Impeachment BACKFIRE Giving Trump Swing State Advantage, 2020 Democrats BACK AWAY From Impeachment
Impeachment BACKFIRE Giving Trump Swing State Advantage, 2020 Democrats BACK AWAY From Impeachment. A new analyses by The Washington post shows that in key election states impeachment is unfavorable with the majority opposing it.In response Trump, his allies, and the GOP have launched a new ad blitz is key states specifically over impeachment. Meanwhile 2020 Democrats are doing their best to distance themselves from impeachment saying they need to focus on issues Americans care about.Impeachment is an overall disaster for Democrats and it seems like the House Democrats may be sabotaging the 2020 Democratic contenders by lumping them into an unwinnable battle.Not only is impeachment bad for Democrats in swing districts but its given Trump the ability to fight along tribal lines and ignoring kitchen table issues while blaming Democrats for why he isn't campaigning specifically on them.Meanwhile Democrats have to justify why they aren't campaigning on the issues and why they keep trying to investigate the president.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Since the beginning of November, numerous polls have come out showing that opposition to impeachment was skyrocketing among independents, and you've probably heard me say it a million times.
But the more important poll is how this will play in swing states or key election states.
And now we know Impeaching Trump is unpopular in key election states.
You know what's really, really funny about impeachment?
The 2020 Democrats are doing their best to downplay impeachment.
And I'm not exaggerating.
In this story from NBC News, Democrats sing different tunes on impeachment as GOP closes ranks.
All of these Democratic contenders are trying to make sure they actually speak to Americans about issues they would want to vote for.
So it seems to me that the Democrats in the House are actually sabotaging their 2020 Democratic counterparts.
All the while, the media is doing something else.
It may be one of the most annoying things I've ever seen.
But there is a relentless attempt to strawman the Ukraine argument to make Trump look bad and rewrite history.
Politico has now put out two stories essentially discrediting its own reporting in what appears to be a desperate bid to erase the news they published that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election.
But what they're doing now, many of these pundits and left-wing individuals are conflating Russian collusion and hacking with Ukraine meddling.
And they're very, very different.
The reality is Russia did meddle in our election.
Russia did engage in a server hack.
But Ukrainians, some affiliated with the government of Ukraine, did indeed interfere.
So let's go through all this.
And let's start with how Democrats are actually sabotaging their own party with this story from Axios.
Impeaching Trump is unpopular in key election states.
Before we get started, Head over to TimCast.com slash doneit if you'd like to support my work.
There's several ways you can give, but the best thing you can do, just share this video, help me compete.
But also, I want to make sure I shout out, this is available as a podcast on all podcast platforms, so go and subscribe or do whatever it is.
Because the rankings for podcasts are actually based upon whether or not people are subscribing or whatever.
I gotta be honest.
Each platform is a bit different.
But yeah, follow me.
It's on Spotify, Apple, etc.
And you can listen to the full hour and a half or longer of content I do every single day as a single podcast.
But let's read the news from Axios.
They say...
Polls in key 2020 states show that support for impeaching President Trump is lower than in national impeachment polls, according to an analysis by the Washington Post.
Why it matters.
The polls signal that pursuing impeachment could potentially hurt Democrats in states they need to carry to defeat Trump in his bid for a second term.
By the numbers.
In a dozen October and November polls on impeachment in battleground states like Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Washington, an average of 44% of those surveyed supported impeachment, with 51% opposed, according to The Post.
In average of national polls, 47% of respondents say they support impeachment, while 43% said they oppose it.
So keep in mind, when we are talking about national level support, you're factoring in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles.
So yeah, there's a ton of people who want to impeach the president, most of them being Democrats.
Democrats are going to vote Democrat, I don't think, for the most part.
Republicans are worried about losing core Democrat votes.
They weren't going to get them in the first place.
But there are moderates who lean left, lean right, and are kind of in the middle.
These are the swing states.
And as you can see, in the places where it matters most, impeachment is a losing bet.
Now, it's no surprise, right?
Another thing that's come up often in these talks about politics and winning the election is trying to ignite a new voter base.
The progressives hope they can grab a far-left base that is untapped.
The problem with this, as I've stated before, People who are in the middle can choose to go left or right for a reasonable politician.
Somebody who's in the middle might be like, eh, I'm not a big fan of this guy on the right, but he's closer than, say, Bernie Sanders.
As they try their hardest to seek out the staunchest of progressives and far leftists, they are excluding the people in the middle.
And impeachment is another example of Democrats being so out of touch with this country and supporting the woke Twitterati and the people who live in New York and Los Angeles.
Let's read on.
After strongly opposing impeachment in the summer, national polls at the start of the House's public hearings have independent voters divided on the subject, with 42 in support and 44 opposed.
And that, I believe, is the aggregate.
There are some polls showing a 10-point swing towards opposition.
Between the lines, Axios says, Trump's approval rating has also remained steady in national polling throughout the impeachment inquiry hearings, swaying between 39 and 43 percent from mid-September to mid-November, according to Gallup polling.
The lack of movement in Trump's approval ratings demonstrates how entrenched Americans are in their opinion of Trump.
News and congressional testimony about his actions have not significantly changed how people feel about the president.
That's right.
Except when it comes to independent voters.
They were in favor of impeachment, and then after seeing what the Democrats had, it swung in the other direction.
It sounds to me like, you know, these Democrats in the House are not playing the same game as the Democrats who are running for 2020.
We have another story from Axios, however.
Inside the GOP impeachment spin machine, because while we're also seeing these key swing states, these general election states, opposing impeachment, once again, once again, the Republicans are capitalizing on this.
Donald Trump launching an ad blitz, and it's working, okay?
They have spun this to their favor.
Listen, man, never start a battle or a war.
You can't win.
And the Democrats don't seem to get it.
And so Trump is taking this at every advantage.
Check this story out.
They say the Republican base is fired up by impeachment.
It's driving fundraising to pro-Trump groups, which pump that money back into ads to get the base even more fired up.
Why it matters.
The cycle keeps spinning, generating more and more heat.
That's why they're locked in, unified, defending Trump.
So let's go back for a second.
Perhaps the reason why opposition to impeachment in swing states has gone up is because the base was fired up by impeachment, donated money to pro-Trump groups and to Trump, who then ran ads in these very important states, and those ads worked.
To put it simply, it could be that regular Americans look at the lack of evidence and say, this is absurd, or it could be That Trump supporters, outraged by the lack of evidence, supported the president who is now using that outrage to campaign in these moderate swing areas.
And it's working.
They say, driving the news, the non-profit arm of pro-Trump super PAC America First Action is dropping $2.26 million on ads beginning today, targeting 27 Democratic House members the group sees as most politically vulnerable in the impeachment fight.
Pro-Trump groups are flooding the airwaves ahead of this month's expected House vote on articles of impeachment, spending millions to pressure Democrats in swing districts to vote no.
Couple days ago, I covered a story.
A moderate Democrat in New Jersey came home to booing and cheering.
It was mixed, but there was a lot of anger over her support for impeachment.
And she had the nerve to say it was a 1776 kind of fight.
And I find that completely absurd.
But what I don't find absurd is that she came back to find her own constituents saying, why are you doing this?
All the Democrats have been doing is investigating.
Get something done.
This is exactly what Trump and the GOP need.
The goal is to make the impeachment vote as hard as possible for them, America First Policy's spokesman Kelly Sadler tells Axios.
The ads are timed to pick up after a run of similar anti-impeachment ads from other pro-Trump groups, America Action Network.
Starting next week, both groups will ramp up at the same time for a full court press.
The Republican National Committee and Trump campaign will run their own ads calling Democrats'
impeachment efforts a sham.
Sources familiar with their plans tell Axios.
So let me break this down for you.
The biggest ad blitz, the big plays we've seen so far have been impeachment is wrong.
Is Donald Trump running ads saying here's what I'm going to do to fix the trade war?
Here's what I'm going to do to maintain this economy?
Here's what I'm doing on foreign policy?
Nope.
Trump doesn't have to talk about kitchen table issues because he can pass the buck onto Democrats who are the ones launching the impeachment investigation.
Essentially, they have given Trump ammo to fight a tribal war and make it not his fault.
It is so frustrating, I swear, to see them do this.
Donald Trump can sit back and say, OK, I'll engage in tribalism, but don't blame me.
They started it.
And guess what?
We all know they did.
So here's what I find absolutely fascinating.
They're going to talk about the ads that will be appearing on Facebook and things like that.
They're going to be targeting vulnerable, moderate Democrat districts.
But check this story out from NBC News.
The Democrats in 2020 are desperately trying to back away from impeachment.
It was a huge mistake.
Dare I say, I seriously wish Tulsi Gabbard would have opposed impeachment from the get-go.
Or, she did, but then she flipped.
Mistake.
She would have been that standout on the stage who could have said, listen, I understand their concerns about Trump's behavior.
We're less than a year from the election.
We need to tell Americans that, for one, we're concerned about his behavior, so vote for us, and here are the issues we will embrace.
Instead, they all clamored around impeachment until they realized, uh-oh, they're losing in the battleground states.
Now what are they doing?
They're reversing as fast as they can.
But guess what?
Nadler is going to be doing the Judiciary Committee hearings.
It's not stopping.
You pushed that boulder down the hill, and now it's only going to get worse.
Check this out.
They say, If the Democrats have the substance on their side in the impeachment fight in terms of the public testimony, the release documents, and all the text messages, Republicans are now the ones with the more unified message.
