Trump Just ENDED Asylum For Central Americans, Major Escalation In Illegal Immigration Debate
Trump Just ENDED Asylum For Central Americans. In a major escalation of of the border situation Donald Trump's administration has moved forward with a new rule that will make those who come through a "third country" to claim asylum ineligible.Many people have questioned why asylum seekers would skip over several different countries, especially Mexico which has offered asylum in the past, to come to the US. The answer seems obvious in that the US is a prosperous and very safe nation. Many of these people risk their lives to make it to the US only to get turned back due to dubious asylum claims.While Trump has been working to disincentivize illegal immigration and secure the border, Democrats have obstructed, mocked, and refused to provide funding to deal with the crisis. Even to this day the far left democrats known as "the squad" refuse to vote in line with Democrats on border bills.Faux social justice outrage is leading the obstruction from the Democrats and resulting in an ever increasing crisis.But will Trump's move pass legal challenges?
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Donald Trump will end asylum protections for Central Americans.
This is huge.
I'm surprised we're not seeing more conversations about that.
No, let me stop.
I am not surprised this isn't the subject being talked about mostly in the media because they're too busy talking about Trump's tweets.
Now we can get into the whole 4D chess argument, whether or not Trump tweets out on purpose to manipulate the media into ignoring stories, but we have a big story right here.
The end of asylum protections for Central Americans.
Now the big argument being made is that if people are in Central America and they're claiming asylum, why don't they stay in Mexico?
In fact, Mexico had actually offered asylum to many people in one of the first migrant caravans and they turned it down.
There's even a video of them saying no, or... I can't remember, it's been a while.
But you see them on video saying they want to keep going north to America.
If you're trying to acclaim asylum because you're in fear of your life, wouldn't you stay in the place that's welcoming you and offering you, you know, asylum status?
Or refugee status?
So let's take a look from this story from the AP.
We also have some more stories about the ICE raids that didn't come.
And I want to talk about potentially Donald Trump's motivations for why he's doing the things he's doing, including announcing ICE raids as well.
as putting out these weird tweets.
So let's go through the first story.
Now, 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, and a physical address,
but of course, the best thing you can do, share this video.
YouTube de-ranks this kind of stuff.
They are sharing it.
They're suggesting it less and less and less.
So I rely on you to share these videos across social media if you think they're worth listening to.
From the Associated Press, the Trump administration on Monday
moved to end asylum protections for most Central American migrants
in a major escalation of the president's battle to tamp down the number of people
crossing the US-Mexico border, according to a new rule published in the Federal Registrar.
Register.
Asylum seekers who pass through another country first will be ineligible for asylum at the U.S.
southern border.
The rule, expected to go into effect Tuesday, also applies to children who have crossed the border alone.
The rule applies to anyone arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Sometimes asylum seekers from Africa and other continents arrive there, but most migrants arriving there are Central Americans.
So this isn't just about essential Central Americans.
This is going to end asylum for basically everyone outside of Mexico and Canada.
And I don't think we have too many Canadian people coming here for asylum.
It happens, I guess, you know, for more bigger political issues.
And then with Mexico, you could have maybe like gang related stuff.
But what we're looking at now is maybe people would fly into the U.S.
and try and claim asylum, but not walking.
So that means if you go through Mexico, Trump is cutting you off, they say.
There are some exceptions.
If someone has been trafficked, if the country the migrant passed through did not sign one of the major international treaties that govern how refugees are managed, though most Western countries have signed them, or if an asylum seeker sought protection in a country but was denied, then a migrant could still apply for U.S.
asylum.
So it's not a complete cutoff.
If you're coming from, you know, Guatemala, Honduras, whatever, and you go through Mexico, you can apply, and if they say no, you can come to America.
They say.
But the move by President Donald Trump's administration was meant to essentially end asylum protections as they are now on the southern border, reversing decades of U.S.
policy on how refugees are treated and coming as the government continues to clamp down on migrants and as the treatment of those who made it to the country is heavily criticized as inhumane.
Now before I move on, I want to stress it was Fareed Zakaria of CNN saying he hates to admit it, but Trump is right.
People are abusing asylum to get into this country.
Recently we saw Ocasio-Cortez go up against the former director of ICE, I'm not sure if
he's the current director, but she says, you signed this memo for zero tolerance that separates
families.
He goes on to say, yeah, he's had a lot of recommendations.
She says, legal asylees have committed no crime, to which he responds, if you want asylum,
you do it the legal way through a port of entry.
He's not wrong.
The people who are coming through the border illegally aren't all asylum seekers.
In fact, according to Fareed Zakaria of CNN, it is a lot of people, I don't want to say
most, majority, I don't know, but a lot of people gaming the system on purpose to try
and get into the US.
They know that when they get stopped, all they have to do is claim asylum, then they get processed and released into the US.
Trump launched the Remain in Mexico policy, and now taking it one step further, This is going to get challenged in the courts.
Full stop.
There's no way they will just allow Trump to do this.
And I gotta admit, I'm really confused by the whole conversation.
I have never been given a reason by the people on the left as to why we allow people to claim asylum when they're coming from Africa.
No, I get it.
If you fly from Africa to the United States and claim asylum, that makes sense.
You're coming straight here.
But there are people in Africa flying to Brazil and then taking trains and cars up through Mexico, going through several different countries, and then coming here to claim asylum.
It does seem like the system is being manipulated, and this is a move to stop that, to stop people exploiting the system, because you need to consider this.
If someone is in Africa and they spend thousands of dollars to fly their families over the Atlantic Ocean, Why can't they stay and save that money in Brazil?
Look, Brazil is a very beautiful country.
I love Brazil.
Rio, it's great.
So why leave?
Why leave a beautiful beach town that Americans want to come up here?
Well, our economy is way, way better.
So they're willing to spend that money to try and get here.
I think one of the biggest problems is that the Democrats routinely incentivize this behavior, promising not to work with federal authorities, not to work with ICE.
They're calling to abolish ICE.
And you now got people saying, if I can get in now, I might get grandfathered in.
So Trump is ending this asylum loophole, and it's likely going to result in a lot more people being detained.
I don't think this will disincentivize those trying to come in.
I don't.
They say, Attorney General William Barr said the United States is a generous country but is being completely overwhelmed by the burdens associated with apprehending and processing hundreds of thousands of migrants at the southern border.
This rule will decrease forum shopping by economic migrants and those who seek to exploit our asylum system to obtain entry into the United States, Barr said in a statement.
The policy is almost certain to face a legal challenge.
law allows refugees to request asylum when they arrive at the U.S., regardless of how they did so.
But there is an exception for those who have come through a country considered to be safe.
But the Immigration and Nationality Act, which governs asylum law, is vague on how a country is determined safe.
It says, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement.
The Associated Press goes on to say that, right now, we only have a safe third country deal with Canada.
But they do say under a recent agreement with Mexico, Central American countries were considering a regional compact on the issue, but nothing has been decided.
Guatemalan officials were expected in Washington on Monday, but apparently a meeting between Trump and Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales was canceled amid a court challenge in Guatemala over whether the country could agree to a safe third with the U.S.
The American Civil Liberties Union Attorney General, I'm sorry, the American Civil Liberties Union Attorney, Lee Gellert, who has litigated some of the major challenges of the Trump administration's immigration policies, said the rule was unlawful.
The rule, if upheld, would effectively eliminate asylum for those at the southern border, he said, but it is patently unlawful.
The new rule will also apply to the initial asylum screening known as a credible fear interview, at which migrants must prove they have credible fears of returning to their home country.
It applies to migrants who are arriving to the U.S., not those who are already in the country.
The Trump administration officials say the changes are meant to close the gap between the initial asylum screening that most people pass and the final decision on asylum that most people do not win.
But immigrant rights groups, religious leaders, and humanitarian groups have said the Republican administration's policies amount to a cruel and callous effort to keep immigrants out of the country.
Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador are poor countries suffering from violence.
But the question remains, if Mexico is going to offer them safe haven, why would they turn that down?
Mexico is not a bad place, there are great places, there are safe places.
I don't think, you know, look, whether or not this is legal, I believe this is probably not going to pass the courts, because there's already been an argument about this in the past, and the law is clear, people can claim asylum.
I don't think Trump has the executive authority to make this decision, as much as it might make sense to try and close these loopholes.
Now something else interesting is happening.
Trump announced, or I shouldn't say Trump announced, but there was an announcement of pending ICE raids that were going to sweep the nation.
But all of a sudden Trump said, no, no, we're not going to do this.
He said he wanted to give Democrats an opportunity to work with Republicans to find a way to close the asylum loopholes.
But then sure enough, we heard again there were going to be ICE raids.
So let's take a look at this story here from CNN from the 12th.
Ice raids are looming.
Panicked immigrants are skipping work, hiding out, and bracing for the worst.
They say weeks ago, as President Trump warned that ICE agents were preparing raids across the country, a 41-year-old housekeeper and babysitter in Miami headed to the grocery store with her daughter.
They knew they'd be staying inside and needed to stock up on supplies.
It's almost like a hurricane.
Oh, they say this.
I felt that day like it was a hurricane coming, the undocumented immigrant from Nicaragua told CNN.
Since then, the raids Trump threatened haven't happened.
But for millions of undocumented immigrants living across the U.S., the storm is still brewing.
With a new threat of immigration raids on Sunday, immigrant rights advocates and undocumented immigrants told CNN that fear in their communities is growing.
