like, the way it works is you have to opt in to the UBI and you lose all other welfare programs.
So it actually could have the benefit of increasing purchasing power for the lower class, and reducing the restraints that people have based on what their welfare allows, and so people would be more freely moving through the economy.
It's complicated.
I'm not a big fan of UBI in the long run, though.
But the reason I like Yang is not because of his UBI plan.
I think his plan is actually a bit silly, and I think... gimmicky.
But I do think we need to have a real conversation around automation.
Especially when we look at this story.
This is why I think Yang and Tulsi are very relevant here.
Because he's straight up talking about automating waitstaff with tabletop kiosks.
Yang is talking about this.
And he's even saying no increase to the wage.
So I think he's thinking about this.
So here's the thing.
If you increase the minimum wage in the United States, there is a net positive.
It's not going to work the way people think it will.
It will drive up the costs dramatically.
It will cause inflation.
But hold on.
A lot of our goods are imports.
If we inflate the cost of milk locally and your wage goes up with it, your purchasing power has remained the same.
But you can buy imports because the purchasing power of somebody overseas and the cost of overseas production has not gone up. So that means someone who has $15 an hour,
sure, they can still only buy, you know, two gallons of milk because the cost is going to
go up with wage minimums, but the cost of a laptop overseas isn't going to go up as
quickly. So there are net benefits to why increasing wages can work. That's why I think Yang has it
right. At the state level, if a state increases the wages and they do it right and they can
accommodate businesses like restaurants, it sounds like they're not.
I'm not saying they are.
But if they can do it, that means that someone who lives, let's say like Wyoming, increased their minimum wage to $15 an hour.
That would now allow the people who live there to compete in purchasing power with people in New York, right?
So, uh, it only works if you do it by jurisdiction, however.
A federal increase would mean that nothing would change.
No one would be able to pay, like, the rent is gonna go up, everything's gonna go up.
It does mean you'll have better access to imports.
So, it's, it's, it's, uh, and I could be wrong, too.
I'm not an economist.
But these are some of the better arguments I've heard for why it makes sense.
However, the bigger problem is that it falls to an emotional argument.
No one is thinking about what it really does.
They claim to be like, oh, these poor servers aren't making enough.
Let's put a bill up that guarantees them this wage.
And it's like, wait, you're actually hurting them.
They're going to lose money.
It's not what you think is going to happen.
And once again, you've heard me say it in the past week, the Chinese finger trap problem.
You've got minimum wage, you know, standards, and they're pulling as hard as they can, thinking that's the obvious solution.
Hey, just pay people more!
And then what happens is they just destroy the, you know, you can't get your fingers, you can't solve the problem.
Sometimes the solution to problems is counterintuitive.
Perhaps you could say, lower the standard wage, and then rely more on tips.
That, I think, is a bad idea too though.
The point I'm trying to make is, perhaps, Our culture developed a system around the restaurant industry over the past hundred or so years, and it's stabilized around core concepts and slowly evolves.
Forcing a hard, manual change in a short amount of time is going to disrupt the system, not improve it.
I could be wrong, though.
I defer to the people who actually run the businesses, and I defer to my friends who are actually waitstaff.
Long story short, What really bothers me in politics is when the Democrats all just say, like, yep, we're for one policy, and Republicans all say, yep, we're against one policy, and I'm like, dude, you don't have to be for or against the policy.
I'm not necessarily for or against a minimum wage.
I'm for or against the specific jurisdictions and the policies and how it impacts people.
Yes, we could say, in this town it makes sense, in this town it doesn't.
That's why I think Tulsi is wrong, and every other Democrat, and why I think Yang is right.
But again, final thought on the matter, Minimum wage, interesting concept, good to have a debate.
You let me know what you guys think.
And I'll stress this, when it comes to Yang and Tulsi, I don't support a politician because I think everything they say makes sense.
And I think following what we just saw, the Democratic debate, I'm really questioning where I'm standing when they all start pandering to giving healthcare to literally everyone.
You know, anybody who comes here won't be deported, they're gonna give you healthcare.
That's a whole other argument I'm gonna save for There used to be a thing called vetting.
When someone would make a claim, you would vet them.
That means you check their background, you make sure that they're on the level, and their accusations or claims probably have credibility behind them.
But now we see the woman who has accused Donald Trump in the latest accusation being, uh, she's continually made bizarre statements.
Now, I don't know if you could call this recanting, but she says, quote, I have not been raped.
Okay.
I thought she, so, so what, what happened?
I mean, I don't understand what she's trying to say at this point.
And this is why I say vetting is important.
Before they took this woman at face value and put her on TV, they should have vetted her.
She has now gone on to say three different bizarre statements that make no sense.
I mean, they kind of, it's just really weird, and I gotta say, at every turn, it seems like her credibility is just not, there's not really credibility here.
So she said this, she said a few other things that we'll go through and we'll take a look because the Daily Wire's got kind of a breakdown of the various things she said.
You know, one of the things she said is that she's not going to seek charges because it would be disrespectful to women at the border, which it's like, wait, what?
She called the act sexy and people are like, wait, what?
Why did they put her on TV?
As I said in the last video, as many people have said, apparently CNN didn't learn their lesson from Michael Avenatti.
And you know what?
I had good words to say about Avenatti in the beginning because he's a fighter.
But then it turns out he's kind of, you know, he's a bad guy and he's in trouble now, so it is what it is.
So let's read the story.
Before we do, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option for monthly donations, crypto, a physical address, but of course, Just like, comment, and share the video if you think it's worth people hearing, because YouTube is restricting suggestions on my channel and others, so it is what it is.
So, uh, Ryan writes, actually I can't even see the beginning because it looks like there's an ad blocking it, I don't know, whatever.
They say, uh, bizarre statements surrounding her allegation that she was raped in the 1990s by President Donald Trump, telling the New York Times in an interview that she has not been raped.
Okay.
She says every woman gets to choose her word.
Every woman gets to choose how she describes it.
This is my way of saying it.
This is my word.
My word is fight.
My word is not the victim word.
I have not been raped.
Something has not been done to me.
I fought.
That's the thing.
So what's the story now then?
That she fought Donald Trump and nothing happened and there was no encounter?
I mean...
They're going to say Carol came out with her allegations late last week, claiming that the incident occurred at the department store Bergdorf Goodman in either the fall of 1995 or the spring of 96, Fox News reports.
I've never met this person in my life.
She's trying to sell a new book.
That should indicate her motivation.
It should be sold in the fiction section, Trump said in a response to the allegations.
False accusations diminish the severity of real assault.
All should condemn false accusations and any actual assault in the strongest possible terms.
If anyone has information that the Democratic Party is working with Miss Carroll or New York Magazine, please notify us.
Is that- Trump said that?
Oh, interesting.
Notifies as soon as possible.
