Obama Warns Democrats They Are TOO FAR LEFT, Unfortunately The Democrats Are Fractured Beyond Repair
Obama Warns Democrats They Are TOO FAR LEFT, Unfortunately The Democrats Are Fractured Beyond Repair. At an event recently Barack Obama warned Democrats and liberals that the party is going too far left and that they are losing the American people.Obama is right but unfortunately it falls on deaf ears. The Democrats are going far left and the moderate democrats are losing power. On Twitter woke leftists repudiate Obama saying he is out of touch with the new youthful far left progressives.Gallup data shows they are right.But whats interesting is that the Democrats and the media claimed this would happen to the Republicans. In 2016 they said the GOP is over, republicans are done, and they said Trump would never accept the results of the election.Instead what do we get?Democrats are fractured, the party is falling apart, and the left refuses to accept the results of the 2016 election. Russiagate, Emoluments, Ukrainegate, the list goes on.Finally now we are facing an impeachment inquiry because the Democrats refuse to accept the results.The curse they pushed onto the republicans rebounded and is now afflicting them.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Barack Obama has issued a stern warning that Democrats are moving too far to the left, making an implicit dig against Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, targeting specifically their rhetoric.
And he said the American people are not being represented by the activist base or by a particular group of people on Twitter.
And he's right.
Unfortunately, as predicted, the woke Tutorati will not accept this, saying that Barack Obama is either right-wing, he's become a Republican, they criticize his policies, or they just say that he's out of touch.
His faction of the Democrats are waning, and he's losing power.
And you know what?
They're actually right.
According to Gallup data, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is growing.
And thus, we can expect to see two things.
The Democratic Party will be fractured, and Donald Trump will likely win in 2020.
I mean, for a lot of reasons.
The economy's great, but this is one of them.
If the Democrats can't unify around a core set of ideas, then what do they have?
Recently, Ocasio-Cortez said impeachment is kind of about bringing the Democratic Party together.
But here's why I find this story so fascinating.
For one, it is really interesting to see Barack Obama say to the Democrats, hold your horses, you are losing the American people, you're going too far left.
But it feels like we're in Mirror World.
Remember in 2016, when they said the Republican Party has died, they're broken, they're fractured, falling apart?
This is the end of the GOP.
And sure enough, Trump has massive support among Republicans, and they're united around him.
They also claimed that Trump would not accept the results of the 2016 election.
They say it'll never end, he will refuse to leave.
And sure enough, where are we now?
Bill Barr in a speech saying that the day Donald Trump was inaugurated, the resistance came into existence and they were calling for his impeachment by any means necessary.
Trump has been obstructed and obstructed and blocked every step of the way.
And what's interesting to me is while I disagree with many of the ideological stances of Republicans, you can see that the economy is doing really well.
I can absolutely criticize foreign policy, but outside of that, I wonder what would be happening if they weren't obstructing every single thing Trump did.
Now don't get me wrong, Republicans have obstructed Obama in many ways, and this is kind of part, it's part of politics.
But what's interesting here is not necessarily that Trump is being obstructed, but that it's a mirror version of what they claimed was going to happen.
The Democrats are fractured six ways from Sunday.
They refuse to let go of what happened in 2016.
And now Barack Obama is desperately trying to hold it together.
It's everything they predicted about Republicans happening to themselves.
Well, let's get started with the story, and we'll start with exactly what Obama said and how he criticized the far left.
Before we do, however, make sure you check out 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, share this video.
If you think I do a good job, if you agree with my opinions, or even if you disagree and you think that I bring up interesting points, then sharing this video really helps me compete with these big news channels.
It helps me grow my business and continue doing what I do best.
So, one of the best ways you can support the channel?
Just share the video.
Let's read.
Obama says average American doesn't want to tear down the system.
Yes, Obama, you would be right.
Former President Barack Obama, in an address to liberal donors, warned candidates not to go too far left and sought to calm those who are concerned about the state of the Democratic Party.
Well, I will agree with you on the Democrats going too far left, but I am predicting, based on Gallup data and current trends, there is nothing you can do to stop it.
I'm sorry, Barack, but let's read.
Former President Barack Obama offered an unusual warning to the Democratic primary field on Friday evening, cautioning the candidates not to move too far to the left in their policy proposals, even as he sought to reassure a party establishment worried about the electoral strength of their historically large primary field.
Speaking before a room of wealthy donors, Mr. Obama urged Democrats to remember the long, combative slog of his primary campaign against Hillary Clinton in 2008, arguing that the 16-month battle ultimately made him a stronger general election candidate.
For those who get stressed about robust primaries, I just have to remind you I had a very robust primary.
He told the group of several hundred donors and organizational leaders in Washington.
I'm confident that at the end of the process we will have a candidate that has been tested.
Yet he also raised concerns about some of the liberal ideas being promoted by some candidates citing health care and immigration as issues where the proposals may have gone further than public opinion.
I want to stop here and say a few things.
This warning is not unusual for Obama.
He called out cancel culture.
He called out the left eating itself, the circular firing squads, and now he's calling out the far-left candidates.
They say these are liberal ideas.
I'm sorry.
No, they're not.
They are far-left ideas.
That's why he's calling them out.
They are not liberal positions.
Liberal is a reference to freedom.
These people are authoritarian far-leftists who believe in ridiculous things.
They note health care and immigration.
Right.
Abolishing private health care.
Absurd.
And it would get rid of two million jobs that would devastate the economy and we'd lose tax revenue if those people were out of work.
Immigration?
That's right, decriminalizing border crossings and promising government health care to those who are non-citizens.
It's absurd.
We have to have, like, listen.
I know it's a Republican thing, historically, to say, balance the budget.
And they're not doing that so much today.
I mean, the deficit's climbing.
But come on, man.
We can talk about deficit spending, but not if your proposal is to decriminalize border crossings and allow these people to then get access to government-funded healthcare.
We can barely afford government- we literally can't afford government-funded healthcare as it is.
Obama couldn't get that done.
How do they expect this to be an actual feasible policy?
Well, I'll tell you this.
I don't think they do.
Based on what Bernie and Warren have talked about in terms of the wealth tax, I don't believe they're being genuine.
And I'm a bit offended.
You cannot propose a $52 trillion Medicare plan over 10 years and then not tell people about how you're going to pay for the non-citizens who come.
And how you fund this with two million lost jobs.
It's just not reality.
It just cannot exist.
But they're claiming it because it's beautiful promises.
I will give you the world.
If you vote for me, I will lead you to the end of that rainbow.
I'm sorry.
There is no end of a rainbow.
It's just a fantasy.
Let's read on.
While Mr. Obama did not single out any specific primary candidate or policy proposal, he cautioned that the universe of voters that could support a Democratic candidate—Democrats, Independents, and moderate Republicans—are not driven by the same views reflected on certain left-leaning Twitter feeds or the activist wing of our party.
Even as we push the envelope, and we are bold in our vision, we also have to be rooted in reality.
The average American doesn't think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it.
You know, something's really interesting I saw is that Tulsi Sanders has Tulsi Gabbard, not Tulsi Sanders, Gabbard has a huge support base among people who voted for Donald Trump, but were Democrats.
So let me let me let me phrase it again.
Many of those who support Tulsi Gabbard are Democratic primary voters.
Who voted for Donald Trump.
Keep that in mind.
Now, for Trump supporters, that might worry you.
Tulsi Gabbard could actually pull away many of Trump's support base, the more moderate individuals.
I mean, notably me.
I'm not someone who supported Trump, but you can see that reflected in people like me who agree with you on many issues of freedom, liberty, culture.
But policy-wise, we see a principled individual.
With enough good policy and integrity in Tulsi.
That could be very powerful.
And so Obama makes a really good point.
She's the person who could unite this country.
It's unfortunate, however, the establishment has sought to smear her to an absurd degree.
But let's read on.
They say this.
His remarks offered an implicit critique of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who have urged voters to embrace a political revolution and big structural change, as well as proposals once widely considered to be left to the liberal fringes of the party.
Stop calling it liberal, okay?
Liberal could mean rather centrist individuals who believe in freedom.
Liberal typically referred to those who are socially liberal, who are slightly left of center.
This group you're talking about is not that.
They say, including court packing and decriminalizing illegal border crossings.
Now, here's where it gets interesting.
I want to take you on a journey back in time.
Back in 2016, in June, Obama said he was worried about the Republican Party, saying, the truth is, actually, I am worried about the Republican Party.
And I know that sounds, you know, you know what it sounds like.
You want the Republican nominee to be somebody who could do the job if they win.
And you want folks who understand the issues, and where you can sit across the table from them, and you have a principled argument, and ultimately can still move the country forward.
Now listen.
I will be the first to criticize Donald Trump for his attitude, his character, and all of those things.
But who's disrupting the conversation today?
Is it the average Republican who is begging for a debate?
Ben Shapiro who says, debate me!
No, it's the anti-fascists.
It's the far left.
It's the disruptors.
It's the protesters who come to shut down dialogue.
Barack Obama, you got it backwards.
But you know what else?
Take a look at these stories.
How about the New York Times, back in May of 2016?
Republican Party unravels over Donald Trump's takeover.
How about this story from the Atlantic?
May 4th, 2016, the day the Republican Party died.
Media matters.
The Republican Party, 162, has died.
And that's May 4th.
And there's more.
Ezra Klein, March 1st, 2016.
The Republican Party is truly, profoundly broken.
And what can we see today?
The fantasy of Republicans ditching Trump by Politico, October 24th, 2019.
And this is just one that I pulled up.
They say Rich Lowry is editor of the National Review and a contributing editor with Politico.
Now I'm not going to get into the depth because the point I want to make is that you simply Google search a story about the Republicans and this story, I thought was interesting, calling it a fantasy that Republicans would ditch Trump.
They are united around their candidate.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama is begging Democrats, please stop going too far left.
They are fractured.
I'm sorry, Obama, your party The party that you led for so long is completely fractured.
And all of the warnings about Republicans, the party being over, they're now united behind Donald Trump.
And let me just show you a bit of this data.
Take a look at this.
This is from The Economist, and I love showing this graph.
In 2018, Republicans have a strong center.
They are united around their core ideals.
This has to do with the distribution of ideology of House candidates who won their primaries.
This is not a reflection on Trump or being united by Trump, but whatever it is happening on the Republican side, they are all aligned, for the most part, They have a core set of values they mostly agree on.
And when you look to the Democrats, they're completely spread from center to far left.
The Democrats are fractured to an absurd degree.
And now we can see the changes.
I'm sorry, Barack Obama, you've lost.
Your warnings fall on deaf ears because as we can see, the moderate wing of the Democrat ideology is waning.
From 2007 to 2012, it was falling from 38% to 35% while the progressives rose from 39% to 46%.
38% to 35 while the progressives rose from 39 to 46.
And you were a part of that as well.
Barack Obama wanted universal health care.
So he was part of that rising wave of the more left-wing members, the more far-left members.
Now, Gallup calls it liberal, moderate, and conservative, but this is on the Democrat side, so I'd refer to it as far-left, left, and centrist.
But you get the point.
The more left wing, the progressive wing, is taking over.
So I decided to take a look at this story.
Huffington Post tweets, Former President Barack Obama warned the Democratic field of White House hopefuls not to veer too far to the left, a move he said would alienate many who would otherwise be open to voting for the party's nominee next year.
The first thing I'm going to do is give you a very, very simplified explanation.
