Democrats Are Walking Right Into Trump's TRAP, NYT Implies Trump WANTS The Impeachment Fight
Democrats Are Walking Right Into Trump's TRAP, NYT Implies Trump WANTS The Impeachment Fight. More and More Democrats are calling for impeachment of Donald Trump following the Ukraine scandal. But the NYT Asks Does Trump WANT To Be Impeached?It's not that he wants to be impeached but that he wants the fight. It keeps Democrats off balance, stops them from campaigning on popular issues, and the scandal will cause a massive backfire against Joe Biden.Trump in all likelihood will not be impeached and would win the fight and in the event he does it would rally his base and give him an excuse for any policy problem.While we have seen the far left and the "resistance" continually demand impeachment, what is new are the moderate democrats now getting on board. This will put a huge divide between them and their voters as many moderate representatives come from areas Trump won in 2016.What happens when Democrats rally for impeachment but then Trump drops the Ukraine transcript and its a big ol nothing burger?It will be Russia 2.0 and leftists are already on thin ice having failed that play.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
It sounds pretty absurd on the surface, but the New York Times is actually asking if Donald Trump wants to be impeached.
It may be a trap, and the Democrats are walking right into it.
The theory goes that basically, Much like the Kavanaugh effect, an impeachment fight would embolden Trump.
It would empower him.
The conservative base would rally around this idea, saying, stop, this is absurd.
But more importantly, the most important thing, is that independent voters do not want impeachment.
They don't.
And according to one story from NPR, they never really did.
They just want to know that the economy will improve, their healthcare will improve, their lives will be made better.
They want to talk about immigration.
If Trump can get the Democrats focused on impeachment, then the Democrats won't be campaigning on core issues.
But more importantly, right now, with all of these Democrats coming out and talking about the need for impeachment, or as BuzzFeed News puts it, Nancy Pelosi's impeachment dam is breaking, we don't even know what Trump said on that phone call to Ukraine.
So this is where everything is stemming from.
All these calls for impeachment are ramping up because of the scandal involving Ukraine, which I'm very sick of.
But here's the thing.
What happens when all of these Democrats start coming out demanding impeachment over Ukraine, and then once everyone's all riled up and once they're just about to pull the trigger, Trump drops the transcript and we learn nothing burger.
Russia 2.0.
But regardless, let's say there's a real scandal there.
Trump may have done something wrong.
But after years of Russia, Russia, Russia, do you think middle Americans, you know, working class people, independent voters want to hear more of this?
No.
No, they don't.
They're sick of it.
It's the party that cried Russia, the boy who cried Wolf.
Well, let's start with this story from the New York Times that asks, does Donald Trump want to be impeached for reasons the president might welcome articles of impeachment?
And again, to clarify, it's not that he wants to be impeached.
It's that he wants the impeachment fight because it makes the Democrats look nuts to embrace an unpopular position and ignore their actual talking points, what Americans actually want.
Before we get started, 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, but of course the best thing you can do is share this video.
Yeah, you've heard me say it a million times.
YouTube deranks independent political commentary.
I've recently learned I actually think they're upranking my channel, so that's good news, I guess.
But they still do give a major advantage to corporate channels.
In the end, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC are skyrocketing.
Channels like mine aren't doing as well as they used to, so if you do like it, share the video wherever.
But let's read.
This is by Ross Douthat.
I'm probably pronouncing that wrong.
When it comes to determining when it makes sense to impeach a president,
congressional Democrats are working with 200 words in the Constitution,
three significant historical precedents, the fervor of impeachment advocates,
The anxieties of swing state members of Congress and all the polling data that a modern political party can buy.
None of this, unfortunately, tells them what to do when the president in question actually wants them to impeach him.
That Donald Trump actually wants to be impeached is an argument that Ben Domenech, the publisher of The Federalist, has been making for some time.
That the president isn't stumbling backward toward impeachment, but is actually eager for the fight.
And this is the main point.
It is a trap, okay?
I don't know if it's actually a trap.
It feels like Democrats are walking into a trap.
Trump and the Ukraine thing.
We don't know what is in the phone call.
We don't know who this supposed whistleblower is.
Apparently, not even a whistleblower.
Just imagine what's going to happen.
The president wants the fight.
So he coaxes them into this, you know, the 4D chess theory.
They get all riled up.
Nancy Pelosi steps up and says, let's do it.
And then Trump goes, here's the transcript.
And it says nothing.
Boy, will they look silly.
Perhaps.
Perhaps.
Trump and his administration and his strategists learned how bad Russiagate was for the media and the left, and they said, let's make a mini-Russiagate.
Let's prove it.
Let's hit this one so hard on the head with the hammer that there will be no doubt in anyone's mind that they've lost it.
If that transcript comes out and there is nothing in it, the Democrats are going to look insane.
They say, in his email newsletter Monday morning, Dominic cited the last few days of Ukraine-related agitation as vindication, arguing that the circus atmosphere of congressional hearings, scenes of Joe Biden talking about corruption instead of healthcare or the economy, and wavering House Democrats getting forced into an impeachment vote by their angry colleagues and constituents are all exactly what Trump wants.
For my own part, I think wants is probably an overstatement, since it implies a strategic purpose, a permanent intention, and a stable mental state, none of which should be assumed when analyzing the President of the United States.
But let's go this far with Dominic.
A president who escapes unscathed from an investigation into his campaign's collusion with a foreign government And then the day after Robert Mueller's testimony is on the phone jawboning a foreign government to help out his presidential campaign, does that president seem like a man who's particularly worried about being impeached?
Who's terribly concerned with avoiding having articles filed, a Senate trial, the works?
I would say not.
And why might Trump be so unconcerned?
Maybe, as impeachment advocates insist, he just thinks Democrats are too gutless to defend the Constitution, too weak to oppose his lawlessness.
But it's also possible, he goes on to say, and yes, I'm going to assume his rationality, having just warned against that, that he might see four upsides to his impeachment, four gifts to his presidency, and perhaps his post-presidency, that an impeachment and a trial might bring.
So the first thing he says, and I'm just going to go through the points quickly because I got a lot more I want to talk about.
He says that the Democrats impeach him.
They will be doing something unpopular instead of something popular.
This is what I have been saying since the impeachment question was raised.
Independents don't want this.
Let's jump over to the story I covered earlier on my second channel.
Some Democrats warn against moving left.
Do you know what these guys, these working class union Democrats want?
They want to talk about the economy.
They want to know why their power plant is being shut down, why they're losing their jobs.
Why are you talking about impeaching the president they voted for?
Trump is going to win for so many... I believe he has the potential to win, is likely to win, for so much more than just what the Democrats are doing.
These guys in this story voted for Trump.
They're doing it because they think it will make their lives better.
The Democrats are now actively campaigning against their own party members.
But it's tough.
What do you do?
I mean, they're running against Trump.
Shouldn't they be advocating for what these guys are talking about?
Bringing back your job, securing the borders, getting better health care, and protecting the Second Amendment, as many of these men are concerned about?
No.
They fall back on impeach the president, which is wildly unpopular.
Second, Trump is happy to pit his overt abuses of power against the soft corruption of his foes.
He says this aspect of Trumpism that the president's critics find particularly infuriating.
The way he attacks his rivals for being corrupt swamp creatures while being so much more nakedly compromised himself.
Getting out of that.
There's a concern of the double standard.
Why is it that so many people in the media and the Democrat side go unscathed?
Yes, Trump wants this fight.
He wants to prove there's a double standard.
Take a look at Greta Thunberg.
I pronounce her name wrong all the time.
16-year-old.
Criticize her and they go after you.
They will say stop attacking a child.
How dare you?
But the Covington kids, who quite literally did nothing and were not public figures, were ripped to shreds in the media.
This kind of fight is good for Trump and good for his base.
Let's go and see his third point.
An impeachment battle would give Trump a last chance to solidify his hold on the souls and reputations of his possible Republican successors.
He says to understand what I mean, Jonathan V. Lass explanation of why so few Republican
elected officials are likely to break with Trump, no matter how Nixonian his traits become, saying,
one of the reasons Republicans were able to pressure Nixon to resign was that they knew
Nixon cared about the institution of the Republican Party.
Another reason is that they knew Nixon would go away and would keep quiet in a
self-imposed exile after his presidency.
He wasn't going to spend his winter years taking shots at Wiggins and Goldwater and Ford on Twitter 15 times a day.
Neither of those assumptions are operable with Trump.
I don't care too much about getting into that argument because it's kind of outside of my, you know, what I mentioned in talking about.
I've got a ton of things lined up.
It's probably going to be a long video.
But what's his last point?
His last point, which brings us to the last reason Trump might kind of like to be impeached.
Because the circus is part of the politics that he fundamentally enjoys.
Sure, sure.
But I want to talk about the political nature of it.
Look, as I've already mentioned, okay?
The Ukraine thing is not definitive.
We have no idea what's going to happen.
But he's now roping Pelosi.
Pelosi has resisted this, okay?
BuzzFeed News says, as the story of President Trump's interactions with Ukraine continues
to unravel, moderate Democrats and impeachment holdouts are changing their tune.
And that's what shocked me.
In this story that I mentioned from AP, these guys vote moderate Democrat.
They're in areas where moderate Democrats won.
And now moderate Democrats are being pulled into the unpopular impeachment fight, putting these union guys at odds with their federal representatives in their districts.
Think about it.
The point I made in my earlier video is that you've got places like Minnesota and places like this Beaver County, Pennsylvania, where registered Democrats voted for Trump nationally, but are likely to support moderate Democrats locally because they're moderate.
What happens now when those same representatives are calling for the impeachment of the president these guys like?
It's forcing moderate Democrats between a rock and a hard place.
Support the moderate Democrat?
Oh no, they want to impeach the president you supported.
Trump is playing to this divide.
I want to stress, I'm not saying it's all on purpose or 4D chess, though many will.
