White Democrats Are Resigning Following Diversity Scandal And Demands
White Democrats Are Resigning Following Diversity Scandal And Demands. Far left ideology and intersectionality are becoming pervasive within the Democratic Party to the extent that several white democrats have resigned from senior positions at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee over demands for more diversity. One woman Allison Jaslow even went on to say she must bow out to help the mission.If the democratic party is making leadership decisions based on race they will likely face a meritocratic obstacle in that their competition on the republican side will likely choose based on talent.Talent versus identity will likely yield an obvious result.Its possible that even though social justice narratives drive the decision the Democrats do end up with better leadership. One argument being that cronyism and nepotism got these people their jobs in the first place. But even still in the long run it will likely be the republicans maintaining an advantage based on merit.In the long run I fear these types of actions will result in overt race based politics in the US with the republicans being a white party and the democrats being a non white party.Racial division in this country seems to be getting worse with sign of slowing down
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A recent study showed that among racial and political groups, white liberals were the only group to have an out-group bias, meaning they're less likely to like people like themselves.
Now, for the most part, people in America have a very small in-group bias.
I believe it's around less than 20% of people show that bias.
But what do you think the end result is going to be when white liberals tend not to like themselves or prefer people who are not white?
Eventually, for race-based reasons, you will see political decisions.
Which brings me to this huge story.
I mean, this is serious if you were to ask me.
Several white Democrats have resigned from the DCCC, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, over demands for more diversity.
It started with one person at the top, and then slowly more started to resign.
Not everybody who resigned is white.
But we can see that there's a lot of uproar and outrage over the fact that there aren't non-white people working for the DCCC.
Keeping in mind, majority of this country is white.
The Democrats are on a clear and obvious path, but admittedly, so are Republicans.
When you look at the parties, you can point out that Democrats tend to be people of color, Republicans tend to be white, and I think this is extremely dangerous, especially as now white Democrats resign and we have more stories emerging saying the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate shouldn't be white or a man.
Now, I don't care who or what they are, but when they're saying it shouldn't be something is when you should get alarmed.
Because I feel if this is the track we're on, we're eventually going to be led down a path where you have a white wing and a non-white wing, as opposed to a policy-based wing.
That will be very creepy and dangerous.
And I gotta say, the Democrats are walking that line.
Outside of this story, I do want to go over concerns the Democrats are going too far left, especially with the Democratic debate coming up tonight, and fears they will continue to push leftward and, based on the story we're seeing here, continue to embrace identitarian ideology, which will only cause extreme racial division.
Now, before we get started with this Politico story, 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, share this video.
YouTube has deranked independent political commentary, which means I rely on word of mouth to grow the channel, and that's how it should be.
Well, maybe it shouldn't, but it's how business tended to be.
I'm not going to be reliant on Google.
If you like it, you can share it.
If you don't, feel free not to.
Let's read.
Politico.
Reports DCCC faces mass staff upheaval after uproar over diversity.
The departures come as chairwoman Cherry Bustos faces accusations that she has done little to address the lack of diversity in the upper ranks of the campaign arm.
They report on Monday morning, Allison Jaslow, the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, a close ally of Rep.
Sheri Bustos, Democrat from Illinois, chair of the committee, resigned during a tense meeting at the party's Capitol Hill headquarters.
And in the next 10 hours, much of the senior staff was out.
Jared Smith, Communications Director, and another Bustos ally, Melissa Miller, a top communications aide, Molly Rittner, Political Director, Nick Pancrazio, Deputy Executive Director, and Van Ornelas, the DCCC's Director of Diversity.
Jackie Newman, the Chief Operating Officer for the campaign arm, will serve as Interim Executive Director and facilitate the search for a permanent replacement, Bustos said in a statement late Monday.
Today has been a sobering day filled with tough conversations that too often we avoid," Busto said.
But I can say confidently that we are taking the first steps towards putting the DCCC back on path to protect and expand our majority, with a staff that truly reflects the diversity of our Democratic Caucus and our party.
Rittner was one of two national political directors at the DCCC.
Corey Kozlowski, the other national political director, is still with the campaign arm.
According to multiple sources, while most of the staff departures are effective immediately, Miller is expected to remain at DCCC temporarily to help transition a new communications team, according to sources.
Now, I believe they mentioned that it was Allison Jaslow, who was the executive director, was first to resign, which precipitated then the resignations or departures of several more top Democrats in the DCCC.
On Twitter, Allison Jaslow tweeted my statement on stepping down from my post at the DCCC.
I really hate saying that.
unidentified
We'll call it... Yes, but let's read her statement.
She says, When I was in 8th grade, I decided that my life would be dedicated to serving my country.
I did that first in uniform, but since have tried to be a force of good in our politics.
My commitment to the mission, our country, and the people who commit their lives to serving, it is unwavering.
And sometimes selfless service means having the courage to take a bow for the sake of the mission.
Especially when the stakes are so high.
As I told the team today, they are without a doubt the most talented group of people I have ever worked with in my life.
It was an honor and a true privilege to work with them every day and know with confidence that the Democratic House majority will be protected with the relentless dedication and under the leadership of Chairwoman Bustos.
I actually am not entirely convinced.
There was one study I looked at showing that Trump voters did not come out for the midterms.
When they come out in 2020, there is likely, many people believe, maybe not, you know, not a 100% guarantee, the Democrats will lose their majority.
But let's move on to another story yesterday to just, I really want to highlight one important aspect of this.
They say that the executive director resigned abruptly on Monday amid members' complaints that the committee's upper echelons lacked diversity.
And it is from this we see today's story, that now many, many more people have resigned.
I want to highlight this study here.
This is from TabletMag.com, America's White Saviors.
They show this.
Mean in-group bias by race ethnicity.
I've highlighted this before, but It's pretty relevant here.
We can see that among black, hispanic, and asians, they have an in-group preference.
Non-liberal whites have a slight in-group preference, but white liberals have a slight out-group preference, meaning they tend not to like people like themselves.
What you will then see is stories exactly like this.
Expect more.
I fully expect to see many, many more stories like this.
How many stories have we seen where they ask, should the Democratic 2020 presidential candidate be a white person?
If that's the question they're asking, and they're not focused on policy, I believe the Democrats are in serious trouble for a few reasons.
Many people in this country, 66 or so percent, I could be getting the number wrong, are white.
They're not going to want to hear this, except for those white liberals who have an out-group bias.
However, many of the more passive liberals, known as the exhausted majority, are more concerned with policy.
They're probably not going to be swayed by this.
I'd imagine either it will do nothing, or it will be a net negative for one simple reason.
Imagine you have white liberals, some of whom only a small percentage, on a scale of 0 to 100, there is around a 13.17 score for outgroup bias.
That means most white liberals don't have this.
You will see that fracture.
Yes, there will be some white liberals who cheer on the decision to remove white people on the basis of being white, but you will see many more white people confused as to why it's happening when it has nothing to do with policy.
And you will probably see some white people scared that they are being targeted for things they can't change.
People don't like that.
It doesn't make people feel good.
So we can move on now and see this story from Reuters to kind of, you know, point this out.
Democrats grapple with electability question as white men lead diverse field.
This story from May reads, Democrats seeking to unseat Republican U.S.
President Donald Trump will choose from the largest and most diverse set of candidates in history.
Yet so far, two older white men are leading the pack.
Why does that matter?
Well, on the Republican side, you will likely see a lot of whiteface.
On the Democrat side, you will see a mix.
However, what's happening is, look, the Democrats can cheer on the fact that there's minority representation on the Democratic side, but they're not actually being fair, and they're not actually catering to the true idea of diversity.
If you want to be truly diverse, each and every one of these people should stand an equal chance.
However, what they're actually saying is, because you're white, you shouldn't be the candidate, and that's absurd.
Maybe in time, there will be more candidates who make it, but we do have a diverse field, and it's a meritocracy.
To the winner, go the spoil.
If you are the best, you will win.
Instead, they're saying Bernie shouldn't be?
And I'm going to say it's true, yes.
There were celebrities, notably Amber Tamblyn, saying she wouldn't support Bernie because he was a man.
Has nothing to do with politics.
You are not going to win over the majority of this country, particularly moderates, by pandering to identity.
When I can show you again, on a scale of 0 to 100, the biases, in-group or out-group, for most groups, it's still really, really small.
13% or so.
I'm not sure exactly how they're determining what that score means.
Maybe it means everyone holds that bias, or maybe it means only that percentage of people hold that bias.
But the bias exists.
Most people want real plans.
They want real policy.
They want real choices.
They want to know their lives will be better.
Take a look at this story just from yesterday.
McClatchy, D.C.
Twenty-twenty Democrats shifting left.
Moderates fret they'll shift even further at the next debate.
And I know for many of you, you've heard me make this point, but I have to make it because each video is independent and not everybody watches every single video.
But let me stress.
If the Democrats sacrifice the center to get new left-wing voters, the center may end up voting right, okay?
Moderates are in between Democrat and Republican.
The far right and the far left are not.
If you gain a progressive voter but lose a centrist, Republicans may pick up that centrist.
The battle in this country in 2020 is going to be over—it's going to be who can win over the middle.
