Moderate Democrats Impeachment Strategy Will BACKFIRE, They Haven't Accounted For 'Bernie Or Bust'
Moderate Democrats Impeachment Strategy Will BACKFIRE, They Haven't Accounted For 'Bernie Or Bust.' In a leaked memo from Axios we can see that Democrats are pushing Moderates toward support for impeachment due to national polls showing people are more inclined to support a pro impeachment inquiry candidate over someone who isn't.While the memo does take the republican polls into consideration they seem to have missed one big flaw, the far left and Bernie or bust voters.They are hoping that policy issues will take a back seat to partisanship in 2020 but this is a mistake in my opinion. The Democrats are not unified and far left voters do not want to support moderates.Far left democrats frequently refer to moderates as "republicans" and refuse to vote. In fact Bernie Or Bust played a huge roll in Trump winning in 2016. In fact some Bernie voters protested the Democrats by actually voting FOR Trump as a kind of punishment.Moderates need to focus on unity and bringing people together instead of playing into the 'orange man bad' narrative.While negative partisanship is a huge factor for Democrat voters, should they nominate a moderate it won't matter. The Far left sees the Moderates as entirely separate already.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Over the past couple of weeks, moderate Democrats have faced backlash and protest over their support for impeaching Donald Trump.
Seems that many people were expecting a focus on policy issues and bridging the divide, not making the divide worse.
But now we have a word of encouragement from Democrats.
Because according to an internal polling memo, they're telling moderate Democrats they are more likely to get a vote if they support impeachment than if they don't.
But I believe this is a huge mistake.
First, we can't necessarily just go off this one memo, because we have a memo from the Republicans saying exactly the opposite.
But there is still a good reason to believe the Democrats are on the right side of this, and that's negative partisanship.
While the Republican polls say that voters are tired of the obsession with Trump, Democrat polls say that no people want Trump to be impeached, and according to Pew, policies took a backseat to partisanship, which means you will encourage more voters to support you by talking about how the other side is bad, as opposed to actually addressing policy issues.
But I have a couple words to explain why this is a mistake and why it will likely backfire.
Bernie or bust, the far left and the moderate Democrats are not united as one party.
So while they may think it makes more sense to oppose Trump and talk about how the orange man is bad, it may be more likely that people are looking for policy issues because the far left is not going to support a moderate.
Well, let's read through the news and get started, and we'll break this down starting with the memo.
Before we do, 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 the best thing you can do, just share the story.
I'm competing with CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and other YouTubers.
So if you think I do a good job, you can help me out by just sharing this video wherever you'd like.
From Axios, Democrats' internal impeachment polling memo.
They say while national support for an impeachment inquiry is growing, it's not a clear winner for Democrats in the most competitive House districts just yet.
That's according to an internal impeachment polling memo obtained by Axios that was sent to House Democrats Thursday night.
Why it matters.
Their vulnerable members this cycle are the ones who helped the party win the House in 2018 because they were in districts that flipped from Republican or that Trump won in 2016.
They're not in the clear yet, as an impeachment inquiry is only slightly favorable 49 to 48.
Two impeachment polls, a national survey and a battleground survey, were conducted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's pollsters.
Let's do this.
Let's jump straight to the DCCC and why they think it makes more sense to be for impeachment as a moderate.
They say.
The numbers do not back up Republicans' posture that impeachment worsens the political environment for House Democrats.
National polling conducted by the DCCC finds voters back a Democrat who supports an impeachment investigation over a Republican who opposes an impeachment investigation by 11 points.
Even in the 57 most competitive battleground districts, moving the inquiry forward is slightly favorable.
Additionally, Democrats' lead in the generic ballot remains steady in national polling and in the battleground districts.
Now, on its surface, I believe this makes sense, and I can cite negative partisanship and, you know, partisanship being more important.
According to Pew, November 29, 2018, midterm voting decisions.
In midterm voting decisions, policies took a backseat to partisanship, and this was primarily true among Democrats, they say.
Asked an open-ended question about why they voted as they did, 36% of those who voted for the Democratic candidate in their district cited opposition to President Donald Trump, the Republican Party, or the GOP's candidate as the main reason for their vote.
About the same share, 37%, said they were as motivated primarily by support for their own party's candidate.
In contrast, 47% of Republican voters mentioned support for the GOP, Trump, or the Republican candidate in their district, while fewer mentioned opposition to the Democratic Party.
So let's make one thing clear.
This story isn't saying negative partisanship.
They're saying Democrats are more motivated by not liking Republicans, and Republicans are more motivated by liking Republicans.
That's kind of weird.
But there's this big idea that in order to win in 2020, both in the House and the presidency, you need to explain why the other side is awful.
And according to the Pew data, Democrats are more likely to be motivated by hating the other side.
Here's the big deal, though.
As I mentioned early on, before we get into it, burn your bust, right?
Far-left Democrats and moderate Democrats do not like each other.
Moderate Democrats may support a progressive, but progressives mostly won't support a moderate.
That means, if moderate Democrats believe they're going to win nationwide by supporting impeachment, it may be true, because the far-left also doesn't like Donald Trump as well.
However, when a moderate Democrat is being put up, far-left voters are going bust.
They won't vote, right?
So when Bernie Sanders ran, a lot of people said it's either Bernie, the far-left candidate, or nothing.
Think about what happens in a moderate district then.
It may be true that most voters would rather support a pro-impeachment candidate, but are you factoring in the divide between pro-impeachment far-left and pro-impeachment moderate?
I'd be willing to bet, considering this, Expanding the squad.
U.S.
liberals challenge moderate Democrats to move party left.
They say Jessica Cisneros interned for U.S.
Representative Henry Quayler in 2014, and the congressman later wrote letters to help her get into law school.
They're talking about the new squad members, the new far-left progressives.
What do you think is going to happen in moderate districts that are divided between support for the president and people who want policy issues when it comes to a moderate candidate?
Progressives and the far left, go bust.
Don't vote.
So here's what I can say.
Here's the way I see it, right?
I understand they're looking at this data and they're saying, aha, if we support impeachment, we'll win.
But I'd be willing to bet even a moderate who supports impeachment won't get a far-left vote.
They're not going to care.
But you also have to contend with the fact that we've got the Democrats saying one thing and the Republicans saying another.
I'm going to have to say, when it comes down to it, based on the divide between the far-left and the moderates, the Republicans are likely correct in their assessment, saying, Two-thirds of voters in NRCC target seats and 66% of voters in Republican-held battleground seats agree that Democrats in Congress are too obsessed with impeaching the president and should be working on issues they campaign on, such as funding our military, improving the nation's infrastructure, lowering the cost of prescription drugs, and caring for our nation's veteran.
At the end of it, all I can really say is, I look at the NRCC, I look at the DCCC, and they both can't be right.
The Democrats think they're right, Republicans think they're right.
But what I think the Democrats don't seem to understand as they're factoring in these issues, is that they're facing a battle on two fronts.
Republicans and the far left.
So if they're going for a negative partisanship strategy, based on what we saw in the midterms, I think they're going to lose out.
And there's also another really important point to make as to why.
They say in midterm voting decisions, policies took a backseat to partisanship.
But guess what?
It was the moderate Democrats that won in these districts.
And they won because they campaigned on kitchen table issues, not orange man bad.
They said they were going to bridge the divide.
The far left did not do as well.
So in the end, what can you expect?
I think I think they're looking at the polls, they're looking at this concept of negative partisanship, and it's going to fail for them.
Recently, the other day, I did a conversation with Sam Seder.
He's a YouTuber, podcaster, and he's on the left.
And he told me that politically he believes impeachment is the right play because negative partisanship explains everything.
At least that's what Politico says.
What he was explaining is that it drives voter turnout.
According to an assessment from Moody's Analytics, Trump is on his way to an easy win in 2020, according to their model, particularly if the economy holds up.
But what they said, there are three models, and they show Trump winning in two of the three.
One of them shows Democrats winning by nine electoral votes, and that is with a historical voter turnout.
How do you drive a historical voter turnout?
Negative partisanship, right?
At least that's what the mentality seems to be.
If you can get enough people to support Trump is bad or Orange Man bad, they're going to come out and vote for anyone else.
But again, I'll say it.
Bernie or bust.
Progressives will not vote for Biden.
And many won't vote for Warren.
Bernie just had this massive turnout in, I believe it was in New York.
They say it was 25,000.
Some people say it was, you know, detractors say it was 10,000.
It doesn't matter.
Those people who support Bernie, in 2016, 12-18% of Bernie's voters went to Trump.
Many others didn't vote at all.
So they're now conflating this idea that if they play this game, they're going to win.
But I don't think that's the case.
And I don't know what to tell you.
Because I think it's true that negative partisanship does play a role in voter turnout.
Again, according to the Moody's analysis, if there's a historical voter turnout, the Democrats will win by nine electoral votes.
But please consider, it is likely a more moderate Democrat wins the primary, someone like Elizabeth Warren, and it's going to be Bernie voters who do not support her.
It's entirely possible we see a Warren Sanders ticket.
But many people... I've talked to some left-wing activists who have straight-up said they will not support Warren, who is an overt capitalist, perhaps if she's VP or something like that.
But we'll see.
We'll see.
In the end, I think it's a huge gamble.
I see that they have reason to believe it may be the case, but all I can really assess at the end is that they're making a huge mistake.
You cannot assume moderate districts are going to play out the same way.
The far left didn't do well in 2018.
Squad members won.
But according to The Economist, it was, I believe, 8 out of 79.
And they're still moving forward.
