Ocasio Cortez LIES To Cover Up MASSIVE Jobs Failure Meanwhile Trump Boasts Best Numbers Of Our Lives
Ocasio Cortez LIES To Cover Up MASSIVE Jobs Failure Meanwhile Trump Boasts Best Numbers Of Our Lives. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is trying to claim victory after Amazon announced an advertising office will be set up in Manhattan's Hudson yards.AOC posted a photo smugly sitting while demanding "haters" apologize after she was "proven right" and save NYC "billions"In reality AOC chased away 25,000 jobs from New York and cost the city billions and the new office being set up has nothing to do with Amazon HQ2 and will only bring, eventually, 1,500 jobs to the city.The sad truth for AOC is that she is not only an arrogant narcissist much like Trump but that she is failing to make anything meaningful happen.For all of Trump's faults with his character he is boasting the "best numbers of our lives" following a record smashing jobs report.While Trump is absolutely worthy of being criticized for his arrogance he at least has hard numbers to back himself up. Ocasio Cortez unfortunately has only arrogance and failure behind her.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez cost New York City 25,000 jobs when she was one of the loudest voices protesting Amazon's headquarters.
She's now trying to claim victory because Amazon leased an office, didn't build anything, and is going to bring back 1,500 advertising jobs as opposed to building a second headquarters.
Let me stop here and try and explain this to you guys.
Amazon was going to build HQ number two, AOC protested.
Amazon pulled out.
Amazon now says they're opening an office for advertising work.
And AOC is claiming victory, saying she won and saved New York billions.
You know what, man?
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is everything wrong with Donald Trump, but she's also bad at her job.
Let me stop you.
Let me try and hash this out.
I'll tell you what.
Trump is boorish.
He's mean.
He calls people names like Horseface.
He insults them on Twitter.
But I'll tell you one thing.
The American economy may be the best we've seen in a long time.
I know a lot of people dispute this, but let me just show you this.
Jim Cramer of CNBC.
Like or hate Trump.
These are the best numbers of our lives on jobs.
Low unemployment rate record numbers, so I will tell you this.
Donald Trump's a mean dude.
I'm not the only one who believes that.
A lot of moderate voters, people who voted for Obama then voted for Trump, have stated as much in many of these interviews.
So I will tell you this to Trump supporters.
One of Trump's biggest faults is bad attitude.
Trump can be tough and he can push back on people without insulting them in the way he does.
But I think Trump is just too arrogant.
He's just too arrogant.
Now let me tell you this.
Why is this video negative about AOC?
Why don't I make a video about how Trump is arrogant?
Well, for one thing, I talk about Trump being boorish all the time.
But I will tell you this.
The economy is doing well for a lot of people.
Ocasio-Cortez not only insults people and plays stupid games on Twitter, much in the same way Trump does, but she's also failing at her job.
Look, man, I know...
The left is going to be like, it's a right-wing talking point to claim that AOC... No, no, no, no.
Full stop, dude.
Full stop.
CNN said breaking job numbers, amazing.
CNN said that.
Jim Cramer, you don't have to like Trump, but man, these numbers are the best of our lives.
Meanwhile, AOC is claiming victory because Amazon will bring just 6% of the jobs she lost to them.
It's that simple.
So let's do this.
Let's break down.
It's not a video about Trump.
OK, I want to break down for you the problem.
It'll be a little bit.
I want to break down what exactly AOC said and did, what's going on with Manhattan, she's lying about it, and she also lied about other issues involving food stamps, and she does this all the time.
Let me tell you something.
Donald Trump is not always the most honest person in the world.
And the reason I say not always, because I truly believe Trump lies and for stupid things.
But as The Intercept put it, he's also simultaneously the most honest president we've ever had because he lies about stupid personal things to protect his pride while blatantly telling you we're sending weapons to Saudi Arabia because they pay real well, shocking so many anti-war leftists being like, Donald Trump is just admitting all of this.
The dude can't let his ego go.
But when it comes to what he's doing, he just says it!
So look, there's a lot of problems with Trump.
But the economy is doing well, and at least he's being straight up about the war machine, right?
I can't say the same for AOC, who screws up royally, and then tries to come around with a smug photo like, look how awesome I am.
It's like, dude, you're not winning!
You're costing people money!
You're losing jobs!
This is not a victory!
This is a defeat.
Let's read the story, but before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There are several ways you can give, but the best thing you can do, share this video or tell people to check out the podcast.
This is available on all podcast platforms, I believe, like Apple, iTunes, Spotify, under Tim Pool Daily Show.
It's a full hour and a half every day.
Subscribe there, check it out.
It's a safe alternative, but I know a lot of people listen in the car, so that is available and it really does help when you subscribe.
But let's read the story from the Daily Mail.
AOC takes victory lap after Amazon agrees to open NYC office without sweetheart tax deal.
But critics point out the expansion has just 6% of the jobs promised in scuttled HQ2.
You know what the problem is?
AOC failed.
Bad.
For all we know, this new Amazon office they're leasing would have happened either way.
But AOC's sycophants are going to claim she won no matter what.
And I hate to say it, but there are even some lefties that I like and respect who are good, honest actors who are pushing this false narrative that she did anything good.
She did not!
She failed.
She's trying to save face through lies.
And listen, Trump does similar things to protect his ego, but at least Trump has real numbers to back him up.
At least Trump cancels a strike on Iranian targets, okay?
Trump is not... I do not believe Trump is the best president, but I gotta tell you, when it comes to the economy, I defer to Jim Cramer.
The best numbers of our lives?
You gotta give the guy credit for that, for all of his bad behavior.
AOC can't say the same thing.
And there's a reason why I'm doing this comparison.
Because I know invariably, you're gonna get all these lefties saying like, but why won't Tim criticize Trump?
We're seeing the numbers being published by the Trump campaign.
And their only defense is, well, at least some people want to impeach Trump.
I'm sorry, dude.
Trump is winning.
And AOC has nothing to say for this.
I've praised AOC.
I've praised Nancy Pelosi.
I have praised the Democrats when they've done things I like.
I have praised Trump in a much similar way, but I gotta admit, I criticize Trump a lot.
The problem is, he's winning.
He is.
And so when I say that, it's not because I prefer him over them.
It's because you can't... I mean, I'll tell you this, man.
At this point, I absolutely prefer Donald Trump over Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Because this is... Let me read you the story and stop, you know, ranting.
They say.
AOCS bragged that she was proven right after Amazon announced a new Manhattan office without tax incentives.
Despite the office being far smaller than the scrapped HQ2, the company planned to open in Queens.
Facing backlash from Ocasio-Cortez and other New York Democrats over $3 billion in tax incentives to open an office employing 25,000, Amazon abruptly canceled the HQ2 plan in February.
On Friday, the company announced plans to open an office with 1,500 workers in Manhattan's Hudson Yards development.
Won't you look at that?
Amazon is coming to New York City anyway, without requiring the public to finance shady deals, helipad handouts for Jeff Bezos, and corporate giveaways.
Maybe the Trump admin should focus more on cutting public assistance to billionaires instead of poor families.
Okay.
Okay.
There's so much wrong with this.
Amazon is in New York.
Of course Amazon has employees.
I believe they have 7,000 or 5,000 or so employees already in the New York area.
Amazon was going to build a new headquarters.
25,000 new jobs.
What they've done at Hudson Yards is advertising, for the most part, in consumer relations, and it's 1,500 workers.
