Media FINALLY Declares Barack Obama To Be A CONSERVATIVE That's How Far Left The Democrats Have Gone
Media FINALLY Declares Barack Obama To Be A CONSERVATIVE That's How Far Left The Democrats Have Gone. After the second debate many people were asking "when did Barack Obama become a republican?"In fact CNN ran an article with that exact headline. Recently in frustration Joe Biden told someone at his town hall to go vote for donald trump because they were critical of Obama.Obama has been making enemies with many people on the far left over the past few months. He warned that woke outrage and cancel culture was not activism and was bad for the left and later went on to tell Democrats not to goo to far left.This was met with widespread derision from many progressives and the former president, who is the most popular Democrat still today, was starting to be smeared a right wing.Well now its official the Washington post has run a story arguing that Obama, a man who campaign on Universal healthcare, is in fact a conservative and always has been.If you need proof that the media has lost its collective mind or that Democrats have gone too far left share this story. How anyone in their right mind could think Obama is a conservative is beyond me.You don't have to call Obama a progressive but to think he's conservative is a sign that we have officially jumped the shark
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The guy who near the end of his term was calling for a free public college and who at the beginning of his presidency was campaigning on universal health care.
That man, my friends, is now a conservative because the Democrats on the left in this country have gone so far left.
That Barack Obama became a conservative.
Now, what's funny is at first there was some resistance in media to capitulate and claim that it was true.
Well, Barack Obama's been warning about cancel culture and he said, stop, this is not, you know, cancel culture is bad.
I said, Bravo, Obama, I appreciate it.
Barack Obama said, Democrats, stop going so far left.
I said, Bravo, Obama, I appreciate it.
And during one of the debates, I believe the second, people were attacking Biden over Barack Obama's policies.
And it was noted that Barack Obama is one of the most popular presidents in history, and especially he's one of the most popular figures among the Democrats, and they're even hoping Michelle Obama runs.
Well, what does this say now?
The Washington Post runs this story, finally saying, you gotta understand, Barack Obama's actually a conservative.
So here's what I want to do.
I want to walk you through some of these stories.
Because the big issue at play is not that Obama's a conservative.
He's not.
He was fairly left, but was willing to compromise.
But something else is happening.
The left has gone so far and so fast to the left.
That everyone else left standing where they are have become conservatives.
You see, I wanna end with something very, not so political, but it is political and cultural in a sense.
See, I was a big fan of the Offspring, the punk rock band, one of the most popular punk rock bands.
And recently I started looking at their content and realizing, by today's standards, the punk rock band Offspring is pretty conservative.
I'm not kidding!
So let's do this.
Let's take a look at some of these stories to see exactly what's going on with the left finally sacrificing Obama.
And I'll make one more point, too, before we jump into this.
It's funny because, you know, Obama was smeared, left, like, he was smeared a lot by Republicans for being a socialist.
And the media would reject all of this.
Stop smearing the president.
He is not these things.
Finally now, At the behest and the cue of the fringe far-left element of the Twitterati, which Obama was warning about, the Washington Post finally says, eh, you know, whatever.
Obama, he's a conservative.
There you go.
We're done.
Can we move on from here?
I have some theories about this.
Actually, let's jump in and I'll tell you exactly what I think's happening.
Not that I believe it's on purpose, but I believe that there is a major push to make sure Obama is conservative.
You know why?
Because if he is, that means everyone to the right of Obama is a Republican, and people who don't want to be Republicans will try to be to the left of Obama.
You get it?
It kind of normalizes Obama as far right.
Or it makes him a Republican and makes Republicans far right.
So let's jump in.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash Dunnit if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do is share this video.
You know why?
Thanksgiving is coming up.
And here's what I would like you all to do.
I would like you to show your friends and family this video and ask them if they believe Barack Obama is a conservative.
That will be an... Look, hold on.
Let me stop for a second.
I know Thanksgiving is not the perfect time for politics, but if it does come up, say, please take a look at this video where Tim Pool talks about how they're claiming Obama is a conservative.
He promised in 2008, or it was 07, he was campaigning for 08, he said, I will get universal health care done on my first term.
That is not conservative.
I'm sorry.
That is progressive.
That is, they called him a socialist for this.
So if anybody wants to believe the media is telling you the truth, just show them this.
Ask them, are you a fan of Obama?
Because it's like, something like 95% of Democrats are fans of Obama.
Be like, okay, do you think he's a conservative?
Are you a conservative?
And when they say no, be like, okay, well they're calling him a conservative!
So let's read a little bit of this story.
They say the Democrats, who want to be president, can't quite figure out how to talk about the most popular figure in their party.
Former President Barack Obama cast a long shadow over the 2020 primary campaign.
Preserving Obama's legacy is the heart of former Vice President Joe Biden's pitch to voters, which has allowed his rivals to mark him as complacent.
More left-leaning candidates, Elizabeth Warren, says the next president needs to do more to push for health care reforms and combat income inequality.
But lately she's struggling to sell her proposals.
They go on a little bit, but let's move down.
They say Obama himself is working to cool down what he sees as an overheated political climate.
In October, at a panel discussion for his foundation, he warned against the pitfalls of woke cancel culture, telling a gathering of young activists that, quote, if all you're doing is casting stones, you're probably not going to get that far.
This month, at a gathering of influential Democrats, he cautioned the 2020 contenders against pushing too far, too far, too fast on policy.
This is still a country that is less revolutionary than it is interested in improvement.
That remark helped explain why so many of the candidates' proposals seem so far to the left of Obama.
The former president was skeptical of sweeping change, bullish on markets, sanguine on the use of military force, high on individual responsibility, and faithful to a set of old-school personal values.
Compare that with proposals from his would-be successors, Medicare for All, which Obama campaigned on.
The Green New Deal, free college, which Obama was pushing near the end of his presidency, a wealth tax, and universal basic income.
Given the political climate, it's no surprise to see the party's base clamoring for something dramatic.
But the contrast between Obama's steady approach and the seeming radicalism of his Democratic heirs can't just be chalked up to changing times.
It's because the former president, going back at least to his 04 Senate race, hasn't really occupied the left side of the ideological spectrum.
He wasn't a Republican, obviously.
He never professed a desire to starve the federal government, and he opposed the Iraq War, which the GOP overwhelmingly supported.
But to the dismay of many on the left, and to the continuing disbelief of many on the right, Obama never dramatically departed from the approach of presidents who came before him.
There's a simple reason.
Drumroll, please.
Barack Obama is a conservative.
And there it is.
The grand takeaway.
I'm sorry, it's just not true.
Obama was very, very progressive.
In fact, he was so progressive, he's quite literally the first black president the U.S.
has ever had that's very progressive.
And Obama gets slammed all the time for his push on social justice.
When he talked about, I believe he said something to the effect that Trayvon Martin would, if he had a son, it would look like him.
Obama certainly isn't far left.
I mean, he campaigned on some far-left principles, but came to the center and decided to compromise to move things forward, and he succeeded in a lot of ways.
Now, there's a lot of things to criticize him for, especially his foreign policy, his prosecuting of whistleblowers, etc., but the dude is not a conservative.
But I'll tell you what.
Based on today's standards, he is.
Now what's interesting about this is that the media for a while resisted—August 2nd, 2019, I did cover this—when did Barack Obama become a Republican, CNN?
I'll tell you what, man, you got a serious problem on the left if the most popular figure the Democrats have is a conservative.
At what point does Barack Obama swallow the quote-unquote red pill and start talking to the Trump voters instead?
At what point does he recognize that the people controlling the party are not the establishment anymore?
It's the weird Twitterati leftists who are dictating insane policies that most Americans don't agree with.
And if Obama wants to win, he's got to start trying to court the Republicans.
Because a ton of these people, I'll tell you what, Let me show you something.
Barack Obama's voters are Trump voters.
Check out this story from the New York Post.
Rust belt voters on Trump.
I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat.
They have a story of this woman.
She said she voted for Barack Obama twice.
And now she's going to give Donald Trump her vote.
They even say voting for Obama twice.
This made her county, Ashtabula County, a 12 point victory lead for Barack Obama in 2012 to a 19 point win for Trump.
Barack Obama's voters Are voting for Donald Trump.
And you need to realize this, right?
No president wins without the support of the middle.
Because they're the ones who are going to go left or right.
The far left will always vote for the Democrats or vote third party.
And the far right will vote for Republicans or vote third party, or not at all.
The fringes have their choice, the closest part of them in power.
The people in the middle, however, are going to go left or right.
That means Barack Obama won because many people in Rust Belt states said he's the person for me.
And when Hillary Clinton ran against Trump, those same people said Donald Trump would be their pick.
And they're still talking about why they want him.
Barack Obama perhaps doesn't realize he's talking to a party that he's lost, that the left has taken over, the fringe elements of the far left who probably can't win, resulting in a fractured Democratic Party.
Now there's a story from the Wall Street Journal, I don't have it pulled up, I was just reading it earlier.
That talks about how Bernie Sanders voters will not support anyone else.
Bernie Sanders was an independent.
He is.
He's an independent in the Senate.
He caucuses with Democrats.
He's running for the Democratic nomination.
He has pulled in many people who typically wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton, and many didn't.
12 to 18 percent of his supporters went to Donald Trump.
In fact, I believe this individual as well in the story, I believe they say that she supported Bernie Sanders.
I'm not, maybe I'm wrong about that.
But it's typical.
A large group of Bernie supporters went to Trump.
So this means the Democrats are fractured.
They're accusing, but they're winning, right?
The fringe elements of the far left are taking over, meaning Barack Obama is now a Republican.
Check out this story from just last week.
Democratic candidates reject Obama's warning of going too far left.
You see, it happened quick, but it wasn't instant, right?
We've been seeing in the debates they were attacking Obama's policies.
Then when he said, hey, don't go too far left, they rejected it.
Bernie Sanders said no.
And many people said Obama doesn't get it.
When Obama said woke cancel culture is causing problems, they attacked him on Twitter.
And now we finally made it there.
The media's finally accepted Obama's conservative.
And I gotta admit, it really is the craziest thing to me.
When he was being smeared as a socialist in 2009, socialist joker Obama portrait goes viral.
When in 2015 Obama steps up for free, free college, that was, that's crazy to me.
Now what does this mean for Michelle Obama?
Many people say they want her to run.
It's from November.
But if Obama's now conservative, perhaps Michelle should consider running as a Republican?
So I'll make one more funny point, but I want to talk about this massive shift, right?
In the New York Times, I've shown this graph a lot.
You can see, for those that are listening, I'll describe it.
The Republican Party under Donald Trump has shifted slightly to the left, but they're still a little bit to the right of where they were in 2008.
The Democrats, however, are several orders of magnitude further left than they were in 2008.
And 2008 is where Obama won, and 2012, where he won again.
Where they are today?
Yep.
Barack Obama is to the right of the Democratic Party, and thus they will call him a conservative.
What do you think this means for the rest of our culture?
So for one, one thing that I find really, really weird, Joe Biden telling an activist you should vote for Trump over criticism of Obama deportations.
I don't know if you saw this, but a lot of people were talking about it.
I highlighted it the other day.
Joe Biden was listening to someone at a town hall who was complaining about Obama and deportation.
They asked him if he would stop deportations once he got elected, and Joe Biden said no.
But he would prioritize them.
Well, they got angry.
And when they kept arguing with him, he said he would stop family separations.
They started yelling, that's a lie, that's a lie.
