Democrat DEFENDS Far left Incitement After HQ Vandalized By Antifa
Democrat DEFENDS Far left Incitement After HQ Vandalized By Antifa. Far Left antifa types vandalized the democratic HQ in Portland and even included language that I cannot repeat on Youtube.You would think overt incitement would be the line for Democrats but for some reason the executive director of the Oregon Democrats has instead defended Antifa saying "it's just paint."Far leftists vandalized the Democratic Party building, the building had no involvement in any of the circumstances pertaining to the prior incident. Why won't Democrats and mainstream media condemn the far left when they engage in this behavior? CNN for instance has had guests and their own personalities defend Antifa on several occasions.As long as CNN provides cover for these far leftists people will be afraid to speak out fearing the consequences of far left escalation as well as media smears. If CNN and others continue to recycle their own propaganda these groups will never be called outThis in turn will create a political class in the Democratic party catering to what they think is normal but is really just a fringe group that no one will call out. When major news outlets consume their own fake news it will only get worse.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In the past few days, there's been a story emerging in Oregon about an Antifa activist who lost their life.
Following this, several anti-fascists showed up and vandalized the Democratic Party of Oregon headquarters.
And in a stunning turn, the executive director of the Oregon Democrats has essentially defended the behavior, saying, people are mourning and it's just paint.
But some of this paint includes incitement, direct statements calling for extreme acts against police.
When I saw this statement from this Democrat, I was kind of shocked.
Certainly, this should be the line where they say, no, don't write that on our building.
Instead, no.
He said, it's just paint.
And I started wondering, why would he say this?
Is it possible he believes fake news and is willing to downplay these calls to action?
Or is it possible that many on the left are simply being, in effect, held hostage by the far left?
In reality, little bit of column A, little bit of column B. I believe there are many people, not just Democrats, who are terrified of cancel culture and the outrage mob, so they refuse to say anything.
In Portland, for instance, we know that often police are scared to act because it could anger these extremists.
Perhaps this Democratic Party official knew that if he actually stood up to the vandalism, the violence, and the extremism, They would target him, and thus, he tacitly defends what they're doing.
But admittedly, there is a bit of propaganda at play.
Yesterday, Project Veritas exposed insider information from CNN.
And of course, many people are trying to downplay it as though, oh, it's not breaking news, it's not important information.
Listen.
Jeff Zucker, the president of CNN, who dictates the coverage of the channel, called Fox News fake conspiracy nonsense.
The problem is, he referenced Ron Johnson, who cited Politico, not Fox News.
It's a bit complicated, but the point I'm trying to make is, Even the president of CNN, who is telling his staff what to cover, doesn't know what's actually happening.
So in effect, they're in this cycle where they consume their own propaganda.
You then end up with a mix of scenarios.
If CNN openly on the air defends Antifa from their highest personalities to their guests, Well, then people in the Democratic Party of Oregon are going to say, hey, look, if this is what people like, if this is what mainstream America supports, who are we to call it out?
And you end up with extreme calls to action being defended.
I'm trying to avoid talking about exactly what was shown, but you basically know what it is.
They're critical of the police to an extreme degree, and there is an incitement.
And the Democrats, at this point, have become so I guess weak.
And blinded by the fake news, they're just going to support it.
Now, the debate is tonight.
So I'm gonna go through a bit of relevant information, starting with this particular story about what happened in Portland, Oregon.
I'm going to be moving very quickly through it, though, because...
Admittedly, YouTube makes my job hard.
So let's do this.
Let's get started with this story.
Graffiti to stay as people mourn Portland activists.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do is just share this video, especially as tonight is the debate.
There's a lot we need to talk about.
As it pertains to the Democrats, their defense of this extremism, their push far left, and the media bias that is fueling all of it.
Now, the first story is, you get the gist of it, I told you, right?
So, in this graffiti all over the Democrat building, We have this man.
His name is Brad Martin.
He is the executive director of Oregon Democrats.
He says it's just paint, talking about the graffiti on the Democratic Party of Oregon building and why they see it as part of the grieving process.
Sure, I can understand that it's part of the grieving process.
The problem is, some of the graffiti was overt calls to action and incitement.
While many people might look at it and say, oh, it's just a standard phrase said by Antifa, it's okay, fine, but they shouldn't be saying that stuff.
They shouldn't be calling for violence, and we should tolerate that.
We went through a whole cycle.
Where a scene from the film Kingsman was outrageous, that it appeared on a tiny screen at a conference in a side room.
Somebody saw it, and they said it was unacceptable.
Even the president condemned it.
Fine.
I'll accept that.
I think Kingsman was a great movie, and I understand, yes, it's graphically violent, but it's a movie.
Calm down, everybody.
It was a commercial smash hit.
Half a billion dollars.
But when it comes to Antifa spray-painting these calls to action on a building, the Democrat actually comes out and defends it.
That blows my mind.
And I'm going to have to point to the media.
Check this story out.
Democratic rep calls Antifa members peaceful protesters during CNN interview.
This is from August 19th.
When I started seeing this picture, I started to realize, perhaps what we're seeing is, I don't know, are the Democrats being held hostage, essentially?
Are they worried these people will damage them, or are they concerned they will lose the vote of the far left?
And I believe there's a mix here.
CNN is driven by ratings, and we'll come to this later in the segment, but Project Veritas has a new segment out.
And I don't want to act like it's the biggest breaking story in the world, but they are pulling the curtain back and giving us a look into the mentality of the people who work for these networks and why they promote certain views.
CNN has not been shy about their push towards the far left.
In fact, even CNN contributors have been calling out the extremism.
It seems like, perhaps, to use a statement from a CNN host, there are cracks starting to form in their narrative.
Now look, we've seen Antifa defended by CNN.
We've seen, I believe it may have been Jake Tapper, I don't want to get the person wrong, maybe it was Cuomo, I'm not sure.
But their hosts have defended Antifa, comparing them to the soldiers on D-Day.
But they're going out committing acts of violence, vandalism, and extremism.
But for some reason, they are courting this.
And I think one of the issues is that many of the younger far-left activists openly support Antifa and openly support the violence, but the Democrats want their votes.
In turn, CNN caters to it, and CNN, consuming their own propaganda, pushes out the absurd fake news.
Check out this story, and then we'll walk backwards a little bit.
CNN contributor.
LGBTQ town hall showed radicalism that drives the Democrats.
This is an op-ed from a contributor to CNN pointing this out.
As I said, maybe cracks are starting to form and we can see that if you live in this world of CNN and you don't consume news outside of it, you are eating your own propaganda and probably believing in this fictitious world where Antifa are really heroes and not the crazy extremists who have no principles and are guided by nothing.
Now I want to stress before we get into the story.
LGBTQ Town Hall, at its core, excellent, appreciated, and fine.
The idea that we can have a conversation in defense of the LGBTQ community is incredible, it's important, and I hope we can further protect civil liberties, because that's what this country has always been about.
Our founding documents, our Bill of Rights.
We have done poor things in the past, but what I mean is that over time we've expanded those civil liberties.
So these conversations are important.
The problem is how CNN plays the game.
I've criticized CNN several times over the past few days over this town hall, because it seems they were more interested in highlighting more extreme behavior, bringing in personalities who are going to drive ratings, instead of actually talking about what Americans are concerned about.
Some of the criticism we saw from the GOP?
Very obvious.
But we did see some never-Trumpers say, why are you having this town hall when we need to defeat Donald Trump?
Interestingly, you would think that CNN, being driven by ratings, would actually talk about things most Americans would care about.
But this shows they consume their own propaganda.
This is exactly why you see them then praising Antifa.
But I do, I want to, here's what we're going to do, we're going to walk backwards a little bit.
I want to talk a bit about this idea that the left is being held hostage to an extent, before we move on to CNN's role in contributing to this hostage negotiation.
Here's the thing.
In order for Antifa and the far left to actually exert pressure, there has to be this perspective that it exists in the mainstream.
That means the more CNN defends these extreme positions, The more regular Americans view it as legitimate mainstream society, so when Antifa comes and points the finger at them, they bend over backwards.
The fear?
The media.
Not necessarily the activists.
The activists can make all the phone calls in the world, they can vandalize your building, and yes, that will put pressure on people, that will increase the cost of doing business.
But when it appears on CNN, and they say, no, CNN, you know, Antifa were just peaceful protesters, Well, then you will find regular leftists and Democrats being held in submission, knowing that if they speak out and say enough of this, they will be attacked in the press.
Let me give you a few examples.
Check out this story.
Secretly?
I'm not a fan of Mark Zuckerberg.
The opposite.
I am a critic of Mark Zuckerberg.
But now you got me defending Zuckerberg.
of the year.
He said.
He goes on to say that... I don't know where his quote is.
He points out he regularly... Okay, I got it.
To be clear, I have dinners with lots of people across the spectrum.
Meeting new people and hearing from a wide range of viewpoints is part of learning.
If you haven't tried it, I suggest you do.
That's not controversial in the least bit.
I am sick of this.
They call everyone controversial just because these crazy far leftists deem it so, but CNN needs to be called out for legitimizing this extremism.
Plain and simple.
Listen.
You are not going to see conservatives, and you are not going to see moderates outraged that Mark Zuckerberg is talking to anybody.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Mark Zuckerberg met with Black Lives Matter.
Now, you do see criticism when people show Jack Dorsey with Black Lives Matter activists, and they say, aha, this proves their bias.
What else do you see beyond that?
Do you see people saying, delete Twitter?
No, they're on Twitter demanding they be allowed back on the platform.
You see the inversion here.
While there are people criticizing the CEO of Twitter for meeting with these activists saying, aha, it proves their bias, in response they say, we demand you allow us back on the platform.
That's not a threat to Jack Dorsey.
That's a demand that you let us, you let conservatives and moderates use your product.