And undocumented immigrants are bracing themselves.
They're calling hotlines, afraid to go outside and unsure of where to turn.
Some are staying home from work.
Others are posting signs by doors inside their homes, telling them what to do if ICE agents show up.
They go on to say, Why would the store be empty?
mix of panic and preparation weeks ago felt like a hurricane.
There was one notable difference for the housekeeper in Miami.
The store in her neighborhood seemed eerily empty.
Already, she said, people were afraid to go out.
Why would the store be empty?
How many undocumented immigrants live in this neighborhood?
She returned home with a plan.
I said, okay, you know what?
We're going to keep the windows down, the blinds down.
I don't want any noise.
I want everybody to stay calm and try to turn off the lights in the living room.
So if they come, they don't know that we are in the house.
I know my rights.
I know that I don't have to open the door.
I know a lot of things.
But even with that, it's really scary.
Thoman shared her story with CNN, but asked to be identified by a pseudonym, Elena, out of fear she could face repercussions for speaking out.
She said she came to the United States more than two decades ago on a visa, which she overstayed as she sought asylum.
Well, that's strange.
She got a visa, came here, and then tried to get asylum once the visa expired.
I mean, I... Elena lost her case, but stayed in the United States, where she says she's built a life and grown her family.
She's terrified of being separated from them.
This is a horrible feeling, she said Thursday.
These past two days, I've been waking up in the middle of the night, my husband says.
What happened to you last night?
You started screaming in your dream.
Frightened farm workers are staying home.
Basically, the story from CNN goes on to talk about how various migrants aren't going to work.
They're all staying home.
There's questions and frantic phone calls.
It's a very sympathetic story.
But I'm curious as to the motives of saying there's going to be raids, then cancelling them, then saying there's going to be raids and cancelling them.
We have this story from the Miami Herald.
Immigrant families cowered in South Florida, but threatened ICE raids never came.
One of the arguments put forward by the left is that the detention centers are intentionally poorly run, and that these raids are intending to sow fear through these communities to deter people from coming.
I don't know the right way to disincentivize people from trying to come to the United States illegally, but I do know that we are overwhelmed.
I do know that the Democrats have repeatedly refused to provide funding to either secure the border or to provide aid to the migrant detention centers.
It makes no sense.
We can take a look at what happened with that man in Tacoma.
I'm not going to get into great detail because it's his YouTube.
This is a man who was attacking an ICE facility and what he was doing may have caused harm to the people in the facility, the migrants themselves.
When I hear a story like that, and I hear about Democrats like Ocasio-Cortez refusing to provide funding, humanitarian aid funding, I have to wonder what they're really trying to accomplish.
Are they really trying to help these migrants?
Listen.
It is not a good idea for them to come here.
They're hoping they're going to face some kind of loss.
It's like the grass is always greener.
They truly believe coming here, everything's going to be great.
And what happens?
They wander through a desert, they get sick.
And then what do they find?
The prosperity isn't there.
The grass is always greener.
I've interviewed migrants in Europe, in Athens and France who have said it was a mistake.
I shouldn't have come.
And I'm not the only one.
I'm not saying every migrant or asylee feels that way.
I'm saying that there are many people who think, America, it's going to be great.
You're going to do whatever you want.
Not realizing you're going to be destitute.
You're gonna be a vagrant.
You're gonna be wandering through the wilderness.
Let me tell you a funny story.
I have friends from Europe who came to visit, and I think I was living in,
I think it was like a friend of a friend, they came, I was in New York,
and I asked them what they wanted to do, and they said, could we take a trip down to Texas?
And I laughed, and I was like, sure, I mean, how do you wanna get there?
Like, I don't know if I have enough time to fly to Texas.
And they're like, why don't we just drive?
And I'm like, Texas is a 24-hour drive from New York.
And they didn't realize it.
And I kid you not, I kid you not, I've met people who don't realize this.
Look, in Europe, the countries are akin to our states.
So, you can be in France and, like, take two hours to drive to the UK, a different country, depending on where you are.
So, I had people who came to the U.S., had never been here before, and didn't realize Texas was like 1,600 miles from New York.
They really thought it was gonna be, like, a couple hundred miles, and you just drive there.
They thought it was much more condensed, like Europe would be.
So I think it's also a big possibility that a lot of these people who are coming from, say, Central America, where you have smaller countries, think they're going to come to the U.S.
and it's going to be as small as their country.
Now, I get it.
People can realize.
America's a big place.
But I'd be willing to bet a lot of people don't realize that.
You walk through a desert for hundreds of miles, you're in the wilderness.
You're not going to find a city.
These people flee the cities on the border because they don't want to get apprehended, and then they end up in terrible conditions.
Now look, I get it.
If you really do need asylum in your country, you are under attack.
There's a gang, some criminal organization, someone's trying to cause you harm for who you are.
Well, then you can leave your Central American country coming up to Mexico, right?
Wouldn't you be safe in Mexico?
I guess the bigger problem is maybe the U.S.
is more tolerant than these other nations, and that even in Mexico, you face threats.
Now, for the most part, Mexico is kind of a nice place.
Like, there are dangerous parts of Mexico.
Of course, there are dangerous parts of the United States.
To act like we don't have those, we don't have dangerous, you know, gang territory in our country, too?
Whatever we need to do to disincentivize the illegal immigrants from coming here, it needs to be done, right?
Trump's first plan was just build a border wall.
Well, now we're beyond that because they didn't want to fund border security.
Even though they did it 10 years ago, they didn't want to do it now.
Trump even walked back and said, let's just do select fencing.
Now they won't fund the facilities.
Now they won't provide funding for humanitarian aid.
It seems like there is just no solution with Democrats, so long as they're in the House.
Now, of course, the Republicans weren't able to get a lot of things done as well when they controlled every branch of government.
But we'll see what happens in 2018, because I will say this.
There's a possibility, or I should say a lot of people have pointed out.
This is excellent campaigning for Trump and the Democrats.
Trump can point the finger and say, look, they're blocking us.
Vote them out.
And the Democrats then turn around and say, look how awful these conditions are.
It's Trump's fault.
Well, I can't blame Trump for the fact that migrants are coming here.
I don't believe there's a grand conspiracy.
And I'm going to put on the Democrats for not providing the funding.
And Trump is going to ride that into 2020.
There's a couple more stories I want to go over, though.
For one, It's not just what we're seeing here in the U.S.
This story from Tampa, ABC.
Mexican president gets little backlash for migrant crackdown, they say.
Mexican police, soldiers, and National Guard are raiding hotels, buses, and trains to round up migrants, creating scenes of weeping Central American mothers piled into police vans along with their children and overflowing detention centers with deplorable conditions.
The conditions in Mexico are substantially worse and the same problem is happening there.
So I don't know what the solution is.
You know what?
Let me quote Bernie Sanders here to give you my thoughts on what should be done.
When asked if we should have open borders, Bernie said, no.
There are too many poor people in this world.
My God, they would all come here and we can't help.
Something to the effect of, I'm paraphrasing.
We can't help them.
That was Bernie Sanders only a couple months ago, okay?
I'm gonna stop and say, I agree with Bernie Sanders.
That's who I'm going to follow into this argument.
I don't care for Trump.
I don't care what his plan is.
Let's just say, Bernie Sanders, now I want you to come and claim it's a right-wing position, please.
I'm deferring to Bernie to figure out how to deal with the migrant crisis, and he's saying no open borders.
All right, let's get some funding.
Let's get this stuff, this problem fixed, right?
I do not like the stories of suffering migrants.
But I don't like the idea that they think they can come here and find this better life.
It's not really there.
There's a better life when your life is being threatened.
But this idea that we can just bring in everybody and share and like... You know what, man?
It's like they don't seem to understand.
It's a really simple analogy.
If you have ten pizzas and you have a hundred friends, okay?
You can divide up those pizzas among those hundred friends.
Uh, well, let's assume that 10 pizzas are each 10 slices.
I guess it's a silly, you know, argument.
So everybody gets a slice.
What happens then when 100 people, you know, or even 10 more people on the other side say, oh, they have pizza, I want pizza.
We don't have pizza.
So they come for a better life.
Who gives up their pizza for them?
Look, I understand economics is much more complicated than that, but you have to recognize that resources are finite and the economy can only grow at a certain pace, and we absolutely, for one, from an environmental standpoint, don't want the U.S.
economy rapidly expanding.
A lot of people do, but we need to control the economy and let market forces clean the environment.
Like, we need electric cars, we need renewable energy, And if we just bring in a ton more people, and they all start buying gas, gas goes up, more CO2, it's bad for the environment, plus they're not vaccinated, there are a ton of problems with undocumented immigration.
The least of which...
I should say the most important problem, first and foremost, is they're risking their lives and they're not going to get what they think they're going to get.
I have a couple more points I want to make before we wrap the story up.
This one from the Atlanta Black Star, why no one is discussing the rise in African migrants piled at the US-Mexico border.
This story from the 14th highlights How there are people coming from Congo, Eritrea, Somalia, and Sudan.
Now they say escaping violence in their home nations and emerging in South America by sea, air, and foot.
No, not by foot.
No one is walking across the ocean.
And making the dangerous journey through Colombia and Panama en route to America.
You want to make an argument for Central Americans coming to the U.S.
through Mexico?
I'm listening.
But I do not see an argument for people coming from Eritrea all through Africa, flying to Brazil, and then coming up to South America and Central America.
