Democrats To Activate Rare Impeachment Powers Against Trump, Most Americans Say NO To Impeachment
Democrats To Activate Rare Impeachment Powers Against Trump, Most Americans Say NO To Impeachment. After years of Russiagate nonsense you'd think we could move on. But perhaps this has nothing to do with actually finding wrongdoing and more to do with being the losers in 2016.Democrats are moving forward with a vote on impeaching Trump and calling for rare authorities that will aid their ongoing investigations against him even though most Americans say no to impeachment. Perhaps they know something we don'tMany are speculating that with Trump's take over of the republican party his new base didn't bother voting in the 2018 midterms. There is speculation based on polls that in 2020 when Trump's base votes they will check R across the board giving the Republicans control of all three branches once again.If this is true then impeachment makes sense. Democrats have been chasing far left policy that is unpopular with Americans, it is likely they won't beat Trump in 2020. This could mean that Democrats know they are about to lose the house and must act quickly even if it damages them in the eyes of the public.The democratic party has been fractured, from far left new comers like Ocasio Cortez, infighting with establishment party members, and an overall weak 2020 line up, things do not look good for Democrats moving forward.Trump has dramatically changed the GOP, but maybe the same thing is happening to the Democrats albeit a little bit slower.It is possible that Democrats ignite a new voter base and pull ahead reclaiming government moving into 2020. Even AOC herself is demanding Trump's impeachment.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
For the past several years, we've had to endure wasted time and nonsense in the media and political landscape over Russia conspiracies.
And it was all nothing.
Literally nothing.
Made up nonsense for years.
How frustrating.
Feels like we wasted all of our- All of our time was wasted talking about Russia, Russia, Russia.
Now that that's over, you'd think we'd be able to move on, but we can't because now the Democrats want to investigate Trump over crimes he may have committed during Russiagate.
Look, I get it, man.
Maybe he did something wrong, but I'm just so over this.
Can you please get back to legislating and doing your jobs instead of whinging over having lost in 2016?
Why is this a thing?
Well, apparently, they want to impeach Trump over what he may have done But most people don't care and don't want this to happen.
Not only is Russia an obstruction and not a top issue for most voters, most people have plainly stated they do not want Trump to be impeached.
What I can say, though, is I think they fear this may be their only chance to play whatever last-ditch card they have against Trump.
Can they go after him on policy?
Probably not.
They've been chasing after the far left all these policies.
They're fractured.
Moderates and far left, fractured.
We know it, okay?
We can see the fighting between Pelosi and the squad.
So what do they have?
Hail Mary pass.
Okay.
Impeachment.
Only way you're going to beat Trump in 2020 because of all the advantages he has.
There's no policy position they could take that would win, especially when they continually embrace the far left.
With now Bernie Sanders bringing on Linda Sarsour as a campaign surrogate.
They've lost it.
But AOC is also calling for impeachment.
Here's the thing.
According to one report that I had read in the past, I don't have it pulled up, they said the reason the Democrats took the House in 2018 was because Trump's voters are not your typical Republicans and they only came out for Trump.
They didn't come out and vote in 2018.
But in 2020, they will come back out for Trump.
What that means?
They're going to check R across the board, which will result in Republicans sweeping and potentially taking back the House.
Now, there is some fear due to a wave of Republican resignations and retirements, they might not be able to do it.
But the chance is still there.
A good chance that Trump's base will elect these Republicans, in which case the Democrats have to act now, even if Americans don't want them to.
Congratulations!
You're taking an unpopular action which will probably hurt you come 2020.
But here's the thing.
If the Democrats believe they're going to lose the House, then they don't care if they take unpopular action because they already expect to lose the House.
Well, I got a bunch of stories pulled up.
Let's read about what's going on, and I want to show some polling data as well as what's going to happen with the House and why impeachment may be a priority.
It could just be a last-ditch effort regardless of anything else.
But we have this story from Politico.
House Judiciary Panel Preparing Vote to Define Trump Impeachment Probe.
We're also hearing from the Washington Post.
Judiciary Panel to Activate Rare Impeachment Time Authorities.
Highlighting Divide in Chambers Endgame.
And there is something else interesting.
Ocasio-Cortez is demanding impeachment due to something Trump did in the springtime where he stayed at one of his own resorts.
We'll read this and try and break down what's actually happening.
Let's start with Politico.
Now before we do, Head over to TimCast.com slash donate in order to support my work.
There is a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address you can send things to.
The best thing you can do is share this video.
I'm competing with the YouTube algorithm.
They're propping up CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and they're deranking independent political commentary.
If I'm gonna be successful in doing this, if you think my content is good, then I need you guys to share it.
And if you don't think it should be shared, so be it.
I don't deserve it anyway.
Let's read the news.
Politico reports, House Judiciary panel preparing votes to define Trump impeachment probe.
Dems hope that explicitly defining their impeachment inquiry will strengthen their leverage to compel testimony from witnesses.
I just want it to stop.
I'm sorry, I know I already opined a bit, but I'm just so sick of this.
I don't care.
But we should see what they're planning, so they say.
The panel could vote as early as Wednesday on a resolution to spell out the parameters
of its investigation. The precise language is still being hammered out inside the committee,
and with House leaders, a draft of the resolution is expected to be released Monday morning.
The issue was raised Friday during a conference call among the committee's Democrats.
A source familiar with the discussion said any move next week would be intended to increase the officialness of the ongoing probe, following a six-week summer recess in which some Democrats struggled to characterize to their constituents that the House had already begun impeachment proceedings.
Democrats are hopeful that explicitly defining their impeachment inquiry will heighten their leverage to compel testimony from witnesses.
Though the language of the resolution is still in flux, some sources said it could incorporate elements of traditional impeachment probes, such as offering access to the president's attorneys or providing for more time to question witnesses.
There was discussion among some Democrats on Friday's call about the strength of the language in the resolution, according to sources briefed on the call.
So, you know what it sounds like to me?
It sounds like they have no idea why they want to impeach the president, so they're like, let's just, I don't know, investigate and activate rare impeachment time authorities so that we can scrape the bottom of the barrel until woodchips start flying out.
Look, man, Trump may have done something wrong.
We've got a story here about him staying at his own resort, something to that effect.
We'll read it.
The problem is, They've beat the dead horse so much, I just don't care.
And maybe that's a bad thing, but it's their own fault.
After three years of Russiagate and Rachel Maddow and this insane nonsense and getting nothing done, I just don't care.
2020 is around the corner.
Please prioritize policy positions that will get people on board with your platform.
I gotta say, man, not a day goes by I don't love Tulsi Gabbard more and more and more.
She put out a video saying free speech, civil rights, and no political correctness.
She's challenged big tech.
She's anti-war.
She is anti-private prisons.
And you know what?
You know why I'm bringing her up right now?
It's not arbitrary.
She's calling them out.
Thank you!
Impeachment would only tear U.S.
apart.
And she's right.
This is what leadership looks like to me.
Somebody who's clearly on the other side of Trump's aisle saying, why are we doing this?
And I agree.
I gotta say, man, when I saw the impeachment stuff, my eyes roll so fast I faint from dizziness.
And then I see this about Tulsi Gabbard stepping up on principle and saying, it's only going to tear us apart.
She's right.
Nancy Pelosi said the same thing, and I'm not a fan of Nancy Pelosi.
I can disagree with Pelosi and even Tulsi on many political positions, but this is principle to me.
The impeachment stuff is a waste of time.
Don't take my word for it.
Majority wants Trump out, but not through impeachment.
The latest poll only a couple weeks ago, okay?
So why can't we move forward and talk about what people in this country really want?
Yesterday's video was me talking about how Ocasio-Cortez is leading the Democrats down a path that no one likes.
The example I give?
When the Democratic debates aired on CNN, they got 10 million views.
In fact, Tulsi Gabbard was the most searched for candidate afterwards.
Amazing.
When they did the climate change town hall, they were last in ratings.
So I get it.
Climate change is a serious issue.
Take it from me.
I've worked for several environmental organizations, okay?
But most people do not care about this.
So even if you think it's the right thing to do, you need to talk to the American people about things they care about.
The Democrats aren't doing that because they're following Ocasio-Cortez, and the media keeps giving her attention.
It's a mistake.
This is a good example.
Ocasio-Cortez has called for impeachment, and of course the Democrats are charging away.
Nancy Pelosi goes to battle against the squad for various things, telling them to calm down, stop with the tweets.
Saying impeachment is a bad idea?
Well, AOC is clearly on the impeachment side, a more extreme and divisive platform.
So here's what we're going to do.
Look, I don't need to read through the polls.
You get it.
A couple weeks ago, the American people said no, and I've talked about it.
I want to read about why Ocasio-Cortez thinks Trump should be impeached, and I want to read about what Trump did with this Scottish resort.
After that, we'll come back to Tulsi Gabbard.
The New York Post reports, Ocasio-Cortez has issued a fresh call to impeach President Trump amid reports of a House investigation into a military stop at his Scottish golf club.
The president is corrupt and must be impeached, the freshman Democrat posted on Twitter Friday.
The tweet was a response to news that a U.S.
military aircrew slept over at Trump's Turnberry Golf Resort in Scotland earlier this year, fueling Democrats' suspicions that he is profiting from government use of his properties.
Okay, hold on.
Calling for impeachment is a bit preemptive, AOC.
