Trump's Strategy Has Democrats Floundering, RNC Raises DOUBLE What Democrats Raise
Almost Every Metric Predicting Trump 2020 Victory, RNC Raises DOUBLE What Democrats Raise. Democrats are getting absolutely crushed in terms of fundraising and Trump continues to dominate and control the media.The RNC and Trump have raised more than double what the democratic party has raised in May and in June. While polls suggest Trump will lose to many of the 2020 Democrats it just seems unlikely based on how wrong the polls were in 2016 combined with the massive grassroots fundraising accomplished by republicans.Trump's presumed strategy of propping up far left and socialist democrats, known as "The Squad," also seems to be working. He has knocked Democrats off their game and they no longer talk about real issues. Instead they talk about naughty words and outrage. Ilhan Omar currently sits at a 9% favorability in swing states and Trump knows putting her front and center will give him a huge advantage.In order to win Democrats need a strong message for American voters but instead campaign on behalf of non citizens and some have literally campaigned in Mexico.This is all good news for Trump. If the democrats can't get back on message than they can't hope to out fund raise the republicans.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Democrats are being crushed when it comes to fundraising.
Not only did the Republicans raise more than double what the Democrats did in the past two months, but the Democrats are actually in debt.
Don't take my word for it, because that phrasing comes from Vice News.
Believe it or not, the actual story, the Democratic Party is getting crushed in fundraising.
They need to get their ass together.
Yet, for some reason, we keep hearing Trump is going to lose.
Article after article says, wow, it's going to be a landslide against Trump.
There's no way he can win.
They're repeating the same mistakes of 2016 because, let me make something clear, polls are meaningless.
Especially after 2016, and to an extent 2018.
Because in 2016, they said Trump didn't stand a chance, but he won anyway.
So I warn you now, fundraising is a much better metric.
People actually putting money where their mouth is because Trump is getting a massive amount of funds from people who are giving less than $200.
These are not big donors.
So I want to break all this down and I want to tell you about how I see the strategy for the Democrats evolving.
We've seen repeated calls to abolish the Electoral College because they know they can't win.
They can't win based on the rules that Obama won by twice.
So what do they do?
Change the rules.
Because the support is not there.
Before we get started, make sure you head over to TimCast.com slash Dunnit if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do, share this video because YouTube has de-ranked independent political commentary.
That means if you think what I'm saying is important, I rely on you to share it to get the word out.
We're going to start today by looking at a letter to the editor for the Mercury News.
Now, I understand this is just someone's opinion they wrote, but there's some really interesting points we should bring up before moving into why I think we're seeing what we're seeing.
The writer says, Trump is going to win in a landslide in 2020.
The Democrats do not have a chance in 2020.
He says Donald Trump is going to win in a landslide.
One.
Running on a Walter Mondale platform of raising taxes is a proven strategy for colossal failure.
Two.
The Democrats have just been plain wrong about too many things.
Russian collusion.
The crisis at the border being manufactured.
Tax cuts only benefiting the rich.
Three.
The Democrats' stance that illegal immigration should not be a crime is nonsensical.
What citizen would think we are better off with millions more illegal immigrants getting government help?
Four, the economy is soaring and most experts do not expect a recession to start in the next year.
I stress, just an opinion.
But I thought it was an interesting one to start this off because consider some of... I'm not going to make a point to the economy because there is conflicting, you know, their arguments in terms of whether or not there will be a recession.
But the economy is booming.
The Democrats have been wrong.
They're much more concerned with opposing Trump than being right and it makes them look bad.
But let's see what the polls are saying.
Here's the story.
From Esquire, I don't make predictions, but it sure seems like Trump could get trounced in 2020.
It's just as likely as the notion he'll put another inside straight win like 2016.
The reason for this argument, for the most part, is that polls are showing Trump up against most of the Democratic contenders is a massive loss.
You know, up against Biden he loses by like 10 points, and by Bernie like 2 points, etc.
You get the point.
But why trust the polls?
You know, they go on to make this point.
I'm not going to read through this one for the most part, but he does concede Trump still could win.
I wanted to make sure I highlighted this because this video is not to predict a Trump victory.
Although I do think he will win, I recognize that, hey man, things can change.
We really have no idea this far out, but there are some really good signs for Trump.
Now, before we get into the whole fundraising thing, I want to stress the Trump strategy as of the past couple weeks.
First, Trump tweeted some things that many people were offended by, even Republicans, when he said these progressive congresswomen should go back to the countries they came from, you know, figure out what works, come back, etc.
And a lot of people said, how dare you?
Even I was outraged.
And it was only after this that I and many others, including Ezra Klein, realized Trump was trying to force the far-left progressive Democrats Front and center.
Even if it meant hurting himself with moderates a little bit.
Now, my warning the other day and the past few days has been, don't think you can risk losing the moderates and still win.
When Hillary Clinton was running in 2016, a lot of people thought she was going to win.
They thought the probability was so high they didn't bother coming out.
And Trump did win some states by thin margins.
However, Based on the polls being wrong in 2016, I'm not going to put much weight in them today.
I look at the fundraising.
Now we'll get to that, but I want to address the issue of Trump's strategy and I want to kind of break down what I think is going on.
First, let's take a look at Trump's favorability.
It's not his job approval, it's his favorability.
Do you like him or not like him?
And we can see that as of today, in the past week, it's only gone down about a point or so.
It doesn't seem like what Trump has said has had a massive, has had a serious impact on him.
Trump probably knows this.
Right now he's sitting at 43.2% favorability.
So Trump is considering, if I tweet this, well I'm assuming this, but I think they realize they can take a hit.
The Trump campaign can get some bad press.
They've been called racist all day and night for the past several years.
So screw it, dive right in, right?
If it means getting your victory.
In this poll from Axios, we can see that Ocasio-Cortez in swing states is a 22% favorable view, and Ilhan Omar is 9%.
It's so low, in fact, Axios had to say, not a typo.
9%.
So what does Trump do?
He gets up on stage at a rally, and he says her name over and over again.
All of this news about the send-her-back chant is still good for Trump, because consider this.
Even if Trump loses some favorability, he still leaps and bounds above Ilhan Omar, so he would be willing to take that hit, I would imagine.
But the important consideration comes in when you take a look at Nancy Pelosi's favorability.
From RealClearPolitics as well, the aggregate has Nancy Pelosi currently at 36.6%.
Trump knows that he is more favorable than she is, and she was leading the party and pushing back on the far left.
She was marginalizing them.
Trump flipped the script.
He put someone at a 9% favorability front and center and forced Pelosi to defend that.
It can only hurt Pelosi's image, and in the end, it's going to make sure that whoever is in front of the Democrats has a very, very low favorability.
Trump's strategy makes sense, and I think this is good evidence to suggest Trump is doing something.
He's got a strategy.
It's not just him.
Okay, a lot of people like to say Trump is stupid.
Listen, he's got people behind him.
It's not just him.
I think Trump knows how to play the game.
He's played the media over and over again.
It keeps working.
But he's also got strategists and staff members who advise him.
While I'm sure he's the kind of guy who probably pushes back and ignores a lot of advice, he still has people who run his social media, he has people who advise him on certain matters.
And I'm sure he takes their advice when he needs to.
Trump's strategy here is smart.
Even if Trump drops 10 points, he's dramatically above Ilhan Omar, so he can take a hit.
He knows it.
But let's get to the fundraising issue.
Vice News frames it as the Democratic Party getting crushed in fundraising.
I don't need to read their assessment.
I just wanted to show you that, you know, this is how Vice News is framing it.
We know Vice News is not a right-wing organization by no means.
But let's get to the more professional analysis.
Uh, not this story yet.
Let me come back to this.
This is from, uh, today.
Or, I'm sorry, from yesterday.
Politico.
The RNC more than doubles DNC's fundraising haul in June.
The story says, The Democratic National Committee raised $8.5 million in June, the month of the party's presidential debates in Miami.
Less than half of the $20.7 million the Republican National Committee pulled in during that time period, new disclosures show.
The DNC also spent almost as much money as it raised, $7.5 million, during that time and finished the month with $9.3 million cash on hand.
The RNC is meanwhile building a larger war chest during the lead up to 2020 and had $43.5 million cash on hand at the end of the month.
Dare I say it?
They have said over and over again, the candidate who spends the most typically wins.
I don't know if that's true for 2016, I'm not going to pull up those numbers, but I can say.
You want to have an argument about the polls?
Fine.
Those are people answering the phone and answering online, you know, pop-ups.
But let's talk about people putting their money where their mouth is.
People are pouring money into the RNC and not the DNC.
And not only that, ignore the fundraising.
The RNC has, what, four times, more than four, maybe five times as much money on hand right now to spend?
It could be true.
The RNC simply isn't spending enough.
Maybe that's the case.
Maybe the Democrats are spending too much.
But we do know that Trump has spent more on Facebook ads than all of the other candidates.
I believe combined.
I could be wrong.
But let's consider this.
We can even go back to a month ago and see this.
RNC raises $14.6 million in May, more than doubling the DNC.
The story persists.
The same narrative once again.
The Republicans are raising way more than the Democrats are.
To me, that's way more support, okay?
That's way more support than the polls could ever show.
But I do have this tweet here from Breaking News Live.
Economy by party.
DNC, $8.5 million in June, $9.3 in the bank, $5.7 million in debt.
RNC, $20.8 million raised in June, $43.5 million in the bank, and $0 in debt.
We could argue the Democrats are at, in terms of cash on hand, it's only around $4 Or 3 or 4 million because of their debt.
So we are seeing these metrics, but let's get to the bigger issue at play, the article I accidentally pulled up first, but here we have it.
This is a story from March, from Politico, how Trump is on track for a 2020 landslide.
Economic models point to a Trump blowout in 2020, but a faltering economy or giant scandal could change everything, and that's true.
