Democrats Childish OUTBURSTS Prove They Are Losing To Trump, Joe Biden Calls Voter FAT And LIAR
Democrats Childish OUTBURSTS Prove They Are Losing To Trump, Joe Biden Calls Voter FAT And LIAR. At a recent event Joe Biden was challenged by an 84 year old voter over his son hunter Biden's roll in Burisma. Joe snapped calling the man a liar and going on to say "look fat." Many people took that as Joe insulting the man. Others said it may have been a gaffe.But it is not just Joe BidenNancy Pelosi recently went off on a journalist who asked her if she hated Trump. The question was completely legitimate as republicans have made the point that the Democrats just hate Donald Trump.What we are seeing is the anger phase. They know impeachment is a losing battle, they know Trump is the favorite for reelection in 2020 and now they know they made a massive mistake by pushing impeachment in the first place.They are setting Trump up for a clean landslide and they can only do one thing at this point.Freak out in anger and take it out on others.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
At a campaign rally, Joe Biden shocked and outraged that he was asked by an 84-year-old man about the activities of his son in Burisma, called the man a liar, and then proceeded to call him fat.
I don't understand why he did that.
It doesn't quite make sense.
Some people have argued it was a gaffe, but he did say, look fat, and then went on to deride the man calling him a liar.
I was shocked to see establishment Democrat professional politician Joe Biden lose his cool like this.
I mean, you got to understand.
This question about Hunter Biden is a mainstream question, and the Democrats are the one who made it mainstream.
Nobody knew about Donald Trump's phone call.
Nobody knew Donald Trump wanted to know what was going on with Hunter Biden and Burisma.
The Democrats decided to impeach.
And now it's in the face of Joe Biden.
When he goes to the debate stage, you know this question will come up.
If he gets nominated, Trump will not stop talking about the corruption.
But he couldn't handle a simple question from a voter at a rally?
It's shocking to me, but it says something.
Trump really has rattled cages, man.
Trump has caused such shock for the Democrats, sheer desperation, that they're freaking out.
During the impeachment hearings with Adam Schiff, there was one point where he got really angry.
I noticed there were some left-wing journalists saying like, whoa, Adam Schiff is losing his cool on this one.
Because it seems the impeachment narrative was fumbling, falling apart.
We then saw Nancy Pelosi just the other day say, don't mess with me, to a journalist.
Getting outraged, she walks away from the podium, turns around in fury and starts condemning and yelling at this person.
Later insulting the journalist on CNN, saying, oh, was he a journalist?
Oh, is that a news outlet?
Deriding this guy.
And she's done this before.
In recent months, the Democrats have been getting more and more angry.
And I think it's because they know they're losing.
You see, the Democratic establishment is facing a battle on two fronts.
The progressive left, as well as the Trumpian right, or just conservatives.
It's not just about the Democrats losing their cool over Trump's attack on the swamp.
We recently saw an event where a white guy wearing a Black Lives Matter sweater To the point where Adam Schiff crossed a line.
Pete Buttigieg event. These were black supporters of Buttigieg, Buttigieg being a more moderate
establishment type candidate. These Democrats are at war on both fronts and it's driving
them insane to the point where Adam Schiff crossed a line.
Let me show you what desperation looks like. Adam Schiff subpoenaing phone records of his
chief political rival in the impeachment inquiry and a private U.S.
journalists.
And I have a quote here from the Wall Street Journal, but here's what I want to do.
The real story today is an op-ed from CNN.
Donald Trump was elected to break the elite.
Of course they want to impeach him.
I want to talk to you, starting with this story, I want to read you this op-ed, which is amazing, CNN published it.
Trump is winning.
He was brought in to break the elite.
And it's working.
Trump wasn't necessarily brought in, by everybody, to be a great leader.
And that's a fact, whether anyone wants to accept it or not.
Many people voted for Trump because they knew he would disrupt the system that was broken.
That he would challenge these people to their core, and he's done it.
And now we can see what really happens.
Trump asked a simple question of a Ukrainian president.
In desperation, the Democrats launch an impeachment inquiry.
This brings the story front and center and the biggest stress end effect we've seen yet.
And an 84-year-old man, who is just outraged that Joe Biden's son would have this job, is insulted.
Joe Biden snapped.
Lost his cool.
Because the Democrats are breaking down.
Because Trump was brought in to break the elite, and it worked.
Before we move on with this story, head over to timcast.com.
If you'd like to support my work, there are several ways you can give it the best thing you can do.
Share this video if you think I do a good job.
It really, really does help.
The other thing is, this video and all of my segments appear as a podcast every day on all podcast platforms.
Spotify, Google, Apple.
Go subscribe.
That helps too.
Let's read this story, surprisingly, from CNN.
Scott Jennings writes, When the global elite are aligned against him and laughing like the immature cool kids you hated in middle school, President Donald Trump is winning.
When the liberal law professors are neglecting their Thanksgiving turkeys to read congressional transcripts and snarking about Trump's 13-year-old son, Trump is winning.
When the politicians are mad, so mad that they shut down all policymaking to impeach the President of the U.S.
on what constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley called wafer-thin evidence, Trump is winning.
And let me add one more thing.
When Joe Biden snaps at a voter, when Nancy Pelosi snaps at a reporter, when Adam Schiff violates civil liberties and privacy rights by obtaining surreptitiously the phone records of his political rivals and a journalist, you better believe Trump is winning.
Schiff must be truly desperate to do such an egregious violation of civil rights.
Let me make something clear for you before we go on with Schiff.
The subpoena power of Congress is to help them in legislative efforts.
The subpoenas he issued were before there was an impeachment.
And he targeted a private U.S.
journalist.
He published their details.
Yes, they are desperate.
They are desperate beyond all recognition.
Jennings writes, You see, I want to go back to what he said about liberal law professors.
Now, this is a point I made several times, but we have new breaking information.
or to become one of them.
He was elected to break them.
And that's apparently what he's done.
You see, I want to go back to what he said about liberal law professors.
Now, this is a point I made several times, but we have new breaking information.
You see, today, the November jobs report came out.
266.
266,000 jobs were added.
Unemployment at a 50-year low, 3.5%.
Wage growth reaching 3.1%.
This is explosive.
Even CNN TV ran a segment saying, this is huge.
These numbers are fantastic.
Why is the economy growing and doing so well?
Did you know that we added 54,000 manufacturing jobs in the November report?
What do you think happens when the American people get news like this?
That whether you like the guy's character or not, Donald Trump's plan is really helping create jobs and bolster the economy.
And then you see snooty liberal elites snarking on TV, talking about their opinions on why the orange man is bad.
I don't think you're going to win this one.
I think you're proving exactly why Donald Trump was brought in in the first place.
To some, he was the savvy businessman, the art of the deal, who was gonna do a great deal, the best deal.
You know, we'll have the best deal ever.
And sure enough, the House Democrats haven't even voted on it.
But Trump made that deal, USMCA.
That's what many people saw him as.
I think still many people see him as a bad character, but...
Some people saw that bad character and said, this is what we need to push back on the encroaching political correctness and moral authoritarianism.
And others said, Trump is just a madman.
Yep, Trump is a madman.
And they voted for him.
You know why?
Because they knew he would disrupt the establishment elites.
He would send them spinning and reeling and frustrated and angry.
And he's done all of those things.
The economy is good.
He has pushed back on political correctness, and now he's got these top establishment Democrats in full-on panic mode.
Let's read a little bit more of this story.
He says, After Wednesday's House Judiciary Committee hearing featuring three liberal law professors on Thursday's announcement by Speaker Pelosi that her conference is moving forward with impeachment, the die is cast.
Donald Trump will be the third president in American history to be impeached by the House of Representatives.
And honestly, That's just fine with Trump supporters.
What better evidence is there that you've shaken Washington to its core when the minders of a system you've come to despise are leveling the gravest punishment the system permits against the very president who is doing the shaking up?
You can lawyer this to death.
But for many Americans, this comes down to a simple observation.
Trump said he was going to rattle their cages, and by golly, they seem rattled.
I'm going to say it one more time.
Joe Biden called a guy fat.
Joe Biden called an 84-year-old man who was concerned about what he heard on the TV fat and a liar.
It's shocking that Biden lost it like this.
Trump has— Look, man, what you really gotta understand, I often rail on the political correctness PR machine of this world.
That you know no matter what happens, you know, some spokesperson's gonna come out and give you some lie.
Today we did X, Y, and Z. We look forward to resolving this issue, and it's all BS.
You know, there'll be some big scandal.
Lie.
That includes the president, okay, and his spokespeople in the press.
You know they're giving you the PR lie, not telling you the truth.
But what Trump has done simultaneously as someone who is considered to be dishonest but also the most honest president in history, that's coming from the intercept.
It's resulting in these institutional norms and this pomp and this fake air of elitism.
It's fallen apart.
Joe Biden calling a dude fat is like, that to me is when you see the damn broke.
Joe Biden snapped.
Now, I also want to add, as an aside, Joe Biden inappropriately touches little girls, but that's something else.
Let's read on.
