The Intelligence Agency "Coup" Against Trump Will Ignite Civil War, I hope I am Wrong
The Intelligence Agency "Coup" Against Trump Will Ignite Civil War, I hope I am Wrong. Award Winning Journalist Matt Taibbi recently wrote an article describing what is going on with impeachment, Russia, Ukraine, etc as a "permanent coup."The article is stunning in that he goes into great detail explaining his personal experiences in 'what comes next' having reported on actual Coup's against governmental leaders. His article explains how the intelligence agencies began targeting Trump even before he took office.In the end he wars that this could result in Trump refusing to back down and calling in special forces to target the leakers.I think it will be worse than that.If Taibbi is correct, and he certainly has the credibility, then the actions taken by democrats against the president will be backed by the far left, actions taken by the president will be defended by his ardent supporters.This is not some story about small groups of governmental actors trying to take control of the chain of command but a story about two growing factions with completely different views of the world, views that cannot be reconciled. While far left protesters become increasingly aggressive outside Trump rallies, they get met with a growing faction of Trump supporters and right wingers standing defiant. The street level conflict is already here.If the intelligence agencies are actually going after the president to remove him as Taibbi claims then I assure you it won't end with a small group of politicians making phone calls.Trump himself quoted a warning of civil war in the event he is removed.I hope we are all wrong.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Many people have referred to what's going on right now with impeachment as a coup.
In a town hall meeting, a moderate Democrat talked about joining the side of impeachment.
And one of her constituents said, you're joining a coup against our president.
In this article written by Matt Taibbi, a very well-respected journalist contributing editor to Rolling Stone and a well-known political reporter, says we're in a permanent coup.
Americans might soon wish they just waited to vote their way out of the Trump era.
The article's actually fascinating and quite terrifying.
Matt Taibbi explains how the similarities between the actual coups he's experienced are not too dissimilar to what we're experiencing now.
Now let's rewind the clock a little bit.
We'll talk about Tim Pool's bombastic approach to the political controversy when he called it a civil war.
I have referred several times to a potential civil war.
And what Matt Taibbi, I assume, doesn't quite understand is that what he wrote is not about a permanent coup against Donald Trump.
The story talks about, you know, intelligence agencies that want to go after the president, that they're trying to remove him at all costs.
And he knows what this leads to.
But what he doesn't quite come to the he doesn't come to the conclusion that he's not talking about a coup.
He's talking about civil war and I really do mean this and I'll give you the point straight up.
I'm not going to wait.
When he goes on and says that there are, you know, key officials arguing that certain people should be arrested and that media companies are hiring former intelligence officials to make claims and accusations against the president to try and remove him, and this cycle continues with Russiagate to Ukrainegate.
Ukrainegate.
He talks about how, at some point, somebody makes a phone call and starts counting heads.
Who's on whose side?
If we ever come to the point, as potentially suggested by Matt Taibbi, that someone in government tries to remove by force another person in government, I mean Rashida Tlaib said as much as this, it's not going to be a coup.
It's not going to be a small faction of people in government who are saying it's time for Trump to leave.
With the impeachment inquiry and no formal vote, Trump has issued a statement saying absolutely not.
This is beyond precedent and you're not giving me fair due process.
So what do you think happens when Rashida Tlaib says, I want Barr arrested and orders DC police to go and do it?
As she has suggested.
I'm not making this up.
What do you think happens?
Well, Bill Barr will refute this.
Absolutely not.
Now, based on those circumstances and the stories we've seen in the past, Matt Taibbi's assessment that it's a permanent coup makes sense.
But then you must consider the fact that it's not just politicians taking action.
It's that they are backed.
By large amounts of people.
And that's where you go from coup to civil war.
I'm not saying people in the streets with guns fighting at each other.
I'm saying if it comes to the point where you right now, as Scott, I believe it was Scott Adams, you know, assessment, he says, you've got one screen that everyone's watching, but they're seeing two different movies.
You see, in one circumstance, the conservatives are saying Donald Trump is going after the corrupt DNC who worked with Ukraine.
We have stories to back it up.
You see the left saying no, Donald Trump is trying to dig up dirt on a political rival using a foreign government to benefit him.
It doesn't matter who's right.
It matters that you have two very large factions of people who both know they are right.
And politics is downstream from culture.
So in the cultural world, when they see this news, and again, you might be sitting there saying, I'm right, I know I'm right, you're wrong, doesn't matter, I don't care.
I don't care who's right or wrong.
All that matters is the divide exists.
People who believe they're 100% absolutely right.
Either the orange man is a corrupt evil man, or he's here to help save America and weed out the corruption.
Pick one.
I know it's in real life, it's not, in reality it's not black and white like that, but you do have these overarching themes.
Now take someone like Nancy Pelosi, who insists Trump must be investigated and impeached.
Then you have Trump saying it's unfair, there's no due process.
What happens then?
When someone says, that's it, we've concluded our assessment, Trump must be arrested.
Well, that's when things get hairy.
Because it's not just about, as I stated earlier, a small group of people making this demand.
It's that Nancy Pelosi is acting based on what she assumes is the popular opinion.
The divide is getting so great, it is now reaching political proportions.
I mean, it has for a while.
But we're going to get to that point.
And trust me, I hope we don't.
But Rashida Tlaib saying she's looking to arrest White House officials.
I'll tell you, when that happens, when those police show up, you're going to start seeing what Matt Taibbi discusses.
The counting of heads.
Who's on whose sides.
Who controls what.
That's not a coup.
That's how civil war starts.
Hopefully it doesn't happen here.
But here's what we're going to do.
I know I kind of went through a lot because I wanted to get the gist of this right up.
You know, right away.
But let's read Matt Taibbi's, for the most part, we'll read his assessment about this permanent coup.
And before we get started, I want to stress, I am reticent to say coup or to even say civil wars.
I have.
I've always tried saying, listen, listen.
I'm not saying it'll be traditional.
You know, I'm trying to walk things back.
But as much as the mainstream media will say, look at this bombastic rhetoric.
And what are these people saying?
You know, they're attacking Fox News because Fox mentioned something similar.
Listen, man.
I hope I'm wrong, okay?
And it's possible I am.
That's fine.
But it doesn't mean we ignore what's right in front of our faces.
With Matt Taibbi writing this article, I was actually a bit shocked.
And... scared.
I'm scared because I think seeing this from him shows... I was right.
Or at least, it's another sign that I was right.
I'm not the only one who thinks this.
Matt Taibbi is not some fringe character.
He's a well-respected journalist.
Let's read his story.
Before we do, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's multiple ways you can give.
Cryptocurrency, PayPal, a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do, seriously, share this video.
I don't have a big marketing budget, but I am competing against CNN and MSNBC and Fox News, and they do get an algorithmic boost on YouTube.
But we can counteract that.
We don't need big marketing budgets.
All you gotta do, share this video, explain what you think is important about it, what you agree or disagree with, and we'll start a conversation, and that really helps.
Let's read.
Metaibi writes, I've lived through a few coups.
They're insane, random, and terrifying.
Like watching sports, except your political future depends on the score.
The kickoff begins when a key official decides to buck the executive.
From that moment, government becomes a high-speed head-counting exercise.
Who's got the power plant, the airport, the police in the capital?
How many department chiefs are answering their phones?
Who's writing tonight's newscast?
When the KGB in 1991 tried to reassume control of the crumbling Soviet Union by placing Mikhail Gorbachev under arrest and attempting to seize Moscow, logistics ruled.
Boris Yeltsin's crew drove to the Russian White House in ordinary cars, beating KGB coup plotters who were trying to reach the seat of Russian government in armored vehicles.
A key moment came when one of Yeltsin's men, Alexander Rutskoi, who two years later would himself lead a coup against Yeltsin, prevailed upon a major in a tank unit to defy KGB orders and turn on the, quote, criminals.
We have long been spared this madness in America.
Our head-counting ceremony was election day.
We did it once every four years.
That's all over in the Trump era.
Now, I will stress, the moment he's citing in the Soviet Union was not a civil war.
It was just the collapse of their government.
And it changed, and it moved on, and there wasn't widespread violence.
The reason why I mention this I think Matt Taibbi, maybe he knows this, maybe he doesn't, but we're seeing people fight in the streets.
We just saw dozens of Trump supporters attacked in the streets outside of the Minnesota Trump rally.
Personalities on the left called Fox irresponsible for pointing out the violence, saying what violence?
No one was reported injured.
But you can actually watch the videos.
This brings me back to the same-screen-two-movies analogy.
If you have people in powerful positions in the media telling all of those anti-Trump types they're lying, there's no violence, Antifa is good and just like CNN has done relating Antifa to the soldiers on D-Day.
Well, they're going to be convinced they know the truth.
But then we watch those videos.
We see the violence.
And they say, yeah, but the violence is justified.
That's what Antifa says when they finally come around.
The problem is, there are two realities.
And when it comes to that point where two cars pull up to the White House trying to figure out who's going to get to that phone and make that call and say, here's who's in charge, you're going to have millions of people on both sides who refuse to accept it.
And I'll tell you this, with the widespread violence we've seen from Antifa, I do believe violence is a strong possibility.
It may be insurgent.
It may be that the right does take over.
You know, in terms of like a complete breakdown, the right faction retains power or whatever, however you want to describe it, but then you will see Antifa refuse.
We've already come to the point where they believe Trump is pure evil, must be removed at all costs, even if that means underhanded tactics.
We're getting to that point when Rashid Tlaib says we're discussing how to arrest these people, that we will come.
To physical executive action.
I don't mean executive in the branch.
I mean someone saying straight up, enough!
I am going to have someone go in and shut this down.
And at that point, people will ask, which side are you on?
That terrifies me.
I hope I'm wrong.
But, let's read.
On Thursday, news broke that two businessmen said to have peddled supposedly explosive information about corruption involving Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden were arrested at Dulles Airport on, quote, campaign finance violations.
The two figures are alleged to be bag men bearing dirt on Democrats solicited by Trump and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.
Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman will be asked to give depositions to impeachment investigators.
They're reportedly going to refuse.
Their lawyer, John Dowd, also says they will refuse to appear before House committees investigating President Donald Trump.
Fruman and Parnas, meanwhile, claim they had real derogatory information about Biden and other politicians.
But the U.S.
government has shown little interest in receiving it through official channels.
For Americans not familiar with the language of the third world, that's two contrasting denials of political legitimacy.
The men who are the proxies for Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani in this story are asserting that official channels have been corrupted.
The forces backing impeachment, meanwhile, are telling us those same defendants are obstructing a lawful impeachment inquiry.
Well, here's the problem.
They didn't vote on it.
Which side are you on?
It doesn't matter what's true.
You might say, Tim, you're wrong.
I know exactly what the Democrats are doing.
You might say, Tim, no, you need to state the facts.
Trump is corrupt.
I have had so many tweets at me saying, I can't wait till Tim realizes Trump is a fraud.
I've never liked the guy.
I'm just trying to figure out what's true.
In the end, you might know in your heart of hearts what is really going on.
And that means the other person who thinks the exact same thing, that they know exactly what's going on, will refuse to listen.
And that's scary.
This latest incident, set against the impeachment mania and the reportedly expanding Russiagate investigation of U.S.
Attorney John Durham, accelerates our timeline to chaos.
We are speeding toward a situation when someone in one of these camps refuses to obey a major decree, arrest order, or court decision.
