California Is Becoming Unlivable, Trump Slams Democrat's Failures, Republicans Try To Recall Newsom
California Is Becoming Unlivable, Trump Slams Democrat's Failures, Republicans Try To Recall Newsom California has a democratic super majority but still faces growing problems.Trump slammed Nancy Pelosi over her failing district as reports of homelessness and disease show just how bad it really is. Add all of this to the ongoing black outs and wildfires and it looks like California is reverting back to the wild westCNN Reported that PG&E says its employees have been attacked as they try to deal with the power crisis. The company is asking people to stop targeting their employees but clearly people are fed up.The wealthiest of the state, including Nancy Pelosi, live in their million dollar vineyards while the poor are forced to flee or live in squalor. Many blame democrats and increasing far left policies but all arguments aside its fair to say first and foremost the state is failing and becoming unlivable.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The other day, Donald Trump slammed Nancy Pelosi and her district for being in very bad shape, saying, The home of Nancy Pelosi.
I can't believe her voters can be happy with the job she and the do-nothing Democrats are doing.
San Francisco has really gone downhill.
So sad.
And he links to a tweet from Laura Ingram.
Preview of America with Democrats in charge.
San Francisco hostage to the homeless.
Now, the left will say, these are Republican talking points.
California is fine.
I assure you that's not the case.
Because while, yes, it's Donald Trump and Laura Ingraham, I'd like to show you this.
California is becoming unlivable.
And no, this is not from conservative media.
This is the Atlantic, arguing that the wildfires and lack of affordable housing are exacerbating each other, making the state unlivable.
But you might say, Tim, that's but one article from the Atlantic.
Well, how about the New York Times?
It's the end of California as we know it.
The fires and the blackouts are connected to a larger problem in the state, a failure to live sustainably.
Yes, the leadership in California has been spending in excess, massive debt, an inability to vote for real reforms.
I have another story pulled up.
We'll get to it.
Where the Democrats, who have a supermajority in LA, are unable to solve the problem of homelessness.
Now you have drugs, filth, dumps, garbage everywhere, disease.
The wildfires are unfortunate, but it adds to this growing problem that makes California unlivable.
And again, you can ask me about a conservative opinion, or did conservatives cede the idea?
See, they're only repeating this now because, as Vox claimed, Fox News manipulates the media.
Sorry.
The Daily Beast wrote this in 2017.
Is California a failed state?
Is it?
Well, I don't know.
But I'm leaning towards probably.
And I have to ask this question then.
Why do we have leadership from California telling what the rest of the country should be doing when they can't solve their own problems?
And I don't just mean the politicians.
I mean the high-profile wealthy celebrities who are far left and, yes, many of the politicians, but you have many influential people in California living it up in wealth and splendor.
Meanwhile, the state collapses and they preach to the rest of us about how we're supposed to live.
So maybe Trump was right to call out Pelosi specifically.
Now, I do think it's fair to say that he's calling her out because she's leading the impeachment against him.
But I do think he's got a point.
I do think he's correct to say there's a serious problem here.
So does the Atlantic.
So does the New York Times.
So does the Daily Beast.
And it's about time we talked about it.
But now I want to bring you to the more serious issue.
While it's interesting to talk about the wildfires and homelessness, we have a much more serious story.
PG&E employees are asking people not to target, I'm sorry, PG&E is asking people not to target their employees.
It's becoming a real Wild Wild West out there.
Well, what do you think happens when natural disasters strike and they shut the power down?
And even before that, they already had a homeless crisis, a disease crisis, drug epidemic, What happens when you take all of those things and add a natural disaster?
People are now shooting at PG&E employees.
I kid you not.
A report from CNN.
I want to talk to you today about the problems of California and why some people think it has to do with their government and ask you this question.
You can comment below right now.
Should the Democrats in California, be it a political activist who supports them or the active politicians, be telling the rest of us what to do if they can't keep their own room clean?
Let's read this story first from PG and E. Before I do, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's multiple ways you can give PayPal, crypto, physical address, but of course the best thing you can do is share this video.
It's a very contentious subject, very controversial, and I'm competing with these big players.
YouTube is deranking this content.
We've seen the leaks.
If you think I do a good job and these stories are important, please consider sharing this however you can on whatever social media platform to help me grow and keep doing what I do.
But let's read.
Stepping outside of politics, okay?
Because I'm going to get political on this one.
Let's read about a real problem.
PG&E.
They're the electric company.
They want to shut the power down because these wind events are creating a potential for fires.
And they were heavily criticized when one of the last wildfires was started because of a downed power line.
In response to this, some Californians aren't having any of it.
And they're bringing weapons.
This is where things start breaking down in a rather scary way.
Now listen.
With a Democrat supermajority in the state, with Democratic leadership, I can criticize them.
But this is a whole new level of breakdown.
Let's read.
As California utility Pacific Gas and Electric continues to face criticism for multiple planned power shutoffs that left thousands of customers in the dark last month, the company is asking the public not to take their frustration out on PG&E employees.
Some employees have received death threats in response to the shutoffs, PG&E CEO Bill Johnson said Wednesday.
Our employees in the field have repeatedly been the targets of misguided attacks.
Not just verbal abuse, but threats on their lives.
One was assaulted.
After being cornered in his vehicle, several have been shot at.
Everything stops.
Politics stops when someone's life is in danger.
The wildfires are destroying homes.
They're threatening people's lives, their physical safety.
And beyond that, they're making it very difficult to survive in general.
Will you have food?
Will you have water?
Will your loved ones make it?
And when that happens, politics don't matter.
What matters is, am I going to protect myself and my family?
And in the end, the law, who cares?
Think about it.
If you're placed in a position where your life might end, and you're given a choice, break the law or survive, what do you think people will do?
We've seen the homeless problem.
This is a failure of government on many levels.
And don't take my word for it, I've got more than enough stories.
America's cities are unlivable.
Blame wealthy liberals.
New York Times!
Not coming from the right.
But listen.
A homeless crisis is a failure of policy to address the issues.
Wildfires on top of this.
It's going to result in strained resources, filthy, waste-filled streets, and people desperate to survive.
That's when the violence breaks out.
And PG&E is saying, please, several of our employees have been shot at.
This is where things are getting truly bad for California.
You want to talk about a state being unlivable?
We can.
And we'll talk about policy, because boy, I got some policy to talk about.
But let me show you this first.
I want to make sure it's very clear to everybody.
I am not blaming the wildfires on policy.
That's absurd.
Wildfires are happening for a lot of reasons.
Some of it has to do with policy, lifestyle, culture, but I'm not going to play this silly game and blame California's governor for why the fires are happening.
But take a look at this.
California wildfire looks like the gates of hell as out-of-control blaze destroys homes and races to outskirts of Los Angeles.
I'm highlighting this first because I want to make sure it's clear this is a disaster, and this is sad, and it's scary.
I understand that when you place this on top of the other policy problems, it's when things truly get bad.
But let's be real.
The more that these fires are presented, the more the brush grows and the debris grows and the fuel for the fires grows.
And so if there aren't small fires in short amounts of time, there will be big, big fires over long periods of time.
That technically is a policy issue.
But now we're getting into the dangerous portion.
When PG&E moves to shut down the power, You can call it unlivable, you can call it a failed state, but all that matters is the natural disaster is exacerbating the political dilemma this place is facing.
Now, the opinions of the New York Times, you can say it's just theirs, but you can't say it's conservatives.
It's the end of California as we know it.
Farhad Manjoo, a columnist for the New York Times, writes about the numerous problems California is facing, but notably their inability to live sustainably, and he says their nihilism.
Let me read.
He says, I have lived nearly all my life in California, and my love for this place and its peoples runs deep and true.
There have been many times in the past few years when I've called myself a Californian nationalist.
Sure, America seems to be going crazy, but at least I lived in the Golden State where things were still pretty chill.
But lately, my affinity for my home state has soured.
Maybe it's the smoke and the blackouts, but a very un-Californian nihilism has been creeping into my thinking.
I'm starting to suspect we're over.
It's the end of California as we know it.
I don't feel fine.
It isn't just the fires.
Although, my God, the fires.
Is this what life in America's most populous, most prosperous state is going to be like from now on?
Every year, hundreds of thousands evacuating, millions losing power, hundreds losing property and lives.
Last year, the air near where I live in Northern California, within driving distance of some of the largest and most powerful advanced corporations in the history of the world, was more hazardous than the air in Beijing and New Delhi.
There's a good chance that will happen again this month, and that it will keep happening every year from now on.
Is this really the best America can do?
No.
But people have been fleeing California.
