Democrat Threatens To Vote Trump 2020 Fearing Far Left Policies
Democrat Threatens To Vote Trump 2020 Fearing Far Left Policies. In an Op-ed for the Courier Journal a man who says, in no uncertain terms, that Trump is a very bad man expresses his willingness to vote Trump 2020 due to the radical left and the far left push by Democrats.2020 Democrats have increasingly embraced far left policy ideas that most Americans believe are bad. Moderates routinely express frustration with the ever expanding far left within the Democratic Party ranks.It seems that data supports the op-ed's general idea too. Moderates believe the democrats have gone to far left and it seems plausible then that others on the democrat side will vote republican come 2020.In response to the wave of news however we see a strong push by top Democrats to move back to the center. Unfortunately for them, progressives won't get behind a moderate and it seems that 2020 will be Bernie or Bust times twenty
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Two days before Jeffrey Epstein died, he signed a new will and was apparently worth $577 million.
Fox News says suicide.
And this is likely going to be the official phrasing of most outlets since the medical examiner has ruled it to be a suicide.
But I must stress, Epstein's lawyers are not satisfied with the conclusions of the medical examiner.
In fact, in another story I highlighted the other day, apparently they're alleging a potential cover-up murder plot.
I don't know how plausible it is.
It's from a website called HotNewHipHop, which is certified by NewsGuard.
Makes things very confusing and hard to dig through.
But I want to go through a couple really interesting aspects of the ongoing conspiracy.
First, we'll read a little bit about his will.
And then you guys can determine for yourself if this means anything.
I'm just going to give you the latest update.
But the real mystery is the photoshopped photographs of Ghislaine Maxwell.
I think that's how you pronounce her name.
They appear to be fake.
As if somebody made a fake photo so that people think she's here.
When she's not.
But there's one main reason I really wanted to dive back into this.
Because you realize just how awful the news is.
Did no one vet the photographs before publishing this?
And now you've got all the media going, hey, wait a minute, this photo's fake!
Right.
Why?
And why make a really bad Photoshop?
You know, it could have been...
that the news organizations were duped.
Somebody knew they could make a photo, send it, and they'd pay for it.
And there we go. But I also have this from Snopes.
Snopes, there's a photo going around comparing the ears and nose of Epstein,
and they're trying to, I guess, explain it.
And it's really interesting how they try to explain it, because it's actually kind of a weirdly long article to explain simple changes in facial features.
So it almost seems like the explanation they're giving is kind of too big.
But we'll go through this.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
Foster The People The Band apparently tweeted this thing out.
Okay, it's going mainstream.
Nobody thinks this guy really killed himself.
Of course some people do.
I'm being hyperbolic.
But I'm going to throw it back to that tweet from Chris Ragon where he's like, I called an Uber, and the first thing the driver says is, yo, they killed that guy in that jail.
And he's like, finally, unity.
So let's read this.
But 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.
Or just share this video to help overcome the deranking that YouTube Descends like all of these videos that I make are demonetized for the first 24 hours and then a day later after all the views are gone That's when they remonetize so it's like There you go, man.
That's how YouTube does it, but let's read.
They say, Disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein's will was filed in the U.S.
Virgin Islands, and it showed that he signed it on August 8th, two days before investigators said he hanged himself in his New York City jail cell.
Now, it could be that someone had just tried to kill him.
That's, I mean, we don't know if that was a suicide attempt before, and so he was like, I better update my will, because he knew it's coming.
Or it could be he knew he was going to end his life.
I saw one story, I didn't read through it, but it said something like Alan Dershowitz thinks that Epstein just couldn't face the prospect of life in prison, especially after... And you know, this was one of my initial theories, that, you know, he killed himself because he's used to all this luxury, hundreds of millions of dollars, and now he's apparently in some rat-infested, horrible jail.
Like, the jail he was in was just, like, disgusting and the food was terrible, and he's probably... You know, imagine this.
Imagine, whatever it is you eat every day, and then all of a sudden there's a snap, you can't leave a box, and you're being fed trashy, gross, mold crap food.
You'd be like, this is unbearable.
So I'm not saying, you know, that's the reason.
I think it's plausible.
But I really do think we've entered Occam's Razor territory of murder, right?
Let's read on.
They said that it was worth $577 million, $18 million more than previously stated in court papers when he tried to land bail.
He maybe made money?
The 66-year-old put all of his holdings in a trust referred to as the 1953 Trust in court papers, named after the year it was born.
There were no details on the trust's beneficiaries.
So that's the first update.
We'll move on from here because I'm not super concerned.
You get it.
He signed a will.
I don't know what that means.
But we did see this story for the past couple days.
where the defense team, I'll read this quote.
The defense team fully intends to conduct its own independent
and complete investigation into the circumstances and cause of Mr. Epstein's death,
including if necessary, legal action to view the pivotal videos if they exist, and they should,
of the area approximate to Mr. Epstein's cell during the time period leading to his death.
Right, because if someone went into his cell, you'd see them.
You might not see Epstein himself, but you'll see what's going on near the cell.
But let's get into the more important thing.
People think Ghislaine Maxwell was Photoshopped in those In-N-Out photos.
Here's all their evidence.
So, we have this tweet.
Let's see what they have.
I'm not gonna read through all this necessarily.
They say, oh, this is interesting.
Unsurprisingly, conspiracy theorists immediately began to nitpick every aspect of the photos, as is now common practice when dealing with anything surrounding Epstein.
In the aftermath of his death, a photo of Epstein in a gurney was even cited as proof by conspiracy theorists that the offender had been replaced by a body double.
Almost all of the theories surrounding Maxwell's photo are hardly evidence of anything.
While many pointed to the fact that two cups were on the table, others noted that it's common for one customer to order a drink and a milkshake at In-N-Out.
Except Daily Dot.
Did you know that there were two trays of food, and one was kind of obscured and put on the bench, and there were two cell phones on the table?
Do your jobs, journalists!
Don't publish these photos simply because someone said it's true.
Figure out if it's true, and guess what?
Now we have this from Inside Edition.
You wanna know why conspiracy theorists are talking about this?
Because the Washington Post said, breaks in the neck more common with strangulation.
You're not, you can't blame people for being like, okay, that sounds weird, that's the Washington Post.
Then they say, oh, but these photos, oh, the conspiracy, this inside edition.
Check this out.
Apparently the photos were taken on the 11th, at least according to this video.
This is the ad.
It says, Best New ER, and that's what they're highlighting.
I'm not going to play the video, but I want to show you these photos.
Check it out.
First, this photograph of her sitting at the table, facing the other direction, smiling with her dog.
You can see the dog is with her in the other photos it looks like.
But her back is strangely photo- there's a weird manipulation behind her.
It's like Instagram reality.
Everyone read it?
And they have the photos where the women will photoshop their butts to be bigger and it
bends the wall behind them?
You can see it.
Now I can't, maybe I can, well I'm not going to zoom in, I don't know.
In this photo, right, there's two drinks and she's there with her glasses and there's the
It says, Good Boys.
There's another ad behind her.
It says, Good Boys.
The ad agency claimed it was never there, and later on, people went there, journalists, and the ad wasn't there.
So there's a joke going around, it's actually quite funny, where someone said Seth Rogen killed Jeffrey Epstein to promote his new video.
Occam's Razor would suggest the simple solution is two phones, two trays, two drinks, two people!
Thank you, Daily Dot!
But sometimes people order milkshakes in a drink.
Yeah, they do.
Please, pay attention.
Do people order two trays with two burgers and two fries?
So, moving on from here, they highlight Good Boys, and he says this appears to have been photoshopped into the image because the ad has never been there.
You wanna know why they did it?
Here's the funny thing, because a lot of people will say, why even put the Good Boys ad in there?
You know why?
Because this photo, potentially, was taken a really long time ago.
And so whatever ad used to be there, What, what, like, they were concerned, because it, maybe it was an ad for, I don't know, uh, Avengers Endgame or something.
Because it was taken months ago.
And so, this photo there, like, how do we then make this look like something that's new?
Maybe it was not, not a month ago, but maybe it was, like, early July.
Because according to the ad agency, in a story I read the other day, it was since, like, I think July 28th, it was an ad for a hospital.
So maybe the photo was taken just before then, because also look at this, there's a billboard behind them, right?
And I don't know if he shows the billboard later on.
But anyway, the point is, there's more than just this ad.
And this is the ad they actually show.
The point of photoshopping it in is so that if the photo actually was taken a month or two ago, they put that there to make it seem like it's new, right?
As a friend of mine said, it's kind of like a kidnap victim holding up a newspaper so you know it's a new photo.
Now, interestingly, the Inside Edition people... There's a wave of wine going down her back.
They brought in a forensic expert who apparently, I guess, he might work in like criminal justice in some capacity, and he mentions in one of the photos there is a weird wavy line going down her back.
That doesn't seem to make sense, as if she was photoshopped into the image or something was photoshopped out, but the photo seems to have been manipulated.
Now it could be that the Photoshop was falsely manipulated to change nothing, but just make it look weird to throw people off.
I honestly don't know, but check this next bit of the conspiracy out.
Snope says, while this theory has largely been confined to the fringes, it did receive some mainstream attention.
The band Foster the People, for instance, shared the following message with their nearly 1 million followers on Twitter.
He said, I find it strange that I've been chastised by reporters from NBC and other news outlets for my opinion.
Everything you guys have been reporting has been conjecture.
