Impeachment BACKFIRES On Moderate Democrats BAD, Protests And Booing Erupts, People Cry "Coup"
Impeachment BACKFIRES On Moderate Democrats BAD, Protests And Booing Erupts, People Cry "Coup."In a shocking turn protests have erupted outside the offices of moderate Democrats over their support for impeachment and even in front of one congressman who doesn't. They say he showing "impeachment behavior."In many districts Democrats won in 2018, Trump won in 2016. Moderates thought they were voting in candidates who would get back to legislating and focusing on policy. Instead they are getting more "orange man bad" divisiveness.In one event constituents booed Rep Slotkin and one person claimed she had joined a "coup against our president."Polls do show growing support for impeachment against Trump and while this may be bad for him the bigger question is whether it will ring true in 2020. Trump will likely not be removed by the Senate and the House will likely lose their majority and they know it.It seems that this is a desperate hail mary pass win big or lose it all for the Democrats. Meanwhile far left democrat Ocasio Cortez calls impeachment boring and claim she is over it.Left and far left Democrats in safe blue districts have nothing to lose. But for the moderates they stand to lose everything.In the end the democrats have pushed forward with a confusing and irrevocably damaging impeachment inquiry that ignores due process and historical precedent all for a desperate chance at hurting Donald Trump.The economy is at record highs, unemployment is low, Trump is removing our men and women from overseas and his approval rating is higher today than it was at its worst last month. While impeachment may not be a net positive it will definitely be destructive for all Americans.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Now, like I said in the beginning, this will probably be bad news for moderate Democrats.
Yes, I made a video talking about how even Nancy Pelosi says they might lose the House over this, but it is worth it.
And it seems now that according to several polls, the majority of voters do support President Trump being impeached.
It's still complicated, though.
Just because a majority of voters support the impeachment doesn't mean Trump will still lose come 2020.
But more importantly, while there may be some bad news for the president, all around there's good news for the GOP.
Well, actually, let me walk that back.
I mean, it's bad for the GOP if Trump gets impeached, right?
If he's actually removed by the Senate, which will never happen, in my opinion.
But the Republicans might take back the House because of this.
So what will the Democrats have gained?
Now, I'll admit, if Trump has done something wrong, if Trump is acting untoward, if he's violating his oath of office, by all means, he should be investigated and impeached.
I don't think anybody disagrees.
Actually, I'm sorry.
There's probably some diehard Trump supporters who disagree with that.
But I think most people are like, OK, fine.
The problem is where we're at so far.
It's not here.
And we do know that people on the left and the Democrats have been a bit Shady.
You know, Schiff lied about contact with the whistleblower.
And now we're hearing that the whistleblower might have, apparently has a professional relationship, or did, with one of the 2020 Democrats.
This whole thing reeks of interference.
That's why I can't stand the conversation.
But let's break it down to the more important point.
You know what?
Here's Trump.
Here's the Democrats.
They're fighting for 2020.
Put them away.
The economy is doing really, really, really well.
So the Democrats are throwing a Hail Mary, in my opinion.
It's complicated.
I get it.
But in the end, it's the moderate Democrats who are going to lose.
And this could cost the Democrats the only majority they have, the House.
Check out this story from Roll Call.
Impeachment looms large in House Democrats' town halls over recess.
Guess what?
Protests are breaking out in several districts.
Now, you do have the Trump supporters coming out and protesting, of course, but you have districts where the Democrat wins and their constituents are booing.
I covered this yesterday on my main channel, but it's only escalating now.
I've got, what, three or four stories of protests erupting in Democrat districts over their support of impeachment.
So here's what we'll do.
Let's take a look exactly how this is bad news for the Democrats.
It is!
Like, there's some bad news for the President.
I get it.
But in the end, if the Republicans take back the House, what will the Democrats have gained?
They're not going to remove Trump.
Let's get started.
Let's read this little bit here from Roll Call, which breaks it down, and then I want to show you some polls, and I want to show you the protests.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's several ways you can help support my work, but the most important thing you can do Share this video.
I am competing with CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and these big corporate powers, and I don't have that poll.
YouTube props them up.
You've heard me say it before.
It's a fact.
They give them big algorithmic boosts, so that means the only way I can actually compete against a system that is rigged to benefit major corporations is if all of you watching, if you support the video, or if you at least like the conversation, consider sharing it, explaining why.
The impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump has been a central concern at town halls
for House Democrats across the country, with both safe and vulnerable members of the caucus
fielding questions from Trump's defenders and voters who want him removed from office.
So both sides.
While recent polls suggest that support for impeaching the president has grown over the
last three months, 58 percent of 58% of respondents to a Washington Post-Schar School poll this week approved of the House's decision to launch an inquiry.
Democrats have used feedback at town halls over the two-week October recess to assess how their constituents feel about the matter.
Now, look.
Here's my big problem with the whole thing.
Russiagate.
Been there, done that.
I'm so sick of it.
It doesn't give Trump carte blanche.
But, look man, the Democrats have cried wolf.
I'm just too over it.
This is why I haven't done big videos on the breaking news around Ukraine.
It's just, I'm not the only one.
Many of us are just sick and tired.
You're changing no minds.
It's a waste of time.
Now, I'm typically for transparency, so an investigation, fine, by all means.
But the White House has responded in a letter, which we'll get to later in the segment, saying that they're not being allowed to cross-examine.
That is not okay.
Okay?
I am sick of the political gamesmanship.
I just view this as the Democrats desperately trying to figure out something they can do to win 2020, and it is tearing this country apart.
But let's get to the meat and potatoes here.
They say, in safely democratic districts, members walked audiences through the mechanics of the impeachment process and why it was an impeachable offense for Trump to ask China and the Ukrainian president to investigate his political opponents.
No, full stop.
Let's be real here.
Trump's trying to dig into the origins of the Mueller probe.
I get it.
It just so happens that Biden is running for president.
What do we do?
Okay, how many times I gotta say it?
Is Biden immune now?
It's complicated, man.
It really is.
And I think, you know, Tucker Carlson said it was inappropriate.
I agree.
Is it some nefarious conspiracy to win 2020?
That's what the Democrats are doing!
In Republican-leaning districts, represented by vulnerable freshman Democrats, opposition was more vocal.
Constituents fundamentally opposed to Trump's impeachment protested outside town hall venues and interrupted lawmakers inside them.
And this is where it matters.
The Democrats won.
They won the House because moderates did better.
I think it's like the 800th time I've said it.
I got a graph from The Economist showing that the far left, the progressive Democrats, they did not win.
Out of 79, I think only 7 or 8 won.
So we know the moderates.
They're the ones who gave the Democrats that majority.
And because of the moderates, it's the only reason this is happening.
So what do you think is going to happen then?
When people in these districts, some of which Trump won, and some which are more tepid on the please just legislate, when they see what's happening because of their vote.
Think about it.
If you live in a swing district, and you voted in a Democrat thinking it was the right choice, and your district mostly supports Trump, you're now sitting there realizing this division was on you.
The Democrats you voted in are causing this.
Now look, you want to have an argument about what Trump did, what the Democrats are doing?
Whatever, man.
It's political insanity.
But at the end of the day, the National Republican Congressional Committee knows it's not about how many Democrats support impeachment.
It's about how many districts can they win.
And the moderate districts, I'd be willing to bet, are going to flip.
And they're noticing this.
They say Democrats in Congress are squandering their majority and not focusing on issues that are important to voters.
Two-thirds of voters in target seats and 66% of voters in Republican-held battleground seats agree that Democrats in Congress are too obsessed with impeaching the President and should be working on issues they campaign on, such as funding our military, improving the nation's infrastructure, lowering the cost of prescription drugs, and caring for our nation's veterans.
A full 52% of voters in NRCC target seats and 53% of voters in Republican-held battleground seats say that the top priority of Democrats in Congress is impeaching President Trump.
I get it.
We can look at all the polls.
Check it out.
Here's one from Politico.
Half of voters support impeaching and removing Trump.
Yeah, how many of those voters are in heavy blue areas?
A lot of them.
Now this is true.
Look, according to this poll, we'll take it at its word, there are more people who are supporting impeachment.
And look, I'm going to say this.
I don't care about the Republican and Democrats' position on this one because we know what they're going to support.
It's very obvious that when it comes to where you're going to vote, we've got 84% of Democrats supporting it and we've got 81% of Republicans opposing it.
But the real issue here is the independents.
I've warned the Trump supporters, the conservatives about this.
This is the play that I think Democrats are launching, and it's worked a little bit.
A little bit.
So for a long time, or not for a long time, but there was a poll I talked about where independents think the Democrats have gone too far left, more so than they think the Republicans have gone too far right.
This is one indicator that the moderates may swing towards Trump.
The Democrats seem to be sacrificing the moderate base.
Everything we're seeing now, okay, let me show you these protests, they're literally being booed.
And this is the problem.
While you do have 45% of independents supporting impeachment and 43% opposing it.
They just say it.
I'm assuming they're talking about impeachment because they also talk about complete removal.
I think they're talking about removal, not just impeachment.
They say respondents were asked a series of three questions.
Whether they support the impeachment inquiry, whether they would support the House impeaching Trump, and whether they would support the Senate's voting to remove him.
They don't quite clarify which particular question they're talking about.
But the point is, When it comes to independent support, well, you got 2% leaning in favor of supporting impeachment or removal.
It may be that some of them support the inquiry to get some transparency, or it may be that they want the president out.
In the end, this may be bad news for Trump in terms of his support going into 2020.
However, the Senate, in my opinion, is likely not going to remove him.
That seems like it would be absurd because the Republicans don't want to take that hit, especially in these moderate districts.
So, look, let's say Trump is out completely.
You still have these moderate districts that are going to be, they're probably going to flip conservative, because they were before.
They barely held on and got these Democrats in in the first place.
Check this out.
Let's talk about whether or not any of this will have bearing on Trump's re-election.
I think the answer is no.
Now, that was a poll of voters.
Okay, but while Trump's approval has dipped down at the start of the scandal and the impeachment inquiry, and his disapproval has gone up, take a look at this.
His approval rating right now is not the worst it's ever been.
It's actually quite average, and it's higher than where it was one month ago.