And I gotta say, even if it's true, he did, you know, for whatever reason he stayed there, if it's true, you know, I'll pull up the story.
Then an investigation, fine.
Here's the thing, though.
A lot of people were upset that Pence stayed at a Trump resort.
Is it profiting Trump, or is Trump offering a discount?
You know what I mean?
So anyway, here's the thing.
There's the emoluments clause.
There's, you know, Trump's not supposed to be profiting off of his presidency.
I wholeheartedly agree.
He should not be doing that.
So an investigation, it makes sense to an extent.
Just because Trump is a businessman and owns property doesn't mean any time anyone stays there, it's nefarious.
In fact, we could make the inverse assumption and you could say Trump's business loses money by offering a discount.
I'm not trying to defend the president over this.
I'm just saying we have no idea.
So I think, okay, fine.
Investigate and let's make sure the president isn't trying to enrich himself through the office.
I hope that's fair.
It sounds fair to me.
But to outright call for impeachment just because you heard this is the problem.
Ocasio-Cortez routinely jumps the gun and says outrageous things and then Democrats just march behind her gleefully as she, like I said the other day, she's like the Pied Piper leading them all into the ocean.
Look, man, I don't want a corrupt president, but I will tell you this.
All of this stuff is a sideshow.
And I gotta say this, even if it's true he enriched himself in this way, well, I will be quite perturbed by that, and I still think the appropriate way to win is not to push forward unpopular positions like an impeachment inquiry, and to instead use your time to win.
I guess the Democrats think they're going to lose.
Seriously.
I think the Democrats are so convinced they're going to lose, they're like, last ditch Hail Mary, just go for it.
Let's see what Tulsi Gabbard had to say, and then I want to talk about the potential for the Republicans reclaiming the House in 2020.
Rep Tulsi Gabbard said in a new interview that she opposes an effort by dozens of House Democrats for an impeachment inquiry into the President, saying it would cause further divisions within the U.S.
In an interview on Full Court Press with Greta Van Susteren, the 2020 candidate for President took a firm stance against impeachment, putting her at odds with other Democratic candidates for President, including Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren.
I don't support impeachment, Gabbard said.
You know, I think it's important for us to think about what is in the best interest of the country and the American people, and continuing to pursue impeachment is something that I think will only further to tear our country apart.
Make no bones about it, we need to defeat Donald Trump.
But I think it's important for our country's sake, and our future, that the voters in this country are the ones who do that, and I believe that we will.
Bravo!
You see?
Aren't I right in saying Tulsi Gabbard is—you know, aren't I right in choosing her on the Democratic side?
I gotta say, man, look, there are a lot of people who try to act like I'm conservative, even conservatives, simply because I don't make videos where I screech about all of my political opinions.
But Tulsi Gabbard's anti-war position, her—this is proof of her principle.
She is correct.
She is a good leader.
I gotta say, you know, I can fawn over her all day and night, but you get it, right?
Think about all the Democrats who are talking about what we should be focusing on.
She's defending the rights of even conservatives to have free speech.
Maybe even to her own detriment.
People who would never vote for her.
That is leadership.
She is saying impeachment is a bad idea.
That is leadership.
I don't want to make this a pro Tulsi Gabbard video.
You get the point.
There are some people on the Democratic side who can see reality and say this is a bad idea.
Americans don't want this, okay?
Even moderates don't want it.
But let's read about, let's move on.
The story about Trump, and I do want to highlight this just so we can get a little bit of context about Trump and this Air Force stop.
Here's the story, at least the gist of it, from Politico.
They say, Air Force crew made an odd stop on a routine trip.
Trump's Scottish resort, in early spring of this year, an Air National Guard crew made a routine trip from the U.S.
to Kuwait to deliver supplies.
What wasn't routine was where the crew stopped along the way.
And that's Trump's Turnberry Resort, about 50 miles outside of Glasgow.
Since April, the House Oversight Committee has been investigating why the crew of the C-17 military transport plane made the unusual stay, both en route to the Middle East and on the way back at the luxury Waterside Resort, according to several people familiar with the incident, but they have yet to receive any answers from the Pentagon.
I'm curious if they would care if they stopped at any resort at all.
I'm curious if Trump charged any money at all.
So that's why I think an investigation makes sense.
If it is unusual, which, again, I don't really know if it is because I don't, you know, I'm not, I don't have a track record of researching every military stop for every trip, and it's possible that a lot of these stories are only highlighted now because the left is looking for something to attack Trump with.
Is Trump doing something that other people didn't?
Honestly, look at it this way.
Obama deported—I could be wrong about this, so fact check me—but my understanding is Obama deported more people in his first year than Trump did in his first—or in his second year.
Wait, no, no.
In his second year.
Then Obama did.
Yet people act like Trump is doing something outrageous.
Obama detained kids in these same facilities.
They act like Trump is unique in doing this.
Obama did a lot of things they act like never happened.
That's why I don't necessarily trust this.
But I gotta admit, I'm totally fine with investigations within reason.
You know, to figure out what's going on.
But that's the gist of the story.
If it turns out Trump is trying to enrich himself, then good, we will vote him out.
And I completely agree with Tulsi.
It's just a reason for us to say, okay, maybe we don't want to vote for this guy.
But that's one of the strategies the Democrats have.
Not that they actually intend to impeach the president, but that what they're saying is, by investigating, they can present potential damning information that will hurt Trump.
So let's move on.
I'm not going to read through this necessarily.
I highlighted this because it's the latest polls and we can see that Biden is leading the pack, but once again to show the divide in the Democratic Party.
I don't think it's necessarily as important, but I wanted to throw it in there just to mention that Bernie Sanders and Warren are kind of split with Biden taking the You know, the frontrunner position.
It's just more of what we already know.
But it's, you know, the point I'm trying to present once again is that AOC and these impeachment left and the far left don't represent what most Americans want.
I want to just briefly mention this story.
Republicans move to Nix primaries in show of support for Trump.
Uh, as a counterpoint to what I just showed.
Republicans are coalescing around the party of Trump.
Many people have emerged to try and challenge him on the Republican side, so several states are preparing to get rid of their primaries outright to prevent anyone from challenging Donald Trump as the incumbent.
This shows there's two different things, you know, there's two, it's the inversion of what we see in the Democratic Party.
That's, that's the best way to put it.
Republicans coming together to defend Trump, whereas on the Democrat side, everything is fractured and falling apart.
But here's the big question.
The question as to why they would do it.
Well, one of the reasons is they probably will lose the house and then no longer have any opportunity to do anything at all, which means they have to act now.
In this story from NPR a couple days ago, they say, GOP retirements spike, diminishing hope of retaking House
majority in 2020.
It may be that Republicans have lost too many people.
The general idea I've heard, because I did a video about this on my second channel, is that a lot of Republicans don't want to be in the minority because it's just a difficult and losing position.
Well, that's a shame, okay?
You don't win the majority by bowing out because you're losing.
That's being a sore loser and a fair-weather politician.
If you really believe in what you believe, stick around and fight, and maybe the Republicans will reclaim the House.
This is bad news for the Republicans.
But whether or not that has any impact, here's a story I want to highlight from June.
Rumblings from Trump's base could shape Democrats' choice for 2020.
The story says, President Donald Trump's political base may not be as impregnable as commonly assumed, and that could have big implications not only for the Democrats' strategy against Trump in 2020, but also for their choice of a presidential nominee.
Detailed new research by the Democratic voter-targeting firm Catalyst found that the party's big gains in the 2018 congressional election were fueled not only by unusually high turnout among voters sympathetic to the party, but also by larger-than-expected defections from the GOP among voters who had backed Trump two years earlier.
I like these two stories because they're presumed negatives.
And that's probably a fair assessment.
If Republicans are retiring and voters are defecting, sounds like all-around bad news for Trump.
However, I've noticed that many Trump supporters view this as Trump taking over the party.
That the old Republican Party establishment is gone, and now this is the party of Trump.
This was highlighted when Trump showed a meme, I believe Trump showed a meme, where the symbol was not an elephant but a lion.
And the lion was then called, you know, fascist or something.
I don't know.
Everything he does is called fascist.
Whatever.
But it was pointed out that the reason there's a line was because Trump has changed the Republican Party to something different.
And I think both sides agree.
The left claims he's taken it over and he's turned fascist and Never Trump or GOP people are saying something similar.
I don't know.
The point is, things are changing.
Many of these defections may be old-school establishment types, people who don't like the populist message, I guess going for a Democrat or going independent.
You could say the same thing for the Democrats, though, because they're absolutely fractured.
However, this might actually be good news for Republicans in 2020.
Because although you're seeing defections from the GOP, Trump did a really good job of igniting new voters, or people who've never voted before.
It's entirely possible, as I mentioned.
I don't have the story pulled up.
Many of the people who voted for Trump in 2016 did not come out in 2018 because they don't care for establishment Republicans.
Combine these two stories, what do you get?
New pro-Trump Republicans emerge to run against these Democrats, and that will awaken Trump's base.
So let me clarify.
These retirements, the 15 or so from the Republican side in the House, may be, some of them at least, old-school establishment Republicans that Trump voters don't care about.
But what happens when new Republicans run on the Trump message?
Well, now those Trump voters come out to vote.
Meaning, could be victory for those candidates on that alone as new blood.
However...
It could also be that it's just the power of Trump.