But when it comes to Mark Zuckerberg, they say, no, just delete it outright because he spoke with conservatives.
That's the inversion.
The way I've framed it in the past, you know, I use Sargon of Akkad as an example.
If you're not familiar with Sargon, he is a liberalist commentator, typically finds himself more aligned with the centrists and the conservatives, for the most part, like the overwhelming majority of instances, for sure.
He's an anti-feminist critic.
But I argue this.
When it comes to the Democratic Party headquarters, will Sargon and his cohorts be showing up with spray paint and weapons?
Of course not.
But Antifa and the far-left will.
And Antifa also has allies in media in these youth areas, like in younger digital media.
And that's why you will see people essentially held hostage to this.
It is not the conservatives.
It is not the moderates angry with Ellen DeGeneres.
My criticism was, not that she was hanging out with George Bush, but that she elevated the fact that she was sitting next to him to being friends with him.
The point is, even my criticism is rather tepid.
Like, look man, just be polite, we'll learn to get along, you don't gotta act like your friends, and if you are, fine, you don't have to be friends with people you don't like.
And therein lies the big problem.
So long as CNN is willing to cater to the far left, defend them, you will then see the Democrats defending them.
And here's the big mistake they make.
From town hall.
CNN came in last for ratings during their entire LGBTQ town hall.
There were many instances that became viral, clickbait, outrageous.
And it's because, in my opinion, CNN purposefully chooses people that they know will generate ratings.
I don't think they looked for the, you know, they choose who their guests are, and they knew what they were going to get.
A protest erupted at CNN.
How did those people bring in their flags?
Does CNN not have any security?
I don't believe that.
I've seen CNN security.
It's pretty legit.
I don't believe that they allow people to come in with bags.
I have been to these town halls and these debates.
I believe that CNN chose their guests, and that's my main criticism of them.
But in the end, they still don't get the ratings they need.
Now, this brings me to the next point, and I will stress that the reason we are now segueing further into CNN is because the debates are tonight, hosted by CNN, but I will get to, you know, the bigger Democratic picture in a second.
I'm gonna do something I don't like doing, but I have to do anyway.
I'm gonna be blurring the next article, which I'll pull up now.
The reason I'm doing it is because there is such intense scrutiny over Project Veritas That simply showing some of the names that they've, you know, of the people that they've gotten statements from undercover could result in this video being deleted from YouTube.
It has happened before.
But I want to read from you some important facts from this, some important details from the latest Veritas expose.
This is part two.
CNN leadership and staffers reveal true sentiments.
Network picks favorites among Democratic candidates on eve of debate.
Now many, many people may say, Well, of course behind the scenes people have different opinions.
Others might say, well, of course CNN chooses who they want to highlight.
The first and most important issue is that people on CNN should not have public and private positions.
They should be telling us the truth.
If behind the scenes they say one thing and then on TV say another, we've got a serious problem with our news industry.
So I'll give a shout out to Bill Maher.
This is the point he was making.
He says this all the time.
You know behind the scenes we make off-the-cuff comments, we make offensive jokes, and we should be able to say these things.
We should.
Reality is important.
But here we can see that in one segment, a certain journalist talks about how Joe Biden does look shady, that it is essentially soft corruption.
He says it's not illegal.
But these are opinions you don't hear when it comes to television because they're obsessed with Trump.
And therein lies the big problem.
Jeff Zucker wants the story to be Trump instead of Joe Biden or Hunter Biden.
Shouldn't we be talking about the facts?
In the end, we end up seeing someone like Jeff Zucker, the president of CNN, who doesn't follow actual news.
He just follows the same— Here's the problem.
How can you be informed when you dictate to your staff, cover this, and then you consume that information, assuming it's all true?
That's a serious problem.
They're creating a cycle of propaganda, and then other outlets pick up CNN stories and regurgitate them.
But the other big important issue about how they choose favorites shows us that when they're in that cycle of propaganda, of course... So I'll say this first.
They say, oh, you know, they don't like Tulsi for a variety of reasons.
Andrew Yang is polling in sixth place.
If they're only going to highlight the establishment candidates, Well, they're CNN.
People follow their lead.
Even if their ratings are relatively low, people still follow CNN's lead.
So if they're not going to highlight someone like Andrew Yang or Amy Klobuchar, how are they supposed to break out?
Only through the power of digital media, of social media, has Yang been able to reach that high level using hashtags and viral trends, now forcing CNN to recognize this.
The problem emerges when CNN only reports on what they react to, but the cycle is being set by CNN and others who follow CNN.
You see the problem?
Now, it would be fine.
Like, it's interesting.
Like, I follow... I don't set the news cycle.
Tim Pool does not set the news cycle.
It is... I'm sorry.
I am not big enough to do so.
But CNN does in many ways.
If they're consuming their own news, they're ignoring these candidates, they are propping up Antifa on the far left, you can see how this cycle is spinning out of control.
Imagine playing a game of telephone with yourself.
You see in the news, they say, you know, Joe Biden did nothing wrong.
And then you're going, well, why should we bother covering it?
So then you go on the phone to all of your staff and say, don't cover this.
He did nothing wrong.
Because so then you say that.
And then your employees say, OK.
And then in a passive moment, they say, Joe Biden didn't do anything wrong.
And then you hear that same news.
You see what's happening.
So when CNN comes out and says Antifa good.
When CNN comes out and favors the, and does these town halls showing the more bombastic personalities who protest and make the left and Democrats look crazy, don't be surprised then when it comes to the Democrats and their choosing woke Twitter and college campuses over the American people, and that's the most important point.
But I wouldn't be, it wouldn't be fair if I didn't actually point out that CNN actually is both inept and corrupt.
And I'll give you some examples.
In this story, CNN failed to disclose Warren Town Hall questioner was maxed out donor.
That's right.
At their recent LGBTQ Town Hall, this is the point I'm making about them picking and choosing and trying to make viral moments.
I was right.
I was right.
They're making people look bad because it serves their bottom line.
That's the other important takeaway from the Project Veritas story.
That they're driven by a profit motive.
That they don't care about what the facts are, they care about what will be a good segment.
We hear that from a statement from Jeff Zucker.
Well, take a look at this.
The LGBTQ town hall did have some viral moments, even though the ratings were low.
It turns out one of these guys was a maxed out donor to Warren and they didn't know?
You mean to tell me that one of the guys you brought on to ask a question to Warren in this viral moment, you didn't know who he was?
Okay then, we have two options.
You're either extremely inept or you knew and decided not to tell anybody.
I'm gonna have to go with they knew and decided not to tell anybody until they got called out for it.
Well actually, I don't even know if they've said anything.
But check this out.
In February, CNN didn't disclose Democratic Party ties to questioners in Sanders Town Hall.
That's right.
A bunch of extremely critical questions thrown at Bernie Sanders.
Turns out they came from DNC employees and linked personalities.
That's a conflict of interest.
Where was the disclosure?
Because, to me, For one thing, CNN is overtly partisan, and we know it.
If Jeff Zucker, behind the scenes, is saying Fox News is fake news, well, we get it.
You didn't do any research.
You're just a partisan.
Fox News is biased, and so is CNN.
That's fine.
Let's be real, right?
We know.
But I'll tell you what, man, I gotta admit.
Tucker Carlson does a good job of pointing these things out, and I can't argue when he's being reasonable.
He's not always reasonable.
He's not perfect.
I don't think anyone would assume he is.
But the other night, he mentions, he's not going to go after Rachel Maddow.
She just has an opinion, and that's fine.
She has a different opinion than him.
And that's, what am I going to say?
Well, how, how, oh, yeah, that's a good point.
She does.
Now, I'll criticize her for being wrong and pushing conspiracies, and I've criticized Tucker Carlson as well, but he makes a good point.
What about CNN?
I'm sorry.
According to the latest leak, or a whistleblower video, what we're learning is, you know, again, let me do this.
Let me show you the criticism they've levied at Project Veritas.
CNN says, no one in Project Veritas' expose CNN sting is a CNN journalist.
That's a complete non sequitur.
It has nothing to do with Veritas released.
What it was is internal employees and their opinions based on first-hand experiences of what's going on at CNN.
Well, of course, not everybody who works at CNN is a journalist.
Their support staff, their coordinators, their bookers, their satellite technicians, whatever.
Not everybody's a journalist.
But they do work at CNN and they do see this first-hand.
And what they see is overt bias.
In one of the phone calls, you can see that Jeff Zucker is saying, Kamala Harris is talking about suspending Trump.
It's not going to happen.
But hey, why don't we talk about it anyway?
Why?
Why?
That, for me, was a side segment because censorship is a big issue for me.
Now, I think it's OK.
Fine.
Look, if CNN wants to talk about it, I get it.
But in the end, let me just wrap everything back together.
For one, I want to make sure I point out their criticism has nothing to do with what Veritas is showing us.
What we can see, though, is that CNN is playing this cyclical game where they're telling themselves their own news, but the employees can even see through it.
Bernie Sanders fans can see through it.
In the end, CNN is driven just by profits.
But I want to make sure I wrap this all back into the main segment of the video because,
you know, I'll tell you exactly how I do this.
You know, when I see the news, I try and figure out how things, you know, flow together.
I try to see like, you know, in what way is this related.
And when I saw the story about, you know, when I saw Veritas' release, and when I saw the Democrats praising and defending Antifa, I had a few thoughts.
You know, why?
Are they doing this because they really believe it?
And I believe the answer is, to an extent, yes, because CNN is propping up these individuals, because they're catering to a group who they think is more likely to support them in the long run.
But then it's also the holding of hostage.
And I guess the reason why I'm highlighting all of these things together is to put it like this.
When it comes to cancel culture and woke outrage, activists aren't enough.
You need bad press.
And CNN's support of Antifa, the instances they have supported it, provide legitimacy.
You'll end up with local Democrats saying, You know, is this legitimate?