They've been losing, I believe, in the past several years, current metrics say about 5 million people.
There's a lot of things contributing to this.
It's not just California, there are other big cities that are losing population, but California is particularly, is facing a particularly large exodus.
People have talked about it.
Now recently, there was a question asked about what's causing all of the problems in California.
Or at least four big contributing factors.
This is a story from last year.
The top four reasons California is unsustainable.
I want to be very careful, and this is why I mentioned the disaster first.
I can't blame fires on bad policy for the most part.
Like a little bit you can, okay?
Like PG&E, the power went down, the line caused a fire, these things happen.
Yes, policy can be to blame to a certain degree.
But I want to make sure we're all clear, natural disasters are unfortunate, and California just happens to have these.
It is a factor.
But you have to now look past the disasters and talk about the decay, the urban decay, the rampant homelessness, and all of the other problems.
And the number one reason this Forbes article gives?
The California governments.
You would think all of the above would have government officials deeply worried, so much so that they would cut back everywhere they could.
If you thought that, you would be wrong.
Very wrong.
California spends nearly $200 billion a year on budget, and even more off-budget in the form of programs paid with bonds, debt financing.
As for the pension debt, of that nearly $200 billion, in the most recent budget, less than $2 billion was allocated to paying down that pension debt.
More than that, was spent this year on a high-speed rail project currently estimated to cost $70 billion and which no one seems to want.
Beyond that, as I wrote earlier, California is moving ever farther left and wants the nation to pay for it.
The next generation of leaders, Gavin Newsom, Kevin de Leon, Xavier Becerra, and Kamala Harris, are significantly to the left of the old Jerry Brown and Dianne Feinstein.
That new generation of leaders are supported by an influx of friendly voters who are replacing those that are leaving.
All of those leaders support the dozens of lawsuits brought by the Democrat Attorney General Xavier Becerra against the Trump administration.
Many describe those lawsuits as part of California Democrats' resistance movement, a resistance designed to result in political gains more than policy benefits.
And now we're back to impeachment.
Should the Californian people Their leadership, the high-profile influencers, lead the charge for the rest of the country when their state is failing and many people are concerned they're just trying to cling to power instead of dealing with the actual problems.
Now he goes on to talk about a lot of these issues.
And there's a lot to talk about.
But I can bring up some.
The gas prices.
Gavin Newsom saying, why are the gas prices so high?
Why is now California being called by conservative outlets, America's first third world state?
I can't tell you.
But I do want to show you one thing.
Going to that article, something I find kind of interesting.
Check this out.
California losing residents via domestic migration.
What he said just now is that California is bringing in friendly voters who are replacing those who are leaving.
Let me ask you, who do you think is leaving?
In 1992, it was the first time California switched to Democrat in a long time.
For a long time, California was Republican.
After this flip, I believe it was for Bill Clinton, it remained steadily Democrat since then.
And I think that the reason is, when California starts adopting policies that damage the state, notably all of the problems I've already mentioned, homelessness, disease, drugs, etc.
Well, the people who work start leaving.
Taxes are really high in California.
It's arguably harder to open a business.
It's not the worst state in the country.
But with all the taxes and all the problems, and the recent anecdotes we've seen of people closing their businesses down and complaining about Gavin Newsom, You're going to see those earners, those who create, those who build, are going to leave.
And you'll see some regular people who just don't want to live in the squalor anymore.
They'll leave.
So who's coming?
Who's moving into the disaster area?
I can't tell you.
Maybe it's the people who are promised free healthcare.
Maybe it's the people who are already homeless or know that California keeps handing out benefits at the expense of those who are doing the work.
Now I'll admit, I lean left on a lot of these policy issues.
I do think it is a good thing to have welfare programs, but at a certain point you need to clean up and then, you know, clean house and then reinstate these programs.
As I've described it in the past, let's say you get a cut on your arm.
You put a band-aid over it.
Makes sense.
We all agree band-aids are a good thing.
So now you've bandaged the wound and a week goes by and it's filthy.
What they're doing in California is placing a new bandage over the old festering one.
And they're stacking bandages on top of the wound so it can't heal properly.
It's becoming infected and gross.
You need to remove the bandage, review, look at the wound, check it out, clean it out, and then reapply.
I think these programs are important.
I think they help people in need.
But you can't just keep making new programs to solve the problems of the old programs.
Welfare programs, like for the homeless, are supposed to solve these issues.
But instead what they do is, like New York for instance, they just bust the homeless out of the state.
Send them to other places, and they come right back.
They don't solve the problem.
They sweep it under the rug and make it worse.
What we can see here is we can see more people are leaving than are coming in, but people are coming in.
Check this out.
In-migration did go up, but out-migration still outpaces this.
I have to wonder who is coming to California, and I don't know for sure, but to me it does sound a lot like California just passed a bill recently offering healthcare, government-paid healthcare, to non-citizens under the age of 26.
So who do you think's going to start coming into the state?
People who run businesses?
I don't think so.
I think it's going to be people who are looking to benefit from these programs.
But it's kind of obvious, then, what you'll get.
An influx of people who need, and an outpouring of people who make.
In which case, there will be nothing to give anybody.
Which is why, for the most part, socialism fails.
I for one am mostly for a mixed economy, but hey, it is what it is.
There's a more succinct view of this.
Townhall, which is conservative, writes, Is California becoming pre-modern?
And they say, Millions of fed-up middle-class taxpayers have fled the state.
That appears to be true.
I don't have that data pulled up, but hey, that's their opinion.
I think it's correct.
Their presence as a stabilizing influence is sorely missed.
About one-third of the nation's welfare recipients live in California.
One third of the nation's welfare recipients live in California, which is why I highlight this.
I think my assessment may be correct.
Millions of poor newcomers require enormously expensive state health, housing, education, legal, and law enforcement services.
California is now a one-party state.
Democrats have supermajorities in both houses of the legislature.
Legislature.
Only seven of the state's 53 congressional seats are held by Republicans.
The result is that there is no credible check on a mostly coastal majority.
Huge global wealth and high-tech finance trade and academia poured into the coastal corridor, creating a new mobility with unprecedented riches.
Unfortunately, the new aristocracy adopted mindsets antithetical To the generational welfare of Californians living outside their coastal enclaves.
The nobodies have struggled to buy high-priced gas, pay exorbitant power bills, and deal with shoddy infrastructure, all of which resulted from the policies of the distant somebody's.
One of the factors that is driving the exodus is wealth inequality.
Yep. Surprise, surprise, conservatives. Wealth inequality creates great problems.
But don't worry. I can pass the blame over to Nancy Pelosi.
Take a look at Nancy Pelosi's net worth.
Now a lot of people have shared memes saying her net worth is like a hundred something million.
I think when you look at her husband combined with her, you'll see there's a much higher net worth.
But Nancy Pelosi has a minimum net worth, according to the LA Times, of $16 million.
Take a look at San Francisco.
Some of the wealthiest people in this country, billionaires, tech financiers, tech moguls, rampant homelessness, feces problems, and poor people fleeing.
But Nancy Pelosi?
No, she's rich.
She's worth millions.
And apparently she bought a property recently.
This is all publicly listed on LA Times.
They say she has a joint property.
It's a home and vineyard worth $5 million.
And according to a real estate website, the monthly payment is around $17,000 per month.
California is in dire straits with a lot of problems.
But Nancy Pelosi is a millionaire, complaining about the orange man.
Meanwhile, California quite literally is on fire.
San Francisco is losing residents because it's too expensive for nearly everyone.
The poor people are being forced out.
Nancy Pelosi, the wealthy, is representing just the wealthy.
People who are coming to California are coming for benefits, but they can't afford homes.
It's quite literally, and I mean no disrespect to Ukraine, but it's becoming like Ukraine.
Where you have wealthy oligarchs controlling the state, some people want to get rid of them, and then those oligarchs are trying to influence our national politics when their state is failing?
The governor of California is facing two separate recall efforts.
They say it's an uphill battle.
But clearly, although it's Republicans, there are still some people within the state trying to push back.
I looked at one poll and it said something like 27% of California are registered Republicans, but like 44% are registered Democrats.
A lot of people on the left want to move there.
They want to move there because they hear these great things, but the state is worse off.
It's just not great.
When you have one-party control, this is what you get.
There's no competition.
There's no reason to even bother trying.
And you end up with a governor that people don't want anymore.
You end up with sky-high gas prices.
You end up with all of these problems.
Take those problems and add some even more bad news, natural disasters, and you get, I'm sorry, a failing state that has become unlivable.
According to the Atlantic, or as the New York Times put it, it's the end of California as we know it.
