Donald Trump's Approval Just Broke A Record High, Why Do Polls Say He Will Lose 2020?
Donald Trump's Approval Just Broke A Record High, Why Do Polls Say He Will Lose 2020? In the latest Washington Post ABC news poll Trump's approval rating breaks 47, the highest they have recorded. Among the RCP Average Trump's approval and favorability have broken a two year high.The last time Trump was viewed so favorably was just after he was elected.Yet even with a booming economy under Trump, praise for avoiding international incidents, and record low unemployment, polls still show Trump losing to Biden and even some far left Democrats.The polls are wrong now and they were wrong in 2016. It will be near impossible to know or predict who will win, the populist right and Trump, the moderate Democrats like Joe Biden, or will it be the far left social justice candidates like Bernie Sanders or Gillibrand?Polls be darned I say, lets look to Wall Street and Vegas. Both say Trump is on track for a 2020 victory while many economic forecasts say Trump will not only win but will Landslide.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
According to a new poll from the Washington Post and ABC News, Donald Trump's approval rating has never been higher.
It's broken a record high.
Whenever I do these stories, I try to look at the aggregate to see what other polls are saying because there's accusations of bias.
And I think putting all the polls together is a good way to actually suss out where Trump is actually at.
Now, it's difficult, Because in the aggregate, not all polls are from the same time.
But there's been a lot of stories about the booming economy, about the incumbent advantage, and now Trump's approval rating, as well as his favorability, being up.
It sounds like Trump is on track for a 2020 victory, yet for some reason, even with this news, we see this from Jake Tapper.
Biden would get 53% to Trump's 43.
Harris would get 48 to his 46.
Warren would tie.
Sanders would win.
Buttigieg would tie.
The point is, even with all of this incredible news about the economy, Trump's approval rating, they're actually saying it's going to be a toss-up?
And that Biden would beat Trump?
The reason I don't really buy into that is because Before Trump got elected, people weren't too sure about what his job, his performance is going to be.
He still beat Hillary Clinton.
Why would Joe Biden beat Donald Trump when the economy is booming, when unemployment is at record lows, when paycheck growth is on a massive upward trend, more jobs, more jobs, the economy is great.
With the incumbent advantage, as well as Trump's favorability, his approval rating, you'd think he'd be on track to win.
For some reason, the polls are saying maybe not.
So you know what?
Here's what I can say.
The polls were wrong.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The whole system is screwed up.
We have no idea what's going to happen.
So, to try and better understand what's happening, I got a bunch of stories.
But let's figure out what's going on with Trump's approval rating.
Why it may be high, I think we know.
But we'll look at some other polls too to see exactly what's going on before we get started.
Head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do is just share this video because YouTube doesn't suggest my videos the same way they used to anymore for whatever reason.
So I rely on you.
But let's read the news.
The Hill reports, Trump's approval rating hits highest point of presidency.
The survey, which was released Sunday, found that 47% of registered voters approve of the job Trump is doing in the White House, a figure that represents a 5-point increase from April.
50% of registered voters disapprove of Trump's performance as president, however.
Meanwhile, 44% of voting-age Americans said they approve of Trump's job performance, while 53% said they disapprove of it.
Just 39% of voting-age Americans said they approved of Trump's job performance in April.
So even among people who aren't necessarily registered voters, his approval rating is up 5 points across the board.
Again, if he was able to win in 2016 without proving himself, I can only imagine he's on track to win again.
But don't take my word for it.
I've got some better sources than the pundits.
You can't trust the polls, but I'll tell you who you can trust.
Vegas and Wall Street.
Because people certainly don't like losing money, but we'll get to that.
Let's read on.
They say.
The economy served as the only issue where a majority said they approve of Trump's performance, according to the poll.
51% of respondents said they approved of the way he has handled economic issues since entering the White House.
42% said they disapprove of his handling of the economy.
Meanwhile, a majority of respondents said they disapprove of how Trump has handled immigration, healthcare, issues of special concern to women, abortion, climate change, gun violence, and foreign policy.
49% said they disapprove of the way he's handled taxes, while 42% said they approve.
They gonna say?
In addition, 65% of respondents said Trump has acted in an un-presidential way since taking office.
28% said he has acted in a fitting and proper way.
Let me tell you what I think.
It's interesting to see that so many people would support, they would approve of his job and view him favorably, yet say he's acting un-presidential.
But that actually kind of makes sense.
I absolutely will commend the president on how well the economy is.
Hey man, I'm not an economist.
I don't know exactly what's happening or why in terms of fine-tuning the economy, but everything seems to be going really, really great.
In fact, to my detriment, I've told you guys before, I was trying to hire a contractor a few months ago, couldn't find anybody.
They were all booked up.
When I was trying to build my van, everybody's booked up like a year in advance.
So, it's just, the economy is doing great.
Whatever Trump did, it worked.
Look, I'm not going to get into the minutiae here because I'm just not an economist.
You're going to get a ton of people on the left arguing, but you know what?
Here we are.
The economy is great.
But I can still say that President Trump has acted un-presidential.
Is that exactly what they said?
Un-presidential.
Here's the thing, and I've said this before.
Barack Obama had some charisma.
He knew how to talk to the press, and he knew how to rope people into just trusting what he was doing was right, even when he was doing horrific things like drone strikes in countries we aren't at war with, namely Yemen, creating the Disposition Matrix, also known as the Kill List.
Obama did a bunch of really fascistic things.
Yes, I'm using that word on purpose.
I'm using it somewhat facetiously to make a point.
Did I say Trump?
Obama did a bunch of these things, okay?
Obama did a bunch of really awful things.
Did people complain about it back then?
No, because he was, quote, presidential.
So what does that mean to me?
I gotta admit, not a whole lot.
I don't care if Trump is acting presidential for the most part, so long as everything's working and people are happy.
But I can criticize him, and I have criticized him, for being unpresidential.
It's different.
Are things working?
Did he pull back from Iran?
Did he just make great strides, made history in North Korea?
Those are all great things.
Okay, there you go.
But I still think in many ways he's been unpresidential.
But it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter what my opinion is on his behavior.
It matters if things are getting done and if people are going to support him moving forward.
So here's what I want to do first.
I got a bunch of things that, you know, people are questioning whether Trump can win.
They're questioning whether the economy is really going well.
We have the aggregates here, and the latest polls from ABC News and the Washington Post show his highest ever.
However, in nearly the same time frame, The Economist and YouGov has Trump around 44, as opposed to 47.
Rasmussen tends to have him in a favorable position, in the same time frame showing 49.
Reuters' Ipsos, for the same time frame, 43.
And Politico, similarly, 43.
The other polls following this, CNN, they're not necessarily for the same time frame, so I think these are more credible.
His overall approval rating is actually still really high according to the aggregate.
Take a look here.
In the past two years, Trump's approval rating today is only about 0.1 lower than its previous high point in May 10th.
And for the past two years, it's never been higher.
The only time it would seem that his approval rating has been higher was right when he took office with around a 46... I believe it was 46.1.
Is that what we got?
It's hard to get the...
The fine details, but around 46.
So where he's at today, in the aggregate, is still some of the highest approval ratings he's ever seen.
Now, let's take a look at favorability, because favorability is different.
It's not so much about his job, but whether or not people like him.
And even still, his favorability is higher now than it's been in the past two years, only being higher right around the time he was elected.
So this is all great news for Trump.
Which brings me in to the next question I have.
What I highlighted in the beginning.
If Trump's favorability and approval rating are higher than they've been in two years, then why is it that they believe Trump is on track to lose to Biden or that it's a toss-up between the other lesser-known politicians like Buttigieg?
I get it.
They're popular a bit.
But this is what they're saying.
So hypothetical matchups among registered voters in the same poll.
So this is the point.
That poll I showed you, from the Washington Post ABC News poll, showing his approval rating as high as it has been in two years, or to them, as high as they've ever seen it, still says that Biden would beat him.
To me, I can't really understand that.
So look, I'll say this on this point.
The polls were wrong in 2016.
A lot of the polls were wrong in the midterms.
That was a weird- I predicted the Republicans would sweep.
I was wrong.
They did really well, but then all of a sudden there was this weird tide where Democrats started popping up and winning, and hey, I was wrong.
So you know what I'm gonna say at this point?
We have no idea what to expect.
The polls are all over the place.
Who knows?
Who knows.
But I'll tell you who I would defer to, not the polls, Wall Street, and Vegas.
But again, we'll get to that.
The first thing I want to do is challenge some of the more popular politicians' claims against Donald Trump.
We can see here that those with the best chance of winning, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders.
So I'm curious, what is their attack vector in the 2020 debates?
Well first, We have this story, which is kind of nonsensical, from Real Clear Politics.
No, the story from RCP is fine.
It's what Biden said.