It may just be a happy accident that Trump exploits.
But I gotta say, to act like it's an accident, the analogy I gave is that you'd have to believe that Trump keeps randomly slipping on banana peels and then pulling off perfect backflips instead of falling down.
If all of these weird things are accidents, Trump is making the best of it and it keeps working.
In which case, he's probably just playing a better hand.
I don't think it's a grand conspiracy.
I don't think it's 4D chess.
I think when it comes to the fight, the Democrats just don't have it.
So we're seeing more and more Democrats now.
So this is a story from NBC News.
155 House Democrats, including independent Justin Amash, are now calling for impeachment.
While this is not the majority of all of Congress, it is the majority of House Democrats.
Nearly two-thirds of the 235-member caucus.
And the fact that he's roping in the moderates is what really, really surprises me.
Well, of course, Trump has responded.
Check this out.
Trump accuses Democrats of another witch hunt as talk of impeachment grows.
goes.
Quote, I think it's a ridiculous witch hunt.
I'm leading in the polls.
The only way they can stop me is impeachment, the president said Tuesday.
Why would Trump say this?
Why would he come out and say the only way to stop me is with impeachment?
That would likely encourage impeachment, right?
Well, check this out.
I want to show you some tweets from this guy on Twitter.
He's verified.
I'm not super familiar with who he is.
I think he's a writer.
But he said, I don't know how impeachment will play out politically, but Trump pressuring Ukraine's president to investigate the Bidens is worthy of impeachment, and he admitted to doing it along with Giuliani.
If Trump really did pause aid money leading up to that phone call, I'd say impeach.
OK.
I'm showing you this to point out this individual is in favor of impeachment if the story is legit.
Josh Jordan then went on to tweet this thread, which I think is actually really, really fascinating.
He said, You'd have to think that Trump wants to be impeached.
He is practically begging Democrats to do it in his comments about pressuring Ukraine's president to investigate the Bidens.
And if you look at the 2020 polls, you can see why Trump is happy to throw the Hail Mary here.
Trump is currently losing to all 2020 candidates, but he is getting trounced by Biden.
If Trump getting impeached knocks out Biden, it gives him a better chance in 2020 against someone else, especially if the Senate doesn't remove him, which they won't, barring something insane.
The Senate is not going to remove Trump.
If there's one thing we know about Trump, it's that he likes to run against chaos for his persecution complex.
If Trump gets impeached, he now has something to run against.
If he is not impeached, he'll be running on his record, which is currently not helping him in the polls.
Last, there are a lot of warning signs for the economy that have been piling up in no small part due to his trade war.
Trump has been trying to pin any downturn on the Fed.
But if he is impeached, he will scream that the economy was damaged by uncertainty from his impeachment.
That is a fascinating That's a fascinating point.
I actually kind of agree with that.
It's a brilliant strategy.
There's a risk of an economic downturn.
At least we've been hearing it.
I don't know if it's true or not, but everybody's certainly been trying to play that.
Why?
It's probably the only thing that knocks out Trump.
These Democrat union guys don't want to rock the boat.
In fact, there's a really funny story right now where a reporter in Iowa talking to Joe Biden said, make your case.
The economy is great.
Iowa voted 10 points for Trump.
Why should they vote for you?
And Biden says, that's their choice.
She says, make your case.
And he says, I'm not going to.
So if the economy is fine, why would anyone vote in any other direction?
Now, what if the economy goes down?
Then people might demand change.
And the Democrats can campaign on that.
But in the event of an impeachment, Trump can say, they have destabilized the economy and there's your proof.
And it may be true.
I mean, when Trump got elected, the stock market went up.
I mean, it went wild for a while, but now it's just up, up, up.
So if it does go down, he can easily point to these facts and say it's their fault.
And that's something he can campaign on.
Jordan goes on to say, I'm not saying being impeached will end up being a positive for Trump,
but I am saying that if he is seeing the same polls that we are all seeing,
he needs to find a way to get Biden out and have something to run against in 2020. So if you're
Trump, what do you have to lose? There are some really funny tweets. I don't know if I have them
pulled up though, but my tweet basically exemplifying everything I've said so far is,
Dems are spinning their wheels over impeachment instead of campaigning on issues care about,
and they don't even know what is in the Ukraine transcript.
Let's move on from this because I did make that point already.
Michael Tracy said, Announcing his support for impeachment, Rep Antonio Delgado of New York said, The President instructed his administration to withhold military aid that Ukraine needed to fend off Russian aggression.
Note the hawkish premise.
It's a continuation of the Mueller saga by another name.
And I highlight this because it plays into what I tweeted.
Russiagate 2.0.
Only this time, Trump just came out and admitted to it.
I mean, Trump said, yeah, we had a phone call.
And all the Democrats jumped on board.
I want to show you what you see now.
Let me ask you this.
First, let me show you all of this.
Chris Murphy, U.S.
Senator from Connecticut.
I released the following statement calling on the House to begin impeachment against President Trump.
Next, Tom Suozzi.
I believe it is my constitutional duty and the duty of the U.S.
Congress to move forward with impeachment.
Kamala Harris.
It's time to impeach.
Elizabeth Warren.
It's time to impeach.
What do you think you see then when you search for Democrats?
Let's say you're an independent voter.
Let's say you're one of these guys.
Middle, moderate, you know, working class.
Your power plant's being shut down.
You want to know where your job's going.
You are a Union Democrat.
You do a Google search for Democrats.
What do you think you see?
I'll show you.
When I do a Google search for Democrats, I see impeachment, impeachment, Impeachment?
Okay.
Are they talking about important issues?
Well, let's search the news tab and see what's up.
News.
Impeachment.
Impeachment.
You get it.
Where is the news about the economy?
What about the wealth tax?
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have a wealth tax proposal.
Where's that?
Gone.
They're not talking to Americans who will vote.
They're not talking to the Americans who they need to vote for them.
They're talking to... I don't even know who they're talking to, I'm sorry.
They're talking to each other.
Because it's not popular, even among... Well, actually, I think it may be slightly majority popular among Democrats.
It's not popular among the majority, though.
So if you're trying to tell the American people that you want to bring something to the table, well, you've just—congratulations!
The entire, entire conversation when you search for Democrats in Click News is nothing but impeachment.
You know that Bernie Sanders is proposing a wealth tax, right?
His details are coming out.
Eight percent over a billion dollars, something like that.
I don't think it makes sense, but are we talking about it?
No.
We're talking about the fact that Donald Trump may want the impeachment fight, and I think I've just laid it out for you.
When you look at everything the Democrats are saying, we don't hear about policy.
I mean, the New York Times covered the wealth tax.
They're talking about Elizabeth Warren's and Bernie Sanders' wealth tax.
They're talking about how rich people will probably circumvent it, and it may not make much sense.
But where is the center focus?
Where is the news cycle?
What was my video yesterday?
Ukraine scandal.
The video before that, Ukraine scandal.
And I've expressed in both those videos, I do not want to talk about this.
It seems like it's political gamesmanship.
It's Trump trying to use something.
It's Biden trying to use something.
And now guess what?
The Ukraine scandal is bringing Biden back into this.
Look at this, from the Daily Beast.
Ukraine likely to reopen probe of Hunter Biden firm.
Congratulations, Democrats.
You jumped on this.
You walked right into a trap.
I begrudgingly call it a trap because I don't want to play the game like Trump is doing it on purpose.
But come on, man.
The news is dominated with this?
It's not even popular.
Check out this NPR story.
They say that it's... Let's just read.
They say more Democrats than ever, a majority, now favor opening formal proceedings to remove President Trump from office.
More joined the chorus just over the weekend, after reports suggesting Trump pressured an ally to support a certain line of attack on Joe Biden.
But the fever for impeachment has yet to be felt by much of the public at large.
Polling over the first 30 months of Trump's tenure has occasionally shown his approval ratings fall measurably, as they did after—well, I gotta avoid talking about certain things.
Let's skip over that.
But they say that when it comes to actual impeachment, it's just, it's what, around 40%?
Here they say this.
Other polling, including those did not reference the Mueller report, found support for impeachment proceedings still well under 40%.
Some polls even showed support rising through the 40s or even touching 50%.
That's in the wake of the Mueller report.
But you'd have to be crazy if you think Americans enjoy this.
Well, I can't remember which, um, was it Bill Barr?
Somebody testified, and like the ratings were abysmal.
Because Americans are just over this.
They were never in favor of this, but I guess, in the end...
It's no surprise that Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren are calling for impeachment.
There's a really funny tweet.
Someone said, Elizabeth Warren has everything to gain by highlighting the scandal and calling for impeachment.
Because if information comes out that's bad for Trump, it will likely have blowback on Joe Biden.
And that puts Elizabeth Warren ahead and gives her the chance to win.
But as Josh Jordan stated, Trump might not want to run against Joe Biden, as Bill Maher stated.
Bill Maher said this, Do I want Joe Biden to be president?
Not really, but he's the only one who beats Trump in Ohio.
Trump can knock out Biden with a scandal, and congratulations Democrats, you just played yourselves.
They're walking into a trap.
Here's what I'm going to do.
I'll wrap it up here.
You get the point.
I'm going to cover this story at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
We'll go through this one, and we'll go through the wealth tax stuff, and we'll actually talk about some policy and see what's going on.
I'll wrap it up there.
You get the point.
I don't want to act like, you know, it's hard to know what Trump is doing on purpose and what is an accident.
But I'll say it.
These accidents tend to work out for him quite a bit.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Okay?
I think I'm wrong often.
Is it just my- I'm just- Listen.
Everybody needs to calm down because I've been- I'm just a dude on the internet reading these stories and telling you what I think.
There you go.
That's all it is.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it really does seem like Democrats are walking into a trap.
Trump said he might release these transcripts.
They walk right in and say impeach.
If he drops this and there's nothing in it, they're going to look insane.
