Democrats Are Losing The Immigration Debate As Trump Escalates Deportations
Democrats Are Losing The Immigration Debate As Trump Escalates Deportations. A Liberal think tank has warned that Democrats are losing the war on media messaging by appearing soft on enforcement.More importantly the Democrats seem to be at odds with their own party even 4 years ago under Obama. By undermining Obama's positions Democrats not only look weak but hypocritical.While much of this is fueled far the far left encroaching on the Democratic party it can mostly be attributed to a lack of real charisma and leadership on the Democratic side.Meanwhile Trump is rapidly escalating deportation and restricting new asylum claims. However there is still risk to Trump as his rhetoric on the "the squad," or Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan omars group, has gotten too hot for the "moral market" watchers who may turn on Trump come 2020.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A top Democratic think tank is warning the Democratic Party that they are losing the messaging war on immigration with Trump.
And I think it's fair to point out that over the past several years, the left, the media, the Democrats have repeatedly relied on racist, racist, racist over and over again.
They've pushed back on Trump's, you know, plan for the wall.
They've claimed it was immoral.
They claim the crisis is manufactured.
And in the end, what happened?
They caved.
They did.
Well, Trump definitely walked back his wall plans for sure, so he caved too.
The Democrats eventually agreed to give in and help fund border security and humanitarian aid.
Because, guess what?
There's a real crisis on the border.
And we got a couple stories to back this up.
The first thing I want to do is take a look at this article from the Daily Beast.
Top Democratic think tank warns party you are losing immigration messaging war to Trump.
And I want to stress, while we've all seen the narrative over and over again about the manufactured crisis, take a look at the story we had.
I did go over this story the other day.
Border agents use tear gas to stop nearly 50 undocumented migrants who stormed Rio Grande Bridge.
So yes, there absolutely is a crisis at the border, and this is one of the reasons why the Democrats are losing.
Another video I went over, in my video yesterday, I talked about how the Republicans have raised nearly double the Democrats.
So don't take this as a, this shouldn't be taken as partisan.
It should be taken as something obvious that needs to be addressed by the Democrats if they plan to stand a chance.
In 2020.
Now, in talking about politics, it's important to point out that Trump's messaging could still be bad for him.
He lost a lot of ground, or I should say the Republicans did, in 2018 in the midterms.
And this is a group called Moral Market Watchers, that's another story I've pulled up, talking about how there is a base of voters that are, while they are concerned with the economy, They may be concerned less and more concerned about morality, and Trump might lose some of these people.
So here's what we'll do.
We'll start with this story, and we'll move forward.
Before we get started, make sure you head over to TimCast.com if you want to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, and a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do, just share this video.
YouTube deranks independent political commentary, so I rely on you to help spread, you know, the videos around if you think they're worth people listening to.
Well, let's get to the first story.
The Democratic Party's decision to cede the rule of law creates the false dichotomy of America as either a nation of immigrants or a nation of laws, a new report argues.
The Daily Beast reports.
Faced with combating the Trump administration's hardline immigration agenda in the arena of public opinion, Democrats have largely pointed to reports of horrific detention conditions, spiking in custody deaths of undocumented immigrants, and President Donald Trump's increasingly brazen attempts to undermine the legal immigration system, hoping to counter the White House's border message by emphasizing that such policies and tactics don't reflect America's immigration tradition.
But a new report from an influential liberal think tank provided to the Daily Beast posits that the party's decision to cede the rule of law ground to Republicans creates the false dichotomy of America as either a nation of immigrants or a nation of laws, making the party and its candidates appear soft on enforcement and potentially weakening future attempts for humanitarian-focused immigration reform.
Now let's stop here and make an important point.
I believe the Democrats are losing the messaging war.
They're losing the debate.
But it's not just about the rule of law.
It's about the fact that Obama pushed the rhetoric.
We are a nation of laws.
His words.
It's about the fact that Obama created these cages that are now holding children and these families.
Obama was called deporter-in-chief.
I heard that from Jorge Ramos when I worked at the Univision-ABC joint venture Fusion.
Those were his words.
And who knows better than Univision anchor Jorge Ramos?
He said Obama was deporting, what, 3 million people?
What happens then when the Democrats try to distance themselves from this rhetoric and act like they have nothing to do with it or that they act like Trump's plans.
It's all Trump.
You're making yourselves look bad.
You look like hypocrites.
For two terms, Obama pushed these policies and stood firm.
And where are we now?
Trump is actually a little bit softer, a little bit, in some areas than Obama was.
And what do we get?
The Democrats claiming it's all immoral.
So what are they telling longtime Democrat voters?
They're saying everything you supported when you voted for Obama was wrong, you were wrong, and you shouldn't have done it.
So what should they have done?
How can you expect to have clear messaging on what we should or shouldn't be doing when you're basically throwing your own party under the bus?
Obama was elected twice.
Many of these people who voted for Obama then went to vote for Trump.
When you then tell those people they were wrong for doing so, what do you think they're going to do come 2020?
To me, it's shocking ignorance.
They're trying to take a moral high ground, but it's just the wrong battle.
And can I also stress, the horrific conditions are partly due to the fact that Democrats kept obstructing funding for humanitarian aid.
What do you think is going to happen?
You can't sabotage the plan and then complain things are bad.
While this may work for some people, they'll believe you, a lot of people in middle America, moderates, they're just going to be like, what are you talking about, man?
Obama built these places.
I voted for Obama.
I wasn't wrong to do so.
You are just pushing away your own base by doing this.
And now it's not surprising to me to see a liberal think tank, a liberal think tank saying, Democrats, you are losing this fight.
And then you can look at Trump's strategy.
And I gotta hand it to him.
Propping up Ilhan Omar, Ocasio-Cortez, who STILL refused to support humanitarian aid.
They look like extremists.
They look nuts.
Nancy Pelosi has a 36.6 aggregate approval rating.
And she's caved and said, okay, we're gonna provide this funding.
The New York Times said, guys, you gotta do this, in an editorial.
And the far-left Democrats still resist.
So Trump says, you know what?
That's the game plan.
And it's gonna work for him.
Absolutely will.
Ilhan Omar's approval rating in swing states, what, 9%?
He knows what he's doing.
He's making them look like they've turned their backs on where Obama was for two terms.
Look, you can assume all day and night that American voters are stupid.
And there are a lot of stupid people.
But, you know, I'll take the old saying from George Carlin.
It's a joke.
He said, Think about how stupid the average person is.
Now think about half of them are stupider than that.
And it's funny, but you can also then realize half of them are smarter than that.
It's a funny joke, but the truth is, there are a lot of undecided voters who are not morons.
They voted for Obama for a reason, and many of these people voted for Trump for a reason.
And if you treat them like they're idiots, they're gonna say, I'm not gonna vote for either of you.
The moderates that I talk to, okay, I know a lot of people, they don't like Trump.
And we'll get into this story next.
But they're not going to vote for the Democrats because the Democrats are treating them like children.
Dare I say it, look to the Democratic Party right now, the 2020 Democrats, and tell me who is the charismatic leader.
Doesn't exist.
Whether you love him or hate him, Obama was strong and charismatic.
He would furl his brow and say, no, absolutely not, this is what needs to be.
And that was leadership, and it's why he won twice.
He was a strong individual.
Again, you don't gotta like the guy to recognize that he knew what he was doing and he had that power in his voice.
And you can say the same thing to Trump.
I like, in terms of attitude, Obama way better.
But you have to recognize this.
As much as I don't like Trump's attitude, I know why it works.
There is strength in his voice.
He tells people off.
Now you can sit here and complain all day and night that Trump's a bigot, he's mean, he's hateful, he's boorish, etc.
I've called him many of these things.
But in the end, what do you think Americans want?
Do they want a feeble president who's going to be moral?
Or do they want someone who's strong, maybe a little rough on the edges, crude, crass, offensive, but strong, right?
So think about what happens when you put up someone like Pete Buttigieg next to Kim Jong-un versus Trump.
Now you can criticize Trump all night for being crude and crass, but I'll tell you this, in my opinion, and I could be wrong, it's just my opinion, I'd be willing to bet.
There are a lot of Americans who say, look, I get it, Trump is kind of a nasty dude, but we kind of need that if we're going to win these international debates, these fights, these trade agreements.
We need someone who's going to tell you to go screw yourself, and they're not going to put on mittens to deal with you.
They're going to be tough.
And you can hear it in Trump's voice when he mocks, you know, he imitated body slamming a reporter.
I think that's bad.
That's a bad thing to do.
I liked Obama in terms of rhetoric.
But you got to recognize that people see what Trump is doing and they think, as much as I don't like it, that person is strong and he's going to fight and he's going to win.
So back to the main point.
Democrats, when it comes to immigration, are two steps behind Trump.
They prattled out manufactured crisis for how long, and now it's going to bite them in the rear.
Because Americans, look, you can criticize the dumb ones, but the smart ones exist, and there are a lot of them, and they vote, and they don't like being treated like morons.
Let's read a little bit more.
I got a lot of stories to go through.
This might be a long video.
They say, In doing so, writes Tom Jawitz, Vice President of Immigration Policy at the Center for American Progress, supporters of humane immigration policy have ceded powerful rhetorical ground to immigration restrictionists, Who are happy to masquerade as the sole defenders of America as a nation of laws.
We'll read a little bit more.
Well, you know what?
I think we got the point on this one.