Will the media make me look bad?
And if Antifa has been repeatedly praised by CNN, well then sure enough you're going to find people saying, who am I to cross that line outside the Overton window?
CNN provides the mainstream cover for what Antifa does.
And then at the lower level, local officials and Democrats are just going to be like, I don't want to be outside this Overton window.
I want to be what's socially acceptable.
And if you have activists telling you, do it or else, and you know they're vandalizing your property and you don't want to agitate them, and you have CNN saying, hey, everyone supports them, then who are you to step out of line?
And this brings me back to the whistleblowers within CNN.
This individual, Cary Porch.
He is one of these people who is seeing it all happen around him and eventually says, enough.
You can hear it from these other individuals who work at this company.
They see through it too.
Eventually someone has to step through the fire and say, I don't care anymore.
Am I going to be ostracized?
Am I going to be ridiculed?
I don't know, but enough is enough.
And it's about time we had Democrats stand up to CNN.
Tulsi Gabbard threatened to boycott the Democratic debate.
Ultimately, she didn't.
She'll be on tonight.
I'm happy to hear that.
But we can even hear from these employees in this latest leak from Veritas.
The media providing legitimacy to extreme positions in the name of profit.
While they're believing their own fake news.
And it results in people on the ground level being scared to speak up against groups like Antifa, who call for overt actions against the police.
That cannot be.
We cannot have that.
Fortunately for moderates and conservatives, we have no problem calling everybody out all the time.
Right?
It's not happening on the Democrat side, so long as CNN lives in their weird world of conspiracy nonsense of Russiagate for years.
They won't have on conflicting personalities, and neither will MSNBC.
Glenn Greenwald called out MSNBC for not booking him because he wouldn't toe the Russiagate line.
You see how this all feeds into the insanity?
So this is what I end up seeing.
Regular people.
Regular people.
This is amazing to me.
I keep hearing about regular people who are fans of mine.
And I was like, really?
A college professor?
That seems unlikely.
No.
Because regular people are just scared to speak up.
So do I think the Democrats support Antifa?
No.
I think because of the media's defense of Antifa, or perhaps even the media is scared of Antifa, I don't know.
But because they've put people on the air defending them, because their highest level personalities have defended them, And then because Antifa threatens to, you know, take action against people, of course everyone's going to start bending to the far left.
Enough is enough.
If the Democrats don't stand up to these extreme positions, they're never going to win.
And this is what's going to happen.
These far-left activists are essentially holding the left hostage, but it's...
It's a catch-22.
Until the media stands up and says no, until the Democrats stand up and say no, it will only get worse.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews, and I will see you all there.
Man, I tell you what, they cannot write sitcoms this well, okay?
You know, I watch... Big Bang Theory will come on my TV in the laugh track.
It's just so awful.
It's not funny.
There's no jokes.
And I turn it off immediately.
If you like the Big Bang Theory, well, it's too bad.
I hate it.
But I'll tell you what really does make me laugh.
It's stories like this.
LeBron James criticizes Daryl Morey's decision to send controversial Hong Kong tweet.
Before I give you the punchline of this wonderful, wonderful, insane sitcom reality joke, let me just give you some context.
In Hong Kong, there was a 15-year-old girl who was found dead.
Very tragic, and people are very concerned as to how that ended up happening.
Some people suspect foul play.
Protests are escalating.
They're fighting for free speech.
They're fighting for sovereignty.
It's a complicated problem.
I'll put it this way.
Communist China is no friend of ours.
They're detaining 1.5 million Uyghurs or about a million Muslims who have been detained in actual camps where reportedly there's torture going on.
And even, look, you gotta fact check this one, but organ harvesting?
Dude, China is trying to seize more and more territory, expanding the South China Sea, they're building military bases, they're building coal power plants, okay?
They're a friend to not the left nor the right.
LeBron James comes out!
Defending China?
Now you might be laughing right there because it's funny, right?
How insane do you have to be?
Daryl Morey supported the Hong Kong protests.
The NBA started bending over backwards, but I will tell you what I love so much.
You know what, man?
I'm grateful for China to an extent.
To- to ex- for- for exposing the hypocrisy so bold!
The other day in a video, I talked about hypocrisy levels, like Goku going Super Saiyan.
I'm taught- this is- this is, you know, hypocrisy blue, if you're familiar with the reference.
This is like hypocrisy To the top level.
You ready for the punchline?
I hope you love this one.
Well, LeBron James is giving an interview saying Darryl was uninformed, and you know, he's having a negative impact on people's lives, and people could get hurt from this, and I stand with Colin Kaepernick, LeBron Defense former NFL star, for raising issues nobody wanted to listen to.
Wait, what?
What?
LeBron James defends Colin Kaepernick kneeling for the national anthem, but when someone's talking about the violent suppression of protesters' freedom of speech, Muslims being detained in concentration camps, Hong Kong fighting for free expression and sovereignty.
He's like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on.
I didn't think these protests were gonna hurt my pocketbook.
I got no problem when it's the NFL, but don't you point that at me and make me lose money.
It's so easy for him to say that.
Now, I'll be fair, I'll be fair.
He said he would personally stand for the National Anthem.
Yeah, I get it.
But you're sitting here defending Kaepernick and the controversy around all these protests.
You know what, man?
This is the point I want to make.
Daryl Morey's initial statement standing with Hong Kong, good for you!
Good for you pushing back on these big international conglomerates that are trying to get some of that green from China.
I'm sorry, man.
Human rights abuses need to be called out.
I don't care if it comes from the U.S.
or China, but for the time being?
You know, the United States doesn't have Muslim concentration camps.
You get all these people angry about Drumpf and he must be impeached.
It's like, okay, dude, listen, man.
When the government that's rounding up its own citizens and locking them in camps where their organs are being harvested... Again, fact check that.
I'm trying to be hyperbolic, but that seems crazy, right?
There's a big difference between people choosing to come here and then being kicked out versus citizens of China being rounded up into re-education centers.
So let's be real, okay?
But what is this?
You know, the point I made the other day was, some people went to a game, I think it was in Philadelphia, they were wearing shirts saying Free Hong Kong and they were holding up signs saying Google Uyghurs, and they got kicked out.
And here's the funny thing.
I said, if they were holding up a sign that said Impeach Drumpf, Nobody would have betted an eye.
Nobody would have cared.
There would have been no complaints, no security, and this is proof that LeBron James feels secure in his revenue stream when he supports Kaepernick's protest.
Now, that's a divisive American issue.
You'd think that would be more worrisome to his pocketbook, but you know what they're probably thinking?
Listen, man.
How many Trump-supporting conservatives are gonna go out and buy his shoe and buy his jersey?
A decent amount, but you know what, not too much.
And the other issue is, he's making a choice.
You've got American citizens on the left and the right.
And he's gonna pick whichever one he thinks is gonna make him the most money.
So he's like, you know what man, Kaepernick, you do your thing.
I stand, I support your highlighting these issues.
Nobody wanted to listen to.
What about the issues of Hong Kong and China?
Well, hold on, hold on.
That's the whole country.
You see?
You see where this goes?
And they're doing exhibition games in China, so now he's like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
You know, I can offend one small market if it protects my larger market.
And I'm willing to bet this all comes down to the fact that most urban Americans probably aren't paying attention and probably don't care.
And I have seen people defending LeBron James being like, oh, look, he made a poor, uninformed statement.
What do you think LeBron said about Daryl Morey?
It's literally what he said.
Let's read.
Let me find his quote.
He was asked about, you know, Daryl Moore's tweet, Fight for Freedom, Stand with Hong Kong.
He said, I don't want to get into a feud with Daryl Morey, but I believe he wasn't educated on the situation at hand
and he spoke.
Oh, oh really, James?
Before the Lakers hosted the Golden State Warriors for a preseason game Monday
in comments that drew criticism from American politicians, so many people could have been harmed, not only financially,
but physically, emotionally, spiritually, financially.
Oh, heavens!
You know what, man?
Let's stop.
Let's stop.
You know, I gotta... I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, LeBron.
You're right.
I think we should immediately send an envoy over to those concentration camps full of Uyghurs and let them know that we're not gonna say anything about what's going on.
Because people could hurt financially, and, you know, I'm really sorry that your government is stealing your organs and locking you up for re-education and calling you derogatory terms for your faith, but LeBron could be hurt financially, so... Doesn't that sound insane?
How about we talk about it as much as we can?
How about we point out human rights abuses and ongoing civil unrest in other areas where people are being suppressed and oppressed?
Now, let's be real.
Situation in Hong Kong and China is extremely complicated.
I'm not going to pretend like it's black and white.
That's silly.
But LeBron certainly wasn't educated, and it's hilarious for him to be like, I stand with Kaepernick and then come out here and be like, whoa, whoa, whoa.
You could hurt us financially.
And then he goes, but physically, emotionally, spiritually, you mean like the people right now fighting against communist China?
Come on, dude.
Don't play those games, man.
You don't know what's going on.
You shouldn't speak up.
I'd have no problem if you said, I'm really sorry, man.
I just don't know enough about this international politics stuff.
I'd have been like, I hear you, dude.
I really do hear you.
There's so many people who don't know what's going on.
And the best thing you could probably say is, if you don't want to be involved, it's just like, dude, I honestly don't know.
You know, we can get into it.
I think LeBron could have easily come out and said, I'm not a politics guy.
It's not my, I don't engage in diplomacy, you know?
I'm not Dennis Rodman, for instance.
And that would have been fine.
And I would have been like, I respect that, right?
There have been some people who have come out and said, I think it was like Steph Curry saying he just didn't know about it.
And I'm like, respectable.
And the easiest way to avoid controversy is just to say, dude, I don't watch the news all day every day.
I'm training, you know?
I'm in high tier sports.
Fine.
But you come out here and you say we could have been hurt financially, physically, emotionally.
Like, are you talking about the people?