Stick around.
I'm covering this story next.
6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
I will see you all then.
I think I've been pronouncing her name wrong.
It's Greta Thunberg.
I apologize.
I'm really bad at pronouncing names.
If you've been following my content for the past few weeks, there have been a lot of international names in the news from Ukraine to Sweden.
I'm just terrible at it.
But anyway, I digress.
That's just silliness.
The big story this morning, the US top trend, well not top trend, but one of the top trends, is that Michael Knowles called Greta Thunberg mentally ill.
And Fox News apologized for this.
And I think everybody needs to simmer down a little bit.
Simmer down a little bit.
First, Greta Thunberg is, and I mean no disrespect when I say this, is, according to her Wikipedia page, suffering from some mental illnesses.
She's actually addressed this.
She, uh, I think one of the big problems first is that...
Michael Knowles used mentally ill, perceivably as a negative, to try and discredit her.
And that's not, for the most part, fair.
Okay?
So, the first thing I want to say is, she has Asperger's.
People with Asperger's are absolutely entitled to debate, conversation.
It is not a mental illness.
My understanding is a developmental disorder.
And he does lump that in when this guy gets outraged.
But there's a lot of criticism to go around, I must stress.
The first thing I want to address is the big controversy.
Michael Knowles probably shouldn't use mental illness as an attempt to argue against Greta.
If you want to argue against Greta, argue against Greta.
And there's very, very easy ways to do it.
So yes, I will be tepidly critical of Michael Knowles' use of this term, but at the same time, I'm gonna recognize, you know, he's not wrong, okay?
Over on her Wikipedia page, she has OCD, she has depression, she has selective mutism, and Asperger's is a separate thing.
But OCD is a mental illness, the mutism may come from Asperger's, and she talked about being depressed and lethargic.
So he wasn't wrong.
So I think everybody could stand to chill a little bit.
Fox News, in my opinion, should not be apologizing because they're playing that game.
That's the point of using Greta.
Why these non-profits want her to be the face is because it is a shield, a political shield, so that this is the trap.
This is what Michael Knowles just walked right into.
So, while I can say...
He shouldn't have done it.
He can point out that she's a young, inexperienced, you know, girl.
She doesn't know anything about any of this and argue... If you want to argue Greta, talk about how she's 16 and has no idea what she's talking about.
That's fair.
But to fall into this trap of calling her mentally ill, you played the game exactly as they wanted it.
And you can see it in the video, because this other guy goes, How dare you?
She's a child!
Oh, you know what, man?
Time... Alright, now let's get on the other side.
How dare you?
Okay?
First of all, I found it quite hilarious that in Greta's statement to the UN, she actually calls out the people using children.
Like, I can't remember exactly what she said, but I actually found it really, really funny.
As if she's not completely oblivious to the fact that they are using these kids.
And they all clap for it.
Like, yes, that's right.
I was like, oh, these people are oblivious.
Greta is not attacking the right.
She's absolutely not.
And there were a couple of articles that came out saying that she was directly criticizing the Green New Deal.
So she's talking about climate change.
I think she fundamentally misunderstands what's going on, and she's very ignorant.
I mean that with no disrespect, okay?
I can be critical of her for her ideas.
I think it was, you know, silly and wrong to use the mental illness thing, because you've put yourself in an ad hominem boat, where now you've thought— Listen.
They want Greta up on stage just for this.
Now they can go, how dare they?
That's what they're going to do.
But you know what?
I'm going to actually cite or paraphrase or reference what Greta herself said.
How dare you, using children for your hope, to solve your problems, essentially.
That's the gist of what she's saying.
Now, she's very critical of capitalism and infinite economic growth, but she says a lot of things that I think are absolutely fine.
I just don't like the idea that the left, the Democrats, consistently use children who don't understand anything as a shield.
It's really annoying, but I will mention this.
What you're witnessing with Greta, with some of the Parkland kids.
Not all of them.
There are a couple of Parkland kids who are really cool.
Cameron Kasky and Kyle Kashev.
I'm probably pouncing your names wrong.
As I mentioned, I think they're both really, really cool and good faith and honest individuals who, you know, there you go.
David Hogg, on the other hand, I feel is like duplicitous and he's out for personal gain.
So what you see with some of these kids from Parkland and with Greta is a big ask, or it's essentially a big ask.
You put a kid out there to say a bunch of bombastic things, they're hollow and they're sensational, And then when you say, okay, okay, calm down, children.
We're not gonna destroy the entire economy.
We're just gonna do a little bit.
It sounds more reasonable.
That's the big ask.
It's a common, common tactic.
Using children is politically expedient, okay?
How dare you attack a child!
Oh, shut up.
Get out of my face.
I'm not gonna listen to that.
Now, now, now, I will be like, don't, don't call her mentally ill and act like that's a reason she can't have an argument.
Say, I'll say it like this.
I respect, okay, that Greta, you know, is standing up for what she believes in, that she's taking this boat and doing all these things.
I believe it's ineffective.
I believe that she fundamentally doesn't understand what's happening in the world.
And case in point, let's argue the actual issue here, okay?
It's kids versus the world in a landmark new climate lawsuit.
On Monday, Greta Thunberg and 15 other young people filed a potentially world-changing lawsuit.
I gotta stop you there, okay?
They filed a lawsuit against a bunch of countries.
What were those countries?
It will compel Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, and Turkey, the five countries named in the suit, to work with other nations to forge binding emissions reduction targets.
A sharp change from the current international efforts that have so far basically rearranged the deck chairs on the Titanic or whatever.
This is all wrong.
I shouldn't be up here, Thunberg said, addressing the General Assembly shaking with rage.
I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean.
You have stolen my dreams, my childhood with your empty words.
We will not let you get away with this.
Right here, right now is where we draw the line.
Okay!
Let's legitimately criticize Greta for her ideas and for her activism.
And, you know, I think I've sufficiently criticized to the best... to the extent that it's deserving, you know, calling her mentally and all that, first.
I'm sorry, I disagree.
I don't think anyone's stolen your dreams.
I think you're living your dreams.
And again, I'm trying to say this with respect.
I'm not trying to be mean.
I think I have tremendous respect for environmental activists, as I have been in the past, myself, an environmental activist.
Here's the thing, though.
At 16 years old, I could have only dreamed that I would be welcomed on the UN stage to express my ideas and talk about the things that I thought were very important.
And I know it's cliché, and I heard it all the time when I was younger, that you think you know everything, you're an idealist, not a realist.
And I said, nah man, you just, you're old and you're out of touch.
And then I got older and was like, oh.
About that, 16-year-old me.
I get it.
I used to write punk rock anarcho songs on my guitar.
I was super far left, anarcho skateboarding, you know, singing, baby I'm an anarchist, all that stuff.
And then I kind of grew up and realized that, you know, everybody has a right, everyone has a perspective, and things change.
So let me get to that point.
Greta, man, you're living the dream, dude.
I'm jealous, okay?
I wish when I was 16 I got to meet former presidents.
I wish that I got to go up on the UN stage and talk about all of these things that I thought were problematic, like war.
Man, I could only have... I could only...
If I could go back in time, okay, when I was 16 and get to go up on stage and talk about the wars in the Middle East and all of these problems, that would have felt like a dream to me, an absolute dream.
Walking on the streets yelling, being 16, 17 years old, angry about what the U.S.
is doing overseas and how nobody's talking about it, and now you have, you know, she's saying, I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean.
I'm sorry, man.
I think you can't... You know, it's hard to know how you would feel, but imagine if she was in school on the other side of the ocean.
Not welcomed here, not being given this opportunity.
Yeah, it would be her dream to come and do this.
So, I gotta push back on that.
But I also wanna stress...
What it comes down to for this lawsuit, okay, and what Greta is doing, we can see that she fundamentally misunderstands the problem.
Take a look at this story.
It's very simple.
This is from today, okay?
This is from, I believe, nine hours ago on CNN.
New coal power plants quietly springing up in China.
Amid a trade war with the US, China is sliding on its environmental promises for cleaner energy.
Please use your position to go after the biggest countries that are pumping out carbon emissions, okay?
Now first, I actually have no problem with this lawsuit at all.
I lean tepidly towards, I actually think it's a good thing.
I have absolutely no problem with countries incentivizing getting closer, you know, getting onto renewable energies, all of that stuff, okay?
If we can revolutionize the energy market, energy is everything, okay?
At the root of everything we produce in our economy comes energy.
Go back in time.
All the way back in time.
Humans were consumed every waking minute of the day because human labor was required for survival.
Something incredible happened.
Humans tamed the wild beast.
And by using animal energy, it increased production and output by a significant degree.
And now, instead of humans carrying things, they could have beasts of burden carry things.
Harnessing that animal power.
Saved humans time.
Eventually humans got to the point where we could comfortably sit around staring at the stars and start theorizing and thinking.
Our life wasn't consumed with survival.
That's energy.
Over time our energy went from, you know, like human energy, which was like humans eating food, to animals eating food.
And then we started learning to burn things and actually pulling energy out of things through fire.
We want to win the energy race.
You know, it's never going to stop.
There's always going to be new ways to find energy and get a better return on energy investment.
Nuclear energy, apparently, has one of the highest, next to petroleum and fossil fuels.
So outside of the environmental argument, I'm looking at this from a human development circumstance, right?
That if we can get, like, look at Iron Man.
In Iron Man, okay, the first movie.
Great movie.
Tony Stark didn't necessarily invent a weapon.
Obadiah Stane, he's the bad guy, he says, while trying to rid the world of weapons, you gave it its greatest one yet.
And Obadiah wasn't talking about the Iron Man suit, he was talking about the arc reactor.
I know, it's fiction.
I like the movie.
I'm sorry.
But the arc reactor in Iron Man was a tremendous source of power that enabled them to power
the Iron Man suit.