I got a lot of stories I want to get through.
The point is, we've got to straighten out our immigration laws.
Trump said at a campaign rally in North Carolina last Tuesday.
You know, in a very short period of time, if the Democrats would give us a few votes, we could solve the immigration problem, and it would be so great.
I want to add, it's not just about a nation of laws or immigrants.
It's about the fact the Democrats look completely unreasonable.
They've turned their back on where Obama was, and it's obvious, we've seen the videos from Obama, and Trump is saying, we just need a couple votes, this problem will be solved, and they won't do it.
And that's why Trump said, fine, make the face of the Democrats Ocasio-Cortez, because she's the one who's been the most extreme.
But I will warn, I will absolutely warn Trump voters, because I do have, I've got a couple other stories I want to pull up.
The Democrats' dangerous immigration game from RealClearPolitics.
And while of course the criticism still falls to the Democrats, there is some information very important to Trump in this regard.
In this story, they talk about how the Democrats agreed to give government healthcare to illegal immigrants.
It's a really bad idea.
RCP notes, Trump is correct that taxpayer-funded health insurance for the undocumented is not a popular position.
In a recent CNN poll, 59% opposed the proposal.
But Trump's own handling of immigration and asylum seekers is slightly more unpopular.
The same poll found 62% disapprove of the way migrants attempting to cross the U.S.
border are being treated by the U.S.
government, while 60% approve of allowing refugees from Central American countries to seek asylum in the US. A June 2018 poll similarly found
that 67% disapprove of Trump's policy toward immigrants who are detained at the US border
and the resulting significant increase in the number of young children who have been
separated from their parents.
Trump's handling of immigration may be what's the end of that race. So I'll stress,
Trump is not invincible.
And there's a potential pyrrhic victory in Trump's strategy.
I believe Trump is trying to bet on damaging the Democrats more than himself.
But I want to make sure I do have some more conflicting information.
I'll try to do the back and forth.
In this story from The Hill just today, they say Trump struggles to win over voters reaping economic boom.
And this is the contrast to what I pointed out earlier, that there are people who don't care that Trump is maybe crude, crass, or boorish.
This story talks about moral market watchers.
These are people who are probably comfortable enough that the economy, the good economy, doesn't mean that much to them, and they're concerned about what Trump is doing and how he sounds internationally.
If Trump loses these people, and he lost, I believe, he lost them by about 20 percentage points, they mentioned in the story, Let me see if, uh, here we go.
They say, worryingly for Republicans and Trump himself, those voters broke for Democratic congressional candidates by 20 percentage points in the 2018 midterm elections.
The voters are suburban, affluent type of person who's probably doing okay, but is very troubled by the president's behavior and everything they see from him from time to time.
So, it's hard to know if Trump's on the right track, but I do believe, in the end, the incumbent advantage and the economy are going to win.
I believe you're more likely to see people who don't care that Trump may be amoral if it means their lives will be better, their children will have a future, and the country is safe.
So while we can absolutely point out the moral market watchers, there is some information I want to absolutely highlight as it pertains to the debate on immigration.
In this story from last month, Gallup notes, 1 in 3 want immigration levels decreased.
Asked their preference for US immigration levels, 37% of Americans say it should be kept at its present level, while more say it should be decreased, 35%, then increased, 27%.
The percentage wanting immigration reduced is higher than the average, 30% holding this view in Gallup's two prior surveys, in January 2019 and 2018.
However, in the past, many more Americans have called for a reduction than do so now,
including 41% in June of 2014 during the Obama years, 58% in 2001 after 9-11, and a record 65%
in the mid-90s during a surge of illegal immigration in California. They say in recent years,
there's been an uptick in the percentage who want immigration to the U.S.
increased.
Before 2012, the percentage never reached 20%, but it has been above that mark, including a record 30% in January.
So here's what I want to stress.
Right now we can see 1 in 3 want immigration decreased.
They will likely side with Trump regardless of whether or not Trump is amoral or mean.
We can then see that a certain amount, around a third, also believe it should be kept at its present level.
In fact, the biggest group at 37%.
I imagine many of these people probably don't care too much, okay?
So, if they think it's fine at the present level, I'd imagine they're the middle-of-the-road voter, but that also may lean towards them not liking what Trump is doing.
But in the end, only 27% want the number increased.
The bigger number in that debate, then, is decreasing it.
So remove the middle ground.
And let's take a look at the people who want more migrants versus those who want less.
Those who want less definitely outnumber.
Which means, in my opinion, when it comes to the vote, Trump has a bigger advantage in being hard on immigration than if you were to be soft on it or encourage it.
Because 35 to 27, the data is there.
There are a couple of other things I absolutely need to point out because we do have a big update here.
The Trump administration will let ICE officials deport certain immigrants much faster.
This is big news and so that's the other half of the story here.
Democrats may be losing the immigration debate.
That's going to have a big impact in my opinion because immigration is one of the top issues for voters.
But once again, Trump is doing a great job of keeping the narrative off of immigration by focusing on Ilhan Omar and Ocasio-Cortez.
And there's a new policy coming in that's going to allow Trump to deport illegal immigrants without a hearing.
So it's an expedited deportation process.
Let's read a little bit of this from BuzzFeed.
They say, The Trump administration will dramatically expand the ability of immigration authorities to rapidly deport certain immigrants, according to a federal notice posted Monday.
The administration announced on the Federal Register that it plans to expand expedited removal—quick deportations—to those who cannot prove they have been in the country continuously for two years.
The new measure will apply to the entire country.
The process will allow immigration officers to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants without a hearing in front of an immigration judge.
The current policy allows officials to use expedited removal within 100 miles of the border and toward individuals who have been in the country up to two weeks.
In practical terms, it gives ICE officers more power to determine who could be deported quickly.
Presently, officers typically arrest individuals and place them into deportation proceedings.
These include a hearing before an immigration judge, a process that can take years.
And Trump has basically said enough.
He has effectively ended asylum for Central American migrants.
Where was the media on the left on that one?
They got distracted by Trump playing his game.
And now we can see Trump once again is rapidly escalating deportations with no end in sight.
Trump's going hard.
There's no sign of him stopping.
And as I showed you the data from Gallup, the majority of these two factions, whether they want increase or decrease, are on Trump's side.
Now we can say, to be fair, those who want current levels kept right at the place they are, Would mean Trump is on the wrong side of this because he's deporting people.
But I think when it's hard to parse that data because you could argue at record levels of illegal immigration, Trump is doing what they want and keeping levels where they are, in which case the overwhelming majority would be supporting the president.
Now, I want I want to point out two conflicting bits of information that I find kind of it's kind of funny.
Well, it's not really conflicting, but it's the last point I want to make in this segment.
We have this story from the Epoch Times.
Illegal immigrants coming to U.S.
for surgery, McAleenan says.
He says border patrol agents along the southern border have taken 21,000 sick or injured illegal immigrants to hospitals since January, according to Kevin McAleenan, acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
Agents have spent 250,000 hours, the equivalent of 28 years at hospitals with sick individuals.
We are being faced with a younger and sicker population this year than we've ever seen at the border before.
We've seen a lot of communicable diseases, disease, a lot of severe illnesses.
In some cases, we've had immediate surgery required for congenital defects.
They actually came to the border to have surgery.
Now this is interesting.
When you have Democrats saying they'll provide health care, when you have the Democrats saying we can't allow these people to die on CBP or ISIS watch, they have no choice but to treat them at taxpayer cost, you're then going to have people saying, screw it, come to the US, get the treatment, and then get deported.
It's better than dying, right?
I can't blame them.
If these are the policies put in place right now, I can't blame people for trying to survive and doing whatever they have to to survive.
But interestingly, We can see this story from Vox.
Immigrants are skipping reproductive health care because they're afraid of being deported.
So there's a bit of an inversion in a sense that the people who are here and want to live here don't want to go to the doctor because they'll get deported, and the people who don't live here are coming here for free health care.
Clearly, we have some serious problems in the immigration debate.
And all of this, to wrap it up nicely with a bow, is why I believe, at least, We can say the Democrats are losing the immigration debate.
Everything is chaotic right now.
Record immigration.
We've got people storming the borders, tear gas, Border Patrol being assaulted by these people.
So there's a real crisis.
And the Democrats have tripped up every step of the way.
Now, will that mean Trump will win in 2020?
Perhaps.
My personal opinion?
Yes.
The Democrats are not on message.
What are they really offering American voters?
Campaigning in Mexico?
Healthcare for illegal immigrants?
That is not something you are giving to Americans.
So they're definitely going to win the woke bunch on Twitter.
Congratulations, 8% of the country according to Hidden Tribes.
That's not going to get you elected.
I will warn Trump supporters and Trump as well though.
His hardline rhetoric on the squad may be a pirate victor, as I've stated before.
Sure, he puts them front and center, and they do look nuts, but he's betting they look more nuts than he does.
So in the end, I don't know.
I think you'll find American voters, at least most of them, again, my opinion, don't care about morality.
For the most part.
They don't care if Trump is bad.
They care if he gets the job done.
They don't care if he's mean.
They don't care if he's racist or bigoted.
I believe, in the end, most Americans are simply like, can my kids eat food?
Will I be able to afford college?
Will I save for retirement?
Is there a job for me?
And they're not worried about Trump being called, you know, the orange man bad rhetoric.
They don't care.
They're not paying attention to the news every day.