Period.
Now the Democrats, the far-left Democrats, believe there is this untapped pool of far-left voters they could wake up, but I assure you those people will be in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, not in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
Those are the states you need to win that Trump... No one thought Trump was going to win, but he did.
You need to win over those states, and there's not going to be a large swath of far-left voters in those states.
The voters you are pointing to are in big cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles.
But you know what?
Many of these far-left progressives are there too, and they're the ones pushing this.
They're the ones convinced by getting more far-left votes they'll win.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe you will find Ohio does have many far-left individuals, but I kind of just don't believe the working-class individuals who lost their factory jobs in the middle of these states believe socialism is the answer.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet they completely disagree.
But let's move on.
In the last debate, as we now move into tonight's CNN debates, I have this story from just last week.
U.S.
public opposes reparations and decriminalizing illegal entry.
Let me now loop these stories together and explain to you what you may have already known if you've watched my videos.
What frustrates me about the Democrats is their obsession with social media The fact that DCC members would resign because people are complaining about diversity shows
They're increasingly adopting woke ideology.
The fact that they would propose reparations and decriminalizing illegal entry, it shows.
They're obsessed with Twitter.
In a story I covered yesterday, talking about Democratic governors were saying, you're going too far left, Trump is going to win.
They point out, out of the primary voters, who these people need to win over, only 3 in 10 want to abolish ICE.
But 64% of people who tweet at least once a day believe in abolishing ICE.
Minds are being twisted by Twitter.
And you have a lot of journalists who have an unhealthy relationship with the platform.
And that's according to Brian Stelter of CNN.
Who then parrot this rhetoric, the Democrats read these articles from these woke clickbait blogs and believe it, and then you get Democrats resigning.
This—serious—let me just stress how serious this—Democrats from the DCCC resigning over the color of their skin.
Meanwhile, on the debate stage, they're proposing things Americans don't want.
And how about this?
From a Marist poll with, uh, I believe this is Marist.
I'm not sure who else worked on it.
They say, there are warning signs facing the democratic field.
Medicare for all, which replaces private insurance, health insurance for illegal immigrants, decriminalizing border crossings, eliminating the death penalty, universal basic income, and reparations for slavery are some of the issues where Democrats are out of step.
And here's a quote.
The Democratic field needs to tread carefully to energize its base without sacrificing independents who are now siding with them on many issues, says Dr. Lee M. Mieringoff, director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.
For independents, they could end up aligning with Donald Trump or supporting the Democratic nominee.
It depends on which issues ultimately dominate the campaign.
The context here is they point out there are some ideas that independents are interested in, but they're increasingly pushing rhetoric independents do not like.
Don't take it from me.
Do whatever you want.
But Trump knows the game better than anybody.
He's a master at manipulating the media, and it is not my opinion.
I mean, I do believe that too, but that is coming from CNN's political analyst, or one of their political analysts, saying Trump is a dangerous media manipulator.
I'm looking at what the Democrats are doing, and I see them falling into this trap every single day.
But now let's talk about how the Democrats are in shambles.
You know what, man?
They don't like the fact that I talk about this.
They don't like the fact that we are entering the 2020 cycle, and they expect me to talk about Trump's impeachment, but Americans don't care about Trump's impeachment.
And I'm gonna go over this.
I'm gonna go over this in a segment after this for my second channel, because it is entirely its own segment.
The Democrats are close to a majority on voting for impeachment, but the American people don't care.
Who are you catering to?
It's shocking to me.
It really is.
Take a look at this.
RNC raises $14.6 million in May, more than doubling the DNC.
Why is that?
Why is the RNC doubling the fundraising efforts of the DNC?
This should be shocking to everyone.
These are coming from small donors, at least it's my understanding.
The overwhelming majority, I think like 90 plus percent of Trump's fundraising, Trump specifically at the RNC, was less than $200.
He has overwhelming support in terms of people giving money.
Now, you can talk about polls all day and night, but the polls were wrong in 2016.
The polls could be wrong today.
But let's talk about people putting their money where their mouth is.
The DNC is raising less than half of what the RNC is.
And it says to me, when it comes to politics, when it comes to those who will vote, Republicans are putting their money where their mouth is.
They really believe this.
And the Democrats aren't really paying attention, nor do they care.
The Democrats are resigning over race, they're continually pushing far-left policies Americans don't want, and thus Democrats don't spend money, don't donate money.
Which in turn means Democratic candidates are going to have less to work with in terms of advertising, marketing, and campaigning.
But I want to make sure I highlight or get into at least a little bit the impeachment stuff.
I'm going to do a bigger segment on impeachment, but I just want to make sure I show these in the clip and make a couple more closing points as we move on.
First, debates are tonight.
I hope you're all ready.
I hope you enjoy them.
There is a growing concern Where's the article?
Here we go.
A growing concern that the Democrats are going to shift further at the next debate.
I believe that will be the case.
Because the Democrats don't care about what Americans want.
I genuinely believe this.
Right now, there are some Democrats who are fantastic.
Who I really like.
And you know I always say Tulsi Gabbard's great.
Andrew Yang is great.
I don't agree with either of them on most, or I shouldn't say on all of their positions, but many of them, maybe even most, I've gone through their platforms.
I like what they're doing.
But even conservatives have been able to point out they're the common sense Democrats.
They're the outliers.
They are not what the Democratic Party is, and they don't represent the majority of the Democrats.
When I look at what they're doing with impeachment, when I look at the far-left nonsense, when I look at the resignations, it says to me the Democrats don't care about what Americans are talking about.
They're talking about immigration.
They're talking about healthcare.
They're talking about the economy.
What are the Democrats talking about?
Impeachment.
It's like they can only really point to the fact that they're sore losers.
Trump is a bad man.
He should be impeached.
Well, I'm sorry to say it, even with this story about House Democrats inching towards impeachment, that there's been no impeachment bump after Mueller's testimony.
Why did the Democratic politicians sway towards impeachment when the American people did not?
Because they don't care about what the American people think.
They care about themselves and what they're campaigning on.
Meanwhile, Trump is using data analytics and he's tracking the polls and he's campaigning on things that Americans support.
The death penalty, for instance.
I am very much opposed to it.
I made a video about it.
Got a ton of dislikes.
Don't care.
That's what I believe in.
I'm willing to accept those dislikes because I know I'm out of step with the majority.
That's just the way things work.
In reality, the majority of this country does support the death penalty.
I believe it's around 59%.
Even this poll from Marist, I believe it's Marist NPR, NPR PBS Marist, says that the Democrats are out of step on eliminating the death penalty.
Majority of Americans are for it.
Trump made that move.
Bill Barr reinstated the death penalty.
They put five people slated to be executed.
That's the majority opinion.
Trump is enacting things that he can see most Americans like.
The Democrats, on the other hand, are doing the opposite.
Let's read this.
They say, Only 37% of voters say Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against Trump, according to the poll conducted Thursday.
More voters, 46%, say Congress should not begin impeachment proceedings.
16% were undecided.
How are we at the point now where 37% of voters are saying only 37% are saying they should do it, 46%, the bigger faction, saying don't do it?
That leaves us with most of the country, 63%, either against or just not sure if it should be done.
Yet the Democrats are inching closer to support for this.
How is that happening?
After Mueller, there was no swing.
Americans still stand where they stand on impeachment, most saying don't do it.
Democrats are moving towards it.
They're not paying attention to what Americans are calling for.
So there you have it.
Here's what I can expect to happen in the future.
Woke ideology will fracture the Democrats, force out their leadership, and it will result in, what I fear, two parties.
A party that is non-white and a party that is white, and that is terrifying.
We're supposed to judge people based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
But every day the Democrats do the opposite.
Don't get me wrong, there are conservatives who are racist, but conservatives overwhelmingly preach meritocracy.
So you can argue that the Republicans are secretly racist.
Fine.
I don't care.
You can argue the Democrats are secretly racist.
Don't care about that either.
I'm going to look at what they're saying.
And the Republicans repeatedly talk about meritocracy, and the Democrats repeatedly talk about racial identitarianism.
What do you think is going to happen if this persists?
I think it will be very dangerous.
And the only, only winner in this will be racial identitarians.
It will force white people into a box.
We've already seen it.
Bret Weinstein talked about this.
In a segment he called Speak of the Devil, he said the incessant anti-white rhetoric, those are my words, not how I'm paraphrasing.
Incessant may be hyperbolic for how Bret would normally phrase it.
But he says as the media keeps pushing this, you will see white people Become Identitarian.
And there are comments where people are saying this.
There are white people who are saying this.
That is worrying to me.
Especially as someone who doesn't care for either Identitarian camp.
I hate all of it.
Because I've experienced racial prejudice from both factions.
Of the extremist identitarians, I should say.
The best outcome is equality.
That everybody be given a fair shake.
That we continue to solve the problems of historical racism and injustice, but not in authoritarian ways and not based on giving people things because of their race.
We solve these problems by addressing class issues.
Better teaching people to fish instead of giving them fish.
Regardless of the color of their skin, everybody gets an equal shot at being taught to fish.
In the end, what do we get?