Case in point is what's playing out on the 2020 presidential campaign trail, with the Democratic candidates talking about health care, tax policy, and racial equity, but barely mentioning the biggest political story in Washington.
Why, yes!
I have no choice but to continually talk about impeachment because every single outlet is dominated by impeachment.
You know what, man?
Earlier, on my second channel, I did a video about Donald Trump and the Keep America Great website, where it seems like Trump flipped an anti-Trump activist slogan into his favor, inadvertently making anti-Trump activists support the president.
Basically, for those that missed the video, Keep America Great used to be an anti-Trump slogan.
They were countering Make America Great.
Trump adopted that slogan, and now all the merch they sold is essentially pro-Trump merchandise.
So some might say it was an accident, and perhaps it was.
But then I have to believe that everything that's happening is Trump slipping on banana peels but doing perfect backflips.
It's like, at one point, you could say, come on, man.
You'd think it's got to be at least to a certain degree on purpose, but I think there may be an alternative to this theory.
That Democrats are literally just slipping on banana peels.
That's it.
They started the impeachment fight.
They wanted it.
They pushed for it since the day Trump was inaugurated.
And now it is just, once again, backfiring.
And what am I supposed to do?
Am I supposed to title every single video, backfires, backfires, backfires?
But it does!
Once again, we have another story coming out.
Washington Post polls and analysis showing key battleground states are opposing this.
You are giving Trump an edge and he is able to run massive ad campaigns without worrying about policy because you started the fight.
And the evidence is simple.
The Democrats are scared and backing away.
They say, indeed, consider the Democratic candidates answer about impeachment in last month's presidential debate in Atlanta.
Warren said she would work to convince her Republican colleagues to vote to remove the president from office.
We have to establish the principle no one is above the law.
We have a constitutional responsibility and we need to meet it.
But then she changed the subject to the amount of money that wealthy donors contribute to get plum ambassadorships, like Gordon Sondland did for his post to be U.S.
ambassador to the EU.
Bernie Sanders called Trump corrupt and a pathological liar, but he argued that Democrats can't be consumed by the president.
Right now, you've got 87 million people who have no health insurance or are underinsured.
We're facing the great existential crisis of our time in terms of climate change.
You've got 500,000 people sleeping out on the street, and you've got 18 million people paying half of their limited incomes for housing.
What the American people understand is that Congress can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.
You see, what we're seeing right now, and I'll give them credit for at least trying to back away.
You do the right thing, I will give you credit.
But we can see they can't do a 180.
If they came out right now and said, we're opposed to it, it's bad.
No, they would look like flip-floppers.
They would look weak.
So now here's what's going to happen.
I'm willing to bet in the next debate, they're going to walk it back even further.
In this one, they're saying, yeah, we all know Trump is bad.
He should be impeached.
But let's talk about what the American people need, which is the right thing to do.
I'm willing to bet in the next debate, they're going to say something like, I think this impeachment thing is going a little off the rails.
And we need to get back to focusing on what Americans care about.
And they're going to once again downplay it.
Look at this.
Pete Buttigieg.
Delivered a similar response.
We are absolutely going to confront this president for his wrongdoing, but we're also each running to be the president who will lead this country after the Trump presidency comes to an end one way or the other.
Buttigieg actually entertaining the possibility that Trump wins re-election one way or another.
Trump is out of this presidency.
Either he gets voted out, he gets voted out next, you know.
I get it.
It's a bit of a vague statement, but come on.
The way Buttigieg is framing it, One way or another means he could be impeached and removed, or he could serve out his term or terms.
And he's right.
So I'll give Buttigieg respect for saying that.
They say this, Joe Biden said, the question from voters is not first and foremost, what about impeachment?
Bottom line.
Republicans are messaging the existential threat that impeachment brings, arguing that the entire process subverts the will of voters.
But Democrats aren't messaging that same existential threat.
In fact, they're also arguing that the best way to defeat Trump is at the ballot box.
And there it is.
You know what?
They've proposed their way out.
And I tell you this, come December in the debates, this is from John Fieri for The Hill, an opinion contributor, censure could give Democrats a way out of no-win impeachment.
Well, there it is.
We have seen numerous stories from the left, and I covered these a couple days ago, saying censure.
There was a Washington Post article saying it's too late for censure.
But that was, you could have done it.
It's too late.
But several left-wing outlets saying it's about time that Democrats move to censure the president.
We have one Democratic congresswoman in Michigan in a safe blue district now saying censure is the way out.
You walked into a huge problem.
You started it.
The 2020 candidates are trying to pull back but, oh, too bad!
You made the mistake and now I don't think there is a way out.
And it's going to come back to haunt the Democrats.
But I will tell you one thing.
There's something else going on in terms of trying to subvert this whole impeachment fight.
Because let's be real, it is a tribal fight.
You've got the left, you've got the right.
The media does not like the president.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
That was wrong.
The media loves Donald Trump.
They love him!
He gives them something to talk about.
But they love that they can write bad things about him.
So that's what ends up happening.
Check this out.
Republicans say Donald Trump is totally innocent in their own 123-page impeachment report accusing Democrats of orchestrated campaign to upend our political system and saying Ukraine did interfere in the 2016 election.
This from the Daily Mail just the other day.
But what did Politico write? Senate panel cleared Ukraine of election interference.
Some Republican senators recently questioned whether Kiev tried to sabotage Trump's campaign
in 2016. But the GOP-led Intelligence Committee looked into the theory and found scant evidence
to support it. Politico wrote one of the first stories about, it was titled, Ukraine's attempt to
meddle in the 2016 election against Trump backfired. Or something like that. Or it was
Ukraine's attempt to sabotage Trump backfired.
And they did interviews.
And they did the legwork.
And now it's come back to haunt them.
Because Republicans keep citing this.
But I will tell you one big problem Republicans have.
No.
Ukraine did not hack servers.
Russia did metal via hacking and with social media manipulation.
It's not nearly as extensive as people claim it to be.
And I'm citing for you BuzzFeed.
BuzzFeed did the reporting over a year ago, almost two years now, that the Russian bot narrative is weak.
They exist, but they are weak.
They barely did anything.
And as we know, while Russia did try to meddle, it was not that severe, and nor did it affect the outcome.
And that's coming from the Mueller report.
Ukraine as a government, from the top down, did not meddle in the election.
And what the media companies are doing is trying to conflate those as the same thing.
And Republicans are falling for it.
Donald Trump believes some conspiracy nonsense, but I'll tell you what.
It's not impeachable to believe fake news!
You can crit— Listen, man.
The Democrats should simply say Trump believes nonsense.
But they're trying to impeach him because they thought he was wrong, whether he was or he wasn't.
I'll tell you this.
According to Politico, The Hill, The DC Examiner, The New York Times, yes, there were Ukrainians, some affiliated with the government and politics of Ukraine, who did try to interfere in the election.
According to The New York Times, a Ukrainian court ruled that giving out these private details on Paul Manafort was meddling in the U.S.
election.
They are different.
They both happened.
Russia meddled to a much greater extent, but it was still fairly weak.
And key Ukrainians, some in government, did try to interfere and meddle in our 2016 election.
Don't fall for the tricks.
I think it's hilarious that Politico in this story, what they're citing are people familiar with the story.
Let me read you this.
They first cite Senator John Kennedy claimed on Sunday in an interview with NBC that, quote, Russia was very aggressive and they're much more sophisticated.
But the fact that Russia was so aggressive does not exclude the fact that President Poroshenko actively worked for Secretary Hillary Clinton.
Now, he did not actively work for Hillary Clinton.
That is factually incorrect, if you're taking it literally.
If John Kennedy was being hyperbolic and saying that he was actively working for him, it could be that he was indirectly working to help Clinton in some capacity.
That's a whole other argument, and typically the media likes to take things literally when they are meant figuratively, but I'm not going to tell you what to believe.
The fact remains, he did not actively work for Clinton.
Take it how you want.
They go on to say, though, from a literal sense, they say, but the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee thoroughly investigated that theory, according to people with direct knowledge of the inquiry.
Because Republicans just produced a report claiming that yes, indeed, Ukraine was involved in meddling.
So who are you referring to?
And this is the problem.
Politico reported with names in 2017.
Ken Vogel.
These are the people.
Here's what they did.
They deny it.
We can prove it's true.
That's what they're saying.
They're saying we know they did it.
This new Politico story, which is trying to walk things back, is saying, no, no, no, according to people with direct knowledge of the inquiry.
I'm sorry, that's not good enough.
And they go on to say that they, here we go, an interview that fall with the consultant at the heart of the inquiry, Alexander Chalupa, was fruitless.
Does fruitless mean it didn't happen?
No.
And this doesn't debunk everything.
What they're doing now is framing this as though even the Republicans couldn't find evidence when the Republicans come out publicly.
When Lindsey Graham comes out publicly and says, y'all we did this and we didn't find nothing to prove this was true, I'm down to listen.
But I'll tell you this right now, Politico.
I don't care if you are mad about the story you wrote.
Just retract it!
If you think the story you wrote in 2017 is so wrong that you've now written two stories to debunk this, just retract the story.
The fact remains, That impeachment is hurting the Democrats and they need an out.
And conveniently, the media comes to discredit the narrative that there were Ukrainians involved in interfering with the election, which they were.
Stop conflating the two.
Russia meddled in the election.
We know it.
The intelligence agency are saying it, you can take their word or not, fine, but that's the official word.
The other official word is that Ukrainians, not the top down, were also trying to interfere.
Now the argument we've heard from like Fiona Hill and others is, yes, but everyone in every country was doing something.