At which point Americans will get to experience the joys of their political futures being decided by phone calls to generals and police chiefs.
Ocasio-Cortez defying court precedent.
She's not allowed to block people.
It has begun.
You might say, who cares if she's blocking people on Twitter?
It's a minor court case.
Minor court cases happen all the time.
I know.
I'm hoping that these small incidents, you know, instances, where, say, Ocasio-Cortez says, I'm not going to unblock people, even though Trump has to.
I hope that's a slow, gradual build to the point where nothing outrageous happens.
There is an easing and a transfer of power, whoever it might be from, and we move on from this.
But I'm worried.
That people are going to refuse.
It was the left that went after Trump over his Twitter blocking and court precedent was set.
They ruled.
Trump, you've lost.
You've lost appeal.
You must unblock.
AOC says, no.
Well, what then?
When it is the left itself demanding Trump take an action that AOC then refuses to take herself, you can see that people are going to say, if you won't play by the rules, neither will I. And while again, this may be just Twitter and it may seem like nothing, that mentality and those actions, they can escalate.
My discomfort in the last few years, first with Russiagate and now with Ukrainegate and impeachment, stems from the belief that the people pushing hardest for Trump's early removal are more dangerous than Trump.
Many Americans don't see this because they're not used to waking up in a country where you're not sure who the president will be by nightfall.
They don't understand that this predicament is worse than having a bad president.
I was in Egypt during the fall of, I believe, Morsi.
So Mubarak was outed.
I was not there.
But I came back because another revolution was occurring.
This time, Morsi, Muslim Brotherhood who was elected, was being protested.
And they demanded his removal as well.
And I remember being scared.
Terrified when Egyptian military started going into newsrooms and arresting people and shutting things down.
And I was there with Vice and I didn't know if there would be a knock on my door and Egyptian authorities would be saying, we're taking the journalists.
We're taking you all.
So I took security precautions.
But I assure you, one of the scariest things you can experience is complete uncertainty in authority and what's going to happen.
People were in the streets.
There were thousands.
The military was driving around in APCs.
They were shutting down bridges.
And we got out.
It is not a pleasant experience.
And I hope Matt Taibbi and myself, I hope we're wrong.
I hope we're seeing the worst-case scenario.
But Matt brings some very important points to the discussion that make me think we're right and things are getting really bad.
The Trump presidency is the first to reveal a full-blown schism between the intelligence community and the White House.
Senior figures in the CIA, NSA, FBI, and other agencies made an open break from their would-be boss before Trump's inauguration, commencing a public war of leaks that has not stopped.
The first big shot was fired in early January 2017 via CNN.
A headline, Intel Chiefs Presented Trump with Claims of Russian Efforts to Compromise Him.
This tale about the January 7th presentation of former British spy Christopher Steele's report to then-President-Elect Trump began as follows.
Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-Elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.
Multiple U.S.
officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.
Four intelligence chiefs in the FBI's James Comey, the CIA's John Brennan, the NSA's Mike Rogers, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper presented an incoming president with a politically disastrous piece of information, in this case, a piece of a private opposition research report.
Among other things, because the news dropped at the same time BuzzFeed decided to publish the entire bombshell Steele dossier, reporters spent the week obsessing not about the mode of the story's release, but about the claims.
In particular, audiences were wrapped by allegations that Russians were trying to blackmail Trump with evidence of a golden shower party commissioned on a bed once slept upon by Barack Obama himself.
Twitter exploded.
No other news story mattered.
For the next two years, the claims of compromise and a continuing Trump-Russia exchange hung over the White House like a sword of Damocles.
Well, like THE sword of Damocles.
Few were interested in the motives for making this story public.
As it turned out, there were two explanations.
One that was made public, and one that only came out later.
The public justification, as outlined in the CNN piece, was to make the President-elect aware that such allegations involving him were circulating among intelligence agencies.
However, we know from Comey's January 7, 2017 memo, to Deputy Andrew McCabe and FBI General Counsel James Baker, there was another explanation.
Quote, I said I wasn't saying this was true, only that I wanted Trump to know both that it had been reported and that the reports were in many hands.
I said media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook.
I said it was important that we not give them an excuse to write that the FBI has the material or redacted and that we were keeping it very close hold.
Imagine if a similar situation had taken place in January of 2009 involving President-elect Barack Obama.
Picture a meeting between Obama and the heads of the CIA, NSA, and FBI, along with the DIA, in which the newly elected president is presented with a report compiled by, say, Judicial Watch, Accusing him of links to Al Qaeda.
Imagine further that they tell Obama they are presenting him with this information to make him aware of a blackmail threat, and to reassure him they won't give news agencies a hook to publish the news.
Now imagine if that news came out on Fox days later.
Imagine further that within a year, one of the four officials became a paid Fox contributor.
Democrats would lose their minds in this set of circumstances.
The country mostly did not lose its mind, however, because the episode did not involve a traditionally presidential figure like Obama, nor was it understood to have been directed at the institution of the White House.
Instead, it was a story about an infamously corrupt individual, Donald Trump.
A woman, I'm going to paraphrase, a woman-grabbing scammer who bragged about using bankruptcy to escape debt and publicly praised Vladimir Putin.
Audiences believed the allegations against this person and saw the intelligence-slash-counterintelligence community as acting patriotically, doing their best to keep us informed about a still-breaking investigation of a rogue president.
But a parallel story was ignored.
Leaks from the intelligence community most often pertain to foreign policy.
The leak of the January 2017 meeting between the four chiefs and Trump, which without question damaged both the presidency and America's standing abroad, was an unprecedented act of insubordination.
And I want to stop here.
This is going to be a long video, a very long one.
In this instance, we can see Taibbi writing about this fracture.
At a certain level.
Now, the culture war has existed for a while, and not everything aligns perfectly.
There are many people who consider themselves hardcore nationalists who are aligned with the anti-social justice crowd, even though many anti-SGWs care very little for nationalist versus globalist policy.
It's not perfect.
But in this, we can see the media latching onto the anti-Trump rhetoric.
We can see the factions have allies.
They form larger and larger factions.
It doesn't matter if you think this is true or not.
Again, I'll say it for the millionth time.
It matters that these people claimed they had the information.
They claimed it was going to be bad for Trump.
And then they went and got hired by the news media, and the rhetoric came out.
And now you have two worlds.
Taibi continues, it was also a bold new foray into domestic politics by intelligence agencies
that in recent decades began asserting all sorts of frightening new authority.
They were kidnapping foreigners, assassinating by drone, conducting paramilitary operations
without congressional notice, building an international archipelago of secret prisons,
and engaging in mass warrantless surveillance of Americans.
We found out in a court case just last week how extensive the illegal domestic surveillance has
been, with the FBI engaging in tens of thousands of warrantless searches involving
American emails and phone numbers under the guise of combating foreign subversion.
It's amazing to me, isn't it?
I should say it's amazing.
I remember back in the day during Occupy, the scrutiny that the activists had for the FBI and the CIA, and something weird happened.
When these agencies came out against Trump, many on the left cherished them and defended them.
It was a shock to me.
You can see the prevailing factions.
The agency's new trick is inserting themselves into domestic politics using leaks and media pressure.
The, quote, Intel Chiefs meeting was just the first in a series of similar stories, many following the pattern in which a document was created, passed from department to department, and leaked.
Taibbi goes on to give numerous examples when all of this happened.
And it's fascinating to me.
Let's read just one.
January 19th, 2019.
Former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation tell the New York Times the FBI opened an inquiry into the explosive implications of whether or not Donald Trump was working on behalf of the Russians.
That story goes viral.
We saw so many stories go viral, retracted a day later.
And as we know now, that story was not true.
Trump did not work with the Russians.
But Ukrainegate is the new iteration.
Again, we can see whistleblowers who... Check this out!
The whistleblower The whistleblower in the center of all of this Ukrainegate worked with Joe Biden at the Obama White House.
This from Town Hall.
How about this?
Adam Schiff has two aides who worked with whistleblower at the White House.
Is it a coincidence?
How about this?
Adam Schiff claimed he said we did not have contact with the whistleblower.
Facts first.
They did.
I can't tell you what's going on.
I can only tell you, there are two factions, and Matt Taibbi's article is probably one of the scariest things I've read in a long time.
If I read something from some fringe personality, I'd say, yeah, I know, I get it, people think the deep state, Q, whatever.
This is Matt Taibbi.
When I saw this, it's almost like validating my worst fears.
He goes on to say, To be sure, quote, people familiar with the matter leaked a lot of true stories in the last few years, but many were clearly problematic even at the time of release.
Moreover, all took place in the context of constant hounding pressure from media figures, congressional allies like Democrats Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell, as well as ex-officials who could make use of their personal public platforms, in addition to being unnamed sources in straight news reports.
They used commercial news platforms to argue that Trump had committed treason, needing to be removed from office, and preferably also indicted as soon as possible.
A shocking number of these voices were former intelligence officers who joined Clapper in becoming paid news contributors.
Op-Ed pages and news networks are packed now with ex-spooks editorializing about stories in which they had personal involvement.
Michael Morrill, Michael Hayden, Asha Rangappa, and Andrew McCabe, among many others, including especially all four of the original intel chiefs, Clapper, Rogers, Comey, and MSNBC headliner, John Brennan.
This is not made up.
Matt Taibbi is correct.
Daily Caller reports 15 former spooks who work at CNN and MSNBC now.
I'm not saying these people working in media are wrong.
Again, I will stress, set aside your bias.
I'm not going to tell you who's right, who's better, who should win.
I'm telling you the divide exists and we're reaching a tipping point.
Pay attention.
RussiaGate birthed a whole brand of politics, a government in exile, which prosecuted its case against Trump via a constant stream of approved leaks, partisans in Congress, and an increasingly unified and thematically consistent set of commercial news outlets.
These mechanisms have been transplanted now onto the UkraineGate drama.
It's the same people beating the public drums.
With the messaging run out of the same congressional committees, through the same Nadler's shift and Swalwell's, the same news outlets are on full alert.
The sidelined intel chiefs are once again playing central roles in making the public case.
Comey says we may now be at a point where impeachment is necessary.
Brennan, with unintentional irony, says the United States is no longer a democracy.
Clapper says the Ukraine whistleblower complaint is one of the most credible he's seen.
A whistleblower, mind you, who worked with Biden and who worked with two of the aides who are now employed by Adam Schiff.
As a reporter covering the 2015-2016 presidential race, I thought Trump's campaign was disturbing on many levels, but logical as a news story.
He succeeded for class reasons, because of flaws in the media business that gifted him mass amounts of coverage.
And because he took cunning advantage of long-simmering frustrations in the electorate.
He also clearly catered to racist fears and to the collapse in trust in institutions like the news media, the Fed, corporations, NATO, and yes, the intelligence services.
In enormous numbers, voters rejected everything they had ever been told about who was and was not qualified for higher office.
Trump's campaign antagonism toward the military and intelligence world was at best a millimeter thick.
Like almost everything else he has said as a candidate, it was a gimmick designed to get votes.
That he was insincere and full of it and irresponsible at first, at least.
When he attacked the Deep State and the fake news media doesn't change the reality of what's happened since.
Even paranoiacs have enemies and even Donald Deep State Trump is a legitimately elected president whose ouster is being actively sought by the intelligence community.
I stopped here when I read this and I was worried.