That, to me, says a lot.
Take that into consideration.
Will the Republicans sacrifice the president in the impeachment inquiry to save face?
No.
Because he's still more popular than a month ago, and his approval rating is still higher than a month ago, and his approval rating is higher than basically it's ever been.
Now look, I get it.
We can go back to when he was inaugurated.
Where it dropped really, really quickly.
I don't think that's a fair assessment.
When he got inaugurated, yeah, people were like, okay, great.
Let's see what he can do.
And then bad press comes out.
But over time, the economy has improved.
There have been scandals.
You can basically see the scandals in the dip.
But a lot of people are sick and tired of it.
Namely me.
You know, I've skipped talking.
I talked about China yesterday.
Because at a certain point, I'm like, I'm gonna let things simmer down before I get back into this.
But I do not believe the Republicans will sacrifice Trump over this.
But let's get to the bad news.
Check this out.
Slotkin, Alyssa Slotkin, a Democrat, hears from both sides on Trump impeachment.
In left-leaning East Lansing, so many people packed into Granite Traverse Pie Company that police began blocking entrances to maintain the fire code's limit on patrons.
But, oh, I'm sorry, they say she was greeted by packed meeting with constituents last week that featured boos and applause.
Not boos as in alcohol.
It might be, no, no, like people were booing.
After the Holly Democrat backed an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump in late September, she's in a district that I believe Trump carried by four points.
When she announced she was supporting impeachment, you immediately start hearing people boo.
Then people start clapping, and then the boos become louder.
It is a divisive issue here.
I think because that district carried, because it was carried by Trump, We can see here that those who voted her in, they're going to turn on her.
The moderates who voted are probably saying, what have I done?
Why did I vote for this?
We gave them the majority they are using now in their obsession with Trump instead of dealing with real policy issues.
I think it's look.
There was a study I read.
It was by the New York Times.
And they said when moderate voters were presented with news showing that the Democrats were pushing far left, they were less likely by six points to vote for Democrats.
That says to me, the Democrats know if they talk about policy, they are in trouble.
And they can bless their little hearts that AOC recently came out with a proposal to give access to federal welfare to all illegal immigrants.
That's insane.
I have not met... I get it.
You talk to someone like AOC and her supporters, they'll just defend her no matter what.
The same can be said with Trump's diehard supporters.
They'll defend him no matter what.
But when you talk to the actual voter base, the actual real people who support or oppose, I've talked to people and said, what do you think about this?
And the immediate reaction is like, these people are insane!
Yep.
And they know it.
But I'll tell you what dominates the conversation.
This.
I think that's on purpose.
If they talk about their policies, they're going to lose everybody.
Best not to let moderates know what we're planning, right?
But check this out.
Republicans warn Max Rose, GOP voters will remember his pro-impeachment flip at the polls, mark my words.
Max Rose is also in, he's in, I believe, Staten Island?
Yep, Staten Islanders joined an anti-impeachment rally targeting Max Rose, who initially said no, and then said yes.
Hey look, Tulsi did the same thing.
I am not a fan of this.
And this is what you get.
The people who voted you in, who thought you were gonna, look man.
In a sense, I understand why a moderate district, why some conservatives might be like, I'll vote for the Democrat.
Get some market competition in there.
Get some pushback.
But now look what you've done.
And I imagine a lot of them are saying this was a mistake.
But it's not just in these districts, though.
Trump supporters are coming out in various districts.
Check this out.
Dueling protests over impeachment outside Charlie Crist's office.
Now, he's a Democrat.
You're getting pro and anti-impeachment.
This is where I start to get into the nuance, right?
We've seen the people supporting the president.
Now we're going to see some people opposing the president, but people still coming out to oppose the impeachment.
Check this out.
South Carolina Republicans protest Joe Cunningham over impeachment, which he doesn't support.
It's even getting to that point, right?
GOP accuses Democratic congressmen of impeachment behavior.
It's not even, if you're coming out in support.
This is how much it's having a real backlash.
Now look.
Whether these polls are right or wrong, I can't tell you.
There have been instances where polls have been wrong, polls have been right, and I tend to err on the side of I'll just trust the polls.
I think a lot of these organizations have amended their methodologies, and that's fine.
But I don't think it matters.
I don't think it matters at all for the most part.
We look at that Politico poll.
Okay, 45% of independents support impeachment.
That may matter.
It may.
But in the end, the vote in the individual districts is much, much more important.
The national level isn't what you necessarily need to be paying attention to.
It's these districts.
Look, you may see Democrats get riled up and go vote.
Maybe they're trying to pull, you know, this rallying effect.
You know, Trump won't get impeached.
The Democrats will be outraged and say the rule of law could not be upheld because they're Republicans.
And that might rally a bunch of the Democrats to come out and vote.
However, in these districts, the Republicans might take it back because the Republicans in these districts are upset over it, and that will flip the House back to the right.
Check this out.
Republicans seize on impeachment in a bid to retake the House.
And it all comes to this point.
Everything I've been saying, that it's going to backfire, it's going to be bad, it's going to aid them.
Look, they've raised, you know, millions, tens of millions of dollars, fifteen, sixteen million, a million bucks in six hours.
They're making money off it.
They're going to war over it.
The moderates are shaking and being rocked by booing and protests.
I can't tell you what's going to happen, but I can say it seems to me, and I could be wrong.
It's fine.
I was wrong.
I thought the midterm was going to flip Republican supermajority.
I was like, dude, Republicans are going to take it.
I'd say I was half wrong.
I was definitely wrong about the House.
They swept in, they took a bunch of seats, took the majority, but the Republicans did gain a seat.
I believe one or two, was it, in the Senate.
So in the end, This is fuel for those who are either sick of the scandal news, me, and moderates who feel like voting the Democrat has resulted in this divisive chaos.
Like the NRCC noted, people want policy discussions.
What are you going to do?
Well, here's the important part.
Earlier today, the White House—or, I'm sorry, this was yesterday—they issued a letter to Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the chairman, and they make a bunch of statements.
I'm not going to read through the whole thing.
It's several pages long.
But one of the most important points brought up in this is that by not—well, for one, there's been no formal vote on an actual impeachment inquiry.
This is the fourth time, I believe, in the U.S.
there's been one, an inquiry, but they haven't voted on it.
And they should.
They might not win.
They might.
Now, you're going to hear—like, I remember I heard something on, like, some Democrat said, the Republicans only want the vote so they can force their members to choose now before anything comes out.
That's absurd.
Look, let me read the first two paragraphs for you.
They say, I write on behalf of President Donald J. Trump in response to your numerous legally unsupported demands made as part of what you have labeled, contrary to the Constitution of the United States and all past bipartisan precedent, as an impeachment inquiry.
As you know, you have designed and implemented your inquiry in a manner that violates fundamental fairness and constitutionally mandated due process.
For example, You have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans.
You have conducted your proceedings in secret.
You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers by threatening executive branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercise fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives.
All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent.
Never before in our history has the House of Representatives, under the control of either political party, taken the American people down the dangerous path you seem determined to pursue.
The Democrats started this.
And this is terrifying, this letter.
I was reading it and I'm just saying, listen man.
I'm not going to sit here and say the President is without fault.
I'm not going to sit here and say the Democrats are without fault.
I'm not going to say that Trump is right, Democrats are wrong.
I'm just going to say, the Democrats started a process.
For whatever reason.
That is resulting in a terrifying division of this country.
A breakdown of... It is the most extreme divide I have ever seen in politics.
Even Russiagate.
You had Republicans in Russiagate saying, okay, okay, let's see what Mueller comes up with.
Now it's just, no dice.
People are fighting.
People are divided.
The White House is saying you're violating the Constitution.
The Democrats are saying Trump's violating the Constitution.
Nobody can agree.
That's it.
You know, at the end of the day, we have a very dangerous decision to make.
Do we demand that executive power be reined in at all costs, regardless of the facts?
Even if it means restricting the right of Trump and the Republicans to cross-examine?
Do we allow 2016 to go unanswered?
Where did this come from?
Why did it happen?
Because the executive branch has too much power?
Or do we say we must bring in the reins on the House and not allow Nancy Pelosi to play these political games?
This is the big problem.
I can't tell you which side to take.
I can't tell you which side is right or wrong.
I can tell you that simply by bringing it up, I expect flack from the left and understanding from the right.
It's been the trend I've experienced.
I'm not trying to tell you to defend the president or oppose him.
I'm just trying to tell you that this is dangerous.
And of course, because I don't fall in line, Everything's gonna break down.
I'll give you a more recent example of this strange world we live in.
Ellen DeGeneres was at a football game, sitting next to George W. Bush.
That was it.
And people on the left were outraged.
Ellen had to issue a statement defending herself.
Many people on the right said, but she was just hanging out with somebody.
It's fine.
No, she wasn't.
She showed up to a game and George Bush happened to have been there.
They happened to have sat next to each other.
That's it.
It wasn't the moderates and conservatives complaining.
I very well expect that moderates and conservatives will say to me, OK, Tim, you should take a side.
You're a milquetoast fanciter, yadda yadda yadda.
But that's it.
They're not going to insult me, disparage me, accuse me of one side or the other.
But I'll tell you what, the left will.
So at the end, I can just say it's the Democrats who started this process.
You might think Trump is evil or terrifying, and I think it's fine to point that out.
But there's a reason why Pelosi resisted this for so long.
I think it's going to hurt the Democrats in the House.
Trump will not be impeached.
Trump will be re-elected.
They will lose.
And it will cause an extreme and terrifying division in this country.
But let's move on, because I do have some more I want to highlight.
Check this out.
How the House could impeach Trump for obstructing its probe.
I kid you not!
After this letter, where they said, you are not allowing us to cross-examine, they're accusing Trump of obstructing.
Or at least, that's the question posed by the Washington Post.
I am sick and tired of the double standard.
If it's true that Trump and the Republicans are not being allowed to cross-examine and call witnesses, the Democrats are obstructing.
So why would Trump or anyone else cooperate?
And they've brought it to the next level.
Fine!
If you won't cooperate, we will use that as grounds for impeachment.
This is what I mean when I say it's a dangerous, terrifying precedent.
This is a complete and total breakdown.
How do we resolve this issue?