And that's why in the second movie you had Justin Hammer needed Vanko to...
Maybe a bit esoteric for everybody, but basically the second movie is industrialist brings on
a Russian dude who can create the arc reactor.
The point is, energy is everything.
Okay, I'm being a bit hyperbolic, it's not everything.
But if we can improve, if we can develop, awesome.
So yeah, let's absolutely get on that energy race.
So look, if they're gonna be talking about climate change and carbon stuff, I think the happy medium is talking about the energy Uh, using new forms of energy and advancing and developing human life and colonizing the stars and all that stuff.
Now, I get it.
Greta, I believe Greta's a communist, okay?
And I'm not saying that hyperbolically or, like, facetiously.
Like, she was seen wearing an Antifa t-shirt that she said, like, I guess she apologized for it.
But I guess it's her dad's.
I don't know a whole lot about it.
But she talks about this fan—she directly criticizes the world for their, you know, infinite economic growth, you know, mentality.
And she's got a point.
It's true.
Like, we can't have infinite economic growth for the most part.
I mean, we might develop, we might, you know, we've changed to an attention economy, which is no longer producing physical objects.
So it's entirely possible we can have infinite economic growth because we're selling golf balls on mobile games.
So consider this.
At one point, it was problematic if you were thinking we would grow indefinitely because growth requires product, you know, creation and consumption.
But now people aren't having kids, our global birth rate is declining, and a big portion of the economy is digital.
These digital products aren't creating things, okay?
So we're not creating waste from it.
However, server farms energy, it's still consumed, so there still is an output.
So, you know, we'll figure something out.
If we can get to completely renewable energies or for data centers or server farms or whatever, then we're looking at infinite economic growth because it's a digital landscape.
So anyway, here's what I wanted to highlight.
China is producing a ton of carbon emissions.
So is India.
Why are they talking about us?
The U.S.
and many other countries have been continually working to solve this problem.
In fact, the perfect example is that they brought her up at the U.N.
to talk about it.
So we are not the problem.
It is not the end of the world because of what we are doing.
Okay?
We are doing bad things.
Absolutely.
But we are trying very, very hard.
There are a lot of people in this country who don't believe it's a problem.
Okay, I think that's a problem, but I don't think the answer is to just wave around, like, you know, signs calling people morons and idiots.
I think the issue is to just compromise and say, listen, if you think the world's gonna end in 12 years, I'm sorry, you're wrong.
I've covered this story over on Subverse.
We've talked about it.
It's not true.
But there is still a problem of human pollution.
And I believe, yes, we've got to do something about greenhouse gases.
We don't want to be frogs boiling in a pot.
And we don't want to be like yeast, solely toxifying our environment.
We need to talk about these things.
We need to talk about dead zones and fishery collapse and pollution in the oceans, all of the ocean acidification.
If people aren't interested in the conversation about the environment, then we need to figure out what they're interested in and come to a solution that moves us forward in any way possible.
Standing up on stage and ranting about how we've stolen your dreams or whatever, even though the U.S.
is doing a lot and we have huge and massive NGOs and in America we are very much environmentalists, not everybody.
But I find it a bit offensive because not only are you insulting a country that is trying very hard and won't shut up about the problem, come on, the U.S.
has been talking about this non-stop.
You're not addressing what the other countries are doing, but more importantly, you are hurting the argument, okay?
Conservatives are latching onto this.
They're calling her mentally ill.
They're arguing about her and not the issue.
It's simple.
I wish we had somebody who could go up on stage and say, anybody who doesn't believe in climate change, okay?
What do you want?
What would work for us to move forward with some policy proposal that will benefit what you're looking for and what we're looking for?
It's that simple.
And it's funny to me that so many people were unwilling to vote on the Green New Deal because if they truly believe the world is going to face irreversible damage in 12 years, you'd think they'd say, just vote for it.
You'd think they'd say, we'll take anything we can get.
Instead, they're putting a hard no.
That's what I don't understand.
It's the worst negotiating tactic ever.
You get these Democrats saying, we have to do this or nothing.
And it's like, well, I mean, why nothing?
Why not compromise?
If the world's going to end in, you know, a couple decades or whatever, or you think that within 12 years is irreversible damage, wouldn't you be willing to accept any compromise at all?
Here's the big problem.
The Green New Deal is trash.
If they came out and said, here's our Green New Deal.
We want to do a massive government investment into infrastructure, reconstruction, energy efficiency projects for public buildings, and we want to invest into renewable technologies via grants, private and public grants.
I'd be like, that sounds fantastic.
I'm concerned about the deficit.
It's really high, and there's a lot of concerns about budget constraints.
So let's talk about what we can get out of that arrangement.
Tons of people working.
Temporary jobs, but sure, you know, hey.
We'd have new energy investments, which could result in better returns on energy investment, new technologies.
We could be developing and advancing in a lot of ways that would probably be very beneficial.
I understand that Obama kind of screwed up Solyndra.
I don't know what happened too much with that.
I mean, I did, you know, back then when it was happening, I was following it, but it's
been a while.
But, you know, basically they tried investing in this big solar thing that failed.
I don't know what the solution is, okay?
But if you've got two factions, and one saying it's not happening and one saying it is, or
you've got one saying it's not man-made, then you're not going to solve the problem by crying
on stage and insulting the country that's actually trying to solve it.
We may not be perfect.
You may not have everyone in this country on board, but this does the opposite, okay?
For someone like me, When I see these appeals to emotion and appeals to majority or authority, I get really, really angry.
And I'm sure there are many people who feel the same way.
I don't let that anger guide my opinions and the research I do.
But if someone goes up on stage crying and saying, won't you think of the children?
You know what?
I'm out.
I'm out.
That's offensive and insulting and degrading and it hurts the argument and it hurts our ability to move forward.
You want to go pander to the emotionally weak and the weak-willed?
Go do it somewhere else.
You want to have a conversation about actually solving our problems?
You don't do it this way because it pisses people off.
For me, I've tracked enough of this to be concerned about it and I think there's something we can do.
I think conversations like this are beneficial because people who might not normally hear, you know, a solution or a compromise or something, Can now hear it through actual conversation.
But this is division.
This is divisive.
And it is the opposite of what they think it will do.
Michael Knowles was directly referencing Greta Thunberg's actual mental illnesses.
Fox News is probably not going to have him on the show again.
You fell into the trap.
Don't fall into the trap.
I don't have any ill will towards Greta.
I actually am very impressed with her being so young and her traveling across the ocean.
It is what dreams are made of.
That's the final point I want to say.
When she goes up and says, you've taken my dreams from me, I'm offended by that.
I grew up on the south side of Chicago.
I was homeless several times.
I sat in empty parks looking up at the sky, wishing that I could have just a tiny bit
of the support she's had for everything she's wanted to talk about.
So no, no one's taking your dreams from you.
Your dreams are being fulfilled.
You are an internationally famous and renowned activist with tons of respect.
The haters come.
Ignore the haters.
No matter who you are, what you're fighting for, ignore the haters.
Do your thing.
We will argue with you.
I will tell you why I think what you're doing is wrong, but I do have tremendous respect for anybody willing to get up and do something about it.
There is the issue of Greta being incorrect on a lot of these issues and causing problems, and I will argue against that.
But I will not argue against her.
I will not insult her.
That is wrong.
That is a trap being set, and that's why they use kids.
So all of my ill will towards those who are manipulating everyone using children, I find that deeply offensive.
But when you come out and start insulting the kids, that's the trap they're setting for you.
So don't do that, okay?
It's not Greta's fault.
None of this is hers, and you shouldn't be insulting her.
I don't want to act like Michael Knoll's direct intent was to be dismissive or insulting, but I think whatever, you know, he called her a mentally ill child, well, that's what you did, okay?
So, for one, everybody needs to calm down.
He's essentially correct on what he said, Don't fall into that trap, though, okay?
Let's talk about the ideas.
The ideas are easy to go up against, and that's the conversation we should be having.
Conservatives, moderates, whoever, actual environmentalists who want to have a rational conversation, should be pushing back on the easy-to-dismiss ideas, like going after countries that are not China!
I can't believe the story from CNN is from today.
You'd think we'd live in a sitcom.
I know.
Yep.
It's so absurd that CNN can be reporting this right now.
I'm done.
I'm done.
I'll see you guys in the next segment.
YouTube.com.
On this channel.
1pm.
I will see you all there.
One of the things I've mentioned quite a bit in the segments that I've done pertaining to politics is that Donald Trump was able to attract moderate Democrats and even some staunch Democrats into voting for him.
I mean, in reality, it's kind of obvious.
If you want to win, you have to get the center.
Both extremes are vying for everybody in the middle.
If Trump is going to speak to them better than the Democrats will, well then Trump wins.
It seems like Democrats haven't gotten the memo.
We have this story from the Associated Press.
Quote, way too extreme.
Some Democrats warn against moving left.
Yeah, but it's the working class union Democrats.
It's actual labor.
No, seriously, the craziest thing to me, even exemplified in this story by the Associated Press, is that urban Democrats who do not represent labor in this country—they tend to be progressive, well-off, etc., etc., college degrees—they're the ones who are very, very hardcore Democrat right now, progressive, all that stuff.
But these guys, working class union labor Democrats, voted for Trump last time, will vote for Trump again this time, don't have Twitter accounts and won't be voting Democrat.
That's the most important thing.
So you see these Democrats, they're embracing Twitter.
As Bill Maher said, they need to stand up to Twitter and ignore the mob, but the media is wrapped up in it.
So an interesting thing starts to emerge.
The Democrats and the media establishment are pandering to a tiny, tiny subsection of the Democrats, while the rest of them are being left behind and ignored and don't quite understand why.
They're not in the conversation.
They're not on Twitter.
They don't know what you're talking about.
They don't know why.
All they know is their jobs have gone away and Trump is talking about it.