Before we read this, You may be sitting here thinking, haha, Trump is going to win, or if you're a Democrat or centrist center-left, you're probably going, man, the Democrats sure have screwed up this one, haven't they?
But I tell you this.
Hubris will be the downfall of the Trump campaign, if anything.
I can certainly see that he's got the incumbent advantage, the economy is booming, that's a massive advantage, and he has the donation advantage.
But rest assured, if you think this is a guaranteed win, he will pull a Hillary Clinton.
Supporters won't come out and vote because they'll think, haha, Trump can't lose, I don't need to vote.
I do think that's unlikely.
Trump voters are gung-ho and die hard.
I don't think that they're going to sit back and think they got this from the bag.
I think they are driven and active and they're going to get out there and they're going to get that vote in.
But rest assured, Hillary Clinton thought the exact same thing and you'd be a fool to think you're invincible.
I tell this to people all the time, especially when talking about issues of marketing.
I try to explain to people how marketing works, why ad buying is so important.
And you're being manipulated by the press and they go, yeah, but not me.
I'm like, if you think you're invincible, that's when you get knocked down.
Hubris will be your downfall.
Let's read a little bit of this story to get a sense of why they think Trump is going to win.
And then I want to talk about the Democrat strategy moving forward.
Politico wrote in March, and I did cover this back then, but we'll rehash a little bit now.
Donald Trump has a low approval rating.
He is engaging in bitter Twitter wars and facing metastasizing investigations.
But if the election were held today, he'd likely ride to a second term in a huge landslide according to multiple economic models with strong track records of picking presidential winners and losers.
Credit a strong U.S.
economy featuring low unemployment, rising wages, and low gas prices, along with the historic advantage held by incumbent presidents.
While Trump appears to be in a much stronger position than his approval rating and conventional Beltway wisdom might suggest, he also could wind up in trouble if the economy slows markedly between now and next fall, and many analysts predict it will.
This flies in contrast to what that letter to the editor said, but I say, I stress, When this was written, they were predicting Trump was on track for a 2020 landslide.
Trump's approval rating, according to the Washington Post, as of I think a week ago, is the highest it's ever been in his presidency.
According to the RealClearPolitics average, it was the second highest in the past two years.
I can only say, four months on from this story, Trump is on track to win better than they could have predicted.
So what can the Democrats really do?
They're not raising the money.
They're fractured.
Their policy makes no sense.
They want to give government benefits to people who aren't citizens at a time when we never even accomplished universal health care, which was what Obama promised in his first term.
Obama said, by the end of my first term, I will sign universal healthcare into law.
He said that, I believe, 2007.
He couldn't do it.
Bless his heart, he tried.
But it was too expensive.
And there was politicking in the way.
And it would be a massive economic upheaval.
It could be damaging to our economy and the global economy.
I think we should strive for a universal healthcare system.
That's my opinion.
But I don't think we can just do it.
I think it's going to require long-term strategy and can't be done in a single term.
So here we are now.
Obama couldn't pull it off.
He couldn't.
He tried.
And what do we see from the Democrats?
Well, we couldn't do it, you know, 10 years ago, but why don't we just give government benefits to illegal immigrants?
How does that make sense?
And then they say they want to decriminalize illegal immigration.
I'm telling you, man.
If we can't afford health care, if we can't solve the problem of homelessness of our own citizens, why would anyone vote for a Democrat promising to do more for people who aren't citizens?
For people who are campaigning in Mexico?
Beto O'Rourke and Cory Booker literally went to Mexico!
Why?
American citizens need to know you got their back.
All of this sends an important signal to middle America.
We don't have your back, and it's probably why the Democrats aren't getting the money they need.
What do we see then?
Well, there's one strategy that'll work.
Abolish the Electoral College, says Bernie Sanders.
The reality is, Obama played by the same rules as Trump.
Trump played by the same rules as Hillary.
And Obama won two terms.
Good job!
He was charismatic.
I think there's a lot to criticize that man for.
I agree more with some of his policies than I would for Trump.
I disagree with both of their foreign policies.
However, Trump has actually walked back a bit in this, in the foreign war stuff.
Which I'll say for other, I've mentioned over and over again, I don't want to make this video about Obama versus Trump.
I will just stress, Obama was able to get those bigots in middle America to vote for him because he had a message.
He deported 3 million—I believe the number is 3 million, I could be wrong—but it was around 3 million people.
They called him Deporter-in-Chief.
Many people lost their lives on the border during Obama's time as the president, more so at the same time today than Trump has faced.
Yet, for some reason, they go after Trump like crazy.
But here's the point.
Trump played by the same rules as Obama and got many of those same voters.
Those voters were then accused of being bigots.
I'm toning down the language, mind you.
They were accused of being bigoted.
When in reality, they had voted twice.
Many of these people voted twice for the first black president in the United States.
They liked him so much, they voted twice.
In 2012, they said, hey man, I like this guy, I'm gonna vote for him again.
Trump comes along.
Trump was the better alternative to Hillary for many people.
Trump played by the same exact rules that Obama did and won by.
Trump won.
Obama won.
So you can't point the finger.
Of course now, Bernie Sanders tweeting just two days ago, abolish the Electoral College because if you can't win by the rules everyone played by, you might as well change the rules.
And we see it over and over again.
Democrats want to abolish the Electoral College.
Republicans want to keep it.
I didn't hear any Democrat complaining when Obama won twice.
So why now?
Well, because the fundraising shows a massive lack of support.
The Democrats are fractured.
The activist base that actually votes in the primary have gone so far left, the Democrats are forced to chase after nonsense rhetoric in order to win the primary.
But if they espouse that message, they will not be able to win the general election.
They don't seem to care.
I have to wonder, you know, a side point.
Sometimes I jokingly refer to Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks as a Republican, because a lot of what he's doing is hurting the Democrats wholesale.
Nancy Pelosi's favorability, 36.6%.
Ilhan Omar, 9.
Ocasio-Cortez, 22.
Mind you, those are in the swing states and among non-college-educated whites.
So we can't necessarily, we're not, you know, we're not seeing a one-for-one there.
But I do want to stress, that's where it's very important.
The blue wall, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc.
Those are the states Trump needs to hold, and he won some of them by slim margins.
So he's making a bold play.
He knows he won't lose his base, and he knows swing voters detest Omar and Cortez and socialism.
Cenk Uygur takes credit for propping up Ocasio-Cortez.
Well, good job.
You got what you wanted, to your own detriment.
But Democrats are paying attention to what the Electoral College means.
It means that Trump can play by these rules and win.
And now we have this story two days ago from the New York Times.
Trump's Electoral College edge could grow in 2020, rewarding polarizing campaign.
Re-election looks plausible, even with a bigger loss in the national popular vote.
And here we have it.
NBC.
How Trump could lose by 5 million votes and still win in 2020.
Analysis.
The nation's two most populous states, California and Texas, are at the heart of Democrats' geography problem.
I was reading an article about how, uh, why the Electoral College was formed.
And it's a complicated process, I'll say that.
The founding fathers didn't believe it was perfect, but they thought it was better than a just a popular vote for several reasons. They were
concerned that a demagogue could just pander to big urban populations and win, and that could
result in conflict, civil war even.
So they said, how about Congress elects the president? And they said, no,
because then you'll have executives ponying up to Congress and colluding to guarantee power.
So they said, how about the states can choose electors?
It's not the people, but the electors can then vote based on, you know, who they want of their own discretion.
Since then, the Electoral College has changed a bit, but what it has done is ensured that people all over this country will not be oppressed by the majority.
It's not perfect, but it's certainly better than Los Angeles and New York City deciding the president every single time.
That will result in, I mean, dare I say, collapse.
So, in the end, what can we see?
The Electoral College really does make sense.
I, for one, am totally for it, for one obvious reason.
Obama won twice.
Okay, great.
Democrats, be happy.
Your guy got in.
Of course, I voted for Obama in 2008.
I didn't vote for him again.
Not a big fan.
I think he did a bunch of war things I don't like.
But the point is, if you're a Democrat, the Electoral College helped you.
Obama was able to win.
Why change the rules now?
That's just being a sore loser.
But I want to highlight one last thing in this story.
Let me wrap up these points.
I believe the hard donations show Trump is on track for a victory.
I believe the economy is strong.
It is.
And that's a sign of Trump's impending victory.
And he has the incumbent advantage.
They always do.
So I think Trump will win.
Don't be arrogant, because maybe he won't, I don't know.
But you know what?
If there's one thing Democrats need to win?
Sanity.
Unfortunately, the media is running them ragged and making them insane.
I talked about it yesterday.
The media is pushing this weird fringe, identitarian politics that Americans mostly don't care for.
It results in a fracturing of the left, and the right resists.
But here's a really great example of how the media is playing Democrats for fools.
From the Daily Caller, Ted Cruz says Beidou has crashed and burned since the midterms.
But this is an interesting statement.
Why did Beidou crash and burn?
Because Beidou has no substance.
Beidou has no base.
Beidou has no policy positions.
He had none.
I remember when he announced he was running for president.
I went to his website.
There was nothing there.
You couldn't put together some policy issues before putting up your website?
Nope.
Beto O'Rourke was manufactured by the press and by celebrities.
And once he exhausted his usefulness, They stopped talking about him.
But people really believed he had something there.
Now, he did get a decent amount of the vote in Texas, being propped up by celebrities outside of Texas.
I find that creepy, by the way.
But once they were done with him, they walked away.
And people began to realize that Beto O'Rourke has got nothing!
The only thing he has going for him is that he stands on tables.
That's your thing.
You're the guy who stands on tables.
The media is hurting the Democrats, and I mean this, you know, Not just in Beto O'Rourke.
Constantly telling everyone Hillary can win.
They believed Trump had a 1-13% chance of winning, depending on what you read.