Here's a here's a quote from Biden. Russian election interference would not have happened
on my watch and Barack's watch. I'm I'm so confused by this.
This is what Biden's trying to use up against Trump, that Russian interference wouldn't have happened on his or Barack's watch, but it literally did.
So I have to wonder what he thinks he's going to win by saying this, but perhaps there are a lot of people who are uninitiated, don't pay attention to politics, and are going, yes, Joe Biden would be strong on Russia, not realizing Biden and Obama let it happen?
They were the ones who... They were on watch!
They say former Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden sits down with CNN's Chris Cuomo to discuss his position and what he'd look for in a running mate if he were to secure his party's nomination.
He goes on to speak about, you know, Russia.
So that's that.
Look, there's a lot of other things that we can talk about Biden, but I think this is one of the more recent stories that I found interesting.
But Bernie Sanders has, in my opinion, The more egregious offense in his campaigning.
What we have heard from the Democrats in the debates, from Bernie Sanders, is that the economy is great, but only for the wealthiest Americans.
That's actually fake news.
But of course, what do they really have to go up against Trump with?
Now listen, I was a big fan of Bernie Sanders in 2016.
I am not so much a fan of his anymore, and I am continually less a fan of his, as time goes on, over statements like this.
I can be critical of some of the things that Gabbard and Yang have said, but for the most part, they come off as very, very principled, charismatic, with good ideas that I think are important.
Tulsi being anti-war, Yang being forward-thinking on domestic policy like nuclear power, the VAT tax on major corporations.
I think there's great conversations to be had.
I don't think they'll win.
I think Trump will win, but I do like them.
Bernie, however, has continually lost me because it seems like Bernie just keeps lying.
First, Bernie said not that long ago he was not in favor of open borders because the world has too many poor people who would want to come here.
Yet, on the debate stage, he said that he would provide undocumented immigrants with health care.
I don't want to put it specifically on him, but we had all the Democrats basically saying that we shouldn't be prioritizing deportation of illegal immigrants and we should provide a path to citizenship.
This is all effectively open borders, saying, come here, we'll give you government benefits, we won't deport you, and you can become a citizen.
It's just a very weak open borders.
Like, if it was direct open borders, they'd just beg you to come do whatever you want.
So it's not perfectly, but it's essentially, right?
Well, here's what he said.
Senator Sanders speaks in Houston.
This is from yesterday night.
Fake news.
And I've got a couple sources here to prove it.
First, unemployment is at record lows.
he is right. It is booming in an incredible way for the wealthiest people in this country.
Fake news. And I've got a couple sources here to prove it.
First, unemployment is at record lows. Here's how it's calculated. The story from CNBC says,
the unemployment rate is at a record low, like a 50 year low, like a 50 year 3.6% low.
The figure calculated by the U.S.
Census Bureau and released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics at the beginning of every month is commonly used to gauge the health of the U.S.
economy.
If it's low, investors and consumers tend to grow more confident, leaving people more willing to spend money.
Conversely, People tend to guard their cash if it starts to rise.
Some people think the government tracks every employed and unemployed worker in the country to calculate the unemployment rate.
That's wrong.
Others think it's based on the number of people receiving unemployment insurance.
Also incorrect.
It's a much more complicated process that involves finding the answers the old-fashioned way.
Knocking on doors and making phone calls.
Save yourself the guessing and check out our video yada yada.
I'm not going to play the video.
The point is, by the standard metric in which we calculate unemployment, it is down across the board.
That means people who weren't working before are working today.
It's not perfect.
There are some arguments to be made, such as sometimes people who just give up on trying to find a job are considered, you know, they're not considered in the employment rate.
But I think this is as best we can do.
Whatever your argument is, unemployment is way down.
Record lows.
50-year record low.
Bernie, how is that catering to the top wealthiest in this country?
How does that cater to the 1%?
These are people who were previously not working, now able to work, contribute to the economy, make a living, and survive.
But, many people then say, Oh, sure.
They're working.
Ocasio-Cortez made the silly claim that they're working two jobs.
I believe this was parroted by Kamala Harris.
I'm not sure.
No, that is not how it works.
Working two jobs is not how they calculate unemployment.
You're wrong.
So many people would argue that unemployment is down fine, but wages are stagnant, right?
Not necessarily.
Now, there is an argument, for sure, because people are going to push back on each other, but I gotta say, looking at the facts, it does seem like wages are going up.
Now sure, the wealthiest may be benefiting the most, but it doesn't mean things are bad.
Things are good.
We can't ignore it.
So let's pull this up.
From June 28th, are wages rising or flat?
They say to hear politicians tell it, wages are rising at the fastest rate in a decade, are the same as they were 45 years ago, and are at a 60-year low.
And all three claims could be correct, depending on what measure is used to justify it.
Parsing the political claims on wages is an exercise in fun with stats.
There are several different ways to measure what's happening to workers' paychecks, leading to disparate and conflicting claims, and confusing messages to voters.
There's not necessarily one way to look at wages, and that's why you can get all the conflicting claims.
So let's do this.
Let's take a look right here.
Since 95, wages have been steadily increasing, and they're much higher today than they were in the past.
Now, in the 70s, things were really, really great.
So, these are total private seasonal adjusted inflation adjusted.
Average weekly earnings of production and non-supervisory employees.
On the surface, it looks like wages are going up.
Regardless of whether or not we want to argue if the wages are going up faster for one group or the other, it doesn't mean poor people are hurting.
And therein lies the true argument.
By all means, look at the stats and argue that they're not good enough or they're good.
Let's see what their conclusion is in the long run, and then I'll make the point.
They say, about that 60-year low.
Cory Booker, meanwhile, has made a very different claim about wages.
The New Jersey Democrat, who is running for president, said in an interview with PBS on April 29, and a lot of that is because we're at a time of corporate profits at an 85-year high, wages at about a 60-year low.
Booker's campaign didn't respond to our request for support for this claim, but the senator is likely referring to wages as a percentage of gross domestic income, and he's close.
Wage and salary disbursements were 43% of GDI in 2017, while the percentage was lower from 2010 to 2016.
Let's not get into the nitty gritty.
They say, Sham Boss of the Measure is saying that workers are getting a smaller share of the economic pie than they used to.
Chris Tilley, a professor of urban planning at the University of California, Los Angeles, also told us, There isn't anything wrong with looking at wages and salaries this way, but it answers a different question.
It tells us what workers are getting relative to other kinds of income recipients in the economy.
Boom!
And there it is.
The point I wanted to make.
We can see that adjusted income is up.
Bernie is technically right.
It is helping the wealthiest in this country.
They may be getting a bigger share of the pie.
But that doesn't mean poor people are being hurt.
So you can argue that wealth disparity is a problem.
I certainly think so.
And I'd like to see a bigger share of that pie go to poor people.
But all that really matters, when it comes to the vote, how do people feel?
They're probably gonna feel good.
The economy is great, they got a job, and their wages are increasing.
Very few people, I imagine, are gonna look at the boss and wonder how much he's making and be angry about it.
Though some people would.
But you know what?
Forget my opinion on what any of this means.
Because I think it's fair to point out, it's a huge argument, and you'll need to go through all of the details to try and figure out whether or not people are actually gonna make more money.
The bigger question is not whether or not Bernie is right or wrong.
It's whether or not Trump will win.
And I'll tell you this.
Wall Street expects a Trump win in 2020.
But a new poll points to a different outcome.
Sure, we've seen the polls.
It's like I highlighted.
They say Biden is going to win.
But Wall Street is betting on Trump.
You know who else is betting on Trump?
Las Vegas odds.
Wall Street believe Trump will win election in 2020.
I'll tell you this.
The polls can be misleading for one reason.
People like to vote for who they think will win.
And that means if the polls say Biden will win, they're hoping people will vote Biden.
So I don't really trust the polls.
But more importantly, the polls were wrong in 2016.
Now it's true, Vegas was wrong in 2016 as well.
But I'll say this, if I had to make a bet, I'm gonna bet on what Vegas thinks.
People hate to lose money.
If economic forecasts are saying Trump will win, if Wall Street is putting their money on Trump, and Vegas is putting their money on Trump, I'm not going to trust the political pollsters who ask leading questions to try and deliver an outcome.
I'm going to look at the people who are like, hey man, I don't want to lose money.
Here's what I think is going to happen.
Because money is more important.
Money talks, BS walks.
This is a story from last month, just a few weeks ago.
They say in Vegas, odd makers rate high on Trump as a potential winner and are betting on his next term.
Wall Street also does.
They do go on to say that poll data is casting doubts, but that's, that's not the point.
The point is we know the polls.
What does Vegas think?
So for the most part, they say odds favoring Trump.
On Trump re-election odds, a new feed says Trump re-election prospects are promising.
Trump's odd to win the election was plus 175 in April, or a couple of months ago.