If you want to be considered a respected authority of truth, do a better job.
And he highlights this photo.
Now, I'll go into the photo in a better image of the tweet and everything, but it looks like the facial features of the man seen in the photo and Epstein are very different.
He says, foster the people, famous band.
There is no question the government is behind the Epstein cover-up.
Research Attorney General Bill Barr and his father's ties with Jeffrey Epstein.
Barr helped broker the West Palm Beach deal that kept Epstein away from a life sentence in federal prison.
Vomit emoji.
Have you seen photos of the body?
It's obviously not him.
My guess is Epstein's on a private plane to somewhere in the Middle East getting prepped for plastic surgery right now.
What?!
Foster the people, what?!
Wow!
Foster the people with the Trump derangement syndrome and going hard on the conspiracies.
Chill out, buddy.
Chill out.
Like your music.
You've got a lot of really good music.
I'm not saying you're wrong.
I really do agree with the first statement.
It is a lot of conjecture from these reporters, and they shouldn't be acting like they know for sure.
But for you to come out and be like, Bill Barr, ah, that's a body double, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Here's the thing.
Here's the photo that was posted.
This is the official photo of Epstein.
I might get in trouble for showing this, I don't know.
But we gotta call it out as it is.
And this is alive.
You can see the nose is straight and the ear has this wave.
And the body has a very different ear and a very different nose.
I won't linger on this photo because, you know, YouTube will get mad at me.
But, they go on to say that, look, there's a lot of reasons why that could be different.
The photos are taken, like, a decade apart.
And also, one photo is of a dead guy, and your body does go through changes when you die.
However, I don't know if your nose curves over time.
Maybe?
They say... But do they curve?
Several reasons, according to FARC, Functional Anatomy Research Center, researchers analysis
all measurements were significantly affected by age.
Nasal volume area and liner distance increased.
In other words, they found that noses get bigger over time, but do they curve?
Maybe.
Another consistent finding is the nasal tip angle, okay, the angle created along the bridge
of the nose around the tip of the vertical space above the upper lip decreases, meaning
the nose tends to droop with age.
Several reasons have been adduced for the growth.
Ears, and indeed noses, sag with age, thanks both to a loss of elasticity in the skin and the effects of gravity.
Earlobes droop, a phenomenon that can be accentuated by heavy earrings.
More controversially, it has been suggested that because, unlike bone, cartilage continues to grow and ears are made of cartilage, they may also account for the phenomenon.
But the evidence is sketchy, and some researchers argue that cartilage is only being replaced and does not account for the growth in ear size.
Okay, I have no idea, nor do I care.
But I will say, If you've gotta dig that deep, I mean, all I can really say is this.
This argument's not gonna convince anybody, okay?
You're not gonna be able to explain complex science and stuff to the average person.
So, foster the people you need to calm down.
We need to go way, way back, okay?
You can't just start talking about cover-ups.
We need to go way, way back.
There's a lot of weird stuff here.
The photos seem to be fake in some capacity.
I don't know.
His lawyers don't believe it.
He signed his will two days prior, so it sounded like he knew he wouldn't be alive for much longer, and it's probably because he almost died at the end of July.
Did someone try to kill him there?
I don't know.
But I will stress, when the left and the right both agree, someone shut this guy up, when a dude in an Uber says to Chris Ragon, they killed that guy in that jail, everybody thinks so.
Now look, just because everybody thinks so doesn't mean everybody's right.
Everybody can be wrong.
A lot of... I'm gonna do a trick right here, okay?
A lot of people today believe that at some point people believed the Earth was flat.
That's not true.
So, typically, people like to say things like this.
People used to believe the Earth was flat, and they were wrong.
Perhaps these people are wrong today.
But actually, no one ever believed the Earth was flat.
My understanding, as I've researched this, is that as long as we've understood the concept of living on some kind of plane, We had seafaring, and the seafarers saw the horizon, and because of that, made an assumption about the shape of the thing that we were on.
And then it was Eratosthenes who did a measurement using shadows and found the Earth is round, and I think that was in like 2 BC.
So there was never this myth, but the point is, today, people believe That at some point, people thought the Earth was flat.
They don't.
They're wrong.
So just because everybody believes he was killed doesn't mean they were right.
They could be wrong, too.
Let's go back.
Calm down.
Let's not talk about body doubles and Middle Eastern plastic surgery.
These photos are probably just a throw-the-scent-off.
Maybe?
I have no idea.
It could have been someone just trying to scam these outlets for money.
Hey, here's a photo of Ghislaine Maxwell.
Photoshop it to make it look real.
They buy it.
So, apparently, I think I could be wrong, but apparently someone sold the photos.
So, well, I'll leave it there.
All of this stuff is interesting.
I'm not gonna tell you what to think, you know.
I'm just gonna tell everyone to chill out.
Well, I guess I'm technically telling you what to think, but I'll say this.
I won't tell you what to conclude, but I will tell everyone to chill, look at the evidence, lay it out in front of you, and then work from there.
California has a ton of serious problems, notably homelessness, which may be the cause of many other smaller problems.
I will see you all there on it'll be on this channel California has a ton of serious problems notably
homelessness Which may be the cause of many other smaller problems in
this story we learned about a California salon owner Claiming the homelessness crisis is forcing her to relocate
after 15 years Because she has grown sick of cleaning up syringes urine
and feces from outside her premises every day Now, she is not in Los Angeles or San Francisco.
She's in Sacramento.
And she posted photos, so we'll go through this and we'll talk a bit about, you know, the issue here.
But here's the thing.
A lot of people talk about California and say the problem with feces everywhere.
I'm sorry if this is a gross conversation, but California's got serious issues.
I used to live in L.A.
In fact, I was in L.A.
not that long ago, and I watched a homeless person get out of this really, really tiny, crappy tent and do their business just right there in the middle of downtown Los Angeles.
One and two.
And that problem that's highlighted about the human waste comes from homelessness But the homelessness that we see in LA isn't entirely, or I should say, there is a correlation here between that and mass shootings.
Hear me out.
It's a mental health problem.
It is.
So I don't like it when people say, like, oh, this event happened.
We have a mental health crisis.
It's like, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
I get it.
Look, there are things we can talk about.
Because perhaps solving the problem of feces, we put a port-a-potty somewhere, right?
It doesn't solve the homelessness problem, but it at least alleviates one aspect.
Or perhaps the smart decision is to figure out what's causing the mental illness and figure out how we can actually accommodate these people better.
There's the problem.
You help the homeless people.
You solve a ton of problems.
No more drugs, syringes, all that stuff.
But how do you do it?
Honestly, I don't know.
But I like to look down to the root and figure out where this is all coming from.
I will add this too.
California has a lot of very liberal policy.
And I'll tell you this, man.
Look, when I was younger, I moved to Seattle.
And when I went there, broke with only like a handful of change.
I was told by some lefty squatter types that, I can't remember how old I was,
but they were like, just go to the Department of Human Services
and they'll give you an EBT card, like a food card or whatever.
And I was like, nah, man, I can't do that.
That's not me.
I didn't grow up like that.
I don't like taking food cards.
And they were like, nah, you can't be without food.
This one's for it.
So I went there, talked to them, and I said, I don't think, for me it doesn't make sense.
I'm, like, young.
I can get a job somewhere.
I just moved here.
And they were like, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Like, it's not about you being homeless or starving.
It's about you moved here.
You need a job.
You're a young person here.
Here's a card.
It's, like, 80 bucks a month, and you'll have food.
And I was like, oh, cool.
Here's the thing.
I knew a lot of people who did not work and they would do these things.
They would go to a different food bank every day and get food.
Every day there was a different food bank in a different part of Seattle and they would stock up.
They would also go into stores, fill up shopping carts, and walk out the front door.
Like seriously, just steal it all.
And so what I found is if they can, they will.
Now look.
There's... What we need to address when talking about the problem... Okay, I gotta read this story.
We're three minutes in and I'm derailing here.
I'll just... I'll end this one point and say, the reason I brought it up is because when you create the possibility, you create the existence, right?
If you build it, they will come.
You provide a bunch of resources to those who truly need it.
Don't be surprised when people come to California to exploit it.
So let's read the story.
They say a hair salon owner in California says she will be forced to move her business due to the problems of homeless people sleeping outside her shop.
Elizabeth Novak, who owns a hair salon in downtown Sacramento, posted a video on Twitter on Friday.
describing how she often finds people camping in tents across her front door.
She told how the vagrancy crisis gripping the state is affecting long-standing business owners, and that her shop has been broken into, and she has even been attacked.
Novak, who has run her salon for 15 years, said in her social media message that she often has to clean up urine, feces, and needles left by rough sleepers on her doorstep, and she posted photos.
Look at this.
Someone kicked her door in, broke into the salon, trashed the place, and there's trash all over the ground.
She said, addressing her concerns directly to Governor Gavin Newsom, she said in a heartfelt pleas for action, I want to know what are you going to do for us Californians.
I've had a business in downtown Sacramento for 15 years, a successful business.
I now have to leave my place of business, I have to close my shop.
I just want to tell you what happens when I get to work.
I have to clean up the poop and the pee off my doorstep.
I have to clean up the syringes.
I have to politely ask the people who I care for, I care for these people that are homeless, to move their tents out of the way of the door to my business.
I have to fight off people who push their way into my shop who are homeless and on drugs because you won't arrest them for drug offenses.