How many Democrats then didn't come out to vote because they were like, Trump can't win.
My state's the part of the blue wall.
Michigan can't turn red.
And then it did.
I believe Michigan was red.
But you know, you had like Ohio, Pennsylvania.
States?
Yeah, I believe Michigan.
States, Trump shouldn't have won.
That was the media's fault.
Sitting there in their ivory tower, looking down at people saying, don't worry, Trump won't win.
Well, they listened.
So now we're gonna see historic turnout in 2020.
But it's not just regular media, it's social media too.
My final point.
I know I said one last point, but here's my final point.
I've said this before, but I want to stress it today.
When Twitter, YouTube, Facebook bans the fringe far-right and the more bombastic far-right personalities, you're left with people like, I don't know, Will Chamberlain, who is a suit-wearing, tall, professional with glasses, who is articulate, who doesn't get into the weeds.
That's who's left standing front and center.
I use Will as an example because, you know, I consider him a friend, but I've had him on this, I've interviewed him many times, and I think he's a good example of A professional, prominent, you know, Republican who speaks articulately.
The reason I bring him up compared to, say, someone like Paul Joseph Watson.
Paul Joseph Watson, I believe, has a funny personality.
He makes entertaining videos, but he's bombastic.
Love him or hate him.
Compare the two.
Facebook banned Paul Joseph Watson.
Now, when the average American looks to the right, what do they see?
They see Will Chamberlain.
A lawyer, glasses and a suit, saying, well here's, I'd like to explain to you why I think this should be the way it is and why we should talk about these issues.
And it's very straightforward.
No insults.
Compelling conversation from a professional individual.
That's what happens when you ban people on social media.
When they don't ban the left, what do you get?
You get people screeching, throwing pies, advocating for extreme acts like Sean King.
And regular Americans see that and go, what is wrong with the left?
Not realizing that the right does have some of the same problems, but the media is biased against them and removes them.
So, I look at it this way.
The analogy I've often used.
You have two kids.
You tell one of them, no ice cream for you.
The other one, you can have all the ice cream in the world because you're the favorite.
Then, you know, you're the babysitter, right?
The mom comes up and she sees one kid covered in ice cream and the other kid looks fine.
And she thinks, wow, that messy kid is a disaster.
Not realizing the only reason the other kid looks nice, you took the ice cream away from him.
The point I'm trying to make, censorship actually does backfire against the left in many ways.
The media is screwing over the Democrats.
And I think that's the most important takeaway from everything.
So in the end, I think Trump is going to win 2020.
I think the Democrats are on track to lose.
And the only thing they have in their pocket is to try and get rid of the Electoral College because they know urban centers can dictate who the president will be.
And that is wrong.
Look, I point back to Obama.
If he could do it, so can you.
If you're losing by your own rules that you won by twice, well then you are playing the game poorly.
Get your act together, because even Vice News said it.
The Democrats need to get their ass together.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next video will be coming up.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews at 6 p.m., and I will see you all then.
People are so dumb.
I'm just, you know, sometimes I get fed up with people, and that's why, here's my plan.
I got this van.
It's awesome.
I got a monitor in it.
I can do my work.
I can record it.
I'm gonna drive off into the middle of nowhere and just kick back, take a look, you know, go fishing maybe a little bit.
But I guess I'll still read the news.
Now, I'm being somewhat facetious here.
I'm just, you know, when I see this story, I'm exhausted.
I'm so exhausted.
I stand with Erika Trenz after Georgia Democratic lawmaker says she was told to quote, go back where you came from.
That's a quote, except now she's saying it's not true.
It's another look.
You know, I'm I'm hard pressed to say confirmed hoax because the story is developing.
It's a he said, she said, except for the fact I will say this woman.
Changed her story.
Now, many of you may be saying, I have no idea what you're talking about, Tim.
Let me explain.
This woman, she's a Georgia Democratic lawmaker named Erica Thomas, put out this video where she's crying, saying that a white man came up to her at the grocery store because she had too many items in the express lane, which she admits, and then said, you lazy son of a, you know, B-I-T-C-H.
You need to go back where you came from or something to that effect.
She is crying and, you know, this tweet is going viral.
Look at this.
She says, Today I was verbally assaulted in the grocery store by a
white man, who told me I was a lazy SOB and to go back where I came
from because I had too many items in the express lane.
My husband wasn't there to defend me because he is on active duty serving the country.
I came from USA.
Now here's the thing.
Patricia Arquette.
She says, mandatory viewing.
All caps, by the way.
Very boomer of you, Patricia.
No, this is not acceptable.
No, we will not allow this cancer to grow.
No, this cannot be normalized.
I want to completely reiterate everything Patricia Arquette just said.
No, this is not acceptable.
No, we will not allow this cancer to grow.
And no, this cannot be normalized.
Now, of course, I'm not talking about the fake story.
I'm talking about celebrities pumping out emotional drivel without doing any fact-checking.
But again, like I talked about the other day in the Justin Bieber video, if you're not familiar, Bieber tweeted to Trump about kids in cages.
I can't expect these celebrities to know what's happening, to do the groundwork, to actually figure out what's going on.
But how many times do we need to have some nonsense hoax before people say, I am not going to retweet this?
Covington, kids.
Total nightmare.
Jussie Smollett.
Once again, we're living in hell.
And now we have this.
But at least this got debunked in record time.
Okay, I say debunked, but bear with me.
It's still a he said, she said.
So here's the first thing we need.
Actually, it's also convenient, isn't it?
The viral video comes less than a week after President Trump attacked a group of minority congressmen.
Oh God, we get it.
Forgive me for using the Lord's name in vain, but I am exasperated.
Check this out.
Here, I'm gonna play this, and hopefully the audio comes through.
unidentified
Interesting.
man comes up to me and says, you lazy son of a b****. He says, you lazy son of a b****.
Interesting. That's a quote. And you can see her crying.
Man, I gotta say, Emmy, what's what's what's no, no, not Emmy, Oscar Academy Award. What's
the award you get when you're Because here's the thing.
Apparently now, she's changed her story, saying this.
unidentified
He said, go back, you know, those types of words.
I don't want to say, he said, go back to your country or go back to where you came from, but he was making those types of references is what I remember.
You couldn't give it a couple days before doing an interview?
Well, here's the thing.
This guy actually shows up.
This is actually really interesting.
His name is Eric Sparks.
He shows up to a press conference and pushes back saying no.
Now, what's really interesting is the guy says he's not white.
And, uh, I don't even- I don't even know what- I don't even know what white means anymore, because I look at this guy, and I'm like, he looks white to me, but he says he's Cuban.
Does that change the fact that he's white or not?
I honestly don't know, and I mean that sincerely.
I literally have no idea, because some, like, Asians are white supremacists, and this guy is Cuban.
Does that mean he's not?
I just don't know.
Now, what he says, he says what happened was, There were three lanes open.
She had about 20 items in the express lane.
So he goes and buys- he buys his items, and then asks customer service if they can do anything about it.
I gotta admit, if three lanes are open, dude, I don't know why you care that someone's using the express lane.
It's silly.
But hey, you know what?
Apparently, according to this guy, they said, we can't do anything but you can say something to her.
So he claims he walked up and pointed to the sign that says, you know, not to be rude ma'am, but it's ten items or less.
She gets in his face, yells at him, he yells back.
He then calls her a lazy SOB.
That was it.
He never said go back or anything like that.
And I gotta admit, it does sound kind of weird for a Cuban guy to tell some other person to go back where they came from.
I kind of don't buy it.
I also kind of feel like it's very convenient timing for someone to yell at you, go back where you came from.
But there is more interesting information.
It turns out, Eric Sparks is very, apparently he hates Donald Trump.
Okay, so why would I ever assume this guy, okay, this guy would say something like that?
I wouldn't.
Let me see if I can pull up this tweet.
So we have this one, I already pulled that up.
So Ryan Saavedra tweets, Georgia Democrat Erica Thomas claims a white man told her to, quote, go back to where I came from.
The guy is a Cuban Democrat, and he says that he didn't say that, and she is doing this for political gain.
He defended the squad this week on Facebook against Trump's attack.
So here we have the original tweet from Thomas.
Let's move forward.
Now we have Eric Sparks, and it definitely looks like him in the photo.
Here's something where he says, Trump, this is from the EEOC rules.
Ethnic slurs and other verbal or physical conduct because of nationality are illegal, and if they are severe or pervasive and create an intimidating, hostile... Okay, you get the point.
The guy puts two quotes from the 17th of this month.
Here's another one Trump needs to go back to Germany This is from the 14th.
This dude is absolutely the opposite of Trump supporter.
In fact, he's quite woke as it were and Then we have this one.
He says This is from the 12th.
Wealth, for the Trumpers I grew up with, is the hidden and outright vocal bigotry.
Ignorance and racism I experienced at times because my grandmother did not speak English,
only Spanish.
So my anger comes out.
F you all racists, and to the ones that say you aren't racist, then you are lying to yourselves.
This guy, dare I say it, has Trump Derangement Syndrome.
But I'm curious.
I'm very curious what will happen now that he's been the victim of this hoax.
And I do believe it's a hoax.
Now, I will stress that is my opinion.
Gotta be very clear about that, that it was a hoax.
Because even this woman Has now walked back her claims.
Ryan Savage is tweeting, Erica Thomas is changing her story after it trended all day and resulted in extensive news coverage.
I guess she didn't expect this guy would actually show up to her press event and actually confront her saying, I never said that.
And then in this video, he gives his story.
Andy No tweeting, Eric Sparks absolutely denies the claim that he told politician Erica Thomas to go back where you came from.
He says the argument started over her using the express line.
Let me say something.
First of all, man, choose your battles, dude.
I get it.
She's, in my opinion, staging this hoax because victimhood is profitable.