Jennings writes, Trump supporters have known since election night that this day would eventually come after all his sworn enemies have been openly promising it since before he was sworn into office.
They've used words like resistance, coup, insurance policy, and impeachment so often that now they're actually doing it.
Now that they're actually doing it, the American people, and Republicans especially, are offering a collective yawn.
That's right.
CNN's ratings hit a three-year low.
I covered that this morning on my second channel.
A three-year low.
Donald Trump stands at 90% approval among the Republicans in the last Gallup poll.
But there won't be massive convulsions in public opinion, because everyone has known for three years what was going to happen.
Sure, some Democrats gamely argue that Pelosi didn't really want to go through with it, but she had to out of a sense of duty to the Constitution.
But it's a half-hearted argument at best.
It's true that Pelosi had no choice, although it's not because of the Constitution.
Rather, her party's left flank and their inflamed grassroots activists overwhelmed her.
This is a one-sided partisan impeachment.
Actually, technically that's true.
But Jeff Van Drew, a Democrat from New Jersey, announced that he will not be supporting, he will not be voting for articles of impeachment.
That means there is bipartisan support to oppose the impeachment.
It shows you one important story.
If the Democrats can't convince their own party members to support impeachment, then what hope do they have to convince the rest of America?
None.
And you know where this brings us?
Same old story.
I apologize for this.
I really am sorry.
I mean this sincerely.
I talk about the backfiring of impeachment so much that it seems like a moot point.
That we get it.
Every day, impeachment is just going to hurt the Democrats more and more.
Why should we even talk about it?
The reality is, There's more data.
And the media and several journalists are desperately trying to spin this in their favor.
But no, I'm sorry.
Brad Parscale, campaign manager for Donald Trump for his next campaign, has just shown us more data proving or providing evidence to suggest the Democrats' impeachment was a disaster.
Check this out.
Parscale writes, Nancy Pelosi is marching members of her caucus off the plank and into the abyss.
Impeachment is killing her freshman members and polling proves it.
Here's data on Rep.
Kendra Horn, a Democrat from Oklahoma's 5th.
More to come on other members soon.
Say goodbye to your Majority Nancy.
We see this.
To Brad Carskill, per your request, we have begun identifying GOP pick-up opportunities in the 2020 election where the incumbent Democrats' support for impeachment will further weaken their current standing.
They say, Kendra Horne starts a 2020 race at a distinct disadvantage as voters favor the GOP candidate in the generic ballot by 7 points.
A woman, a Democrat, who won a Trump district is now at a 7 point disadvantage.
Naturally, people on the left are trying to spin this as a victory.
But let me correct the record for you.
Mollie Knight is a sports journalist, and she has the top reply.
Probably because I follow her.
I think she's alright.
But she said this.
That district went plus 14 to Trump, and you're saying 45% now want him impeached?
I think we're going to see more moderate Democrats come out opposing impeachment, voting against it, and saying, we should have been working on kitchen table issues.
But it's too late.
Jeff Van Drew played it right.
He's a Democrat from New Jersey's 2nd District who said, I will not support this.
Unless some new information comes out, there's nothing here to impeach the president.
When it came to Pelosi's statement, he said again, nope, I'm not going to vote for it.
He might still lose.
He might still lose.
You know why people in these districts voted for Trump?
I'm sorry, voted for Democrats?
Balance.
Bringing some challenge to Trump and his authority and not to impeach him.
Just to work on issues that they thought were important that Republicans hadn't gotten done.
Let's be real.
Republicans had the House.
They did not do much of what the American people wanted.
And there was a lot of criticism over Republicans not getting the job done, not funding the wall, for instance.
Now the Democrats have it.
And all they've done is investigate.
They've done nothing to help anybody.
And you can see when it comes to Pelosi and Biden and Schiff, they're not talking about issues that people care about.
They're not voting on, you know, for Pelosi and the House Democrats, they're not voting on USMCA.
So what are they doing?
Complaining.
But this brings me to the next and last bit of this segment.
Donald Trump challenged the elites.
It wasn't just the political elites, it was the cultural elites.
And we can see what happens.
The establishment Democrats are fighting with these people as well, with the far leftists.
In what may be one of the strangest breakdowns of the left, a white man wearing a Black Lives Matter shirt took the microphone away from a black woman and started yelling at them.
This story from NBC.
Booty judge slams disruption of black supporters rally that turned into chaos.
It shows kind of where politics has come to.
The South Bend mayor and 2020 candidate told NBC News about the incident.
NBC News has a video, and there's the thumbnail.
A white man stealing the microphone.
In fact, a black elderly woman stood up with her cane, about to swing at him.
Complete and total breakdown.
The left and the Democrats are fighting.
The Democrats are fighting off Trump, and I think the Democrats are going to lose.
It's probably why they're so angry.
You see, when it came to 2016, Trump was brought in to challenge the elites, but so was Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders was too tepid.
He was too weak.
He lost.
And now he's still here fighting.
They don't like him, but he's got his foot in the door.
Donald Trump, however, kicked the door in.
He walked right in, and he caused all of these problems for the Democrats, and they are angry about it.
But they're also angry about the far left.
You see, Nancy Pelosi was roped into impeachment.
It was AOC, it was these far leftists, demanding she impeach.
Finally, she caves, and now the moderate Democrats are losing, and will likely lose to Republicans.
This gives us another important bit of information pertaining to the election.
The argument among progressives that by being further to the left, they can win these elections is not true.
When this woman, Kendra Horne for instance, loses her district, it won't be to a far leftist, it will be to a Republican.
And even if they primary these moderates, they will still lose to a Republican.
But let me tell you this.
When you see all the fighting, one thing that gives me hope is that 90% say it's important to reduce the divisiveness.
The problem is, Trump's got a bad attitude.
Trump is going to earn no favors among people who want to end the divisiveness if he keeps saying, you know, mean things and calling people a whore's face or things like that.
But that's less relevant.
I highlight this because I want to at least give you some positive, you know, twist at the end of this.
But the sad reality is, It's going to get worse.
The divisiveness will continue.
The Democrats are losing.
Their anger will increase.
Their desperation will increase.
And we will see the media play the same game.
I want to end you with an aside.
There's a reason why I'm leaving this for the last bit.
And it's because it's not American politics.
UK broadcaster apologizes for misquoting Boris Johnson as saying people of color.
Adam Schiff, in his desperation, published private phone details of John Solomon, an American citizen journalist who is accused of no crime and no wrongdoing.
Why?
We don't know, other than Adam Schiff is so desperate that he would violate these norms and privacy rights.
In response, CNN and others used that out-of-context information to smear John Solomon, to discredit his reporting.
We can see the media playing this game alongside Democrats.
They truly are desperate.
A UK broadcaster had a speech by Boris Johnson.
Now, you may not be familiar with Boris Johnson, but he is a very, very pro-Brexit man.
That's my understanding.
He is more of the, like, you know, right-wing kind of guy.
Trump has praised him.
Boris Johnson said he is all for people of talent coming to their country, but it's got to be done democratically through a process.
People of talent includes everyone.
But a UK broadcaster put a subtitle that said people of color to make it seem like Boris Johnson was saying, well, he does, you know, entertain people of color coming to the country.
He wants the process to restrict some of that.
Just the people of color was not true.
The media machine is out in force to protect the elites.
Now, is it a grand conspiracy?
No, but it is a tribal alignment.
Let me tell you something.
There's not a grand conspiracy where someone's twirling their mustache behind the scenes, shaking hands and saying, here's the plan.
The reality is these journalists are literally the same tribe as these politicians.
They don't need to conspire.
They're one in the same.
The media establishment and the political establishment are one in the same.
The establishment.
In the UK, it's similar.
That means those who support the European Union are going to lie and smear Boris Johnson.
But I do have one more thing for you.
I know I said this was going to be the last one, but there's one more.
What I'm going to show you is going to make you very angry.
This is an image of Donald Tusk of Poland putting his fingers to Trump's back while Trump isn't paying attention.
He says despite seasonal turbulences, our transatlantic friendship must last.
In this image, Tusk is pointing his fingers into Trump's back, and it does look kind of like a threatening gesture.
He's doing something behind Trump's back, and that's it.
That's a very strange thing.
Some people have fanned it off and said it's no big deal, it's a joke.
Others have said he's making a threat to Donald Trump.
Donald Tusk is very, very pro-European Union.
He is one of the establishment elites.
It's all the same game.
So right now, you can see in America when it comes to politics, outrage, fury.
People are breaking down.
And I'll say it again for the millionth time, Joe Biden called a guy fat and called him a liar.
That to me is a breakdown.
Because while Trump is a guy who insults people, we get it.
Biden isn't.
Pelosi, snapping, running back to the podium and yelling at a reporter.
These people are losing it.
Over in Europe, they're putting their fingers to his back while he's not noticing.
And it looks kind of menacing.
Over in Europe, the media puts a fake subtitle to make it seem like Boris Johnson is racist.
Yeah, the establishment is political and it's media.
It's not a deep state.
We don't need to call it a deep state.
We don't need to call it the intelligence community.
The reality is...
In the media, there are dissenters.
Project Veritas has proven that to us.