Matt Taibbi, of all people, saying this, that a duly elected president, legitimate president, that the Intelligence Committee is seeking to ouster him, to me reeks of terrifying conspiracy theory.
So I did the best I could to try and make sure this was legitimate.
I went to Matt Taibbi's Twitter account to see if he had tweeted about this story.
No, but he has a link to it in his profile, taibbi.substack.com.
And when you open it up, sure enough, you are granted with this story from his verified Twitter profile, where he has 362,000 followers.
I thought to myself, maybe Matt Taibbi isn't as credible as people say he is.
Maybe, maybe he's just another weirdo.
So I went to his Wikipedia page.
Matt Taibbi is an American author and journalist.
He has reported on politics, media, finance, and sports.
He is currently a contributing editor for Rolling Stone.
No, we're not looking at Alex Jones.
We're looking at a well-established, high-profile journalist who's critical of Trump and is telling us right now.
Donald Trump, a duly elected president, is being targeted by the intelligence community.
They are trying to ouster him.
To me, that's terrifying.
It's terrifying because the conversation starts in the deepest corners of the internet.
And now it's come to a point where high-profile mainstream journalists are telling us it's going to get worse.
You don't want to live through a coup.
But we're experiencing the beginning of it.
The point I want to add, going back to the beginning of this, my assessment is, you may see it as a coup.
You may see the intelligence agencies, but Matt, are you paying attention to the street level?
What do you think happens when one of these players takes executive action and says it's time for him to be removed?
Do you think the Trump supporters will sit idly by when you acknowledge they're trying to remove a legitimately elected president?
I assure you they won't.
Do you think Antifa will sit by when they fail to remove who they view as being deeply corrupt because American intelligence told them so?
That is my fear.
Now, will it result in standing armies?
No, I don't think so.
Civil War is not like that.
We view it that way because we had a clear dividing line.
But I think what we'll end up seeing is people in the streets, wearing badges, wearing colors, with weapons.
We've already seen it.
The right and the left have their armed factions.
We've seen the fights.
The violence hasn't escalated beyond, you know, two people attacking each other directly with... Hold on.
I'm trying to avoid being overly bombastic, but what I'm trying to say is...
The moment when people take those arms and point them in the other direction is when I get, you know, that's the true terrifying moment.
I mean, all of this is scary.
But we have seen individuals firebomb ICE facilities and take, you know, very dangerous stances.
Let's continue.
Trump stands accused of using the office of the presidency to advance political aims.
In particular, pressuring Ukraine to investigate potential campaign rival Joe Biden.
He's guilty.
But the issue is how guilty, in comparison to his accusers.
And I'll stop there and say, yes, it was inappropriate.
That's about how guilty I think Trump was.
He's trying to go after those he views as corrupt.
I don't think it's about the election.
But here we have the divide once again.
I assure you, there are people on the left who will tell me it is the most egregious violation.
He's trying to subvert our elections.
Where do we go from there?
The only end is, if we're on two different sides of this issue, either Trump must be removed or defended.
And to me, it's truly a terrifying predicament if people have one side or the other regardless.
Trump, at least insofar as we know, has not used Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to monitor political rivals.
He hasn't deployed human counterintelligence informants to follow the likes of Hunter Biden.
He hasn't maneuvered to secure special counsel probes of Democrats.
And while Donald Trump conducting foreign policy based on what he sees on Fox & Friends is troubling, it's not in the same ballpark as CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, and The New York Times engaging in de facto coverage partnerships with the FBI and CIA to push highly politicized, phony narratives like Russiagate.
Trump's tinpot Twitter threats and cancellation of White House privileges for adults like Jim Acosta also don't begin to compare to the danger posed by Facebook, Google, and Twitter under pressure from the Senate, organizing with groups like the Atlantic Council to fight, quote, fake news in the name of preventing the foment of discord.
He says, I don't believe most Americans would have thought through what a successful campaign to oust Donald Trump would look like.
Most casual news consumers can only think of it in terms of Mike Pence becoming president.
The real problem would be the precedent of a de facto intelligence community veto over elections, using the lunatic, spook world brand of politics that has dominated the last three years of anti-Trump agitation.
CIA-FBI-backed impeachment could also be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If Donald Trump thinks he's going to be jailed upon leaving office, he'll sooner or later figure out that his only real move is to start acting like the, quote, dictator.
MSNBC and CNN keep insisting he is.
Why give up the White House?
And why wait to be arrested when he still has theoretical authority to send Special Forces troops rappelling through the windows of every last Russiagate-Ukrainegate leaker?
That would be the endgame in a third world country.
And it's where we're headed.
Unless someone calls off this craziness.
Welcome to the permanent power struggle.
I will add, and that's the conclusion of the article, and I'm not done.
I've got a lot we have to go through.
I will add to this now for the third or fourth time.
When Trump does send those special forces rappelling through the windows, when allegiances are declared, what happens on the street?
What do Trump supporters say?
They say the deep state must be stopped.
The people on the left say these crazy conspiracy theorists have subverted our democracy, and the fighting will start.
As I showed you already, the whistleblower in UkraineGate worked with Adam Schiff's aides.
He hired one recently, the same month the whistleblower came forward.
The whistleblower worked with Joe Biden.
Adam Schiff lied.
Schiff aides worked with whistleblower.
Where do we go from here?
I'll tell you what I think comes next, why the rhetoric's already out there.
We have this story from New York Post.
Rashida Tlaib, Dems looking to arrest White House officials who ignore subpoenas.
Something I mentioned in the past.
What do you think happens?
When she actually says it must be done, they ignore the subpoena.
Why, right now, Trump is ordering people not to go and testify.
They're saying it's a violation.
What happens?
Do the D.C.
police show up and say, put your hands behind your back?
Do the D.C.
police side against the Democrats and say, we will not take action against these authorities because of the precedent it will set and we don't want to destabilize this country?
When they refuse to do that, what does the left say?
Oh no!
Trump has defied legal law and the police have sided with him.
What comes next?
I can't tell you.
I don't know.
I can tell you that we live in alternate realities.
Now, we're going to be moving a little bit away from the talk of coup and civil war and into where the media takes this.
Take a look at this story from Reliable Sources, CNN's newsletter about Shepard Smith's exit from Fox News, which I find sad and troubling.
Shep Smith had a particularly left approach to many of the stories he covered.
That's fine.
The issue is that CNN and many on the left paint this as Shepard Smith rejecting Trumpian Fox News.
I don't know how that's true at the same time when Trump is slamming Fox News.
When Fox News is too far for both sides.
This should be an example of how the divide has become just, I guess, untenable.
CNN says Fox News has gone so far right in defending Trump they refuse to back down.
Trump says Fox News is working against us, they're not working for us anymore.
Fox News in between the left and the right, and both saying they're too far.
You know what that really means?
If Fox News is in the middle, and Fox News is too far, it means we know both sides are so far away from each other, they will never come together.
Not even Fox News hiring Donna Brazile.
It's not the first time Trump has slammed this, but there are a few other things I will highlight before we wrap this up.
Remember this story about Jim Acosta and the White House aide?
This was a good sign for us that things were going to get bad.
It was a story in which a White House aide tried to take the microphone away from Jim Acosta.
I got into some fights, verbal fights, altercations, with individuals over what really happened.
In my opinion watching this, I believe that she was going to reach for the microphone, and Jim Acosta went to push her arm away, but she grabbed on so it pulled her down and they both jerked forward a little bit.
For some reason, many people on the left saw this woman trying to yank the microphone away from him.
My opinion, even if that was true, well, so be it.
She's taking the mic away from him.
Why is he gripping it and refusing to let go?
But many people saw Jim Acosta use his arm to push her away.
We couldn't agree.
We couldn't agree on a video of what happened.
And this was a moment when I said, if we watch the same clip and can't agree on what we saw, there is literally nothing that can bring us together.
Take that into consideration when we look at Matt Taibbi's article.
That's scary, man.
I'll tell you what.
People on the left will view the intelligence agencies as the heroes, the patriots, fighting against the corrupt Donald Trump.
And the Trump supporters will view it like the deep state subverting everything.
And no matter what you say, no matter what you say, it will never end that divide.
So what happens?
Will the left allow Trump to get re-elected?
Will the right allow Trump to be removed?
I can't tell you.
I'd be willing to bet, if Trump was impeached, you would be much less likely to see the right stand up and do anything, to be honest.
They wouldn't raise arms.
It just depends on the severity.
If they start arresting Trump officials, if they start levying accusations, if they deny due process, if they subvert the Constitution, Trump has accused the Democrats of denying due process the impeachment inquiry by refusing to have a vote on it, meaning that Trump can't cross-examine.
It means that they can't subpoena their own witnesses.
And if this is the case, then the precedent has already begun.
The Democrats say, we don't need to.
Trump says, you do.
Pick a side.
I hope it doesn't come to this point.
But with Rashida Tlaib's statement, I'm getting worried.
With the violence in the street at Trump rallies, I'm getting worried.
I think everything will come to a head after Trump gets re-elected.
Assuming he does.
This video may turn out to be a joke in the annals of history.
We may look back in ten years and people might say Tim Poole was so dumb he couldn't see what was really going to happen.
Nothing.
We may look back and say, boy, he thought it was going to happen then.
Happened way sooner than that.
They might look back on this video and say, it started five years before Tim even made this video.
I have no idea.
I don't.
I only have the knowledge presented today, and I only have the limited knowledge I have from reading the stories I've read.
Matt Taibbi's article about the coup is probably one of the most alarming things I've seen yet, and I kind of sat with my jaw hanging open when I saw this article being shared.
This article was not shared to me by a conservative Trump supporter.
It was shared to me by an anti-war progressive leftist who agreed.
This is dangerous, and it's going to get bad.
And that's why, one of the reasons why I've said over and over again, Trump must be removed through the electoral process.
And if he wins, so be it.
We cannot allow our institutions to decay through intelligence leaks and partisan news that seeks to make money.
But I think we're going that direction no matter what, and people are attacking each other in the streets.
Now look, most of these instances we've seen have been Trump supporters getting attacked, not doing the attacking.
I want to make sure that's clear.
Like in Minnesota, Trump will hold a rally in Chicago.
This story from the Chicago Sun-Times.
And I'm genuinely concerned.
Disconcerted, I should say.
We'll see what happens.
Let me know if you think I'm insane.
Let me know if you think... You know what?
I'm not quite done.
I do have one more thing to show you.
In everything that's happened, We see this story.
Fox host warns of emotional civil war because of what happened in Minnesota.
I've been saying it for a while, and I'll tell you this.
I have made many predictions.
Many have been wrong.
I've taken many strategies, most of which have been right.
The companies I've worked for, the success I've had, the moves I've made and the places I've gone to, the things I've filmed.
I've had a pretty good track record of erring on the side that tends to be the right one.
I don't mean morally right.
I mean, if you're gonna tell me, you know, which path will lead you to success.
I was told by one very well-respected journalist That I have the unfortunate privilege of being ahead of the market.
I was doing on-the-ground mobile live streaming.
One of the first, if not the first in the US, getting prominence for it at least.
Or doing commentary on the ground.
I wasn't the first person to do mobile live streaming.
One of the first people to use drones.
Especially, I believe I was the first to do a live broadcast to be a drone.
We hacked it.
It was a really crazy thing we did.
Using the software development kit of the AR Parrot, and then streaming the captured video.
It was incredible.