In the days following her coming-forth allegations, Carol has made a series of statements that have raised eyebrows among critics.
Yes, a series of bizarre statements that, in my opinion, strikes at her credibility.
On Saturday, Carol told MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell that she does not want to press charges because, quote, I would find it disrespectful to the women who are down on the border who are being raped around the clock down there without any protection.
Okay, hold on.
I mean, that's true.
But why?
I don't understand.
How is that disrespectful at all?
I mean, I think it would be respectful to get justice.
I mean, look, if these people on the left think the president is doing wrong by the migrants, wouldn't it be a good thing to seek justice from the man if he attacked a woman himself?
What she says is just a bizarre statement that kind of makes no sense.
They go on.
Carol told CNN's Anderson Cooper on Monday, Now this is where it started to get interesting.
A bizarre statement.
Anderson Cooper immediately cuts to commercial, but here's the thing.
This is very similar to an episode of Law & Order SVU.
I love that show, by the way.
I watch it all the time.
And people are sharing this clip of the show where someone says that a woman he was with had a fantasy of putting on lingerie at the Bergdorf Goodman and then he breaks into the dressing room and has his way with her.
And that's really interesting.
That's what she claimed happened.
She was going to try on lingerie in the dressing room and Trump went in after her.
And then, well, I guess apparently not saying he didn't rape her, so I don't know what's going on.
But that's- and then she goes on to talk about the fantasies.
That's literally what the SVU episode was about.
I mean, coincidences hap- you know, happen.
I mean, you do enough episodes of Law & Order and you're gonna hear these stories, but is it possible that E. Jean Carroll, who is, you know, relatively old at this point, just kind of made this up?
Maybe she saw an episode of Law & Order, maybe it's a fa- I don't know.
I'm not going to, uh, I'm not going to criticize her memory or age or anything, but I do got to say this is, we now have the third bizarre statement made by this woman.
So at what point do we just say, come on, man, argue the points, drop the nonsense.
You know, it really, really bothers me.
And I've said it in the past few days because it really does.
Everything's a lie and we all know it, right?
We all know that it's all lies.
All the time, in PR, in the press.
It's just lies around the clock.
Trump does it too.
It's everybody.
I'm just so sick of it.
Everything is fake.
And if you think it's not, man, I got a bridge to sell you.
Okay?
When an accident happens, they come out and they say nonsense.
When a politician goes on the stage, they say stuff.
It's all nonsense.
The Democratic debates?
All nonsense.
Very few people running for office, I believe, ever have an honest word out of their mouth.
PR is literally just lying professionally.
Seriously.
Because if you told people the truth, you'd get in trouble.
So nobody does it.
I don't believe this woman for a second because I know everything's a lie.
And now she's put out repeated bizarre statements about what's going on.
So what did you say?
Was there a fourth statement?
I don't want to play it because CNN's gonna come after me, but apparently there are four bizarre statements from this woman?
at a New York luxury department store in the late 90s.
I'm not listening and believing that's ridiculous.
I'm listening.
Now present, you know, your corroboration.
There are two people who claim, at the time, She did tell them that she was attacked.
Apparently they're on the record now.
Okay, that's good.
That's good.
But now she's making several bizarre statements which strike at her credibility.
We also have the timing.
Election season is ramping up.
The Democratic debates just happened.
And going into the debates, we now have a woman coming out accusing Trump, and she's also selling a book.
We have to consider these things as bits of circumstantial evidence to understand the motivations of individuals.
You can say the same thing of like the Proud Boys and Gavin McInnes and people on the right when they're accused by the left.
It's not always so black and white, but it is hard to assume what someone's motivations really are.
So in this instance, I don't know.
But I can make a guess.
I think she's motivated by politics.
We know that she's a... There's photos of her with like Hillary stickers on her car and stuff like that.
Again, I am not saying she's not credible because of her politics.
I'm saying she's not credible because of these ridiculous weird statements that kind of make no sense that seem to be some kind of posturing or pandering.
She's now saying she wasn't raped.
Does that mean... So the attack happened?
Trump didn't, you know, I don't understand.
Is she making a political statement with this by saying I'm not going to use that word?
That's weird.
She wanted to say that people think it's sexy?
That's weird too.
So that's why I think I'm bringing up her credibility.
I mean, the Law & Order SVU thing is a conspiracy theory.
Coincidences happen, okay?
And you do enough episodes of Law & Order and you're gonna have coincidences.
I will say this though, which is really interesting, is that As it pertains to the Law & Order thing, Law & Order actually uses real stories and then fictionalizes them, right?
They use a real story as the basis and then change it a lot.
There was one story in SVU that I studied a bit.
I took a community college class on criminal justice.
It was like a two-month course.
And one of the stories we studied had to do with the airport in Chicago.
And then it was like a couple years later, I saw that story in SVU and I was like, wait, how do I know this story?
I knew exactly what had happened.
And then I actually googled it and I was like, oh, so what's weird here is it's kind of inverted.
You know, Law and Order uses real life stories.
I wonder if someone dug around, would they find maybe even a real life story or maybe someone knew about what really happened to her.
So, so look, I'll say this.
Trump's been accused by a bunch of women.
We have to be concerned about political motivations.
One of the challenges now is that you have the issues of a person crying wolf.
Brett Kavanaugh being the best example.
We know for a fact that several of the accusations against Brett Kavanaugh were fake.
Several of the people recanted, apologized, or changed their stories later.
The stories were insane from the get-go.
So think about what happened with Kavanaugh.
They claimed that he, you know, Brett Kavanaugh was lining up outside doors with a bunch of guys taking turns on the women inside.
It's insane.
That's, like, so scandalous and nightmarish.
No, not true.
It's all nonsense.
And now we have a woman coming out saying, you know, this strange story with perfect timing to sell a book, and then she says these weird, bizarre things on TV, and Anderson Cooper's like, well, we'll go to commercial now because she said something, you know, nuts.
So, I guess as people put it, you know, they should have learned their lesson from Avenatti.
There's a problem with vetting in media today, and I think I made those points.
But what happened to journalism, to where now it's just throw on any old crazy person saying any old crazy thing without fact-checking?
You know, Trump claims he never met her.
There's a photo of Trump talking to her, and the people on the left are saying that's proof Trump lied.
I'm like, no, hold on, man.
There's photos of me at parties walking up to people and shaking their hands, and I'll never remember who they are, right?
Just because Trump was at a party and you passed by her and said hello doesn't mean he knows who she is.
He probably forgot.
But of course, of course, context is irrelevant.
It's all about tribalism, and this is a weapon for the left.
You know what?
I'll say this.
If you have proof, Beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's the standard we have in our legal system.
Bring it forward.
And it shouldn't even matter if she wants to press charges.
The state should investigate.
Plain and simple.
And then if it turns out they can't corroborate, well, end of story.