People come out to vote for Trump, they don't care about anything else, and they just draw a straight line down Republican on the ballot, which gets whoever runs a huge advantage.
It's hard to know for sure.
I don't know if this is good or bad.
I think it's a fair assessment to say this is all really bad news for Trump.
But as I've pointed out, it could actually be good news because Trump's voters are new to the party.
And that may be why they're pushing so hard for impeachment right now.
While they have the House, their only time is now.
I really do believe, based on the actions the Democrats are taking, they're preparing for a defeat, a resounding defeat.
So they're just like, Gun it!
Go for it!
Otherwise, they wouldn't be doing this, okay?
Impeachment is not popular.
It is bad news for them.
It's going to hurt them in 2020.
But if they were resigned to defeat already, then they wouldn't care if it's going to hurt them.
They're just going to do whatever they can now as a last-ditch effort.
I guess we'll see what happens.
I can only really say in the end that, boy, isn't Tulsi Gabbard great.
She has defended civil rights, free speech.
She's called out these wars.
She has actively tried to meet with people.
Look what happens.
Tulsi Gabbard met with Assad and they smear her to no end.
Trump meets with Kim Jong-un, they smear him to no end.
I can't say What they did was a net benefit or is going to work out.
But you can see that there are people who act on principle.
It's mind-blowing to me how they smear Trump for meeting with Kim Jong-un and saying he's playing up to dictators.
We need peace, okay?
We're not the world's police.
We shouldn't, you know, we don't want North Korea to have nukes.
Trump crossed into the DMZ, and to me, with my family history, for those who don't know, I'm part Korean, that was profound and amazing.
I seriously, I was surprised.
Because even if it doesn't work out, at least he tried.
Now they accuse him of doing a PR stunt, but they do the same thing with Tulsi.
And then when it comes to impeachment, Tulsi points out the obvious.
Americans don't want this, and they smear her again.
I think you can see where my politics are.
It's kind of obvious, right?
There is an establishment authoritarian, and there is a populist side.
And I'm falling very obviously on the populist-libertarian spectrum of whatever is going on.
Though my politics lean left, it should be plain and simple to anybody why I am a fan of Tulsi, and why I understand people are fans of Trump, and why the establishment is angry with efforts to end war.
Because they love it.
It's the industry they love.
I'll leave it there.
Impeachment, bad idea.
But stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at YouTube.com slash TimCastNews, 6 p.m., and I will see you all then.
Boy, I gotta admit, this is a tough one.
This is a tough call.
Donald Trump tweeted that he was supposed to meet with leaders of the Taliban and the President of Afghanistan at Camp David just before 9-11.
And when I heard that, I was like, whoa, wait, what?
Well, it was to broker some kind of peace agreement and formally end the war in Afghanistan, or at least something to that effect.
Well, apparently Trump called it off because the Taliban took credit for an attack that killed innocent people, including an American soldier.
And now the whole thing, it's just very confusing, right?
Here's the thing.
The left is outraged.
I don't want to say the left, but a lot of people on the left, many far leftist resistance types, are going, Harumph!
How dare Trump court the Taliban at Camp David just before 9-11?
And I can understand why they're angry, because my first reaction was very much like, you know, like, that seems crazy.
However, you know, what makes it such a difficult call is that I think ending the war in Afghanistan, bringing our troops home, takes priority and takes precedent.
Could Trump have chosen a better time?
Perhaps.
I gotta admit, I just don't know.
So while I can be, I'll admit it, I'm kind of shocked he would do that, I think about the potential results, which would have been an end to the war in Afghanistan.
Here's the thing.
You got a lot of people on the left saying, oh, Trump's lying.
He's making it up.
He wasn't going to meet with anybody.
Listen, man, for the past week or so, we've known Afghan withdrawal is expected.
We're talking about doing this.
And if we do, we need to know what's going to happen next, which it says to me, it makes complete sense that Trump would have a meeting with the Afghan president and the Taliban to figure out what comes next.
I don't know most of what's going on in Afghanistan and neither do you.
Most people don't.
There's a lot of classified information.
There's a lot of people on the ground who know better than I do.
So it's hard for me to get extremely angry and say it was the wrong choice.
I think sometimes being a leader Well, there are difficult decisions that have to be made, and that means you might have just kind of a lose-lose.
Afghanistan was a mistake, at least in my opinion.
And again, I don't know a whole lot of, you know, again, there's a lot of classified information, so I can only assume, you know, based on what we know and everything, it was the wrong call.
But now we're faced with a situation where we're going to be withdrawing.
We're going to be pulling out, potentially, if the New York Times reports, 5,400 troops in 135 days.
And if that's going to happen, then there's got to be peace agreements.
And perhaps Trump said, it's got to be now.
This is the time to do it.
Well, he canceled those meetings.
I don't know what's right.
All I know is ending the war would be a really, really good thing.
Here's the thing.
People are slamming Trump for going to meet with the Taliban, right?
And they do the same thing to Tulsi Gabbard because she went to meet with Assad.
Anyone who is a smart leader knows diplomacy matters.
But think about this, okay?
They get mad at Trump for meeting with Kim Jong-un, for meeting with Vladimir Putin, for meeting with the Taliban.
Well, what are you supposed to do?
Declare war?
If you're gonna stop the conflict, you have to talk.
And so I can certainly be kind of offended or angry that it would happen just before 9-11.
At the end, I'm like, okay, well, then you better get it done, okay?
You better get this withdrawal, you know, started.
You better figure out a peace agreement.
In this instance, it fell apart, so no, they're not gonna be meeting, whatever.
Why is everybody so angry?
Chill out.
Even Politico saying it would have been extraordinary.
Here's the thing.
Daryl Davis.
Famous de-radicalization, you know, race relations expert.
If you're not familiar, he pulled over 200 men out of the Klan.
He went to speak at an event I was sponsoring.
Antifa showed up and protested.
And they called him a white supremacist.
So you see the mentality these people have.
They don't want peace.
They want war.
They want violence.
And they want conflict.
Am I angry that Trump was going to meet these people on 9-11?
You betcha!
I couldn't believe when I heard this tweet this morning.
Do I want peace more?
Yes.
I'm willing to be angry if it means we can have peace and bring our soldiers home.
They shouldn't have been there in the first place.
How about this?
Peace by any means necessary.
Not necessarily.
Okay, I'm kidding.
That's what they say, though.
You know, Antifa says by any means necessary.
Okay, what you're saying is like, you know, violence.
What I'm saying is maybe we will be offended.
Maybe it was, you know, I don't know why he chose this time.
But we know that the talks of withdrawal have been on the table and maybe that's all we get.
Fine.
Let me be angry if it means there's no more war in Afghanistan.
We shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Let's read the story from Politico.
They say Trump says he cancelled secret Camp David meetings with Taliban leaders, Afghan president.
The Sunday talks, had they happened, would have been an extraordinary moment in the history of the United States and Afghanistan.
They say President Donald Trump on Saturday said he had canceled secret meetings with Taliban leaders and the Afghan president set to take place this weekend at Camp David, while also calling off the ongoing peace negotiations with the Taliban after the Islamist militia admitted responsibility for a recent attack in which a U.S.
soldier died.
The announcement, delivered on Twitter, astonished much of Washington and raised questions about the future of the U.S.
and Afghanistan if the peace talks do not get back on track.
But the fact that a Camp David session was in the works at all underscored Trump's belief that he's a master one-on-one negotiator and can strike deals with even the toughest U.S.
enemies.
He said, Unbeknownst to almost everyone, the major Taliban leaders, and separately the President of Afghanistan, were going to secretly meet with me in Camp David on Sunday.
They were coming to the United States tonight, Trump tweeted.
Unfortunately, in order to build false leverage, they admitted to an attack in Kabul that killed one of our great, great soldiers and 11 other people.
I immediately canceled the meeting and called off peace negotiations.
What kind of people would kill so many in order to seemingly strengthen their bargaining position?
Trump continued.
They didn't.
They only made it worse.
If they cannot agree to a ceasefire during these very important peace talks, and would even kill 12 innocent people, then they probably don't have the power to negotiate a meaningful agreement anyway.
How many more decades are they willing to fight?
It was a difficult Saturday to verify Trump's stated reason for calling off the talks.
The Taliban have long scoffed at the idea of a ceasefire, and they have been behind many recent attacks in Afghanistan.
Separately, there were early reports that the Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani, was postponing his plans to visit the U.S.
Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty, cited an unnamed Afghan cabinet minister, saying the U.S.
delayed Ghani's visit because he was unhappy with a draft peace agreement between the U.S.
and the Taliban.
The talks, had they happened, would have been an extraordinary moment in the history of the U.S.
and Afghanistan.
The U.S.
invaded Afghanistan after 9-11 attacks, the anniversary of which is Wednesday, overthrowing the Taliban government there because it was harboring al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
Plans for the secret talks were held very tightly inside the Trump administration, and officials reached Saturday night would not say who would have attended.
Attendees would likely have included Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S.
envoy for Afghan reconciliation.
It's not clear if John Bolton, Trump's hawkish national security advisor, would have attended given a recent report that he's been largely sidelined on the issue.
That's great.
Bolton is a warmonger, and it seems that Trump is listening to his base and to pundits, whether for good or bad.
I'm all for not having more war.
So I wonder, You know, one of the biggest smears Tulsi Gabbard has faced is that she met with Bashar al-Assad.
And why did she do it?