In all of this, in my success, the reason I was successful with Vice, for instance, was that I knew where to be before the news broke.
They would say, what should we cover?
And I would say, we have to get on the ground here.
Not every place I chose turned out to be the biggest story in the world, but it typically did.
And many of the stories I covered were the biggest that Vice had at the time.
Millions of views on Ukraine.
The coverage of Venezuela.
I was forced to flee.
Ferguson, for instance.
They didn't even want to buy me the ticket.
I flew myself there.
And then the story broke.
When I look at the news and I see what's happening in these different cities, these different countries, and I say, this is the place we're going to fly to because next week X will happen, I've been fairly correct.
There's some instances where I went and nothing really happened.
I went to Brazil one time and the protests fizzled out.
I went to Turkey and the protests fizzled out.
But I would say about 75% of the time we'd go somewhere and then it would ignite and it would be the biggest story.
I could see it coming.
That's why I've been successful.
I knew where to go on the ground to be that person.
And people would say, Tim's everywhere.
It wasn't that I was everywhere.
It's that I knew where to be.
Well, something changed.
The divide in this country started getting worse.
I started looking at what's happening in the world and I saw the place to be was my own country.
The stories around the world, while important, Hong Kong for instance, I'm looking here in the U.S.
and seeing exactly what I saw in many of these other places.
I'm not always right, but I tend to be.
I tend to bet well.
I don't think I'm the smartest person in the world.
It might be 51% out of 49% that I get it right, that's all I'm saying.
But this is what I'm seeing now.
Maybe I'm wrong.
I hope I am.
But apparently Matt Taibbi agrees to a certain extent that something bad is coming.
He's comparing what we're seeing with Trump to the coups in the third world.
That's worrying.
Street violence is erupting.
That's worrying.
People on the left are acting like it didn't happen.
They're telling people there were no injuries.
Nothing happened.
Who do you believe?
I have no idea.
The next segment will be coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews and I will see you all there.
For those that haven't been paying attention to the news, Ocasio-Cortez got a haircut.
Now, you may be saying, Tim, I pay attention to the news all day, every day, and no, I didn't know that, nor do I care, and wouldn't seek out that information.
Please, why are you telling me this?
I don't want to know about it.
Yes, I hear you.
But here's the thing.
For some stupid reason, it's sparking a controversy, and it's not— Okay, so first, for some stupid reason, somebody complained that she spent too much money on a haircut.
I don't care what she spends her money on.
She can spend her money on whatever she wants.
It's her money.
That's capitalism, right?
But that was the point.
They were like, why is a socialist spending all this money on hair?
Well, to counter, the left narrative is that women's haircuts being expensive is oppression by the patriarchy.
That's right.
To all men enraged by AOC's expensive haircut, yes, this is how the US economy bleeds women dry.
There's a very simple reason why women tend to have more expensive haircuts than men.
For one, Women tend to have longer hair.
Now, this one was short hair.
This man with long hair.
I get it, but the social norm, at least today, whether or not it's the right or wrong thing is... Look at the lady who wrote it.
She's got long hair, okay?
That means more hair, more washing, more maintenance, split ends.
The other thing is, for one, most guys don't really care.
Guys don't shave their armpits.
Some guys do.
But most guys typically aren't going to be shaving their armpits or their legs or getting foofy-doos.
Their hair's going to be greasy.
They're going to throw a beanie on or some other nonsense.
And the other issue is, a lot of guys don't have hair.
Case in point.
But the issue is then, if guys keep their hair short, it's a simple zip, zip, snip, snip, snip.
Haircuts aren't more expensive for women.
The treatments that they get for their hair cost the same.
And if you have long hair, if, look man, I know dudes who are like models with long hair, and they spend a ton of money to get their hair done right because they're models.
And they're like, long hair, and they've got to do the man bun or whatever.
If you're getting work done, it costs money.
No, you're not being oppressed because you chose an expensive hair treatment.
You can go, what's the haircut place?
Is it Bo Rick's?
Does that still exist?
Maybe that's a Chicago thing.
You probably don't know what I'm talking about.
Haircuttery.
That's a big thing, right?
You can go spend your 10 bucks or 20 bucks for a haircut.
Everybody can spend the same.
And I mean no disrespect to the stylists who work at these, you know, chain hair cuttery places.
But, you know, they're gonna do a basic job.
However, I also have friends who run salons, and they charge a lot of money because you are hiring a professional to give you professional treatment with high-end product.
Guys go to Walgreens and buy the dollar shampoo, fructis, or whatever it's called, and they don't care.
They don't buy conditioner.
I mean, some guys do.
The point is, women are going to take care of their hair.
So this gets into the bigger issue of the pink tax.
Which I want to stress, there are some issues I think we could bring up and say, hey, that doesn't make sense.
Why does that product cost more money?
Here's the big problem, right?
So you see these examples of women's razors costing a little bit more money than men's razors.
You'll have, like, at Walgreens, a blue razor and a pink razor.
And these people, going, these feminists, will be like, look, the pink razors are $5 and the blue razors are $4.
Pink tax!
We're being oppressed.
And I'm like, but you could just buy the blue razor.
They're disposable razors.
If you would like the fancy pink color, then pay the premium, or just buy the blue one.
How can you simultaneously argue that women can like blue as well, but then you choose the one that's pink and then get angry it costs more money?
No one forced you to buy that!
Now, some people have pointed out that in many circumstances, it's not just that the color's different, but there'll be fragrances or different ingredients.
And that's another important point that needs to be brought up, too.
You can't compare one deodorant to another deodorant and be like, oh, they cost different things, the girl's, the lady's is more.
Okay, well, what's in it?
Right?
Let's read the story.
And I imagine, I might agree with some things, right?
So they write, the Washington Times rocked the Twittersphere with its recent headline, Self-Declared Socialist AOC Splurges on High-Dollar Hair Deal.
Let me just stop right there and say, Washington Times, that was stupid, and for some stupid reason you wrote this.
Please, stop.
I don't care.
You know, leave the outrage over someone's haircut to TMZ.
According to the article, Rep.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reportedly spent nearly $300 at a pricey salon she frequents in downtown Washington.
Bit of clarity.
The grand total included $80 for the haircut and $180 for lowlights plus tip.
You want to criticize her for splurging on fancy hairdos, but that's like a normal thing.
I get it.
You can say she's mismanaging her money, but hey man, people gotta look good, right?
You want to look good when you're gonna be on TV and you got a bunch of followers?
I don't think that's a big deal at all.
I don't care.
It's her money.
She can use it as she wants.
Never mind the double standard that's imposed upon women in leadership, all women really, to look good, but not too good.
Imagine how the media would pounce over a messy bun day on the house floor.
Now, it's true.
There was this one person who got slammed by everyone because he took a picture of Ocasio-Cortez walking down a hall and he was like, look at those clothes.
And people were like, what?
I don't care.
So, you know, while you're now writing about her hair, you should have learned the lesson before, I don't care.
Now listen, There's a really, really funny tweet where someone, some woman tweeted something like, you know, if women wear the same clothes every day, they'll be slammed and frowned upon, and men can wear the same thing every day and no one cares, that's like, you know, patriarchy or something.
And someone responded that it's women who will treat you poorly if you wear the same cute dress.
Literally not one man, what did he say?
He said, not one straight man on the planet would care if you wore the same cute dress twice.
And that's the point.
You wanna talk about why you will be frowned upon if you don't look good?
It's not gonna be from guys.
I mean that seriously.
There are a lot of women who are older and unattractive, and you don't see guys coming out all day being like, look at that frumpy dress!
No.
While guys will talk about it, it's because women care about the frumpy dress.
In case you haven't noticed, I wear literally the same thing every day, and I don't care.
I literally don't care.
I would wear a potato sack.
I don't care.
You can go on my Twitter and say, Tim wears the same thing every day, and I would be like, I don't care.
Literally nothing you can say about it is going to make me feel bad.
Yet, women will be made to feel bad if they don't look good.
So, perhaps, men and women... Let's not even say it's about women, right?
I do think it's fair to point out most guys aren't gonna notice what women are wearing.
I mean that seriously.
Like, you know, I notice the... You know, a lot of women I know will have all of these different outfits.
I've literally got a stack of these gray shirts and like three pairs of these pants.
I do have a ton of these beanies, by the way.
But, you know, I notice women tend to have more outfits.
I think that's a fair point.
Not all, but typically, right?
And more shoes, too.
I have like one pair of shoes.
Okay, I got a couple pairs of shoes because I skate, right?
But...
I think it's fair to say.
Am I wrong that it's women who typically care about what other people are wearing?
Women typically don't care if a guy's wearing the same clothes.
Guys don't care if a guy's wearing the same clothes.
And most guys don't care if a woman wears the same clothes.
So what's the problem?
The problem is AOC is trying to look good for other women.
But let's be real.
Let's be real.
I do believe that at a high level that she's at, you know, in terms of celebrity and press attention, you gotta look good.
You gotta look good.
And it's not just about women.
They make fun of Trump's weight.
They post demeaning pictures of his hair.
They make fun of him, too.
But you know what?
Trump probably don't care.
Let's read.
They say, uh, and then there's the reality that haircuts for women cost more than those of men.
It's well documented, and it's called the pink tax, a popular euphemism for gender-based pricing.
Simply stated, the pink tax is when goods or services marketed to women cost more than men's version for no apparent reason other than price gouging.
Except maybe, like, you know, you want low lights, which I don't think a guy would probably get, like the average dude, and you have longer hair, so, you know, it's gonna take longer to cut.
And you want a specific style of haircut, which guys are less likely... You see the point?
So yes, it's possible that salons will say women versus men, but I'd be willing to bet, in reality, and most of the salons probably today, it has more to do with quoting you based on the amount of work being done.
A 2018 report from the U.S.
Government Accountability Office confirmed that a variety of products and services targeting female consumers, ranging from deodorant to shaving cream to body spray, cost more than the male equivalent.
That's called market prices.
I'll tell you what, man.
You're not winning yourself any points by claiming you're stupid enough to look at two products that are the same and buy the one that's more expensive and then complain about it.
You want to talk about the taxes they put on, like, feminine care products?
Right there with you.
Completely agree.
I don't have all the full details.
Maybe they talk about it.
But there are certain circumstances where, like, actual products that women need, right?
You know, feminine care products, will have a special tax on them, or like a luxury tax.
That's insane to me.
Dude, if you're going to buy a cotton swab or whatever, it shouldn't be taxed because it's for women or something like that.
It's on a luxury.
Let's read on.
A few years prior, New York City ran the numbers and found some of the most frequent offenders.
Dry-cleaning bills for women's shirts ran an average of $4.95 compared to $2.86 for those worn by men.
Full stop.
What kind of shirts?
Are we talking about fancy, frilly button-up shirts that women wear made of silk and other fancy, frilly materials that have got to be delicately handled?
Are we talking about a dude who buys stock white shirts from T.J.
Maxx that are not particularly great and just throws them in the dry cleaner?
Look, I'd be willing to bet women's shirts are going to be fancier, better materials, they're going to be specifically designed, they're going to have shape issues.
A guy's going to buy a $2 shirt, and it's going to be a white plain shirt, and he's going to put a jacket over it or something.
I'd be willing to bet the average woman's dry cleaning bill for shirts.
you know, buying nice suits and nice clothes.
I'm not, like, you know, let's be real.
I'm just saying I'd be willing to bet the average woman's dry cleaning bill for shirts.