Like the kid who got shot in the chest by the cop?
Are you talking about the girl who died?
Like, what are you talking about?
Are you talking about you personally?
A super wealthy top 1% global, you know, citizen who wants to make sure his pocketbook is safe from China's angry little hands?
He says, just be careful what we tweet, what we say and what we do.
Yes, we have freedom of speech, but there can be a lot of negatives that come with that as well.
Sometimes social media is not always the proper way to go about things as well.
Dude, you literally defended Colin Kaepernick over his protests.
There were consequences to what he did, and you didn't care.
You said, I stand with Kaepernick.
Again, I want to make sure I'm clear.
You know, he did say he would personally stand.
I don't want to make it seem like he was literally involved in these protests.
Some people have made like meme videos or like a meme photo where he's kneeling for the National Anthem but then like saluting China.
It's like, no, no, no, no, no.
He said he would stand for the National Anthem.
Okay, I can respect that.
But let's be honest.
You can't support protests and then all of a sudden turn around when someone talks about a different country and be like, whoa, whoa, whoa.
And we can see it right here.
We see what he's really thinking.
It's like, man, I'm going to lose money, dude.
I don't want to lose money.
I get paid a lot of money from China.
And that is terrifying.
Money talks.
That's scary, isn't it?
That your freedoms can be usurped by these spineless individuals who are concerned only that they make money.
And that is the big problem we've been facing as a country for a long time.
People like LeBron James, who are willing to sell out human rights in exchange for cold hard cash.
Yup.
You want to talk about a grifter.
You get these activists accusing political commentators and journalists of being grifters.
Are you kidding me, dude?
It's funny when people say this about me, especially, because I'm like, man, I would love nothing more than to stream World of Warcraft all day, or Hearthstone, or Minecraft.
I could play video games all day and make a ton more money.
Politics is difficult.
It's demonetized.
It's deranked.
I can make a Minecraft channel.
I can make a Van channel and make more money.
I don't do this because it's lucrative.
I do it because I'm passionate about these issues and I'm concerned about what's going on in our world and I want to see it better.
And I can respect all the other political commentators and the ones who disagree with me because that's true.
I'll be honest, man.
I know there are political commentators who are grifters.
Of course!
You'd be insane to think that there aren't people who are trying to, you know, look for a path of least resistance.
And there you go.
But in this, actually, there's a really great, there's a really interesting thing from Chris Hayes.
Respect to Chris Hayes.
You may be thinking, whoa, whoa, MSNBC guy, but yes, he talks about how powerful people Want to take the path of least resistance.
And that means, when hard questions are asked, they say, I don't want to engage.
It's too complicated.
It's too hard.
It's too difficult.
Dude, I'm willing to bet, based on the past few videos I've done, I will never set foot in China.
Because when we, you know, stepping out politically, exposing yourself.
This is why so many people on YouTube use cartoon avatars.
Because it puts you at risk.
Again, ask me, why would anybody want to do this unless they really, really cared about it?
I could be playing Minecraft with a cartoon avatar face making more money.
No, you know who I am, you know my name.
In fact, some people, someone even shoved my house once.
Alright?
It's not an easy thing to do.
Not for most people.
Depends on if you really, really want to do it.
LeBron James clearly doesn't.
He clearly wants to say what he thinks is popular enough for him to protect his money.
And when it comes to this issue, even though, check this out, Even though the US as a whole will probably, like most people are going to be like, dude, what?
Like he's getting fried on social media.
People are coming after him.
Here's the thing.
Sorry, dude.
China has more people.
That means more games, more sales.
Check it out.
You got, what, like a billion people in China?
Let's say 1% buys your shoe.
It's a lot of shoes.
But we only got, you know, a hundred and eighty... Well, yeah, a billion.
Let's do three hundred and thirty million in the U.S.
because I know there's a lot of kids.
Let's say only one percent of them buys shoes.
Yeah, guess what?
Three times the sales.
So I think you know who they're going to side with.
They're going to side with whoever's fluffing their pocketbook.
They're going to side with whoever is lining their pockets with gold.
When it comes to the Kaepernick issue, they're sitting there thinking, I don't care about these conservatives.
There is a small proportion of conservatives buying our gear in the first place.
I'll tell you what though, urban liberals are coming to these games in the stadiums and buying tickets, buying food.
That's who I'm going to support.
So guess what?
Guess what to those who are supporting these athletes who pretended to care about politics?
What do you think happens when the market, the favorable market, is going to be China?
All of a sudden, you're going to find him being like, well, you know, maybe people should be in education camps.
You've got to be informed on the issue.
It's complicated.
There's nuance.
No, dude.
Human rights are human rights.
That means when the United States is sending drones overseas and soldiers overseas, and that includes when China is detaining its own citizens.
And we can be critical of all of it, but let's be real.
One is obviously worse than the other.
Substantially worse.
We live in a country with some of, like, one of the most freest countries in the world, if not the most.
We have a constitution that protects the citizens' right to own weapons.
You know?
As much as people want to get rid of it.
I get it.
But we have a Bill of Rights.
We have to make sure we fight to protect our freedoms.
But you know what happens?
There are people like LeBron that don't care about you.
They don't care about people like us.
They don't care about how we live.
All they care about is making sure their pockets are lined with gold.
And that's a terrifying reality, man.
I gotta admit.
Because I'll tell you what.
As China encroaches, and their power grows, and they expand into Africa and South America, and they start competing with Western interests, all of a sudden you see high-profile individuals start shaking in their boots as their boots fill up with urine because, oh, they're scared.
Oh, no.
Oh, what will China do to me?
Ah, too bad, dude.
I'll tell you what, man.
The day that everything comes crashing down, I have no fear.
I don't care if I end up living in a van down by the river.
I don't care if I have to build a mud hut down by the river.
You will not see me sacrifice my principles.
Period.
I have no problem calling out the US war machine, as well as the Chinese war machine, but I think it's fair to say that one is substantially worse.
And that's the point.
You can't play this game where you're like, go ahead and protest, but oh no, not China!
Whatever man, you get the point.
Isn't it funny?
I hope South Park makes an episode about this one.
Props to the South Park guys, because they said it better than anybody.
We too, like the NBA, like money more than freedom.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, full stop.
I like freedom more than money.
I would rather walk through the mountains with a backpack, a little canteen of water, and nothing else, just the clothes on my back, if it meant I was free, and I could speak my mind, and I would stand on my own two feet, than to bow for an oppressive regime.
I'll see you guys at 1 p.m.
in the next segment on this channel.
Activist outrage and demands that Piers Morgan be fired!
Because he says he identifies as a two-spirit penguin.
He's making a point.
He said that while he respects the trans community and is not transphobic, he thinks this idea of hundreds of genders is nonsense, and that if you can make up a gender— there's one specific example, we have a tweet I'll pull up in a second— but there's like, hydrogender and like, you know, just random words.
And the argument is that because gender is a social construct, you can literally make things up.
And that was his point.
Okay, then why can't I identify as a penguin?
Well, I got attacked for it!
And they called for his firing by using their own logic.
Now, this is very, very similar to a meme from a long time ago that people identified as an attack helicopter, and that was the point being made on the internet a long time ago.
That if you're gonna make up a fake gender, then anybody can make up anything they want.
Well, here's the big problem, peers!
In the United States, You're legally right!
You could identify as a penguin, dress as one, in many jurisdictions.
It's not nationwide.
But arguably, this is what the Equality Act would do.
Now, in New York, it's specific in that it says your gender identity is your self-expression.
Which would mean you can be whatever gender you want.
They don't define what gender is, just that you define it.
You can call yourself whatever you want, you can wear whatever you want, and they can't discriminate against you.
Let's read the story, though, from The Sun.
And I do have a tweet from Piers where he follows up.
up. They say, peer pressure. Piers Morgan laughs off petition to get him sacked from
GMB as thousands more sign rival one to keep him on. The outspoken star sparked a furious
debate when he claimed he identified as a penguin in an on-air rant about gender last
month.
One furious viewer called for him to be sacked for his dangerous and dehumanizing views.
Well, quite literally, I think if he is calling himself a penguin, he is, in the literal sense, dehumanizing himself.
So they're technically right there.
towards transgender people and set up a change.org petition, which currently has 13,000 signatures.
Replying to the tweet, Piers wrote, You can't remove me, I'm currently identifying as a penguin,
so it would be animal cruelty.
Doubling down with this animal joke.
In response to the anti-Piers one, a fan has set up a counter-petition to keep him on the air for his common
sense, which has amassed an impressive 29,000 signatures so far.
Discussing the issue, on today's Good Morning Britain, Pierce asked, Why can't I be a two-spirit penguin?
Why can't I just decide that's what I identify as?
And that's a really good point.
And the reality is, according to the new laws being passed in the U.S., well, Piers, you can be whatever you want.
So it's not—I get there's a kind of irony in trying to point out the absurdity, but you're not.
You're literally just pointing out—I guess that's the point.
You want regular people to see the law allows this, right?
If you look at New York City, and I've talked about this a lot, there's 31 recognized genders, but the law specifically does not quantify what gender is.
So you can just make it up.
Now, as I've pointed out in the past, if you've seen my other segments, you'll probably know this, but for those that don't, I'll give you the context.
I talked to the lawyer about what if I made up an absurd gender and demanded they cater to its requirements, the names they call me, and I was told it wouldn't pass the laugh test.
Now, there's some specific examples I used, like what if you claimed your name was a racial slur.
And they said, no, no judge is going to allow that.
Well, hold on.
Why should the judge be allowed to subjectively decide my identity isn't valid?
There's the problem.
So if you say you're, you know, demigender, they'll say fine.
But if you say you're a penguin, they'll say no.
You have to quantify what those things are and why.
What if you make up penguin gender?
Now is it defendable?
At what point is a judge allowed to say no?