Well, they claim she's an apologist.
That's absurd.
You need to talk to people to get the fighting to stop.
And that was her intention.
And I think she was right.
I don't know if meeting with Assad was fruitful or the correct thing to do, but I applaud her efforts and the principle that she's willing to show That she's willing to live by if it means ending these wars.
I don't know why we're in Afghanistan.
I mean, I know why they said we are.
There's a lot of conspiracies, there's a lot of theories, there's a lot of beliefs as to why we're doing it.
What I can say is, it seems to be fruitless and expensive for the American people.
Now I understand that the economy is boosted when we build weapons, and we have weapons, and it allows us to secure our position as the global superpower.
I don't know if that is philosophically and morally the right way we should be moving forward.
It is a challenge.
It is.
I understand that a lot of the American way of life is built upon, you know, America enforcing, you know, certain rules around the world, which I don't want to get into the complicated mess of what it is.
But there's things like the Cutter Turkey Pipeline, you know, the Gazprom natural gas monopoly, things like that you've got to really look into.
And I'll admit, You know, I was talking to Steven Crowder about this and I said, I like Tulsi because I really, really detest and despise that we send our troops off to foreign countries for regime change wars and we have them sitting in the Middle East for, you know, God knows why.
And he said, I don't necessarily agree, but I understand the perspective.
Trotter said, that when the president gets into office, they can be an idealist, they
can be all, you know, hey, we're going to end war, but once they see those documents
and they realize this is how bad it really is, they realize that we have no choice but
to be doing what we're doing.
I don't necessarily agree.
I don't necessarily agree, but I understand the perspective.
And I would say I mostly agree.
However, I think what happens is when you get into office, you see the power you have
and you're like, we could give up this power.
We could.
But isn't it better to have the power?
There are a lot of people who believe in free speech and democracy and all these great constitutional things, but then they get a ton of power and they refuse to give it up because they're like, if it's not me, it'll be someone else.
And at least I'm the good guy.
And that's what everyone always says.
And maybe it's true.
Maybe it's true.
I don't know for sure.
I don't know what necessarily the right thing or wrong thing is because I don't have all the information and most people don't.
What I can say, however, is if Trump is going to get us out of Afghanistan, he will be one of the best presidents of this generation.
I don't want to say the best, but I'm actually paraphrasing something to the effect of what Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks said.
So don't take that as my opinion.
Cenk tweeted out, if Trump avoids war, With Iran, he will be a better president than George W. Bush.
Obama couldn't get us out of the Middle East.
In fact, he sent more troops.
If Trump can pull it off, then I think he will have been better, at least in a lot of ways.
It's probably not apt to say he would be one of the best, necessarily, because there's a lot of factors involved in being the best.
There are some things Trump is good at, some things he's bad at, but ending war for me is a huge, huge... Look, I feel like When it comes to what we do in this country and how we live and the things we buy,
War is the pinnacle, the most dangerous and alarming thing, okay?
We can build spaceships to the moon.
We can build spaceships to Mars.
But if we blow each other up, we'll never get there.
And so de-escalating these tensions and making sure there's peace is extremely important.
Now, I recognize the U.S.
presence in Afghanistan may actually help maintain that peace, remembering that, you know, we were attacked on 9-11 and the Taliban was harboring some of these people who plotted against us.
So, I can't tell you what the right thing or the wrong thing is.
All I know is based on the information I have, it definitely seems like we could do better.
And it would be better if we leaved.
It would be better if we left.
I was gonna say if we were to leave, and then I mixed them up.
So it's actually a weird and interesting position.
There are a lot of people who just say no war, period.
I tend to be one of these people who thinks war is just straight bad, you know, for the most part.
However, I also understand the nuance.
You know, do we want Russia to fill that gap in Afghanistan?
That's a challenging question.
It is.
And that's why these peace talks would be extremely important.
If what Trump is saying is true, and I don't necessarily believe him, but I will admit when it comes to a lot of war issues, he kind of just blurts it out.
If what he's saying is true, then we absolutely need an agreement between the Taliban and the current Afghan president.
We need to know that, you know, it won't, you know, fall to some other power or China would move in.
And it would probably be a good thing to have these talks.
It also seems like, if this is true, Trump made the right call.
Because there is no leverage to be gained by, you know, committing an attack while you're supposed to be engaging in an agreement that will bring, admittedly, more prosperity to all parties involved, even if it's not perfect.
I guess, in the end, what really matters is that no matter what Trump does, he will be slammed and mocked and ridiculed.
And now we have this top trend.
Check this out.
Taliban Trump.
Let's refresh it, see what it says.
If it loads.
You can see people are saying, you know, Trump shoving his head up his... Right, you get it.
You can see that people are criticizing, you know, the right because Rashida Tlaib has met with certain groups and now Trump is meeting with them.
Trump had a tweet.
Okay, I don't... Why is this... Why is Twitter doing this?
I don't care about this tweet.
Trump had a... Okay, well, they're making fun of it anyway.
So there you go!
Whatever.
Trump had a tweet in 2012 where he mocked Obama for negotiating with the Taliban.
And now Trump himself is doing it.
And perhaps it's true that once Trump got into office, he actually saw and said, OK, we got to do this.
So I'm not going to make this one much longer.
Look, it is the challenge.
The big challenge here is, oh, well, Tulsi Gabbard pops up.
The big challenge I see is, are we are we upset and offended that he was going to host the Taliban just before 9-11?
Honestly, I am.
I do.
I think that's a disgrace.
However, If it was the only option, if whatever, I just would rather see the withdrawal.
I'd rather see a peace agreement.
I'd rather see the fighting stop.
And if today was the day it had to be, well then, I don't know what else to say.
Sure, I can be angry, and I can be offended and all that stuff, but what are the tangible results?
For now, nothing.
It doesn't seem like there's going to be any tangible results other than Trump tweeting it out.
Some people are accusing him of trying to distract the media once again.
I don't think that's the case.
Politico reported on this, but I just don't know.
What I can say is, I'm willing to be shocked and offended if it means an end to the war in Afghanistan and our troops are coming home.
I don't know if I'm right, I don't know how else to say it, but I can say this is a tough one.
You know, initially, I was pretty, like, angry.
You know what I mean?
I actually recorded a couple minutes before it stopped and started over because I was thinking about it and I was just like, Isn't the end result better?
Isn't it better to be angry and to be offended if it means we actually can end the war in Afghanistan and get our troops back?
I think it is.
And so, I think it's fair to say, you know, I don't know about you guys if you're upset that he would do this, but if the end result is worth it, then it's maybe worth being upset.
I honestly don't know.
All I know is war sucks.
I like Tulsi Gabbard.
There have been a lot of really funny points A lot of conservatives have said—I can't remember where I saw this.
It was an American conservative website or something.
And they said, Trump needs to replace Bolton with Tulsi Gabbard.
And I'm like, yes.
Yes, absolutely.
I think Trump's going to win.
I think he's going to win 2020.
If the best thing we can get is Tulsi Gabbard replacing John Bolton, That would be great.
And then even bring on Yang in an economic capacity.
That would be truly incredible.
But we'll see what happens.
I don't even like making videos talking about overt war issues.
You know what I mean?
It's very complicated.
Most of you know my position.
I'm very much where Tulsi's at.
That's why I like her.
It's just like, stop.
America, stop.
We don't need to be going into these countries and doing these things.
And there may be some perspective that we do if we want to maintain our position as a superpower.
You know what, man?
Is it really worth it?
Maybe it is, because we don't know the alternative.
But I lean towards it being a bad idea.
Anyway, let me know what you think.
We'll keep the conversation going.
You can comment below.
Next segment will be at 1 p.m., and I will see you all there.
Back in 2016, Bernie Sanders sounded a lot like Donald Trump.
That's not just my opinion.
There were stories from basically every news outlet comparing Bernie to Trump.
The populist message was huge.
Bernie Sanders was talking about border security and these free trade agreements being bad.
He said the Second Amendment argument was an urban versus a rural issue.
He was right.
And Trump was saying many of the same things.
But when it came to a lot of social issues, choice, life, etc., you saw that clear divide.
This is why Bernie lost some of his voters to Trump.
Well, I shouldn't say it like that.
I should say the DNC lost Bernie supporters.
Because a lot of these people were more about economic stability and economic populism.
Bernie Sanders has gone nuts.
I've lost what little support I still had for the guy.
He's been increasingly embracing more AOC positions as opposed to left-wing populist positions, for which I appreciate it.
Now, even though he still defended border security, this right here should be an example of him truly losing the plot.
Bernie Sanders trots out Linda Sarsour as a campaign surrogate.
You kidding me?
Linda Sarsour?
Who is giving Bernie Sanders advice?
Because whoever's doing it is destroying his actual campaign.
This is fringe insanity.
Linda Sarsour is extremely divisive and offensive to regular people.
You want to sacrifice the middle?
You've done it, Bernie.
I mean, look, he tweeted out something about jailing, you know, energy executives.
Which is insane.
And then a lot of people on the right made the joke that Bernie's already calling for the gulags.
I get it, Bernie's a communist, haha.
But listen, that's still- why would you tweet that?
We're not gonna go arrest- like, people are saying, you know, arrest the bankers from, you know, 08 and the 07 crash and all that stuff, and it's like, okay, I get you're angry, but did they do anything illegal?
Okay, if you can prove that, fine.