And now we here, and the rest of the country, me on the East Coast, have to contend with them, this failing state, sending their politicians, notably Nancy Pelosi.
Now, I'll give her credit.
She resisted impeachment for a long time.
She didn't want it.
But now those politicians from this failing state, full of all of these problems, are pushing for impeachment and complaining and won't stop.
You got Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi.
Congratulations.
Great.
Should we listen to them?
Well, for the time being, we kind of have to.
That's how the system works.
But I think we can highlight the problems from their districts, at least, so we can talk about whether or not they truly care about the people.
I'm not going to pretend like Nancy Pelosi should be the one solving all these problems.
She represents her district to the federal government.
But at the same time, think about her wealth, think about all the problems faced in California, and who these people are and how they're living, and then who their representative is.
And I'm going to have to say, I think the criticism is apt, and we should point out the problems in California.
I don't know if California will turn around.
Maybe it'll get so bad people just leave and it'll lose all of its power.
Congressional districts will start shrinking.
We'll see.
I guess we'll see.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all there.
So I have to start by saying it takes a special kind of stupid to not just commit a crime,
to not just film yourself committing the crime, to not just live stream the filming you're
doing, but to narrate all of the crimes you're doing, admitting everything along the way,
and I kid you not, film your face and then film yourself running from law enforcement
But to openly admit everything while filming your face is a whole new level of stupid.
You know what the truth is though?
Stupid criminals, this stupid, have existed for a long time.
It is the advent of live streaming, and the ubiquity of it, allowing everybody to stream, that has created a new era Where we don't have to worry about the FBI or the NSA spying on us, because apparently these criminals are so stupid, they'll spy on themselves for law enforcement, actually filming their face and admitting to everything and explaining it.
It is amazing.
Absolutely incredible.
Let's read this story, and if we have time, I have a list of, like, the top 10 criminals who live-streamed their crime.
Because, yes, it's apparently a thing.
Before we get started, make sure you head over to TimCast.com slash Donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, the best thing you can do is share this video.
It's the best way I can grow the channel, because I'm competing with these big other networks, and YouTube is throttling and deranking this content.
Let's read.
Quote, I got immigration on my A. Woman 19 and a friend live streamed their attempt to smuggle illegal immigrants across the border before leading police on a high-speed chase in Texas.
Alejandro Vela, 22, and Carmine Espinoza, 19, have been identified as the residents of Laredo who were taken into custody.
attempt to allegedly evade arrest while smuggling illegal immigrants across the
border. Alejandro Vela, 22, and Carmine Espinoza, 19, have been identified as the
residents of Laredo who were taken into custody. So apparently it's a guy and a
woman. Vela has been charged with evading arrest with vehicle, with a
vehicle, with vehicle, evading arrest on foot, unlawful transport of a person for
pecuniary benefit, and reckless driving.
Espinoza was charged with unlawful transport of a person for pecuniary benefit and evading arrest on foot, according to the Laredo Morning Times.
So there's actually photos.
And like, they're filming them doing this.
I can say it a million times.
I am impressed.
Not only did you identify yourself, you identified the people you were smuggling into the country.
Now they're going to be able to find these people.
Congratulations.
How stupid do you have to be?
Look at this.
The 10-minute livestream video ends with Espinoza and one of the passengers getting out of the car.
And fleeing as police sirens are heard in the background.
Seriously?
Like you're being chased by the cops and you're like filming yourself like, oh no, the cops are chasing me!
Immigration, look at this!
And you filmed your face!
Three unidentified migrants who were allegedly smuggled by Vela and Espinoza were taken into custody by U.S.
Border Patrol.
The incident took place around 4 p.m.
local time on October 25th.
A Texas state trooper tried to pull over a 2010 Mercedes-Benz SUV for a traffic violation on US 83 in San Ignacio, according to the Texas Department of Public Safety.
While traveling north, the vehicle began to gain speed in an attempt to evade the trooper, it is alleged.
Look at these pictures of her!
You know, bad parents, I gotta say that.
After the vehicle made a U-turn, it was eventually stopped at an intersection with the help of Zapata County Sheriff's deputies.
But after the vehicle was finally stopped, the drivers and passengers got out of the car and began running.
Eventually, the driver, Vela, and the passenger, Espinoza, were taken into custody by Border Patrol.
During a dramatic attempt to escape, Espinoza broadcast the event on her Facebook page.
Yes, she did.
In the approximately 10-minute clip, Vela is seen with three migrants sitting in the backseat of the Mercedes-Benz SUV.
Hey, I'm live on Facebook, she is heard saying, while posing with the migrants in the backseat.
Look at this guy, he's smiling.
Like, thank you.
What?
He has been charged by state authorities with evading arrest.
Yeah, we know that.
Later in the clip, she is heard saying, I got immigration on my aid.
At one point in the clip, Vela is heard calling his uncle and asking him if he could open the gate to his ranch to help them evade law enforcement, but the uncle isn't home.
During the most dramatic portion of the clip, Espinosa is seen driving faster on the highway.
Toward the end of the clip, it appears she is forced to veer the car off the highway.
At this point, she and the other passengers are seen getting out of the car, running on foot.
She grabs the phone and flees through what appears to be shrubbery and natural terrain.
As she tries to hide under a tree, while live streaming no less, the wail of police sirens can be heard in the background.
She continues running while audibly running out of breath.
The video ends before they are arrested.
Okay, I have a question.
If you're going to live stream you breaking the law, why would you try to run away?
You have just published your face and admitted to every crime.
Running is pointless.
You're only going to make it worse.
You would think filming yourself breaking the law is you admitting and being like, I'm not going to run.
I give up.
I admit everything.
So there, you know, I'm grateful people are this dumb because then we can actually see.
Look at, she's like smiling.
Like, what are you?
How stupid?
The desire for internet brownie points is greater than the desire for freedom, I guess?
I don't know what she's trying to prove, but congratulations, you made yourself famous, and you can enjoy that fame while you're in jail.
Probably in prison, because I'm sure there's gonna be a ton of felonies, and you've admitted to all of them, and they're not gonna give you a plea deal.
The prosecutor's gonna be like, we have no reason, we have an open and shut case, congratulations.
So this is the main story that I really wanted to focus on, but admittedly, there's not a lot here, that's it.
So I decided to search for this to figure out if this is a really, I mean, ongoing thing.
Now, you guys may remember a story back in Chicago where this special needs kid, white kid, was abducted by, I believe it was like three black young adults, and they filmed themselves torturing this guy.
So there have been very high-profile live-streaming of criminal events, but I decided to pull up something just to, like, layer in this idea of how dumb you have to be.
But I'm grateful for live-streaming.
First, this is a story.
It's from two years ago.
Ten serious crimes published on Facebook.
So it's not just live-streaming.
But I highlight this Because this isn't new, okay?
The illegal immigration thing to me was interesting, but the only reason I thought it was worth actually talking about is that apparently it is a trend for people to commit crimes, publish the evidence online admitting to those crimes, and they're stupid enough to, like, they don't realize it.
It's also like these stories, I love these stories, what happens all the time where people call the cops complaining about a drug deal gone wrong, where they're like, There's, I swear to God, you can Google this, and there are a ton of stories where someone calls the cops saying, like, their prostitutes stole their meth, and the cop's like, okay, and they come and arrest the guy, like, congratulations, we arrest you first, maybe we'll find this lady.
So we have, there are numerous stories about this.
I just pulled up a list because I was like, top tens are popular, right?
But this exemplifies the issue of stupidity.
Chicago manhunt.
A suspect was sought at the end of March 2016 after he recorded a live stream video firing at a Chicago man.
The footage went viral and police used the video to investigate the incident.
It happened on a weekend where Chicago experienced an extremely high shooting rate.
The incident was believed to be gang related.
There's another shooting.
People are filming themselves shooting other people.
I'm sorry, man.
I just have to stress how much I love that she's laughing and filming herself do this.
What do you think is happening?
A lot of these are shootings.
A lot of these are really horrible things I don't really want to talk about.
But for some reason, you've got people, and I also want to point out, these are all Chicago.
Almost all of them are Chicago.
There's a trend now, where I guess people want to be famous on social media, and that's why they do this.
Like, I can't explain what the motivation was.
Do you think people are going to respect you for this?
First of all, my questions are, why are you smuggling illegal immigrants in, I guess, for money?
As they said, pecuniary benefits, so I guess they're getting paid to do it.
But you just ended everything when you filmed yourself, like, I don't understand.
Like, why commit a crime if you're going to admit and transmit evidence of that crime to law enforcement immediately and then make the crime worse?
I just don't get it.
You have to be really, really dumb.
Right?