If the Democrats think going far left will open up a new voter base, they're sacrificing the moderates.
The tug of war is between Democrat and Republican, not the fringes of the left and the fringes of the right.
The far left will vote for Democrats if they have to, but the centrists can choose between the two.
As progressives like Cenk Uygur say, we need to activate that base on the left and get those votes, they're sacrificing moderates.
That's why it's important to listen to what Obama has to say.
Unfortunately, as we can see from the responses to Huffington Post, it's all on deaf ears.
Take a look.
One response.
Agree?
Will the purists agree is the question.
That's an apt response.
Yes, Barack Obama is right.
This one.
Okay, Boomer.
You also pretended to be progressive.
The so-called moderate Republicans will never vote Democrat.
Changing progressive positions to seek a vote that isn't there is the reason why we're in this mess now.
Sorry, Barack, you were way too centrist.
From HRC reactivation to Bloomberg insertion into the ballot in the speech, they all show a panic in the establishment.
That's right.
I'll tell you what, man.
That's a good point.
Bernie Sanders and, to an extent, Warren... I think Warren... I'll put it this way.
I think Bernie Sanders is a legitimate anti-establishment upstart.
I think he's an independent.
You know, he is an independent, and he's running as a Democrat because it's his best path to victory.
Warren, on the other hand, is an establishment player who put on that Bernie mask so that she can make sure Bernie doesn't win.
The establishment is terrified.
I have absolute respect for many of the far-left members of Congress, AOC, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar, etc.
Not for their crazy ideas, offensive statements, or ethics probes, but I respect them for challenging the establishment and winning.
I do think there are many problems with what they're doing, but I have an idea.
I have this idea that I've talked about before.
I gotta say, I was happy when Ocasio-Cortez upset her district and took that seat from that establishment Democrat.
I was like, good!
Look, you know, since then AOC's caused a lot of problems, but listen, she just removed this long-standing crony Democrat, and now after, you know, we'll have another election, we'll see if she makes it.
I would prefer to see populists and people who actually care about issues, you know, taking over.
So, to an extent, I have respect for those who have challenged the establishment and won, and I can recognize they are recoiling in terror.
But here's where it gets interesting again.
Now, we can talk about the fracturing of the Democratic Party, but how about this?
From PBS, October 21st, 2016, just so close to that election, Trump won't accept election results if he loses as Clinton expands campaign into red states.
Oh, man.
You know, it's just like something happened in 2016.
Did someone like Like, just launch me into the mirror universe where everything they claimed was going to happen, happened to them?
It's like their evil magic reflected back upon them to curse them.
The Democrats are fractured and falling apart, and they won't accept the results of the 2016 election, pushing scandal after scandal, controversy.
They voted on impeachment, like, what, four or five times already?
And here we go with Russiagate 2, Ukraine boogaloo.
Here's the way I describe Ukrainegate.
You ever play a video game, and when you get to the later levels, you notice that the bad guys are the exact same as the earlier bad guys, but the programmer just changed the color?
Like, you got the green Koopas in Mario and the red ones?
They're the exact same animation, which is a different color.
So it makes them a different monster.
That's literally what they're doing.
It's the same scandal, the same tactic, the same strategy, with boring hearings.
They've just slightly tweaked it.
And that's it.
But the reality is it's the left that can't let go.
Take a look at this.
This is from just the other day last night.
Attorney General Barr defends Trump assails resistance in fiery speech to conservative lawyers saying in waging a scorched earth, no holds barred war of resistance against this administration.
It is the left.
That is engaged in a systematic shredding of norms and undermining the rule of law, Barr said in a speech to conservative lawyers at the Federalist Society Convention in Washington.
This is a very dangerous and indeed incendiary notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic.
The fact is that yes, while the president has certainly thrown out the traditional Beltway playbook and punctilio, I'm not familiar with that word, forgive me, He was up front about what he was going to do, and the people decided that he was going to serve as president.
Bill Barr mentioning that the day he was inaugurated, the resistance came.
They refused to accept that he won.
And he did win.
And I, you know, I'll let you in on a secret.
I've said this before, so it's not really a secret, but it's funny.
I was in a room of Democrats when Trump won.
And when he won, I laughed.
You know why?
I wanted Bernie Sanders to win.
There's a lot of reasons I've come to move away from supporting him, and I now believe Tulsi is probably a better choice.
I do think they're a bit far left.
Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with everything they do.
I used to agree a little bit more.
Just a little bit more.
I'm a milquetoast fence-sitter, so I lean a little bit in that direction.
But when Bernie Sanders had it stolen from him by Hillary Clinton, I was upset.
I was angry.
Like, how dare they subvert the will of the people?
People wanted Bernie Sanders, for better or for worse.
And they played dirty games.
And Hillary took the nomination, and I was out.
And you know what, man?
But then Donald Trump won.
And so you know what I did?
I laughed a hearty laugh.
One of the loudest and most enjoyable and long laughs I've ever had.
Because the establishment got their comeuppance.
It is not a system meant for you.
Built by us.
It is a system for us.
It is a government of the people.
That we the people vote.
And you wanted to play games?
This is what you get.
And that's why I say I have respect for those who have upset the system, even if I disagree and think they're really bad.
Look, man, I can respect somebody.
I can respect what they've been able to pull off while still disagreeing with them and thinking they should be removed and voted out because they're too far left and they have no idea what they're doing.
But I absolutely respect those that are challenging the system and telling you you don't have the right.
Bernie Sanders does things I don't like.
Yeah, but so does Donald Trump, okay?
I can disagree and agree with them to various extents, but I do feel that while Trump is not always honest, there is a certain air of, like, refreshing honesty sometimes.
Like, even The Intercept, the left-wing publication said he is simultaneously the most honest president we've ever had and one of the most deceitful, but the honesty can be refreshing.
He says things that, you know, people kind of, they want to hear.
They're tired of the mishmash PR garbage.
And Trump comes out and just says it, and people are like, thank you.
We're all thinking it, right?
So there's a difference.
Trump will, in my opinion, lie to protect himself, or be misleading, or typically just wrong.
I think the media likes to call him a liar when I'm like, no, he probably just kind of got the details wrong on that.
Or admittedly, there is a tactic the media does where they will add a caveat, a tiny little bit, that makes no sense to disprove a fact, right?
So let's say Donald Trump was seen handing out $100 bills to orphans.
And all the Republicans start saying Donald Trump was handing out $100 bills to orphans.
What these fact-checking sites and these journalists do will say, we're going to fact-check that claim.
Did Donald Trump hand out $100 bills to orphans?
While eating ice cream?
False.
And they'll make it seem like the whole thing is fake because they added that last little bit that no one ever brought up.
No one ever said he was eating ice cream while he did it, but that allows them to say false for the whole thing.
And then they'll go into this diatribe about people are claiming that Donald Trump was handing out $100 bills to orphans.
The claim is expounded on the fact that Trump was eating ice cream.
And then at the bottom it'll say, while Trump did hand out $100 bills to orphans, he wasn't eating ice cream.
It's a trick.
I've seen it over and over and over again.
Like CNN just published this big long thing where they're like, everything Trump says is wrong, but because they're twisting what people actually think.
Like when it comes to the whistleblower, whose name I can't say, you get the Daily Beast saying, the Republicans got the name wrong.
And they, and like no one ever claimed that guy was the whistleblower.
You see what they do?
Anyway, here's the point.
Let's bring it back.
Barack Obama, I'm sorry.
You are now a Republican.
You are the old guard.
You have lost.
And while I certainly like Obama more than many of these far-left, you know, individuals, I can certainly criticize Obama's policies, the things he did.
I didn't vote for him a second time, okay?
I think he did a lot of really, really bad things.
But the establishment You're dying.
The Democrats are gonna lose, and the far left is gonna take over, and you know what?
You reap what you sow.
So the same as when Donald Trump let out that hearty- I'm sorry, the same as when Trump won, and I let out a hearty laugh, I look to Obama and Hillary, and I still let out a hearty laugh, because this is you losing again.
You want to play games.
You want to subvert what people want.
This is what you get.
You get snake oil salesmen.
You know what?
I can sling that left and right.
I don't care if you're Republican or Democrat.
You get what you deserve.
And the people chose Trump, and you want to play games.
You are now cursed in the way you thought Republicans would be cursed.
Your party is fractured, and you refuse to let go of the 2016 results.
Everything you threw at the Republicans has now bounced back onto you.
We'll see what happens in the future.
I know it's complicated and I can try and clarify.
Look, you know, I said this before about her name is Agatha Bacilar.
She's running in San Francisco against Nancy Pelosi.
And I think she's got a lot of far left policy ideas and identitarian ideas I really, really don't like.
But you know what?
It's about time Nancy Pelosi retired.
It's about time a younger person got elected based on the things they actually believe.
You know, I think we have reeled from these politicians who care nothing for the people and only want to just sit in the seat.
They want the keys to the castle.
That's all they want.
So many of these politicians, left and right, all of them, and I think Republicans get this, that's why they chose Trump.
So many of these people don't care about you.
They don't care about me.
They don't care if I believe in, say, universal healthcare and you believe in a robust private market.
They don't care about that.
They're going to say whatever they have to say to convince us to vote so we hand them the keys to the castle and they can sit atop the ivory tower.
That's what they want.
I don't care for that.
So if it's going to be someone like AOC who I think is bad, and I will criticize, I prefer her over the crony politicians whose only interest is milking the teat of the tax dollar.
Not interested.
I will debate the ideas, I will criticize, and to a degree, I will insult those who have terrible policy ideas, be it on the left or the right.
Admittedly, the left has gone so far left, I think they've lost the plot, and I'm more of a moderate individual, but I will still respect them more than the crony losers who have just run for office over and over again because they want to sit in that throne.
I'm not interested in that.
Because there's no debating your idea.
It's just fake.
You know, you look at Hillary Clinton.
She goes down to that Southern rally, and then she puts on a drawl.
It's like, oh please, dude, you're so fake, you are plastic.
The Democrats are going too far left, and I don't like it.
And I don't know where that puts me.
You know, but what can you do about it?
In the end, you reap what you sow.
And there's nothing you can do to stop it, so...
I'll just put it this way.
You know what?
Confused?
Yeah, me too.
I'm politically homeless.
There are a lot of policy positions and ideologies on the right I'm not going to arbitrarily agree with.
I think it's fair to say that as a more moderate, slightly left-leaning individual, I'm willing to recognize the beliefs of the left and the beliefs of the right, not perfectly.
I've had people criticize me saying I really don't understand how conservatives think.
And I'm like, oh, you know, right, I agree.
I'm trying though.
Like I have friends who are conservative.
I listen to them and try and hear them out to get an understanding of the way they view
policy.
But you're right.
I've always, my whole life, been an urban Democrat.
And now, while I agree with Obama, I also don't care.
Like, yep, there's your warning, yet too bad.
This is what happens when you for so long have plastic politicians speaking garbage nonsense, not actually delivering, and everything falls apart.
That's what you get.
Congratulations.
Now look.
The Republicans felt this way, at least I would assume so, in 2016, and they led that bull that is Donald Trump to the gates of the ivory tower and he stormed in and is rampaging about.
Yep.
And I'm sitting back laughing about it.
Hey man, the left wanted their guy, Bernie Sanders, and you colluded and cheated to do it?
Okay, why am I going to get your back?
You know what I mean?
So I kind of feel like this, I kind of feel like, you know what?
