Democrats Are Winning And Trump WILL Be Impeached Says Bannon, Forecast Shows Democrat Path To 2020
Democrats Are WINNING And Trump WILL Be Impeached Says Bannon, Forecast Shows Democrat Path To 2020. On a podcast this morning Steve Bannon said that the democrats impeachment strategy is winning and that Trump will be impeached. Bannon called impeachment a sophisticated political disinformation campaign.The new Democrat 2020 strategy ignores the faults of their far left candidates and focuses specifically on Donald Trump. The plan is to make 2020 Trump On Trial and nothing else. They know their far left candidates will not find favor with Americans.But according to a forecast model from June this might actually work. Negative partisan ship is a huge factor in driving out voters. Based on 2018 one forecast model predicts Democrats will narrowly win with 279 electoral votes. This is interesting because it aligns with Moody's maximum voter turnout forecast which also gives Democrats a 279 vote victory.The battle is on for the soul of this country and everyone should heed the words of Lao Tzu“There is no greater danger than underestimating your opponent.”
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I've read a lot of stories talking about how Donald Trump is going to easily win 2020, about how the data shows it's going to be a 2020 landslide for Trump.
We've had many stories in the New York Times talking about his favorability being higher today than when he got elected, his base being larger, economic factors in his favor, the incumbent advantage.
We have Moody's Analytics saying he wins in almost every forecast model.
However, take a look at this story from Newsweek.
Steve Bannon says Nancy Pelosi is winning and will impeach Donald Trump.
Well, wait.
Impeachment doesn't mean Trump is removed.
It just means he's impeached.
Will he be convicted?
That's going to be up to the Senate.
And the Senate is dominated by Republicans.
But many people are concerned not enough Republicans are voicing their defense of the president.
Perhaps it's possible.
The Democrat strategy of negative partisanship works.
This is the game.
It's the point of impeachment.
They know none of their candidates are strong enough to beat Trump.
So they're not going to rely on their candidates.
They're going to rely on Trump himself.
Instead of trying to beat Trump, they're going to try to force him to lose.
Negative partisanship does drive voter turnout.
And here's where it gets interesting.
A forecast model, going back to July, shows that with maximum negative partisanship, guess what?
The Democrats actually win.
And here's where it's interesting.
If the goal of negative partisanship is to drive voter turnout, it actually aligns with Moody's analytics showing that maximum turnout results in the same electoral count, narrowly giving Democrats the win.
Now you may be saying, come on man, there's too much data showing a Trump victory.
The incumbent, right?
With a booming economy.
You're right, and I agree.
I think Moody's is going to be right on this one, but let me give you one quote.
Let me give all the Trump supporters this important quote from Lao Tzu.
Without Sue, there is no greater danger than underestimating your opponent.
So it would be wise to heed the warning of Steve Bannon and to look into what's going
on with the impeachment hearing, why it may actually drive massive voter turnout and Trump
could actually lose in 2020.
You may be thinking it's impossible, but again, the biggest mistake you'll make is underestimating
So let's get started with the story and see exactly what Bannon had to say.
Now, before we do, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's multiple ways you can give, but the best thing you can do, and I seriously mean this, share this video.
I'm competing with these big companies.
I don't have a massive marketing budget.
And think about it.
If all 100,000 people who watch this shared it, it'd get infinite views, right?
Well, that's the best way you can support.
Be greatly appreciated.
But let's read from Newsweek.
They write.
Steve Bannon said on Sunday morning that he believes Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is winning the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump and will impeach the president.
But I will add, okay, the House is dominated by Democrats, so of course they were always going to vote for impeachment, right?
Depends on what happens in the Senate, because this is all on tribal lines and the facts are probably irrelevant.
But there is some tomfoolery afoot, which I'll get to in a minute.
Bannon, who previously served as a top strategist and senior counselor for the president, made the remarks during an interview with radio talk show host and billionaire John Katsimatidis on The Answer in New York.
The Trump official, who co-founded the alt-right website Breitbart News, went on the show to promote his news podcast called War Room Impeachment, which intends to defend the president.
Pelosi, the top Democrat in Washington, quote, will impeach the President of the United States on two counts.
One, abuse of power.
The other, obstruction of power.
Did they mean obstruction of justice?
Obstruction of power?
Bannon told Katsimatidis he classified her impeachment inquiry as the most sophisticated political warfare and the most sophisticated political disinformation campaign.
I will stop.
If their goal is negative partisanship, that's exactly what they need to be doing.
It is their last-ditch effort.
It is their Hail Mary.
So it makes a ton of sense.
And I think Bannon's correct on this one.
They're winning right now, the former White House strategist asserted.
He said his podcast was set up to provide the American public with the facts and the details of the witnesses, the testimony, the legal arguments.
Bannon argued that he would defend Trump until he was, quote, acquitted.
Democrats launched the fast-moving impeachment inquiry against Trump at the end of September after an anonymous government whistleblower raised concerns that the president was abusing his office to pressure Ukraine to launch investigations in an effort to damage his political rivals.
We know all that.
And the story is actually quite complicated.
But if we're talking about, look, if it's tribal lines, the basis of what the impeachment inquiry started on makes no sense.
I'm sorry, it makes no difference.
In the end, the Democrats are going to vote in the majority to impeach Donald Trump.
It'll move to the Senate, and none of this matters.
But I will make a couple important points.
First, we've had Bill Taylor testify, essentially, in his opening statement, that Trump was trying to gain political favors.
All of a sudden, the media started screaming quid pro quo.
This proves it, right?
Here's the problem I have.
If you have seven witnesses come out saying Trump did not do this, and then one person comes out and says he did, why is that the truth?
Because that's what happened.
We have all of these witnesses saying no.
But then sure enough, one guy comes out.
Now we can start getting into the nitty-gritty of what's actually going on, and why Steve Bannon is calling it disinformation and political warfare.
And to give you an idea, I turned to this tweet from Matt Gaetz.
He said, Democrats are trying to use the natural advantage they have with the mainstream media to have secret interviews and selective leaks.
They're trying to pollute the American electorate with lies about the president.
Well, here's a bigger breakdown from Newsbusters.
I'll give you the gist of it, the general idea.
The only information we're getting out of these hearings is beneficial to Democrats.
Apparently, in some of these interviews where, yes, there are Republicans, the Republicans aren't leaking the information as to what's going on.
But the information that is being leaked is widely beneficial to the Democrats.
Why is it?
that Bill Taylor testified in secret, but we know what his opening statement was.
How come we haven't heard from the other individuals? Now, there have been some
statements and some leaks from the Republican side, notably that one individual stated that
Schiff was essentially pressuring him into saying the president was trying to get quid pro quo and
So it is a little bit of back and forth.
But let's break this down.
Let's read exactly what happens from Newsbusters.
They say, GOP rep exposes media following Adam Schiff's playbook during a contentious interview on MSNBC Thursday morning.
Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz defended the move by House Republicans to demand transparency in the impeachment inquiry and hammered the liberal media for using selective leaks from Democrats to declare President Trump guilty without ever having seen public testimony from witnesses.
Quote, I haven't actually heard you say anything since Bill Taylor testified, anchor Haley Jackson noted, on the 10 a.m.
show.
Referring to the former diplomat's closed-door testimony regarding the Ukraine controversy, she then demanded of Gates, yes or no, is it okay for any politician to trade military aid for political favors?
The Florida lawmaker replied that it would not be appropriate before adding, I also don't think that's what the president did.
Now here's the game that gets played.
When did you stop beating your wife?
Loaded questions.
Because only select information is being leaked from these hearings, the questions posed by the media will, in the end, just make Trump look bad.
Is Trump guilty?
We don't know.
Trump released the transcript, and all of a sudden the whistleblower's gone.
If you want to wage an impeachment inquiry, shouldn't the whistleblower be front and center?
But as soon as it came out that the whistleblower had ties to Schiff, and that Schiff had effectively lied by stating he had no contact with the whistleblower, all of a sudden the whistleblower's gone.
Poof.
Like smoke.
But here we are in an impeachment inquiry, and the Republicans and the public are not seeing all of the information.
Now, it's true, there are Republicans on these committees, but they can't talk about what's happening, because it's all in secret.
Well, conveniently then, Bill Taylor, who finally says something bad about the President, has his opening statement leaked, and now the question is posed as if it's a fact, when nothing has been proven.
Moments later, Jackson insisted.
It appears from the testimony that we have seen reported publicly from the witnesses here that this is in fact what the president did.
Gates cut her off from the selective leaks provided by Adam Schiff that aren't subject to cross-examination.
No, like, see you're playing the game here, Haley.
Jackson breathlessly fretted.
So do you dispute the facts then?
Gates pointed out that the facts she was citing were only from one side.
You're playing the game where they selectively leak stuff that is not subject to cross-examination, rigorous review, check against documents and timelines.
And this is what Bannon was saying.
It is political warfare.
And boy, is it sophisticated.
Finally, Gates and others storm that hearing room, and it doesn't matter.
It's all on partisan lines.
Now, here's the thing.
Most of you know this.
I'm highlighting this just to get into detail on why Bannon thinks Pelosi is winning.
And I'm inclined to agree.
Trump is going to lose this impeachment fight, it sounds like.
He's going to be impeached.
He's going to then rally his base.
He's going to make a lot of donations off of it.
But in the end, it may sour independence.
We've seen some data suggesting independence are starting to flip.
So this is bad news.
It is a clever strategy to make sure only your side gets your information out.
No cross-examination.
No public trial.
And now they say, many of the critics on the left say, hey, hey, hold on.
We're playing the same game that they did with Nixon and with Clinton.
But here's the problem.
The leaks are selective, for the most part.
What we're seeing is what makes Trump look bad.
So let's get to the main point here.
The election in 2020.
Is negative partisanship going to work?
Will impeachment actually strike Trump down?
I bring you now to this forecast model, which actually shows Democrats earning 279 electoral votes to the Republican 179.
And this forecast model is based off of negative partisanship.
So right now.
Let's scroll up a little bit and I'll show you the front.
This is from the Ways and Center from June.
With 16 months to go, negative partisanship predicts the 2020 presidential election.
I'm going to give full credit to Sam Seder for informing me on this.
Many of you may not know, recently I did a long-form discussion with Sam Seder.
It was very respectful.
I think it was a wonderful conversation.
Sam is of the opinion that Trump should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.
I don't want to misquote him, but that Trump has actually committed wrongdoing.
But he goes on to state that politically, regardless of whether or not it's the right or wrong thing to do, it will benefit Democrats due to negative partisanship.
All of these hearings All of the leaked information is designed to make Trump look bad, so that regular Americans don't go out to vote for Beto O'Rourke or for Joe Biden.
They go out to vote against Trump.
This 2020 election is Trump on trial, period.
The Democrats don't matter, and we all know it.
But think about how scary that gets.
The Democrats are embracing ridiculous policies.
Policies that even Bill Maher went through on his show just a couple days ago saying, this is nuts.
They're crazy.