If Democrats plainly support impeachment and Republicans plainly don't.
If the House is saying, we'll impeach you for obstruction.
Well, let me be real.
It's the Washington Post saying how they could, right?
I don't know where we go from here.
I can tell you, there are no clean hands.
While the call Trump had with Ukraine was inappropriate, I think that's fair, Tucker Carlson said it, inappropriate.
The way I phrased it was that Trump is pushing it, but he didn't cross the line.
And I think it's important that people call him out, and he doesn't, you know, and he reins things in and treads carefully, because we do have a system, look, I get it, if you think the Democrats played a dirty game, and we know that Ukraine, you know, was working to get Manafort, you know, it's a complicated thing, but Politico reported this, Ukraine was now scrambling because they worked with the DNC.
Audio has come out fine.
Listen, Trump's got to tread carefully because it's not just about him and what happened to him.
It's about where we go as a country moving forward.
And I think it's fair to say he pushed it.
To me, didn't cross the line.
I think Tucker Carlson called it.
It's inappropriate.
Is it impeachment worthy?
No, of course not.
I agree.
But there's no clean hands here, okay?
Adam Schiff lied.
Check this out.
Factcheck.org.
Schiff wrong on whistleblower contact.
Oh, wrong, you say?
Check this out.
This is incredible.
A project for the Annenberg Public Policy Center?
Come on, grow a spine.
They said, Rep.
Adam Schiff, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, wrongly implied that his committee had no contact with the whistleblower before receiving the complaint.
Schiff claimed, quote, we have not spoken directly with the whistleblower, when the whistleblower had in fact reached out to a committee aide before filing a complaint.
A Democratic committee official told Schiff, quote, could have been more clear, but was referring to the committee officially interviewing the whistleblower and himself personally.
It was clearly known, however, that the committee hadn't officially interviewed the whistleblower at the time.
Wrong.
They say he's just wrong.
Okay, hold on, man.
They say that Trump lies all the time.
Many of these things, he's just wrong.
Like, they got mad that he said people were soaking wet, right?
He said, I saw people, you know, they came in, they were soaking wet.
It's bad weather out there.
The assumption from CNN and all these pundits was that Trump thought it was raining when it wasn't.
Well, it was 88 degrees and sunny, so people could be soaking wet with sweat.
The point is, it doesn't matter what you think Trump meant.
It matters that when Trump said people were soaking wet, the immediate assumption was Trump was lying about the weather.
Who cares?
The point is, they say over and over again he's lying.
Okay?
I think he's a liar.
I do think Trump lies.
But I think all politicians lie.
I'm not surprised.
I do think, however, mostly, they're wrong a lot.
That's fine.
We know they're wrong a lot.
They're not smarter than anybody else, for the most part.
In the end, though, when it comes to Schiff, what do we get from fact check?
Oh, well, Schiff said he hadn't spoken with the whistleblower.
You know, we, we, we, we, we.
He said we, not I. We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower.
That's not true because we did, right?
The we as in you and your people did.
But they say he was wrong.
No, he went on TV and he lied.
Why couldn't he just say it straight up?
This is what happened.
This is, you know, why?
Well, you get the point.
Let's move on from here.
Paul Sperry, a former D.C.
bureau chief for Investors Business Daily, tweeted, Hill's sources say fear is spreading among moderate Democrats that the impeachment inquiry may be irrevocably tainted by a series of actions taken by the Pelosi leadership, which the public will come to view as unfair and overly partisan.
Yep.
I think so.
I think if Trump isn't allowed to cross-examine, I'm shocked by that statement.
Is that true?
From the White House?
They're not allowing Trump to actually have a fair assessment?
A fair trial?
I'm not saying a literal trial, but like, come on.
We want to have an inquiry.
Will other Republicans and Trump come in and state their case?
What country do we live in?
We allow due process.
Yes, when I see what they're doing, I do view it as unfair and overly partisan.
And that's probably why you hear booing and see protests.
So I got a couple more things to wrap up on.
Document reveals Ukraine had already reopened probe of Hunter Biden-linked firm months before Trump phone call.
I don't like talking about this because it's so silly.
But in the end, this story from Fox News, which is I believe just from today, we're learning, or I'm sorry, this may be from yesterday, or late at night.
John Solomon, a new document shows that before Trump even asked about it, they had already opened the probe.
No quid pro quo.
Not only did they not know about aid being withheld, But they were already investigating it.
So what game can we continue to play?
All I can say is the Senate won't impeach Trump.
I'm sorry, they won't convict.
And the Democrats are going to lose out.
It's really frustrating for me to see the Democrats continually just spiral out of control.
You know, they smear Tulsi.
They ridicule her on Twitter.
They mock her and belittle her.
The Young Turks just came out attacking Tulsi Gabbard.
Amazing.
One of the few sane individuals on the Democrat side working to actually bring things together who holds progressive views, many of which I agree with, and that's what they do.
They smear and belittle, they prop up the crazies, and they play these crazy games.
I don't know what to tell you, but I'll throw one more bit of shade over at the press.
Real clear politics.
The curious case of the incurious press.
Why, yes, it's correct.
It's so weird.
The Intercept recently wrote a piece, I tweeted it earlier, that Joe Biden has been using his career to enrich himself and his family.
Does that mean he, like, what does that mean?
Look, it just means we know it.
We know it.
And for some reason the press just says, don't worry about it.
There's a really great shot in Mike Cernovich's documentary where he's doing an interview with, like, Scott Pelley, I believe, of AP or CBS or something—60 Minutes, I think—and he says, you wrote a fake news story accusing Hillary Clinton of being sick.
And Cernovich said, you know, basically she was.
And he says, well, that's not true.
Cernovich asks, how do you know that?
And he says, they told us.
And then Cernovich goes, why would you believe them?
And then his glasses fall off and he's like stuttering.
Yeah.
Why is it that whenever the establishment position is espoused to the press, it's fact, but Trump's position is always a lie and always wrong?
I don't care to play these games.
Trump may be a liar and he may be wrong a lot.
Fine.
But give me the evidence.
Period.
Right now there's none.
It's a blank.
It's a blank tab.
They've been pushing impeachment nonstop forever.
I do not trust them.
They cried wolf over Russia.
Enough.
Your credibility is shot.
I don't want to hear it.
I'm sick of it.
And the press is notably absent.
Notably absent.
They don't care.
There's no journalism anymore.
What can I say?
The subject to me is very frustrating.
It's why I took a... You know, people were saying, like, Tim, take a deaf... I did!
I talked about China and video games, and before that I talked about the press.
I let this stew for a little bit, and here I am back with what you can expect.
The results are in.
Moderates are facing a major backlash, and this could cost them the house.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6 p.m., and I will see you all there.
Devin Nunes has won one of the first battles in his lawsuit against Twitter, and I'm really surprised.
Now let me just say, because there's legal issues here, I'm not a lawyer, I know very little about this, so I could be wrong on a lot of these issues.
But it seems like Devin Nunes has pulled a very clever move against Twitter in suing them over parody accounts.
Now, I disagree to an extent with this, but actually, let me just slow down and break this down for you.
Twitter is biased against conservatives.
Period.
The best example is that they have a rule stating if you misgender someone, you can be banned.
It's against the rules.
If conservatives don't believe in the idea of misgendering, well, then you've made a rule that only targets them.
Okay?
Now, this is all going back to my argument with Jack Dorsey, or a conversation, and Joe Rogan and all that, where we talked about bias, and he didn't seem to understand this.
But, you know, I think he got it when I told him.
So here's what's going on.
You guys know Devin Nunes, conservative guy.
There was a parody account, a cow called Devin Nunes' cow or something, and his mom, and he wanted to stop them.
Now, I disagree.
I think people are allowed to parody you.
The issue is, it is a political tactic, but at the end of the day, so what?
Free speech, First Amendment.
But something clever happened.
Devin Nunes didn't sue Twitter for defamation.
You see, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, you can't.
He sued them for negligence.
This is really, really interesting.
And he won the first phase.
Like, they're moving forward.
Now, here's why it's so important.
They're going to enter Discovery now.
Now, we'll see if Twitter actually produces what, you know, any documents at all, because it seems that Nunes wants a ton of documents.
But let me, man, there's so much to go through here.
Let me slow down.
What this means is that if there is evidence of a bias against conservatives, Nunes will get access to it.
He just simply needs to make that demand.
We'll see if it gets, you know, approved or granted or whatever.
But for the most part, they're moving forward and discovery is the next step.
Not only that, it's in Virginia that apparently doesn't allow an immediate right of appeal.
Meaning, Twitter, welcome to the ballgame.
You might have to produce a bunch of information And this might reveal, Twitter knows it has a bias, and this could be really, really damaging, not just in the sense that conservatives might finally get a look under the, you know, behind the curtain, but if Twitter's misled the public in statements to Congress or in public statements, and it turns out behind the scenes they're saying something different, which I'd have to assume is likely true,
They're gonna be in serious trouble because they're a publicly traded company.
So check this out, this is from McClatchy DC Bureau.
What's next in the Devin Nunes' lawsuit against Twitter fake cow?
Now I gotta stress, man, when it was announced he was suing over this parody account, I was like, seriously?
You know, people are allowed to parody you.
But he's suing Twitter for negligence and saying they allow defamation to continue.
The core issue is not that it's free speech.
The core issue is that Nunes is saying you are selectively enforcing your rules and allowing this person to impersonate my mom, the mother account, even though it's a violation of your own policies.
Take a look at AOC Press.
You remember that account?
Somebody made a Twitter account called AOC Press, and it was a parody account that said parody on it.
It said AOC parody, and it posted silly things.
Banned.
And they banned the dude who ran it, a conservative guy.
Devin Nunes' mom?
No problem!
You see, this is what he's suing for.
It's not about defamation.
It's about asymmetrical enforcement of rules, saying you are negligent in enforcing your own rules, which allows defamation to continue.
And the court said, yeah.
So basically what happens is, here's my understanding, I think, you know, Nunes is suing in Virginia because this one woman who wrote on her LinkedIn that she smears people for a living, she's a political consultant, lives in Virginia, something like that.