More importantly, can I show you something that's going to make you laugh?
Ocasio-Cortez says there's no financing shady deals.
She's saving all this money.
You know, the thing is, Amazon's tax breaks and incentives were big.
Hudson Yards are bigger.
Would you look at that?
Hudson Yards are in Manhattan.
It's an island.
The Amazon HQ is going to be in Long Island City, which is in Queens.
They're different boroughs, which means different jobs, different economies, but still part of New York City and New York State.
Hudson Yards is a development which has bigger incentives, as reported by the New York Times on March 9th.
So Amazon did not directly get incentives for an HQ2, but they're certainly taking advantage of the bigger incentives at Hudson Yards, and they're not even bringing back... You know what?
This is what Ocasio-Cortez does.
Okay?
She plays this- She has no way- Oh, look at this photo, man.
Here she- Here she is.
Smugly sitting.
Me waiting on the haters to apologize after we were proven right on Amazon and saved the public billions.
No!
No, there's so much wrong here!
Man, remarkable.
Hudson Yards was massive for incentives for the city, meaning the city gave them basically the same deal Amazon got, or better.
And Amazon is only bringing a small number, 6% of those jobs the HQ would have had.
But I tell you again, for all we know, the Amazon advertising office Maybe would have come along with HQ2.
It's remarkable that Ocasio-Cortez— You know that meme where it's Patrick and SpongeBob, and the bikini bottom's on fire, and SpongeBob's like, we did it!
We saved the town!
That's literally what this is.
So they go on to say, in a subsequent tweet, the New York Democrat posted a photo of herself sitting on a couch with her feet propped up, grinning happily.
However, the Congresswoman's critics were quick to point out that Amazon's new plans differ significantly from the cancelled HQ2, which I stated.
So let me show you this.
I know I mentioned this early, but I want to show you what Jim Cramer said.
Never been a big fan of the guy.
I think he was wrong about the recession 10 years ago.
But the point is, you have these pundits, even on CNBC, like or hate Trump.
These are the best numbers of our lives.
Check this out.
CNBC's Jim Cramer said Friday, No matter your view on President Donald Trump, there's no denying we're living in the best labor market in more than a generation.
You can't contradict.
These are the best numbers of our lives.
You can't, Cramer.
64 said following the government report showing the U.S.
economy created a better-than-expected 266,000 non-farm jobs in November, with the unemployment rate dipping to 3.5%, matching a 50-year low.
Economists had expected the jobless rate to hold steady at 3.6%.
People don't want to say good things about the economy, said Kramer, echoing comments he made Thursday evening on Mad Money, telling investors, don't let the Armageddonists and the Negativists and the Hucksters scare you away from owning stocks.
Referring to Trump, Kramer said Friday on Squawk Box, shortly after the jobs report was released, it doesn't matter whether you hate him or like him, these are real numbers.
This is the best number I've ever seen in my life.
50 years ago, that number was a curse.
Now it's a blessing.
I don't see inflation.
I don't see recession.
Kramer said the strong U.S.
job market is going to allow America to win the trade war with China.
The president can walk away from table with this number, he added.
In the end, the Chinese are going to have to put jobs here.
Wow.
So here's, I'll tell you what, man.
When you don't have Trump derangement syndrome, you have no problem sitting here saying exactly everything I've just said.
That Trump has got attitude issues, it's a potential risk for him into 2020.
But with numbers like this, I assure you, you will find middle Americans saying, I will take the mean dude, like the Twitter guy, who's bringing these jobs around, Now, many people on the left try and claim, well, Trump had nothing to do with this.
You can't correlate the president with the economy.
Sorry, man.
Sure, fine.
But is anyone really going to want to vote to rock the boat?
Take a look at this.
Wow.
Canada loses, surprise, 71,200 jobs in November.
Unemployment rate jumps to 5.9.
Well, that's just sad.
Meanwhile, Trudeau and his left-wing government, they want to prop him up.
They want to be smug.
But man, you can call it a short-term game.
You can call it a game whatever you want.
You can argue that Trump is going to build the deficit.
It's going to be bad in the future.
Sorry man, those are arguments.
We're not seeing that.
Right now what we're seeing is Canada failing, AOC is desperately trying to spin this as a win, but in the end, I mean, Donald Trump is seriously taking this victory.
This is ridiculous.
But there are some things that must be debunked from AOC.
Here's her silly photo of her sitting in the chair, which is funny, but let's take a look at the bigger one.
She says, While we're here, let's clear up some GOP disinfo.
Full stop!
GOP disinfo?
This is the most annoying thing about AOC, and it's exactly the problem— You know, listen.
Not every critic of Donald Trump is a progressive far-leftist.
Okay?
Not every critic of AOC is GOP.
And no, this isn't GOP disinfo, Cortez.
This is mainstream reporting from the New York Times!
Who said that there's 25,000 jobs?
Well, here's what she said, quote.
It's 1,500 jobs versus 25,000.
The 25,000 jobs was a 10 to 20 year fantasy number from Amazon.
Not a promise or agreement.
In exchange for the lack of commitment, they wanted billions of public money.
Their year one jobs projection was $700.
Okay, AOC, let me explain something to you.
The billions in commitments was also a 10 to 20 year fantasy number.
So are you simultaneously arguing that the projected jobs is irrelevant, but the projected tax incentives is?
No, if we're talking about year one, then they wouldn't have gotten billions of dollars.
They would have gotten tax incentives off of 700 employees.
You see this stupid game she's playing to manipulate?
She always does this.
And I have more to show you about her doing this.
She says, It's in Manhattan, not Queens.
If you live in NYC, you would know people commute to work.
Amazon would not have paid taxes for many, many years and not contribute to fixing our crumbling subway system.
So lots of added strain, no benefit.
No.
The people who live in Queens would have been bolstering, the economy would have been bolstered.
So those little bodegas?
They would sell more sandwiches.
They would expand.
The people who live there's property value would go up.
Manhattan?
Not so much.
Also, and very importantly, these jobs are for free.
The public was going to pay $3 billion in public subsidies and millions in hard cash, building Amazon's campus for them.
NYC residents were subsidizing Amazon tons per job.
Now they're bringing work without the welfare.
And there I bring you back to the New York Times story.
The incentives for Hudson Yards are bigger.
I don't want to go through everything because I think it is fair to point out she's right in the sense that Amazon isn't getting these breaks and incentives coming into Hudson Yards, but they're just taking advantage of the incentives that Hudson Yards actually got.
So I don't think it's fair to say you are still subsidizing the production of this.
AOC does this, right?
So a lot of people have come out and criticized her.
I don't know if I actually need to read a lot of what everyone said.
There's a lot of conservatives and even some progressives who have called her out.
But there's this.
AOC called out after claiming Trump food stamp revisions might have left her family starved.
This is more misleading trash from Ocasio-Cortez.
Listen, I get it.
Trump makes misleading statements too.
The main reason why I am dedicating a video to explaining the problem of AOC, as explained in the beginning, is while I routinely say in peripheral videos Donald Trump is not the most honest man in the world.
He does lie very often.
The media often calls him a liar for simply being incorrect.
That's fair, too.
But Donald Trump actually has successes under his belt.
What am I gonna do?
Donald Trump is a liar, but boy, the economy is great.
Oh, heck of a video!
They'll make the same criticism about me.