And then Joe Biden said, you should vote for Trump.
Think about what that means.
No, I mean this literally.
A lot of people saw this and thought it was a moment of frustration for Joe Biden.
He was being indignant, they said.
It was just he was frustrated, saying, fine, if you don't want me, you can vote for Trump.
But think about what that really means.
This person said, will you do what I want?
And he said, you should vote for Trump then, if you're critical of Obama.
What it says to me is that Trump actually isn't that far from where Obama is, especially relative to where Democrats are today.
Take a look at this.
If you compare where the Republican Party is today, it's a little bit to the right.
But if you compare where the Democrats, so look at where the Democrats are, all the way to the far left.
As I've stated time and time again, where Barack Obama was in 2008 is closer to the Republican Party than where the Democrat is relative to Obama today.
The left is so much further left that regular Americans, Barack Obama voters, are looking around at what makes sense, and they're looking to the left, and they can't see anything.
They're just too far away.
And they're looking to the right, and there's a Republican.
Like, that's the only guy I can vote for, they say.
So I want to talk about punk rock, though.
You know, because I was listening to... There was this thing that was said by Paul Joseph Watson.
I don't know if he coined it or whatever.
If you're not familiar, he's like an InfoWars personality.
He said, conservatism is the new counterculture.
And a lot of people said conservatism is the new punk and things like that.
And I think it's kind of silly.
It is kind of true that there's youthful exuberance on the right pushing back against the stodgy elites of the cultural left.
The kids on the internet who are pushing back against what is acceptable, who are getting in trouble and getting banned for saying offensive things, the kids who are edgy.
They're pushing Donald Trump memes and they're acting in a more conservative fashion.
The reality is Donald Trump was an outsider.
And while the Republicans do control the Senate, cultural institutions are heavily dominated by far-left ideology as well as policy.
So here's what happens.
Now this is less political, but I'm gonna blow your mind on some stuff right now.
What if I told you that one of the most prominent punk rock bands was conservative?
You'd say, how does that make sense?
Well, they're not conservative.
But if you compare their popular songs from back in the day when it was fairly pop, it was pop punk, it wasn't the most egregiously punk rock stuff.
Like I used to listen to some punk rock stuff that was straight up far left anarcho, you know, just like anti-government stuff, right?
The Offspring, who I'm gonna highlight, was probably my favorite band at a certain point.
When I was younger, I listened to The Offspring, and then as I got older, I found more and more politically-minded stuff.
But The Offspring are one of the most popular punk rock bands.
I know, naturally, a ton of punk rock purists are going to attack me and say they're not really punk.
No, no, I get it.
They're not like Anti-Flag or, you know, like The Virus or some of these other punk rock bands.
But The Offspring did have in their first album very, very punk rock, you know, songs.
One song I can't even tell you the title of because it's, I'll just call it a threat against the president.
That's literally one of their songs.
Talks about abolishing government.
Very punk rock.
But later on, their songs started to take a certain message.
Check this out.
And I'll say this.
When I was young, and I was a big fan of the Offspring, they were still considered to be punkish, and to an extent, a bit anti-establishment.
Not completely, though.
They're not the furthest left.
Okay, making that clear.
Here's the first song.
So here's what happened.
I was browsing some old music, bands that I used to really like, playing covers, and I came across this song from The Offspring, which is one of my favorites, Gone Away.
I wonder if you've ever heard it.
In it, Dexter Holland, the lead singer, he's singing about the loss of his girlfriend.
She died in a car accident.
It's a very sad story.
I don't know the full details.
I don't know if he ever released it, but he wrote this song.
And one of the choruses, it feels like heaven's so far away.
When I heard that, I thought to myself, you know, that's interesting.
When I was younger, I grew up Catholic, but at a very early age quickly left, you know, we switched to public school and religion became a non-issue.
But Judeo-Christian values persisted even among those who claimed to be leftist, secular, or atheist.
Certain ideas that came from the Bible and very conservative ideas still persisted among those who claimed to be atheist.
Seeing a song from a punk rock band where he says, heaven is so far away was interesting to me because I'm like, well, that's a religious concept, the idea of heaven in an afterlife.
Does he really feel that way?
Does he really believe in heaven?
Or is he just making a point that it feels like you are far away from me?
So I started thinking about, I wonder if because of this big shift, because of people like Obama being conservative and being called a Republican, if you could look back at, say, a punk rock band, which has some anti-government roots, and you could see It's becoming conservative.
And the reality is, yes.
I mean, besides from the message of heaven is so far away, you have this song.
Why don't you get a job?
In one part, he says, she sits on her A, he works his hands to the bone.
And I'm like, I thought that was funny.
Because, well, look, I get it.
This is more pop-rocky stuff with like a kind of a punk tinge to it.
I want to make sure I'm saying it.
I'm clear.
I am not talking about Like hardcore, super lefty anarcho-punk.
This was not conservative.
This was explicit lyrics.
This was not conservative when I was growing up.
But it is now a message of why don't you get a job?
One of the lines says, hey man, free ride doesn't come along every day.
But hey, it's like, hey man, free rides don't come along every day.
And I'm like, if you, hold on, hold on.
Let me go through this.
I got more songs for you.
This is amazing.
Check this out.
This is one of the Offspring's most popular songs.
It's called Hit That.
In one of the lyrics, he says, it gets him right into that grave that he just dug.
It is a song about dating culture and people just going around and hooking up with whoever they want.
But perhaps one of the most shocking things, I believe this song is from like 2003.
Let me show you these lyrics.
He says, first, I know you want to hit that.
All the world's getting with, I say.
Consequences are a lot, but hey, that's the way it goes.
The second verse, listen to this.
What was a family is now a shell.
We're raising kids now who raise themselves.
Sex is a weapon, and it's like a drug.
It gets him right into that grave that he just dug.
And I'm like, I heard that!
And I'm like, no way.
And then we have this song.
Check this out.
The last one I'll show you.
The Kids Aren't Alright.
This is a song lamenting how the kids are not okay.
And I'm like, that sounds kind of reactionary, right?
But at the time, this was not conservative.
Keep that in mind.
When these songs were popular, they were not conservative.
They were mainstream American left.
But let me ask you a question.
Along with the vein of Barack Obama now being a conservative.
If I were to come to you and say, people should get jobs and shouldn't expect a free ride, if I'm working my hands to the bone, you should not have someone sitting on their A just collecting money from the work that I do.
Hey man, but hey, a free ride doesn't come along every day, right?
Does that sound progressive or left-wing?
But this is a popular punk band that was explicit, that was not aligned with conservative at the time.
If I said, families have become shells, we're raising kids, they raise themselves.
And if I lamented that the kids today were just not okay and they were getting into bad things, boy, that sure sounds conservative.
Now, I get it.
It's one band.
I wonder how many bands you could go back and look at and see that they've become, you know, more conservative.
And it's possible that, you know, it is true, the Offspring's early work was way more anti-government and way more left.
And as they got older, they probably got more conservative.
But I mean, looking back at this, when I was young, we were rebels.
I was skateboarding, I was into punk rock.
When I was younger, I got into The Offspring, they were like my favorite band, and I graduated to more extreme punk rock bands, more political stuff, who would probably insult The Offspring in a lot of ways.
But I guess the main takeaway from this is, It's true, in my opinion.
I should say it's true that we've seen generations always become more and more progressive, and that means the previous generation is conservative, but at a certain point, haven't you gone too far?
You can't just keep going until you fall off the cliff, can you?
Like, how do you get to the point where the punk bands who are anti-establishment and kind of mocking the moral authoritarianism We're, are conservative.
Lamenting the loss of family, telling people to get jobs.
Like, that's all conservative today.
But that's what's happened.
When Barack Obama becomes a conservative, it's just, it's mind-blowing to me.
So I know many of you probably have thoughts on the Offspring stuff, if you're big fans.
I think they're an amazing band.
I'm still a huge fan of what they do.
And I'll let you know, my understanding is the lead singer's got like a PhD.
I haven't followed them since I was a lot younger.
But I will tell you this, man, it's crazy to me.
But probably normal, actually, right?
I'll put it this way.
I'm not surprised that people look at the messages of some of the biggest songs from The Offspring and say, hey, that sounds conservative, because culture changes and it's typically moved to the left.
But this quickly?
It seems like we've moved so fast and so far to the left that even Barack Obama is now being called a conservative by the Washington Post.
At a certain point then, I have to say I don't believe it's legitimate.
I believe the media has run away.
These Democratic candidates and the media desperately trying to one-up themselves and always be a little bit more progressive.
The rapid flow of information has resulted in the left just shooting so far and so fast the left they've left everyone in their tracks.
Here's my prediction.
Look, man.
I guess you can call the... The Offspring is now a conservative band.
There you go.
It is what it is.
They're a conservative rock band.
What else are you gonna call it, right?
But here's my prediction.
The progressives are dominating the Democratic Party.
But regular Americans are not this far left.
They've gone too far left too fast.
That means these Obama voters are gonna vote for Trump.
I think Trump's gonna landslide 2020, and people don't seem to realize, look, all of the media was slamming Trump in 2016.
It sounded like the world was ending.
And Trump won.
Trump's approval rating and his favorability are higher today than when he got elected.
Or his approval rating, for the most part.
It spiked right when he got elected, then it fell really fast.
But think about it.
Is the press today about Donald Trump better or worse?
I don't know.
It's kind of the same, right?
So perhaps Trump is going to landslide more than anyone realizes.
And I'm thinking to myself, man, you know, you always gotta figure out what's the story and why people are interested in it, right?
And I'm like, but I got like three stories so far about the fake news.
What am I supposed- I'll do all of them!
The first story, Navy is said to proceed with disciplinary plans against Edward Gallagher.
So for those that aren't following, Trump has pardoned and committed the sentences of several people accused of war crimes.
Now, some of these people have had their rank restored.
In one of these instances, this guy, Edward Gallagher, was gonna be removed from the SEALs essentially.
And Trump said, we're not going to take away his trident pin.
The New York Times reported that top officials, top military officials, threatened to resign or be fired if their plans to remove Chief Gallagher from the SEALs were halted by President Trump.
Guess what?
It's not true.
This is hilarious.
I don't even know how this happened.
Check this out.
It says, Secretary of the Navy, an Admiral who leads the SEALs have threatened to resign or be fired.
We get that point.
The threats by Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer and the Commander Rear Admiral Colin Greene are a rare instance of pushback against Mr. Trump.
Man, who would have thought someone would do something like that and come out and say, you know, I'm gonna, wait, what's this?
Secretary Navy 76, I would like to further state that in no way, shape, or form did I ever threaten to resign.
That has been incorrectly reported in the press.
I serve at the pleasure of the President.
Ah, how funny!
Fake news from the New York Times.
Who would have thought Maggie Haberman put out garbage news?
Check this out.
It gets better.
It's not done.
Frank Lutz tweeted this.
Here's Maggie Haberman on Twitter saying, quote, The Secretary of the Navy and the Admiral who leads the SEALs have threatened to resign or be fired if plans to expel a commando from the elite unit in a war crimes case are halted by President Trump, administration officials said Saturday.
Then, this one.
Secretary of the Navy, 76.
The guy's name is Richard V. Spencer.
Not the Richard Spencer of Charlottesville.
No, this is a different one.
Contrary to popular belief, I am still here.
I did not threaten to resign.
We are here to talk about external threats, and Eddie Gallagher is not one of them.
So who am I gonna believe?