In the intelligence community, there are dissenters.
I know because I've spoken to some of them.
Not everybody is on board with Orange Man Bad.
The culture war is in every facet.
But there is a status quo establishment with a left-wing bias.
We see it in the UK.
We see it in the US.
Donald Trump was elected to challenge that, and it's working.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all next time.
How is the president faring during impeachment, and how is the media?
Many people have been asking about ratings.
Have the ratings been going up or going down?
They went down a little bit, they went up a little bit.
I got bad news for CNN, though.
CNN's ratings hit a three-year low.
And this is kind of remarkable, considering impeachment is supposed to be this big historical moment.
But right now, CNN, three year low.
At the same time, as we saw these snooty liberal professors who were condescending, you know, not all of them, there was that Turley guy who kind of wishy-washy on his past testimony, fine, whatever.
But you had these liberal elites, Harvard, Ivy League, you know, condescending.
And Trump's approval rating actually is ticking up.
Even in the aggregate, Trump's approval rating is up.
And support for impeachment across the board is down.
Now, before we get into this, I must warn you, I had a root canal yesterday.
So forgive me if I sound a little bit like Biden moving forward, but I take no days off, even when it hurts.
I actually had to get crowns and it's, you know, hey, I'm grateful it happened.
It feels great to finally get, you know, I'm sure as an aside, I got to do this, guys.
Because you're going to notice I'm going to be like swallowing and stuff.
Yeah, it hurts.
And, uh, but hey, I think most of you can recognize, you know, when you finally get that tooth fixed, it just feels so great.
Well, let's, let's, let's get back into politics and stop talking about my teeth.
Cause my teeth suck anyway.
Trump's approval rating ticks up in the face of latest impeachment hearing.
Not only is it up, but according to Rasmussen, which is rather favorable for the president, it's over 52%.
Rasmussen's daily presidential tracking poll showed the president's overall approval rating bumping up to 52% Thursday, a three-point jump from Wednesday's 49% approval.
The number of likely voters who strongly approve of Trump's job performance also saw a bump, rising from 36% to 38% on Thursday.
The president also saw a decline in the number of likely voters who disapprove of his job performance from 50 to 47.
Now, I want to stop here, okay?
This is Rasmussen.
Everybody says they're biased, so I always make sure I do this, because I'm trying to be sane and rational.
I always want to look at the aggregate polling.
Now, one of the challenges with aggregate polling is that they go back even to November 21st to the 24th.
But based on the latest polls we can see, you can see that it's a little uptick.
Now here's the thing.
Normally I don't like commenting on Donald Trump, you know, his approval going up a little bit.
Because you can see there was a massive spike downward.
And there's a reason why I don't typically cover massive downward spikes as opposed to peaks.
This peak right here at 53.3 is the highest.
Or I believe it's just about the second highest.
Or no, it looks like it's the highest.
That's significant.
When Donald Trump's aggregate approval rating is the highest it has ever been, save for when he just got elected, I think that makes sense.
It's relevant.
It's extremely relevant.
Like, whoa!
Not only that, this was September 23rd, when the whole scandal was about to break, or I think it was breaking, and so you had this big—approval was up!
So it goes down, right?
Now I don't think it's so significant that it went down because it's been way lower before.
His approval rating was at 37.6 in December of 2017.
So even though it's going down during impeachment, which I will mention, right?
I don't think it warrants like a whole video.
What's significant right now is that even though his approval rating isn't the highest it's ever been, we just saw this snooty Yale professor, Harvard professors, talking down to people, you know, dragging in Barron Trump into this.
And you know what?
I don't think it was the biggest deal in the world that that Carlin woman invoked Barron, but I do think it was inappropriate and she should have given a cleaner apology for it.
But you can see, she was planning this stupid joke where she's like, Trump can name his son Barron, but he can't make him a Barron.
Oh, please.
We know you're making fun of the kid's name, alright?
Not the biggest thing in the world, but still, inappropriate.
But anyway, amid all of this, Trump's approval just went up a little bit, and this is including these past two polls, the Economist and Rasmussen.
Now, Economist does have Trump a little bit lower, but let's take a look at the more fun news.
Now, they're saying, This impeachment is historic.
That it's supposed to be the biggest deal, you know, ever.
And, you know, Donald Trump's going to have to testify and all this stuff in the Senate because Nancy Pelosi is announcing she's moving forward.
How could it be that with some of the most shocking historical moments swirling around us, CNN's ratings are at a three-year low?
I'll tell you.
It's because most people don't care.
Most people do not care about impeachment.
They don't believe what's going on.
Now, I think it's fair to point out The moderate voters, the independents, were opposing impeachment.
It was around like 39% supported it.
And then after the scandal broke, it went up to like 48.
Since then, it's dropped dramatically, but it's still higher than before the scandal.
So Democrats have made some gains, but what you need to consider is Before the scandals, support and opposition may have been tacit or uninterested.
Like, yeah, sure, you know, impeach the guy.
And after it, you're getting people dug in.
People are saying, I can't believe the insanity, this is a waste of time, why are they doing this?
And now opposition becomes hardened.
So, the other thing I want to show you, let me see if I have this right here, and then we'll read the CNN story, is that Trump impeachment and removal from office, no, has actually gone up, and yes, has actually gone down.
Again, and I want to stress too, These polls are back from the end of November.
But let's read about CNN here.
I got a nice little picture of Brian Stelter.
CNN posted its lowest primetime ratings in three years over the Thanksgiving holidays, while Fox News posted higher ratings than CNN and MSNBC combined.
Not surprising.
Fox News averaged nearly 2.2 million viewers in primetime last week, including 303,000 in the coveted age 25 to 54 demographic, according to Nielsen Media Research.
So let me get this straight.
Hold on.
It's not just that people are sick of impeachment, but that when they are watching, they're watching Fox News.
And Fox News isn't praising the impeachment.
They're opposing it.
I think it's fair to say if CNN's ratings are at a three-year low during impeachment, and they're the orange man bad channel, the average person who's interested in this opposes it.
They say it was CNN's worst primetime week in three years, and its worst week among a 25-54 demographic.
Low ratings come as House Democrats have been conducting hearings on the impeachment of President Donald Trump.
Fox News also topped cable news in total day ratings for the 47th consecutive week, averaging over 1.3 million viewers.
The network also finished first among the 25 to 54 demographic for the 17th consecutive week.
Well, bravo, Fox News!
So let me show you something.
You see, people are asking, how could people still be supporting Donald Trump?
With all the impeachment stuff, well, how could CNN's ratings be down?
How could Donald Trump's approval rating go up?
First, as I said, nobody cares.
The impeachment thing is nonsense.
There's so little here.
And you see that woman, Carlin, she's saying things like, Trump demanded that, you know, this foreign country, get out of here.
There's no proof of any of that.
It's all conjecture and opinion.
Let me show you this tweet.
I love this tweet.
I'm scrolling my Twitter feed, and I see this story from The Nation.
The reasons Republicans are still backing Trump.
And it's a picture of Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump.
And it says in the preview thumbnail for the link, the party Trump has inherited is hell-bent on continuing America's long tradition of racism and imperialism.
Okay, you know what, The Nation?
It's a far-left outlet.
I don't need to click this, because at the exact same time that this went up, 8 seconds, actually, an 8 second difference, at that Trump guy on Twitter tweeted, Breaking!
Jobs report is in.
266,000 new jobs.
Unemployment 50-year low of 3.5%.
Wage growth hits 3.1%.
Thank you, Real Donald Trump.
And I tweeted, fortunately, I didn't need to click the link.
Now let me tell you about reality.
You see, I follow the left and the right.
I follow The Nation, which is a far-left publication.
I want to see what they're talking about.
I follow that Trump guy on Twitter.
I follow Trump supporters and left-wing journalists.
I want to see what everybody's talking about.
I don't want to be trapped in a bubble.
And lo and behold, at the same time The Nation wants to convince you people only support Trump because they're racist, you can see the Trump supporters cheering for the economy.
You have to live in a special kind of nonsense reality if you ignore what the Trump supporters are actually saying.
To me, it's simple.
I look at a Trump supporter, why do you like Trump?
And they're like, the economy!
Woohoo!
New jobs!
Everything's going really great!
Wage growth!
Unemployment's 50 year low!
Sounds like that's why you like the president.
That he's doing a good job on the economy.
Okay, I can respect that.
And then I look to the left and they're like, the real reason is because he's a racist.
But no one said that.
Like the groups of actual, you know, fringe alt-right or whatever.
Not particularly large.
I'll tell you this, man.
I had a friend who asked me why people supported Trump, if there was any reason, if there was one reason.
And I said, there's one reason?
And I'm like, okay.
And this was a couple years ago, mind you.
I said the first, I don't know if you're concerned about national security.
One thing that people have praised Trump on across the board is they feel that the country has been more secure under Trump.
And my friend said to me, do you really think that people care about security?
And I was like, yes, they do.
Like, they freak out about it all the time.
You know, you look to the Twitter feeds of a lot of Trump supporters and they're concerned about terror.
And my friend said to me, I think it's just because they don't like brown people.
And I'm like, but many of them are brown.