But no one cares about them.
So the activist base of the Democrats is going to prop up one of these crazy fringe far leftists, and people are going to vote for them not because they like the ideas, But because they don't like Trump, that is not healthy for democracy.
And truly, I find this terrifying.
But let's take a look at the prediction.
Negative partisanship predicting that Trump is going to lose.
Let's scroll down and take a look at the actual electoral map, with Democrats taking 279 votes.
The report reads, Because my 2020 model relies on the 2018 vote to estimate the 2020 vote, it is naturally designed to account for this unexpected bipartisan turnout surge.
As such, my expectation is the 2020 model will be better than the 2018 model, which was built with Virginia's one-sided Democratic turnout surge as a turnout guide.
So with no further ado, Democrats recapture the presidency.
The leaking of the Trump campaign's internal polling has somewhat softened the blow of this forecast, as the polling reaffirms what my model already knew.
Trump's 2016 path to the White House, which was the political equivalent of getting dealt a royal flush in poker, is probably not replicable in 2020 with an agitated Democratic electorate.
And that is really bad news for Donald Trump, because the blue wall of the Midwest was then and is now the only viable path for Trump to win the White House.
Why is Trump in so much more trouble in the Midwest?
First, and probably most important, is the profound misunderstanding by, well, almost everyone as to how he won Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in the first place.
Ask anyone, and they will describe Trump's 2016 Midwestern triumph as a product of white working-class voters swinging away from the Democratic base on the appeal of Trump's economic populist messaging.
Some will point to the survey data of disaffected Obama to Trump voters, and even Sanders to Trump voters, as evidence that this populist appeal was the decisive factor, and this is sort of true.
So, I'm not going to get into the full details.
I just want to show you the general consensus.
They're saying these are the factors why some people think Trump won, and they're predicting Trump is going to lose, because you can't win again.
Now, here's the thing.
Check it out.
Democrat, 279 votes based on a negative partisanship model.
Let's jump over to Moody's.
What did Moody's say if Democratic voter turnout is high?
They win the blue wall states, many of them.
With 279 votes, they win the presidency.
Now that, to me, is interesting.
Trump is favored to win in all of their economic forecast models.
I think that's important to point out.
With average turnout, Trump easily wins.
With minimum turnout, Trump nearly gets 400.
But with maximum turnout, 279, well, as the data shows us, and what they believe to be true, smearing the president is their best shot at winning, making the election about Trump on trial, first and foremost, above everything else.
To me, it's fascinating.
Now here's where it gets scary.
If Bannon is right, and that this strategy works, what does that mean for our political system?
If this really is just meant to be negative partisanship political warfare to win an election and we end up with some fringe far-left presidential candidate who's at the controls of the ship, that's substantially worse than Donald Trump.
Did you see what Bernie proposed only a couple weeks ago?
Giving 20% of all major corporations to the workers, having the workers vote on who was on the board?
This was specifically cited by a socialist website, one of the most popular, as being Bernie giving the means of production to the people a large push towards socialism.
Now there's a lot wrong with socialism and there's a ton of things wrong with giving 20% of a company to its employees.
First of all, how do you determine when they earn it?
The goal is to create a public fund that pays out dividends to the employees.
So the idea I actually agree with What I don't agree with is a government telling the companies they must function this way.
Because it is an ever-increasing push towards socialism.
There's a lot to argue about there.
But suffice it to say, if Bernie is elected, that's what we can look forward to.
And people aren't going to be voting for Bernie.
Many will.
Of course it's got a large base.
They're going to be voting against Trump.
And this is what's scary.
If this forecast model is true.
And it probably is.
Let's be honest.
Moody's is historically accurate.
The first time they got it wrong was Donald Trump.
And now they're saying he's going to win.
Well, maybe they're getting Trump wrong again, but many people expect that Trump's going to win by almost every metric.
But this is what Democrats are looking at.
They're looking at a future in which they win not by championing good ideas, not by rallying the people behind a strong candidate.
They're looking at just making sure Trump loses.
That's their path to victory.
And I know it's not the first time it's ever happened.
It's always been a big strategy in elections.
But what does it mean for us moving forward?
If the president we end up getting is just a crazy fringe person because we hate the other person so much.
I mean, that's basically been the track we've been on for this long.
The lesser of two evils.
But this, to me, is the lesser of two evils on steroids.
This is them literally saying, we know our candidates are nuts and could never win because Americans don't like them, but you gotta vote for them anyway.
Even Bill Maher.
His segment was fantastic.
And he's also said some really ridiculous things on that show the other day.
Don't get me wrong.
But he talked about Beto wanting to tax churches, about giving gender affirmation surgery to prison inmates.
And Bill Maher asks, are you really concerned about losing the transgender prison population vote to Donald Trump?
Why are you campaigning on these things?
Now, by all means, campaign for people who need your help and propose policies that will make life better.
But why are the Democrats so focused on these fringe policies?
And then he plays this clip of Richard Gere saying, I've got nowhere else to go.
And that's scary, isn't it?
That's really scary.
If the activist base of the left has taken the reins, and these politicians, the primary, is going to go to the craziest and most fringe far-left candidate, and then the Democrats use all their power to smear Trump to the point where people hate him so much they'll vote for literally anything, we end up with a truly deranged president.
Now listen, I am not a Trump supporter.
I would prefer somebody else.
But not many of these crazy Democrats who are proposing ridiculous policies.
I don't know what the answer is, but it looks to me like we're facing a downward spiral no matter what we do.
I must stop here and say this.
For all of Trump's faults, Trump is not that bad.
I love, I love citing, I don't know if you guys know who Flecka's Talks is, I always
mention this, because he does a segment where he walks around asking people, you know, Trump's
not really that bad, right?
And that's the truth.
You know, Bill Maher said some really ridiculous things I can't even repeat, because I'll get
in trouble on YouTube.
And while I may think Trump is doing a lot, he does bad on many issues, okay?
And some of his foreign policy has been really bad.
He's got a big victory today.
He's had his victories.
The economy is doing well.
I must admit the economy is doing well.
I understand that.
And I can still look forward and think we can do better.
That's fine.
But to act like Trump is so awful, we should put in anyone, if they have a glass of water with a D on it, to quote Nancy Pelosi.
No, that's absurd.
If the country is doing OK for now, you might have a pilot who's shaking the plane, and you're really nervous, but at least you're still flying.
It's more worrisome to me when you get one of these activist-based Democrats who come in and literally say, we're going to do barrel rolls and sharp turns, and you might actually crash.
It's concerning to me when you have the impeachment inquiries intention being to literally make the pilot crash the plane.
That's what scares me.
Look man, Trump won.
He won for a lot of reasons.
Maybe he won't win again.
But this to me is worrisome.
Negative partisanship leads to street fights and violence and anger and people storming rooms and it brings us dangerously close to actual conflict in our political divide.
Perhaps we should present good ideas Fight back and try to win.
And if Trump gets a second term, well, that's how democracy works.
That's how our democratic institution within a constitutional republic works.
I'll leave it there.
I know this is a... I'll end with a quote from Lao Tzu, man, okay?
Many of you may be thinking Trump will never lose.
I'm sure there are some people on the left and in the center who are thinking, hey, you know what, Trump will never lose, but they want him to, right?
There are many Trump supporters thinking there's no way Trump's going to lose, this is naysaying, it's being pessimistic.
There is no greater danger than underestimating your opponent.
That goes for and against Donald Trump.
To those on the left, and the center, and anybody who wants to see Trump out, if you think this is good news and you're going to win, You're making a grave mistake.
But if you're a Trump supporter and you're ignoring the strategy and the game they're playing, you're making a big mistake as well.
I think Bannon has his finger on the pulse and he's got a good idea about what's going on.
And if he's saying she's winning and Trump's going to get impeached, this could be bad news in 2020.
The negative partisanship model shows Trump losing.
But all we can do is wait and see.
And boy, I am so excited to figure out what finally happens come 2020.
So anyway, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
It is a different channel.
Seriously, a lot of people don't seem to know that I have another channel where I do more cultural stuff.
I've had people commenting saying, Tim, all you ever do is talk about politics and Democrats and Trump.
And I'm like, well, it's 2020.
We're in election season.
The primary race is on, and this is my main channel.
If you want cultural stuff, talking about video games, and I did a segment on a young woman who wandered through the jungle and got lost, youtube.com slash timcastnews.
I'll see you all there.
The other day on Reddit, there was a top post in a subreddit called Best Of, meaning people saw this post and they thought it was one of the best things ever to appear on Reddit.
The comment talks about why people hate the ultra-rich, and the comment is ridiculously incorrect, the follow-up to it are all ridiculously incorrect, and reading this, It made me think this is a really good example of why so many poor people are poor.
Now, before we get into all this, I have to have a few caveats.
The comment was inspired by this story.
Bernie Sanders compares the ultra-rich, ultra-wealthy to addicts, saying, I need more, more, more.
I actually agree with that.
I believe that a lot of what drives certain individuals to become wealthy is this desire for always having more.
There's never enough.
You can never stop.
You're never secure.
And if you never feel secure, you will always feel like you have to keep striving to build and create and do these things.
But that's not everybody, and it's complicated.
I will also stress, when I'm talking about some poor people being poor, I'm not talking about those who are in, you know, certain circumstances they literally can't escape, people who are disabled, people who, you know, just, bad luck exists, right?
I'm specifically referring to the sect of middle-class, woke, white-type individuals who go to college and are extremely jealous of rich people, and they end up voting for Bernie Sanders for the wrong reasons.
So check this out.
Here's the story.
So I agree, okay?
First and foremost, I agree.
There are many ultra-wealthy people who just can't ever be satiated.
And that I understand.
But what you need to understand is it's not about money.
That's the big problem.
For some it is, but for most it is not.
Check this out.
Here's Reddit best of.
It says, user TheBirminghamBear delves into why the ultra-rich are hated.
And we can see that this post, 3,266 upvotes, 444 comments, way more than many of the other posts below it.
Suffice to say, it's an extremely popular perspective on Reddit, and it is wrong.
It is so wrong, wrong, wrong.
And if you maintain this guy's mentality, you will not become successful.
There's so much wrong here.
So let's dive right in.
Here's the comment.
It says, Bernie Sanders compares the ultra-wealthy to addicts.
I need more, more, more.
And we have this big comment that I am going to now read and break down and explain to you some of my advice on how to become successful, how to become wealthier, make money, just generally succeed.
And this is the opposite of the worldview you need.
Listen.
Policy-wise, I actually agree with Bernie Sanders on a lot of these issues.
And I think some of it comes down to the fact that I recognize there are many wealth-addicted individuals who don't need the money they strive for.
Most people who become wealthy, this is not the case.
Now, it's really strange because they actually defend People who inherit wealth, and I'm like, that's the bigger problem.
People who, through no work of their own, no passion, no skill, have just been handed all this money, that can create a problem.
Because take this mentality this person has, give them a ton of money, and see how they squander it.
Let's read.