Twitter tried arguing that it's undue expense for them to fight this in Virginia because they're based in California, and the judge said, that's absurd, you operate in 200 countries, I think you can handle Virginia.
But then, The judge requested some information, and something happened where Twitter absolutely refused.
So the judge said, fine, we're moving forward.
Let me just read this story.
Let me read this.
They say, Rep Devin Nunes's lawsuit against Twitter is moving forward in Virginia, but expect more legal challenges to unfold before the California Republican gets a chance to make his case in the courtroom.
Two of the defendants, Twitter and Republican political strategist Liz Mayer, on Monday said they intend to continue fighting Nunes's lawsuit in Virginia's Henrico County Circuit Court.
Last week, Judge John Marshall dealt Twitter a setback when he rejected the company's argument that Nunes has no grounds to sue the San Francisco social media company in Virginia Twitter argued the case had to be tried in a California court.
Marshall ruled the Henrico County Circuit Court had jurisdiction because Mayer wrote tweets that were critical of Nunes while she was living and working in Virginia.
Nunes argues in legal documents that Twitter's alleged negligence in not removing her messages affected his reputation in Virginia.
The lawsuit was the first of five Nunes filed this year alleging that various groups conspired against him when he was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Now it's not just that we're going to move forward and there's potential discovery here.
What's absolutely fascinating, and I could be wrong about this, I am not a legal scholar, is that this decision to move forward is a slight precedent, essentially.
It's not like a real precedent, but They're saying something interesting.
So in Washington, D.C., political affiliation is a protected class.
There are various protections in various areas.
In fact, you know, gender identity in New York City, not recognized nationwide, but in many states.
The reason this is interesting is that if the place you make the tweets matters, then that potentially has an impact on whether or not Twitter would be able to enforce their rules.
Again, I could be wrong, But the way I see it is, if he's arguing that Virginia has jurisdiction over this dispute, would it not hold true then?
If you're in Washington, D.C.
and post something in support of a political group and get banned for it, would D.C.
not have jurisdiction?
And if that's the case, wouldn't D.C.
enforce the rules and say, you are operating in Washington, D.C.
Yes, Twitter, you are.
Therefore, you must abide by Washington, D.C.
law.
So, let's say you have the Pepe Party, right?
And you're posting all of these memes, and Twitter bans you for it.
And you say, hey, all of these are political messaging.
It's all in line with our party.
Would D.C.
then say, hey, in our jurisdiction where you operate, you can't ban this?
That's an interesting question.
Now, I've talked to some lawyers about this before.
And typically the response I've gotten is, it is an interesting argument, but there has to be a suit, right?
There has to be a challenge.
So one of the things that I was told by a couple different lawyers was that people need to start suing Twitter, challenging Section 230 and pushing out and trying to find those cracks in the system.
And this is what we have now.
The judge saying it's not a violation of Section 230 because he's not suing you for defamation.
So if you're not familiar, Section 230 says you can't hold Twitter accountable for what someone else says.
Fine.
We agree.
However, Twitter has rules and allows these accounts to operate with impunity in violation of the rules.
That is negligence and therefore Twitter has a responsibility if they're not going to enforce their own policy rules.
So we're moving forward.
Now, they do mention Discovery.
It's about a talking cow.
Let's jump to the Discovery portion.
Because Discovery is when you get access to documents, chat messages, travel logs.
So, it's interesting.
Devin Nunes is actually asking for a ton of information.
Like, a lot.
Like, an asset list for this woman, Liz Mare.
So let's read this.
They'd attack this on him being a public official.
So the standard is higher and basically say, so what?
To his allegations, Young said.
I mean, it talks about a cow who's going to take it seriously.
would be to file another attempt at dismissal that essentially would argue Nunes doesn't have a case.
They'd attack this on him being a public official. So the standard is higher and basically say,
so what, to his allegations, Young said. I mean, it talks about a cow who's going to
take it seriously. Hold on. It's also a parody of his mom.
Now that's different.
Having, you know, a count whether people know it's real or not.
Excuse me.
Drinking coffee.
Whether they know it's real or not is not a joke cow.
But listen, listen.
I will make sure it's absolutely clear.
I don't know what you should or shouldn't do in terms of fighting back.
I do know people are allowed to make parody accounts of you, and welcome to America.
It's called the First Amendment.
The challenge, I guess, is how do you solve for political smears and hits?
I guess you don't.
This is one of the big problems we have.
You are allowed to falsely frame and even lie in many circumstances.
That's the First Amendment!
Now, this is why I'm not a free speech absolutist.
Defamation and smears are not protected in that you can sue over them.
But, I believe it's New York Times v. Sullivan, a lawsuit that set precedent saying there's a higher standard for a public official.
That's what they're trying to say.
Hey, everyone's gonna smear you, sometimes you get it wrong, you can't hold us accountable for that.
That's kind of the argument.
But saying, I mean, it talks about a cow who's going to take it seriously is clearly reductive and ignores the rest of his suit.
Twitter and others will likely be able to continue delaying Nuna's discovery requests unless Marshall orders them to produce documents, according to Young, which he has not done.
Twitter's lawyers have complained to Marshall that Nuna's discovery requests are particularly extensive, and that's the point.
I don't think Nunes cares about the cow.
I don't think Nunes cares about the parody accounts at all.
I think he's a conservative looking at this saying, how do we get discovery?
What can we do to find a crack in the system so that Twitter is forced to turn over documents?
Well, they found it.
Negligence.
So he sues for the parody stuff.
It might not win in the long run, but at least they've made it now, it seems, a discovery.
And whether or not the judge orders the documents, we'll see.
But, Nunes has gone...
Nuclear.
Check this out.
He's asking for documentation of any time a Twitter employee has gone to Virginia since 2014.
What?
Why?
All information related to the parody accounts at DevinCow and at DevinNunezMom, including phone numbers and all their tweets, messages, likes, and retweets, and Mayor's tax returns dating back to 2016, and a report of her assets and liabilities.
I'm gonna tell you why I think this is.
The messages between these parody accounts might show a coordinated effort to smear and potentially break the law.
There's going to be private DMs between these accounts, and they're going to be saying things.
You might find someone say, hey, Nunes wants to do this.
Why don't you lie and say this?
Hey, make it seem like this.
No, he doesn't really want to do that, but who cares?
Say this anyway.
You don't know.
We don't know.
And that's why this is so potentially damning.
More importantly, what about any, I don't know if he's asking for this, but what about any instance in which Twitter internally discussed the matter and a refusal to enforce their own rules?
This is where things get interesting because you might uncover information that Twitter was misleading the public.
Maybe not, it's all speculation.
The point is the door has been opened.
Nunes, this is a huge win for conservatives.
So, I mean, they then bring up Jenny Depp, I don't, whatever, I don't care.
They say the six-page decision by Marshall partially relied on another case garnering some public spotlight, the case of Johnny Depp suing Amber Heard, his ex-wife.
Heard wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post in December 2018 about her experiences with domestic abuse and the societal backlash.
She didn't name Depp, but Depp's lawyers argued she implied through the op-ed that Depp was a domestic abuser.
Since the Washington Post's servers are located in Virginia, Depp's lawyers argued the case belonged in the state.
Hurd argued that she had written the op-ed in other states and had not even directly communicated with any Washington Post employees when submitting it through a third party, so she moved to dismiss the case in Virginia.
Judge Bruce D. White ruled earlier this year that because publication occurred in Virginia, the state was the proper venue for the case.
The Washington Post distributes newspapers in Virginia and is widely read there.
Marshall cited that decision in ruling that his court had jurisdiction over Mayor Enter tweets.
He alleges that the newspaper article about an employee's lawsuit against a company in which Nunes had a limited partnership defamed him.
Okay, so I'm gonna wrap it up there.
You get the point.
Things are moving forward and we may get to see behind the curtain at Twitter.
Does this mean we're guaranteed anything?
It doesn't.
But it could result in some particularly embarrassing information.
And if he wins, regardless of discovery, it could set precedent that Twitter and other platforms are negligent in refusing to enforce their rules.
That will dramatically change the landscape for Everyone.
That includes conservatives.
Expect to see way more people getting banned, way more suspensions, way more restrictions of speech.
So I'm not a fan of that.
I'm not a fan of that at all.
And I think people should be allowed to parody whoever they want.
But, regardless, Nunes is winning on this part.
We'll see what happens in the future.
Stick around.
I'll have updates in this story as it comes.
Next segment will be at 1pm, and I will see you all then.
As the saying goes, if Donald Trump came out in support of oxygen, Democrats would hold their breath.
Now, I must admit, the exact same joke is used in the other direction.
Because we live in this weird, wacky world of two separate realities.
One screen, two movies, as Scott Adams says.
I always mix that up.
Well, here we have something absolutely incredible.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez coming out in support of war?
How strange.
Yeah, because people don't take positions based off of what they think is right.
They take positions based off of what they think their tribe wants.
Take a look at this tweet.
Actually, before we do, Donald Trump is pulling out several dozen U.S.
soldiers from Syria.
I don't think we should be the defenders of New Kurdistan, right?
The Kurds are there.
They helped fight ISIS.
I get it.
The controversy now is based on Trump abandoning our allies.
Okay, well, hold on.
We shouldn't have been there in the first place.
We're not the world police, and this is complicated.
Turkey, as of right now, this is big breaking news, Turkey's moving in to the north, northern Syria, and I believe they're now, I don't want to get too much into it, I don't want to give you faulty details, it's happening as we speak, but military action is beginning.
Many people on the left are outraged that Trump would pull his soldier, pull U.S., I'm sorry, not his, but pull U.S.
soldiers out of Syria, and it says to me, The reason I think they support Kurds is because the Kurds are very far left.
Many Antifa fighters have gone to northern Syria to fight against ISIS, and we've seen many of the Antifa personalities on Twitter take credit for this.
Well, Trump is not here to support a new anarcho-state or a new Kurdistan.
America was supporting American interests, and I understand the complication over, you know, U.S.
regime change wars, but it all seems like, I don't know, cheating and using power to get what we want because we can, and I'm not a big fan of that.
So here's what Ocasio-Cortez tweets.
Trump's sudden withdrawal from northern Syria and endorsement of Turkey's actions could
have catastrophic consequences and risk laying the ground for immense violence and suffering.