Apparently it happens all the time.
And so, I guess that's the only reason I showed that, uh, the top ten list.
I hope people do it more.
I really do.
I strongly recommend all criminals do this.
And I'll leave you with one more thought, which is really strange to me.
You've got cops who don't want to wear body cameras.
You've got police officers saying, we don't want to wear body cameras.
They shut them off.
There's big complaints.
But most cops are now required to wear them.
And for the most part, they can wear them.
And it's controversial.
I get it.
Why is the inverse happening?
Why is it that the cops are resisting?
Not all of them, but many.
And the criminals, by choice, with no obligation, are filming their crimes.
The point of body cameras for cops is accountability.
And there are a lot of circumstances where the police turn their cameras off and people complain about it.
They say, oh, it was a malfunction or something.
I then wonder why, if you don't have to do it, why would you?
There's one famous story that was kind of recent where a cop thought he was turning his camera off, but he actually turned it on and then filmed himself planting drugs.
That was an accident, though.
They were trying to avoid getting caught committing that crime.
But this woman, Look, she's filming herself running from the police, and they smile in their prison garb.
It just makes no sense to me.
But hey, man.
Millennials are vapid, lazy, stupid, and this combines all of these things.
Lazy.
Committing a crime for money because you don't want to work.
Stupid.
Filming yourself committing the crime, and committing the crime in the first place.
Vapid.
Trying to earn social media points by broadcasting a felony.
I believe it was a felony.
Congratulations.
You're entering the history books of stupid.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all next time.
Do you remember seeing that Ocasio-Cortez What the Future Will Look Like piece with the Green New Deal?
It was this painting illustration video that went very, very viral on the left, so maybe you didn't see it, where it was about this, I don't know, 50-something-year-old Ocasio-Cortez and young women of color and natives helping replant the earth and how the Green New Deal fixed everything.
I found it really interesting.
Kind of annoying, but I can appreciate the idealism.
I love idealism.
This idea that we can strive to be perfect.
We can't.
But I think it's a good place to be, honestly.
If you strive for the best of the best of the best, you'll get close.
But let me shine some reality on the situation.
You're noticing that there's a title of this video.
You clicked it.
You're noticing the article I have pulled up.
I'd now like to present you my vision of the future.
50... 40 years from now.
I don't know what the time frame was.
50-something-year-old Ocasio-Cortez.
Let's call her 70.
She's in Pelosi's position.
She's an old lady.
She has no family.
And all of her supporters, these climate change individuals, also have no family.
They are single, elderly, with very few friends.
Their families, their parents and such have passed on.
But they don't have kids.
They don't have spouses.
And, well, some do.
But they're in this weird position where they're speaking to a young generation of conservatives Ranting about the damages that climate change has wrought now being in the future, and they're talking about the policy they need to enact, and these young people are confused.
They know no one their age who believes what these people are saying.
Ocasio-Cortez has become a fringe doomsayer, and no one can relate to her anymore.
Like that crazy guy across the street ranting about how the aliens replaced Nixon with a lizard man.
She seems like she's out of her mind.
This is not a long shot.
I think Ocasio-Cortez's concept of a future in a Green New Deal is impossible for one simple reason.
The story I have pulled up.
Republicans have more kids than Democrats.
A lot more kids.
This story's from March 26th of this year.
But I have some other sources, too, going back to 2013.
There's even stories going back to 2006.
And it's something I've long since talked about with my liberal friends.
Your future will not be you as some proud liberal leftist leader, heralding to the young generation the great things you've brought.
It will be an overwhelmingly more conservative and religious generation confused as to how you remain in power.
In fact, a better vision of the future would be a 70-year-old Ocasio-Cortez who was voted out 20 years prior by the young people that were the children of conservatives that moved around this country and voted her out.
Here's the reality.
You take a look at what's going on with liberals.
For one, liberals tend to have less kids, period.
It's because, I mean, we can put it simply, you live in a crammed apartment in New York City you can barely afford, it's going to be really difficult to raise a kid in New York City.
I moved out of New York City.
It's a hard place to live.
You have tiny apartments that are very expensive.
Everyone's noisy.
It's frustrating.
There's a lot of great things about being in the city.
But you want to be around your friends.
Well, guess what?
These urban liberals have substantially less kids than those who live in suburban houses and rural houses and have the space and can afford to have kids.
The cost of living in New York is much, much higher.
So there are a lot of reasons for this.
But let's just say, based off of living conditions and expense, there's one reason why liberals aren't having kids anymore.
But let me bring you now to the next big factor.
Fearing the collapse of civilization, birth strikers vow to not have kids from March of 2019, around the same time as this article.
And I started thinking about this a long time ago, actually.
When I was in my early 20s, I was talking to my friends about pro-life versus pro-choice.
And I said, you know, it's really interesting.
There's kind of a simple mathematical equation to prove the pro-choice people will lose.
It's kind of obvious, right?
If liberals are more likely, even by 1%, to abort their child, that means they're going to be more conservative babies, more religious, more Christian.
And what happens in 50 years?
We go through two more generations of liberals not having kids, and the ones who do instill those values in those kids, who are much less likely to have kids, And eventually, you will have 70-year-old Ocasio-Cortez sitting by herself in her small Brooklyn apartment, long since being voted out of politics, being considered to be weird and strange, because the younger generation looks at her as an old, crazy person with crazy ideas, and she has no family.
So here's the thing.
As conservatives instill their values in their kids, and they have many of them, we'll read this story, and liberals don't.
The next generation should become more conservative, right?
Well, lo and behold, we're actually starting to see that trend.
You know, look, I could be wrong about this, I have no problem.
I'm just, I read this article, it made me think, and I want to give you my thoughts on the matter.
But I believe I have this pulled up.
Check this out.
Pew Research says that Generation Z looks a lot like Millennials.
That's really, really interesting.
That's really interesting.
Take a look at this curve.
I want to make sure I get this fair.
It is true that Generation Z is more likely to favor diversity.
That Generation Z is more likely to know what gender-neutral pronouns are.
But there's something interesting happening.
All the generations before Millennial, we can see a stark contrast.
Check this out.
About half of Gen Z and Millennials say same-sex marriage, interracial marriage are good for society.
Well, hold on.
Look at the jump.
From the Silent Generation to the Boomer Generation, those who view it as a good thing, we're looking at about 9 points.
Then we can go from Boomer to Gen X. It goes about 6 points.
But from Gen X to Millennial, it's 14 points.
Every generation saw a huge leap in what we would refer to as progressive politics, up until Generation Z. Generation Z is slightly more progressive in some issues, and actually slightly more conservative in other issues.
You know what this means to me?
I think we're looking at the peak of a bell curve.
That means, I believe the generation after Z, and after whatever that generation is, ZZ, whatever they're calling it, They're going to be increasingly more conservative, and it's kind of obvious.
I don't know when the trend started, with liberals not having kids, but a lot of people have talked about how Gen Z is the first generation, first generation in like a hundred years, to be more conservative than the previous.
It's important to note that Gen Z is similar in many, many ways to Millennials, meaning they're very progressive.
With a but.
There's a shift happening.
And if this shift continues, the next generations will be increasingly more conservative.
Check this out.
Most generations are indifferent about cohabitation, but have a more negative view of single motherhood.
Percentage saying couples living together without being married is a good thing for society.
Gen Z is lower than Millennials.
Saying single women raising children on their own is a blank for society.
Good thing.
The same as Millennials.
However, I predict, in my opinion, after Gen Z, the kids they have are going to be increasingly more conservative.
Now here's what a lot of people get wrong.
For one, Gen Z is not conservative.
They are progressive.
They're just a little bit less progressive than millennials.
That's a trend, not a definitive statement about Gen Z in the sense that, you know, a lot of people are claiming that Gen Z is overwhelmingly conservative.
That's not true.
But if this trend continues, the change is not because, like a lot of people have claimed, There is some good reason to believe that the change in media has allowed younger people to be exposed to conservative ideas.
Some people have argued that because PewDiePie was so attacked in the media that younger generation has a distrust for them and is more likely to be a bit more conservative.
I don't think so.
I think the real reason is that we've seen an increasing trend of liberals not having kids and conservatives having kids.
You can look to rural religious families and they'll have seven kids.
And you look to urban families and they don't have one.
Check this out.
In this story they say this.
Liberals are not having enough babies to keep up with conservatives.
Arthur Brooks, a social scientist at Syracuse University, was the first to point this out way back in 2006.
We're talking about Gen Z territory right now, so think about it.
Somebody born in 06 could be 13 years old today.
Somebody born in 2000, Gen Z territory, could be 19 years old today.