This person writes, It's not even necessarily the way they acquire their wealth initially.
Zuck, Mark Zuckerberg, gets lucky, codes a MySpace knockoff that just happens to catch on and becomes a multi-billionaire.
Full stop.
Wrong.
Mark Zuckerberg did not get lucky.
Mark Zuckerberg worked really, really hard.
Mark Zuckerberg also did things that I personally would find unethical and wouldn't do myself.
You want to criticize Facebook?
We'll talk about the things he decides to do that most people wouldn't that aren't illegal that allows him to gain wealth.
But the core reason Facebook worked is because Zuckerberg worked hard and was smart, made the right connections.
You don't just get lucky, okay, for Facebook.
He had a ton of support, there was an idea behind it, there was a hole in the market, and he worked for it.
You can criticize his ethics, and I absolutely will.
To this day, I think the guy doesn't have a strong moral compass.
But to claim that he got lucky is the first mistake you make when you're trying to become successful yourself.
If you look to someone else and say, they were just lucky, you're wrong.
It's hilarious.
How many people said to me that all of my success was based on luck?
They get all angry and jealous.
You're just lucky you're in the right place at the right time.
Luck favors the prepared.
Was I lucky that I took no days off for several years?
Am I lucky that by the time I finish recording all these videos, I'm still working and trying to figure out how to expand and grow and hire more people and do more work building the vision that I see?
Am I driven by money?
No!
Not in the least bit.
And that's the big mistake, the first mistake people made.
You got lucky.
Wrong!
Luck does play a role, okay?
Opportunity can present itself.
But if you aren't prepared, it zooms right past you, and you'll never know what that opportunity was.
Let's read more.
He says, Okay, well, in that chain of events, he hasn't exactly murdered children or anything heinous.
Yes, he was demonstrably not a great guy, even in the beginning, but loads of awful people win the lottery, too.
That's the nature of a probabilistic universe, so it goes.
If you just think all of these rich people just magically got lucky and it's like fortune smiled upon them.
Yeah, you'll never succeed.
Okay?
Do not listen to this person.
They're giving you bad advice.
They are jealous and angry and don't truly understand how wealth works.
Let's read on.
But it's how these billionaires act after they get their wealth that continues to build the anger and resentment towards them.
Just look at Mark Zuckerberg.
Some billionaires blunder into their wealth.
Some, Putin, murder and steal their way to it.
But these are single events, in essence.
It isn't merely someone having billions of dollars that is the greatest threat.
It's them using it, not only to accumulate more wealth, But to do it directly through utilizing that wealth to leech power, agency, and resources from all of those around them.
And for what?
That's the irony.
These people become more vampiric after reaching a point where they have absolutely no need for the resources.
Full stop.
Again.
Who has a billion dollars?
Literally.
Who has liquid billion dollars?
I really do not believe Mark Zuckerberg will have liquid billion dollars.
He might!
I really doubt it.
Most wealth is held in assets that have nebulous values.
And that's what people don't understand.
I learned an important lesson over at Vice.
When day after day, for some reason, Vice was worth a billion dollars, two billion dollars, three billion dollars.
In reality, it wasn't.
Nothing was giving the shares of that company that value other than people were claiming it was true.
And Shane Smith was a genius in how he ran that company.
And now they still claim it's worth four billion dollars or whatever, even though Disney's writing off its assets.
Listen.
Jeff Bezos gets paid with all benefits.
His salary is like $80,000 a year, plus like a million in benefits, stocks, and stuff like that.
And then most of his net worth is based on the fact that he owns the shares of Amazon, and Amazon is a valuable company.
You can't spend a share in Amazon.
You can sell it, make it liquid, and then use that money.
But that requires the money being somewhere now, and the desire to purchase a share from you, which means Bezos would likely be unable to sell the bulk of his shares.
Net worth is relatively meaningless.
Now, it's true.
Many of these people like Bill Gates and Bezos probably have massive liquid assets they could spend in certain ways, but they also just don't understand basic economics.
Let's read on.
Now, I do want to make sure I point out I agree in the sense that I am not a fan of people making money from money and just leeching value and resources from our system.
Because what you need to understand, and they get halfway there, is that money is essentially meaningless.
Money is access.
So if someone has money, say $200 million, this guy complains, why won't they fix the pipes in Flint?
Okay, can they do it?
I think Elon Musk has said he is, so I think that kind of negates your point.
Bill Gates is spending tons of money to cure malaria.
He's also developed a ton of things for charity.
That negates your point.
Okay, there are very few billionaires, and most of them have some kind of philanthropic mission.
Some of them are very active in politics.
Well, he complains about their access to politics, and I can agree with that as well.
The problem is, first, the mentality that they were just lucky.
Next is the mentality that they're vampiric.
Listen, the money Bezos makes is based off an interpretation, the value he has, and Bill Gates as well, is based off the value of their company.
Other people with money say, I would like pieces of this company.
It's not like there's this evil dude twirling his mustache who's just saying, we won't fix the pipes in Flint!
But I think Elon Musk is doing that.
This mentality they have is a best-of.
This means all of these people on Reddit are like, yes, this is the problem, and they know nothing about how net worth works, nothing about what these people are trying to do.
And I am not a big fan of the billionaire class.
Like, I am rather left in a lot of issues.
But I think starting your own business makes you really understand.
And I think, for me, when you see someone say that they're vampires and they could stop... Let's read.
You really got to hear this.
Check it out.
He says, I get why a starving man murders another for a loaf of bread.
I get why an addict robs a bank.
These are awful acts, but they make sense.
Desperation and fear, they are the most powerful of motivators across the entire animal kingdom.
But billionaires exhibit these behavior at the top.
And at a certain point, what they keep doing stops making any sense from any rational perspective.
You're completely wrong, and you just don't know, and you think you're smarter than other people.
That's the problem.
Mark has more money than he can ever spend in his entire life, and he is continually getting dragged before Congress and eviscerated in the media.
He looks like effing garbage, and all for what?
For more money?
No!
It's not for money, and that's what you fail to understand.
He says, to hold on to his, I don't know, boomer brainwashing app?
I have a censor for that word.
I have no idea what he's trying to say with that.
He could quit the BS, leave it to middlemen, and start a project to counteract global warming.
Maybe other people have different political opinions than you.
Maybe Mark Zuckerberg isn't concerned about global warming.
Maybe he's concerned about the democratization of information, or he's an authoritarian who thinks he knows better than you.
The point is, You see right here is the next step of the problem.
He should be counteracting global warming.
Maybe he's concerned about a different problem.
You're not Zuckerberg and he's not you.
Other people think different things.
And yes, I am no fan of the guy.
Don't make me defend him.
But stop.
Get off your high horse.
You're not the king of the world, and Mark Zuckerberg is somebody who has done bad, bad things and made tons of money off it, but you have to admit the dude has a vision, has a passion, and whether you like to admit it or not, he is a very, very smart individual.
That's it!
It's not luck, okay?
Whether or not you like what Facebook is, and I certainly don't, you have to recognize that... This is why I lean kind of on the left, because I think Facebook's really, really bad.
But people chase after, you know, the incentives and the market, and they build upon it to succeed.
These CEOs of all these companies, Mark Zuckerberg included, never stop working.
I never stop working.
I work every single day.
I've had no days off in like three years.
I technically had one day where I made no videos, but I was doing a business meeting for developing a new company.
No days off because I choose to.
And this guy says, why don't they just go live their life?
Maybe I don't want to go to a bakery.
Maybe I don't want to just sit around and lounge on a beach like you all day.
Maybe I like what I do and maybe so does Mark Zuckerberg.
And maybe if you keep building something every single day, You will end up with Facebook.
They say the journey of a thousand miles begins with the first footstep.
But too many people have this mentality of, I should stop walking but still get access to that great beach.
You gotta walk to the beach, bro.
You can't, it's not luck.
Nobody picked up Zuckerberg and tossed him to the beach.
He just keeps walking.
He's not chasing after money.
That's what they don't seem to understand.
Money comes after.
So many people want to be rich, they want to be famous, and they don't get it.
Most people who get to that point aren't doing it for the money.
Some are, for sure.
But most people are following a passion, and they refuse to give up.
They're tenacious.
Many are narcissistic, especially celebrities.
Let's read a little bit more.
He says he could counteract global warming.
He could try to build something new and useful to society.
Maybe he thinks Facebook is, and you don't.
And people like that, too.
He'll get more money the legitimate way.
Maybe he thinks he is doing something legitimate.
Mark Zuckerberg, of course, thinks he's a good guy.
No one thinks they're a villain.
He could start a coding lab and hire the best coders to build crazy and fun S and not even worry about whether it made money.
Facebook literally does this!
Facebook, Google, and other companies have these research and development teams.
Like, you don't even know what you're talking about, man.
Uh, hire the best coders to make fun stuff and not even worry about whether it made money.
He could just spend his entire life doing that and funding that lab while his fortune whittled away because why not?
Or he could just buy an island, fill it with a thousand bikini models, staffing a luxury resort made only for him, and live the rest of his life in unimaginable ease and comfort and hedonism.
And there it is.
This is everything revealed.
Everybody who supports this comment, you can see what's in the back of their mind.
Let me tell you a secret.
You want to be rich.
One of the first things big investors will ask you.
I'm breaking the rules, telling you the secret here.
Okay, I'm technically not, but many investors will say to you this.
If tomorrow you woke up with a million dollars in your bank account, clean, tax-free, good to go, you're cleared, cops, FBI, everybody said, no, no, no, it's your money, you can spend it however you want.
What's the first thing you do?
Think about it.
I'd like you to now think about what's the first thing you would do if you had a million bucks.
Most of you got the answer wrong already, and it'll explain exactly why you won't be rich.
And I'm not trying to be mean, but it's a fact.
And you get the point, looking at this.
The reality is, most people say something like, I'd buy a house.
I'd buy a new car.
And those are all the wrong answers.
When big investors go to someone, they say, if you had a million dollars, the first thing you'd do, you know what the right answer is?
And many people get this.
Some people get halfway there, they say, I'd contact a wealth management person and I'd say figure out where I can put this to generate interest and stuff like that.
And that's a half good answer.
You're almost there, but people aren't going to give you money if that's the case.
The answer is actually, there isn't a single answer.
If someone asked me if I woke up with a million bucks in my bank tomorrow, I'd say I'd immediately start shopping around for an office so that we could expand Subverse and start hiring on some real reporters, expand our fact-checking division.
Our vision for growth is XYZ.
Full stop.
Stop right there.
Stop right there.
Sir, I hear you.
You got a mission.
You got a plan.
It's going to be good for society.
It's going to make money.
Here's a million dollars.
The reality is Subverse raised that million dollars.
It's exactly what we're doing.
No, there's not going to be any fancy islands or fancy sports cars.
No, the mission isn't about making money.
If that was the case, I wouldn't be in the news business.
Mark Zuckerberg thinks he's doing the right thing.
He's doing a lot of bad things.