Democrats resign based on race, push far-left policies nobody wants, and now are moving away from American opinion while Trump moves towards it.
I don't know what to expect, but tonight, the Democratic debates are on.
I'm gonna order a bunch of pizzas, we're gonna have a bunch of friends, we got a big, big widescreen TV.
I'm excited.
So regardless of what's going on, let me just say, As most of you know, I would be more willing to vote for a principled left-leaning individual, of which I don't think very many exist.
Especially not the Democrats.
They're a handful.
I'm not trying to be mean to everybody.
I'm not trying to just be tribal.
I really do think there are some good Democrats who've done good things, and I do believe that for their flaws, you have AOC and Elizabeth Warren calling out big tech.
Very important.
Now, Tulsi Gabbard doing the same thing.
Much respect across the board for the principled decision to challenge the tech oligopolies that are dangerous.
The Democratic Party, however, the party I focus on because that's who I'm looking to in 2020, has failed me and continued to do so.
Now, don't get me wrong.
When I say failed, I must stress it's the leadership in the party because you have the outliers, the Yangs, the Gabbards, and other silly characters.
I'll leave their names out of it.
But for the most part, even Bernie Sanders has become an establishment crony spewing garbled talking points about Trump being, you know, orange man bad.
I don't want to hear it.
I want to hear real policy.
I want to hear presidential talk.
I want to hear confidence.
And that's why every day Tulsi Gabbard speaks, I am more and more impressed.
She goes on Tucker Carlson and she talks to the other side.
That's what we need.
Someone where you can have a conservative say, you know, I really disagree with Tulsi on a lot of things, but she's what the Democrats need to be.
Seeing conservatives say that John Bolton should be replaced by Tulsi Gabbard, I'm clapping.
I'm like, this is where we get along.
This brings us together.
Instead, what the Democrats do?
I'll say it one more time before I sign off.
The Democrats are moving away from popular opinion.
Madness.
Complete madness.
I'm excited for the debates.
It's like, I don't, I'm not into sports, football, well, like skateboarding, but I don't watch football.
You know what I do watch?
We're gonna gather around, we're gonna watch these debates, we're gonna be tweeting.
It's gonna be a whole lot of fun.
So, I hope you're looking forward to the debates as well.
Thanks for hanging out.
And I will see you all in the next segment, where I dive into the impeachment story.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews at 6 p.m.
Stick around.
I will see you there.
What a dangerous subject to talk about, but we're going to do it.
Jeffrey Epstein.
Creepy weirdo with the Lolita Express.
High-powered individuals flying on his planes.
We're not going to get into great depth on this one.
And some people have asked me, Tim, why won't you do a big story about Epstein?
And I gotta admit, I know nothing about it.
Just what I've seen in, like, cursory posts on Twitter.
I don't know much about, you know, people have brought up that Bill Clinton was on his planes a lot, right?
It's questionable.
It's creepy.
I am not going to do a deep dive investigation into this man.
It's interesting.
I don't have the time for that.
And I don't really do that.
A lot of the stories that I do cover are like current events in their context.
Even when I'm on the ground reporting, when I was more doing it in the past, when it wasn't as dangerous.
And even today, I'll take a look at like a big story about current policy and I'll look at relative stories of the
past few years.
This goes back decades. You're going to need someone actually do a deep dive on this and
that's not me. I know very little and I don't have the capacity to get started.
However, the story here is interesting enough because of the contemporary politics that I
can read through what the Daily Mail is reporting and it's actually quite funny for two reasons.
Well, funny is the wrong word, right?
Because I don't mean funny haha, I mean, like, strange.
Kind of worrisome.
Jeffrey Epstein is in danger of being murdered before his trial, says victim's lawyer, who questions if alleged suicide attempt was actually a hit put out on him by a powerful friend.
One morning, recently, they found him blue in the face.
Apparently, they say, they believed it was a suicide attempt.
His cellmate apparently said he saved his life.
Immediately, something quite hilarious happened.
Now this is quite funny because Clinton body count started trending on Twitter.
And I made a post about it where I was like, just gonna pop over to see what Americans are talking about today.
Oh no.
And it was like the number three US trend.
So, this conspiracy theory, again, which I know very little about, I'm not someone who likes entertaining conspiracies, but, you know, maybe someone should investigate it.
It's a list of strange deaths that have surrounded the Clintons.
The argument being, you know, Donald Trump is not surrounded by past employees and associates just dying all the time.
The Clintons are.
I don't know anything about it.
That's the claim.
I'm not saying it's true or it isn't.
Heavens, they're going to now claim that I'm pushing the conspiracy simply for just reading a news story and explaining to you what people think.
But that's, hey, that's the way the game is played, right?
So admittedly, I don't know a whole lot about it, but I thought it was funny that it was trending because it's a meme.
Seriously, it is a meme.
It is a meme among people who are not political.
Whenever someone dies an untimely death, Not just Trump supporters, not just conservatives.
This is on Reddit.
You will see someone post a meme where it's like, a shark could die, and then someone will make a fake Twitter image of the shark saying, I have information that will lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton.
And then that's the joke.
It's a joke.
So here's the thing.
We don't need to read too much.
I do want to read the quotes from this guy.
His name is Spencer Coven, who's basically saying, my understanding is that, look, A lot of very powerful people flew on those planes with Epstein.
Epstein is being charged with trafficking minors for adult activities, if you know what I mean.
It is extremely likely In my opinion, there are many, many wealthy people, billionaires, millionaires, who have done some pretty heinous things.
And now, it's about to be found out who they are and what they did.
And it's going to reflect very, very poorly on them, possibly resulting in the end of their lives.
Criminal charges, imprisonment, loss of resources, They're gonna be an legacy. A lot of these people are
obsessed with legacy. Think about that. Think about their kids who are now gonna be like, your dad was
one of these guys. Your, maybe mom? I don't know. So yeah, there's good reason to get rid of a
person like Epstein because I bet he is going to squawk like a chicken to the feds for whatever.
Look, it's over.
It's done.
He's locked up.
It's not getting out of this.
He tried— Apparently, I believe he was remanded.
He wasn't allowed bail.
Let's read a little bit of the story and see exactly what this guy's claiming, keeping in mind— Look, it's one lawyer's opinion.
I really, really don't like conspiracies.
Let me just say this before we read.
If you have a hypothesis, if you think something is likely, that's grounds, in my opinion, to start digging in.
But you should never jump to, I know this is likely true, and then work back to find evidence, okay?
Epstein may have just tried to harm himself.
It's really that simple.
Is it possible powerful interests want to silence him because they're scared?
Of course it is.
So, based on that, you say, okay, let's start looking into the facts and see what's up.
And you may find the simple solution tends to be the correct one.
Epstein's life is over.
He's disgraced.
He's caught.
Busted.
There's nothing left for him, so he tries to end it.
Let's read.
They say a lawyer who represented three women during the criminal proceedings against Epstein over a decade ago thinks the convicted pedophile may not live to see his trial if he's released from prison or is allowed to mingle with other inmates.
Spencer Coven said in an interview with The Sun that he does not think Epstein attempted suicide last week, and that his injuries could be the result of an attempted hit by one of his powerful friends.
I do question whether it was a true suicide attempt.
I mean, how do you choke yourself?
It doesn't make any sense.
Well, you can take your shirt, you can wrap it, you know, tie it, hang from it, and then you pass out instantly.
I want to make sure this is really clear too.
Listen.
There are a lot of people who have died from, you know, choking themselves with their belt while having a good time in a closet, if you know what I mean.
They tie a belt to a, to a, a, a, like a, a coat rack or something, or whatever, a dowel, uh, whatever it's called, wooden bar, a dowel or something, and then they wrap it around their neck and they hang from it and they go, yeah, and they have a good time, and then all of a sudden they pass out really quickly.
There's also people who, kids who used to do something called the Pass Out Game.
I'm not gonna do it, I'm not gonna demonstrate how it's done, but yes, people can make themselves pass out.
If you have a shirt or pants, yeah, you could.
There are reports someone came after him, but that could just be because he's a pedophile.
Those types of individuals don't last long in prison.
So again, conspiracy, in my opinion, less less likely.
Is it possible somebody wants to take him out?
Of course.
But think about who he is.
The lawyer, this guy's right.
They don't last long in prison.
They're targeted, they're attacked.
People don't like that.
It's kind of funny because you're in prison with criminals, and even the criminals have a sense of honor and integrity, and they're gonna be like, not this guy, and they will try to kill you.
I think, first, the most likely thing is, yeah, he just tried to end it, you know?
His life is done.
He's old.
He's got nothing left.
He's busted.
Assets are going to be frozen.
Island becomes a ghost town.
Everybody hates him.
No one will talk to him.
He's the worst of the worst, and he's famous for it.
Woof!
The next more likely thing is some other guy was like, you monster!
You know, his cellmate, they say that he was a cop who killed some people or something, I think.
I could be wrong.
He might just be like, you monster.
Try to kill him.
It is unclear how Kuvin learned that Epstein tried to choke himself, as the Federal Bureau of Prisons has refused to release any details on the incident, and reports only noted the presence of neck wounds.
So there you go.