And the other question is, are they saying it's like shirt to shirt?
Are they saying women, you know, because I'd imagine women have more shirts to wash too.
But let's just say it's shirt to shirt.
I'd be willing to bet women's shirts are more delicate, require more care, and have specific shape issues.
That if they get stretched or anything, or damaged, it's a bigger deal, whereas a guy's gonna throw it on, tuck it in, and put something over it, right?
Yes, an educated consumer can buck the system.
Be diligent to check prices and reject the branding ploy.
But that's time and energy.
You're not winning yourself any favors by claiming you couldn't go, pink deodorant?
Blue deodorant?
This one's more expensive?
Well, buy the blue deodorant.
I guess it is fair to say, though, and this is an issue, like when it comes to deodorant, they smell different.
I don't think a woman wants to go around smelling like a dude and a dude doesn't want to go around smelling like a chick, for the most part.
Some people do.
That's all you, man.
I'm just saying that You might find that female deodorant costs more money, it's a different fragrance.
Well, what are you gonna do, man?
If it's more expensive for that particular fragrance and men don't buy that fragrance, what do you expect?
You can still buy, like, basic deodorant on the guy side.
If female and male consumers pay different prices for similar products that they purchase frequently, such as personal care products, this could result in substantial differences in expenditures by gender over time.
A consumer's annual spending on a product category can be significant, even when prices for products within that category are low.
I get it.
But you see what the problem is here?
If you want to buy something and you don't check prices, it is your fault.
No one forced you to buy anything.
If you want the pink razors for an extra 50 cents, well, there you go.
You bought the extra 50 cent razors.
I don't care what the color is.
What if they introduced a green razor and it was a dollar more?
You think people are gonna buy it?
I mean, some people might.
They might just grab it and be like, I don't care about the dollar.
I like green.
So, you know...
I can't believe that we're actually at this point.
So, actually, let's do this.
I want to be fair.
I want to talk about the tampon tax.
I think this is actually a really good thing that needs to be brought up because we can talk about the, you know, the real pink tax, right?
She writes, It is time for all these inequities to be addressed.
This past April, Representative Jackie Speier reintroduced the Pink Tax Repeal Act to ban the practice of gender-based pricing, declaring, The pink tax is not a one-time injustice.
It's an insidious form of institutionalized discrimination that affects women across the country from the cradle to the grave.
Yes, that's right, because you need to pass a law saying that if you're going to make a product for a woman and you make a product for a man, they have to cost the same thing.
That makes literally no sense.
You know, like, so what?
Bic will just introduce the Bic Razr.
Well, you could have just bought whatever you wanted!
How does it make sense to sell someone you can't make a product?
You can't brand it for women.
Fine, they'll call them, you know, Pink Secrets.
And they won't say women's on it.
You can't ban that!
You know, all they have to do, listen, Bic could come out with a razor, with frilly flowers
and a picture of a woman smiling and shaving her legs, and not say it's for women, and
women are still going to recognize that as for women.
And they could do the same thing with men on the other one and bypass whatever this
ridiculous law is.
So they say the tampon tax will soon have its day in court.
A new project, Tax-Free Period, is catalyzing the legal academy to develop arguments that tampon tax amounts to sex-based discrimination in violation of equal protection at both the state and federal level, making it more than merely unfair or inequitable, but illegal and unconstitutional.
So do they have something specifically about the tampon tax?
Whatever.
You know, I'll just give you the gist of it because, and I'm probably wrong, I don't want to dig through here just to find this one single point, but if there's something, you know, it doesn't make sense to me to put a special tax on tampons, if that's the case.
I want to make sure that's clear.
Because I don't have to, you know, pull it necessarily.
So we shouldn't be taxing hygiene products specially because women are the only ones buying them.
Apparently, like, the issue was that they were considered a luxury item, and that's insane.
That's just not the case.
It's not a luxury item.
It's like, If they put a tax on, you know, I guess, I don't want, I'm gonna stop there because I don't want to get too gross.
I'll just leave it.
The point is, if women have to buy this and they're taxing it, you know, there's an argument that there's no specific gender, it's just literally tampons are taxed.
Yeah, but come on man, we get that women are the ones who buy these things.
I mean, guys could buy them for their spouses, fine.
The point is, As far as I understand, maybe I need to research it more.
That doesn't make sense.
But if you want to argue that you chose to buy something that was more expensive because it had a picture of a flower and a lady on it, dude, that's your own problem, man.
So let's end this by pointing out.
Ocasio-Cortez celebrated her expensive lowlights and said she looked fabulous or something like that.
She's not being oppressed.
She made the choice.
She could shave her head tomorrow if she wanted to.
She's not going to, though, because she wants to adhere to societal norms.
That's just it.
Services cost money.
Find someone to do the job cheaper.
And I'll end just by saying, to the Washington Times complaining about her haircut, seriously, dudes?
Why?
It's so dumb!
And why am I even making a video about this?
You know, I'll be honest, though.
It's because the pink tech stuff is such an absurd... It's so ridiculous.
It's just so, so ridiculous.
It's not a tax.
It's literally a company being like, people will pay for it.
I'll sell it for this.
Well, you chose to do that, man.
Nobody put a gun to your head and said, you better buy this pink razor.
Okay.
I'll see you guys in the next segment at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
The absolute state of California.
It is a disaster, if you were to ask me.
Now, I get it.
California's very wealthy.
It's not all blue.
Like, the state votes blue.
But there are conservative areas.
There are farm areas.
But I gotta say, the problems in California are escalating, and it's getting pretty alarming.
So we've got the rise of disease, homelessness, feces in the streets, unemployment, etc.
Now we have this story.
You may have heard that PG&E was going to be cutting power over a fear that their infrastructure could fail and cause wildfires.
It happened.
That's why they're doing it.
Currently, there's a major wildfire in California.
That's my understanding.
And people have lost their lives.
I can understand why they would want to take this action.
So I can't blame.
There's no real blame to go around.
But there is a tragic story.
California man, 67, who relied on an oxygen pump, dies 12 minutes after PG&E cut down power to his home to prevent wildfires.
California is now in a state of disease and homelessness.
And rolling blackouts.
You know, when I talked about this before, my question was, who would want to live there?
And now we have this problem.
Now they're being very careful not to claim his death was directly a result of the power being cut.
It may be because it wasn't, or it may be because these people can't go up against PG&E.
But Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, issued a statement essentially saying someone's got to be responsible for this.
Let's read the story so you get the general idea, and then we'll talk about the problems that are California.
And what I really want to talk about after we go through this news is What do you think will happen when the climate activists, you know, want this dramatic reduction in power and all that?
Listen, people who are diabetic need to have their insulin refrigerated, okay?
Without power, they're at risk.
People on oxygen machines, they're at risk as well.
Tell me your solution, because California is in dire straits.
They say, a Northern California man dependent on oxygen died just 12 minutes after Pacific Gas and Electric shut down power to the area as part of an effort to prevent fires.
El Dorado County Fire Chief Lloyd Ogan said on Friday that a call was placed to the fire department from Pollock Pines at 3.30 a.m.
on Wednesday.
Crews arrived at the scene and found Robert Martis, Sr., 67, unresponsive.
and were unable to revive him, according to the Mountain Democrat.
Ogin said the man's oxygen equipment required power, but could not say whether the shutdown was related to his death.
So they're being careful, but basically, he had a machine that was plugged into a wall, and a battery-powered machine.
I don't know why, perhaps they didn't know exactly when the power was to be shut off, but in the middle of the night he apparently, he woke up with no oxygen, struggled to get to his battery-powered machine, and he didn't make it.
This is completely irresponsible.
Someone... You know what, man?
Let's read.
Martis Sr.' 's daughter, Marie Aldea, told Fox 40 that her father had several health issues and she believes the power cuts were involved in his death.
She said, He had health issues.
He had really bad COPD, which didn't help.
And he had congestive heart failure and other health issues.
But the power going off and him not being able to get to his oxygen is, I believe, is what did it.
Martis Sr.' 's oxygen tank reportedly lost power during PG&E's power shutdown, and he was unable to reach his battery-operated oxygen tank in time.
He'll never see my kids get married.
He'll never see his grandchildren, Althea said.
How do you fix that?
You don't.
You can't.
Something got taken away from me that I can never get back, and I will miss my father forever.
This is a truly heartbreaking story.
We have fought so hard as human beings to develop the technology to save lives, to make sure our loved ones can survive these ailments.
A hundred years ago, this man probably wouldn't have made it.
There wasn't going to be a battery-powered oxygen tank or a wall-powered, you know, a shore-powered oxygen tank.
It just didn't exist.
But we've made great strides.
And what people need to realize in California, I mean, this is a natural disaster, this is wildfires, I don't have to tell you.
But to those who are talking about these dramatic, sweeping environmental changes, you realize you'll be rolling the clock back on technology that we need to sustain life.
People who would not have survived a hundred years ago are dependent upon this electricity and this energy.
Now, there are some people who can't charge their electric cars, and that's also bad.
But, you know, gas shortages have happened in the past, too.
So, in this particular instance, I think it's important to realize that there are people completely dependent upon these fossil fuels to be alive.
Let's read more.
PG&E spokesman Jeff Smith said it had not been able to confirm the accuracy of the report.
The power company told Fox 40 we have no information on incident and have not been able to confirm the accuracy of the report.
We refer you to local officials in El Dorado County.
Governor Gavin Newsom spoke out on Friday.
I thought it was Newsom.
Whatever.
Copy editor.
About the tragic death.
Losing a family member is horrific and to the extent this was the reason why, I hope that is investigated.
And I hope those responsible are held to account, he said.
The news of his death comes on the heels of the deaths of two others from the wildfires on Thursday.
A man in his 50s who suffered cardiac arrest, and Lois Arvikson, 89, after a fire swept through her mobile home park.
It's unclear whether the unnamed victim was pronounced dead at his home or in another location.
They're gonna go talk about the wildfires, so we'll get into this, but I will stress, if they didn't shut down the power, then it sparked a wildfire that killed several people.
You know, we would be mourning their deaths.
Because they chose to shut the power down, this man died.
Now here's the true philosophical conundrum.
We don't know if, you know, let's say they kept the power on.
What if a fire started?
What if several people died?
We would then be outraged, saying, why didn't they do something?
Why didn't they shut the power off?
They knew these gusts were coming.
And because they did, we see the results.
This is the unfortunate reality of life, that we don't know what could have been.
We can make guesses.
We can think about what we did and how to better mitigate this, you know, this problem in the future.
If we're going to have blackouts planned, then we need to make sure we have, we know who's going to require special, you know, tools.
Perhaps they should have been brought to a hospital or facility with generators to make sure people survive and medical staff.
I don't know.
Maybe people don't want to do that.
Maybe they want their, you know, what little independence they have when they're living on an oxygen machine.
The point is, we might look at the situation and be outraged.
This man lost his life.
It could be worse.
We just don't know.
We don't know.
Imagine they left the power on and then 20 people died.
So, in the end, hard decisions have to be made.
And when they are, people often get really angry and they're outraged and say, why are you doing this?
So I'll only tell you this.
You know, I look at California as a failing state.
I don't want to say it's failed.
I mean, they're really wealthy.
Let's be real.
But with the escalation in human waste and disease and homelessness and these power outages, I don't know what to tell you, man, but this does not sound like a comfortable first-world place to live.