We investigate crimes.
That's what we do.
Listen and believe is too extreme.
Listen and investigate.
How about that?
And then if someone makes a claim, we can check into it.
And if we find evidence to suggest it, we can carry on.
But in this instance, you have people saying just believe whatever they say.
It's like, yeah, I'm not playing that game, right?
Because we've seen how that plays out.
We've seen how it played out 100 years ago.
There were a lot of racist circumstances around just believing whatever someone said.
And it seems like many people on the left don't learn their lessons from history.
In fact, in a lot of ways, they're actively trying to purge it, like destroying paintings, destroying art, getting content from the past banned from certain platforms.
It is what it is.
I don't want to rant too much on this because I'm going to do another segment.
It's time for your Escalation Culture War Escalation update for the day, week, whatever.
It keeps happening.
So stick around that will be at youtube.com slash Tim cast it is a different channel
Again, you can find the podcast every day at 6 30 p.m. On all
Podcast platforms, so subscribe leave a good review comment below and I will see you all in the next story
It's time for your escalation culture war escalation update for the day week, whatever it keeps happening
I've talked about how things will escalate and get worse There's supposed to be some big, you know Patriot prayer
proud boy Antifa thing happening in Portland But we've got cultural problems that are showing the divide is getting worse and it's getting worse faster and faster.
I have two stories for you.
First, a New York Times op-ed that claims it's not arguing for doxing ICE agents and then basically argues for doxing ICE agents.
And another story that basically talks about how society should fracture in two and we shouldn't give any food at restaurants to certain people.
Basically, someone got spat on, Eric Trump.
What the story is basically saying is that you shouldn't have to serve people who spread hate or whatever.
The problem with this, when society is, you know, when a culture starts to shift based on their opinions, like civil rights, for instance, It works.
It's fine.
You have social cohesion, and all society starts to get pulled in a certain direction.
People eventually decide some things are or aren't acceptable, and then we change them.
There are things in the past that we no longer do anymore, and we all agree they're bad things.
I'm not going to name any specific things, but you know what I'm talking about.
However, today, the Democrats and the progressive activists online have shifted so far to the left, they've jumped off of the path of social cohesion.
So the path can shift slowly, and there's fringes that get dropped off, but for the most part, most people are staying within the line.
But now you have this road where most of us are, and then the left just jumped right off of it.
And now they're demanding no one from this line be allowed to go to restaurants, and people who are working certain jobs in law enforcement should be doxxed.
I see this as a necessary step in a full-on civil conflict.
Okay, when we get to the point where you've got red and blue, you know, somebody wearing a red cap is now persona non grata, you can't even go to a restaurant, and it's happened.
Eric Trump shows up, gets spat on.
People have hats on, they get attacked in the street, they get yelled at, someone splashes a drink in their face.
These are the things that need to happen.
Businesses excluding people, that's what you need to happen for an actual conflict to occur, a true divide within culture.
So imagine this.
You're an individual.
You wanna go shopping and buy a candy bar.
They say, who do you support?
Who'd you vote for?
You say, hey man, I don't know anything about that.
I don't want any trouble.
No, no, no, you gotta tell me.
The divide is serious.
Or worse still, imagine if you're like, hey man, I'm proud of who I support.
And they say, you can't shop here.
You can't have food.
You can't have milk.
Then you're gonna see a bar for Trump supporters only.
A bar for Antifa only.
You literally can't have that.
But that's the divide that's going to lead to full-on social upheaval.
I don't know what'll happen.
I don't.
Well, let's check out some of these stories.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com.
If you want to support my work, there is a monthly donation option through PayPal, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, just share the video if you think it's good.
YouTube doesn't suggest my videos anymore.
You know, that's just how they're doing it, so I rely on you guys to suggest my videos.
Feel free not to, if you don't, and then I don't deserve it.
This story from the New York Times, it says, everyone involved in harming migrant kids should be living in shame.
Writing to representatives won't be enough.
Each individual in the system, including the foot soldiers, has to feel responsible.
Now here's the thing.
They bring up some interesting points.
I don't completely disagree.
The conditions at these detention centers are horrifying.
Let's fix them.
Good on the Democrats for finally stepping up and approving this package.
It's a $4.6 billion package which will go to, you know, funding beds and improving the conditions for these kids.
We also have to recognize we have laws and you can't just, like, you can't have law enforcement just not enforcing law.
We have to change it.
We have to figure out how to improve the situation.
And it trickles down.
The government says, do X. Like, legislators will say, do X. Then it goes to the executive branch to do that thing.
It's not like right now, the ICE agents are doing what they're legally supposed to do.
Just because something's legal doesn't mean it's right.
I don't think the solution is right now to have all ICE and CBP just stop working.
So we need to have a process to improve the conditions.
We're on track.
We need to have a process to get law enforcement to be held accountable.
I believe we're on track.
I'm less confident in that regard.
But I don't believe CBP and ICE agents are evil, nefarious actors.
But we do need better circumstances.
However, Oh, and I will also say, people should feel personally responsible.
It shouldn't just be about following orders.
You should accept what you're doing, and you should believe you have a right to do it.
And if at any point you think what you're doing is wrong, you should stop.
Okay, but here's the thing.
They take it one step too far.
They go full on Antifa, basically.
So first, they say, The debate over whether concentration camps is the right term for migrant detention centers on the southern border has drawn long overdue attention to the American government's dehumanizing treatment of defenseless children.
Defenseless.
Children?
Please, can we talk?
A pediatrician who visited in June said the centers could be compared to torture facilities.
Seriously, just stop.
Having studied mass atrocities for over a decade, I agree.
Okay, okay.
I can appreciate the New York Times criticizing the far-left Democrats but also running this op-ed.
To an extent, I don't appreciate them calling for doxxing.
But I do like that the New York Times is at least putting some, you know, balance in what they put out.
They say at least seven migrant children have died in U.S.
custody since last year.
Not the fault of CBP or ICE.
It's the fault of the parents who brought them on a dangerous journey without resources and they got sick and died.
They also go on to talk about children and kids who have died out in the wilderness.
Again, the problem isn't CBP and ICE.
It's the parents who are bringing these kids on these dangerous journeys.
So I'm not going to read about their silly shock content Sri Lanka, Congo, etc.
They say, what's happening at the border doesn't match the scale of these horrors, but if, as appears to be the case, these harsh conditions have been intentionally inflicted on children as part of a broader plan to deter others from migrating, then it seems the definition of mass atrocity.
I really don't think that's the case.
I certainly think that, you know, you're gonna have politicians who recognize the bad conditions will be a deterrent, But I don't think we're at the point in this country where ICE agents as individuals are going, we're torturing children.
Like, no, that's crazy.
That's not what's happening.
I'm sure they're like, oh man, we need beds.
What do we do?
Don't have the budget, don't have the funding.