Kuvin similarly did not offer up an explanation as to how he believes a person was able to gain entry into Epstein's cell after lockdown in high security wing.
Well, look, I mean, That's not an argument.
First, the most important argument is, Cuvin doesn't seem to actually know what the reports are.
How would he know that he was choked by hand?
The reports didn't say that, so I question what he does know and if he's just misinterpreting the details.
Secondly, if they want to argue that how would someone get in, that's not an argument.
Someone could easily get in.
If a billionaire said, I want this done, a couple, what, $50,000 a year security guards are going to be like, How much money do I get?
Sure, we'll sneak him in, turn the cameras off, let's do this.
Okay?
It's not hard to persuade people to do terrible things for lots of money.
But again, I don't think that's the case.
He did state, however, that he believes one of Epstein's powerful friends would likely be behind any attempt at Epstein's life.
If he goes on trial, everyone he's been in contact with will ultimately be fair game.
There's no doubt in my mind that no jail will protect you when there's powerful people that want to reach you wherever you are.
Completely agree.
Just don't think it's that likely because it doesn't need to happen.
But you gotta wonder, if it came to a point where this guy was willing to go, you know, squawk like a chicken to the feds, there'd be a lot of powerful people who don't want that to happen.
Perhaps people in government who could easily get access to this facility.
He then added, If he's going to implicate anyone in power that has the ability to reach in and somehow get to him, his life is definitely in jeopardy.
Prosecutors have been clear from the start about the fact that they are not looking to charge any other individuals in this case.
And as Kubin learned a decade ago, even deposing Epstein's friends is no easy task.
The victim's lawyers, who filed suit against Epstein, failed to get a single one of his famous friends to even give depositions in their cases, most notably Donald Trump.
They were also unsuccessful in deposing any of his female accomplices.
If Epstein is in general population or anywhere available to the general population, I believe his life is in jeopardy.
Yes, but that's because he's a diddler, man.
That's why they're gonna come for him.
Because he's a sicko, and even criminals have standards, honor, and integrity.
They're gonna be like, nah man, this guy murdered somebody, it was business, it was wrong, we get it.
This guy?
No way.
He's the bottom rung.
There is a special level of hell beyond the... special circle in hell beyond the... was it the ninth?
I'm being... yeah, anyway, let's read on.
They will have to seal him down in the jail, but even there, there are still people who can get to him, ultimately.
Officials seem to be a step ahead of Kuvan, and did in fact seal him down last week.
Epstein was housed in the most secure area of the prison, 10 South, when he was first arrested earlier this month.
It's not gonna protect him from any guard who wants to put him down, you know what I mean?
Inmates there are kept in their cells for 23 hours a day, and CCTV cameras watch them as they shower, go to the bathroom, and sit alone in their heavily barricaded cells.
He was joined by Joaquin El Chapo Guzman.
Really?
He was joined by El Chapo, but when the drug lord moved on to a supermax prison in Colorado, his neighbor Epstein joined the general population.
Wow.
This backfired almost immediately, and after threats were made to Epstein, he was moved to the SHU within days.
Sounds like threats were coming from people who just don't like the fact that he's a diddler.
Cuvin also said that it'll be interesting to see whether or not Mr. Epstein attempts again to get an unbail, and if he does, whether he survives between now and the date of his trial.
Epstein's bid for house arrest was rejected by the judge two weeks ago, and last week his appeal of that decision was submitted in court.
So, that's the end of the story.
I don't want to end with one thing, because I really, really want to say the conspiracy theory is extremely unlikely, in my opinion, for one—well, for a few important reasons I'm going to reiterate, but then I'm going to give you my final assessment.
One, his life is over, man.
He's busted.
No legacy.
Everybody hates him.
No one will go near him.
It's done.
What's he gonna do?
He's gonna sit in his quiet room playing video games, reading books by himself for the rest of his life?
He's old.
I believe he probably just, you know, he just tried to end it.
The second thing is, he was receiving threats from the general population?
Yeah, because he's a sicko.
And like I mentioned, even these inmates have standards, and they're probably like, not this dude.
But lastly, the reason I don't believe anybody is trying to end his life, I think the Clinton conspiracy thing is kind of silly, because these other powerful people don't have anything to worry about.
It was hard enough to actually get Epstein.
What about the people in his periphery?
You'd think even if Bill Clinton, who did write on his flights like some ridiculous number of times, and apparently lied about it, sure.
You think anything will happen to these people?
They know it won't, and they have nothing to worry about.
And that's it.
They have nothing to worry about.
They're even saying they're not going to go after anybody else in this case.
I don't think any of these ultra-rich people have anything to fear, and they've probably already taken care of themselves.
They have bunkers in New Zealand.
Now that this is happening, these other freaky weirdos who are in the game with Epstein are probably watching everything like a hawk, setting up contingency plans, and they have nothing to fear.
They're rich and powerful, they can get away with it easily, they can lie, cheat, and steal, and that's the name of the game.
We know that poor people make up most of those who get arrested and go to jail because they don't have access to resources, because they don't have political clout.
How was Epstein able to get away with this for as long as he did?
You think anyone else is going to get charged?
I have no faith in the system to go after the ultra-wealthy.
I really don't.
So, I just don't think they have anything to worry about.
That's just me.
So, in the end, I think it's just a creepy, freaky weirdo who did horrifying things whose life is over and, you know, stuff happens.
The next most likely thing, Occam's Razor?
The inmates often come for these people.
General population, they come for people like him.
He's not gonna last long, regardless of any silly conspiracy ideas.
But stick around, next segment will be coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
So I'm seeing this story get a lot of traction, but hold your horses everyone, let's tone things down.
Antifa plans terror campaign and siege of El Paso, Texas to push border resistance.
A little bold there, Daily Caller, but they are getting the language a bit from Andy Ngo, and a little bold there, Andy Ngo.
Let's calm down a little bit.
Look, Antifa engages in what I would call terrorism.
It's how it's been defined for a while.
It's threats, intimidation, violence for political ends.
But let's just get one thing clear.
Antifa is fairly low-level terror.
It's still bad.
It still should be condemned, called out, and stopped.
Okay, but it's not like we're gonna see a wave of armed Antifa militias showing up and firing on border guards.
There are Antifa militias.
We did see what happened at the ICE facility in Washington.
If you guys aren't familiar, a guy showed up with weapons, right?
So bad stuff happens.
But let's not give Antifa more credit than they deserve, I guess.
They're not like an elite team of, you know, extra-national assassins or anything like that.
They're a bunch of young, dumb, privileged kids who put on masks and run around throwing milkshakes at people.
For the most part.
They do engage in violence.
We've seen the instances of the bike-lock basher.
Now, As much as I want to make sure we can downplay the more, like, we gotta calm down on this one.
We do.
I do want to stress there was a report from law enforcement that Antifa was planning trainings in Mexico, firearms, etc., to help disrupt the border, and now we're hearing there's going to be a story time tour, followed by a 10-day Protest disruption event.
I'm not gonna call it a siege like, you know, Andy Ngo did.
That's the way he sees it.
Fine.
I disagree.
And I think we got to be careful about, you know, holding up signs screeching the end is nigh.
Listen.
Antifa is annoying.
They're dangerous.
They hurt people.
Call it all out.
But when you go around holding up, you know, signs saying, the end is nigh, far lefts are planning a terror campaign siege on the border, people are going to be like, get out of here.
You know what I mean?
Let's approach it slowly and carefully and explain.
For the most part, Antifa, frail, weak, skinny, urban, far left, Their power comes in their numbers, and they are escalating.
So it is something that we should be concerned about, but let's read a little bit.
The Daily Caller says the far-left Antifa movement is reportedly planning a terror campaign and siege of El Paso, Texas, in an attempt to raise awareness of alleged abuses at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Please, let's not call it a terror campaign and a siege of El Paso.
Antifa does not have that kind of capabilities.
Okay, they throw milkshakes at people.
While it is?
Okay, okay, okay.
I'm maybe downplaying a little bit too much.
They've bashed people over that with bike locks.
They've whacked people with batons and crowbars.
I get it.
You know, we recently had to get the ICE facility.
But to act like we're at this point yet?
A little too fast.
A little too fast.
This so-called border resistance exercise involves a militancy training tour that will converge on a 10-day siege in El Paso, Texas, according to a tweet from Andy Ngo.
I believe that is fairly hyperbolic as to what's actually being promoted.
The promotional image shows border enforcement officers being killed and government property firebombed.
Organizers are asking for white comrades to pay for others.
So let's jump over to Andy's tweet.
And look, I'm no fan of these guys, right?
But let's, you know, Andy says Antifa is leading a border resistance militancy training tour that will converge on a 10-day siege in El Paso, Texas.
The promotional image shows border enforcement officers being killed and government property firebombed, organizers asking for white comrades to pay for others.
Now, this is disconcerting because of what just happened in Tacoma.
They're saying, border resistance tour stories and firsthand accounts of the last year of autonomous organizing on the border.
You can go to borderresistance.com for more info.
And we can see there's the gate being torn down, although they make it look like it's made of wood when it's actually made of a metal of some sort.
And then we can see Antifa symbols.
Oh, here's my favorite!