I'm sure a lot of things that happened happened because his company is so big he doesn't have complete control of what's happening.
I think he's a bit of a snooty, arrogant dude, and he's a bit of an authoritarian, but I understand basic human motivations.
It's called passion.
He doesn't want to fight global warming because he thinks he is.
In your view, this person who wrote this article, and everyone who upvoted it, in their mind, the pinnacle of humanity is to have a thousand bikini models staffing a luxury resort where you sit around getting fat?
That's what they think people want.
That's what they think motivates people, and that's why they will never be rich.
And that's why they want Bernie to come in and tax those who make all that money on a wealth tax, and so they can give money to them so they can sit in a luxury resort and be hedonists.
That's extreme hyperbole.
The reality is, a lot of people would try out things.
But you know why I'm not a big fan of UBI?
Admittedly, even though I like Yang, I like Yang for reasons mostly outside of his UBI proposal.
I think Yang has thought deeply about many core issues, and he's got a massive comprehensive plan.
I also think he's a fairly rationate and modern individual who wants to bridge the divide.
His proposal for a UBI is acceptable to me because it is a VAT tax on big companies like Facebook, not a tax on the general population to pay for those who won't work.
That's more socialism.
The bigger problem with UBI is easily described like this.
How many people do you know who play guitar?
You probably know many people who play the guitar, right?
How many of them who play the guitar I'd be willing to bet it's a decent amount.
famous career musicians? I'd be willing to bet it's a decent amount. And then ask yourself
the same question. How many of those people who want to be famous career musicians are
good enough to be? The answer is very, very few. But guess what?
In a UBI system, they will all be trying.
Not everyone can be a rock star.
Not everyone can be a musician or an actor.
Not everyone can be these famous individuals.
Not everyone can be a game developer.
Some people need to work on cars, and some people really, really, really enjoy it.
And therein lies the big point.
If you tell this person that a life of satisfaction and luxury is sitting in a garage building cars, he'd be like, what?
No, why wouldn't it be bikini models on a resort?
Well, some people really like building cars, and that's the problem with communism and socialism.
Some people want to do jobs they can't do, and some people want to do jobs they can't do but they find really fun, and some people are really good at both.
Let's read a little bit more.
He says, but what the F is he doing instead?
Looking like an idiot and getting his A handed to him on live TV by a 10-month-old congresswoman.
Actually, that's a partisan divide right there.
Most people think that Ocasio-Cortez, or I should say, the conservatives think Ocasio-Cortez did a really, really bad job because she mischaracterized Poynter Institute.
She mischaracterized the Daily Caller.
And I, as someone who has been tracking the news industry for a long time, knows AOC spouted a bunch of nonsensical mishmash that had nothing to do with the questions on Libra.
And Mark Zuckerberg was confused, like, huh?
So yeah, he's looking bad to you.
These people live in a bubble.
They don't understand other people see the world in a different way.
And that's one of the big problems causing the divide.
Getting memed and berated and vilified across the entire internet because it's an a-hole.
Going to God knows how many speaking coaches and still coming out looking like a nervous little toad.
What a disastrous waste of time and wealth.
Your opinion.
And guess what?
Maybe if you started that journey of a thousand miles, you would be sitting in the hot seat saying, I can do it better.
But instead, you're complaining on the internet.
And everybody who's upvoting this is adding to that murmuring, you know, whinging.
He says, There is definitely a legitimate mental disorder that comes along with that much wealth.
If they weren't so evil and destructive, you'd feel bad for these people that have more than nearly anyone else ever and are trapped in a cycle of addiction and destruction.
Money, money everywhere and not a dollar to buy happiness and peace.
You've said it over and over again, buddy.
Maybe you need to realize money was never the motivator.
Think about it.
He says, they have all this money.
Why won't they buy a resort?
They don't want one.
But they have all this dollar and they're not buying happiness.
Maybe Mark Zuckerberg is happy running Facebook.
What don't you get?
I'm happy sitting in front of a camera talking about how I feel.
I'm happy building my van.
I'm happy helping to push and launch Subverse.
I'm happy doing those things.
I would not be happy in an infinity pool on a roof in Ibiza.
That is not enjoyable to me.
I was invited to the French Riviera by the executives of Vice, and I said no, because being on the ground in Brazil during the World Cup rioting was more substantive and more important to me than chilling and drinking alcohol.
It's not what I wanted to do.
But you want me to do that, sitting at a resort, being a hedonist.
No, I won't.
I want to build things.
I want to have fun.
I have a vision.
I'm going to chase after that.
And maybe you should read your own post.
How many times you say, why isn't money satisfying them?
Because they're not satisfied by money?
And maybe you are.
And that's fine if you are.
But if all you care about is money and living on a beach with bikini-clad models, well, you're never gonna get there because there's no path to starting a business where you just have those things.
Everything starts with that single grain of sand.
First, go to the beach.
Start cleaning it up.
Next, 10-20 years later, maybe you'll have a bunch of models on your resort.
But not if you're complaining the whole time.
He says Mark made billions in inventing a tool that has made the world and everyone in it worse off for it.
And I completely agree with that.
Facebook is a nightmare and a disaster.
But Mark doesn't think so.
He thinks he's doing good work.
He will go down in history as a footnote.
No, he won't.
He's having a major impact on foreign governments.
He's spoken about election interference.
Yeah, Zuckerberg's a major historical figure.
I'm sorry, dude.
You're wrong.
An awkward little joke of a man, stiff and robotic, propping up the dumbest president in the history of presidents because he's scared of a big mean lady will come and break apart the SE horrible thing he built.
Is he supporting Trump?
He's not.
These people are destroying the world and themselves for something they are so far beyond needing it's absurd.
No, humans want things.
What do humans truly need?
You don't need the internet.
You just need food, water, and shelter.
The discourse around wealth is preposterous.
I hold nothing against people who inherit money or make more money.
I believe everyone should be granted the ability to live in comfort, but some people strive for more and achieve more, and they ought to be paid more for their talents and their effort.
But I don't believe these people should have dramatically more voice and influence in a government that is supposed to be, by design, Treat all people equally.
That is supposed to by design treat people equally.
I don't believe that they should be permitted to make a hobby out of further exploiting and impoverishing other people for money they don't even need.
Here's an edit.
I agree to an extent.
I do not like the idea of unlimited funds in campaign finance, super PACs, that billionaires can pump all of their money to a super PAC that supports a candidate and effectively gets them the election.
I hate that.
We want to make sure that we are a government of the people, for the people, by the people, and that means we need to make sure we can't allow billionaires to dominate elections.
That being said, there's also a bit of meritocracy in our system, and the reason why many wealthy individuals talk to politicians and vice versa is not always because they can pay, although it is a big factor.
Fundraising, very important.
But the reality is, if a politician wants to meet with Zuckerberg to talk about social media, isn't he the person to talk to?
If somebody who works at Facebook gets a job in the government regulating social media, doesn't it make sense that you have an insider who knows how these systems work?
It's a double-edged sword.
I do not like revolving door politics and I lean against allowing that, but I can understand the point they make.
Somebody who worked for a big pharmaceutical company gets a job in the government because they know everybody and they can actually control.
And who else is supposed to regulate?
Somebody who has no idea what's going on?
Now again, I lean towards don't allow that.
I'd rather have an ignoramus who knows very little about pharmaceuticals learning about it and doing oversight than somebody who's friends or worked with these people.
Maybe the best bet is to find a disgruntled former executive who hates the company.
I don't know.
What I can say is, these are people who are very petty and angry.
And they don't understand philosophy.
And I think it's very important for most people.
I mean, high school should be teaching this stuff.
Mark Zuckerberg is not out there saying, like, I just want more money.
He's thinking, Facebook.
It's so amazing.
Look what I've built.
It's incredible.
I will never give it up.
I need to make it better.
That's what he's thinking.
It's not about money.
It never is.
In fact, one of the reasons many of these uber-wealthy people buy big houses is not because they want to live in luxury with bikini-clad models.
It's because they need to invest their money.
That's it.
The other issue is supply and demand.
So when it comes to a lot of issues, like why aren't we doing X?
Is there demand for X?
That's the big question.
You can have all the money in the world, you still can't teleport from New York to D.C.
I was talking to a friend of mine who's particularly wealthy, and they were in D.C., and I laughed and said, what did you fly, you know, first class?
And they laughed and said, no, I took the train.
I was like, what do you mean?
You took the train?
A train's faster.
Oh, he's like, yeah, you walk into the station, you get on the train, and you sit down.
Man, the airport's a nightmare!
No matter how much money you have, it is still easier to take the train from New York to DC.
Now, of course, some of these people take helicopters to the airport.
Is there a demand to give you an ice skating, a big ice path where you can ice skate from your house to the airport?
It doesn't exist.
So no matter how much money you have, you can't buy things that don't exist.
And so that means the richest people in the world can incentivize something.
They can say, I want to develop it.
But if the cost benefit isn't there, the investment won't happen.
Here's the edit.
He says, sometimes I really marvel at how no one ever seems to ask why they do the things
they do or whether they even need to do them.
Did you ask why they do it?
I look at Mark Zuckerberg and feel such waste.
These people are like Walter White at the end of Breaking Bad.
They have everything, everything they could ever need.
But it turns out it's only their SE horrible destructive empire that gives them any purpose
So they keep digging, keep doing bad and worse things to hold on to something that they only use to validate their sad little lives.
All that fortune, and all so that weak pathetic people can feel like whole humans.
And what are you doing, Mr. Complaining on the Internet?
Zuckerberg should have cashed out in his twenties and just lived his life.
Why?
Someone asked Zuckerberg.
It was this interview where they said, why don't you sell Facebook and then take your money?
And he said, because I'd probably just want to make another social network.
I like the one that I have.
And there it is.
Different people like different things.
They don't understand that.
They're sitting there confused.
But he's rich!
That's all that matters!
Rich people like Zuckerberg and Bezos are not driven by having more and more money.
They just happen to get more and more money along the way because they're driven by something else.
They're passionate, focused, smart.
They don't take days off.
And you can say there's problems with this behavior, and to an extent, I agree.
But I also kind of get it, right?
I'm someone who follows a path of passion and I'm doing exactly what I want to do.
I do not want to be on a beach with models, sorry.
I want to be reading the news and learning how the world works and then I talk about it.
I am helping people to travel the world and investigate and experience these things so we can truly know what's happening around us.
That makes me happy, not a bikini model on a resort.
That would drive me insane.
I would feel physical pain.
It's why I don't take days off.
I kid you not.
When I'm not doing this, when I'm not reading and not learning, when I'm sitting around in a hotel doing nothing, I get a gut-wrenching pain that I'm not doing anything that matters.
Purpose is important.
I am driven just like many other people.
Does that mean Zuckerberg is correct and he's doing the good thing?
No, but he's doing what he thinks is good.
Does it mean I'm always right and doing a good thing?
It doesn't, and I recognize that.
I'm just doing what I think matters.
But look at this.
The weight of this comment.
The upvotes.