You can go find a nice little rural town with gigabit internet, with abundant food, and heating, and electricity, and I don't have to worry about any of this.
No homeless, no diseases.
There's a serious problem happening in California that doesn't affect even poorer areas in the rest of this country.
You want to live in California.
It's a high cost of living.
It's a wealthy place to live.
For the most part.
Not everywhere.
Of course there's poor areas.
But you could go move to a small town.
You can move to Cincinnati and not deal with any of this.
And live in first world conditions.
It's really weird to me.
They say, winds gusted dangerously as forecasted before calming in North Carolina, where PG and Electric faced hostility and second-guessing over its widespread shutoffs.
Governor Gavin Newsom criticized PG&E, and ordinary customers complained about the inconveniences caused by the unprecedented blackouts that began midweek.
PG&E, though, suggested it was already seeing the wisdom of its decision borne out as gusts topping 77 mph raked the San Francisco Bay Area amid a bout of dry, windy weather.
We have found multiple cases of damage or hazards caused by heavy winds, including fallen branches that came in contact with overhead lines, said Samit Singh, a vice president for the utility company.
If they were energized, they could have ignited.
Now, here's the thing.
I've talked to a lot of people about this.
I'm not a firefighter, I can't tell you.
But my understanding is that fires happen.
You know, death and decay and this brush builds up over time and then burns.
And because humans have stopped these fires because we want to live there, it builds up to the point where the fires become substantially worse.
Now, you'll have climate activists saying, look how bad the fires are.
And it may actually not have to do With, you know, climate change, it may have to do with human intervention, allowing this fuel to build up until finally the ignition happens, and it's really, really bad.
I don't know.
Don't cite me.
I'm not a scientist.
All I can really say is, why live in California?
After all of these problems, a man loses his life, whether they were right or wrong, you've got blackouts.
You've got disease, homelessness.
It is not being solved.
It is getting worse.
Pollutants, needles, flowing into the ocean.
Why live there?
I get it, the weather's nice in SoCal, but man... You know, there are other places to be.
To be safe.
To be secure.
We have here some photos of... There's another fire.
So this is the fire known as the Saddle Ridge Fire.
It broke out after 9pm on Thursday in Sylmar, north of Los Angeles.
Pictured a helicopter drops water.
For those that are listening, you can't see it, but there's a really bad fire.
They say because of the dangerous weather in the forecast, PG&E cut power on Wednesday.
This we know.
It's affecting about 543,000 businesses and residences.
Another 195,000 customers remain without power.
Experts say a customer includes between 2,000 and 3,000 people.
Wow, really?
Is that worth saying?
So we're talking about potentially millions of people?
10?
Wait, what?
One customer includes between 2,000 and 3,000 people?
Are they... Oh, I see.
Are they talking about, like, counties then?
I don't know.
Areas without power include... Okay, I'm not gonna read into all that.
You get the point.
I'm gonna wrap it up here.
I'm not gonna make this one super long.
But, you know, I feel for this family.
It's saddening.
But I believe this should be a wake-up call to the people who live in that state, man.
You gotta figure something out.
It's not gonna get better.
It's only getting worse.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all there.
No doubt, following the video I did for my main channel where I talked about how the coup against Trump will result in a civil war, no doubt I will likely get criticism.
I've already had people rag on me for entertaining the possibility of civil war.
There have been more professional statements, like Styx Hexenhammer has said he humbly disagrees with the notion, and that's respectable.
But there are a lot of people who call it fear-mongering and all that stuff.
Listen, man.
I'm not just making this up off the top of my head.
I look at what the culture is, and I give my thoughts on it.
This is a story from the Daily Beast.
If Trump's rage brings civil war, where will the military stand?
I did one video following Trump's tweet about potential civil war if he's ousted, and they were like, oh heavens, Trump, how dare you say this?
And it was a quote from someone in media.
And the quote was not made up by this individual either.
The conversation around the potential for a civil war, whatever it might look like, whatever it might be, maybe it's small, maybe it's big, whatever, has been around for a long time.
I think there is a decent likelihood we see some kind.
In fact, I think it's true that we're in one in some capacity.
Now, Matt Taibbi, award-winning journalist, called it a permanent coup.
But he's looking at the Democrats versus Trump.
I'm looking at it like, yes, but who's backing the Democrats?
Who's voting in the Ocasio-Cortezes?
There are real people going all the way down.
In fact, I think it started with the people and flowed into politics.
We've got bad news here.
I do want to come back to the story, and I'm starting with this to make a point.
They'll like to say, Tim, why are you talking about this?
Oh, it's not true, it'll never happen.
Dude, regardless of what you think, the conversation exists, and it's been in existence for years, and even the first video I did about this, I did not just make up, I was citing.
There was a poll done of national security experts, and the average assessment was like a 35% chance.
Some people, like these are experts, saying 95% chance in the next five years.
Five to ten years.
Here's the real story from The Hill.
This is from a couple days ago.
Okay.
Please.
Take all of these things together.
I'm not making this up.
This is The Hill, doing a poll, showing you there's a crisis of confidence in elections.
Take a look at the rhetoric from cable TV news.
Take a look at what they say about Trump, supporters and opposition.
And you will see there is a real crisis of confidence.
Everything we have in terms of our abstract systems, the police, the fire department, government in general, we function in this capacity because of our confidence.
What if you didn't know whether or not that green picture of George Washington was going to get you that candy bar?
You wouldn't want to take it from somebody.
If there is no confidence in U.S.
dollars, people won't want them.
And that means the value evaporates to nothing.
The whole system of dollars is built on our confidence in the system.
What happens when people have a crisis of confidence in U.S.
elections?
They think Trump stole the election.
Trump says, you know, Trump supporters say Ukraine and the DNC were trying to steal it and they just lost.
Whatever your position is.
What happens when people don't believe it anymore?
When they don't go out and vote?
When they think no matter what they do, the system is rigged against them?
You get civil war.
You get some kind of insurgency.
Some kind of uprising.
And it might not end well.
Whatever you want to call it.
You know, was the Arab Spring Civil War?
I don't know.
Let's read the story and see exactly what the hell it has to say.
New poll shows crisis of confidence.
A year before the 2020 presidential elections, only half of Americans say they believe the vote will be conducted openly and fairly, according to a new survey that reveals a growing mistrust in the U.S.
electoral system.
I'll give you a couple examples.
On the right, there's concerns of voter ID.
In fact, when polled, two-thirds of Democrats believe you need an ID to vote.
But for some reason the talking points from the establishment Democrats is, it's racist.
On the left, they say the right is purging minorities from the voter rolls.
I don't know what to tell you, man.
There's a crisis of confidence, I'll put it that way.
The poll conducted by Ipsos for C-SPAN, and shared exclusively with The Hill, found that 53% of registered voters said next year's elections will be open and fair.
Just 46% said they had a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the wisdom of their fellow Americans when it comes to election outcomes.
The deck is stacked because of all the gerrymandering that's gone on, said Charles Flink, a retired teacher who lives in White Oak, Pennsylvania.
Just outside of Pittsburgh.
You've got huge amounts of money that are buying votes all over the place, blocking minority people from voting, scaring people away from the polls, and doing all these kinds of nonsense.
The survey results show a stark partisan divide between Democrats and Republicans over the integrity of next year's vote.
Almost three quarters of Republicans.
72% said the next election will be conducted fairly.
And I gotta admit, I was on the side of, the system is too strong for an outsider like Trump to get in.
I was like, you know, I wanted to say, based on sentiment, Trump would win, but I just never imagined they would allow it.
And by they, I mean the Democratic establishment.
I mean the DNC and the RNC, the crony, capitalist, Goldman Sachs establishment types.
Of course, you're gonna get a bunch of, you know, idiots trying to read into it at that point.
The point I'm making is, the establishment Period.
We know who they are.
They get their kids jobs.
It doesn't matter if they're on the left or the right.
We know the Lindsey Grahams, you know, cheering on, you know, angry about pulling out of troops in Syria.
We know who the insiders and the outsiders are.
The insiders, I was surprised, faltered.
The Democrats didn't.
They kept Bernie out.
I imagine there's a really funny circle, like, here's my, here's my, uh, fake little conspiracy idea.
After, uh, Bernie got knocked out of the primary, the DNC met with the head of the RNC for drinks and they were like, how did you screw this up and let Trump get in?
Ah, what are you doing?
I'm kidding.
But here's the thing.
I think the reason why Democrats feel it's unfair is because Hillary lost, and they're like, how is that possible?
Let's read.
About half of Democrats and independent voters said the U.S.
elections are rigged to favor the rich and powerful.
I agree.
28% of Republicans said the same.
Right now, there is a crisis of confidence in our country, said Cliff Young, the president of Ipsos.
By and large, the American people do not believe our elections are safe from foreign interference, and there is a vast partisan disagreement over whether the next election will be open and fair.
Let me ask you a question.
You get the point.
We've gone through the details.
I want to show you this.
Let me ask you a question.
What do you think happens when you have a large portion of Democrats believing the elections are rigged either by Russia or by Trump and Republicans?
They think they're being cheated.
They think Orange Man is the worst ever.
The bigot, racist, whatever.
Do you think that the Antifa stuff we saw just stops?
Do you think they go, well, you know, we tried, we lost, we'll get them next time?
They didn't in 2016.
Why would they now?
No, in 2017, they showed up and rioted.
What do you think happens then when they're saying before the election, It's unfair.
The election's gonna come and Trump's gonna win.
What do you think happens the second time Trump wins?
Exactly.
If Trump brings civil war, where will the military stand?
Now this is what's funny.
I'll stress again.
I'm not making this up.
This is from somebody who worked in intelligence writing this.
Where did they put it?
They say that they, uh, after spending 19 years in Washington with intelligence jobs in Congress at the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, I had the opportunity to join the commander's red team at U.S.
CENTCOM.
Here's the thing.
What did they find?
Did they find that the military despised Trump?
No.
They found that just like the American people, there is a divide.
Look at this one.
Here's another story.
It says, The soil from which Trump's Civil War tweet grew.
Oh.
Was it, I don't know, New York Mag?
That's the first time I saw this story.
You see how they play this game?
I can't stand it.
And this is why I think we're really in trouble.
Because they will write about it and then blame other people for the problems they helped create.
I understand by me talking about it, it fans the flames.
It's a tough situation.
I think it's important to talk about and address and highlight these issues.
So what they say is, basically, recent polling shows that among military veterans, approval ratings for Trump are higher than among the civilian population.
In my experience, the support for Donald Trump among a large segment of the U.S.
military is downright cult-like.
None of this makes sense.
Trump is everything the U.S.
military should despise, a draft-dodger, adulterer, flabby, lazy, unread tabloid joke for decades, and TV show reality star.
They say that Trump basically figured out how to speak to these people.
But, you know, man, I don't care what you think, you know, in terms of why it happened.
In the end, there is a divide.
And even this article entertains the reality that support among military veterans for Trump is higher than average, higher than the average population.
So you want to know who they side with come civil war?
Not you.
So I'll use this to make a prediction.
Again, the likelihood that we actually have some kind of civil war, I don't know, I don't think it's super high, but, you know, I'm kind of bullish on it if you see my videos.
Especially when Matt Taibbi writes about this stuff and the stuff we're witnessing, I think I've made my point clear.
Disagree with me, think I'm wrong, fine, it's fine.
I'm not saying I'm absolutely right, because I don't know.