Moderates are seeking to primary challenge Democrats.
And in AOC's district, moderates are seeking to primary the far left.
So here's what we can assess.
Democrats' civil war between progressives and moderates will bring 2020 Trump victory.
Now I want to stop for a second and say there's two different elections at play.
The national level and the local level.
Here's what I'm going to tell you.
Moderate districts that went for Trump are not going to see a far-left turnout.
And the far-left is not going to support these moderates.
And the moderates are likely not going to support a party that turned their back on kitchen table issues in favor of orange man bad.
I don't know what they're thinking.
I mean, I could be wrong, right?
Not the smartest person in the world, it's entirely possible, I'm wrong.
But I'll tell you this.
All I can really do in this ridiculous mirror-parallel reality is try and figure out who's more likely to be correct and why.
And if the Democrats are saying they're going to win based on impeachment, and the Republicans are saying you're going to lose based on impeachment, I don't know what to pick.
But I can tell you this, Bernie or Bust is a huge factor, and the civil war on the Democrat side is a huge factor, and I think when it comes to moderate districts, you're going to have diehard Trump supporters saying Republican or nothing, and you're going to have moderates saying I am sick and tired of the bickering, just solve these problems.
I don't see moderates as being particularly energized by hating Trump.
If the district went for Trump in the national election, why would they be Trump derangement syndrome type people who are going to go for this?
Now it's true.
Let's do this.
Let's jump over to impeachment news.
Right now, we can see... Yeah, real clear politics.
RCP doesn't like I'm using ad blockers.
Sorry, guys.
We can see here, the RCP average for Trump impeachment is at 49%.
This is bad news for Trump.
And opposition is 45%, meaning there are more people who support the impeachment and removal
of the president than who oppose it.
And we can also see this.
Trump's approval rating has taken a decent dip at the start, following the launch of
the impeachment inquiry and Ukrainegate.
Democrats might have something, they might have something going for them, you know, with
this negative, this negative partisanship strategy in winning 2020.
But let's separate this for a second.
Will they win the House back based on this?
My opinion is no.
I have to choose between Democrat and Republican polling, and I think based on the fact we're talking about far-left versus moderates, you're more likely to see Republicans voting for a moderate candidate up until they start calling for impeachment.
Now those Trump supporters are going to flip for the Republican.
And you're not gonna see a far-left person in a moderate district win the primary.
You see where this is going?
But I also want to consider this.
Look at where Trump was at the beginning of his presidency.
Now, right— So when Trump first started, January 27th, he was at 44.2.
And he's around the exact same place right now, 42— Oh, I'm sorry, he's down two points.
We're still a year out.
We'll still see where this goes.
It is possible that this negative partisanship play does have a negative impact on Trump, but all I can really do is this.
I don't want to play favorites.
I don't want to act like someone should, like, we just should believe the Republicans.
Oh, you know, their poll is better.
But come on, man.
You know, we can jump back to the Moody's analytics.
They're saying Trump is going to win.
What should I base this on?
They're going after impeachment.
They're not focusing on issues.
And again, issues play a big role in this.
But the economy is good.
And so one thing I mentioned in a segment I did on my second channel, you're going to hear a repeat for those on the podcast, is that regular people who aren't paying attention don't know anything about this.
And that means one thing.
They don't care about impeachment.
I understand that support for impeachment is increasing, but we are diehard politicos.
I am someone who reads political news every single day, and you're someone who follows me.
But the average person is thinking about kitchen table issues.
And they are not, they're not seeing that, okay?
The Democrats are being told that focusing on impeachment gives them a leg up in their
election.
They do mention, after all of this, look at this, they say it's very convincing to talk
about upholding the rule of law, focus on Trump doing the wrong thing, etc., etc.
And then at the bottom, in smaller print, is here are some kitchen table issues that
you can say.
And they don't even give the Democrats polling on whether or not these talking points are effective.
So I tell you this.
We are probably in a bubble to a certain extent that we see this stuff and we're more tuned to it.
The average person is saying, hey, I got a job.
Hey, my pay went up.
Hey, my paychecks are bigger.
My taxes are down.
My kids are going to school.
My health care is cheaper.
These are the things they're thinking about and looking at.
And when you look at these Trump rallies and when you look at these Bernie rallies, what you're seeing are the diehards.
And yes, that is important too.
I just think when it comes down to it, you need to make sure you're communicating with Americans not just based on why they should hate Trump.
I get the strategy.
I really do.
But in the end, I think it'll backfire.
But let me know what you think.
Am I wrong?
Look, we're looking at two polls.
They say two different things.
So I don't want to tell you.
But I'm going to go ahead and say I think Democrats are making a big mistake.
I think a large reason as to why moderates won.
It can be reflected in a report done by CNN.
They went to a Democrat stronghold and they saw a place that normally voted Democrat supporting Donald Trump.
Locally, they support Democrats.
Nationally, they support Trump.
You need to consider that.
The Democratic 2020 contenders are too far left.
That's probably why Trump wins.
Locally, moderates provide a safe alternative to Donald Trump.
But going after impeachment is not talking about why they should be supported.
So I'll reiterate for the last time before signing off.
When they campaigned on unity, bridging the divide, and kitchen table issues, they won.
It remains to be seen if this strategy will play out.
But hey, they have their polls.
They could be right.
Let me know what you think in the comments below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
Next segment will be coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all there.
No matter how I address this story and the controversy surrounding it, I will get attacked from the left.
Leftists, feminists, TERFs, whatever you want to call it, intersectionalists, they are going to criticize me no matter what for simply talking about this.
Well, you know what?
I don't know what else you want me to do.
Because here's the story.
A transgender individual, born male, has filed a police report against another male for a hate crime, and you want to know why?
Because the male, who is an adult filmmaker, there's an adult filmmaker who said, let's hook up and film it.
Upon finding out the other person was actually a transgender individual with male body parts, said no.
So the trans individual filed a hate crime.
It's complicated, it's confusing, but long story short, it's two biological males.
Now, now, you're gonna hear people, the trans activists saying, no, this person transitioned to female.
No, you can't transition to female.
Legally, in a sense, you can, but biologically you can't.
That's the distinction I'm making.
So while this individual may be legally female on paper, they have biologically male parts.
And now everything falls apart.
And I'll tell you why.
There's no way to actually talk about this.
I will be criticized for pushing a right-wing talking point no matter what I say.
I've talked about these issues in the past before.
And I've talked about the need for expanding civil rights and protecting people from violence and harassment, workplace discrimination, etc.
And I got attacked from the left.
And I was confused.
Wait, why am I getting flak from leftists over this?
Ah, it's because there is no unification on the left over this issue.
The right is certainly opposed to it for the most part.
So the right typically says, no matter what, they're like, yep, I'm hearing what you're saying, I agree.
But here's the thing.
Well, that's the gist of this story.
And I think it speaks for itself.
How do you compel a male to engage in adult activities with another male if they don't want to do it?
How is that a hate crime?
I'll stress one important point.
This is in the UK.
In the US, you are legally allowed to discriminate against somebody in entertainment.
I don't know if that goes into the adult filmmaking industry, but I do know that if you're making a Hollywood movie, you can literally say, we want this race, this gender, and this age, and you can't do that for basically any other job.
There are a few exceptions, right?
So, but you're making a movie and you're like, I need an old dude to play old man.
They can't say you're discriminating because you want a character for the screen.
In this instance, in the UK, It's beyond absurd.
I couldn't believe this was real when I saw this.
It's a guy who has no attraction to male parts.
How can you investigate them for a hate crime over this?
How is this even entertained in the first place?
And this is where we're heading.
See, here's the problem.
If I come out in favor of the trans individual in this circumstance, I will get attacked from the left, because feminists, I guess gender-critical feminists is what they describe themselves as, and many lesbians in the lesbian community, will say, this is not transphobia, people have preferences, you can't support this, and so I back away.
I say, you know what, man?
Alright.
So I've made many videos about trans athletes winning, And the need for protections and how to navigate this problem.
And I got a barrage of criticism from feminists saying that I was a misogynist.
I was a misogynist for supporting biological males competing against biological females.
And I wasn't even really supporting them.
I was just talking about the issue as a milquetoast fencer as I normally do.
So eventually I said, you know what?
Enough.
There is no solution to this.
All of the attacks come from the left.
But there is a viral thread that I think is particularly important that breaks this down.
So let me just, let me just, you know, get to the point on the first video.
I'm sorry, on the first story.
That's basically the story.
That's where we're at, okay?
A biological male has filed a hate crime charge against another biological male for not wanting to engage in adult acts.
I think that's insane.
It's nuts.
And I don't know, I don't...
Don't tell- I don't know!
I don't want to tell you.
All I know is by saying that, don't be surprised when YouTube deletes this video for hate speech.
Or some other nonsense.
But how do we talk about this?
How do we say you can't force people to be in a relationship with someone they don't have an attraction to?
A hate crime?
I get it, it's a work industry thing because you're talking about adult filmmaking.
But how- It's insane.
It's literally- we're at that point.
Here's a thread from someone on Twitter named Laura Adams Miller.
This thread has gone decently viral, explaining the problem of gay rights versus trans rights and why one was easy and one is difficult.
And to put it simply, we'll read through this, it's an amazing thread.
When the gay community was seeking rights, it was a stable movement that said, let us do our thing and leave us alone.
The trans community, on the other hand, and the gender movement is different.
They're saying YOU must change.
So, the general point is, you can pass a law saying that you can't discriminate against someone based on who they love and what they do in their own private business, and, you know, they show up to work and they do whatever they want.