The best of.
People actually see this, and this is how they think.
This is how they think.
They think, but Mark Zuckerberg got rich!
Why doesn't he stop?
Ask yourself.
Do you ever ask yourself?
It's never been about the money.
He says Zuckerberg could have cashed out in his twenties and lived his life.
This sad little man is going to end up wasting his entire life aspiring to be a big boy that he never was and never will be to build an empire that no one gives an S about and that sucks the joy out of the world like a cancer.
Just like so many of the billionaires of the world, if the vast, vast majority of billionaires are any indication, it's far more a curse than it is a gift.
They're just sad, naked apes chained to the inertia of their own mountain of money, dragged along by it, following a script, forever apart from the rest of humankind, forever despised by and despising their fellow man.
Yeah.
Sorry.
That's just not true.
And what I see in this post, with its 38,766 upvotes, is envy, pettiness, jealousy, confusion, ignorance.
I can point out the things he's right about.
I agree.
There are a lot of wealthy people who are addicted to what they do, and they can't stop.
It's kind of like what I just said.
I personally feel addicted to my work, too.
But there's a difference.
Addiction is usually related to a destructive thing that's bad for you.
If you're doing something that is building the world and helping people, well, that's the best you can do.
There are self-destructive addictions, and there's passions.
And there's a big difference.
For me, I wake up every day wanting to know what's happening in the world and wanting to talk about what I think about it.
And I also know that money does come along if I play my cards right.
But what am I doing with the money?
Am I buying an infinity pool on the roof of Ibiza?
Am I buying a Tesla?
I'm doing none of those things, and some people do.
No, I'm trying to grow a news business because I think it's extremely important with an independent fact-checking division because I'm passionate about what I do.
But if you can't see that, you would be confused.
And many people want to be YouTubers because they think it's a path to easy money.
There is no path to easy money.
It's a lie.
They say, the Grifters in politics.
Nice try with the nonsense.
While some people certainly push stupid opinions because they know it'll rally up their base and they'll make money, of course it's real.
People don't do this because they think it's a meal ticket.
People do this because there's something they see and want to talk about.
I could have talked about a million other things.
This is what I choose to talk about.
But Tim, why are you talking about this?
Why are you slamming on Bernie Sanders?
Because the people are wrong.
You know, I'll leave it there.
Long video.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
and I will see you all then.
That's a joke, people often say.
Because no matter what Trump does, it's always bad.
And now we have possibly the most insane left-wing outrage I have ever seen.
Trump came out this morning, announced that al-Baghdadi is gone.
He is no longer alive, okay?
And the response has been very, very strange.
You may have noticed the image on your screen, which reads, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48.
Whoa, whoa, whoa!
Austere religious scholar?
It turns out they actually changed this headline for some reason Here's what we have.
I will not go as far as many of these conservatives are saying to claim the media and the left are defending the Islamic State.
That's not true.
But they are criticizing the president at every single possible turn, even if that means framing the dude in a neutral to positive light.
What was happening to women and children and little girls?
Please.
Don't play.
Well, here's the thing.
Yashir Ali tweets, they had it right the first time.
The Washington Post changed the headline on its al-Baghdadi obituary, calling him the terror- I'll just say it, man.
I'm going to get deranked.
YouTube's going to delete this video.
But terrorist-in-chief to austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State.
They actually changed that.
It is mind-blowing.
And I got a bunch of tweets, okay, from people who are angry with the president because they will always find a way to make everything he does bad.
I kid you not.
Trump read off a list of countries he was thanking, and the first country was Russia, and he says, I want to thank Russia, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And they go, oh, he said Russia first!
Oh no!
He wouldn't tell Nancy Pelosi what was happening!
Seriously.
This is a huge moment.
I would say on par with, you know, May, was it May 2nd, 2016?
Osama Bin Laden, Barack Obama's announcement and all that.
This is huge.
This is going to be history.
And it sparks possibly the end, you know, for the most part.
There's still going to be stragglers, there are still fighters, there are still people, but they have no leader.
The head's been cut off.
Check this out.
They did update it.
They call him an extremist leader of Islamic State.
Really?
Why did they change it in the first place?
It's very, very weird.
But now we can start talking about all of the outrage, and boy is the outrage ridiculous.
No matter what Trump does, they try and frame it in a way to make it bad, and it is the most annoying bad faith BS ever.
Listen, man.
I've seen a great critique of Trump's announcement this morning.
Opening statement was strong.
He then went on to discuss the operation, the partners, and thanked them very strong.
He then went off script and started answering questions and appeared to be a little bit weaker.
Well, that's normal when you go off script.
And I think that was a fair critique.
Very, very strong opening.
The longer he went on with questions, things kind of started getting murky and didn't seem as strong as they were before.
Fine.
How about, no matter what Trump says, he's lying.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Hold on.
When you do this to me, I get angry, okay?
It's like someone's trying—you know they're lying to you, but they're technically telling the truth, and you're like, dude, stop, okay?
Stop playing games, tell me the truth, and this is annoying.
This headline they've chosen.
I call this technically the truth.
It is a framing device they do all the time in media, but it is so ridiculous here.
It is so absurd and out of line.
You can tell.
You can see it.
You're like, whoa, are you nuts?
We know who this guy was.
What are you doing?
But they do it all the time to everybody.
They'll take... Oh, for instance, I'll tell you something I'm enjoying right now.
You see, a few years ago, for about 30 seconds, I made a passive comment about a story that was in the news.
Seth Rich.
And Fox News had reported that Seth Rich had contacts with Wikileaks.
So someone passively asked me and made a comment about it.
Later on, someone asked me about InfoWars reporters on the ground in various places, to which I also responded, you know, basically that they're trying to get in the mainstream.
That one 30-second little clip, out of the thousands of times, thousands of instances I've talked about the crazy conspiracy theories, was, is used by the New York Times, I'm sorry, by NBC to smear me.
This is the game they play.
This is how the media plays games with the truth to manipulate you and lie to you.
And it's what they're doing now.
And now I get to face the brunt of that on my Wikipedia page as people are debating putting conspiracy theorists in my page because I passively commented on a breaking story from Fox News.
How about that?
Now we can see what they're doing to Trump.
But you get it.
They do it to Trump all the time.
Well, Trump said this.
I wrote a book, a really successful book, about a year before the World Trade Center.
There's someone named Osama Bin Laden.
You ought to take him out.
He's big trouble.
I think I wrote 12 books.
Nobody listened to me.
Guess what?
That's true.
Okay, did Trump literally say in the book you ought to take him out?
No, no, no, no, no, no.
But Trump did talk about various instances in the Middle East, threats, terror threats, and he did specifically mention Osama bin Laden.
Trump is speaking off the cuff.
He's not being directly literal, but of course, when it comes to wanting to smear Trump, they're going to do that.
And it's really, really annoying.
I fall into this camp of the stop making me defend Trump camp, right?
There's this really funny viral video where these people are saying all of these fake things about Trump.
And every time a guy goes, that's not true actually, it was, why are you defending the president?
I'm not, you're just saying something that's not true.
So here's what happened.
This reporter says, basically Trump is saying that he predicted Bin Laden would attack the U.S.
and that if people had listened to his warnings, 9-11 could have been avoided.
I mean, it's a very, very strong interpretation.
Like you're going as far as possible.
Trump said, hey, we got bad stuff happening.
Look at this guy, right?
Yes, that's what literally, it's in his book.
You can read his book.
Check this out.
Truth Squad.
Trump's misleading claim that he warned about Osama bin Laden.
You know, it's, it's, it's like they expect you to speak like a, like a robot.
You can't deviate any little bit, because if you speak figuratively in any sense, they'll take you literally and they will smear you for it.
And now we have literally a story saying it's misleading that he claimed it, because he only mentioned a bunch of really bad things in his Amman Lun, but didn't say to take him out.
Listen.
I get it.
I get Trump was being, speaking off the cuff, the book was written 19 years ago, but he did mention Bin Laden.
This is a known fact.
You know that Trump also took out a full-page ad railing on NAFTA back in the early 90s?
Yes, Trump has talked about these things.
And this is what the media always does.
Everything he does will always be framed in the worst way imaginable.
Here we have this great historic moment.
Something is finally changing.
And what are they doing?
Well, first, here's Michael Tracy.
Some important context.
Baghdadi finally did after a five-year military campaign and pundits are mad that Trump thanked Russia because Russia controlled the airspace and allowed the U.S.
to operate in that space.
So Trump said thank you and they're mad.
Wow!
Amazing.
Oh, don't take my word for it, I pulled up a couple tweets.
Here's John Harwood.
He is CNBC, I guess.
He says, Trump didn't give Pelosi- Okay, so this one- So this- Alright, a little bit of Russia.
Trump didn't give Pelosi advanced word, indicating he didn't trust her to keep intel secrets.
Pelosi was ranking Dem on intel committee, no evidence in her record raising doubts her handling of sensitive information.
Trump gave top Russian officials classified info in Oval Office.
So what?
Nancy Pelosi doesn't need to know what's going on there, and Russia does.
Because if U.S.
planes fly overhead, Russia's gonna be like, you are violating our airspace, and that could present a major conflict.
Perhaps the best thing to do is to contact the Russians and say, we got a super top-secret operation, nobody can know, and we need to enter your airspace.
And Russia said, do it.
And they did, because guess what?
Nobody likes these guys down there.
Nobody.
Nobody likes them.
Okay?
I got more for you.
Here's Joyce Aileen, she is a law professor, says, Predictably he went off script using language that will
show up in recruiting videos and mispronouncing Al Begdadi's name,
thanking Russia and Turkey before our servicemen and women, too.
Now we're down to counting how many small but important details he'll reveal, blah blah blah.
Seriously?
Use it in recruiting videos?
Dude, chill out.
Okay?
The dude's gone.
But everything, everything is, he's talking about Russia.
Russia.
First country thanked.
Russia.
So what?
He read a list of countries.
He was like, I'd like to thank Russia, Syria, the Kurds, our allies, providing intelligence.
And they're like, but why did he say Russia first?
Seriously?
No, no, no, no, just wait for it.
Did Trump just thank Russia before the U.S.
intelligence officials?
So what?
Okay, this guy's a satirist.
I'll let that one slide.
You're allowed to be a comedian.
And this guy, the more Trump talked and revealed certain info, it's clear he has relatively distant knowledge.
I show this one because this is actually a decently tepid critique, which I think is decently fair.
You know, and I highlight this because I want to say, a lot of people are claiming the media and the resistance are defending ISIS.
No, no, no, no, hold on.
Like, he's saying Trump had distant knowledge of what was going on.
I think that's a fair point.
He's the president.
He's not, you know, he goes into the room, he watches, and you've got ground forces that know a lot more.
I got to watch most of it.
Good Special Forces got Baghdadi despite suspect and corrupt U.S.
leadership now.
And that's the final point that I do highlight this, that in the midst of this major historic moment, they have to make it negative.
But here's the best part.
National Security Advisor, Trump wasn't favoring Russia.