In June, Trump has reduced to plus 100 odds.
The latest release from BetOnline shows Joe Biden is the closest competition with plus 425.
I don't exactly know how that breaks down, but I have been tracking the Vegas odds and I've been tracking other betting and it looks like Trump is on track.
So the main point we can wrap up on this video, the polls show that Donald Trump's approval rating is higher than it's ever been in the past two years and higher than it's ever been for this poll.
And the average, the RCP average is higher than it's been in two years.
The economy is at record lows.
The unemployment is at record lows.
The economy at record highs.
Unemployment across the board for all different demographics is fantastic.
Wage growth appears to be up.
All good news.
But for some reason, they say Biden will beat Trump.
I'm not buying it.
Especially when Vegas and Wall Street comes out.
So I'll say this.
Seems like Trump is on track for a 2020 victory.
Seems like it.
I don't want to make any hard predictions.
Who knows what will happen.
There's a lot that can change in the meantime.
So, all we can really do is stick with the news, stick around.
More updates on this stuff when it comes out, follow me on Mines at Mines.com slash Timcast.
I'll have more segments coming up at YouTube.com slash Timcast News and as developments occur, You can follow this channel, so subscribe if you haven't already.
And I will see you all in the next segment.
Again, YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
Yesterday we heard the story about a Detroit music festival that was charging non-POC double what they charged people of color.
In a viral tweet, Zuby Music on Twitter said, Festival charging different prices based on race.
Thumbs down.
Well done, intersectional radicals.
You've become the very racists you claim to stand against.
So woke, so very woke.
But will they, in fact, go broke?
I don't know, maybe not.
A lot of people are still defending them.
But my understanding is that this is illegal.
Did you know there's a guy who's, like, really well known for suing bars that have ladies' nights?
Because when a venue does a ladies' night, they are discriminating based on sex by charging more or less Based on sex.
So for a music festival, to actually list... Look at this.
Non-POC versus Early Bird POC.
And look at this!
A regular ticket, 40 bucks.
A person of color ticket, 20 bucks.
That's racist!
Of course, the argument we see from many of these people is that, you know, they say only white people can be racist.
That's not true.
And you know what's really funny is, because I'm sure many of you guys who watch my videos, listen to my content, Know that I am mixed race, but fortunately, fortunately I don't qualify.
Because I have been in circumstances where I've been told in no uncertain terms, no, I'm not a person of color.
And what's really, really weird is that Candace Owens recently tweeted that Colin Kaepernick was white and so was Sean King.
Newsweek ran a story saying she falsely called them white.
They are white?
I'm not saying they're only white, but yes, they're literally both part white.
How is that fake?
It's such absurdity that if you're on the side of the intersectional feminists, the radical left, you can claim you're not white if you're mostly white, but if you disagree with them, all of a sudden, you're just white.
Yes, thank you, thank you.
Let's see what Zuby had to say.
And there is a big update, however.
As per the title of this video, Tiny Jag pulls out of Afro Future Fest after learning white people would be charged a different price to attend.
I give you an applause.
I am now a huge fan of Tiny Jag.
I actually pulled up some of her music.
Not actually a big fan, I'm just being- I'm kidding.
But I am a fan of her politics, and she actually does have one song I think is pretty good.
Not a lot of attention for her music, but you know what?
I really appreciate people standing up on principle and standing up for equality.
So, let's go back to Zuby.
He said, would have loved to be at the meeting where they discussed this.
This is the kind of BS that happens when people think diversity just means different skin tones, rather than ways of thinking and opinions.
No remotely grounded sane person would have approved this idea.
He says, this is legitimately offensive to everybody.
Well, some people are defending it.
Truly terrible business decision.
And yes, illegal.
He says, this is what the future holds if people don't call out this crap.
It's especially pervasive in arts and entertainment.
People applaud it and say it's progression.
No, it's not.
It's like, dude, you want to go back in time to segregation?
That's not progress.
That's regress.
Period.
He said, I've been ringing alarm bells for a while.
Best thing to do would be to just boycott festivals, events, universities with racist and sexist practices.
I mean actually racist and sexist.
This is egregious.
Let them get woke and go broke.
Stuff like this angers me.
It's a huge step backwards.
Zuby says I'm an independent artist.
While you're here, please check out my music and merch.
So, you know, it's spot on, Zuby, for calling this out.
So yes, check out Zuby's music and merch.
But here's what I want to do.
There's this one tweet where somebody responded to, like Zoobi's tweet went viral, got like 11,000 retweets so far.
This person right here says, that pricing was obviously based on the fact, due to historical targeted financial damage to black people in particular.
They might not be able to afford the same ticket price, while a white person can.
So lowering the price makes it possible for them to afford it.
And as Zuby aptly points out, white people can be poor too.
And not all non-white people are poor, far from it.
It's insulting, racist, ridiculous, and discriminatory.
If they wanted to make it more affordable, they could lower the price for everyone.
Right, spot on.
Why can't we have a discussion about class?
What if they said, you know, if you make less than a certain amount, we have like a poverty rate.
That would certainly help all those who are, you know, of lower income, right?
He says, I really wish I didn't need to explain this.
It's so obvious, it's not complicated.
But let's take a look over at what happened with Tiny Jag, who pulled out of the festival after she learned white people would be charged a different price to attend.
I believe that, yeah, so this is, I believe this is the same event.
And interestingly, Zuby's tweet went viral.
He posted it on the 6th of July.
This story's from the 4th of July.
So spot on for, maybe that's how he found out about it?
So let's check this story out.
I believe it's, I believe it's the same, same event, right?
Afrofuture.
Yeah, AfrofutureFest in Detroit.
Jillian Graham, aka Detroit-based rapper Tiny Jag, pulled out of a local music festival this week because she disagreed with its pay model in which people of color would pay less for tickets than white festival goers.
Graham said she only found out about AfrofutureFest's pay model when a white friend reached out to her and sent her a screenshot via Instagram That outlined the pay difference.
The early bird POC, I mean, not even the early bird, the tickets, period, are double if you're white.
So what makes you white?
Would Sean King have to pay double?
Would I have to pay double?
We're both biracial.
Whether or not you agree with Sean King's story, I'm saying the point is, if someone is still mostly white, do they get to claim to be a person of color for this event?
She says, quote, I was immediately enraged just because I am biracial.
Graham tells Metro Times, I have family members that would have under those circumstances been
subjected to something that I would not ever want them to be in, especially not because of anything
that I have going on. Graham says after the festival confirmed the price structure, she
immediately withdrew from the event and requested that she be removed from any promotional materials.
She says because she had publicly supported the festival without knowing about the discrepancy between the ticket prices, that she had to publicly withdraw her support as well.
She did so by taking to Twitter.
She indicated feeling very triggered and discussed how the pay model would have affected her family personally, specifically her grandmother.
A lot of the songs that I perform are from my first project called Polly.
That is my grandmother's name, Graham says.
How do you want me to come to a performance and perform these songs off a mixtape that is titled after this white woman that you would have charged double to get in here?
Like, it's just outrageous from so many different angles.
Seriously.
Man, Tiny Jag, big fan now.
Principle-wise, I'll check out your music.
A couple good songs.
I'm just not a big rap person as it is.
I'm not gonna pretend to be.
But I gotta say, I hope Tiny Jag gets a bunch of publicity off this because she really deserves it.
And what she expresses here with her grandmother being white and not appreciating it, I feel that resonates with me, right?
One of the big issues I take with the intersectional racism we see from the left Is that it puts mixed-race people in a really weird position, where they're both simultaneously privileged and unprivileged, and you don't know when or how.
Notice, I shaved recently.
When I'm shaven, people assume... Well, actually, I can't tell you what people assume I am, because it's all different.
But typically, if I shave, and I don't wear glasses, people will say, like, you're white.
When I don't shave, I have the very obvious, like, a bit of Asian facial hairstyle, then all of a sudden I'm Puerto Rican.
Don't ask me why!
That's just what people think I am.
During Occupy Wall Street, it's- it- I'll tell you this, it's- it's usually people who, uh, are black will assume I'm white, and people who are white will assume I'm Latino of some sort.
So I don't- it's a confusing position to be in.
It's frustrating, and it's anger-inducing.
Especially when it's like, you wanna act like the racism that my family experienced was bad, fine.
But then you're gonna act like my dad somehow has a hand in all of this?
Like, nah, that's not okay.
You know, like my dad- my- my dad, a member of my family, experienced the same thing my family did, and it's crazy to me that they would- look.
You're basing ticket price based on race.
You're telling white people who agree with you, too, they have to pay a penalty.
How does that make sense?
It reminds me of the episode of Game of Thrones, where Daenerys... I don't know, if you're not familiar, I'll explain it to you.
So Daenerys finds the city and they have slavery.
So she executes the nobles.