Look at the bottom!
Can you see that?
There's somebody with a peace sign on their back throwing a Molotov cocktail!
They have a peace sign on their back, and they are throwing a Molotov cocktail.
In fact, it looks like they're throwing several Molotov cocktails.
And then we can see arrows, and the American flag burning, and there's a huge fire, and there's a Border Patrol vehicle being destroyed, and they all have bows and arrows for some reason.
Oh, and there is a dead ICE agent with arrows in their head.
Now, for those that are listening on the podcast, it is a crude bit of art.
Look, I don't know the full details.
It may be a militancy training.
What I imagine is going to happen is you're going to get a bunch of far lefties, and they're going to go around reading books and telling stories.
This will exacerbate the extremism problem, and this is going to be followed up by this, the call to action.
September 1st to 10th, El Paso, Texas.
Border resistance convergence.
Abolish ICE.
Shut it down.
I don't think we're going to see John Brown Gun Club and Redneck Revolt showing up and firing on agents in a siege, you know?
Here's the thing, man.
When you call it a siege, it's silly.
It's going to be a bunch of activists holding signs for the most part.
There will be black bloc attacks, there will be violence, but anti-violence is frequent but low-level.
I don't think we're at the point where we're going to see a bunch of armed dudes show up and get into a battle with Border Patrol.
It's not going to happen.
So, I get it.
You want to be hyperbolic?
Sure, sure, fine.
But we also have this right here.
John Cardillo posts Cardillo.
Domestic terror group Antifa is organizing to threaten the Border Patrol and ICE.
You can donate to them on a credit card via Square.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, who silences conservatives but not Antifa, is also the founder and CEO of Square.
I believe this is the one I want to highlight now.
Listen.
Let's call Antifa, point out the story.
You can call whatever you want, fine.
I'm just, I'm just one who's like... Like, here's the point I'm trying to get to.
Look at this story from Newsweek.
Trump wants to declare Antifa a terrorist organization, even though right-wing extremists have been more violent.
What?!
What the hell does he have to do that?
It's a non-sequitur!
These people are insane, okay?
They are running defense and supporting Antifa, and they play this game to do it.
Antifa and right-wing extremists are both bad.
Right-wing extremists tend to be more effective, lethal.
Their plans, they carry them out, and it's extremely dangerous and worrisome.
Yes, it should be condemned.
Here's the thing.
They're already called terrorists.
They're already listed as terrorists.
Antifa, they're trying to get to be classified as domestic terrorists so that there can be more resources for investigating them.
Just because one thing is bad, or just because something is worse than Antifa, doesn't mean Antifa isn't bad.
And this is the point.
We are not talking about Antifa being this, like, powerful resistance movement.
It's a bunch of losers with frail little weak arms who are completely- who are terrible at what they do.
Even their doxing campaigns are weak.
And I mean that, okay?
I've been in the hacker community for a long time.
You want to talk about doxing?
They're not that good at it.
They just have a collective.
So sometimes they can pull some things off.
They can throw milkshakes at people.
They can bash people over the head.
But they're not particularly good at what they do.
They are not effective.
And I don't mean effective in a good way.
You look at what happens with the right-wing extremists.
They show up, they know how to use guns, and they're dangerous.
And that's why we need law enforcement to track them and shut them down.
Look at what happened at the ICE facility.
Guy shows up.
Immediately dies.
He torched one car.
They're getting more dangerous.
That's why it's important to call it out.
But when I look at stories like this, it's the most frustrating thing to me.
Listen.
Antifa is increasing their tactics, their rhetoric.
Sean King is escalating his rhetoric.
It's getting dangerous.
Call it out.
Let's not go too far too quick, though.
At the same time, what the ever-living F is this?
Okay, so you're saying like, I don't know, ISIS?
a terror organization even though other people are terrorists too.
Okay, so you're saying like, I don't know, ISIS?
Are you saying something about like, Trump wants to declare right-wing extremists?
Here we go, here we go, let's play a game.
Newsweek wants to declare right-wing extremists terror organizations, even though ISIS is more violent.
What the hell does that have to do with anything?
They're both bad!
Listen, when you have a group of people going around attacking people, encouraging it, and holding meetings to do so, it is a problem.
When Sean King, with a million followers, tells people to do it, and then says it's a good thing, that is a problem.
So yes, call it out.
The rhetoric's a little silly, but it's kind of ridiculous to me that, well, I'm not going to get into this story.
It's ridiculous to me that people think simply because other people are more violent Antifa is somehow okay.
And that's how you know everyone's lost their goddamn minds.
And obviously not the conservatives, they point this out all the time.
Why is it so easy for the Republicans to condemn Steve King, but the Democrats can't condemn Ilhan Omar?
It's very obvious.
We know when the right has gone too far.
Whatever right actually means, I don't know, it's confusing.
But we have these distinct, like, ideas.
I don't want to say distinct, the vague ideas of left and right.
Great, we know.
Someone said something bad, condemn it.
The conservatives do it all day, the left doesn't.
Trump causes a tweet storm.
I didn't want to pull this one up.
I wanted to pull this story up.
The point is, Trump says he wants to label Antifa terrorists.
Newsweek is arguing against it.
Have you guys done a Google search?
It was 2017 when Confidential Documents called Antifa domestic terrorists.
We're there!
It's been done already.
Okay, so anyway, long story short, let me wrap this up.
We are going to see some major actions coming up.
On August 17th, Joe Biggs and the Proud Boys and a bunch of other groups are going to be in Portland.
A bunch of other far-left groups are going to be there too, and there's serious concerns over the potential for extreme violence.
There's going to be armed factions on both sides.
We're now hearing about what's going on with the Border Resistance Tour.
And the call to action.
But calling it a militancy training tour?
Is that fair?
Maybe?
I mean, I didn't go to the website, so I'll take Andy's word for it.
Because militancy training is something common we do see with Antifa.
But to call it a siege on the border?
Hold on, hold on, you know?
So, let's just see what the Daily Caller ends with.
It's not a very long article.
They say, despite the group's use of intimidation and violence, Antifa enjoys some level of support among certain progressives and even portrayed positively by some media.
And Joe Biden.
For example, former Vice President Joe Biden launched his presidential campaign praising Antifa.
CNN host Chris Cuomo suggested that they fight for a good cause and shouldn't be judged like other political factions that try to circumvent the democratic process through raucous protest.
They're not good people.
They're bad people.
They're doing terrifying things, and we should call it out.
But we want to make sure we avoid the more extreme rhetoric that you see the left using, calling everyone on the right a Nazi or some other nonsense.
Don't call it a siege.
Let it happen.
I don't mean like.
I don't mean let them do it.
Show up, be vigilant, do your thing, whatever it is, I'm referring to law enforcement.
If they escalate tensions, call it out when they do and have that proof to say it.
But when you come out and say there's going to be a siege on the border, and then a bunch of twenty-something, pale, frail, scrawny little urban people are holding up signs and squeaking like morons, you're going to look ridiculous.
So call it out when it happens.
When Antifa does something, call it out.
Don't overestimate their abilities.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast and I will see you all there.
Should we impeach Donald Trump?
For what?
No.
I don't care.
The Democrats seem to care a whole lot and to me that just signals there's no substance behind what most Democrats are proposing.
Look man, there was no Russian collusion, okay?
The purpose of that investigation was that there was supposed to be evidence Donald Trump colluded with the Russians.
He didn't.
We're done.
Move on.
Remember moveon.org?
Apparently they got started because no one would move on from Bill Clinton.
Move on.
Talk about policy.
Now listen, I for one believe that we need to have a rule of law.
And if the president did something wrong, he should be held accountable for it.
The problem with this is that it's ridiculously tribal on partisan lines and based on a lie.
Trump did not collude with the Russians.
We're done.
Move on.
But for some reason, I did address this in my main channel video.
The Democrats don't want to.
Here's a story from the Hill.
Look at this.
2,324 shares.
Wow.
House Democrats inch toward majority support for impeachment.
37% of voters say Congress should begin impeachment proceedings.
Democrats are moving towards the minority position.
Seriously, I don't get it.
So I want to talk about this.
We'll read through the story, and it looks like there's a lot of people saying impeachment may be coming, but it'll never make it through the Senate.
It's just a waste of time, in my opinion, because the Democrats don't know what they're doing anymore.
They tried Russia.
It failed.
They tried obstruction.
It failed.
Maybe they'll impeach on obstruction.
Whatever.
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, share this video if you like it, because YouTube has deranked independent political commentary, so I rely on word of mouth.
If you like it, share it.
If you don't, whatever.
Let's read.
They say just days into the long summer recess, a number of House Democrats have endorsed the drive to impeach President Trump, inching the number of supporters closer to a majority of the House Democratic Caucus in what could pose new challenges for Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her bid to defuse the effort.
Supporters of the impeachment strategy have predicted support would only grow as lawmakers traveled home for the six-week break to gauge the temperature of voters, and they haven't been disappointed.
On Monday, Emanuel Cleaver and Dina Titus endorsed the push, joining at least a dozen other Democrats who have signed on since last Wednesday when former special counsel Robert Mueller testified before Congress on his investigation into Russia's election interference and whether Trump obstructed the probe.