The dude literally saying publicly, I never said that!
Or the New York Times.
Well, I'm sorry, but it gets better.
Check it out.
We then saw this.
Maggie Haberman responds to Frank Luntz.
Now, Frank Luntz is the famous pollster, for those who aren't familiar, saying, we stand by the story.
Thanks, Frank.
Guess what?
They didn't.
They're liars, man.
We stand by the story.
And then, sure enough, could you imagine what reality are we living in where somebody goes in the press and says, like, imagine it's you, right?
And you're watching TV.
And they say, John Smith announced that he likes chocolate ice cream and that he'll never eat chocolate ice cream again.
And you're like, well, I never said that.
So you make a public statement.
I have never said that.
And then they tweet back, you're wrong.
We know.
Wait, what?
How are you going to tell the guy?
He's literally having to argue with the New York Times about whether or not he threatened to resign.
And he keeps saying, I didn't.
I didn't do this.
Man, truly, truly incredible.
Well, now we have this.
Check this out.
Reuters.
U.S.
Navy Secretary says he did not threaten to resign in dispute with Trump.
And I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time this happened.
I think there was something a while ago about Rick Perry.
People were claiming he was threatening to resign, and then he was like, what?
I never said that.
But I guess he did resign recently, so I don't know.
So here's the thing.
The New York Times eventually changes the story without notice.
That's called a stealth edit.
You would think somewhere it would say, I don't know, update, correction, or otherwise.
Maybe it's in here somewhere and they're using language I'm not familiar with, but there's nothing I can see in this story that shows a correction or an update.
They don't say anything, right?
I don't see, correction, this happened, it's just describing the people, okay, well, guess what?
The reason I showed you the first article is that it's an archive, because in the new version it says, the Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer later denied that he had threatened to resign, but said disciplinary plans against Chief Gallagher would proceed because he did not consider Mr. Trump's statement on Twitter to be a formal order.
Mr. Spencer added that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, had the authority to intervene and that it would stop the process.
And that is honorable and correct.
Just because Trump- I wouldn't- I would not expect him to do anything based on a tweet, right?
If Trump tweets, I want Richard V. Spencer to do X, okay, then I'd be like, oh, really?
Wow, all right, well, you know, let me know when the orders come in.
Because a tweet is not a formal- like, you can't just do it.
So Trump wouldn't have to make a phone call.
So that makes sense.
He's like, all right, it's not a formal order.
Once Trump, you know, lets me know, we'll see what happens.
I'd like to show you one thing real quick.
I'd like to show you... This is a video.
It's on my Instagram.
If you're not following me on Instagram, go to instagram.com slash TimCast.
Follow me there.
I don't post too much.
But I'll tell you what, man.
I grew up in a world where Fox News was fake news.
You know?
Bill O'Reilly didn't know why the moon, what caused the tides.
Well, Bill O'Reilly's gone.
And it's a different Fox News these days.
They've brought on more moderate personalities.
They've brought on left-wing commentators.
They did a town hall for Bernie Sanders.
Yeah, Fox News has changed a lot.
In this video, I'm watching Fox News on my TV.
It's a projector.
And I thought to myself, Fox News right now is talking about Iranian protests and Hong Kong.
Those are big, very important global issues.
What do you think CNN's talking about?
So I hit the switch, and sure enough, Orange Man bad.
And here's the truth, okay?
I've done this like 15 times.
I do it periodically.
I used to wake up every morning, put on CNN, and then just let the news play.
Not because I liked their commentary, but if news would break, they would cover it, right?
The general idea is, if I'm watching the news, CNN is on, and, I don't know, say there's protests in Hong Kong, it would go, BREAKING NEWS, and it would say, right now in Hong Kong, X, Y, and Z. And I would know.
At a certain point, CNN stopped reporting on breaking news.
They stopped, like, let's say there's like a major, like, they still do it sometimes, depending on the story, but for the most part, How is it now that if I want to learn about Iranian protests, which are sweeping the nation in Iran, and Hong Kong, I got to turn on Fox News?
And I switch to CNN and they're like, orange man is bad.
So I made this video, and that's what it is.
But I can't stop here, because I'm going to go after CNN a little bit more.
So let me wrap up that first story.
How crazy is it that we're in a world where this dude, Richard V. Spencer, has to argue with the New York Times about them being wrong back and forth?
He's like, I didn't do this.
And then they say, yes, you did.
No, I didn't!
It's amazing to me, especially when you look at how Wikipedia works.
You can look in public record and see that I've donated to Yang and Tulsi months and months and months ago.
And it doesn't matter.
Literally doesn't matter.
It's not a fact.
It's not news.
Because the media must say so.
So I can literally say something like, I'm actually not a big fan of cheesecake.
And the media will report, I am a huge fan of cheesecake, and people will be like, well, the media said it.
Tim's opinion on whether he likes it or not doesn't matter.
How does any of this make sense?
They're desperately trying to cling to the right to control the narrative, even when the people are saying that's not the case.
Why should the New York Times have the right to make a statement of fact about an individual doing a thing he denies several times and he has to argue?
Well, here's where it gets better, because I'm not, we're not going to stop at the New York Times.
It is a fake news morning.
Check this tweet out.
Brian Stelter called the Ukrainian meddling story a right-wing conspiracy theory.
And he goes, Fiona Hill even mentioned it was a Russian propaganda talking point.
Man, I'll tell you what, Brian.
When you start believing the opinion of a government official over the due diligence and reporting of several different news outlets, it is you that is the conspiracy theorist.
When you start believing that Ukrainian courts and members of parliament in Ukraine are lying about what's really going on, you think that these Ukra- Like, it's a- Listen, man.
That's a conspiracy theory.
I'm not arbitrarily basing my opinions off of a nefarious plot that I've made up in my mind.
No, I think Ukrainian meddling happened because we've seen FOIA documents, we've seen sworn affidavits from numerous individuals, coming actually from unrelated cases that overlapped, a member of parliament in Ukraine has made numerous statements about Hunter Biden and Ukraine meddling, and a Ukrainian court has ruled as such.
Does that mean I believe it?
Like, it happened, it's a fact?
Not necessarily.
It means I think there's more than enough evidence for the US to do an investigation to dig into whether or not There was past meddling, or current meddling.
But I'll tell you what, meddling's a fact.
You can't have both, right?
Well, Brian Sutherland's calling it a conspiracy theory, so let me point this out.
Either the courts are correct, and Ukraine was meddling in the 2016 election, or the courts are wrong, and for some reason are claiming there was meddling.
So I guess the very worst case, like the best case you could make is, oh, it just so happens the MP, the affidavits, they're all just incorrect, and it's not a conspiracy, it's an accident.
No, we have Andriy Derkach, MP in Ukraine, saying, yeah, look at what the Bidens were doing.
Okay, what do we do?
Do we just say, oh, they're all wrong, ignore them.
Nothing to see here.
I said the moment you start claiming that the opinion of an official debunks legitimate reporting from the New York Times, The Hill, and Politico, you stop being a journalist.
If you actually think Ukrainian courts are lying to help Russia, then Brian, you're a conspiracy theorist.
But in CNN's bizarro world of journalism, government officials' opinions on whether reporting is true supersedes the actual reporting of several journalists who did their due diligence.
How amazing is that?
You turn on CNN and what are you gonna get?
You're gonna get beaten over the head by someone just going, Orange man, bad!
They might as well make it a musical and just sing non-stop and people will just sit there with the sweet hum of how the orange man is bad.
I tell you what, man.
CNN, Brian, how come I can turn on Fox News and learn about Iran and Hong Kong, and I turn on you, and you're claiming that U.S.
government officials are right, and their word is law?
Don't trust the journalists!
That's what Brian's saying.
Brian's saying not to trust journalists.
And what's funny is, Brian actually did a segment where he said, don't listen to Fox News.
Really?
The Fox News that was covering international conflict and crisis while you were ranting about Orange Man?
And look, I understand CNN has probably done segments on those things as well.
The point I'm making is, I kid you not, about 15 or so times, I didn't just want to arbitrarily do this.
I didn't want to be like, one time I flipped the switch and they were talking about Trump.
Well yeah, but Fox News talks about Trump all the time too.
They had Trump on the air for like an hour yesterday.
No, I did it like 15 times and finally got fed up, like, I can't even turn CNN on anymore.
When you look at the Project Veritas leaks, you see people talking about how, like, CNN just does panels.
It's like, why send somebody to go report when you can just have a panel of people for dirt come and rant about how the orange man is bad?
You know what it is?
It's because CNN secretly loves Trump.
They're pretending not to love Trump, right?
They know what he provides them.
It is the Trump bomb.
Let me show you something.
This is an article from the New York Times.
That's right, the New York Times, who just put out fake news about Richard V. Spencer.
And they also said Ukraine court rules Manafort disclosure caused, quote, meddling in US election.
Wait, wait, what's this?
A court in Ukraine has ruled that officials in the country violated the law by revealing During the 2016 presidential election in the United States, details of suspected illegal payments to Paul Manafort.
They say in 2016, while Manafort was chairman of the Trump campaign, anti-corruption prosecutors in Ukraine disclosed that a pro-Russian political party had earmarked payments for Manafort from an illegal slush fund.
Mr. Manafort resigned from the campaign a week later.
The court's ruling that what the prosecutors did was illegal comes as the Ukrainian government, which is deeply reliant on the United States for financial and military aid, has sought to distance itself from matters related to the special counsel's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential race.
Oh no!
The New York Times reporting that Ukrainian courts are concerned that people in their country acted illegally by meddling in the U.S.
election.
Don't, don't worry everybody.
Brian Stalter says that's just a conspiracy theory.
Don't listen to the New York Times.
Okay.
And which one should I trust?
Should I trust the New York Times now, when they say there was meddling?
Or should I trust CNN now, when they say there wasn't?
I tell you what, man.
The media's desperate grasp on the narrative has collapsed entirely.
Because now you've got CNN saying the New York Times is fake news.
Literally.
Brian Stelter is arguing that The Hill, The New York Times, and Politico are fake news.
Brian Stelter argued that a January 2017 story from Politico about Ukrainian meddling, Alexander Chalupa, and digging up dirt was a right-wing conspiracy theory and a Russian propaganda talking point.
These people are so terrified of Russia, but you know what's sad, really?
They're a shrinking minority.
Their companies are collapsing.
They're laying people off.
And in their desperate bid, they might as well be like Survivor or Fear Factor.
You know what?
Let's just call, from now on, no disrespect to Joe Rogan, but CNN's basically just Fear Factor.
It's like they're trying to scare you and freak you out as much as possible.
They don't actually tell you the news.
But that brings me to the final, final bit of fake news.
And yeah, CNN.
High-ranking House Democrat says ethics investigation into Devin Nunes is likely following reports the Republican congressman met with fired Ukraine prosecutor to dig up dirt on Joe Biden.
Okay, okay, hold on a second.
There were no reports that Devin Nunes met with Shokin.
There were reports that Lev Parnes' lawyer told CNN that Lev Parnes said that Shokin told him that Shokin met with Devin Nunes.
Now, according to the Daily Mail, it is true that Nunes traveled to Europe in December, but Nunes says it is false.
Let me get his exact comment.
These demonstrably false and scandalous stories published by the Daily Beast and CNN are the perfect examples of defamation and reckless disregard for the truth.
Some political operative offered these fake stories to at least five different media outlets before finding someone irresponsible enough to publish them.
So let's do a stop right now.
CNN.