I kid you not, they had to issue a statement about the hubbub.
This is nuts, man.
You know, we got bigger problems than, I should say, We got serious problems in this country.
And the problem is not that Trump is a bad president.
It's that while he does things that are bad sometimes, I have no idea.
I'll tell you this.
You cry wolf every single day.
Every single thing is bad.
Eventually I'm like, dude, I don't believe you.
And that leaves me in a really weird place.
Like, if they're freaking out about this, what else was an overreaction?
What else is fake news?
Now listen.
I read the news all the time.
I can tell you, you know, there are things that I don't like about his policy, and that's fine.
You know, that's how politics is supposed to be in this country.
We don't always like everybody, you know, and a lot of people, a lot of Trump supporters are claiming the Syria pullout stuff was like a smokescreen so they could smoke out Baghdadi.
You know, I'm not gonna play any of those games.
The point is, a good thing has happened.
It's bad in a certain sense.
I do not like war.
I do not like death and killing and all that stuff, but you know, It's a historical moment that most people believe is the best course of action, and I can respect that considering who this guy was.
You know, it's a good thing this person isn't here anymore.
It's war, alright?
I say all that because I'm very, very much anti-death penalty, but I do understand there's even a red line for me to a certain extent.
But this guy is dramatically different from, like, an American... Well, you know, I don't want to get into all that stuff.
The point is, It happened.
It's good for everybody in the world.
This bad, bad man is no longer around to do bad things.
And now Trump's getting slammed for saying Russia first.
And the National Security Advisor, look at this, President Donald Trump, in announcing the death of Baghdadi, thanked Russia before the Kurds.
So what?
What?
Is that the best they can do?
They're like, Trump didn't do anything wrong, and this is a really good thing, what do we say?
Ooh, ooh, the order in which he thanked people is incorrect.
I don't care.
Here we are.
Look at this, they actually wrote an article about it.
They didn't get a comment.
I don't think you should read into that, O'Brien said Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press.
He applauded the president's courageous decision.
This is the best they could pull off.
Washington Post giving a neutral to positive description of who this guy was?
Are you insane?
Man, I am just so sick and tired of everything.
It's all fake news, man.
I gotta tell you, dude, if you're looking at the Washington Post, and admittedly, the left and the right were freaking out over this.
There are left-wing individuals I follow on Twitter who are like, what is Washington Post doing?
Yeah, they overplayed their hand, but they do it all the time.
It's all fake news.
It's just all fake news.
Okay, obviously it's not all fake news, but I'm just so sick of it.
Every day I read a story and I'm like, that is technically the truth, but you are misleading people.
The New York Times says Trump is misleading.
No, Trump was giving- I mean, he made a passive comment.
He made a pass- about a passage he wrote in a book.
And they say, well, literally, it doesn't say that in the book, therefore it's misleading.
It's like living in a weird, bizarro world where no matter what happens, it has to be bad.
All right.
You know what, Trump?
Come out in support of oxygen.
Seriously.
And then I'll hold their breath.
I'll see you guys at 4 p.m.
on the main channel, youtube.com slash TimCast.
Thanks for hanging out.
Perhaps these big cities just can't function at their size.
Like, there's gotta be a certain point at which you can't get trucks and food and enough shelter and power and resources into a condensed city, right?
Take a look at this story.
NYC secretly exports homeless to Hawaii and other states without telling receiving polls.
So, they're taking homeless people, Instead of helping them get jobs or deal with mental health issues, they just put them on a bus and send them away.
And there was an old scandal similar to this.
Family Guy made a joke about it.
But it made me think.
We will read through this story, but I started thinking.
Take a second.
L.A.
Massive urban sprawl, right?
New York, massive urban sprawl.
There's got to be an upper limit to how many people could live in a certain, like, dense state.
You know, there's another story I was reading about how they can't get cars into Manhattan, like it's congested.
Because everybody's ordering everything online.
So the amount of delivery trucks and Amazon and stuff is skyrocketing because people don't want to walk to the store anymore.
And not only that, I mean, getting stuff in New York is kind of difficult because everything's a specialty shop as it is.
But you can always count on those with the compassion and the leadership of these urban liberal districts to help the homeless by, hey, free ticket to Hawaii, right?
So let's read the story and then we'll talk about the city stuff.
The New York Post reports, New York City generously shares its homeless crisis
with every corner of America.
From the tropical shores of Honolulu and Puerto Rico to the badlands of Utah and backwaters of Louisiana,
the Big Apple has sent local homeless families to 373 cities across the country
with a full year of rent in their pockets as part of Mayor Bill de Blasio's
special one-time assistance program.
Wow.
Bill de Blasio, very progressive of you.
Usually the receiving city knows nothing about it.
City taxpayers have spent $89 million on rent alone since the program's August 2017 inception to export 5,074 homeless families, 12,482 individuals to places as close as Newark and as far as the South Pacific, according to Department of Homeless Services data obtained by The Post.
Families who once lived in city shelters decamped to 32 states and Puerto Rico.
Why don't they just relocate them within the state?
I wonder.
The city also paid travel expenses through a separate taxpayer-funded program called Project Reconnect, but would not divulge how much it spent.
A Friday flight to Honolulu for four people would cost about $1,400.
A bus ticket to Salt Lake City, Utah for the same family would cost $800.
Add to the tab the cost of furnishings, which the city also did not disclose.
One SOTA recipient said she received $1,000.
This is incredible.
Could you imagine?
Living in New York City and having a decent amount of your public funds being used to send homeless people to other states?
Wow!
It sounds so crazy, right?
Because when you think about it, I mean, they're giving them a place to live, they're buying them furniture, but doesn't it kind of feel like you're stealing from the people who live in the city to export a city problem instead of fixing it?
Like, think about it.
What if you took that money and said, hey, we're gonna deal with the homeless crisis?
Instead, you know what they're doing?
They're incentivizing homeless people to go to New York to apply for the program to get a free year of rent somewhere else.
Man, I know a lot of people who would take them up on that offer.
And what happens a year later when they come back?
And you gotta keep paying for it?
Man, this is the big problem with a lot of these big cities, okay?
Instead of trying to solve their problem, like Los Angeles, they do things like this.
They solve nothing.
Sweep it under the rug, pay for it to all go away, and let someone else deal with it.
Congratulations, America.
These are the politics you deserve.
When you vote for these people, it's what you get.
They say it.
DHS defends the stratospheric cost, saying it actually saves the city on shelter funding, which amounts to about $41,000 annually per family, as compared to the average yearly rent of $17,563 to house families elsewhere.
You're literally putting homeless people on buses and shipping them to other cities.
Dude, there is something really wrong with this picture.
Critics say the stopgap solution has been wrought with problems and ultimately has failed to help curb the city's homelessness.
Not only are officials in towns where cities homeless land up in arms, but hundreds of the homeless families are returning to the fire.
Yeah, who could have seen that coming?
And some are even suing NYC over being abandoned in barely livable conditions.
I actually used to work for some homeless shelters.
And you know what we would do?
We would actually try and help people.
Did it ever occur to you that you can maybe help?
Look, I get it, man.
You don't gotta talk to me about the homeless crisis.
I have worked with homeless people.
Some people, you try as hard as you can, they can't be helped.
Okay?
Some people, they have mental illness issues, they can't be helped.
But a lot of people can.
A lot of people found hard times, ended up in a bad situation, and with some support, you can actually help them.
That's why I'm a big fan of a lot of these programs and systems, but look at this!
This is not progressive.
This is not liberal.
What is this?
You're literally paying to send homeless people away from you.
You're like, I'll give you money if you leave, and they come back.
This is insane.
We were initially seeing a lot of complaints about conditions.
Now that the program has been in operation long enough that the soda subsidy is expiring, one of our main concerns is it might not be realistic for people to be entirely self-sufficient after that first year, said Jacqueline Simone, policy analyst at Coalition for the Homeless.
DHS said, 224 soda families have ended up back in New York City shelters.
The agency did not answer the Post's repeated requests for the number of families who wind up in out-of-town shelters.
Listen, man.
If you pay me to leave, you're like, hey, we're going to pay $20,000 to cover your rent for a year.
Once my rent is up, I'll just come back.
You're not solving the problem.
You're literally wasting people's money.
Could you imagine what would happen if they actually sat down and had a real conversation and said, what can we do to solve this problem?
Perhaps they did.
And perhaps they realized they can't.
Well, I'll tell you what, man.
This isn't making things better.
It's making things worse.
All you're doing is wasting money.
They say, we suggested that DHS reach out to people as their subsidy runs out to confirm they will be secure and not have to re-enter shelter.
But the agency told us they have no plans to do that.
Could you imagine if they keep paying these people to?
Think about it.
You live in New York City.
New York City is one of the few places in this country with a city income tax.
Your taxes are ridiculous if you live in New York, okay?
Let alone if you make a decent amount of money in New York.
Don't even, don't even, don't even bother, man.
You gotta be nuts.
Now you're finding out That they're actually going to give money to pay for rent for homeless people in some other city and then actually, potentially, re-up that money every year.
Think about it.
That's New York redistributing wealth around the country.
To an extent, I kind of like the idea of trying to reinvigorate low-income areas and dying rural towns.
But not this way, man.
It's abusive, okay?
This, to me, is extremely immoral.
You've got people in crisis.
I get it, you want to help them.
But you ever, you know, feed a man a fish, teach him for a day, or feed a man a, teach, feed a man a fish, and you feed him for a day, but if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for the rest of their life.
So there you go.
What are you doing here?
You're kicking the can down the road for the next guy who comes into office?
It also reminds me, you know, you ever watch Futurama?
When, in Futurama they have global warming, so they send a ship to go get a big ice cube from a comet every year and drop it into the ocean to keep, you know, it's like to replace the glaciers or whatever.
That's what it reminds me of.
And then every year they need more and more ice.
Every year you're gonna have more and more homeless families.
And you're gonna keep paying for them.
What happens when it gets out of hand and you've got 50,000, 100,000 families you're subsidizing?
This is not a solution to a problem.
This is a callous, cold government pretending to care about people.
And I assure you, I'd be willing to bet they brag about their numbers.
I bet they go, our homeless numbers are down significantly year over year.
Yeah, because they're busing them out.
Homeless individuals and families are eligible for SOTA if they can prove they have been in a New York City shelter for at least 90 days and that their household income is no more than twice it owes in rent.
DHS would not expand on eligibility rules.
So you get a free year rent, you come back for 90 days, you get another free year of rent.
Wonderful.
They're solving the problem.
Good work, New York.
Some polls in town taking NYC refugees were shocked by the news.
I don't know what that is.
Taking in NYC refugees were shocked by the news.
So in other words, if someone in a shelter, y'all will give them money to go somewhere
else if they have been there for 90 days and some of those people have been sent to Materi,
said Michael Yenny, president of the Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, when the Post told him
the community is among the soda destinations.
Wow.
Sending them to other shelters?
That's crazy, man.