And then one guy comes up and says, but my dad was fighting against slavery and you killed him.
Because she didn't care.
That's what happens when you say an arbitrary, you know, like skin color determines whether you're a good person or a bad person.
And this is why we believe in individual liberties.
Because it turns out, there actually are a lot of good people who aren't racist, who would actually help you dismantle these issues and the problems you face, but you look at them as a racist and say, I don't like you because of your skin color.
They're going to say that it comes at a time with reparations, I don't care about the reparations conversation.
Graham says that while she is definitely for the goal of putting equity back into the black community, she doesn't agree with the method being used to do so.
It's non-progressive, and it's not solution-focused in my eyes.
It seems almost like it has spite, and unfortunately with spite comes hate, and that's just not obviously going to be a good direction for us to go if we're looking for positive change.
Graham says it was difficult to pull out of the festival because she appreciates the support of her fans.
It's not fun to withdraw out of shows, especially at home, especially in your hometown, and especially when your supporters have been so good to you.
It's also not fun to do that to my fellow black women.
Like, that sucks too.
It sucks that this is a thing that's put a wedge here.
While the festival organizers declined Metro Time's request for comment, they explained their rationale behind the ticket pricing on the festival's Eventbrite page.
Full stop!
I don't care what your explanation is, it's literally illegal to charge people different amounts of money based on their race.
I'd like to say, to the people defending this, how do you have people driving hundreds of miles to a bakery in Colorado, I think it is, to yell at a baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding or transgender coming out cake, And then you're gonna go ahead and run afoul of civil rights law.
I'm not saying it's the same people arguing, I'm just saying, like, it comes to be on the left.
It is left-wing intersectional feminism and equity that is pushing this, and it is also intersectional feminists that are targeting a baker, saying, you should service me under the law.
Okay, well, the same goes for you too, right?
I am of the opinion, if you're participating in public, then you should participate in public.
It's a complicated issue at the bakery.
Because in this case, he said I would service, you know, the couple, make a cake, but not that message because you can't force me to speak.
That's a First Amendment argument, and it's the same argument the left argues for Twitter and Facebook and YouTube.
It's mind-blowing.
How do you have... You know what, man?
You have the left.
I'm doing air quotes because it's like a subsection, it's like a large group of left-wing individuals who say a private business can do what they want.
Then they complain the bakery should have to bake a cake.
They're both First Amendment arguments.
The baker is saying, you can't force me to put a message on a cake, and Twitter is saying, you can't force us to host this conversation.
Pick one!
Pick one!
I am of the opinion.
I lean towards.
I'm not an absolutist.
But I lean towards, you know, look, make the cake.
You might not appreciate the message, but I wouldn't consider it to be your speech for making the cake.
And if Twitter, Twitter should also allow people to, you know, to post their messages.
There is a big difference here in that the bakery is small.
It's like one dude.
And you could probably just go find a different baker and stop, you know, getting in his face.
Twitter is a monopoly on what it is.
You know, we need to change that.
But these big tech companies control way too much power.
So, it's not the same thing.
It's not.
But here's what they said.
Equality means treating everyone the same.
Equity is ensuring everyone has what they need to be successful.
Oh my god, dude.
First of all, it's ensuring.
But we don't need to go after their grammar or their vocabulary here.
But they basically say, our ticket structure was built, well, they literally say, to ensure that the most marginalized communities, people of color, are provided with an equitable chance at enjoying events in their own community.
Black Detroit.
Affording joy and pleasure is unfortunately still a privilege in our society.
No, okay, full stop, dude.
Look, man, I have friends of all different races, of all different class, okay?
I have friends who are white and poor, white and rich, Asian and poor, Asian and rich.
Like, dude, your race doesn't determine whether or not you can make money in today's society.
I certainly agree with the notion that in the past, there was racism and systemic, you know, institutionalized racism that made it harder for historic wealth to pass down generation to generation.
That's a whole other conversation we can have.
As of today, there are quite a few people of varying ethnicities that aren't white that are extremely wealthy.
In fact, I mean, look at Oprah.
So here's the problem I have with race-based, you know, like, the race-based, you know, pricing.
You're gonna tell me that Will Smith's kids and Oprah's kids deserve cheaper tickets?
Nah, that's a joke, okay?
There are people who are, you know, there are people of color who have been very successful for several generations, and they're wealthy.
And they're wealthier than Latinos, and they're wealthier than whites.
But there are, you know, on average, I believe, per capita, white people have something like $10,000 or $15,000 more per year than black people.
And there's a lot of reasons for that.
I'm not going to get into all that.
My numbers are probably off.
The point is, it's illegal, and it doesn't actually solve the problem of class.
When you- All you're really doing is putting poor white people up against poor black people, and then telling them the white people have it better.
That's not gonna solve the problem of class.
That's not gonna deal with the fact- That's not gonna deal with exploitation and oppression.
And you know what, man?
I'm gonna- I'm gonna wrap this one up and just say, basically, spot on to TinyJack for pulling out, but she really presents, like, uh, in- in her statement about, you know, being biracial and having a grandmother, She accurately explains the problem with this.
How do you rectify your beliefs with mixed-race people?
You don't.
Which puts me in this awkward position, right?
I am never going to agree with these people because they're racists.
They are identitarians.
What they are doing is illegal.
And I will tell you this, as I've stated time and time again, you want to talk about why I'm concerned about this?
Point to the alt-right individual, the white identitarian in government and media.
Maybe you can name a couple, one or two.
They like to claim Trump is.
No, Trump is not an overt white.
That's ridiculous.
Okay, the actual alt-right white identitarian types are not in government.
They're not in media.
They're struggling.
They struggle with their message.
The left-wing identitarians are all over Congress.
They're all over the media.
They're running these events, and that's a serious problem for our country.
So, you know what?
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next video will be at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all there.
It could simply be the looming threat of lawsuits, or it could be that the attack on Andy Ngo was just outside the Overton window.
If you're not familiar with the Overton window, it's basically, you've got the political compass, and then you've got a smaller box within it that moves around, and that window, Overton's window, is what is considered to be socially acceptable.
It can be moved.
It has been moved very far left.
Now, You will find many people on the left claiming it's moved to the far right.
It's actually not true.
Absolutely not true.
You've got kids today that are getting hormone therapy.
You've got mainstream pride flags.
The Overton window has moved to the left.
You've got Bernie Sanders, who claims to be a socialist.
He's kind of not.
But you've actually got Democrats moving to the far left.
That's where the Overton window has gone.
Something interesting happened.
The attack on Andy Ngo, it wasn't... I don't want to say it's just too far to the left that triggered all these people.
Because at first, people defended or excused it, which says to me, it was just a little bit outside.
If, you know, if it was a more egregious attack, if Andy Ngo was more severely injured, it would have fallen outside the Overton window.
But because it was a beatdown, you had journalists from the New York Times, from Kotaku, and other big mainstream publications saying, well, Andy Ngo isn't a journalist.
Stop calling him that.
And we saw many people on the left excuse or defend the attack.
But something interesting has happened.
It may be due to the potential lawsuit or the public is not willing to accept a gay child of immigrants being brutally beaten in the street.
Here we have a story from the New York Post by John Levine.
Biden condemns violent Antifa assault on conservative journalist Andy Ngo.
What's interesting about this, and the title speaks for itself, there's a statement issued by Biden, is we'll jump over to the actual tweet from John, and he said, Reps for Harris, Sanders, Gillibrand, and Booker all ignored repeated inquiries from me on the subject.
Interesting.
Biden was willing to condemn it.
Why?
Well, because Biden is Obama-era politician.
I think Biden is stuck between a rock and a hard place, where he wants to win the nomination, but he's not a far-left socialist-type identitarian.
So he kinda has to pander to them.
But unfortunately, it won't be enough.
The woke left will ensure that a woke leftist wins the Democratic primary and then soundly loses to Donald Trump in 2020.
We'll see though.
I don't want to make hard predictions.
Everybody tried predicting what was going to happen in 2016.
They lost.
Now!
Outside of what we saw with Joe Biden, apparently now John Levine is saying the Human Rights Campaign has issued a statement.
For those that aren't familiar with what happened, Charlotte Clymer is communications for the Human Rights Campaign who said it was actually, I'll pull up the tweet from John Levine.
Charlotte Clymer said that Andy Ngo intentionally provokes people on the left to drive his content.
That is a statement of fact.
Andy Ngo doesn't do this.
Being attacked today on video taken by an actual journalist is the greatest thing that could ever happen to his career.
You know it.
I know it.
He knows it.
We all know it.
Going on to say violence is completely wrong, and I find it sad and weak to allow a sniveling weasel like Andy Ngo to get under one's skin like this.
But I'm also not going to pretend that this wasn't No's goal from the start.
I mean, let's cut the S here.
This is what they do.