You know, I go out, I'm at the airport because I'm in Dallas right now, and I didn't see one person wearing political clothing or anything.
There were no blue hats, no red hats, no pink hats, nothing.
Because in the end, people are just trying to get by, and they care very little about the day-to-day politics.
And a good example of this is the viewership on YouTube.
How many views do I get on these videos?
A couple hundred thousand?
It's pretty good.
I'm really grateful.
It's been a whirlwind over the past year, increasing my viewership tenfold.
You guys rock!
But let's be real here.
Me getting half a million views on a video?
That's great!
But come on, man!
We know that if you make a video game channel, you're gonna get way more views.
We know that there are people who do videos about pop culture who get way more views.
Politics is not in the hearts and minds of the American people.
Sometimes it is.
And it's a constant information war to recruit people for one side or the other.
Now, I can't say I'm doing... I'm just talking about my opinions, man.
I've always been someone who cares about worldly events and worldly issues, so here I am talking about them again today.
But, but we know.
You know, I could make a Game of Thrones channel, where I just, you know, well, Game of Thrones is over, but you know, I can talk about new Marvel movies.
Man, I'd love to make a comic book and video game channel.
I'd get way more views!
Look at this, I just talked, what are we at, 23, 22 minutes?
I talked non-stop all day, I can talk forever.
Imagine if I talked about something that people actually cared about.
So, in the end, the point I'm trying to make with that is that Americans don't care.
They don't care.
Their question is, why can't I get a job?
Why can't I pay off my student loans?
Why can't my kids go to college?
Why can't I save for retirement?
Are they going to go on, you know, Vox.com every day and just shriek about Orange Man Bad?
Some of them will.
Most won't.
Most are going to be like, oh, yeah, I don't care about that.
I talk to my friends, man.
We play video games.
And I ask him, like, hey, did you hear about what's going on with this, you know, border stuff?
Oh, no, I have no idea, man.
But I'll tell you what, they can tell me everything about the latest, you know, patch for Destiny 2.
They can tell me everything there is to know about, you know, the upcoming Bethesda video games.
And they can't tell me anything about what's happening in politics.
So, not everybody cares.
And I actually think it's not a popular, for the most part, issue to talk about.
So in the end, does Trump really care?
Probably not, because people are going to vote based on the economy.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment will be coming up, YouTube.com slash TimCastNews, and I will see you all then.
Over the past week or so, Bernie Sanders has been getting slammed after news reports came out showing he didn't want to pay his staff a $15 minimum wage, even though he supports one nationally and continues to argue for it.
The whole scenario is... I described it as a firetruck on fire, right?
Because a firetruck is supposed to put the fire out.
Not burst into flames.
Of all of the people to not want to pay a living wage to their staff, as their staff requested, you'd never expect Bernie Sanders, right?
Well, I guess you kind of could, but here's the update.
Okay, because I have talked about this story a couple times now.
The Socialist Party, I believe it's of Great Britain, is slamming Bernie Sanders, saying he is not, in fact, a socialist.
He is, but a capitalist reformist.
And, well, I don't think they said capitalist, but they did call him a reformist.
But what's also really funny is I have this other story from May, where the World Socialist website calls Bernie Sanders a nationalist, and they actually do call him a capitalist.
So what we'll do is we'll dig into the story, but we've also got a statement from the New York Post editorial board.
Because, look, you can't be someone who claims to be an avowed socialist, who demands this base rate of $15 an hour, and then won't give it.
And I want to stress, too, the update the other day, for those that missed it, Bernie Sanders did two things.
He complained that his staff went to the press, upset about this, saying, you shouldn't do that, that's not how a labor organization's supposed to work.
He also said he's going to cut hours instead of paying people what they deserve.
So it is complicated because he pays him a salary.
It's not like he's just cutting hours down.
But, essentially, it's akin to avoiding paying overtime by cutting people's hours.
How very capitalist of Bernie.
Perhaps the Socialist Party is correct to say Bernie actually is a reformist, but I gotta show you what the Socialist Party of Great Britain says, because they don't even know what socialism is.
Now before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate 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, just share this video, because YouTube has deranked independent political commentary.
They're propping up the big corporate channels, so I rely on you.
What you're seeing, what you've been seeing, is a tweet from Stephen Miller.
He says, Why won't millionaire Bernie Sanders, who owns three homes, instead of cutting hours, pay his staff a living wage?
People are starving.
While I certainly don't believe people are literally starving, there are people apparently in these leaked messages saying that they're struggling to feed themselves.
Because they're only getting, they're working 60 hours a week for 36k a year.
Instead of increasing their wage to, I believe they wanted $46,800, Bernie says just stop working those hours.
Somebody still has to work those hours, but here's what's interesting, and I didn't bring this up last time.
These employees are going to find, you know, I've got to stress how hypocritical it is.
I didn't want to go there, but I'm going to have to.
When those hours need to be worked, you can't just stop doing whatever it is they're doing.
If someone's working 60 hours a week, that means they're doing something that has to be done.
You can't just say, don't do it.
What happens?
He makes them work double time.
Right, so now those 40 hours, you gotta make sure you get all of the work done in those 40 hours.
How do you think the staff are gonna feel now, when they're not getting the salary increase they need, they still can't feed themselves, because the problem isn't that, you know, uh... It's so complicated.
Listen.
If 36k isn't enough to pay your rent and feed yourself, working less hours won't change that.
I gotta say, I am rather disgusted by Bernie here.
Let's read what the Socialist Party has to say, because I'll just keep ranting on this.
They said, Bernie's just a left-wing reformist.
A reformist is very different to a socialist.
Reformists keep on futilely trying to make capitalism a bit less ghastly for its victims.
Reformists don't have a priority of ending and replacing outdated misery causing capitalism.
Socialists do.
Now here's where it gets good.
Because I responded to this statement from the Socialist Party.
They said, Socialism means all of us collectively owning the industries, natural resources, etc.
When this happens, the socialist society will also own all goods and services being provided by workers.
A society that already collectively owns all goods and services is one where money is no longer needed.
Not true, but let's read on.
As you don't have to buy what's already yours.
I didn't realize it was that simple.
After a clear majority establishes socialism, people will be working voluntarily to produce what's required, and everyone will have free access to what they need.
As this is a class-free society with no top-down control, decisions will be made democratically at local, regional, and even global levels.
My response?
This clearly must be written by like some 17 year old who's never investigated the supply chain.
Take a computer for instance, the computer or the TV I'm using.
Break it down to its components, and quantify the labor done, and go all the way back to where those components come from, And you completely debunk the sheer idiocy of this utopianist dream that is not socialist.
What they're arguing for is a post-scarcity utopia driven by replicator-like technology from Star Trek.
I love Star Trek, by the way.
In the Star Trek universe, they have what's called a replicator.
It turns energy into matter.
So you can say, computer, I want a chicken dinner, and it can just fabricate chicken for you.
Yes, once we have replicator technology, your socialist utopia will be possible.
Mind you, that the Federation and Star Trek, I really hate this.
I always hear people saying that the Federation and Star Trek is communist or socialist.
It's not, okay?
There's a military hierarchy, and there's, you know, service.
It is a liberal society that follows liberal democratic tenets, and it is a post-scarcity future.
So, here's the problem.
I argued with the Socialist Party of Great Britain once, and I actually, I should say, we had a conversation.
And here's what I said.
In your future, Would I be able to, say, build my own car in my garage?
And they said, why, of course you could.
Why wouldn't you be allowed to freely?
The thing is, they don't want you to build your own cars and sell them.
You can do whatever you want with your own private, personal, I'm sorry, not private property, personal property.
They draw a distinction between private property and personal property, in that personal property is something an individual owns, but I guess you can't own a building?
I have no idea.
I guess, I don't know how you quantify how big an object is, that, you know, whatever.
But what was interesting was, I said, okay, what if I need a new part?
Where do I get it?
They said, well, you walk on down to the factory and just tell them you need it and they'll give it to you.
I'm like, oh wow, why don't we just do that now?
Oh, it's simple.
There are not enough parts to go to every single person who wants them.
So we use a universal trade medium known as currency, money, To essentially symbolize the value of our labor.
And that's why the minimum wage increase argument is so, I guess in my opinion, kind of weak.
It doesn't change the value of an hour.
So, you know, this is all tied together with immigration, with wages, and that's why I feel like these people are never going to get the utopian society they want because they literally don't understand basic economics.
Okay, you look at Ocasio-Cortez, who thinks that, what did you say, a $21 trillion accounting error.
That was gonna pay for healthcare.
They really don't get it.
Let me break down the supply chain for you.
Did you know that there are people who have to, like, you know, mine sulfur and stuff like that?
Okay, you need all of these, not only do you need the components, okay, you need the metals, the rare earth metals, that are extremely expensive, because while they are rather abundant, they're in low concentrations.
I was reading a lot about this, I'm like, if there's so much of it, why can't we just get...
Well, so, my understanding, I could be wrong, but I was talking to someone I would say is an expert on this,
and they said we kind of just rely on China to mine rare earths and buy it from them,
but most of our electronics use them.
You know, speakers, I believe for the most part, use neodymium magnets, which I believe neodymium is rare earth.
The point is, extremely expensive materials.
They have to be sourced, refined.
There's not only labor that goes into getting the materials, refining the materials, the technological advancement, development, application of the materials.
The supply chain is massive!