Brian Stelter.
You know what, Brian?
I met Brian a while ago.
I've known him for a while.
It's not like we know each other very, very well, but we've crossed paths in several instances.
I think Brian has officially crossed over into evil territory.
And I don't say that lightly.
But, Brian, if you're listening, I hope you look in the mirror and take a look at what you've become.
It is shocking to me.
Maybe you've always been this, okay?
Let me break down how journalism works for you.
When the New York Times says, hey, a court said this in Ukraine, and here's the breakdown, it doesn't mean it's true.
It means, hey, we have probable cause to believe this may be the case.
When The Hill reports this, and I'm not talking about John Solomon.
I'm talking about other elements at The Hill, along with John Solomon, but you can smear John all you like.
When Politico reported definitively in January of 2017, Ken Vogel, this happened.
You can't call it a conspiracy.
But what's mind-blowing, and the reason I say evil, is that Brian Seltzer now, in my opinion, is doing this for the ratings.
To take the word of one government official who has an opinion about a story, and CNN even publishes gossip from a corrupt individual who was indicted, who claims the supposedly corrupt prosecutor is saying he has dirt on Devin Nunes.
How is that news?
Nothing is confirmed.
But you go ahead and report it.
And I'll tell you what, by all means, let's see what Devin Nunes was doing in Europe.
I absolutely won't.
You know why?
Because I actually believe in journalism.
And I think if there is a claim floating around, it warrants a glance, a once-over, perhaps a Google search.
Turns out Devin Nunes did go to Europe.
Okay.
Well, now I think we can clear things up by just looking at his travel schedule and figuring out where he actually went.
And if he met with Shokin, then we're still a long ways away from doing anything wrong.
Why would he face an ethics probe if he met with a Ukrainian prosecutor?
If you want to claim he did it to dig up dirt, you've got to prove that first.
So before you do an ethics probe, you'll need evidence that it was to dig up dirt.
Listen, I'll tell you what.
Brian Stelter is consistently the person telling you to close your eyes and cover your ears.
To me, he is trying to willfully manipulate you.
And I assume it's mostly just for the ratings.
I mean, he's got a Sunday morning show.
I can't imagine it's the most watched show.
But it does appear on airports across the country and in other parts of the world.
And it is in hotel lobbies.
So there's influence there.
And I'm not trying to be a dick.
That's a fact.
You're walking through an airport.
You're going to hear what these people are saying.
Whether you're an actual viewer or not.
But I'll tell you what.
Let me ask you this.
What would the reason be for someone like Brian Stelter to tell people not to listen to other outlets?
What would the reason be?
Why would Brian Stelter tell you trust the government?
Trust the government.
Ignore the journalists.
The journalists are wrong.
Something doesn't add up there.
Something is creepy.
And in my opinion, the Orange Man bad narrative is lucrative and CNN knows it.
They know their ratings.
Look, CNN, Fox News and MSNBC are actually seeing ratings drop.
The reason why there's actually an uptick every so often is because of Trump.
So, year over year, all of these networks are losing viewers to digital, but Trump is helping them keep floating as long as possible.
I can only imagine if you're someone like Brian Stelter, who's got a Sunday morning show, and you're pretty much first on the chopping block, as it is.
I mean, you're not Don Lemon or Anderson Cooper.
You're going to do everything in your power to make sure your ratings are up.
So here's what they do.
Oliver Darcy And Brian Stelter have on all of the people who say the same thing, and it's basically just a... I'm going to avoid using the adult term, but it is a massage circle where everyone sits in a circle massaging each other's back.
I'm using the family-friendly version of, I think you get what I'm trying to say.
They just bring people in who say, that's absolutely right, Brian.
That's true.
And they ignore all the actual reporting heavens.
Could you imagine if Brian Seltzer brought in a real journalist to be like, how can you debunk the New York Times, The Hill, and Politico just by saying an opinion is a fact?
It doesn't matter what Fiona Hill thinks.
I respect her opinion.
She's an expert.
I will weigh that against the reporting.
The reporting should include what she thinks about it.
But when you have FOIA documents, affidavits, or otherwise, and I'll throw it back to this, when you have the New York Times straight up publishing fake news and standing by it, you know what, man?
These people are duplicitous, liars, or they're just like, I don't know, what's the right word?
They bumped their head one too many times when they were young.
We'll put it that way.
No, but I think it's intentional.
And I think it's for clicks.
I really, really do.
I believe a lot of people really hate the president, but it's because they're told to.
It's like the media keeps saying these things over and over again, and they publish fake news.
I think if you get rid of the rage for the sake of rage, like the losers who are angry they lost, and take a look at what actual Americans think, you'll be surprised to learn, like me and many others, most Americans are ambivalent.
It's like, eh, you know, Trump's kind of a bombastic.
The way he speaks, his tweets, it's inappropriate.
I don't know, whatever.
You know, we'll vote for somebody else.
Is it the end of the world?
It's not.
Most people do not think that's the case, but there are a lot of activists who do, and they make up a small portion of this country.
So when you look at what the news is doing, they're just, they're out of their minds.
I'll leave it there.
You get the point.
It's a fake news morning!
Man, we got inundated with all this fake news.
So let me just make a final point about the ethics investigation into Nunes.
CNN and the Daily Beast reported on third degree hearsay, like as per usual, From that hearsay, with no evidence, Democrats are now saying, on an ethics investigation, is... I kid you not, he said, quite... What's it?
It's a really, really funny quote.
Quite likely, most definitely, or something like that.
So you're saying without question it will be quite likely, which means not likely at all?
Whatever, man.
These people are nuts.
But you know what?
Here's the sad news.
The economy's doing great.
That's all people care about.
It's a fact.
I mean, look, activists care about climate change.
A bunch of climate change people just raided a football field, but I tell you what, when it comes to that voting booth, people are going to be like, I got money in my pocket.
We'll see what happens on Black Friday and Christmas.
Ads, ad sales are going to be up.
Sales in general are going to be skyrocketing.
We're going to have a strong consumer base.
We'll see what happens.
I'll leave it there.
I'll leave you with one final thought.
I always do this, right?
I'm like, one last thing.
Listen to Brian Stalter.
Watch his show.
Watch MSNBC.
Watch Fox News.
Watch me.
Watch David Pakman.
Watch Sam Seder.
Watch Joe Rogan.
Watch as much as you can.
Make sure you're not only listening to one person over and over again, especially me.
They will tell you the opposite.
They will say, don't go anywhere.
Don't change that dial.
They're lying.
Shh, come here.
Come into my warm bosom.
No, no, no, no, man.
If you really want to know what's going on, you need to make sure you listen to as many people as possible.
Read the articles, check the sources.
There is a reason why I always show the sources in all my videos the way I do, because people tried accusing me of lying and taking clips out of context.
We can't do that anymore.
The source is here.
I use a third-party rating agency for all of it.
I am trying my best.
These evil people who have infiltrated journalism have destroyed it from the inside out.
Maybe we'll fix it.
I'll see you all in the next segment at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
A new poll was released by Rasmussen showing that most people are scared if Donald Trump
is impeached and removed, there will be violence.
Interestingly, most people are concerned about Trump's opponents, not Trump supporters.
Let me tell you something.
I believe if Trump, there's been a bunch of articles saying, if Trump is removed, his
supporters will show up and be violent.
No, they won't.
No, they won't.
Listen, man, one of the biggest weaknesses that conservatives or Republicans have is
that they don't get outraged.
They're not threatening to throw things at buildings and bashing people over the head.
No, they're just voting.
And they're going about things through a normal process.
And many people on the left don't do that.
They embrace Antifa.
They defend Antifa.
Republicans reject that.
And so, yes, if Trump is impeached and removed, I do not believe Trump supporters are going to show up with pitchforks and molotovs or any of that stuff.
But I'll tell you what.
The threat is real.
This Rasmussen poll shows that 1 in 3 people, what did they say?
1 in 3 people believe there will be a second civil war.
They say 31% who think it's likely the United States will experience a second civil war sometime in the next 5 years.
Although that includes only around 9% who see it as very likely.
Bill Maher recently said, if we don't chill things out, we won't calm down.
Second Civil War is possible.
A lot of people are downplaying it.
Well, guess what, man?
Hopefully I'm wrong, but I tend to be ahead of the curve.
Hopefully I'm wrong, but I see it.
Check out this story.
It's from Politico magazine.
Why the impeachment fight is even scarier than you think.
Political scientists have studied what a democracy is going through.
It usually doesn't end well.
Now, this is from about a month ago.
But because of the Rasmussen poll, I thought it was important to go through.
They talk about something called regime cleavage.
They say political scientists have a term for what the United States is witnessing right now.
It's called regime cleavage.
A division within the population marked by conflict about the foundations of the governing system itself.
In the American case, our constitutional democracy.
In societies facing a regime change, a growing number of citizens and officials believe that norms, institutions, and laws may be ignored, subverted, or replaced.
And that's happening.
It absolutely is.
Now, it's true there are people on the right who are biased very much in the same way people on the left are.
And those are your principal factions, and it's dangerous.
But I believe it's also true that the facts lie closer to the side of Trump and his supporters.
That doesn't mean anybody has to like the President.
I say it all the time.
I certainly am not a big fan of the guy, but I'm rather ambivalent.
It's like, you know, he's bad, but he's not that bad, right?
So I look at the institution of The election.
The Electoral College.
And I say, these are the rules.
We all knew the rules.
These are the games you play.
And we want to make change.
We go about it in certain ways.
Sometimes that means breaking the law.
What the left has done for the past several years has completely undermined the election.
They've used scandals, insinuations, lies, cheating, stealing, fake news, non-stop.
I mean, just this morning I did a segment.
The New York Times wrote a fake story!
Claiming that the Navy Secretary was threatening to resign.
He came out and said, I'm not.
And they said, we stand by our reporting.
He says, I'm not threatening to resign.
Doesn't matter.
The media is going to lie anyway.
This brings us to the fractured reality.
If the people on the left are so adamant about removing the president that they will go through years of insanity, well, what do you think's gonna happen then?
Donald Trump is playing ball.
So I've heard people say, Donald Trump is breaking the law by blocking people from testifying.
And I say, uh-huh, yeah, I'm hearing you, man, I really do.
But you have to realize, it's not just like Trump out of the blue decided to start breaking all of these norms and institutions or whatever.
There were presidents before Trump who purged a ton of staffers upon coming in.
Trump didn't do that, for the most part.
No, what's happening is, for years, the Democrats and the left have refused to accept the results of the 2016 election.
So they don't care about what's true.
The media also doesn't care either.
There is no moral foundation.
Let me tell you something.
I think morality plays a huge issue in what's happening with Trump and impeachment.
I have morals and principles.
I don't like Trump, but I recognize I don't always get what I want.
You can't win them all.
And so when Republicans go and vote and they get Trump, I go, eh, you know, been through Bush, saw that happen.
That was screwed up.
But hey, this is how it works.
You know, we had Obama for eight years.
Yeah, whatever, man.
I get it.
Life carries on.
The left is refusing to accept that.
So what we see now, the people who are willing to cheat to gain power, and those who are unwilling.
I don't, you know, there's a bunch of different things that separate left from right, for sure.
But for me, policy-wise, voting-wise, I'm always typically aligned with more left-wing individuals, but principles and morals matter.
That means, when the media comes out and lies and posts fake news, when you literally have the Navy Secretary saying, I never said this, I'm like, hey, that's true!