Let these far lefties win.
Let these people get in, and it'll push out that corrupt crony establishment.
Trump did it, okay?
And it's funny when the left is like, what corruption did Trump get rid of?
Oh, come on, dude.
There's still crony corrupt Republicans, and there's way more crony corrupt Democrats, and I'm looking forward to the people leading in their, you know, their choice to push that out.
And if that means we get a few years of a politician we don't like, so be it.
Okay?
I'm not going to sit here and cry because Donald Trump is president.
I'm going to sit back and laugh because the Democrats had a chance and they let this happen because they wanted to play stupid games.
So there you go.
I'm laughing.
Okay?
I understand their problems.
I'm concerned about, you know, my friends and family.
I want to make sure... But it's not that bad.
Okay, you know, Orange Man is not that bad.
It's so ridiculous how they act like it's the end of the world.
And Bill Maher saying Trump was gonna, I'm, you know, I wasn't scared Bush would lock us up.
Calm down, dude.
Trump's not gonna lock you up.
You're fine.
In eight years, Trump will be out and you can vote for somebody else.
It's that simple.
It's not the end of the world.
But I will tell you, it's the end of their world.
The establishment is in full-blown panic because they're facing a battle on two fronts.
Trump on one side, Investigating them and their crony BS, and the far-left progressives on the other side pushing them out.
And it makes me laugh.
Now, I'll tell you what.
When it comes to policy and stuff, yeah, I'm gonna argue with Bernie and AOC and Ilhan.
When it comes to ethics and all that, you better believe I'm gonna do the same thing.
And I've been critical of Trump on his foreign policy especially, and I have no problem saying I think Trump is dishonest.
But I do think the media lies because they're desperate to protect the establishment.
We got him on the run, boys!
Be it a Tulsi Gabbard supporter or a Trump supporter, it sounds to me like they're in full-blown panic mode.
There you go, Obama.
I think we can hear what you're really saying.
He's telling them they gotta shore up their defenses.
He's right.
I can agree.
But at the same time, watching the establishment fall?
I don't know what to tell you, man.
It's not the end of the world.
We're gonna be fine.
Everything's gonna be okay.
The economy is doing pretty well.
Maybe not completely true, but for the most part, stock market's up, wages are up, fine, whatever.
I know people try to argue this, and there's always periodic economic downturn.
But I'll tell you what.
The worst case scenario that we're facing is a bad market.
You know, people might go without, they might lose their jobs if the market goes bad.
But I'll tell you what, your refrigerator's gonna keep running.
Your A.C., your crisp, cool, refreshing air conditioning in summer will still be there.
Your toilet will still flush.
So do I care that Trump is president?
I mean, a little bit.
You know, it's like, I don't like the guy, you know, oh, whatever.
And I'll sit down with a beer with a Trump supporter and we can have that conversation.
And I gotta admit, it's fun to have those conversations.
That's why I like watching YouTube videos.
I imagine it's why a lot of you watch this.
So, we'll see what happens.
I'll wrap it up.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at YouTube.com slash TimCastNews at 6 p.m., and I will see you all there.
I gotta say, at this point, I doubt very many people believe the official story surrounding Jeffrey Epstein.
Of course, for some reason, there is the gatekeeper class of journalists who are insistent that everything is fine, and don't you dare call out the conspiracy.
Like Katie Hill, making fun of Rep Gosar because he did the Epstein meme in his tweets, and she said, it's a conspiracy theory.
Yeah, okay, I get it, but I'll tell you what, man.
I'm not gonna theorize as to what happened.
I don't know what happened, but I can tell you this.
We don't- like, the official story makes literally no sense.
Like, everything around what happened with Epstein is weird.
We've got contradictory autopsy, you know, statements from the- even this famed pathologist saying, no way, dude, he was murdered.
Check this story out.
Jail guards at time of Epstein death reject deal.
Apparently, the guards were offered a plea deal for falsifying records.
They wanted them to publicly admit this.
They refused.
Cover up?
Oh, I don't know, I don't know.
I'm not going to speculate, because, you know, as soon as you say anything like, maybe this is what happened, you're going to get, I'm going to get every single person in media saying, Timple's a conspiracy theorist.
No, I'm not going to theorize anything.
I'm just going to tell you what happened and say, most people question what happened.
Hence, it's become a huge meme.
But let's read this news.
And there's more news, actually, because it appears Prince Andrew did an interview.
And my understanding is he didn't really deny Going to this party and maybe he's a diddler?
Let's read the news and see what's going on with Epstein.
AP.
Federal prosecutors offered a plea deal to two correctional officers responsible for guarding Epstein on the night of his death, but the officers have declined the offer.
People familiar with the matter told the Associated Press.
The existence of the plea deal offers signals the Justice Department is considering criminal charges in connection with the wealthy financier's death at the Metropolitan Correction Center in New York in August.
The city's medical examiner ruled Epstein's death a suicide.
However, a private pathologist hired, I believe, by the family has said no way.
And this guy is, like, famed, apparently, you know.
So, you know, look.
Who are you supposed to believe?
At this point, they want to claim it's a conspiracy, but you've got mainstream reporting.
We know ABC spiked the story.
You've got mainstream reporting, an expert saying, no dice.
So I'm not going to be surprised.
People doubt the official ruling on this one.
The guards on Epstein's unit are suspected of failing to check on him every half hour as required, and of fabricating log entries to show they had.
As part of the proposed deal, prosecutors wanted the guards to admit they falsified the records, according to people familiar with the matter.
They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not permitted to publicly discuss the investigation.
Could it be?
The guards, in fact, did not falsify anything.
Why reject a plea deal?
Unless... Unless they were innocent.
I mean, here's the thing.
Federal cases have like a 99% conviction rate.
When you get prosecuted by the feds, they almost always win.
Now some people argue it's because the courts are rigged, but the more likely answer is that they only come after you if they have an airtight case.
They know for sure they're going to get the conviction they want.
So what ends up happening is, everybody please, everybody takes the deal.
There's a thing called the jury tax, or the trial tax, depending on who you ask, which basically says that if you go to trial, your punishment will be much harsher.
And the real idea, or I'm sorry, I'm sorry, the idea is supposed to be like, you've refused to accept responsibility for your crime, therefore they must punish you more.
In reality, they're punishing you for wasting the court's time.
Take a plea deal, I'll tell you what, you'll get, you know, we'll knock it down, default side record, you're gonna get a couple years probation or something like that.
Well, they don't want to do it.
And I wonder why that is.
And that's pretty bold, I gotta say.
I mean, look...
I've seen instances where, like, in D.C.
there were protesters who were, you know, protesting at Occupy, got arrested, and they were told, like, you are going to be convicted.
However, it is true that the D.C.
police didn't get their convictions on the Antifa stuff.
But, you know, I don't want to speculate too much into why or how.
Suffice it to say, these guards are saying no way to the deal, and they're not going to admit they falsified records.
Perhaps it's because they didn't.
Let's read on.
The U.S.
Attorney's Office in Manhattan had no comment on the plea offer.
Both guards were working overtime because of staffing shortages.
They had been placed on administrative leave while the FBI and the Justice Department's Inspector General investigate the circumstances surrounding Epstein's death.
Thirty minutes!
They've been waiting trial. Yeah, we know all that Epstein was placed on suicide watch
After he was found on his cell floor July 23 with bruises on his neck
Multiple people familiar with the operations at the jail have said Epstein was then taken off the suicide watch
about a week before his death Meaning he was less closely monitored, but still supposed
to be checked on every 30 minutes 30 minutes. Come on, man Is all such look at the very least we've got
serious problems in our present system.
And I think that's a fair point, man.
We do have serious problems in our prison system, but come on.
If somebody checks on you, and then leaves, and you're like, well, they're not gonna be back in 30 minutes, I can do whatever I want.
Okay?
And then they came back, and they found him choked out.
Epstein's death exposed mounting evidence that the chronically understaffed Metropolitan Correction Center may have bungled its responsibility to keep him alive.
Oh, nice try, dude.
I'm not buying it.
The cameras failed.
Dude, you know what, man?
I'm not going to sit here and just take whatever the government says as fact.
I'm not going to tell you what happened.
I don't know what happened.
And there's a lot of conspiracy theories.
And I also just, I'm so sick and tired of like mainstream media saying literally any question ever is a conspiracy theory.
No, I have no theory.
Literally have none.
All I know is something doesn't add up.
And that's fine for me, right?
A lot of people are saying Epstein didn't kill himself.
That's not a conspiracy theory.
It's like, listen.
When he was in his cell with the other guy, and then they claimed it was an attempt, but then he said he was choked out, there's no conspiracy there.
Okay?
It was one guy attacking a dude he thought was a diddler.
That happens in prison a lot.
No conspiracy.
So, at the very least, you want to say he didn't kill himself.
In this instance, there's still... You know, it's crazy because it could be as simple as, like, One of the guards knew who he was and went and choked him out.
There was no conspiracy.
That's it.
It could be that simple.
And then that one guard went and took the camera and, you know, damaged the day.
It could be one person.
Conspiracy implies a criminal arrangement between multiple people, but they call everything a conspiracy theory just because, you know, I'm just, I'm so sick of the media no longer caring about investigating.
Think about all of the journalists back in the day who were digging up stories and doing investigations and what everything they've ever done is a conspiracy theory.
Let's put it this way.
Let's say the stuff about Trump and impeachment.
We don't know for sure.
We know there's documents.
CNN and Buzzfeed are like, it's a conspiracy theory.
Did you investigate and find anything?
No?
Well, it's insane to me that you can be a journalist, hear of potential malfeasance, see a document, sworn statement, and just go, I don't care about conspiracy.
What?
There's potential evidence here!
When did the press stop being curious and stop investigating?
And now you have CNN and these other outlets, all they do all day is say, that's a conspiracy, end of story.
It's like, are you a commentator giving your opinion on what you think it is?
Or did you actually investigate?
And what I love is they call literally everything debunked.
It's like, dude, just because someone comes out and says it's not true doesn't mean you debunked anything.
Like, remember when Hillary Clinton got sick?
And they were calling it a debunked conspiracy theory.
And then she admitted to having pneumonia.
It's like, oh, you know what, dude?
One of my favorite bits in all of media criticism was that interview Mike Cernovich did with, I think Scott Pelley is his name, the 60 Minutes guy.
And they were accusing him of publishing fake news by claiming Hillary Clinton was sick.
And he said, you know, he's like, the media claimed Donald Trump was mentally ill.
And then when we come out and say the same thing about Hillary, all of a sudden they're saying it's fake news, you're making it up.
And Scott says, but she wasn't sick.
And, you know, basically what Cernovich did was he talked to a doctor who then said, based on what he's seen, she's sick.
Cernovich said, how do you know?
And the journalist said, well, a person from our campaign told us.
And he goes, why would you believe them?
And then apparently, like, Pelly or whatever his name is, glasses, falls off.
In one clip that went viral on Twitter, the BBC published it where they asked him, Virginia Roberts says she met you at a nightclub in London, and then you went to Ghislaine, how do you pronounce her name, Maxwell's house, and engaged in adult activities with a minor, to say the least, with her.
And his response wasn't, I've never done that, his response was, I have no recollection of meeting this woman.
You have no recollection of meeting... You know what it says to me?
It says to me that you didn't know or care who she was, didn't bother to remember her name, but aren't denying that it happened.
Here's my question.
Okay, fine.
You don't remember who this woman is?