Listen, Alexander Chalupa, according to Politico, was soliciting dirt on the Trump campaign and Ukrainian officials were down for it.
And they were interested in stopping Trump because Hillary Clinton was better for them.
That's what you reported.
If you'd like to retract that story, please do so.
But please stop publishing contradictory information to confuse the issue.
And that's the big challenge right now.
You've got reports saying President Zelensky of Ukraine is mad at Trump and airing his grievances, and other reports saying he's defended Trump.
And you know what, man?
I'm so frustrated by all of this.
So you know what?
Let me wrap it up by saying, Democrats, you reap what you sow.
The 2020 Democrats are trying to find a way out.
You've got people on the left now saying, maybe censure?
Maybe censure?
Sorry, too late.
This will have a long-lasting impact.
Trump will not stop weaponizing the failed impeachment to his advantage, and it's your own fault.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
at youtube.com slash timcastnews.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
The website that you are currently seeing is keepamericagreat.com.
Why, that's Donald Trump's re-election slogan.
But the website says Trump is a fraud and a failure.
Tom Steyer.
Now, most of you probably don't know who Tom Steyer is, and I don't blame you.
Most people don't know who he is.
But he's a rich guy who is running for president and he's running ads against the president.
Many people might be confused as to how he managed to get a hold of Donald Trump's campaign slogan website.
Well, as Tom would tell you, you see, Donald Trump forgot to buy the domain and how he snatched it up.
This goes back to a similar story where the Trump campaign, I believe it was a Trump campaign, bought Joe Biden's Latino outreach slogan and it went viral and everybody mocked Joe Biden.
It was a huge blunder.
However, Donald Trump's campaign did not forget to buy this.
Tom Steyer is lying.
And he knows he's lying because he had to have purchased the domain from the anti-Trump activists who owned it going back to 2015.
You see, what really happened is that when Donald Trump launched his campaign, Some anti-Trump activists bought Keep America Great as a counter to Make America Great, sold merchandise, and said they wanted to stop Donald Trump.
Apparently, at some point, Trump's people, knowing that the anti-Trump activists had the slogan, decided to use it anyway.
If anything, Trump trolled these anti-Trump activists by taking their anti-Trump slogan and turning it into a pro-Trump slogan.
You know why this is one of the most epic trolls?
I kid you not.
They are so desperate to troll Donald Trump that they make things up.
But I tell you this, what Trump's campaign did, whether it was on purpose or an accident, was brilliant.
I'm not talking about policy.
I'm talking about strategy and politics.
Listen to what I am going to say to you.
Anti-Trump activists.
That's the wrong one.
Anti-Trump... So this is, for those that are watching, this is the placeholder from 2004, but here's the website.
Take a look at this.
They were selling t-shirts that said, Keep America Great back in 2015.
Donald Trump and his team had to have known about this because they're, listen, they typically buy up domains very quickly.
They pull the rug out from under their opponents.
So I can only assume when they started selling this merchandise and these hats, Guess what Trump did?
His campaign said, let's just use it.
Let's use it for re-election.
Let's claim Trump did his job and we'll keep America great.
And guess what?
Every single shirt, every hat, every mug, whatever they sold now becomes a pro-Trump piece of merchandise.
I don't know how much was sold, if any was sold.
But I tell you this, some of it says, stop Trump.
Some of it says, dump Donald.
Okay, fine.
This one right here, keep America great, stop the hate.
That's not necessarily anti-Trump.
And the picture is just Trump looking silly.
That's about it.
Think about all of the anti-Trump activists who are buying these.
Maybe they didn't.
Maybe they didn't really, maybe they sold nothing.
Maybe they really bought some of this.
Now think about those people who have these hats, CAG hats.
Literally a pro-Trump hat.
Donald Trump took anti-Trump activist merchandise and turned it into pro-Trump re-election merchandise.
So here's what happens.
We have this story from the Daily Caller.
Media outlets reported that Tom Steyer's campaign trolled Trump's campaign, but they buried a major detail.
While it seems like, to an extent, Politico and The Hill did cover this story almost good enough, they missed—it's mind-blowing to me how bad the media is.
And I hate to say this, because I think The Hill does a really great job, especially Sager—I'm pronouncing your name wrong, I'm sorry—and Crystal Ball.
It's the Rising show.
You really should watch it, because it's like, Crystal's pretty progressive, Sager's probably pretty conservative, and it's a really great and fair and honest show, and I think they do a fantastic job.
And I was on it recently.
But the Hill apparently didn't... The media outlets just report things uncritically, and here's what happened.
The Steyer campaign purchased the domain Keep America Great in an apparent attempt to turn the tables on Trump.
This is from the Daily Caller.
Who have previously purchased political opponents would-be websites.
Keep America Great is Trump's re-election slogan for 2020.
Quote, Trump's campaign prides itself on hoarding websites of political opponents.
But they forgot to pick up the URL for their signature re-election slogan, Keep America Great, Steyer's campaign claimed in a statement.
Fake news!
Steyer would have had to have bought the domain from the anti-Trump activists who owned it.
So I can only assume Steyer is lying.
They are so desperate to get some kind of win, to own Trump, but they fail at every turn, so they lie.
Let me tell you what really happened.
This is Steyer trying to cover up what may be actually one of the biggest blunders in political history.
And I mean it.
Now look, we can argue about whether or not Donald Trump did this on purpose, but I'm sick and tired of the conversation being, Donald Trump slipped on a banana peel and pulled off a perfect backflip on accident.
Every single time something happens in this ridiculously amazing way that benefits Trump, they say, that wasn't on purpose.
Trump's not strategizing this.
You don't got to think Trump is doing it, but Trump's got a team of people who are smart, who are internet savvy, who are clever people.
The Trump campaign.
Let me reiterate for you why this was so, like, I sat here kind of dumbfounded, like, I can't believe he pulled that off.
I didn't know about this until Tom Steyer came out.
In reality, it's not that Donald Trump was trolled, it's that Donald Trump turned anti-Trump merchandise into pro-Trump merchandise!
Okay, I gotta say it again, because I really gotta drive this home.
Tom Steyer, what he's really doing, in my opinion, is trying to cover up the fact No, no, he probably just wanted to buy it and make Trump look bad because he knows people might go to the site.
But think about how this would have looked in reality if people started pushing the story like, whoa, I didn't know Trump did that.
So he buys the site because he knows people are going to start looking it up.
Well, I'm not going to I'm not going to assume why he did what he did.
I'm not even I'm not even convinced Trump did it on purpose.
But I tell you, here's here are the circumstances.
Activists launched a website, Keep America Great, back in 2015, selling merchandise that says, Keep America Great.
Women's liberty tea.
Not all of it is anti-Trump.
Stop the hate.
What does that really mean?
I don't know.
Could Trump, like, people say the liberals are hateful.
That mug could work for Trump.
So here's what happens.
They launched the website.
Donald Trump at some point decides, Keep America Great will be his reelection slogan.
According to a statement from Tim Murtaugh, He said, do they have this quote here?
Well, he tweeted, Tom Steyer is lying about the site being available and media shouldn't buy the fake news.
Anyone curious could find out in three seconds.
The Trump-hating website went up in 2015, way before the 2016 election.
It's been a hater site for four years, and I think Politico has the actual quote from Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah.
So, uh, Tom Steyer is lying about the availability of this website.
He knows it.
The site was created in 2015, well before the election.
So that's, that's basically just a tweet.
So that's, that's, um, Tim McMurdo is, he's, he's Trump's campaign guy, I think.
So, so, okay, okay.
Let's go through the details.
Activists set up this Trump-hating website, selling merchandise that says, Keep America Great.
Trump decides to use the slogan, which they claim they knew about, and I'm going to have to bet, listen man, they jumped the gun on a bunch of political opponents' domains.
They're internet-savvy, they make memes, Trump trolls, I think they know how the digital system, economy works.
If, listen, If Joe Biden comes out and said, you know, his Latino slogan, and they immediately jumped and bought that domain, I can only imagine one of the first things they did when they said, what should our re-election slogan be, was to look up keepamericagreat.com.
And you can see, lo and behold, they're selling merchandise.
And it's not, I mean, some of it says stop Trump, dump Donald.
Okay, fine.
But some of this just says keep America great.
So I really want to drive this home.
Assuming people bought some of this, because it does say sold out, at least on one of the shirts, right?
I don't know, it's an archive.
These people now own pro-Trump merchandise.
By choosing to use that slogan, anybody who bought any of this would now be walking around in support of the president.
They might still claim they hate him, they have the hashtag Dump Donald, but people are going to be confused!
I'm willing to bet people threw these shirts away!
Activists launched a campaign to hurt the president.
He adopted their slogan, turning their merchandise in his favor.
You want to argue with me?
Trump did not do it on purpose.
I think it's fine.
It would be crazy to me to think, like, that's such a genius power play.
I can't believe it.
I really can't.
And I really want to assume it was just an accident.
I really do.
Deep down inside, I think about this.
I'm like, there's no way they did this on purpose.
But then I got to think about how they do buy these domains.
I have to imagine when they were looking at using slogans, they checked a bunch of domains.
Listen, man.
I've run a bunch of different companies.
I own lots of websites.
I can't tell you.
When you're going through the process of coming up with brand names, slogans, domain purchases...
We go through like a list of a hundred, and we search through all of them to figure out what they are, and if we can use them, and if they're appropriate.
So I can only imagine, out of the list of various slogans, and you gotta recognize too, this is the president, okay?