I'm not in Mayor Bill de Blasio's shoes.
I don't sit behind his desk and I never will.
But it's certainly interesting.
You have shocked me down here in beautiful southeast Louisiana.
The mayor of Willacoochee, Georgia, Was similarly stunned.
I'm not familiar with none of that, Samuel Newsom said.
The mayor of Harrisville, Utah, who was so baffled to receive a call from the Post that she questioned if the reporter had the wrong number, asked if soda recipients are connected to social services in the towns where they move.
Are they just cutting them loose and saying, here you go?
Or are they making sure they don't find themselves in the same situation?
Dude, you realize what they're doing, man.
They're just dropping them off in your city and hoping they don't come back.
And then all the other towns are going to deal with the homeless crisis.
Man, what wonderful times we live in, I must say.
And is it anyone, you know, the point I was making earlier about the size of cities is that perhaps at a certain point you can't sustain it.
Taxes are getting higher and higher in New York.
The metro system is crumbling.
Infrastructure is failing.
The city is filthy and it smells like sour milk.
Man, you know, I'm not trying to rag on New York.
It's got some beautiful spots.
But seriously, Manhattan, you smell like sour milk.
It's because of the trash.
They put all the trash in the street.
You know this?
On trash day.
Man, go to the financial district on trash day in New York, and there are just piles of garbage in the streets.
They don't have alleys.
And it's a result of how the city was developed and designed.
In Chicago, they started city planning once they realized the problems the East Coast was facing.
And now they have alleyways where you can put your garbage in the back of your house, and so your town doesn't smell like sour milk.
But Manhattan, at a certain point, you can't grow anymore.
Like, what do you do?
Keep building bigger, taller, taller buildings?
It's more and more expensive.
The cost of living is extremely high.
Why would anyone run a business there?
I'm going to have to make a bet.
The digital economy is going to destroy New York City and L.A.
New York and L.A.
are just too massive.
And New York is worse because everything's super dense and skyscrapers.
And it's because Manhattan is built on bedrock so they can build up a lot.
You can't do the same thing, necessarily, in Los Angeles.
That means to get these trucks in to make deliveries, everything's getting ridiculously congested, and you can't even drive.
You're nuts if you drive in that city.
But you've also got the homeless problem, and it's only going to get worse.
But here's the thing.
You take one city block, right, and you build up, and you can keep building as high as you can possibly build, and you can put people inside of it.
But what happens with the people sleeping on the ground outside?
You can't build up the sidewalk.
I mean, I guess you can do what Chicago did and make, like, lower and upper Wacker Drive, but you're gonna have a ton of people sleeping on the street.
So New York is just exporting their homeless to other cities.
Man, I gotta love it.
Real bold solution there, guys.
Thanks.
Stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
May we have reached the turning point in the culture war where people are sick and tired of the social justice pandering and outrage.
I have a couple stories for you.
The first, social justice activist gets kicked out of fellowship for constant complaints and then claims racism.
I'll give you the gist of the story before I read into it.
This person was claiming everything was racist, and people finally got sick and tired of it and said, dude, stop!
Get out!
And then as she was being kicked out, I'm assuming it's a woman, she said, uh, you're racist.
Well, I mean, I think actually the person identifies as non-binary, but her name is Julia, so it's like, You know, I have a question.
How come it's always a female that's claiming to be a mix?
A mix as in like an MX instead of a Mr. or Mrs. as being non-binary?
Very few dudes are doing this.
It's mostly young women, right?
Isn't that weird?
And it's true because there was a story about rapid-onset gender dysphoria.
And how it predominantly affects young women.
I'm just saying, I find it interesting.
I don't know why.
It's like, I heard the story and I was like, I'm willing to bet it's going to be a female.
And my stereotypical assumptions turned out to be correct.
But I have another story for you.
Because we got two stories here.
Comedian leaves woman offended by Helen Keller joke in tears after she interrupts his show.
This is interesting.
This guy writes for Comedy Central, apparently, and he was doing a bit that was really offensive, where he was talking about abortion, and this woman started, and then he mentioned, you know, Helen Keller, she's blind and deaf, and the woman got really offended, saying, I work with special needs kids, and he was like, I don't care!
And this is a seriously, seriously funny bit.
But the reason I highlight these two stories together is that they both kind of play into the same thing, that people are finally saying, get out!
I don't care!
This dude's in a comedy club, okay?
This woman says, I'm offended by that!
And he goes, you can leave then!
And it's really funny because he's like, this is the first joke I'm doing!
Like, it's the intro!
If you're already offended, man, you cannot handle what comes next.
And it's really great.
This guy's hilarious.
It was funny.
But I see these stories.
It's like, when you even have your own friend, like your own, like, fellowship, complaining and kicking you out for this social justice stuff, maybe we're coming to a point now where regular society is saying, dude, enough.
Shut up.
We tolerated enough of this.
We were nice to you, but you just wouldn't let it go.
Get out.
At a certain point, you say, we're not hearing you.
No.
Stop.
You're annoying, right?
It's like, imagine you have a friend over, and he keeps making an annoying sound or doing something, and you go, yo, can you chill out?
Can you stop doing that?
And they go, sorry.
And they start doing it again, and they're like, humming or something, and you're like, dude, stop humming, man.
Okay?
We're asking you politely.
And then they start humming louder and louder, and you're like, alright, get out!
A social justice activist at Cornell University was kicked out of the school's alliance for science fellowship and is now calling the school racist despite complaints from other non-white fellows regarding the student's behavior.
Woah, woah, woah, woah, woah.
Daily Wire, what do you mean?
What you mean to say is other white supremacists who internalize white supremacy?
I don't know.
I don't know, you know, because it doesn't matter if you're white, right?
No matter what, even if you're a minority, you're a bigot.
The student, Julia Feles, uses the pronouns they and them.
Well, that's fantastic.
I don't.
And according to other students in the program, would constantly tie every classroom issue to social justice issues.
This took time away from science and frustrated other fellows.
The Alliance for Science program, as described by Cornell, is supposed to, quote, equip and empower emerging international leaders who are committed to advocating for science-based communications and access to scientific innovation in their home countries.
The College Fix reported that Phyllis accused a visiting professor from Iowa, Iowa State, of using racist and sexist terminology and of speaking loudly and walking towards them to intimidate them after they asked a question.
The professor denied the accusations.
Yes, because talking to someone and walking towards them is not illegal or a violation of any rule.
But you see, maybe they've gone so far in their extremism, people are finally saying, now that is crazy.
And all... It's gonna topple down like dominoes, man, like a Jenga tower.
The problem for Phelus is that their activism and constant classroom interruptions is what truly led to their removal from the program.
In a statement, Cornell's Senior Director of Media Relations and News, John Carberry, noted that 27 of the 31 students accepted into the program this semester were people of color.
He also said Cornell was alarmed by Phelus's allegations, including one that the school attempted to deport Phelus.
Okay, dude.
These kinds of movements attract people who are unwell.
And that's clearly what we're seeing.
They say, it is accurate that this student was asked to lead the 2019 Fellows Program.
The decision was not taken lightly.
This was made after Phyllis engaged in behavior that caused numerous and repeated complaints from other Fellows over many weeks.
It became clear that the educational experience of other Fellows was being compromised due to ongoing interruptions of classroom lectures and discussions by Phyllis.
And notice they're not using pronouns at all.
They just keep saying her name over... This is great!
Because pronouns are supposed to serve a purpose.
Cornell staff made many attempts to support and work with Phyllis, including referrals to appropriate university offices to explore Phyllis's allegations of discrimination in the program.
However, Phyllis... Stop saying her name!
Her!
Her!
She!
Okay?
However, she chose not to take advantage of independent university support programs, instead raising her concerns within the classroom, leading to additional complaints from other fellows.
Program leadership ultimately determined, with sincere regret, that she was not benefiting from the program and that her continued presence was depriving other fellows of their opportunity to benefit from their program.
I want to make one thing clear, okay?
This individual isn't trans.
They're just demanding you use their pronouns.
No.
Sorry.
That's not what's supposed to be happening.
What's supposed to be happening is that you have someone who presents to a certain degree as a female, a trans person, and it makes more sense to use those pronouns, and it's respectful.
In this instance, you apparently have a bully who isn't actually trans, but demands other people use a non-binary pronoun.
Okay, sorry.
This is ridiculous.
I'm not going to say feelus 800 times.
Pronouns exist for a reason.
I can, you know what?
I'm just going to make a new pronoun.
Bloof.
I'm going to say, there you go.
That's your gender neutral pronoun.
Is that okay?
That's what I'm going to give to you.
Because otherwise you're making it impossible to actually talk about these things.
Now I'm going to get in trouble on YouTube.
Carberry added that Phelous is a U.S.
citizen and not subject to deportation, which is weird in the first place.
According to Carberry, he paid the entirety of Ms.
Phelous's stipend covering all housing and purchased Bloof a ticket to return to the country where Bloof currently resides.
This was not enough for Phyllis, who demanded an apology from Cornell, a certificate for the completion of the program, access to Cornell's campus adjudication process to report unjust discipline, sensitivity training for faculty relating to racial and gender issues, and safe spaces on campus for marginalized students, fellows, and staff hosted by other workers.
Students at Cornell naturally rallied around Phyllis.
The student assembly even passed a resolution in support of the student, even though Alliance fellows spoke out against Phyllis.
A student from Nigeria said the fellowship was an inappropriate forum for Phyllis to make comments on social justice.
A student from Kenya said Phyllis was an activist in sessions and that the activism came out in every single session that we had.
Phyllis calls these statements Neocolonialism in real time.
I want to make an important point.
Trans people in this country deserve human rights.
And I believe everyone deserves human rights.
And I absolutely will use the pronouns of the individual because, look man, I will call you whatever you want.
I got no problems.
I do take issue with government enshrining law demanding you speak a certain way.
That's troublesome.
And more importantly, this individual is clearly just a bully who's pretending to care about social justice to force other people to do what they want.
And I think it's fair to point out that this individual in the story is making all of the true trans people look really bad by appropriating that culture and that system for personal gain, and I will not respect that.
But as for the rest of the trans community, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever.
Tremendous respect.
I can only imagine how difficult it may be.
And I will use whatever pronoun you would like.
In fact, Ben Shapiro even explained that in casual settings, he too will use those pronouns.
Because it's easier than trying to explain everything.
But in writing, he wouldn't.
This is different.
This is a person who was kicked out of the school by other students for constantly bullying, berating, and it's just not real activism.
But more to the point, is this finally, when we start seeing the turnaround, where regular people are saying, stop, stop, okay?
We don't want this anymore.
Well, this gentleman here, Tony Hinchcliffe, is not the first comedian to tell everyone to STFU.
And we've got a bunch of comedians now who are standing up and saying, I'm gonna tell jokes, ain't nothing you can do about it.
When we started seeing the comedians speak up because they're offensive.
It's what they do.
Something interesting started to happen because now we're seeing other stories where people are laughing at them and saying, you're nuts.