That's right.
Back in 2006, when they were saying liberals were not keeping up with conservatives, more conservative babies, 13 years in the study.
But Gen Z started in 96.
Depending on when this trend started, it was noticed in 06, we can now see that we have 20-year-olds more likely to be conservative.
So here's what you get.
You don't get a young person born in Chicago becoming conservative.
You get young people in Chicago being progressive, and you get young people in Iowa being conservative, but there are more young people being born in these places.
Combine this with the fact that people are fleeing big cities, and it all spells a conservative future, or a more conservative future.
And I gotta admit, Based on where millennials have gone, I think we could do with a pullback, okay?
I'm pretty left.
Seriously, I just had a long conversation with a friend yesterday about how it's been bad for my business and how stupidly socialist I've been in terms of paying and stuff like that.
But whatever, I'm cool with it.
My personal philosophy is much more left.
No matter what anyone tries to tell you.
But I'm not like this.
The weird, ideological, left-identitarian, full-on socialist.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
I believe in sharing the wealth, but I don't believe in government mandates and authoritarianism to come in and seize assets.
Elizabeth Warren put out that health care plan.
There's a lot of problems with it.
But this was back in 2006.
They noticed this.
Think about where we are now.
If he noticed this in 06, and was looking at data going back several years, we can say that we're talking about people between the ages of 13 and maybe 20 years old, 19 years old.
In which case, here we are today, with Gen Z being slightly more conservative.
It was obvious back then.
I talked about it 10 years ago.
I said, if liberals are going to abort their babies, you're gonna end up with more Christian conservatives.
So now, we see it.
Check this out.
The political right is having a lot more kids than the political left, he explained.
The gap is actually 41%.
Data on the US birth rate from the General Social Survey confirms this trend.
A random sample of 100 conservative adults will raise 208 children, while 100 liberal adults will raise a mere 147 kids.
That's a massive gap.
But it's also, conservatives are above replacement levels, and liberals are not.
Think about that.
There's been a lot of concern among, you know, the alt-right about replacement levels, and I honestly don't think that's a big deal in my opinion.
Humanity is reproducing at great numbers, and I think it's only the racists who are super concerned about the race of the future.
Like, I fully respect if there are people who are white and have white kids, like, do whatever you want with your life.
But to be shrieking like, oh no, like, you know, white people, like, I gotta admit, I come from a mixed family.
So I'm 100% on the other side of this one.
By all means.
We have liberal white people loving who they love, and I respect that more than anything else.
And that goes for the LGBT community.
You live your life, you love who you love.
Hey, it's gonna happen.
But let's talk about what's going on with conservatives.
Conservatives are having more, slightly, than two kids per family.
That's just about replacement levels.
Replacement levels basically means if two people have two kids, they replace themselves.
If two people, on average, are having 1.47 kids, You're not.
And that means your ideas and your way of life goes away with you.
So I can understand why, you know, you have all these alt-right people freaking out, but I think they inaccurately conflate race with culture.
And I think you can see conservatives having the more correct approach that it doesn't matter, you know, your race, the color of your skin, it just matters you have good ideas.
And there are many liberals who feel the same.
Unfortunately, there are many far-left liberals who are also equally identitarian and crazy.
In the end, all that matters is, will your idea survive?
Okay?
And because of this, conservatives are gaining steam.
What do you think's going to happen based on these trends in the next 20 years?
I think we're going to see the next generation being flipped completely towards conservative.
But what does that really mean?
I think.
What we see now with modern conservatism is much more libertarian than what it was when I was younger, which is really interesting.
In which case there may be still an expansion of progressive ideals, but the far left and socialist ideas aren't going to make it.
When you have AOC and her and her friends and followers saying it's not okay to have kids and she's crying about how she can't have kids, okay.
Not only are there societal trends, but now there's a direct call to not have kids.
Excuse me.
It spells an obvious future.
But I'm not the first person to notice this.
This is a story from 2013.
Study.
Conservative baby boom will shift nation further right.
Yeah.
I don't know what to tell you.
I don't want to say it's a good or bad thing.
I know conservatives are going to be happy about it.
But it just is.
I don't know what you do.
In the end, it's the people who have the ideas that are going to vote that are going to make these changes.
Along with the expansion of conservatives and the decline of liberals, what a lot of people need to realize, too, on the left, they don't seem to, is that the growing Hispanic population, they're actually relatively conservative.
This is what a lot of people don't seem to get.
They're very religious.
And of course, what we're seeing with Kanye West, too.
These leftists who are embracing race politics, I think they're barking up the wrong tree.
They're not having kids, and they're preaching to small factions of ideologues, and not the true nature of most people.
That even today, although Christianity is on the decline, we still have 63% of the country being Christian.
So this makes me wonder.
They're conservative.
Are they religious?
That's where it gets interesting.
Pew shows that Christianity is on the decline, but conservatism... In 2006 it was noticed they're having more kids, and Pew shows us that the next generation is, you know, very similar, if not slightly more conservative.
Where does that bring us?
A lot of people on the left talk about Hispanics will be taking over the country in terms of demographics.
A lot of the alt-right are freaking out and panicking.
I think it's a stupid thing to worry about.
I think in the end, none of that matters.
I honestly don't care.
But in the end, what's really going to happen is It's going to be conservatism.
It's going to be some kind of more traditional relationships.
Because think about it.
People who have traditional relationships, like a wife who has kids and watches the family, they're more likely to procreate.
That's exactly what I think is happening.
So you're going to see an expansion of conservative Hispanic families, conservative white families, and we've been seeing this since 06, a decline in liberal families.
I don't know what it means.
I'm not going to tell you anything's good or bad.
I'm just going to say, I don't think race... I think race will play a factor, for sure, because of tribalism and because of, you know, human behaviors.
I think humans are, to an extent, very racist.
Like, I don't say that in the way, like, the left does, where they're like, they accuse you of being a bigot.
No, I think people are very tribalist, and people are very shallow, and they judge books by their cover.
It's why racism has been so pervasive.
And I think, you know, if you look to someone like Brett Weinstein, who I respect very much, he talks about how we have to, you know, fight to overcome our innate tribalism and things like this.
I think we're going to end up with a future that's not going to be, for the most part, arguments over race like the left wants it to be because they're not having kids.
You're going to have a lot of Christian conservatism.
I think... I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
It's interesting that Christianity is going down but conservatism is coming up.
We'll see what happens.
All I can really say is, the trend is here, we saw it back then, it's happening now.
Take it for what it is, I don't know, you know?
The story's actually kind of old, but I was thinking about it earlier, because I was talking to someone the other day about how religious people are more likely to have kids and all that stuff, and then, here you go.
Like, they've been writing about it even recently.
Let me know what you think.
Comment below.
I'll have another video coming up at 4 p.m.
on the main channel.
I don't really have much of a conclusion for you.
That's kind of it, right?
That Republicans are having more kids than Democrats.
If you're a Democrat, just think about what that means for the next couple generations.
I think, you know, I think we're due for a little bit of a pullback from the too much, you know, too far left people, but we'll see what happens.
I'll see you guys in the next segment at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It is a different channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
If you're like me and live in the real world, you're probably in a pretty good mood right now after hearing the good news.
120,000 new jobs in October despite striking GM workers, way more than what was expected.
Fantastic news for the economy.
More jobs than we expect.
We got wage growth.
We got a stock market.
Well, the stock market's in trouble because of impeachment.
And there it is.
Well, the Daily Mail says that Donald Trump takes a victory lap.
If you're somebody who watches MSNBC, you probably think everything is miserable and the world is ending.
If you're someone who supports the Democrats' impeachment, you probably don't care that the market took a little downturn.
Might not have anything to do with the impeachment, but probably does.
It's like 150 points the other day or something.
You might not care.
Well, here's the thing.
Regular Americans care the economy is doing well.
And I would be willing to bet most Americans don't care about politics.
Case in point, Joe Biden.
I want to read you this story about the economy, but let me just give you this.
A viral video recently sent out by some Trump supporters of Joe Biden saying that he was going to reinstate the Paris Peace Accords on day one.
The Paris Peace Accords from 1973 having to do with Vietnam or something like that?
Joe Biden, as they say, is not playing with a full deck of cards.
Where does it leave us?
Well, it leaves most of us, like the people who watch, you guys watch me, we see the news, I use verified sources, and we see the economy's doing great.
It's really, really well.
Moody's analytics, three forecasts, all economic.
Trump's gonna win.
So you know what's really happening.
Now, regular people are probably experiencing this.
Not everybody.
You'll probably hear anecdotes every so often of somebody who lost their job.