If you're saying simply because fossil fuels are bad for the planet you want to arrest people, you are nuts.
But let's put all that aside, okay?
Maybe Bernie is just being, you know, I don't know, he's hyperbolic, he's trying to pander, which are still bad things.
But Bernie has increasingly embraced the fringe left, the most insane positions, and bringing on Linda Sarsour is the perfect example of that.
Let's read this story.
Before we do, however, Head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
And I have to do this because YouTube deranks independent political commentary.
But I guess the other thing that I often mention, too, is let's break some echo chambers and some bubbles.
Share this video on whatever platform.
That way, people who normally wouldn't see it will.
YouTube's gonna recommend this video to people who probably already agree with me.
But you can recommend it to people who probably don't.
So that's a good thing, right?
But let's read.
The Daily Caller reports, Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders enlisted the services of far-left anti-Semite Linda Sarsour to campaign—I added that part, by the way—to campaign for him this week as he seeks the Democratic presidential nomination.
Well, you've lost any support I would have given you at this point for bringing her out.
Sanders tweeted Sarsour's remarks in a video that went viral Friday night and Saturday morning.
Sarsour has come under fire for her harsh criticism of Israel, defense of Sharia law, and refusal to condemn Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.
She has also been accused by Jewish organizations of holding anti-Semitic views, accused of the New York Times and I believe it was Tablet magazine, reported extensively how the Women's March, for which she was like a leader of, was keeping Jewish women out and they believe insane conspiracy theories about Jewish people.
So, Bernie, I get it.
Look, Bernie's Jewish, I'm not.
Still, this is a step over the line.
By all means, Linda Sarsour has her free speech.
She's free to say what she wants.
And when you associate with people who hold these detestable views, detestable views, I'm free to say, I denounce.
And I want nothing to do with that.
You know what, man?
I remember in 2016.
The Bernie Sanders I remember hearing about is not the Bernie Sanders we are seeing today.
And it's a shame.
Bernie has continually pandered to the woke fringe of the left these weird cons- Like, listen, man.
Linda Sarsour is the perfect embodiment of whatever you could call the alt-left.
You know why?
Because she's a part of the woke left ideologues, and she's an anti-Semite.
Congratulations!
The only difference between her and the alt-right is whether or not they agree that white people are good or bad.
You've embraced this full speed, and good for you.
I'm glad you've done it, because now I know a vote for him, a vote for you, would have been a huge, huge mistake.
A huge mistake.
In 2016, on the debate stage, Bernie Sanders said that white people don't know what it's like to be poor.
And that, to me, was one of the most confusing things I've ever heard come from the man.
But I'm glad.
This is why free speech is important.
It's why freedom of association is important.
But Bernie Sanders embracing her says to me everything I need to know.
You are nuts.
You're part of this fringe, insane ideology, and good!
Because when Bernie only says the things I want to hear, I was all for it, but I'm glad he's doing this now!
Cause I, I, this, he's crossed the line as far as I'm concerned.
Let's read on.
Quote, I would be so proud to win, but also to make history and elect the first Jewish American president this country has ever seen for his name to be Bernard Sanders, Sarsour said.
Somehow, I just don't believe that.
Now, I will say, she has apologized.
She has called out, you know, after the controversies, condemned anti-Semitism.
That's good.
I appreciate that.
And whenever people do, you know, I always say, give people the benefit of the doubt.
The problem with Sarsour is that we still see the actions from her crowd, we still see the statements from her crowd, and the things they've done pertaining to Israel and the Jewish community, that says to me, they don't really mean it.
And I can say this for the alt-right too and other people I've talked to, I don't believe them either.
You're fine, you know, I will accept an apology, but only so far, okay?
You get one apology, then we see what you do, and you don't do the right thing.
And I'm not going to believe you, okay?
I'm not.
So, as far as I'm concerned, Bernie Sanders may have well just brought up, you know, some alt-right white nationalist type.
And there you go, Bernie.
That's what you've done.
The Women's March.
Extremely controversial.
They've been asked to step down, and they didn't.
So what now?
Bernie Sanders has shown us his true colors.
Later in her speech, Sarsour promised that Sanders' foreign policy would prioritize Palestinian interests.
A foreign policy that sees Palestinians as deserving of human rights and self-determination, Sarsour said.
Sanders' decision to use Sarsour as a campaign surrogate comes after other left-wing groups and organizations have distanced themselves from her.
Most notably, the Democratic National Committee ended its formal support in January of the national Women's March organization.
Of which Sarsour serves as a board member.
Impressive!
I'm pretty sure- I could be wrong, okay?
So forgive me if I am.
But I'm pretty sure Debbie Wasserman Schultz, like, came out and was like, nah, we don't have anything to do with this.
And now Bernie is like, I absolutely do!
You're nuts.
Absolutely insane.
I have criticized Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ocasio-Cortez for their association with the Women's March.
It's- it's- it's- Look, man.
Let's do this.
Don't, you know, don't take my personal opinion for it.
How about Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is accused of having a left-wing bias.
Now people on the left might say that's not true, people on the right will say it is.
Ignore all that.
Wikipedia is not a perfect source, but it does aggregate, and it does try to be fair.
Whether it is or isn't is besides the point.
The point is, they have a whole section about her being accused of antisemitism and being called on to step down.
The criticism is not fringe.
The criticism is mainstream, with even the DNC ending its support.
And not only that, there's charges of antisemitism and her dispute with Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Now listen.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was a victim of the worst aspects of Sharia law.
And what did Linda Sarsour say?
She said, she's asking for an A-whippin', I wish I could take their vaginas away, they don't deserve to be women.
This is not a good person.
This is a fringe weirdo who believes insane things, and I am shocked that Bernie would bring her on.
So, not only is she accused of antisemitism, from her own personal actions and statements reported by the New York Times and other outlets, she refused to condemn, to clearly condemn, Louis Farrakhan.
And you know what, Twitter wouldn't ban the guy.
I guess I should say, a lot of people are gonna tell me they're not surprised.
I tweeted about this and said, Bernie has just lost it.
And the response I got from people was like, just?
Yeah, Bernie's been, since 2016, embracing the woke insanity.
And here was the, this is the point of the video I made yesterday, okay?
Yesterday I made a video saying Ocasio-Cortez is dragging the Democrats to complete ruin.
Let me give you the succinct version.
She represents a few million people who have this insane, fringe, far-left ideology.
Not the majority of voters.
I thought Bernie Sanders could have beaten Trump.
I really did.
Not anymore.
Not with this.
This is going to be plastered all over every attack ad if Bernie gets the nomination.
So here's the Democrats, you know, final position.
You've got Biden.
Biden is leading the pack in the polls.
Unfortunately, progressives will not get behind Biden.
And we've heard it from, you know, like the Young Turks and Michael Moore.
We know it.
And the moderates know it, too.
But what happens if you put up Bernie Sanders?
You think moderates are going to get behind this?
I'm sorry, man.
The Democrats don't exist anymore.
Look, I get it.
They do.
I'm being hyperbolic.
But there's three parties today.
There's the Trump party.
There's the moderates.
And there's the far left.
Democrat-Republican don't mean anything anymore.
This, to me, is truly, truly unhinged.
What a terrible, terrible idea.
What a horrible mistake.
I cannot stress how insane it is to see Bernie bring out Linda Sarsour as a surrogate.
I've said in the past I used to be a big fan of Bernie.
Even though I'm critical of a lot of his policies.
And as he's kind of moved further and further into the fringe nonsense of the pandering, woke nonsense left, whatever you want to call it, I've said, you know, there's still some things I like about the guy.
You know, I still, you know, not anymore.
This is it.
This is it.
You know what, man?
Throw your hat in with the white supremacists for all I care.
She's no different.
From what I've read, I believe this in my personal opinion, that she is an anti-semitic conspiracy theorist who believes insane things.
And that's because of the reporting of the New York Times and Tablet Magazine, and it's because of the company she keeps, and that's why the DNC severed ties from the Women's March, and that's why they wanted her to step down.
So what does Bernie do?
Bernie props her up.
Congratulations!
I'm out.
Next segment will be at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
It's a different channel.
I'll see y'all there.
It's time to fight back.
To stop sitting around complaining about everything and actually do something about the insanity that is partaking in our streets with the rise of the far-left and Antifa.
This video is going to be about pending legal action, and as such, I will make this disclaimer.
Everything you're about to hear from me is my personal opinion and interpretation of events that happened around the Mines IRL event.
I may very well be wrong, but to the best of my ability, these events are true as I describe them, at least based on my personal interpretation of what I experienced.
You'll notice this page.
Mine's IRL, MythInformed, and the Broadway Theater of Pitman.
I'll give you a really quick bit of context.
An event was planned by the guys from MythInformed.
The contract was signed in March.
The speakers were publicly available, and the theater said, you're good to go.
In fact, only a few months before the contract was signed, Ann Coulter spoke at the theater.
However, something happened just about two weeks before the event was supposed to take place.
You may be familiar with the event.
I've talked about it quite a bit.
Daryl Davis spoke there.
He was the headlining speaker.
He is a man who deradicalized over 200 Klan members and one of the most prominent anti-racists in the world.
I'm truly inspired that he spoke at this event.
I was a sponsor of this event, and the event was to take place in my area, in New Jersey, near the Theater of Pitman.
This is why the theater was chosen.