We can pursue a strategy to stop our endless wars without endangering the lives of innocent
people.
This is hilarious because you can see that she's trying to still maintain her position
as anti-war, but she has to oppose Trump.
Is it really that hard?
I have no problem giving credit to AOC for her calling, when she called out big tech surveillance.
I don't care.
I'm not on your side or against you, whatever.
Just do something good and I'll credit you for it.
The same goes for you.
The same goes for Trump.
I lean a little bit more towards it's probably a good thing Trump did this.
We shouldn't be the world police.
The whole Syria situation is due to us trying to offset, you know, the gas problem monopoly.
This ties back into Ukraine.
It's extremely complicated.
And boy, do I not know all the details because they're probably mostly classified.
But the U.S.
is trying to aid Europe in getting them, you know, cheaper fuels, and that's why, you know, there was an article in The Guardian from 2013 talking about how the U.S.
had planned regime change since as early as 2009 in Syria.
Very convenient, then, that when the protests erupt, the U.S.
sides with the protests, and then eventually ISIS emerges, and that caused a huge problem for everybody.
It is a complicated situation.
I'm not here to defend, say anybody's right or wrong, but I will say it's very funny That Trump is now saying we shouldn't have done this, bring our troops home, and Cortez has to criticize this.
Look, man, there's no perfect move.
There's no perfect decision.
But what she's saying, make no mistake, is the same argument they use for justifying why we are still in, you know, Afghanistan or Iraq.
Oh, we can't just leave!
The people, oh no!
We can't do it!
We must stay there for 20 years!
Yeah, that makes no sense, man.
I'm really surprised Trump is making moves like this.
I think he's listening.
Gotta admit, when it comes to the moderates and the former leftists, or disaffected leftists, who actually oppose war, we're like, good!
Get the troops out of there!
See, here's the thing.
Trump simultaneously is pulling out of Syria, and it's very, you know, it's positive for the true anti-war personalities, but you still have him playing up to Saudi Arabia over Yemen and Iran.
See, it's not perfect.
Trump is not perfect.
I'm not going to act like he's doing everything right and give him my support.
I like that he's removing several dozen soldiers, U.S.
troops from these areas, but that's not the trend when it comes to Iran.
Keep that in mind.
Also keep in mind that he recently gave a cordial shout-out to China Amidst the Hong Kong protests.
I understand diplomacy is difficult.
So I'm not going to fault him too much for that.
A lot of people on the left are saying, how dare he praise China?
Well look man, he's trying to win this fight.
And that means he has to play things carefully.
I will be critical of that, but I understand it's not the end of the world.
It's complicated.
Point being, what he's doing in terms of Saudi Arabia, what he's doing in terms of what's going on with Iran and even Yemen, not good.
Why is AOC now coming out with this typical, you know, crony establishment talking point of, we can't just leave without an exit strategy and leave our allies high and dry.
That's the same thing I've heard every single year as to why we're still policing the Middle East and Afghanistan and Iraq.
And now they're talking about Iran.
I don't want that.
I don't want that for our country.
And this is one of the reasons I really do like Tulsi Gabbard.
I'm not going to dedicate too much time to this because you guys know I like talking about this, but she makes a very important point.
She did an interview with John Stossel.
You see, this is what we need.
We need someone like John Stossel, very libertarian, talking with Tulsi about why this matters.
And there's one really important point I think everyone will agree with.
Okay, except for the Warhawks.
All of that money we spent on the war machine can be spent on the medicine machine, on the building American infrastructure machine.
There's a meme going around among Trump supporters that AOC and the Democrats are more concerned with protecting Syria's northern border than they are with protecting America's southern border.
Why do we build infrastructure in foreign countries when we have a Flint water crisis?
That's a question I would like answered.
And that's one of the reasons I do like Tulsi Gabbard.
It's a point she brought up on the Rubin Report.
Why can't Flint have clean water?
It's like, what, $40 million to refit and fix this?
How much do we spend overseas in the past 18 years?
$6 trillion?
I'm pretty sure we can find $40 million in that number.
Newark now is talking about bad water.
We need our infrastructure here fixed.
I get it.
It's complicated.
It's not perfect.
I understand the nuance in the issue.
It's not simple.
I understand we can't just up and leave for a lot of reasons.
Things could descend into chaos.
I've heard all the arguments.
I'm listening.
But when Trump says we're going to bring our troops out of Syria and there's like 50, OK, fine.
Can we please spend that money?
Here!
For the people suffering here.
We've got a homeless crisis in California.
This is what's always bothered me about the war machine.
The amount of money we spend so we can go off and get cheap gas, which I understand, boosts the economy here.
But hey, guess what?
The U.S.
is the biggest producer of fossil fuels right now, isn't it?
The last time I checked.
So great, we don't need to go over there and change their regimes because we want them to sell to us and we want them to play our game.
How about we play the game right?
We compete, we build a great economy, we secure our borders, we welcome immigrants and refugees to the extent that we're capable, while making this country better.
Tulsi Gabbard is talking about these wars.
She's criticized Donald Trump over Saudi Arabia.
I don't know what she said so far on Syria, but this is the point.
This is the reality of what the left was supposed to be about.
And now what's really strange is it's the right predominantly saying, go Trump.
Now, many people just want to support the president, so they'll agree with him no matter what he does.
But I got to admit, check this out, Trump tweeted about it.
He said, The United States has spent $8 trillion fighting and policing in the Middle East.
Thousands of our great soldiers have died or been badly wounded.
Millions of people have died on the other side.
Going into the Middle East is the worst decision ever made in the history of our country.
We went to war under a false and now disproven premise, weapons of mass destruction.
There were none.
Now we are slowly and carefully bringing our great soldiers and military home.
Our focus is on the big picture.
The USA is greater than ever before.
Well, I will point this out.
When you put out tweets and statements in defense of Saudi Arabia and prepare to send soldiers to Saudi Arabia so you can fight Iran or Yemen or whatever, I'm not going to take your word for it.
But this is a correct point.
Not that I think he genuinely believes this in the long run, but he's right right now.
Ron Paul had an interesting statement a long time ago.
He said, you know, the argument we have, I'll paraphrase, the argument we have with being in the Middle East is that it's too destructive or too expensive, we can't just leave.
And he says, when a doctor prescribes you the wrong medicine, you don't just keep taking it, you have to stop, even if it means withdrawal.
Yes!
Okay, the night is... What is it?
The day is always darkest before the dawn.
Is that how it goes?
The night is always darkest before the dawn?
Whatever.
It might be bad.
Bad things might happen.
The Kurds might face serious trouble.
But you know what?
We can't just be like, oh well, we're here, we have to stay forever.
Because then, what are we gonna do?
Keep cycling out more and more troops and have a permanent presence?
I'm just not a fan with that.
But I love how AOC... There you go!
I've spent this whole video talking about Trump-Saudi Arabia, not a good thing.
Trump-Syria, pretty much a good thing.
Not perfect, you know, I understand.
Why is it that I can have the conversation about the nuance in these policies and they can't?
Why does it have to be that when Trump says we're going to get our troops out of Syria, all of a sudden AOC is like, no, catastrophic, yeah, yeah, yeah, welcome to the 2000s with the Iraq war, the endless Iraq-Afghanistan military incursions that we knew were bad, we knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, that have cost us trillions of dollars, and then when people are like, can we just stop, they say, Well, let me quote AOC for you.
This is the same exact argument.
And that says to me that she doesn't care.
She's a sellout.
She's playing... Look, she'll dance around the far-left identitarian stuff because it panders to the new, younger, you know, Democrat types or whatever.
But when it comes to actually standing up for principle, she has none.
She doesn't have any.
She plays the same silly game where whenever she does something wrong, she goes, it was the right wing.
No, I'm not having it, okay?
I think Trump is bad character.
Fine.
I think Saudi Arabia is bad.
Absolutely bad.
I think North Korea crossing the DMZ was amazing, symbolic, historical, and important.
I think what he's doing in Syria, I lean towards good.
It's not hard to have a nuanced opinion and not just say Trump good, Trump bad.
It can be both.
He can be good on some things, bad on the other things.
This is why I never want to support anybody.
And that's why when Tulsi Gabbard came out in support of impeachment, I don't regret supporting Tulsi.
Absolutely not.
I absolutely still support her.
But that was a big letdown.
And with Yang coming out and saying all these disparaging things about Trump being overweight, that was a huge letdown.
And so, this is why I've always hated putting my weight or anything behind these people.
If I came out in support of someone like AOC, and then when it comes to the actual getting our troops out of the Middle East, she does this, I would be embarrassed.
I would be embarrassed.
Look, Yang saying mean things, I roll my eyes and I say, please don't do that, dude.
You're above this.
That's why I like you as a candidate.
Because you've got a comprehensive package of domestic policy positions that I think makes a lot of sense.
Not perfect.
Tulsi Gabbard, okay?
Talking about these military incursions, the waste of money, why we shouldn't be there, why we're risking our good men and women's lives.
I completely agree.
She opposes private prisons and the war on drugs.
I'm like, spot on!
Supporting the impeachment thing was a mistake.
But you know what?
Pencils have erasers.
We'll see what happens.
But I'm not surprised that AOC is a sellout with no principles.
Okay?
It's not hard.
It's such an obvious and generic statement she made.
It's just an obvious and generic statement.
It is the generic trash I've heard over and over again my whole life.
You know, when I was like 16 or 17, I was marching around protesting the war in Iraq.
It was ongoing, civilians were being killed, we were wasting money, and it was all built on a lie.
And Trump said this on the debate stage.
Remember in 20, it was 20, was it 2015 or 16 in the, I think it was 2015, when he blamed, he said Jeb Bush, he's like, Bush lied?
Yeah.
Yes, people heard that.
And that's why Moderate said, yup, the guy might not have good personality, but he's right about that.
So you can talk about all the scandals all day and it's fine, whatever.
Okay?
There's things to criticize him for and things to give him credit for.
This is just the generic talking point.
Trump must be wrong no matter what.
I'm just so sick of it.
No one deserves my support.
We'll see what happens.
I'm sorry, that's not true.
Tulsi Gabbard has remained fairly consistent, and I'll respect that, and I do believe that while I was let down with her coming on the impeachment side, I get it, man.