Like, have you been to the South?
Have you met some of these Hispanics?
It's not cut and dry.
It's not just the simple black and white reality of angry, mean people who hate the other.
And that's what these people think.
And you know, my friend's a good person.
We had a good conversation.
And I think, as long as, you know, there's a lot of people who aren't exposed to any real Trump supporters, so they make assumptions about what Trump supporters actually believe.
When you actually follow them, you can see it's simple, man.
It's not about Trump and his imperialism.
It's literally that people have jobs again.
I'll tell you something, man.
There was a viral video that I saw a while ago.
And some jobs had reopened in this small, dying town.
Middle-aged white dude was crying to a reporter.
And maybe I'm misremembering, because it's been a while, so try and figure this out.
But it was, I don't want to say he was bawling his eyes, but it was like, from what I remember, and I could be misremembering, mind you, I don't have it pulled up, he was just explaining that he was terrified, his kids weren't going to go to college, he didn't know what he was going to do, and it seemed like his money was running out, everything was falling apart, and then these jobs started coming back after Trump, and he was very grateful to the president.
Well, it's a narrative I've heard many, many times.
And when you look at the jobs reports, it should be very obvious to any good faith actor as to why Trump supporters are happy with Donald Trump.
It's the economy.
You know, you take a look at some of these interviews they've done with people in the Rust Belt, and they'll say things like, I don't like the way Trump talks or tweets.
I can respect that.
I can agree with that.
And I do.
I also have concerns about, you know, Trump's boorish behavior and, you know, tweeting during the impeachment inquiry.
There's so many things Trump could have done better.
However, economy's great.
Economy's great.
And if Trump, I will quote Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks.
If Trump keeps us out of war with Iran, he will be a better president than George W. Bush.
That's what the Young Turks Cenk Uygur said.
I agree.
And Trump, and this was after Trump pulled the troop, he cancelled a strike on Iran.
So, you know, you have all these warmongers saying, go for it, Trump, you know, go declare war.
Trump says no.
So, you know what, I give him respect for that, because I believe you give respect where it's due.
So, look, I'm ambivalent, right?
I think there's bad things about Trump, I think there's good things about Trump, but I will admit this.
In 2016, I laughed when Trump won, saying that the Democrats, you get what you deserve for the shenanigans you played.
Not a big fan of Trump.
I will admit, though, when it comes to the economy and when it comes to certain domestic issues, I am pleasantly surprised.
And so my favorability towards Trump is definitely up from when he first got elected.
But, you know, it's complicated.
I think there's a lot of roadblocks for me in terms of foreign policy that stop me from voting for basically anybody.
You know, my concern about voting for someone like Buttigieg is that he's talked about why we need more troops on the ground in the Middle East.
Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.
You will not get my support behind that.
So I can understand, you know, I think Buttigieg's a good dude.
I think he's got his problems.
I disagree with him on policy.
I can say the same thing for Trump.
I think Buttigieg's got a better attitude than Trump.
But I am concerned, and I mean this sincerely, If Trump is not re-elected, the economy will do really bad.
And that's something I've been thinking about for a while.
I mean, look, the economy wasn't miserable under Obama.
He inherited George W. Bush's economy, and that was bad.
You can pass the blame to whoever you want.
I don't care.
Throughout Obama's tenure, the economy was slowly doing a little bit better.
It is complicated.
I will say that.
And I say that for everything.
And the reason I say that is because people will try and pick one point to be like, this is why you're wrong.
No, no, no.
I recognize.
It's not black or white, okay?
The economy's been doing really, really well under Trump.
You gotta recognize, there are a lot of people who are scared, even though Trump is a bad guy, in terms of his attitude, you know what I mean?
I mean, based on the opinion of some of these people.
I'm not saying he literally is, I'm saying a lot of people view him that way, for how he treats people, calling people horseface, you know, tweeting, you know, during the impeachment and all that stuff.
But they recognize this.
They also recognize that just because Trump may be a bad guy doesn't mean he's the bad guy.
It doesn't mean, you know, to quote Wreck-It Ralph, kind of, it doesn't mean that Trump is making things worse for everybody.
Trump might be a boorish, bad attitude, mean, nasty dude, but what he's doing is helping a lot of people and pulling people from the brink.
So I'll leave it here.
I don't need to rant too much longer, and you can tell I am having trouble with fresh temporary crowns and But all you need to do is ask the simple question, you know, why do you support the president?
And you will find overwhelmingly, I have a job now.
Donald Trump did an ICE, there was an ICE raid.
I don't want to say Trump did it.
But they rounded up, I think, like 700 undocumented workers, deported them.
Many people said no American would want to do those jobs.
They don't pay enough.
They're bad jobs.
And sure enough, Americans showed up.
And when asked, these guys were like, hey man, this pays great.
It's better than fast food.
Yes.
I think a contributing factor to low unemployment is Trump's crackdown on immigration.
I don't think it's that big of an influence, though, but I think it's fair to say when you look at some of the reporting, they say that immigration is down about 70 percent, like legal immigration.
Illegal immigration is down dramatically, like Trump.
The Huffington Post said Trump got his wall, an invisible wall.
It's a legal barrier.
And people are cheering for it, like on the right, the Trump supporters.
I think when you stop bringing in more people, then companies need to hire who they have available.
So check this out.
This is what's really mind-blowing.
I want to give you an important analysis on what that Trump guy tweeted.
Not only are we adding record levels of jobs, 266,000, unemployment is down.
So think about that for a second.
Think about that for a second.
We have more jobs and we're still filling them all.
Isn't that crazy?
You'd think.
If they added tons of jobs, there would be a concern that we couldn't fill them up.
But basically, it's creating a space for unemployment to start dropping dramatically.
I know it's stupid and kind of obvious, but I think it's important to show how they play into each other.
The economy is doing well.
More jobs means more opportunity.
And when these jobs emerge, people are going to hire who they can hire.
So you're going to see these... Again, I know, to some, they're probably saying, duh, it's common sense.
But no, a lot of people don't... You have to look at these things, and it's one system, right?
New jobs means more likely to lower unemployment.
Means... Surprisingly!
And I'll say this too.
This is what I really want to get to.
How is wage growth up if unemployment is down?
That's impressive.
You'd think that... Actually, no, no, no.
It all makes sense.
It all makes sense.
I should rant on this.
Basically, the more people get jobs, the bigger the demand is to hire people.
And with unemployment being so low, companies got to offer more money to snatch people up.
I got to say, like, the whole system is trucking along perfectly.
So, there you go.
Regardless of impeachment, I think people see this.
And I think you know what else?
There are going to be people like Jeff Van Drew.
He's a Democrat who said he's going to vote against impeachment.
Maybe I'll do a bigger thing on that.
What do you think the people in your district, your constituents are going to say to you when they're like, listen man, Donald Trump may be a bad guy.
You know, like personally, like saying mean things.
But come on, don't screw this economy, man.
And that's a real concern I have.
They were talking about how if Donald Trump was elected, the economy would do worse.
It's been going great.
And so you gotta consider that.
And that's the big challenge.
If the Democrats can't offer up a real path towards doing better than Trump is doing on the economy, then all they're telling you is that Trump is of bad moral character, and that means you deserve to lose your job, right?
I'll leave it there.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around, next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
I don't know what it is with California, man, but they are spiraling out of control.
I'm sure there are a lot of positive stories in California about the world's biggest cookie or snowboarding on a beautiful mountaintop, but there's too much of the negative stories about the same thing.
Homelessness, drug use, human waste, and new diseases.
And now we have a story from the New York Post.
Want that?
You know what?
I hate to say it, but I did laugh when I saw this.
It wasn't... I wasn't laughing because I thought it's funny.
I'm laughing... I'm not laughing at the humor of a flesh-eating bacteria killing heroin addicts.
I'm laughing at the absurdity of California just not getting this done.
You know, laughter isn't always about enjoyment.
I'm just laughing like I can't believe it.
I cannot believe we're at this point where a flesh-eating bacteria linked to heroin use kills seven in California.
A flesh-eating bacteria.
Yep.
Now look, flesh-eating bacteria exists all over the place, but California has a resurgence of all of these diseases.
They're not solving their problems.
This has opened the door to some conservative activists.
One gentleman, I believe Scott Pressler is his name, has gone around and actually cleaned up various cities in this country, and it's created a great PR opportunity for conservatives and Trump supporters.
Now, some people on the left have pushed back, saying it's just a PR stunt.
Don't care.
I literally don't care.
If your cities are so disgusting that people are dying of flesh-eating bacterias and there's drug addicts everywhere and there's human waste in the streets, then I welcome conservatives to do a PR stunt to clean that up.
And I wonder why you didn't do the PR stunt to clean it up yourself.
How is it that people who live in these cities don't actually clean this up, but it's going to be a Trump supporter from somewhere else doing a publicity stunt?
I don't care.
I'll tell you what.
If I was going to put a scale of 1 to 10 of good moral behavior, I would say a 10 would be someone coming, cleaning up, and then saying nothing and doing it in secret because they don't want anyone to know.
It's not about, you know, ego.