That is ridiculous and expensive and makes no sense.
Lastly, we have this story.
There was an extreme incident, which I don't want to get into too much detail about.
You can find it on my second channel and this channel from the other day.
A man did something very dangerous, to say the least.
I made reference to it earlier.
It's only a day or so later, and protesters are already there again, as if nothing happened.
Where is the media talking about?
These issues are only getting worse.
The media won't talk about the problems.
They called it a manufactured crisis.
The Democrats laughed At the idea it was a crisis and said no, and now here we are.
It's worse than it's been in over a decade, and it's not going to get better, and people are going to lose their lives.
So to wrap up, main point, main takeaway, Trump is moving to end asylum for Central Americans and many others, many others from other countries.
Let me know what you think about this.
I'm going to assume that most moderates, conservatives, and even center-left, like old-school Democrat types are going to be like, yes!
Look, I've talked to people who voted for Barack Obama twice recently, like these are friends of mine, and I said, what do you think about what's going on with the migrant crisis?
And they said, you know, they mostly said they don't understand why people come from countries in Africa and South America and then try and claim asylum in America instead of any of these other countries.
And I'm like, that's a great point.
I wonder why too.
America's great.
It's a simple answer.
They'd rather come here.
Who wouldn't?
Unfortunately, it's not real asylum.
If you're just trying to get a better job and make more money, that is not asylum, and we reserve asylum for those who truly need it.
Comment below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
Stick around.
The next segment will be YouTube.com slash TimCastNews at 6 p.m., and I will see you all there.
4D chess.
It's what they always say about Trump when he seemingly does something wrong but then eventually it works out and the idea is that he's planned this so far in advance that it's actually all a part of his plan.
I don't know if I believe that.
I certainly think sometimes the man is strategic and I think you'd be a fool to underestimate him.
A lot of people, you know, I hear this all the time on the left that they say he's an idiot.
You get a lot of people on the right saying he's a genius and I'm like, look, the guy's a dude.
Okay, he's a person, he's been successful, and he has a plan.
He doesn't have to be the smartest person in the world, he could be of average intelligence, and sometimes he's going to do things on purpose.
We don't know what those things are, and sometimes he makes mistakes.
Did he say Covfefe on purpose?
I don't know!
I don't think so, but I will say this.
Oftentimes, when he tweets, it distracts the media from some other story, allowing him to kind of pass, you know, to pull some action off without scrutiny.
And this has been highlighted by many people, even in the media, that he's basically playing them like puppets.
Now, I'll say this.
In the 2016 election, Trump got what, like $5 billion worth of free press?
So I'd have to imagine that, to a certain extent, he does these things on purpose.
Now, to the story!
From the hill, Trump doubles down after telling Democratic Congresswomen to go back to their countries.
There's a lot to break down.
For one, I got ratioed hard, I lost like 200 followers, when I criticized Trump over this tweet because I thought it was just a bad tweet, okay?
It was stupid.
But here's the thing.
It may have just accidentally or on purpose, it worked out for him.
And so now I'm hearing from Trump supporters, you don't understand, this is on purpose, and there literally is a good reason why.
So, I made two videos.
I talked about Trump's tweet, and I talked about an internal Democrat poll showing that Ocasio-Cortez, I'll just pull it up, is really, really bad for the Democrats.
So here's the thing.
Trump puts out this- actually before we get into how this all plays together and whether or not- look let me say this.
And this is why Trump just made that tweet.
So here's the thing.
Trump puts out this, actually, before we get into how this all plays together and whether
or not, look, let me say this, whether or not it was on purpose, I think in the end,
this will greatly benefit Trump and the Republicans.
Whether you don't like him, like the left already thinks he's racist, the right likes him no matter what, so there's a good reason to believe that it was intentional.
But before we get into all that, head over to TimCast.com slashed in it if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, and a physical address, but of course, You can just share this video if you think it's worth people hearing because YouTube doesn't suggest my videos the same way they used to.
They still sometimes, but I rely on you for word of mouth.
So here's the thing.
I will read through some of how he responded.
Trump tweeted out that you've got these progressive congresswomen who should go back to their home.
Their home countries are failing.
They should go back, fix it, and then come back here and tell us like how it went or whatever and show us how it's done.
And it was criticized heavily, even by me, because the congresswomen he's referring to, three of them are born in America.
Ilhan Omar is from Somalia, so it could just be that he didn't know that he made a mistake.
Fine, whatever.
But here's the thing.
For the longest time, well, for the past several weeks, the Democrats have been fighting, and Nancy Pelosi has been slamming Ocasio-Cortez.
To the average voter, this shows that the Democratic Party is resisting the far left.
Something I liked.
Something I've praised repeatedly in videos.
Like, yes, finally, the Democrats pushing back against these wackos.
And then all of a sudden Trump comes out and he makes this really bad tweet.
Oh, I think it's bad.
You can like it, whatever.
I think it was a bad tweet.
I think it was stupid.
But, here's the thing.
In this poll, we can see that people really, really detest Ocasio-Cortez.
And that means if Democrats are pushing back against her, people are going to like Nancy Pelosi.
When Trump tweeted, Pelosi immediately came out in defense of Ocasio-Cortez calling Trump a racist, and Trump then forced Pelosi and AOC back into the same camp.
Immediately, we then see, like the global editor, the opinion editor of the Washington Post say, Nancy Pelosi's enabling Trump, and I have no idea what's going on.
It's all weird.
But here's what I'll say.
In this poll we saw, what is it we say?
Like, Ocasio-Cortez is recognized by 74% of voters, but only 22% had a favorable view.
What Trump just did was make Nancy Pelosi defend Ocasio-Cortez so that she and Ocasio-Cortez are one in the same.
They're one group.
I'm not saying it was intentional.
I am not making a 4D chess argument.
A lot of people are.
I think it's silly to assume Trump is always on point with strategy.
I guess if you're a Trump supporter, then you'll probably believe he's doing this stuff on purpose and it makes sense.
Because he's even doubled down now.
In the end.
Swing voters who aren't paying attention will just see the Democrats unified around Ocasio-Cortez and be like, we really don't like her.
The Democrats are bad.
If Pelosi and the more moderate Democrats were pushing back on Ocasio-Cortez, they'd be like, good, good, good.
I like this.
They're fighting back, but now they're unified.
So whether or not you think Trump did it on purpose, I think relies on whether or not you support or oppose him.
Now, here's the thing.
When Trump puts out this tweet, I criticized it on Twitter.
But, you can see from that, Trump supporters don't care.
They don't care.
In fact, most of the responses were people saying, I agree with the president.
And it's like, for me, it's like, yeah, but you recognize these women are from America, right?
They were born in, like, Michigan and Ohio.
It's one woman who wasn't from here.
But I understand the sentiment.
About people whose countries are collapsing so they leave and it makes the country worse, right?
You got to think about how much it costs to fly from Congo to Angola.
They're traveling from Congo to Angola flying to Brazil.
It's going to cost thousands of dollars to get your family across and then traveling all the way up.
That's a lot of money.
And so this is something that's akin to what they call the brain drain, when the people of means flee the country instead of putting the money back into the economy.
It's bad for the economy.
So I understand that sentiment, right?
I just think Trump was being crass and crude, but then it was brought up to me because I did a video on this and a video on that.
Dude, this is going to work out really well for Republicans.
I think that's, I'm like, yeah, that's true, right?
In the end, you are going to force swing voters to view Nancy Pelosi and AOC as one in the same, as one group as cohorts.
Well, Trump doubled down, so let's see what he said.
President Trump on Sunday night doubled down amid a growing backlash over his earlier tweets telling a group of Democratic congressmen that they should go back to the countries that they came from.
It's a little bit more nuanced than that, but that's what they're saying.
So sad to see the Democrats sticking up for people who speak so badly of our country and who, in addition, hate Israel with a true and unbridled passion.
Whenever confronted, they call their adversaries, including Nancy Pelosi, racist, Trump said in a pair of tweets.
They're discussing language and the many terrible things they say about the United States must not be allowed to go unchallenged.
If the Democrat Party wants to continue to condone such disgraceful behavior, then we look even more forward to seeing you at the ballot box in 2020.
And that's the tweet following up that I think, wow, I mean, you know, maybe he tweeted this on purpose.
Maybe like, you know, it's like I was saying, Trump can distract the media and change the narrative, and he's an expert at controlling the narrative.
And this also comes into something I've talked about before, about counterintuitive solutions.
How do you make sure that the Democrat Party, I'm quoting Trump, condones disgraceful behavior when the leader of the party
in the House, at least, one of the most prominent members, is pushing back against the
worst behavior.
You make her defend it and point at you.
See what he says?
They call everyone racist.
Now Trump has put out this tweet, been smeared, and then used that smear to show you how they're
all unified.
So basically, you have Ocasio-Cortez attacking Nancy Pelosi, insinuating she's racist, and
Trump wants to make sure the ire is directed at him so that he can point at the Democrats
as being unreasonable.
And then when Nancy Pelosi came out and called Trump racist, he got it.
So again, you know what?
We could sit here all day and believe that Trump is some idiot savant and he slips on a banana peel but accidentally does a backflip and lands perfectly, or we can say that maybe he thought about how to shift the narrative because he's consistently done it really, really well.
I think the 4D chess thing is a silly argument, right?
I understand the sentiment.