The gender movement is saying, you must use pronouns.
You must adhere to what we think.
You must allow us to enter your spaces as opposed to being left alone.
So that's kind of the difference.
And it's actually a really good example of, I think, the real divide between anti-SJW and SJW.
For those that follow my channel, and there's been a lot of critique on this, I had a conversation with David Pakman.
And I mentioned that identity politics, I think, can be dangerous.
David said, but you... I said, the reason for it is because of my mixed race heritage.
I've experienced this.
And he goes, aha, but that's identity politics.
The point I was making was a negative, right?
So I was saying, because I've experienced the problems of identity politics, I think it's all bad.
And he then said to me, but that is identity politics.
Fine.
I think identity politics can be good in many regards.
But this is the perfect example of where I think many of us draw the line.
The leave-me-alone versus the do-as-I-say.
One's authoritarian, one's libertarian.
The leave-me-alone-and-let-me-live-my-life is liberty.
The you-must-adhere-to-what-I-want and make-love-with-me-even-if-you're-not-physically-attracted-to-my-body, that's an entirely strange world to be in.
That's authoritarian.
And that's one of the big differences.
You can take a look at the body positivity movement.
Well, if a guy isn't attracted to an obese woman, you can't make him.
But they say that's fatphobic.
They're playing this game of, you must change your life for us, instead of letting us live ours peacefully.
You see the difference?
Let's read this thread.
It's fascinating.
Laura Adams Miller says, Homosexuals won recognition of their rights because, ultimately, the rest of society changes very little in allowing gays to marry, hold jobs, and be free from harassment and violence.
It's a stable movement because heterosexual people didn't have to radically alter their lives for us.
The gender movement is an inverted movement.
Rather than basic protections common to all people, members of the movement are demanding that all of society make radical changes to policy, personal habits, language, parenting, professional, etc.
And I'll give you an example.
Let's jump back to the story about Rachel McKinnon, a transgender individual born male who just won a world master sprint against biological females.
At its core, you can argue they're the same thing.
That you can't discriminate against someone based on who they love.
But here's the difference.
If you're a man who loves a man, you still compete as a man, right?
The transgender movement is different because you're asking society to recognize you as a biological female.
Which means now you're asking biological females to allow you to enter their space.
That's very different because lesbians, the gay community, bisexuals, everything else stayed the same.
Male and female sports are still separated regardless of who you love.
It has no bearing, right?
So there's tons of female athletes who are straight and gay, and there's tons of male athletes who are straight and gay, and it does nothing to the greater athletic community.
The same is true for adult filmmaking.
There are two men who go and make a film, and they're attracted to each other, and they'll make a film, and there are two women who will make a film, and they're attracted to each other, and there you go.
But now we're at a point.
Where because people want a similar concept, you can't discriminate against me, that means because I now identify as what you qualify as, I get access to your space, and that is a radically different movement.
I don't know if inverted is the right way to put it, but it is very different, and I hope I explained it.
But let's read.
Laura says, Homosexuals asked that we be allowed what everyone is allowed.
That we can marry the adult consenting unrelated person of our choosing.
That we can raise our children, keep our jobs.
We asked for inaction in the form of not seeking to punish us for our personal lives.
And that's simple.
You know, I run a business.
You want to work for me.
You say, I can build, you know, a log cabin in a couple days.
And I say, that's great.
And then you tell me that you're married to a man.
I'll say, I don't care.
Can you build a cabin?
Right?
It's that simple.
But what if you're trying to make an adult film?
Well, it's not the same as you saying, hey, at home, I'm married to a, you know, a man or a woman.
And I say, I don't care.
Can you do the job?
But what if you then say, biologically, I don't fit the role.
Well, in the UK, that's a hate crime.
Laura goes on to say, The gender movement is demanding that we convert to their
ideology and practice their beliefs.
You can employ a gay person without voicing moral agreement with them,
but current non-discrimination practices for trans employees demand you live as though you share their beliefs.
You have to use their pronouns. You have to change your language for them.
This is an unstable movement because it will never not require brute and social political force to maintain.
There's nothing organic about using pronouns that conflict with natural speech.
There's nothing sustainable about asking every person you meet how they identify, especially when the overwhelming majority, 90 plus percent, identify simply and are easily discernible from other identities.
And I want to make sure I stress this point, man, because This is left criticism, okay?
This individual, this is a lesbian writer, lesbian mother, biological healthcare professional, women's liberationist, whatever you want to call this person, this criticism is from the left, not the right.
This person ten years ago was a diehard left-wing supporter fighting for gay rights.
I actually did campaign work for the Human Rights Campaign when I was a non-profit fundraiser.
Yet now simply talking about this is going to be called a right-wing talking point.
It makes no sense.
If you have two individuals on the left critiquing each other, I don't know where you go from here.
But I have to stress this because invariably they will say, this video is Tim pushing right-wing talking points.
I'm reading a lesbian's take on the gender movement.
Whatever.
Let's read.
She writes, the gender movement is demanding far more than any true human rights movement in history has.
We're meant to enact scientific and medical practices that aren't evidence based.
We're being told to compromise our privacy, our private practices, our religious beliefs.
Well, hold on.
I'll stop there and say that's true for churches right now as well, okay?
So what you're saying does reflect to an extent on the gay and lesbian community as well.
Beto O'Rourke said he was going to take away tax exemption from churches who refuse to perform same-sex marriages.
So I don't think religious beliefs is an apt argument.
You can't tell a church to respect an Abrahamic tradition for something that goes against their religion, but then question the trans community in the same capacity.
I disagree with that.
Let's read on.
It's distressing in the short term and unsustainable in the long term.
People won't accept this indefinitely.
It will be torn down along with every movement that's being falsely associated with it.
This will hurt gay rights and disability rights and women's rights.
The modern era of social justice thrives on upheaval, and I understand why.
It's thrilling to see old institutions come down, the feeling of seemingly unmovable objects being moved.
It feels like anything is possible, but history shows us that not all societal shift is positive.
Never in history has forcing a population to practice a belief system against their will been a positive change.
Violating freedom of thought, speech, association, assembly, that has never indicated progress towards justice.
I'm going to stop here too and throw some criticism here.
When it comes to whether or not a bakery can discriminate, for the most part, we have civil rights law saying, hey, you might not agree with this, but you have to adhere to certain practices.
Now this is still widely debated in society, right?
The baker in Colorado won.
And it's constantly facing legal battle.
And recently, I believe, some other female artists also won.
So it'll be an interesting battle between the First Amendment, you know, you creating a product as a form of your expression, versus the Civil Rights Law.
So I don't know where we're going to go, but I will stress that it's this targeting the gender movement, I believe, is missing some of the greater context here.
For one thing, I will say they are completely correct in that When it comes to granting, you know, gay marriage and rights and everything, we don't change our language.
We don't change our lives at all, for the most part.
Now there may be some small things, like somebody wants a specific cake made with two grooms instead of, or two brides, and you can argue whether you want to do that, and you can make the cake and then hand them, you know, you go buy your own bride and do it yourself.
So there are small societal ramifications to gay rights.
Totally agree with that.
But the difference with the gender movement is we have women's sports for a reason.
There was a statement made recently in a lawsuit that they said if anyone can identify as a woman, and that's what the law states in the US, particularly I believe the Equality Act goes into this, but in New York especially.
In New York, I don't have to do anything.
You don't have to take hormones.
You don't have to do anything.
You can literally just say you are male or you are female.
You don't need a diagnosis.
You need nothing.
If that's the case, and there's a prize pool, right?
So I'll put it this way.
They try and claim That, you know, no one is going to go through the process of transition just to get an easier time winning competitions or to go into women's bathrooms.
But that's not the case.
The law doesn't have a requirement for transition.
Quite literally, a biological male... No, no, hold on, I will stop.
There are some testosterone qualifications, like you have to reduce your T levels to a certain point.
But in New York City, they don't have that requirement in the law, which means if there was something where it was like, women can enter for a chance to win a million dollars, if they can, you know, and then it's a punching contest, yeah, I could walk up and just say, I'm a woman.
Let me in.
Hey, it's a million bucks!
You have, you have, what, 13 million people in the New York metro?
You know, the tri-state area, essentially?
I assure you there will be at least two or three dudes who have no scruples and no ethics and would have no problem exploiting this system.
So the argument made by these females was that if anyone can be a woman, then you've effectively removed protections for women, because now literally, you know, males can just say they are, if anyone can be.
Let's read more of Lara's tweet.
She says, I never believed in gender, this idea that men and women are internal feelings separate from chromosomal and reproductive Reproduction.
But I supported trans people anyway, because I didn't feel required to agree with them, and didn't feel required to submit to their doctrine.
I used the pronouns to be polite, and because those pronouns weren't the loaded prospects they've become.
But now there's this gotcha quality to it, as if, quote, she equals trans women are women, literally biologically female, all rights are now gender, rather than, you know, biologically based.
I will stress another point as well.
You have people who are changing their birth certificates, and changing their IDs, and while I understand that, you know, in concept, I understand the argument, I suppose, I don't believe it makes much sense.
There's a reason why we say you're male or female, not because of the way you look, right?
It's really challenging.
I'll admit, this whole argument, everything is challenging, and it's a shame, in my opinion, that anybody who wants to bring it up and work through these problems is called transphobic.
But the reason we put MNF on your license is not just because we wanted to arbitrarily classify you based on what you look like.
It's because it has impacts in the law and medical procedures.
I mean, medical reasons for the most part.