And the only reason that we can get products so cheap, relative to what they are and what they need, is because of mass production.
These people don't seem to get that.
They think... Okay, let me ask you this.
I ask this to many of my, like, left-wing, like, far-left friends, and it's something I ask a lot of people at Occupy Wall Street.
Would you be willing to, I don't know, you know, go to a mine sulfur or something like that?
I watched this documentary about people in the third world, in a third world country, who they stuff rags in their mouths and their teeth fall out.
No, they don't want to do that.
I don't- I don't like the idea that we have these, like, horrible living conditions for a lot of people, and I hope technology can save us from this and, like, help these people.
I also recognize we have tremendous wealth, and wealth means, as Americans, you can literally get a job in New York City for Vox or BuzzFeed writing about Brad Pitt's junk and get paid 50k a year.
How about that?
These people are arguing for socialism?
I'll tell you what, man.
You wanna go to a globalist socialist society, by all means, as long as you recognize you'll never have an iPhone again, you'll never have a laptop again, you're gonna be shoveling garbage and crap in the streets because you live in an ivory tower that is New York, specifically.
These people...
Here's what they say.
Some other benefits.
Far shorter working week.
Oh, because apparently, just because now you're socialist, you don't gotta do work anymore.
It literally makes no sense.
Where does that argument even come from?
You're gonna have to work more.
Go live on a farm.
Grow some corn.
See how you like it.
Estimated to be around 10 hours on average.
Yes, because magically, nobody has to work anymore.
People will have maximum freedom to work in jobs they actually want to do.
Yes, but let me ask you this.
How many people would want to be a rock star?
How many people are actually good at writing music?
Therein lies the major problem of this utopianist vision that makes no sense.
I can't tell you how many friends of mine would love to be, you know, a pro golfer or a pro skateboarder.
Just not good enough!
It's called meritocracy.
You gotta earn the right to do it.
You gotta practice and dedicate yourself.
And sometimes, people just won't have the talent.
Because, you know, genetics do play a role.
So what happens then?
We create a society where everyone just plays guitar?
There was a poll I saw.
Where they asked people in the UK and the US what they wanted to be when they grew up kids.
And they all wanted to be vloggers.
They wanted to be on YouTube.
Oh great!
We need more of that!
You're watching my channel.
They go on to say, no worries about money, bills, debts, mortgages, rent, etc.
Yes, except for when we run out of fuel, because when there's no cost to it,
people just do stupid things with it.
Think about this, you know, I met this guy in LA once and he said,
the lottery is proof that poor people should be poor.
I don't necessarily agree with him, but it's an interesting point that he says, and what he said was, listen, look at all these stories of people who win the lottery, and what do they do?
They buy golden statues of themselves.
And that's why they're poor.
You have all this money, you could invest it, you could start a business, you could even just, you know, you could just put it in the bank and just sit on it.
What do they do?
They buy dumb things.
Now, I did read up on this later, and people are doing way better with lottery winnings.
They're hiring financial consultants, and they're learning from the past.
But the point he was making is, what happens when you just give a poor person immediate access to exorbitant wealth?
They do ridiculous things with it.
I knew somebody who once won a six-figure settlement from being hit by a car, and what did they do?
They bought a brand new, like, $30,000 car, for no reason, didn't need it, crashed it, bought another one, didn't care, and then ran it ragged.
They didn't understand money was finite, resources were finite.
These people seem to think that food is just infinitely abundant, and there's an evil villain with a top hat saying, let's make sure poor people can't eat today!
I swear to God, that's why I said this is probably written by some 17-year-old.
Because when I was 17, I was going like, it's so screwed up that we have all of these houses that are empty and all these homeless people.
It makes no sense.
Capitalism is wrong.
Just put the homeless people in the houses.
And it wasn't until I was older I realized somebody has to maintain that house.
Somebody has to fix the plumbing.
Somebody has to be responsible for that house.
Otherwise, you will end up hurting the homeless person.
Now, I think there is still some kind of compromise there in that we can create shelters for homeless people.
But it's such a immature, infantile idea that you can just take an empty house and put a homeless person in it.
Okay, great, then the house falls apart, the plumbing breaks, somebody has to maintain the house.
And you can't assume that just because a person is homeless, they know how to do that.
That's the problem with the socialist types.
And you know what?
I gotta jump over to this...
Editorial.
Bernie Sanders feels the union burn over minimum wage fiasco.
I don't want to ignore this story from yesterday.
Last night, the editorial board for the New York Post publishes this, slamming Bernie Sanders.
Because once again, you know, let me say something too.
I'm not an economist.
But I remember back in 2016, still, as someone who was a fan of Bernie.
And let me stress, a fan of him in the sense that I felt he was genuine, and he said no open borders, border security, he said free trade agreements are hurting America, and he was a lifelong politician who fought for civil rights.
I've never been a far-left individual.
A lot of people say that simply because I supported Bernie I was all for socialism.
That's not true.
There's just, you know, who do you pick?
Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders?
So I was like, we gotta get Bernie.
Now he's let me down.
Now I'm moved on.
Tulsi, I like Tulsi better.
And I still don't agree with a lot of her economic stuff.
But let's see a little bit, uh, let's read a little bit about what the New York Post has to say.
Bernie Sanders, of all people, has union trouble, and it just goes to show how nasty organized labor can be.
The Vermont Socialist Senator made history by agreeing that his paid 2020 presidential campaign workers would be repped by a union, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 400, with all earning $15 an hour.
But now the union complains some employees are getting less.
Worse.
Someone leaked the whole dispute to the Washington Post.
Worse yet, Sanders' response could be a violation of U.S.
labor law all on its own, and there is... Dropping the hammer.
They say, the union's gripe centers on the fact that field organizers, the lowest level workers, often put in 60 hours a week but get paid only 40 since they're on a flat salary.
It drops the average minimum pay to less than 13 an hour.
So, we read all this, but I want to see what they say.
The dispute began soon after the March deal that unionized the campaign.
Shakir's first offer in mid-May was to boost pay, but the union rejected that because it would have obliged these workers to pay more for their health insurance.
I don't want to rehash all of this.
I want to make sure that- I want to see if they mention anything about violation of labor law.
I guess not.
So, Bernie- they go on to highlight that Bernie slammed the organizers for going to the media, which is just, you know, I don't even know how to explain.
That's beyond hypocrisy.
Look, it's one thing, Bernie, if you don't want to pay.
It's another thing when you get mad that they're fighting back against you because you are the millionaire in power.
Isn't it funny?
They say the caustic comment puts them on the verge of violating federal labor law by interfering with or retaliating against employees' exercise of their rights.
The campaign's immediate response, now that it's all gone public, is to restrict the field workers from putting in more than 40 hours a week.
Hmm.
If it then brings on more unpaid volunteers to pick up the slack, that's a different union grievance.
I gotta say, man.
Final thought on this, because I won't rant on the... You know, I do find it funny that they're calling Bernie a nationalist capitalist in this article, which... And it's not the first time, too.
But listen.
The left is gonna say Bernie is trying to make sure people are working 40 hours, and that's a socialist thing to guarantee the weekend and the 40-hour workweek.
Listen.
That doesn't matter.
If Bernie's staff are struggling to feed themselves, and he refuses to pay them more, and instead responds by cutting hours, he's a hypocrite.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be at 1pm.
You may notice I'm somewhere different.
I'm in Dallas right now.
You'll find out why soon.
And next segment at 1pm.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you all in the next story.
We had another race hoax recently.
You may remember Covington, where this kid was standing on the staircase, smiling at a Native American, and the media went nuts.
You may remember the Jussie Smollett hoax.
Now we have another one.
If you haven't been following, I'll give you a quick recap.
This woman, Erica Thomas, claimed that – well, actually, let me read you this tweet, because this is very important for what the story is.
NBC News tweeted, yesterday at 5.19 PM Eastern, A black Georgia state lawmaker said a white man cursed at her in front of her young daughter and told her to go back to where she came from because he thought she had too many items in the express checkout line at a grocery store.
Let me just throw it to the red-headed libertarian.
Wow.
Despite this carefully worded headline, you're still wrong.
For those that aren't familiar with the story, let me just tell you what really happened.
She did a press—okay, she put out this livestream where she made this claim, said the guy called her a lazy SOB, said, go back where you came from.
She holds—it goes viral.
She holds a press conference.
Dude actually shows up and says, not true, you made it up.
And then in another statement shortly after, she says, well, I don't want to say he actually did say that.
She walked the whole thing back once this guy came forward.
And I think it has to do with the fact the man in question mentions their security surveillance footage of what happened.
Kind of backing up his story.
It would seem that whether you want to say she lied or whatever, fine.
She's changed her story.
The story is a hoax.
So the question is, why is NBC News putting out a headline that is completely fake?
Yesterday.
I made a video about this, what, like yesterday morning or the day before?
We know this story's not true.
We know she made it up.
It was a hoax.
And why is it that the media keeps falling for these hoaxes?
We have two big problems here.
For one, I do not believe it is Donald Trump that is inflaming racial tensions.
I believe—well, let me put it this way.
I do believe he does to a certain extent, but he is not the primary culprit.
In fact, I believe Trump is a symptom of what the media has been doing in every, every capacity.
One of the biggest things that helped Trump win was him pushing back on political correctness.
I've shown you the charts over and over again.