Their re-election campaign is using high-powered marketing and brand people.
They got some of the best paid people in the world, some of the smartest internet people in the world.
They go through a list of all the things they could say, and they choose the anti-Trump activist website.
And I ask, why would that be?
And now it's simple.
They've got all of these anti-Trump t-shirts now being pro-Trump.
They said, you know what?
Let's use this one.
Because once Trump says this is his slogan, people walking around in these shirts are going to take those shirts off and throw them in the trash.
Or the people who keep them will now have in their homes pro-Trump merchandise.
And they probably laughed.
Like that mean... I don't know what movie it's from where they're smoking the cigars and laughing.
Look, man.
Trump is a troll.
They know how to troll the press.
They know how to do this.
Part of me can't believe they pulled off something so masterful.
But when I look at what they've done, when I look at the media being trolled and I look how successful they've been, I'm sorry, man.
And so what ends up happening is Daily Caller is basically calling out other media outlets because they're essentially saying Politico and The Hill are uncritically reporting what Tom Steyer said.
Now, you know what I think?
Tom Steyer probably bought it just because it was Trump's slogan.
But it's also covering up what really happened.
In essence, the chain of events ends with a Streisand effect.
Now, because he did this, and because we are looking to what this website was to prove if he was right, if he's telling the truth or not, we learn that not only is Tom Steyer lying, I can only presume he's lying, okay?
Because if he bought this from the anti-Trump activists, he had to know that, you know.
And he's rich, so he probably dumped a ridiculous amount of money into it.
But now he's Streisand-affected the whole thing, and we can now see what really happened.
It may have been no big deal to Trump and his campaign back, you know, 2016, 2017, whenever he decided to use Keep America Great.
They were probably just like, ah, that'd be funny, these shirts would be pro-Trump anyway, just buy it.
It wasn't a big a deal.
Keep America Great was not a very, very big website.
Most people didn't know what it was.
And now because of Tom Steyer, we're like, whoa, did Trump just destroy an anti-Trump activist business by turning them into Trump supporters?
That's what it sounds like to me.
But by all means, by all means, keep believing that Trump, his campaign, his high-powered consultants, Cambridge Analytica, it's all a big accident.
Trump's just walking down the street as a banana peel and he slips on it but has a perfect backflip.
Look, man, I'm not saying Donald Trump is a genius, but I am saying that these people are paid a lot of money, he hires these companies that know what they're doing, and they are clever.
That's why they get paid so much money, and that's why Donald Trump is the president.
You can think Trump is a buffoon or a fool, and that's fine, because if that's your opinion, then so be it.
But you gotta recognize, too, he got money, and he's got fans, and he can hire smart people to do things for him.
Look man, I think the Trump campaign is pulling off some of the biggest trolls and reversals and flips.
Now I do think Trump is pretty smart in some regards.
His downfall is his arrogance and his narcissism, right?
Trump seems to be able to come up with some decent strategies and counter moves, and he's got some good people around him and some bad people around him.
He's got a lot of bad people around him.
But he's got some smart people working for him.
His problem is that he becomes arrogant and narcissistic.
But you know what?
That might be the bigger accident.
You want to act like everything Trump is doing was just a bumbling mistake?
I just don't buy it, man.
It's like, if you believe that, go buy a lottery ticket because how many times does it need to happen that Trump accidentally succeeds?
Sure, his whole life was one big accident and now he's the president.
That would make for a great movie.
A guy bumbling around and he keeps bumping into somebody who then something happens and then he falls into a sewer and he finds a pot of gold.
I don't know.
I just don't buy it.
You don't gotta think he's the smartest guy in the world, but it's clear that him and his people have a general understanding of this.
His big problem, and I'll wrap it up with this, is his arrogance.
And that might benefit him, that might be the true bumbling accident, because it's made the media obsessed with him.
His arrogant, narcissistic behavior.
Maybe not narcissistic, but egotistical, right?
And I know people like Trump.
I have dealt with these wealthy, multi-millionaire, you know, people worth hundreds of millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars.
I've seen the attitude, okay?
And it's an attitude that spells, I know what I have to do.
Get out of my way.
Stop wasting my time.
That's really, really good if you want to be a billionaire and a CEO.
It's why they became billionaires and CEOs.
It's why Donald Trump became president.
It can cause negative effects when people sour on you because of it.
I have seen some pretty powerful people who did no wrong get accused, and instead of just having a calm, reasonable discussion to defeat the situation, said, how dare you?
You know who I am?
That kind of attitude.
So Donald Trump takes things personally.
He does.
However, that might be the accident that helps him.
Because a lot of people like that Trump pushes back and tells people to go F themselves.
And says, you know, calls him horseface.
A lot of people, they look at him and they're like, good.
That's who, you know, they say they want to be negotiating against Kim Jong-un or, you know, Russia or Iran.
So there you go, man.
I'll wrap it up.
I wake up to this story and I'm like, they can't see it, can they?
They just literally can't see that he's running around in circles.
Look, man, you want to call it 4D chess?
That's not always.
It just so happens that there are several instances where Trump did something and it's hilarious.
OK.
Keep America Great was not a huge website.
It wasn't in the press, but they still know how to trip up their enemies.
And so Tom Steyer is trying desperately to get one of those wins.
So he lies.
Trump forgot to buy it.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
No, dude.
All you did was reveal the masterful trolling of the Trump campaign.
Turning anti-Trump activists into pro-Trump activists.
Bravo, Streisand Effect!
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Back in the 2016 election cycle, I was pretty on board with Bernie Sanders.
I didn't completely agree with a lot of his plans.
I actually argued with a lot of leftists about whether or not it makes sense to do, you know, a capital gains tax, whether or not...
His proposals for taxing Wall Street make sense.
What does it really even mean?
But there was a more important issue.
Bernie's a guy who, for decades, campaigned on these core issues.
And for once, it felt like we had an outsider, an independent.
He was being honest.
He was speaking truth.
When it came to 2A, he said it's an urban versus rural issue.
And I was like, thank you!
That is seriously the problem here.
When you have urban elites trying to dictate what the entire country should do, it doesn't make sense.
However, Bernie Sanders started to do things in 2016 that I disagree with and I lost faith in him.
Notably when he said white people didn't know what it's like to be poor.
Well, every so often he does something that proves to me that yes, I should not have been supporting him and I'm glad I'm not doing that now.
And almost the same time, Tulsi Gabbard does things to prove I should.
And again, don't completely agree with all of her campaign, you know, policies and her positions.
But you take a look at what Bernie has done.
He brought on one of the most controversial things he's done.
Brought on Linda Sarsour as a campaign surrogate, who was recently caught on camera talking about... It's more just...
It's just antisemitic conspiracy nonsense.
We know about the Women's March.
We know about her connections.
We know about Ilhan Omar.
Look, dress it up however you like.
Try to defend them.
But come on, man.
Everything Ilhan Omar has said, these things that Linda Sarsour says, you place those quotes next to regular people and they're nowhere near the same thing.
When I tell you There is something wrong with what Linda Sarsour consistently pushes about Israel and Jewish people.
And Sarsour and other squad members do.
You can't act like it's normal.
That's what's crazy to me.
She said that Israel is built on the idea that Jews are supreme to everybody else.
This is fringe conspiracy theory nonsense that could have come straight out of Nazi Germany.
There is a long and complicated history to Israel.
I know we can get into it, and you're going to have argument back and forth, but let me make one point for you guys.
And I've talked about this.
Many, many times.
Especially to my lefty friends.
I say, do you know how many countries are Christian?
It's dozens.
Maybe, yeah, dozens of countries.
And how many Christians there are?
It's like 2 billion.
How many countries are Muslim?
Dozens, I believe.
You know, maybe a couple dozen.
And how many Muslims are in the world?
It's like 1.6 billion.
How many Jewish people are there in the world?
Depending on if you go by the actual, you know, people who are Jewish or the Jewish diaspora, meaning extended family, it can be between 5 and 13 million, substantially less.
And how many countries are Jewish?
Technically one, but Israel is a very small state currently in a conflict.
So if you want to talk about marginalized groups, it's strange to me to see someone like Linda Sarsour attack an overtly marginalized group It involved in an ongoing conflict.
Now don't get me wrong, there are a lot of problems the Israel-Palestine conflict and I certainly think there are innocent Palestinians who are being oppressed.
I think there's problems in the West Bank.
I think we've seen that from the international community.
But these ideas that are pushed by Sarsour are a framing device, in my opinion, to try and get people to target an extremely marginalized group of people.
Now listen, man.
I'm not one to start talking about, you know, how we should or shouldn't provide things to people based on their identity or status.
No, I think we're talking about an extremely controversial area and we can talk about the merits of protecting the rights of everyone involved in Israel, Palestine, the Middle East, etc.
The issue for me isn't the identity.
But what does bother me is people who try to weaponize identity for or against political issues.
Notably, Linda Sarsour, who is pushing conspiracy theories and has been accused of doing those same things in the past.
So here's what ends up happening.
Right now, you know what, man?
I don't care about her, okay?
I care about Bernie Sanders doing this.
And I'll tell you what, check this story out.
American Jewish Congress blasts Bernie Sanders' surrogate, Linda Sarsour.
Yup.
Bernie should not have brought her on.
And I will tell you this, every so often, something happens where I'm like, you know what?
Bernie's not a guy I can support.
And this is one of these reasons.
Stop propping these people up.
Okay?
When you had people like Steve King in Congress, a Republican, make comments about white nationalism, Republicans denounced him!
Kicked him off his committees!