If you're having a heart attack, men and women can experience different symptoms.
In which case, if you don't look, if you've transitioned, there could be serious ramifications.
Not only that, But people who transition have... there are side effects to transition.
So if you're a male and you take, you know, hormones, you will experience something unique that men and women do not by taking those hormones.
Some women might because they take hormone supplements at a certain point in their age, but there's a reason why all this is important.
When someone has something specific to their biology that could affect them medically, they wear wristbands.
And it's got the snake on the thing and it says, hey, you know, I'm allergic to this.
So, someone, an example would be like if you're allergic to a certain antibiotic, you wear the bracelet, that way if you end up in an accident, you go to the hospital, they look at that and say, don't give them this antibiotic, they're allergic.
There was another tweet about a guy who was an EMT saying that the way he would react to a male versus a female is extremely important and the medications they provide is important.
But now that IDs and birth certificates and everything are being changed, it's going to have an impact on how they can save lives.
Let's read a little bit more.
Laura says that she feels betrayed by the movement.
As a lesbian, she advocated for trans rights along with her own.
Now trans lesbians march in opposition to me and my sisters.
I don't, you know, I'm not gonna pretend it's like literally every trans person all the time, and it's this big, big, big problem, but it does happen.
And it happens that there are people who are biologically male, Who transitioned to female, but are still attracted to females, and then accuse lesbians of being transphobic.
And it's seriously... It's seriously a thing.
So, you know what?
This is a really, really long thread.
I'm not going to read through the whole thing, because I think you get the point.
I'll read the final tweet here.
It says, The gender movement is a movement without perspective or empathy.
It disdains compromise and ignores any interest it doesn't share.
Because no group, except maybe women, will work against its own interests indefinitely, the gender movement will fail, and I refuse to go down with it.
The thread went viral.
To an extent, it's got a thousand retweets, and I see a lot of conservatives sharing it.
So I thought it'd be interesting to talk about.
Obviously, I don't agree with everything this individual said.
I think there certainly were, with gay rights, there was, you know, beliefs pushed on certain people or, you know, they were told to take certain actions.
But ultimately, I think this is a good example of SJW versus anti-SJW.
The point I made earlier, I'll end with.
Telling someone they have to behave in a certain way versus telling someone just leave me alone, I think is a really good example.
It's not perfectly black or white, right?
If I want to go to a business and that business says, we don't want to serve your kind, I believe you should just do it, right?
Like, if I want a cheeseburger at a restaurant, and they say, hey, you're mixed.
We don't serve your kind around here.
That, I think, is crossing the line, because you can serve me the same as everybody else.
If I ask you to do something beyond what you would normally do... So it is complicated.
It really is.
It really is.
But this is why I think we need to talk about it.
I don't think I have a perfect answer.
I really don't.
I think civil rights was extremely important, but then I look at what Harvard is doing in discriminating against Asians, and I think that's horrifying.
So I'll put it this way.
I go into a burger shop and I say, just serve me the burger the same as everybody else.
Fine.
You should.
But what if I go in and say, no, I demand a vegan burger.
And they say, we don't sell vegan burgers.
Then you are discriminating against me and you must change your business and carry this product.
Or you must say certain words.
I think is where you get into the authoritarian aspect of it.
So here's what I'm gonna say.
The reason I wanted to talk about this, the story from the Daily Mail was just so outrageous and insane that I don't even know where we're headed or how this will carry forward.
Because you will find you cannot force someone to make love to someone...
It doesn't work.
Conversion therapy doesn't work.
If they're not attracted, they're not attracted.
Now it's a hate crime.
So how does this end?
I honestly don't know.
I don't think I have all the answers, but I do think it's important to highlight.
And I also was really frustrated because there is no way to address this without being called right-wing, even though it's the left fighting with the left.
Naturally, the right is also pushing back alongside, you know, individuals like Laura, who is a lesbian, and they will agree with her.
But if I, no matter which left-wing position I take on this issue, I will be called either transphobic or misogynist.
So you know what?
I don't know what you expect from me, but I will tell you this.
If we don't work these problems out, it will only get worse for everybody.
Stick around.
Next segment is coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all there.
A man in a MAGA hat has been arrested for bear macing a crowd of protesters in Santa
Monica in one of these street battles between Antifa, particularly this group, it was, it
was communists.
And I mean that literally, it's a group called the Revolutionary Communist Party that organizes
through another site they're affiliated with called Refuse Fascism.
And there were pro-Trump people and there were anti-Trump people and they were protesting
each other on the Santa Monica Pier.
Now this has huge implications.
It is a bit silly and there's a lot to go through.
So the first thing that we need to talk about was this guy, a Trump supporter.
I'm not gonna play any games.
Guy in a MAGA hat, it was two guys actually, jumped out from the Trump supporter side and sprayed a bunch of people.
We can play the same game all day and night when Antifa tries and says, that wasn't really Antifa, well, there's nothing you can do about it, okay?
Guy in a MAGA hat is accused.
Now here's the thing though, okay?
He claims he was innocent, that's my understanding.
Uh, however, we do have video of at least one incident.
It's not clear if this is the incident in question, but we have a photo of the man as he's being arrested.
This is the guy, apparently, right here, wearing gloves.
I think this is the same guy with the backwards hat.
Wearing a blue marijuana shirt.
And then we can see later on, same shirt, backwards hat, no sunglasses, being arrested.
Now here, he's not wearing gloves.
So, let's go through this story.
Let me break it down.
And I want to talk about the deeper ramifications of the political conflict in the street, and why I think things might actually, they might be really bad.
Actually, there's a lot to go through.
Let's read.
They say, the Daily Mail, a Trump supporter was arrested after spraying bear repellent on a crowd protesting against the president at Santa Monica Pier, authorities said.
Pro and anti-Trump demonstrators began shouting at each other on Saturday when a scuffle broke out.
This is according to police.
A video posted online showed a man wearing a red MAGA hat circling the crowd and then unleashing a torrent of spray from a canister.
Some in the crowd were seen holding Donald Trump and U.S.
flags, while others waved orange posters that read, Trump Pence Must Go.
Both groups appeared to be involved in an argument before the substance was sprayed at the panicked crowd.
Full stop.
There's people on the ground fighting.
So I can't tell you why they decided to spray, but two guys, I'll pull up the video and we'll go through it, but people fall to the ground, a fight's breaking out, and then on the Trump side they start spraying into the crowd.
So you can see here some photos, which I went through.
Before the violence erupted, one man could be heard chanting Trump 2020.
I don't see why that's relevant.
We know they're Trump supporters.
Nobody was seriously hurt by the repellent, which is similar to pepper sprays used by police, according to officials.
Many ran away screaming and coughing.
And one woman was seen vomiting nearby the scene around 1.20pm.
A witness told KTLA5.
Okay.
Well, at least they're only using pepper spray, right?
The man could be seen pulling a canister from a holster and using it on the crowd during the brawl, pointing the can in various directions.
Now let's stop.
Okay, here's the claim.
Where was it holstered?
You know, his shirt could be covering it.
When you look up and look to this guy, who they're accusing of being the dude, you can see it looks like there's something in his pocket.
Although I'm not going to make any insinuations because you can start making some adult jokes, but I can't tell you for sure.
But I do believe he did spray the crowd.
We'll get to this.
They say police soon arrived and cornered the man who protested his innocence as enraged protesters told officers he had a weapon.
He was then led away in handcuffs to cheers from the anti-Trump demonstrators.
One man who bore the brunt of the pepper spray, speaking to a camera, said he poured milk on his face to counteract the effects of the substance.
I think it's about it.
We'll read a little bit more, they say.
A man who could face charges, including violating the terms of his parole from a previous weapons violation.
Wait, what?
That's not even a sentence.
A man who could face charges, including violating the terms of his parole from a previous weapons violation, according to the Los Angeles Times.
What?
His name was not released, and investigators are trying to determine whether a second man also sprayed the crowd.
So perhaps they're saying the guy who was arrested has a potential parole violation, I guess?
I don't know.
Sentence is broken, dude.
There is a second person.
We can see it in the video.
I'll show you.
Atlas Winfrey, an organizer of the anti-Trump demonstration, told local media,
the Trump supporters were already there on the pier when we got up there from the beach.
The Trump people were wearing their MAGA hats and waving flags.
The Trump people wearing their hats and waving flags were there to intimidate and incite a
confrontation. But they were there before you, I guess.
That doesn't seem to make sense to me.
The protest was organized by the group refusefascism.org and coincided with other protests held across the country on Saturday, including New York City.
It's possible the Trump supporters preempted this, knowing it was organized.
In which case, this is one of the few moments where Trump supporters showed up to an Antifa event.
Well, there you go.
While it's typically Antifa showing up to Trump supporter events and attacking them, at least it looks like in this regard, The Trump supporters preempted them.
But again, be it a clever attempt at making it hard to understand, they were there first, but the event was organized first.
So, take it for what it is.
Also, I want to point out, Refuse Fascism, it's my understanding, is a subset of a group called RevCom.
RevCom, the Revolutionary Communist Party, are detested by many, many people on the left as being jackboot weirdos, conspiracy theorists, and they're using the Refuse Fascism so they can take the Antifa branding.
Keep that in mind.
And they're the ones who are handing out these signs.
So, you know, I went to a protest in New York and I asked them, If they supported RevCom, and they got really mad.
And I said, Refused Fascism is a subset, it's my understanding, okay, it's been a while since I've gone through all their stuff, but Refused Fascism was launched by the Revolutionary Communist Party, and some older women were really angry, like, no, no, I refuse, that is not true, that is not communist.