I believe journalist Zach Goldberg shows you all these images of how in 2010 diversity and inclusivity, whiteness, prejudice, you know, all of these things hockey stick.
The media is berating us, beating us over the head with this rhetoric, with this narrative.
And now we can see this tweet.
You know why this tweet's so important that I'm highlighting?
You may think, well, Tim, it's just one thing they got wrong.
No, no, no, no, no.
No, no, no, no.
They didn't get it wrong.
NBC News knows full well that she is walking back this claim.
Check this out.
Let me pull up the actual story.
So here's what you get when you click it.
Bearing in mind, NBC put this tweet up yesterday, and we can see that it was updated last night.
We can actually scroll down, and at a certain point, she says, 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.
So, what do we see here?
NBC buries the lead.
Now, you might claim, okay, and this is fair, when they put the story out on the 20th, they didn't know she walked it back.
Okay, so they're really bad at their jobs.
At the very least, we can say the media is trash at what they do.
How is it that with Covington, with Smollett, and now with this story, Ericatomics, Twitter, random people are doing better jobs than news outlets?
Surely, at some point, we can point this out right now.
Look, you get a lot of people on the Trump side, Trump base, saying enemy of the people, fake news, etc.
At the very least, pure and complete incompetence That's the bare minimum.
But I'm going to actually call this nefarious.
Malicious.
And the reason why?
Look at the headline of this article.
If you want to argue that they put this out and they didn't know she corrected it, they updated the story.
They updated the story yesterday at, uh, yesterday afternoon.
The last time this was edited was at 12.16 PM yesterday.
Where in the story, she says, I don't want to claim he did this, and then what do we see?
This tweet at 5.19 PM yesterday, meaning even though they knew she walked the story back, they put this tweet out, they did it on purpose!
They are trying to inflame racial tensions for traffic.
They are dying, decaying, ratings are collapsing, and this is what they turn to.
Trying to make sure everyone hates each other as much as possible.
Look, we can claim that Covington was just a silly mistake by incompetent, inept journalists.
One of the biggest problems is that they only follow each other.
There's a certain phrase I want to use to refer to a group of people sitting in a circle providing stimulation to each other, but I'm going to avoid because the last time I did, someone mentioned they had kids in the car when they were playing the audio, so I'll try and refrain from some more adult terminology.
But this is what they do.
These people are either sitting... Look, I've been at these tables.
It's like, you know, you go to Williamsburg in Brooklyn and they're sitting at these picnic benches all drinking and they just talk about the same thing over and over again.
And so you can then point to them and say they're trapped in a bubble and they're awful at what they do.
Like, journalism died a long time ago.
And now we can see...
It's been replaced by this parasitic, vampiric, just malicious, I don't know, desperation.
They are parasites trying to suck the last little bit of money they can get out of the media.
And you can see it in how they frame things like this.
Straight up, knowing, knowing, at 12, was it 12.16pm?
12.16pm that she said he didn't say it.
They keep the title as if he did, and they tweet out as if he did.
And then they blame Trump for all of the bigotry, for all the racism.
And now what do we get?
Yesterday I brought this up.
Cory Booker.
Well, where do you go when you beat the president over the head repeatedly with being a racist for years, and now we're here today?
What do you have left?
You have nowhere to go!
What's worse than racist?
They don't even have a word for it, so they just say that.
And we can see what the media does.
Now, here's what I want to stress.
I have this poll, this data, that's decently new.
Check this out.
I really want you to take a look at this.
This is important.
They say, figure one, this figure displays levels of anti-black and anti-Hispanic prejudice for 537 white Americans surveyed repeatedly between 2008 and 2018.
There's some interesting data we can see here.
Something strange happens, you know, going from 2009 to 2013.
Prejudice across the board is going down now.
We can also point out Republicans are seen as being more prejudiced against racial minorities than Democrats.
However, around 2012, there's a spike across all demographics.
What could that have been?
And it ends at the beginning of 2017.
Prejudice drops dramatically.
Is it true that Trump is making people more racist?
I think you can say, for the most part, no.
Now, interestingly, data for Hispanics isn't really visible, but we can see the same spike.
It does shoot up.
We don't know what happened before this, but this is the Obama era.
And I think there's interesting data we can pull out of this, because I do think the media is playing a role in why we're seeing this massive drop off across the board.
We can see that among Republicans, anti-Hispanic prejudice has been going down.
It's going down less now with Trump, and with Democrats, it's dropped dramatically.
There's some data we saw that shows that white liberals are the only racial and political demographic with an out-group bias, meaning they're less likely to trust themselves, which is why we see what Obama calls the circular firing squad.
What's interesting here is, For one, something happened during Obama's years where everybody got a bit more, I guess, racist?
I don't know if racist is the right word because Hispanic isn't necessarily racist, but yeah.
And now it's gone down dramatically.
Why could that be?
I think it has to do with one simple thing.
The media.
Now, look, we see what's going on with the media trying to inflame these tensions, but what this kind of rhetoric does, in my opinion, it's meant to pit everyone against Trump.
So then you have Democrats wanting to be opposed to Trump, being told over and over again that he's a bigot, he's a racist, opposing him.
And that's why we can see the biggest drop-off.
As Trump begins to call out illegal immigrants and talk about, you know, Mexico and things like that, we can see that it actually, while still going down for Republicans, stays level.
This is the result of the media.
I question then, what happened during Obama's years where it went up?
Was that Obama's actions?
I dare say, Obama was called the Deporter-in-Chief.
He was called Obama.
He targeted the Middle East, non-whites.
He targeted illegal immigrants who, for the most part, non-white.
And racial animosity went up.
Or prejudice, I should say.
I believe this is all the media.
The media, they didn't necessarily love Obama, but they definitely loved him way more than Trump.
So what happens then when Obama has blown up kids in the Middle East?
What happens then when Obama is deporting people?
Well, the media takes the inverted narrative.
Isn't it funny that during Obama's years, even though he deported more people, killed more people, people became more, white people were more prejudicial?
And then as soon as they leave, now that Trump's in office, they become less?
Even Republicans?
In the end, what I think we see is a manipulative media.
And as we know, the trends in media started hitting around 2010, where they started talking about all this identitarian stuff.
Because of this, the media, in my opinion, I should say, what we're seeing there is a desperate media trying to pander to make money.
So they're trying to be, you know, they're in line with the Democrats, they're opposed to the Republicans, and that causes the inverted swing.
But there's one more thing I want to highlight before we end this segment, because I think, you know, look, I'm just frustrated with the media all the time.
CNN panelists claims moderate, real Americans drinking coffee are mythical unicorns.
You want to know what's frustrating to me?
I can see the media lies.
We can see full stop that NBC knew the story wasn't true and led the fake tweet anyway.
Then you get CNN.
And this is a nuance here.
CNN props up a guy saying there are no centrist moderates.
And that's what they do to me.
I certainly don't exist.
I'm not allowed to be a centrist or a moderate.
Yeah, 20% of voters identify as moderate.
Please, thank you very much.
However, credits to, I believe it's SE Cup.
Who then says, no they really do exist, you just don't know them.
The problem is, how often does CNN have on someone like me to push back against their BS?
Oliver Darcy and Brian Stelter, they rant all day and night about Infowars, and they take the far-left narrative.
And they know me.
They've known me for a long time, for years.
And they could very easily have me come on and present real data and real sources to push back on a lot of their claims, and they don't.
They have on the same rhetoric over and over again, and they have on people claiming there are no moderates.
Congratulations, media.
The only choice is to go far left and watch the Democratic Party burn to the ground.
I don't know what your plan is, but it seems to be working if that's the case.
I can't imagine they actually want to help have a robust, you know, political debate in this country, because it's not just CNN.
It's NBC.
And I believe the New York Times did the same thing.
Why they want to prop up the fake news instead of actually challenging the fake narrative and presenting the truth beats me, but it's not going to work out for you in the long run.
So anyway, There's an inverted repercussion from this, but I wanna stress this point.
You know, there's not enough here necessarily to go on a, I don't know, to make like a full segment about this.
But look, since Trump's been elected, prejudice has gone down, okay?
I don't think you can claim that's fueling.
Actually, weirdly enough, when Trump got elected, Democrats' prejudice against Hispanics actually briefly went up, which I don't understand.
But, look, however you want to extrapolate this data and figure out what it means, that's just my opinion, okay?
I think the media is at play with this.
When they support Obama, people become more racist.
When they oppose Trump, people become less.
Because the media doesn't care about what's true.
They care about money and ratings.
It's a business.
And that's what it is, you know?
I don't know, whatever.
I don't even know what this video is.
I'm just frustrated.
But I got another segment coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
So stick around, and I will see you all then.
Footage has resurfaced of the squad member, Rashida Tlaib, being thrown out of a campaign event, a Donald Trump campaign event, in 2016, I believe it was.
And as she's being dragged out, she's yelling, you guys are crazy, and people are yelling back at her.
And here's what I find really funny.
Here's the enlightening bit we'll get into.
I'm seeing a lot of conservatives and even some centrists criticize what Rashida Tlaib did, saying, how could an elected official act in this way?
How uncouth, haramfai, say.
And I think there's a lot of conservatives that believe showing her doing this is bad for her.
But I tell you this now, this is the kind of behavior the left absolutely likes.
It's why she got elected.
Think about what happened after she yelled, we're gonna impeach the mother effer.
The media and, you know, moderates, conservatives were like, oh, how dare, oh, harumph!