It's not like Trump is the one restricting access to funds.
He just pulled emergency funds and they tried stopping him.
Okay, so can we be honest about what's going on?
The Democrats have obstructed the funding for the most part.
Look, there are probably some Republicans who are bad people.
Like, actually, no, there are Republicans who are bad people, and making this problem worse.
But you gotta throw some blame at the Democrats for obstructing funding.
Let's get to the bigger point, though.
I don't want to make this about the immigration stuff, necessarily.
It's about escalation.
Here's what they say.
The identities of the individual CBP agents who are physically separating children from their families and staffing detention centers are not undiscoverable.
Immigration lawyers have agent names.
Journalists reporting at the border have names, photos, and even videos.
These agents' actions should be publicized, particularly in their home communities.
This is not an argument for doxing.
Oh, it's not?
It's about exposure of their participation in atrocities to audiences whose opinions they care about.
You mean doxxing!
The knowledge, for instance, that when you go to church on Sunday, your entire congregation will have seen you on TV ripping a child out of her father's arms at a serious social cost to bear.
The desire to avoid this kind of social shame may be enough to persuade some agents to quit, and may hinder the recruitment of replacements.
For those who won't or can't quit, it may induce them to treat the vulnerable individuals under their control more humanely.
In Denmark during World War II, for instance, strong social pressure, including from churches, contributed to the refusal of the country to comply with German orders to deport Jewish citizens.
Yes, okay, full stop.
This statement is made under the assumption that the ICE agents live in communities that aren't conservative and disagree with them.
If you're an ICE agent and you live in an urban environment where they're all liberal, then sure.
But if you're an ICE agent and you live in a rural conservative place, people aren't going to be like, I hate you.
They're going to be like, you know, we got to figure this problem out, man.
And also, The people in your community know you.
You know, look, I've seen celebrities walking down the street.
I saw the people, I saw Glenn Howerton, and who else did I see?
No, I think it was Rob McElhenney, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, and Kaitlyn Olsen.
I think it was, I think it was Glenn and Kaitlyn walking down the street, and I am a fan of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, and I didn't realize it was them, okay?
And they're famous celebrities.
And then it wasn't until, like, my friend was like, oh, hey, it was the It's Always Sunny people, and I was like, wait, what do you mean?
The people, wait, what?
And they're like, yeah, the people from It's Always Sunny just walked by, and I was like, no, no way, and I looked, and they're like, that was them?
Oh my, I didn't even realize.
Like, how many times has it happened to you?
The reason I bring that up, imagine there's an ICE agent you saw on TV, and now there's a dude wearing, like, jeans and a t-shirt having a burger.
You're not gonna recognize that person.
The argument is insane.
I'll tell you what would really happen if you doxed these people.
Antifa will show up to their homes and hurt someone.
Crazy people will threaten them.
That is not the answer to this, okay?
Making things worse.
That's what you will do.
I honestly don't like what's happening at these centers.
I demand change, and I've said it over and over again.
I'm glad, and I've said respect to Democrats for getting on board and providing the funding.
Finally, they're the ones who obstructed.
Look, I'm going to say this, man.
The only reason the conditions are as bad as they are is because Democrats have kept obstructing, obstructing, obstructing.
Plain and simple.
Why?
And they finally give in?
Okay, this is what Trump was talking about!
God, ugh, I just can't stand it.
I do not.
Look.
Trump's demeanor gives liberals a gross feeling.
Trump, like, I get it.
There are people who like Trump.
I know a lot of you guys like Trump.
And Trump comes off as a gross person to liberals, at least.
Here's the thing.
I can see past that, and I hate that they make me defend him.
When Trump presents an idea, I'm willing to listen.
The way Trump behaves makes me uncomfortable and angry.
But I'm not a crazy person.
That means if Trump says there's a crisis at the border, I'll say, alright, and I'll look it up.
And sure enough, there is one.
So the nasty man I don't like was right.
Fine.
I don't care.
Solve the goddamn problem.
Now you got me saying damn.
Yeah, seriously, YouTube.
YouTube can restrict some ads if you say damn.
I'm not even kidding.
So look, I've said it a million times.
I, as well as many other moderate centrist types, get frustrated when it's like, why do you make me defend this man?
His policies are akin to Obama's on immigration.
I'm not opposed to some of his policies.
But when Trump came out and said there was a crisis and they ignored it, here we are.
Now you got me ranting on immigration again.
The bigger point I want to make is, You can't dox ICE agents.
Look, I get it.
We don't like what's happening.
I certainly don't.
But let's slow the roll.
We don't want a total collapse.
Hey man, I like eating cheese- I don't eat cheeseburgers.
But I was gonna say, I like cheeseburgers.
I mean that metaphorically.
I like being able to sit down at a restaurant, enjoy a nice chicken, bacon, avocado, you know, with some sweet potato fries.
Because things aren't that bad.
Don't make them worse.
Don't incite people to run around doing crazy things.
Let's stop this.
Let's get the Democrats and Republicans on board right now and say, do something.
And it's happening.
Okay, good stuff's happening.
But now they're saying they're going to refuse you service at certain businesses.
Well, you know what?
You have your right to do that.
But I'll tell you what, when they start publishing these stories saying dox law enforcement and don't let people dine at your restaurants, we are seeing parallel societies.
That's the risk.
It's not here yet.
But you've already got Gab and Parlay.
What's going to happen when only liberals use Twitter and only conservatives are on Gab or Parlay?
Or Mines?
Mines is actually pretty spread out, so I don't want to use them as an example, but I'd feel bad if I didn't mention them because I like them better.
And that's why, full disclosure, the building I'm in, it's shared with Mines, and it's partly why I'm here.
I believe that they have the integrity to defend free speech.
But anyway, I digress.
The point is, what happens when people are actually solidified in tech bubbles they can't even break out of?
Not good things.
What happens when you have to look on the door to see if they're going to accept your service, and there's like, that business is okay and that business isn't?
That's the precursor to full-on civil conflict.
I'll leave it there.
Got me ranting on immigration, but stick around.
I got more videos coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
The conspiracy against Andrew Yang is afoot.
For those of you who don't know, I truly like Andrew Yang, and I like him more and more every time I see him talk about his ideas and try and break things down.
I have tremendous respect for this man.
His mic was cut.
I believe it to be factually correct right now to say as a statement of fact, his mic was either cut or muted.
And we have three videos showing this.
It's really insane.
So first, I talked about this the other day, but I want to get into this because there's a ton, there's a lot more evidence showing that MSNBC has been systematically marginalizing Andrew Yang.
I get it.
A lot of conservatives think he's nuts, his UBI plan is nuts, and a lot of Democrats think his UBI plan is nuts.
I'm not a big fan of his UBI plan.
I think he's explained it very well and his idea isn't crazy, but the bigger issue at play is that when he talks about UBI, what he's really doing, in my opinion, is a big ask.