Okay, I understand.
And I can give some credit to Bernie Sanders here on this one.
Bloomberg is going to put $34 million, the biggest ad buy in history, is going to attack the president, support his campaign.
And Bernie Sanders said, no way.
And so did AOC.
And I can respect that.
That's principle.
There's some morals behind that.
But what we're seeing now with Schiff and what the Democrats have been doing for years, just desperately trying to find anything they can to impeach the president, is undermining our institutions.
I'll tell you what, man.
You might think Trump is the worst guy in the world.
You might think he is abusing the office and won't uphold his oath.
That's fine.
But has he done anything that's reached the level of impeachment?
Not based on the facts.
That's the challenge.
So you might not like the guy, but you're going to have to deal with it, convince people to go vote.
Let's read a little bit more.
They say, An emerging regime cleavage in the U.S.
brought on by President Donald Trump and his defenders could signal that the American public might lose faith in the electoral process altogether, or incentivize elected politicians to mount even more direct attacks on the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers.
Regime cleavages emerge only in governing systems in crisis, and our democracy is indeed in crisis.
Well, it's not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic, which I believe they did mention, but we have democratic institutions.
They seem to be failing.
Just look at the hardening split among the American people on impeachment.
The fraction of citizens who oppose the impeachment inquiry is the same.
The fraction!
It's like, opposition is like, what, 48% right now, and support is 44 or some number across three different polls.
They say that the fraction that oppose impeachment is the same that approve of the president.
Around, around.
But that extra number, Trump's approval aggregate is 44.3.
Opposition to impeachment is around like 46 to 48.
That means there's a little bit of, there's a decent amount of people who don't approve of the job the president is doing but also oppose impeachment.
They say this is signifying a partisan disagreement over policy has turned into a partisan divide over political legitimacy.
This cleavage shows up in discourse across the American political spectrum that labels one's political opponents as un-American, disloyal, even treasonous.
But it is clearest in the argument that would amount to a coup to remove the president via conviction in the Senate, and thus that the regular functioning of the legislative branch would be illegitimate.
These divisions are over the laws that set out plainly in our Constitution Yes, the Founding Fathers also warned that with a lack of morality, you will have political rivals using impeachment for personal gain.
But the bigger problem, and I know people on the left recognize this, This is a photo that's been going viral like crazy.
Among the left as well.
Because it shows you exactly what you want to see.
On the right, the people who are conservative see this and they say, I can't believe it.
The fake news is lying.
I knew it.
CBS, Sondland confirms quid pro quo.
Fox News, Sondland confirms Trump told him no quid pro quo.
The people who watch Fox know they're getting the truth.
The people who watch CBS know they're getting the truth.
The leftists look at this and they say, there's Fox News lying again.
And the people who watch Fox News go, there's the mainstream media lying again.
And I know, I know.
The fact is Fox News was correct.
Yep.
And that's why they'll call me conservative.
But the reality is Fox News was correct.
Sondland said he had no direct orders and he did not confirm quid pro quo.
He confirmed the presumption, his personal presumption, of a quid pro quo and said that no officials had ever tied Ukrainian investigations into Biden or anything with military aid or a meeting.
It was just his presumption.
That's not a confirmation.
That's contesting.
Sondland contests there was a quid pro quo, not a confirmation.
CBS is wrong.
Fox News is right.
But it doesn't matter.
For the point of this video, it's not what I'm talking about.
What I'm talking about is the same hearing, the same statements, but people tune out what they don't want to hear and tune in to what they want to hear.
They wait for that one soundbite to say, aha, here's the proof.
And that shows you, you know, what they're talking about.
It's not even so much about what is legitimate.
It's about people just hating each other.
You know what's funny?
Fiona Hill, I believe, is a very, very... I don't know what the right word is for her.
She testified, she claimed that it was Russian propaganda.
No, I think she's... I gotta say, I'm gonna do that.
This is rare for me.
I'm gonna call her evil and I'll tell you why.
If you recognize that Russia is trying to sow discord among the American people and create these fractions and divides, if you know that's true, then you know by playing that game and doing everything she's doing is absolutely what they want.
How could you simultaneously claim to know what Russia has been trying to do, but then literally do it unless you have malintent?
That's the only way I can see it.
Or she's really, really dumb.
Here's the thing.
There was an article about a Putin opponent and he said the most effective thing Putin has done is created the perception of interference.
Because now he can just do a flick of the wrist and all of a sudden everyone screeches.
Putin knows that whether or not he actually tried to interfere, and of course all these different groups are interfering in different ways, Putin could easily come out right now and say something positive about Trump to sow more discord.
And if you think that Trump is working for Putin, man, I got a bridge to sell you.
I'll tell you what.
Putin is going to manipulate that belief to cause discord to Americans.
And you know who's to blame?
It's the media.
Rachel Maddow and otherwise.
So let's read a little bit more.
more, they say, regime cleavages are different from other political cleavages.
Conflict between left and right, for example, over issues such as taxation and redistribution
is healthy.
Other cleavages are based on identity, such as racial conflict in South Africa or religious
divides.
Identity cleavages can be dangerous, but they are common across the world's democracies
and can be endured just so long as different groups respect the rule of law and the legitimacy
of the electoral process.
You know, it's funny to me.
Donald Trump legitimately won.
They didn't pull any of this with George W. Bush.
And he won through a Supreme Court ruling, which many people were like, oh, it's not fair.
They say this, as Harvard political scientists Stephen Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt have argued, democracy can manage political conflict only if citizens and politicians allow the institutions of democracy—elections, representative bodies, the judiciary—to do so.
Parties and politicians must not be rewarded for refusing to adhere to laws and institutions.
Decades ago, a regime cleavage divided Chileans, with conservatives aligning against the elected government of Salvador Allende, and eventually leading to a coup that replaced him with the General Augusto Pinochet.
The United States has confronted a regime cleavage, too.
The last emerged in the 1850s, prior to the Civil War, when many in the slave states began to advocate secession, a clear challenge to the legitimacy of the Union.
My understanding, though, is that it was legal.
They were allowed to do it.
Lincoln didn't want to see that happen, and so, you know, there was an occupation.
I believe it was Fort Sumter.
My history is probably off.
It's complicated, but I'll tell you what.
The challenge right now is that You know what?
Here's the way I see it.
Democrats are completely within their legal rights to be doing everything they're doing.
But we can see how it's bending and manipulating the press, using skeevy tactics to manipulate the public so they can justify what they do within the system.
Donald Trump is defying the system by telling people not to testify and to defy these congressional subpoenas.
That might get him impeached.
That's probably going to be in there.
Now, the senators probably won't convict, and that brings us to the next problem.
Here's the way I'll put it.
I'm not here to defend anybody, but I'll tell you what.
It looks at the Democrats through the first stone.
You can argue that Trump did by winning, but he was allowed to win, right?
Like, you're allowed to as a citizen run for the president.
I was talking to somebody, and basically what happens is, recently there was a guy who slashed the baby Trump balloon.
And I said that was a terrible, terrible thing.
People should reject this guy's money.
People shouldn't even be donating to this guy.
He saw the big baby Trump.
He slashed it and destroyed it.
Shouldn't have done that.
That's someone's private property.
They're allowed to protest.
But he said, well, they do it to us.
And there it is.
You see, a long time ago, we don't know when, somebody threw a rock.
And the left said, they're throwing rocks at us, so we should be allowed to throw rocks back.
Let me give you an analogy.
You have a street.
A person on the left and a person on the right, and a rock falls.
It hits the person on the left in the head.
I can't go back in time far enough to know who threw the rock or whatever.
The point is, the person on the left says, I was hit by a rock by that person, so that justifies me in throwing my rock.
And he does.
The person on the right gets hit and says, I can throw rocks back, and throws a rock back.
Some other people on the left go, see, look, they're throwing rocks.
So more leftists get involved and throw a rock.
Then there's some guy bumbling down the street, not involved, gets hit with a rock, and he looks over, he's like, what is that?
And the other guys on the right say, look, they're throwing rocks.
Eventually, everybody says, I'm justified because you did it.
And everyone starts throwing rocks.
And then you got a rock fight.
And then it escalates.
And then it's civil war, right?
The challenge is, How do you defend against amoral people who are willing to break the rules of the system to succeed?
To manipulate the press with allies in the press to put out fake news day after day?
And I'll tell you what, one of the main reasons I think Trump is more likely on the right side of this, even though there's plenty of things to criticize him for, I do not think Trump is this great honorable man who's seeking to, you know, preserve the union or something like that.
I don't think he's that bad.
Like, I don't think he's trying to destroy America.
I think he's actually trying to make America better, but I certainly think he's got disdain for a lot of, you know, standard institutional processes.
But the reason I think he's more likely on the right side is that I worked within these media companies.
I know a lot of these people, and I can see the lies.
And when you get lies and lies day after day and the Democrats build their case off of that, I am looking at a democratic institution that is using fake news and manipulation to allow these legal proceedings and then defend themselves saying, oh, but We're doing everything legally.
And then Trump, without the cultural institutions defending him, just resists.
So where this ends up?
Civil War, I guess?
Let's see what their conclusion is.
They say, protecting the rule of law, defending the separation of powers, and restoring constitutional order to Washington increasingly seem as though they will require the impeachment conviction and removal from office of the current president.
At the very least, Americans of every political persuasion must demand that the administration take part in impeachment proceedings, even if the Republicans in the Senate ultimately weigh partisanship over evidence in their vote.
I agree 100%.
Now with the first part.
I agree with we should all now support impeachment.
Every Republican should vote for impeachment of Donald Trump.
You know why?
Because then it goes to the Senate.
And then Republicans can actually call some witnesses and actually get to the bottom of this.
And they should definitely call members of the press.
Okay?
I'm not saying make a law about the press, but certainly there are some people who have colluded to an extent.
They say, at the very least, Americans of every political persuasion must call for this, even if Republicans in the Senate ultimately weigh partisanship over evidence.
So long as the executive and legislative branches respect the procedures and powers outlined in the Constitution, we must all respect their legitimacy, regardless of the outcome.
If we fail to agree on and abide by our common democratic principles, our emerging regime cleavage will harden, and the future for American democracy will break.
I believe there's going to be a couple dozen Democrats who defect and impeachment fails.
That's what I'm betting so far.
And I'll tell you what, let me show you this story.
Trump, GOP, skeptical Pelosi will go through with impeachment because they don't want Republicans being able to call witnesses.
Lindsey Graham has launched a probe into Joe Biden.
I'll tell you what, Republicans should absolutely vote for impeachment.
Say, you know what?
You're right.
You're absolutely right.
We should all agree.
Republicans should vote with Democrats and impeach Donald Trump.
Then when it goes to the trial, and the Republicans can call up everybody they demand to hear from, including, say, Ukrainian, you know, the DNC thing with Politico, Alexander Chalupa, the Bidens, and figure out what's really going on.
Bring them in to testify.
Get it all out in the open.
I would more than love to see all of these institutions reach a climax where the legislative, the executive and judicial branch are sitting in that one room and they're going through public testimony to finally figure out what is going on and who did it.
And if you're a Trump supporter, I imagine you might agree.
Trump said he wants the trial.
That way they can call Joe Biden, Schiff, the whistleblower, etc.
And they likely will.
And the Democrats seem to want it.
They're the ones who started it.
Great.
Get them all in the room, figure out what's going on, and enough.
Hopefully, however, it doesn't end in civil war.