And if a judge is allowed to say no wherever they want, why can't they throw the whole thing out?
This is the problem.
Let's read a little bit more.
When Susanna Reid questioned if he was identifying as a penguin, he started joking, yes, I've been a penguin for a week now.
Now I'm a penguin.
I don't want anyone to be called he, she, they, or them because you become exclusionary to me as a penguin.
I want all the language around this program to be changed now to reflect the fact that I am now identifying as a penguin.
On a more serious note, he added, I am not remotely transphobic.
I do think, however, having 100 genders is utter nonsense.
I think it's going to be extremely dangerous to teach kids this, and I speak as a father of four.
So we go on, and Pierce started tweeting about this, and there's some tweets that I want to pull up.
He says, you can't remove me, I'm identifying as a penguin, so it's animal cruelty.
In response to this tweet, let's pull this, this is the tweet where someone tried getting him fired.
This person said, I'm petitioning for ITV Good Morning Britain to remove Piers Morgan as an anchor due to his dangerous dehumanization of transgender non-binary individuals that is quickly spiraling out of control and influencing large audiences.
Sign NRT to spread the message.
Piers knows, quoting this tweet, when it's barely gotten anywhere, gives him the upper hand.
He's nothing but an effing bully.
I'll still fight for what I think is right despite all of this, and will be muting my notifications for a while until these faceless effs get bored.
I low-key knew he'd love to make a mockery of me.
Should have, uh, should he have seen it, and I wanted him to, so it brought more attention.
But now, it just means dealing with hundreds of, and then he goes on to make slurs, whatever.
The exact reason why I'm doing this in the first place.
The more hatred and abuse, okay, you get the point, you get the point.
I want to highlight this tweet from Piers Morgan.
Uh, in response, so that, let me, let me show you the context first.
Somebody tweeted this.
How can kale gender, for example, one of the 100, and defined as a gender which shares qualities with outer space, or has the aesthetic of space stars nebulas, be accepted as a way to identify oneself, when two-spirit penguin is not, doesn't seem fair to me.
This is in response to Good Morning Britain tweeting, being a penguin isn't a gender.
There are people who are trans or non-binary, and it can do real damage.
This says Benjamin Butter believes Piers Morgan should be fired for his views on gender following an online petition.
Okay, so let's stop.
Let me give you an option.
Penguin gender.
A gender that is defined as containing the qualities of a penguin.
You know, of wanting to slide on one's belly and eat fish and dive in the ocean and you're scared of seals.
How is it any different from being associated with outer space and the stars?
And this is what Piers Morgan said.
This is my point.
Once you make self-identification that absurd, why should any form of it be off-limits?
And that brings me to the legal question I presented shortly before.
Why should a judge be allowed to tell me that outer space gender, kale gender, is legitimate and penguin gender is not?
You see the problem here?
Because at a certain point, someone can make up the most absurd gender.
What if your name— Okay, so I'll give you the example that I gave in the past.
In New York City, and in many jurisdictions, a business, a place of public accommodation is required to accommodate everybody the exact same way.
Now, on the surface, this makes sense, right?
Let's say Piers Morgan says his name is Volgloron, Hunter of the Winter Mists, Lord of the Sea.
If you, as a business, provide an accommodation to your customers and that you
will use their name, you have to use his name.
This is specifically outlined in New York City.
The reason for this is that if someone is male but uses a female name,
the law is supposed to protect this person from a business refusing to use the name they've chosen.
In which case, Volglaran, Hunter of the Winter Mists and Lord of the Sea, must be said in full.
Now, according to the lawyer I spoke with, the judge would laugh you out and say, no dice.
But hold on, right?
There is the problem there.
The argument they always say is, you know, I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.
Well, at a certain point, you won't know it.
I get it.
I get it.
Listen.
This is what judges are for in our system.
A law can be passed, and a judge will interpret it to be reasonable.
But at a certain point, what if one of these judges views one of these genders as unreasonable?
What if a judge said, mm, calgender.
Nope, sorry, you made that up.
You made that up.
Are we then going to have a civil rights fight over someone's right to identify as an outer space nebulous gender?
That quite doesn't make sense.
There are a few other tweets that Piers posted because he's really going to war over this.
Memo to all those trying to get me thrown off TV for refusing to accept there are 100 genders.
And it's a penguin that says, come at me, bro.
Someone said, why are people calling Piers Morgan transphobic?
He's defended trans people on several occasions.
How does believing there aren't 100 genders be transphobic?
He says, thank you.
I've always been a loud and proud supporter of people who transition, but feel the 100 gender nonsense makes an absolute mockery of what they go through.
This is what I've heard from... it's called binary trans people.
So in the actual... I'll put it this way.
There is a serious political problem with the idea of non-binary trans and binary trans that needs to be talked about so we can figure out the law.
In New York City, they're entertaining a pseudo-mix of binary and non-binary.
The 31 genders they list are pretty much fluctuations between binary and non.
You'll have people say that gender is a spectrum between male and female.
Technically, it's true it's bimodal, but it's a complicated situation.
In this view of gender, you have the overtly masculine and the overtly feminine, and things in between.
So you can be androgynous, right in the middle, where you're, you know, a mix between feminine and masculine.
That's binary trans.
The non-binary stuff is like kale gender and hydro gender and genders that have nothing to do with male and female.
This is what he's talking about.
So here's the big problem.
If you believe, as we start mixing this ideology which has no defined rules and makes no sense, makes little sense, if you believe that someone who is extremely feminine but is biologically male can identify as a woman, Then why would someone need to transition in any way for any reason?
In which case, you'd think that the non-binary trans people would say, if you are born male, you are simply a woman, and you shouldn't want to physically transition.
That doesn't make sense.
This is where the problem is.
There are people who are trans who want to physically alter their bodies through hormone therapies and surgeries to better identify or to live in a body that they view, you know, it's how they identify.
There have been even people who have done weird animal-like transformations.
But that logic, the logic of transition, flies in the face of the non-binary trans issue.
How can a doctor Believe in the non-binary aspects?
How can academics but then also recommend physical alterations to one's body?
Should Piers Morgan get changed to be a dolphin?
In fact, South Park had an interesting episode about plastic surgery in which I think it was Kyle's dad wanted to be a dolphin and got weird surgery to be a dolphin.
They've addressed issues like this in the past.
But now we're looking at two different issues.
Is it transphobic to say that Piers Morgan is pretending to be a penguin?
The answer is no.
Because trans was typically viewed as, you are born male, but you want to be female, or you are female, and want to, or I should say present female, or you're female and want to present male.
Binary.
So now, there's even been controversy with ContraPoints, a well-known trans creator on YouTube, very popular, makes great videos, because the non-binary trans disagree.
What do we do?
Don't ask me.
I'm not gonna tell you what should or shouldn't be.
I'm just gonna point out this conversation is where we're at, and there are some serious problems with the two coexisting.
Where that leaves us is when you look at the language of, you know, New York City and the Equality Act, it seems that it opens the door for non-binary trans.
Well, there you go!
In which case, there won't be a binary trans, so trans, you know, like, there are people I know who are trans.
And they transition from a male, you know, they take female hormones to make their body more female.
That's binary.
If you don't believe that exists, and you believe males are females and vice versa, and they're all the same, and there's been academic literature about, you know, patriarchy, keeping women small and short, and all these things, denying biological reality, well then you're going to cause problems for the actual trans community.
You're also going to cause problems for women.
In a recent story from the New York Post, they highlighted a statement from this organization of women, they're filing a lawsuit, and they said that if anyone can identify as a woman, it effectively removes the classification of woman.
So right now we have laws protecting women from discrimination.
But what happens if literally anybody for any reason can say they're a woman?
It doesn't matter what you wear.
It doesn't matter what you call yourself.
You can just say you are.
In that case, there is now no- there's no more specific clarification of what a woman is.
There's no protection.
Technically, it would open the door for literally everyone.
So when they say you can't discriminate against a woman, literally everybody would pro- Look.
They're gonna argue that, they say things like, I can't remember who said this, but they argued that no man is going to go through all of the trouble of transitioning just so they can go to the bathroom.
And that missed the point.
The point was, let's say you're a guy at work, and you're about to get fired.
You can be like, I cannot lose this job.
So then, just before it happens, they say, I'm a woman.
And now they have an argument that they came out as trans and their boss, you know, wanted to fire them.
Now the company is gonna be in a jam.
This would be rare.
I doubt that this would be used this way and the courts would make determinations.
But the point is, how can you actually protect biological females?
Perhaps what we have to do is change the law to say biological female.
But then you have people arguing that you can change your birth certificate to be the opposite biological gender, which... You know what, man?
This is where things start breaking down.
Because you can't quantify the rules.
Rules exist for a reason.
Not all rules are good rules.
But they draw boundaries.
Right now, Piers Morgan is pushing on those boundaries by pointing out an exploit.
In which case, they're trying to get him fired, and fans are coming to his support.
But you're gonna have to figure this one out.
Okay?
I understand the clear problems legally.
Perhaps society will just become a nebulous rule- You know, listen.
There will come a point where there will be no more protections, and you won't be able to deal with harassment or anything, and you'll have people claiming to be one thing or another.
Is- is kale gender a protected class?
The answer is no, it's not.
Women are protected, right?
But kale gender isn't protected under the law, so you're gonna have to figure that one out, man.
Uh, whatever.
I'll- I'll leave it there, stick around.
I gotta- my next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
on the main channel, youtube.com slash timcast, and I will see you all there.
Everything is racist.
Every little minute incident at a bar, or outside of a shop, or in an apartment complex, it's all gotta be racist.
Everything.
All the time.
We got another one of these stories, where somebody started filming a white person doing a thing, and then they called that person racist, and then they gave her a name.
This time, it's Move-In Martha.
You see, this story is about a racist white woman, dubbed Movin' Martha, trying to stop two people from helping their friend move into an apartment, and demands to see their ID before calling the cops.