If the Democrats won't, don't be surprised when you see working-class union Democrats, registered Democrats.
That's the big thing.
They're registered Democrats voting Trump.
It's just like the story we saw from CNN that in Minnesota, Democratic stronghold has flipped for Trump at the national level but still votes Democrat locally.
Twitter is destroying the Democratic Party.
I'll just— I'll just say it.
I'm being a bit hyperbolic.
I get it.
Let's read the story.
The AP reports.
The Democrats of Beaver County, Pennsylvania crowded onto the steps of a local courthouse, dozens of union men protesting a looming power plant closure that would put their livelihoods at risk.
The crowd was overwhelmingly white and male, and few had college degrees.
Left unsaid, at least from the podium, were broader concerns about the National Democratic Party many believe no longer represents them.
Welcome to the club.
Quote, Democrats are becoming way too extreme.
Sean Majors, a 42-year-old high school graduate who has worked at the nearby Beaver Valley Power Station for almost his entire adult life, said before last week's event began.
He said he voted for Trump last time and he's going to vote for Trump again.
A few days earlier, tens of thousands of Democrats crowded into a Manhattan park, cheering Elizabeth Warren's calls for Medicare for all, a crackdown on gun violence, and the end of the fossil fuel industry.
The crowd was ethnically diverse, heavily female, and highly educated, people like 41-year-old Kelly Hafferman of Brooklyn.
That was annoying.
We'll ignore the chime from my Windows Update nonsense.
University not far away. I want the bold ideas, Hefferman said, praising the leftward shift
of her party's politics. I want to be around people who feel the same way.
That was annoying. We'll ignore the chime from my Windows Update nonsense. Here's the thing.
People in cities are embracing this woke, far-left, progressive, bold ideas.
Okay, okay, I get it.
What they don't seem to realize is that people in the rural parts of this country are the ones who are producing everything.
In the digital economy, sure, yeah, it's big cities, but I think that's going to start going away.
There's absolutely no reason to have a news organization headquartered in New York City.
The internet is great!
Now you can work anywhere.
You can go to the middle of nowhere, buy a really cheap property, build your own.
It's way cheaper.
It's got the internet infrastructure.
I kid you not.
Central PA has amazing internet infrastructure.
Two gigabytes.
So, two gigabit internet.
So why would anybody want to do that?
I think this is bad news for progressives and for Democrats as media begins collapsing because, well, for one thing, they're spending too much on New York property.
I kid you not.
Mike.com had their office in the World Trade Center, in Freedom Tower.
Seriously, why would you do that?
You could go upstate, where there's good internet, save a ton of money.
While they're going out of business, I think we're going to see a dramatic shift.
But it's surprising to me that when you look at the middle of the country, what do you see?
Mostly white men, at least in this story, who are working at power plants, actually producing the electricity you need.
They're farmers.
They're manufacturers.
Their jobs are going away, and this is really, really bad news for this country.
Trump comes out and speaks to them.
And what happens?
The media mocks and belittles them.
They belittle the poor working class in these areas, not realizing they are registered Democrats.
Check this out.
The dueling scenes illustrate the high-stakes debate playing out among Democrats just over four months before the party begins to select its next presidential nominee.
While the party's coastal elites demand bold liberal policies, working-class voters in the Midwest are warning presidential candidates to move to the middle or risk giving Donald Trump another four years in the White House.
He's gonna get it for this reason.
The highly educated urban Democrats may be the most vocal, particularly on Twitter, but it is the working class in places like Beaver County who may ultimately decide Trump's fate.
None of the dozen or so union workers interviewed at a protest late last week had Twitter accounts.
They have no idea what you're talking about or why!
None had four-year college degrees, and few were committed to voting Democrat in 2020, although most were registered as such.
And there it is.
Registered Union Democrats who voted for Trump, who are going to vote for Trump again, who don't have Twitter accounts.
So you have to wonder why they are pandering to the Twitter crowd, this tiny minority of individuals that will not get you the vote.
I guess people seem to think that it's that woke minority on Twitter who will be Democratic primary voters, and that's probably true.
So we'll see the massive 180 from whoever ends up winning.
But I kind of doubt it.
Maybe someone like Cory Booker or Kamala Harris might pander politically as much as best they can.
And then when it comes time, election time, they'll walk everything back.
But this is the era of digital media, of social media, and the internet is forever.
It was really easy a couple decades ago for someone like Elizabeth Warren to go and pander, go to a small crowd and be like, we're going to abolish private health care and get you all government health care, where it worked.
Then when she gets on the debate stage, can say something completely different.
Today's day and age, you're going to see all the fact check videos popping up on Twitter and the media.
They're not going to survive.
You're going to see people like these, these Union Democrats, who are going to be like, they came here and promised they'd fix our jobs, then go up on stage and say something completely different.
And they're going to see those videos and they're going to be like, wait, what?
Because the videos will be forever.
Daniel Keener, a 72-year-old Democrat who retired after more than two decades at the nearby power plant, said his party has moved way too far left.
Every one of them wants to take my gun, said Keener, mentioning the handgun clip to his left pocket.
He said he's committed to Trump in 2020, but he'll likely maintain his Democratic registration because he's a union man and his family has a long history with the party.
Look at this!
A Democrat union guy who's got a gun and is angry at the conversation.
How much more obvious could it be?
The Democrats are setting themselves on fire policy-wise.
And you know what they're doing outside of policy?
They're getting on this ridiculous impeachment train.
That's going to be my next video coming up before.
I think the Democrats are walking into a trap as it pertains to impeachment and Ukraine and all that stuff.
But we'll talk about the policy right now.
Democrats, when they do campaign on Second Amendment, they offend working-class union guys who are Democratic Party members.
When they talk about all these far-left things on immigration and healthcare, they are offending and pushing away their own base, their own voters.
Stand up to Twitter.
They say, Republicans suffered sweeping losses in the 2018 midterm elections, in part because Trump's turbulent leadership style and divisive policies have alienated women.
Sure, but I think the bigger issue is Trump's base are Democrats.
Like this.
You can see it.
Okay?
I shouldn't say Trump's base, but Trump has strong Democrat support.
We are seeing it.
Okay?
So what happens is these people come out for their local representatives, Who are moderates, and as we know, I've cited this before, moderates won big.
The far left did not.
According to The Economist, it was something like 79 progressives, far left ran, and only 7 won.
And it was urban areas, sort of.
You know, for the most part, I think, you know, the squad was very urban.
You look at these rural areas who won moderates.
Moderates, moderates, moderates won.
Democrats voting for Trump get him in office.
How is this not obvious to them?
So I'll tell you what.
If they don't pay attention to this, you know what's going to happen?
Well, Trump's going to win, the Democrats are going to flounder, and I don't see how they'll recover.
Because at the national level, they are more concerned about woke digital media than what their own party members think.
They say, but he won the presidency in 2016 on the backs of working-class men in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin—states that hadn't backed a Republican in almost two decades.
They say Beaver County, a region just outside Pittsburgh, set along the Ohio border, is one of 14 counties in Pennsylvania that Trump carried in 2016 where Democrats had a registration advantage.
There were more than 59,000 registered Democrats and 40,000 registered Republicans in the county that year, but Trump ultimately carried Beaver County by almost 16,000 votes, according to data compiled by the Associated Press.
That means 40,000 registered Republicans.
Maybe not all of them voted for Trump.
The majority.
Democrat?
That means many of them voted for Trump.
If he carried it by 16,000 votes, that is a huge swing for Democratic voters to support Donald Trump.
It's just so obvious to me.
I don't know.
It seems like everything plays out on repeat.
We hear these stories over and over again.
I come out, I do a video saying basically the same things from the same stories.
I'm about to do another video talking about how the Democrats are going to screw everything up by trying to go for impeachment.
Didn't I do that video a month ago?
What is wrong with these people, man?
I just don't understand.
Did the writers for our simulated universe get bored and just click repeat?
Because how many times do we have to hear- I'm joking, but let's be serious.
How many times do we have to hear stories about working class Americans Union.
Democrats.
Voting for Trump.
Complaining about the far left.
And they say I'm conservative.
I'll tell you what.
I was down there at Occupy Wall Street.
Okay?
That's where I got started with everything.
I've talked to a lot of people.
I understand what they're saying and why they're saying it.
I'm right here with Labor.
The actual working class in this country, not the upscale, elite, college-educated people making $100,000 a year who live in New York and want bold, progressive ideas, who have no idea what's going on in the middle of the country and where their food even comes from.
I'm trying to better understand what's happening, and I see people like this, working-class Americans, wondering why their jobs are going away, wondering why Democrats are coming after them and punishing them and insulting them.
And I'm like, yeah, I agree.
I'm not going to cater to the fringe minority with wacky ideas.
I'm trying to figure out what Americans are really looking at.
And this is what I see.
I see this.
This same story plays out over and over again.
Nationwide, Democrats lost at least 573 such counties, including municipalities across five New England states, according to AP data for the 31 states that track party affiliation.
The trend was particularly acute across Michigan and Wisconsin, although depressed minority turnout in major cities helped Trump win.
Democrats quietly conceded that white working-class voters represent their most significant challenge in 2020.
Wake up.
Just start talking sense.
Start talking about what Americans actually want.
But you know what?
I'm gonna end it by saying this.
It doesn't matter.
The progressive wing of the Democratic Party are so far away from the union working class Democratic Party actual labor, there is no bridging that divide.
If they come out and say Trump's tariffs make sense, I'm not saying that, I'm saying if the Democrats come out in agreement with Trump on tariffs, which many of these people like, if they come out and say that we've got to bring manufacturing back, if they come out and start saying all of these things about border security, People are going to say, oh no, it's Trump.
The left will smear and slander.
They'll say you're boring old Biden and things like that.
The moderates might begrudgingly get behind progressives, but not these guys.
Not these guys.
They're voting for Trump and they've said it.