I mean, look at this original video where she's crying, saying she was told to go back where she came from and all that.
And what happens?
Check this out.
Let's see how many tweets Patricia Arquette got.
this video. 1.8 thousand, 1,800 retweets. But wait, Gerald A. Griggs, 1.8 million views,
almost 10,000 retweets.
Victimhood is profitable today.
So why not make up some story, exaggerate, make a viral trend?
Now perhaps she didn't realize it would go as viral as it did.
Now she's in trouble.
Because now she's crying on camera, and she's even now denied her initial claim.
In the very least, I can say, She was wrong.
Personally, I think she's a liar who did it for personal gain because, look, when it comes to politics, people know there's money to be made if you can generate attention.
And so people will fabricate these stories for attention.
Why did Jussie Smollett do it?
According to the CPD.
He was doing it because he wanted to increase his salary.
Why?
Because there is power in victimhood.
And here's the thing.
I opened this video by saying I'm gonna get in my van, drive off to the mountains, kick back, and go fishing.
I am not a victim.
I reject the victimhood philosophy that these people seem to believe in.
And I think the ends don't justify the means.
Period.
And I care more about honor and integrity than I do about appearances or generating followers.
I would so much rather build my own mud hut and hunt critters than ever engage in this kind of nonsensical behavior.
This is how desperate people are for power.
And to quote Lindsey Graham, a man who I do not like, for the most part.
Nothing personal.
It's professional disagreements.
I don't know him personally.
Boy, y'all want power and I hope you never get it.
Something like that.
When I heard him say that, I laughed.
I'm like, man, I hear that.
You know, I was reading about the Electoral College today, and one of the things the Founding Fathers were really terrified of is the coalescing of power.
The ability for someone to manipulate the system to gain power.
And they fought for months, and it was really hard to come up with a decision on how the country should be run.
It's decently simple, but it is rather complicated.
Three branches?
It's quite brilliant, if you ask me.
Is it the best it could be?
I think we can do better.
We can always do better.
We can learn.
I'm not going to pretend that a 250-year-old system is perfect, but it is pretty damn good.
And they were terrified of demagogues rallying people kind of like this.
They were scared that somebody who could make an appeal directly to the people would gain too much power.
And they were right.
It's one of the reasons why the Electoral College was developed.
So that you couldn't have a demagogue president manipulating public emotions.
Because, you know, the truth is we need a mix.
There was a quote, I can't remember what it's from, maybe it's a bad person, I don't know, but it was something about how we do work to live.
Oh, I think this was actually a character in a movie, I think it was like Robin Williams.
Something like, we do work to live, but the arts are why we live, or something like that.
And the point is...
We have to balance emotion and logic when we're running a country.
We cannot fall victim to these attacks, okay?
This woman attacked our psyche.
My opinion, by the way.
Crying.
Desperately begging for our goodwill.
And guess what?
Celebrities gave it in droves.
A trending hashtag.
I stand with Erica.
She did it.
She sold you snake oil.
We have to be more resilient to these emotional attacks because people are trying to steal from you.
Now, they're not going to your house and taking your food, but they're trying to force you to use your influence to empower them, and these are dangerous people.
Dangerous.
It's unfortunate, but you know what?
I'll say it.
I say it all the time.
Public relations, politics, PR, marketing, it's all fake.
It's all fake.
We all know it's fake, too.
And this is one of the things that makes me more, like, angrier than anything could ever make me angry.
I'll tell you what, I've been playing Dig Dug 2.
You ever play that?
It's a very old game from, like, 83.
And boy, does that game drive me insane.
I'm like, the joystick's not working, I get really frustrated, I'm like, ah!
Video games make me angry.
But I'll tell you what makes me really angry.
Like, the game's silly.
I walk away and I laugh about it in 10 seconds, but the game's frustrating.
But you know what's really anger-inducing?
Our world is built on lies.
It's always a lie.
Everyone's lying all the time.
And I mean that seriously.
A tanker crashes.
CEO comes out and says something, and you know he's lying.
Bill Clinton, that guy's lying.
Donald Trump, he's lying too.
Everybody is lying all the time.
All the time.
The truth can get out in little tidbits here and there, but it's all lies.
All the time, man.
Because people know that there are societal rules, they can and can't say things.
Now here's the reality.
Within the system of public versus private, there are cracks you can navigate to get what you want.
And that means lying.
And these people have discovered that.
The Jussie Smollett's of the world.
The Erica Thomas's of the world.
Andy Ngo has done a ton of work, you know, logging a ton of hate crime hoaxes.
Now, why would someone stage a hate crime hoax?
Well, of course, they're trying to steal your goodwill.
Look at the GoFundMes, how much money they make.
Then, of course, the left turns around and blames Andy Ngo for his own attack for calling these people out.
But these are authoritarian con artists.
They are a chaotic, evil force.
Well, actually, I'll say this.
They're definitely not chaotic good, but they range from chaotic neutral to chaotic evil, right?
In the sense that this, I would say, is... I don't... I don't... I wouldn't necessarily call it evil.
It's someone exploiting a system for personal gain, but is she really trying to hurt others?
Well, I guess you could say yes, she hurt this Eric Sparks guy, but maybe she never thought, you know, she didn't think you'd actually come out and challenge her.
Well, now she's in trouble.
These regressive leftist types are not coordinating properly.
You know, and what I mean by that is, what we see from all of these people has no goal.
It's just chaotic.
It's a chaotic, destructive force.
It is just a massive energy slamming into walls.
It's a bull in a china shop.
Just knocking things down for no reason, just because.
And there's a few reasons I think this happens.
For one, you absolutely have the Antifa types, who believe the world should be what they want it to be, and they'll take it by any means necessary.
And then you have the Joker types, who think it's fun and funny when these things happen.
And unfortunately, you then have the largest faction, in my opinion.
Bored Millennials.
There's just nothing to do anymore.
There's no great adventure.
There's no great mission.
They don't want to be astronauts.
They're not fighting for something.
So what do they have?
They make it up.
They do.
And it's kind of crazy, you know?
People need purpose.
I believe this is true, I could be wrong, but most people die after retirement, like around 55 to 60, because they're not working anymore.
And I've heard a lot of theories as to why this is, but The theories don't matter.
What matters is that people really do need purpose.
I watched this documentary about places called Blue Zones, where people live to be over 100, and one of the factors in all of these places is that they always work.
They don't stop.
And there was a really cool interview where there's like a 90-year-old guy chopping wood, and they asked him, like, why are you chopping wood?
Shouldn't a younger person do it?
And he was like, what do you mean?
If I don't, no one else will.
And that purpose drove them.
So think about this.
You have people with no purpose and they're older and they die.
It's sad, but you know, that's the cycle of life.
What happens then when you have young people with no purpose?
They become a chaotic and destructive force.
They jump on the bad wagon and just start knocking things down for no reason.
Look at all the people who are grabbing food products and contaminating them, spitting in them, licking them, etc.
They have no purpose.
They're just Just going crazy.
So when you have all of this pent up energy with no focus and no drive, well, things get bad.
You end up with stories like this.
Why is she doing this?
She needs purpose.
She needs there to be the threat of the evil white privilege because that's her fight.
But guess what?
It's rare.
So they stage these hoaxes because they need it to be true.
I feel bad, almost.
I have purpose.
My life is an adventure.
Witnessed revolutions.
I've been shot at.
Traveled all over the world.
Need to go to Antarctica, though.
And the reason I bring that up is not like I'm bragging, but it's to point out you give yourself purpose in your own mind.
I have always had a drive in me.
From when I was younger until today, I'm looking forward at my own adventure.
The things that I determine are the quest.
And perhaps it's because I grew up playing RPGs, where there was this always great adventure to go on, and I have a great imagination, so I would go out and say, this is my quest, and this is my goal.
And here I am now, having done a ton of crazy things in my life, and now producing these videos.
I have a purpose.
I wake up every day, on the dot, every day I make these videos.
Six videos per day.
And we're doing more.
Because there is a mission, and I've decided what it is, and no one can tell me otherwise.
But I'm not going to make this video a long, you know, moral conversation or motivational speech.
I'll just say this.
What we're seeing now from these people is a loss of purpose.
And I gotta say, it's society's fault.
It doesn't mean it's any individual's fault.
It doesn't mean that at some point someone did something wrong necessarily.
But what is our culture?
What is America telling young people they need to do?
We have no great mission.
We're not going to be astronauts or rock stars.
So what happens?
People then become social justice warriors.
That is the mission.
Well, perhaps we need to shift the focus away from that and say, go discover a new insect.
We haven't even traversed, like, look, seriously, you can go to Ecuador, one of the most biodiverse regions in the world, and I assure you, there are species that have not yet been discovered.
Of course, for a lot of young people, they're not going to college, mostly men, they sit around playing video games all day, and these video games serve as a kind of False mission.
But I get it.
I was addicted to World of Warcraft at one period, like 10 years ago.
No, man, like 13 years ago.
It was back in World of Warcraft vanilla, like the first... I woke up, played, went to sleep.
Woke up, played, went to sleep.
And what a lot of people will claim is that when you do this, you know, you play World of Warcraft, you gain weight.
No way, dude.
I was emaciated.
Because you don't eat or drink, and I'm sitting there like skin and bones, like, I'm like, gotta go raid.
And eventually I was like, I'm over it.
I'm done.
I moved on and I found a new mission.
I think the most important thing for people is that we need to figure out a new cultural mission.
Perhaps that can be Elon Musk's, uh, you know, um, the Falcon projects.
People can look up to that and be inspired by it.
Launching a car into outer space is cool stuff.
Maybe it's the Mars mission or the moon mission.
Trump says we're going to go to the moon in the next five years.
Maybe we need something.
We need something to strive for.
We need a great adventure.
We need a cultural purpose.
And we don't have one.
All we have right now is like...
I don't know, man.