I'd give it a 7 to somebody who did it as a stunt because they're still doing it.
But I will tell you one thing.
The people who are complaining about it, who don't clean up their streets, yeah, you get a 1.
Like, negative, okay?
You are doing nothing.
You are insulting those who are actually doing the work.
Let's read the story.
Because what I want to do here is I have something funny to show you.
What do you think California is doing instead of solving these problems?
Do you think that California is actually, you know, rushing out the door to make sure that these flesh-eating bacterias and these new diseases are being curbed?
No.
And we'll get to it, they're gonna ban flavored hookahs.
What?
Don't you got more important things to worry about than a hookah lounge where Shaquille O'Neal
likes to taste flavored smoke?
Oh, that's California for you.
You know, so let's read.
A flesh-eating bacteria linked to the use of black tar heroin has killed at least seven people
over the past two months in San Diego County, authorities said.
Nine people who injected black tar heroin, which is really bad, and seriously guys,
do not do this stuff, were hospitalized with severe myonicrosis,
a soft tissue infection that destroys muscle, county health officials said Wednesday.
Of the 7 who died, 5 were men, the 9 patients ranged from 19 to 57.
Investigators are trying to determine the source of the heroin.
Officials have advised the local medical community to watch for additional cases of myonecrosis and wound botulism, a rare but serious illness that attacks the body's nerves and is also linked to black tar heroin use.
Symptoms of myonecrosis include pain, swelling, pale skin, blisters with foul-smelling discharge.
I'm really sorry I'm reading this to you guys, but you know, you clicked the video.
Excessive sweating and increased heart rate.
If left untreated, myonecrosis can spread through the body and cause people to go into shock.
It can lead to amputations or death.
Symptoms of wound botulism can sometimes be mistaken for a drug overdose and occur within days or weeks of injecting contaminated drugs.
Symptoms can include drooping eyelids, blurred vision, dry mouth, sore throat, slurred speech, and paralysis.
Can I ask you something?
Why is it that so much of this is attracted to California?
And I do mean it.
I know Chicago has its problems.
They've got a big homeless problem.
But why is it that California is the poop capital?
You know what I think it is, and I'm going to be honest, and I know it might sound hyperbolic, and I know the right is going to cheer, and the left is going to get angry.
I think it's progressive policies.
And I tell you this because I lived in Seattle, and I have seen the difference between a strict meritocratic system versus a socialist system.
Seattle is not socialist, but Seattle has much more of a social safety net, and they're much more liberal in its application than other places I've been to.
When I went to Seattle, this was 15 years ago?
Was it 13 years ago?
Yeah, 13 years ago, I think.
I was broke.
I made it there, and I had but a handful of change.
I was crashing with my brother in a really crappy house.
Trash all over the place.
It was pretty gross.
I had only a handful of change, so I went and bought some chips.
The people at the gas station where I went, Notice that I was paying with pennies and nickels and the woman working there said, listen, we're going to be throwing away all of these breakfast sandwiches.
It's like 1130.
I can just give you them.
You know, I'm going to put it in the trash.
Literally, they're about to expire.
And she was like, do you want to just take them instead of spending what little change you had?
And I was like, wow, that's really nice.
Thank you.
I ended up with like seven breakfast sandwiches and me and my brother had to eat a bunch of food.
It was great.
That was a good thing that they did.
And I respect that.
But something else happened.
That was the good nature of the people in the city.
What else happened was I was then informed that I could go to the Department of Health and Human Services and I would be given a food card.
Now me, normally I'm like, I'm not interested in that, you know, I was always a much more, I don't need help kind of person.
But I was really convinced by a bunch of these local college kids like, dude, don't let pride drag you down.
You know, if you're serious about getting a job and making it in this town, don't be afraid to accept help.
And so I said, OK, all right, I'll do that.
I went there.
They basically snapped their fingers and told me I get whatever I wanted.
And I thought that was great.
I was grateful.
I ended up getting a job within a week working at a cafe.
And then I didn't need any of those benefits anymore.
This is one of the reasons why I'm pretty much a lefty kind of person.
I've used benefits before, and they have saved my life.
I've paid rent with unemployment benefits when I was fired from my job.
And it allowed me the time and resources to not be homeless, but to go out and find a new job, which I've always done.
I've always been a hard worker, but sometimes you need help.
That's a system working at its best.
But something bad happens then.
There were people in this town who were attracted to it because they knew they could get whatever they wanted, and they wanted to be homeless.
They would talk about riding the freight rails.
Making it to Seattle, the Pacific Northwest, where they would get free stuff, where there's a food bank every day, where the government is just willing to hand you whatever you need under the assumption, under a trusting assumption.
While I can certainly respect the fact that I got help, I can also recognize the fact that it attracted people who had no interest in doing right by that system, of paying it back, of getting a job.
No, they would come, extract resources, and then leave.
This is why I think, partly, these big cities like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, attract this kind of behavior.
Think about it.
If you're a drug addict, okay?
If you're an addict of any kind, and you know that California is offering up all of these benefits, why not go there?
There are certain towns you can go.
Well, they will arrest you and lock you up.
You look at what's going on with Redding in Northern California, right?
Writing wants to start forcefully, I'll just say interning, the homeless.
I know it might be, it might sound a bit hyperbolic, but no, like seriously, I did this video on it.
They're talking about indefinitely detaining homeless people until they can prove self-sufficiency, which is a subjective and nebulous term, you know, or understanding.
So it's not all of California for sure, but there are certainly places that are not going to tolerate what you're doing.
However, San Francisco, what are they doing?
What are any of these towns doing to actually deal with the excess of drug use, of homelessness?
They're doing nothing.
Like I stated earlier, conservative activists are essentially weaponizing this to the benefit of Donald Trump.
Now, I get it.
The way I framed that, you might say it's not fair.
No, no, no, it's fine.
I'm taking that position on purpose to show you that even in the absolute worst-case scenario, Okay!
that Trump supporters are twirling their mustache laughing about how they're going to make Trump
And if that was their goal, to get credit, at least they did it, right?
It's not the bastion of good-natured morality, but even if we assume ill intent, like personal gain, they still helped clean up these streets!
It's amazing.
And to see the people come out and thank these activists for doing it.
You then look at what the people in this town are doing.
They move!
Uh oh!
Too many homeless people showing up!
Bye!
They moved to Colorado, they moved to Arizona, they moved to Texas, and they bring those policies with them.
And it only gets worse.
I would rather have...
A million self-serving, Trump-supporting activists pretending to do good than a million do-good, you know, goody-two-shoes who run when the going gets tough.
I would rather have people who are just trying to trick me into thinking they're good people by cleaning up trash in the streets than the people who think cleaning up trash—who would literally say, it's good to clean up trash in the streets, but then not do it!
And this is what we get.
There you go!
Los Angeles considers shuddering celebrity favorite hookah lounges as part of proposed ban on flavored tobacco in desperate bid to curb teen nicotine addiction.
Okay, so I can respect this to a certain degree.
However, I'm no fan of prohibition.
I'm a rather libertarian individual.
I lean a little bit... so I'll explain it now for those who are gonna freak out.
Yes, I am a left-leaning libertarian.
People don't seem to understand this concept because you've really got to look at the philosophy of economics and social policy.
I believe that if we had a system that took care of people when they were hurt, but was a bit strict and stringent, like you might have to work for it, that's a social safety net policy.
It's social liberalism.
It leans a little to the left.
However, I don't think you implement it through the barrel of a gun.
It's through a community that agrees to do it.
And you know what that means?
I may go to my community and say, I propose we all pitch in 10 bucks to help this person.
And guess what?
They can say no.
And you know what?
While I'm upset by it, I'm okay with it.
Because I'm not the king of the world.
And that's left-leaning libertarianism.
It's a desire to create some social safety nets, to create laws that can help protect marginalized people, but recognizing you can't force anybody to do it.
So when I look at this, I'm sitting here thinking, for one, you can't start arresting homeless people.
You can't just go out and ban hookahs.
None of this solves any of the problems.
It seems that they've combined two really dangerous things.
People, you know, well, it's more than two, but I'll say this.
You've got surface-level solutions.
If kids are smoking, let's just ban hookahs.
Like, that's gonna stop kids from smoking, dude.
They're gonna keep smoking, and they're gonna figure it out, and it's gonna make it more dangerous.
You combine that with people who pretend to care, and you will find that real problems never get solved.
So, you know, I'll wrap it up there.
Don't be surprised if I make 50 billion more videos on California because California is one of the examples of the problems we're facing in this country.
Although I think, you know, the Pacific Northwest is pretty bad.
They have great food and there are good people there.
That's the problem.
Being good, good to others, it can attract people who want to exploit you.
And if you don't have real rules, and you don't have a firm grasp on how you should limit certain goods, you will attract people who just come to your state to do drugs because they know that you will help them in the short term instead of actually solving that problem.
I'll leave it there, though.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It's a different channel.
I will see you all there.
This is going to be a sad story.
You see, NBC News employees are quietly organizing anti-union efforts.
The first tweets I saw about this were people who believed that NBC management was trying to stop people from forming a union, when in reality, people who work for NBC do not want to be in a union.