Okay, here's the important takeaway.
A poll shows that following Mueller's testimony, nothing changed.
So why are the Democrats changing?
Why are the Democrats moving towards supporting this when the polls show that voters don't care?
Because the Democrats don't care about what voters think.
That's the only conclusion I can come to.
But I did state some of this, so let's read on.
Other lawmakers, oh, we have more.
The list includes a pair of freshmen, Mike Levin and Kim Schrier, who flipped Republican-held seats in last year's midterms, Derek Kilmer, who heads the centrist group of New Democrats, and a member of the leadership, Catherine Clark, the vice chairwoman of the caucus.
Other lawmakers signing on in recent days are Rep... I'm not going to read all the names of everybody.
They say the additions have pushed the number of Democrats seeking impeachment to 106, according to a tally being kept by The Hill Rep Justin Amash.
Oh, by The Hill.
Rep Justin Amash, who left the Republican Party earlier this month, is also backing the effort.
Now we can see there's an I next to his name, but I doubt he will be re-elected.
That means pro-impeachment Democrats are just a dozen votes shy of 118, a majority of the majority, or more than half of the 235 Democrats in the lower chamber.
It is likely impeachment backers will reach that symbolic mark in the coming days or weeks.
Heck, for instance, said there are at least 20 to 30 on-the-fence Democrats seriously considering their endorsement heading into the long break.
Before leaving for the six-week summer recess, Pelosi told reporters that she had no complaint about Democrats who are pushing for an impeachment inquiry and criticizing her for resisting one.
Nancy Pelosi is right.
Pains me to say it.
I'm not a fan of the corporate elitist Democrats, but Nancy Pelosi is correct.
It is a fool's errand to move towards impeachment.
It does nothing for the American people.
It signals you don't care about what the American people actually want, and you're pandering to the minority.
So let me just make a point here.
If you're trying to win over, let's say there's a pizza, and you're like, I want to win this pizza, and I have to convince a group of people to vote for me to get the pizza.
Don't pander to the small group of people.
How is this hard for them to understand?
If you want to win votes, you pander to the majority.
I don't like the idea of pandering to the majority or the minority.
But the point is, if you're going to pander at all, at least do something that makes sense.
Heck, I'd actually ask that Democrats move on principle.
And if you moved on principle, you would move on from this and approach real policy issues.
Instead, what are they doing?
They're trying to pander.
Only, they're pandering backwards.
It's the most insane thing you could imagine because not only is pandering pathetic, they're pandering to the losing side?
Nancy Pelosi is right.
It's divisive.
It's bad for the Democrats.
Let's read on.
They say, Before leaving for the six-week summer recess, Pelosi told reporters that she had no complaint about Democrats pushing for an impeachment inquiry and criticizing it for resisting one.
In a shift of tone, she told rank-and-file members in a closed-door meeting that it's up to them to decide how best to represent their districts and constituents.
But Pelosi, who's wary of protecting moderate Democrats heading into 2020, reiterated that she was in no rush to launch an impeachment investigation.
We will proceed when we have what we need to proceed.
And 118 pro-impeachment votes aren't likely to move the entrenched speaker off her position.
Even some supporters of an impeachment inquiry cautioned against reading too much into the 118-vote milestone.
218, the number of votes needed to formally launch the inquiry, is the only number that matters, they said.
There's not much difference between 100 and 118.
I don't think half the caucus represents a magic number, said Rep.
Cedric Richmond from Louisiana, a House Judiciary Committee member who backs an impeachment inquiry, told The Hill on Monday.
Asked what number is significant, Richmond, co-chair of the Joe Biden campaign, replied 218.
That's the majority of the House.
That's the number it takes to pass the bill and get articles of impeachment out of the House and to the Senate.
We still have steps to go.
And after it leaves the House and makes it to the Senate, Mitch McConnell will just rubber stamp CANCELLED or DENIED and throw it in the trash.
It's a waste of time.
And you know what it says to me?
The Democrats are really campaigning on Orange Man Bed.
No, no, no, but seriously, I know there's a lot of nonsense about how the Democrats won't stop saying Orange Man bad, and how the media only says Orange Man bad, but I really do believe there are Democrats who don't care about the Orange Man, but that's their campaign strategy.
Let me think about this.
People don't like Trump?
Okay, I will campaign on Orange Man bad, and hope that they will not like the man enough, and will agree with me in not liking him, and they'll vote for me because of that.
To me, that's insane.
And whether or not it works, because it might!
You actually, you do convince people to vote for you just based on emotion.
But to me, it signals the Democrats moving in a very dangerous direction.
And look, Trump's not off the hook for this.
Trump has played to these emotions and to similar things in the past.
The difference is, What Trump does works.
Trump knows his base.
He knows what to say and why to say it.
And he plays the media for fools.
They really don't like him.
It is bad for him in many ways, but Trump knows how to adapt.
The Democrats don't know what they're doing.
They're signaling to their base like, I'm gonna impeach Trump.
Because they're listening to the fringe activists who are screeching.
I assure you, if you go to some random house in the suburbs of, I don't know, some urban district, Chicago for instance, you will find newly democratic voters.
And if you ask them, what can I do to secure your vote?
Many of them will likely not say, impeach Trump.
The polls show only 37% of voters would say that.
So hey, look, one in three will.
But most people are gonna be like, can you make the economy better?
Like, my industry is failing.
The economy's great.
Therein lies the problem.
What do Democrats really have to run on?
No, but for real.
Trump is not far right.
According to the New York Times, the Republican Party actually shifted a little bit to the left in 2016 with Trump.
Trump opened the LGBT rainbow flag on stage at an event.
That's more than any Republican's ever done.
So Trump is in a position where he's very much like Obama in terms of immigration, foreign policy, things that I can disagree with, but recognize, yeah, he's got the moderates.
That's why he won in the first place.
So when Trump is acting in a moderate fashion, what does the left have to offer?
Either they can offer far-left ideology because they have to contrast themselves for where Trump is, or orange man bad.
And it seems like that's what we get.
So let's read the conclusion here.
They say, Nadler has reportedly been at odds with Pelosi over whether to launch an impeachment inquiry in his committee.
His latest strategy keeps impeachment near at hand without launching the formal process, or forcing uncomfortable votes on vulnerable colleagues before there's more public support for ousting the president.
My personal view is that he richly deserves impeachment.
He has done many impeachable offenses.
He's violated the law six ways from Sunday.
That's not, you can't just, that doesn't mean anything, okay?
Nadler, if he gave a quote and said Trump did X, now he should be impeached, I'd be like, oh, that's a good point.
Instead, six ways from Sunday!
You said nothing.
Oh man, but that's not the question he added.
The question is, can we develop enough evidence to put before the American people?
Thank you!
That is a good question.
And the answer is probably no.
Stop.
You know, look, if you don't think the Russiagate stuff was a witch hunt, fine, I don't care, but it's done.
It's over.
Please move on.
I'd like to hear a debate over ideas.
Big ideas.
That's why I like listening to the Sam Harris podcast every so often.
Man, Sam Harris and Ricky Gervais, that was great.
There were jokes, there was ideas, and that's what I want to hear.
I want to see a Republican sit down with a Democrat and have an argument, like a real conversation, a real debate, over, say, a minimum wage increase.
Instead, what do they do?
Orange man bad!
Indeed, orange man is bad.
Vote for me, because I think orange man is bad.
Tim Pool approves this message.
I'll see you in the next segment coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I'd like to present you a look into media manipulation.
This story, quite funny perhaps, Vox reporter called out for posting express lie about Trump's 9-11 comments.
I made a tweet the other day because I saw someone from Vox.com Aaron Rupert tweet that Trump suggested he was a first responder on 9-11.
And I was like, whoa, that's a ridiculous thing for Trump to do.
And so I clicked the video and Trump says, and I was down there too, but I don't consider myself a first responder.
And I was like, wait, it's him literally saying he was down there.
He was.
And then him saying, I don't consider myself a first responder though.
Okay.
I think that's actually a really important thing for Trump to say.
He wanted to point out he went down, you know, following the attacks on 9-11, but he doesn't consider himself to be on par with the first responders.
The 9-11 firefighters, the cops, seemed rather innocuous to me.
How, then, did Vox write up an article claiming Trump said he was, or suggested he was, is insane.
But here's what's interesting.
Let me show you how Snopes addresses this, and I want to talk about how Snopes can frequently manipulate.
I hate this website.
They are awful.
First, let's take a look at some of the comments.
Daily Caller's Amanda Prestigiacomo says, On Monday, President Trump signed legislation to ensure
financial support to first responders and their families via the 9-11 Victim Compensation Fund,
which will now remain solvent through 2092.
I am clapping for everybody involved in this.
The bipartisan effort, support, signature from the President.
I'm glad to hear this, that people are being taken care of because it was a horrible attack on our country, and the people who rushed in full speed, risking their lives to save others, and then lost their lives or became sick, deserve our support indefinitely.
Because we can do it.
It's not that expensive to take care of these people, okay?
My dad's a retired firefighter.
I know full well what it's like to know that your dad is out there trying to make sure that they can save lives, they can put out fires, protect property.