It's just people spinning in circles with nothing to do.
But the problem isn't that there isn't anything to do.
The problem is people have to just decide what their mission's going to be.
Anyway, I have no idea how I got on this subject, but I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Next segment will be at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
In 2016, 2015, We had candidate Bernie Sanders, an independent.
He wasn't a Democrat, he wasn't a Republican, he was something else.
He had a consistent track record.
Now, I can't speak to a lot of the policies he wanted to push.
I disagree with some of them, like his plan for paying for college by taxing Wall Street was just surface-level nonsense.
When you actually got into the nitty-gritty, it didn't really make sense.
It seems like Bernie Sanders doesn't understand the concept of trade volume as it pertains to tax increases and tax revenue.
I'm not gonna get into that whole economics thing.
But what I saw was someone who was way better than Hillary, and who said these free trade agreements are bad for the American worker, who said that the gun debate is urban versus rural.
He had some nuanced positions, and I thought, hey, man, this guy's being honest.
Maybe this is the guy we should get behind.
Now, I'm not, you know, far left.
Bernie's, like, in the middle of the left.
He's a social democrat, so, you know, I'm center left.
Bernie, well, actually, Bernie's a little bit further than that.
But here's the thing.
Bernie seemed like a genuine character.
And then he lost, because he was cheated, and he bent the knee, and now he's basically your run-of-the-mill garbage Democrat.
You can see my videos over time where I gradually lose, you know, my support for him fades.
I still like the guy a little bit.
But you know what, man?
He's playing the identity- uh, identitarian silly game where he's saying stupid garbage like he's on the debate stage saying that white people don't know what it's like to be poor and I was like, what are you doing, man?
Nah.
I'm not into it.
And now we have what may be a big nail in the coffin for Bernie, at least as far as it goes with me.
Right, because I'm center- I'm a centrist, okay?
I'm like leaning to the left.
I am not a diehard progressive that will just praise Bernie no matter what.
You deserve to be criticized, Bernie Sanders.
Why?
Bernie Sanders' campaign responds to $15 minimum wage controversy with better hours for staff.
I love how Newsweek phrased this.
Better hours for staff, they say.
Because what was happening?
Bernie was paying $36,000 a year salary to his campaign staffers, to a certain level of the staff.
But they were working 60 hours a week, which meant they were getting around $11 to $13 an hour on average.
They said, if we're gonna keep doing this, you need to pay us more.
So what was Bernie's response?
No, we're gonna cut your hours!
I love it.
And I tweeted about it, I said, one of my favorite analogies for irony, Bernie Sanders cutting hours instead of paying people what they ask for is like seeing a fire truck on fire.
You get it?
Pure irony.
Quite literally the guy saying, we need a federal $15 minimum wage.
Going, I'm gonna cut your hours because otherwise I'll be paying you too much.
What did Bernie learn here?
An important lesson.
First, he is going to be giving a $15 wage.
Technically.
But the thing is, the people working these campaigns were working the hours they needed to work to do the job.
Because he was paying a salary, they were getting the equivalent of $11 to $13.
Which would mean you've got to increase their salaries, Bernie.
He didn't want to do that.
And typical employer negotiation standard, not only did he not want to increase their pay, he actually is quoted as saying that he was upset that the organizers went to the media.
Oh man, Bernie, Bernie, Bernie, you are not showing us the good fight for labor here.
It seems to be, what I'm seeing now is, Well, you know what?
Something changed in Bernie in 2016.
He seems to have all of these good qualities, right?
He was standing up for the working class.
And then all of a sudden, he's endorsing Hillary.
I guess he had to, but oh man, that was bad.
Then he does that identitarian thing.
He gets pushed around.
And now all of a sudden, he's fallen in line and...
A millionaire?
What happened, Bernie?
You used to be an independent, pushing back on Democrats and Republicans, although he did caucus with Democrats, and saying the free trade agreements were bad.
Gun debate.
Urban versus rural.
You know, he comes from a state where people like their guns.
Vermont.
Now what is he?
Run-of-the-mill nonsense.
You know, saying, get rid of the, get rid of the Electoral College.
Oh, come on, dude.
I don't know what his stance was on the Electoral College before this, but now he's just generic.
Completely generic.
And it coincides around the time he became a millionaire.
Now, by all means, be a millionaire.
I don't think, you know, that's a bad thing.
I'm just saying.
Isn't it all so damn coincidental?
Now we see something even more interesting.
Bernie, as an employer, Is refusing to pay to increase the wages of a staff.
Now, here's what you need to consider in this story.
The work being done still needs to be done.
Just because Bernie... I love how they say, better hours.
Better hours.
It's a salaried position, dude.
People were working as much as they needed to, as salaried positions often require.
So Bernie says, you can't... Oh man, it is so amazing.
It's like, I get it.
Maybe Bernie is saying, listen, you shouldn't be working these hours in the first place, so stop.
But it's also just like, If I'm going to side with the labor on this one and assume these people aren't choosing to work longer than they need to, they're working as long as they need to because they believe in the mission.
Now, I wonder how they feel now.
You know, people actually quit his campaign over low pay.
Bernie is learning what it means to be an employer.
He cuts the hours.
Step 1.
Here's how it goes.
Let me lay it out.
Step 1.
Employees say, we are getting paid too little for the hours we're working.
Step 2.
Bernie in typical employer fashion says, then we're cutting your hours.
Stop working then.
Step three, people begin to realize that work isn't getting done because cutting people's hours doesn't solve for, like, that means certain work will not be completed.
Step four, then, is Bernie has to hire new people at the same rate to do the job.
Bernie, you're making a big mistake on this one.
Because either way, you're gonna have to spend the money, you're gonna have to hire people to do the job, And now you just look really, really bad.
Let's read a little bit of this story, and then I've got more coming up later.
The next story at 4 p.m.
is following a similar track.
They say on Thursday evening, the Washington Post reported that some members of Sanders' campaign had been lobbying to raise their wages.
Field organizers say they make a salary of $36K, but work 60 hours a week, which is an average of $13 per hour.
Unionized workers plan to send a letter to campaign manager Faziz Shakir which read, that many field staffers are barely managing to survive financially.
Now here's the thing.
The response from Shakir was that, we pay competitive wages.
And that to me was just like, oh man, are you kidding me dude?
Competitive?
What the hell does market competition have to do with paying a rate you ideologically support?
Why is the socialist candidate now having his campaign manager talk about market rates?
What does the market have to do with whether or not your staff can live and eat?
You know, I gotta say, man, the correct response from Bernie?
Increase their salaries, period.
But of course, Bernie's an employer.
He knows he can't just do that.
Money is finite.
It's not as simple as to snap your fingers and have money appear.
So what I brought up in this, it's a really good example of why command economies don't work.
Look at it this way.
Bernie is in an isolated system.
Money has to come in before money can go out.
So when money does come in via donations, he can then divvy that up to his staffers, in which they spend it in other places.
But what happens when the money isn't coming in, but the staffers want more money?
In a capitalist system, His isolated system collapses.
Within the greater economic system, you cannot support a system that spends more than it receives or with unhappy labor.
Therefore, the mission isn't worth the job.
Unfortunately then, You're done.
What happens then in a command economy, communist, socialist, etc.?
A system like Bernie's would emerge that isn't bringing in enough resources to sustain itself.
Well, a command economy then says, we'll just force the resources from over here into this system.
Unfortunately then, the other system is expending too much resources.
Like, people don't seem to realize that resources are finite.
Labor, it is finite.
The value is finite.
You can print more money, it's not going to change anything.
It's going to cause inflation and devalue everything else.
What ends up happening then in a capitalist system, you have private businesses that fail
when they can't bring in enough money.
In governmental systems, and this is true even for ours, they just mandate the resources be pumped into it
so it can't fail when it probably should.
So I believe, I think the mixed economy is the right way to go, and this is a good example.
Imagine the entire government was built around just taking resources, all of it,
where you saw it, you couldn't. An individual cannot map out an economy of this scale on
their own. You need the free market. You need a combination of a free market, but also a
regulatory system, at least in my opinion. So anyway, what's particularly interesting
here is that it's not the same as cutting hours to avoid overtime, but it kind of is,
They're on salaries, so Bernie can say, hey, why don't you take the weekend off?
And I guarantee you, this is how the left is already going to phrase it, frame it.
We can see this from Newsweek.
They're saying he responds with better hours for staff.
Oh, really?
Is that what you're claiming?
Look at it this way.
If you worked for, I don't know, Walmart, and they paid you $10 an hour, and you were working 60 hours a week, that extra 20 hours would be time and a half at $15 an hour.
So what happens is, instead of paying you that extra money, the employer cuts your hours and says you can't work overtime anymore.
It is a very common managerial thing to do.
Bernie Sanders is doing basically that.
The people worked the hours.
Get this.
Is Bernie going to pay retro?
If the people already work 60 hours, then Bernie.
Are you going to give retroactive pay to those people for the hours they worked in which they weren't receiving $15 an hour?
I'm willing to bet the answer is no.
He comes out in typical employer fashion, just work less.
We don't want you working overtime because we don't want to pay you.
Where's the union?
Push back on this.
But in the end, what do we get?
We get a fire truck on fire.
Bernie Sanders is supposed to be putting out the fire of a less-than-living-wage economy.
What does he do?
He literally does it himself!
Let's just read the end of this, because I've got a bigger story for the next segment, which talks about where the Democrats are and what's happening.
With fundraising.
But they go on to talk about how Bernie is pushing for a federal minimum of $15, but even his own campaign isn't upholding that.
So I'll say this.
You've got people quitting.
That's the gist of the story.
You know, Bernie's gonna cut their hours.
My final question is, will the union pressure Bernie to pay for retro pay?
If the negotiations are happening now, that means there's an extended period of time these people worked where they didn't receive $15 an hour, Bernie.