And you know what?
I feel for you, man.
I think it's absurd that many companies, you're required to pay dues or join the union.
That's nuts to me.
I've been in many unions, and I have seen just how bad they are.
Now look, in the past, unions have done great things.
Collective bargaining, more specifically, has done great things.
Today, there are weird rules and a corrupt system, and I don't think it makes sense for you, in an office with complaints, to hand over your rights to other companies, technically, like other unions come in, the Writers Guild for instance, and then they negotiate on your behalf?
To me that makes no sense.
So here's what's happened.
The NBC News employees have launched an Instagram, they've been hanging up posters, arguing against a union, but guess what?
You're gonna lose.
They're probably going to lose because what I've noticed about a lot of left-wing causes, it is socially unacceptable to challenge bad ideas.
So when someone puts up a pro-union poster, you're supposed to just accept it and say, oh yeah, great, that's a good idea.
What happens when someone puts up an anti-union poster?
They call you evil.
They insult you.
They tear it down.
They attack you.
So you can't actually argue against these ideas.
And there are some other left-wing, you know, things.
I'm gonna avoid getting too specific on, but there are certain rules on social media outlets that say you can't speak negatively about X. What ends up happening is then people only see positive stories, assume something is safe, do it, and then regret it later.
Let's read this story from The Hollywood Reporter.
They say, on top of a no NBC News Guild Instagram account and a bare bones website, employees have posted flyers around the network's office in Manhattan, a massive college dorm-esque battle of the posters.
On Wednesday, NBC News Digital employees formally voted on whether they want to form a union with the News Guild of New York, the results of which won't be available until December 13th.
But while the NBC Digital News Guild announced on October 30th that approximately 75% of the workplace signed on to the effort, A smaller group of employees has been quietly campaigning against the union effort.
Pro-union posters around the office in Manhattan have been met with anti-union posters put up by the group, which runs an Instagram account called NoNBCNewsGuild and a bare-bones website that lays out a series of NBC News Guild concerns.
Now, I read these concerns, I've seen these posts on Instagram, and I gotta say, They're right.
You know, they talk about how you won't be able to get a merit-based promotion or a raise or time off.
Anything you want must now be negotiated when it comes to negotiations.
You know what that means?
You can be the best employee in the world.
You might need special time off.
And when you go to your boss, they say, talk to your union rep.
Don't bring it to me.
And I've experienced this firsthand and I hated it.
And it's one of the reasons I ended up not wanting to work for any union jobs ever again.
We are also the reporters, editors, designers, video journalists, animators, social media strategists, and editorial staff of NBC News Digital, not management.
The group, which did not respond to a request for comment, says on the site, The effort appears small.
Only 15 people followed the Instagram account.
Many of them today show employees.
One source pointed out to The Hollywood Reporter, NBC News confirmed that the company management has nothing to do with the self-organized anti-union effort.
A spokesperson said the company leadership was not made aware or involved in the creation or management of the accounts.
Asked about the anti-union effort, the NBC News Digital News Guild said in a statement, We do not know who started this account, but we do know that fear and misinformation about our rights keeps us divided.
After our vote count on December 13th, we look forward to coming together as one united staff to protect and look out for one another.
No.
In my experience, it was always the union lying to me.
I worked for several companies.
And you know what I ended up seeing?
People who were on the board in the union, or the local reps, man, they got special treatment, they got special cash, they got, you know, more money, and they did less work.
That's what it was really about.
Injecting a political system into the workplace that didn't benefit me at all.
In fact, it made things worse for me.
I couldn't get a raise.
Other people couldn't get raises.
It was all arbitrary.
Because once a year, they would negotiate.
It just didn't make sense.
Let me show you the Instagram page, because it's interesting.
Listen, you've got to understand.
Typically, like I said, you never see vote no.
These journalists are going to get destroyed if people find out who they are.
Here's one that says, Dues are for the gym.
Enough said.
Read about how much money you'll be forced, yes forced, to pay by tapping the link in our bio.
Here's one.
It says, Items at risk.
Crossover.
Women's wellness check.
Therapy.
Primary care.
Behavioral health.
Health coaching.
Acupuncture.
Okay, you get the point.
Here's all of these posters apparently they've been posting, but I want to show you something.
Their actual website to see what their arguments are.
They say, if you're visiting this page, you probably have questions about how unionizing might impact your day-to-day responsibilities, benefits, or growth plan at the company.
We hear you.
We are also the reporters, editors, designers, video journalists, animators, social media strategists, and editorial staff of NBC News Digital, not management.
The most important thing you need to know?
Nothing is promised.
Everything is up for negotiation.
Everything.
There are no guarantees.
In an effort to try to make sure all sides are being heard, here are some concerns that have been raised.
401k.
401k employer match is technically up for negotiation.
Average employer match 4.7%.
NBC offers 6%.
They said the Digital Guild states, there is no guild multi-employer 401k provider.
So other newsrooms have either negotiated different providers, hire matches, or locked in the existing match and provider.
Dues and representation fees.
Contrary to popular belief, there is no ability to opt out of dues.
Even if you opt out of membership, you will be forced to pay a representation fee of 1.3846% of your base salary.
Becoming a member gives you access to things like voting on board, representation, If you choose to opt out, you will not be able to vote on any issues, but will still be forced to pay.
Merit increases, merit races can be the subject of bargaining.
That's exactly what I've experienced.
During Occupy Wall Street, I was on a panel at this media center.
It was like the Paley Center, I think.
And one guy challenged everyone on stage about their, you know, bona fides or whatever.
Everybody said unions are important, unions are good.
And they said, what about union corruption?
And I said, yes, I completely agree.
I do not like unions.
I like collective bargaining.
I like the idea that individuals can come together and challenge their bosses and say, you better give us X. But unions, as they're formulated now, make it so that you as an individual can't do anything without the group.
So put it this way.
You work for NBC.
All right, let's talk about what's going to happen.
If this union passes, there will come a day where you say, I really want to go and report on a story I'm going to ask my boss.
Let's say you're a social media manager, and there's a tech conference.
The tech conference is mostly about social media, but there's gonna be some celebrities there, and you think you could do a good job.
Not normally your job.
So you go to your boss and say, I have this really great idea, okay?
I'm a social media guy, I know, but there's this big conference, and I think it'd be a great opportunity, and they say, stop right there, take it to your union rep, do not bring these things to me.
If you want a promotion or a job change, we talk about it in negotiations.
Buh-bye!
Not your job.
I know.
I've been in situations.
I've been in these situations.
Now, I'll tell you, sure, it might not always be like this.
Some unions are better than others.
I'll give you another example.
Let's say you're a field reporter, and you get word that you live in New York.
You get word in Baltimore.
Big story breaking.
So you step out of line and say, I want to go cover this.
Stop.
You are not a travel reporter.
You do not cover this.
Take it up with your union rep, and we will not talk about it.
That's how it goes.
And you know what?
You might say that's not the case, but that's the risk you take.
Whereas right now, you can go to your boss and say, I want to move.
And they can say, sure, what do you have in mind?
Once the union is in play, you want to change?
Rules.
So I worked for a union.
It was a transportation union.
When you wanted to change, you had to talk to a union.
Like, if you want to do a different job, the union actually did some really great stuff for us there.
And that's what I'm saying.
I get it.
Unions aren't all bad.
The risk, the problem was, sure, I could trade my hours and things like that, but I couldn't move up in the company.
So it was basically like, welcome aboard, stay where you are, and you will never move.
And when they needed to hire people for higher up positions, they didn't promote you.
They would go and promote outside people.
This is what you get.
It's going to be harder for you to get anything done.
Got a really great idea for a doc or an interactive?
Sorry, you cannot jump the chain.
If you want to negotiate, you know, so, in my experience, because I've been in, I think, three unions, it was always like, you cannot ask for a raise, take it up with your union rep.
You cannot ask for a promotion.
We will announce when we have an open position.
Take it up with your union.
I don't want to work for the union.
Why am I going to vote to put someone in between me and my boss?
For me, I don't want to be involved.
Look at this.
Asking for a promotion?
The conversation is no longer between you and a manager.
To be considered, your manager and an HR rep and union rep must all be present.
Negotiation conversations will no longer happen directly with the company.
Bargaining is the liberty of the union rep.
Job performance.
Your title determines your pay scale.
Promotions, merit increases are now determined by the union.
To get those, third-party union members must be present.
Your official title might limit the work you can and cannot take on.
For example, if you're an editor, you may only be able to edit.
This could narrow your ability to work across teams, which, like I said, if you go and say, I got a really great idea for X, full stop.
No.
Absolutely not.
So I'll leave it there.
The gist of the story is, you know, what it really comes down to, I'm surprised to see people resisting.
Because if anyone finds out who these people are, they're going to destroy your career.
Because if you are against the left, we know how the game is played.
I have never seen, in my spaces, opposition to unions.
I haven't.
So this is surprising.
And these people are already being attacked as bad people.
Sorry.
You are not allowed to choose.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
A couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Not only did Adam Schiff publish the private details, phone records, of an American citizen, of the president's private lawyer, he got it wrong!