Well, when you see the framing in that way, when you see this video going viral on Reddit, you immediately assume, oh, Martha, why couldn't you just let sleeping dogs lying mind your own business?
Now, I'll admit, Actually, let me give you a little context.
Basically, a couple people were trying to move stuff in for their friends.
They didn't live there.
She asked them who they were.
They were like, we're moving stuff in.
She goes, you don't live here.
Apparently got into an argument.
Here's the important bit first.
All of these stories that come out, we have no context.
We don't know what happened, and I'm not going to believe either party.
How did we come to a point in our society where it's like someone makes an accusation, we just believe it?
It's insane.
Now listen, I don't know who's right or wrong, but you watch the video and I'm kinda like, eh, I don't know, man.
Both parties don't sound like nice people.
Here's the thing.
I have friends, okay?
I've been to their apartments.
Nobody asks me any questions when I walk in.
Maybe it's happened once or twice.
I'm like, yeah, I'm friends with so-and-so.
Yeah, whatever.
They walk by.
I'm surprised that this Martha woman bothered to talk to these people at all.
It just so happens that the two people she talked to were not white.
So now, boom!
There it is.
It's racist.
Are you kidding me, dude?
There... Any circumstance that arises, it's always... Actually, let me back up.
Think about any bar fight, any argument, how come it's only ever a white person arguing with a black person?
It's because when these normal, everyday, nonsensical things happen that no one cares about and don't matter, if it's just, if it's two white people, nobody says anything.
Certainly it must be racist though.
There's, that's the point I'm trying to make.
When I watch this story, let me ask something.
Two people walk into your apartment building, your complex, and they don't live there.
In the video, they say they don't live there.
They don't have IDs because they can't prove they live there because they don't.
People then say, well, they're helping their friend move in.
But apparently, their friend wasn't even there.
In which case, I'm watching this like, oh no, here's this woman.
And then later on, it seems like, I could be wrong, but it seems like, wait a minute, you're saying that you're helping your friend move in, And your friend's not even there.
So your neighbor saw strangers coming into the building, into the apartment, and asked you, and you said, oh, we're friends.
It's like, no, no, no, no, no.
Hold on, man.
Like, hold on.
I wouldn't be surprised then if somebody took issue with it.
Well, let's read the story.
But you get the point.
A white woman is seen demanding that a man and woman show their ID.
I mean, that's silly.
What's an ID gonna prove?
When they refuse, she calls 911 and blocks the entrance to the apartment building.
Important point.
Seeming this seems to be irrational?
We don't know the context.
For all we know, someone walked up and was like, excuse me, I'm not familiar with you.
Do you live here?
And for all we know, this couple was just like, F you.
And then she was like, whoa!
And then she got mad.
We don't know.
We don't know.
I don't think that's likely, I'm just saying.
You get no context to these videos, they start screaming racist.
They then tried to explain to her that they were helping a friend move into the complex.
Where's her friend?
Her friend wasn't there.
If her friend was there, she would have walked up and said, these are my friends.
Chill, what's your problem?
No, it was two people who didn't live there going in and about, and someone asking.
Despite their explanation, the woman tells a 911 dispatcher that the pair are trespassing and refuse to show their identification.
You know what, man?
I do think she's overreacting for the most part.
I probably wouldn't say anything.
But yeah, they're trespassing if she says, you can't be in my building, especially if the person inviting you in isn't there.
You can't do that.
If you live in an apartment and you tell someone to come and you aren't there, in many circumstances, you can be thrown out.
Eventually, the woman who has been dubbed Movin' Martha left the area.
It is unclear at what apartment complex it happened.
And you know what, man?
The only reason I'm talking about this, because I think it's not news, is that we've seen story after story about this.
And this falls in line with cancel culture and woke outrage.
This is stupid.
Bar fights happen.
Vandalism happens.
People get punched sometimes.
But everything is now being viewed through this insane lens.
Think about this.
We see this story, people assume it's racist.
Think about literally every other interaction that will in the future be labeled a racial relation or circumstance.
That's what I'm freaked out about, and I think will be insane.
I've had run-ins with the cops.
I've had cops, you know, pull me over and, in one instance, I told the story a couple weeks ago, planted weed in my car, let me go, and they saw my dad's firefighter emblem.
I had it in the glove box.
I have had police... light brutality.
I don't want to say brutality, but I should say, like, I've had police act aggressively towards me.
I have been wrongfully arrested.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
We get it.
We get it.
Is it because of my race?
No, of course not.
This is the problem.
I grew up on the south side of Chicago.
It was a very mixed area.
You had poor white people, you had poor black people, you had poor Latinos, you had poor Asians, you had poor immigrants.
And when the police did things that were, like, unfair, or when people got arrested and went to jail and stuff like that or had to go to court, it wasn't because of their race.
It was because of their class.
It was because we couldn't afford good lawyers.
It was because they didn't care about us.
It was because the police would side with, you know, in one instance, with the mall.
Hey, the mall said so.
We don't care what evidence shows.
We're going to lock you up anyway.
It's easier that way.
They actually tell us that.
We've got to work with these people.
This is another story where it could just simply be injustice, minor nuisance.
But why would this be a viral video?
Why would this be a trending video on Reddit?
Why would it be a news story?
Because of the racial component.
This is the problem.
The only reason stories like this, the only reason other big viral stories happen, is because apparently this is racist.
No, this is two people getting into an argument and we don't know why.
When the injustice happens to me and my friends, and I call it out, it's not a big story.
When you have violence in one direction, like basically, you know what, I'll do a shout out to Project Veritas, because they actually pointed this out in one of their clips.
In one of the clips, one of the CNN employees says straight up, CNN only cares if the violence is like a high-profile like activist thing or if it's targeting a pretty, you know, like a wealthier neighborhood.
They don't care about the violence in the ghettos.
They don't care about the violence in the poor areas or in the black neighborhoods or the Mexican neighborhoods.
They only care in certain circumstances.
And this is exactly that.
Society only cares.
The woke outrage only targets this woman because she's white.
They say, this story is so dumb, you are trespassing, you don't live here, and you're unwilling to show ID, the resident is heard saying.
Now why is that unreasonable?
I might say to myself, why bother with interfering with people like this?
But why does this become news?
It's simple.
Because in today's day and age, everything must be racially motivated.
Don't you think that leads us to a very dangerous situation?
Who has this kind of time?
The woman recording the video asks her friend.
And now we're seeing, there's actually been a bunch of videos that didn't actually get to go viral, where people are trying to make it go viral.
And in this video, they actually say, you're racist, we're gonna post this, and you're gonna be famous, don't you see these other videos?
So what's gonna happen next?
Someone comes into your yard and you're like, hey, get out of my yard, and they're like, no.
And then they film you and call you a racist?
What would happen if you walked up to somebody and just started filming and claimed they said a word?
Yup!
Accusations are all it takes.
People don't care about evidence.
It's none of your business.
We have a key and we have the right to be here.
You haven't shown me any ID, have you?
Where's your ID?
Now hold on.
That's a good point.
How do they know she lives there?
That's another big problem.
I'll admit, when I walk into an apartment, nobody bothers me.
The resident then tells the dispatcher that the woman was yelling at her outside the apartment building.
She wants to be famous for being a racist idiot.
Now, why is she racist?
What about what she did was racist?
Simply being rude to you and questioning why you're there when you don't live there is racist?
Because she hasn't seen enough white people's lives get ruined.
And there it is, the crescendo.
She wants to be part of the trend, the man is heard saying.
Sounds to me like an altercation emerged for some, started for some reason, and they knew they could weaponize the outrage from the cancel culture, wokeness on the internet, to get some kind of emotional vindication against this woman.
I will point out very, very simply.
You get into an argument with somebody, who cares?
Don't film it, whatever.
But we're now facing a trend where normally, you know, circumstances that don't matter to anybody are becoming national trends and national stories.
Something where, like, you might get into an argument because someone at a laundromat stole your sock.
Normally you'd walk home and nothing, it wouldn't be a big deal.
But now people are going like, hmm, I seem to recall this racist incident where a white woman took my sock.
And they know that they can make this video go viral and they even say it.
So at what point are we going to say perhaps they were at fault and they're exploiting the trend in cancel culture to get people mad at this woman?
Is this woman allowed to be upset that people who don't live here are walking in and out of her building?
I don't know, man.
I'll put it this way.
In the end, we see a lot of these circumstances that are nonsensical, that shouldn't even be news stories, that shouldn't receive my commentary, but people want to be angry.
There's a bunch of really funny comics about this.
There's one that someone tweeted recently where someone's saying, please stop being angry, and the guy says, no, I'm almost enjoying my anger.
There's that one comic I love where the guy says, I'm angry.
The other guy says, here's a solution.
And then he burns it and says, I don't want a solution.
I want to be angry.
And that's what this is.
I think it's because life is boring.
I'll be honest.
I think life is pretty boring.
I don't mean that, like, OK, hold on.
I think life is fun.
You know what I mean?
Like, you go out and you make your own mission, your life.
But people are bored.
They don't have a mission.
They have no responsibility.
They have no goals.
They have no passion.
So they're bored.
And what happens when you're bored?
You accuse someone of racism, you get into fights, you get into these stupid little altercations, you film it, and then you make viral videos and everyone rallies behind it because they have nothing else to do.
Hey man, play video games!
You know?
Go play a game!
Now they want to ruin that too.
I feel like I'll just stop here.
I wanted to address this, and perhaps I didn't do a good enough job of it, so for that, if I didn't, whatever.
The general, I don't know, negativity I feel towards these circumstances is that it shouldn't even be an article.
It shouldn't have been recorded.
It shouldn't have been published.
It shouldn't have been upvoted.
It shouldn't have become a story.
But we keep seeing things like this because people are desperate for some kind of clickbait.