How could you say such a thing?
How did the left respond?
They absolutely love this kind of stuff, okay?
To them, they're seeing a principled actor standing up to the president, and it's what gets her elected.
This video circulating is not bad for her.
Okay, moderates might get put off perhaps, but the left loves it.
It's the kind of attention she actually needs to come across as an activist leader for the left.
So let's take a look at this story to break down what's actually going on.
But I do have a comment from one individual on the left, and I want to show you how they actually feel about this.
Now, before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option.
And a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do, share this video because YouTube has deranked independent political commentary.
Hey, it is what it is.
But I rely on your support to keep things moving along.
I also want to add this one quick thing.
You may have noticed, everything's all different.
I'm actually in a studio in Dallas, which I'm not going to say, I mean, it's not a secret where I'm at, but I'm at a certain Dallas production studio, so I have this big monitor in front of me, And that's why things are different.
But let's read the news.
Let's not waste time.
The Daily Mail reports, footage surfaces of Rashida Tlaib disrupting 2016 Trump economic speech and yelling that his supporters are, quote, crazy as future president mocks her and claims the Bernie Sanders people had far more energy.
I'm pretty sure she is one of these Bernie Sanders people.
They say, Tlaib, at the time a former Michigan state legislator, was filmed screaming and resisting both Secret Service and Trump's private muscle and shouting, you guys are crazy, to reporters and Trump's supporters as she was ejected.
Trump, then the Republican nominee for president, spoke at the Detroit Economic Club on August 8, 2016.
Quote, I will say the Bernie Sanders people had far more energy and spirit, he quipped, after Tlaib was dragged out.
By sheer coincidence, the next line in his speech was, we must have law and order.
Tlaib would win a congressional election two years later and become one of Washington's loudest Trump antagonists.
She famously vowed to impeach the mother effer a few hours after taking her oath of office.
On Detroit, on Monday in Detroit, Slade pushed back against President Trump's urging that she and three other liberal first-term congresswomen should go back where they came from.
I'm not going nowhere, not until I impeach this president, she said at the NAACP's annual convention.
Now, I want to just stop real quick and say, please, stop referring to these women as liberals.
Even they don't call themselves liberals, and the left doesn't like liberals.
You know what's really frustrating in this whole thing?
There's no liberal anymore.
Because for too long, the left is, people would call the left, they would use the phrase the left and liberal interchangeably.
But the left is not liberal anymore.
Here's the thing.
Conservatives and liberals disagree with each other and can, heeded disagreements, but no, there was no conservative and liberals hitting each other over the head with bars and punching each other in the street.
That's not a thing.
We now literally have conservatives going to rallies being attacked by the left.
Liberals, on the other hand, are basically just not involved anymore.
It's a shame.
But this is to the point I want to bring up.
In this video, which I hope it's not too loud.
I'll try and play it without the sound on.
Okay, apparently nothing happens.
You can't see it.
Okay, the video's not working.
But we can see some of these clips.
You can see she's being dragged out.
You can see her yelling and she's jumping up and down.
Here's a video of her resisting.
This is the left, not liberals.
And so perhaps, perhaps I dare say, maybe this is bad for her.
Because the activist base is a tiny fraction of America.
But here's the thing.
When it comes to winning elections, most people don't vote.
Okay, my friends who are like liberals, you know like where Barack Obama was, don't really vote.
They vote in presidential elections.
They're not really voting in anything else.
So maybe we'll see something happen.
Actually, I take that back.
These people are not gonna vote for the Democrats.
Look, man.
You know, I grew up with a bunch of far-left anarcho-types, like anarchists, skintight, you know, punk rock, skateboarding, all that stuff.
And a lot of them were kind of nuts, and it kind of pushed me away because I felt like they didn't really care about other people.
They were just driven by anger.
They were fueled by rage.
And this is what you see with Antifa.
They don't care for logic.
They just attack people regardless of whether or not they did anything wrong.
We've seen videos of people getting attacked who didn't do anything.
There's one video of a guy just walking around Berkeley filming, and they come up and they surround him, they steal his phone, and they start hitting him.
So this stuff happens.
It's not just about Andy Ngo.
So the point I'm trying to make with this video, I often see conservatives, you know, they don't seem to understand, I guess.
Conservatives and even some moderates don't understand this might as well be a campaign ad for Rashida Tlaib, at least as it pertains to the left, where it is today.
You know, these people call Trump every name in the book.
Look at this.
Let me give you this explanation.
We actually just had a guy show up with weapons to an ICE facility, and his actions could have resulted in the death, the deaths of all of the migrants in those buildings.
It was reckless, it was dangerous, and what do we see from the high-profile left?
Sean King, for instance, best example.
He praises it and calls for more.
So what do you think they're going to see?
They're going to think when they see this.
They're going to be clapping and cheering.
Oh yeah, it's Weimar Germany all over again and we better have people like Rashida in office to push back against Orange Man.
Let's carry on.
I'm curious as to what Daily Mail actually has to say.
They say she and three other first-term Democratic radicals, known as the Squad, have made pestering the president job one.
Tlaib was among more than a dozen hecklers during Trump's speech, invited by a 23-year-old man who the Economic Club said joined fraudulently just in time to purchase tickets to the private event.
The fraudster pulled it off by using the name of a company that had fired him two years earlier.
A liberal group called the Michigan's People's Campaign later took credit for organizing the chaos.
It's all very well planned out, a chagrin Trump said at one point.
One activist shouted tiny hands, tiny hands.
All you've got is tiny hands at him.
Another yelled racist.
Congratulations, you've sure won your argument there.
Once again, they go back to saying a liberal group.
Not fair.
Not, not, not fair.
Stop calling these people liberals.
And I'll give you the best, I can give you the best bit of proof that the left is no longer liberal and leftists have infiltrated liberal squares and are absolutely destroying it.
I'm a lifelong liberal.
Okay, I was an anarcho-far-left when I was younger, and I'm mostly just a liberal guy now.
My hacker buddies believe in the free exchange of information and freedom of speech.
But I have to wonder, then, why the open-source community is being infected by leftism, okay?
There's a difference between being a center-left liberal and believing in freedom and free speech and, you know, honor, respect, dignity, and equality, and whatever it is that's happening now.
The best example is Gab, okay?
Why are there people calling for censorship, and you look—actually, here's the best example.
There's a thing called the Fediverse.
It's an open-source social media system.
That means you can't shut people down.
You can't ban them.
That was the purpose.
It was built by liberals.
And of course, some libertarians.
A lot of the leaders are probably more libertarian.
But liberals were on board.
I grew up in these hacker communities.
I spent time in hacker spaces.
Liberals, people who would not vote for Donald Trump but believed in free speech, free information, and actually they believed in this to oppose systems like the executive branch in the United States government.
To make sure that people will always be free to challenge power.
Now what's happening is these open source decentralized systems are trying to ban and block Gab.
Completely antithetical to what the open source community was about several years ago.
A liberal community in which I was involved, and I'm shocked to see it.
It's an infiltration.
But anyway...
To the main point with this video, I can go on and rant about stop calling these people liberals for a long time, but the issue is, you know what I've seen?
Is people shocked that Rashida would act this way, and that she's elect- No, no, no, no, no, no.
This is exactly what they vote for.
This is exactly what they want.
This video right now, I'm sure there's gonna be people on the left watching this, laughing and clapping and cheering, saying, you go, Rashida!
Now here's my opinion as like a moderate liberal, this solves nothing.
It is a symbol.
She's acting in a way, in a sense, it's a virtue signal to let the left know she's yelling at Trump.
But did she get anything done this day?
No.
All she did was bolster her brand.
So I try to keep these segments short.
So I'm going to jump right now to this tweet from Kevin Gestola.
He's an anti-war progressive, I believe.
Forgive me if I'm misrepresenting your beliefs, Kevin, but he runs, I believe it's called Shadowproof.
Take a look at this tweet.
First, you have from Joy Villa, Trump supporter.
What the heck?
This is an elected official acting a fool like this.
Rashid Tlaib, what is wrong with you seriously?
Kevin responds, quote, acting a fool.
What justice and progress achieved in the past century has been accomplished by citizens who dared to act a fool when met with the stern glare of authority?
So Kevin is making, I believe, what we can see here.
Um, maybe I'm getting it wrong, but it sounds like he's saying this is what you need to do to win.
You need to challenge authority, you need to push back, you need to break the rules.
To an extent, that's true in a lot of ways.
So, you have to understand, this isn't bad for Rashida.
That's my takeaway from all this.
This is good for her, so I'll leave it there.
I think you get it.
There, of course, are a ton of other sources you can look at where we can see the left likes this.
And I hope you consider that.
Because as much as the left likes to smear Trump and mock him, go to the Donald subreddit, and every day, I kid you not, there is some left-wing attempt at a meme trying to insult or mock the president.
They're laughing.
They love it.
It's like people don't seem to understand the other side.
This is what the left likes.
This is why Rashida acts this way.
It's why she gets elected.
They like her behavior.
It's not bad for them.
It's good.
So you have conservatives shocked.
It's hard, I guess, because I'll put it this way.
As a center-left individual, if I went to liberals and tried to have a conversation, they'd wig out and attack me.
They'd be like, no, what's wrong with you?
For the most part.
You go to conservatives, they have an argument about it.
So the reality is it's hard to really get into both spheres to understand why these two different groups act these ways or like what they like.