And that's why Trump won.
He won specifically because of working class Democrats, who are still Democrats.
And this is a really good point about why the Democrats took the House.
They took the House.
Because these people at the local level voted in moderate Democrats.
But when it comes to the national level, I mean locally as in like their local representative to the federal, you know, government.
But when it comes to the more national level stuff, like senators and presidents, who won?
Republicans did.
Because the Democrats have gone too far left.
And I can say it 50 million times, and I'll say it 50 million times more, and I will be sitting here— I very much believe— I will be sitting— I probably won't be sitting here, actually.
We're opening an office, so things are going great.
But I will be sitting in my new office, and I will be saying, Donald Trump won 2020.
If you can't speak to your base, you will lose.
But the Democratic Party is split in half, so I just don't see a path forward.
I just don't.
I don't see it.
I guess they're trying.
We'll see what happens.
Stick around.
We're gonna be talking about the impeachment insanity coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
It is a different channel.
I will see you all there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Following up on the video from my main channel that this is all part of Trump's big plan, we learned.
Ukraine is likely to reopen the probe of the Hunter Biden firm.
Sources say, from the Daily Beast, President Zelensky came to office vowing to fight corruption, and it looks like he'll open a lot of cases shut by shady prosecutors.
But the focus is on Ukraine, not the U.S., so let's make one thing clear.
I don't believe it was Hunter Biden specifically.
It was the company.
And more importantly, it was the oligarch who owned the company.
That's my understanding.
But now this is all very much likely to blow back on Democrats, but you know what?
This is the Civil War on the left.
At least in the U.S.
and the Democratic Party, they want this.
I invite you to this tweet from Josh Jordan, which I find quite amusing.
Elizabeth Warren watching Democrats inch closer to impeaching Trump, knowing that Biden is going to get hit in the process.
And there it is.
And there's John Lovett smiling as the curtain goes back.
Yep.
Elizabeth Warren has called for impeachment, but so has everybody else, and my understanding—there's a lot of rumors circulating at the time of filming.
Admittedly, it's a little early.
I record a few hours before publishing.
I hate doing it like this, but sometimes I have to because I have a lot of work I have to do later in the day that you don't see.
But my understanding is that we're going to see Pelosi on board, we're going to see Biden on board, and this is what we're getting.
They're going to reopen this, and the political news is bad, but let's get to the crux of what's actually happening with the Biden firm.
The Daily Beast reports.
They say that they've learned an influential member of Ukraine's parliament from one of the country's prosecutors and from a center combating corruption in Ukraine.
The government here is likely to pursue the cases that Donald Trump urged President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a controversial phone call last July, but not the way Trump intends, and not necessarily to the detriment of Trump challenger Joe Biden.
The investigation and possible prosecutions, if they happen, would take place in the context of a new law signed by Zelensky just before his departure for the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where he is expected to meet face-to-face with Trump for the first time.
They say, in Kiev there are widespread hopes that the reforms will help Zelensky, a former comedian who played a corruption-fighting president on television, deliver on his campaign promise to clean up Ukraine for real.
A new team of independent prosecutors is supposed to reopen investigations of past cases and answer questions about the corruption in post-revolutionary Ukraine over the last five years.
During much of that time, investigations were launched against various powerful oligarchs, then quietly shut down when, it was widely assumed, the prosecutors were paid off.
As a result, it has been hard to know if the investigations were justified or merely launched for purposes of extortion.
Quote.
We're trying ultimately to reset the prosecutor general's office in Ukraine, to speed up the reform.
Kirill Tymoshenko, deputy head of the presidential administration of Ukraine, told the Daily Beast on Tuesday.
In accordance with the new law, all Ukrainian prosecutors will go through a process of recertification.
The number of prosecutors will be cut down from 15,000 to 10,000.
Tymoshenko said he could not comment on specific cases and could not say more about Zelensky's agenda for the meeting with President Trump on Wednesday.
They go on to say, Valentin... I can't pronounce names as you... Forgive me, it's a Ukrainian name.
I'm gonna try my best.
Valentin...
Naly Vychenko.
Got it.
A former head of Ukraine's domestic intelligence agency and a member of Ukraine's parliament says he expects the corruption case of the Burisma gas company.
Two cases were opened and dropped by various prosecutors over the years.
Two be revisited.
Hunter Biden, the son of then-Vice President Joe Biden, was a board member.
Joe Biden is now Trump's leading opponent in the 2020 U.S.
presidential elections.
And both Trump and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani have been working to find dirt on Biden in Ukraine.
That is not news.
That is an opinion.
That is conjecture.
And this is the problem I have a lot of these outlets injecting their opinion.
Okay.
What is their evidence that they're trying to find dirt on Biden?
Perhaps it's just Giuliani questioning why the case was dropped in the first place, or why did Biden get this guy fired?
The biggest problem with this scandal is there's no real evidence Biden did anything wrong.
A lot of people are saying, but what about the video where he says he did this?
The issue is it's a conflict of interest, but maybe not illegal.
However, I believe the conflict of interest warrants an investigation, in which case you'll see Giuliani doing this.
But now they're accusing Trump of trying to withhold money and threatening Ukraine to demand action, and this is just he said, she said at this point.
It's complicated.
How do we weed out corruption?
One of the biggest questions in this is, you know, they're saying, oh, Trump shouldn't have pressured Ukraine to investigating political corruption.
So what?
If somebody's running for office at any point or ever did, you can never investigate them?
I think we should see what Trump said to Ukraine.
We should see if there's a quid pro quo.
Figure out what's going on.
And the same should be said for Biden.
Welcome to the game.
But you know what?
A lot of people think Trump is doing this on purpose.
And it's hard to know for sure.
But I'd have to imagine, with everything Trump and his lawyers went through with Russiagate, they have a bit of a strategy here.
And it's possible they're just bumbling buffoons.
That's what the left seems to think.
But here we go.
The case is being reopened.
Regardless of what happens or how Trump wants it to happen, it is going to hurt Biden.
Here I am talking about it.
They say, Nalivachenko said his country will be best served by pursuing an investigation related to the alleged Burisma multi-million dollar corruption deals, not because of Trump's pressure, but because Ukraine wants to know the truth about its own corruption.
Whether the founder of Burisma, Ukraine's ex-minister of natural resources, Mykola from 2010 to 2012 had paid to squash the earlier
investigations into the way he acquired gas licenses. In an exclusive interview with the Daily Beast, Nalivichenko
said Ukraine's parliament is planning to hold hearings about the various corrupt schemes.
Nalivichenko, who is a member of the opposition Fatherland Party, serves in a
parliamentary group focused on U.S.-Ukraine relations. Copy editor, guys. I am going to support
President Zelensky's initiatives to to have new investigations by a new team at the law
enforcement agency.
This would include inquiries into the actions of previous prosecutor generals, Yuri Lutsenko and Viktor Shokin.
I am convinced that Zelensky will say in New York that these are our domestic investigations.
We are going to figure them out on our own, he added.
However, we'd be happy to cooperate with the FBI.
That's the other thing, too.
They're coming after Trump for something that Ukraine was planning on doing.
I don't want to say I know a lot about Zelensky, but admittedly I know a decent amount about Ukraine in the sense that there's very few countries I can tell you about in terms of politics, but I was actually on the ground in Kiev at the start of what became the ousting of, I believe, Yanukovych.
I'll leave it there, but I'm stressing the point.
Ukraine has had a problem with corruption for a long time.
There's an economic problem, there's an oligarch problem.
The oligarchs are super wealthy.
There's a massive, massive wealth inequality, disparity between the poor and the rich.
And this makes it very, very hard for anyone to ever get anywhere in terms of... There's no Ukrainian dream, I guess, right?
In America, there's upward mobility.
Ukraine is not so much like that.
That's my understanding.
Could be wrong.
Forgive me if you're Ukrainian.
But the point I'm trying to make is, these reforms are coming because the Ukrainian people have wanted them.
They recently ousted their president.
They've been demanding change.
It's coming.
So now Trump is talking to them.
I think this is a good reason to believe, and again, we don't know, that this is Trump's trap.
Listen, if Ukraine was planning on doing this, if they're even saying Trump didn't pressure them, it could turn out That the call with Trump was Ukraine saying they wanted to move forward.
Imagine this.
Imagine the complete inversion of the narrative.
All the Democrats coming out demanding impeachment and it turns out Ukraine was talking to Trump about how they wanted to do this.
And Trump was like, sure.
The narrative now is that Trump pressured him to do it.
But they're saying they were going to do it already.
Where's the scandal?
Joe Biden, I guess.
Now, I'm not saying Joe Biden did anything wrong.
It's entirely possible that — I think there's a lot of hyperbole, there's a lot of attempts to say, when Joe Biden claimed he got this guy fired, that's proof he was helping his son.
It's not.
In a court of law, you're not going to fly that, OK?
They can show a conflict of interest.
He should not have been working on this if his son was on the board.
However, I mean, you know, it doesn't prove wrongdoing, but it does warrant an investigation.
They say, Prosecutor Sergei Gorbachev investigated the founder of Burisma Company, Mikol, you told us his name already, I don't want to keep reading these names, for three months in 2016 until Prosecutor General Lutsenko made a decision to drop the probe.
First, Lutsenko took the case away from the investigators, then closed it down illegally.
Gorbachev told the Daily Beast on Tuesday, There would not have been any question about pursuing such
cases today if Lutsenko did not interfere in the investigations. I hope that with the
change of management at the Prosecutor General's office, there will be no illegal interferences
and this case, as well as many other probes, will be investigated strictly in accordance
with the law.
It's a really important point at the end.
The last prosecutor that got fired, that video Biden is talking about, he's talking about a guy who illegally shut down the probe.
This is really important.
At least according to the story, it's a complicated story of which I am not an expert.
It sounds like the past prosecutor that Biden got fired illegally ended the probe in the first place.