About two weeks before the event was supposed to take place, a bunch of far-left activists, including known Antifa groups, started a harassment campaign.
There were veiled threats, and very awful things were said.
Initially, the theater defended the event, and even publicly so, is my understanding.
But for some reason, at the last minute, canceled.
And I'll read the breakdown.
I'll tell you the gist of this video.
There's going to be a lawsuit against the theater because they bent the knee to the far left and Antifa lies.
We cannot live in a society where people can make a phone call randomly and make some ridiculous claim with no evidence and then a theater will break a contract that was standing for five months completely unlawfully.
There was no grounds for breaching the contract.
It caused untold damages to the events.
And although the event went off and we made it work, I want to be careful about saying we because I have no legal standing here, okay?
I was just a sponsor.
So to an extent, I kind of do.
The contract holder is myth-informed.
And they're the ones leading this charge.
The ultimate goal of this video?
It is a call to fundraising to push back and tell businesses, when you have a contract and agreed to do something, and you bend the knee to fringe far-left terrorist groups, you are responsible.
Now look, I understand.
There are people to go after for defamation.
But the theater overreacted and caused damages.
We need to make sure that businesses uphold their contracts and their agreements and don't bend the knee in the face of extremist liars over a fringe internet campaign.
But let me make this very, very clear.
I'll read through this.
Maybe a little long.
I'll try to keep the video short.
Take a look at this photo.
This is from the G20.
No G20, spare our store!
And there's the Antifa flag right there.
You can see it.
How about this photo?
You see this destroyed business?
The window's smashed out.
What's next to it?
Oh, this window's fine.
That's an Antifa flag.
How about this photo?
This business appears to be fine as well, and they've got G20, and it's slashed right through.
This is how these people are forced to live.
This is how businesses have to operate.
Because they bend the knee and they say, oh please don't hurt us, we'll fly your flag and cower in fear.
No.
The only way this stops is when we make the businesses stand up and uphold their contracts.
The Broadway Theater of Pitman had no right to cancel the contract on the Mines IRL event.
So let's read this.
Let's read this story here.
Let me zoom in.
If you want to join in and help sue the theater who canceled the contract, and it cost, it was a lot of money.
Trust me.
The original theater had a thousand seats.
The new venue only had 500, which means because of the actions of this theater, critical promotions and marketing and everything was shuttered.
And admittedly, we weren't completely sure as to what was going to happen.
We did have backups.
We had plans.
But their actions, in my personal opinion, caused all of this.
Now I get it.
The far left does what the far left does.
Here's the thing.
Ann Coulter showed up, had an event.
They were protesters.
Theaters had fine.
Apparently, I was told, the theater told the organizers, don't worry about protests.
But for some reason, Antifa making these phone calls, they said, you got it, we'll back you up.
I was also told, and this could be wrong, but I was told by numerous people, they even tried to get the VIP reception shut down.
Again, that could be wrong, but several people in the town told me that.
Why they were so malicious, and why they were working so hard to protect this fringe group of lunatics on the left who are lying, I have no idea.
But they're on the hook.
They breached a contract, and a message needs to be sent.
You cannot bend the knee to Antifa.
You can't do it.
I refuse to live in a world where I've got to plaster my windows with the flag of the far-left extremists begging them, please.
No.
When you do that, you must take responsibility.
If they want to fly the flag and support the actions of Antivon shutting our event down, then they're responsible as far as I'm concerned because they were the contract holders.
But let's see how MythInformed puts it.
They say...
In August 2019, the Broadway Theatre in Pitman, New Jersey was supposed to be the location for a one-day conference aimed at ending racism, violence, and authoritarianism, sponsored by Minds, an emerging social media networking site, and organized by the volunteer-run non-profit organization MythInformed.
The conference was to feature good-faith socio-political discussions between people of wide-ranging perspectives.
Headlining the event was Daryl Davis, a de-radicalization expert who has personally de-radicalized more than 200 Klan members by forging a connection through dialogue.
And I want to stress this point right here.
If you want to get involved and help fight back, MythInformed is fundraising for legal action against the theater.
In my opinion, I'm being very careful, A message must be sent.
If you bend the knee to Antifa, you are working with them.
Daryl Davis is not far-right, he is not a fascist, nor are any of the speakers at this event, and they decided to side with Antifa.
Okay, then so be it.
You've made your bed, and you will lay in it.
Personally, I think this is the right thing to do, and I will be making a contribution as well.
Again, I'm not a contract holder.
This is myth-informed, and I believe minds.
Let's read on.
Despite the positive mission of the conference, a group of protesters calling themselves NoHateNJ apparently was formed just at the last minute to go after the event, which includes some other groups, I'm not going to read their names, but the Democratic Socialists, along with other anti-fascist activists, and yes, Hub City Antifa, began a campaign of social media dissension with the aim of shutting down the event.
The group opposed the conference and encouraged followers to make contact with the Broadway theater, encouraging them to shut down the event.
I will stress, The VIP reception held in Pitman defended the event, and it went off without a hitch.
No problems.
Protesters showed up.
Nothing happened.
Everybody had a good time.
Drinks were had.
Laughs were had.
People of all walks of life were there.
And for some reason, Antifa called Daryl Davis a white supremacist.
I have no idea why.
They say, Just 12 days prior to the event, as intimidation from these anonymous thugs continued, organizers received an email from the theater notifying them of their intent to renege on their contract.
However, activists claimed the theater defended the event, and this may have actually antagonized them.
The activists put out an email where they say it came from the theater and the theater said that because the event was legal and diverse and inclusive, they would protect it.
But for some reason, after all that, the theater backed out of the contract, they say.
This left organizers with just days to find a new venue.
This was a monumental task.
Event organizers were all volunteers from out of state, several individuals using their paid time off just to travel to New Jersey at the last minute to hunt for a new venue.
400 tickets were already sold, and they had to find a new venue with 400 people.
However, during this time, ticket sales and promotions had to be cut off, a critical time for sales.
Several speakers dropped out of the event at this time, some with non-refundable travel costs, causing volunteer organizers to rally and find replacements and book additional costly last-minute travel arrangements.
Despite our commitment to continue to host the event, incorrect reports the event was canceled spread online, partly because the theater gave a statement to the press.
Some event ticket holders requested refunds due to concerns the event wouldn't take place at all.
And that stemmed from the theater giving a statement to the press.
Finally, six days prior to the conference date, a new venue was secured in Philadelphia.
Transit costs between the new venue hotels and after-party locations were higher and more of a logistical challenge as a result.
They say, overall significant ticket sales were lost due to the destabilization of the event thanks to this unlawful contract cancellation.
Our goal of raising $250,000 is twofold.
It'll be used for litigation regarding the interference with, disruption, and cancellation of Minds.com conference located in New Jersey.
Businesses shouldn't cave to rogue activism and should honor their contract obligations.
Mines does not accept this form of cowardly censorship, and I will stress, to these businesses who put spare our store, please, I have no respect for you.
No respect for anybody who would fly the flag of their oppressors who threaten to destroy their livelihood.
If you want to stand in front of my venue and tell me I can't be there anymore, I will walk right up to your group and stand and look you in the eyes and say, move.
I don't care if you want to smash my windows.
I don't care.
Whatever you plan on doing, you will not stop me.
And if you're a business that has a legal contract for five months and only at the last minute pull it because you bent the knee to these lunatics, I will be there and I will not back down.
Now as for the rest of you, I can't ask you to do this.
Because admittedly, to quote Captain America, the price of freedom is high, but I'm certainly willing to pay it.
And I will be, in contributing to the legal fund.
And if you want to stand and say to these businesses, if you bend the knee to these people and side with them, then we're not going to back down.
The theater wanted to side with Antifa, so be it.
Then they're gonna have to pay the costs of the damages incurred by these organizations because they chose to side with Antifa.
A message must be sent to these businesses.
You cannot bend the knee to these people because I refuse to live in a society where cowards fly the flag of those who threaten to destroy them.
I will never do it.
Never.
They say any remaining monies will be used to hold bigger and better events.
These events are needed to help depolarize our culture.
We want to send a message to extremists that thuggery and intimidation will only strengthen our resolve, not deplatform or weaken it.
I can't tell you that you should get involved in this.
I will.
I will be making a substantial contribution in the legal fight.
I can only say that there are a lot of challenges in front of us as it pertains to holding events and being free.
The event in question, not a free speech event.
I certainly believe in free speech, but that was not the intent of the event.
This was left-wingers, right-wingers coming together, mostly centrists to be honest.
We know that from the data we received.
Mostly centrists.
To have a conversation about deradicalization and ending racism.
Daryl Davis received a standing ovation.
If you are going to side with the fringe extremists who would seek to shut down that conversation, you are no better than the white supremacists themselves.
A stand must be taken.
Too many people have complained that no one is doing anything.
Well, I'm certainly going to do something, and I ask you do the same.
Make a donation.
I believe, according to the site, it is tax-deductible.
I have to be clear and careful.
I can't tell you everything I'm saying is, you know, all correct.
To the best of my ability, it is.
Everything I understand, as I'm saying it now, is to be true, and it's mostly my opinion and personal interpretation.
Mythicists, the myth-informed guys, have put on events where they've tried doing this for years.
I shouldn't say tried, but they've done this for years.
And this was just the latest iteration.
And the theater cost a lot of money.
A lot.
I don't know what the total cost will be.