You know what, man?
It's a shocking abuse of power.
He subpoenaed these people before there was an impeachment inquiry.
The House is not supposed to issue subpoenas for legal work.
It's supposed to be for legislative work.
I mean, like, law enforcement.
So Adam Schiff gets his phone records, publishes them, and whomp!
He was wrong.
Look at this.
Who was Giuliani talking to the White House?
Schiff's committee report wrongly claimed Giuliani phoned Mick Mulvaney and other budget officials.
Administration says, but who was who at the White House was he dialing?
Who was Giuliani talking to the White House if it wasn't the Office of Management and Budget
budgeting and it wasn't Mick Mulvaney? Could it be I don't know his client? The president?
Is that it?
So Adam Schiff, is he lying?
Why?
Everything he's done here is so incredibly wrong.
Let's read.
The Trump administration says a key claim in Rep Adam Schiff's lengthy House Intelligence Committee impeachment report is inaccurate.
The Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani did not have a 13-minute phone call with a top White House budget official.
The committee included records of Giuliani calls in a 300-page report released this week, along with calls between GOP Rep Devin Nunes and Giuliani's indicted associate Lev Parnas.
It showed a series of communications between Giuliani and the White House on key dates.
One was a 13-minute call linked to the Office of Management and Budget in the midst of a campaign to pressure Ukraine to announce corruption investigations of Trump rival Joe Biden and his son.
You see, this is exactly what pisses me off.
They've won.
That's it.
Every news outlet is not telling you what really happened, and they're just framing things as though what Schiff said was true.
That's where we are.
I'm so over this, man.
Journalism is dead.
It was a campaign to pressure Ukraine to announce corruption investigations of Trump rival Joe Biden.
Says who?
There's been no evidence to prove that statement is correct, but here's the Daily Mail.
Just writing it up!
Because no one does work anymore.
Because nuance be damned.
This is it.
They won.
Every outlet that writes about this now frames it as though everything, the opinions of these individuals, with no evidence, is a fact.
That's all that matters.
These articles will be cited as evidence on Wikipedia.
It will go down in history.
Donald Trump did this.
Period.
Everything Trump said doesn't matter.
Giuliani.
Solomon.
None of it matters.
Because the media has just taken to framing it exactly as the Democrats want.
Congratulations.
Democrats are trying to show Giuliani was in the loop as a decision was made to press pause on military aid to Ukraine.
We can see here, they say, it's a bunch of phone records.
Phone records like these were part of the Intelligence Committee Democrats damning report, but now appear not to show what Schiff and his allies claimed.
Still left unexplained, however, is the identity of the phone chatter whose phone rings on a caller ID known as negative one.
They say.
The administration now says Giuliani did not call any top budget officials, and had no calls with acting White House Chief of Staff, the former OMB director, Mick Mulvaney.
No one from OMB has talked to Giuliani, a presidential spokesperson told Real Clear Politics.
The New York Times reported that the phone number used to identify Giuliani's calls with OMB is a generic switchboard number, making it difficult to tell whose desk it came from.
Call to the number on Friday.
Roll to an out-of-service message.
Government directories listed as associated with both the National Security Council and the West Wing.
Oh, the West Wing!
Is it possible?
He was talking to the President.
They show a bunch of photos.
Let's go on.
According to the Intelligence Committee report, Giuliani had three phone calls with a number associated with OMB.
The call logs provided to House Intelligence Committee Democrats by AT&T were a new piece of evidence in the impeachment inquiry and were included in a draft report put out Tuesday.
Trump himself pushed back on the information while in London for NATO meetings.
Quote, So somebody said he made a phone call into the White House.
What difference does that make?
Trump asked reporters during a meeting with Italy's Prime Minister on the sidelines of a NATO meeting outside of London.
Is that supposed to be a big deal, he demanded?
I don't think so.
Even if the logs don't connect Giuliani to Mulvaney, whose office dealt with nearly $400 million in held-up aid to Ukraine, they contain other potentially damaging information.
They also show calls between Giuliani and a person identified only as minus one, and between GOP rep Devin Nunes and indicted Giuliani associate Lev Parnas.
White House officials who denied Giuliani had spoken to key OMB officials were not identified by name in news reports.
Trump tweeted Friday morning, anonymous quotes should not be believed.
And they shouldn't.
So here's the big problem with all of this.
Let me show you these call logs.
It says, text, Giuliani, White House number.
First of all, you can text a White House number?
Is it a White House cell number?
That's the first question I have.
Maybe, I'm not saying you can't.
Here's what it says, Giuliani, OMB number.
They've denied this and said it's not true.
Giuliani, White House switchboard.
Who could he have been talking to?
Well, he's the president's personal private attorney.
He could be talking to literally anyone.
Did you know that Giuliani, in this instance, could be talking to somebody who, I don't know, fixes toilets?
We don't know.
They talk about the phone calls to Lev Parnas.
You know what I see here with Adam Schiff?
Is a strategy to present out-of-context information, to surreptitiously obtain private information, so that he can release it, make non-statement-of-fact insinuations about John Solomon, a journalist, about Rudy Giuliani, and then the media will just run with it.
That's been the game the whole time.
And the media is doing it, and I'm just so sick of it.
You know what?
You know, people like to talk about Tim Pool talking about Trump.
I don't care about Trump.
I don't care about Trump.
I don't care about Giuliani.
I don't care about Pelosi.
I care about how the media lies to everybody.
That's been, like, the big through line for most of what I've talked about.
And you'll know it if you follow my content.
And what we have here with Schiff is an attempt to lie to you.
The president lies.
Trump lies.
His spokespeople lie.
I get it.
But Trump also just blurts out the truth randomly.
Adam Schiff is a depraved, corrupt individual who surreptitiously obtained private records from John Solomon, who was not involved, and leaked it to the public.
He did it, because the entire time the impeachment play has been, get negative press about these people, because the media will just uncritically report it.
Journalists today are so inept and bad at their jobs.
You know what, Jeff Earl, Deputy U.S.
Political Editor for DailyMail.com?
You should be reprimanded and ashamed over this.
When he says that it was literally in the midst of a campaign to pressure Ukraine to announce corruption investigations of Trump rival Joe Biden.
Prove it!
What we know right now is there are numerous narratives.
One is that the OMB director was saying that Trump is withholding aid for a lot of people, basically.
That he wanted other people to contribute to Ukraine, not just him.
There's other countries in NATO, right?
And it's been a big play from Trump that none of these people are putting forth the 2% or whatever percent of GDP they're supposed to be.
So he says, you're deadbeats.
I'm not going to pay.
That's one narrative.
So how about we put this?
A 13-minute call linked to the OMB in the midst of Trump trying to pressure NATO allies to up their spending.
You see how this game is played?
The goal of Adam Schiff and these Democrats, by selectively leaking information, is to get us to the point where the lie is repeated enough to where it just becomes a tidbit in a story.
And there it is.
The Daily Wire writes about a phone call being wrong.
And this is, well, this story's pro-Trump, right?
No.
I mean, it's framed that way, but they inject these little bits of information, whether it's on purpose or not, that take Adam Schiff and the Democrats' narrative and put it in as a fact.
That Trump literally was pressuring Ukraine to announce these corruption investigations.
We don't know that.
The president of Ukraine said that's not true.
There was never a conversation about this for that.
Never happened.
So why is the Daily Mail saying it?
I don't know.
Ineptitude?
Political partisanship?
Agendas?
What frustrates me is I spend every day... It's like trying to unclog a toilet, right?
Imagine this.
There's fake news everywhere.
Assumption, conjecture, and lies.
Attempts to manipulate.
And I'm trying to, you know, with a plunger, just pull that clog right out.
And, you know, every day I get a little... I do, you know, loosen up a little bit, and then other journalists come in and just dump more trash and more waste in that toilet, making it impossible.
It feels like trying to, you know, demolish an old building without the proper equipment.
Just a little hammer.
Every day the floodgates are open, the fake news goes flying, and people play the game exactly like Adam Schiff wants.
In the beginning, with the closed-door depositions, Selective information was leaked to make it look like Trump was guilty.
And then everyone started speculating on the selective information and then people started acting like the selective information was fact when it was opinions of people and it didn't provide full context.
We then see Gordon Sondland.
What a piece of work that guy is.
There was a quid pro quo.
And then asked, well, it was a presumption.
No one actually told me there was one.
Ah, there it is.
Well, we're here.
I'm sorry.
It will go down in history.
I mean, maybe not, but this is what frustrates me every day.
When I look back at the history of Occupy Wall Street, and I see all the fake news written in books from ideologues who want to support the idea of what it is, I'm like, there it is, man.
I was down there, and I saw some things that have never been written about, that have never been talked about, and have overtly been lied about.
People stealing equipment, people stealing money.
The corruption was ridiculous.
The assaults that were happening inside that camp.
And you read these books, and they'll tell you, well, there were some problems.
It was all skittles and rainbows.
And that's what's happening every day.
You know, they say history is written by the victors.
In this case, Adam Schiff hasn't won anything.
In fact, they're losing.
But you know what they are winning?