Because I think in the end, it's not going to play the way anyone wants.
You've got two people, two factions, who increasingly view each other as evil and refuse Refuse to believe it.
Now in my opinion, I'll say it again, the media is lying.
Brian Stelter of CNN is telling you not to trust the journalists and to trust the government official.
That's insane.
That's crazy.
The journalists are supposed to be the fourth estate.
I guess not anymore.
So he's certainly not a journalist.
You've got to listen for yourself.
You've got to figure out what's true and what isn't on your own.
You've got to listen to as many people as possible.
But I'll tell you what, man.
The media's lying about so much of this.
It is ridiculous.
And I think if we get that Senate trial, we'll finally get to see the truth under oath.
But will any of these people be held accountable?
I doubt it.
They never are.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I will see you all in the next segment at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
Thanks for hanging out.
Moderate Democrats are starting to feel the heat.
You see, impeachment is failing.
Opposition to impeachment among independent voters is up.
Three different polls this week.
Going back to the beginning of the month, we have four polls now showing that independent voters reject impeachment.
Not only that, general support is going down.
And this means bad news for moderates.
The moderates who campaigned on not playing the Orange Man Bad Game.
They were going to get healthcare done.
They were going to fix the economy.
They were going to help the American people.
They said, send me to Washington and I won't play these silly games.
But they got roped into it.
We got a couple stories here.
I think they're mostly about the same story, but it's two different framing.
So, from the Daily Wire, they say vulnerable Democrats say they're being abandoned over impeachment.
The Politico story reads, vulnerable Democrats spooked by GOP impeachment ad onslaught.
Dems want the party to step up its defense.
So let's see.
I think, you know, let's just do the Politico story.
But I think the reason why I wanted to show the Daily Wire one is because Politico has kind of taken a not so bad stance on it.
It's like, how many times have I made a video talking about the bad news for Democrats?
Because it keeps happening.
Like, I fully said the Sondland testimony was bad for Trump, but not reaching that level necessary for a trial.
But the left keeps saying everything is always, they're winning.
It's like, man, they're delusional.
They're in denial.
You know what?
The GOP has raised substantially more than the DNC.
The DNC is basically broke.
Trump is shattering records in terms of how much money he's raising.
Impeachment has failed.
I gotta imagine, if you are a moderate Democrat, you are sweating bullets right now.
You let your constituents down, the GOP is coming for you, and the Democrats stand to lose the House in 2020.
But we'll see, man.
You never know.
Things have been so crazy, it's like all of our predictions have failed, right?
It looks like Hillary was going to win.
Trump wins.
It looks like the Republicans were going to hold on to government.
The Democrats actually pulled a really weird, long, you know, drawn-out, last-minute win.
We've seen a bunch of Democrats win governorships and other seats.
So, hey men, it's possible.
You can't get complacent.
Let's read the story from Politico.
They say, Vulnerable Democrats are watching in horror as GOP impeachment attacks deluge their districts back home.
You deserve it.
You deserve it.
All of you.
And they want a much stronger counter-offensive from their own party.
You know what?
Can I just say something?
I said it was a bad move.
I said do not back this.
And now all these polls are rolling out.
Opposition to impeachment.
So I fully understand.
Impeachment is not over.
But come on.
At least where we're at so far.
I'm gonna gloat a little bit.
I warned all these Democrats.
I've been saying it non-stop.
This is ridiculous.
Don't support this.
I'm warning you.
And sure enough, they did.
And it backfired.
Miserably.
And now you know what, moderate Democrats?
You had a chance.
But you were used as a tool.
A tool of the Democratic Party to get what they wanted.
Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Schumer, you know, Nadler, they wanted this impeachment.
They don't care about you or your district.
And now you are the sacrificial lamb at the altar of impeachment, which will fail and is failing.
You know what?
I'll fully admit, it's possible they pull something off, they win.
I don't want to be too arrogant like they were.
But it looks like all signs point to complete disaster.
Some of those Democrats raised their concerns with party leaders this week as they prepared to leave for Thanksgiving recess, fearing that voters will be bombarded by anti-impeachment ads as families gather around the TV for parades and football, according to multiple lawmakers and aides.
I will tell you, I suspect there will be many a Thanksgiving day table where these pro-impeachment leftists are going to be like, I got nothing.
Now, of course, a lot of these people don't live in reality, and they're gonna be like, Sondland proved it!
Sondland proved it!
But I assure you, there's gonna be a lot of tables where there's gonna be a lot of people who are big proponents of impeachment being like, this was a mistake.
Schiff's got nothing.
They say GOP-aligned outside groups have spent roughly $8 million on TV spots this cycle in battleground districts such as Rep.
Anthony Brindisi's central New York seat.
The vast majority of those ads specifically hammer Democrats over impeachment.
Good.
Meanwhile, swing district Democrats are receiving little reinforcement from their own party or even other liberal coalitions.
Democratic and pro-impeachment groups have spent about $2.7 million in TV ads, according to an analysis of TV spending by the ad-tracking firm Advertising Analytics.
And more than $600,000 of that total went to ads targeting Republican incumbents, not helping vulnerable Democratic members.
Many of us have been expressing our concerns to leadership, said a Democratic lawmaker who declined to be named in order to speak candidly about strategy.
You don't want to have to play catch-up.
You reap what you sow!
Congratulations!
You were led falsely down- you were led on a false path.
Everyone knows you don't just take a shot and sit there, the lawmaker said.
It's like someone taped our arms to our side and punched us in the face.
Some Democrats raised the spending disparity during a closed-door meeting with Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team on Wednesday.
I wonder why it is, but the Democrats are struggling to raise money.
And mind you, Bernie Sanders has raised a decent amount.
So has Warren.
Bernie's an independent.
But they're individuals.
I'm talking about the entirety of the DNC.
They're floundering.
One moderate Democrat asked if party officials planned to launch more ads, particularly in more rural swing districts in less expensive media markets where incumbents are desperately looking for more air cover, according to multiple people in the room.
Democratic-aligned groups, however, have begun spending on ads.
Last week, the liberal coalition Protect Our Care launched a $2 million digital ad campaign to promote a Democratic drug pricing bill, but GOP groups are devoting far more cash, including a roughly $5 million buy on anti-impeachment TV ads across 18 Democratic districts by American Action Network, a nonprofit tied to House GOP leadership.
It's uncommon to see such enormous spending more than a year out from an election, marking a significant ramp-up in the public battle to shape the politics of impeachment.
And there are more.
A pro-Trump group called Presidential Coalition, backed by conservative force Citizens United, announced this week that it's spending more than $1 million on TV ads in the districts of Brindisi, Joe Cunningham, Democrat South Carolina, Ben McAdams, Democrat Utah, Alyssa Slotkin, Democrat Michigan, and Zotel Torres, Democrat New Mexico.
Then there's the big spending by Trump's re-election team, which announced $10 million in spending on television and digital ads just days after House Democrats formally declared their impeachment inquiry.
Oh man.
You know, let me tell you something.
I have done a series of videos talking about the blowback from impeachment going from bad to worse.
It's backfiring, it's backfiring, it's getting worse, Trump is winning.
It's just every day something new comes out and it's like, oh man, what were they thinking?
And so today, I decided for my main channel, I was going to talk about the media labeling Obama conservative.
Because what am I going to do?
Make another video being like, oh here it is!
The backfiring of the impeachment inquiry.
It's just getting worse.
I'll tell you what happened.
With the launch of the impeachment inquiry, Trump's base was fired up and donated in record numbers.
They're using that to defend the president.
Meanwhile, most independents think it's a clown show.
Nothing's happening.
Schiff is screwing the process.
And they're opposing impeachment, so they've lost that support.
It backfired.
It failed.
Trump raised a ton of money.
And now, your moderates are panicking.
You know what though?
The moderates, you deserve.
You all deserve this.
Because you could have been the stand-up principled politicians who said, I'm not going to play this game.
I'm going to focus on what my people need.
Instead, what did you do?
Oh, what's that?
Orange man bad?
Sure, sign me up.
Do you think the 50-year-old dad with some kids about to enter college or just entering college cares whether or not you don't like the orange man?
No, he cares whether or not the student tuition crisis is going to cause a bubble that bursts and destroys the housing market when millennials no longer buy homes.
Let me unpack that a bit.
He's concerned that student debt is going to saddle his kids down for life.
That they won't be able to buy homes.
That the housing market will then collapse when boomers can't offload their homes.
And that's what's going to happen.
That's what they're concerned about.
They're concerned about health care.
Am I going to be able to take care of my family?
And instead of doing anything about it, what happened?
You marched in all proud.
And they said, I'm sending you to DC.
And they stood there and said, excellent.
And as soon as you turned around, they went, orange man bad!
And that's what you voted for.
Moderates, when you voted in these Democrats in these districts, you voted for this.
Congratulations.
I hope... I hope... The moderate Democrats should have known better.
But you know what?
Nancy Pelosi, and not even so much Pelosi, but it's like Adam Schiff, man, they were so, so adamant about doing the stupid impeachment inquiry that they knew they would never win.
I have to wonder if they really, really just wanted Trump to win.
Maybe they're all sitting there, and Adam Schiff, you know what it is?
I'll play that silly joke where Adam Schiff is secretly the biggest Trump supporter, and he's like, we need to get Trump past that bump, and we need to really make people show up their support for him.
How can we do it?
We'll do a phony impeachment, and he sacrificed his good reputation to defend Trump.
I'm kidding, but the point is, you would think Adam Schiff was actually the biggest Trump supporter, in secret, and he's doing all of this to make the president look good and to hurt the Democrats, because congratulations, that's what you've done.
Now the simple solution is the dude's incompetent.
And these other Democrats are incompetent.
And the moderate Democrats who backed all this are incompetent.
All of them, OK?
I will spare no criticism, including Tulsi Gabbard, who I really like.
And I'm sorry I have to say this, but I'm so angry over how miserable the Democrats have performed.
The waste of time.
I said from the beginning, this is stupid.
The impeachment is stupid.
And I asked when it was launching, does Trump want this?
He was raising all of this money.
It's playing into his hands.
But don't ignore me, you know.
What I say doesn't matter.
So I'll tell you what.
We get it.
The GOP's launching all these ads.
The Democrats are flopping around, panicking.
I can't say I'm surprised Tulsi announced she's not going to seek re-election.
Maybe she realizes the Democrats have lost their collective minds.
Barack Obama's a conservative.
They're flipping and flopping.
They have no idea what's going on.
Trump's running circles around them.
And then you turn on CNN, and if you turn on CNN, you live in a paranoid alternate reality.
Yeah, the Politico story about Ukraine meddling was all fake.
So certainly, the Politico report on the fact that moderate Democrats are panicking because they're not getting any ad buys, and the Republicans are launching massive attacks against their districts, and the Republicans are out-raising them by a substantial amount of money, and the DNC is in debt.
All that's fake news, I guess.
Oh, man.
I'll tell you what.
I'm frustrated.
It's possible the Democrats can still win, but I really do think I'm right.
And I'm open to being wrong.
But this is why I get—you know why I'm frustrated right now?
Because I said, don't do this, please.
And when Tulsi Gabbard came out and said, I'm not going to do it, I was like, yes.
Thank you, finally!
Don't play that game.
Could you imagine if Tulsi bet on the right horse and rejected impeachment?
Woo!
Man, would she be up for, you know, she'd have a ton of support from it.