And I was like, I'm not saying you can't oppose the president, I'm saying, I was wondering literally if you are supporting RevCom, if like, are you one of their members?
It was a huge protest.
It got a bunch of people involved.
I believe RevCom, which is despised by many people on the left, is using this to rally people who don't know what RevCom is, like a rebranding tactic.
So that's about it.
There's some photos.
And they say, you know, impeach, and it's impeach with a Trump hair and Trump 2020.
So here's the video.
And what I want to do is just go through it a little bit and point out why I think this guy is the one who did it.
So we can see here, um, I think, here we go.
So, take a look on the right of the screen, I'll stop right here.
This man in the white hat, you can see his arm going up, and then there's his arm and he is spraying.
That's him, the guy in the white hat.
Now, back here, you can see the red cap, it's backwards, and you can see the arm with the glove spraying.
It looks just like the guy who was arrested.
He's wearing the backwards hat with the blue pot shirt, and as we can see earlier on, He was wearing gloves and sunglasses, backwards hat, and a pot shirt.
So I believe... It's really, really hard to tell.
I went through this video over and over again.
But you can then see after it's sprayed, the spray moves to the right, and then the guy with the blue shirt and a backwards hat and sunglasses with a glove can be seen running away and circling around.
So he's claiming he's innocent.
I'm not going to be judge and jury here, but I want to talk about something having to do with the escalation and why I think this incident is actually fairly serious.
It's not the most serious thing we've ever seen.
But I was talking with somebody earlier.
Because there's, you know, somebody who's not particularly in politics, and I asked them, do they ever see anything about, like, Trump—actually, I'll give you a—let me start this with another statement.
I was playing video games with some friends not too long ago, and I asked them about, you know, the Trump controversy stuff, and I do this all the time, and I mentioned—this was around the Brett Kavanaugh stuff, the resurgence, and they were like, who?
I was like, you know how they're doing that news thing in the news, like the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court justice?
They were like, I don't know who that is.
And I'm like, wow.
All right, you're lucky.
So I was talking with somebody and they basically were telling me that on a day-to-day basis, nobody has any idea about anything going on in politics.
Like the only thing that anyone ever really notices is these weird curriculum things popping up in their schools.
This is actually really, really bad news in two ways.
If the average adult isn't paying attention to anything in news, there's actually several things to consider.
If it is true that outside of politicos, like I'm very politically, you know, absorbed, I should say, if regular people have no idea what's going on, Well, for one, it's bad news for the left.
Why?
Trump's gonna get re-elected.
If they don't know who Kavanaugh is, or anything about Biden and Ukraine, they're gonna vote on the economy, and Trump will win.
That's good news for the right.
There's bad news in that, if their schools are bringing home weird curriculum things, and these weird things are popping up, the parents aren't paying attention to what's happening, their kids are gonna start believing weird things.
And I don't think every change in school curriculums is a bad thing, and I certainly think you'll find many people on the right being like, Everything is, you know, like, all of these changes are bad, bad, bad.
I think there are dangerous authoritarian societal shifts that we're seeing pop up.
But it could be, it could be anomalous.
I don't want to act like every single school everywhere.
So this is the point.
Not that I'm saying it's true, because all of a sudden you're going to have everyone, oh, Tim's conspiracy theory.
No, I'm saying that if there are parents complaining about these changes in curriculum, It means they are noticing now, which means those that don't notice, and it's probably many people, are never going to address it.
They're never going to have a chance to talk to their kids about what they may or may not be concerned about.
That's the other bad thing, but I'll tell you the even worse thing.
When I was thinking about what's going on with these street battles, and look at this, this is a Santa Monica pier, man.
People are telling me they don't know what's going on, they're not paying attention, they haven't heard anything.
These are my regular friends who don't do politics, because believe it or not, I hang out with people and they have no idea what any of this is.
It's like we're playing Hearthstone and Warcraft and going skateboarding.
I ask them and they're like, I have no idea what you're talking about, man.
So I started thinking, like, you know what?
Maybe it's really that us politicos, like all of you who watch my stuff and the stuff I read, we just read way too much.
And so we're looking at a highlight reel, whereas the average person is living in a totally different world.
And I thought about it and I said, actually, this is bad news.
Because this is the Santa Monica Pier.
If you don't know this is going on at the Santa Monica Pier, I think you're going to get blindsided when it escalates.
Let me stress, you know, the Santa Monica Pier has Ferris wheels and funnel cakes and arcades and it's silly, foofy fun with people playing music and eating hot dogs.
And a fight between Refuse Fascism and Trump supporters broke out with fights on the ground.
You can see here on the bottom there's people all on the ground rolling around fighting and bear spray all over the place.
And now you're going to have those regular people being like, what's happening?
Well, I'll tell you this.
If you're paying attention to politics, you would have known this was coming, and when you saw the crowd, you'd have been like, we gotta get out.
Think about it this way.
If you don't care about politics, but you pay attention enough, and you don't want to be involved, you would have said to your family and your friends, dude, do not go near them.
I think average people may have seen this, like the arguing and the yelling, and maybe been like, we should probably move, but there were a lot of people, like one woman's throwing up, there were a lot of people who were not politically active, who were on the pier enjoying themselves, totally oblivious To what was about to go down.
Now, is this the worst thing that's ever happened in the world?
No, no, no, no, no.
But what I'm concerned about is an escalation.
And this is another skirmish, okay?
We've seen a bunch of small fights.
We have seen some of these moments get very serious and reach the national stage and loss of life.
This was small, but it could have gotten worse.
And it's possible that other events like this get even worse.
And these people who don't know and don't pay attention I think about it like, is it important to focus on all of this news or is it, you know, just an exaggeration?
And I think about this.
You know what, man?
That 40-year-old dude who brought his young daughter and their friends to the pier and not paying attention to anything that was going on probably is concerned right now because his kids just got a whiff of pepper spray.
That's the pier, man.
It's Ferris wheels.
It's arcades.
It's kids playing.
Not always, but it's beachgoers.
It is a moderately upper-class place, you know.
It's Santa Monica.
But think about it.
You don't pay attention.
You don't care.
And then I ask myself, are we just paying too much attention?
Is the world really just safe and normal?
And then somebody walks into this mess and doesn't realize it's about to get dangerous.
And it could have been worse.
We have seen the Antifa people crack skulls for carrying American flags, okay?
We have seen the dramatic escalation.
We have seen far-right extremists take extreme acts.
If they're not paying attention to this world, I mean, it is getting worse.
So I guess it is fair to say, to a certain extent, we do have a hyper-focused view on all of these things, and we probably give it more weight than it deserves, to an extent.
To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
I see this and I say, aha, there's a nail.
Eh, maybe not.
But, final point to reiterate.
I would have seen this and said, okay, it's about to get bad.
Take your kids and go.
And to those that aren't paying attention, it will negatively impact you.
If it gets worse, it's going to blindside these people who aren't paying attention.
That leads me to believe it's not that we're exaggerating or reading too much into this.
It's that to an extent we are, right?
Just a little bit.
But this is the correct point to be made, I guess.
Well, while you don't have to live your life in this world of crazy street battles and pepper spray, you should be paying attention to it.
That's what I'm trying to say.
That's what I'm trying to say.
It will affect your life.
Pure burger, right?
Right there.
See it?
They make cheeseburgers.
That's where you're gonna get blasted with two canisters of bear spray.
Could you imagine?
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
on the main channel, youtube.com slash timcast.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you all then.
The world is changing, my friends.
And part of this is due to Donald Trump.
But admittedly, Donald Trump didn't create the current cultural revolution that we're going through.
He's a product of it.
And now we have this story from the Daily Wire.
Trump destroys fundraising records, rakes in $300 million for re-election campaign.
This is the most well-funded re-election campaign in history, according to fundraising numbers released last week.
But today, this segment is kind of a follow-up to my main channel video, because this culture revolution isn't just about Donald Trump shattering records, rallying a massive base, filling stadiums.
It's also about the other side.
As I mentioned in the previous video, the next AOC launches 2020 campaign, every single person in Texas agrees with me.
So we've got two things to consider.
The first story I want to go through, and the lead as it were, is Donald Trump shattering this record.
But I would be remiss if I didn't point out that there is a new political landscape and it is not Hillary Clinton's.
And my next segment is going to be about that, so I'll follow up.
But let's start talking about Trump and this fundraising, but then also talk about the far-left's great rise to power as well.
I'll be interested to see, moving forward, if the far-left can actually survive and overtake the moderates.
The Daily Wire reports.
Politico reports that Trump and the Republican National Coalition have raised more than $300 million, and the president alone has $158 million cash on hand to kick off his re-election bid, more than any other sitting president at this point in his campaign.
Did you adjust that for inflation?
The numbers have Democrats worried.
And at least one strategist told the Washington, D.C.-based news outlet that, quote, the resources he has will be put to work anywhere and everywhere that he feels like he can scare up electoral votes and Democrats will never catch up.
It's just too much money.
That's crazy.
More than any other president at this point in their campaign.
All of the Democrats, when you break them up, like Bernie raised, I think, something like $30 million.
It's pretty good.
But here's the most important point, and this is why I do want to bring up the far left.
Bernie voters, for the most part, are not going to support anybody else.
So that $30 million might as well just be for a different political party.
One of the big things you've got to take into consideration with fundraising numbers.
Is that everyone is donating to one Republican.
So he gets everybody.
But the Democrats are fractured.
It's a primary season.
So people are donating to the primary candidate they like.