So no, I'm not gonna make a video saying that.
I'll say Trump is winning when he's winning, and I'll criticize him in the periphery.
But the fact remains that AOC lies.
She's boorish, boastful, ignorant, and failing!
So you know what, man?
I'm not here to rag on AOC.
Listen, I get it.
She's a freshman.
Trump is an older guy.
Tons of success is an experience.
And Ocasio-Cortez comes from humble beginnings.
It is with tremendous respect I say that she came from being a bartender to a U.S.
rep.
And I really do mean that.
That's seriously incredible, and I have tremendous respect for that.
I mean that.
America is great because you can be a bartender, stand up and say, enough, and then find yourself in government.
But with that being said, as much as I can respect that she comes from humble beginnings, not the most, it's still important to point out she's not doing a good job!
She's just a celebrity!
She says these things, and her sycophants just cheer her on.
Now I get it.
Trump has got his sycophants cheering him on too, but at least Trump has the numbers!
So you know what, man?
It's one of the... It's easily summed up in, stop making me defend Trump.
If they were honest, I could make... Look, if the Democrats played straight, if they fought for kitchen table issues, if they fought for healthcare, you better believe I'd be saying like, what's your response, Trump?
The Democrats are on the level saying they're fighting the good fight.
They're not!
Look what we get!
I'll add, man, look.
There's that Republican.
I think his name is Duncan Hunter.
He's resigning.
He pled guilty to misuse of campaign finance and all that stuff.
OK.
But there's no real big story there.
He's not a celebrity.
He's not famous.
He's not of consequence.
And he's resigning.
And I can mention that in the periphery.
But when we have Ilhan Omar, high profile, for whatever reason, OK, maybe because of the right, because of conservatives, fine.
But when she commits a campaign finance issue, it gets brought up because she's high profile.
Much higher than Duncan Hunter.
I don't even know his name.
These guys don't get big press.
They're not particularly relevant to the conversation of the future of the Democratic Party.
Or Republican Party.
Trump is.
So, when Trump changed the... Let me just show you what she said.
Breaking.
NBC News.
Trump admin has formalized work requirements for recipients of food stamps.
A move that will cause nearly 700,000 people to lose access to SNAP.
AOC said, My family relied on food stamps when my dad died at 48.
I was a student.
If this happens then, we might have just starved.
Now many people will.
It's shameful how the GOP works overtime to create freebies for the rich while dissolving lifelines of those who need it most.
Okay.
And the Heritage Foundation said, In response, the rule applies to able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 49 who do not have dependents.
The rule wouldn't apply to parents with minor children, the elderly, or disabled.
Based off what the Heritage Foundation said, the rule also wouldn't have applied to AOC's family even though she was over 18, because you can be over 18 and still be a dependent.
Okay?
That means, You, as a 20-year-old, who's dependent on your mother, would not be able to get food stamps.
Presumably, however, your mother would not lose those benefits because you are still independent.
I could be wrong about that, but I don't see any other reason to believe why that wouldn't be the case.
So, uh, this person, Catalina Loft, says, Create freebies for the rich, AOC.
You and your radical socialist crew believe the forgotten men and women, everyday middle-class Americans, are the rich.
Tax relief for hardworking Americans is hardly a freebie.
That's a good point, too.
Well, I was concerned about it because I want to move on to the future of the Democratic Party.
But it's fair to point out that Trump's tax cuts helped the rich,
but they did give money back to the middle class.
And it's like a grand on average or something.
So look, you know, the economy, whether you think it's good or bad in the long term,
short term, the jobs numbers are great.
Spending, consumer confidence is up.
Meanwhile, Ocasio-Cortez is desperately trying to claim victory on a massive failure.
In Canada, they lost jobs.
Unemployment is way up.
So you can rag on the President, and it's fair to do so, because he is this, you know, arrogant, boorish dude.
He's got ego problems, man.
But he's winning.
He is winning.
And when it comes to what Americans want, they want a winner.
So Trump asked, are you tired of winning yet?
Trump's had some defeats, but overall he seems to be winning.
We'll see what happens in 2020.
I don't care if he wins or loses.
I care if the country does better.
And right now Trump's attitude and his behavior is very bad for this country.
But what matters more outside of whether or not we're happy with the way he talks and
how this affects our culture is whether or not people have food, their families are surviving,
they're working again.
And so I will begrudgingly say Trump takes this one.
OK, I would like to see better leadership that if you could take you know, I've I've
argued this man, if the Democrats could could take someone who who was close to the same
policies of Trump, but calmed down that more of the you know, the ego and the rhetoric
stuff might actually win it for the same reason Democrats in many districts won in 20 2018.
They can't do it though.
Imagine if you got somebody not Biden, man, he's just awful.
He's just not.
Imagine if you got somebody who agreed with Trump on immigration on the border, but.
Didn't have these tweet problems.
They might actually take it.
I think you'd see a lot of even Trump supporters who really do like the guy say, as much as you like the guy, it is good to get that charismatic leader who's going to push good policy.
I will say, however, I believe now there is still a problem for Democrats in that even if they did bring up somebody who is very much like Trump policy-wise, And he had a better attitude?
A lot of people just wouldn't want to risk it.
I'm surprised when I hear people say they will vote against Trump after talking about how great the economy is, saying, you know, things have been great for them, they've saved money, and then they're like, oh, but I'm gonna vote against that guy.
And I'm like, if your concern is the economy, which, for me, it's not entirely, it does play a big role, then why would you not want Trump to be the president?
For me, I can understand if they say they want someone focused on foreign policy or healthcare or other issues, because, you know, I agree with that, I fall into similar camp.
My reason for not wanting to support Trump has nothing to do with the economy.
It has to do with foreign policy.
It has to do with what's potentially going to happen in Saudi Arabia.
And this is why, for the most part, I don't vote.
Okay?
It's not like I'm saying, I refuse to vote for the guy because, you know, whatever, Trump rearrangement syndrome.
And so typically this is why I always fall back to the, you know what man, I just don't think I know enough to dictate for other people.
Certainly don't like Trump's attitude.
And again, there's so many people in the Rust Belt who agree.
I don't want to rant on this.
I always end up ranting on Trump because it's so annoying that people demand that I constantly make Orange Man bad videos, but Trump is just not that bad.
He is not that bad.
And I tell you this, and I've said it before, if Trump appointed Tulsi in a defensive position, like Secretary of State or something, and Andrew Yang in an economic position, That's a strong consideration for my vote and many other moderates because it's been it's been joked about like man could you imagine if Trump did this major upset and brought on two Democrats that are very popular even among his base to be on his administration you Trump would win in a landslide hands down if he brought on Tulsi she is she loves this country she has real leadership experience and she is tough that's like wow for me what I care about when it comes to the commander-in-chief is military experience
I understand that not every president will have that.
Obama certainly didn't.
I was a lot younger then when I voted for him.
But being the commander-in-chief, overseeing law enforcement and our foreign policy.
So it's frustrating for me when the Democrats try to undermine Trump's foreign policy, but it's also an issue of I want a president who's pushed us to foreign policy.
That's just really what it's about.
If Trump won on Tulsa, that would be huge.
I'll tell you this, the Trump derangement syndrome left will screech, aha, you're a racist if you vote for Trump, all this other, you know, I just don't care.
That's just so stupid.
No, it's not at all.
Not at all.
Trump needs better, he needs to have a better attitude, he needs to cool his head.