I have to apologize to my clients as to why they can't get into my door because there's someone asleep there and they're not getting the help they need.
You know, California has, like, a Democratic majority.
Los Angeles has a Democratic supermajority.
And I read this story in the New York Times.
Even with a Democratic supermajority, they could not solve the problem.
They couldn't pass a bill to alleviate the homelessness.
You know what?
I don't know if there's one solution to end homelessness because the causes of homelessness are multifaceted.
There's many different things.
There are some people who are sane, hard workers who lose their job and go broke.
And there are some people who refuse to work and are lazy.
But there are a lot of people who are just mentally ill and can't hold work.
And that's the most of what I've seen.
And I've worked in a non-profit area with homeless people.
California attracts the homeless for an obvious reason.
The weather is really nice.
Now, here's the thing.
New York does have more, as my understanding, New York has more homeless people statewide.
And Chicago has a serious amount of homeless people.
Los Angeles doesn't have the most.
I think Los Angeles as a city might have more than any other city.
I could be wrong.
But a lot of people go to LA specifically because Super nice weather.
Not only does it attract, you know, homeless people who are just incapable of working, it attracts ideological homeless people.
Now, so there are people who want to live on the beach and they do it for ideological reasons and, you know, I can understand that because it's a far cry from the homeless dude with dreadlocks who wants to play volleyball on the beach and, you know, be homeless.
These are people who are not causing these kinds of problems.
The problems we're seeing here is a mental health crisis.
And so the reason I wanted to bring this up is, when I see these mass tragedies, I wonder why no one is taking mental health seriously enough.
The debate never talks about the homeless crisis.
The national story is never, California is undergoing a massive homelessness crisis, which is resulting in massive problems, and this woman has to shut her business down because of the problems in front of her store because someone kicked her door in.
Let me give a little bit of pushback real quick though.
You know, demographics change.
It may be that 15 years ago, she was in a better area than she is now.
I'm offering up the possibility, I'm not saying it's true.
You know, you could live in one area that's really nice, and it starts falling apart, disrepair, no revenue, the city doesn't care about it.
But she did say she's in downtown Sacramento, so you'd imagine the city would do what it could to solve this problem downtown in their city.
But I'll tell you what, In Los Angeles, downtown L.A.
is fairly neglected relative... I shouldn't say that, but I'll tell you this.
When I go to L.A., the people I know, from skateboarders to celebrities and musicians, they don't go anywhere near downtown L.A.
They just avoid it.
They go to Santa Monica, Venice.
They go to, you know, the Palisades and places like that.
They want to be by the water.
They don't want to go anywhere near the downtown area.
So you end up with a downtown area that's pretty bad.
Now, I don't know what Sacramento's like, but I can tell you this.
Whatever is going on, this is just another story in a list of stories about an ever-increasing problem that California isn't dealing with.
So, look, this woman slammed Democratic governor's liberal ideology as not working and criticized him for sitting in his million-dollar home and not having to look at what we have to look at.
She added in the video, I talked to the police officers, they told me to contact you.
They want to do something and they can't, you changed the laws.
So I want you to know what you're, I want to know what you're going to do for us,
the ones that are unhappy.
You want to make us a sanctuary state?
You want to make it comfortable for everybody except for the people that work hard and have tried their hardest to get along in life, and now we have to change that because of your laws?
Here's the way I see it.
With good reason, there are Democrats who say, we need this social policy.
Corruption starts.
Problems erupt.
And instead of solving those problems, they just Address the emotional, but we're helping.
You know, listen, they say, you know, teach a man to fish.
I'm sorry, feed a man a fish, you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, you know,
you know, you know the saying, you get what I'm trying to say.
If we just give everything away, you create people who lack resilience and can't survive
on their own.
And we're only as strong as our weakest link.
My political view on these policy issues is that we need a nuanced, balanced view of how
to lift these people up and set them on a path towards self reliance.
I don't think stripping the programs is the answer, but I do think, you know, the way I've described it before, and I guess I'll just wrap up on this idea, We had a problem.
We had a growing problem in our society.
And so we decided we should apply, we should create some kind of benefit to make sure people
who through no fault of their own end up homeless or in dire need can be protected.
We put a bandage over that wound.
And then we walked away.
And the wound started to fester.
The bandage started to grow mold.
And you know what we said?
Ooh, that looks gross.
Let's put a bandage over it.
And so now there's a bandaid on top of a bandaid.
At a certain point, you put someone in a program, you offer them something they need, you tear
it off, you clean it, and you send them on their way.
So I know there are a lot of programs that actually do this, and I agree to a certain
I don't want to act like the simple solution is always the correct one, right?
And what I mean by that is, it might make sense to say, oh, someone lost their job.
Give them benefits so they get on their feet.
Well, some people might just choose to stay on the benefits.
It's easier.
Well, they don't last forever, you say.
Okay, but then they're just back out on the street.
It didn't solve the problem.
Just giving them the resource.
There are some places that have mandatory work programs.
You can get benefits, but you have to take a class on how to get a job.
Some people are then going to say, the class is easier than the job.
Why get a job?
Time limits, maybe.
But I just... Perhaps the solution to the homelessness problem starts with mental health, and to reforming our social safety net system.
The answer maybe isn't to give people a guaranteed resource, but to... Like, maybe... I don't know what the solution is, but I'll tell you this.
When you give people the option, they take it.
And some people will exploit it.
We don't want to throw everything away because people really do get helped by this system.
I've been helped by it, and I agree with it.
I've been there.
I've lost a job, and I've received unemployment benefits when I was away a decade ago, and it saved me.
I've been homeless at any rate, but at least in this instance, it allowed me to continue, and I found another job eventually.
I made things work, and then things started to improve.
So I recognize the system being fantastic, but How do we protect it from corruption?
Does the system work as it does today?
Well, I'll point to what's going on in California and say, not pointing to any individual policy, but something isn't working.
Maybe we need to walk backwards and then walk forward or maybe it's a left turn or a right turn.
What I'm trying to say is the solution might not be just add more programs.
The solution might be maybe the programs have in place aren't working and we should get rid of them and replace them.
I believe we can have government programs to solve these problems.
Absolutely.
I don't think there's going to be a market incentive necessarily for humanely dealing with those who are in trouble.
It's possible the non-profit sector could take care of it.
And they do, but I think it really just requires a sit-down strategy meeting to look for the root of the problem, do the research, and then make some changes.
Because I'll tell you this right now, whatever their policies are, I'm not going to go as far as she did and say it's their liberal ideology.
I think, to a certain extent, it's fine.
I hold similar views, but I'll recognize the problem.
And I will absolutely, I hear this woman and I say, you're right, this needs to be solved.
Personally, I think there is a solution that lies within a more left-leaning policy, but I recognize this wasn't it.
So let's sit down and figure it out.
Apparently they don't want to do it, because like I mentioned, even with a super majority in Los Angeles, they can't get it done.
So I don't have to tell you.
Rich people will go off to the Palisades and Santa Monica and they won't see these things and they'll say, I don't care.
Now granted, the Democrats who are in the city have to live in the city, I'm assuming.
But the point is, they'll sit atop their ivory towers and say, eh.
Doesn't bother me.
I'll ignore it.
I'll have my car picked, you know, pick me up in the garage downstairs, and I'll never have to deal with a homeless person.
Well, the problem exists, and something has to be done, and whatever it is you've done in the past didn't work.
So how about we figure it out, right?
Before we actually start seeing bubonic plague return, which is a legitimate fear.
Anyway, stick around.
Next video will be coming up at 4pm on youtube.com slash timcast.
It is a different channel.
I will see you then.
How do you take a study produced by a Harvard PhD researcher psychologist and turn it into a conspiracy theory?
You'd think a Harvard researcher PhD study would be good for something.
Until Trump tweets about it, then everyone's gonna say it's just a conspiracy theory.
Wow.
Well, I will stress, Donald Trump tweeted about this study, about Google manipulating votes, and he got it wrong, but it's like he got the gist of it.
He got some of the details incorrect.
But the general idea is there, and the idea has kind of gone through a game of telephone.
But the funny thing is, this guy, Dr. Robert Epstein, Harvard PhD, is being slammed and smeared, and he's a huge Hillary supporter!
I'm not joking!
Look at this photo he posted!
It's like he's with Hillary Clinton!
And this guy is being smeared.
Look at this, he talks about how he's being smeared in the media because Hillary Clinton lied about him.
But I'll get to that.
I gotta say, The joke is, if Trump came out in favor of oxygen, liberals would hold their breath.
Okay?
If Trump came out in favor of anti-fans, if they're great, all of a sudden you'd see everyone abandon it.
They'd be like, uh-oh, that's Trump's thing.
I kid you not.
If you can't even cite, albeit poorly, a Harvard researcher without the media slamming it as a conspiracy theory, what do you do?
Listen, man, I work in news and journalism and politics.
I'm trying to figure out the truth.
I'm gonna take the word of the PhD guy over some random people on a blog, okay, on some digital news website.
If he says, this is what I found, I'll be like, oh, well, you know, I trust the expert.
Look, this is the anti-science left, as far as I'm concerned.
Look, there's reason to criticize articles.
They're criticizing his research, which he's conducted for years, and I've got some evidence to back up his claim, at least circumstantially.
But the left will absolutely deny science when it's convenient and then claim the conservatives deny science over climate change.
While there are certainly many people who don't agree with the scientific community on climate change, they are not special.