I mean, I donated to Yang and Tulsi Gabbard.
I wouldn't donate to anybody else.
I gotta admit, I do have respect for Bernie in a lot of ways, but I think he's tried playing the political game too hard for me, and he's gone establishment, endorsing Hillary, making identitarian comments, turned me off from a lot of what he's proposing.
So, sorry.
But here's the point.
If, say, we got to a point where it was just Elizabeth Warren, I would not donate.
And that's the important point that needs to be brought up about the Democrats today.
It's what I was mentioning in the previous video on my main channel.
The Bernie or bust mentality.
So many people on Twitter are saying Democrat here, but Yang or bust.
And I'm like, Yeah.
And a lot of the Yang voters are saying, I'm voting for Yang, but would consider Tulsi, and vice versa.
Not only do you have Bernie or Bust, you've got Yang and Tulsi or Bust.
And I'm going to have to say it.
I'm right there.
I am going to vote for Tulsi.
She is my first choice.
And I know absolutely she is not perfect.
And I have been, you know, I put it this way, like, Something like Trump, I'm on the negative side of, but I can still respect the things he's done.
So I think it's fair to say, actually, if you look at national level polls, I'm in, like, the national level polls kind of reflect who I am as a milquetoast fence-sitter, being that my approval of Trump is in the, like, the high 30s, low 40s, being that most, mostly, I'm not a fan of him for character reasons, for foreign policy issues, and that means I'm not gonna support him, right?
My approval rating is probably, like, 38%, you know?
Not even the average, necessarily.
I lean a little bit lower than the average.
But I will stress, like, as somebody who tries to be analytical and who's willing to speak with Trump supporters and understand them, I understand why it's inverted for Trump supporters.
I get it.
I'm just where I am.
Tulsi, I'm inverted, right?
So, my disapproval of Tulsi is in the, like, mid-30s.
Because there's a lot of things.
There's a lot of policy issues I disagree with her on, but there's principal issues, there's her service record, there's, I mean, the relatability with the smear machine, which I also can give to the Trump supporters, too.
Like, we're right here as brothers and sisters of a nation who are being smeared.
But I'll tell you one thing.
You know why the left hates Tulsi?
And which probably explains why I do like her?
They smear her as a nationalist.
And that's really, really funny.
I don't consider myself a diehard overt nationalist.
But Candace Owens tweeted something that made me be like, this is exactly why I think there is a commonality between Trump supporters, and Tulsi fans, and Yang fans for that matter, and it's because we care about country more than politics.
We just happen to disagree.
And it's as simple as that.
It's why I can walk up to a guy with a MAGA hat and be like, let's talk about what we think we can do better.
Because we all agree, we love America, we want America to succeed, and where it falls apart is, I like Tulsi's policy proposals on these core issues, and I don't like Trump's policy proposals, and I gotta admit, for me it's almost entirely foreign policy.
And there is some criticism for Tulsi, I get it.
But I don't know.
I don't know how I got off on this tangent.
But here's the point I'm trying to make.
I'm not going to support anybody else.
So when you look at the money that Trump has raised, and you want to consider the far left rise as well, the big play here that needs to be considered, The Democrats who have donated to the full pot, right?
When they say Democrats all together have raised, you know, $200 million or whatever, I think the number is like $150 million or something.
It's less than what Trump has raised.
It may be more now because the next quarter numbers are coming in.
But Trump has raised more than all Democrats combined.
That means the money going to Trump is from people who are putting their money where their mouth is.
They're going to vote for Trump, okay?
But get this.
If you were to combine all of the Democrat fundraising and say, but consider how much money Democrats have raised, which means when the primary, you know, when the individual wins the nomination and goes to primary, they may have comparable numbers to campaign off of full stop.
The people who voted for Bernie will not support Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, or otherwise.
So you might as well not combine those numbers and break it down to the individuals.
We're not looking at a two-party race.
The Democrats are fractured by candidate.
I think Pete Buttigieg is a cool guy.
I would never vote for him.
I disagree with his foreign policy stances.
They seem sophomoric.
Elizabeth Warren has some good takes on big tech.
Never gonna vote for her.
She seems duplicitous.
Joe Biden, don't get me started on Joe Biden.
What is that guy even?
I don't even know what he's doing.
He was the pick for VP and I don't even know what he believes in, okay?
You've got Andrew Yang.
Massive list of policy proposals.
No governmental experience.
No foreign policy experience.
And those are where my mind is because I primarily used to do conflict overseas and urban civil unrest and stuff.
So yeah, I have a very heavy view focused on conflict.
And that brings me to Tulsi Gabbard, who is the staunch anti-war candidate, who's a major in the National Guard.
And being a major in the National Guard is like, you get all the points in the world.
Because after that, I'm just like, you're a person of integrity.
You have strived and worked very, very hard.
You have committed yourself to serving this country, both in politics and in military service.
And that is a love for America I can't help but respect.
So that's, I gotta be honest, that's like the biggest factor.
Her commitment to opposing wars.
Anyway, I don't want to keep getting into that.
You know, Tulsi's been in the news lately, and part of the reason why I want to like,
vent on like, why I do like her, has to do with a lot of Trump supporters
ragging on her progressive policies.
But here's what Candace Owens tweeted.
She said that, you know, basically, you can disagree with her on policies,
but you respect that she truly does love America.
And I'm like, yes.
So while we disagree on the ultimate end result of what our political positions are, imagine a country where you have Tulsi's people on one faction and Trump's on the other.
And that's a functioning, strong eagle with two strong wings.
Mutual respect for the love of our country and a disagreement on policy.
And we will argue, but at the end of the day, it's not hard to sit down with a Tulsi supporter And a Trump supporter and a Tulsi Gabbard supporter can sit down and laugh about the absurdity in the media and the press and how we're being smeared and completely disagree.
And that's basically what I did with Glenn Beck.
So anyway, you get the point.
Let's read a little bit more about their assessment on Trump and his numbers.
The Democratic presidential contenders collectively have outraised Trump.
See, there is important information.
But as Democratic strategists point out, the money is going to cross purposes.
Each individual candidate is using their war chest to attack others.
And there's no guarantee that any candidate alone will be able to spark the same excitement as the field has, collectively.
There it is.
Plain and simple.
So I must make sure I add this point as well.
That the money that Democrats have is being used to smear other Democrats.
And you know what that means?
That's money being spent for Donald Trump.
Yep.
I just said it.
When Bernie runs a campaign ad saying Elizabeth Warren is bad for this reason, that is money benefiting Donald Trump.
You know why?
Campaign ads that make her look bad and then she wins the primary will still exist in some form and Trump can still use them.
Think about it.
Isn't that amazing?
You get Kamala Harris making an ad saying, don't vote, support Kamala Harris, don't support this person.
Or you get Kamala Harris on the debate stage saying, Elizabeth, you did X. Then Trump's going to save that clip and be like, Elizabeth, you did X. All of that will be weaponized forever.
So even if they outrace Trump, they're still using it against themselves, and it's still Trump's money.
There you go!
You know, but don't underestimate Bernie or Bust.
That's the big play here.
So I will just briefly mention this, because I think you get the point on the other story I was trying to make, is that this new rise of the far left shows the fracture on the Democrat side.
And these new primary challenges to moderates shows that it's not a two-party system anymore.
It's a three-party system.
And the Republicans are the biggest party.
And that's why they're going to keep dominating.
The far left will not support moderates.
I'm sorry.
They hate me!
Dude, take a look at how the establishment left and the far left treat people like Tulsi, people like me, other politically homeless individuals.
Look at Dave Rubin!
Dave Rubin desperately tried to be like, I'm a liberal, please.
And they're like, get out.
We don't want you.
It's like, fine.
You lost him.
There you go.
Congratulations.
It's so crazy.
But I am a perfect example, and so is Tulsi.
Tulsi, who has done so much to try and keep moderates, and even some conservatives, to pull them to the Democrat side through being respectable.
Because conservatives don't like Tulsi's policies, but she will treat you with respect.
And that goes a long, long way.
Anyway, you get the point.
Bernie or bust is the end of the Democratic Party.
I don't mean specifically Bernie.
I mean the fact that all of these Democratic politicians are trying to take control.
There's no central Democrats anymore, right?
The Democrats are fractured.
Buttigieg does not represent Bernie's voters.
Bernie's voters do not represent me.
Tulsi's more so do, and so do Yang's.
But none of us support each other.
So, Trump wins.
And that's why he's breaking records.
Anyway, stick around, I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
The era of the establishment is over.
There's a lot to talk about here, but two things I want to highlight.
Hillary Clinton, with a single tweet, has proven to me exactly why she should not be president.
And I must admit, this is worse than what Donald Trump sent to Erdogan.
Now if you haven't been following the news, Trump drafted a letter that was, I'll use the word I've used a couple times, sophomoric.
Is that the right word?
It was, it was like, people have called it a third grade reading level.
They criticized Trump.
He sent a letter to Erdogan saying, don't be a fool, you'll look bad.
And it was very, very simple language.
And he was criticized for it.
I'll tell you what, you want to criticize a president for using simple language to somebody whose first language is in English?
I guess that's okay.
He has translators, I understand.
Apparently they reported that Erdogan tossed the letter in the bin and it was, like, disrespectful.
Fine, fine, fine.
Listen.
Trump making a mistake with a legitimate effort is not as bad as deliberately being childish and putting out this stupid boomer meme.
Sorry to insult the boomers again.
But Hillary Clinton's letter she tweeted out just shows me that she is too immature.