Ilhan Omar, nothing!
I don't like the hypocrisy.
I don't like the dirty hypocrisy, the games they play.
And Bernie Sanders can talk about everything he wants to do.
Why would he support this woman?
He didn't need to do that.
It's not the first time she's been blasted.
We have this story from back in, I believe, September.
September 21st.
Pressure growing for Bernie Sanders to dump virulent Linda Sarsour.
They say, What is this?
Pressure is mounting on Senator Bernie Sanders to cut ties with longtime campaign surrogate Sarsour with critics such as Manhattan billionaire Ronald Lauder, citing her long history of anti-Semitic comments, saying, Sarsour is a virulent anti-Semite who has publicly stated that nothing is creepier than Zionism.
Her views have no place in our political discourse, and any candidate who associates with her is guilty of handing a megaphone to anti-Semites around the country.
Now listen.
That's fine.
Bernie is allowed to prop her up.
She's allowed to say these things.
Totally fine with it.
I just won't associate.
It's crazy to me because it's very clear there is a serious problem on the far left with anti-Semitism.
It is plain as day.
Is it the biggest problem on the left?
I'm not saying that.
I'm saying y'all got a problem.
And you know what?
When I bring it up, it's funny.
Ignored.
Now I can talk about the problem of left-wing racism all day and night, and they'll point the finger at me and say, there goes Tim talking about white racism, which doesn't exist.
They try to claim that only white people are racist and all these things.
You talk about this stuff, about how absurd it is, and they will then say, aha, I got you.
But strangely, it's so strange, whenever I point out, you know, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Linda Sarsour, the Women's March, the things they've been accused of, the things they've said, Nothing.
Crickets.
You know why?
They know.
They know these people are nuts.
Why are they allowing anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists to flourish in their ranks?
I want to know.
And I will tell you this.
About the same amount of time, times, that I see Bernie Sanders do something where I'm like, mm-mm-mm-mm, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
I see the opposite with Tulsi.
I see her suing Google for, you know, for discrimination, censorship, for, you know, targeting her campaign and things like that.
I see her bringing up issues of moderates, and I'm like, good.
I see her taking down Kamala Harris.
I see Bernie doing the opposite.
Because to me it seems like Bernie is more interested in winning.
The bigger issue, though, that's frustrating to me, is that they simultaneously claim it's conservatives who are the real threat, are the real problem.
And I'm like, dude, listen, man, the worst thing I can say about conservatives is I disagree with them on, like, choice versus life, or, like, the amount of taxes we should have, or, like, government reform, and they're marginal disagreements.
It's like, oh, you know, I don't think that plan's gonna work, but we'll vote on it and figure out which one the people believe in.
I look over to the left and they're saying things like, you know, white people are bad, don't always like to be poor.
They're propping up anti-semitic conspiracy theorists who say insane things targeting a marginalized group while claiming to oppose racism.
It is the most frustrating thing to see these people who claim to be activists for one thing literally doing the opposite.
So Bernie, this to me, I would like to see this answered for.
Seriously.
Is Bernie or anyone else going to address what she said about Jewish supremacy in Israel?
Are they going to talk about the history?
Are they going to talk about the conflict?
I'm not saying I'm taking sides with anybody.
I'm saying this is certainly beyond reproach.
This is not what someone If we're gonna have a real conversation about how to solve these problems, the last thing Bernie Sanders should be doing, or any of these progressives, is working with someone like Sarsour.
And she's on video, okay?
So let me just show you what she said.
YouTube's gonna yell at me for this.
Daily Caller reports anti-Israel activist Linda Sarsour said at the American Muslims for Palestine conference Friday that Israel is built on the idea that Jews are supreme to everybody else.
How can you be against white supremacy in the United States of America and the idea of living in a supremacist state based on race and class, but then you support a state like Israel that is built on supremacy?
Sarsour said at the conference held November 28th to 30th.
I'll admit.
Israel's got identity-based conflict.
It's very conflicted.
But what she's doing, in my opinion, is inverting the narrative so that she can claim what she's doing is the opposite.
It's mind-blowing.
It's so frustrating.
Antifa goes out claiming they're anti-racist while screaming racial slurs.
Look it up.
They did it in, I think it might have been Seattle or Portland.
They were screaming the N-word at ICE agents.
They do it all the time.
There's either the white savior racists.
There's one video where a young white woman starts telling an old black man, a cop, that he's racist.
It's like, what are you people doing?
But this right here, the way she framed this is, it's not her that's targeting the Jews, it's the Jews that are targeting, ooh, that's what she's doing.
So you know what, man?
I'm let down.
I've been let down, and I will tell you this.
People talk about red pill, blue pill, whatever, I don't think that matters, because for me, I'm going to ignore the tribal Pauls and these arguments, but I will tell you this.
When I saw Steve King tweet, though, he tweeted something, I think his way, I mean, he tweeted something about, like, white nationalism.
And there was a recoil among the right.
Right now you've got this big argument between, like, America First, white majoritarians, they call themselves, and, like, Donald Trump Jr.
and other conservatives.
They're arguing over what they view as anti-Semitism.
They're fighting it, right?
There's a fight over this on the right.
On the left?
Nope.
Nobody, not one word, not just, there she goes, she's gonna say these things, and you know what, man, I tell you, I tell you this, they claim Ilhan Omar isn't an anti-Semite, even though she's made like, what, five or six statements that people have been like, whoa, dude, dude, you're getting a little close, right?
It's like, you'd think that five, five statements that are borderline anti-Semitism could at least equal one anti-Semitism, right?
No, no, no, no.
They claim they're not really bigots.
Then you get Ilhan Omar, who says we must sanction Israel.
When it comes to Turkey, oh, no, no, that could be devastating to Turkey.
I see what they're doing, man.
I'll tell you this.
The reason why I don't believe their arguments against Israel are sincere is because they don't talk about any other countries.
What's going on between Israel and Palestine is a longstanding conflict, and it's extremely complicated, and people are tribalist on this, you know.
But we can all look at what's going on and say, like, I don't know, China.
So here's the thing.
They never talk about the foreign aid going to other countries.
Kenya, for instance.
They never talk about the atrocities happening in other countries.
China, for instance.
They're solely focused on what Israel is doing.
And I have to wonder why that is.
I don't think, in my opinion, based on what they've said, it has to do specifically with territory.
I think it has to do with some of the quotes we've heard from Middle Eastern leaders about Israel specifically and the Jewish people.
I think that Linda Sarsour, and it's funny because I'll tell you what, man.
Bernie Sanders is Jewish.
And so people have tried using that defense.
Oh, but, you know, she's working with a Jewish man.
Nah, you know what, dude?
Once again, it's their attempt to push an insane ideology to target a group of people, like the bigots they are, and they mask it by claiming they're the ones fighting bigotry.
See?
They're working with Bernie Sanders.
But then she goes and says stuff like this, and they all do it.
You get the point, man.
People have been calling Bernie to drop her, and I was, I was, you know, shocked and dismayed when I heard that Bernie had brought her on.
Of all of the people Bernie could have brought on, this is what, this is who she chooses.
And I will end by reiterating, I really doubt that we're going to see people on the left actually say anything about what she's claiming and what she's saying.
There have been some progressives.
You know, I really do respect David Pakman in this regard.
And here's a guy, he's a guy I disagree with on a lot of things.
But David Pakman made a video talking about the strange obsession that so many people have with Israel, and they completely ignore all of the foreign aid and atrocities of all these other countries.
And it's like, they try to make their arguments about like, oh, but look, Israel's receiving all this money.
Why does that make sense?
It's like, dude, there's a huge list of countries that receive money from the United States.
I understand Israel receives a lot of money relative to some of these other countries, but I actually think when you look, I could be getting it wrong because I didn't check these numbers for a while, it was a while ago, but you look at like per capita and countries like Kenya get more.
Israel is involved in a conflict.
They're an American ally in the Middle East.
I understand the foreign aid to this country.
What I don't understand is how it's specifically about her targeting the people of this country and how they mask it.
Look, man.
I know, there's gonna be a lot of people who argue with me, they're gonna tell me I'm wrong on the left and the right, whatever, because people have a legitimate concern about aid going to Israel, and I can respect that.
My concern with her specifically is the hyper-focus on Israel.
Listen, if you want to talk about foreign aid to Israel, by all means, we can have that conversation.
If you and your friends make weird comments about Jewish people, and then you come out talking about aid, I'm gonna be like, I don't believe you.
I don't believe you.
I literally think these are bad people.
I'll leave it there.
You get the point.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you all there.
Kamala Harris is out!
Now, when the other candidates left, I didn't care too much, but Kamala Harris dropping out is of particular significance because, as we all remember, I mean, this may sound immodest, but she was a top-tier candidate.
Remember that?
When she got into it with Tulsi Gabbard and Tulsi Gabbard took her down.
Pointing out that Kamala Harris locked up tons of people for smoking pot and then laughed about it when she was asked if she smoked pot.
Yeah, because she's a liar.
Or how about when Tulsi Gabbard mentioned that she kept people beyond their sentences by withholding evidence or used them for cheap labor.
Yeah, Kamala Harris, not a good person.
So thank you, Tulsi Gabbard, but we'll get to that.
Let's read the story first, see what's going on, and I got a bunch of memes and hot takes, a statement from Kamala, and you are gonna love the latest hot take.
Surprise, surprise.
What do you think some of these prominent left-wing individuals are saying about the Democratic 2020 race now that Kamala Harris, a woman of color, has dropped out?
White supremacy.