Perhaps this is the point at which we can finally start seeing the pendulum swing back to normalcy.
Listen, real social justice, real equality, it all makes sense.
It does.
The idea that people will be treated with respect.
But what they're offering up, what this woman is trying to do, is just bully people.
And it makes it harder to actually advocate for respecting others.
If you want to dress up in a clown costume, like a literal clown costume, and you want me to call you Bopo the Clown, I will!
I don't care!
Whatever, man!
You can put on a fursuit and call yourself Vociferon, Herald of the Winter Mists, and I will do my best to refer to you that way, because I really don't care.
The problem arises when these people freak out, get angry, insult, berate, and bully, and demand.
Now, some people have said it's extreme cases, but what do you think's going to happen when you create these loopholes?
You're going to create the opportunity for people to do these things.
So anyway, that's it.
I'm not gonna read into the comedians thing, but you should definitely check it out, because his bit was really funny.
Anyway, stick around, I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Forget Moody's analytics.
Forget all the forecast models.
Forget the economy, the incumbent advantage.
We don't need any of that to know that Trump is going to win.
You know why?
Because Cardi B and Chance the Rapper said so.
And as we know, celebrities can do no wrong.
They know everything.
They are perfect people.
And if the celebrities are coming out saying Trump is going to win, then you know Trump is going to win.
I'm kidding.
But Chance the Rapper and Cardi B did literally just say Trump is going to win.
That is actually important.
Now, joking aside, right, we can talk about Moody's analytics, which is, like, historically accurate.
Trump, the economy incumbent, all that stuff.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, put it all aside.
Here's the thing.
Celebrities have tremendous influence.
They can see something a lot of people don't see.
They're not perfect.
They're not special.
Like, they're not, well, I don't want to say they're not special.
I mean, clearly they've become celebrity in some capacity.
But they do have influence.
So think about all of their friends.
When they have an idea, and they go on TV and they say that idea, hundreds of millions of people around the world hear that idea, and they can spread it around.
When they start talking about Trump winning, and they know he's going to win, I can only imagine their circle of other celebrities and influencers are hearing the same thing, and no one has confidence the Democrats are actually going to take it.
So I know I was kidding in the beginning, but I do think hearing from these celebrities that even though they like Bernie Sanders, Trump's got this one in the bag, they're kind of demoralized on Democrats.
It says to me that that actually is a good predictor that Trump has this.
Let's read this story from The Guardian.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash Donut if you'd like to support my work or just share this video.
Seriously, if everybody who watched this video shared it, I wouldn't need to worry about any support at all because I would have infinite views.
So sharing really does help.
Let's read.
They say Cardi B fears Trump will win in 2020.
Nobody's saying they love a Democrat.
Well, I've got some counterpoints that, you know, talked about my main channel, but we'll get to it.
Rapper praises Bernie Sanders as really passionate, a person that cares, but says Trump's base will tip scales in his favor.
Before the Democratic debate on Tuesday night, Cardi B expressed doubt that any of the Democratic presidential candidates have what it takes to beat Donald Trump next year.
Now stop.
Cardi B is a big fan of Bernie Sanders.
She's got this video right here with Bernie where they're doing like, today Cardi B and I finally met, it's from Bernie Sanders.
Here's the thing.
I'm a big fan of Tulsi Gabbard, okay?
And yes, people are shocked when they're like, oh my god, but Tulsi's a progressive with a bunch of far-left policy ideas, and it's like, I don't agree with all of them.
But it's not just about whether or not I agree or disagree on certain policy issues.
You know, when it comes to Tulsi, I think she's willing to listen, and willing to compromise like a good leader.
Compromise isn't always the right thing to do, but Tulsi seems to be willing to reach out, go on Fox News, and do those things.
There's a lot of complicated factors in this.
But I do agree with a lot of the important details.
War is bad.
Private prisons are bad.
War on drugs is bad.
All that stuff.
Now here's the thing.
I know.
Tulsi's not gonna win, man.
The establishment hates her.
They smear her.
They are punishing her for not supporting Hillary Clinton.
I get it.
Me and some other personalities, I don't want to name them, but there's some really great left-wing personalities that have mutual respect from many on the left and the right.
I know.
Our candidates will always... We're purists, man.
We're always going to want to go for these Democrats that stand tall and push back on the establishment.
But too many establishment Democrats will just pony up to whatever's offered by the party.
And now we're seeing from Cardi B that even though Bernie Sanders has this massive wave of support, even Cardi B is a big Bernie supporter saying she doesn't think he's gonna win.
I think it's time we all got realistic and just got ready for another four years of Trump from 2020.
Like, it's just reality, right?
So let's read.
In an appearance alongside Chance the Rapper on TI's podcast Expeditiously with Tip, she worried that no 2020 candidate had risen above the pack and suggested Trump's base was too entrenched to be beaten.
Chance said, I think Trump is going to win again at the next election because he's got the bigger base.
Done.
We're done.
That's it.
Chance the Rapper said so.
And who knows better than him?
I'm not trying to be, like, I'm being somewhat facetious, but I do think the guys probably, like, seriously, man.
Chance and Cardi and T.I., they probably see this big influential sector in Hollywood and in L.A., and they're seeing there's no strong support for Democrats.
There's no, there's no, like, tsunami or grassroots wave coming.
So I really do think they know something.
Bernie?
Cardi agreed.
I really hate to say it, but sometimes I do believe that Trump will be winning, just because
every single time, I don't see nobody saying they love a Democratic candidate.
There's no candidate that people are saying, like, we love, we want them to win.
Bernie?
But Bernie is an independent who is the socialist that regular Americans don't like.
Cardi has been an enthusiastic supporter of Bernie Sanders and praised him on the podcast
as really a person that cares.
But her comments come as something of a surprise.
This summer, she sat down for an interview with Sanders as part- Wait.
I'm going to keep this story ready for citation for every video.
If you watch Fox News, you think the economy is great.
If you watch MSNBC, not so much.
And you know what that means?
The economy is great!
Even Moody's is saying it.
If you watch MSNBC, you're getting fake news.
And you're living in a fake reality.
And she's shocked people support the president.
I'm not shocked in the least bit.
Okay?
Our weapons deal in Saudi Arabia was great cash for this country.
It's good for the economy.
I get it.
I hate it.
But I get it.
It is in the interest of Americans to have this foreign policy.
You know, people... I don't know what she thinks is going on when they read this fake news, but Trump is a nationalist.
Trump wants Americans to do better.
Trump doesn't care about your race.
Trump wants Americans to do better.
That's what people can't seem to understand.
These people who think everything is about race are the racists, in my opinion.
Is Trump... I'll put it this way.
Is Trump racist?
Based on the definition that everybody to varying degrees is racist, yes.
But there was one guy I met at the art showing for Shia LaBeouf who said to me, he told me, as a black dude, that Trump is the least racist president the US has ever had, except for maybe Obama.
And I said, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, the least racist?
And he's like, yeah, yeah, come on.
Everybody's got prejudice.
You know, everybody's a little racist.
And Trump is the least racist we've ever had.
And I said, yeah, yeah, but come on, the least?
And then he was like, dude, presidents own slaves.
I started laughing.
And this dude was a lefty.
I was like, yeah.
He's like, so listen, man, talk about the bad thing Trump does when he does them.
Talk about things you think would be racist, but recognize it used to be so much worse.
We're doing good.
And I was like, that was actually a really profound moment for me.
You know, I was like, damn, that's really smart, actually.
It's a good point.
You know, Trump's not perfect.
Trump has his prejudices.
Of course he does.
Trump has said stupid things.
I get it, man.
And are we doing better?
Dude, Obama had so many scandals and so many bad things.
I don't know what to tell you, man.
I can't weigh Trump vs. Obama because of their character.
I don't like Trump's character.
I liked Obama's character, but Obama was so bad.
Fast and Furious, man?
You know, I'm not surprised we're seeing people finally give up and give in and say... Here, let me read this, because, you know, I get ripped up.
She said, every single time, he always talks about how he wants to take away Medicare and stuff like that.
A poor white man that's getting Medicare is not even caring that he's saying that.
He just cares that he hates Mexicans and he wants to get rid of them.
You see, fake news!
Fake news, dude.
If you watch MSNBC, you believe the most outrageous and insane fake news.
You know, Donald Trump wants to deport people who are not citizens of this country, because Donald Trump cares about the community that is this country.
I think Donald Trump has got attitude issues.
I think Donald Trump is desperate for love and affection, which leads him to taking populist positions and favoring whichever mass is larger.
I think there's a lot of things to criticize Trump for, but this idea that he's overtly racist, when everyone loved him before he ran for office, it's just so ridiculous to me.
Trump did not say all Mexicans.
He made a crude comment about when Mexico sends their people, they're not sending their best.
Not a big fan.
Think he could have articulated that a lot better.
I think I get what he's trying to say.
But Trump does this all the time, and it's one of the most frustrating things.
He'll be talking, and he goes off script, and then he says something that's kind of weird, and you're like, wait, what?
And then the left seizes on it to just try and screech at him.
Man, the problem I have with this is, bro, I get what you're trying to say, Trump.
Please write it down.
Because when you say...
Whatever.
I want to rant about this.
I try to avoid devolving into Orange Man bad takes because it always happens.
And it's funny because I have to sprinkle in a little bit, otherwise people scream that I'm defending the president.
It's like, dude, no, I'm not.
You know, people comment on my videos like Tim has TDS.
No, I don't.
You know, it's so ridiculous.
The idea that I just simply don't like a president doesn't mean I'm deranged.
Many people are deranged and hate literally everything Trump does.
Hey, Trump just had a historical moment in Syria.
Credit where credit is due.
Huge victory.
He won for the president.
You know, I think his presentation after the fact was 6 to 7 out of 10.
Like, he came out really strong.
It sounded really great.
And then kind of trailed off near the end.
I have no problem saying, oh, the president did something good.
Well, there you go.
Congratulations.
This was on your watch.
You deserve credit for it.
People with TDS are screeching at the top of their lungs right now that Trump praised Russia.
And it's like, dude, listen, man, in the real world, There are good things about people and bad things about people.
There are politicians I don't like, but it's whatever.
A good example of somebody that I really disagree with but actually really like as a person would be Dan Crenshaw.
The dude seems like such a calm, straight shooter type who's trying to do good and he's principled.
And I just disagree with them on a lot of things.
And disagree is kind of a weak word in my opinion.
I think we have fundamental differences in how we perceive the world and what we think should or shouldn't be.
That's the big challenge, right?
Somebody who says, we've got to have this kind of system and that, and I say, whoa, I wouldn't want to live that way.
What do we do?
Ah, man, we compromise.
That's the thing.
So in the end, the celebrities are starting to get it.
But they still live in this weird WALL-E world of fake news, and it's a shame.
But, hey man, I really do think it's fair to say that when celebrities are pointing out, within their own circles, they're not hearing any favor for the Democrats, man, Trump's gonna win, and he's gonna landslide.