They're desperate for some kind of narrative.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes.
I'll see you all shortly.
Hunter Biden finally has come out, done an interview, and it looks really bad.
You know what we see from this interview, at least my takeaway from it, is that Hunter Biden doesn't realize that what he did is soft corruption, and that most Americans will really, really detest what he did.
Okay, basically, He essentially admits he only got this job in Ukraine on this board getting $50,000 per month because his last name is Biden.
And he says it!
That to me is insane.
For him to be like, yeah, you know, he was asked, do you think you would have gotten this job if you weren't, you know, do you think this, you know, being Biden got you the job?
And he goes, probably, you know, whatever.
It's like, no, no, stop!
That's what Americans don't like.
That's what people don't like.
He goes on to say that he was qualified.
I think it's fair to point out when he cites his qualifications.
Sure.
But come on, man.
We don't like this world of you're rich, therefore your family is a dynasty, therefore you get to be rich.
What kind of world is it where you literally have a caste system?
It's like you were born with the name Biden, therefore you deserve $50,000 per month.
That's ridiculous.
But it's reality.
It is.
Let's be honest.
It's reality.
It's technically not his fault, but it does show the American swamp and the soft corruption that he's not deserving necessarily of this job.
He didn't fight for it.
He's not, you know, trying to rise out of the gutter to become successful.
He just gets it.
That's what people don't like, and that's what fuels the populist movements on the right and the left.
Now, the left goes the Bernie route, saying, we don't like this.
The right goes the Trump route, saying, work hard and you'll succeed.
And that's their starting position.
For me, look, man, I get it.
I'm not going to, you know, he's a Biden.
There you go.
He's going to get offered jobs.
Should he not take them?
Well, there's a problem.
If someone comes to you and says, I'm gonna offer you a job, is he not allowed to get it?
And how do you draw that line?
The point is, we as Americans don't like it.
And a CBS panel agrees.
Hunter Biden's awful interview was damning for his dad.
You look guilty.
is from Pluralist saying, hosts and politicians on CBS this morning, Tuesday, noted that Hunter
Biden's recent interview with ABC News was a bad look for his father's campaign. And
noted that it made Hunter look guilty. They say, co-host Anthony Mason wondered aloud on CBS if
Joe Biden will have to answer questions, excuse me, about his son's Ukraine dealings during
Tuesday's Democratic debate.
And co-host Tony Dokoupil noted that Hunter may have handed some spears to the opposition with an interview today.
Look, he did profit off his father's name, Terry Sullivan, a CBS News political contributor, and Marco Rubio's former campaign advisor said, you know, at least he's taking responsibility for it.
But it does look kind of awful.
Yes!
If I was sitting next to Hunter Biden, what I'd say is, don't ever go on TV again, ever.
You look awful, you look guilty, you know?
Look, Hunter points out that he's a Yale lawyer, that he worked in these other really big companies
like Amtrak and all that, and so he's certainly qualified, but here's the thing, man.
Those positions only come to you because of your name.
And therein lies an unfortunate circumstance that perhaps you must be relegated to a limited
existence.
I'm not trying to be mean, but let's be honest.
If somebody was born in the gutter and eventually became a board member at a Ukrainian gas company,
It's kind of like, well, you know, what are their qualifications and how do they get to
that position?
position.
If you're the son of the vice president and the vice president is pressuring that, you know, that government to fire a prosecutor and do all these things inside Ukraine, something done that up, okay?
And so the problem is, should you just back away?
Well, he says, you know what?
He made a mistake.
Hunter Biden admits it.
He says he's going to step down if his dad becomes president.
Now step down now, dude.
We don't, we don't, we as Americans, we believe in meritocracy.
And this is the opposite of that.
This is, this is what makes, you know, it's fodder for the far left and the socialist type saying, see, they didn't earn their, their, their keep.
Yeah, that's a good point.
He didn't.
He was handed it.
He had a wealthy family, they had access, they had political clout, and they got what they wanted.
Not cool.
So, you get to live comfortably, you get to be rich, fine, I get it.
But at a certain point, you gotta realize, if your dad wants to be president, you're gonna make him look bad.
They say Sullivan's comments came after Robbie Mook, a Democratic strategist and Hillary Clinton's campaign strategist for the 2016 presidential campaign, suggested that Hunter's actions are nothing compared to what President Donald Trump and his family has done.
Mook suggested that Hunter Biden needs to buck up and deal with the repercussions of the accusations.
Hey, there you go.
That's fair, right?
That's from the other side.
That's from the left.
Look, these things are really hard.
I don't think this is going away, Mook said.
And there's no perfect solution.
The campaign's just got to manage through it.
Look, if I were sitting next to Hunter Biden right now, I'd say buck up, my friend.
I mean, what happened here is nothing compared to what the Trump family has done.
Eh, whatever, man.
It's all the same.
It's all the rich, whatever.
Hunter Biden admitted Tuesday to ROBOC that perhaps he did make a mistake in serving on the Ukrainian gas company's board.
However, he asserted that the mistake was not due to some unethical lapse.
Trump has hit back at Joe Biden and accused him of using his position as vice president to pressure Ukrainian officials into firing his top prosecutor.
Yeah, we get all that.
Here's what I want to do.
I'm gonna hop over to this more general story.
I wanted to highlight that one because you had a panel of hosts and journalists saying, dude, you look guilty.
And now we can get more to the minutiae.
Here's the story from Daily Mail.
Donald Trump claims Hunter Biden was really bad and compares his business dealings to Hillary Clinton's emails after Joe's son breaks silence on Ukraine scandal to admit poor judgment, but to finally say he did nothing wrong at all.
I do want to give some criticism to the GOP, right?
They tweeted out this video saying Hunter Biden admits to talking with Joe about Ukraine.
He was asked if he ever had a discussion with Joe Biden, and he said no.
And then the host says, he said he asked you, you know, he hopes you know what you're doing, and Hunter says yes, that was it.
They're not discussing it.
I mean, technically you could argue, but it wasn't a discussion.
It was, I hope you know what you're doing, yep.
And that was the end of it.
So that's unfair criticism, I gotta admit.
So let's just jump down.
Hunter Biden said he exercised poor judgment in his business deals with Ukraine and China, but emphasized he did nothing wrong in the scandals that have engulfed his father's presidential bid and made the family a political target for President Trump.
And full stop.
Actually, let me read the quote.
In retrospect, look, I think that it was poor judgment on my part.
Is that, uh, is that I think that it was poor judgment because I don't believe now when I look back on it.
I know that there was, did nothing, nothing wrong at all, he told ABC News.
However, was it poor judgment to be in the middle of something that is a swamp in, in, in many ways?
Yeah.
I gave a hook to some very unethical people to act in illegal ways to try to do some harm to my father.
That's where I made the mistake.
So I take full responsibility for that.
Did I do anything improper?
No, not in any way.
Not in any way whatsoever.
Did I make a mistake?
Well, maybe in the grand scheme of things, yeah.
He said in reference to the fallout from his overseas business.
But did I make a mistake based upon some ethical lapse?
Absolutely not.
No!
You did!
You did!
That's what he doesn't get.
You want to know why you look bad, Hunter?
Because you're acting like it's not wrong of you to become extremely wealthy simply because you have a name.
Now I will admit, there is freedom, there's a reality to political clout, I get all of that.
But how do you think a poor union democrat type moderate individual who just lost their job is feeling when they realize that you have admitted on TV you got the job because of your name?
You could have said no, okay?
Hunter points out.
He says there's no way he could talk to someone and not mention he's the son of the vice president.
And that's a good point, too.
And that's a conundrum.
But I gotta tell you what, man.
You're not going to be wanting.
You're going to be rich no matter what you do.
You don't need to take a $50,000 a month job.
You're rich.
Congratulations!
So the challenge is, we have these families, they trade favors, they use their clout, and advantages are given.
Is it Hunter's fault?
Not necessarily.
But there is something seriously wrong with this picture.
Because people know, by hooking up Hunter, They are going to potentially have access to Joe.
But more importantly, whether you want to admit it or not, there will be some blocks in what Joe can do if Hunter is involved.
Look at what's going on now with the accusation against Joe Biden.
That's a perfect example of why it is a serious, it is seriously unethical for him to take these positions with foreign companies, especially when Joe is working on his national security.
Let's put it this way.
At the very least, he should have stepped down the moment Joe was going to be working with the Ukrainian government and should say, I can't do this.
It's a conflict of interest.
Because now you're going to have people saying, hey, hire Hunter, and his dad's going to be reticent to come and do anything about it.
You see the problem here.
There's several different problems.
People trying to get favors because of who your dad is, and hoping that you will essentially provide some protection.
And the other issue is, nobody wants to believe we live in a world where you just get to be rich.
There's this socialist on Twitter who says that fry cooks work harder than CEOs.
And that's insane.
Of course that's not true.
A guy flipping burgers is not working harder than a CEO.
CEOs sacrifice almost everything and have weird lives.
And not every CEO is wealthy.
You can be the CEO of a small company not worth that much.
Some CEOs don't do a lot of work, but here's the point.
This is the example of capitalism they use as fodder.
The individual who was born into a family name and is being given these lucrative jobs when they're not qualified.
Now, he argues his qualifications.
Fine.
But come on.
You don't speak Ukrainian.
You don't know anything about Ukraine or the energy sector.
So sure, you can be a lawyer and all that stuff, but you don't know about the product.
Why are you in this industry?
What if I went and became like, you know, someone hired me to make shoes?
And I'd be like, hey man, I work with a lot of marketing campaigns.
I have a lot of experience in a peripheral area to a business.
Nah, dude.
It doesn't make sense.
You might have some elite-level qualifications, but in the end, you would not have gotten this job if it weren't for your dad, and that is politically damaging to everybody.
So, in the sense that people will weaponize political families in this way.