They do the exact same thing.
I can't stand all that.
I'll tell you what, I think climate change is a serious problem and I side with the scientific community.
You know why?
They're the researchers and the experts.
So if Dr. Robert Epstein comes out and says, I'm an expert PhD, here's what I found, I'll say, I can't really refute that, can I?
No matter what.
No matter what, I can't refute it.
He's the expert.
The true authority.
Let's read this story and see exactly what they're doing to this poor guy.
You know, I feel so bad because he's a Hillary supporter, but Trump cited his research, albeit poorly, and there you go.
To the wolves!
To the wolves with ye and your PhD.
Worthless.
Okay, before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
It's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, share this video.
You know, I often say it's because of deranking, but now I'm kind of like, let's break the bubble.
You know, I'm sure many of you have friends on Facebook who don't agree with you and you argue.
Share the video.
I know a lot of them will be like, I'm not going to watch this.
Tim Pool's far right.
Yeah, whatever, man.
But I don't know, if you like it, you know, if it's something you can do, it really does help.
So let's read.
Politico says Hillary Clinton zings Trump over new voter conspiracy theory.
They say Hillary Clinton swatted back at President Donald Trump's attempts to spread another conspiracy related to her popular vote victory in the 2016 presidential election, this time claiming it was due to search engine manipulation.
So Trump goes on to say that Google manipulated from 2.6 million to 16 million votes for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.
So here's the thing.
As far as I know, Epstein didn't say they did, like they were actively manipulating it.
He thinks, OK, I could be getting this wrong.
It's very, very contentious right now.
Robert Epstein will come out with a statement tomorrow, I believe.
But I think what he was saying is that the bias of Google is doing this, not a willful manipulation.
But let's read.
We'll see.
They say, while Trump did not cite the source of his claim, it came minutes after a segment on Fox Business Network referred to congressional testimony in July from behavioral psychologist Robert Epstein.
In testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Epstein claimed that based on his research, biased search results generated by Google's search algorithm likely impacted undecided voters in a way that gave at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton.
Now, you can argue that the Google manipulation Trump didn't say was willful, but manipulation kind of implies that, so we're getting into semantics here.
Epson appears to have been citing a study based on a collection of tens of thousands of search engine results collected in the run-up to the 2016 election.
The study analyzed a relatively small sample size, the result of 95 different voters, just 21 of whom he says were undecided.
He based the results on a phenomenon he calls search engine manipulation effect.
Google has denied Epstein's claims.
Well, of course, they're doing something wrong.
Now here's the important thing.
I'm sorry, Politico, you have absolutely no grounds to challenge a Harvard PhD as to why or how he's conducting his study.
They say, Epstein also claimed in his congressional testimony that Big Tech, if left unchecked, could be able to shift as many as 15 million votes toward a particular candidate in the 2020 election.
Trump appeared to have nudged that number higher in his tweet Monday.
Or Trump heard it from somebody who said, you hear about this and the game of telephone plays on.
I don't expect Trump to be sitting there citing things like Wikipedia.
But so, you know, I mean, he does have responsibility with the big falling for sure.
They're going to just add that Bill Clinton then rags on the guy for some reason.
But let's check this out.
Dr. Robert Epstein says, Hillary Clinton, whom I have strongly supported for many years, told blatant lies about me today.
As a result, I have been subjected to widespread condemnation by mainstream media.
I'm going to fight this.
Stay tuned tomorrow for my first ever Twitter storm.
Now I will stress, Dr. Robert Epstein seems like a principled individual, and he has my respect.
He's willing to testify to Republicans about the benefit the Democrats receive, even when he is a supporter of Hillary Clinton.
And he's strongly so.
And he's in videos.
Bill Maher has praised him and had him on his show.
And now they have thrown this guy to the wolves because his findings, the facts, might support Trump?
Oh no!
Reality is so hard sometimes.
Well, I'll tell you this.
I am not an expert.
I can't tell you if his research is good or bad.
I can only tell you that he has a PhD from Harvard and he's, I believe, a psychologist.
Seems like a pretty smart guy.
You notice the D and the R and the period in front of his name?
That is a title you get when it means you're, yes, likely smarter in certain areas or you know more.
I shouldn't say smarter, but you know a lot more about specific things than other people.
Now, there are certainly people with PhDs who are dumb, I get it, but the point is, do you have grounds to refute this?
Do you have proof or anything to say this is a conspiracy theory?
It's not a conspiracy theory.
There's no claim of a conspiracy.
The claim is just inadvertent bias due to weighted algorithms.
That's not a conspiracy.
That's just some people made a thing and it's inadvertently doing another thing.
But of course, conspiracy theory is the go-to, right?
That's what they want to say.
Because it discredits you, it makes this guy look bad, and he's just a researcher.
It's not his fault Trump cited it!
Oh man, but I got some data for you.
So here's the thing, I made a video about this.
I cited his research.
Maybe I got it wrong, I don't know, but my interpretation is that there's more data to back up his claim.
The story about Dr. Robert Epstein goes back, I think I found something like 2012, or maybe it was 2011, where they were like, he says this is probably going to happen.
He's researching this and says it looks like it's happening.
And then years go by, years go by.
We've been talking about it for nearly a decade.
This guy's not just making it up.
Check this out.
Audit.
Google heavily favors CNN and left media in mass shooting coverage.
Now here's the important bit.
Take a look at this.
Mass shooting coverage is particularly political.
A lot of these stories are like gun control and things like that.
Of these words, only the word Trump gets right-wing coverage.
Allsides does an analysis and found heavy favoritism towards the left.
Now you may say, but what does that even mean?
How do you quantify who's left and who's right?
It's actually really simple.
See, the thing is, Allsides uses a multi-partisan, balanced, patented system for measuring bias.
And we can take a look.
Left, lean left, center, lean right.
I can click these to determine why that source.
So let's choose left.
It's a left bias, right?
I will click left.
And what do we find?
A left bias is the most liberal media bias rating on the political spectrum.
Some of these sources may be considered left-wing news.
Sources with a left media bias rating are most likely to show favor for government services, federal laws to protect consumers and the environment, Federal laws protecting equal rights.
Taxes on the wealthy.
Regulation of corporations.
Pro-choice.
Decreasing military spending.
A belief that the role of government is to provide for its people, to end suffering, and contribute to a human prosperity.
Look, I'm not going to read through every single one of these, but you get the point.
They use a system that tracks any kind of language that promotes these ideas, and it skews the coverage in a certain direction.
It is not about a personal opinion.
It is about these core tenets of a particular group.
And we can go down and look at right.
And we can see that decreasing government.
Oh, you get it.
Personal responsibility, freedom of speech.
And freedom of speech is right.
Isn't that crazy?
That's nuts to me, man.
Boy, do I feel bad.
How did the right own freedom of speech?
Liberals, what are you doing?
Oh, heavens.
It's a right-wing issue now?
Are you nuts?
So, the left is going full authoritarian.
Look, I trust all sides.
I don't think they're determining what's right or left based on what they think right or left is.
I think they're looking at sources that use these particular core values and they're seeing the shift.
They have a mixed and they have a center.
A mixed is interesting.
They say, when does all sides give a source mixed media?
If the source is a system for aggregating content that is openly and transparently designed to show multiple perspectives, Okay, we get it.
Here's the point.
In their findings, there's the Google search query for this breaking news story, two of them, and it all leans over 50% left.
The left is based on the ideology.
So what do you think is going to happen when people only see news in this way?
Without an ability to learn and see other sources, they're gonna be left in the dust, and they're gonna be forced in a certain direction.
So what happens is, people like me, who seek out two sides, or different, you know, it's not necessarily two sides, because there's like the progressive view, the moderate view, there's the conservative, there's the far-right, whatever, there's libertarian.
The point is, I seek out multiple views.
I go to, you know, anarchist subreddits, I go to far-right subreddits, I see what people are talking about, Although most of the far-right stuff is banned anyway.
But I try to look around.
So I break this bubble by reading as much as possible.
Conservatives have no choice to break that bubble because they get slammed with this.
You know what that means?
Regular people who don't know better are having left-wing sources jammed down their throats, and they don't realize they're being manipulated.
So is Dr. Epstein right or wrong?
I can't tell you, but I can say evidence suggests he's right.
So, unfortunately for you, Doctor, you're a conspiracy theorist!
Congratulations.
You have been thrown to the wolves.
I look forward to Dr. Epstein's response, and depending on what happens, I'll follow up.
Stick around, a couple more segments in a few minutes, and I will see you all there.
In my 4 p.m.
segment, I talk about conservative media expanding, growing, gaining new viewership, all that stuff, right?
And I saw these tweets from John Levine.
He's a reporter from the New York Post.
And that's where I first saw the story.
So I want to do a bigger segment because he highlights something really important, which is why I want to show his tweets.
He said, Here's a quote.
The astonishing traffic growth of FoxNews.com, the digital arm of the most-watched cable news network, its traffic doubled since 2015, and is now at more than 100 million unique visitors per month.
When you watch a video of mine, that's a unique view.
I have one unique view.
When you watch two videos of mine, I have one unique view.
When you watch five videos of mine, I have one unique view.
That quite literally means 100 million unique people.
That's insane!
Here's the thing.
It's a story from CJR about the expansion of conservative media, which we'll read.
But John Levine added that context, and that's why I want to make sure I give him credit for this, for the tweets.