You know, I've had a lot of people say to me, We cannot allow the executive authority to grow unchecked when they do these kinds of things.
And I completely agree, and I've said this over and over again, that it's actually, in a sense, a good thing that Trump faces the scrutiny he does, because you have to think about the executive authority that comes after him.
We cannot have the executive branch continuing to encroach and expand its powers, which it has done.
At the same time, I also have to recognize that they're burning down the castle for the sake of not allowing someone to live in it.
It's like, dude, I want to make sure we put pressure on the president, be it Obama or otherwise.
That's why if you look at my main channel, I've got videos years ago where I was criticizing Obama's policies and what he was signing.
No problem!
I have no problem calling people out.
Now it's kind of swung too far in the other direction.
It's like, come on, man.
You know, can we rally and criticize the president for talking about Saudi Arabia and let the insanity of three years of Russiagate and now Ukraine, you know, gate?
I'm just — it's getting too far now to where the plane is — look, you don't want a madman flying the plane.
But you also don't want to be standing there wrestling the controls like crazy while the whole thing crashes to the ground.
No, let's figure out how to safely land the plane, tell the passengers why this guy's flying like a lunatic, but for the time being, it's almost like there is a fear that these people have that Trump is going to crash the plane, so they decide to grab the controls and shake violently, causing the plane to crash.
That's how I feel.
It's like, no, chill out, okay?
If we see these signs, You know, if he starts jamming the controls into the ground, he's gonna crash, fine.
I get it.
But that's not what we're seeing.
At the most, we're seeing him say off-color things and inappropriate things.
And that's about it!
So, you know what?
I don't need to rant too much on this one.
I got another video coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
We're gonna talk about... Man...
It was obvious.
We talked about it before, but the signs are in.
Moderate Democrats are taking a bad backlash over impeachment because the moderates who got voted in did so on the premise that they were going to serve this country and try and mend the divide and campaign on policy.
And now they're jumping into the fray of the impeachment nonsense.
So criticism all across the board for the impeachment absurdity built upon lies and conjecture and opinion.
I don't know what to tell you, man.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
I'll see you all there.
Age definitions are meaningless, just like gender.
From an NBC drama, it's actually... I laughed.
A lot.
I laughed a lot a lot.
So this is from MRC Newsbusters, and they have a story about NBC drama, and they have this clip, which is like, I don't know, it's like a minute or two long, and this young lawyer makes an impassioned plea that age is arbitrary, and we should be able to define our ages however we identify.
Let's be real.
If you can claim that, you know, as you were born a man, that you're actually a woman, or you were born male, you're actually female, then why can't you change your age?
It's an interesting argument.
In fact, it's the argument they use to support the trans argument.
Yes.
What you're seeing is that in this show, a guy wants to change his age from 62 to 42, and says, the point is, it's an argument you can use if you're transgender.
However, I think this actually does the opposite and proves the absurdity of some of these changes and restrictions.
There's a reason why your ID will say M or F. Now, I understand it's complicated, right, when someone's trans, because if you are transgender and you appear totally female, then people might be confused, but think about the importance of why that M would be there in that case.
Now, it may feel better for you and your identity to have it say an F instead of an M, but if you're male, That means medication, treatments, they're gonna affect you differently.
And this is a fact.
We did a big segment on this for Subverse about how it was only like in the early 90s they actually started doing clinical trials for... Clinical trials had to include women and men because the biology was different and they affected them differently.
And I've also read about how, you know, females are affected differently by painkillers and things like that.
In which case, we need special treatment.
So, let's say you have a heart attack, and then someone pulls out your ID and has the wrong classification for your biology.
Well, that could put your life in danger.
More importantly, your age can make determinations based on what may have caused you this illness, based on probability and, you know, what we expect.
Now, let's read the story, but I will stress, I also want to highlight This is a real story.
An NBC drama made a dramatized version of it, but this guy, Emile Rattleband, 69, tried to legally change his age using trans arguments.
He lost.
I think the reason he was doing it was because he was, like, making a point about Trans is not in support of these rules.
I could be wrong.
But in the TV show, they make it very much in favor of.
Essentially, what they're saying in the show is that trying to change your age is a big ask.
Meaning, ask for something truly absurd like, I'm not really 33, I'm actually 17.
That way, when everyone says no, you walk it back to, OK, but what about gender?
And they say, yes.
When in reality, I think it does the opposite.
I think if you go to someone and try and tell them that you have a different age, they're going to be like, you're nuts.
Because age is an important factor for many, many things.
Like, you can't run for president.
What if a 10-year-old said, I identify as 35, and they went, OK, and now you can run for president?
Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
Let's read the story.
They say, the same week as the Supreme Court prepared to hear arguments about whether Title VII should include protections for LGBTQ individuals, NBC's legal drama Bluff City Law presented arguments of its own.
They just hit the agenda initially in absurdity.
In the October 7th episode, 25 Years to Life, attorneys Sidney Straight and Anthony Little go to court on behalf of their former law professor, whose petition to legally change his age from 62 to 42 has been rejected by the city.
In court, Straight makes an impassioned civil rights argument on Professor Marshall's behalf, saying age, race, gender, and orientation all have definitions that evolve.
Quote, we create categories like race, gender, orientation, and we think we know what those words mean because we think their definitions are fixed.
But those definitions evolve, she argues.
Orientation started with the assumption that it couldn't be fluid.
Gender started as a biological classification, not an identity.
Let me just stop you right there and say it can be fluid, but it was never assumed that it couldn't be.
I'm talking about orientation.
That's why there's a B in LGBT, for bi, because there is fluidity.
There are people who have relationships with both men and women.
No one said that couldn't be.
I mean, for a long time, people knew it existed, but it was frowned upon.
It's not an issue of whether something can exist or is defined, it's an issue of societal acceptance.
The real argument that she needs to... I should say, the argument I'll push back, I know it's fictional, but they're doing this on purpose.
is that no, there was no assumption it couldn't be fluid.
Now you want to talk about gender fluidity.
That's like we're talking about style, right?
Here's the big problem with gender fluidity.
You can't transition between male and female physically over and over again.
Like there's a limit.
There are people who have detransitioned and got surgery to do so.
But if you're born male and you get gender affirming surgery to become cosmetically female,
you can't, you're not, first of all, you're not really female.
You're still male, but you've, you know, altered your body and you use external hormones to make those changes.
Let's be real about the science.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful.
So that's why it's called affirming surgery.
It's creating an outward appearance that reflects how you feel on the inside, but it does not make you female.
Perhaps in the future, they will figure out something in that regard.
But for the time being, There is no real gender fluidity.
The concept of gender fluidity is contradictory in the LGBT community itself in that if somebody... You see a lot of these gender fluid people who will sometimes wear jeans and a t-shirt and sometimes wear a dress.
That's just simply talking about the clothes you wear and not whether you're male or female.
You see the conundrum here.
The non-binary trans is very, very different and at odds with the actual idea of binary transgenderism, I guess you'd call it.
Let's read.
Gender started as a biological classification, not an identity.
That's not true either.
Now, gender has come to represent biology, but I believe the word gender was created to talk about the social aspects of biological sex.
I mean that seriously.
So, my general understanding is that around the 50s, someone was trying to explain how some things could be masculine and feminine.
What was a word you could describe that wasn't biological that represented a word that was feminine and a word that was masculine?
Case in point, when you're talking about, you know, um, I don't know, children in Spanish.
Niño and niña.
One is, well, it's the gender is the a or the o.
So it was a reference to social issues.
That has been taken and stretched to mean that you literally can change from being a man to a woman.
I'm sorry, we don't have the technology yet.
Maybe they'll figure it out.
Maybe soon.
But for the time being, it's fantasy.
You can't change.
You can't transform.
You can't shapeshift.
You know what I mean?
You can get surgery to change the appearance.
But even that's obviously not perfect.
It's just surgery.
Let's read on.
I'm not trying to be a dick.
Let's just talk about reality.
This is why so many young people are coming forward and saying your definitions are out of date.
I may have been labeled a man when I was born, but I'm a woman.
Or maybe I was told to be attracted to one, but I'm actually attracted to them all.
We all have the right to privacy, and that includes the right to have our true identities recognized by the court, especially when people are already being discriminated against for having those identities.
When it comes to his age, who are we to say he's wrong, she closes.
The judge finds some merit in Strait's argument and declares that the world is changing, but courts and lawmakers are turning a deaf ear to real discrimination.
Mr. Little and Ms.
Strait, I hope your argument will serve as a catalyst for real cases about orientation and identity.
For these are people who should have their day in court, the judge says.
However, she still denies the age change petition.
The judge tells Marshall, off the record, that his claim is ridiculous, and to simply lie if he wants to date younger men.
Full stop.
How is it ridiculous?
If you want to assert your biology is something different from what it is, Why do we stop at gender?
If someone can get a document that doesn't even have an M or an F on it as an X, why can't I change my age to, I don't know, like the prince symbol?
Why does it have to be a number?
What about infinity?
What if I want my age to, you know?
So the problem is, classifications for gender and age are for a reason.
They're specifically for a reason.
And we're now doing away with a system meant for, you know, I mean look, using medical circumstances as an example, there's a reason why we classify people as what they are.
So, as I mentioned in a video the other day, the most effeminate male is more effeminate than the average female.
That doesn't mean the person is a woman or should be told to transition.
It just means they're effeminate.
That happens.
And the same is true for a masculine woman.
The most masculine woman is more masculine than the average male.
That doesn't mean we should tell everybody they're trans.
Some people are trans and deserve all of the rights and protections afforded with, you know, civil liberties that everyone gets.
And some people probably aren't.
But that's what we need to be careful about.
The point is, if you can change legal documents, why can't you change age?
In fact, I would argue age is already protected.
You just need a judge to rule on it.
The law in New York, for instance.
They say she tells him to simply lie if he wants to date younger women.
After the verdict, the professor's final conversation with his attorneys proved it was never about age at all.
It was all about creating precedent and building arguments for protections for LGBTQ individuals.
I'm sorry.
If the judge ruled against it, the precedent created is against LGBTQ individuals.
Poor and sloppy writing.