It's not like he's literally got this crazy map of what's going on.
But it's not hard to see that Trump knows what he's doing when it comes to making the press believe what he wants.
And that's one of the strongest, one of his strengths in the 2016 election.
How he was able to win.
Just controversy after controversy.
And one of the points that I've heard a lot That when you had, what Trump was doing to the other candidates, he was saying, you know, like, Lion Ted, you know, he's, what does he call him, Sleepy Joe?
Is he Sleepy Joe?
I don't know.
He's got, you know, low energy.
He finds a fault, and he targets it, and he brands you with it.
But Trump had so many controversies, there was not one thing you can brand him with.
And that made it hard.
So I think of it like this.
You have a balloon, right?
And one needle.
That needle is that branding, that negative branding to smear someone.
And it pops the balloon.
But what if you have a stack of needles?
The balloon will just bounce on it and bounce away because the force is being broken up over a larger surface and the needles won't have the force to pop the balloon.
It's like a science experiment they would do in grade school where they have a bed of nails and the balloons would sit on it with no problem but a single nail would pop it.
Trump has had so many gaffes in 2016, so many controversies, voters just, none of them sank.
Like, none of them went, you know, and worked.
So now we can see, I feel like I've made the point, you know, the left hates Trump no matter what.
Like, Trump could tweet something like he did, I'll criticize, there were other Republicans too, this is a funny thing, like, you know, Matt Walsh from the Daily Wire criticized him.
Uh, Carol Roth, I don't know if she's, uh, uh, Republican, I don't know.
But there were more, like, conservative figures who criticized him, and there were moderate and many le- Like, a lot of people criticized the tweet!
But I don't think, uh, you know, I think when it comes to what Trump was doing, and why he was doing it, we could say, yeah, like I mentioned, he slipped on a banana peel and did a backflip, which sounds absurd, like, whoa, wow, good for him, he accidentally just benefited himself.
Or he knew that he needs to make sure the Democrats are unified around Ocasio-Cortez, so I'll stress, In swing states, in this poll, they show that Ocasio-Cortez is one of the most recognizable faces.
They say she's a definitional face for the party with a crucial group of swing voters.
Trump wants to make sure she remains defended, front and center.
That way, moderate people will look at her and be like, I don't, you know, she's nuts.
Because the other thing too is they really hate socialism.
Socialism is toxic to these voters.
So I guess the question is, Trump and a gaffe tweet, you know, I say it's a gaffe because the women are from America, slammed by the left as racist once again, which many people probably have brushed off at this point like, oh, I heard that before, versus overt socialism.
And I think it's fair to point out Trump's social media strategy has been pretty effective.
So whether or not you think it's 4D chess, I don't know.
I'll leave that up to you, but I find the whole thing interesting.
And I kind of, you know, there's other stories to do, but I kind of had to do like a follow-up because, like I mentioned, I did a video on each of these subjects and didn't realize kind of, you know, putting two and two together.
But I'll leave it there.
Let me know what you think.
Comment below.
The next segment will be at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out and I will see you all then.
The New York Times has just published some data, and boy is it bad news for Democrats.
See, moderates like myself are looking for common sense policies that will actually move the country forward, and we absolutely do not like identitarianism.
That is wokeness, okay?
The woke left is dominating the narrative.
Now, here's the big problem for Democrats.
One of their strategies, and they go into great detail, and it is very, Frustratingly, I don't know, dull.
I'm not going to read through it.
But they basically say Democrats are hoping to ignite new voters, people who didn't register, who aren't voters.
They need to get those new voters with progressive policies.
You'll see people like Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks say this is a progressive nation or something to that effect, and that if we could only get these people to vote, we would win.
However, As I've pointed out, if the Democrats sacrifice the center in favor of progressives on the far left, the center might actually go to Trump.
These are swing voters.
The issue isn't whether or not you can get new votes, it's whether or not you can take votes away from your opponent and gain new votes.
For every moderate they lose and progressive they gain, they stay at net zero, and the Republicans might slowly be picking up those moderates.
It is a bad play.
But here's where it gets actually really bad for the Democrats.
Excuse me.
The largest group, at least in some areas, of non-voters or people who can be activated are white and working class.
So what do you think that means when the identitarian rhetoric is going full steam ahead?
When Twitter, Facebook, all these social networks are publishing this ridiculous anti-white identitarianism?
For one, it's going to freak out a bunch of middle Americans.
But now we see people putting up Mexican flags at ICE facilities.
We see rhetoric about giving illegal immigrants health care.
I assure you, the white working class of this country, what do they call it?
I think Vox called it a white lash.
Don't be surprised when you activate a sleeping giant.
Now they like to claim that's what they're doing.
They literally have activist groups called sleeping giants.
Sorry, the data shows otherwise.
Let's take a look.
First, I think this graph isn't necessarily as relevant.
It shows that in the Rust Belt, Trump's approval rating versus turnout is stable.
But let's move on, because I don't think... This whole section, I gotta admit, it's like nails on a chalkboard trying to read through it.
It's just very, very... Come on, New York Times, do better.
So here we have a graph that says turnout among registered voters in 2018 by demographic groups.
Turnout of white and older registered voters remained higher than for non-white and younger voters.
And just by that, they're hoping that activating non-white voters, you can see you've got black,
hispanic, etc.
They can then beat the white demographic.
But regardless of what they're hoping to do, the first thing to point out, I think this
country is what, 66% white?
So if you, if you, look, if every white person voted a voting age, that's it.
End of story.
It's whatever they want.
So it's a huge problem for the Democrats to actually make a play based on not liking white
Like, you shouldn't play race into this at all.
Okay?
Look, Identitarianism separates people by race, and most people don't like that.
It is a fringe-woke Twitterati that is obsessed with, like, putting everyone in neat little boxes.
The average person just wants to live their life, I assure you.
So what do you think happens then when you target the biggest voting demographic and insult them?
You'll probably lose, but we'll see.
There's some really interesting data pertaining to what happened in the midterms and what's happening now, excuse me, in what happened in 2016, 2018, and what's going to happen now.
So check this out.
Trump's approval rating by vote history and age.
The older someone is, the more likely they are to support Trump.
We can see that those who voted in 2018 who are older, Still more likely to vote Trump.
And those who didn't vote in 2018 were always more likely to support Trump, but still more likely to support Trump today.
Not the highest.
The highest approval rating comes from the age demographic around 45 to 55.
So I don't think this is necessarily that important.
It's not going to show you who's going to win or lose, but let's move on.
They, uh, let's skip, let's skip all the written stuff.
It's kind of boring.
This is where it gets really interesting because we can see some insights into why the Democrats won the house and what this will mean in 2020.
And it is again, bad news for Democrats.
Trump approval rating among registered voters.
The president's approval rating was highest among those who voted in 2016, but stayed home in 2018.
These are likely people who didn't know or care about midterms.
My understanding is that most people don't care for midterms.
They're focused on, like, the presidential election for the most part.
Most people, or a lot of people, don't even vote in local elections.
But check this out.
For the people who voted in 2016 and 2018, their approval of the president is 47%.
Now, the reason that's probably true is because that's getting a mix of Trump supporter voters, Hillary voters, and Democrat voters in the midterms.
So it'll have Trump a little bit below 50.
Check this out.
Voted in 2016 and not 2018.
50% approval rating.
Now this makes sense.
In 2016 you had, you know, half the country against Trump, half for.
But the midterms swung for the Democrats.
So this shows us that people who didn't vote in 2018, their approval rating?
50%.
Otherwise, if they voted, the Democrats wouldn't have won.
Now, here's the inverse.
People who voted in 2018 and not 2016, that's the midterms and not the presidential election.
If people voted, and the approval rating is 36%, if people voted and they don't like Trump in 2016, he may have lost.
The Democrats won the House because these people voted, which is why, in the end, we are looking at record voter turnout for 2020.
It's going to be crazy.
Now, people who didn't vote at all hold a 41% approval rating for the president.
But let's move on to the more, I guess, pressing and more dangerous issues that it's going to hit the Democrats, not the Republicans.
They say the president's approval ratings were worse among non-registered voters.
So that's interesting.
But if people aren't registered to vote, they might not vote again.
But let's skip over this.
It's not as important as this chart right here.
Demographic composition of voters and non-voters.
In northern battleground states, most non-voters are working class whites.
Non-voters are disproportionately non-white in the Sun Belt.
So we can see here.
60% of unregistered voters are whites with no degree, working class whites.
That means if you activate these people, if you have people who are registered but didn't vote, and you get them out to vote, they're more likely to be white and with no degree.
That demographic typically supports Trump, but I'll tell you this, regardless, White college grads tend to be, like, progressive and woke.
Not always, but tends to be.
The white working class are not going to enjoy being smeared and slammed on and hearing about their healthcare and their jobs being shipped overseas.
It's one of the reasons Trump won, period.
Now, of those who voted in 2018, only 48% were whites with no degree.
And they were a huge factor for Trump.
Which means... Look, the voted in 2018 has... So, let's look at it this way.
Both sides need to gain votes.
The white working class is the biggest demographic among registered non-voters.
That means there is a huge opportunity for Republicans to grab those who would likely support them.
But unfortunately for the left, they only have a 32% pool to grab from of those who would likely vote for them.
Now, these numbers aren't one for one.
I'm not saying only white people vote Republican.
That's not the point.
I'm saying it's a bigger pool to attract new voters.