You know, when he tweets during his impeachment hearings, it is just, man, just stop doing that, you know?
A lot of his tweets are funny, I can respect that.
A lot of his tweets, you just gotta calm down, brother.
And that's a detriment, but dude, It'd be amazing if Trump brought on Andrew Yang for an economic advisor position and Tulsi Gabbard, a Secretary of State or something.
Like, woo!
Talk about a landslide in the election if Trump did that.
But I will leave you with one final thought.
Joe Biden denies Ocasio-Cortez has dragged the Democrats to the left.
The party's not there.
Okay.
Joe, you've got around 30 or so percent.
Bernie's right behind you.
Warren's right behind you.
I'm sorry.
On Twitter, you got 4 million followers and AOC has just about 6.
I'm not gonna take your word for it, Joe.
I respect you for trying to be a middle-of-the-road guy of trying to keep the more moderate position.
But, uh, no.
AOC is the future.
It's the populist left.
It's the attitude.
The big problem I see?
You know, honestly?
I would prefer a populist left person.
Bernie has been pandering too much.
I don't trust him.
Elizabeth Warren is just Hillary Clinton wearing a Bernie mask.
And AOC is just failing left and right and then trying to claim like she's winning.
I look over to Trump and there's the populist right.
Now I'm not surprised he won.
He won and he's probably going to win.
Because you will find the general populists looking at Trump and saying, at least he's winning.
You know, man, I don't like AOC's attitude.
I don't like Trump's attitude, but at least Trump is winning.
So, man, I just want to stress, you know, because people are always like, why would you just vote for Trump, Tim?
Listen, it's about principle.
It's about, behind my principles, I easily recognize the successes of Donald Trump.
And I think it's fair to say, even on my principle, I don't like the guy.
It's just not even that hard.
And what is difficult is the constant left who's too blind and ignorant to understand this.
That you don't have to like him, and you don't have to want to vote for him to recognize he's trouncing you.
But they don't want to accept it.
They want to live in their fantasy world.
The only way you win and succeed is when you recognize you are losing.
Because if you can't even see that, how will you know to correct, to actually solve the problem?
So I'll end with one final thought.
I really do not care if Trump wins.
It's not the end of the world.
He gets one more term if he wins.
It'll be four years.
And then it's up to you to speak truth to the American people and tell them why your plan makes sense and why they should vote for you.
And so far they have not done that.
In today's age, we can see the facts.
We can see that AOC is gloating, and she's full of it.
She screwed the deal in New York and she's trying to claim she's winning?
The voters who care and are looking for answers can easily do a Google search and say, wait a minute, that's not true.
They can do the same thing to Donald Trump when he says stupid things, but guess what?
They can also see Jim Cramer go, whoa, the economy!
And then, they end by saying, it's the economy, stupid.
Thanks for hanging out.
For those that probably could tell or couldn't tell, I'm fighting through a root canal.
And trust me when I say, you know, it absolutely hurts.
But I refuse to stop working.
So more segments coming up at 1 p.m.
I'm sorry, 6 p.m.
youtube.com slash timcastnews and I will see you all there.
I made a few posts talking about socialism and work ethic.
And this morning, I decided to do a video about all the socialists that are mad at me for telling them to go do work.
Let me show you the first tweet.
And I want to explain something to you.
I said, the weirdest thing to me about socialists wanting to seize the means of production is that nothing is stopping them from building their own means of production.
Literally nothing.
Have y'all ever watched Primitive Technology?
Amazing channel.
Dude builds a house, a stove, all by himself.
So what?
This one take yours?
Count Dankula with the excellent response.
Bruh, what the eff do you mean do work, you effing capitalist?
Let me tell you something.
The main reason I wanted to do this video is that I was contemplating not working today.
The truth is, I am in a lot of pain due to a root canal I just got.
And it got worse over the past day.
And so I was about to tap out.
No, I refuse to do that.
I refuse to stop working.
I worked 365 days a year for the past three years and I'm not going to stop now.
No matter what.
I don't know if that's stupid, crazy, or whatever, but for me, I understand what I'm doing and why I'm doing it, and this is what I want to do.
And there is a big difference between someone like me, who is willing to do whatever it takes to work, to build, even through the pain, if it means building what I'm hoping to build, and accomplishing what I'm hoping to accomplish.
All the time, when I look at these posts from socialists, they talk about how in their utopia you would not have to work that much.
And that, to me, is antithetical to my being.
I like working.
I like building.
So what's their point?
They don't want to work, and therein lies the big issue.
These socialists are not the utopianist Star Trek future socialists they claim to be.
They are lazy, and they are stupid.
And they are shocked and outraged by my criticism of them, and they have no real responses other than memes.
I mean like crappy ones.
Memes that don't actually make an argument.
One person's response was, at what point are you actually going to be a journalist or something?
I find it funny.
It's like, well, this may sound immodest to channel my inner Kamala Harris, but I think I'm doing very well for myself and my career by refusing to back down and working as hard as possible.
Yet these people who are smack-talking, like so many, are nobodies doing nothing but complaining to other people who are working and being successful.
Let me show you this tweet and let me explain to you and show you how the socialists are all pissed off at me.
I said the only real means of production is human work ethic.
A hard-working person in the woods can produce more than a lazy person in a factory.
Is my camera the means of production?
Is a shovel?
Every tool would be seized?
My room has editing and filming tools.
Should that be seized?
So at what point does my room become the means of production?
So here's what ends up happening.
Somebody posts this nonsensical photo.
Because this video.
They don't understand.
Someone said, I would sure love to see how long it takes a man in the woods to build this.
And it's a streamlined assembly line with robots building cars.
Let me explain something to you to all the dimwitted socialists who don't understand the concept of production.
Everything is production.
Everything is production.
Okay?
This is a factory.
It wasn't always like this.
Before there was a factory, people would build cars by hand.
So would you take that factory away?
Let me, let me, let me give you a better example.
And I'll talk to you about the camera in my room analogy and why I brought this up.
I looked up.
I really want to understand what the means of production meant, what these socialists were trying to get at.
And the means of production is the facilities in which things are produced.
Now, in response to my argument about my bedroom and my camera, people have tried saying, no, the means of production refers to food or something.
A society can't function without the exchange of information, and because we've been losing real journalism, things are kind of falling apart.
It's really bad.
Now, it's obvious that media isn't as important as, you know, food, shelter, clean air, water, etc.
But media is substantially more important than, you know, I don't know, some of these like luxury items, you know, velvet dresses or something.
So if you want to talk about the means of production, let's talk about things that are necessary for a society to function.
for a society to function.
First, a camera.
Is a camera the product or the tool?
Well, there's a factory that makes cameras.
They want to seize that factory.
Okay, then you have cameras.
What do cameras do?
Cameras produce media.
So what happens now if you have a room full of cameras?
Is that also now the means of production?
Yes, it is.
To what extent are you not allowed to actually engage in work?
So here I am in my room with just one camera and a computer.
These are means of production.
Certainly not a big factory like we saw with that streamlined process.
The problem is who defines what the means of production is.
As we've seen from dystopian movies and novels, but actually real life, yes, they don't allow you to own the means of production, which means It would be very difficult to actually get your hands on any of the base and low-level tools to produce things.
Perhaps you would end up with a council of elite party members who want to decide whether or not you should have a camera in your room, which is likely.