You have no recollection of meeting her?
Let me ask you a question.
You ever go dance at a nightclub and meet a young woman, and then go back to a wealthy financier's, you know, lady's house and engage in adult activities with someone under the age of 18?
Is he going to say, I have no recollection?
Oh, you're not denying it.
No recollection.
I mean, listen, man, what's really funny about these things is if someone came to me and said, Tim, did you ever buy a, did you ever build a Zeppelin?
Okay.
Okay.
I got to give you some context.
For the longest time, Wikipedia, like there was a passage in my Wikipedia claiming I invented a Zeppelin.
No idea?
Sure.
Just made it in there.
And even though I would say over and over again, like, dude, I never built a Zeppelin.
That's crazy.
Hold on.
Just think about how crazy this is.
Somebody wrote that I built a Zeppelin.
Like, I built a blimp.
What is this?
I love the media, huh?
But anyway, here's the point.
When people come to me and say, Tim, What's up with this Zeppelin?
You've been accused of building it.
I never said, I have no recollection of building a Zeppelin.
I said, I never did that!
What's crazy to me is, if someone asks you if you did something, and you don't remember ever having done that, you'd say, I didn't do that, right?
Like, what if someone asked you, you've been accused of doing a double backflip off your garage roof.
Would your response be, I can't remember that ever happening.
No, you'd say, I didn't do that.
So here's the point.
Prince Andrew says he has no recollection of meeting the teen.
That says to me one thing.
It's possible he met other teens.
I'll put it this way.
If someone said you did a double backflip off your garage into a pool, into a blue pool, And it's true, in fact, that on several occasions you did do a double backflip into different color pools, you might say, I have no recollection of that.
A blue one.
You know, we had a green one for St.
Patrick's Day.
The point is, the only reason, in my opinion, you would respond that you had no recollection of that is because it fits enough with what you have done.
Otherwise, you would just say, nah, I never did that.
So, here's the other funny thing.
He says he was being honorable by staying with Jeffrey Epstein.
What is that supposed to mean?
And then he said, he let the side down.
Now, I'll tell you what.
When I heard that quote, that he let the side down, I have no idea what that means.
It's a turn of phrase I am not familiar with.
It must be British, okay?
And so I'm thinking, like, if you let the side down, like you're in a Jeep and you, like, take the soft top?
Like, what does that mean, let the side down?
And so I assumed it had meant something to me.
It means something like, you let someone down.
So I reached out to my friend, Mr. Sargon of Akkad, and I'm like, what does this mean?
I am not British.
I am not familiar with this phrase.
Maybe it's American.
Maybe there's it here too.
I just don't know.
And he said, it means that Andrew is probably... Maybe I shouldn't be telling that, but it's saying that he let everybody down.
He explained to me what it meant.
And short answer is, it means he might be a diddler.
Let's put it that way.
Now, I do think it's fair to differentiate.
What he did was illegal.
Presumably, if he was with this young woman, she was a teenager.
But I do think it's fair to point out there is a big difference legally between a pre-bubescent child and a teenager.
I think they're both basically very close to being on par with each other for a lot of reasons, especially when it's an old dude engaging in these creepy activities.
But there is a big difference, and the law recognizes this.
There's like Romeo and Juliet laws.
And the laws do differentiate in many jurisdictions between the age of the child.
So I think it's fair to point out he's an old, lecherous creep who's hooking up with teenagers, if the story is true.
But as far as I'm concerned, he gets the official title Prince Andrew... He's the Duke of York, right?
Duke of York?
Diddler of York.
That's what I'm gonna call him from now on.
That's my opinion!
My opinion, based on what he said and how he said it, is that Prince Andrew is the Diddler of York.
You don't get to be the Duke of anything after this comes out.
You admit to staying with Epstein.
And then when someone asks you if you did this, your response is, I can't remember.
Is it possible?
Seriously, there's something in your mind saying, well, I just don't remember.
But it's within your character to do this?
OK.
OK, Prince Andrew, Diddler of York.
I am going to get in so much trouble from these people.
But look.
They have a ton of power.
Look what ABC did when they spiked this story.
And they did it because they were concerned about offending the crown.
So I'll tell you what, man.
I can't tell you what's true or what's not true.
I can say I am skeptical over this guy meeting with Prince Andrew based on what we've heard about, you know, ABC News, the powerful people involved, the guards are being offered a plea deal if they say they falsified records.
The whole thing stinks.
Bad.
And you know what, man?
I'm not convinced on the official reporting so far.
Let me just remind you.
It doesn't have to be this grand conspiracy where the evil globalists are twirling their mustache and plotting against Epstein or something like that.
It could simply be that there's one rich person who knows that Epstein has dirt on him, is scared, and offers one other person a ton of money.
It could be really simple, man.
It could be that one of these guards was offered, you know, a hundred grand cash to choke him out or something like that.
And what bothers me is that...
A lot of these weird media gatekeepers will try and make it seem like everyone believes it's literally a cabal of, you know, super elites and, like, world leaders conspiring to end Epstein, when it literally could be one guy.
It could just be, like, it could be one dude who's worth a couple million bucks we never heard of, and he's not particularly important, and he's going like, I will not be stopped, and then he offers a guard.
It could be literally one guy saying, like, this can't happen.
It doesn't have to be a big governmental plot or like, you know, the cabal organization with its tentacles leeching through all these other, you know, channels and government agencies.
It could literally just be one dude.
It could be, you know, it could have been the guard.
It could literally have just been the guard who, like I said earlier, was just like, I know who you are, I know what you've done.
Or it could have been a guard who You know, you get the point.
Who was offered money, or something like that.
But let me end by saying, I think with them rejecting the plea deal, we have something really interesting here.
They didn't want to admit to falsifying records, and I wonder why that is.
Don't know.
Don't know.
And I'll tell you what, I doubt we will ever find out.
Yep.
That's how the world works.
But I will say something.
Mike Cernovich tweeted this out.
And, you know, you don't gotta be a fan of the guy.
Like, and I think even people on the left should recognize the point he made.
He said that our government more rigorously prosecuted Roger Stone over lying to Congress than they did Epstein.
I'm not a fan of Roger Stone.
And I know a lot of people who are, and I see all these people calling for, you know, like, oh, Trump should pardon him.
I'm like, you know what, man, I'm not gonna get involved in that.
I don't know enough about the guy.
I think he's kind of a, I don't know, a boisterous figure, and he lied and whatever, and I'm not gonna get involved in it.
But I can recognize, it's mind-numbing to me, the amount of resources that went into arresting Roger Stone and prosecuting him, with like the SWAT team showing up at his house, and they couldn't deal with this for years!
You know what, man?
Let me just tell you.
Roger Stone is not, you know, a peasant.
You know, he's got his own... He's got power.
He's not the most powerful person in the world, by no means.
Epstein's powerful.
And look at how he gets treated.
He gets special deals.
He gets ignored.
Story?
Three years ago, ABC News knew about this!
And what... And what...
Nothing.
Roger Stone though, man, they sent a SWAT team to his house.
So I'll tell you what.
Even if you're someone who's on the left, who hates Stone, who hates Trump, I think we can recognize.
You might be celebrating the conviction of Roger Stone.
Hey, you know, more power to you.
It's your opinion.
But I think we can agree their priorities are mixed up.
They arrested the blaggart who lied to Congress and sent a SWAT team to his house?
Okay, man, I get it if you don't like the guy.
But can we all agree, can left and right unite under the fact that couldn't we have gotten that same level of action on Epstein?
Apparently not!
And then here's the best part.
Even after they do arrest him, the whole system falls apart.
The guards are sleeping, falsifying.
You know what, man?
I think confidence in the system is shaking.
Who trusts that this stuff is going to work properly right now?
I'll tell you what happens.
It doesn't have to be a grand conspiracy.
In my opinion, they go after Roger Stone because it's low-hanging fruit.
The prosecutors want their record to look really, really great and say, look what we did.
The political activists hate Trump and hate Stone, so they're like, this is going to be a high-profile get for us.
Epstein?
Oh, it's so hard.
Do I have to?
You know what, man?
I've seen it.
In law enforcement, we have this problem where the prosecutors want to get a record.
You know, they want to make sure their record looks great.
And so, they're like, listen, it'll be really, really easy to arrest this guy.
We can put on a big show.
And we have to do very little work, and there's no risk.
Epstein, however, is going to have the best of the best lawyers in the world.
And they're like, that's going to be so hard.
And guess what?
If you screw it up and he gets out, now you're in trouble.
Nah, you know what, man?
I'm not going anywhere near that.
That's what you get.
I'll leave it there, though.
Stick around, next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Thanksgiving is just around the corner, and one of the biggest tropes pertaining to Thanksgiving is that you're gonna be sitting with a bunch of family members who believe stupid things.
Someone might be sitting with their libtard aunt, or their conserver bro, far-right redneck uncle, whatever.
People have insults to sling around, and everybody gets into fights, but guess what?
That's your family.
Bill Maher made a really remarkable point on his show the other day, but the most alarming thing is that he fears a new civil war.
At least that's how Newsweek frames it.
Newsweek's far from a right-wing publication.
Saying Bill Maher is toning down anti-Trump routine for the sake of peace.
Fears new civil war.
The reason I bring up Thanksgiving.
I think one of the reasons that Bill Maher did this segment is because Thanksgiving is coming, and we often talk about arguing with our family and friends.
He made a very remarkable point.
Think about the political differences you have with your own family, your own blood, and then think about the rest of the country.
And he said something really, really great.
He says, the one thing you learn to say at these family gatherings, let it go.
Now I do think that in this segment when he talks about, you know, needing to tone things down because the left insults the right, the right insults the left, everybody's trying to own each other, I think he does still have a very liberal bias.
But I will say, bless this man's heart for trying.
He's saying he's going to tone things down.
He's not going to be, you know, he says he's played into the insulting of the right, and he's realized that it's getting too dangerous.
And that if we don't tone things down, there will be a second civil war.
And what's really crazy to me, It sounded like I was listening to myself.
I record videos all the time for the past two years saying basically what he's saying.
There's a reason why I don't insult and rag on Trump supporters and Republicans and I try to hear them out and try to understand them to the best of my ability.
Because I know, like Bill Maher said, if there's one thing that's true, having a country with democratic institutions means you're going to be living and working with people who you can't stand.
Let's take a look at this story and see exactly what Bill Maher is on about.
Newsweek says Bill Maher is toning things down and fears civil war.
Bill Maher is changing his tune on HBO's Real Time, telling viewers Friday night that he plans to tone down his comedic routine mocking Donald Trump and his supporters over fears that the political division in the U.S.
could lead to a second civil war.
Now, at the end of the segment, he says he never feared that George W. Bush would lock up journalists, their opponents, or him.
I gotta say, that's a bit crazy, because I still don't think that's the case.
Who's, you know, we were told all of these things about 2016, like Trump wouldn't accept the results and all that, but that's not what's happening.
It's the other side.
So, while I disagree with his perspective, he makes a really great point.
The segment was fantastic, by the way.
Talking about how they will never, he said, you will never understand why they vote for Trump, and they will never understand your obsession with gluten.
And it's funny, it's a joke, but he's right.
There are people in different parts of the country who just grew up in a very different place.
They have different responsibilities, they have different beliefs, and we have to work together, otherwise it falls apart.
Quote, I've been guilty of saying things like that, Mar said, referring to name calling of the right.
I'm going to try to stop.