The way that Trump talks about the strategy, it's very similar.
I think Yang is a smart guy.
The big ask is basically to propose something outrageous so when you walk it back, you have a more reasonable position that you've brought to the forefront.
In Yang's position, he's saying, we're going to do UBI.
Well, look, if Yang got elected as president, he can't do that.
He can push the idea, and what's really being talked about now is the threat of automation.
And how Donald Trump got elected by pointing out the loss of jobs.
Yang is a smart guy.
But MSNBC has removed him from polls.
They've even ignored his name.
They've read through a list and skipped his name.
Then what happened to the debate last night?
Or not last night, the other night.
You can hear in multiple videos him faintly talking as if he's in another room.
How?
Because his mic was likely muted and other mics were picking him up.
This to me is, it's how they play the game.
They're cheating.
And look, I'm actually excited to talk about this.
I don't like to be preachy in terms of why I'm supporting a certain candidate or why I agree with them or why I don't.
It comes out a lot though.
I never want to make a video directly being like, I made one video where I was like, Tulsi and Yang and here's why I support them.
I have no problem talking about it in videos because I know people will send criticism my way and I get a ton of questions like, how could you support this man?
Or Tulsi Gabbard.
I'm going to be able to talk about it.
But I want to show you how the media is doing basically what they did with Bernie Sanders.
NBC, in my video earlier today on my main channel, I talked about how NBC is trying to claim Yang and Gabbard are only getting support because of trolls.
Not true.
Totally not true.
Yang was trending number one US on Twitter because his mic, because, like, no one was hearing him speak.
They didn't even ask him any questions.
Okay, they asked him, I think, two questions or three questions.
And then the next day, what turned out, we saw his mic was cut off, then he starts trending again.
You don't have to like Yang, but I'm really impressed, and I don't know what the right word is, but I have tremendous respect for all the conservatives who are, there's a lot of tweets going around where they're like, look man, I don't agree with Yang, but that's crazy what they're doing to him.
Silencing him and shutting him down.
He deserves to have a chance to speak, same as anybody else.
And also, for those that aren't supporters of him, recognize that I, as well as many other people who supported him, Did so to see him speak on a national stage.
Listen, I don't expect Yang or Gabbard to get elected.
I just think they have things to say that people should hear, and by supporting them, you are putting them in a position to say those things.
Gabbard got her message out about war, I was excited.
And as were many conservatives, it's really incredible.
Drudge, apparently Gabbard's like number one on Drudge.
I'm like, these are good candidates, common sense Democrats that actually speak to Republicans on some issues as well.
But what they did to Yang... Check this out.
Let's go through a little bit of this.
The evidence is crazy.
Good on Heavy for compiling this.
I'm really impressed.
Stephanie Dube Dwilson put together a ton of evidence showing MSNBC is screwing with Andrew Yang.
First, we have this video from the Democratic debate.
I'm gonna play... You might not... It's hard to know... It's hard to get this across because it requires audio.
But basically, in this video, we can see...
Um, you know, you got Bernie talking, and then you can see Yang raise his hand.
I did highlight this the other day, and it opens his mouth, and no sound comes out.
This is the first video I talked about, but there's one thing I want to point out that I didn't notice.
Heavy noticed this, or I believe, uh, Yang supporters noticed a heavy report on it.
When Yang starts talking, Two people, three people, Biden looks at him, Marian Wilson looks at him, and I think that's, who's that, Hickenlooper?
They all look at him.
He's talking loud enough that you can hear him talking next to him, but we hear nothing.
You know, a lot of people said, oh, it's crazy, you know, NBC has denied cutting his mic.
I believe they're lying.
A lot of people have said, this is a weird conspiracy, oh, we shouldn't play this game.
Dude, The idea that Yang would pretend to mouth something so that he could then claim his mic was cut off, that's the conspiracy.
When Joe Biden, you can see him turn his head, I believe Hickenlooper turned his head, and Marianne Williamson turned their head, it's because he said something loud enough that they heard him and turned to hear him talk.
His mic picked up nothing.
How is that possible?
Everyone else was interrupting.
There's more though.
So, there's a... Where is it at?
Okay, so... In this post from Yang2020 on Reddit.
In the Yang subreddit.
They've got three posts.
In one, it sounds like Yang is in a different room altogether.
You hear a moderator clearly, and then you hear Yang try to interject, and his mic is not on.
I believe you hear him faintly because he's being picked up by other mics.
They say Yang coughs here, and it doesn't sound very loud for a mic'd cough, especially given how loud the throat clearing is in the clip below.
So they have three instances where you can clearly hear that his mic is either off or really low.
But I think it was off.
And I think you're hearing other microphones pick him up.
Now, you want to argue it's conspiracy theory?
I think you're wrong.
I think we have video evidence of Yang saying words, people looking at him, and no sound coming out.
So what more do you want?
But check this out.
MSNBC has repeatedly, repeatedly marginalized Andrew Yang.
So a lot of people are saying basically here like, you know, we donated to get him on the stage to hear what he had to say.
I'm not, look, look.
I'm not donating to Yang under the expectation he will become president.
And I know that kind of sucks for a lot of Yang supporters who are excited about his campaign and to see him win.
I'm mostly looking at it from a pragmatic point of view, that by supporting Yang and Gabbard, they will be on that stage and provide that common sense pushback to the nonsense.
Yang raised his hand for giving undocumented immigrants healthcare.
I'm not playing that game.
He deserves criticism for that.
But I still wanted to hear what he had to say, and I didn't get to.
So here's the thing.
This person, Scott Santens, points out, with LetYangSpeak now trending across the country, I feel I should expand this thread with some more examples of blatant MSNBC shenanigans in their treatment of Andrew Yang.
Here's where they spoke over his appearance at the Poor People's Campaign Forum.
Or how about when MSNBC removed Yang to add in someone who isn't even qualified to be in the debates?
This is like Bernie Sanders all over again.
Yang is an outsider, not a politician, and they're not going to allow him to win.
I think they look at him in a similar way that they kind of look at Trump, a businessman trying to become a politician.
But regardless, MSNBC is full in for the Democrats, and this is the game they're playing.
Someone said, holy S, they did it!
The crazy bastards did it!
MSNBC created a graphic with the photos of the 20 candidates to appear in the first debates, and they actually went so far as to remove Andrew Yang and include someone who didn't even qualify.
He'd lean over to someone else's mic and be like, my microphone is off.
Can you fix my microphone?
That's the assertiveness that got Trump elected.
Yang doesn't have it.
And you know what?
That's fair criticism.
I'm not a crazy person.
I get it.
But as I pointed out, I want Yang to be on that stage to present his ideas, to forward a conversation about automation and how it's going to impact our country.
He did not get the chance to do that.