So I believe the statement from the Human Rights Campaign probably has to do with the looming lawsuit for which they will be a target of.
Charlotte Clymer said Andy Ngo does this.
Okay, congratulations.
You made a statement of fact.
Well, here's what's interesting.
HRC has now condemned it, and Charlotte Clymer issued an apology in multiple tweets.
Check this out.
Statement on the attack against Andy Ngo.
The Human Rights Campaign issued the following statement on the horrific attack against Andy Ngo in Portland, Oregon over the weekend.
Quote, We condemn violence in the strongest possible terms, and the perpetrators of this attack must be held accountable.
Furthermore, if there is any evidence that this crime falls under the state or federal hate crimes laws, this should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and prosecuted to the maximum extent.
Clymer went on to issue a four tweet sincere apology, saying,
I want to clarify comments I made earlier this weekend about the assault on Andy Ngo.
Although I stated that violence is completely wrong and would never claim it was deserved,
I failed to unequivocally condemn what took place and make clear that no person deserves
what happened to him. The only fact necessary to be recognized is that he was attacked by
thugs because of his political views.
In our country, to say nothing of elsewhere in the world, that should always be wrong, and it was wrong of me to contextualize his assault, no matter how I feel about his record of diminishing and excusing discrimination and violence against transgender people.
I sincerely apologize to Andy Ngo, and I am sorry at how poorly my comments reflected on my colleagues at the Human Rights Campaign, who resolutely stand against all violence.
Clymer did not correct the record on stating that Andy Ngo does a thing intentionally.
Now, it's possible Clymer could argue that it's just an opinion.
You know, based on the things he's published, I think he's doing this.
And because they're both public figures, yeah, it's really hard to sue over this.
However, I will state, first and foremost, apology appreciated.
Although the apology is not directed at me, I respect and recognize the apology.
I always will.
I don't care, you know, who you are.
You always get one, okay?
You want to come out, and you want to apologize?
I encourage the good behavior.
I will make a point to say that I've seen a lot of apologies, and this, to me, does seem more like it was reflecting very poorly on the HRC, and they probably got a lot of questions about a gay journalist being attacked, and why HRC was, you know, essentially excusing or defending the attack because of Clymer.
So, I will— Look, I'm not entirely convinced of the sincerity, but you know what?
I will say this.
Regardless of how you feel, regardless of if you think this is sincere or not, it doesn't matter.
Clymer apologized, and we should all respectfully accept the apology.
It is up to Andy Ngo to determine whether or not he's satisfied.
The apology is at him.
But I will say, absolutely, my respect, and I guess that's the best way I can put it.
Thank you for the apology.
It's greatly appreciated.
And I hope if more people come out and say it was wrong, and they apologize over what happened, then we can actually see kind of a de-escalation.
So there's some good news here in that, you know, I've been pretty bullish on some kind of civil conflict.
I don't want to say civil war, because that just makes people think it's going to be like the 1800s with two sides clashing.
I don't think so.
What I think it's going to be is like insurgency, you know, people popping up and doing crazy things to a more extreme degree, like actual lethal force.
But this gives me hope.
That maybe it can pull back.
I didn't think the attack on No would shock the system enough to actually get people to apologize to No and to condemn the violence.
But here we are.
So it's more than just, you know, Joe Biden.
We haven't seen everybody.
But, you know, we are seeing HRC come out.
I am now hearing as well, many journalists who are defending Antifa have been quietly
deleting tweets and pulling back their statements.
So one of the most dangerous things you can do at any point in your life to defend a faction
of individuals who have engaged in violence.
And that goes for the Proud Boys just as much.
In DC, there was an incident where several Proud Boys were, you know, whether it was
intentional or not, were hooting at some old woman because they thought she was some journalist
The woman was terrified, and apparently now there is potentially a story about an old woman who was being, you know, yelled at by Proud Boys, who were saying things like, we know where you are, and I don't know exactly what happened, so I'm not gonna get into the full details.
But you see, people eventually get out of control, right?
If you justify it long enough.
We can look at what the Proud Boys did in New York City.
The argument was that Antifa showed up to their event at some conservative club, And so they got into a fight.
And it was contentious, the argument over who started the fight.
You can see on one video Antifa throwing a bottle.
Later, we saw a video of the Proud Boys actually running towards Antifa before they threw the bottle.
Here's the important part, though.
Whether you think it was right or wrong for the fight to break out, fights happen.
Afterwards, on a livestream, the Proud Boys were, like, at least one guy was excitedly talking about bashing someone's face into the ground.
And that's when you can see When you defend any group, it will come back to haunt you.
Antifa, I think, is, you know, several orders of magnitude worse than the Proud Boys.
The Proud Boys are guilty of having bad opinions, but for the most part, they don't show up to, like, Pride events and these events and start fights with people.
They do host their, you know, rallies, and then Antifa shows up and fights, and I'm not acting like the Proud Boys don't go to some events, but for the most part, the Proud Boys do their thing, Antifa shows up.
It's flowing in one direction.
The point I'm making is, there will come a time where something truly bad happens, and we've seen several instances, right?
Gavin McInnes had to disavow and leave the group.
Well, now we might start seeing something similar with Antifa.
You've got a lot of journalists deleting tweets, regretting they've appraised the group.
You ever see the movie The Animal, with Rob Schneider?
If you're not familiar, it's been a long time, but basically Rob Schneider gets, like, hit by a car or something, I don't remember, and this mad scientist guy puts a bunch of animal parts in him.
And this makes Rob Schneider act like a bunch of different animals.
Eventually, an angry mob forms, and they're trying to hunt him down with pitchforks and torches.
And then they find him, but Rob Schneider's black friend says he's the animal, and then all of a sudden the mob goes like, whoa.
Whoa, oh man.
Like, nobody wants to be a part of a mob that attacks a black guy.
The joke of the story was that, you know, they didn't want to be a racist mob.
They didn't mind attacking Rob Schneider, even though I think Rob Schneider's Jewish.
But that was the joke, right?
So the reason I bring that up is eventually the mob of people who are totally happy to attack Trump supporters and conservatives and accused them of being Nazis eventually got to a point where they're staring now at a gay Asian beaten and in the hospital with a brain hemorrhage and now this is the mob saying I don't want to be a part of a group that attacks you know someone like Andy Ngo
So now they're quietly removing and deleting their tweets.
I'm not going to say it's all sincere.
I think people are realizing now they've exposed themselves.
Their careers are in jeopardy.
And this is why they're pulling back and they're scared.
It happens on the right.
But Antifa for the longest time got a free pass from the media.
And now the media is actually embarrassed because Andy Ngo is attacked.
Heaven forbid something worse happens to Andy.
Yesterday we heard John Levine reported that Andy Ngo's lawyer said he was admitted to the hospital for a second time based on medical advice.
Quote, he is likely going to require some ongoing treatment for neurological issues.
And there you have it.
The real risk here that I think people are seeing is that... What you're seeing on the screen, for those that are watching, this is Andy Ngo's lawyer.
The risk here is Andy Ngo isn't out of the woods in terms of his injuries.
If something really bad happens, all of these people who praised Antifa, well, they're going to be in serious trouble now.
Antifa is a terrorist organization, be it intentionally decentralized.
They wear masks and they do this so they can get away with what they do and claim they're not an organization.
They are.
And DHS and FBI have labeled their actions as terrorist violence.
So now we can see that there is a line that's been crossed.
However, the line was only crossed ever so slightly.
Because for a while, people were defending it.
In fact, some people still are.
This was not so far outside the Overton window that everyone condemned it.
They're still trying to push the Overton window.
In fact, while this may look like decent de-escalation, it might actually be the opposite.
This might actually be enough to say, like, well, it was bad, but, and they'll carry on with their but.
Even though some higher profile individuals have denounced it, we've seen a few Democrats, Biden, Eric Swalwell, Andrew Yang, where are the other Democrats?
They're not.
So this may actually still be escalation.
But I'll leave it there.
The final thought, the point I want to get across for this video is it's really interesting now to see a lot of people embarrassed that at any point they ever supported this identitarianism and this violence and now they have to pull back because it might actually hurt their careers and cost them money.
Anyway, stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It is a different channel and I will see you all there.
The far left.
How they turn silly tweets and misstatements into policy.
I mentioned this a couple times over the past few weeks where I said Ocasio-Cortez will basically say something nonsensical and then be forced to defend it because she refuses to accept when she's wrong and boom!
Policy.
Now we can see the latest in not just AOC, Ocasio-Cortez, the far-left Democrats.
This story, Rep.
Ilhan Omar calls for end to Customs and Border Protection.
Okay, seriously now?
You're gonna tell me these people are not for open borders?
AOC is a card-carrying member of the Democratic Socialists of America who protest for open borders, and now both want to abolish ICE, and at least Ilhan Omar wants to abolish CBP.