I've learned that the anti-intellectualism of the right doesn't come primarily from stupidity.
It comes from hate.
Telling people they're irredeemable is what makes them say, you know what?
I'd rather side with Russia than you.
This was a remarkable segment where he did have a lot of criticism for Trump supporters and the right, but it was framed in the sense that they were making these problems.
That when Bill Maher or Hillary Clinton calls people baskets of deplorables, don't be surprised when they say, fine.
Let me tell you something.
The other day, there was a journalist in the Washington Post during the hearing and was mocking the GOP saying they talk about Alexander Chalupa all the time.
Why don't they have her testify?
Chalupa is the woman who was a DNC consultant who got dirt from Ukraine.
And then, you know, it's a complicated story, but she was involved in that Ukrainian meddling.
He then fact-checked himself, realizing he was wrong.
He was a fact-checker himself, and said, I got this one wrong.
I'm deleting it.
The GOP did call Alexander Chalupa, but Schiff blocked it.
All of a sudden, I see a bunch of people on the right mocking him.
And it's the same thing, okay?
You can't do this.
I have made this point so many times.
I said, listen, this is a journalist.
who did some dumb hot take, realized they were wrong, they actually checked their work, surprisingly, journalists doing it, deleted the tweet, published a screenshot, said they were wrong, retracted, corrected, apologized, and even criticized themselves as having four Pinocchios for screwing that up.
And I said, much, much respect.
Absolutely, you know, class act, the right thing to do.
If you only ever insult and be right, what's the point of coming clean?
This journalist could have said, eh, what's the point?
Even if I come out and correct, no one on the left is going to say anything, and the right is going to insult you anyway, so why bother?
And that's why I think everybody needs to hear this message and pay attention to this.
Let's read more about Bill Maher.
We'll circle back to this.
He says, lately we've been hearing more and more about a second civil war, which sounds impossible in this modern affluent country.
It is not.
We talk about Trump as an existential threat, but his side sees democratic control of government the exact same way.
When both sides believe the other guy taking over means the end of the world, yes, you can have a civil war.
Spot on.
I try explaining this to people, and I'll tell you what.
I don't have the biggest channels on YouTube.
You know, Steven Crowder's got ten times, or five times if you combine the subscriber count of both my channels, but he's got five, six million subs.
And these are people who are more in tune with hearing just the right-wing perspective.
Granted, I understand I am not your progressive perspective individual, and I probably agree with Steven Crowder on facts of reality more than most people, but politically we have our disagreements.
But the point is, I feel like most people who can stand watching me are those who aren't entrenched in confirmation bias.
There are many people on the right, and there are many more people on the left, who refuse to listen.
And I'm sorry, this is a fact.
Jonathan Haidt's research shows this.
The left can't predict moderate or conservative behavior, but moderates and conservatives can predict the left.
The problem with the left is that they don't quite understand.
I'll give you a really good example, actually.
Dave Rubin got an email from Ocasio-Cortez and he tweeted, why am I getting this email from you?
Who has my email address?
Her response was, I'm sorry, someone must have mistaken you for a journalist.
And then all of a sudden, a whole bunch of lefties and like woke journalists started going like, oh, sick burn.
And there are even people who are like libertarians calling it a sick burn.
And I'm like, well, hold on, man.
You don't know anything about Dave Rubin, okay?
This is what was really strange to me.
Because I was on his show and I said, what you are doing is journalism.
And Dave said, no, it's not.
I reject it.
That was a couple of years ago.
He rejected it outright.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
He has a political position.
He espouses his positions.
And he talks with people and he does not consider it journalism.
But all these lefties think AOC burned him by saying someone thought you were a journalist.
From the perspective of understanding who Dave is, actually having the facts on your side, the reality was, if someone thought Dave was a journalist, that was a compliment to his work, like when I said it, not a burn.
The reason I bring this up, is that the echo chamber became palatable.
You could see all of these woke lefties going like, whoa, oh man, you burned him.
It's like, dude, what if I called Dave a chef?
Like, he posted a picture of a steak, right?
And I said, someone must have mistaken you for a chef.
Dave's like, I'm not a chef.
What are you talking about?
I don't do anything like that.
So, to me, this is an example of how you have people on the left, they can't understand the right at all.
But anyway, let me circle back, because I'm going off on a tangent.
The point is, You know, when I talked to, say, Joey Salads, I realized at first I was hostile, and that was a mistake.
Because if you tell someone there's no redeeming them, then yeah, they'll just double down and say, I would rather... When he says this about they would rather side with Russia than you, it shows people... Or what does he say?
When both sides believe they're gonna... Oh yeah, yeah, you know what?
I'd rather side with Russia than you.
And it showed people wearing shirts that said they would rather side with Russia than a Democrat.
Yeah, we can't have that.
But I'll tell you what.
It is a lot easier for me to talk to a Trump supporter than it is for me to talk to a Democrat or a liberal.
I kid you not.
I can have a conversation with a Trump supporter and say, here's what I think, and they'll say, I see what you're saying, but I think you're wrong for these reasons.
I have a conversation with someone on the left, and they devolve into ad hominems and accuse me of being a grifter and all this other nonsense.
It's like, I avoid those things on purpose.
Let's read a little bit more, otherwise I'm going to spiral out.
Maher reasoned with viewers to show tolerance and coexist peacefully with people who do not share their political viewpoint.
We are going to have to learn to live with each other, or there will be blood.
So don't freak out if Ellen sits next to George Bush at a football game, Maher added, referring to the criticism Ellen DeGeneres received in October for hanging out with Bush.
Bush was not my idea of a good president, but I never worried he was going to lock up his political opponents or reporters or me.
You see, here's the thing.
I can respect Marr for pointing this out, but let's be real.
Trump's not going to lock these people up, okay?
Trump's not going to arrest journalists.
You live in a paranoid, delusional state.
And I'm not saying that to be disrespectful, I'm saying that as a matter of fact, and that I'm appreciative of you realizing that you are feeding into this machine.
I have said it over and over again.
You know, that I have been mean before, I try not to do that.
I try to be very respectful, you know, even to people I disagree with a whole lot, and I actively try to promote those I disagree with.
One of the people in particular, I usually like to, look, I usually promote David Pakman, I disagree with him, I think he said some disparaging things about me several times, but you know what?
That's fine.
Because people say the same thing about me that, you know, and people say the same thing about him, and so the best thing we can do is try and hear each other out, even if it's mind-numbing.
Like, it's really annoying.
I'll tell you what, man.
You gotta understand, when I'm reading all the news, like, I'm looking at Brian Stelter's Twitter feed, I'm just like, this is nuts.
Like, what reality does this guy live in?
And they do these things that are really annoying that I try to avoid.
Calling all news fake news.
Like, I'm using Newsweek here for a reason.
I'm using Newsweek because it is aligned more with the left.
By most standards, by most, you know, objective analysis, Newsweek is left-wing.
And they're associated with the Daily Beast.
And so I try using left-wing perspectives on purpose to show, like, I'm trying, you know, I use the Daily Wire, I use Daily Caller, I use BuzzFeed, I use Vox.
Brian Stelter tells you not to listen to the other side.
These are things we need to avoid.
And so when I'm reading his Twitter feed and seeing these misleading phrases and these tricks, it gets frustrating.
It gets annoying.
But you know what?
You know what I've said in the video I did about Brian?
I said I respect him for engaging.
I think he's not the worst person in the world.
A lot of people want to rag and insult him all day and night.
And I've called out Tucker Carlson for insulting him.
And, and Zucker people, I'm not a big fan of.
Like, I think, I think, I'm glad Bill Maher is saying this.
But let's bring up another point.
Him talking about a second civil war.
A lot of people get mad when I talk about what a civil war really means.
And I've been saying it for a long time.
Surprise, surprise, I was just ahead of the market.
Okay?
I can see these things unfolding before us, and I make predictions based off of the probability of, you know, which variable will result.
Like, okay, let me try and rephrase this.
We have multiple pathways in front of us.
I'm looking at them and trying to figure out which one is more likely and for what reason.
From that, I make predictions.
Sometimes I'm wrong.
In fact, I'm often wrong.
I thought the Republicans were going to dominate the midterms.
They didn't.
There's a lot of things I didn't understand.
And that's why it's important to listen to the other side.
But Bill Maher is now saying the same thing on a primetime HBO show to the masses.
Civil war is possible.
So let me tell you, it is not a game.
This is real.
You've got to make sure that when you're talking to people, you know what really bothers me on Twitter is like, the constant attacks on everybody no matter what they do.
Like I mentioned, that journalist, I'm like, why you gotta be mean?
The dude admitted he made a mistake.
Like, give him a high five.
You know, if, man, how much better would the world be if every time someone made a mistake, when they realized it, they acknowledged the mistake?
Buzzfeed did a story accusing actual Trump supporters of being bots.
Twitter started suspending people.
I'm not going to say they were responsible because who knows why these people were suspended, but they started claiming these tweets in support of Trump were robotic or automated.
Without evidence, without proof.
Instead of admitting, this journalist, instead of him admitting he was wrong, because it later turned out Jack Posobiec put out this tweet, everyone started tweeting too, and he's got half a million followers, then yeah, you're gonna see 7,000 people tweet right away.
He said they were bots.
He could have just said, I overlooked the fact that Posobek tweeted this out, and I think that's probably where it came from.
Instead, what did he say?
Nope.
I'm talking to Twitter.
Twitter says it might be real.
Nope.
They're bots.
Nope.
It's automated.
And then he started trying to list all of these reasons why there was more likely to be bots doing it, implicating his own co-author on the story who was doing the same thing.
He was claiming, like, if you tweet more than 50 times a day, it's suspicious.
It's like your own writer, journalist at BuzzFeed was doing the same thing.
Imagine a world where people said, I think I'm wrong about this.
And I'll give a shout out to Jordan Peterson.
When he did that interview on, it was Jim Jeffries, I think, and I know it's all supply stuff, but he was asked about, you know, being compelled to speak or being compelled to serve somebody, and he said it was wrong, and then he was asked about the civil rights movement, and then Jordan just went, maybe I was wrong about that.
Just like, right away, he had the frame of mind and he had the discipline.
To say, yeah, I could be wrong.
Think about it.
How many people just want to own the other side?
That's what Bill Maher talks about.
If that's the mentality we have, then we really are headed for a second civil war.
But I want to end with one important point, okay, about what a civil war would be or what it would look like.
In the past, I've talked about insurgency, street skirmishes.
Those are happening, okay?
They may be happening a bit less than they were a couple years ago.
We'll see what happens after the election, 2020, or if Trump is impeached and removed, which I really doubt.
But let's say Trump isn't elected again.
Yeah, there's gonna be a lot of angry people.
Let's say he does win re-election.
It'll be a lot worse.
But more importantly, what we have going on right now A lot of people are saying, in the impeachment inquiry, these people don't have first-hand knowledge.
Fact.
Many of them do not.
I don't even know what Yovanovitch's testimony was supposed to be about.
They're trying to frame it like a criminal conspiracy, that Trump fired her to get her out of the way.
Oh, please.
Come on, dude.
You need so much more evidence to go there.
That's what they're doing.
What ends up happening is, they say, the only reason these witnesses don't have first-hand knowledge is because Trump is blocking.
That's right!
Donald Trump blocked people from testifying, saying, do not testify, do not answer those subpoenas.
Oh heavens!
Oh no!