But most people, they're gonna see their paychecks go up a little bit.
They're gonna see their taxes go down a little bit.
They've got jobs.
They're working.
They're happy.
Don't rock the boat.
What happens if you're, I don't know, say, a resistance member who's screeching impeachment even though it hurts the market and watching MSNBC?
I love this source.
I'm never gonna put it away.
Watch Fox News?
You likely think U.S.
economy is great.
And it is.
MSNBC viewers?
Not so much.
And this brings me to the big point I want to get to.
I'll read this first.
But I want to talk to you about We live in reality.
It's not conservative.
It's reality.
Remember when Colbert said something about reality as a liberal bias?
Sorry, buddy, that was a long time ago.
You then started watching Rachel Maddow screech about the Russians, and I don't know where you've been for the past three years, but just because I live in the real world where the economy is doing really, really well, and we just added 128,000 jobs, does not mean I or anyone else is conservative.
But I'll tell you what.
There are many individuals who know this because we read, we pay attention, who don't agree policy-wise with Republicans.
There's a lot of people like this.
And I'm not going to go through the list, but you know who I'm talking about on Twitter and YouTube.
The people they try to smear as conservative who are really liberals.
And it's a lot of people.
It really is.
You know, when I did a political compass test, Turns out, many of the people who follow me and watch these videos, they were on the left.
I always find it funny when someone's shocked.
They think they're a conservative.
But listen, just because you know what's actually happening in the world doesn't affect your policy decisions, your policy positions.
Well, let's read the news about this boom in economy.
Donald Trump boasted about his jobs record Friday calling new economic figures a blowout.
USA rocks, he tweeted.
That's amazing!
After the Labor Department's October jobs numbers were published showing 128,000 new
jobs were created last month.
That's amazing.
They show that U.S. job growth slowed less than expected in October as the drag from
a strike at General Motors was offset by gains elsewhere.
That is amazing.
While hiring in the prior two months was stronger than previously estimated, offering assurance
that consumers would continue to prop up the slowing economy for a while.
The Labor Department's closely watched monthly employment report on Friday came on the heels
of data this week showing a further slowdown in economic growth in the third quarter as
a trade tensions-induced slump in business investment deepened.
The Federal Reserve cut interest rates on Wednesday for the third time this year, but signaled a pause in the easing cycle that started in July when it reduced borrowing costs for the first time since 2008.
Non-farm payrolls increased by 120,000 jobs last month, with manufacturing shedding 36,000 positions.
So that's kind of bad, but for the most part, it's a big net gain.
It's the most since October 2009, the government survey of establishments showed.
Let me just say something for you.
It's a lost job.
Manufacturing is doing bad.
But what I want to say is, there's this story about more jobs than we expected has happened over and over and over again.
How many leftist publications are going to run with this and say, hey, you know, Trump's right.
The economy is doing really well.
Whatever it is, it's working.
Very few.
And that's the thing.
Shock content required.
It can't work in this way, right?
The Trump bump doesn't work when Trump does well.
And this is what you need to understand.
My advice to you in trusting media would be somebody who's going to tell you that sometimes there's a good thing, sometimes there's a bad thing.
But when all you get from CNN is everything Trump has done is bad, well, you're probably being lied to or misled.
And that brings me to this next article.
This is the paranoid, delusional state that the resistance people live in.
I'm sorry, the economy is doing well by so many different metrics.
But the people who watch MSNBC don't know that.
Now, I haven't actually read this yet.
I've cited it several times in many videos.
But what's interesting is Reuters can't definitively make the claim.
And I wonder why not.
Reuters, can't you just say it turns out the economy is doing really, really well?
The strangest thing to me is when I talk to some of my left-wing friends and they're talking about how bad the economy is and I'm like, what are you talking about?
We had like, what was it, like back in January we added like 300,000 jobs and it was almost double what was expected or some ridiculous number.
Now what were they expecting?
They're expecting like 95 or something?
They say, the economy created 95,000 more jobs in August and September than previous economists polled by Reuters had forecast payrolls rising by only 89,000 jobs in October.
So what, we're about 30,000 or so more jobs than expected.
A quarter or so.
And they think the economy is bad.
And it makes you wonder, where are they?
What are they doing?
It turns out, many of my friends who think this actually have jobs.
They're assuming that middle America is suffering.
They're assuming Trump supporters are all really dumb.
And they're assuming that even though all of these bad things are happening, Trump supporters are convinced everything's better than it is.
In reality, while we did lose manufacturing jobs, and that is bad for a lot of those Trump voters, there are more jobs.
And if you're working in an urban center, those jobs are in those rural areas, right?
So Trump's base is bigger.
With all of these scandals, Trump's approval rating is still higher than what it was, you know, a couple years ago.
And no, this is not me defending Trump.
Like, this is where it gets crazy.
We live in reality.
You're watching this video.
We're looking at the news.
They got the numbers.
It's a fact.
We live in reality.
It means nothing about whether or not I agree with Trump on his foreign policy decisions, on his demeanor, on his character, etc.
Of course not.
It just means it is a fact that the economy is doing well.
Period.
Why would MSNBC try and tell you otherwise?
Why would they run stories to convince you it's not the case?
I honestly don't know.
I really don't know.
How does it help anyone?
I think it's actually quite simple.
I do.
I can say I don't know, but I'll give you my opinion.
The Trump bump only works when you insult Trump.
Me doing a story about Trump, like, I don't make videos where I'm like, the orange man is bad every day.
Some people do.
And you can look at the numbers.
It works.
Everybody's known it's worked.
That's why CNN won't shut up.
CNN knows that Trump is the story, and that's why we've seen the leaks from Veritas where that's what they want you to focus on.
At least CNN.
I'll give them this.
Like, it was last year, I think, they did a very positive segment when the economy... I think it was actually maybe January.
They were like, wow, the economy is doing really, really great.
So let me break this down for you.
MSNBC viewers, you don't have to like Trump.
You can despise the man.
But you can also accept the facts.
I have no problem saying that Trump's Saudi Arabia stuff, the Syria stuff, Trump was weak on Syria.
He wanted to pull out, I can respect that, but then he didn't.
And now they're gonna go guard the oil.
It's just been a disaster across the board, a lot of problems with it.
I have no reason to pretend like I'm shocked about the trade war.
I have no reason to pretend that Trump imposing tariffs is going to be good or bad.
That's what people are doing.
They're saying, oh no, Trump's in.
You don't know anything about trade or the economy.
You have no idea what's going to happen with the trade war.
OK, so look, we can talk about bad investments.
They've mentioned that.
I'll accept the fact.
We can talk about how farmers are being subsidized.
Absolutely will accept that.
The economy is still better overall.
Imagine somebody builds this big, beautiful castle, and you finally have this great place to live, and all they do is take a magnifying glass to all the problems, saying, nope, nope, it's bad, look.
It's like, I get it, dude.
Nothing's going to be perfect.
I don't know whether or not Trump's domestic policies are going to work or not, but hey, the economy's doing really, really well.
But that's probably it.
Because when you get regular people start acknowledging that things are better for them, that's when they're gonna say, I don't care about what Trump says or does.
Case in point, Joe Biden.
Joe Biden can say the craziest things in the world, have no idea what he's talking about, he's still the frontrunner.
And I think he's done some good foreign policy things.
And I think he's won this one.
So take your victory lap.
Right on.
You know, I did a thing with Sam Seder a couple weeks ago, and I really hate how everyone's like, haha, you were wrong.
When I'm wrong, Sam said something about impeachment, and I was like, which poll are you citing?
I was like, oh, you're right, the aggregate does show impeachment was at 52%.
And then he was like, see?
And I'm like, okay.
I don't think I'm the smartest person in the world.
I have literally no problem.
I'm like, oh yeah, you were right about that.
That's what we need more of.
Look, the orange man can be bad all day and night for a lot of reasons.
But you can't deny that the economy is doing well.
There you go.
Take a victory lap.
Whatever.
You get the point.
I'm done.
But I do want to segue now into what the Democrats are offering.
That's the next video.
Because the Democrats are offering, at least Elizabeth Warren, to, yeah, take away two million jobs.
I'm not kidding.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Elizabeth Warren has released her plan for Medicare for All, and she says no taxes on the middle class, and I'm pretty sure she's lying.
I mean, technically you can say no new taxes, but I'm pretty sure a plan would increase Medicare tax, which the employer pays half of.
That's my understanding.
I could be wrong about this.
But I digress.
That's less important.
Elizabeth Warren's plan would be $52 trillion over 10 years, and she's offering up a really, really great incentive to go along with it.
Stripping 2 million jobs from the economy.