Pay up.
I think so.
Put your money where your mouth is.
So, you know, look, I will add in the main... I did a bigger segment on this the other day.
This is kind of an update.
And I gave Bernie the benefit of the doubt saying he probably didn't know about this.
You know, if someone came to me and said I wanted a raise, I wouldn't be like, work less hours!
You can't work Saturday and Sunday anymore.
It's like, oh dude, but I need more money for this job, period.
An extra day off's not gonna help me.
Oh, but guess what?
On your extra day off, you can go work a second part-time job, right?
Then you'll have the money you need to pay for food.
Think, c-c-consider this.
The salaries they receive will not change.
If somebody can't eat on the salary Bernie is paying them, what does an extra day off guarantee?
Oh, now you can go work at McDonald's part-time to make up that wage difference because Bernie's not paying you enough.
Good job, Bernie.
I appreciate it.
Stick around.
Next segment will be at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It is a different channel, and I will see you there.
I'm gonna let you guys in on a big secret.
Tim Pool absolutely detests the Democrats and the DNC.
Though my politics are on the left, there's a reason why I don't like the Democrats.
For one, they stole it from Bernie.
It's always been this elitist, corporatist game.
But I'm not a far-left individual.
I don't like the far-left crazies damaging my environmental arguments and actually hurting progressive causes because, in my opinion, they're nuts and they're not that smart.
But you also have these elite moderate Democrats who are just millionaires, and it's an impenetrable fortness of elitism, sitting atop their ivory tower, restricting anybody from coming in.
Any sane, rational person who wants to have a real conversation is shut out.
So yes, I clearly don't like the Democrats, and I find it funny how there's still a lot of people that, you know, ask me, like, why are you always being, you know, ragging on the Democrats?
Like, listen, man, it's not about the Democrats.
I'm not so blind that I can't actually assess what's really going on and have an honest opinion, but my biases are obvious.
I've been physically attacked by Antifa several times.
The Democrats stole the nomination from Bernie, and I worked in media.
Combine those things and you can see what I care about.
Criticizing the media for their bias, duh.
Criticizing the Democrats for being elitist or insane, and criticizing Antifa because they've attacked me in the past.
My biases are obvious.
It's the world that I focus on, the things that I see, and it should be plain to anybody.
But they're trying to act like all those things make me right-wing.
No, I just have those particular life experiences.
And so I see these things as, in my opinion, big problems.
I'm also not dumb, right?
I can look at story after story and we can see the Democrats, at least the DNC, they're dirty, rotten cheaters.
They are.
Check out this story.
We're gonna talk about Mike Gravel, who I think is funny, and I donated to.
I donated $4.20 because they actually ask you for $4.20.
But he's a very, very anti-war individual, and I thought it would be awesome to see him on the debate stage to shake up these elitist Democrats.
Totally.
Like what?
Everybody on that stage is a millionaire.
And look, I'm not gonna give Trump any slack.
He's a billionaire.
I get it, man.
It's a country for rich people.
Check this out.
And I'll pause real quick and say that's why I was actually hopeful for Ocasio-Cortez, because I like the story of a working class person stepping up, but she's proven herself to be not that bright.
Who's in and who's out of the second Democratic debate?
Well, you know who should have been in but isn't?
Mike Gravel.
Mike Gravel got the donors he needs to be on the debate stage.
Okay?
But he didn't get the polls he needed.
So they're gonna go with de Blasio, who doesn't have the donors.
Steve Bullock.
I don't even know who that is.
John Hickenlooper.
Tim Ryan.
Oh, come on.
Listen, we can talk about polls all day and night, but donors show you when people actually care.
And now here's the kicker.
One of the reasons I detest, okay, this is not so much the DNC's fault, I guess, maybe, but it's the DNC, it's the media.
Check this out.
They say, although Gravel's drive for 65,000 donors became something of a cause celebre on Twitter, The former senator has had only one qualifying poll in all of 2019.
Some surveys haven't even listed him as an option for respondents to choose from.
But the fact that his campaign has struggled to attract support isn't all that surprising, given he isn't campaigning vigorously.
He's even described his bid as a patio campaign.
Not to mention that his operation is primarily managed by two teenagers.
Don't care.
He's got the donors, of which one was me.
No one ever called me and asked me who I'd be supporting.
Did they?
I'd put him in the top three.
He's above Marian Williamson.
Only because of his anti-war stance.
When you go to his website, here's what you see.
War.
What is it good for?
Well, let's be real.
As much as I oppose a lot of what Obama did and have criticized a lot of what Trump has done in foreign policy, I'm not an idiot who thinks war should never happen.
Okay?
Sometimes war has to happen.
It's unfortunate.
One of the main reasons why I'm very, very anti-war is because, philosophically, I am anti-death penalty, and I believe we should not be killing other people.
It's a complicated position.
There's a lot of other things going into pro-choice and pro-life.
I get it.
Maybe I'll have a conversation with someone else when we talk about bigger issues.
I don't want to get off track on this one, so I apologize if people want to learn more about my philosophies.
But war, at least the way the U.S.
has done it, has been very, very bad for us.
Vietnam didn't turn out very well, you know, very good for us.
I think Korea, as I'm kind of leaning towards, yeah, okay, maybe it was a good thing because South Korea is awesome and has tremendous support from the U.S.
But look, the Revolutionary War was a good thing.
It was important.
It needed to happen.
It's unfortunate.
Civil War, too.
I'm very grateful for those who risked everything in the Civil War to fight for a better world.
I also recognize that there are winners and there are losers.
But the way the U.S.
conducts their wars, it's subversive, it's regime change, it's pressuring other countries to serve our interests.
It's complicated.
Sometimes I get why they do it and still disagree.
It's a complicated global political system we have.
Mike Gravel has.
War, what is it good for?
And this is how much it's been, what is this, $5 trillion spent on regime change wars since 2001.
So you want to talk about solving domestic problems.
Well, hey, there's a budget to pull from.
What if instead of inflating the war economy, which it, look, it does go into the US and people, you know, get jobs making weapons, but what if instead it went into the healthcare economy, into school?
So these are, these are reasons I think, you know, That I'd prefer not to have the regime change war.
Now I get it.
I know why they're not going to have Mike Gravel on.
They don't take him seriously.
They don't think he actually wants to be president.
He's 89 years old and they view it as kind of a joke campaign.
They shouldn't.
It shouldn't be that way.
I don't care what you think.
I think Kamala Harris is a joke campaign.
Actually, no.
She's totally corporate.
She's exactly what you'd expect.
So, I want to point this out just because it's funny because I think Gravel 2020 is a funny thing that deserves to be highlighted.
When you go to his ActBlue donation page, I saw this on Twitter.
Here's what happened.
They said, in order to qualify for the debates, he needs 65,000 donors.
And I've seen him speak, I've seen his past debates, and I said, good.
I want him up there screeching at Joe Biden.
That sounds awesome.
So I clicked the link, saw this, and there it is.
Donate $4.20.
And I laughed and said, dude, absolutely.
Because listen, They say the left can't meme, and that's true to an extent.
One of the problems the left has is they don't have comedic, youthful exuberance.
The right's got it.
All the jokes are right-wing, and they dominate that space.
This is something fun on the left, which is surprising to me because they're so stodgy and uptight and offended by everything.
I saw this and I laughed.
420 and 420 again!
And I'm like, they're making light of it, they're having fun.
I like that.
We need more of that, especially on the debate stage.
Well, the Democrats aren't going to allow it.
What is it, CNN?
They're not going to allow it, even though Mike Gravel has met the donor threshold to qualify for the Democratic primary debate.
So, I think it's fair to say, look, you can, look, Nobody takes him seriously.
I don't even think he takes himself seriously.
But they were aiming to be on the debate stage.
And here's the big problem.
Here's why I do not like the Democrats.
Because when you say, these are the rules, I say, okay.
I play by those rules.
And then you pull the rug out from under me every single time I try.
Now, of course, I donated to Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang.
I seriously donated to them.
It wasn't a joke.
Like, I didn't... You know, I gave Gravel 420.
I gave Marianne Williams, I think, like 10 bucks.
I could be wrong.
I may have given her a little bit more.
Because I want to see them on the debate stage.
Not that I think they'll win.
But I... Look, without them, what do you get?
You get the stodgy corporate Democrat saying the same garbage talking points.
So spice it up!
You know what I said earlier, and I'll say this a lot, the world is full- it's just lies.
That's why I want to gravel on that stage.
I am sick and tired of the plastic people standing on TV giving their plastic opinions.
It's why I like YouTube.
It's why I don't want to work for a big corporation.
It's why I like authentic social media conversations.
I don't like fake news, fake outrage, people pretending to be mad all the time.
The world is just people lying.
Bill Maher said it.
You know in private we all say politically incorrect things all the time.
But then on TV it's just lies, lies, lies.
That's why I hate political correctness.
I'll tell you what I really think.
My opinions aren't a secret.
I think it's funny that there's like people on the left I try and act like there's, like, a secret group of, like, people secretly have, like, fringe, far-right beliefs.
Like, dude, I rant for an hour and a half every day.
I don't write any of this down.
I literally just talk.
Like, you get my opinions.
So anyway, here's what I want to see.
Genuine people.
And I'll criticize Tulsi Gabbard for this as well.
While I think she does better than most, going on Joe Rogan, for instance, I still think she does the political, you know, the politicking.
And I understand, I guess you have to.
That's why I donated to Gravel and wanted him on the stage, and now I'm angry that he's not going to be on the stage.
He wasn't in the polls.
What are you supposed to do?
These are the rules you set.
If the polls don't actually list the candidate, well then how is he supposed to win?
It's rigged by the media and the Democrats.
That's how the game is played.
And then I'll tell you what happens.
You get Donna Brazile feeding questions to Hillary Clinton.