I just know that something needs to be said.
This venue had no problem with the event.
They supported it.
They even defended it.
At least the activists claimed they were doing it.
A leaked message from activists showed the theater was defending the event, calling it a diverse event.
So why then at the last minute flip sides and defend Antifa and these lunatics?
On my call with these people, they smeared us and defamed the speakers.
I will not stand for it.
So a lawsuit will happen.
If you want to get behind this suit and send a message to these venues that if you bend the knee to Antifa, you are basically no better than they are, then you can do it here, mythinform.org.
It'll be in the description below.
I don't know, man.
I don't know what should or shouldn't be done.
None of this money in any way goes to me or anything like that.
They've explained what they're going to do with it.
I just, I'm sick and tired of the insanity.
I'm sick and tired of these, of this and this.
Look, the only reason Antifa uses these tactics is because they work.
Send a message and let the businesses know it won't work anymore.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment will be in a couple minutes and I'll see you all shortly.
CNN apparently is involved in this absurd fight with Donald Trump about this stupid Noah poster that he had.
Okay, listen.
Here's my understanding of what happened, and I'll read this.
Trump held up a poster from a previous forecast, and then he said it might actually hit Alabama.
Apparently that was on CNN, too.
I don't know too much, because honestly, I don't care.
Now, CNN has claimed Trump was dangerously misinforming the public.
For days.
Trump goes back and forth with the media, and for some reason it's a front page story.
Here's the thing.
Donald Trump tweets this video where he's holding the poster board, and there's a cat.
And he's got a laser pointer, and the cat is looking around.
The point is...
Trump is distracting the media because other more pressing things are happening.
You could criticize Trump for the U.S.
response to the actual hurricane.
No, they're just concerned about Trump saying Alabama and drawing a sharpie.
Trump enrages critics by tweeting cat video after Noah says he was right on hurricane threat to Alabama.
He also posted a video where a CNN staff said Alabama and then it plays Alabama on repeat.
That was on CNN.
If there's any real criticism, it's that Trump's data was outdated.
That he was too late on his projections because they were old.
Now CNN is claiming the staffers at NOAA are outraged because they're being forced to side with Trump.
I don't care.
I literally don't care.
You know what I do care about, though?
The media being pathetic and falling for it every time.
And then Trump tells you he does it.
Even Ezra Klein has pointed this stuff out.
Yet, it doesn't matter.
Trump can tell you, to your face, hey, I'm gonna distract you next week, okay?
And they'll go, nice try, Trump.
And then he does!
And then he puts a video of a cat with a leg!
Trump tweeted this!
I kid you not!
Look at this.
Trump actually tweeted this.
Where's the, there it is.
Donald Trump tweeted this video.
I'm gonna play it, you can't, if you're, It's Benny— I can't play the Benny Hill music.
It's Benny Hill music while a cat is staring at a laser pointer.
The media in this country has become just a vapid, petty, ridiculous shell of its former self.
Look, I think it's really funny that Trump tweeted this, but boy, am I kind of sad.
I used to work at some of these companies, you know, and I was like, boy, isn't it great to produce media?
Oh, jeez.
And that's why we're doing our own thing, you know, with subverse.
But, um, let's read this story.
Trump enrages critics by tweeting cat video.
Yup.
They say, after the federal weather agency endorsed Donald Trump's much-maligned tweet about Hurricane Dorian threatening Alabama, the president weighed in Saturday night with a cat video.
You may ask, but Tim, what was Trump distracting anyone from?
Well, he just reappropriated military project funding towards the wall, for one.
You could sue him over that.
I guess everyone's too busy over being a cat watching a laser pointer.
You have a cat or a dog and your laser pointer and the cat goes crazy trying to get it and you can't get it.
And you're like, if only the cat realized he was chasing nothing and there's nothing really there.
It's just a light and the light goes away.
That's how Trump must feel when he tweets and the media just starts wiggling their arms in the air and running in circles.
Meanwhile, Trump's actually doing other things.
You know, hey, it's smart.
They say the clip featured a still image of Trump in the Oval Office Wednesday as he presented a forecast on the path and intensity of Hurricane Dorian.
A cat was seen sitting atop a CNN logo and following the red dot of a laser pointer across the screen.
How did we get to this point where the President of the United States is tweeting this?
You know what, man?
Look, there's criticism to go around, even for Trump, for being silly and for doing these things.
Fine.
But the media thinks they're somehow above it.
You know, I was watching that segment from Brian Stelter of CNN where he's like, no, you have to understand Trump was misleading the people with it.
And I'm like, you don't get it, do you?
You're no different.
You're both just playing the silly game.
At least on Trump's side, he's actually doing something with his other hand.
They're literally the cats.
Like, I get it.
The cat is playing the game, too.
But the cat doesn't know they're being tricked.
Actually, no, the media should know better.
They say it was a day earlier that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said in a statement that Trump was right to tweet last Sunday that Alabama would most likely be hit much harder than anticipated by Dorian.
According to NOAA, information provided to the president and the public between August 28th and September 2nd demonstrated that tropical storm force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama.
My understanding is even CNN said that.
In siding with Trump, NOAA admonished its National Weather Service office in Birmingham, Alabama for contradicting the president with a subtweet a minute later saying Alabama will not see any impacts from Dorian.
Look, if Trump is putting pressure on NOAA to side with him, it's a bad thing.
But here's the question.
This thing right here where you've got the cone of uncertainty, did Trump make that up?
No, it looks like an actual NOAA screenshot.
So you can criticize the president for having outdated information, that's fine.
But it's not like he was intentionally misleading people.
This is the thing that they do.
They say Trump is lying.
Well, lying implies intent.
It's possible Trump is just wrong.
Is that so hard to believe?
I guess when you have Trump Derangement Syndrome, everything's evil and a lie.
And when you're a regular person, you're just like, yeah, Trump's wrong again.
That's it.
Okay, moving on.
I don't care about his Sharpie.
I got up-to-date information from Noah.gov or whatever the website is.
I don't care if Trump put out a little thing where he drew a little Sharpie.
Please move on.
They say, NOAA's statement, which was unsigned, said the Birmingham National Weather Service Sunday morning tweet spoke in absolute terms that that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time.
Early NOAA projections had Dorian potentially reaching Alabama, and 24 hours after Trump's tweet, the agency said there was still a 5% chance of tropical storm-force winds buffeting the southeast of the state.
I'm gonna go for it.
I'm just gonna say it.
Even if it was only 5%.
Isn't it a good thing that people in that state were preparing?
I don't understand what, like, the clouds from Dorgan, I saw a photo, even hit New Jersey.
Not the hurricane itself, but it pulled in this sweeping, like, really long cloud, whatever you want to call it, cloud formation over the East Coast.
And it rained, it thunderstormed.
And isn't it important that people prepare?
I'm not saying, like, you know, it's a good thing if Trump instills panic.
I'm just saying, if there was a percentage, a 5% chance.
Here's the way I put it to people.
If you could buy a lottery ticket, And winning meant your home and life was completely destroyed.
Would you buy it?
You'd be like, no, what's the upside?
There isn't one.
If you have a 5% chance, that's what, like 1 in 20, that you might actually see some damage, go prepare?
I don't think it's a bad thing.
But why the media is playing this game to me, it's just because they are a cat chasing a laser pointer.
Here's the problem.
The media, as the cat, they can be annoying.
You know?
The other day I was playing video games and the cat's up on the TV blocking it.
I'm like, I'm trying to play Spelunky.
You ever play Spelunky?
It's a great game.
And the cat's standing there.
I'm like, cat, move!
Soon as I did, I took the laser pointer and I put it on the ground and the cat jumps down and does a little thing with his paws and runs away.
And then I went back to playing my video game.
And that's how it must be for Trump.
Trump's like, okay, I'm gonna do this thing.
But then the cat jumps in front of you and you're like, you roll your eyes.
So you take the laser pointer and you make him run away and then you get your job done.
They say the Oval Office stunt triggered a wave of national media coverage, with op-eds criticizing Trump for Orwellian distortions of reality.
In a series of reports— Ah, I just, I can't do it.
Trump didn't make the board.
It was a screenshot from NOAA, calling it Orwellian.
It's like, oh my, oh, come on, man.
At the very least, you can say Trump's information was outdated.
That's it.
But they're acting like he's the Ministry of Truth, lying.
Do they think he photoshopped that?
Is that what they're saying?
So they say, the American Meteorological Society, the Professional Association of Atmospheric Scientists and Weather Forecasters issued a statement of support for Weather Service employees.
AMS believes the criticism of the Birmingham Forecast Office is unwarranted.
Rather, they should have been commended for their quick action based on science in clearly communicating the lack of a threat to the citizens of Alabama.
And if that's because Trump had outdated information, then absolutely they're correct.
And then Trump finally posts this silly meme, and now they keep going!
They keep going.
On Twitter, Trump's cat meme went viral, earning 4.5 million views.
This is the timeline we're in!
Apparently flagged for Trump by a supportive user, the meme was understood as a troll of the media, and particularly CNN, for getting so easily played by the president.
Listen, let me tell you as rationally as I can break it down for you.
Trump showed an outdated image.
He drew a sharpie on it showing potential impact of Alabama.
He was probably wrong.
Can I call him a liar?
I don't think so.
I mean, it looks like he got a real thing.
We're done.
The media then slams him for it.
Trump responds tweeting he's right.