They've only created an argument for why we shouldn't allow trans people to have their day in court.
If you're arguing your biology is different from what your documents say, they have ruled against that.
And that present will be cited against trans people.
This was absurd.
In trying to win my absurd theoretical case, you gave people with legitimate claims another argument to use to fight in court.
No, you didn't!
To lose, as I knew you would.
In fact, that argument will fit in nicely with that amicus brief I'm writing for the U.S.
Supreme Court, the one on the subject of their needing to rule in favor of protecting gender identity under Title VII.
Before saying goodbye, he tells them his girlfriend is 59 and his son.
She's 25 and brilliant and her father is very excited to tell her what you both did today.
Let me just stress.
The court ruled against him, arguing his biology is what it is, and it was ridiculous.
How will that protect anyone who's trans?
If I was to say anything, I'd say this show just accidentally, or maybe it was on purpose, gave an argument to conservatives as to why the whole thing is silly.
And that's bad!
It's bad for the LGBT community, I should say.
It's not indefensive.
Anyway, the story is based on something real, is this guy in the Netherlands, but I'll leave it there.
I don't know.
You let me know what you think in the comments.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
I'm gonna say something bold.
I believe Joker may be the greatest film of our generation.
And that's a pretty bold statement.
Many people may say I'm wrong, I'm being hyperbolic, but let me just first say, in my opinion, and let me try to explain to you why I think this movie is so powerful and important.
First, there's going to be spoilers in this.
I think we're now well past the opening weekend, if you haven't seen the movie.
Hard spoilers.
Because I'm going to be talking about why I think this is one of the greatest films, but it's not just about the film itself.
I want to talk about the politics, the culture, the response, the gravitas, okay?
Now you've been warned about spoilers.
But let me just say, for those that have seen the movie, the last, the ending joke, when that camera angle on his face, when he looks to the TV show host, and he says, what do you get when you cross?
And then he says, you get what you effing deserve, and pulls out that gun, and BANG!
And that was like, I felt that in my whole body.
Now let me, now that I've said that and got that out of my system, let me tell you why I think this is potentially the greatest film of our generation.
I'm not trying to be hyperbolic.
First, let me point out how much trash garbage movies have come out in my life.
Most of it's trash.
I gotta admit.
Now I'm 33.
What I mean by generation is, like, in the past couple decades.
Think about it.
Like, movies are all remakes, and adaptations, and explosions, and, like, you look at Avatar, right?
Now, I'm open to you suggesting in the comments below movies you think that are better.
But I want to make a point about our politics and our culture.
I don't think this is the greatest film of our generation simply because it's a good movie.
It is a good movie, by the way.
I think it's because of what it's done to our society, the message it pushed, and it's an amazing story.
So first, as I've mentioned before, the angles and the lighting?
Absolutely perfect.
The performance by Joaquin Phoenix was unsettling, Well done.
Ridiculously well done.
And celebrities have come out calling it a masterpiece.
Take a look at this story from the Hollywood Reporter.
Outstanding.
Irresponsible.
Oscar voters react to Joker with many avoiding it.
But Chris Rock, for one, said the Joker incredible wow masterpiece.
Masterpiece.
There's a lot of things in this film that I think need to be pointed out.
For one, the Joker is not political.
This individual is a nihilist.
But his motivations are not right or left.
Like, I'm sorry, what motivates him in the end is not a left or right thing.
It's kind of both.
He's mistreated, ignored.
Sure, he's a white male.
He's insulted, berated.
Life is unfair.
He gets in trouble at work for something he didn't do.
He gets blamed for something, essentially.
But think about how he gets to the point where he's at.
The hospital that was treating him gets shut down.
He loses his therapist.
So we have a mix.
The people who support him are Antifa.
There's a lot of cultural issues that came to light or that were given focus in this film without directly making it about that.
That's why I think it was really well done.
Many people are left arguing whether he was right-wing, incel, I think it's all wrong.
But other people come out saying it was left-wing, he's Antifa.
Now I'll make my position clear.
His supporters are clearly Antifa.
One guy holds up a sign denigrating fascism.
They dress like Antifa, they wear masks, they go and riot, they commit violence, and they're protesting wealth inequality.
It's what sparks the whole thing.
So they were able to capture this decade in this film.
Here's what I should say, too.
For you to think about in terms of whether or not this movie is the greatest, I'll first say, greatest doesn't mean that it's the best.
Greatest just means of, like, large magnitude, large impact.
Okay?
It did a lot of things right, it did some things wrong.
But I ask you this.
With all of the press, the controversy, the acclaim, this is a film people are going to remember for a long time.
This is a film people are going to look back on and talk about.
This is a film that will probably get recorded in the Library of Congress, like Back to the Future.
I mean that.
Avengers Endgame might for a different reason.
But take a look at Endgame.
What does it really have?
I'll admit, I love the Marvel films.
But Endgame was whatever.
It was a finale mashup of all of these different, you know, we're doing a flashback episode, right?
The Joker was something real.
It wasn't reliant on action.
It didn't, you know, rock you in your seat by exploding things.
It was just a performance by a man and his experiences, and it's reminiscent of these great films that we've seen in the past that we don't see anymore, for the most part.
These character-driven explorations.
And it ends by tying perfectly into my- my- my- my- the- the satis- the ending was so satisfying, okay?
How, like, I've often wondered how he- how he has henchmen.
Who would follow the Joker?
He's nuts.
And this was it.
The system was rigged.
The system was- was in fav- was favor- was in favor of the rich, and that- that wealthy industrialist gets on TV and says, they're all clowns.
And so you end up with these people who, for left-wing motivations, become anti-establishment and throw everything out the window and lift him up.
And he paints his face in blood and dances.
It was incredible.
The way they made, like, this depiction of the Joker, when the cops on the train are, like, being beaten up by the mob and he starts dancing and laughing, I'm like, oh, they nailed it.
You're not supposed to think this guy's a hero.
You're supposed to think he's a villain.
That's the point.
But let me read for you something that, you know, it's from Michael Moore.
And I want to read this to you.
It's what he posted on Instagram that I think exemplifies why this is so important and why it is, potentially, a masterpiece.
I say potentially because it's hard, but I definitely think so.
I think this is, I don't know, one of the best films I've ever seen, period.
Check it out.
Michael Moore wrote this.
And you might not like Michael Moore, okay?
But let me read what he said.
On Wednesday night, I attended the New York Film Festival and witnessed a cinematic masterpiece, the film that last month won the top prize as the best film of the Venice International Film Festival.
It's called Joker.
And all we Americans have heard about this movie is that we should fear it and stay away from it.
We've been told it's violent and sick and morally corrupt.
We've been told that police will be at every screening this weekend in case of trouble.
Our country is in deep despair, our constitution is in shreds, and a rogue maniac from Queens has access to nuclear launch codes.
But for some reason, it's a movie we should be afraid of.
I disagree with his assessment on Trump.
Fine.
I agree with the general sentiment.
With everything going on in the world, they're saying, don't see this movie, how dare they, it's so irresponsible.
No, it's a remarkably well done movie.
Well look, he says, I would suggest the opposite.
The greater danger to society may be if you don't go see the movie.
Because the story it tells and the issues it raises are so profound, so necessary, that if you look away from the genius of this work of art, you will miss the gift of the mirror it is offering us.
Yes, there's a disturbed clown in that mirror, but he's not alone.
We're standing right there beside him.
Joker is no comic book movie.
The film is set somewhere in the 1970s Gotham, New York City.
The headquarters of all evil.
The rich who rule us.
The banks and corporations whom we serve.
The media, which feeds us a daily diet of news they think we should absorb.
But this movie is not about Trump.
It's about the America that gave us Trump.
Yeah, I agree.
The America which feels no need to help the outcast, the destitute.
The America where the filthy rich just get richer and filthier.
Thank you, Joaquin Phoenix, Todd Phillips, Warner Brothers, and all who made this important movie for this important time.
I loved this film's multiple homages to Taxi Driver, Network, The French Connection, Dog Day Afternoon.
How long has it been since we've seen a movie aspire to the level of Stanley Kubrick?
Go see this film.
Take your teens.
Take your resolve.
Bravo, Michael Moore.
I don't completely agree with everything he said, but I will stress there are some points he made I do completely agree with.
This movie.
Joker.
You see a man, he gets taken off his meds, he's angry, he's belittled, the world is unfair, and there's a system in place to help the corrupt.
That's just the way it is.
When Thomas Wayne goes on TV and says they're all clowns, it could have been Hillary Clinton saying the deplorables.
It could have been Mitt Romney talking about the people who aren't paying their taxes.
It is the elites.
And in the end, you see those who are pushed around by the elites pushing back, be it left or right.
The Joker is a nihilist.
He's not here for a political reason.
To him, it was just funny.
And in reality, when he was being mobbed in that train, it was self-defense.
But later on, on that talk show, he says, I did it because it was funny, because they're awful.
You're all awful.
And he says, so are you.
You're awful, Murray.
It wasn't about whether they had money.
It was about the fact that there is a system that benefits connections and the corrupt.
And this is a guy who, for every reason, was angry, laughing, celebrating.
In the end, he didn't care.
He didn't care about the system.
He cared about destroying the system.
There was no political message behind what he was doing.
He was just angry.
He was tired.
And that was it.
You know what Michael Moore brings up?
Well, I do think he's highlighting the more left-wing message of it, which again proves my point that the message was more so left-wing than anything, that you have these elites, and it's the very, you know, anti-1%.
I think what we end up seeing is, well, you know what, I'll keep this one short, and I'll wrap it up by saying, The system in place made everybody angry, and it gave us Donald Trump.
For better or for worse.
You know, the economy is improving.
The system in place led to people saying, I've had enough of the establishment, be it the Democrats or the Republicans.
And along came Trump and Bernie.
And people voted for it.
And a lot of people voted for Trump.
For this reason.
Because it was gonna rock the system to its core.
Bernie or bust.
The people who voted for Trump simply to watch it all burn down.
I tell you this.
I know a few anarchists, far leftists, who voted for Trump.
They didn't vote for Trump because they like him.
They voted for him because they thought he was the end.
That he was the harbinger of the collapse of the system.
And there are a lot of people who supported him because they thought he was the outsider coming to shake things up.