There's even more, though.
Look at this.
Uh, Joy Reid posts this graphic.
No Yang.
And someone pointed out Yang's polling higher than three of these people.
So, look.
I- I- You know, I feel like I could just- Look how much evidence- This is crazy.
There's all of this evidence compiled by Heavy showing that MSNBC has been removing Yang from the conversation, period.
Now, I will say this.
Good on Brian Stelter at CNN for having Yang on and calling them out.
Andrew Yang says our media coverage is growing, though sometimes a nudge helps.
Brian Stelter of CNN had Yang on, and they brought this up specifically, how MSNBC didn't include him in a graphic, but they've done it several times.
So respect to Brian Stelter for getting Yang in and highlighting this.
People need to hear it.
Unfortunately, it's a different audience.
CNN's audience is not the same as MSNBC's, nor is it as big.
I'm not saying this to be disrespectful, I've brought it up in the past, but what they're doing, I mean, I'll say this too, at least MSNBC is including Gabbard, but they are removing Yang.
Gabbard had a chance to speak.
She got her ideas out, and she did a really good job of it, and I'm happy to hear it.
Yang didn't, and I believe they're okay with Gabbard, they're not okay with Yang.
It's plain and simple.
Like, the poll didn't even read his name.
But you get the point.
Cheating... Look, I've got to say, in my opinion, but cheating is afoot.
Okay?
In my opinion.
Cheating is afoot.
They're not going to allow this, man.
Now, of course, I've got to say one more thing.
There are absolutely people taking this to identity politics.
If you're a social justice activist and you want to play the game, don't be surprised when people play the game back.
And people are pointing out the only Asian candidate To be on that stage is being marginalized by MSNBC.
And they're calling it racist.
But I will add, I'm half-joking here, What happens when Asians are discriminated against?
The left doesn't care.
They say it's justified.
I'm talking about, like, the Harvard lawsuit or whatever.
Yeah, they justify it.
That's racist.
You got an Asian man on stage.
Why is he the only one getting cut off?
I really don't think it's about race.
I think it's a silly argument.
But, of course, people will take whatever they can to their advantage.
I think they're cutting off Yang on purpose because they're cheaters and because he's an outsider who's challenging the Democrat establishment.
They saw what happened when Bernie came in, an independent, and upset the system, and they got mad.
And they're not gonna let someone do it again.
I'm gonna end with one final thought.
I absolutely adore Marianne Williamson.
I hope I'm getting her name right.
I absolutely adore.
Like all of her tweets and what she is saying. I don't think she's gonna win, but you have to recognize
Okay, if you've seen her tweets, they're silly lovey things about like letting God's love shine through a lamp or
something It's all just so hokey and wholesome. It's just it's like
good feeling nonsense, right?
It's like a sweet little old granny saying nonsense to you but with a smile and it makes you feel good.
So I absolutely adore all of the silliness.
You know, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful.
I'm looking at all the tweets people are pointing out from her where they're like, look how silly and crazy this is.
And I'm like, yeah, but she's on Twitter and she's very nice and wholesome.
She's bringing positivity and like, this like, hippie crystal wearing love.
I'm like, I kind of, I think politics could use some of that right now.
So anyway, I am unironically considering supporting her in the primary, depending on what happens.
Just because I... She is... Okay, look, so Yang and Gabbard I was excited for because of what they bring to the table in terms of the conversation.
But I want to hear Marianne Williamson bring that crystal-wearing, hippy-dippy, lovey stuff to the debate, too.
So maybe I'll throw some donations her way, you know.
Look, I gotta say, I was telling some Republicans, you will meme her into the presidency.
I try to say it with a straight face.
I don't think so.
But all of the jokes and all the memes around her, like, hey man, that's powerful stuff.
Like, it works for Ocasio-Cortez, it works for Trump.
I'll wrap it up here.
I've got one more video to talk about in a similar vein.
Conservatives defending Gabbard on principle.
And I'm really impressed with this, so stick around.
Next segment will be coming up shortly, and I will see you there.
This story warms my heart.
Real bipartisan defense of principle.
Conservatives, liberals, whatever, supporting Tulsi Gabbard on the principles, her anti-war message, her support for the troops.
And my god, to see conservatives saying, I don't agree with Gabbard's policies, I think she's, you know, far left and they, you know, criticize her for that, but really understanding she's a principled individual and she's correct on foreign policy, and coming to her defense after the media tries to smear her and lie about her and push her down and attack her.
And it warms my heart, I'm like, thank you, conservatives, for sticking up for Gabbard and pushing back on a corrupt media and Democrat establishment that would marginalize the people we, moderates and true principled liberals, we believe in.
From Yang to Gabbard being marginalized so far, we saw it coming, and now the conservatives coming out and saying, that's wrong and we got your back.
I'm like, It warms my heart.
Check this out.
This is from the American Conservative.
Memo to Trump.
Trade Bolton for Tulsi.
I can only assume the American Conservative is a conservative outlet.
Um, I, and it's got, it's, it's fully rated across the board from NewsGuard of credibility.
And actually I want to see how they, how they describe it in terms of a viewpoint.
They say it is a news commentary, et cetera, from a perspective that opposes big government and foreign military intervention advocates for individual rights and what it considers traditional family values.
Pretty darn conservative.
And of course.
In terms of support for the troops and opposing foreign intervention, that is very conservative.
And so Gabbard is speaking to an issue that I think really is bipartisan.
Even Tucker Carlson agreed.
And that, to me, I'm like, this is why I think she's a candidate that really could speak to people who are conservative.
And even though you might disagree with her policies, begrudgingly be like, well, you're, you know, at least a Democrat, I think, that, you know, is willing to communicate effectively and talk.
She's someone who's willing to stand on principle.
Check this out.
This story is basically saying Donald Trump, get rid of Bolton, bring on Tulsi.
And I'm like, yes!
That would be great.
Bolton gave like a speech where he was like, we're going to stand in Tehran and celebrate independence.
I'm like, whoa, whoa, whoa, dude.
America should not be sending our resources and assets to a foreign country for, you know, look, I'm going to stop myself and say this.
I get foreign policy.
I get the Qatar-Turkey pipeline, the conflict, the natural gas, the gas problem.
There's a bunch of stuff going on in the world a lot of people don't know, liberals and conservatives.
And it makes for a very complicated structure in terms of how war is forming.
I'll tell you what, I will tell you what the U.S.
could do better diplomatically, even using sanctions, than going to war.
Now here's the thing, Gabbard even opposes sanctions.
And so I gotta respect her for that because I don't entirely agree with her.
I think sanctions are an effective tool, but it can lead people to desperate acts and be the precursor to a true war.
The story here isn't necessarily what I wanted to even highlight.
It's the comments on a conservative website saying that Gabbard is being screwed out by the establishment.
And it's like, you know what?