Showing this other story from CNN, I'm sorry, from the Daily Beast, where CNN is chasing after Fox News.
Guess what?
Fox News has become more moderate.
They really have.
They've brought on some, they have Donna Brazile now.
They've done a show with Bernie Sanders at Town Hall.
Trump has been criticizing them for— Whoa, what are they doing?
Fox knows.
There's a lot of moderates who are being pushed out by the far left, and they have an opportunity to be THE go-to news source.
CNN knows this.
And so CNN is realizing if they don't shape up and get back on track, they're out.
But Fox News may have already taken all of your viewers.
Admittedly, I don't watch either of the networks for the most part anymore, but it was the craziest thing to me when I was going through stories and I said, Fox News really has the story right, and CNN doesn't.
It was a weird moment because, you know, look, Fox News has always been very, very biased on a lot of issues, and they've done a lot better.
The proof is in the pudding, man.
Trump criticizing them.
They're not as bad as they used to be.
And CNN is.
Well, CNN sees that.
So let's do this.
Let's read about the growth of conservative media, which I think is due to moderates being beaten over the head over and over again by this ridiculous rhetoric from the far left.
And we'll see what's going on with CNN.
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 the best thing you can do, just share this video.
Let's break some echo chambers wide open.
Share this video with your friends, partly because I get deranked and the sharing helps overcome that, but I like the idea better that when you share this, you're exposing people who might not see this news to these ideas.
And I think I'm kind of a fair dude, I'm not saying I'm perfect, but I'm not, I'm trying to be mean, right?
So, you know, whatever, you know, some people will hate me no matter what, you know, it's just life.
Let's read.
They say, Donald Trump is a media president.
He makes policies based on the words of certain journalists, riles his supporters and opposition to others, boosts a few who show their fealty to him, and measures his success in printouts of web stories his aides bring him.
His tenure as president has been marked, perhaps unsurprisingly, by turmoil and change in the conservative news organizations that are most closely linked to him, including closings, mergers, launches, and significant spikes and dips in traffic.
An analysis of these sites based on web traffic figures available through Comscore reveals what a certain portion of America is reading as it approaches a pivotal election.
The short answer?
Much more right-wing web tabloidism.
So you know what I see doing really well is sites like The Daily Call and The Daily Wire.
And they're certified by NewsGuard, but they're tabloids, right?
Is that fair?
Maybe I'm thinking the wrong thing, but they're very much so like commentary and analysis on existing news.
You know, news is easy to come by.
It's easy to see a fact.
Dog does backflip.
More at 11, and we're like, well, I already know what happened.
What you then get from these other websites is a conversation around the dog doing a backflip.
There's good and bad to that.
The left is absolutely producing, you know, digital sites like this.
The right is.
Unfortunately, mainstream news did the same.
And guess what?
Without the actual facts, nobody wants to watch.
So when CNN tries to become a woke blog, it doesn't work.
You joined the resistance, CNN.
We don't care.
We're not gonna watch it.
It's not legitimate.
Let's read.
They say.
They say, there are currently about 15 to 20 conservative websites which attract at
least 1 million unique visitors per month.
Some are venerable right-wing reliables like National Review, The Washington Times, or
Newsmax.
Others, like Infowars, The Gateway Pundit, Big League Politics, and Breitbart mine far
fringes of the right.
I will stress, this was surprising to me, that Breitbart is now certified by NewsGuard.
I kid you not.
Look, I'm not saying NewsGuard knows better than anyone else.
It's a check on my bias.
Let them determine what's a good source, and I'll play within the lines to avoid the accusations I'm favoring a certain site.
So I typically do not use Breitbart.
But Breitbart's now certified by NewsGuard.
So good for them.
NewsGuard says that they've improved their editorial standards, issued corrections, and there's a couple things they're lagging in, but for the most part, Good to go.
And that surprised me.
So they want to call it Fringes of the Far Right?
Well, unfortunately, they're more mainstream than you realize.
At least today.
They say, the most significant change in conservative media happens in Fox News, which I read earlier, over 100 million unique viewers.
The Fox Corporation-owned website also generates ten times the audience of any other conservative news website offering original content.
Let that fact sink in for a moment.
Imagine all conservative websites are the Great Plains.
Now face west and you'll see the Rocky Mountains rising from the plains and jutting so high into the sky that its peaks are fringed with snow even on a hot summer day.
Those mountains are foxnews.com and in this landscape.
No right-wing website comes close to rivaling the size of its audience.
The website is distinct from the cable channel.
Like other mass appeal sites on both sides of the spectrum, FoxNews.com will cover literally anything that it considers people might read, including politics, sports, business, and entertainment.
With various eye-catching headlines and stories on its homepage, Perve's underground lair is just one recent example.
At first glance, the site feels more like a frisky tabloid than a right-wing megaphone.
But the site certainly leans to the right, and its robust opinion section reverberates each day with a meaty selection of mostly conservative voices tackling the issues and controversies of the day.
FoxNews.com is very, very different from the TV channel.
They're actually rather balanced in a lot of ways.
They say, every month through July this year, FoxNews.com has posted year-over-year traffic increases from 9 to 20%.
What's more, its monthly unique visitors have consistently exceeded the traffic coming to the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Only CNN, which clocks in at more than 120 million unique visitors a month for much of 2019, routinely surpasses Fox News.
Whoa, I did not know that.
That is huge.
So, that will probably reflect on my earlier statement.
But, I will amend my earlier statement as to why CNN is trying to chase after Fox News in that Fox News is catching up.
I think CNN sees them as a competitor and says, let's make sure we can track the stories they do.
You know, because they don't want to lose an audience.
In a statement, Fox News Digital Editor-in-Chief Porter Barry credited the traffic growth to a focus on audience and willingness to cover whatever is interesting in the world, from breaking news and opinion to human interest stories and trending entertainment coverage.
A general news outlet.
But I will stress, In order to grow, you need to have people come from somewhere.
And I think the far left contributes to this.
But I also want to add...
Well, actually, no.
We'll stop and we'll go to the CNN thing.
Otherwise, I'll never get to it.
So, here we go.
CNN tells digital staff, take some cues from Fox News.
Now, this story is from over a month ago, but I think it's relevant in the context.
They say Fox News is already beating CNN on TV.
Now, to ensure the conservative news network doesn't start winning online, and there it is, CNN wants to make sure its employees know what stories Fox News is writing about.
That's what we needed to hear.
So here's what I think.
Fox News has been doing the Fox Nation push.
I don't know if you've watched recently.
Tucker Carlson has tons of commercials for Fox Nation.
You know what's really fascinating about this?
Did you notice what I do at the beginning of all my videos?
I don't have a break for a sponsor.
I just tell you to support me directly.
Tucker Carlson is now doing that on his show.
Activists are targeting him and getting his sponsors pulled out.
So Tucker responds by saying, Just join Fox Nation.
We are moving to a subscriber model media.
Fox News is headed there with Fox Nation.
They're pushing hard.
And then you've got Fox News growing.
Over 100 million unique visitors per month.
Wow!
That means there's a lot of overlap between CNN's audience and Fox News.
I'm certainly one of them.
You know, I look at CNN articles for sure.
And Fox News.
Let's read a little bit more here.
They say, Other conservative websites have successfully grown their audiences in the first half of this year, including the Washington Times and Red State, according to the ComScore data, but none match the performance of the Washington Examiner, which earlier this year became the highest-trafficked conservative website outside of Fox News.
I will stress this.
I didn't used to ever go to those sites.
The Times, the Examiner, and Red State?
Never.
But recently, with a lot of the stories that have been coming out that have been fake news from left and mainstream sources, I've started.
Because I need to look at two sources now.
That probably contributes to the growth in viewership.
Fox News can be growing because of a push for Fox Nation and because of a push to go online, for sure.
But I think I have to state my final point.
I try to keep these segments short, as you know.
I think it really is that moderates are feeling, you know, like the Democrats have left us behind.
My main segment talked about how a guy would rather vote for Trump, who he thought was racist, if it meant he wasn't going to get insane policy.
He'd rather have the bad orange man, the way he sees it, than someone saying open borders.
So what do you think happens then when you see news media defending the open border stuff?
You go to Fox News.
You go to the Washington Examiner.
Conservative media is going to skyrocket.
It's going to continue.
And CNN knows it.
And that's why CNN is trying to play the game and track what Fox is doing.
They know they're on the way out.
They're still top, it looks like.
But they know, you know, it's a close race.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes.
Stick around and I will see you all there.
In many of the segments I've produced over the past several months, I've noted some data, notably the Hidden Tribes data, that shows progressive activists in this country, the progressive wing of politics, is overwhelmingly white, and typically makes more than $100,000 a year, or is more likely to, and they have college degrees.
And I saw this story in the New York Post, and I said, confirmation bias!
This goes right into that little box.
I've seen the data, and we've talked about it.
Antifa tends to be overwhelmingly white, progressives aren't all typically white, and then we see this story.
Luxury beliefs are the latest status symbol for rich Americans.
This article makes a very, very fascinating point.
Wealthy and safe leftists who are white have no problem pretending to be this virtuous figure because it won't hurt them.
Bill Maher, case in point.
Now, look.
Bill Maher has called out the woke left, much respect.
But Bill Maher says bring on the recession because it won't affect him.
Because he'll be fine.
He doesn't care about poor people.
Man, it's a weird position to be in, I swear.