Politico wrote a story About the Biden family dynasty, and about how Biden's family has gotten wealthy off his name.
It's plain and simple.
So you know what's funny?
Look, in a lot of ways, I understand why they say Trump looks bad when he released the transcript, because he says, do me a favor, and I'm like, yeah, yeah, yeah, but I just don't think it rises to that level.
But to think this interview looks good for you would be nuts.
Well, I'll leave it there.
I got another segment coming up in a few seconds, in a few minutes.
Stick around.
This one's gonna be... This one's kind of... Trump is trying to flip some states.
It's gonna be crazy.
So stick around and I will see you in a few moments.
Donald Trump is seeking to flip some blue states red.
His re-election campaign is hiring in Minnesota and New Mexico.
And I've got some really good news for Trump supporters.
Look, we'll start with this story, but I want to make sure I don't bury the lead here.
Trump wants to flip Minnesota and New Mexico?
Well, check this out.
He's going!
He's likely going to.
Let me zoom in on this so you can see it better for those that are watching.
Here we have chart number six from Moody's Analytics.
Trump cruises if turnout is low.
How states will vote if non-incumbent turnout is historical minimum.
In the best case scenario for Trump, he's going to flip Maine, he's gonna flip New Mexico, Nevada, a lot of states, okay?
Check this out right here, chart seven.
It comes down to turnout.
With average turnout, Trump shatters the 2020 election, taking just about two-thirds of the electorate.
With maximum turnout, the Democrats barely squeak by.
That's crazy.
With minimum turnout, Trump sweeps nearly 400 electoral votes.
That's crazy.
But what's really crazy is these other charts.
Check it out.
Trump is favored to win, period.
He's going to win Minnesota?
Seriously?
According to Moody's, the only way Dems get Minnesota The Hill says, President Trump's re-election campaign says it is hiring staff and opening field offices in Minnesota and New Mexico, two traditionally blue states, the president's strategists have identified as having potential to flip in 2020.
Still, The Trump campaign believes that both states are in play this time around.
On a conference call with reporters, a senior official said the campaign is working on a huge build-out of paid staffers and a volunteer network in Minnesota that will dwarf their 2016 efforts there.
And a lot of people, they were saying all the time in 2016, hey, whoever spends the most typically wins.
That's how the game is played.
But Trump was able to get earned press and viral press.
And this, well, this helped him win.
So the traditional rules are out the window.
Hillary Clinton spent a ton of money.
And lost?
And this time around, we have this narrative that the media companies were giving Trump all of this free press with like $5 billion.
And now we look at these leaks, these whistleblower videos from Project Veritas, and you can see the employees saying, we made Trump, the media made Trump.
You know what that means?
That means they haven't learned their mistakes.
They haven't learned from the mistakes in 2016.
The media gave him all this free press.
They were loving it.
Now they're trying to ruin him, but they're still giving him free press.
And I want to give you this example.
I've said it before, but I want to say it now for anyone who may have missed it.
If CNN comes out and goes, Trump, the evil monster, has just built another wall, You'll get all the anti-Trump people going, oh, egad!
And the other half going like, yeah!
So you don't know, even if you frame it negatively, if it's going to have a negative impact.
If they come out and say, Donald Trump just deported 100,000 people, you're going to get a lot of people going, oh no!
And you don't know who's going to say, that's a good thing.
In which case, when CNN does all this negative press, it's press.
End of story.
Let's read on.
They say in the past election, the campaign had only one staffer on the ground in Minnesota, and that person split time in Colorado as well.
Quote, We already have staff on the ground in Minnesota, and now we're building out an infrastructure of paid staff and volunteers, and you can see with that turnout from the rally last week, that we'll obviously be competitive in Minnesota.
So that's one state we'll have a huge buildout and continue to build on our staff and volunteers between now and election day next year.
I'm gonna say, man, what do you think would happen if Trump gets 400 electoral votes?
Check this out.
This is Moody's Analytics, and they're saying with a historical minimum turnout, Trump is going to get 380 votes.
Now, a lot of people are expecting a very, very high turnout.
But in order for Democrats to win, according to these analytics, to Moody's, they would have to get maximum turnout to just get slightly above 270.
They would get 279.
That doesn't seem likely.
I think average is fair.
I think we'll be a little bit above average, but in the end, I think we're going to see Trump taking this.
But what do you think the media would do?
What do you think the activists would do if Trump gets 400?
That would be nuts.
That would be nuts.
Do you think CNN would be like, uh-oh, we're on the wrong side of history?
Do you think these activists would be like, uh-oh, we're on the wrong side of history?
These businesses, all of these companies, NBA, you know, Blizzard, Vans, shoes that cater to China, do you think they would stop and rethink their positions if they saw record voter turnout?
So I'll tell you this, first of all, These analytics are really, really good news for Republicans.
They do show a path to victory for the Democrats, because those Democrats can take those blue wall states, at least some of them.
But, for the most part, it's better news for the Republicans.
In the end, I think this shows you exactly why Republicans need to turn out in full force.
Here's the thing about the craziness.
In my main channel video, I talk about how the media is trapped in this loop that's fueling the far-left extremism and antifa and the Democrats are defending them.
If you squeak by with a tiny victory, if the Republicans win with a marginal victory, Well, they'll say, see, we have a chance to win.
And they'll continue pushing this insanity.
If Trump sweeps with 400 electoral votes, that's a shock to the system so hard, I'd be willing to bet CNN would turn around in two seconds and support Trump.
When they realize they're targeting a tiny market and they're going to lose money?
Yeah.
They don't want to, like, you know, the way I put it before about, like, Twitter and how these companies are embracing this fringe leftism, Is that they don't realize if they continue on their path, Twitter, Twitter will eventually be a small left-wing activist organizing site because you're going to ban everybody, right?
And so that's why it's important to make sure you're balancing your positions.
It's also important to realize that if they don't pull some moderate positions in play, then you are pushing people towards Donald Trump.
Let's go back and read a little bit more from The Hill.
The president has already held rallies in Minneapolis and Albuquerque this year, but the campaign's insistence that the states are in play have been met with skepticism in Washington.
I don't know, man, we saw that huge turnout of that Minnesota Trump rally.
It was Minneapolis.
Minnesota has not gone for the Republican presidential nominee since 1972.
Although Trump fell short to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton by only 1.5 points in 2016.
I'm going to say it.
CNN went to a Minnesota town that was a Democratic stronghold and they went Trump.
If Trump only needs 1.5 points...
I think he's going to win Minnesota.
And that would be huge.
Former President George W. Bush narrowly won New Mexico in 2004, but the state has not been a competitive battleground since then.
Clinton defeated Trump in New Mexico by more than 8 points in 2016.
Democrats won back two congressional districts in Minnesota in the 2018 midterms, even as they lost two other districts in the state, highlighting the turbulent politics there.
Trump and his campaign are hoping that in a presidential election year, Republicans can win back the areas they lost in 2018.
I think, and I could be wrong, and I'm not gonna act like I'm Nostradamus, well, not like Nostradamus was right anyway, but I'm not a psychic, okay?
I think something needs to happen.
We've seen for a while now, like, 2016 was neck and neck between Trump and Hillary.
Trump barely squeaked by in some areas, you know, by small percentage points, and Hillary too.
But there, you know, historically we can look back to past elections and see when the country was almost entirely red.
Like the Democrats just lost.
But now we've seen a pretty decent back and forth.
Something's got to change.
I think the Democrats embracing of the far left, their smearing of people like Tulsi Gabbard, the media embracing of Antifa, I think we're going to see that Americans have this snapback.
And I'd be willing to bet Not saying I know everything in the world.
I'll be willing to bet.
2020 is one of the reddest elections we've seen in a very, very long time.
I mean, I'll do it again.
Look.
They say New Mexico will be likely a heavier lift for Trump, but Trump is still trying to get New Mexico and Minnesota.
And if we see record turnout on the Republican side, low voter turnout, but the Republicans come out, we're going to see a bunch of states flip, including New Mexico and Nevada.
That would be devastating for the left, the Democrats, and the far left.
And I think it would cause a dramatic realignment.
Now, for most of you, excuse me, who follow my content, you know, I've shown chart after chart.
The Democrats have swung far left and the Republicans have not.
The Republicans have moved only slightly to the left.
Which means right now most Americans are not in this fringe far-left faction.
Most people are probably looking and saying, what's happening?
In which case?
In order for the Democrats to try and regain their position and gain some power in this country, they need moderates.
We saw in 2018, it's what worked.
But if they push further and further left, they lose.
When they do lose, and the Republicans win by massive numbers, like look at this, nearly 400, then many Democrats are going to immediately say impeachment was a bad idea, we need to unite the country, and you're going to see all that rhetoric fall in line.
Right now the media is telling Democrats in the far left that they're acceptable.
And it's this whirlpool of swampy trash.
But something needs to break that cycle.
And perhaps a Republican maximum, you know, blot election would do that.
Personally, I'd like to see the moderates win.
However, I'm concerned that until there is a shock to the system, the moderates will not gain that ground back.
2018 was excellent.
There it was.
You know, the moderates were able to win, and the far left did not.
Some of them did, but for the most part, not really.
Only a small handful.
This is what I think we can expect to see.
Now we're hearing there's going to be historically high turnout.
If that's true, Democrats can take it.
So I'll tell you this.
My warning to you Republicans.
Analysis after analysis has said we can expect historical turnout.
And if that's the case, the Democrats are taking it.
Plain and simple.
Now I think Trump's going to win.
I do.
But don't underestimate that everything is political today.
People who are not political are being activated and they don't follow the news.
So they're going to go out.
People are going to drag their friends.
They're expecting historical turnout.
In which case, Democrats will squeak by and take 279.
So that's a warning to the Republicans.
It might look good.
Average turnout means you win.
But you gotta pull every stop if you want to take it.