Okay, Here's what happens.
Ocasio-Cortez does an impromptu Instagram live where she's just ranting about nonsense.
And then she says concentration camps and never again.
And all of a sudden now, she has equated border patrol facilities with World War II Germany.
People called her out for this, and they said, dude, chill, okay?
You're a bit off on this one.
So what does she do?
In classic AOC fashion, refuses to back down and says, no!
Harumph, I say!
I'm correct!
I wasn't referring to Germany anyway!
Even though she said, quote, never again.
Then what happens is, because she's forced to defend this position, she goes on a tour of a facility and then says, It was worse than I realized!
Did you know?
In both accounts, from CBP and AOC, somebody laughed!
She seriously complained that one of the CBP agents laughed about something they saw on their computer.
It was probably a meme, who knows?
She said, That was so disrespectful, him laughing.
Okay, stop being paranoid, dude.
So then she goes on to rail on CBP as a rogue agency.
Now we can see where she does a silly, stupid Instagram comment, and it is effectively turned into a call to abolish Customs and Border Protection.
I kid you not.
These people have lost the plot.
Do you want to know what CBP does?
Because I got a nice little story here from January 31st of this year.
Border protection agents make largest fentanyl bust in U.S.
history.
Yes, that's fentanyl.
An extremely dangerous opioid, I believe.
It's very, very strong, and a small amount will kill you.
And we have a serious problem with heroin and other opioids and, you know, actual prescription medication.
And there's an epidemic.
So you know what?
CBP does more than just one thing.
But of course, these people don't know what they're talking about, they're nuts as far as I'm concerned, and they're just saying things to signal to their base on social media.
I got another segment about that coming up.
There's a lot to talk about with the Democrats today, I'll tell you what.
Let's read this story.
Fox News says, Elon Omar sounded off on CBP on Wednesday calling for its elimination.
CBP has been under fire over alleged conditions at detention centers along the southern border.
It has also taken heat over revelations involving a Facebook group where Border Patrol agents made derogatory posts about immigrants and certain lawmakers, including Rep AOC.
Now, here's the funny thing.
Rashida Tlaib followed, uh, uh, I believe more than one, maybe one, anti-Semitic accounts on Instagram.
They were posting ridiculous things.
Like, I think it was a picture of a rat with a Jewish star on it.
Okay.
Is she gonna apologize for that?
She didn't.
She just said, oh, I just followed, I don't know what she said.
Maybe she did apologize.
I don't, I don't know.
Um, so, so let's, let's...
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is, are we going to throw out the whole company, or the whole organization, Customs and Border Protection, simply because a few thousand people, some civilians, some federal agents, were in a group posting a few memes that were offensive?
I think it's silly.
So let's read on.
Before we move on from here, though, head over to TimCast.com if you want to support my work.
These videos are particularly contentious, and whenever I talk about immigration stuff, YouTube flags my content.
I kid you not, I had a couple of videos demonetized recently because illegal immigrants are now a protected class on YouTube.
I am in no way saying anything disparaging about illegal immigrants, okay?
I think they're people who are looking for a better life.
They have my utmost respect.
However, CBP also has my respect, and there's a legal process to these things, so I will criticize enforcement and politicians, but I kid you not!
YouTube has ruled that two of my videos should be demonetized for simply saying we should be enforcing border laws that we have on the books, and that we have these laws for a reason.
I'm not even exaggerating.
I had two videos demonetized, and I won't get into great detail, but I was effectively told that it was hurtful And it was biased against a protected class.
I didn't say anything positive or negative about the illegal immigrants themselves.
I was talking about the law.
Sorry!
So, here's the thing.
I believe there will come a time when my channel will just be outright removed because I talk about these things.
For sure.
The cliff erodes and at some point it'll come for me like anybody else.
You can support me at TimCast.com slash donate.
Share these videos if you think people should hear them.
I back them up on other networks.
You can follow me at Minds.com slash TimCast Minds.
Well, let's read the news.
Appearing on the BET digital series Black Coffee, Omar grouped CBP with other, quote, rogue agencies, lacking in accountability and transparency.
We know that they have spoken in the most vile ways about immigrants.
We know that they have certain views on what brown and black people deserve.
And so we should be having a conversation about eliminating their existence and reforming the agencies that deal with the most vulnerable, who are children and women.
She added, we're continuing to allow for them to terrorize people who are running away from the most horrific circumstances.
Full stop!
You can't claim that if you're in Guatemala.
You go through Mexico and come to the U.S., and you especially can't claim that if they're coming from Africa, flying to Brazil, and then traveling up through South America.
Some are flying to, like, Colombia.
Like, come on, man.
You've got people purposefully going through nice countries.
If you're gonna fly from Africa to Brazil, what's wrong with Brazil?
Rio is beautiful.
Chill on the beach, have a coconut for, like, a buck.
It's great.
Nice chill in the sunshine.
We have a song about Copacabana, okay?
Rio de Janeiro, fun place.
Why would they leave these nice places?
Mexico City, nice place to come to the U.S.
I think it's simple.
The American dream is real.
And I think it's a lot of people who realize that the Democrats will protect them, provide them cover, so they can actually come.
So no, they're not fleeing the most horrific circumstances.
Some are, but even CNN.
I kid you not, Fareed Zakaria said Trump is right on this issue.
She says that's inhumane and that can't sit well with the American values that we have about dignity and humanity.
Omar previously called for the elimination of ICE.
She also backed Ocasio-Cortez's claim that the U.S.
is essentially running concentration camps along the southern border.
And this is how we get to the point, okay?
Young people who are not very smart, Posting on social media, refusing to admit when they're wrong, and turning it into policy.
And here you go.
It makes no sense to anyone, any moderate individual, any regular American, to eliminate border protection and ICE.
Reform?
Okay, they said reform.
I can respect that.
But they're saying eliminate.
Abolish.
Then what?
Just let people flood the borders?
We have a record number of migrants crossing the border.
It was like 144,000 in May.
Border crossings have gone down so far.
But when we look at what's happening, we look at the detention facilities getting overcrowded, we look at the bad conditions.
These are the people who refuse to vote in favor of the bills.
These are the people who are obstructing the humanitarian aid, now complaining it's CBP's fault the whole time.
You see how this works?
It is a kind of ignorance and, to an extent, an evil.
You withhold the funding so they look bad and then you blame them for looking bad.
Think about that.
Imagine you had somebody, you know, like, uh, living near... We'll put it this way.
Someone works for your company.
You don't pay them enough.
They're like, I need a raise.
Well, nope.
I'm not going to give you one because you don't deserve it.
Then their clothes start getting all ratty and you go, ugh, your clothes are all ratty.
You can't work here anymore.
We're going to eliminate your position because you look terrible.
It's effectively what they're doing.
Okay, CBP asked for money.
Trump asked for money.
The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, they said, hey, how about the Democrats step up and give them the money for this crisis?
And what did they say?
They said no.
And I'll tell you what's really crazy, even after the Democrats finally agreed to step up and provide this money, what do we get?
They not only obstruct, but now they're literally calling for the elimination of CBP.
So let me show you this, okay?
We can talk about how their grandstanding is nonsensical.
They act like CBP is one thing doing one thing.
No.
Customs and Border Protection has a word in front of its name.
The first word.
Customs.
They deal with drug busts.
They deal with human trafficking.
They're not specif- Like, they don't only deal with migrants trying to cross the border.
They're stopping bad people and criminals, okay?
So when you look at what Omar is claiming, she says we should eliminate them.
Why?
Because one aspect of their job isn't up to snuff because you refuse to give them money?
What about all the other good things they've done?
I gotta imagine, if you're a CBP agent, you're probably pretty angry by now.
Because they take only the worst aspects of the job, Don't give you the resources you need, blame you for it, and then ignore the really good things you've done that were major historical news.
Largest bust in US history by CBP agents.
That's drugs off our streets.
That's good news.
That's an agency doing their job properly.
I'll tell you what, it's simple.
Vote to provide the money they need, and we won't be where we are.
But you can look at what they do.
Nonsense statements, withholding of funds, and then using both of those things to justify the elimination of an entire sector of Homeland Security, which will result in one thing.
Tacit open borders.
Right?
Because what do you have if you have no border protection and you have no immigration enforcement?
You have open borders.
In fact, it's worse than that.
You have a weird permanent underclass who can come to this country and only work under the table illegally because they're not citizens.
And that will allow the uppity, wealthy, you know, liberal elites in big cities to sip their tea, write articles about Brad Pitt's junk while working for, you know, BuzzFeed or whatever that pays them a decent amount of money to do nothing.
Meanwhile, these people who come across the border will be mopping up the trash on the floor as you throw your trash around.
You're permanent underclass.
Congratulations.
That's what we're gonna get if they allow this.
I'm not gonna- I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
More segments to come because the next segments basically have more to do with this, so I will see you in a few minutes.