But more importantly, how many cameras you're allowed to have.
See, the truth is, I've got several cameras.
I probably have like seven or eight, maybe?
Why?
Well, because we're expanding production.
We have people traveling around the world doing, you know, reporting, and we're building upon an idea, and we're doing it without anyone telling us what we have to do.
Does that mean we now control the means of production because we have the cameras to make the journalism?
Think about it.
Are the poor of this world able to produce the quality we are, they're
not. They need the cameras.
Which would mean, if in my home I have cameras set up and we are producing various media reports,
yes, they would come and take that from you. So let me tell you about this tweet. I said,
the only real means of production is human work ethic. A hardworking person in the woods can
produce more than a lazy person in a factory. That's a fact.
Okay? It doesn't say anything about the efficiency of the work.
You put somebody in the woods with nothing and you end up with that channel primitive technology where a dude literally builds a house in a stove with his bare hands and mud and sticks and leaves.
You put someone in a factory who's lazy sitting around doing nothing, they build nothing.
Work ethic is the only real means of production.
Everything breaks down to the individual's willingness To actually do the work in the first place.
Like me.
Refusing to back down, even in, you know, for whatever reason.
I've only ever missed one day of production in the past three years, and it was because I was doing business meetings to set up Subverse.
And that's just the way it is.
I can only work so much, and that's the work that had to be done.
No, I was sleeping on a friend's couch when I started working for Vice.
Five, club memberships.
I don't have any club memberships.
Six, personal assistant, nanny, ghostwriter.
None of that.
The only time I ever got to the point where I actually had an assistant or help was after my company was already successful and I was doing all of my work myself and got to a point where the work was too much and we started hiring people.
7.
Journalists who ask, what's your secret?
And uncritically publish the answer.
Let me tell you something.
This is the biggest problem of our generation.
I mean, it's not like socialists are only millennials, but millennials are such lazy, vapid, entitled individuals.
That's what they think.
If you tell someone it is impossible to succeed, they'll believe you.
If they grow up believing it's impossible, they won't try.
And so it's funny to me when I see people simultaneously insult me for being a high school dropout, but then try and claim the only reason I'm successful is because of what, private school?
And that's the reality.
The reality is, I've been homeless on several occasions.
The reality is, I've slept on couches.
I once lived in a house with meth heads.
It was that or sleep outside, and I was like, hey, I don't do drugs.
This was a decade plus ago.
I've received government benefits, which is why I'm a bit of a lefty on a lot of these issues.
I respect and believe that we can make these programs work, and I'm grateful to them.
So you want to talk about the seven secrets of highly successful people?
I'll tell you one.
Hard work.
Refusal to give up, and yes, in this instance, a social safety net helped me when I was at my worst.
A little bit.
It's not like I received, you know, I don't know, ten grand or something.
I was getting like a couple hundred bucks a month at one point, and that was about it, and it was for a little while, and that allowed me to stay off the streets.
And I respect that, and that's why I am a bit of a lefty in that regard.
So that brings me to This one.
Should I look at some of these hot takes from people?
Why don't you credit the news articles, Tim?
That's just... I don't see that.
You know, I know a lot of people want the links to a lot of these stories, but it's like, the links are literally in the display.
All of my videos have the link to the story with the title, and it's two seconds for anybody who wants to see the story to literally just type that in.
There's no difference between you clicking and typing a word.
I just... You know, and most people don't care.
Why don't socialists simply build more land?
It's really funny how people don't realize there are dying towns that are desperate to subsidize your acquisition of land.
People don't realize that you can go to big cities and actually petition.
It may be difficult to take over, you know, collapsing properties.
and help renovate the city.
Why don't socialists simply build more land?
Why don't you go to a small town in rural Pennsylvania that is collapsing due to the
digital economy and the loss of manufacturing jobs, have a conversation with a local community
about the land you need for the project you want to build, and guess what?
They will say yes.
There are a lot of places in this country that have buildings falling apart.
And I've researched a lot of this, and we were looking into moving in this direction.
And you, sure enough, can tell them, here's what I want to do.
It will boost the economy in this way.
And guess what?
They say yes.
These towns are dying.
It's one of the reasons Trump got elected.
He said, I'm going to bring your jobs back to these towns, stop them from falling apart.
Why is it though?
And so many of these socialists... Let's take a gamble.
Where's this person from?
I don't know where this person's from.
But my question is, why is it that so many of these socialists are from cities?
Yeah, I get it, man.
Cities are established.
You want to take someone else's land from a city?
It's owned by someone.
But guess what?
You still can do it.
If you have a reason and you have the work ethic, you can start from nothing and convince people to work with you, take over some abandoned property and convert it.
What you can't do is take someone else's property when they bought it because that's just a system of allocating resources to people in the hope that they do better.
I am not a laissez-faire capitalist.
I believe there are problems with people holding investment property and doing nothing with it.
Like I said, I lean a little left.
There's a difference between leaning left and being a lazy and stupid socialist who thinks that you should just own a factory someone built.
So let me say it again.
Let's say I'm in the middle of the woods by myself, and there's a factory five miles away.
The factory cuts wood and makes paper and stuff.
That's the means of production.
In the woods, I build a little mill near a stream.
And now I can make my own little paper and wood.
I've made it easier to do so.
I certainly can't do as much as they can.
But the lazy people in that factory stop working.
I keep working.
Do they come and seize the thing I've built?
If I invent a new camera, and that camera can produce things, they can now seize that tool?
Where does it end?
It doesn't.
They will literally take everything, and then tell you what you can or can't do, because in the end of the day, the only thing that matters when it comes to production is your willingness to produce.
Here's one.
What stops you from making a new YouTube?
I've never asked to seize YouTube.
I don't want to own YouTube.
I don't want to own a social media platform.
Yet I've still promoted Minds.com, because they have a partner program.
So, yeah, I'm promoting the competition of YouTube while I recognize YouTube as my bread and butter.
I take issue with a lot of things YouTube has done, but I always talk about how we're better off with Facebook, YouTube, or otherwise.
There absolutely are things stopping them.
That's not true.
Let me tell you something, man.
You know, if you were in the middle of the woods with nothing, what's stopping you?
Nothing!
Wild animals, maybe?
You can build that mud hut in the middle of the woods.
Now, I get it.
There's federal jurisdiction, there are rules and regulations.
Yup.
That's a reality.
But that doesn't mean something is stopping you.
It means that you are within a system, and no matter what system you are within, there are rules, and there are obstacles.
So if you want to get started and have a means of production, you start from where you have to start.
You are not entitled to someone else's factory.
Somebody spent 50 years building out a studio with cameras and all this stuff, or machines, and all of a sudden you're like, why do you have that?
Why can't I have that?
Well, that's too bad.
You didn't sacrifice everything to make that happen.
What it comes down to, is that they don't differentiate between a small tool and a
large tool.
An AI assembly line is a large tool, but cars are not a necessity for life.
You require food, water, shelter, etc.
Everything else is us doing better and better than that, but it's all cooperative.
We agree to exchange resources through a system of, you know, a decentralized system of currency.
These socialists seem to think you can build a utopia without a trade medium.
That literally makes no sense.
Even most of these communist attempts have always had some form of money, because you need a way to decentralize the trading of resources, even with a command economy.
Who can forget that episode of Primitive Technology when he builds a centrifuge out of mud?
Are you kidding?