Rigged.
You get a natural disaster, PR guy comes out, says nonsense, rigged.
The system is rigged.
It's always rigged.
That's why I'm surprised Donald Trump won.
And there's a bit of a catharsis in Donald Trump's victory in 2016.
I admit, I laughed.
I laughed when he won.
Because I was sitting in this office in D.C.
surrounded by all these Democrats.
I was with Cassandra Fairbanks, Trump supporter.
She's a Trump supporter.
And they're all laughing and gloating and smiling like Hillary's gonna win and Trump's so angry, here goes.
And it's just this snooty elitism.
It's so annoying.
And when the meters started shifting to Trump, I started laughing.
It was comeuppance for these snooty elites who think they're better than you.
They stole it from Bernie Sanders.
Well, Bernie's let me down.
That's a different issue.
At the time, there was Bernie Sanders, whose campaign started from humble means, who rose to prominence through a real message that resonated with people, and Clinton stole it from him.
And the elites got their comeuppance.
Michael Moore said it was the biggest F.U.
America was gonna send to the corporate elites or something like that.
And I agree.
I didn't vote for Trump.
I wanted Bernie to win.
And I don't know where I'm at now, I don't think, you know, I'd want Bernie to win at this point, but I guess, you know, we're at where we're at.
And it's not surprising, I guess, that we see now, you know, the Democrats doing what the Democrats do.
So, I don't need to make this video three hours long, you get it.
Gravel will not be in the debates, and that's a shame.
That is wrong.
And I feel cheated because I donated to him because those are the rules.
So whatever, stick around, I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
Yesterday, a group of around 50 illegal immigrants, I don't know how to really explain who they are because they didn't make it into the U.S., but let me just say, 50 people, undocumented migrants, stormed the Rio Grande Bridge.
Border agents fired tear gas at them.
Boy, I gotta say, do we have a border crisis.
Things just seem to be getting worse and worse.
Now, the story itself is rather short.
But following this, I do have some news I want to talk about pertaining to Ocasio-Cortez.
She wants some kind of, like, 9-11-style commission to investigate Trump.
But I'm just... Let me explain to you real quickly before we get into this why she frustrates me so.
She's talking, she puts out some tweet about how the infrastructure in New York is crumbling, like they need to fix the trains.
And I'm like, dude, Amazon tax revenue was going to help alleviate the infrastructure problem by funding repairs to the MTA.
You blocked that.
And then when she does block it, she comes out like, well, I didn't do anything.
I don't even live in that district.
Oh man, she is a character, I gotta say that.
But let's read the news and then get into issues with her.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash Donut if you want to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, physical address, but of course, share this video.
YouTube has deranked us, so the best thing you can do to support me is just send this video onto social media and share it where you can because, you know, YouTube is, um, it's propping up corporate media.
So, even though I'm reading a Fox News story, I get it.
From Fox News, they report border agents used tear gas to stop nearly 50 undocumented migrants who stormed Rio Grande Bridge.
Customs and Border Protection agents had to use tear gas and pepper spray early Saturday to stop nearly 50 undocumented individuals from illegally entering the U.S.
after they stormed a port of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas, officials said.
The incident at the Far Reynosa International Bridge took place around 4am.
The bridge is closed between midnight and 6am, but CBP has had to construct temporary barriers in the middle of the span due to the large influx of migrants using the bridge at night.
A CBP official told Fox News the group attempted to rush across the bridge in three waves.
Ignoring commands to stop, the group suddenly rushed the temporary barricades, metal poles, and disabled the concertina wire affixed to the barrier, the official said.
CBP officers, Border Patrol agents, far police, and members of the Texas Department of Public Safety were called upon to prevent the group's entry according to the official.
I want to say, this is what I believe may be the second time we have seen a massive wave of illegal immigrants try storming the U.S.
border.
It was several months ago we saw them all rush across the border.
I believe that was near San Ysidro.
So this is a smaller group than we saw before.
That was hundreds of people storming the U.S.
border.
And the nerve of the Democrats to insist there's no crisis.
And now here we are, the problem getting worse every day.
Several males in the group disregarded commands to stop and physically pushed through the barriers, the official said.
When confronted by CBP officers, the combative individuals began assaulting the officers by punching and kicking and attempting to grab the officers' protective devices.
Two individuals were charged with interference, and federal charges are pending against 14 others who were apprehended, the official said, adding that Mexican officials removed the remaining individuals from the bridge.
I gotta ask a question here.
I've never been a fan of the invasion rhetoric, because these people aren't government actors.
But what do you call it when a rogue group of 50 or so people start physically attacking border agents?
I don't want to act like it's coming from Guatemala, Honduras, or whatever country they came from, but these people are organized and attacked the border.
It's also important to point out that we saw a story not too long ago alleging that anti-fascist activists were training migrants just for these kinds of scenarios, with weapons as well.
But whether or not this is connected, I'm not trying to draw that connection.
I'm just saying, don't be surprised if we see more of this, especially after what we heard from federal law enforcement.
Moving on, they say, the bridge opened to commercial traffic at 8 a.m. after a two-hour delay.
The Trump administration has mandated that asylum seekers remain in Mexico while their cases are heard in an effort
to slow the flow of mostly Central American migrants to the southern border.
The White House also said this week it was banning migrants from seeking U.S.
protections if they pass through another country first.
Though that rule has been challenged in court, and that's by the ACLU.
I will also stress, I may have misframed this before saying that this is essentially banning asylum for most people.
The real issue is they can claim asylum to the U.S.
But they have to do it at a U.S.
consulate in whatever country they're in if they move through it.
So, if you're in Mexico and you come to the U.S., you're good.
If you're in Central America and you go to Mexico first, go to a consulate.
Otherwise, I think that's the rule.
They may still be barred, but I want to make sure that's clear, that there's nuance in the issue.
They say those policies and others... And again, the lawsuit being filed is by the ACLU against Trump's policy change, they say.
Those policies and others that make it hard to seek asylum have led some migrants to cross the border illegally out of desperation.
The Mexican government announced plans this week to spend millions of dollars to improve migrant shelters and detention centers that house families, but in southern Mexico far from the U.S.
border.
I also want to stress another story I covered recently, is that Mexico has been conducting immigration raids as well.
It's not just the US and ICE, it's Mexican immigration officials storming schools and churches and buildings and apprehending these illegal immigrants and deporting them.
But now let's talk about the absurdity that is Ocasio-Cortez, because she wants a 9-11 style commission to investigate Trump family separation policy.
What does this even mean?
And why are we wasting time?
Going back to the point I made about Ocasio-Cortez and the MTA issue, it seems like she screws things up and then blames everyone else that they're screwed up.
You want to fix the MTA in New York?
You need tax revenue for that.
Amazon was going to do that.
You led protests.
You headlined a protest event in the financial district.
Calling, you know, trying to stop them from coming in.
So why then should I listen to you when you're upset about the problems you created?
The same can be said for Trump.
One of the criticisms we heard from the left is that, you know, people want to praise Trump for pulling back on Iran when he's the one who ordered the strike on Iran in the first place.
I can respect the criticism, but I will stress this.
There's a difference.
Trump ordered a strike, and then stopped himself.
Good!
Stop yourself more.
Ocasio-Cortez was facing this problem in New York, and what did she do?
Damaged a deal that would have broadened tax revenue, and then complained about the loss of tax revenue.
That's different.
I get it.
You know, she created her own problems.
Let's read this story from The Hill.
They say that AOC on Saturday called for a 9-11-style commission to investigate the effects of the Trump administration policy that led to family separations at the southern border.
The freshman lawmaker made the demand while speaking at an immigration town hall in her home district, according to The Guardian.
Ocasio-Cortez, who has become one of President Trump's favorite targets because everybody hates her.
Well, her favorability is like 22% in swing states, so let's be honest.
Said if the Democrats win back the Senate and White House, the government should convene a special commission to investigate family separations.
She actually invokes 9-11.
Said the 9-11 commission, they were charged with the investigating and making sure they dug out every nook and cranny of what happened and how it happened in our system.
Didn't they not even mention Building 7?
I could be wrong about this.
I don't know.
I don't want to talk about that.
She said, and I think that kind of study is what's going to be required in order to reunite as many children with their parents as possible.
That's the work we have to do.
Pretty sure a report came out saying 95% of migrant children had been reunited.
Was it wrong?
I don't know.
The 9-11 Commission, also known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, was launched in November 2002 to probe the circumstances surrounding 9-11.
Cortez added that U.S.
law now has a lifelong commitment to the children it separated from their parents, adding, she believes, we have responsibility to provide mental health care services to those children for the rest of their lives.
But heaven forbid we do the same thing for homeless people in Los Angeles.
Man, you know, the virtue signaling, it's mind-numbing.
I'm glad the concept of virtue signaling is now mainstream, with criticism for many people.
The idea is now, you know, known to the common folk.
Regular people are hearing this term, which basically means you don't actually care about what these children went through.
You don't care about the border.
Otherwise, you would have voted on providing humanitarian aid.
You care about politicking and posturing to win an election.
I hate... I just can't stand it.
Everything's fake.
Everything's a lie.
She doesn't actually care about this stuff.
I really, really doubt it.
You know, there was... She just wants to look cool for the cameras.
She said, it chills me to my core.
No, it doesn't.
To think about 20 years from now, when these kids grow up, the story that they will have about America.
That is exactly why we cannot allow this administration to define immigration policy within the United States.
This is something that I think is going to have to take a 9-11 style commission.
You know what, man?
Not a day goes by she doesn't say something or do something that I find just absolutely reprehensible.
Invoking 9-11 now.
Pandering to the children.
It's an emotional game.
It's emotional baiting.
She doesn't have an actual policy to offer you, so instead, what do they do?
They manipulate.
Look at the Green New Deal.