Not the first priority, but it's still important too.
So when you have all these people running in full speed at 9-11 after a major terror attack, I was shocked anybody would refuse this.
If there's anything we can fund, we give grant money over ridiculous scientific research.
Now, I love scientific research.
But there was one point where we put a grant into whether or not fish feel pain.
I'm like, I get it.
That kind of data can help out in the future.
But can we allocate, like one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, if not the wealthiest, can we allocate funds to take care of those who died or risked their lives?
Can we protect their family and provide for the medical bills?
The answer is yes, we can.
And we did.
Good job, America.
I mean that.
But let's read about the news.
I had to say that because I'm very proud that this got done.
The legislation had wide bipartisan support, and the President's comments were well-received by those in attendance at the White House Rose Garden.
But Vox reporter Aaron Ruppar was quick to turn the unifying moment partisan by explicitly lying about Trump's comments.
Trump suggests that he was a 9-11 first responder, Ruppar captioned a video of the President.
The video, however, does not reflect the caption.
Here's what Trump actually said, quote, Many of those affected were firefighters, police officers, and other first responders.
And I was down there also, but I'm not considering myself a first responder, but I was down there.
I spent a lot of time with you.
I actually find that an appropriate comment.
To me, here's what I hear.
I hear Trump saying, I recognize the sacrifice you people gave.
I recognize the work you are doing.
Because following the text, I did go down there and I saw that.
I don't consider myself a first responder.
But I spent time there with you.
To me, what Trump is expressing here is not that he was a first responder.
That's absurd!
Of course he wasn't!
It was that he saw the sacrifice firsthand.
It's insane to me how they twist and mangle everything he says to fit some agenda.
And my, I am so tired of it.
Stop making me defend Donald Trump.
This was nothing.
This was Trump saying, I saw what you guys went through.
Respect it.
I was down there with you and I saw that firsthand.
I'm not a first responder.
Okay.
Here's what, look at this.
Trump suggests that he was a first, literally the opposite of what Trump said.
Rupar was quickly called out.
The New York Post's John Levine, for example, posted, Trump, quote, I'm not considering myself a first responder.
Vox, quote, Trump suggests he was a first responder.
Oh, man.
Journalist Tim Poole wrote, I mean, he literally says the opposite of what you tweeted, and I, quote, and I was down there also, but I'm not considering myself a first responder.
That's it, it's, oh, I gotta, I didn't even realize I had, you know what, I don't look at responses on tweets, but I got like 4,000 retweets on that one, thank you.
Someone said, why do they call us fake news?
Another person said, unfunny Seth Rogen's schtick is to purposefully misunderstand everything Trump says.
This is why no one trusts them.
Two scoops, two terms.
Me almost every day.
Why do these people make me defend Trump?
I don't like Trump.
I don't want to defend Trump.
And yet here I am, forced to point out that the media is flat out lying about Trump.
Story of my life.
Listen.
When you don't have Trump derangement syndrome, so of the liberals that are outspoken,
and there are a handful, who don't have Trump derangement syndrome, we're sitting here like,
There's a really funny sketch called Stop Making Me Defend Trump, and there's like, it's a guy, I can't remember who did it so forgive me, but there's a guy who's like sitting around and he overhears people constantly saying fake things about Trump, and he'll be like, oh no, actually Trump said this, and they'll go, why are you defending Trump?
You're a Trump supporter?
No, no, it's just that Trump didn't say that.
And this is what you get.
How many retweets did this guy get?
Let's check it out.
Aaron Rupar, 1,389 retweets.
1389 retweets of course you got ratioed to kingdom come because yeah
But let's uh actually let's do this I don't want to pret on this.
We get it.
Dave Rubin says, another quote, journalist at Vox.
Watch the 13-second video.
It's quite literally the reverse of what Trump says.
Oh, God, I love it when it's so obvious.
If you take two seconds to click the video and 13 more to listen to the president, he says, I'm not considering myself a first responder.
Here's the thing.
Trump was down on the ground after the attacks on 9-11.
We don't know exactly when.
He's on the record saying that he had a crew down there helping.
We don't know to what capacity.
But here's what the media does.
So, look, we get it.
You know, they go on and they say, Trump has said he helped a little in the days following the attack and with the rebuilding process, left-wing fact-checking site Snopes gave an unproven rating of the claim.
Wait, what?
Quote, Donald Trump and hundreds of his workers helped search the rubble for survivors after the September 11 attacks in Lower Manhattan.
Though the site did establish that a photo of Trump used in a popular meme was taken at Ground Zero seven days following the attack.
So yes, Trump was down there afterwards.
He did see what happened.
What should he have said?
I don't understand.
So this story is actually old, but I want to talk about how Snopes plays a dirty, dirty game.
Someone like, uh, we'll use this as an example actually, although it's not a perfect example because it's non-linear.
The claim was, Donald Trump said, I was down there, but I don't consider myself a first responder.
So what does Snopes do?
They'll take a story like that and put a headline saying, was Donald Trump at ground zero searching for survivors two days after 9-11 with workers he paid for?
Again, this is not a perfect example, but there have been stories where it's like, it'll say something like, there'll be a question post, did Ilhan Omar marry her brother?
And Snopes wrote an article saying, did Ilhan Omar marry her brother to engage in a tax fraud scheme to avoid paying certain taxes and then do X, Y, and Z?
And they add things that aren't part of the question so they can say, false.
And then someone will see the story and they'll be like, it's not even true.
She didn't marry her brother.
That's not the question they posed.
The point is, here we have people now putting this story out saying, it's not even true.
It's unproven.
Although again, this is not a perfect example.
I want to make sure it's clear.
What they do is they take this picture of Trump clearly on the ground in what appears to be the financial district during 9-11, and they show this meme, and they say, although the meme image used above was taken on 18 September 2001 outside the New York Stock Exchange, the meme reflects comments made by Trump two days after the attack, when he told an interviewer for a German television station about his efforts to help.
Well, I have a lot of men down there right now.
We have over a hundred, and we have about 125 coming.
So we'll have a couple hundred people down there, and they are very brave, and what they're doing is amazing.
And we'll be involved in some form in helping to reconstruct.
Why are they claiming he was searching for survivors when Trump is quoted as saying, helping to reconstruct?
You see the game they play?
I cannot stand the lies.
And this is what drives support for Trump in many ways.
It's why they call it fake news.
The question wasn't whether or not Trump was searching for survivors.
The question was whether or not they were helping to reconstruct.
Well, gee, what does Trump do for a living now before he was president?
He's a real estate developer, so of course he has access to construction crews.
And Trump companies may have contracted out certain people to help reconstruct.
What do you think he's gonna do?
He's got property and interests.
The media is so full of it, man.
Every day it's a story like this.
I'm not even joking.
We're doing fact-checking right now, okay?
When Subverse writes a story, because we've been cranking out stories and we're doing videos and we're ramping up, we're scaling up, Subverse videos on YouTube, go check it out.
I think it's Subverse News on YouTube, now we changed it.
We find, and so do I, like the Subverse crew, they're editorially independent from me, it's a different company entirely, but we do find everyday fake news from almost every outlet.
Look at this.
It's plain and simple.
Trump said, we'll be involved in some form in helping to reconstruct.
So maybe there's something to point out later where he referenced that, but the point is, how is that the question when you're talking about Trump's quote about reconstruction?
So, but let me be fair.
Let me be fair.
He says, uh, they're harrowing people.
I have hundreds of men inside working right now, and we're bringing down another 125 in a while.
They've never done work like this before, and they're harrowing people, but they've never seen anything like it, and they've never done work like this before.
Have you spoken to any of your men?
Do you know how they are reacting to this?
Because emotionally, this must be incredibly difficult.
He says, well, there are a lot of them, but they've never seen bodies like this, bodies all over.
The great thing is when they find somebody that's alive, like the five firemen that they just found a little while ago, so that's the great thing.
And that's what they were striving for, but generally speaking, that's not the case.
So they are working very, very hard, but it's a very depressing situation for these folks.
They say that Trump's statements are vague and didn't provide any specifics that would help verify who the men he referenced were, what their relationship to him was, and whether he paid for their labor.
That's a really, really great point.
So I want to stress something.
You gotta look at the context, okay?
Trump's saying that they find someone alive.
Does that mean they're tasked with searching for survivors?
It doesn't.
But Snopes frames it as though he was claiming that.
He didn't.
Now, keep in mind, master manipulators know how to use assumptive language so that you believe things that aren't true.
That's what the media does all day and night.
Trump knows the media.
Trump does similar things.
The point is, we can see this example.
I'm not going to cut Trump any slack for being a media manipulator either.
He knows how to phrase things so people make assumptions.
The point is, the media lies and they do it poorly.
As I stated in multiple videos, Trump knows how to do it and the media sucks at it.
And Trump ends up winning in the long run.
One more segment coming up for you in a few minutes.
Stick around and I will see you shortly.
I'd like to explain for you how to create a Trump supporter.
The first thing you need to know is that many people vote based on emotion.
They vote on the way they feel.
I don't want to bury the lead, though, so here's a story from Campus Reform.