The woke left has infected the populist left, and now you've got Bernie Sanders espousing wokeness, and that's why I'm out.
And then you've got, well, that's the war.
It's the war in the left between the moderates and the left.
And you've got these progressive white people who don't care.
When they enact these policies, it hurts poor people.
They don't care.
Let's read.
Before we get started, however, go 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 the article.
You've heard me say it a million times probably, but we'll break some echo chambers when we share the video, and it helps me overcome the deranking from YouTube.
So let's just jump right into it.
A former classmate from Yale recently told me monogamy is kind of outdated and not good for society.
So I asked her what her background is and if she planned to marry.
She said she comes from an affluent family and works at a well-known technology company.
Yes, she personally intends to have a monogamous marriage, but quickly added that marriage shouldn't have to be for everyone.
She was raised by a traditional family.
She planned on having a traditional family, but she maintained that traditional families are old-fashioned and society should evolve beyond them.
What could explain this?
In the past, upper-class Americans used to display their social status with luxury goods.
Today, they do it with luxury beliefs.
People care a lot about social status.
In fact, research indicates that respect and admiration from our peers are even more important than money for our sense of well-being.
We feel pressure to display our status in new ways.
This is why fashionable clothing always changes.
But as trendy clothes and other products become more accessible and affordable, there is increasingly less status attached to luxury goods.
Actually, there's a few other really good points to me I'm going to interject here.
You know, I've heard that a hundred years ago, being fat was considered attractive.
Because it meant you didn't have to work, and it meant you were wealthy, well-off, and high-status.
Because only the poor people had to work.
Today, it's inverted.
Now that wealth has become widespread for the most part, a lot of people don't have to work.
And a lot of people don't.
How about this?
Actually, I'm sure you guys know somebody who probably just like sits behind a desk all day just talking about their feelings, and they do it as a job.
Like how crazy is that, that in today's day and age, someone literally gets to make a living sitting at a desk, talking at a camera.
Isn't that funny?
But no, but seriously, I understand that, you know, people respect and like what I have to say, whether they disagree with it, but it is funny that we've come to a point in our society where we're not lifting heavy rocks, we're not farming, we're not fighting, and so now people are becoming overweight.
And it's considered unattractive.
Now it's like you need to work to be attractive.
You need to earn something.
And perhaps, you know, that's, you know, I don't know why it is, but it's a... Things change, right?
What makes something higher status changes.
And for a long time, people would buy cars and clothes.
And now, it's all about their opinions.
But in the end, the people with money are gonna be fine.
Let's continue.
They say, the upper classes have found a clever solution to this problem.
Luxury beliefs.
These are ideas and opinions that confer status on the rich at very little cost, while taking a toll on the lower class.
One example of luxury belief is that all family structures are equal.
This is not true.
Evidence is clear that families with two married parents are the most beneficial for young children.
And yet, affluent, educated people raised by two married parents are more likely than others to believe monogamy is outdated, marriage is a sham, or that all families are the same.
Isn't that hilarious?
They reap the benefits.
They have the resources.
They can go wherever they want, and then they point the finger at the poor person and say, it's your fault.
You know, it's really crazy that they were claiming Serena Williams is oppressed.
You remember all that stuff?
They were like, oh, it's because she's a woman, or whatever.
It's like, are you kidding me, dude?
Isn't she worth, like, tens of millions of dollars?
She has more power in, you know, in, she makes, she generates more societal power in an hour than, like, everybody on the, like, 99.9% of people on the planet.
So no.
And that's what I don't like about these luxury beliefs.
They act like, you know, you can be a multi-millionaire and you are lesser because of it.
So it's not just a positive thing.
It's not like they're only trying to say, oh, we're here to help you.
They're also denigrating you.
Like, that's my experience.
Like, oh, you poor Tim Poole, you're mixed, therefore, you know, you're lesser in some way.
Relaxed attitudes about marriage trickled down to the working class and the poor.
In the 1960s, marriage rates between upper-class and lower-class Americans were nearly identical.
But during this time, affluent Americans loosened social norms, expressing skepticism about marriage and monogamy.
This luxury belief contributed to the erosion of the family.
Today, the marriage rates of affluent Americans are nearly the same as they were in the 1960s, but working-class people are far less likely to get married.
Furthermore, out-of-wedlock birth rates are more than 10 times higher than they were in 1960, mostly among the poor and working class.
Affluent people seldom have kids out of wedlock, but are more likely than others to express the luxury belief that doing so is of no consequence.
Isn't it funny that they come and they tell us what we should and shouldn't do?
The rich, wealthy people dictating to the working class, and that is why Donald Trump is your president, whether you like it or not he is.
There's a funny meme.
It says, states, states where Donald Trump is your president, and every state is red.
Listen, you can't berate the working class people in this country.
Mostly white.
You can't tell the poor people it's their fault.
You can't blame men, it's their fault.
Eventually they say, I've had enough of your BS, and Trump gets elected.
They've sat in their ivory tower, protected from all of this, while everything has fallen to chaos below them.
It's not that bad.
You know, life is still pretty good for most people, but, you know, I just read it for you.
Let's read more.
They say, another luxury belief is that religion is irrational or harmful.
Members of the upper class are most likely to be atheists or non-religious, but they have the resources and access to thrive without the unifying social edifice of religion.
That one I'll push back on.
I am not concerned about that.
I do believe that community is important and religion offers that, but I am atheist.
I grew up poor and atheist.
I mean, I was Catholic for the first few years, but it didn't mean much to me.
But I want to get to, um, I wonder if they talk about immigration.
Isn't immigration one of the most, like, a luxury belief?
This idea that we can have unfettered mass migration?
And the poor people pay the price.
You know there's a video of the job fair?
After ICE raided those chicken factories or whatever they were?
They interviewed people going to the job fair.
Americans, white and black, and said, why are you taking the job?
And they said, I needed the work and it pays well.
That's right.
They would have hired Americans who wanted the work.
One guy said, fast food doesn't pay enough, I need a better job.
American.
So yeah, another luxury belief.
This one's great.
White privilege is the luxury belief that took me the longest to understand.
Because I grew up around poor whites.
Yeah, me too.
And others.
I was a mixed neighborhood.
Often members of the upper class claim that racial disparities stem from inherent advantages held by whites.
Yet Asian Americans are more educated, have higher earnings, and live longer than whites.
Affluent whites are the most enthusiastic about the idea of white privilege, yet they are the least likely to incur any costs from promoting that belief.
Rather, they raise their social standing by talking about their privilege.
In other words, upper class whites gain status by talking about their high status.
When laws are enacted to combat white privilege, it won't be the privileged whites who are harmed.
Poor whites will bear the brunt.
And when Bill Maher says we need a recession because Trump is bad, it won't be Bill Maher who faces the problems.
It won't be Bill Maher's friends.
It won't be his family.
It won't be the celebrities who work around him.
It will be everyone else.
And I mean it.
Literally everyone.
Because a recession in the U.S.
will impact the world.
What a disgusting and just egotistical, narcissistic belief.
And Bill Maher's not the worst.
I will be very critical of him over the recession stuff, no problem.
I'll praise him for when he needs to be praised, like calling out the wokeness.
But I gotta say, man, talk about an affluent position.
Trump is so bad, let everyone else burn.
Are you kidding me?
It's written by a guy named Rob Henderson.
He ends by saying, because like with diamond rings or designer clothes of old, upper class people don a luxury belief to separate themselves from the lower class.
These beliefs in turn produce real tangible consequences for disadvantaged people, further widening the divide.
Just as fashionable clothing will soon be outdated, so will today's fashionable beliefs.
In the future, expect the upper class to defame even more values, including ones they hold dear in their quest to gain top dog status.
I thought this was a really, really interesting op-ed.
It's a really great breakdown of this idea and where it comes from.
And I wouldn't call it a fact.
It's an opinion.
But it is interesting.
Interesting because the data shows it is the rich white people who hold these views.
I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Next segment will be tomorrow at 10 a.m., podcast at 6.30 p.m.
I will see you all next time.
I don't normally like to open segments with opinion pieces, but this story here from the Courier-Journal may be one of the most interesting op-eds I've seen in a long time.
Now, of course, there's a bit of confirmation bias here.
It's a moderate Democrat saying that they may actually switch to Trump because of the far-left push.
The story's titled, No One Votes to Be Despised.
Democrats' Message May Swing My Ballot to Trump.
Interestingly.
The actual URL shows the title may have been different.
Democrats Racism Message May Swing My Vote.
Which got me thinking about why someone would or wouldn't vote for Trump if they were a Democrat.
As it turns out, this person's fairly never Trumper, as far as Democrats go, and actually criticizes Trump for not condemning those who were in Charlottesville incorrectly.
And that's what I found most interesting about it.
This person actually believes some of the worst things about Trump and still says they would rather vote for Trump because of these policies.
I kid you not.
It sounds like somebody who thinks all the worst things about Trump, racist, whatever, still thinks policy is more important.
So here's what I want to do.
I want to read a little bit of this op-ed, and then I want to go through what's currently going on with the Democrats, because it seems, according to other stories, opinion, analysis, and news, as well as polls, the Democrats know they have no strong candidate, and they're actually extremely worried they will lose to Trump.
I mean, case in point, Joe Biden.
He gets criticized by his own wife, and Barack Obama won't endorse his former VP.
All of this spells bad news, and I've got way more than just that.
Let's start with this story, though.
Before we do, 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, I always say this, the best thing you can do is just share this video.