Why would Trump do such a one-sided, oh I'm sorry, Adam Schiff blocked Republicans' call for witnesses as well.
If Adam Schiff is going to say, these people will not testify, I will not allow it.
And Donald Trump says, these people will not testify, I will not allow it.
We don't have one side or the other being corrupt.
We have two factions of government refusing to acknowledge the system.
Okay?
Whether the system is right or wrong.
I'm not saying Adam Schiff is right to call them or they're right to stop.
I'm just saying all that matters is Adam Schiff in Congress is saying no to these witnesses.
They will not testify.
Trump is saying the same thing.
They are two equal branches of government saying no to witnesses.
Enough!
These people seem to think it's always going to be the other.
I don't care who thinks they're right or wrong.
I'm telling you, this is a possibility.
And even Bill Maher is recognizing it now.
So I will tell you, read what Matt Taibbi wrote about this.
Listen to what Bill Maher says about this.
And you need to get past one of the biggest mistakes people make.
They assume that this will always just be two factions marching down the street.
Someone messaged me saying, what you need to understand about the Deep State, because I have people who support me who work for the federal government and things like that, and they said, somebody sent me this story about how they work in a federal branch of government, and they see it.
There is the culture war within their own ranks, that some people are diehard anti-Trump, and some aren't.
Some like the president, and many are just the average person.
They don't care.
They're like, man, calm down.
But these factions exist.
So I'll tell you what happens.
Trump, they may vote to impeach Trump.
Senate probably wouldn't remove him, and I think we'll get past this.
But let's say something happens where some Democrats pull something, you know, witnesses are barred from the Senate, even though the Senate has a majority, and there's some obstruction, and it results in a removal.
Then you have two factions of government fighting over what comes next.
Then they start counting heads.
There are certain military branches who are probably thinking the president must not be subverted by this meddling.
They refuse to accept the results of the 2016 election.
They're subverting the Constitution.
The left faction then says Trump was duly removed.
He's corrupt.
He must be stopped.
He's rejecting the rule of law.
They both see the same thing.
All of a sudden, you have different heads of different departments counting heads.
Who's on my side?
And as Matt Taibbi wrote, they jump in their cars and they speed as fast as possible down the street to get to the marshal's office, to get to the D.C.
police, and say, arrest them!
Pointing at each other.
And then it's going to come down to who's loyal to who.
Who will the D.C.
police choose?
Well, I'll tell you what.
In the unlikely event, and I mean this is unlikely, it's possible, but unlikely, that it came down to it, I'd be willing to bet the police, they're going to side with the executive branch.
Now, some people tell me that's impossible because, you know, many, many police officers, former military and current military swore an oath to defend the Constitution.
And I say, listen, what do you think?
You have to understand, from the day Trump was elected, they've been calling for his impeachment.
The resistance has been actively messing with Trump's administration.
His people aren't getting appointed.
They're blocking all of his orders.
They're stopping the president who was elected.
So you're going to see many people who are working for the military, the police, law enforcement, who see that and say they are trying to subvert our rule of law and constitution and the will of the people.
On the other side, they look at Trump as an agent of Russia.
Empowered by Russians.
Manipulation.
All conspiracy nonsense.
Sure, because I don't believe it, but they do.
They really, really do.
And then they're going to say, this is a man who should not have been president, who is not my president, who is never president, and he must be stopped by any means necessary.
He is subverting the Constitution.
He is corrupt, Ukraine, etc.
They believe it.
They believe it more than you realize.
And so there are people in various factions who would think the same thing, that Trump is trying to resist being caught.
He's a criminal, a foreign actor.
He must be removed.
Oh no, he's rallying his troops to come and stop us.
In the end, I think the executive branch will side with the executive branch, which means Trump wouldn't be removed.
The reason I bring this up is people don't seem to realize what it means that there could be a new civil war.
It doesn't mean that your aunt or uncle, who is a liberal or conservative, are going to be fighting to the death in the streets over some ideology.
It means the overwhelming majority of people will be cowering in their bedrooms, their doors locked, asking for help.
And you will have confusion in the streets.
No one will know who is in charge and who to obey.
And you might have mid-level government agents telling their staff, disobey the president.
And they say, that's my boss.
I have to listen to my boss.
You may have moderately high-ranking individuals in the military saying, defy the president.
At the same time, other moderately high-ranking individuals saying, no, the president must be protected.
Who sides with who completely depends on what they're watching, what they're seeing, and what they know.
That's the real risk.
The breakdown in confidence and a political polarization that is so extreme it cannot be mended because the other is irredeemable, as Bill Maher said.
I'll leave it there.
Hopefully we don't get to that point.
And I think a lot of the stuff we're seeing on TV is just for show.
But that could all just add to the problem.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It is a different channel.
This one's gonna be about Obama issuing a warning to the left.
You're going too far.
Stick around.
I will see you there.
And the complicated thing about perjury is intent.
Did you just make a misstatement or did you intentionally lie?
And I have to say, the first story, this is an old story I talked about last week.
presents the possibility that there was a lie, in that Tucker Carlson uncovered an email that was not public, suggesting what Marie Yovanovitch testified to was factually incorrect.
If the email exists, it's still possible she was just wrong.
Oh, I forgot the email.
But come on, we know how the game is played.
The feds, they want to accuse you of lying, they're going to ascribe that motive to you.
Well, we got bigger news now, because you may have seen the testimony the other day.
Well, it started with Elise Stefanik.
Even Obama's State Department was concerned about Hunter Biden's role at Burisma.
She killed it.
Okay, Stefanik nailed it.
She stole the show.
I was very impressed.
Great questions.
Really, really well done.
Maria Ivanovich is essentially testifying to the fact that I guess there's like a criminal conspiracy or something.
that Trump wanted to remove her because she was standing in the way of his corrupt deal, which is
it's ridiculous. Look, man, if you want to allege a conspiracy against the president that he was
trying to remove you because you were standing in the way of corruption, you need to actually
show the corruption. OK, and the president is allowed to remove you. No conspiracy there.
The president is allowed to make deals with foreign governments for treaties.
No corruption there.
And based on the premise that the political story in 2017 shows Ukraine was meddling in our elections, then Trump was justified, in my opinion, in trying to look into that.
Where's the criminal aspect of this?
No one so far has testified.
Now, I understand it's a complicated process.
Here's the thing.
Coming off that first story from Tucker, where she said something under oath that was not true, you'd say at that point, okay, maybe Maybe she just misremembered or made a mistake.
Nothing will likely come of it.
But what happens when she does it again?
Check this out.
We have another story now from town hall.
Did Yovanovitch lie in her testimony?
Because here's what happens.
I want to read you this story about Stefanik and the question she asked.
But Yovanovitch testified no one from the previous administration brought up Hunter Biden.
Uh-oh.
And he said, according to HR 660, I believe is the resolution, only the ranking member and counsel can speak.
And that's true.
But it's also true that as soon as Stefanik was able to ask the question, She proved that there was at least an inconsistency in the testimony of Yovanovitch.
The question then becomes, now with two instances where Yovanovitch testified to things that were easily, verifiably false, Is anything going to come of this?
I'll tell you what.
No, of course not.
It never does.
These people are never held accountable.
At least someone could stand up next, you know, and say, Yovanovitch, you were wrong.
And what was mind blowing to me is that even after Stefanik questioned her about Biden, I was waiting for the Republican to say, excuse me, you just testified to the contrary.
And I could only think of one real reason why they wouldn't bring that up, when she admitted she was giving false testimony.
Because they were going to wait until afterwards to say, aha, we can prove it.
Because if they did it there, she would say, oh, I'm sorry, I made a mistake, let me clarify.
Now it's in the record, the hearing is done.
Now Republicans can say, she lied under oath.
Will they?
Of course not.
Nothing's gonna happen, dude.
You know what, man?
Democrats are running around in circles like chickens with their head cut off, doing all these crazy things, accusing of Brett Kavanaugh of God knows what.
And what are Republicans doing?
Nothing.
Sorry, that's just what's happening.
Now, I'm not all Republicans, come on.
I think Stephanie did an amazing job, and the only reason we're talking about this now is because she actually did her homework.
Check this out.
The Daily Caller reports, Republican New York Rep.
Elise Stefanik pointed out during Friday's impeachment hearings the fact that former President Barack Obama's own State Department expressed concern about Hunter Biden's role at Burisma Holdings.
During the Friday hearings, Stefanik questioned former U.S.
Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch about Obama-era prepping for her own Senate confirmation hearing in which the potential conflict of interest on the issue was raised.
This was in the form of practice questions and answers, said Stefanik.
This is your deposition.
And you testify that in this particular practice Q&A with the Obama State Department, it wasn't just generally about Burisma and corruption.
It was specifically about Hunter Biden and Burisma.
Is that correct?
Yes, it is, Yovanovitch responded.
Finally, Stefanik pointed out that it was the Trump administration that eventually delivered the lethal aid to Ukraine, not Obama, to which Yovanovitch responded, that's correct.
Now, this is important because she was talking about intra-agency, how the agencies have to work together.
Well, I'll tell you what.
All of these agencies, including the ambassadors, apparently said Ukraine needs weapons.
And Obama said, no, I will defy the interagency consensus on this one.
Trump, on the other hand, agreed and delivered the weapons.
I don't understand why they're mad at Trump over this, but sure, whatever.
But that brings us to the more important issue.
Did she lie in her testimony?
You mean, did she lie twice?
Come on.
Is there anything to come of this?
And I'll tell you the other thing, too.
She got a standing ovation once she finished.
Everyone stands up and starts clapping.
Yeah, they're in D.C., dude.
Overwhelmingly left area.
Urban areas are liberal.
So everyone, all these lefties are like, wow, a standing ovation.
That proves it.
No, it proves you're in a blue city, a blue district.
Let's read.
Town Hall writes, Former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch told two very different stories about her previous communications with the Obama administration regarding Burisma and Hunter Biden.
In her opening statement before a House impeachment hearing on Friday, Yovanovitch said, Although I have met former Vice President Joe Biden several times over the course of our many years in government service, neither he nor the previous administration ever raised the issue of either Burisma or Hunter Biden with me.
That was a lie.
That was a lie.
Look, I can say that maybe she just made a mistake and she misremembered, but she had just previously testified contrary to this fact.
Based on the way she and others responded to questions, it was clear they have a bias.
She was mad she was fired.
Bad things for Trump are good things for her.
So no, nobody, I had no idea the corruption was happening all around me.
And then, excuse me, in your previous testimony, you said this was specifically what you were questioned on by the Obama Administration State Department.
Yeah.
You gonna do anything about it, Republicans?
You know what, man?
The funnier question I have, the left talks about how there was an article where they said Trump could take a dump on Lincoln Memorial, and Republicans would defend him.
Oh, please, dude.
They would put their head down, and they would do everything in their power to avoid saying anything to defend the president, and only at the very last minute would mumble something like, and you'd be like, I didn't hear you.
I didn't hear what you said.
Because they're not doing anything effective.
Okay, so there are a few Republicans who are doing some good things.
I'm not, you know, I get it.
But come on, for the most part, they could be doing a lot more.
Apparently Lindsey Graham is going to subpoena Adam Schiff or something.
I don't know how that'll work because it's the Senate.
But let's read on.
They say, Rep.
Stefanik finally made it past Chairman Adam Schiff.
Stefanik asked Yovanovitch about her previous deposition testimony where she detailed exactly how the Obama State Department had prepared her to handle the issue of Burisma and Hunter Biden during her Senate confirmation hearings.