I kid you not.
And that is interesting.
As of right now, the only candidates qualified for the December debates are white.
Lo and behold.
But the left certainly has their hot takes.
Let's read the news first.
NBC News reporting Senator Kamala Harris dropped out of the presidential race on Tuesday evening.
On Tuesday, I'm sorry.
It happened earlier today.
Ending a 12-month campaign that began with an explosion of enthusiasm but fizzled quickly.
An aide told NBC News that the senator had notified her staff Tuesday that she was dropping out of the race and the campaign emailed the news to support her soon after.
I'm not a billionaire.
I can't fund my own campaign, Harris said in the email.
And as the campaign has gone on, it's become harder and harder to raise the money we need to compete.
In good faith, I can't tell you, my supporters and volunteers, that I have a path forward if I don't believe I do.
Her exit out comes just weeks before the deadline to get off the ballot in Harris's home state of California.
A move that could spare her some embarrassment if she thought she would lose there.
She had already qualified for the debate later this month.
She should have done the debate.
I mean, why not?
Some people are speculating the reason she's dropping out now is because she wants to leave open the possibility that she can be a VP.
I don't think that will happen.
Kamala Harris has no personality, no brand, no core base.
Sorry.
She is well known because she's just a crony Democrat.
That's about it.
Look at these other people, and Biden doesn't really have it either, sure, Buttigieg, but there are a couple people with big, you know, people behind—like, Warren's got a base.
Sanders got a base.
Tulsi's got a base.
Tulsi's might be smaller than everybody else's.
You know, Yang's got a base.
Kamala Harris doesn't have any of that.
They say Harris announced her candidacy nearly a year ago on Martin Luther King Jr.
Day and attracted attention for her performance at the first Democratic debate in June, when she attacked former Vice President Joe for his stance on busing and school segregation.
Harris, however, had been unable to maintain momentum in the months following amid a sustained drop in polling over the summer, her campaign reorganized, laying off some staffers in early states to focus its resources and attention on Iowa, but also We had that aide recently.
I don't know if you saw the story.
A former staffer for Harris came out saying it was horribly mismanaged and people were being treated really, really poorly.
And then she flipped for Michael Bloomberg.
How weird.
But she did.
They said that didn't break her fall in the polls.
The latest RealClearPolitics average of recent polling showed Harris with just 3.4% support nationally.
And just 3.3% and 2.7% backing in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, respectively.
And what did... Well, okay, so that's the average.
That's fair.
But Tulsi Gabbard, at least, has gotten a 6% nationwide from Boston Globe Suffolk.
I think Tulsi is going to get a lot from this.
People are going to look at it and say, you know what?
Let's be real.
This is what Tulsi's doing.
But let's check out... I think I might have a more...
Okay, so the email from Kamala Harris is basically what I already read.
That she's not a billionaire.
She can't fund my own campaign.
I can't fund my own campaign.
And as it goes on, it becomes harder and harder.
But I'll tell you what.
You can't fund your own campaign because nobody wants to fund your own campaign.
If you're a popular individual, people will donate money.
But you're not.
So the reality is, yes, technically it's because she has no money.
But in reality, it's because people don't like her.
And that's really it.
People like Bernie.
Bernie's raised like $65 million.
Good for him.
But I got some memes.
I want to show you some stuff.
Think about this.
Michael Tracy notes, quote, She's probably the frontrunner at this point, folks.
Nate Silver on Kamala Harris, January 29, 2019.
What could have possibly happened?
Kamala Harris the frontrunner, Nate Silver says.
He's 5'38".
Something happened.
I know what happened, and so do you all.
Tracy then notes, Kamala is seen as super formidable because the media says she's super formidable.
I love how they pretend they have no role in shaping perceptions, especially this early in the process.
Michael goes on to add, this is from September.
Oh, these are all from September, mind you.
This is from a while ago.
The early hype around Kamala was a product of the media projecting onto her, because she was in line with their sensibilities for who the Democratic nominee should be.
But of course, none of them would admit that was a factor in their baseless prognosticating.
Someone else says, there was an era where she existed in the same or higher tier in Nate's tiered presidential rankings over Bernie.
Michael says, yep, that was also the era when Nate routinely placed Bernie in the same tier as Mayor Pete.
And Bernie, if you're gonna ask me, is the real frontrunner.
He's the real frontrunner because of base fundraising, but we'll see.
But you might be wondering.
Some of you are probably saying, Tim, I don't know what happened to knock Kamala Harris out of that frontrunner position.
Well, first, maybe Nate Silver is just wrong.
But we've all seen it.
Here's Will Chamberlain tweeting at the New York Times when they said breaking Senator Kamala Harris is out.
Will Chamberlain's response, thank you, Tulsi Gabbard.
And I must confess, he is correct.
Yes, indeed.
Tulsi Gabbard, it was that moment at the debate when she said you kept people in prison beyond their sentences.
You locked up people who smoked weed and then laughed about it when you were asked.
I haven't seen the video.
But I was reading that she was talking, Kamala Harris, about imprisoning single mothers who can't keep their kids in school and laughed about it.
She is an awful person.
She is a snooty, elitist authoritarian.
And Tulsi Gabbard gave her a nice little 1-2-3, and that was the moment when everything started to fall apart for Kamala.
I don't think Tulsi is solely responsible.
I think Kamala is.
I think she's a bad candidate.
But after that moment, I was so happy, I'm so grateful to have supported and contributed to Tulsi's campaign, to make sure she's on that debate stage, when she took down her, and not only that, when Tulsi threw some mud over at Hillary Clinton being rot personified.
I know that when Tulsi came out and insulted Hillary Clinton, I gotta admit, I'm not usually the person to fall for emotional satisfaction.
I always complain about that, saying we should be pragmatic and focus on how to actually win.
But I gotta say, man, Tulsi has delivered that emotional satisfaction for everybody!
Except their supporters, obviously.
If you're on the left and you're a progressive and you saw what Tulsi did, and this is what blows my mind, it's like, come on, man.
Like the Young Turks, you gotta recognize Tulsi slinging that mud at Kamala and Hillary was amazing!
You don't have to, like, the left should be on board, you don't gotta, you don't gotta vote for her, you don't gotta do that, but you can at least say, like, yes, she's targeting the crony authoritarian awful people.
But, I now bring you to probably the most poignant tweet.
I was actually impressed with the succinctness of what the Daily Wire had to say about Kamala Harris and her campaign.
Truly, a sign of great intellect and insight.
Unfortunately for you on the podcast, you're gonna miss this one, but There it is!
So, uh, if you're just listening, you missed the joke, but it's, uh, it's the meme of someone pushing someone else off a building and it says, Tulsi Gabbard and Kamala Harris.
And then we have this tweet from Siraj Hashmi.
And yes, it's Tulsi Gabbard in that meme of all of the black dudes going, oh, then the guy's like, you know, got his hands on his head and it's Tulsi in the middle.
I'm about to end Kamala Harris's whole career.
And there's another one with her wearing a crown.
Yup.
She done did it.
So he said, Kamala Harris drops out of the race, and then it's a video of Tulsi Gabbard playing the ukulele in the airport.
So yeah, I think it's fair to point out, Tulsi Gabbard did play a big role.
And that's one of the most important things, man.
Listen.
The cronies were not going to come out as hard as they did.
They weren't going to speak truth about the authoritarian, abusive powers these people want to do.
Name somebody who came out and called out Hillary Clinton for what she was.
Tulsi did that.
Much respect.
Much respect.
Tulsi's fantastic.
But now we get it!
From Lauren Duca.
Kamala Harris officially ended her campaign today, which means that all of the candidates who currently qualify for the December Democratic debates are white.
Sanders, Warren, Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Steyer.
White supremacy is not just a Fox News problem, folks.
And there it is!
Your glorious finale hot take, like an explosion of fireworks in the sky.
We couldn't just leave being satisfied that the authoritarian monster that is Kamala Harris is out!
And also, you know, Yang and Tulsi and Booker might still qualify.
I'm rooting for them.
I want to see them on the debate stage.
And I think they should, but also...
We're going to see Harris's support split up now, and guess what?
Among those candidates.
That's what's really fascinating.
And if you trust Nate Silver, he says that when polled, those candidates are basically who Harris's voters would end up supporting after the fact.
Now that she's out, it's about 3-4% of the electorate that's going to go to other people.
Probably won't move the needle too much.
But we'll see what happens.
But there you have it.
What a rollercoaster this has been.
Kamala Harris is out, everybody starts making memes about Tulsi Gabbard, one pushing her off a building, and then we can't finish without Lauren Duca chiming in claiming it is white supremacy!
Yes, that's it.
But I will leave it there.
What a fun day.
Stick around, I've got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
I think the problem among men on the left is they don't try to understand conservatives or, more importantly, Trump supporters.
And there's a difference between a general conservative who supports Trump and a Trump supporter who may actually not be conservative.
There are certainly moderate individuals who became hardcore Trump supporters for a variety of reasons.
There were even Bernie supporters who went to support Trump.
But now I see this and I look at it and I'm like, you know, I really do get why people like this guy.
Quote, would you like some nice ISIS fighters?
Donald Trump taunts Emmanuel Macron over captured terrorists in Syria after ripping him for nasty NATO comments.
But French President slaps back, let's be serious and spars on Turkey and Russia.
You see, Donald Trump was sitting down, I believe this was live, Reporters all around with Emmanuel Macron of France and someone asked him about ISIS fighters and Trump turns to Macron and says, want some?
Want some?
I'll give them to you because we're not taking them.