But I'll tell you this.
Trump wins, the far left goes nuts, the military comes out, cracks down on the far left.
The far left being cracked down on rallies a large number of the resistance people who say Trump is illegitimate, he's a criminal, he's defied the Constitution and Congress, we have a constitutional crisis again and again and again, but the military and law enforcement side with Trump because that's the branch they're in.
And that's what they do.
Now, obviously, the military can't crack down on the protesters.
That would make no sense.
The military would just be on the side of Trump.
They wouldn't defect.
The police will crack down on protesters.
The left will cry, police state.
Left-wing politicians will say, this is outrageous.
We have a criminal in office we can't remove.
And that's going to inspire some real hardcore stuff, man.
So, I guess I wanted to add this addendum that wasn't in the main video.
But the main point I wanted to cite is this.
From the Hill.
People in the U.S.
have wavering confidence in our elections.
And when they no longer have confidence that our institutions work, they abandon it.
And if people don't believe in it, they're not going to follow its rules.
That, to me, is another ingredient in the conflict.
So, you know, I'll leave it there.
I think, ultimately, I didn't include these in the main segment.
I just wanted to highlight them.
Because the segment I was talking about was trying to avoid talking about who's right and who's wrong.
But, but, you know, for, for, I'll put it this way.
Although the video very obviously shows that Schiff is lying and stuff like that on my main channel, I didn't want to make a video where I was like, the left has gone crazy.
I wanted, I wanted to, to the best of my ability, make a video that people could watch even if they didn't agree, even if they want Trump impeached.
Because it's not about you being right or wrong, it's about this, this is coming.
Okay?
Unless we do something to change it.
There are variables.
But on the current path we're on, it seems like after Russiagate, Ukrainegate, the protests, the violence, we gotta do something to stop this crazy train.
Otherwise, it's gonna get to this point.
Where will the military stand?
I sure hope we never find out.
Stick around, I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Boy, it's like a broken record, huh?
It's like every Saturday, there's some segment about Bill Maher slamming the Democrats, and I've gotta talk about it.
Because Bill Maher is right.
He slams the far left, he criticizes Bernie and Warren, and he even slams Joe Biden.
Look man, Bill, hear me out.
If you're this frequently slamming the left, where does that put you?
Well, I understand.
He says this in the center.
I agree.
He says that Howard Stern, he tells Howard Stern we're the last sane liberals because we don't go for all the BS on the far left.
I can respect that to an extent.
You know, however, I'll give you some pushback.
A little pushback to Dave Rubin.
Dave Rubin jokingly made a thing that said The Last Liberal based on The Last Jedi.
It was a Star Wars thing.
It was a joke.
But a lot of people were like, how dare you say The Last Liberal?
It was a joke, dude.
Calm down.
Bill Maher's obviously joking, but let's be real here.
Joking aside, you know, for one, every joke has its truth, but the truth is there are very few sane liberals left.
We are politically homeless.
Bill Maher.
Maybe you don't realize it, but you are like a prominent figure to the politically homeless.
You don't represent, you know, the Pelosi's, the Biden's, and you don't represent the Warren's and the Sanders.
Where are you and who are you?
I can't tell you anymore, man.
Things have changed and they're very weird now.
The space that I find myself in, where I've been a big fan of Bill Maher since I was like a late teenager.
That's kind of crazy to me.
I remember sitting at my friend's house when I was like 19, watching real time.
Has it really been on that long?
It seems not.
Really?
That's crazy.
Well, now we're in this position with a collapsing far left, with Trump derangement syndrome, and Bill Maher, you're in this weird space.
Let's read some of the story.
They say, Bill Maher's quoted on his Friday night show saying, you and I are the last sane people, Maher told Stern at one point in the discussion, because we're liberals, but we don't go for all that BS on the far left.
Here's the thing.
I think it's fine that he said that to Howard Stern, but what I really want to talk about, he does criticize the president.
Fine, I don't, you know, by all means.
But he goes on to criticize Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as being too far left.
Check this out.
Maher also made the case that Democratic presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders were too far left to win the general election and touted Senator Amy Klobuchar as a dark horse who could potentially top the party's ticket.
You know?
I'll entertain that possibility.
I wouldn't bet on it, though.
Klobuchar doesn't seem to have the X-factor, the star power.
But she is more moderate.
I don't think she's going to be a breakout.
I'm sorry.
At the end of the day, it comes to media attention.
Now, Bill is giving Klobuchar attention, but let's not forget Amy Klobuchar ate a salad with a comb and threw... I can't remember what she threw.
She threw something at one of her staff members, I guess, in a story.
But I will tell you this.
If you're the favorite, they give you the praise.
If you're in any way an outsider, they will rip you to shreds.
And that's actually what we're seeing with Tulsi Gabbard.
Check this out.
What exactly is Tulsi Gabbard up to?
The New York Times.
As she injects chaos into the 2020 Democratic primary by accusing her own party of rigging the election.
An array of alt-right internet stars, white nationalists, and Russians have praised her.
Bravo.
Bravo.
I don't think Bill Maher is a fan of Tulsi.
I don't know too much.
But I'll tell you this.
The New York Times will rip you apart if in any way they spot weakness.
Because it's not about what's true.
It's about what they can sell.
And when they see blood in the water, boy, do the sharks come swimmin' fast.
When it comes to Bernie and Warren, they're fairly popular.
These media outlets don't want to offend their audience.
They're trying to attract a bigger audience.
It comes to this.
Joe Biden gets defended and criticized.
Bernie gets defended and criticized.
Warren gets defended and criticized.
You get the point.
In more establishment media circles, they're very much more likely to be like Biden or Warren, and they're very much negative towards Bernie.
But Bernie has his allies in progressive media.
I think what we're really seeing here too, this whole picture with Bill Maher and these comments, is the divide, is the war on the left in the United States.
So the point I'm trying to make here is the outsiders get attacked by the mainstream media.
That's why Elizabeth Warren is being propped up and praised and rising while Biden goes down because of the scandal stuff.
Let's read.
Maher spoke to Klobuchar in a one-on-one interview.
He argued that Klobuchar was plenty liberal but could actually beat President Trump.
She could, but the probability is really, really low, okay?
Let's be real.
Obviously, this is a fight between two wings of the party, which is almost every election.
There is a center and a Democrat, a center-left wing.
And then there is a far left, which I think would be represented by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Klobuchar would not address Warren and Sanders directly, but clearly dismissed their platforms and pushed her center-left agenda.
She said, I want to win big,
and if someone is looking to kick 149 million Americans off their current health insurance in four years,
then I'm not your candidate.
Yeah, she's taking a dig at the far left.
Klobuchar said, If you want to use a bunch of hardworking people's money
to send rich people's kids to college for free, then I'm not your candidate.
And just because people say ideas are bold doesn't mean they're bold.
They may be bad.
Hey, bravo, Amy Klobuchar!
I really respect that.
Here's the thing.
You hear all this stuff about free college.
Why are we going to take taxpayer money, which will predominantly be the middle class, to fund tuition for the upper and lower class?
I understand the idea of, like, we're going to take tax money and then pay for education for poor people.
You know there's a limit, right?
Look, when I was at Occupy Wall Street, a group of people had these demands where they said, we want free college, you know, free tuition, smaller class sizes.
And I said, let me think about that.
Free tuition.
You go to school, you just go, right?
Smaller class sizes.
Let's do some math.
If you open the door and say anyone can come in, what happens?
The class sizes become bigger and bigger and bigger.
Especially when you're not paying for it.
So how can you have smaller class sizes while welcoming in more people?
Now you may argue, expanding universities, making more, okay.
How are we going to pay for that?
How much are we going to put in infrastructure?
And that's what they're talking about.
Think about this.
And I know this is actually a pretty sad argument, but here's the truth.
When Bernie says we're gonna give healthcare to everybody, when he says we're gonna give education to everybody, it does invariably mean that some people, of course, that some people will now be without access.
Yes, let me clarify.
But now it could mean you.
So here's the thing.
Let's say you make $40,000 a year.
Struggle to get by with your family.
I'm talking about a family, right?
Couple kids, house, you're making $40,000.
Things aren't too great, maybe you're in the middle of the country somewhere, but it's not bad.
You set aside as much as you can, and the health care is expensive, but you can still get in.
You get in debt.
Your daughter's sick.
You get in debt.
It's unfortunate.
I think we need to figure out how to solve that problem.
That's a fact.
It's also a fact that if we open the doors to literally everybody, there will now have to be a wait list for you and your daughter.
The challenge is, right now we have a system that, in my opinion, is relatively broken.
But the core tenets need to be there, need to make sense.
The idea being that Medical treatment, in my opinion, is not a human right, because that requires mandating labor, which makes no sense.
How do you guarantee someone a technology?
Medicine is a technology.
We can say all day and night.
Everyone deserves to get treatment, but that would require someone to be available for treatment, so no, it's not.
The issue then comes down to this.
If you work very, very hard, you pay your taxes, and you save up money, and you get sick, you can pay for that technology to save your life.
If you're not working, unfortunately you can't, and that may not be your fault.
That's why I do believe in social programs and I am on the left, though I'm not that far left.
I think we have to figure out how to help these people and get them to a point where they can earn money and do some kind of program for medical expenses.
But the reality is medical treatment is technology and it's expensive.
I do believe the system is very broken with insurance companies and these weird jacked up prices.
I get all of that.
The core tenant.
If we say literally everybody can have access.
You have a hospital.
The hospital can fit a hundred patients.
You have a hundred and ten people waiting to come in the front door.
But you have a thousand people who live here.
You then say anyone can come.
It is open.
Well guess what?
Now you have two hundred more people who couldn't previously now coming in.
I understand.
Those people are deserving of healthcare.
I absolutely believe that's true.
How we can get it to them effectively without hurting hard-working Americans is the challenge.
Because if you find yourself in the middle class, you may struggle to pay off your debts when it comes to medical bills, but you can.
But when we open the door to everybody, we now have literally everybody rushing and trying again.
It just means massive waitlists.
So it could be worse for the middle class.
It'll be... Basically, it's like this.
It's really simple.
You've got people in the middle and people on the bottom, and you're gonna go like that.
That means the lower class is going to gain a decent amount.
Not as much as the middle class had.
But the middle and upper classes and everyone else will lose out.
I do believe a hybrid system makes the most sense.
This is why I've talked about why we should do a public option.
I don't want to get into a full healthcare thing.
I think that's silly.
I think we'll move on from this.
But the point is...
Allow people to buy into a government program which allows a competition against the private sector, the private insurance and stuff, and then we can see, you know, better access.
Allow some kind of minimum basic health care, right?
And then have a private insurance system like normal for the more expensive, scarce treatments, the things that are harder to get.
I don't know what the solution is, man.
I just know that we can't be a society that allows people to get sick and die in the streets.
We can't be a society that has people going bankrupt because they don't want to die.
But I fully acknowledge the important reality.
Guess what?
When we invent a cure for a disease, it might be very expensive.
The first cell phone was terrible and expensive.
And just because it exists doesn't mean you have a right to have it.
Labor and investment went into making that thing exist.
So when we get to the point where we can mass-produce cures, the price will go down.
For the time being, though, we need to consider, when it comes to healthcare, if I invent a cure for a disease right now, how is that a human right for anybody if I only have one?
Let's say someone in a lab goes, boom, I made one vial.