I mean, you look at everything Hillary Clinton's done since 2016, and she is a petulant child, and it was the best thing for this country that she did not get elected.
I have to say that.
But it's not just her.
And I'll read the silly letter.
I will stress, too, I am not proud or inspired at all by Trump's letter to Erdogan.
OK, I think it was bad.
I think it was very bad.
But, OK, am I going to be mad that Trump did a thing that was not that good?
No, I'll simply say, look, you guys know I'm not a big fan of the guy.
But should Trump be president?
Well, the economy is doing really, really well.
I think we can we can argue that maybe Hillary would have done some things we don't know about that we've done well.
But in the end, While I don't like what Trump did and can criticize the letter for being bad, Hillary Clinton had no reason to play a silly seven-year-old game.
Trump was legitimately sending a letter.
It was a bad letter.
Okay, fine.
We'll criticize it.
We'll move on from that.
Hillary Clinton jumping out into the fray after never stopping with the Russia nonsense, smearing Tulsi.
I'm not singling out the letter, okay?
I'm trying to point out that everything she's been doing since 2016, Talking about how it was stolen from her, how she beat Donald Trump, but it wasn't fair, about how the Russians are propping up Tulsi.
It's like, dude, you should not be president, okay?
End of story.
We have this one.
I cannot believe this.
Mitt Romney.
Well, we dodged a bullet with this guy, too.
Look at this.
Mitt Romney has secret Twitter account with alter ego name Pierre Delecto, where he promoted his 2012 presidential campaign, nagged unflattering reporters, and called Donald Trump's Syria pullout awful.
There were some people ragging on me on Twitter, and I was tweeting at them, and then somebody else tweeted back, and they accused the random person of being me.
I have no sock puppet accounts.
I do not have alternate accounts.
I don't care.
I just don't look at notifications.
But everyone just, it is the most insane world we live in.
Mitt Romney with a secret Pierre Delecto is proof he should not have been elected president, and I'm glad he wasn't.
I wonder what Obama did.
I have no idea.
I mean, at least for all of Obama's faults, and boy did he have many, of course he did, his foreign policy stuff just really soured on me, at least he was adult-like, I guess?
You know, he could furl his brow and say, nope, yes we can, and he had some...
Charisma behind him?
But here's what we deserve.
No, no, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
We don't deserve this.
We don't.
And that's why they didn't get elected.
Hillary Clinton tweeted this, found in the archives.
This is from the White House, Washington, October 16, 1962.
Dear Premier Khrushchev, don't be a dick, okay?
Get your missiles out of Cuba.
Everybody will say, yay, Khrushchev.
You're the best.
But if you don't, everybody will be like, what an a-hole, and call your garbage country the Soviet Bunion.
I can't even- I can't even swear, okay?
And you're making me swear.
What is this?
Give you a jingle later hugs?
This is, it's, look, I get it, you want to make fun of Trump.
But man, I gotta stress, Hillary Clinton is obsessed.
Now look, Trump won't shut up about Hillary too, but come on, to the extent at which Hillary talks about Trump, it is never stopped.
Okay?
It is never stopped.
I'm not saying Trump should be president.
I'm saying Hillary shouldn't have been president, and I'm glad.
And I gotta admit, I like Hillary.
You know, the way I was explaining it to somebody, I was like, I think I figured it out.
I think I figured out my feelings on 2016 and why Trump won.
Because my feelings were shared by so many people, and it's this.
Orange man bad.
Yes.
Neoliberal lady evil.
You see the difference?
There are a lot of people, myself included, who think Trump is bad.
Who are willing, and I say this all the time, to respect the opinions and have conversations with those who think Trump is good.
But here's the thing.
When I see a bad orange man, I go, yeah, whatever.
We had George W. Bush.
This is what we do.
We go through these.
But when I saw Hillary Clinton and many other people, we didn't see bad.
We saw evil.
We saw crony government.
We saw corruption, immature behavior.
Just this nasty, elitist, snooty, awful behavior.
Evil.
Strong words.
But I'll tell you what.
I am not somebody who votes for the lesser of two evils.
So, surprise, I didn't vote for either of them, okay?
And I'm not gonna.
I'm gonna vote on principle.
I'm gonna vote for someone who inspires me.
And right now, it's Tulsi Yaring who have my attention.
It's not a guarantee.
It's not.
You can lose me easily.
I am a very roguish-type individual.
But it's not—you look at—you all agree with me.
I'll just put it like that.
Everybody watching is like, yes, Tim, we get it.
That's ridiculous.
Why would you tweet this out?
Why would she do this?
And there's rumors she wants to run again.
Let's read a little bit about Mr. Pierre Delecto.
Mitt Romney is what, in his 70s?
What is with these adult children?
And it's just so ridiculous.
Mitt Romney has a secret Twitter account that he used to promote his failed 2012 campaign and now uses to engage with reporters and condemn political moves with which he disagrees.
It was revealed Sunday evening by Slate that the 72-year-old Utah senator goes by the name Pierre Delecto with the handle Cause9876 on his undercover Twitter account that he admittedly uses to act as a lurker on the social media site.
You can lurk with your regular account, dude.
I guess if you don't want people to know you're following somebody.
In an interview with The Atlantic published Sunday, Romney gave some clues to his alter ego that led Slate to be able to track down the Pierre Delecto account.
You know what's funny?
The same people who voted for Trump voted for Obama.
You, you, you guys who voted for Obama in 2012 and then voted for Trump When we go to the casino, I'm going to tell you to bet.
You say, you bet for me.
Because whatever it is, they saw that Romney was bad, they saw Clinton was bad, and those are the moderate, you know, independent types who knew better.
They were like, you know, Romney, you can't vote for that guy.
You vote for Obama.
And then afterwards, okay, you don't vote for Hillary.
You made the right choice.
But that's why they won, right?
Because these people made the right choice.
Let me try and reframe that.
We're just learning about this weird behavior, okay?
Hillary Clinton hasn't let 2016 go.
So the moderates who chose to elect Obama and Trump, you didn't know this was gonna happen, okay?
So you bet right.
And now we're learning we dodged bullets.
What do they call me, a lurker, Romney said when explaining in the interview that he has a secret Twitter account in order to keep an eye on political conversations.
I won't give you the name of it, Romney said, but told the reporter he's following 668 people and went on to list some of the accounts he follows, which includes journalists, late-night comedians, and athletes.
The account does not follow Donald Trump.
He tweets so much, Romney said, he compared the president to one of his nieces who overshares on Instagram.
I love her, but it's like, ah, it's too much.
He's not wrong about that.
He does tweet too much.
Romney confirmed later Sunday night that he is behind the account Semois.
Romney told The Atlantic, which in French means, it's me.
A funny tidbit considering the account name is French.
What is Romney doing?
This is so weird.
And then he shut it down, I guess.
He had followers.
Since Slate's article revealing Delecto's real identity hit the account, which only has 10 tweets, went private.
The account was found through Romney's oldest grandchild, Ali Romney Critchlow, who only has 481... Is this a new story?
Because it sounds really, really familiar.
Yeah, this is from today.
Wasn't there another politician that did the same thing and this happened?
I feel like we're living in a loop, you know?
Hillary Clinton's still in the news for some reason, arguing with Trump, and Trump's still talking about the DNC servers, and Mitt Romney, and whatever this is.
They say majority of the counts, Romney, as Delecto follows, are political reporters, politicians, operatives, or pundits.
He notably also follows late-night comedians Conan O'Brien, Jimmy Kimmel, and Jimmy Fallon.
He also, why is it, hold on, you know, he only had 10 tweets, so why is it super relevant that he was doing this anyway?
I'll say, you know what, I'll walk back some of what I was saying earlier.
I don't like Mitt Romney.
I'm glad he didn't get elected.
But, you know, in the end, did it really matter that he made 10 comments over time with a secret account?
I think if he, using his official account, followed people, they'd be questioning why he was following certain individuals.
So maybe it makes sense that he had the account, and he didn't really say anything, so does it matter?
Loyal to principle trumps loyalty to party or person, right Brit?
Wrong.
John, agree on Trump's awful decision, but what could the Senate do to stop it?
Don't read comments ever.
Could you imagine having someone reply to you and then finding out later it was Mitt Romney?
That'd be weird.
Here's one.
Someone said GOP Senators sticking up for Richard Burr.
Blunt Shelby Collins Rubio.
Romney, too, said to Post that he has confidence in Chairman Burr.
So I think, you know, look man, I can understand why Romney would do it, but I'll just say this.
It's very childish.
Speak for yourself.
Don't hide behind another name.
You don't want to get press attention.
Too bad you're a public figure.
I guess I should say, in the end, all of my criticism to Hillary Clinton for that ridiculous tweet about the letter to JFK.
You're not funny.
You're not a comedian.
Why is Adam Schiff and Hillary Clinton trying to do bits?
I don't care about your... You're not funny.
You're creepy.
You're weird.
You know what, man?
I hate how they always call Hillary a centrist.
It's like, no, stop doing that.
She is a crony, corporatist, neoliberal lady.
Okay?
Stop smearing centrists.
The centrists are the people who are, like, reaching out to both sides and saying, I agree with you here and out there, and I agree with you here and out there, let's talk about it.
Okay?
Anyway, you get the point.
We are run by children.
Okay?
And Donald Trump does not get a free pass on this one.
Donald Trump's tweets are over the top.
You know, I know people are going to be like, why are you talking about Hillary, not Trump?
No, no, no, no, no, listen.
Trump won.
Okay?
Is he still sour for 2016?