When journalists just say whatever Adam Schiff says as though it's fact, yeah, we're in trouble.
I'll leave it there.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
Some people have speculated that the wave, the increase in transgenderism gender dysphoria is due to rapid onset gender dysphoria.
But it could be due to gender bending chemicals in bottled water, bottled water and other drinking water.
In 2018, we saw this story from the New York Post.
Teen hormones being altered by gender-bending chemicals.
Now, I pulled up this old story because it's important context to a new story.
It turns out, humans are being exposed to 44 times more infertility-causing, cancer-linked, gender-bending chemicals than first thought could it be.
That young men and women in our countries, in the West, in the world, are being exposed to chemicals that leach from bottled water and otherwise, disrupting their hormones and then making them gender dysphoric.
That may be the case.
So I'll read a little bit of this first story so you understand what these chemicals are and what they do.
I think they're BPAs.
And then I'll read about how our exposure to them exceed the FDA's safe levels by as much as 44-fold.
I will also mention, I don't drink tap water.
I drink filtered water.
Four out of every five British teens have their hormones upset by gender-bending chemicals found in plastics, new research suggests.
The chemical, called bisphenol A, BPA, is used to make plastics, including materials that come into contact with food.
Excuse me.
But it can mimic the female hormone estrogen and cause a lower sperm count in men.
The chemical is also thought to be linked to several different types of cancer, including breast and prostate.
Researchers at Exeter University studied the blood and urine of 94 teenagers aged 17 to 19 and found 80% had hormone-disrupting chemicals in their bodies.
Ex-ecotoxicology professor Tamara Galloway, who co-led the study, said there was growing evidence that exposure to the chemical may be associated with poorer health.
Professor Lorna Harries, who also worked on the study, described it as a pervasive disruptor and added, We should have a choice over what we put in our bodies.
When the teens changed their diet to include more fresh produce, the BPA levels among those
at the highest levels began to fall, and there was little change among others.
BPA is legal in the UK.
In the United States, things are more complicated.
The FDA said in 2012 that baby bottles and child sippy cups could not contain BPA, as
it is banned in a number of states.
However, it is still legal in products intended for adults in many states.
That means, when you buy bottled water, when you buy prepackaged foods, if you're eating
all of this stuff, you are getting inundated with these chemicals.
I'd be interested to see if they ran tests on gender dysphoric youth, if they found an increase in BPAs.
That would be interesting.
They say, you know, I think you get the context about what this is.
The Food Standard Agency website says, "...minute amounts of BPA can transfer from packaging into
food and drinks, but independent experts have advised that these levels of
exposure are not considered to be harmful.
Independent studies have shown that even when consumed at high levels,
BPA is rapidly absorbed, detoxified, and eliminated from humans.
Campaigners have called for it to be banned from all products across the continent."
Okay, but what happens when you're exposed to 44 times more of this chemical
than they actually thought?
They say, the FDA says the levels in widely used products are generally safe.
However, the agency banned the use of these chemicals in baby bottles and sippy cups in 2012.
Now, Washington State University Research devised a new direct way of testing human exposure to the chemicals.
They found they exceed the FDA's safe levels by as much as 44 times.
Humans are exposed to far more hormone-disrupting chemicals than previously thought, according to a new study.
Patricia Hunt, the researcher at Washington State University who first discovered that BPA, a dangerous toxin in plastics, can cause cancer and other diseases and disorders, has now developed a more accurate method of measuring it.
In a study published today, Dr. Hunt reveals the new tool shows the safe limit of BPA stipulated by the food is 44 times higher.
This study raises serious concerns about whether we've been careful enough about the safety of this chemical.
What it comes down to is that the conclusions federal agencies have come to about how to regulate BPA may have been based on inaccurate measurements.
The amount of BPA the FDA considers acceptable varies based on the product.
Broadly, it claims that the chemicals are safe and that people are exposed to such low doses of them that they're not toxic.
However, they did ban CP cups, we know that.
Methodology used by the FDA to establish what is or isn't safe has been subject to scrutiny from a number of scientists.
Dr. Hunt has led that charge.
She discovered the way the BPA, sometimes referred to as gender-bending chemicals, interfere with the production of sperm, eggs, and male and female chromosomes.
Dr. Hunt has long acknowledged that measuring humans' exposure to BPAs is difficult, but argues that that is all the more reason to err on the side of caution.
In her latest work, she developed a new way to test just how much BPA people are exposed to, according to Dr. Hunt and her colleagues.
Most studies attempting to measure the amount of BPA in human urine have done so by putting BPA metabolites, compounds generated as the chemicals pass through the body, into a snail-based enzyme solution that is supposed to turn the compounds back to BPA itself.
This is an indirect measure, according to the study, published in the journal The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology.
Instead, she and her team devised a way to assess the metabolites themselves directly.
What they found was alarming.
Not only was the disparity between the indirect measure and the direct on as wide as 44-fold, the higher the level of BPA, the greater the gulf between their measure and the one used by the FDA.
I hope this study will bring attention to their methodology used to measure BPA, and that other experts and labs will take a closer look at and assess independently what is happening, said the study's first author, Roy Girona.
So recently, there has been an explosion in transgender youth and individuals.
There's been an argument about why that is.
I don't know if it even makes sense that BPAs could cause this, but they say in the other article from the New York Post that they mimic estrogen.
Let me just come back to this before I move on.
They can mimic the hormone estrogen and lower sperm counts in men.
There was another study, the Daily Mail published, I don't have it pulled up, that said that the Y chromosome is vanishing in older men.
Could it be that this increase, the loss of the Y chromosome, the increase in transgender youth and individuals, is due to BPAs?
I'm just asking, because I don't really know.
Perhaps someone who's more scientifically inclined could come and explain why that may or may not be the case.
But I'd imagine if it could mimic estrogen, that would be the case, right?
There's a trope about the soy boy, because of phytoestrogens.
But let me just tell you something.
It's possible this could have an inverse effect.
People look at the soy thing, and they say soy boys are weak and effeminate, but hold on.
Phytoestrogen, found in soy, is actually not as potent, my understanding, as your actual female estrogen.
In which case, if phytoestrogen is blocking the receptor, you're actually getting a weaker version of estrogen, so it should have the opposite effect, right?
I don't know.
Don't look at me, I'm not a scientist, but I will say, Some have argued.
The reason we are seeing an increase in trans youth is because it's becoming acceptable.
That the more people say you're free to be trans, no one will judge you, we'll support you in the press, that more people are willing to tell the truth about how they really feel.
And I can respect that.
That's probably true to a certain degree.
It's also possible, however, there's an inverse effect here.
That as more and more people are inundated by these chemicals, there is a bigger demand for acceptance.
See?
If there were no trans people, there would be no call for accepting trans people because they wouldn't exist.
But they do exist.
Is it possible that our chemicals and plastics and everything and these hormones, and I also heard stories about how like women's birth control hormones go in the water too, is it possible that is feminizing men and resulting in them now feeling this way and then demanding acceptance?
It's hard to know for sure because correlation is not causation.
But I will add, the BPA thing doesn't explain trans men.
And according to the articles and the science articles I've talked about in the past...
Almost all, like 85%, of trans youth are female-to-male, not the other way around.
For some reason, we almost always hear about male-to-female, and it's probably due to male pubertal advantages.
You know, it's going to be someone who was born male, and then at 17 or 18 transitioned, and now they have an advantage.
So those make the press.
But according to the studies on rapid-onset gender dysphoria, the majority of trans youth are actually born female and want to become male.
So BPAs would not explain that.
What they try to argue, then, is societal pressures and other women encouraging them.
It could be that as BPAs feminize men who then demand, you know, acceptance, it creates a trend which then results in young females saying, hey, I should do this as well.
I don't know.
It could just be that sometimes people are trans.
And I don't think the reason really matters for the most part.
I think it matters to a certain degree, but when it comes to civil rights, it doesn't.
If we want to figure out how to support and protect people, then a conversation needs to be had in good faith where we talk about how to do that.
Unfortunately, a lot of activists have been trying to shut these things down.
It's made it really, really difficult to pass laws that make sense, and in fact, the laws that end up being passed could be disruptive and actually take civil rights away, which is really, really complicated, and I don't want to rehash all that stuff, so I'll just leave by saying, when we talk about the science behind what's causing this, This could be one of those reasons.
So you might not care about plastics, you know, and the toxic, but I'll tell you what, man.
Glass bottles.
Fresh food.
I try to eat as good as possible, and you should too.
I'll leave it there, and I will wrap up by saying, in lieu of not working, Because I just got a root canal.
If you guys haven't been following all my content, you know, I had a root canal yesterday, and I got two temporary crowns put in.
It's very difficult to talk, it hurts, but I refuse to take a day off.
So I apologize if these videos weren't typically, you know, up to par as they normally are, and it is hard for me to talk.
I thank you all for hanging out and watching today's videos, and I hope I was able to do sufficient work for you in my convalesced state.
Is that the right word?
Convalescence?
Yeah?
I mean, I'm okay.
I haven't eaten anything in two days, but I'll see you tomorrow, and hopefully then I'll be feeling better.