Perhaps she was told by Schiff's people, don't worry, the only people asking questions will be Nunes and Castor, perhaps she thought, in the public, I better be careful about how I say this.
And when she was in private, she thought she could say, here's exactly what happened.
Now that she's publicly testifying, uh-oh!
Gotta change that story, huh?
Do something about this.
I am sick and tired of it.
You know, nothing's gonna happen.
The first time we read that part already.
So was Yovanovitch lying during her opening statement or during her answer to Rep.
Stefanik?
Stefanik then continued, so for the millions of Americans watching, President Obama's own State Department was so concerned about potential conflicts of interest from Hunter Biden's role at Burisma that they raised it themselves while prepping this wonderful ambassador nominee before her confirmation.
Stefanik pointed out that House Democrats continue to cry foul when Republicans bring up Hunter Biden and Burisma, even though the Obama State Department had the exact same concerns.
And now, let's bring it down.
The Obama State Department had the concerns, asked Stefanik, but I wonder why there was no investigation launched.
Perhaps it's because it's the vice president's son of your own administration.
But when Trump gets in with the same concerns, he says, you gotta look into this, and the Democrats are saying, aha!
Now we can impeach you.
Seriously?
They say, why did the former ambassador deny this in her opening statement?
So, this was pointed out by a lot of people.
But I guess the bigger problem I see is one that Republicans probably need to deal with.
See, the Democrats will run full speed with 30-year-old accusations, no witness testimony, no evidence, nothing.
And then the Democrats take over and they go, oh no, now it's the Democrats' fault.
Oh, please, dude.
The Republicans are ineffective.
They're not getting the job done.
So I think it's funny when people are like, you're going to vote Republican, Tim?
Why would I?
The Democrats are nuts.
The Republicans can't get the job done.
Look, for the most part, I disagree with a lot of the more ideological positions Republicans have outside.
And I'll tell you this.
One of the big issues that people see is because I agree on free speech and issues of liberty with Republicans, and that's most of what we're talking about, that's the only reason to vote a certain direction?
No, no, no, no.
Look, man.
I'm a pretty moderate-centrist individual.
I like Tulsi for a lot of reasons, and that's about it.
And I gotta admit, you know, policy-wise, there are a lot of things Tulsi, you know, has proposed that I really, really do not agree with, but she gets me over that bump just a little bit.
And so I do like her for a lot of reasons, notably that she's willing to cross the aisle and have these conversations, and I think it's really, really, really, really important, you know?
But you know what?
They're gonna smear her anyway, so whatever.
In the end, the point is, regardless of me always going on to rant about which presidential candidate I'm going to support, why can't Republicans do anything about this?
So, you know, if you're somebody who's Republican, you voted that way, perhaps you should be asking the question, are they going to look into the now two instances where she gave false testimony?
No!
Nothing ever happens.
Unless it's impeaching President Trump.
Because Obama can... Obama can do a lot of things.
I'm gonna wrap it up.
You get the point.
Stick around.
Next segment is coming up in a few minutes.
And I will see you all shortly.
I did a short segment talking about the South Park episode on trans athletes a couple days ago.
But it was mostly a recap of the episode.
There is now left-wing outrage!
Here's the interesting thing.
First of all, The South Park episode?
Yes, it's a joke.
It's not a literal reflection of what the South Park creators actually think politically.
They're exaggerating for reasons of humor!
That's how jokes work.
So we see a couple things from this story, so I want to read this for you.
One, that the left doesn't understand what a joke is.
And I think we all know this.
It's why they can't meme.
Let me put it this way.
It's not that the left can't meme.
It's that people who like jokes are no longer aligning with this.
Like Dave Chappelle, for instance, saying, nah, none of that.
Yeah, the people who are funny and like jokes are being pushed out.
And so naturally, you end up with a left that can't tell the difference between a joke and real-life political debate.
The other thing it shows us is that, well, they're lying, okay?
I'm going to read through the story, and I'm going to make some points, and I'm going to show you how these activists are lying.
I'm not going to tell you why they're lying.
Maybe they're just wrong, okay?
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
They're just really wrong, but I believe it is intentional misframing to win a political argument.
If you haven't seen the South Park episode on trans athletes, I recommend it.
Basically, a trans woman competes in the Strong Woman competition, and it's an analog to Macho Man Randy Savage with big, veiny muscles going, oh yeah, and like a beard.
Check it out.
But let's break down this piece, and I'm gonna push back with some facts.
They say.
In the latest episode of the still-running cartoon South Park—ooh, somebody is salty—the show picked up Fox News talking points about trans athletes and ran as far as they could with them, which apparently isn't very far at all.
Actually, I thought the episode was very, very funny.
The episode brought up the importance of nuance in the debate and gender-based differences in strength.
You can certainly support the rights of trans people while recognizing gender-based differences in strength.
And I'm sorry, for the sake of argument, we'll call it sex-based differences, because I know people will get angry.
The seventh episode of the definitely-not-asked-for 23rd season of the show, titled Bored Girls, featured a trans woman, in quotes because it's revealed that he's a man pretending to be a trans woman, right, who looks and sounds like the late professional wrestler Macho Man Randy Savage.
Definitely-not-asked-for 23rd season.
Well, people are asking for South Park, but I will tell you this.
The reason I didn't ask for any more New South Park is because they've lost their bite.
I think the past couple of seasons have been weak.
There are so many political issues that the left needs to stand up for, but they refuse because, in my opinion, they are spineless, whiny, and weak.
And that, look, I'll say it, man.
Of all the people I never expected to bend the knee, it would have been South Park.
But I think something bad happened.
See, it was always really easy for shows like South Park to point the finger at Republicans and be like, moral authoritarianism is bad, dude.
But now that the problem is on their faction.
In the culture war.
Uh-oh!
Whatcha gonna do?
Finally!
They come out with an episode with some bite.
And they present an actual issue, and they cause real controversy.
And I know they weren't always just targeting the right.
They made fun of the left and right for the most part.
But back then, the left was okay with jokes and humor, and now that they're not, South Park seems to be, like, holding back out of fear.
I can't tell you why.
Just cancel the show, okay?
Or do this.
Let's read.
The trans woman in question, Heather Swanson, says that she started identifying as a woman two weeks ago, and subsequently enters a local strong woman tournament.
When asked why she looks and sounds the way she does, Heather says, I'm not here to talk about my transition.
I'm here to kick some effing A. After she dominates the competition, it's revealed she's really a man.
Okay, what do you mean it's revealed she's really a man?
Trans women are biologically male.
Are you saying gender identity-wise?
Here's the problem.
If you're saying man is a gender identity, I think it was clear the whole time with the beard and the jockstrap and the bulging muscles and It was never hidden that it was a man.
If you're talking about gender identity.
If you came in wearing a dress or whatever, I guess you could make that point.
If you're referring to biology, what do you mean?
Trans women are biologically male.
That's not an insult.
That's just a fact.
And they want to transition.
That's the point.
That's why transition exists.
You are male and you take hormones to live more, to present as female.
You transition from male.
How is it revealed?
This is what gets confusing when they use language this way.
The ex-boyfriend of another weightlifter who pretended to be a woman in order to make his ex-girlfriend look bad.
Okay, there's just so much wrong here.
First of all, most trans athletes have to adhere to very strict hormone testing before they are allowed to compete in accordance with their gender.
Wrong!
Not true!
They then bring up the Olympics.
In the Olympics, you must demonstrate testosterone below 10 NMOL per liter for at least a year before the first competition.
That's just the Olympics!
Now that's true.
The Olympics do have a restriction.
It is not true, however, that most trans athletes must adhere to hormone testing.
The law, the Equality Act, and civil rights law in New York, California, Jersey, Philly, and otherwise, do not create a distinction for testosterone.
The law simply states you cannot discriminate based on identity.
Let me show you something.
In this instance, girls are filing a federal discrimination complaint after transgender track wins.
The two trans women who have won and shattered records in women's track have not taken any hormones blockers or done anything in any way to biologically transition.
They are simply biological males who said they are now women and are competing in women's track and winning.
And that means they are eligible for college scholarships.
The lawsuit is based on the fact that the women who were running and got like 8th and 9th place or whatever were knocked out of the potential, the ability to be seen by scouts in the next level.
Basically, because these biological males who have taken no hormones or anything won, they have displaced biological females.
They are arguing that is gender discrimination.
I'm willing to bet they lose that case.
I'm willing to bet they win, because the laws being enacted do not have any provisions based on testosterone.
Period.
It simply says you can.
This is what I find so funny about the Equality Act and, like, the Equal Rights Amendment.
It'll just get rid of women's sports.
You will just then have two tiers of men's sports.
You'll have the A team and the B team.
So, but let's get back to the story.
They say, the idea that trans women are just men in disguise, up to no good.
Secondly, this is just a repetition of the world's oldest trans trope.
The idea that trans women are just men in disguise, up to no good.
So even if it wasn't actively harmful, it would still be the laziest possible depiction of transgender people.
Or it's specifically a joke about the people exploiting the system, and not all trans people.
But it is actively harmful.
Guess what?
They're gonna go there.
Yeah, listen to this.
Reinforcing the idea, even unintentionally, that trans women are fraudulent deceivers leads to violence.
Leads to violence.
Like when men flirt or sleep with trans women, find out that they're really men, and assault or murder them for tricking them.
That's right.
They are now claiming that South Park's joke about individuals who would exploit a system to belittle other people is actively harmful.
Let me make something very clear for you.
Trans people are not a monolith.
And even in the episode, they make it clear that even among the trans activists, people understand the nuance.
But there are people in media, they want to use that outrage, okay?
Now, I get it.
To an extent, there's a reciprocal nature of me doing an article saying, oh, I'm outraged.
But I'm trying to reject this.
I'm trying to say no.
South Park is making jokes that are actually attempting to bring the discussion into play so we can help expand civil rights and protect those who are marginalized.
This kind of manipulation here, it's designed to generate clicks, traffic, make money, and in no way will actually serve to expand civil rights for those who need it.
And that's what we should be doing.
And that requires a real conversation.
If we want to protect marginalized groups and those who are facing discrimination, we cannot just make a blanket statement of, anybody can compete against anybody.
Because women have a right to compete against other women.
It's their right to have their own sporting events.
Let's read on.
I'm not gonna read the next part because they're trying to conflate South Park with, you know, violence.
This affects more than just trans people.
joke, from a show known to push boundaries, but it's hardly funny when black trans women
and other trans women of color are killed every year because of this exact line of thinking
allowed their murderers to view them as less than human.
This affects more than just trans people.
Murderers are murderers.
Honestly, I have to ask, do Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the men behind South Park, really
think that trans women athletes are actually men looking to get revenge on their exes?
What?!
Okay!
No, it's a comedy show!
It's a comedy show that did this specifically to make a point at the end when PC Principal gets a kiss from his PC babies and he says, maybe people really can understand the nuance.
And we really can't have the discussion because just because we ask these questions doesn't mean we're bigots.
That was the point of the episode.
You know, I learned something today.
I learned that many people on the left either don't understand the concept of a joke and actually think those are the real opinions of South Park, and I also learned that many of these people simply want to be outraged to get clicks.
I'm kidding, that's how South Park usually ends their episodes.
But come on, do they really think trans women are men who want to have an easier life?
Do they really think that women have easier lives than men?