Now, of course, when it comes to unregistered, they have about 40% of the pool is theirs for the taking.
But with Trump already having won 2016, it looks like overall bad news.
Now, in the Sunbelt, things are different.
And this could be interesting.
To clarify, they say the northern battleground states include Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, and New Hampshire.
And the Sun Belt is Florida, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia.
Here's the thing.
Hillary Clinton lost because she couldn't hold what's called the Blue Wall.
Okay?
It's the northern battleground states.
She wasn't supposed to lose them.
She wasn't supposed to lose... She lost Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania.
That was absurd that she lost them.
Well, she didn't do what she needed to do.
Trump won.
When you realize that Trump has more to gain in those states that got him the victory, it is extremely bad news for the Democrats.
Now, I will say there is some bad news for Republicans in that Florida is a major player in whether or not the president's going to win.
And with this huge pool of typically liberal-leaning voters, it's bad news for Republicans.
So Republicans really got to step up their game.
But in the end, it looks like everything is... The key states that... Okay, let me clarify.
The blue wall states that Trump lost, I'm sorry that he won, were thin, thin margins.
It was a close call.
And with winner-take-all states, you win, I don't know which ones are which, but you get all the votes.
So I think Trump won one state by only a few thousand votes.
That's dangerous.
That's dangling on the precipice there.
With this opportunity for grabbing new voters, ultimately bad news for Democrats.
So I'll stress, the point the New York Times is making, Is that while Democrats typically gain from a broad electorate, that is not assured in the Trump era.
Meaning, this, it's just, I'm not going to say it's the end of the world for Democrats, but this should be a serious warning for Democrats.
So check this out.
Trump's ratings are stronger in northern battleground states than the Sun Belt and elsewhere among non-voters.
So let's play the good news and the bad news part.
Northern battleground states, Trump needs to win those and he almost lost them.
Sunbelt.
He needs to win these two.
And Florida and Georgia are, you know, he could lose them and that could be a big deal.
I don't know what Georgia typically votes, blue or red, but Florida could go either way.
I think that that's the gist of it.
So let's see their conclusion here and we'll wrap things up.
He writes, The danger for Democrats is that higher turnout would do little to help them in the Electoral College if it did not improve their position in the crucial Midwestern battlegrounds.
Higher turnout could even help the President there, where an outsized number of white working-class voters who backed the President stayed home in 2018, potentially creating a larger split between the national vote and the Electoral College in 2020 than in 2016.
There's nothing about the composition of non-voters that means a higher turnout election would invariably make it easier for Democrats to win the presidency or for Republicans to keep it.
But I'll say this.
It is... Look.
If Democrats are typically supposed to gain from this, you know, in broader turnout, and now that's not the case, that is an advantage they're losing.
While he's saying it's not going to go one way or the other, the data is just what we're seeing, I think it's fair to point out Trump definitely is at a disadvantage in the Sun Belt, but a huge advantage in the Northern Battleground.
I think this is leaning in favor of Trump.
Bad news for Democrats.
But just because, okay, so let me rephrase this to try and avoid hyperbole and like, I don't know, bias.
I'm not saying the Democrats are guaranteed to lose.
I'm not saying that this is them like, you know, the end is nigh and, you know, raise your signs.
I'm saying this is a little bit bad news because the Democrats think they can ignite new voters to secure their base.
And they're saying right now, that's not the case.
Your plan isn't going to work.
Anyway, stick around.
More stories to come in a next story at 4 p.m.
Billionaire tech investor has called on the FBI and the CIA to investigate Google to see whether or not they have been infiltrated by Chinese intelligence.
And this may be one of the wackiest stories ever.
Now, I say wacky not to imply Peter Thiel is wrong.
I think he's a very smart guy.
It's just, you know, here's the thing.
These kinds of stories, life is so boring, we never hear about fun and exciting stuff.
Like, I kid you not, every day it's grains of sand, right?
There's never some big moment, some shot heard around the world type incident.
The other day we had one, I'm not going to get into that news, kind of, but for the most part it's like, what, really?
Like are we talking like action movie, like 90s action movie, Chinese spies infiltrating Google?
But anyway, I'm not trying to rag on Peter Thiel.
I'm just saying, I always try to take these stories with a grain of salt, because it's like, Fox News has been wrong in the past, as have many others, and this one, I guess they're just quoting Peter Thiel, so let's not act like it's real, let's see what Peter Thiel has to say.
Now, before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There is a monthly PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, just share this video because I really do rely on word of mouth now that YouTube has kind of deranked my channel and others.
But let's read what Peter Thiel has to say.
Fox News reports.
Billionaire tech investor Peter Thiel on Sunday called for the FBI and CIA to investigate whether Chinese intelligence had infiltrated Google, according to a report.
Thiel, who supported Trump in 2016 and Facebook board member, made the comments during a speech at the National Conservatism Conference in Washington.
He said the FBI and CIA needed to ask Google three questions to determine if the tech giant had been compromised by Chinese intelligence, Axios reported.
1.
How many foreign intelligence agencies have infiltrated your Manhattan Project for AI?
Does Google's senior management consider itself to have been thoroughly infiltrated by Chinese intelligence?
Teal then slammed Google for its decision to work with the Chinese military while refusing to renew a contract with the U.S.
Department of Defense.
Number three, is it because they consider themselves to be so thoroughly infiltrated that they have engaged in the seemingly treasonous decision to work with the Chinese military and not with the U.S.
military, Teal said.
Google has faced criticism over its work on a censored search engine, Project Dragonfly, that would allow it to return to China after leaving in 2010 over human rights concerns.
The company dropped the project after members of the company's privacy team raised complaints.
Other reports said that Google decided not to renew its contract for Project Maven, a controversial military program that uses AI to improve drone targeting, which expired earlier this year.
Google did not immediately respond to Fox News' request for comment.
So there's some other stories I want to go through here.
We've got looming regulation.
And the reason I start with this story with Peter Thiel is because it may be the most extreme and the most worthy of a call for regulation.
Now we can have our culture war bickering about left, right, bias, etc.
And I think it's important to highlight the citizens of this country should have a chance to have their voice heard.
Think about what's happening right now with the bias against conservatives.
Yes, it exists.
Don't believe- Like, okay, look, you know what?
Don't believe me.
Right?
Don't believe- Google search it.
My god, there are stories going on forever.
And it was left-wing media sources that broke the story.
We live in some kind of parallel nightmare reality where the media is just pumping out trash all day and night.
Man, and you know what?
For the most part, it's not like the New York Times, although they're all starting to do this.
It's really, really mind-numbing.
Here's the point.
Google is biased against conservatives.
Google also turned down a U.S.
contract and picked up a Chinese military contract.
Now, I'm not saying they can't do it, but think about this.
One of the most powerful corporations in the world, my understanding is they're headquartered in Ireland.
We have to take this seriously.
National security is a serious issue.
What's disconcerting is that we've come to a point now where we are not a global society, but we have international interests which can spark chaos and conflict between governmental interests, okay?
Listen, it would be one thing if we had a globalist utopia where, you know, there was open borders across the- you just go wherever you want, there was one world government.
Let's say that existed.
And then Google was like, we're gonna go build this thing in China.
You'd be like, I don't care.
It's like Google saying they want to build something in Michigan instead of California.
It's like all part of the US.
That's not the case.
We do not live in a global society utopia.
We live in a world with conflicting interests and people who want to kill other people because they don't want you to take their stuff.
China is at odds with us economically, as is Russia.
You've got the NATO forces, you've got BRICS nations, there's competing economic interests.
And Google, which was started in the US, I'm pretty sure, it's hard to know for sure how these things operate, is now working with China.
If Google does contracts with China using their resources, they get through America.
So think about it.
They make money from us when we use their services.
Okay, they're making money right now from you watching ads on my YouTube channel.
I make most of the money, so I kind of like it, but think about it.
40% of that revenue goes to Google.
Google then allocates funds towards building projects for China.
At some point, the U.S.
government is going to say, full stop, what are you doing?
You are taking funds from our citizens and supplying it to our adversaries.
Now, where the line gets drawn, hey, I don't know, but I will say this.
If Google starts working with China in a capacity that is a threat to the US, you will see some dramatic action against Google.
And what will Google do?
Will Google side with China?
You know, that's where things get really scary.
So anyway, I digress.
I want to go over this too.
There's a lot of news in the regulation space.
With what Peter Thiel is saying, rather shocking, we have a story.
Google, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook face off with Congress this week.
The hearings will be on antitrust and Facebook's upcoming Libra cryptocurrency, but they're really about holding Silicon Valley to account.
Here's the scary thing.
These social media companies, these tech giants, they're authoritarian systems.
A business operates under an authoritarian model.
Government doesn't.
But think about it this way.
When you're on Twitter, do you get to vote for the rules?
Of course not.
Take it or leave it, they say.
Imagine if in the U.S.
you had no say in how the government was run.
And they said, but hey, if you don't like it, you can leave.
Well, you could leave.
But that's basically the problem.
Imagine then, you're in the U.S.
They've taken over every bit of land.
They have authority over literally everything.
And they say, if you don't like it, you can leave.
But where?
The ocean?
There's countries everywhere, right?
This is the problem with powers, the centralization of power.
In the U.S., we do get a say.
It's not perfect.
It's a republic.
We elect representatives who then, you know, go and pass laws and stuff.
On social media, you don't have that.
Excuse me.