But you can see it by just going on the internet.
People praise this stuff on the left.
This is good news for her.
So I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Sweden is a creepy place.
I do not like Sweden.
I mean this sincerely.
You guys may be tracking this story about ASAP Rocky, Kanye West, Donald Trump, and the weird... One of my favorite tweets of all time, I don't know who originated it because it's being picked up by everybody, but they said, imagine a few years ago, Telling your past self that in 2019 Kanye West would call Donald Trump to devise a plan to get A$AP Rocky out of a Swedish prison, and you'd be like, that's too insane.
That's too insane to even be a movie.
And here we are.
A$AP Rocky's been held, in my understanding, in solitary confinement for a couple weeks now for getting into a fight.
And it looks, when you look at A$AP's Instagram, these dudes were harassing him.
They were stalking and following him and they wouldn't back off.
And it really does look like these guys started the fight, but here's the big update.
Sweden drops investigation into alleged victim in A$AP Rocky Brawl.
It now seems like Rocky's on the hook for this.
He's refusing to plead guilty.
And the dude who actually appears to have started the fight isn't gonna get in trouble.
So let me just... Let me point something out.
It's going around, I guess, that Sweden doesn't have bail.
When you get arrested, you get arrested.
They hold... Now, Swedish prisons and Swedish jails are, like, resorts.
They're really nice.
But it is kind of screwed up, man.
So I mostly want to talk about how I don't like Sweden and I will never go back there.
Sweden, you are a terrifying place.
And I'll explain why.
Before we get started, Head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
You know the routine.
There's multiple ways you can give.
I rely on your support to primarily share this video because YouTube is doing its best to hurt independent creators and commentary.
So if you like it, please do share it.
Let's read a little bit about the story to see what's going on with ASAP.
And then I want to talk about the creepiness that is Sweden.
CNN reports, an investigation into the Swedish man allegedly involved in a brawl with US rapper A$AP Rocky has been dropped, the man's lawyer, Magnus Stromberg, told CNN on Monday.
Stromberg said he had received written confirmation of this from the prosecutor.
And while his client is relieved, this was not unexpected.
He has been the subject of an assault, but he has not committed a crime, Stromberg added.
Slobodan Jovovich, A$AP Rocky's lawyer, talked to media on July 19th following a Stockholm court's decision to extend the rap artist's detention.
The Swedish Prosecution Service also confirmed to CNN that the investigation into the man has been discontinued and he is no longer suspected of any crime.
A$AP Rocky was detained on July 3rd and is preparing to start his third week behind bars accused of assault after his alleged involvement in the incident in Stockholm on June 30th.
The rapper's lawyer Slobodan Jovovich says he was defending himself after being assaulted and that his client is innocent.
So, uh, let me do this real quick.
I'm not going to play the videos, but we've got these two posts from ASAP, okay?
With millions of views each.
And what do you see in both of these videos?
This dude right here, this guy in white, won't back off.
He's stalking them, getting in their space, and no matter how many times I tell him to back off, he won't.
And in this video, ASAP says, hey man, we don't want any beef with this guy, we don't want to fight this guy, I'm not about to go to jail over this.
And what happens?
You see a fight break out between this guy and what looks like A$AP's bodyguard.
A video surfaced later, I believe, I don't know where it came from, but it's on TMZ.
And you can see A$AP and crew are attacking this guy.
But it really does seem to me, based on the videos in the front, like the first videos and what happened, this guy started it with them.
They were defending themselves.
Now some people have said A$AP deserves to be locked up because he took it too far.
I disagree.
When it comes down to a fight, You can't take things too far, but it's hard to judge what is too far from a small snippet of a video.
If this guy attacked him several times and they resisted and then finally fought back and tried to put him down, not like to hurt, but to stop, to immobilize.
That is defensible.
Sweden, however, is a creepy nightmarish place that I recommend no one goes to.
Just, just, just, I just think Sweden is awful.
So let's talk about, it's not just Sweden, but I really, you know what, I went to Sweden, and I really want to rehash some stuff that's come up.
Here's the thing.
Let me read this quote.
The Swedish judicial system is completely independent and does not take into consideration outside pressure from politicians or others, a spokesman for the Swedish Prosecution Authority told on CNN Sunday.
When I was in Sweden, I had to essentially bug out of my hotel because there was a guy lurking in the lobby who kept giving us the stink eye, probably because he knew who we were.
It was me and Emily who was producing.
Doing camera work and stuff.
Now I didn't, we don't know who this guy is or what his intent was, but we noticed him lurking around and kind of, you know, watching us in a creepy way.
As soon as we went to leave, we noticed he immediately runs full speed up the stairs, and I'm like, no, no, no, no, no, that's too creepy.
I'm not saying this guy had anything to do with anything, I don't know what his issue was, but he was creepy, so we were like, nah, screw that, we're getting out of this hotel.
If they can't, you know, if, like this guy was just sitting in the lobby doing weird things.
Now, here's the thing.
That alone, to me, I don't really care.
Creepy people, creepy places.
Here's the thing about Sweden.
It's particularly creepy.
The way they deal with the crime, the way, like, you would have the police come out.
Let me tell you this.
I had a journalist, for a major publication, a major broadcast network, say to me, if you go to Rinkeby with equipment to, like, do a report, yeah, it's dangerous.
I was attacked there.
He said one guy threatened to, you know, to jam a gun up his rear end.
There was recently a photographer who got attacked.
I go there.
They lie about what we were doing.
The media lies.
And they start sharing my phone number with each other.
My phone's ringing off the hook.
I get a call from someone asking me, like, essentially if I'm, like, lying about what happened.
And I'm like, what are you people talking about?
Your own press warned me this stuff would happen.
And now you're acting like I'm making it up?
It's nuts!
It is a weird, cultish... You know what I was told?
I was told by... I can't remember who told me this.
I said it was like North Korea of the North.
Not that it's actually anywhere near as oppressive, but man, the groupthink in that country is creepy.
Creepy, creepy, creepy.
And then we see similar creepy behavior following what happens with Sweden.
So let me wrap up the A$AP Rocky stuff.
I think I got to the point, right?
A$AP's locked up.
He's refusing to plead guilty.
Bieber's tweeting about it.
You get the point.
I just want to rant about Sweden, because I want to make some things clear.
I keep seeing fake news claiming that no-go zones don't exist in Sweden.
No-go zone is a colloquial term used by people in Sweden.
I don't know how else to frame them.
The police call these areas problem areas.
It's really weird.
The left takes the phrase literally to mean the police can't go there, whereas the right just refers to a high crime location.
So what I did was I said, in quotes, and I made it clear basically every step of the way that it's a colloquial term And the police call them problem areas.
What do we see now?
The left pushing lies that I claimed they existed, when in fact, I did the opposite.
The first thing I did was went to one of these so-called areas and walked around without problems.
Slate.com, Huffington Post, report this, and Mashable.
Tim Pool finds little crime in the so-called no-go zones.
The media had no problem.
As soon as the bad press happened, they tried to smear me, claiming I lied.
And now it's... You know, I tell you, When you're directly involved in these situations, there is nothing creepier and scarier than having a massive media apparatus overtly lie about what really happened.
And that's why I think Sweden is a creepy place.
And man, if ASAP came to me before he left, I'd say, dude, do not go to Sweden, man.
I'm telling you.
Because this is what happens.
He's in video saying, we don't want no beef, we don't want to go to jail over this.
Like, come on, man.
Now where is he?
Locked up in solitary.
Here's the thing.
They lie about what we did in Rinkubee.
I'll tell you exactly what happened.
It's on video, you can watch it!
We went to Rinkubee.
We did have a camera.
It's like, it's the one I'm using right now.
It's actually, the one I was using was a little bit smaller than the one I'm using now.
It's the XF-105.
It's not a big camera.
We had the camera down at our side, and we're not holding it up and filming random people.
We did point the camera towards the studios with us.
And ask them some questions.
People started masking up and yelling at us.
Police advised us it was a bad idea.
We stopped filming.
They then said, you probably should leave because, you know, we can't arrest anybody if they do something.
They'll start throwing stones.
And I said, would you follow us out?
They said that would probably be a good idea and then did.
I called in an escort, okay?
I'm not trying to act like I had cops at my side marching me out, but you can clearly see the police behind me following us to the parking lot where our car is.
They then come out and say that it was a coincidence and I followed the police.
They lied.
They lied about what happened, okay?
And here's what's crazy.
There's a video where the police are behind me following me.
So how could the police put out that lie?
Then what happens?
The left tries to defend the nightmarishly fake narrative.
And I'll tell you, man, there's nothing scarier than being in Sweden, knowing something is true, publishing video showing it's true, and then having the media and the police come out and say you're a liar, and then having a bunch of left-wing activists just parodying the lie, even though there's video evidence.
And this is why I think Sweden is a creepy place, and you shouldn't go there.
It wasn't just that.
It was when we were leaving, it's like, in private, the Swedish people will have no problem telling you we have serious problems with Moroccan youth in Uppsala assaulting women.
Former police officers saying, yep, these kids are doing these things, these assaults at these pools.
And I'm like, wow, they tell me this!
These are people telling me this!
And I'll publish it, and then the media goes, he's lying.
It was your journalist who told me that Ring could be as dangerous.
Now when I come out, you've got the same organizations that previously had their own journalist attack saying I'm lying about it.