In an apparent jab at the fact that many European nations are welcoming some of these people back.
So now, yes, I can understand.
I mean, look, I get it, right?
Let me stop here.
Obama, he did the apology tour.
That's how it was framed by many conservatives.
You get Trump and he's the exact opposite of that.
He's the in-your-face, troll-you-on-TV-in-front-of-all-of-the-reporters president.
And I can understand why that's probably emotionally satisfying.
To see someone put these people in their place, knocking them down a few pegs, I can understand that.
Personally, I laugh at it.
I do.
Because I don't think the world's gonna end.
I think we're in this period, you know, Trump will be the president for a while and eventually, you know, he'll leave, someone else will come in.
But, you know, these people on the left think like this is the end of the world.
It's like, dude, you've got one president who's rough and off-the-cuff and crude and crass and makes jokes and troll people.
Calm down!
Live a little bit.
Laugh a little bit.
It's not the end of the world.
Trump is a silly guy.
I think it's inappropriate, but I get why it's funny.
I have a sense of humor.
Let's read this story.
President Donald Trump needled French President Emmanuel Macron over a heated dispute about accepting captured ISIS fighters, offering to, quote, give them to you after kicking off meetings in London with an attack on his nasty comments about NATO.
Seated alongside Macron on his first day of meetings here, Trump took a dig at Macron for France and other European nations being reluctant to accept nationals from their own countries who joined the fight alongside ISIS terrorists.
Trump turned to his counterpart and asked, would you like some nice ISIS fighters?
I could give them to you.
The moment came hours after Trump had blasted Macron for previous comments that NATO was suffering brain death.
Although the two leaders appeared to patch things up afterwards.
You know, it's banter.
It's not the end of the world.
I'm sure both Trump and Macron have much more to worry about, and after the fact, probably don't care.
But certainly it makes for great political world wrestling entertainment.
Trump made his remark about ISIS after pressing France to accept the return of more of its countrymen and women and pledging they were currently being held under lock and key.
Quote, we have a tremendous amount of captured fighters, ISIS fighters over in Syria, and they are all under lock and key, but many are from France.
Okay, so let me correct what I said.
He's saying they should be taking back if it's their people.
Many from Germany, and many are from the UK.
They're mostly from Europe, and some of the countries are agreeing.
I have not spoken to the president about that.
Would you like some nice ISIS fighters?
I can give them to you.
You can take everyone you want, Trump quipped.
That drew a caution from Macron.
Or is it Macrone?
I don't know how to pronounce the guy's name.
Let's be serious, the French leader scolded, before outlining his own position.
It is true you have a current fighters coming from Europe, but it's a minority problem of the overall problem we have.
And I think the number one priority, because it is not yet finished, is to get rid of ISIS, Macron lectured, as Trump listened to a translation of his remarks.
Trump has previously declared victory over ISIS, only to say a contingent of US forces would remain.
And it is not done.
I'm sorry to say that, Macron told him.
Your number one problem are not the foreign fighters, it is the ISIS fighters in the region.
And you have more and more of these fighters due to the situation today.
Yeah, but come on, let's be real.
There absolutely are people being radicalized in Europe and heading down.
It doesn't mean, like, you know, it's always a deflection we see.
And it doesn't matter if you're left or right.
When someone points out a problem, the response is, but it's not the biggest problem.
Yeah, I get it, man.
We can talk about problems without them being the biggest problem in the world.
That's why I typically don't fault people who constantly talk about Trump while I constantly talk about, you know, the Democrats.
Because we focus on the problems we think are important.
It doesn't mean they're any less important.
They could be, maybe.
The point is, if Trump wants to bring up a point by all means go and do it.
But there's another story I wanted to get to because Trump had this trip talking about NATO and it's one I really don't get and it's really weird.
Jeremy Corbyn vows to confront Donald Trump at Buckingham Palace tonight after the president rubbished his NHS claims saying he would not want to seize health service if it were served on a silver platter.
This one is really strange to me.
Apparently there's a rumor going around because of like some fake document or some leaked document, I don't know, claiming that in response, so it was talking about a trade deal between the US and Great Britain That after Brexit, Britain can do a deal with the U.S.
and apparently said something about the National Health Service, I think that's what it means, in the U.K.
being on the table that Trump would want to, you know, give private, you know, American companies access to the NHS or something.
It sounds so weird.
It just came out of nowhere.
All of a sudden, Jeremy Corbyn, who apparently is like some overt anti-Semite, is saying things like, they're going to come and take our health care away.
And it's like, wait, what?
I never heard that.
Where did that come from?
Apparently Trump said the same thing.
He says, I don't know what you're talking about.
Why would the United States want access to NHS?
Trump probably thinks NHS is trash.
It doesn't have anything to do with it.
And that's what he said.
So apparently, he was asked.
And he said, we wouldn't touch it if you handed it to us on a silver platter.
It had nothing to do with that.
So now, and here's probably the point, Jeremy Corbyn is going to confront Donald Trump.
Yep.
Fake news.
I think the anti-Brexit, the Remainers, they're trying to drum up a scare tactic against those who would leave Brexit by claiming, if we leave Brexit, Donald Trump's going to swoop in and take away your healthcare.
And as an American, I am confused by that because that's not come up literally anywhere.
And this is a UK news source, Daily Mail.
So I certainly have no idea what they're talking about.
And let me tell you, I read the news nonstop all day, every day, and I've heard nothing of this.
But I'll tell you what, didn't stop protesters, apparently, from showing up, saying keep your tiny hands off our NHS.
What?
Trump hasn't come out and been like, we've got to intervene in the UK's healthcare system?
That literally is so weird.
Why would we do that?
That doesn't make sense.
We have a for-profit system.
For the most part, we make money doing it.
What's the motivation for meddling in a foreign government's healthcare system?
It just came out of nowhere.
So now you get all these protesters.
Trump hands off our NHS.
What?
You know what, man?
Fine.
It's possible.
It's real.
Maybe they discuss it, but I'll just tell you what, man.
There's such little information about this.
I can't say I'm shocked to see a bunch of anti-Trump remainers saying, stop Trump.
UK, they're protesting Donald Trump.
This is the most mind-blowing absurdity to me.
They're so easily led by fake news that you've literally convinced British people to protest the American president claiming that he wants to take their health care away?
What is this?
And so, surprise surprise, Jeremy Corbyn is vowing to confront Trump.
Man, Trump really is the bad orange man that even the UK can use him to drum up support for remaining.
The Daily Mail reports, Jeremy Corbyn vowed to confront Donald Trump at Buckingham Palace tonight after the U.S.
president took a wrecking ball to his claims the U.S.
wants to seize the NHS.
Think about that for two seconds.
It's ridiculous.
The Labour leader said he will warn the president public services are not for sale.
What is this?
At a NATO reception being hosted by the Queen later.
The threat comes despite Trump moving to kill the veteran left-winger's main election attack line by flatly dismissing the idea he wants a post-Brexit trade deal to open up the health service to American companies and push up drug prices.
Speaking as he ran the gauntlet of a NATO summit in London, Mr. Trump insisted the U.S.
wouldn't touch the NHS if you gave it to us on a silver platter.
This evening, world leaders started to arrive at Buckingham Palace, where they will be hosted by the Queen to mark 70 years of the NATO alliance.
Despite initially saying he had no thoughts on the UK ballot, Mr. Trump also lavished praise on Boris Johnson for doing a great job and made clear he had always supported Brexit.
And it was funny, too, because when asked, Trump was like, I shouldn't get involved in the election, but you know I like Brexit and Boris Johnson's doing a great job.
And it's like, OK, dude, you didn't have to, you know, issue that disclaimer that you shouldn't, but then you did.
Well, that's why he said it, I guess.
People are also commenting about how he was asked if he supports the protesters in Iran, and he goes, I shouldn't comment about that.
But no.
But I shouldn't comment.
It's like, he just, okay, dude.
The dramatic spat came as Mr. Corbyn tries to weaponize the president's arrival as he desperately works to claw back the Tories' poll advantage.
A poll today found the conservatives are 12 points ahead.
Enough for a comfortable majority.
So clearly, Corbyn is lying to people to make them think, for some reason, Americans are going to come and do something with NHS.
That's ridiculous in so many ways.
It's like literally trying to paint Trump as like a mustache twirling villain, who for no reason wants to increase your medication prices.
Why would the United States do such ridiculous absurdity?
And you know what, man?
Yeah, surprise, surprise.
Protesters believed it.
These people believe anything, you know?
Look, it's possible.
I'll get it.
But there's no evidence to support, and it's such a weird thing to claim is gonna happen.
Whatever, man.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in just a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Newark is suing New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio over sending homeless families to New Jersey.
Why?
New York City seems to have found a way to solve its homeless problem, exporting them on one-way trips to other states.
Because the reality is, they have no solution.
So I want to talk about this New York exporting.
Latest update, Newark is suing.
But I want to talk about the wealth tax and Bernie Sanders' proposal.
I tweeted this last month, when Bernie Sanders says taxing Bill Gates could end homelessness.
Wrong!
Y'all don't understand homelessness.
If you think you can throw money at it to do something about it.
New York couldn't figure it out, so they just load him up on buses and ship him out.
California does literally nothing.
So now Newark is suing.
Let's read the story.
Newark is taking Bill de Blasio to court to stop a controversial program that sends homeless families to live in often uninhabitable conditions in New Jersey.
New court records show.
The special one-time assistance pro— Oh, it's an assistance program!
That's right.
Man, if you live in New York, just remember, you're paying for this.