When did they ever say any of that?
It's a joke.
Just like Dave Chappelle did a joke.
They are not real.
They are meant to make you laugh at absurdities and help to normalize certain things.
It's complicated.
Not all jokes are perfect.
There are a lot of things we used to find funny we don't do anymore.
That's just how life goes.
For the time being, though, this kind of moral authoritarianism and outrage, now they're ragging on Family Guy?
Nah.
I'll leave it there.
I know I did talk about this before, but I wanted to actually take, you know, look at one of their articles, but I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Dating a Democrat is impossible.
I'm sorry.
It's impo- Okay, okay, I'll stop now.
It's a bit hyperbolic, but I gotta tell you what.
This Wamuu story?
Dating a Democrat, how 2020's presidential election has altered romance in DC, makes me not want to go anywhere near them.
It's really weird.
You know what?
I've been on OkCupid, and I'm looking at, I swear, I swear, most of these women I see, they're communists.
And I know, I know, you might be saying, Tim, you're being absurd, they're not communists.
No, dude.
No, I mean, I go to their profiles, and the first thing I do is check the question where they say, communism in principle good or bad, and overwhelmingly they say it's good.
No!
Communism in practice and in principle is nightmarish and wrong.
There is nothing good about the idea of communism.
Listen.
Communism is... So let me put it this way.
On the left and the right, laissez-faire capitalism is as far right as you go.
That's bad.
But capitalism itself expands upon the entirety of the spectrum from left to right.
The furthest left you can go is communism.
That's bad.
You can have social democracy with capitalist systems.
You can have balanced, you can have mixed.
Those are all good things.
So if you said social policy versus capitalist systems, those are both okay things.
You just gotta figure out how to do that regulation right, make sure people aren't, you know, selling poison to people.
But laissez-faire, in my opinion?
No, no, no, you're gonna get power monopolies, you're gonna get defective products, and we can argue all day and night, and caps, it's just you're never gonna get me.
Call me wrong in the comments, that's fine.
Communists call me wrong too, okay?
But I think the extreme ends of the spectrum, absolute capitalism, absolute socialism, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, full stop, bad.
But let's read this!
Here's what I want to do.
I want to read you some of these quotes first and then go back to the start of the story.
Here's an aside from Hannah.
I haven't read this yet.
A guy I was dating for over a year pretty much broke up with me to go work for the Beto O'Rourke campaign.
I can't decide if it's funny or sad that I was dumped for a candidate consistently polling in the low single digits.
Honey, you dodged a bullet.
I gotta tell you what, man.
If I was dating somebody and they announced that they were going to dump me because they wanted to go campaign for the Beto O'Rourke campaign, I would say, thank you.
Thank you for doing this.
You have spared me weeks or months or even years of torment.
Thank you for letting me know that's what you wanted to do.
But here's what it really comes down to.
People saying, like, if you support Joe Biden, oh my god, that's an immediate swipe left.
Look.
They're not just now saying they won't date you unless you hate the president.
They're saying you must support their specific candidate.
They have lost their minds.
Now, it's not all Democrats.
Most Democrats are like regular people who don't pay attention.
But these people?
Man, they're nuts.
Check this out.
Here's a quote.
Let me just read you the story.
Sam Rick says dating in DC was a little bit easier during the 2016 primary.
There were basically two camps you belonged to as a liberal in the vastly blue city, Team Bernie or Team Hillary.
But this campaign is different.
A whopping 18 candidates are currently contending for the nomination.
With so many choices, Rick says, it's surprising to me how dogmatic I am about my candidate and in seeking out partners that agree with me in this primary.
Rick, 29, is firmly in Warren's camp.
She supported Hillary during the 2016 campaign, and says she was more than willing to date a supporter of Bernie Sanders back then.
She concedes she'll occasionally go out with a Sanders supporter, but she says there's a reason the odds are slim.
Nine times out of ten, it turns into a very big argument.
I've been on dates where by the end of the night, it's completely ruined.
I know where it's going to go.
Best to just avoid it.
If Warren and Sanders supporters can't even get together, what are you doing?
I'll tell you something, man.
I have hung out with and been on dates with women who are moderates, Who are moderate, slightly to the left, Gabbard supporters, and even, dare I say it, Trump supporters.
And there's one thing about sane, regular people, be it a Trump supporter, or a Gabbard supporter, or just somebody who's kind of unaffiliated, they don't care who I'm supporting.
And so I'm talking to this Trump supporter chick, and I'm like, it's like a moderate, center-right individual, and I was just like, you know, I think for these reasons I like Gabbard, and her response was like, no, I get it, I understand.
And that was about it, and we played video games, and it was pretty cool.
Look at this!
This is a Warren supporter who's like, you like Bernie?
I can't even- What?
You agree on basically everything!
What do you disagree on?
How are you arguing with each other?
There was a study published by Axios showing that literally everything makes Democrats angry.
Okay man, you can go have your camp of angry people who are screeching and won't even be friends with the people they agree with.
I'm gonna go hang out with the people getting drunk, even though I disagree with them, we can still have a good time.
You see how this works?
Let's read on.
Rick is up front about what she's looking for on dating apps.
Her Hinge profile says she's seeking a gregarious dork who's really into small things and passionate about them and is also voting for Elizabeth Warren.
That's nuts, man!
She describes how she views dating various supporters of other primary candidates by placing the candidates themselves on a spectrum.
At one end are a variety of Republicans.
And then a little step beyond that, you've got billionaire activist Tom Steyer.
And then you've got the lower-tier people like Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang.
Serena, a senior at the University of Maryland who grew up in Silver Spring, and asked that we not use her last name for privacy reasons, agrees.
She also prefers to date people with the same candidate preference, Warren.
Dude, I gotta tell you what, man.
I'm a fan of Gabbard, and if I was hanging out with someone and she was like, I don't like that, I'd be like, I don't wanna date you either, okay?
Like, you're nuts.
What's crazy to me is that a Bernie and a Warren supporter are basically the same thing as far as I'm concerned.
But to each other, it's like a vast ocean of differences.
I kid you not.
The activists that I follow on Facebook and Twitter routinely rag on Warren.
They are diehard Bernie and they will not vote for Warren.
And I've said this.
They view Warren as Hillary Clinton wearing a Bernie Sanders mask.
Even this woman, she was a Hillary supporter.
She's supporting Warren.
You see exactly how it's played?
Serena says she'd pause before going on dates with people who support other primary candidates like Gabbard and Buttigieg.
I'm more wary of them, she says.
It's not a total deal-breaker, but it's a point against them.
You know, I gotta be honest.
I would date a Hillary Clinton supporter.
I really don't care.
But if you came to me as a Hillary supporter and said you don't like that I support my candidate and that it was a problem for you, then I'd be like, okay, then go away.
I don't care who you're going to vote for.
I really don't care.
Like, I'm willing to go on dates with conservatives, moderates, liberals, and it's probably why I'm a moderate where I am, because I'm willing to hear out the other side and respect the humanity of an individual and recognize we're not always going to agree on everything.
But these people live in this strange moral authoritarian world where they believe Republicans are literally evil, like vampires, trying to destroy the world, a bunch of Nazis marching in the street.
It's like, no, dude, it's just a country of regular people who disagree and view the world differently, and you've got to get over that.
Let's look at some of these quotes.
Here's an aside from Paige.
While on a date with a man she met online, we sat down for drinks and after a few minutes of small talk he said, I have to confess something.
And you won't believe it.
You may even stand up and walk out, but I'm a moderate.
He expected me to be shocked.
He thought I would make all these assumptions based on such a lackluster affiliation.
It's so bizarre to be in this atmosphere where your political stance means so much and says so much about you.
Good for you, Paige!
That I like.
But yes, he was!
Dude, I gotta admit, man.
I meet some people, and I'm just like, oh man.
I gotta be real careful about what I say, cause they're gonna flip.
The left is nuts.
I'm sorry, it's true, okay?
Even Bill Maher talks about this.
When you've lost Bill Maher, you've lost the plot.
Because Bill Maher has always been one of the most unabashed liberals, where he says so many offensive things.
Even he is now saying, we've got to tone things down, things are getting out of control.
Even he's saying, you guys are losing it.
Bill Maher, the guy who pushed back on the Iraq war, got his show cancelled.
Because he was challenging the establishment.
And now what have you got?
He's challenging you, saying you're nuts.
Good for him.
I think there's a lot of problems with that guy, like, in terms of, you know, he wants a recession.
It's complicated.
But I do respect him for coming out and calling out this insanity.
Let's see if there's any more asides.
Is that it?
Here we go.
Here's from Nathan.
A Tinder date once walked out of a second date at Hawk and Dove after calling me pro-cancer because we disagreed on whether medical companies would be incentivized to fund medical research if the government didn't do it for them.
I'm pretty anti-cancer.
Yeah, welcome to- Here's one from Abel.
I was getting the meanest twerk at Cloak & Dagger.
That booty was making my heart skip.
But she turned around and was wearing a Mayor Pete shirt, so now I'm celibate.
That's a joke.
I can recognize a joke, and that was a funny one.
I get your point.
Like, I would say something like that, too, right?
If I had this, like, hot girl should turn around with a Buttigieg shirt, and I was like, nah, get out of here!
I'm kidding, right?
I think he's making a joke.
But yeah, why would you want to date a Buttigieg supporter, I guess?
They got any more of these funny things?
I guess not.
Here's a quote from... I don't know this one.
I'm gonna skip over this one.
But Ken Knight Jr.
36 agrees.
He's a nanny and personal assistant who moved to the D.C.
area after a few months ago from New York.
He feels like the stakes are too high in the 2020 election not to pay attention.
If I've gone on five dates since being here, three of the guys didn't even watch politics, he says, exasperated.
It blew my mind.
You live in this city.
It should be the only thing you discuss.
Night says he minds less who someone supports just that they're politically engaged.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
If this dude found out the guy he was dating was a Trump supporter, his eyes would start
— like flames would start coming out of his eyes, and he'd go super saiyan.
Explosions all around him, and that would be the end of it.
I would be surprised if he was like, oh, you're a Trump supporter.
Well, I'm not angry.
I'm just glad you're paying attention.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Not how it works.
He supports Warren, but after some thought, he says he would date a Sanders supporter
with a Bernie bro.
It's always a great conversation.
He chuckles.
With some thought.
Let me consider, what are the differences between Warren and Sanders?
They're like literally right next to each other.
There's very little difference there.
The big difference is that Warren says she's not a socialist.
I can't imagine.
If you think that's a chasm that can't be crossed, what would you think about a Trump supporter?
I don't know, man.
Y'all are nuts.
So I'll wrap it up there and just say, I gotta admit, It's true.
I am wary about dating many of these people, but I gotta, you know, I'll tell you what, man, I really don't care who you're gonna vote for or what you think.
Can we watch, like, you know, Marvel Avengers and, you know, have some popcorn and then, I don't know, maybe go walk by the lake or something and, you know, let the dog off the leash?
Can we do normal things?
I tell you what, we're gonna make some burgers.
You're vegan?
That's cool.
I'll make you a black bean burger.
I really don't care if you're vegan.
I really don't care if you're, if you're a carnitarian and you only eat beef.
Can we get along, hang out, have good conversations?
Then we're alright.
Are you going to get really, really angry when you find out that our political beliefs are slightly off base, and I'm supporting someone who's a little bit to the right of your person, so you go, rawr, and you kick me and walk out the door?