Her plan is BS.
Please stop.
I'm so sick of the lies and the liars who just want power and they lie, they lie, they lie.
Her plan makes no sense.
You can't simultaneously say you're not going to tax the middle class, but then go on and brag about employer Medicare taxes, which is divided between the employee and the employer.
You know, I could be wrong about that, but let's just put it this way.
Let's set that aside.
You're gonna take two million jobs away from people, then they're not going like... Your plan makes no sense.
Okay?
You're gonna take away jobs.
That's going to reduce a ridiculous amount of spending.
Which will reduce a ridiculous amount of tax revenues.
It is not like you can just... You know?
They think they can just be like, if we tax this, we have money.
No!
Taxes come from... The economy is about moving money.
Taxes in between.
The bigger picture is the wealth tax she's proposing.
It's a finite resource.
Think about it.
Jeff Bezos has wealth.
If you're taxing his wealth, eventually his wealth dwindles, and over a long enough period of time, there's nothing left to tax.
Distributing that wealth results in no one having wealth.
And I get it.
Bernie said, you know, his plan would be to get rid of billionaires or whatever.
Okay.
Then how do you pay for any of this?
If your plan is to use a wealth tax for the long term, but it's a short-term tax that just gets rid of a wealthy individual, then eventually you run out.
If you want real tax revenue to pay for these things, you can't just take away jobs and tax the rich.
It's ridiculous.
Let's read this story from the Daily Caller.
Elizabeth Warren says cost of Medicare for all could be 2 million lost jobs.
How about that?
They say in an interview with New Hampshire Public Radio, the Democratic presidential contender said she concurs with a study from the University of Massachusetts Amherst that said socialized medicine would probably have a devastating impact on those working in the current private healthcare industry.
Warren called that part of the cost issue.
Let me rephrase that for you, Elizabeth.
Collateral damage.
How many of you watching work for, in some capacity, insurance companies or medical sales and things like that?
Would you vote for Elizabeth Warren when she's promising to end your job?
Where will you work?
What are you an expert in?
Now, let me ask you something.
Listen.
Let's say you are a senior level manager at an insurance company.
Well, when she gets into office and starts imposing her will with Medicare for All, I understand there could be a pinch on that benefit.
But two million lost jobs, for me, that doesn't sit so well.
I personally would love universal health care.
I don't think you can do it this way.
And I'll say, you can't do it this way.
It's just a fairy tale.
It would be great if we got to a point where we had a system that could function, but the cost they're proposing, it's ridiculous, and there are a lot of problems, which makes me more of a realist.
We can do a public option because that functions very similar to private insurance.
This makes no sense.
Imagine you're a senior level employee.
You've been working in the medical industry and insurance and things like this for a decade.
Your job is now gone.
Where do you go?
Oh, you could probably go to another insurance-related field.
But your specialty, your expertise, what brought you purpose, what gave you value, no longer exists.
That's the problem with snapping your fingers to impose these massive changes.
So you could theoretically argue over time we will wean our society.
So great, public option first and foremost.
And I think in the short term we'll see the public option offer up competition to the private sector and that can be a good thing.
It's complicated, I'm not an expert, but I can tell you this plan is ridiculous.
She says, although do recognize on this what we're talking about, how much of our healthcare dollars have not gone to healthcare.
Yes, it's, you know what, I'm so sick of these, it's just like short-sighted, small-minded people.
Let me tell you a story.
Let me, let me rebut what she's saying.
How much of our healthcare dollars have not gone to healthcare.
Okay.
I used to work for a non-profit, and when we raised a dollar, only about 50% of that dollar actually went to charitable causes.
The other 50% was administrative, wasn't actually going to the cause.
And we had to legally tell that people when they asked.
Now, one of the reasons I got out of the nonprofit industry is because of how slimy they were.
And so they said, just tell people those numbers are old and we're updating, but trust us, it's way better.
I said, that's not true.
I'm not going to say that.
So I was out with an employee, because I was a director, and I was training them.
We were talking to a guy, we did the street canvassing, like, hey, you know, come talk to us.
And he said, how much, he's like, if I give you 100 bucks, how much of this is actually going to go to the charity?
And the guy I was training said, 50%.
And the donor, the potential donor, was like, 50%?
What do you mean?
So I'm going to give you 50 bucks, where's that going?
And I showed him our card, which showed how much money we donated.
And I said, see that number?
The total number is like a million bucks.
And I was like, that million dollars in administrative costs is what's required to make sure we can actually work and raise money.
It's not perfect, but you could consider that money going to the cause in the sense that we're out here talking to you about it, and we're using, you know, that money to basically fund our ability to raise money for this cause.
There's a lot of profits and things I don't agree with.
But the problem with how they view these situations is that it's like they're looking at it over their shoulder from two miles away.
They have no idea how this functions.
They have no idea how the day-to-day operations work, yet they want to control and change everything.
So they'll take your job away, and then they're saying, how much of our dollars aren't even going to healthcare?
Dude, I'll tell you what.
The lady who has to file the paperwork to track your allergies.
Sure, we can say it's not healthcare.
That's an important part of the process.
Okay, okay.
Maybe you'll argue, no, no, no, no, Tim.
Filing the paperwork to track is part of the healthcare.
Okay.
Then the person who doesn't work at the hospital, who transports, you know, natural gas or whatever to the buildings that it can operate, and makes sure that certain parts of the building are facilitated, those are not part of healthcare.
Even if you get rid of this, you will still have to have bureaucrats running administrative jobs.
So what's your point about this?
When people work in the infrastructure of healthcare, it's an important part of the process.
Let me ask something.
Elizabeth Warren's $52 trillion healthcare plan, wow, it's even more than we expected it was going to be.
30 over 10 years?
Nope, 52.
Her campaign argues that her plan incorporates current Medicare and Medicaid spending, so it would only need $20.5 trillion in additional federal funding.
$52 trillion.
And you know what she's saying?
First, she talks about getting rid of tax avoidance schemes.
Okay, that makes no sense.
Tax avoidance is not illegal.
Tax evasion is illegal.
But if somebody opens a company in a foreign country, what are you going to do about it?
So let's differentiate here.
Tax evasion illegal.
Tax avoidance.
I think we're colloquially referring to the fact that someone can start their company in Ireland and pay different taxes, right?
What does that mean, avoidance?
Are you talking about the crime?
Okay, I agree.
Let's close the loopholes and let's figure out how to stop the crime.
Great.
You can't.
But you can't overall stop the process.
Because it is ridiculously easy for anyone to say, I'll run my company out of China.
They'll take it.
No, I'll pay less.
Delaware.
You don't want to pay California?
You move to Delaware.
But I'll tell you, I'll do you one better.
You want to talk about this?
If the wealth tax is such a good idea, why did Europe kill theirs?
That's right.
It doesn't work.
It doesn't work.
Because it's a finite resource.
Elizabeth Warren's plan is an illusion.
It's a magic trick.
It makes no sense.
It'll work for 10 years and then stop working.
Once you tax billionaires out of existence, who do you tax?
The middle class!
Now I get it.
They want equality.
They don't like wealthy people.
They don't like billionaires.
Fine.
But if you tax wealth over time, there won't be wealth.
It's a finite resource.
The important factor here is, using Bezos as an example, and this is what I said last time, he's worth $117 billion or whatever.
Okay.
He's got to pay $7 billion towards Warren's plan.
Okay.
That means he'll have to liquidate $7 billion in stock.
A $7 billion sale directly from the founder of Amazon is going to result in a stock drop-off, reducing his net worth and his tax liability for the next year, and it's going to make it harder and harder to pay.
But net worth is not money.
So if in a short period of time Bezos sells, he can make some money.
Over a long period of time, I mean, if he's selling a little bit.
If he dumps it all really fast, then the stock drops, his net worth gets cut in half, and then he pays less, and guess what?
Your projections make no sense.
So no, I don't think any of this makes sense.
It'll never happen.
Obama promised it.
It's a pipe dream.
You can't do it this way.
Let's look at what the moderates are offering.
More competition in the market through a public option.
Let's talk about something realistic.
This ain't it.
I'll leave it there.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around and I will see you all shortly.
Recently, I did a story about a solo female traveler who went hiking through the dense jungles of Cambodia and was last seen at a beach party before, ultimately, she was missing.
And now the worst.
So I want to start very seriously and I want to be as empathetic as I can.
This young woman, she was found dead.
They believe she drowned.
The body of missing British backpacker Amelia Bainbridge found in Cambodia.
To her friends and family, I'm tremendously sorry for your loss.