And you know what?
with a full year's worth of rent paid up front.
More than 2,200 families have been placed in 62 New Jersey towns, with 1,198 in Newark
alone.
Man, if you live in New York, just remember, you're paying for this.
And you know what?
Many of the homeless come right back a year later.
But local officials say some of these families end up in decrepit conditions, with no heat,
hot water, collapsed ceilings, or mice infestations.
In East Orange NJ, Advance Media reported that at least 14 families were placed in eight properties that were illegally rented and never passed legal inspections.
New York has continued to send people despite us having several discussions about our problems with their program.
Newark's corporation counsel Kenyatta Stewart said, we need to get a judge involved so they can stop shipping people to Newark.
Avery Cohen, Deputy Press Secretary for de Blasio, said the administration was reviewing the filing.
Homeless families and individuals have the right to seek housing where they can afford it.
And attacking their ability to do so amounts to nothing short of income-based discrimination, Cohen said in a statement.
We will review the complaint and take appropriate action.
Oh, please!
You could set up housing in New York City.
You're not doing it.
You're exporting the homeless.
We know what you're doing.
So it's no surprise to me that you get these, you know, de Blasio, New York.
New York is being run to the ground.
Their infrastructure is crumbling.
AOC just cost them 25,000 jobs.
And now here we are.
This ongoing scandal is horrifying and nightmarishly dystopian.
And unfortunately, what do we get from the progressives who think they're going to offer up solutions?
Bernie Sanders tweeted this.
Say Bill Gates was actually taxed $100 billion.
First, Bill Gates doesn't have $100 billion.
Bill Gates is worth $100 billion.
How much cash he actually has, I don't know.
I'm sure it's a lot in the tens of millions, maybe in the hundreds of millions, but billions is very different.
We could end homelessness, wrong, and provide safe drinking water to everyone in this country.
Yes, the water one, yes.
Bill would still be a multi-billionaire.
Our message, the billionaire class cannot have it all when so many have so little.
Bernie, this is what I can't stand.
You used to be such a principled guy.
Now you just lie into people about how wealth works and that's not the way it works and you can't do what you're talking about.
Yes, if we had a hundred billion dollars in cash, we could afford to fix drinking water.
We could not end homelessness, because homelessness is caused by so many other things.
But let me just talk about this wealth tax.
You know, because I love to mention this.
Bernie.
Bill Gates's value is tied up in assets.
You can't sell those assets unless there's demand.
The value is based on the current level of demand, and there has to be somebody who wants to buy it.
If Bill Gates, Bezos, and whoever else dumped all of their stocks, it would crush the demand because the demand would be met, in which case the value of those stocks would collapse, and Bill Gates would not be worth hundreds of billions of dollars.
We are not talking about cash here.
The other issue is you might be legally forbidden from selling this.
The wealth tax makes literally no sense.
Did you know corporate bylaws for many of these corporations say you can't sell the stock because it could destroy the company?
Yes.
So you have value.
You can't tax someone on something they can't sell.
People might want to buy it, but they might say I can only sell X. Or it has to be voted on by the company.
You know, it's such a silly thing.
But let me show you my thread.
Okay?
My thread on homelessness.
And we'll wrap it back up to New York and what New York is doing.
My response.
Bernie has a fundamental misunderstanding about value trade and wealth.
You can't end homelessness with money.
Source.
I was a fundraising director at a homeless shelter.
True facts.
Some people want to be homeless.
Some people are mentally ill.
Money does not guarantee supply either.
Let me tell you about homelessness.
I spent some time up in Seattle.
There are many people that I met who were homeless by choice.
Some of them enjoyed traveling the country via rail lines, rail hoppers.
Some of them wanted to be part of a community of homeless people who hung out near the university.
And they were friends and they enjoyed it, and the shelters could not stop it.
Eventually, I came to work in a homeless shelter, and they told us, one of the reasons I quit, that they wanted us to pitch that we were at capacity.
That we had these big houses full of children!
These homeless kids were just banging on the door, desperate to get in, but we didn't have the space!
And then I eventually found out that was a lie, that the spaces were rarely occupied.
And there were some long-term shelters that were, but those are like a house, you know, some kids that had their own bedrooms.
And there were some shelters that had beds and they were always empty.
You know why?
I learned that when we would come up to these kids and we would say, how would you like to come and have a place to live and food?
Guess what the kids would say?
No!
They didn't want to do it.
And these were homeless kids.
They didn't want to come, so the shelters were empty.
They didn't want to come.
They wanted to do their thing.
No offerings were enough.
So eventually the shelters decided...
We'll give out food, medicine, you know, non-prescription stuff, just like, you know, painkillers, cold medicine, whatever they could, in low dose.
I'm not talking about drugging kids.
It'd be like, you know, here's some cough syrup, here's a glass, here's some mouthwash, here's some lozenges, and here's some blankets.
And so the kids remained homeless.
And what the homeless shelter ended up doing, for the most part, was just giving resources because the kids would reject it.
Sometimes the kids would come.
And guess what?
They learned there are rules at a homeless shelter?
Oh, you better believe it!
There's a curfew because people don't work there all night so it's like you gotta be back by a certain amount of time otherwise you can't get in.
So guess what ends up happening?
The kids leave.
Unfortunately, some of the kids were actually mentally ill and didn't know or care.
Some of the kids were on drugs and didn't want to be there because they wanted to score.
Money won't solve this problem.
So New York figures it out.
Load them up on a bus and get rid of them because we can't do anything about it.
Well, that's the problem.
Look, I can't tell you how to solve this issue, but I think part of the problem is that people pretend like they want to solve the homeless crisis.
They don't.
Bernie Sanders says, if we had a hundred billion dollars, we'd end homelessness.
How?
How?
Once you tax that wealth, that wealth is gone.
How are you going to sustain that program two years from now?
You're not.
You're not going to end this.
You're going to do what New York did.
We are giving people the option to move where they can afford it.
Yeah, New York gives them money, puts them in a home, and a year later they're homeless again.
But more importantly, what New York is doing and what Newark is saying proves my point.
When I was a kid, I was like 18, okay, so I was an adult, I said, look at all the empty houses we got!
Why can't we just put a homeless person in an empty house?
It's so dumb, right?
Yeah, it sounds simple.
Until you realize when you do that, the houses fall apart, no one maintains them, and then the homeless people end up living with no heat, no electricity, the house is collapsing and hurting people, and that's what Newark is saying.
They're being put in conditions that can't be, you know, upkept.
But I bring up another point in this Twitter thread.
I want to talk about wealth.
I say, all the money in the world cannot get you a direct suborbital flight from LA to New York City.
Want to invest in a company to build it?
Okay, a hundred million dollars and five years later the company fails and you lose the money.
Money isn't magic.
The left seems to think that with money you can do anything.
I'm going to tell you something, man.
You could be the richest person in the world, and guess what?
It's still going to take you the same amount of time to get from New York to D.C.
This is a story I tell people.
There was this individual I know who was really wealthy, and I saw him in... I'm going to leave out as much details as possible because I don't want to put pressure on him or anything.
But I was talking to them, and we were in a different city outside of New York, and I said, I was like, so what'd you do, you fly first class here?
And he laughed and said, dude, I am so far above that.
And I laughed, and I was like, private plane?
And he was like, oh, no, no, no, no, I was kidding, I took a train here.
And I started laughing, I was like, you took a train?
It's in East Coast City.
And he was like, yeah, it's faster.
And I was like, man, he's right.
And that was an important point, man, because think about it.
Let's say you have 100 million bucks.
Let's say you have a billion dollars.
Oh yeah, you can buy a helicopter.
So yeah, sure.
You can take a helicopter to get to the airport, save you 20-30 minutes.
Yeah, okay, that I understand.
But what if you want to get from L.A.
to Sacramento?
What's the fastest way to do it?
I had to tell you.
But Mythbusters did a test where they were like, driving is actually faster than flying from L.A.
to San Francisco because the rule is, Any flight that's five hours or more and you're better off driving.
And that's the fact.
So the reason I bring up suborbital flight from L.A.
to N.Y.C.
is because there's been talk about rocket planes.
I knew one company.
It doesn't exist anymore.
And they were proposing Los Angeles to London.
In like two hours, the rocket plane takes off and then flies at supersonic speeds in orbit, just outside the atmosphere, and then glides back down.
Couple hours!
You're LA to London!
That's crazy!
That's like, what, an eight or nine hour flight cut down to two hours?
But guess what?
No matter how much money you have, you're not getting it.
Money isn't magic.
Not only that, there are certain technologies that exist that aren't in mass production.
Can that be converted into the infrastructure to help the homeless?
No!
This is the problem with Bernie and these other far leftists, is they're like, free college!
Money isn't magic!
Money's not gonna make a college appear to accommodate the massive influx of students now that everyone has access to it.
So what ends up happening is, when you say free college, okay, then the same amount of people go to college, and everyone else is complaining they're on a wait list.
There aren't enough colleges, there aren't enough hospitals, there aren't enough services, they don't exist, and having money won't make them exist.
You can use the money to start building the infrastructure.
But if it's not sustainable, it will collapse.
So here we go!
New York City figured it out.
Ship them off.
That's the only solution they could come up with.
I'm being facetious.
They didn't figure it out.
They figured out nothing.
They figured out how to just pretend like the problem doesn't exist.
Well, the problem is, we have a problem in this country with either ignoring, not caring about, or pretending to care.
It's about time we actually try to come up with real solutions.
I know there are people out there that are trying.