I get it, she's getting smeared in the press, but could you imagine if she was the standout who said, I'm not gonna do this because the American people will vote come 2020 and they can watch the news.
Instead, she jumped on board.
She criticized it, you know, as a partisan attack, fine.
Shouldn't have done it.
Shouldn't have done it.
And I'm saddened by that because she stepped down from the DNC to endorse Bernie Sanders over Hillary back in 2016.
And that, to me, was a sign of integrity and principle.
I question her judgment over supporting impeachment, especially as you watch now, how there's full-on panic.
And I'll tell you what, man, if this thing actually goes to a trial, And then they call Biden, Hunter Biden, the whistleblower shift.
You know what, man?
What were they thinking?
Like, dude, have you ever played a game of chess?
They're playing checkers.
Republicans are playing chess.
That's what's happening.
I'm disappointed in everybody, all the Democrats.
But I've been critical of them for a while.
But I'm particularly sad that Tulsi supported this, especially as we now watch that it's going to backfire and explode in the Democrat space.
Could you imagine if the Democrats used their House majority?
To actually make the country focus on core issues that they disagree with Trump on?
That would have won for them if they said, listen, we are working on lowering drug prices.
McConnell's blocking the bill.
We're working on this.
McConnell's blocking the bill.
Could you imagine if that was the media narrative?
Nope.
Nope.
Orange man bad.
Sells more ads.
Bravo.
The Democrats were led down a false path.
I got a couple more videos coming up for you in a few minutes.
I will see you all shortly.
This is a follow-up to just a funny, funny story, man.
See, not too long ago, it was a couple days ago, I believe, I did a video about the crying college students.
They were sharing text messages with BuzzFeed, talking about how they were crying in their dorm rooms because somebody said some naughty words.
It all started when a racist manifesto was being airdropped to Syracuse students.
Now it's being called an unsubstantiated rumor.
I believe CBS may have reported that it was actually a hoax.
But all these students are like, I'm scared.
I don't feel safe.
Oh, man.
Could you imagine that person, like, actually entering the real world?
If you don't feel safe because someone muttered a rumor to you, heavens, I can't imagine how you'll survive actually walking around, say, like, I don't know, New York City?
And then some crazy guy comes up to you and throws something at you?
You wanna know something really gross?
I'll try and keep it family-friendly, but they, uh...
Homeless guy in Los Angeles saved up a bucket worth of human byproduct, we'll call it that, and got it, you know, for about a month, got it all warm, and then pulled- dragged a woman out of her car and poured it over her.
You wanna talk about not feeling safe because someone said naughty words?
Yeah, go spend some time in Hollywood.
Let's see how that plays out.
Let's read the story and see what BuzzFeed has to say about it.
Syracuse University officials on Friday said reports that a racist manifesto was airdropped to students' phones in the school library is so far an unsubstantiated rumor.
Though several law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, are still investigating.
Why are they investigating this?
Do you know what AirDrop is?
It's like, if you have your Bluetooth on, you can turn on AirDrop on your iPhone.
Someone can just send you stuff.
So people do this to send, like, funny photos.
And all of a sudden, you look at your phone, it's like a picture of Pikachu or something, and you're like, ah, that's really funny.
So apparently, they called it a racist manifesto, but...
Upon reading, I believe it was actually an anti-Islam manifesto, which is different, but not to them, because they don't understand, you know, nuance and semantics, but anyway.
The rumored airdrop of a racist manifesto to students' devices at Byrd Library remains under investigation by the Department of Public Safety, Syracuse Police, and the FBI, the university said in a statement.
So far, no one has been able to produce a device that received that document, despite pleas from investigators to come forward to help find those responsible.
At this time, the alleged airdrop remains an unsubstantiated rumor that spread rapidly from Monday night into Tuesday morning.
That's what you call far-left, woke outrage hysteria.
Somebody said, I heard X happened, and it spread around like wildfire, and they all started cowering in their bedrooms, crying.
Not all of them, but some of them claimed they were crying.
Man, could you imagine?
First of all, The video I made, I said, look at these college kids are crying over a manifesto, over naughty words.
Now it turns out it was just the rumor of naughty words!
Man!
There wasn't even an actual manifesto apparently, and they're freaking out over someone saying this maybe was a thing, and it wasn't.
Incredible.
The airdrop reports came amid a series of other racist incidents that made students and faculty members feel unsafe over the past week.
Unsafe!
Check this out, you're gonna love this.
The incidents include racist graffiti, oh, oh no, oh man, apparently you've never been to a city,
verbal harassment, verbal harassment, what does that mean, okay, and a swastika that was drawn
in the snow. I kid you not. Panic.
Because someone drew a swastika in the snow.
Oh my, dude!
Stay away from skateparks, man.
Stay away from big cities, because you will not survive.
Because when those, those... I'll tell you what, man.
I've got an idea for a social experiment.
I should totally do this.
I should take some of these college kids and give them a free ride to a local skate park in Chicago or New York.
And then just have them sit there for about a minute until the N-word drops 50 times among all of these kids.
Because they don't live in the same world that you do, apparently.
And then they'll feel very unsafe.
Oh no!
The kids, they speak in an urban dialect that is offensive and scary!
The university's Department of Public Safety said it received reports Monday and Tuesday about students receiving a copy of a 74-page anti-Muslim manifesto.
See, then they tell you it's anti-Muslim.
There's a difference between that and racism.
Could you imagine?
You know what?
I wonder why Christians don't call anti-Christian rhetoric racist.
It's, what's the difference?
The Religions.
It had originally been published online from the Christchurch guy.
The manifesto was also published on a Syracuse University discussion page on GreekRank.com, a website where students can learn about and discuss fraternities and sororities.
Efrem Ozobor, a 21-year-old student, told BuzzFeed that he arrived at the library shortly after hearing rumors the manifesto was being airdropped to people inside.
He said he saw several students leaving the building in a hurry.
I literally pulled up to Byrd Library maybe a minute after people said the manifesto was airdropped, and people were terrified.
It was a very scary scene.
People were leaving Byrd in masses.
Byrd is never empty on a Thursday night, but it was empty.
I'd like to take all of these people, bring them to, like, downtown Chicago, and just watch what they do.
Like, will they start squawking and running around in circles in random directions because of all the loud noises and, like, scary offensive words that are yelled by crazy people in the city?
He told BuzzFeed News he was skeptical of the university's announcement on Friday, saying,
it goes to show that SU is not committed to finding the perpetrators.
It's not possible that not one of these racists have been found and subsequently punished, but one protester was arrested.
He told BuzzFeed News in a text message.
Syracuse police recently arrested a young woman for making anti-racist graffiti during student protests.
Chancellor Kent... I gotta stop, man.
Please.
Do not send your kids to Syracuse.
I mean, don't send your kids to college at this point.
Teach them how to be plumbers or carpenters or something.
They can actually make a living.
Chancellor Kent Syverud also committed Friday to several demands made by student groups who have led sit-in demonstrations over the past seven days.
They're literally protesting a rumor.
Wow.
Sivarud agreed to punish and potentially expel students who were involved in the recent racist incidents to instate a new policy that includes mandatory diversity training for new staffers.
And there it is.
How much you want to bet it was fake, it was a hoax, and they were using it as a pretext to make them, you know, pass these rules?
To publish monthly reports on bias on campus and to protect students who participate in peaceful protests.
What are you doing, man?
groups are happy with that progress, they are still calling for the resignations of
civil- what are you doing, man?
He caves into them and they're still demanding his job.
Public Safety Chief Bobby Maldonado, Associate Chief John Sardino, and Dolan Ivanovich, the
Senior Vice President for Enrollment and Student Experience.
"'We have been under these violent conditions for far longer than this moment,' read a statement
The famous violent incident that led to the Great Revolution when a bunch of fascists
drew swastikas in the snow.
Everyone remembers that historical moment.
They say we cannot wait for tragedy.
Tragedy!
After someone drew a swastika in the snow!
That's gonna go down in history books.
In 2018, Syracuse made headlines when a fraternity published a roast that featured what university officials described as extremely racist content.
The incident also sparked protests and prompted the chancellor to implement similar measures to the ones he committed to Friday, including mandatory diversity training.
I'm gonna stop right now.
If you are someone who recognizes the sheer absurdity of what's happening in Syracuse and you still go there, shame on you.
If you go to this school, you're giving them money, you should leave.
You've got to vote with your dollar, man.
Tell these schools bending the knee to the outrage mob is not worth your time.
But hey, you know what?
At the end of the day, if you want to go there and you want to support this so you can allow it to grow and blossom and continue, you know, these kids will then leave school and enter the public sector.
You do it.
You support them, okay?
You support them with your dollars.
Some things have changed and a lot haven't.
Tula Goenka, a professor of television, radio, and film at Syracuse's Newhouse School of Public Communications, told BuzzFeed News, It's sad that we have to accomplish these things.
The fact that we have to do this.
No, you don't have to do this, you weirdos.
You know what's funny?
You know what's funny?
Donald Trump's gonna get elected again.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is sick.
Be it in the next year or in the next five.
She's probably going to vacate that seat.
Donald Trump will then appoint a conservative justice.
And conservatives who already dominate the Supreme Court will overwhelmingly dominate that court.
And these people will get out of college and have nothing.
And that's what they're scared about.
These attempts at bullying government institutions won't work.
To an extent, they'll demand the removal of the Pledge of Allegiance, the American flag, they'll demand hate speech laws, and it'll make its way to that Supreme Court, or to all of the other courts that the Republicans have been stacking, and all of this will just fizzle out.
Gone.
So congratulations!
The universities are surely preparing these students for a shock to their system when they're older.
Now, many of these kids won't have kids themselves, so their ideas will go with them when they pass, and that's true for many millennials as well.
But these kids are going to grow up to a cold and callous world that rejects the insanity they preach.
Hopefully.
Hopefully.
We've seen people like Dave Chappelle mock them, Ricky Gervais, Joe Rogan, you know, these comedians have come out.
I think Chris Rock to an extent.
Kevin Hart's been critical.
We had Louis C.K., Aziz Ansari.
I don't think they're gonna make it in the mainstream.
I think their fringe, wacko ideas will go away with them.
But it's gonna be shocking for them, and they're gonna have panic attacks when they realize the world doesn't cater to their every whim.
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.
I have not watched The Mandalorian.
I will not watch The Mandalorian for several reasons.
First, Star Wars died the day The Last Jedi was released.
And I went and saw that movie and I was stunned at how awful it was.
Seriously, I can't tell you.
It was awful.
You guys know how awful it is.
Now, I hear The Mandalorian's actually pretty good.
A lot of people have praised it, but I have heard from some more diehard fans they're disappointed, and they don't think it's actually that good.
I'm not gonna go watch the next Star Wars in theaters.
I didn't watch the solo movie.
I'm not gonna watch The Mandalorian.
Star Wars is over.
It is trash.
They got rid of the Extended Universe.
I can complain about a bunch of other stuff.
I wasn't a big fan of the Extended Universe anyway.
It's not like I read all the books.
But there was a lot of stuff Star Wars had going for it, okay?
But there's a more important reason.
There's a more important reason I will never watch this show.
It's because ABC- I'm not gonna buy Disney Plus, okay?
And I'll do my best to avoid a lot of Disney properties, we'll see what happens.
But ABC said on a report from Epstein where they said they had Clinton and that's it?
It's over?
Nah, okay, you know what?
Maybe it's just because it's selective, because it's happening now.
But it's a great timing for the Disney Plus to launch, because I'm not going to buy it based off of ABC News.