And I'm upset, you know, at a lot of how the media, individuals on YouTube, praise this solo female traveling and just solo traveling in general.
You know, I have extensive experience traveling the world.
I've worked with security companies.
I've covered dangerous things.
And I'm really angry.
And I want to make sure that, you know, to anybody who's watching this, you know, in no way do I want to push any negativity on her or her family.
I'm sad about this.
And I think there's real people to blame here.
These vloggers who lie about what's really going on.
So many people on YouTube pretend that everything's always Skittles and candy canes and beautiful and pretty because that's what sells.
They advise these young people to take these dangerous trips and it results in a loss of life.
So let me give you the update on what happened to Amelia Bainbridge.
And again, my condolences to her friends and family.
And I want to use this as an opportunity, as like a warning to explain to you.
I got another article.
I'm grateful now that the media is stepping up and saying, please take this seriously.
You cannot just go hiking through these dense jungles and to these foreign countries and rural areas.
It is not safe.
In this instance, she drowned.
That could happen to anybody.
So I get it.
But let me read this update for you and then we'll talk about it.
They say it.
The body of a 21-year-old British backpacker who disappeared in Cambodia about a week ago was discovered at sea more than 30 miles from where she vanished.
Amelia Bainbridge never returned to the Nest Beach Club Hostel following a party about 40 minutes away at Police Beach in Koh Rong.
Got that one.
She was last seen at the gathering early on October 23rd.
Chuan Nerin, the police chief of Pre-Sinhok, Sihanouk Province, confirmed that Bainbridge was found dead.
We found the body of the missing British woman, Naren said, adding that the remains would be taken to nearby Sianakville.
Police declined to speculate on what happened to her.
But earlier this week, Naren said she may have drowned, according to reports.
So maybe.
I have had the most horrific confirmation that my sister Amelia Bainbridge was found and she is no longer with us.
That's what her brother said.
It breaks my heart to let all my close friends and family know the horrendous outcome that we didn't want.
Now we have to get our Amelia home to England so we can lay her beautiful soul to rest and to remember the wonderful life she lived.
Thank you for all the support we've had.
Please continue to do all you can so we can get all our family home with Amelia safely.
Brother Harry Bainbridge also confirmed on Facebook he identified the body.
It's my little sister Amelia, he wrote.
This is a really sad story.
There's nothing more I wanted than to bring her back alive.
I'm so sorry to you, Amelia Bainbridge.
The round is on me when we meet again in heaven.
Six men, all said to work at local bars and tourist destinations, were being questioned Tuesday about the 21-year-old's disappearance, but all were found to be uninvolved and were released without charges, the outlet reported.
It's very simple in this story, and it could have happened to anyone and anywhere.
She maybe just went into the water to swim, and she drowned.
And it happens.
And that's why there are so many beaches in the United States, where it's safe.
Where they say lifeguard needs to be on duty, otherwise you can't go in the water.
You might think you're confident, you might think you're safe, but it is good to have a lifeguard.
And if that's the case, then it's not so much about her being a solo female traveler.
It's more just about these things happen.
So it's a sad story and it's regrettable.
I often think about these stories and about that one second, that one second moment where you could have done something different and saved that life and prevented this from happening.
And it's just, it's horrifying.
But now we have this story from Independent.
And they're not the only one who wrote this.
There's a bunch of other outlets writing about this.
No matter how careful you are, women travelers are never truly safe.
The disappearance of backpacker Amelia Bambridge is a reminder for all female travelers.
There isn't a place in the world where being a woman isn't inherently dangerous.
I understand you want to make this a feminist issue.
The reality is men are more likely to be victims of violent crime.
But let's be real.
Men are more likely to be the perpetrators as well.
And men, in my opinion, are more likely to be able to fight back.
Or to survive.
But it really does depend.
I think women have a unique danger.
There's something unique to women, the danger they face.
So, I appreciate this, okay?
But I do believe it can affect everybody.
But I also must stress, I think women have a very particular danger, there's a particular danger they face that needs to be talked about.
Let's read.
They say 200 soldiers and police have been involved in the search for Amelia, who is from Sussex.
Sussex.
Her family have arrived on the island and six local men are being questioned.
Well, we now know what happened.
Okay, we know.
So let's move on from this story.
The police have vowed the hunt will continue until she's found.
We know she was found.
In recent years, we've seen a recurrent trend of young female British backpackers going missing while traveling abroad.
Or being assaulted, or even murdered.
In 2018, 22-year-old Essex backpacker Grace Millane was murdered in New Zealand.
Mia Ayalief Chung, 21, from Derbyshire, was stabbed to death in Australia.
In 2014, Hannah Witheridge, 21, from Norfolk, was murdered while backpacking in Thailand along with her male friend David Miller.
Before her death, she was also assaulted.
The day after Turn 21, I went to Costa Rica for a week by myself.
My mom's friend was living a few miles away from my accommodation, but I spent a lot of time without her.
I grew up with a strict, cautious dad, and his safety rules had stuck.
I insisted on seatbelts in cars, helmets on bikes, I didn't carry lots of money on me, and I listened to my instinct when it came to things I did and didn't do.
Amelia's father also says he spoke to her about safety, safety, safety, safety.
But even after taking those cautions, I was never truly safe.
She says that her bikini top and shorts could have been deemed provocative, asking for it.
A two-minute walk from a restaurant to my room after dark may have also been an empty dirt path with waiting, watching eyes.
The camera I wore on my neck was also a beacon blaring out of my backpacker status.
That is so frustrating to hear.
So frustrating to hear.
There are pickpocketers, there are thieves, and they prey upon the weak and people showing off their wealth.
You go to these places.
They know you're a westerner.
They know you probably got an HCM card, you have money, and you're wearing an expensive camera.
She says I was young, not stupid, and had anything happened to me, I wouldn't have deserved it.
It wouldn't have been my fault.
Wearing the clothes I wanted and walking the route I wanted should have been a right, not a risk.
But I was always at the mercy of a terrible decision by an awful stranger or a violent group of men.
Should be a right.
Unfortunately, in this world, rights mean very little to dangerous, terrifying people.
What we have in this country is a recognition of rights, but not everyone agrees on everything.
There are a lot of people who don't believe free speech is a right.
They disagree on what free speech really is.
But we enshrine it in law to prevent the government from taking away those rights.
Guess what?
Every day in this country, We have violations of rights from people to people.
From Antifa punching someone in the face for expressing themselves legally, to a violent, creepy individual kidnapping a young girl and seizing her autonomy and then ultimately her life.
It happens.
People will take your rights away.
A lot of things should be protected by physical reality, but they're not.
It's not how it works.
In the real world, anyone, at any moment, can walk up to you and take everything away.
And guess what?
In Cambodia, what is anyone going to do about it?
When you go to the middle of the wilderness in the United States, what is anyone going to do about it?
Think about this.
We can complain about these foreign countries, and it's true, in some of these cities, you're less safe than you are in the United States.
But what do you think happens if you went to Wyoming, went to Montana, went hundreds of miles out in the middle of nowhere, and walked in the woods, and someone else was there, and decided to take your life from you and end your rights?
No one will ever know, and nothing can be done about it.
Maybe in 50 years they might find it?
I was driving through, I believe, Wyoming.
And it was like a hundred miles between a gas station.
And I didn't even recognize the gas station because it was so small.
Imagine being a hundred miles from the nearest anything.
Your rights can be taken away.
So you want to talk about fault?
When you're in the middle of nowhere, when you've chosen to go by yourself to a foreign country, there is significant risk.
These are choices you make.
And you must be responsible for your decisions.
Let's talk about responsibility.
This young woman, they believe she drowned.
No one hurt her.
So whose fault was it?
Are we gonna say it wasn't her fault that she drowned?
Dude, if you go into the water, you acknowledge the risks.
No individual took her rights away.
She chose to go there.
She chose to go through the jungle, and she chose to go to that beach.
So whose fault is it?
I'm not trying to be mean.
It was an accident.
Maybe you can say no one was really at fault, but I think we must acknowledge, if you tell young people it's not your fault, when there was no one else involved, I'm sorry.
It's not a case of a flood.
If you drown in a flood, it's not your fault.
Right?
But if you go to the flood, and you drown, they will say, why would you do that?
You have some responsibility here.
I can appreciate that they're telling you you won't be safe.
At the bare minimum, thank you.
But I do think they're absolving people of their true responsibilities and taking care of themselves.
It's a sad story, and I'm sorry to do this update.
I'm sorry this is what it came to, but it's unfortunate and it happens.
If you want to travel the world, you have a lot of research to do.
And you've got to be prepared.
And it's not just about what should I, you know, consider in the wilderness.