But in the end, you see this film Joker.
And you'll see why these people support a nihilist who doesn't care.
The system has been corrupt for so long, they've turned against it.
And they've turned to a madman, who for no reason just says, you're awful.
I mean, for no reason.
He kills the people, and the reason is that he views them as awful, rather subjective.
But that's the point.
He was taking a stab at the system, at the elites.
So yeah, I think Michael Moore's right in that this film shows us a depiction of the chaotic world that leads people to say, I've had enough, whether you're on the left or the right.
So anyway, look.
What I want to say about this film being the greatest film of our generation is, for one, it's being heralded as a masterpiece.
Whatever you think about the film, whether you liked it or hated it, because a lot of people don't like it.
That's fine.
It's going to be remembered.
It's going to be recorded.
It's going to be referenced.
That's what matters.
And the funny thing about it is, it's a comic book adaptation.
I was critical of adaptations in the beginning.
You may have noticed that.
I'm sure some people have already commented saying, but Tim, it is an adaptation.
That's fine.
I understand that.
But it was incredible.
It was an interpretation.
It was that background we hadn't seen before.
And I thought it was... Man, I thought they hit the nail on the head.
Truly incredible film.
If you haven't seen it, I've spoiled the movie for you in a lot of ways, but go see it.
Go see it again, because I'm gonna see it again this weekend, probably.
I just, you know, listen, I know I've made several videos about this right now, but I really do think it's that good.
And that's a lot for me to say, right?
I believe I have one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes.
Stick around and I will see you shortly.
California is devolving.
I don't know what's going on, but boy is it getting bad.
Now listen, I understand that there have been wildfires, but I got a couple stories for you.
The first, utility giant PG&E voluntarily shuts off power.
It could impact 800,000 Californians.
California's disease-ridden.
It's got a homeless crisis.
People have been shutting down their businesses.
Diseases are on the rise, and there's a fear of the return of bubonic plague.
There's been typhus outbreaks.
It's getting bad.
And this is just showing how bad it really is.
I can't imagine people want to live in this state for much longer.
Rolling blackouts are coming.
Because of the extreme weather, because of the heat, you've got to leave.
Now, a lot of people are going to point to climate change and say, aha, this proves it.
Fine.
I'm not going to argue about that.
I'm just pointing out If you live in California, they're gonna shut your power off.
But let's get to the- listen, okay?
I gotta give you guys a warning.
I talk about disease.
Things are about to get gross.
Okay?
I hope you- I hope you realize how bad California's become.
It is becoming a- it's a third world nation, in a sense.
With some of the largest homeless populations in the country, maybe even the world, relative to whatever- you know, relative to certain places.
With feces, disease, needles.
It's getting bad.
And now we've got more news.
I'll come back to this one to highlight this, but STD cases hit 30-year high in California, with some diseases increasing over 200% in the last decade.
What is going on in California?
Something needs to be done.
I don't know if it's a federal intervention or what, but this is insane.
The homeless crisis, disease, human waste, STDs.
Something needs to be done.
I don't know what your answer is, but I can just tell you, if you live in California, I wouldn't be surprised if you want to leave.
This is from KTLA5, and there's more.
Trust me, this isn't the end of it.
The next story I show you, it's going to be even worse, but we'll read this first.
They say STDs reached epidemic levels in California last year, with three STDs hitting their highest levels in the state in 30 years, according to a report released Tuesday.
For 2018, the California Department of Public Health saw an increased number of reported syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia cases.
The number of cases also rose significantly from a decade ago.
Syphilis had the most dramatic spike over the 10-year period in terms of percentage.
The 25,344 diagnoses represent a sharp increase of 265% from 2008.
Chlamydia had the most cases last year with 232,181, up 56% over the past decade.
Can you believe this?
165% from 2008.
Chlamydia had the most cases last year with 232,181, up 56% over the past decade.
Can you believe this?
Syphilis is up 265%.
They say gonorrhea is up 211% more, up from 10 years ago.
But what was particularly concerning for health officials was the number of congenital syphilis diagnoses, which rose 14% from the previous year and increased for a sixth consecutive year.
Since 2012, the number of infants diagnosed with a potentially lethal disease skyrocketed 900%.
I'm gonna repeat that for you.
The number of infants diagnosed with syphilis is up 900%.
And this brings me to the next very terrifying story.
CDC reports STDs reach all-time high for fifth year in a row and it's killing babies.
This is insane.
I, you know, you'd think we'd be at a point in our society where we'd be talking about how we're getting rid of these diseases.
What's happening?
I can't tell you.
I can tell you that policy is being, these places are mismanaged.
And you know what?
It might be kind of like a market competition concept.
California is blue for the most part.
The urban areas where all this is happening, it's blue.
There's no competition.
So there's no counter.
You've homogenized policy.
They pursue the same goals, but it never works.
Or at least it's not working for the most part.
At a certain point, we have to stop things and say, enough.
Diseases are killing babies.
We're shutting off the electricity.
There's human waste in the street.
We're spending money to have people go out with water hoses to clean up human waste.
And there's needles and diseases.
And all they do is pay to clean it instead of solve the actual problems.
I don't know to tell you, but this to me is one of the most terrifying things I've ever read.
They say there were 19 stillbirths or 3 neonatal deaths associated with syphilis last year, according to the report.
31 infants also had other symptoms or complications.
STD rates are rising all over California in both men and women, the report found.
But there are some disparities, with the highest number of cases reported among people between the ages of 15 to 24, African Americans, and those who are gay, bisexual, or men who are hooking up with other men.
A Coordinated Statement.
Underlying drivers of the increases of STDs relates to a complex web of social factors, the report read.
Some people diagnosed with STD have experienced substance use, incarceration, the exchange of intercourse for money, housing or other resources, poverty, homelessness, and disparities in access or care.
Let me make this clear, in no uncertain terms.
The reason, or one of the largest contributing factors to the rise in these diseases, are people who are poor, who are exchanging these things for favors and doing drugs.
Something is rotten in California.
I'm not going to lay the blame on anybody.
I'm sorry, I'm not going to lay the blame politically on a party, right?
I'll lay the blame on the individuals who have been running this state for a long time.
Yes, it just so happens to be that they're mostly Democrats, fine.
But we can leave the partisanship out of it.
By all means, address that fact.
I understand.
I want to point the finger directly at those who are running the show.
I believe they're crooked.
Con artists.
People who say whatever they need to say to win.
And there's no competition of ideas.
There's no pushback.
There's no change.
And it's only getting worse.
They say, STDs can lead to a number of serious health problems if left untreated, including infertility, ectopic pregnancy, pelvic inflammatory disease, and vision loss.
STDs are preventable by practicing safe intercourse, and many can be cured with antibiotics, according to acting state public health officer Dr. Charity Dean said in a news release.
Regular testing and treatment are essential prevention strategies, even for people who have no symptoms.
Most people infected with an STD do not know it.
So let's go back to this first story, and I'll read you this.
When you combine the factor of the disgusting and terrifying reality that is California, and you add in the fact that they're now shutting off power, what does this sound like to you?
Does it sound like a great American state?
Or does it sound like a developing nation, a third world country, with rolling blackouts, feces in the streets, and disease?
California is devolving, okay?
It is not... I understand, right?
Violent crime rate is down.
It may be still lower today, like diseases may be lower today than they were a couple decades ago.
But according to this report, syphilis...
900% congenital since 2012.
These diseases are on the rise, and something needs to be done about it, and it's not getting done.
But add that together with them shutting off power to all these people.
And I gotta admit, if you're still living in California and not preparing your exodus, I think you've lost your mind.
Or you're not paying attention.
It's getting that bad.
In the internet age, you don't need to be in a centralized location anymore.
A lot of jobs can be done digitally and electronically.
Sure.
Not all, but many.
And it is true that many people are leaving California.
Big cities particularly are seeing a loss of young people.
This story from NPR says Pacific Gas and Electric began cutting off power to nearly 800,000 customers across large swathes of northern and central California on Wednesday morning in a planned outage that it says is necessary to avoid the risk of fire.
PG&E gave residents in more than 30 counties advanced warning about the power cut, which it says could proactively reduce the dangerous effects of a potential widespread severe wind event forecast for Wednesday.
I can respect that.
This is a- this- look, on its surface, this is them saying we don't want wildfires and you live in these areas.
But let me just factor these things in.
You live in a state that has earthquakes.
And it has wildfires.
And it has droughts.
You live in a state with failed government, with a rise of diseases, homelessness, poverty, drug abuse, prostitution.
I do not understand how people continue to live here.
I really, really don't.
I lived there.
I lived there for a couple years, and I left.
Partly for these reasons.
For the most part.
I'll admit, it's not really about all of these reasons.
These were a factor.
I remember going to certain places and seeing how filthy it was, and the escalating homeless crisis.
And I realized, it's not the land of dreams.
You know, California Dreamin', man, people think you go there and you hit it big, and you don't.
The weather's nice.
Hey, the weather's fantastic.
But what I realized was, the narrative about California was a lie.
They tell you all of these great things to convince you to come there, and you come there and you see how truly bad it really is.
I realized that it was mostly just a big urban sprawl with very little to offer anybody, other than its problems.
And as more people believe it's the place to be, they bring their problems with them.
There are a lot of people who end up homeless because of this dream of fame and wealth.
It is a beacon that attracts people who want instant gratification.
Not all of them.
I know a lot of people who went to California and worked really, really hard.
Most of them have left, to be honest.
But I do know some people who went there who wanted to be rich and famous, who did work really hard, and they've succeeded in a lot of ways.
But this is a place that tells you, you know, you can be here, you can come here, you can be a star, you can be famous.
And people go there and you can't.
And they end up becoming prostitutes.
I do know some people who have done this.
Who move to California with hopes to be an actor or actress and end up turning tricks.
I kid you not.
And that's a factor in why we see the increase in these diseases.
So anyway, look.
The news is they're shutting off power.
Well, when I saw that, and I understand they're doing it for good reason, but then I just think about, would you really want to live in this place with disease, with needles, with drug abuse?
And now they're shutting your power off?
I don't know how people do it, man.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's tomorrow at 10 a.m., podcast at 6.30.