You literally could build a centrifuge in the woods with some sticks and you can make a wheel.
And it's mind-blowing to me.
This person says, Avery Edison, you know the government kills people who do that, right?
Are you joking?
They kill people who go and start building things?
Last I heard, Elon Musk was still alive and he's building a spaceship.
Elon Musk started from, you know, look, I understand a lot of successful people and a lot of the famous people in this world have silver spoons.
I'm not a fan of that.
It's also true that Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, college dropouts built their own companies.
Mark Zuckerberg.
I understand that some of these people had privilege and excess.
But you get people like, you know, Rob Dyrdek.
You know, he's a professional skateboarder, and he's a high school dropout, and he pushed himself to the limits, he skateboarded, did well, and he's had a TV show for like a decade.
Like, two or three TV shows.
You can do it.
It's so frustrating to me that people are saying, like, you can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
When was the idea of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps ever about you becoming Elon Musk?
It wasn't.
You can.
You have to be smart.
The reality is, only the top tier of individuals make it to that level.
The best of the best, the cream of the crop, and guess what?
It's not you.
In reality, it's not me either.
I only have, uh, if you combine my channels, I got like 1.4 something million followers.
But individually, there's overlap between subs, so I have 650-something on my main channel, 550 on here.
But look at Steven Crowder.
He's got five and a half million or more.
You know, look at Joe Rogan.
Yeah, I'm certainly not those guys.
They are better, famous, they've worked longer, and there's nothing I can do about that.
I am not demanding that Joe give me access to the production facilities to make a podcast.
I made my own.
But think about it.
Joe Rogan has access to all of these, you know, things.
He can make this show and what?
The socialists think they should be allowed to go to his building where he built this thing to make a show and just start making their own shows?
That's literally what they're talking about.
Now, I understand, you know, my view is media-centric because I produce media.
But think about anybody, man.
Think about somebody who's making MyPillow, right?
The MyPillow guy on Fox News.
So what?
He invents a new, patents a new kind of pillow with this interesting feel.
I gotta admit, I actually do like the MyPillow.
It's pretty good.
He makes that, and now all of a sudden you're like, why do you have that?
Why can't I have that?
Well, it's because the dude thought about it, put work towards it, built it up, hired people, So listen, man.
Capitalism is incredible.
Socialism is insane.
Capitalism isn't perfect.
In a capitalist system, there'll be people left behind because it's not possible to save everybody all the time.
So look at all these people.
Here's your hot take, Pim Tool.
The funny thing about Pim Tool is that the only emotional reaction I have to it is like, It's it's it's kind of it's it for the most part.
I don't really think anything all these people say pimp tool.
It's like Did I don't understand what that is you know what I mean?
My only emotional reaction is like to feel that you are lazy and inept So I say this you know On Twitter, I have four hundred and, you know, seven thousand followers or something, and I'm eternally grateful for everybody who cares what I have to say, even on videos like this.
And, you know, it's no surprise to me that I was, you know, I was sitting here, I'm gonna wrap this video up, I was sitting here, and I don't even know if anybody's gonna watch, but I'll tell you this, man.
I was sitting in this chair, I have deadlines to where I have to start recording if I'm gonna make the upload time, and I'm gonna admit it, I'm in a lot of pain.
You can probably tell.
And I thought, maybe this is the one day where I have to bow out.
And I have to just go to bed.
Take some painkillers and just go to bed.
Nope.
Nope.
I absolutely refuse.
I don't care.
I literally will not stop.
I know what I'm doing.
I know why.
And if you don't want to work, that's fine.
But don't be surprised when I have a large following, I'm making money, I'm building a company, and you can see what I'm willing to do to get there.
And I don't like the idea That I will endure this pain, that I will sacrifice my time, no vacations, I will work every day, 365 days a year, and then you argue that you should take what I've built so you can work 10 hours a week.
Your world is a world of destruction, of theft.
It's a collapse.
And you know what?
Instead of accepting, you may just be average.
If you would rather live in Williamsburg, you know, in Brooklyn, hang out with your millennial buddies, complain about woke issues, have a beer, more power to you.
But you're not building anything.
You're having a good time.
I can respect that.
But what I can't respect is that because of your unwillingness to work, because of your desire to lounge around with your buddies, which, again, it's fine to do, you now think it's not fair that I have more than you, or that other people have more than you.
And this is coming from somebody who actually is a bit of a lefty.
And I believe in a higher progressive tax for the wealthy.
I believe in social programs.
But I also believe this mentality destroys all of that.
So let me make something clear before I wrap this up.
Because I have a couple hours before I got to do the next video.
And that's going to be in nap time or something.
Social programs work.
Social programs helped me.
I was homeless.
I'm a high school dropout from the south side of Chicago.
I had none of these advantages.
But the one thing I did have was desire, passion, and a willingness to say that I refuse.
I refuse.
Nothing will stand in my way.
No matter how bad, no matter what I must do, I will do what must be done.
I take a look at some of these other creators who have a similar mentality, and you need to realize the people who have succeeded have something similar here.
Not everybody.
Some people got a silver spoon.
But you know what?
I'm not mad that somebody got a silver spoon.
When I see people who have success, my question is, what do I have to do to get there?
I can't take it from them.
They built that.
It wouldn't work.
But I know that if I take a look at what they did, I can succeed too.
And so then here we are.
I think that there are people who fall in hard times.
I think that there are people who are smart and hardworking, but just don't know which direction to go in.
In which case, social programs can help.
Art programs, art investment, grants for college, counseling, unemployment benefits, food benefits, helping moms and things like that.
But there's a limit.
And the challenge is when you have this kind of mentality, which is bred from laziness and ignorance, saying, I just should get to have what you built.
You know what?
It's funny because it reminds me of what PragerU said.
Socialism takes what capitalism makes.
Somebody works really, really hard and builds a factory and says, I've made the world a better place.
And then these people say, well, we deserve that from you.
It's like, but dude, you were sitting around drinking beers, doing nothing.
What's going to happen if you give a factory to somebody who's lazy?
Well, we've seen it with the farms.
We've seen it with the famines.
You look at what happens in China.
When you take a farm from somebody who knows how to farm and knows how to build and hand it to these people who think they just deserve it, then there's no food.
And then people starve.
That's not the way society can function.
So anyway, you know what?
Count Dankula.
Do work, you effing capitalist.
Appreciate it.
Yes, do work.
Even if it means getting a root canal and still making videos day after day.
My only real concern is that with the pain is kind of holding back my focus and slowing me down.
But you know what?
Whatever, man.
It's better than doing nothing.
Because if I sat around doing nothing, I would go insane.
And so even though I was thinking, like, I don't know what I'm gonna do this morning, because, you know, it hurts pretty bad, and I took some pain meds, but it's not particularly effective, I'd feel worse if I didn't at least do something.
So here I am, talking for 24 minutes, when it should have been a 10-minute video, because I'm in a lot of pain, but I'll leave it there.
You don't have to like me.
You don't have to think I'm a humble, modest guy.
You don't have to agree with me.
But I'm telling you this.
If you're willing to do what it takes to succeed, you can.
But the truth is, you will not be Elon Musk.
You will not be Mark Zuckerberg.
You are not the 0.1% of talent, drive, willingness, etc.
You might just be average.
Worse still, you might actually be below average.
But if you want to talk about what will give you the advantage in life, Moping and complaining that you deserve more isn't going to change that fact.