Don't go to Sweden.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
One more segment coming up in just a couple of minutes and I will see you shortly.
It has been announced that Natalie Portman will be playing Thor?
Female Thor?
I have no idea what to call her.
Because, as many of you know, in today's culture war, no matter what you do, it's offensive.
And that's the point.
The point is that you can never do anything right so they can always wield power over you and then try and pressure businesses to shut you down.
There's a ridiculous story right now that I didn't have enough to go on for a full segment.
I kid you not.
Some woman on Twitter saw a picture of plates.
Plates for food.
From, I think, Macy's.
And then tweeted, who can help me get these things banned?
And then Macy's were like, we're so sorry about the plates, because apparently the plates have rings.
Where it's like, it says mom jeans, favorite jeans, and skinny jeans.
Basically the smaller portion makes you skinny.
And apparently it's offensive!
So there's always going to be some kind of ridiculous outrage in an effort to shut something down.
But it was announced that in Marvel's Phase 4, we are going to have Natalie Portman, who plays Jane Foster, playing the role of female Thor, which is a comic book arc I am not super familiar with, but I have seen some super cringey panels.
I could be getting this wrong, but I saw, like, someone posted something on Twitter Where there was supposed to be a fight between female Thor and some other woman, but the villain says, I'm not gonna fight you.
I'm gonna let you arrest me.
Because now we have female representation and women shouldn't have it so hard.
Or something like that.
I was just like, wait.
Like, wait, what?
So there's been a lot of complaints about the idea of female Thor that I've seen.
A lot of people are basically saying that she's the epitome of a Mary Sue.
Everything's handed to her, she's not worthy, whatever, whatever.
I don't care.
I really don't.
I think the MCU will do fine.
Captain Marvel was like... I can't remember where I left it.
I vaguely remember giving it like a 4 out of 10 or something, because like...
It had some points where I was like, that's cool.
And then it had a lot of points where I was like, rolling my eyes and like, that's so whack.
The problem here, that I want to stress before we can read some of the nonsense, as I've pointed out over and over again, you can make your woke characters.
Well, actually, let me take that back.
We can have a diverse cast, okay?
Because I would say this, when it comes to making these movies, what does anyone expect?
The movie would literally only have white men leading these movies?
No, that's ridiculous.
We had Thor, Captain America, and Iron Man, like, the first big three franchises, and they're white dudes.
And that doesn't matter.
But I will say this.
I'd be shocked if you thought every character would only always ever be a white dude.
We've seen movies with non-white leads and with female leads, and they're fine.
The problem arises when you walk up to someone and start whacking them over the head with a stick while yelling wokeness things at them.
Then they're like, dude, stop, I get it, dude, it's fine, I don't care, okay, I get it, man, stop, stop hitting me, I don't care!
And that was Captain Marvel.
You know, you have the trailer where it's like, it says, her, and then a hero emerges, and it's like, oh my god, dude, we get it, she's a lady.
Nobody did anything about that for Wonder Woman.
I'm not gonna rant about Wonder Woman again.
I get it.
I made too many videos about this, but let's read this and let me just stress.
I'm excited for Thor 4.
I think it'll be really cool to see Natalie Portman as a superhero because I think Natalie Portman does a really great job, and she seems to be like a cool character.
I didn't get the ending, but, you know, I think Natalie Portman's great.
So let's read the story.
from pluralist, feminists immediately start language policing female Thor reactions.
Don't call her that. And this is where it's funny, because the point is,
people are praising the decision for her to play female Thor.
The response?
She's not female Thor, she's Thor.
No, Thor is the name of a guy, okay?
She takes the mantle of Thor.
Again, I'm not, I'm not, like, I didn't read the comics.
Here's my understanding, okay?
Thor is the name of the literal dude.
Like, if I gave my beanie to Emily, would she be just Tim?
That makes no sense.
You couldn't even call her female, Tim.
The point is, she's Thor because Thor is also the name of, like, him as a superhero.
Well, let's read.
They say, At San Diego Comic-Con, the studio announced that Natalie Portman's character, former Thor love interest Jane Foster, will play the Goddess of Thunder in the forthcoming Thor Love and Thunder.
On stage at the event, Portman symbolically accepted Thor's hammer, Mjolnir, from Chris Hemsworth.
who has played the Norse god superhero across seven Marvel movies.
And I do want to add, too, I wonder if that's why they didn't end Thor's story arc and wanted to do one more movie, so they could pass off the brand, and there's a lot of money to be made, to Natalie Portman to keep it in-universe.
I've always had Hammer Envy joked Portman, who reportedly stormed off Thor 2 when director Patty Jenkins quit in protest.
Wow.
That sucks.
But, uh, look at this.
She says Hammer Envy.
She's making a joke!
She's, she's, she's, it's, it's funny.
It's funny, right?
They say, also at Comic-Con, Marvel confirmed that Valkyrie, whom Thor named the king of his mythical homeland, Asgard, would be the Marvel Cinematic Universe's first queer superhero in Thor Love and Thunder.
Now, I will be critical of this a little bit, because the problem with the wokeness stuff is beating people over the head with it.
You don't need to tell us this, okay?
How about you make the movie, and Valkyrie has a queer love interest, and, you know, let me stress, When you want something to be normalized, you can't yell in people's faces about how it should be normal.
You just do it.
Just make the female lead.
Just have the queer character.
You don't need to remind us, you know, with commercials and all this stuff.
That's what's making people really frustrated and angry.
It's being whacked over the head incessantly and lectured to.
Let's get to the tweets.
We have this one from Lena Waithe who said, Spot on!
For me, I don't care.
Thor is a woman, the new Blade got two Oscars, 007 is a black woman, and the Little Mermaid
bout to have locks.
S just got real.
Spot on.
For me, I don't care.
I do have a negative disposition immediately because of identitarianism.
I get it, it's cool, but I don't like the fact that we're going to only praise, I believe,
I don't like the idea that we have to make it about his race because he's a human being who has value.
Man, that's how I grew up, and that's why I can't stand identitarianism.
I like Natalie Portman because I think she's a good actor, and I think she's made good movies.
And I'm looking forward to the movie she's gonna be in.
I don't care that she's a woman.
I understand what it means to certain people.
Of course, I've mentioned this before, there are people who have never seen that, you know, they don't know what it's like to see someone in that role that represents who they are.
So I get it.
And that's why I'm not trying to be mean to Lena.
It's like, by all means, dude, be happy.
But I am slightly averse to people who try and champion the fact that someone is something instead of, like, being a human.
Right?
At End All Be All, we should be like, hey, a human being is doing something we can share for ourselves.
Instead, it's all about the identity of the individual, which people can't change.
Let's get to the shenanigans, though.
Saying female Thor is sexist.
However, not everyone was ready to pop the champagne.
Many liberals, no, stop saying liberals, were focused on trying to shame right-wing critics of Hollywood's ever-increasing wokeness.
This person says, Mjolnir was actually destroyed so Jain can't become Thor.
Mate, there is a talking raccoon and this is the multiverse.
Just admit you hate women.
It's not even about... See, here's the problem.
It's not about hating women.
It's just someone criticizing the idea that they're retconning the universe to cater to her.
But let's move down.
One person says, Hey, people mad about Natalie Portman being cast as Thor.
Both those that don't want a female Thor and those that want a different woman cast.
She hasn't been cast as Thor.
She was cast long ago as Jane Foster.
Jane Foster becomes Thor in the comics.
That's how the story goes.
I question whether or not there is a large group of people who actually care about this, by the way.
Here's the best one, Brianna Wu.
I swear, these fake comic book boys pretending to know Marvel to get attention.
Natalie Portman is playing Thor.
Not she Thor, not female Thor, not Thor woman, she is playing Thor.
And this was someone happily saying, Natalie Portman is female Thor.
So here's the thing.
Even when you, here we go, CNN.
Lady Thor is here, and she's ready to bring the thunder.
Psst, she's just called Thor.
No, listen.
This is a hand-me-down character.
She's Jane Foster.
That I'm fine with.
But yes, when you pass the moniker of Thor to a new character, you are hand-me-downing that character.
Write something new for these characters.
Give her her own unique name.
Make her the wielder of Mjolnir and call her, like, Thundara or something.
The point is, calling her Thor is making her Lady Thor because Thor's originally a dude.
You are handing down IP instead of writing new IP.
Why can't we all just get past this and say, how about instead of just making Captain America black, we have Falcon be Falcon because he's his own unique, strong, individual character who is important in the Marvel Cinematic Universe?
Why is it that handing down something that's used to a minority character is to be praised?
Of course, I'm not going to call for anything to be banned, because in the end, I'll go see the movie, it's fine.
But the point is, why are we not offended that instead of creating new characters that can represent minorities, we're just saying, oh, sure, take, I don't know, Captain America, we're done with that one.
We've had it for 60 years, you can have it now.
None of it makes sense.
Someone says, uh, how I picture anyone who says female Thor or female Hawkeye and it's two Ferengi from Star Trek.
Notably funny because the Ferengi in Star Trek were shocked that Federation women were forced to wear clothes, they would say.
So, you know, so look.
Let's not act like the outrage is that pressing.
I think, in the end, it's all just hyped up by actors in the culture war.
But the one thing I want to point out before we wrap up is that people are getting mad she's being called Lady Thor or Female Thor.
It's like, dude, the people who are bringing that up are cheering for it.
Can you just accept the win and be happy for once?