I feel like when it came to Bernie, there was a large group of us who were left-leaning individuals.
I'm not a fan of Bernie as it is of now, because I think he's just gone totally politics.
He's pandering.
I don't like it.
Gabbard still hasn't.
Gabbard still goes on Tucker Carlson.
And it's amazing to me.
She really is gonna speak to the moderates because her policy is straight up like,
listen, we can disagree, we can talk, but we gotta change our foreign policy.
And how can you argue against that?
I mean, you can argue that maybe like timelines for like pulling troops out of Afghanistan could be debated,
but what argument is there to be like, I think we really should have a bunch of American,
you know, young American men and women overseas risking their lives for a country we have nothing to do
That argument she had with Tim Ryan was spectacular when he was like, they're flying planes into our buildings.
And she's like, no, they aren't.
That was Al-Qaeda.
And it's like, yeah, roast them.
And then she said, I want you, or she said something like,
he said that, you know, we just need a presence there.
And she goes, are you gonna tell the parents of those, you know, the two young men,
the two parents of the young man who lost his life It's unacceptable.
And I'm just, like, standing up and clapping, like, spot on.
You know, my grandpa was a marine, my dad was a marine, my brother's in the army, I'm not a military person, but I have tremendous respect for the people.
Whether they're doing it for a career or they're doing it because they truly believe in self-sacrifice, who risk their lives or at least do the jobs domestically or internationally that aren't as risky.
Because I recognize it's not all risking your life.
It's not all combat.
There are people who are like working in, you know, an IT center for the army.
But I recognize you're doing a service that benefits us in a lot of ways.
And Gabbard is standing up for these people, but also For us to not waste our resources in these ridiculous regime change wars that we've been doing non-stop forever.
You know, it's amazing because I imagine a lot of the arguments about funding would end if we were like, let's stop building war machines.
Like, you know, actually I'll say this.
We do want a strong military and we do want strong military technology.
So I'm not necessarily saying take all the funding away from development and defending our borders.
I think the United States should have a strong national military presence, like a country needs to defend itself.
But imagine how much money we waste firing 59 Tomahawk missiles at Syria.
Take all that money and put it into a school, please.
Right?
Fund the development in other areas instead of the construction of the missile itself.
I'm not saying take away from R&D, but those missiles are expensive.
So here's the thing.
The story is basically saying Gabbard would be better than Bolton.
I love it.
A quote from Gabbard.
Donald Trump circa 2016?
For too long, our leaders have failed us.
Taking us into one regime-change war after the next, leading us into a new Cold War and arms race,
costing us trillions of our hard-earned taxpayer dollars and countless lives,
this insanity must end.
Donald Trump circa 2016?
Nope.
That denunciation of John Bolton interventionism came from Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
of Hawaii during Wednesday night's Democratic debate.
At 38, she was the youngest candidate on the stage.
Gabbard proceeded to rip both the president and his chicken-hawk cabinet, who have led us to the brink of war with Iran.
In a fiery exchange, Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio countered that America cannot disengage from Afghanistan.
When we weren't there... It's about the airplanes thing.
I saw it.
We'll skip over this.
When Ryan insisted we must stay engaged, Gabbard shot back.
Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan?
Well, we just have to be engaged?
As a soldier, I will tell you, that answer is unacceptable.
We are no better off in Afghanistan than we were when this war began.
I just clap when I hear Gabbard speak about this stuff.
I just look at the news all day, and the foreign policy stuff is really, really annoying.
Look, Trump did an arms deal with Saudi Arabia for their conflict with Yemen, and that makes me angry, but not nearly as angry as U.S.
putting itself in these foreign countries and doing these things, okay?
I don't want to get too much on the preachy anti-war stuff.
Even when it comes to dealing arms with Saudi Arabia, I'm less concerned about that, but I still don't like it.
Because we know where it goes.
We know U.S.
drones are, you know, bombing, you know, there's bombing happening in Yemen, commando raids.
I don't want it.
Why are we doing this?
Because it makes money.
It's good for the economy.
I think there are things we can do that'll be better.
So, but let's read on.
They say, by debates end, Gabbard was the runaway winner in both Drudge Report and Washington Examiner polls, and was far in front among all the Democratic candidates whose names were being searched on Google.
Yes, and I'll tell you why.
Because when Drudge Report readers, conservatives, and Washington Examiner conservative readers, and the American conservative readers recognize that it's, you know, beyond Gabbard's left-wing domestic policy, she is spot-on principled and right about foreign policy, that shows you she really does, like, they're, like, the conservatives who hear her understand what she's saying is right, while still disagreeing with her domestic policy positions.
NBC will tell you, Vox will tell you, it's trolls.
No.
It's real conservatives who are finally hearing a message on foreign policy that they can agree with from a Democrat.
Plain and simple.
They called Obama, Obama-er.
What did he do?
Drones?
Extrajudicial assassinations?
Seriously.
Obama was worse than Trump on foreign policy weapons.
Trump is still pretty bad, but Obama was worse.
They called him Obama-er.
Though given less than seven minutes of speaking time in a two-hour debate, she could not have used that time more effectively, and her performance may shake up the Democratic race.
Yeah, I hope it does.
If she can rise a few points above her one to two percent in the polls, she could be assured a spot in the second round of debates.
Now, there's going to be a lot of conservatives who are going to be polled and say they're voting for Trump.
But think about the independents who are not going to be like, I'm considering Gabbard.
They get her in that second debate, and they force a conversation about American foreign policy.
If she is, moderators will now go to her with questions of foreign policy issues that would not have been raised without her presence, and these questions will expose the hidden divisions in the Democratic Party.
Leading Democratic candidates could be asked to declare what U.S.
policy should be, not only toward Afghanistan but Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jared Kushner's deal of the century, and Trump's seeming rejection of the two-state solution.
If she makes it into the second round, Gabbard could become the catalyst for the kind of globalist versus nationalist debate that broke out between Trump and Bush Republicans in 2016, a debate that contributed to Trump's victory at the Cleveland Convention and in November, and I want to point this out too.
The reason I want to do this video is I hope to all the Trump supporters, conservatives, and even moderates who wonder why I would support Gabbard, I think you're seeing a lot of points brought up here by conservatives that should make it better, easier to understand.
I disagree with a lot of her domestic policy, especially like the $15 minimum wage, right?
But think about her policy on anti-intervention.
It's particularly nationalist.
It provides an argument for how we can redirect our funding away from funding foreign governments and back towards America.
It's an America First idea, right?
So there's an overlap there, and this article, like, when I saw the American Conservative writing about this, and I want to go to the comments too, because I don't necessarily know how the comments will favor it, there's 22.
Someone said, uh, PAX.
Tulsi can win and win in these debates, but mainstream media will ignore her just like they did Ron Paul.