So it may just be That Biden may have been actually hurting his son.
In the end, what do I see here?
I see two big nothing burgers.
This is why I absolutely hate the story.
So let me try and make it clear, because maybe I didn't make it clear enough in the first video I made.
I think a whole lot of nothing will come out of this.
It's going to hurt Biden.
The impeachment will hurt Trump in certain ways, but it's going to be worse for Biden than it's going to be for Trump, especially if Trump ends up winning on this one.
Biden is getting undue scrutiny.
It's going to cost him in the polls.
That's what's going to happen, whether anyone did anything wrong or not.
I'll leave it there, though.
Stick around.
Next segment, I'm going to be talking about wealth taxes and how they make no sense.
And I'm really frustrated hearing the fake news.
And we've got to talk about some logistics.
Stick around.
Next segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Maybe I'm just stupid.
Maybe I'm just stupid.
I'm just going to go ahead and say it.
Tim Pool is really, really dumb.
Leftists, angry people who hate me, take that one with you, pull it out of context.
Tim Pool is maybe just stupid.
Okay? Maybe I'm just stupid.
I don't understand why Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren think a wealth tax will work.
Because it won't, unless their plan is to just kind of destroy the economy.
I have no idea what they think they're going to accomplish with a wealth tax.
Let me explain.
The idea is not to tax your income.
It's to tax your income based on what you own, kind of like a property tax.
But this doesn't make sense if you own assets and don't have cash.
So I get it.
If you own a house, Okay, and you can't pay your property taxes?
They put a lien on your house?
You could lose your house.
You gotta pay your taxes.
Okay, that I understand, though.
It's basically like paying rent to the town for the town's infrastructure.
But how would you pay millions of dollars in cash on assets when your salary is a million dollars?
Like, you're rich.
I get it.
People seem to think that Jeff Bezos, who's worth, what, you know, like hundreds of billions?
I don't know, whatever he's worth.
A hundred billion?
They seem to think that is spendable cash.
No, it's Amazon stock.
Dramatic fluctuations in that stock could devalue that stock.
Okay?
You know what?
Hold on.
Let's actually read the New York Times story.
Democrats want to tax the rich.
Here's how those plans would work, or not.
You know what?
Okay, let's read.
Among Democratic presidential candidates, it's the rallying cry of the moment, tax the rich.
We get it, we get it.
Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren.
Let's cut to the chase.
Creating a wealth tax.
Now, the New York Times loves showing this graphic here over and over again in this piece.
How many people would pay?
Relatively few.
Apparently it would be equally distributed among blue people, white people, and red people, whatever that means.
I'm kidding.
Would it reduce inequality?
Almost certainly, it would.
How much money would it raise for the government?
A lot.
What is a lot?
Is a hundred bucks a lot?
Is a thousand bucks a lot?
Not a good answer.
Would the rich find ways to avoid or evade this tax?
Probably.
Yeah, it's called cryptocurrency, I guess.
But yeah, of course.
It's not gonna work.
In January, Ms.
Warren took a bold new approach by proposing to tax wealth, not just income.
Her proposal would impose a 2% tax on assets above $50 million, or the top 70,000 families by wealth, in a nation of nearly 330 million people.
Someone with $100,000,000 in assets would pay $1,000,000 a year.
Fortunes over $1,000,000,000 would be subject to an additional 1% surcharge.
This is not $100,000,000 in cash.
This is $1,000,000 in assets.
Imagine you own $100,000,000 in one building.
Skyscraper.
percent surcharge. This is not a hundred million dollars in cash. This is one
million dollars in assets. Imagine you own a hundred million dollars in one
building. Skyscraper. Let's say your salary is fifty thousand dollars a year.
Your business pays the tax on, you know, businesses are renting out the building,
there's this cost, etc.
You would have to pay a million dollars in cash, even if you don't have the cash.
You see why this doesn't make sense?
The tax, akin to how property taxes work, would be aimed at a group that controls a growing portion of the nation's wealth.
The 400 richest Americans own 3.5% of the country's assets.
We understand that.
I get it.
I get the idea.
What people don't seem to realize is they're going, wait a minute, so you're saying if you have a hundred million dollars, you only pay a million dollars a year?
That totally makes sense!
No, you're paying a hundred million dollars in liquid cash assets against the non-liquid assets which fluctuate in value.
Now, some people might say it's not that big a deal because they're rich, right?
Listen, if people are only making a million dollars a year and you're basically saying you cannot legally have that much property because you won't be able to afford owning the wealth, what they're saying is that Owning things in general will be taxed against to a very, very absurd degree.
Let me show you an example of how this doesn't make sense.
This story from Quartz is really annoying.
It's really, really annoying.
This is how they frame the arguments to manipulate.
I am no fan of wealth inequality.
I have talked about this before.
I have talked about increasing taxes and taxing appropriately and re-appropriating taxes.
And I believe wealth inequality is a huge detriment to a society because it creates jealousy and breaks down social cohesion.
We get it.
Ukraine is not an example of what we should strive for.
Jeff Bezos.
You know what his salary was in 2017?
It was $81,840.
Still modest by CEO standards.
However, he owns 80 million shares of Amazon, worth $165 billion at the time.
modest by CEO standards. However, he owns 80 million shares of Amazon, worth $165 billion
at the time. This article is from October of last year.
Check this out.
Bezos' wealth has surged in the past year along with Amazon's share, yada yada.
Presuming his wealth creation continues at a similar pace, Bezos will, quote, make the annual salary of one of Amazon's newly minted $15 an hour employees every 11.5 seconds.
Okay, listen.
They are comparing overall net worth to hard liquid cash.
I get it, Bezos is rich, but the problem is Here's what they would say.
8% so we're talking about 14, you know, let's say 13 billion dollars a year You would have to spend Bezos is only bringing in a salary of 81 K now in terms of his hard liquid income for the year With capital gains and otherwise, it's closer to 1.7 million dollars However, he would have to pay 14 billion because his company is worth money now.
Hold on.
Hold on here If I start a company, okay?
And I sell stocks.
And the company is worth $100,000.
And I own, you know, 80%.
Great, I've got $80,000.
I'm not going to pay anything.
What happens if overnight, overnight, like in a very short amount of time, in a year, the stock of the company becomes worth $100 billion.
Now I'm worth $80 billion, but I haven't brought in necessarily liquid cash to cover the six or so billion dollars I'd have to pay at the end of the year.
Mrs. Warren's proposal would not bring in $2.6 trillion over 10 years, like they claim it would.
They say it's according to Mr. Zays and Zuckman.
Now again, I could just be dumb.
Tim Poole is a moron.
He's not an economist.
Don't take my word for this.
But I have these questions.
If Jeff Bezos is forced to liquidate stock in order to cover the cost of the wealth tax, that would cause a change in the price of the stock.
Let's say the company, $165 billion.
If Jeff Bezos starts dumping stock to pay his taxes, then he's gonna have to pay capital gains tax on that money.
It'll be even more taxes than he's predicting, than he could expect to pay on the wealth.
He'd have to pay income tax.
But then, that's going to cause a massive supply of available stock.
Do you understand how supply and demand works?
The supply goes high, the demand goes down.
Because the demand for the purchasing gets gobbled up really, really quickly, and that drives the price down.
I'm not going to get into a full-on lesson on how stocks work, but let me just explain.
People put in sell and buy orders, okay?
And there are things called, like, you can build walls.
So let's say, Bezos announces, I've got to pay, you know, $14 billion in taxes.
So I'm going to be liquefying $14 billion in assets.
The price drops.
Uh oh!
Oh no!
Now Jeff Bezos is only worth $14 billion because announcing a massive flooding of the stock has resulted in the stock crashing.
Aw, unfortunate.
Now Bezos only has to pay around a billion dollars.
So he says, I still have to sell the stock off.
Floods the market.
It wouldn't work just necessarily like that.
It's not necessarily how it works.
What would happen is, he would put the sell orders in, all the buy orders would evaporate, and the price would go down until the next available sell was met.
Meaning, if he was going to sell off billions of dollars worth of shares, I don't know if there's enough people to actually buy that, because the liquid assets have to exist!
Let me just stress, you would need $14 billion in available liquid assets to buy.
There has to be a demand of $14 billion in liquid assets against the stock to actually allow Bezos to pay the tax in the first place.
Why are people so dumb?
Listen, that could be about me, right?
I'll say it for the millionth time.
I just plain don't understand how you think this makes sense.
If Jeff Bezos, they don't understand that Bezos, who's worth a billion, he's worth $165 billion, he doesn't have that in cash to pay the government.
So next question.
Is the government going to seize the stocks?
So let's say he's like, I can't do it.
I literally don't have the cash.
Okay, so I'll put a lien against those stocks.
Can't pay that, we're gonna seize the stocks.
If the government did that, the company would tank.
The government now seizing the property of a market value account, like that's not gonna work.
The price would drop.
Now again, I could be wrong.
I really get annoyed how they try and compare Jeff Bezos' net worth to cash income.
That's not how it works.
His net worth is not liquid, and he couldn't sell all of that if he wanted to.
It doesn't work that way.
To me, it's insane.
Jeff Bezos may be worth $165 billion, but if he tried to liquefy all of that, he'd be worth half that if he could.
But listen, in order to liquefy this, there has to be someone holding cash, willing to buy it.
Here's the question.
Are there enough people right now with buy orders into Amazon to actually give Jeff Bezos billions of dollars in liquid cash to then give to the government?
I'd actually think the answer is probably no.
All of these plans that I hear, they never account for the fact that prices change.
Bernie Sanders, in 2016, said he wanted to do a capital gains tax to pay for free college.
I said, okay, how will that tax, increase in risk, affect trade volume?
Do you understand?
People might say it's not worth it to invest in this market because the taxes just went up, so they spend less, and when they do, that means less tax revenue.
It's like talking to children.