Alleged Antifa members hurl eggs and drink at Trump supporters.
However, what they need to also add to this video is that it seems like there was some random guy walking by who got hit as well.
So let's talk about how you create a Trump supporter, this being a really weird example, and we'll read into it.
When you realize, there's a saying, people won't remember what you said, but they will remember how you made them feel.
That saying is powerful when you want to think about politics, okay?
You can go to a rally and say something about hard policy, and people will, like, be like, okay.
Or you can go to a rally and say, justice!
Retribution!
America!
And everyone will go, wah!
And clap.
Family Guy made a joke about it.
Uh, Lois Griffin, if you're not familiar, she's one of the characters on Family Guy.
The mother.
She's running for office to be mayor or something.
And she tries talking about policy.
But Mayor Adam West, uh, rest in peace, is talking about nonsense.
And everyone claps and cheers for him.
So then finally, Lois learns.
Whenever a question is asked of her, she goes, 9-11.
And they start clapping.
And then someone asks a question, she goes, 9-11.
Then everyone starts clapping and cheering.
They make this point that you can go to a rally and promise anything.
You can go to a rally and say, I will give you all $10 million and all clap and cheer, and then half of them will forget why they were cheering a day later.
Brings me to this point.
Here you can see an image of a young woman throwing an egg, bouncing off this guy's back.
In the video, you can see this guy who looks like he's jogging or something stop to talk to these guys, and she hits him in the face too, and he starts bleeding.
What's going to happen is this guy is not going to remember what's being said about fascists and Weimar Germany, but he is going to remember how he felt when someone hit him in the face with an egg and left him bleeding.
And it's going to be really, really hard to win that person over for the left.
Congratulations, Antifa, for ruining everything.
But let's read this story, and then I'll carry on with this concept.
They say, Two pro-Trump YouTube hosts who had previously almost been locked in a university lecture hall by an alleged Antifa member recently had eggs thrown at them by more purported members of the group.
The incident, which involves Operation Cold Front hosts Salem Juma and Dion Thompson, comes amid numerous Antifa tax-making headlines.
Juma and Thompson were previously almost chain-locked in a room by another alleged Antifa member when speaking at a college Republicans meeting.
In a YouTube video, alleged Antifa members are shown egging and throwing a drink at the
two hosts, who were wearing MAGA hats while holding a free hugs from a Trump supporter sign.
A student who was conversing with Juma and Thompson was another victim of the Seattle, Washington attack.
It was not clear what led up to the moments caught on video, as the recording is edited.
However, the clip clearly shows the men in MAGA hats having objects thwart them, seemingly without provocation.
Scrolling text in the video states the police were called, but never showed up to the scene.
The Seattle Police Department did not respond to Campus Reform's request for comment when asked to confirm whether that was true.
So here's what I'm going to do.
Before we read on, I want to show you a little bit, just some screen grabs, and we can see here these two guys, they're wearing MAGA hats, they're offering hugs, and they actually do hug several people, I believe.
Let me try and find a nice hug.
Actually, where's the egging?
I guess they start with the egging right away or something.
I don't want to show the video, but I guess I can't.
Okay, so here's a guy, right?
For those that are listening to the podcast, there's a man in blue shorts standing there.
And then at some point, people come out of what looks like a grocery store, and we can see them there, wearing black hoodies.
And here they come with some eggs.
And whoop, throws an egg right at his back.
And then starts throwing eggs at other people.
What I really want to find, though, so, uh, I'll describe what you're seeing.
The man who was just talking to them, who seems unaffiliated, he's putting his hands up and he's saying, yo, stop.
Stop, stop, stop, and she starts throwing eggs at him.
The first one bounce off, and then she misses, uh, one of the eggs misses, she throws more eggs, and I'm waiting for the point at which she hits him in the face.
So he ducks, there it is, and they show it in slow motion.
The egg splatters in his face, and then he's standing there confused, with egg dripping off of his head, like, what just happened and why?
And apparently, he says, he's bleeding.
In the video, they go on to say, That's ridiculous.
You cannot like Trump, but if you're going to assault people over a political opinion, that's you.
That's ridiculous. You cannot like Trump, but if you're going to assault people over a political
opinion, that's you. That's a you problem, not a me problem.
Immediately afterward, an alleged Antifa activist can be seen hurling eggs at them.
One egg directly hit the student's head.
I'm bleeding, the student said in the video.
I'm bleeding in the ear right now.
Blood, right there, in my hand, right there.
This guy isn't even conservative.
He was just standing with us asking questions, Jume explained, describing the student.
Here's what I want to stress real quick.
I'm wary of these videos.
Very wary.
We have seen instances where people know they can exploit the culture war and these circumstances to generate traffic and get news articles written about them.
We don't know who these people are or what they're doing, and I have heard some accusations from journalists that these guys try to enter situations where they know this will happen.
Now, I don't care if they know it's going to happen and they go and do it anyway.
I would care if they're staging these things, exacerbating the culture war for clicks.
However, if it turns out these guys are just like, I bet if we go to this area and do this, someone will do a thing, well then, that's, nah, I got no problem with that.
I wouldn't call that provocation.
If you say, I wanna go out and give out free hugs, and you know Antifa will likely attack you, that's not provocation.
You have a right to go out and give free hugs.
So, no, you can't call it provoking them.
That's ridiculous.
Unless you think insane, far-leftist attacking people are easily provoked, so you better bow and bend the knee.
That's nonsense.
So I wanna make sure that's clear.
Take these stories and these videos with a grain of salt.
But now think about the student who's left bleeding.
What is he going to think?
Well, he's going to hear stories about what happened.
There's going to be news stories about him.
He's going to look them up.
He's going to read what people say, and he's going to say they're right.
He is more likely now to be exposed to right-wing ideas and to reject left-wing ideas because of how they made him feel.
Scale that up.
A woman showed up in Boston when the media reported that white supremacists were coming to rally, but it was actually Libertarians and an Indian Republican named Vashiva.
An old woman was there with an American flag, protesting the Nazis, when some Antifa-type dude ran up and tried snatching the flag from her, and she ran after him and then fell down and got dragged on the ground.
That was someone on the left.
How about the Bernie supporter?
A guy recently in Oregon who was a voter of Bernie Sanders.
I think he was a Bernie Sanders supporter, but he voted Hillary.
And Antifa saw him with an American flag, so they clubbed him on the head, gave him a concussion, and sent him to the hospital.
Those people will remember how you made them feel.
And they're now likely to say Antifa is out of their goddamn mind.
I was at a skate park.
I made a video about this.
And, you know, it was back when I was doing, like, single segments that were more travel-related, and I thought it'd be cool to do something where I talk to skateboarders about politics because skateboarders don't care.
I talked to some of them.
I said, let me ask you a question.
If you saw a group of, like, I don't know, Trump supporters waving Trump flags over there in the distance, what would you think?
And most of them were just like, I don't know, whatever.
I said, what if you saw a bunch of people wearing all black with masks showing up with poles, you know, crowbars, bike locks, and like mortar shells, like explosives.
And they were like, uh, yeah, that's kind of scary.
And I'm like, would you want to go near them?
Like, no way, dude.
These are skateboarders being like, dude, that's nuts.
Antifa is one of the worst things for the left.
And I'll tell you this, man, because on Twitter and in news articles, they keep defending Antifa.
Regular people don't like this!
You're not making them feel good, you're hitting them in the head with eggs.
You just birthed.
A potential Trump supporter.
I'm not saying it's absolute, but I tell you what, man.
You whack somebody in the head with a bag, or an egg, or a bike lock, and they're less likely to support your politics.
Or, when the politicians don't condemn the violence, they'll take it personally.
How would you feel?
If you got punched in the face by some far-left person, and then you went to your candidate, and they refused to condemn it against you, and you're like, but why?
Why won't they call this out?
I got attacked!
They won't defend me!
Violence is wrong!
I can imagine there's a lot of people saying, these people are nuts.
The Democrats are nuts.
Now, of course, after Andy Ngo, we saw, I think, like, Andrew Yang, Joe Biden, and a couple other people did condemn the violence.
Swalwell did, too.
And I think that guy's, you know, kind of crazy, but hey, good on them.
Respect.
Respect.
It's the right thing to do if you want to win.
I do want to make sure I stress there's concern over these guys being very provocative, but I've heard complaints that these guys kind of encourage and provoke.
I'm not going to play that game.
But I will bring it up, because you should definitely take these videos with a grain of salt, because there have been people who have played these games to get clicks, so keep it in mind.
These are guys who specifically went out in MAGA hats with a hat and then got attacked.
It's the perfect video.
It makes me suspicious.
How many times did they go out with free hugs and nothing happened?
If that's what they did, if they've gone out 50 times and it only happened once and that's the one that they publish, fine.
But I'm always concerned about the pure coincidence, like, oh, these people just happened to show up.
Now, it is true that people are tweeting about their location, so I'm not trying to impugn their integrity, I'm just saying I'm a skeptic, right?
But I'll leave it there.
So I think you get my point.
How to create a Trump supporter.
Throw a neg at his face.
See what happens.
Stick around.
Next segment will be tomorrow at 10am on this channel.