He is.
And you can criticize him for it.
But Hillary Clinton didn't win.
I understand why Trump is salty.
For three years he had to deal with false accusations.
So there's some criticism, but some understanding.
Okay, I'm gonna keep saying the same thing, so stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
GOP congressmen send letter to CNN's Jeff Zucker for refusing to air Trump campaign ads.
Not just that, but they are accusing CNN of violating federal law.
I don't know exactly what law they're referencing, but they do have the letter and we can read it.
But there's another interesting story here.
So, for those that haven't been following, we are in the midst of a series of whistleblower leaks from CNN coming from Project Veritas.
And we are now learning that CNN acts in an overtly partisan manner.
And I have some choice criticism for CNN.
Notably, they're media reporters who don't really cover the media and just talk about Fox News and their outrage and tweet their outrage to people they don't like.
It's overtly partisan.
So we have another story I may get to, but in the similar vein of CNN just acting in an overt partisan way.
Check this out.
CNN analyst Tubin says he regrets talking about Clinton emails, blames it for her 2016 election loss.
Yes, CNN, you played a huge role in Trump winning.
And they don't seem to realize that they're still doing it.
See, the thing is, there's no such thing as bad press.
Not airing Trump's campaign ads.
Congratulations, you've made a bunch of stories, and now instead of spending the money, Trump will get earned press.
You see how that works, CNN?
You don't have that many ratings.
I'll tell you this, the ad that would have aired on CNN would probably get less views than this video being made to talk about you not airing that ad.
Isn't it funny how that works?
Let's read the story from The Daily Caller.
They say, a group of Republican congressmen sent a letter to CNN president Jeff Zucker for refusing to air President Donald Trump's campaign ads on the network.
The letter, spearheaded by South Carolina rep Jeff Duncan, was also signed by the following Republicans.
We'll read through the names.
It's a bunch of Republicans.
You got, wait, South Carolina rep Ralph Norman.
Oh, I was like, Norman?
Wait, isn't that?
No, no, no, that's the Northman.
They all believe CNN could be breaking the law by not airing Trump's campaign ads.
Let's just read the letter.
I'm not going to read, you know, they quote the letter.
So here it is, and they say, Dear Mr. Zucker, As a press organization utilizing the freedom of the press guaranteed to you in the First Amendment, it is particularly disheartening to see you suppressing the free speech of federal political candidates, potentially in violation of federal law and Supreme Court precedent.
As your news organization seems to have lost all sense of objectivity, spinning itself into oblivion to support left-leaning candidates and participating in distortions against conservative candidates, you have still operated within the boundaries of the First Amendment.
CNN has the right to spout your political commentators' opinions while millions of Americans change the channel to something else.
The law of the land and Supreme Court precedent protect your right to be loudly wrong.
Okay then, we're good, right?
They say.
Your decision, however, to disallow advertising from the sitting President of the United States, a man duly elected to that post despite your best efforts, is a step that falls beyond your First Amendment protections and one that we believe is in violation of the law and Constitution.
In the landmark Buckley v. Valeo case, the Supreme Court wrote, Discussion of public issue and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution.
The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such political expression in order to assure the unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.
Your decision to reject political ads by President Trump while still running ads for Democrat candidates violates the Buckley principles laid out by the Supreme Court.
Particularly concerning is your own rationale that your organization chose not to run the ad in part because it disparaged CNN and its journalists.
Being personally offended is truly a poor reason to deny a candidate for public office the right to be heard, running contrary to both the intent of the Buckley decision and the self-proclaimed First Amendment values of your network.
I'm going to give some pushback, arguably in defense of CNN, but let's read the final passages, the final paragraph.
We urge you to correct this flagrant violation with all due haste and allow the paid Trump campaign advertisements to return to your airwaves immediately.
We await your response.
The next page just includes many of the Republican signatures.
They say, the lawmaker said that CNN's decision goes beyond the First Amendment protections and that it is in violation of the Constitution.
I'm not a lawyer or a legal expert, but I will disagree.
And let me read.
Okay, so they go on to say, we urge you to correct and air this thing.
Here's the thing.
The First Amendment protects you even if you can't be compelled to speak by the government, okay?
So, we all just heard what they're saying about Buckley v. Valeo, but I don't see that, at least in my opinion, as telling CNN they must air an advertisement.
I mean, that's going a bit too far.
When the left tries to argue that Twitter, Facebook, or otherwise are private platforms and can host anybody they want or remove anybody they want, I push back.
There is one Twitter, okay?
There is one Facebook.
There is one YouTube.
They serve different purposes.
That's it.
If Twitter is dominated by news personalities, and it's where most, you know, it's a lot of stories are generated there, and public attention is generated there, we have no choice.
The president isn't on an alternative platform, so there is no competition.
If we want to hear the president, it's Twitter, because Twitter dominates this sector of the market.
In which case, I believe there should be restrictions and protections.
However, CNN is but one channel, and while they do have a dominant platform, there are many, many other platforms you can choose from.
There is not one news channel.
There are many, many news channels.
And CNN isn't even the most viewed news channel, and so Trump can't access different viewers on different channels.
Admittedly, I'd be surprised if MSNBC would air his ads anyway.
So I think we do have a problem here.
If CNN is only going to be the orange man bad network and not air paid advertisements, well, they're taking an overt partisan stance.
In the end, though, can you compel CNN to run an advertisement they don't want to?
I think now you're getting to murky territory as a liberty-focused individual saying that CNN should be forced by the government, by precedent under government law, to espouse a political message.
That crosses the line for me.
When it comes to social media though, I'm focused more on monopolistic power.
I understand CNN is very, very powerful, but you get my point, right?
So I highlight this next story just because there are two similar things in kind of this vein where CNN essentially knows They play a partisan role, and I think there's a correlation here.
CNN doesn't have on me, right?
I've met with Oliver Darcy a couple times.
I know him.
I've met with- I met- I've met Ryan Souther a couple times.
He's interviewed me in the past.
Do they ever invite me on to talk about why they're wrong?
Of course not!
They bring on the echo chamber to drive those ratings, and they know it.
What's funny is- Trump won partly because CNN wouldn't shut up about it.
Jeff Zucker is so angry that it happened.
And according to these Veritas leaks, they all know it.
That Zucker is not only responsible for Trump because of what happened in 2016, but because he was working at NBC when Trump was gaining traction on The Apprentice and gaining success.
Zucker said it was a mistake to air all these Trump rallies, but they just couldn't help it.
The ratings were too good!
You know what they don't seem to understand?
And why this really blows my mind?
This talk about Trump all day every day, even this, CNN analyst Tubman says he regrets talking about Clinton emails.
You just did it again!
You just brought up Clinton emails again.
They don't understand what a meme is.
A condensed idea, a word, emails, in the context of politics, will invoke the idea of corrupt Democrats all over again.
And I defer back to, you know, Trump is a master of memes.
Pocahontas is a really great example.
The left says it's a slur.
They don't know what he's saying.
When Trump says Pocahontas, he is not saying, I'm disparaging you for your race or whatever.
He is saying, remember every single thing Elizabeth Warren did, calling herself Native American, and then doing the DNA test, he is trying to invoke a feeling that brings you back to that position.
They don't get it.
They can't meme, and this is proof.
CNN rejecting the ad.
Congratulations, you just played yourself.
You've created buzzworthiness, and the Republicans are sending this letter to make more news.
But here's a great example of a paradox.
It's someone saying, I regret, you know, it's like a fire truck on fire.
He regrets talking about Clinton emails because it helped her lose.
And you are literally now re-invoking negative attention about the Democrats, which will once again help Trump win.
CNN's chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said Monday that he regrets covering the Hillary Clinton email scandal as much as he did, adding that she very likely lost the election because of how much the media covered it.
And you're still, you know...
The Veritas leaks, okay?
I cite them again because what we're seeing here, the obsession they have with Trump is probably one of the best things Trump could ever ask for.
Trump recently announced, you know, he threatened to sue.
There's a letter sent.
But there's no such thing as bad press.
If all they do is talk about him, that's all anybody will know.
Now, they're gambling on negative partisanship.
It's what I brought up in the main channel video.
They're hoping that this time, by being overtly negative, it will force Trump out.
But I'll tell you what, man.
You can blame the president, you can rag on him all day and night, but while you simultaneously inspire the left to vote, you also inspire moderates who didn't know about Trump to vote the other way.
You see the point?
The way I explained it before is like, this guy Jeffrey Toobin is a great example.
He says, you know, he goes on TV and says, we shouldn't have talked about Hillary Clinton's email scandal.
Now you have two moderates.
And they both hear this, and one says, I agree, he shouldn't have, whatever, moving on.
But then you have another moderate who says, email scandal?
What about our email scandal?
And then he goes on Google, and then he reads and goes, whoa, I didn't know that!
You assume that telling a negative story is going to benefit you, but there's a possibility someone hears that And although you say a negative thing, they agree with the general concept of what you're saying.
So imagine if CNN did a segment where they were like, you know, double chocolate chip ice cream is terrible.
Chocolate is awful.
Don't eat it.
You can't believe how bad this chocolate ice cream is.
There's going to be people watching and going, yup, man, I hate chocolate ice cream.
And someone else is going to be like, I like chocolate ice cream.
Actually, double chocolate chip, huh?
I'm gonna go check that out.
Doesn't mean everyone's gonna believe the negativity.
It could absolutely backfire.
And so, you know, CNN learns nothing.
But you know what?
I'll give you my final point.
I know I made these points before, but it bears repeating.