The Party of War does not want an intelligent veteran who has been up close and in person with the carnage of war and one who truly speaks for America.
All I see are pictures of the San Francisco treat, albeit Ms.
Kamala Harris, the worst possible presidential candidate.
She makes Bernie look like Milton Friedman.
Go Tulsi, a good article.
Seeing these comments from conservatives, I'm just like, there really is a path forward, and we know what the real problem is.
And this is an example of exactly where my politics are, and why I'm critical of the Democrats and the way I am.
So to every progressive who questions how Tim Poole is not really on the left, and how his videos are only ever critical of Democrats, Right.
You can see it here.
From these people, Crazy Uncle said, I couldn't agree more with your comment.
I was going to post something similar, but you already said what I was thinking.
I do hope that Tulsi can continue in the debates, but I'm afraid that she will be eliminated from the field due to her anti-war rhetoric.
It's also obvious this morning which candidate the MSM is going to push forward.
Kamala Harris.
Other candidates like Sanders and Warren have more developed policy platforms, but the MSM's handlers want politicians they can control.
It's crazy.
Look at this.
Calling her the one sane candidate with respect to foreign policy.
She supports social policies, which in the US far too often intentionally are confused with socialism to invoke outrage.
Such policies are mostly considered to be the norm in most developed countries like Western Europe.
She refuses to unconditionally support Israel, which already resulted in anti-Semitic smear campaigns by Zionist organizations.
We go on.
If she is a one-issue candidate, then her issue trumps all other issues.
I happen to live within 50 miles of two military bases and one missile plant.
All three facilities are already high on any nuclear war target list.
Tulsi's election might slash would make the probability of nuclear war far lower.
I would like my small children to have the opportunity to grow old.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
I don't want to be preachy because you guys know I supported Gabbard, but this is an example of why.
I feel like the one issue candidate, her issue for me, goes above most things.
I gotta be honest.
When it comes to arguments, for me it's anti-war and it's liberty.
And this is why...
A lot of my friends are like Ron Paul libertarians.
I am on the political compass on the left libertarian spectrum, as are most of my friends.
I believe we need a cooperative economy.
To an extent, I believe in a mixed economy.
I lean a little left on a lot of policy issues, but towards the libertarian spectrum in that Freedom and liberty for all, respect for the individual, and no war.
And this is where I grew up.
So it's funny because on the left libertarian side of where my policies lie, there absolutely is a place for government programs, social programs, just not authoritarian ones.
It's a really difficult position to hold.
It's true.
And to many, it seems contradictory.
I don't believe we should have forced programs like abolishing all private health insurance.
That takes away the choice of the individual.
I believe the ability to opt into a public option makes a lot of sense.
Give people the option, right?
Create a program.
I think, I guess the difference between me and like my friends who are like center-right libertarian is trust in the ability of government to pull something off.
I do believe there's a way for government to get things done and I'd like to aim for that.
While not forcing anybody to be involved in my programs.
Ron Paul made a really great point.
He said, in this country, I'm paraphrasing.
I believe it was Ron Paul.
In this country, anybody can go anywhere and create their own socialist city or town or commune.
Why don't they do it?
They just want to take resources from you.
And I'm like, I completely agree.
I completely agree.
Right?
If I wanted those socialist policies, I'd go off into an unincorporated area of Maine and start a town and invite people to come and we can pool our resources.
But I don't.
I actually think, for the most part, we need to pull back a lot of the government programs we have and restructure them, but I'm okay with them existing.
It's a really difficult position, trust me, it is.
I think left libertarian on the political compass is the hardest position to be in because it's about creating a community-based cooperative market Through honesty, integrity, and a sales pitch.
It's like asking people to buy into your subscription program as a community.
It's really confusing.
I don't think I can get into the full gamut of positions and where I am, but I want to stress this.
I would sit down with any of these anti-war people and we'd agree on everything.
I've said it before.
You wanna have an argument about pro-life versus pro-choice?
I'm, like, moderate on this.
I think there should be some restrictions.
I lean pro-choice, which makes me more of a left-wing individual, in terms of policy, for libertarian reasons.
And there are other positions where I'm kinda like, ah, I'm not that smart.
But when it comes to morality, I am 100% at a philosophical level, to the root, the core of my being, opposed to the death penalty.
And along with that comes extrajudicial assassinations and war.
I oppose them outright.
I can only really explain it in that capacity.
When you ask me about certain policy positions, like, you know, wage increases or whatever, I can say, like, I think it shouldn't be this way.
You know, my feeling, my gut goes this way, and I think, based on what I know, I'll say this, and that's my opinion.
But my feelings aren't ridiculously strong about it, right?
I'll be like, I think it's a bad idea, you know, I think, here's why I think it's a bad idea, we should consider this.
But when you come to me and say death penalty, I'll say never.
Never!
There's no amount of money you would ever get to have me end someone else's life, no matter what.
And I get it.
It's contradictory in terms of the pro-life abortion stuff.
It's a really, really complicated position.
The abortion situation brings me to a position where you have two individuals requiring each other's cooperation, and I don't know how to rectify that, so I err on the side of liberty, which would be the individual's choice.
I completely disagree with abortion.
in a lot of ways.
I completely understand and respect the pro-life argument, but I can't get myself beyond the liberty position when I
have two individuals and there's an argument over should someone have a right to...
should someone be obligated to provide their body under threat of government.
I lean towards no.
I think that makes sense.
I think it would be great to have a longer debate over the issue.
Not even a debate, but a dialectic.
I don't want to make this video 50 minutes long.
If I was going to get into everything about Tulsi Gabbard and go through all positions, I'd probably disagree with a lot of it.
But as they've pointed out, this person, Bill, from the American Conservative, if she is a one-issue candidate, her issue trumps all other issues.
I stand up and I applause for that.
I think it's crazy to me that we are in a country that is selling weapons, that is firing missiles.
I'm going to say this too.
Good on Trump for calling off the Iranian strike over the fear of loss of life.
Right?
150 people would have lost their lives if Trump made the right call.
Then we come back to American policy and we're arguing about providing health care to people who are who are alive.
And in Mexico, they're in bad conditions.
I want to help them.
But we literally have people dying over here, right?
So that's why foreign policy to me trumps everything else.
I feel like we have an immediate threat to the globe, to our way of life, to the world, and that's war and the things that this country does.
And I see Tulsi opposing that.
And then, you know, I'm going to wrap this up because this became like me Tulsi cheerleading, and I hate to do that.
But to all of these conservatives who have defended Tulsi on her positions and her right to speak and have pushed back on the smears and the lies, you know, I give you an internet hug and a fist bump and I appreciate it wholeheartedly.
I really do.
This article warms my heart.
And that's why I support Tulsi Gabbard.
Thanks for hanging out.
More videos to come tomorrow at 10 a.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews and the podcast every day at 6.30 on all platforms.