So when it comes to Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, they will pass rules that you didn't agree to, they will shut you down whether you agree or not, and they're taking over the digital space one by one.
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, they dominate public discourse.
And you have Amazon, Apple, and Google dominating like merchant, like app stores,
and Amazon dominating merchandising markets.
You've got Amazon popping up.
I'm sorry, because Amazon is becoming so prominent, you're getting all these shops shutting down.
It's easier to order on Amazon than it is to go to the local grocery store.
Well, not a grocery store, but like a department store.
So, you know, I've got a Walgreens by me.
Should I go out of my way and go make my way to Walgreens, take time?
Or go on the computer, type in a few words, press enter, and then the next day it's there.
It is so much faster just to let Amazon take care of it.
But there's a problem in that.
These big tech giants are taking over the commons.
The marketplace, the water cooler, our right to discourse, our ability to purchase things are being controlled by authoritarian systems that we don't have a say in.
And that's when antitrust has to come in and regulation.
But I'll say one more thing.
There is an advantage to having massive centralized systems.
YouTube, for instance, could not exist without subsidy from Google.
Google loses money on YouTube.
The way they dominated the video space is by giving a cut of ad revenue to the users.
Think about it.
It doesn't cost me a dime to upload a video to YouTube.
YouTube hosts those videos for free.
Well, that doesn't make sense.
How does that work?
Any other traditional system would require me to pay money for server space, but with YouTube it doesn't.
It's because YouTube is subsidized.
Think about this.
Not only do I not pay Google, they give me a cut of the ads that appear on the videos.
So it is a loss for YouTube.
They're making money.
It's a lot of money they're making, but they're losing more.
So without, you know, if Google would be broken up, YouTube might not survive.
So think about this.
Let's say Google crosses the line and becomes a threat to the U.S.
and the U.S.
says, we're going to break you up.
They can say, OK, well, we're still centralized in China, giving us a massive technological and economic advantage.
Why would Google want to leave then if they're making all their money there?
The business has no allegiance to this country.
And that's where things get scary.
When we're looking at massive multinational corporations that are unaccountable.
That hold money overseas.
They don't care what the US government says.
Take a look at Mark Zuckerberg.
I'll give you a really good example of how dangerous things can get.
Canada subpoenas.
Mark Zuckerberg and I think Sheryl Sandberg.
They don't show up.
They don't care.
Think about what happens then when you get high-profile Google executives who say, you know what?
We don't care about the US anymore.
We make more money in other markets, and they leave and stop showing up.
I don't know if he's being facetious when he's like, are you infiltrated by China?
What are you doing?
You know what I mean?
Like, hey, why would you do that deal?
Or if he's legitimately like, you're doing a Chinese military deal and you're turning down an American deal.
Also, I want to add one last, so I'll end that point.
I would take Peter Thiel's statements, you know, with a grain of salt, but don't throw them out, right?
It's interesting.
He's smart.
He knows things, okay?
He's, I'm pretty sure he's like Bilderberg meetings and stuff like this, but let me add one more thing.
Google is now working with China, and it's controversial, but Google shuts down a Google employees protest project, I think it was Maven or whatever.
So you've got these social justice warriors negatively impacting our government, while ignoring what Google does in other countries.
Isn't that convenient?
That the Russians and whoever else, meddling in our social media and elections, propping up media companies in this country, are doing such a thing.
That damages military projects for the U.S.?
It's very interesting.
Look, I can't say I'm happy when government powers expand.
I like the idea of pulling back.
But I also recognize there are foreign adversaries that are powerful, too.
It's hard to know how things should be balanced.
But if you're someone who thinks the U.S.
government is the greatest and only problem, you are dead wrong.
Right now, China is imprisoning, what, like a million Muslims?
Like, it's nightmarish over there, man.
We're doing a good job here in this country.
Let's make sure we have a strong United States, and we need to unify.
But anyway, I'm not going to prattle on unifying and, you know, stuff like that.
The main point is, man, times are getting crazy.
You know, life is kind of boring.
These stories, I'm like, is this real?
Come on, man.
China?
Sounds like a 90s action movie, but you know what?
Sometimes things happen.
We can't just have an optimism bias and assume everything's gonna be the same.
Things will change, and sometimes, they change quick.
Stick around, more segments to come, and I will see you in a few minutes.
If you follow my main channel over at youtube.com slash timcast, you may have seen my main video comes out every day at 4pm talking about how Donald Trump has just ended asylum for Central Americans with a new rule.
Now, it will likely face legal challenge, but the only way that's going to happen is if people get riled up, file a lawsuit, and actually go after him.
You may be saying, Tim, why are you talking about immigration?
This video is about Trump and Pelosi and what's happening.
Well, it's actually quite simple.
Instead of talking about Donald Trump ending asylum for Central Americans, what is the media concerned about?
Well, hold on.
I don't want to be overly hyperbolic.
There are people on Twitter saying, oh no, Trump's taking away asylum.
But I kid you not, most of the tweets, because I follow a bunch of journalists and news organizations, are talking about Donald Trump's Naughty words.
That's right, Donald Trump sent out a series of tweets that even I criticized as being stupid, and the media hook, line, and sinker.
Trump plays them like a fiddle.
The media is pathetic.
Completely pathetic.
Because it has been years now, Trump has been playing the media for fools.
All he has to do is say one naughty word, and boom, they go running full speed.
We need a media in this country, journalism, to actually report information and challenge those in power.
Not all the way he's challenged those in power, but that's what the media does.
It keeps them in check.
Says like, hey, there's wrongdoing, people.
Listen.
Journalism is public sector intelligence.
The government has their private and governmental intelligence, and we have public intelligence.
The news.
We share information.
Hey, this is an important thing you should know, and you should figure out your own opinion.
Remember when news used to be like, here's what happened, what do you think about it?
Now they're like, here's what I think about what happened, and you're actually thinking like, is he telling the truth or is he lying?
Is he framing this incorrectly?
What do we have today?
Donald Trump, I tweeted this, Donald Trump could fart.
And these journalists would run full speed and get a big ol' whiff so they could write about how bad the smell was.
Where sane people would be like, I don't care that the president farted.
I'm not gonna go chase after him like some lunatic.
I'm gonna see what's going on with policy.
Oh, but heaven forbid Trump says naughty words.
Here's the latest update, okay?
Nancy Pelosi announces House resolution to condemn Trump's xenophobic tweets.
You couldn't maybe, I don't know, work towards some legal challenge towards Trump's asylum rules?
Now listen, I'm not saying it's absolute.
It's entirely possible they are.
They can do two things at once.
I'm not saying that, you know, like just because they're concerned about what he's saying, they're not concerned about asylum.
But look at this story.
It's from today.
It's got 6,307 shares.
And I look on Twitter, and all I see is people saying, why aren't the Republicans condemning Trump's naughty words?
Oh, and I'm just like, where's the talk of the asylum thing?
Like, that's a huge story.
Like, Trump literally passed a rule saying no more asylum for Central Americans and other people.
Heaven forbid the media class and politicians focus on that.
But you know what?
I think at the end of the day, They don't care.
That's why they don't talk about it.
Why don't you see activists on the left trying to talk about the asylum thing?
Trump knows.
He's a clever man.
They like to say he's dumb.
He's not dumb.
Okay?
He's not.
I've heard stories about him.
I would certainly call him...
I guess, oafish, right? Where he's like, he's crass and crude and he gaffs a lot.
But it doesn't mean he's stupid, okay? It just might mean that he's not an articulate, charismatic individual, like,
you know, but it depends.
I don't want to say he's not charismatic because he's certainly speaking to his base and they hear him.
So there's different ways to talk.
Actually, let me say this real quick.
You learn this in sales.
If you see somebody wearing a suit, and you walk up to them and start talking like, yo, what up dude?
Man, it's a nice suit, man.
What's going on?
He's going to be like, what is this?
You walk up to a guy wearing a suit and say, how do you do, sir?
Nice to meet you.
My name is Tim.
How beautiful day we have here.
You see a guy who's wearing like a, you know, uh, skater clothes and baggy pants and you walk up to him like, good day, sir.
You have to match the kind of persona of the individual.
So Trump is, is catering specifically to his base.
He knows what he's doing.
He is not stupid.
Think about this.
Do you think the Democrats actually care about the border crisis?
I think the answer is a hard no.
They need to oppose him and accuse him of racism.
So what do they do?
The border crisis is Trump's mistake.
He's racist.
So what does Trump do?
He dangles his hand over here.
Look over here.
Look over here, everybody.
Oh, don't look at the border anymore.
I'm trying to fix the border.
He wants to deliver on his promise.
So he dangles the carrot over the other side, says something offensive.
They run full speed.
I'll put it this way.
Trump is signing papers, right, that change National policy on asylum.
And they're all looking and yelling and then all of a sudden he goes, but wait, and then he farts.
And then all of a sudden they run behind him and get a big ol' whiff and ignore the fact that he's writing this bill up somewhere else.
The thing is, it's politicking.
They love this.
I'm sure the Democrats are like, oh, wonderful, we'll call him a bigot and a xenophobe and all of these things, and that'll be great for our re-election campaign.
Because they don't care about the migrant crisis.
They don't.
They care about the biggest press issue that's going to get them re-elected.
So here's what happens.
Trump is playing a longer game than they are.
He knows that in the short term, no one in his base is going to care if he says a xenophobic tweet.
They're sick and tired of it.