I mean, you can subscribe, like, comment below, but my channel, as well as many others, get deranked.
So that means we still appear, but we're facing major competition from corporate channels like CNN, who are being propped up.
Being given an artificial advantage.
So if you do like this, just share it.
Or don't.
You don't have to.
Let's read.
This is from Michael Smith, an opinion contributor.
He says, I am not a Trump supporter, but if the alternative to him in next year's election is open borders and the Green New Deal, I may become a Trump voter.
It's a distinction without an electoral difference, but hear me out.
The president has earned a lot of the racial heat that comes his way.
His reluctance to condemn the white nationalists in Charlottesville in 2017 was inexcusable.
He questioned Barack Obama's citizenship even after the man produced a birth certificate.
His feuds with kneeling NFL players and other black celebrities serve no purpose except to stir the pot.
The full list is long and ugly.
It would speak for itself if Trump's opponents would let it.
I'm going to stop right now.
This man believes all of the worst things imaginable about Trump.
Now some of these things are warranted.
However, I want to stress, here is a quote from Donald Trump following Charlottesville.
Quote, I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.
In the same conference where I said very fine people.
Now you can criticize him all day for whatever he was saying.
The point is, he said he condemned them totally.
If you want to interpret it a different way, you're allowed to, but I'm just going to give you the quote.
So this guy clearly maybe doesn't believe it was legit or doesn't know it exists.
And that's why I found this truly interesting.
Here's someone who really believes the worst thing about Trump possible, that he refuses to condemn these people, and he's still saying he's gonna vote for the guy?
Wow.
Policy must be extremely important to people.
I'm being somewhat facetious, like, of course it is!
Let's read a little bit more.
He says they haven't.
Instead, they've trafficked in hysteria and hyperbole, particularly in their response to El Paso, Texas.
Democrats fell over themselves to implicate the president's rhetoric and policies.
Imagine, having never met the man, the El Paso perpetrator, the freshman congresswoman looked into his heart and determined that he wouldn't have killed if not for Trump.
Is it any wonder the president's defenders reacted?
Not that they had to look far for material.
Thirteen hours after the Texas event, a self-described anti-borders leftist and Elizabeth Warren supporter killed nine people in Dayton, Ohio.
You can guess how many Democrats acknowledged parallels between their own rhetoric, some of which was echoed by the Dayton shooter, and the rhetoric they blamed for El Paso.
Its current trajectory gives the Democratic Party two problems in 2020.
First, the agenda.
A spending spree like no country has ever attempted.
Supposedly financed by a handful of wealthy taxpayers, what could go wrong?
Second, The message to voters.
For decades, progressives have denounced America as hopelessly retrograde and racist.
Naturally, they're talking about everyone except themselves.
The insult them until they join our side strategy has gained devotees since the mass events.
While no fewer than five presidential candidates have called Trump a white supremacist, their fellow progressives are shedding their reluctance to say the same of his supporters.
Now, I don't want to read through literally everything, but he says that, you know, basically, if that's all they have, he's actually going to vote for Trump.
That's the point of the op-ed.
I don't want to just read the whole thing to you.
But I want to look at a few things.
And as I did point out, Trump condemned, so we'll make sure that's clear.
Take a look at this.
This is a poll that was published on 731 by the Hill.
Nearly half of independents say Democratic Party leans too far left.
I've highlighted this several times, but it's extremely relevant here, so forgive me if you've seen it already, but it is important for the context.
48% of independent voters believe the Democratic Party is swinging too far left, while only 33% think the Republican Party is leaning too far to the right.
Case in point, that op-ed.
A man saying he'd rather vote for Trump if they're going to the far left.
Now take a look at this.
This story is remarkable.
Soft levels of support mark this year's Democratic primary.
They say, pollsters say one of the most striking characteristics of this cycle's Democratic
presidential primary is the relatively soft support for top-tier candidates,
even after an intense focus on the race by the national media. This almost certainly
reflects the party's desperation to find a candidate who can defeat Donald Trump,
after its faithful were shocked by Democrat Hillary Clinton's loss in 2016, said pollsters
and other experts interviewed by The Hill. Quote, The fear of putting up the wrong person is palpable, said
Jeremy Rosner, a veteran Democratic pollster. It comes up in every focus group and every
conversation I have with Democrats.
It's top of mind and intense. It's behind a lot of the fluidity in the race.
Voters, or at least a large number of them, have yet to fall in love with a single candidate.
They are instead shuffling through the candidates, comparing their possible strengths and weaknesses against Trump, and refusing to be pinned down to a single person.
You're not seeing the groundswell behind any one candidate, said Democratic pollster Chris Kofinis.
There's a segment that thinks a centrist or a moderate is best to beat Trump.
Hey, I'm one of them.
Others think you need someone from the left to rally the base.
A third segment has no idea.
Now, they go on to talk about Joe Biden and how many people believe he is the best to win.
I believe that's actually the case.
We'll get to the stats, though, because check this out.
In another poll that was published around the same time, 30% of Democrats in new polls say few or none of 2020 hopefuls share their values.
To me, that is mind-blowing.
A third of Democrats do not see their values represented on the debate stage.
Mind-blowing.
Who do they vote for?
Why?
Is it because they're far-left, or is it because they're moderate?
I'd have to imagine moderate, because those debates were pushed far-left, saying they're going to give non-citizens healthcare and open borders.
That's why Michael Smith criticized the Democrats, or that was the criticism.
If it's open borders and a Green New Deal, he says he might vote for Trump.
Now take a look at this.
Who do you think it was mostly experiencing a disconnect from the Democratic Party?
Moderate voters.
Because the other polls show the same thing.
The Democratic Party is too far left.
And then, so what is this? They say 18% say the GOP is, so Republicans believe the, yeah,
are too far left. So this is what's huge to me, that Democratic voters, a third of them,
are fractured. Let's read a little bit of this. They say, a new poll found that 30% of Democratic
and Democratic-leaning independent voters, right here, say that few or none of the 2020
presidential hopefuls share their values. In a Hill-Harris X poll released Tuesday,
4% of Democratic voters said that none of the more than two dozen contenders running
for the party's 2020 nomination share their values. 6% of 6% of them said that all of the candidates share their values.
The poll found that there was a small difference in men and women voters.
I'm not gonna—we can skip over that one.
They said, 70% of the voting bloc said that almost or some of the 2020 Democratic contenders do share their positions.
Younger voters were more likely to say that 2020 Democrats have the same values as they do, with 75% of those surveyed between the ages of 18 and 34 saying that at least some of the 2020 Democrats share the same views as them.
Now I'll say this.
We get it.
I would be in that 75%.
I'm 33.
And I do believe there are a few that share at least some of my values.
I think Tulsi Gabbard shares a decent amount, more than most.
And the ones that are important.
But Elizabeth Warren calling out big tech, that's a sharing of my value.
So who was it that saw what they had to say and didn't feel anything for any of these candidates?
Regardless of what I think.
Maybe it's not moderates.
Maybe it is the far left.
Maybe it's all communists.
I have no idea.
The point is, That's the Democratic base.
That's 30% of Democrats who do not see their candidate up there.
Well, if they don't get that support, they're not going to beat Trump.
Now let's move on and talk about where we're currently going.
For one, I want to highlight this.
Democrats back off once fervent embrace of Medicare for all.
The reason I highlight this, and we'll jump to the polls next, but I want to show that, is because, for one, Joe Biden is leading.
And Joe Biden is the centrist, you know, moderate type, who has actually recently said Republicans are good people.
He wants to show he can work across the aisle.
The fact that they're abandoning Medicare for All or they're moving from it shows there really is soft support.
They really don't know who's going to win, and it could be anybody at this point.
Now they think it's Joe Biden, but guess what?
Joe Biden's got a gaffe problem.
Check this out.
We can see that Biden, according to the RealClearPolitics average, is around 29%.
And we can see Elizabeth Warren, second place, 15.8.
You know, he's got almost double what she has in the polls.
It's possible that Biden collapses for a lot of reasons, but for the time being, the party is focused on him, and here's the danger of where the Democrats are at.
The divide between the far left and the moderate Democrats will destroy them in the future.
Think about it.
If they endorse Biden's policies, if they say, no Medicare for all, we gotta be centrist, and then Biden loses, the only option they're gonna have after that is to switch to somebody who's more far left.
I mean, the next two people, Warren and Sanders.
If the party message is centrist policy, And then Biden drops out or loses favor with the electorate.
Then Bernie pops up.
The DNC's got to turn around and say, wait, wait, wait, we changed our mind again.
You're going to sour voters because the message will keep changing.
But here's where it gets really bad for Biden.
Check this out.
Biden allies float scaling back events to limit gaffes.
Biden has had so many gaffes.
And you know, I mean this with all due respect for the man who is, I believe, 77 or he's up there.
I'm not surprised.
He's an old dude.
You know, we all get old.
I do not fault him in any way for this, but I will recognize that at a certain point, Those who have carried the torch for decades need to pass it on.
That's just how life is.
And I'm not saying Biden shouldn't run or anything like that, but at a certain point, perhaps you have to.
I don't know who else there is, you know.
I might vote for Biden.
I seriously might.
I seriously might.
I don't know, though.
I don't know.
Because in the end, I'll probably only end up voting for someone like Tulsi.
But I say might if Biden clarifies a lot of moderate policies, and the one thing that really drives me towards considering him is a return to normalcy for the Democratic Party.