So you may be only good at washing dishes, but if you work hard, and you work a lot, you will be in a better position.
So therein lies the big challenge, I guess.
Everyone just thinks they're going to be in the NFL and the NBA.
They think they're going to invent Facebook.
Dude.
Wikipedia, I believe, says there's half a million people in the world who are notable.
And some of these people are, like, bit actors with two sentences in their profile.
Out of 7, 8 billion people, only half a million are deemed worthy by Wikipedia.
And Wikipedia has a fairly low standard.
That means you're not going to be You know, the cream of the crop, top of the top.
It doesn't mean you can't succeed.
It doesn't mean you can't own your own ice cream shop as long as you put the hours in.
It doesn't mean you can't work for somebody else who has that cream of the crop talent and be an effective lieutenant for somebody who happens to be in the top bracket.
People seem to think that they're all gonna be the rock star, the historical figure.
No, man.
You gotta accept that not everybody is top tier.
Some people are bottom tier.
But if you're an average person and you work really hard, then you can be a commander or lieutenant.
And while it sounds stupid, I know a lot of people are going to reject that, I'll tell you what.
If you refuse to bend the knee to anybody to serve as 2nd in command, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, okay, then build your ship.
Start from scratch.
And even though that ship might never be Elon Musk's Starship, you'll be the captain of your own vessel.
And while you may be average, making your own little ice cream that's not too good, but, you know, good enough.
You'll have your own little fiefdom.
Your own little space to do what you want to do.
And you can not have to worry about anybody coming in, kicking your door in.
And that's another thing that makes America great.
I'll wrap this up.
Socialism is whack.
Socialists, you're stupid.
You're all dumb.
And you're lazy!
I'll see you guys at 1pm.
Quiet!
Quiet, Alexa!
Oh, great.
I'll see you guys at 1pm.
The Yellow Vests protest in France has crippled their tourism and a lot of their economy.
And it's still going on today.
You may not be aware, but the Yellow Vests protest was started when they put a tax on petrol in an attempt to reduce the amount of gas people were using.
The idea is basically, if we want to fight climate change, we gotta reduce the amount of gas people use so we'll charge more for it.
The problem is, people need gas to live and work.
Michael Bloomberg was recently on camera In a viral clip saying that taxing the poor is good because then they're less likely to spend money on things that will kill them.
Because when you take the money away from the poor, they can't cause themselves harm.
This is the mentality of the global elites.
Unfortunately, it's the mentality of those who are trying to curb climate change.
This is the future you can expect when they start implementing what can essentially be austerity in a sense, taking away the resources of the public because they don't like what the public is spending money on.
Take a look at these photos.
For those that are listening on the podcast, I'll just describe them.
In one, there's what appears to be tear gas all around.
It's a dreary sight with trash all through the streets, and a woman is holding a broken umbrella.
Below, we see a man in a black mask.
And there's smoke around him, which may be tear gas.
Many people are covering their faces.
In one, it's a red night sky with people marching.
So let me just tell you this.
These images of SWAT police battles in the streets going on for, what, over a year now?
Is what you get when you implement social policies meant to prevent climate change, like what Greta Thunberg has proposed.
Recently she said, change everything, complained about the colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression, and that fossil fuels are literally killing us.
If we were to move in the direction she wanted us to, Radical social policy.
Radical change.
Do you think that the average person is just going to say, okay, and just let these things happen overnight?
Unfortunately, no.
And I'll be the first to admit that presents us with a real crisis.
Whether or not you're a believer in climate change, we do need to protect the environment.
We need to make sure that we're protecting our air quality and our water quality.
And so I typically take a step back from the more finished arguments, I should say, the more far-out conclusions.
I know.
Climate change.
Here's what I'm trying to say.
People who believe in climate change definitively do.
People who don't definitively don't.
Let's move back away from all of that and ignore those conclusions, whether you believe it or not, and say this.
If you both want something, what can we do to get there?
What the left is proposing would be complete social breakdown and destruction, like what we're seeing in Paris.
I mean, look.
I respect the protesters insofar as they're willing to stand up for what they believe in and fight for their community.
I do not respect those that are destroying things, starting fires, fighting people.
But it's tough.
It's really tough when you have a government telling you that they are simply going to levy a punitive tax against you because you're too stupid or because they think people shouldn't have a right to use a certain resource.
Therein lies the big problem.
What do you do?
Check this out.
More than 800,000 demonstrators marched on cities throughout France today, with railway workers, teachers, and hospital staff joining the largest strike in decades.
Authorities in Paris barricaded the presidential palace and deployed some 6,000 police as activists, many in yellow vests, gathered for a major march aimed at forcing President Emmanuel Macron to abandon his pension reform plans.
So this is literally an austerity protest.
But I bring up the climate change stuff because the protests that have been plaguing France started with environmental concerns.
Well, Donald Trump is staunchly opposed to this, but I don't think that's a solution either.
I can't tell you what the solution is, but I can tell you that we're facing two big problems.
If we do nothing, we, in my opinion, will see damage from climate change.
The world is not going to end in 12 years.
The oceans are not going to sweep away Miami.
That's all fear-mongering insanity.
I believe people like Greta Thunberg, AOC, are trying to scare you, to shock you into thinking, oh, we better act now.
Because in their minds, well, they're probably just ignorant.
But there are a lot of people pushing this narrative, and I think it's because in their mind, they think, if I tell you the truth, you won't respond.
If I tell you we have 100, 200 years, they'll say, so what?
But we do need to act now.
I think it's better to just tell people the truth.
Listen, man, we can't keep polluting the air, right?
We had a problem in the late 1800s of horse poop in the streets.
A lot of people didn't care, but we were concerned there would eventually be too much.
So you know what we did?
We invented something new.
Cars.
Now cars and other fossil fuel factories and plants produce a lot of carbon in the atmosphere, which can destabilize the bio-ecology or the balance of nature and the chemicals and everything in the air.
I don't think I need to lie to anybody and claim the world's gonna end to make that an issue.
And I think by lying and screeching the end is nigh, you actually push people away into thinking you're nuts!
So if I said to you, we shouldn't be polluting, right?
Like, hey, let's have clean water.
Everybody would agree.
There's not one person that's gonna be like, no clean water, let's pollute more.
No, everybody wants clean water, we just disagree on the right way to do it.
So when you have these extremists, like Greta Thunberg, now talking about colonialism and patriarchy, it's like, dude, you immediately lost every single person you need to convince.
So I'll tell you what I think.
I think global warming is a serious issue.
I also think, what's the point of solving the problem if it results in a year of civil unrest and fighting in the streets?
You can't lie to people this way.
We need alternatives.
So we're addicted to fossil fuels because it's a high-energy output tool we use.
This petroleum, it does wonders.
It really does.
You know, you think back to several thousand years ago.
Humans would consume food and convert that into chemical energy to produce something.
Eventually, we started using beasts of burden.
The animals would exert force in a more efficient way, requiring less energy from us, freeing up our time.
Eventually we used wood, fire, steam, etc.
And now we're at the point where we have many different forms of energy, but the best we have in terms of acquiring, the best return on investment, fossil fuels.
There's a downside to this.
We are pumping out a ton of carbon and pollutants into our atmosphere.
Not a good thing.
Not a good thing.
But I don't need to sit here and screech the end isn't I?
That's stupid.
I don't want civil unrest to break down all of human civilization.