It's giving Trump the leeway to say these things.
AOC called Nancy Pelosi—implied that Nancy Pelosi was racist.
So do you think Trump cares that they call him that?
Absolutely not, and nor does his base.
They are fed up.
What Trump does know is that they're obstructing his border bills and plans on solving the border crisis, so he's going to give them a good old distraction by taking a big old fart in the other direction, and they run after it and then wave it in their faces so they can get a chance to get re-elected, saying, ooh, it smells bad.
Everybody, look, Trump smells bad.
And then the dumb people are like, oh, he smells bad, I'm gonna vote for you.
It's absolutely insane.
And what's most insane about this, I promise I'll stop making fart jokes, is that Trump has been doing this for years.
Can I ask you a question?
Why is Nancy Pelosi announcing a House resolution to condemn Trump's xenophobic tweets, but they couldn't even condemn Ilhan Omar, when basically everybody left and right was like, dude, that was wrong?
Now, of course, you had the fringes of the left and the right absolutely agreeing with Ilhan Omar.
Creepy.
But like regular people in this country, Democrat, Republican, they were like, we don't like what you're doing, Ilhan Omar.
And did they draft a resolution over her tweets?
No.
They're doing this because they want to earn brownie points with the woke crowd.
And it is a downward spiral of destruction.
It is entropy that will wipe out the Democrats.
Because as we know, people, for the most part, are not woke.
It's less than 8% of the country.
So congratulations, Nancy Pelosi.
You're not doing anything to solve any problems.
You're just calling Trump a mean wordback!
Trump goes on Twitter and says naughty words so we're gonna get Congress together to draft a bill to call Trump a word.
Great.
This is the state of politics in the United States.
Thank you for allocating resources towards calling Trump xenophobic.
Nancy Pelosi on Monday urged House Democrats to support a resolution to condemn Trump for tweeting that four Democratic congressmen of color should go back to their countries, even though all are U.S.
citizens.
I certainly think the tweet was ridiculous.
Look, you don't have to like my opinion.
I'm not telling you to.
I'm telling you my opinion.
Disagree with me all day and night?
Hey, that's great.
That's what we're here for.
And I know the Trump supporters agree.
I got ratioed to Kingdom Come on Twitter when they were tweeting up all crazy like, um, actually, I should pull that back.
It was actually a fairly moderate response from people.
I was actually impressed.
It was a ton of people calmly saying, for the most part, you're wrong, here's why you're wrong, he's making a good point, etc.
And actually, I tremendously respect that.
That's the craziest thing, and I bring this up all the time, is that I sit down with Trump supporters and a lot of my liberal, my more progressive friends, and we can have conversations where I'll say something and they'll be like, eh, I disagree.
But it's Twitter, right?
Twitter is this nightmare minefield of crazy individuals outraged for clicks, okay?
But here's the reality.
When it comes to the conversation that I see typically in the center and on the right, it's more reasonable.
They're absolutely crazy, like, right-wing individuals who are sending spam and nastiness at the left.
For sure, I've seen it.
But, like, I put out a tweet where I called Trump stupid.
I said it was the stupidest tweet I've ever put out.
I'll never vote for him.
And the response I got wasn't, for the most part, like, you're a dumb man.
It was like, Tim, you gotta rethink this one.
You know, Trump.
And I'm like, I'm not gonna agree.
I don't think Trump's tweets... Look, I don't like his tweets, but I'm gonna say this.
Upon reflection, and looking at these other stories, it really does seem like Trump is playing these people like chumps.
Playing them straight up like chumps.
And I think it was David Pakman.
Man, I've been a bigger fan of his lately.
You don't have to like his content, he's more progressive.
But he tweeted out, don't take Trump's bait, and I'm like...
Thank you!
Look, man, love Trump or hate him, you can recognize he is baiting these individuals.
So respect to someone on the left who's going to point to what Trump is doing and be like, guys, he's baiting you and you're falling for it.
And they did.
And now here we are.
The House cannot allow the President's characterization of immigrants to our country to stand.
Our Republican colleagues must join us in condemning the President's xenophobic tweets.
Pelosi wrote in a letter to House Democrats announcing a forthcoming- What is the point of this?
I like what is the point of getting all the Congress people together to be like, can we
collectively condemn Trump?
Oh, is that going to do something?
Do you think Trump's base will care when they hear their reps signed onto a thing condemning
Trump?
They don't care.
It doesn't do it.
It doesn't mean anything.
Like if someone came in and said, I ordered lunch at this restaurant and it had a hair
I would like you to condemn the restaurant.
I'd be like, sure.
And what's gonna happen next?
Is the restaurant gonna stop putting hair in your food?
Maybe, I don't know.
Why don't you just call them and complain yourself?
Seems like the restaurant's gonna do whatever they want.
It's not a law.
It's just a resolution that does nothing.
But waste our time and ignore everything I've been- Look.
I'm just, I'm not really frustrated, right?
I'm just kind of like, it's funny.
It's really funny that Trump can do this for years.
It's like, here's what I see when I see these stories.
Here's what I think, what I imagine.
I imagine Trump is like sitting in a recliner, and he's just got like strings, and he's pulling them back and forth, and you've got like the media just doing whatever.
Like Trump can, you know, It's very simple.
He's signing policy with one hand, and then he's giving the middle finger with the other, and the media is obsessed with him flicking off the media.
Trump comes out in the Rose Garden, says something.
Jim Acosta is taking selfies about how he doesn't like social media influencers.
Brian Karam is yelling threats to Sebastian Gorka.
That's a better story.
Trump is giving the middle finger over here and the media loves it.
They love it.
They're so egotistical that when Trump says a word, they're like, hey man, everybody look at me, look what Trump is doing.
No, dude, don't look at you.
Look at the issues, please.
So you know what?
I'll say this.
Not a big fan of Trump's tweet, but I really do think it was calculated.
I'm not trying to say he's playing 4D chess or anything like that, but god damn if the media doesn't love running up to Trump and sniffing his farts.
They fall for it every single time, and they're playing the game, and they know it.
They're egotists, and they don't care about you, and they don't care about the truth.
Of course there are people who do.
Not every journalist.
There are a lot of good journalists, and I feel bad for them.
I do.
I especially feel bad for whoever had to write this nonsense story.
Christina Marcos, I'm really sorry you had to write this crap.
We shouldn't- Can we- You know what?
Oh, man.
Welcome to politics in 2019.
Hopefully, uh, things don't get worse, but I think they will.
But, uh, Trump really knows how to give people a WWE spectacle.
You know, he can go off and do his serious business, but all he has to do is say a silly word.
Look what he did when he said airplanes in the Revolutionary War.
And the media goes nuts.
Yep.
Yep.
Look, I think the president makes gaffes.
I think that one was a gaffe.
But you gotta admit, sometimes he does it on purpose because he sees how it works.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes.
Stick around and I will see you shortly.
Gather around, my friends, for today we have a philosophy and ethics class on the nature of good and evil.
Now, there's a bunch of different ways that people interpret the ideas of good and evil.
And for the most part, I don't believe that good and evil exist.
For the most part.
I would actually say, evil is real, and this is proof.
This is a story about a disabled Air Force veteran, due to a $250 tax oversight, lost his home to a man who then tried charging him $50,000 to keep it, or face eviction.
Now, it's important, look, this is Epoch Times, they do a pretty good job, so I'm gonna say this is spot on.
And apparently, I believe, they may have reviewed some of the evidence, they may be referring to AZ Central.
But in this story, I believe we truly do see evil.
So what I want to do is, I want to tell you about the story of an Air Force veteran who is disabled.
I believe he's in a wheelchair.
He's got a spinal injury.
And due to a mistake, an accident, of only a couple hundred dollars, the city auctions off his home.
Man, he could've, he could've, he could've, hey, you need 200 bucks?
Man, if you're gonna lose your house, I'll spot you the 200 bucks.
Like, you know, that's what we do.
We're a community.
We help each other out.
But he didn't even know, until one day this guy shows up and says, your house is mine.
And when he tries explaining it was a mistake and an accident, even the city's trying to help him void the sale.
But let's talk about what evil truly is.
Now, at its core, Evil is subjective. I know there's a lot of people, mostly
religious types, that's not true, but no, no, no.
I think it's subjective in the sense that, like, different people would define it slightly different ways.
So if you look at, like, Dungeons and Dragons and, like, the alignment chart, if you're not familiar,
you have, um, in terms of evil, lawful evil, neutral evil, and chaotic evil.
And lawful, I'm not like a D&D person, actually, we're going to play like our first game next week or something.
Basically, it's like if you're lawful, you follow the code, even if it means, because you want to cause harm to people.
Neutral is like you kind of do your thing and you want to hurt people.
Chaotic evil, you just like mass murderers and just like the truly evil, Just want to hurt everybody for no reason.
What we see here is like, I guess, a lawful evil.
Someone who's using the system and, hey, it's the law, you were wrong, to cause someone to suffer for personal gain.
Now, you could argue, I guess, technically it might not be evil because he's not trying to hurt the guy, but I think he kind of is.
But I'm not going to get into the D&D analogy.
What I want to say is...
The way I view evil is reckless disregard for the well-being of others.
As human beings, we need to look after each other to survive.
To an extent beyond that, we have to look after the ecosystem and animals if we want to survive, because we share this planet.
And, like, if the bees go, we go, and things like that.