Mayor Buttigieg says that the Democrats should move farther to the left if they want to beat Trump.
Yes, because the already nonsensical identitarian rhetoric from the fringe far left isn't enough apparently.
They don't realize they're less than 8% of the population.
I'm not exaggerating.
Now, A lot of people have laughed and mocked this, saying, haha, silly Buttigieg, if you go far left, you will never beat Trump.
But what you need to understand is their strategy isn't to capture moderates.
They're basically saying, you know what, we've lost the center, go far left.
They're hoping to activate people who don't normally vote.
Trump did that.
It helped Trump win.
That's their strategy now.
So don't underestimate them.
However, I still think they'll lose, because as I explained in my video the other day, Here's what'll happen.
As they move far left, they will lose a moderate and gain a progressive.
However, progressives will probably already vote for Democrat, or they won't vote.
The moderate, who is not gonna vote Democrat anymore, will probably vote Trump.
Some won't, but I believe you're more... When the Democrats lose a moderate, Trump gains a moderate, and the Democrat is gaining one and losing one, and Trump is straight gaining one.
It's a net gain for the Republicans.
But, There's more to the story, so let's see why Buttigieg thinks this is so.
And I've also got this story about more racial identitarianism from the Democrats, because apparently they think that'll work.
It won't.
Before we get started, head over to TimCats.com slash doneit if you'd like to support my work.
There are multiple ways you can give.
Cryptocurrency, physical address, monthly donations through PayPal.
But of course, just share the video if you like it.
And now let's get back to the news.
From The Daily Caller, Buttigieg says Democrats must swing further left to beat Trump in 2020.
Mayor and Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said Friday that Democrats need to veer left of center in 2020 if they want to beat Trump.
He is deservedly unpopular, but he could win again, Buttigieg said of Trump at a campaign rally in Sioux City, Iowa.
I think he wins again if we look like we're offering more of the same.
I think the way he wins again is if we look like defenders of a system that hasn't worked.
I'll tell you how he wins.
When you look like you're pushing stuff, when you're pushing policy that makes Americans feel like strangers in their own country.
Now, some of you may say, that's what he's saying.
I'm talking about how the Democratic debates, they were speaking Spanish.
Okay?
Speaking Spanish.
Most Americans don't speak Spanish.
Some do.
So I was like, okay, fine, whatever.
It's pandering.
Promising healthcare to illegal immigrants.
Saying they didn't want to deport them, and they would even decriminalize illegal immigration, and then Beto O'Rourke campaigned in Mexico, and Cory Booker actually accompanied illegal immigrants entering this country.
I kid you not.
That is how you lose.
Look, there's a such thing as offering more of the same, and it's like, let's put it this way.
Let's say every day for dinner, your significant other makes you a nice piping hot bowl of spaghetti.
And you sit there and you go, God, more of the same?
More of the same?
I don't want more of the same.
So they go, I got it.
And they serve you up a piping hot bowl of dog crap.
Now all of a sudden you're like, dude, it's not the same, it's a lot worse.
I'm not gonna, it's not food, you can't even eat that, it's not food.
And the reason I use an example like dog crap instead of something like, I don't know, asparagus, is because, well, some people might like asparagus.
That metaphor would imply the Democrats are actually helping Americans in some way that's different.
Imagine if the Democrats came out and said, we want universal healthcare, universal college, but only for Americans.
Oh, okay.
That's something an American could vote for.
But the reason I use the analogy of something you can't, you literally can't eat, is because they're campaigning on behalf of people who aren't citizens of this country.
Period.
How do you convince— You know, I'll say this.
White liberals have an outgroup bias.
So maybe that makes sense.
But I'll tell you what.
I can't imagine this will be attractive to American citizens who are Latino or Hispanic and the black community.
Sure, white liberals like the virtue signaling because they have white savior complex and they think they're gonna come to the rescue of the poor brown people.
But I have to imagine the black community is gonna be like, how is this campaigning on behalf of us?
Now look.
I know right away many people will say, Tim, you can't speak on their behalf, you're wrong.
Perhaps.
I don't know anything about these other racial communities, and I'm not going to pretend to.
I'm just pointing out that while Democrats, white liberals in this country, have an outgroup bias, meaning they're more likely to hate themselves, that's not true for other communities.
According to data I pulled up before from other stories, Hispanics, the black community, and white conservatives all have an in-group bias, meaning they're biased in favor of their own communities.
White liberals aren't.
If that's true, I think it's fair to assume that this politicking they're doing is actually anti-minority community.
You're telling people in this country you're not going to support them, you're going to support people who don't live here.
Why would they vote for you?
Like, if you go to someone and say, I'll give you $10, they'll be like, alright, I'm with this guy.
If you go up to that same person and say, I'm gonna give those guys over there who aren't working $10, they're gonna be like, what, why would I, why would I work with you?
You're giving money to other people!
Let's read on.
Quote, and what that means is, surprisingly, the riskiest thing we could do is try so hard to play it safe that we continue to walk down an establishment path that has Americans believe that we're not speaking to them.
You're literally not speaking to Americans.
You're literally campaigning for people in... Okay, Beto O'Rourke literally went to Mexico.
Cory Booker literally brought non-Americans into this country.
Democrats are actually trying to stop the citizen question for the census.
And the complaints are that it would stop the political representation of non-citizens.
You think Americans believe you're not speaking to them if you continue on the... Okay, hold on.
Buttigieg says, if we continue to walk down an establishment path that has Americans believe we're not speaking to them, what do you think you're doing right now by going far left?
The New York Times had an op-ed saying, you make Americans feel like strangers in their own country.
You're quite literally not speaking to them.
What don't you understand?
The story goes on to say the large Democratic field showed off an array of far-left positions in the first Democratic primary debates in Miami last week.
A majority of the candidates expressed support for decriminalizing border crossings, providing taxpayer-funded health care to illegal immigrants, unlimited access to abortion, and drastic economic changes for the sake of preventing climate change.
Buttigieg prefaced his remark by noting that Trump supporters are not an exotic species.
No, they're Americans who felt like Hillary Clinton wasn't speaking to them because she started pushing anti-terrorism.
And so did Bernie Sanders when he said, if you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor in this country or live in a ghetto.
That's insane.
It's completely insane.
So now we can see that Buttigieg and the Democrats, well, they're likely going to deliver on their promises.
Look at this story from the New York Times.
Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren introduce racial equity plans.
You know what equity means?
Equity means racism.
I'm not exaggerating.
I'm not being hyperbolic.
There was a story the other day, I did a video about it, where a festival in Detroit was charging white people double to attend.
And they said it's because they want to bring about equity.
They said equality is when you treat everyone the same, okay?
But equity is when you make sure everything's fair.
Sure.
Well, that's all noble and good, but how do you quantify someone's wealth based on skin color?
Like, how do you determine the value of an individual or what their personal wealth is based on their skin color?
It makes no sense.
So here we can see they're buying into a racist policy that assumes you're either poor or rich because of the color of your skin.
Which is not true.
While we can see historical trends, we can absolutely talk about systemic, institutional, historical racism, you cannot, today, determine the wealth of an individual based on the color of their skin.
I kid you not, shoes tell you more about a person than the color of their skin.
In fact, I will tell you this, I think you're more likely to find, like, black or brown people with better shoes than white people.
And that's probably because they care more about, like, um... Well, actually, I should say, it's an urban culture thing.
Like, having nice shoes, pants, and dressing up, and you go to middle America, and people are gonna wear, like, a t-shirt and jeans.
I could be wrong about that.
And I'm not saying it's a racial thing.
It's more like a cultural thing with cities.
The point I'm trying to make, and probably doing it poorly, is when you look at a person, it doesn't matter what their skin color is.
Their race will tell you very little.
You don't know where they're from.
Their accent might tell you more.
Their shoes will tell you more.
Their jacket will tell you more.
If you're gonna make assumptions about someone based on their race, you're wrong.
Look at Kamala Harris.
What assumptions could you make about her based on her race?
Literally nothing!
You don't know where she's from, you don't know where she grew up, you don't know what music she's into.
But look at her clothing!
She looks well off!
She is!
I'm pretty sure she's a millionaire like the rest of them.
But it's insane to me that you have people who are now pushing overt racism.
Let me say this.
How is this even legal?
The government doesn't allow discrimination based on race.
So how could they actually push racist plans?
I wonder.
I don't want to read through this.
Kamala Harris, for one, is trying to launch a $100 billion home ownership program to reduce the disparity between black and white.
I'm curious about how affirmative action can even be upheld, considering we have civil rights law in this country.
But there you have it.
Buttigieg, you get your wish.
You're not speaking to Americans anymore, but I will say at least this.
At least the racial equity stuff speaks to Americans.