And mind you, I used to work for an ABC News company, because they withheld that evidence.
Whatever it is.
Nah.
You can come clean.
Tell us what you got.
Maybe I'll consider supporting your company.
But that brings me to today's news.
The Mandalorian is taking heat for its portrayal of women.
Now, feminist critics are facing waves of online harassment.
Let me start by saying... I'm going to tell you what I'm going to do here.
I am going to rag, relentlessly, on the online harassers.
All of them.
Everybody who mocks any one of these feminists, including Anita Sarkeesian, I'm going to rag on you.
But I'm going to start with a disclaimer.
I recognize that people like Anita Sarkeesian, I think her specifically, she said people calling her stupid or crazy was harassment.
Okay, that's not.
I'm not talking about that.
But there absolutely are harassers.
I've faced them from the other side, but it's true they exist.
And these people, like, you know what man, when I write this story, Basically, Anita Sarkeesian is angry because there wasn't enough female speaking roles in, like, the first episode of The Mandalorian.
I don't know.
I didn't watch it.
I don't care.
I'm not surprised that Anita Sarkeesian is upset about it.
She is a vocal proponent of these things.
I'm gonna do something that, you know, upon seeing this, I'm gonna say a few things.
Let me say it first.
Anita Sarkeesian is absolutely right to be upset if pop culture shows don't have representation for certain marginalized groups.
However, her being upset should have no real bearing on the development of these programs, and the bigger issue I take is that so many companies bend over backwards to change a popular product to bend her personal opinions.
She has every right to be angry.
She has every right to express her anger.
She has every right to find support in other communities, and she has every right to be free from actual harassment.
Now, I understand people like Anita and otherwise have over-exaggerated what they're getting calling things harassment when they're not, but listen.
I will give some criticism to Anita and a lot of those people.
I think that there's some that can go around first.
If somebody makes a show and it's not for you, well then it's just not for you.
Could you imagine if an activist demanded that an ice cream shop stop selling their famous chocolate brownie batter ice cream unless they put in it spinach?
Because spinach is good for you.
What's wrong?
Why won't they put spinach?
Listen.
You can have your ice cream.
You can go have your show with your female representation.
Ask someone to make it.
Pay for it.
Why change it?
Like, why get mad the Mandalorian doesn't have... Like, okay, I'm sorry.
Let me rephrase this.
By all means, you can be angry that the new big Star Wars franchise, which is supposed to be for everybody, doesn't have enough female representation.
I can respect that.
But if they don't include it, where do you go from there?
Telling them that you demand they change the product they made because you don't want to buy it?
To me, that's a step too far.
So I'll tell you what.
The bigger issue I have, and the reason I want to talk about this, because for one, I wanted to rant about how I wanted to virtue signal to everybody that I wasn't going to watch The Mandalorian because of Epstein and because Star Wars is bad.
I wanted to make sure everybody knew.
I'm half kidding.
I really did want to rant about that.
But you know what I was thinking when I saw this?
Why does anyone tweet at Anita Sarkeesian or otherwise?
Stop!
Okay?
I'm not talking about those that are arguing with her and she calls it harassment.
She does that.
Other people do that.
But there's legitimate harassment.
There is.
And please, don't pretend like it's not true.
It is.
It is.
I've seen it.
I've been hit by harassment from the other side as well.
I'm not saying it's literally everybody.
I'm not going to play a stupid game and blame all of Gamergate for being a harassment campaign.
That's ridiculous.
Gamergate was a lot of things, and last of which was a harassment campaign.
The reality of which is that sometimes people harass.
We all know it.
Men are the overwhelming victims of online harassment.
But women are the overwhelming victims of specific kinds of harassment like stalking and sexual harassment.
So you know what?
The message is for everybody.
I'm not trying to single anybody out.
I saw this and I'm so annoyed for several reasons.
When you harass people, you empower them.
You give them the opportunity to virtue signal and say, oh, woe is me!
I'm a victim!
Look at the last segment I just did about Syracuse.
They claimed there was a racist manifesto and then demanded a bunch of changes at the school.
So stop!
Don't do this!
I know it doesn't matter.
Listen.
I know false flags exist.
I know some people, you know, use sock puppets to harass themselves and claim it.
I'm not talking about that.
I'm saying we all recognize that literal harassment happens.
It's not like it's the end.
It's every single person.
But what's the point of these actual people sending death threats and mean things to people?
Does it satisfy your emotions?
And again, I want to make sure it's clear, the left does this too.
I'm saying this for everybody.
Stop!
I can't stand the people who weaponize the harassment.
That includes Anita.
She gets harassed and then she says, oh, I'm being harassed.
Let me read a little bit more of this.
After watching the first episode of Star Wars, Sarkeesian tweeted asking if she was just tired or if there wasn't a single female speaking character in the first episode.
Listen, I'll tell you what.
I'm actually going to take it one step further.
You know what?
Don't tweet at her.
Just don't do it.
Don't tweet at any of these people.
There are a lot of people who think they have a right.
They do.
To argue with her after she tweeted.
To go on Twitter and start saying you're wrong, calling her stupid or crazy.
You do have the right to do that.
But don't.
Please.
Because you need to understand how politics works.
Listen, I know you may feel really good when you respond to her with even saying something like, I think you're incorrect, you should stop ragging on things we like.
I saw someone who tweeted something like, Everybody likes the show.
You're just complaining because you don't like it.
That's fine.
I agree with you.
But just stop tweeting at her.
And I understand the paradox of me making a video about it while saying, please stop engaging with these people.
But at least I'm saying that, right?
So, she was exhausted, Sarkeesian told Insider, missing the one scene where Roman spoke and making a typo in her tweet.
In the replies, she corrected herself, then went to bed.
In the mornings, the tweet had more than 3,000 replies.
It currently has close to 7,000.
Maybe you should switch to The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.
I'm sure you'll find much to relate to there.
No wonder you're so tired.
They say you should stretch before making such reaches, especially at your age.
That's not harassment.
I'll make sure that's clear.
Business Insider would play that game.
But I'm just trying to say, you know, you know they weaponize this stuff.
You know she's going to take any critical tweet and claim it's harassment.
They're going to take something and they're going to stretch it beyond belief.
They say it's an example of dogpiling.
A type of online harassment where, on Twitter, no, it's called getting ratioed.
And everybody gets ratioed.
I've been ratioed.
It happens.
But the thing is, the victim culture will use this.
So first, That's not harassment, okay?
To the legitimate harassment stuff, I'm just like, why are you going to do this?
She said, it's ironic, especially feminists, to get accused of being emotional and angry and all of these things, when all we said was, hey, I noticed this thing, and it's kind of a problem.
It's not a problem, okay?
And I think it's really bad for our society.
It's not, Sarkeesian told Insider.
If they didn't reply to it, my tweet would have just been gone.
They made it a much bigger deal.
She's absolutely right.
Anita Sarkeesian is right.
First of all, she's allowed to be angry, and she's allowed to express her anger.
You're allowed to respond, but you have to realize what she's gonna do when you do respond.
She's right.
You could've ignored it.
Don't feed the trolls.
You know what, man?
I understand there's a lot of people who are angry because she was able to weaponize social justice to get what she wanted and change products.
Like, a mad... You know what?
Actually, I'll give you a really... Here's a really good recent example.
Rick and Morty.
You ever watch that show?
They go to... Rick and Morty go inside the batteries.
Summer is in the... Basically, at the end of the episode, Rick brings them to the best ice cream shop in out.
It has flies in it.
Because the planet was populated by psychic spider monsters and they finally had a peace agreement.
And part of the agreement was that all ice cream would now have flies in it.
Now, he didn't like the ice cream anymore.
There's no reason you can't make ice cream with flies in it and regular ice cream.
But, you know, I understand the arguments that people will make about, you know, why they would criticize her.
But I just don't understand why people at this point don't realize what she's going to do and what her allies are going to do.
When you respond to her and say, go watch, you know, Real Housewives or whatever, I get it.
It's snark.
It's not harassment.
But they're going to claim it is.
They're not going to tell people what the harassment really is.
They're just going to say it's harassment.
And then she's going to get an article in Business Insider.
And she needs the press.
She needs this.
It reminds me of that Simpson episode, where they're like, just don't look.
The ads come to life, the gigantic billboards and like, you know, things.
And then the guy sings the song, just don't look, and it'll go away.
Yes.
Yes, absolutely.
Just don't look.
I don't know, whatever, man.
I think it's silly that, you know...
Everyone gets so bent out of shape about a lot of this.
She's, you know, Anita has lost so much of her cultural relevance.
Her YouTube channel is gone.
They have no money.
Yet, for some reason, people still want to dunk on her.
And I'm like, why, dude?
Like, not even that.
Like, what she tweeted... I don't know what exactly she tweeted, but just tweeting about the fact that there's no women in the Mandalorian... You know what, dude?
There are so many YouTubers that build themselves up off of just ragging on other people, and I just really don't get it.
I'll tell you what.
I rag on people.
Yeah, I rag on Michael Bloomberg.
You know, I'll rag on Donald Trump.
I'll rag on people in positions of authority like Ocasio-Cortez with 6 million followers.
But what do I care if Anita Sarkeesian has an opinion about The Mandalorian?
I'm not going to watch it anyway.
I get it.
If she came out and said skateboarding is dumb for these and that reasons, I still would ignore it!
And if she got a role in the industry and started making changes I didn't like, I might speak up, and I might have a conversation about it, but I would go do my thing.
You know?
I just don't understand the obsession that so many YouTubers have, so many personalities have, screen-grabbing your tweet, and then dunking on it.
I do this sometimes to certain people, like journalists.
You know, I'll tweet about, like, Brian Stelter stuff sometimes.
But I absolutely try to make sure that it's within a certain realm of decency.
You know what it is, man?
What makes me so angry about this, and I know I'm trying to really articulate my thoughts on this, is that not only Anita Sarkeesian, but her critics, they both feed on this.
They rile each other up on purpose.
By all means, be angry at the Mandalorian.
I don't care, you know?
You got your opinion, I hear you.
That's that, yeah, you know?
I actually think there's some good points to be made in the fact that a lot of shows don't, you know, they only ever have, you know, dudes.
I think it's fair to point out that certain movies are only white males.
I just, I just think it's stupid to demand that a company change what they do for you when most people are happy with it.
So what, Marvel is going to make movies with, you know, Asians?
You know, they made Black Panther?
It's like, yeah, I don't care, whatever, man.
If you like the movie, go watch it.
If you don't like it, don't.
If you like The Mandalorian, watch it.
If you don't like it, don't watch it.
And I think the appropriate thing would be to just like, hey, can you make a show that we would like?
I guess they made Batgirl and people didn't like it or whatever, so I don't know what to tell you, man.
If you're in the minority and nobody wants to make something for you, I don't know what to tell you.
You gotta make it yourself.
You can't expect everyone else to change for you.
In the end, I'll just say this.
I get really frustrated all the time when I see YouTubers who all they do is rag on other YouTubers for drama points.
Nina Sarkeesian is not the president of anything.
She's not running for office.
She's not affecting policy.
She does have an impact in the games industry, but not so much anymore.
And I'm just like, can we get over this, man?
Everybody needs to chill out and stop being so mean to each other on Twitter.
You know?
Myself included.
But I really do avoid a lot of this stuff to the best of my abilities.
Maybe I'm not perfect, but I'll try my best from now on if that's the case.