But you know what?
I'll say it for the third time and I'll wrap this up.
I don't know.
Maybe I just don't know.
Maybe I'm just confused.
I'm not an economist.
But I will stress, if you can't explain it to me, then we have a problem.
You want me to support this?
You better explain how you can tax the wealth of an individual when they don't have the liquid cash to pay for it.
Because if you're gonna seize stocks, that doesn't make sense.
Houses exist!
You can take someone's house!
I'm not a fan of that either, but whatever, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment is coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
I don't frequently use Breitbart.
However, they've recently been certified by third-party news rating agency NewsGuard.
Not perfect, but good enough.
And I'm not here to say that NewsGuard is smarter or better than anyone else, but I use them on purpose for political reasons and ethical reasons.
Breitbart used to have a bad rating.
It's been improved.
Just putting it out there because I want to read the story now before I'm saying that because you're going to get a bunch of people going like, how could you read Breitbart?
Well, hey, man, hey, look, third party certification.
You can't argue with that.
And besides, this story is from a video.
A free society cannot allow social media giants to silence free speech.
Donald Trump speaking at the United Nations.
He said, or the story says, President Donald Trump used part of his speech before the United Nations Tuesday to warn of the growing accumulation of power by big tech companies.
Now, Donald Trump has spoken about a lot of things at the UN Summit.
He talked about globalists, you know, and globalism and trade and China.
But he does talk about the power that they have to control what we can say and what we can see, and in turn, what we end up thinking about certain issues.
Look, if you follow my content, you know this is a seriously alarming issue to me.
I have warned time and time again.
First they'll come for the conservatives, the people out of line with the rules.
Then they'll come for anyone who challenges the establishment.
Recently, the left was facing censorship because they were trying to call out the Working Families Party, a progressive organization, a political party, for supporting Elizabeth Warren.
But on Twitter, for some reason, their tweets wouldn't appear.
And I'll say this, you know, I stand in support and in solidarity with those who are demanding answers on why this happened.
But I'm also a bit, I don't know, frustrated that I've been saying over and over again, please, look at what's happening to the conservatives, and they poo-poo and say, nothing's happening, let them go, and then here it is, hitting the left.
In one of the President's strongest statements on social media bias yet, Trump argued that social media censorship is incompatible with a free society.
He also drew attention to the growing trend of censorship, cancelling, and blacklisting in general.
We must always be skeptical of those who want conformity and control.
said the president, even in free nations, we see alarming signs and new challenges to
liberty.
A small number of social media platforms are acquiring immense power over what we can see
and over what we are allowed to say.
And I'm flabbergasted by the journalists supporting the international call for censorship.
I kid you not.
It includes Twitter and YouTube, I think Facebook as well, meeting with international entities
and talking about how they're going to be censoring their platform in the US.
It's disgusting.
You want to talk about a one-world government and international cooperation?
I don't care.
If you want to talk about stripping away the civil liberties of human beings and the fundamental right to express themselves?
We've got a big problem.
I understand the argument Trump is bringing about globalism or whatever.
I get it, I get it, I do.
One of the big arguments is that the international community has no reason to protect our constitutional rights.
And if we submit to international courts, our courts become lesser.
And no, that's not a good thing.
So long as our constitution and we as US citizens have our rights protected, I'm a bit happy.
But I do think these rights are fundamental to human beings, and that includes everyone in the world.
A permanent political class is openly disdainful, dismissive, and defiant of the will of people.
A faceless bureaucracy operates in secret and weakens democratic rule.
Media and academic institutions push flat-out assaults on our histories, traditions, and values.
Show me the lie.
He's not wrong.
Media and academic institutions.
Now, of course you're going to see the left saying, that's not true.
Colleges.
No, no, no.
Hold on.
Not every media outlet.
Here's Breitbart.
Not every academic institution.
That's the game they try to play.
Absolutism, when he didn't imply it.
In the United States.
My administration has made clear to social media companies that we will uphold the right of free speech.
A free society cannot allow social media giants to silence the voices of the people, and a free people must never, ever be enlisted in the cause of silencing, coercing, cancelling, or blacklisting their own neighbors.
And that is a powerful message to the foreign countries that do this.
I was in Turkey when they shut down social media.
It was amazing.
We were watching things change.
So we had this hacker guy with us and he was looking at, like, domain name servers and being like, it's gonna go down.
Here it is.
You can see the change right now.
Check it out.
Five minutes later, boom, Twitter was gone.
So yes, it's not just the social media companies.
It's these authoritarian regimes.
But now you have Twitter agreeing with many of them and censoring at their behest.
Trump's statement puts him at odds with globalist political leaders who want social media platforms to engage in more censorship, not less.
At a summit dubbed the Christchurch Call for Action earlier this year, the leaders of France, Germany, Britain, and New Zealand demanded social media platforms clamp down on violent extremism.
And Trump said no.
President Trump's White House publicly refused to co-sign the Call for Action.
You know why?
Now, he was criticized for this.
It's fascinating.
Because he can't legally do it.
The First Amendment would not allow the President to sign an international agreement silencing the speech of U.S.
citizens.
More importantly, the Supreme Court has ruled as much.
The government cannot restrict access to social media.
But he was criticized.
They said Trump is supporting the extremists.
He can't legally do it!
They complain about abuses of power.
Fine, let's talk about it.
But this is not one of them.
This is Trump conceding he doesn't have the power to make this statement.
Breitbart goes on to say, Censorship and discrimination on the basis of political viewpoint have become widespread across big tech platforms.
As Breitbart News revealed earlier this year, Facebook maintains a list of political figures and commentators that it considers potential hate agents, and Google-owned YouTube has deliberately reordered its search results in response to ideological complaints from left-wing journalists.
This is a fact.
Even the president's son, Donald Trump Jr., has been affected by big tech censorship.
In February, Facebook-owned Instagram deleted a post from Don Jr.
about notorious hate crime hoaxer Justice Smollett.
Instagram later claimed the removal was an error.
More recently, Don Jr.
reported that his name and that of the president were not appearing in Instagram search suggestions.
Instagram's explanation?
Another error.
It's quite interesting to me.
The errors almost only go in one direction.
We saw the same auto search mistake happen against Rhonda McDaniel.
Is her name Rhonda McDaniel?
The RNC woman?
There were a lot of conservatives that weren't appearing.
But this is kind of strange.
The President of the United States, when you search for him, doesn't appear?
I gotta say, that's very, very weird.
But the important takeaway from all this is that Donald Trump, at the UN, the President of the United States, directly called out tech censorship.
And you know what he did not do?
And I'm gonna throw a little bit of shade.
President Trump skips UN Climate Summit.
Well, I get it.
He's playing to his base.
I think most Americans don't care about this issue.
I really, really think that's the case.
And it bums me out.
I think it would have been much more presidential for him to actually attend.
But this sent a powerful message to his supporters and to the people who are sick and tired of the environmental activist debate, the climate change strike stuff, that Trump isn't going to play to their whims.
I would have preferred to see him actually engage in this, because as you know, I am very much so on the environmental side of the argument, though I think a calm, rational conversation needs to happen.
I can't necessarily say I blame him, because I don't think he would have seen that calm, rational debate, and he decided to play to his base anyway.
But they say, this is from NY1, the United States will not be represented at a major UN climate summit.
Leaders from 64 nations will present plans to combat climate change at the climate action summit.
The UN Secretary General says only countries with new specific and bold plans may speak.
I get it.
Here's the problem, and here's what frustrates me.
I would love to see the president engage with this.
But look at what happened in D.C.
at shutdown D.C., which frustrated me.
Here I am, somebody like, hey, I'd like to see some action.
I'd like to see something done to help the climate.
I'm not here to play these silly games about, you know, China and these arguments for and against.
Ignore it, okay?
I'm not going to argue with anyone on the right, any conservative, about whether or not climate change is real.
I think it's a waste of time.
It's a political waste of time.
All we have to do is say, agree to disagree, but what can we do to move forward?
That's what I want to hear.
Well, we had the Trump supporters went out and cleaned up a bunch of trash in California, and I'm like, hey man, I really appreciate that.
That's fantastic.
That's a great move, whether it's a PR stunt or otherwise.
We then saw the shutdown D.C., people twerking and throwing confetti in the air, littering the place, carrying plastic water bottles, and I'm like, you're not... So I can understand why someone like Trump doesn't feel they're acting in good faith.
I guess I'm politically homeless.
Because, as I mentioned, what I would prefer to do is just say, okay, don't agree with me.
Disagree with me.
I respect that.
What can we do?
Where can we meet somewhere that's going to be good for everybody?
That's not what we get, though.
We get a guy twerking in the street.
We get a dumpster being set on fire.
We get roads being shut down by people who don't actually care.
They don't actually care, and if they did, they would be taking those individual actions themselves.
A lot of people care.
I'm sure a lot of people who were there actually cared.
But, this is what we get.
We get the politics we deserve.
If you're gonna have people twerking and dancing in the street, don't be surprised when the president backs away and says, I'm not playing this game.
When you get people like Greta Thunberg, you know, who is a kid and they're using political posturing to prop her up and protect her from criticism, don't be surprised when the president says, I'm not going to play that game.
You can't win.
You can't win.
I wish people were more rational and you could get the president to begrudgingly agree to sit down and talk about it.
But when you have the insanity we saw in D.C., they think they're like, we're not playing nice.
No, you're shutting down the conversation is what you're doing.
I'm done.
I'll see you guys tomorrow at 10am.
Podcast at 6.30pm.
There's two big stories here.
I'm glad Trump is talking about censorship.
I'm bummed out that he skipped over the climate summit, but I'm also bummed out at how the left is representing themselves in the debate anyway.
I'll just be politically homeless over here and, uh, I'm gonna go... I think I'm gonna grill.
It's nice out.
We're gonna grill some chicken with some barbecue sauce on it.