The media slams him again.
Trump says he's right.
They go back and forth.
Meanwhile, Trump is doing other things.
It's amazing how little effort Trump puts into his tweets and how much power it commands.
All I can really say, Trump got it wrong.
His information was outdated.
Moving on.
That's about it.
I think I'm done with this video, too.
But I will add one final thought.
Donald Trump is a funny guy.
He's an entertainer.
We know he is.
He's a successful celebrity.
He entertains people.
Whether you want to admit it or not, I don't care.
It's true.
At the social media summit, Trump was self-deprecating, and it was funny.
You don't have to like the guy or support his policies, but he gets a laugh.
Look at this!
Millions of views!
He knows what he's doing.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
I initially made a video about the study behind this story, and the point of the video was to talk about how dating apps have made it very, very difficult for young men to grow up.
I'll give you the quick context.
Back in the day, when there was no social media, there were no dating apps, a young woman only had her local community to choose from for a relationship, the people she knew.
So that meant that young men and young women would form relationships.
With dating apps now, women have access to a nearly infinite, you know, basically to every single guy within a certain range, which means older, more established and successful men have access to women they normally didn't.
So now, you know, younger women will find an older guy and the younger guys will be left wanting.
Look how the New York Post frames this.
Broke men are hurting American women's marriage prospects.
This woman, Hannah Frishberg, surprisingly at the New York Post, has turned the failure of men into a woman's issue.
It's quite impressive.
But I love how they frame this.
So let's read this story, and then I want to talk about something related but slightly different.
They say.
There's a devastating shortage of men who have their acts together, according to a new study that may not be so surprising to all the single ladies out there.
Research now suggests the reason for recent years' decline in the marriage rate could have something to do with the lack of economically attractive male spouses who can bring home the bacon, according to the paper published Wednesday in the Journal of Family and Marriage.
Most American women hope to marry, but current shortages of marriageable men, men with a stable job and good income, make this increasingly difficult, says lead author Daniel Lichter in a press release.
Here's the thing.
Back in the day, women didn't have to work.
The guy would work, the woman would find a man, and they would get married, and then the man would support the woman, and they'd have a family.
Well, for a lot of reasons, society has changed.
For better or for worse.
I tend to lean towards liberty and freedom, and if a woman wants to work, she should absolutely have that right to do so.
But this creates something interesting when you look at evolutionary biology or evolutionary psychology.
I am not a scientist or an expert, but it basically What we hear is that women are attracted to men of status.
Men are attracted to beautiful women.
Well, here's the problem.
For a woman who now has a degree and money, she won't be attracted to someone who is at or below her level.
Even if the guy has a good job.
Let's say this guy is a plumber, and he's making a decent amount of money.
I don't know what the salary is for a plumber.
But she has a degree, so she feels higher status.
She says, I don't want to marry a plumber.
I want someone better.
But the problem is equality.
Who wants to marry down?
Now, I think the real issue is not so much that there's not marriageable men, because that implies women only want to marry up.
If we're talking about pure equality, the problem is everybody wants to marry up.
Well, it probably would be more so women, because a lot of guys would have no problem having a housewife.
The problem is, with equality comes no real advantages to being married.
Being married gives you tax benefits, right?
There are benefits to marriage.
But if you don't need to be, then why do it?
Now let's invert this.
They say, you know, one of the reasons there's a decline in marriage is because women don't have any men they can marry.
Okay, how about the inverse?
How about me?
I'm successful.
I've got a great career.
I work full-time.
Certainly, there are tons of women with whom I could marry.
That's not fair, and nor am I interested in doing so.
Marriage is a lopsided proposal in today's day and age.
If men and women are equal in the workplace, in terms of the law, why should marriage law benefit women?
If I marry a woman and then she divorces me after a certain amount of time, I gotta give up my stuff and pay alimony?
Not interested.
If we want true equality, we need to get rid of these laws.
The laws are in place because back in the day, a woman wouldn't have a job.
And if they got divorced, well then the guy had to still support her.
And that kind of makes sense.
It makes a certain amount of sense.
The reason being, we can't have society collapse now because a marriage isn't working out.
That's one of the reasons why a lot of couples have to get marriage counseling first.
Here's the thing, though.
In today's day and age, women can have jobs.
Women can be CEOs.
In fact, the military-industrial complex is all run by women now.
So yes, there's an ever-increasing amount of wealthy and successful women.
I don't like this argument.
And I actually think it's a bit unfair to actual progressives and social justice activists.
It implies women only want to marry men who make more money than they do?
Who are, you know, marriageable?
Hold on.
Why is it that back in the day, a woman wasn't expected to have a job, and she was considered a viable wife?
Today, a man is still expected to have a job to be a viable husband, even though the woman is working?
I think even feminists would disagree with this message, because certainly feminists would realize a woman can be the breadwinner, and the man can stay at home.
What's wrong with that?
Let's read a little bit more.
They say, Lichter adds that unless your dream man is an Uber driver, the dearth of would-be grooms is prominent in the current gig economy of unstable, low-paying service jobs.
I reject this.
You know van life is extremely popular right now?
Yes, there are many couples that love the idea of working equally on the road with neither being at home having an adventure.
This idea that somebody wouldn't want to be with an Uber driver is offensive.
How many... I guarantee you there are a ton of Uber drivers who are married with kids.
So it's not so much what's actually happening on the left or the right.
The fact is, there are people... Actually, I'm not surprised that this is coming from the New York Post.
It actually makes sense.
It's going to be a more conservative perspective that a man needs to be a breadwinner.
So now we're getting this weird circumstance where it's a women's issue that men are failing.
Let's read a little bit more.
To investigate the man drought, researchers created profiles of potential husbands based on real husbands as logged in American Community Survey data.
Then they compared these hypothetical spouses with actual unmarried men.
They found that a woman's made-up hubby makes 58% more money than the current lineup of eligible bachelors.
The study reveals large deficits in the supply of potential male spouses.
The study concludes, Many young men today have little to bring to the marriage bargain, especially as young women's education levels on average now exceed their male suitors, Lichter says.
Some ladies are even starting to date down in order to score a forever partner.
And sure, there's the whole love factor in marriage, but in the end, it is also fundamentally an economic transaction.
Absolutely.
Well, I'll tell you what.
When I'm looking for a partner and potential marriage, I'm 33, okay?
My parents were married years before, like, way earlier than I am now, and I already had kids and everything.
So I'm 33 with no kids and I'm single.
Well, there's a lot of reasons for it.
In today's society, women are expected to work and things like that, okay?
Like, to be equal to men.
Totally agree, it's fine.
It's a good thing.
One relationship I had, we both traveled too much and never saw each other.
What's the point?
I want to have a family, okay?
Well, I work 24-7 basically, which means I don't have time for homemaking, but that is an essential aspect.
I'm not gonna hire a housekeeper to raise my kids, which means I'm looking for, you know, a potential wife.
Who wants to do that?
The problem is, most of the people, most of them that I know, don't want to do that.
They want jobs.
Okay.
Or at least they're claiming they do.
In which case, most of them that I talk to, not viable options for having a family.
I don't need, necessarily, somebody who's going to be working in media, or as a journalist, to be my wife.
I'm already good friends with tons of people like that.
We've had flings in relationships, but that's not family material.
In which case, I'm left with finding what tends to be like a gold digger.
Somebody who just wants to get married because the dude has money or has a job.
That's not fun either.
Especially in today's society, where there's no real obligation to be married, and then if I marry someone and they just divorce me, I lose my money?
Not worth it.
So you want to talk about the decline in marriage?
It is the breakdown of social institutions.
And in part, it is the result of the end of traditional gender norms, for better or for worse.
Here we are, millennials, not having kids, not having families, and not getting married.
A lot of people try to claim, well, no one, people aren't having kids anymore because you can't, they can't afford it.
Not true.
That's not true.
It's true to a certain extent, but for the most part, no, because poor people are having tons of kids.
The issue is that millennials are no longer in circumstances where marriage makes sense and families make sense, and thus there won't be kids and there will be no future generation.
So this may be an answer to Fermi's Paradox.
You familiar with that?
Fermi's Paradox is, essentially, I'll give you the crappy version, if the universe is so big, mathematically, there should be intelligent life.
Why haven't we found it?
And there's a lot of proposals.
Perhaps intelligent life destroys itself.
Or perhaps, Once life gets to a point where they're intelligent, they just pleasure themselves with video games, with self-gratification, and they no longer need to reproduce for any survival reason, so they don't.
Or, their society transforms to the point where they rely so heavily on machines, they no longer need to reproduce.
What I'm trying to say is...
I look at it this way.
Millennials aren't having kids.
And it really doesn't matter.
You know why?
If Americans and Norwegians and Swedes and Europeans, whoever, aren't having kids, so what?
The rest of the world is.
It just means that whatever this culture is will cease to exist.
And humanity will carry on.
There's no real problem in having children or families.
It is an American cultural problem.
Because a problem doesn't affect other countries.
I take that back.
Okay.
It doesn't affect every country is what I mean to say.
Like, Japan is facing, you know, fertility decline for many of these reasons.
If the priority of people is to take the masculine role and work, then there will be no priority to have families.
Back in the day, the feminine role was being a mother and having a family, and the masculine role was working to provide resources for the family.
Today, all anyone does is work for resources.
With nothing else to spend money on, what do they do?