Was that about the environment?
No!
It was like the first page talked about the environment and the rest was socialism.
Free healthcare, free college, guaranteed income.
They're manipulating what you care about to try and push in things they know you don't.
And to me, that is selfish and disgusting.
But you know what?
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
One more segment to come in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
The Democrats and the left have run out of space.
They're trying to push everybody and make accusations and claims, but they have run out of room to actually push people.
Let me explain.
See, the media functions on outrage.
They make money by manipulating you into being angry because anger generates the most shares.
So what they do is they'll write an article saying, you know, is Trump a racist?
It gets a million views.
So what do they do the next day?
Well, you can't write the same article twice.
So they'll say Trump is a racist.
They'll then say Trump is the worst racist.
And now we've quite literally gotten to the point where the Democrats have nowhere else to go, for one.
They have called Trump a racist for three years.
Nobody cares anymore.
It's just not—no one cares.
Listen, the Democrats already think he is.
Congratulations.
Nobody cares.
Republicans never thought he was, and saying it for the 500th time won't change that.
And moderates are sitting there going, dude, just stop.
Been there, done that.
And what do we have here?
Cory Booker takes aim at Trump, quote, he's worse than a racist.
Oh, he's worse.
He's worse.
Now we're on the other side of racism.
There's nowhere for you to go anymore.
There's nothing you can say.
It's part of it was part of Trump's strategy in my I believe it was in when he was running in 2016.
You think about how he branded the other Republicans, you know, Lil Marco, Lion Ted, Low Energy, etc.
What did he do?
He had scandal and controversy after scandal and controversy, and that resulted in nothing you could actually brand him with.
You couldn't call him lazy or incompetent or oafish, because he did everything!
So when it came to smearing Trump, they couldn't pick one!
So the media just didn't do its job, or they ended up just giving him endless press.
Now, Corey, what are you trying to do?
He's worse than a racist.
Oh!
Because calling him a racist for three years eventually has no meaning.
Worse than a racist, I guess?
Well, let's see what he has to say.
This one's from the Daily Caller.
Actually, before we get started, head over to timcast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, The best thing you can do is share this video.
YouTube has deranked independent commentary, so I rely on you to share this and to grow my channel and get word of mouth.
If you don't think I deserve it, then by all means, don't share it.
You can leave a comment explaining why you hate me.
If you hate me.
Otherwise, let's read the news.
Democratic New Jersey Senator Cory Booker took aim at President Donald Trump during Sunday's morning State of the Union on CNN, saying that he was worse than a racist.
The New Jersey senator, who is also a contender for 2020, we get it.
Argued that Trump has used racist statements to stir up hatred among Americans, which makes him effectively worse than someone who just holds racist views.
Is that it?
There's nothing left.
There's nowhere for you to go.
You can't.
It's just the platform, it's done.
Guest host Dana Bash began the segment by asking Booker about the President's racist comment about the Squad.
Bash asked why he had stopped short of saying that the President was a racist.
Well, I actually am not, Booker responded.
The reality is, this is a guy who is worse than a racist.
He's actually using racist tropes and language for political gain to use as a weapon to divide our nation against itself, and this is somebody who is very similar to George Wallace to racists who use the exact same language.
Somebody texted me during his rallies.
I've seen this before in black and white and I'm seeing it again decades later.
Oh, here we go!
Here we go.
He says, uh, this is an election in many ways is another chapter in our American history.
This is a referendum not on him, but actually a referendum on the heart and soul of our country.
Who are we going to be?
Well, clearly not you.
You, you, the Democrats have lost the plot.
Hey, don't get me wrong though.
I, I'm, I'd be, I'd be a fool to make any hard predictions.
Who knows what's gonna happen?
They say that, uh, Trump commented on the same for Congresswoman, notice the squad, saying he didn't believe they're capable of loving America.
Well, it's not just Cory Booker, because here we have another story from Ilhan Omar.
Now, what do you do when Trump is already a racist, he's already worse than a racist?
Well, here's what you do.
You claim he wants every brown and black person deported and Muslims banned.
At a certain point, they're going to claim that Donald Trump wants to steal puppies and throw kittens off buildings.
What else do they have left?
They've gone from Trump is racist to Trump is worse than a racist.
Now, literally, Trump wants every black and brown person deported.
What?
You are jumping the shark on this.
It's all they have left.
But you know what?
I'm gonna stress, that's why Trump wants these people front and center.
Think about it.
They are off message.
Right now, you've got a moderate family that's not overly political, there's a dad trying to find work and make sure his daughter can go to school, and he turns on the TV, and he hears Trump say something like, you know, we're bringing back jobs, the economy is great, we're gonna make sure you can save money for your kids.
Granted, Trump says stupid things online and on TV, too.
But he turned to the Democrats and he's thinking this.
The economy is great.
You know, I've got a job.
I found a new job.
I'm working again.
My kids are going to school.
That's great.
Then you look to the Democrats.
What do you have to offer?
And they're screaming, Donald Trump is a racist.
It's like, oh, OK.
Well, I heard that.
But what are you going to do for my family?
And then what do they do?
They yell again, Trump is a racist.
I don't understand how you insulting the president helps my family consume food and acquire resources and better our lives.
And their response, once again, is Trump is a racist.
That's all I hear, at least.
I mean, listen.
Let's be real.
They do have policies, okay?
The Democrats absolutely have policies.
I'm actually going to say this.
I am impressed by Elizabeth Warren.
I can't pull them off of my head, but I was watching the news.
It was a local news channel nearby, you know, eating some Mexican food.
And she was talking about her plan for big tech.
And I was actually impressed.
I was like, we do need to stop these massive tech oligopolies.
So props to Elizabeth Warren on her policy positions.
But then what ends up happening is that Trump is playing the media and the Democrats like a fiddle.
And he wants Ilhan Omar front and center because she's not talking about policy positions.
If the Democrats don't stand back up and center themselves, they are not going to win.
The RNC has more than doubled their fundraising, as I point out in the main channel.
And this is partly the reason.
Trump is manipulating them and they fall for it every time.
Nancy Pelosi propping up Ilhan Omar.
There's a reason why conservatives talk about Omar.
There's a reason why critics of the Democrats talk about Omar.
Because she is being put front and center.
There is nothing we can do about it.
You'll hear from, like, Media Matters on the left that conservatives are putting them front and center on purpose to hurt the Democrats.
While some certainly are, the reality is the media did it.
Time Magazine did it.
The media keeps putting these people in front of us, and the Republicans love it.
So the Republicans dive in.
Elon Omar says nonsense, and so does AOC.
And then everyone is talking about it.
Look, Cortez has, like, what, 4.5 million followers?
This is just a downward spiral for the Democrats.
Beto O'Rourke is a great example, because I mentioned this at the end of my main channel video, but let's talk about this.
Beto O'Rourke had no substance.
He was nothing.
He was quite literally the guy who stood on tables.
What was he offering people?
Nothing.
The media propped him up because they want, for whatever reason, for whatever reason, he loses.
Now they're not propping him up anymore.
And where is he?
Nowhere.
He has no base.
He's not polling very well.
And it's obvious.
He never had the support.
The media is to blame for all of this.
Why did anyone ever talk about Beto?
The media chose to!
The media chose to have him on, to put him on magazines, and no one ever actually cared.
And now that he's gone, what do the Democrats have invested in?
Ilhan Omar, the media is propping her up as well.
You know, when the Democrats lose, I do think they will in 2020.
I'm actually really worried about 2024.
They have only the media to blame.
You've got these digital outlets like Vox and BuzzFeed to a lesser extent, but yes, Splinter, et cetera, Gizmodo.
And they push this left-wing editorianism, which infects Twitter or vice versa, and the woke Democrats just eat it all up and then pander like, my god, why is it that Beto O'Rourke campaigned in Mexico?
He literally did.
Why is it that Cory Booker went to Mexico and escorted illegal immigrants in?
because they're paying attention to the media who is feeding them trash, complete garbage.
And that's why you get Ilhan Omar front and center and Trump knows it.
So Trump takes the risk himself, puts her up, and now what does she say?
She claims that Trump wants every black and brown person deported.
So we'll read this story.
They say that Democratic Minnesota Rep Ilhan Omar tweeted that President Donald Trump is a racist
who wants all minorities deported and all Muslims banned, saying, you all should end this charade
and accept that this racist president wants every black and brown person deported
and Muslims banned.
His immigration policies say this much.
You've jumped the shark, man.
No one believes that's true at all.
It's crazy because you've even got people who hate Trump defending him.
There's a funny video called Stop Making Me Defend Trump, and I relate to that video.
You should watch it.
It's from years ago.
I relate to it so much because I'll hear a conversation where people are saying, can you believe that Trump did X?
And I'll be like, well, actually Trump did Y. And they'll go, why are you defending Trump?
I'm like, no, your facts were wrong.
I'm not trying to defend the guy.
I'm just trying to make sure the facts are straight.
You've got to be insane.
To deny that Trump is- his strategy is working, and he's on his path to victory.
And this denial is what cost the Democrats the victory in 2016, and they still have learned nothing.
And here I am, wiggling my arms and shouting at a brick wall, you guys are doing the same thing.
You don't realize it.
Michael Moore agrees with me, Trump is gonna win 2020 unless you get your act together, but they won't.
Trump has got them on puppet strings.
He knows exactly what he needs to do, how he needs to do it, and they dance.
They dance.
And the media is... Trump has gamed the media's whole life.
People.
He sells his brand, his name.
He knows how to play public attention.
And the media eats it up.
Because they don't care about the Democrats.
They don't care about what's fair.
They care about the ratings.
And they care about propping themselves up.
Trump knows it.
And he feeds the ego.
I think it was Jon Stewart who said this.
The ego is blocking the media from actually doing their jobs.
But I can only say it so many times, so I'll leave it there.