I might think it's racist and wrong, but at least it's actually speaking to Americans who are American citizens and pay taxes and not to people who are not part of this country, which I can't understand.
So I'll tell you this.
A lot of what we saw on the democratic debate stage played right into Trump's hands.
More, more support for non-citizens that makes Americans feel like strangers in their own country.
So I'll leave it there.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes and I will see you shortly.
Nancy Pelosi has slammed the far-left Democrats because they refused to vote on the border bill that would have granted humanitarian aid to these kids and these migrants.
Ocasio-Cortez fires back at Nancy Pelosi, and thus we can see what I've described as the three political parties.
You have the Republicans.
You have the centrist or moderate or corporate Democrats.
And then you have the fringe far-left nonsense that won't even back the Democrats themselves because they're clearly not in alignment with each other.
Period.
Sure, you've got some Republican defectors.
Um, Amash, whatever, leaving the Republican Party.
That's all PR nonsense.
I don't trust that guy for a second.
But now we have the ongoing battle, the internal civil war of the Democrats.
Interestingly, the far-left Twitterati are saying this is evidence that, you know, Nancy Pelosi is too old, doesn't understand the new generation, and is on her way out.
However, I think it's evidence that the younger generation is in a Twitter bubble and they don't realize that even young Americans are interested in a good economy.
And actually providing money to alleviate the problems on the border.
So let's read what's happening over the Daily Mail before we get started.
Head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
You can donate through PayPal, crypto, or physical address.
But of course, share the video if you like it because YouTube doesn't share my videos.
They don't suggest them anymore.
So I rely on you to suggest them to your friends by sharing it.
From the Daily Mail, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez fires back at Nancy Pelosi after the speaker
blasted freshman members of Congress for voting against the $4.6 billion border spending bill.
They say AOC, the firebrand rep from New York, hit back at House leadership, claiming the
way to achieve meaningful change is reaching out to public followings.
Quote, I find it strange when members act as though social media isn't important.
Ocasio-Cortez tweeted after Nancy Pelosi.
The House speaker dismissed the Twitter followings of some freshman representatives.
They set millions of dollars on fire to run TV ads so people can see their message.
AOC wrote on Twitter.
Describing how out of touch some senior members are in their alternative, expensive forms of reaching out to the public.
I haven't dialed for dollars once this year, and I have more time to do my actual job, yet we'd rather campaign like it's 08, she continued.
I gotta stop here.
I have a complaint.
I'm upset by the fact That the people who support AOC don't live in her district.
Sure, she has 4 million followers or whatever.
She's making a lot of money.
But how many of those people are from her district?
Isn't it kind of messed up that you can announce you're going to run for office in Texas, and California millionaires will send money to support you?
You're supposed to represent your district, but they're being financed by people who don't actually live in their district.
Here's a proposal.
How about, if you're going to run for office, you can only solicit donations from people who actually live in your district.
Ocasio-Cortez was propped up by the Young Turks in California.
That's why she wins.
And that is unfair to the people who live in her district, who actually want representation and aren't getting it.
Now, of course, there are people in her district who like her.
I'm not saying there aren't.
I'm saying we have a serious problem with external meddling.
How do you stop the Young Turks from supporting someone?
Well, you can't really do it, right?
You can't really do it.
So I don't know how you solve this problem, but I will say what we're seeing now with the far-left Democrats is national resources being poured in to get people in the district to elect those who normally, who otherwise would not have been supported.
It is complicated because at the end of the day, her district had to support her, had to vote for her.
But I'll tell you this.
She won through an exploit.
I've said it time and time again, AOC did not win a general election.
She won a primary because most people didn't vote in the primary.
When it came to the actual general, she only won because she's in a district that's so heavily blue, they're gonna vote for her no matter what.
As Nancy Pelosi said, in both of their districts, you could put a D on a glass of water and people would vote for it.
So would she have won without the support of external meddling?
Probably not.
She was propped up by external organizations that brought in external money to get her elected.
And I gotta say, it's kinda scary.
Think about it.
Extremely wealthy liberals or conservatives Could flood a district with money to guarantee their person wins?
Even if they don't live there?
Look, if I live somewhere, I want to know that my rep represents me.
But what if they're taking money from external sources?
How is that not election interference?
You're not allowed to do it with foreign governments.
But when it comes to a local election, like a district representation, you're allowed to take money from California?
Does not make sense, but let's read on.
So, they go on to say, during an interview with the New York Times, Pelosi criticized AOC and her freshman colleagues for voting against the humanitarian aid bill, which would have provided $3 billion in humanitarian aid.
The version of the bill that ended up passing through the House was the Republican version, after the Democrat version was rejected in the Senate.
Pelosi's comments about the freshman rep came during a New York Times interview published on Saturday, after Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and there's a lot of typos in this story, And Ayanna Pressley all voted against the bill.
Although the House Speaker was initially opposed to the Republican bill, she came around to supporting it after several reports of horrific living conditions at migrant holding facilities.
All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world, Pelosi told the Times.
But they didn't have any following.
They're four people and that's how many votes they got.
That's true.
Doesn't matter who she is or what she believes.
In Congress, you get your one vote, no matter how many followers on Twitter you have.
Ocasio-Cortez pushed back claiming the public whatever is a manifestation of public support for a movement or cause.
That public whatever is called public sentiment, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted hours after Pelosi's comments were published.
And wielding the power to shift it is how we actually achieve meaningful change in this country.
I was talking to some young progressive individuals who, while defending a lot of progressive ideology, said AOC is nuts and they don't know what's wrong with her.
That was what they told me.
Okay, it's an anecdote.
I'm not acting like it's indicative of some greater trend.
But I was talking to young people who were very, you know, like, they were, like, defending trans rights and the trans debate.
They're very much on the left.
Now, I wouldn't call them SJW types because they were reasonable.
But when we started talking about AOC, they were like, oh, don't get it started on her.
Like, what's wrong with her?
And I'm like, I don't know.
You can be a progressive and still think she's nuts because she kind of is.
Let's read on.
They go on to say that a progressive Democrat from New York said Democrats who voted along with Republicans on the
spending plan were making a huge mistake in trusting President Trump to address issues at the border.
I don't believe it was a good idea for Dems to blindly trust the Trump admin when so many kids have died in their
And I gotta say, like, it is rare for me to say this of somebody.
But she is rejecting giving money to CBP and then blaming them for the conditions.
It's psychotic circular logic.
It is absolutely insane.
Listen to this.
She said that the kids died at the border.
You know why?
It's because you rejected Trump's request for funding to secure the border, and these families brought their kids up here who got sick and died, and then you blame them for it.
How infuriating is that?
If you tie someone's hand behind their backs and then blame them for losing the fight, it makes no sense.
It is disgusting, manipulative behavior, and I genuinely believe she does it on purpose.
Now, it's possible, as Hanlin's razor suggests, never attribute to malice that which is easily explained by incompetence.
I will say this.
It's possible she wants them to look bad.
She wants to justify her nonsense positions.
So she votes no, blames the Democrats saying you can't trust them.
The Republicans have had, you know, CBP has had children die in their custody.
Yes.
When did Trump ask for the funding?
A long time ago.
Before these young kids even came to the states.
Before they even got here.
Before they died.
Imagine what would have happened if you gave the money to the president when the New York Times said you should have.
When Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal wrote about this.
Those kids may have lived.
I think it's your fault.
You rejected giving the money to provide border security, to disincentivize the trips, to provide resources, and when these kids got sick, you then pushed the blame on those you refused to assist.
I'm disgusted by AOC.
And I've had people ask me, like, do you like her?
She's very progressive.
And I'm like, no.
She is creating this problem.
Okay?
I understand she's not the root cause of the problem with mass migration.
But she is obstructing the solution.
She is doing nothing to help.
She's putting out these ridiculous statements, and she's refused to fund it.
She voted no on funding the government in line with Trump because the Democrats refused to provide funding.
It makes no sense.
How does she vote in line with Trump?
Like, okay, so at the time, Trump said I reject this government's funding bill back during the shutdown, and Ocasio-Cortez voted no as well.
Voted not to fund the government.
And so, it seems like she's a contrarian.
That's all she is.
She wants to complain about the old guard, blame Trump, and now blame the Democrats for finally agreeing to supply the resources to stop this.
She blames CBP for what is more so her fault for voting no over and over and over again.
She says... I'm not gonna read any more of this.
You know what?
That's the end of it.
And I'm so annoyed with the far-left Democrats passing the buck, refusing to solve the problems, blaming other people for what they contributed to.
I'm not going to blame the law enforcement agents who are trying to solve the problem, who I assure you aren't happy that children died.
I'm going to blame the Democrats who refused to disincentivize this, who refused to provide funding, and even to this day, AOC refuses the funding.
Fine.
Whatever.
I'm done.
I'll see you guys tomorrow at 10am on this channel.