It's a cure for cancer.
And they say, healthcare is a human right.
Give that cure to everybody.
I can't.
I have literally one.
Who gets it?
Well, it cost a billion dollars to make.
I want my billion dollars back.
You see how it works?
People seem to forget that when it comes to healthcare, we're talking about finite resources, technology, and manpower, same as any industry.
But anyway, the point is, Bill Maher slams the far left.
He then goes on to slam Joe Biden, too, saying he may be too old for the presidency and that Senator Kamala Harris wasn't doing well in the polls despite the media attention she's received after debate performances.
You get the point.
So, you know, Bill Maher said, I'm saying it's a lot easier to be on the center side of things, as Obama was, if you're not a white man, if you're a white straight man.
Jokingly.
He gets it.
He gets it.
I can respect Bill Maher ragging on the insanity.
I really, really do.
I disagree with him on a lot of things.
I think he's a bit elitist, but fine.
But my question is, the takeaway from this segment, is Bill Maher a liberal?
Well, he's been accused of not being a liberal.
He's been called a phony liberal.
He's been called alt-right.
And here he is, again, week after week, slamming most of the Democrats.
He's got Amy Klobuchar on, praising her.
Does it matter?
I've praised Democrats.
I praised, just now, Amy Klobuchar.
I gave respect to her statement.
They still call me conservative.
Does it make sense?
No, because I'm actively supporting Tulsi Gabbard in this primary cycle.
And I'll probably vote for her no matter what.
It's fine.
And they smear her relentlessly.
The point is, if that's— Look, you know, how long until they say Bill Maher's right-wing?
Like, literally.
Bill Maher has been grandfathered in as a liberal.
And they probably don't like it.
As long as he's still there, it makes it hard for them to move.
They want to accuse me of being a conservative?
Uh, sorry, I'm pretty much on board with, like, most of Bill Maher's opinions.
Oh, but Bill Maher's right-wing too?
Yeah, not gonna fly with the average American dude.
Nuh-uh.
The crazy activists can claim all they want, but I'll tell you this.
The people who hit me up, the phone calls I have, the people reaching out for, you know, to invest or to expand, they're mostly liberals.
They're people who like Bill Maher, and they're like, what's happening?
And I'm like, I'm right there with you, dude.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
One more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Oh, I couldn't resist.
A story about woke outrage.
Academia targeting none other than Spongebob Squarepants.
He is a violent, racist colonizer, college professor says.
Incredible.
Let's also not forget that Spongebob is a meme in many ways.
And as we know, if someone decides a meme is racist, then, you know, it is, I guess.
So is Spongebob a symbol of all the evil in the world?
Yes, he is.
No, I'm just kidding.
But this is a real story, I kid you not.
And I absolutely had to dig into it.
Now, I want to mention the conspiracy theory.
Not really a conspiracy, it's like a fan theory.
Spongebob lives in Bikini Bottom.
The Bikini Atoll is where we did many nuclear tests and apparently it is still uninhabitable.
We'll get into that, it's in the story apparently.
And so fans think Bikini Bottom is underneath the Bikini Atoll where Creatures have mutated.
It doesn't explain how a squirrel with an astronaut suit or whatever moved under the ocean.
It's a cartoon.
Calm down.
But it's still fun to think about, right?
Let's read the story.
They start by asking us, who lives in a pineapple under a sea?
I'm surprised the pineapple hasn't, you know, I don't know, decayed and broken apart from being underwater, but whatever.
You know you know the answer.
It's SpongeBob SquarePants.
The iconic cartoon character loved by kids and adults alike who on Friday turned 20 years old.
Wow.
The animated Sponge spends his days getting into wacky adventures along with his buddies Patrick Starfish, Squidward Tentacles, they're not friends by the way, and Mr. Krabs, that's his boss.
And without speaking down to children, the lovable, absorbent Square doles out some life lessons along the way.
Um, fact check, okay?
He's not friends with Squidward.
Mr. Krabs is his boss.
Squidward doesn't like him.
You needed to know that!
But a University of Washington professor thinks SpongeBob is violent!
And racist!
Yes, seriously.
Holly M. Barker has penned a piece titled Unsettling SpongeBob and the Legacies of Violence on Bikini Bottom.
I will point this out.
Spongebob is an oppressor.
He is dangerously ignorant.
He causes all sorts of problems for everybody.
He even wants... I think he has that episode where he's trying to learn how to drive and he's crashing and people are terrified of him.
Yes, he is a violent ignoramus who causes serious problems for his community.
And perhaps he needs to be locked up.
But let's get real.
The real issue is that he's a violent colonizer.
Quote.
Billions of people around the globe are well acquainted with SpongeBob SquarePants and the antics of the title character.
I'm going to stop real quick and just say, I hope you're enjoying this last segment because everything was so serious today about the coup and civil war that I thought it would be fun to leave with something that makes literally no sense, but at least you can laugh at.
Let's read.
They say people around the world are acquainted with Spongebob and the antics of the title character and his friends on Bikini Bottom.
By the same token, there is an absence of public discourse around the whitewashing of violent American military activities through Spongebob's occupation and reclaiming of the bottom of Bikini Atoll's lagoon.
Spongebob Squarepants and his friends play a role in normalizing the settler-colonial takings of indigenous lands while erasing the ancestral Bikinian people from their non-fictional homeland.
What?!
Reads the abstract for Barker's piece.
What?! !
Dude, it's a cartoon about a squirrel who put on an underwater breathing suit and lives in a glass dome, and there's a sponge living in a pineapple, and there's a squid dude who plays the clarinet poorly and lives in an Easter Island head.
They work at a burger shop where their boss is a greedy crab.
I don't know where you got any of that, but I gotta stop right here and say, you know it's funny, right?
We're laughing, we're having a good time, we're high-fiving, we're like, these people are nuts.
These people are also writing about very serious issues that affect policy.
And now you should be very afraid.
Listen to this insanity.
The American military activities.
The takings of indigenous lands from the non-fictional Bikinian people.
Now remember that they're also writing about, you know, gender wage gaps.
Policy issues.
They're consulting politicians.
These very same people who believe Spongebob is an evil colonizer are helping to pass laws and influence culture in the real world.
Shouldn't that be… well, that's not funny at all.
That's nightmarishly dystopian.
Let's read more.
Barker's Abstract asserts that Spongebob has colonized Bikini Bottom, the underwater home to lovable characters, and claims the cartoon is whitewashed.
Okay, listen.
It's not canon.
At least I'm pretty sure it's not canon that it's literally Bikini Atoll, right?
But okay.
Here's what it says.
The article exposes the complicity of popular culture in maintaining American military hegemony in Oceania while amplifying the enduring indigeneity of the Marshallese people who maintain deeply spiritual and historical connections to land, even land they cannot occupy, due to residual radiation contamination from U.S.
nuclear weapons testing.
Through a range of cultural practices, including language song and weaving, this article also considers the gendered violence of nuclear colonialism and the resilience of Marshallese women.
Could you imagine paying for your kids to go to a school to learn this?
I feel bad for these kids, man.
That's what they're learning in school.
Man, your brain, it's like, you'd be better off getting whacked in the head with a meat tenderizer for an hour every day.
You'll get a traumatic brain injury or that degenerative brain disease, but I'll tell you what, it's better than believing any of this is real.
So look, man, I'll again point out Violence.
The violence of Spongebob.
Spongebob is a sea animal, and so is the starfish.
They were there before the humans, the Marshallese women, ever set foot on this land.
So no, you want to get real?
Let me tell you this.
It is the Marshallese people who have colonized and taken from Spongebob what is rightfully his.
I'm gonna have to, I'm gonna have to, you know, listen.
You know, these critters, the bottom of the sea?
I mean, they were there long before the humans came in and did all their thing, right?
So why should we now be- why should we be mad- be mad that the sponge has taken back his ancestral homeland?
Where does it end?
I also want to stress, I'm surprised this isn't a Sokal Squared hoax paper, and I will absolutely say this.
This might be a hoax.
I swear to God.
If this is real.
We're in trouble.
We're in real trouble.
The Bikini Atoll remains uninhabitable, and some conspiracy theorists claim the cast of SpongeBob SquarePants were mutated by the testing.
Not conspiracy, it's a fan theory, right?
Barker declares that as an American character allowed to live there, SpongeBob showed his privilege of not caring about the detonation of nuclear bombs.
It could also be, for one, it's a cartoon sponge, but even in the context of canon, assuming this really is the nuclear test site, It's a sea creature who doesn't know it's a nuclear test site, nor does he occupy the land above the water where humans would live.
There aren't people living at the bottom of the ocean with him complaining about him gentrifying the neighborhood.
SpongeBob's presence on Bikini Bottom continues the violent and racist expulsion of indigenous peoples from their lands.
Who did he kick out?
It's Sponge!
That enables U.S.
hegemonic powers to extend their military and colonial interests in the post-war era.
Barker even rips the theme song, saying it denounces Bikini Bottom as full of nautical nonsense.
What is a plankton?
unidentified
Plankton's trying to steal a recipe for a cheeseburger.
The song's directives, ensconced in humor, provide the viewer with an active role in defining Bikini Bottom as a
place of nonsense.
As the audience is instructed, if nonsense be something...
This is fake.
I swear to God this is fake.
There's no way this is real.
Daily Wire, you got hoaxed.
Where's the source on this?
There is no way this is real.
I cannot imagine someone at a college would actually make this claim that the viewers are instructed.
did it drop on the deck and flop like a fish what is this this was nope what is
what what am I seeing oh my This is real?
No way this is real.
Somebody's hoaxing this.
This has got to be a hoax.
I do not believe this.
From the University of Hawaii.
We are being hoaxed here.
I just want to stress.
I am very skeptical that this is real.
I do not believe it.
It's funny.
But... I think we're in serious trouble if this is real.
And you know what's even crazier?
Let's assume it's fake.
It's still believable.
That's how insane all of these stories have been.
You look at SoCalSquared when they put out that, they rewrote sections from Mein Kampf with feminist buzzwords and it got picked up.
That's how crazy things have gotten.
Barker says the children's show is full of gender bias as well, writing, all of the main characters on the show are male.
Sandy Cheeks, a squirrel that lives underwater with the aid of an old-fashioned diving suit, is of course a female.
But Barker says she's just a token, ah, that's right.
In conclusion, Barker writes, we should be uncomfortable with a hamburger-loving American community's occupation of Bikini's Lacoon and the ways that it erodes every aspect of sovereignty.
Nautical nonsense, indeed.
Welcome!
You know, if it's not going to be the Civil War that ends us, it's going to be academia just completely deteriorating.
I am looking at a very beautiful and expensive camera with a very expensive microphone on top, with two very beautiful monitors in front of me.
I have a very beautiful computer machine where I do my editing and recording.
All of this is important technology.
Humans are not any smarter today than they were, you know, several thousand years ago.
The difference is, we're standing on the shoulders of giants.
There are more people, there are more specialties, and humans have recorded what we've learned and passed it down to future generations.
That means while we have the same intelligence, we know more.
And not only that, we have access to the summation of human knowledge, and then some, on the internet.
It is with that we are able to create wonderful machines, virtual reality, play movies in the sky with projectors.
Crazy, right?
And I tell you now, when science is being overrun by people who will tell you that Spongebob is a violent colonizer, things are starting to fall apart.
And I hope, at some point, we wake up because the university system is in decay.