To basically say to the growing far left, this is not what we need right now.
It will send a powerful message.
But, I admit, I kind of probably won't.
Let's be real.
But I entertain the idea.
And we'll see what happens.
You know, I say this because I don't want to pretend like I wouldn't consider it.
I don't want to pretend like I'm going to definitely do it.
There's a conversation to be had.
And there's time to develop.
But I think a Biden win would send a message to the far left that no, you are not the future of this party.
You are embracing ridiculous ideologies, non-theistic religions, and pushing policy that is not popular.
But hey, I could be wrong.
You know, Biden's an old guy.
The younger people in the race are more far left.
So perhaps if the torch is handed down, the Democrats go far left.
At least that's the trend we're seeing.
Now look, Biden's had a ton of gaffes.
And I guess they're saying they should, you know, they want to reduce... I heard something like it's about they don't want him having later in the day events.
You know, they need to have him, you know, in the morning and then have him rest at night or something like that.
Or that's what people are saying.
I could be wrong about that.
But check this out.
You know, I started researching this segment with this piece, actually.
Harry Reid, of course Medicare for All and decriminalizing border crossings are bad ideas.
There are so many more important things to do, the former Senate Majority Leader said.
Former Democrat saying these are bad ideas.
And so the reason, you know, I saw this and I said, wow, I wonder if there are other Democrats Other Democrats who, you know, former powerful positions saying things like, we can't do this.
And it seems like there is this Vice news.
You know, Vice is not a fan of the moderates or the right.
They're kind of far left.
And here they are showing a more moderate stance.
We can't have these.
Let's go back to that first opinion piece.
A guy who thinks Trump is the worst thing possible, who doesn't know Trump denounced the people in Charlottesville, he thinks he really just let it go?
Man.
He's— Listen, the reason I highlight this to a great degree, if there is someone who thinks Trump is literally, like, the worst possible thing he could be, but the policy is more important, think about all the other people who feel similarly.
Who would rather believe that they have a racist president with good policy than vote for someone they think isn't racist with bad policy?
Now, look, I'm not playing the game of he is or isn't.
I'm saying they perceive it that way.
They see Trump, and they believe this about him, and they'd still rather vote for the guy?
That shows me that Democrats have royally screwed something up.
But I do have a few other stories we can go through, because this one really, really struck me.
Do Democrats need a backup plan from rollcall.com?
If Biden's stumbles continue, a certain former first lady might be well positioned to step in.
You know, I really do think Michelle Obama could win.
I do.
And it's not because of policy or anything like that.
I mean, people, for what it's worth, the Obama years, people felt good about it, at least on the left.
So I'm not talking about conservatives.
But look, people who voted for Trump also voted for Obama.
I think Michelle Obama could win back the center.
Here's the problem.
She's definitely a better candidate than all of the Democrats combined, probably.
Michelle Obama, let's be real.
She's charismatic.
She's got a well-crafted image of professionality.
And it's the former first lady.
Very, very popular.
One of the most popular Democratic presidents.
I think he is the most popular former Democratic president.
I mean, we're coming off his presidency.
But you're gonna see it.
Look, she's just stronger than they are.
And that's that simple.
She's strong, she's tall, and she's got the weight of Obama, right?
She's got that, you know, she is an Obama.
Joe Biden is old and gaffing.
Here's the thing, though.
I believe Michelle Obama could rally some former Obama voters who voted for Trump back to the Democratic side.
I don't think the progressives will get behind a moderate.
That's the problem.
Moderates have expressed this fear.
I've spoken to people, and I was recently speaking to a couple people who were fairly moderate, and they said, if we don't pick someone like Bernie, the progressives will not back our candidate and we'll lose.
And I said, well then you're getting a candidate you don't want!
So who's worse, Trump or Bernie?
And they're like, You know, Trump, you know, at least in this conversation, they felt Trump was bad because of his character, and Bernie is bad because of his policy, and they're like, well, I guess we'd rather have Bernie, and I'm like, well, there you go.
You have no choice, because the progressives are strong-arming you.
And then, one of the people I was talking to, they said, I'm out.
I don't think I'll vote, you know, so there it is.
And look, I really mean this, like, you look at that op-ed, and I thought it was striking.
Take a look at this.
This is why I think even Michelle Obama would not necessarily win.
I showed this the other day.
While the majority absolutely still is either moderate or conservative on the Democrat side, the progressives are growing.
By the time we get to 2020, the progressive wing of the Democrats may have taken over.
And then someone like Michelle might not be able to win.
But you know what?
I don't, you know, I can't make a strong prediction like that.
I've shown this graph time and time again.
You know, most of the party wants moderate policies, so maybe that's what they really do need.
And look, obviously it's reflected in the strong polling of someone like Joe Biden.
He's reminiscent of the Obama era, and he's more moderate.
You know, I tweeted this out.
All this stuff going on with Rashida Tlaib and Israel and Palestine is exactly what Trump needs and wants.
Yep, they're playing his game.
And it's like, I say this all the time.
You know, time and time again we see Trump pulling puppet strings.
And you can make fun of him all day and night.
That's fine.
I certainly don't care, you know.
But I'll tell you this.
Trump calls out the squad.
He tweets about it.
Israel bans them.
Everyone says, wow, Trump, how could you?
Trump wants them center stage.
You know why?
Because the more famous they get, the more this progressive side grows, the more the moderates and the conservatives feel they have no choice but to vote for him.
I am not just saying that.
The polls show it.
More moderates believe the left is too far left than believe the right is too far right.
That means advantage Trump.
And while there are still people who are moderate and scared of Trump, more people are
concerned about the left.
So Trump says, you know what? Let's make the stories about the far left rise to the top.
And he is pushing it out.
He is calling them out.
He is giving them the press.
Trump got, what, $5 billion in free press in the 2016 cycle?
He knows what the press wants.
And they are eating up all the Orange Man bad stories and propping up the far-left candidates that Americans don't like.
So what happens?
When you see Harry Reid, Harry Reid saying these are bad ideas.
When you see a guy actually saying he'd rather vote for, he's considering voting for Trump than the far-left policies, you see that Trump knows exactly what he's doing.
More people on the Democrat side want moderate policy.
So he makes sure everything we see is far-left.
I mean, I'll admit, it is big, right?
They were getting big before Trump.
I'm not acting like we're all stuck in Trump's chess game.
No, Trump's just exploiting what already has been happening.
It's basically a fire started, and you've got people like me, like, spraying the hose, being like, ah!
Admittedly, you know, I do videos criticizing them, and it's probably the same thing.
It probably still just gives them press and props them up, and it's, in the long run, probably bad, I guess.
But Trump, he's standing there, you know, fanning it, like, let it come.
And I hear this from Trump supporters, too, saying, good, let them meet themselves.
Well, not good for me, and admittedly not good for the country, okay?
We need a rational, reasonable debate.
We need someone who's moderate, who's gonna be like, yeah, we need border security, but we do need healthcare, too, so let's have a conversation, right?
I think everybody would agree to that.
Instead, what do we get?
We get people trying to shut down events Based around having a conversation with those we disagree with.
If you don't get the reference, I made a video talking about this the other day.
Our event is being targeted by activists.
So the moderates want to have a conversation.
And the conservatives know it.
And the conservatives are totally cool with it.
And that's why it's really easy to say, hey conservative, come have a conversation.
But the far left is at war with us, the moderates.
And so they want to tear us down.
They can't let us talk.
It's so weird how they call moderate democrat types far right, It's insanity.
But check out this one last segment I'm gonna save to blow your mind.
You know what?
I think I'll do a full segment on this in the next segment at 6 p.m.
Conservative media has grown under Trump.
I wonder why that is.
Well, I'll tell you why.
Moderates are being shut out, and so they're increasingly rejecting the far-left, insane news outlets.
At least that's my perspective.
I have found myself just confused when I read some of these stories from, like, Newsweek.
I'm like, what is this?
It's not true.
I made a video about it, where Newsweek wrote a story about a fake quote from Ocasio-Cortez, which came from a tweet from the Daily Beast, which misconstrued a story from the Daily Beast.
And all of that turned into a fake story.
Four sources.
And I was like, why?
This is nuts!
So then, I find myself looking for a healthier media diet.
And this means more views for the conservative side.
It absolutely does.
I don't want to be fed nonsense.
And so, as someone who reads the news and fact-checks, when I fact-check these sources, the New York Times, hiring far-left people, I'm like, this is nuts.
So yeah, it's not just me.
There are a lot of people who voted for Obama, who are now Trump supporters.
There are a lot of people who voted for Bernie, who are now Trump supporters.
And the same is true for Occupy Wall Street.
Do you think they're going to be reading The Verge or BuzzFeed?
No!
They voted for Trump!
They don't want to hear you rag on the guy that they got behind.
And now they're being called racist, they're going to give you the middle finger.
Conservative meat is going to grow.
I'm going to save this for another segment coming up at some point after 6, but stick around.
The next segment will be 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll wrap it up one more time, okay?
A guy would rather have someone he views as a racist If it means not having far-left policy.
Now, you know, take it with a grain of salt.
I don't want to misconstrue what he's saying, but it seems like he really does believe the worst things about Trump.
Maybe he doesn't really believe Trump's racist.
He thinks they're messaging... No, actually, I'm sorry.
He does.
He says the list would speak for itself for what Trump has done, but he'd rather have that?