Though we can probably develop technology, and it'll probably be like a thousand years, there'll be like a little kid being like, Pawpaw, read me the story about how there used to be animals on Earth.
Ah, animals.
I remember animals.
And then we'll just be eating soylent green or something.
Anyway, I digress.
The point is... This is a story about... Well, let's read the story before I get into the, you know, greater philosophies about selfishness and human community and things like that, because I'm kind of burying it in a lee here.
They write... A disabled Air Force veteran may have no choice but to sleep rough after his Arizona home was auctioned off by the authorities on June 20th.
Former US Air Force officer Jim Borner was gobsmacked when a stranger arrived at his Mesa mobile home and said they had bought his property for $4,400.
I said, what are you talking about?
That has got to be wrong.
Warner49 quickly discovered that Maricopa County had auctioned off his mobile home because the local authorities thought he owed $236 in property taxes.
He had no idea he was at risk of being evicted, as he thought that his application for a reduced property tax rate on the basis of his disability and limited income had already been approved, according to the report.
Had I known I was in peril of losing my home, I would have paid it in full, he said.
Staff at the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office allegedly told him he owed a total of $641, of which $405 was overdue from the previous year.
However, Borner only paid $405 because he only remembered the second amount, according to the paper.
Warner told the paper that he had not worked since 1991 due to spinal and brain injuries he suffered while performing training exercises at Kiesler Air Force Base in Mississippi.
He bought the Buttercup Yellow mobile home in 2017 to enjoy a more affordable lifestyle.
Borner supports a cat called Samantha.
By repairing guitars, he buys at garage sales.
He is also known to deliver flowers to widowed neighbors during the holidays and on Mother's Day.
It's a very well-framed, heartwarming story.
But let's remove the helping the kitties and delivering flowers to his neighbors, which is very heartwarming and meant to make this man be viewed as endearing.
Look, I don't care if this guy is a dick, okay?
He could be a mean person.
The point is, he's a disabled veteran living in a mobile home.
He's not the wealthiest of individuals.
He is not trying to hurt other people.
Regardless of whether or not he gives flowers, he's just another dude trying to get by, and he's someone we should be supporting as a member of our community.
Let's see what happened.
According to the Republic, Borner said he explained the situation to Payne, the new owner, over a drink and even offered to buy his mobile home back, which Payne initially agreed to.
However, Payne later allegedly asked for $30,000, which was much higher than the original purchase price, and the $5,000 Borner was willing to offer.
Borner was gonna have to pay five grand over a $236 oversight?
That is absurd.
Let's read on.
When Payne made counter-offers, that amount Payne allegedly sought was $26,000, and later $52,000 according to text messages obtained by the paper.
Payne has now issued a letter of eviction to Borner.
You must leave now or I will sue you for eviction.
So let me say this.
If it's the circumstance that someone saw there was going to be an auction and bought the house and they were at a couple grand, I can understand that sucks, you went through all this time and energy and now you're going to be at a couple grand because it turns out it was a mistake and this guy, you can't really kick him out, can you?
But when this guy Borner said, how about I just pay you $5,000?
It's a $600 profit, right?
I'm sorry this happened, but please would you help me out?
The guy says $30,000.
Sorry, man.
Look, I don't know the circumstances of this guy who bought the house, but they say that apparently the new owner is listed as Advanced Dynamic Energy Ltd under the contract Alex Patron, the paper reported.
Borner claims that Patron is also known as Lester Payne.
So his business bought it.
Is this guy's business in dire straits and they're going out of business so he's desperate?
It doesn't matter.
I view evil as the reckless disregard for others' well-being.
Housing is one of the most important things in the hierarchy of needs.
You need shelter.
You know, I learned as a little kid, what's the first thing you need when you're lost in the wilderness?
Shelter.
So you don't die from exposure.
You certainly can't kick out a disabled military veteran because you're gonna lose money.
I'll tell you what, man.
If I fronted like my last five grand to buy a mobile home, And then this guy turns out it was an accident, I'd be like,
okay, I mean, I'm broke now because I bought this and didn't realize it was a mistake. Can I
crash here? And you know what I mean? I'd be like, how about I crash here? In fact, if I had to, I
would sleep on the streets if it meant keeping the disabled veteran in their home. So there's a
bit of selfishness. Like I think when we talk about good and evil, one of the principles behind
these ideas are selfishness versus selfishness.
Selflessness versus selfishness, right?
And here we have a story that seemingly paints this man as overtly selfish.
Over $200 he would kick this guy out of his home.
So then we get into the bigger idea of, you know, does evil really exist?
And most philosophers might tell you it doesn't because different people view it differently.
But I think if you were to ask most people, would you consider it evil?
To evict a disabled veteran from their home.
Most people are gonna say yes, okay?
For several reasons.
For one, if someone is of, you know, limited means, it's bad enough you're gonna evict them.
And as me, as a lefty, I think it's a big problem, especially, you know, when you look at the homeless crisis in Los Angeles.
And for those that don't know, I actually was a director at a homeless shelter for a short period of time.
So it's something that I truly care about.
How can we solve problems?
Outside of the empathetic, like, I wanna make sure this guy has a home to live in, he's a disabled veteran, he was injured while, you know, serving this country, even if it was a training exercise.
Okay, he went to serve the nation, to serve the community, he was hurt, let's take care of the guy.
Same thing, especially for the 9-11 first responders.
I'm all with Jon Stewart on this one.
You know, just get the funding, help these people out.
We should not be bickering over the price of 9-11 first responders.
I hold with tremendous respect veterans and, to an extent, police, as a caveat there, and firefighters.
With police, I think we do have accountability issues, but I certainly think the left takes it way too far.
You know, the problem is, as the saying goes, who watches the watchmen?
And I think that's why I absolutely have tremendous respect for most police officers.
I say there's a caveat because there's a lot of examples of cops who take it too far and manipulate the system for personal gain.
You know, a position of power like that, it attracts the corrupt, right?
So, to the good cops, to your standard American average, tremendous respect.
Those willing to serve the community, do it right, with a smile on their face, even at great risk to themselves.
I believe, one, we should hold police, for the most part, to a higher standard.
Simply because they're those who enforce the law.
But more importantly, those that serve the community should be protected by the community in return.
Think about it.
This is a guy, for whatever reason, said he wanted to join the armed forces.
You can't just assume that all of the military's guys run around with guns shooting people.
That's just not true.
Some of them build bridges.
Some are medics.
Some are doctors.
Some are teachers.
Some work on computers.
When you do that, you are taking the role of going on to the figurative front line to defend our community.
And I think it is our responsibility as a community to then defend you in return.
If you find yourself like this man with brain and spinal injuries and you can't work, then I believe we should now come to your defense because you came to ours, be it infrastructure or otherwise.
That's the second layer of this.
It's especially evil, in my opinion, to evict, like... Let me tell you a story.
There's a woman in Maine who's being evicted, and the city offered her a tent.
Now look, at a certain point, if we can't support, you know, if a person can't support themselves, I don't know what we'd do.
I'm certainly a very left, like a relatively lefty individual, I was gonna say very, but not relatively, who thinks we should allocate resources to protect those who are vulnerable.
The city gave her a tent.
Meanwhile, we got illegal immigrants coming up here in California promising health care.
We got to take care of our own community first.
We have an obligation to those who are part of our community.
If they're providing money to my common defense, I should be there for them before anyone else.
Alright, so the second part of this is that It's bad enough we evict the poorest of our country, and I know no one really enjoys it, for them, like, sane people aren't laughing and going, haha, I'm evicting a poor person.
No, it sucks.
It's a problem, and we want to solve these problems.
We want to solve the housing crisis in LA.
But it's even worse when you've got a guy trying to jack up the cost of a sale to a disabled veteran over a $2 oversight.
So yes, to me, that is proof of being evil.
Let's wrap up on the story.
There might be an update.
Apparently this guy said in the letter, you must leave now or I'll sue for eviction.
I guess he then wanted to say, I don't want to talk to press, so great.
Let's see how the story ends.
They say after 30 days, the sheriff can sell the property out from under them.
The challenge lies in the different treatment of permanent and mobile homes, the Republic reported.
A single-family homeowner would usually have five years to repay the outstanding amount before the property would be foreclosed.
Mobile homes are categorized as personal property, meaning they can be auctioned off as soon as the property tax payment is missed.
Maybe we should change that, and mobile homes should get the same protections.
This legal definition has created major difficulties for Borner in finding help.
I can't encumber my parents with a 50-year-old guy moving in with all my stuff.
I can't do that to them.
So I'll say this.
This is what evil looks like.
Somebody who wants to jack up the price over a mistake and not find a solution.
I bet he could go back to the city and say, give me my money back.
And you know it sucks.
I bet he could go back to the city and say, give me my money back with because you made a mistake, right?
Give me five grand for my time.
There's a solution.
But it sounds like he wants 50.
It sounds like he wants 30.
It sounds like he isn't willing to accept that a disabled veteran made a mistake.
$200 mistake and now he's going to lose his home?
That's insane.
But sometimes there are people who believe in personal gain.
They want power so much, they will lie, cheat, and steal, and throw out a disabled veteran to get it.
To me, that is the example of evil in this world.
So...
Well, at its core, I understand that, you know, evil is relatively subjective.
I think most human beings will recognize wanton self-selfishness as an evil characteristic.
Absolutely.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be tomorrow at 10am.
The podcast every day at 6.30pm when I don't screw up.