So we need to think about what we do.
First, when you start screeching the world is going to end like Greta Thunberg does, you end up with a bunch of people on the right saying, count me out, you guys have lost it.
So the government steps in and says, we're going to impose a tax, and you end up with scenes like this.
These people don't care.
These people are trying to live and survive, and they need access to fuels that facilitate our existence.
I have a solution.
One I've proposed many times.
Instead of punishing the poor, taxing the poor, and screeching the end is nigh, why don't we just say, hey guys, whether you're concerned or not, what can we do to actually make your life better?
Look at what Tesla is doing with electric cars and self-driving cars, man.
At least he's doing something.
Let's read a little bit more about what's going on in France, so we can get some context here, because I will state, this is an austerity protest, but, you know, because of the Yellow Vest things, they say President Trump cut short his trip to London on Wednesday, branding the Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau two-faced after he joked about the time Trump had taken during a press conference.
Macron desperately scrambled out of the diplomatic blunder, telling reporters, I am not going to comment on stolen videos.
That video wasn't supposed to be filmed in that room.
And we have record, we have, as Jim Cramer says, I'll cover this more in the next video coming up at 4pm, but Jim Cramer says, best numbers of our lives.
Meanwhile, Canada's losing jobs, France is rocked by austerity and environmental protests.
Who are we supposed to criticize here?
Trump for talking poorly?
For being arrogant and narcissistic?
I'll stop and say for sure, but I'm going to tell you what.
I'm going to have to criticize you for the civil unrest and the breakdown in your country.
These people have these extreme views on how they should deal with these things, and it always seems to come back to what Michael Bloomberg said about them being smarter than the poor people.
You look at someone like Greta Thunberg.
Who is the epitome of white privilege.
If I had to describe what white privilege was to somebody, I'd just say, and you should do this too.
Look, there's a lot of people who probably don't get the concept.
Let me explain it to you.
Greta Thunberg is white privilege incarnate.
She is a young, arrogant, spoiled, narcissistic child who's very ignorant.
I'm not saying these things to be mean to her, to disrespect her.
I'm stating these as facts.
She is very arrogant.
She says, you have stolen my childhood while she traverses the globe meeting with world leaders.
Yeah, that's arrogant, extremely, and narcissistic.
Your childhood was stolen?
What did you want to do, go to the moon?
You're doing what some young people only ever dream of, being an international celebrity, getting to meet world leaders, and dictate policy?
Wow!
Talk about arrogant narcissism.
We took your childhood away?
She's also very ignorant.
She doesn't understand what she's talking about.
So she is the epitome of what you could describe as white privilege.
She comes from a very wealthy country, Sweden.
Very high GDP per capita.
She has, as far as I understand, a decently wealthy living situation.
We've seen photos of the wealth she lives in.
She gets to reduce her carbon footprint by taking a yacht across the ocean.
Well, isn't fast.
It's certainly expensive.
So while I don't attribute her wealth to the fact that she's white, when people talk about how there's white privilege, people listen to you more, they respect your opinions, you're more likely to have access to wealth, that's Greta Thunberg.
So if I was ever going to explain to somebody white privilege, I'd say, oh, like Greta, you know, 16, refuses to go to school because of climate change, and she hasn't been at school in over a year.
Could you imagine being a kid?
And telling your parents, I don't want to go to school, and them saying, you know, why?
And you say, oh, because people eat meat.
And they were like, okay, once people stop eating meat, you can go back to school.
What kid wouldn't make up some dumb reason not to go to school?
So now you have this funny circumstance where Greta Thunberg actually leaves school and then starts complaining about changing the world, but you know what, man?
Let me tell you something.
I'm a milquetoast fence sitter.
You've heard me say that before.
And it's because I don't think I'm the smartest person in the world.
I think I read a lot.
I think I know a lot.
Most people think they're smart.
But I don't think I'm the smartest person in the world.
So I typically reserve the right, you know, for hard facts and solutions to come in before I assert what should or shouldn't be done.
I'm a high school dropout.
If you want to hold that against me, so be it.
And then you have to also, if you want to claim that I'm just a stupid high school dropout, contend with the fact that I'm straight up saying I don't know the solutions.
Maybe that's because I didn't go to school or college.
Okay.
At least I have the guts to say, honestly, I'm not 100% convinced.
I don't know.
I want to wait for more hard evidence and propose compromises that I think would work for most people.
Greta, on the other hand, stopped going to school and then complains she knows exactly what needs to be done.
She then complains that her childhood was stolen from her.
This is what you get.
So let me ask you something.
Here's a conundrum.
Do you want, if you believe in these things that AOC and Greta say, about the end of the world, you know, eight to ten years now, the oceans are going to sweep away Miami, what do you want?
Do you want civil unrest and riots?
Fires in the streets and the total breakdown of society?
And once that happens, it's going to be hard to get medicine and food?
Or do you want to, you know, just let people start burning fossil fuels and then as time goes on, the world ends?
The challenge I see here We know for a fact there will be mass civil unrest if we start implementing harsh taxes and policies to curb people's access to resources like they did in France for a year now.
I also believe if we do nothing and keep moving in this direction, we will be damaging our environment to an extreme detriment.
I also recognize, I've said it many times, I don't expect to convince people on the right who don't believe in climate change that we should do something about it.
I do believe that we can find a compromise that works for everybody.
I also believe that if we continually address the issue in a fair and honest way, And incentivize financially better living and better technology.
We avoid all of this.
The problem I see right now...
It's not climate change deniers.
Not at all.
Because you can go to someone who doesn't believe in climate change and say, I'll tell you what, you don't believe in climate change?
What if I gave you a hundred bucks to ride your bike instead of, I don't know, taking the bus?
Somebody might be like, dude, a hundred bucks?
Imagine if we created financial incentives to do something that made more sense.
I'm not talking about punitive taxes.
I'm talking about tax breaks.
I think that's an excellent path forward.
What if I said, here's what we're going to do.
We are going to offer up credits for electric cars if you buy that instead.
Guess what?
We do that.
We literally have a system that's trying to incentivize people to say, we don't care how you feel about the environment.
We're just going to tell you what.
We think it's an issue.
This car's better for you.
How would you like?
Let me tell you something.
Some of you might say you'd rather have a Ford F-150.
And that makes sense.
It's a pickup truck.
You might need it for work.
But let's talk about luxury living.
Let's talk about you just want to go hang out with your friends.
What would you rather drive in?
A self-driving Tesla with that big sunroof?
Like, have you ever seen the inside of a Tesla?
They're amazing!
Or, you know, like a standard model Toyota Honda or Toyota Honda.
A Honda Civic.
I was gonna say Toyota Corolla and then I mixed them up.
Honda Civic with, you know, standard, you know, manual transmission or automatic.
I tell you what, man.
If I had to choose, man, I'd want a Tesla, dude.
That'd be so cool.
Those cars are awesome.
They're expensive, though.
So we offer tax incentives for this.
The problem I see is the zealots.
They believe the world is ending, so they're literally causing this city to burn down.
If they just, you know what man, the world isn't ending and that's the big problem.
So here I am, I've worked for non-profits, I've worked for the environment, I've fought for the environment.
And I learned very simply, you do not win by screeching the end is nigh.
You win by a handshake saying, hey man, ten seconds.
It's this simple.
Keep your lights off.
Don't forget to turn off your lights.
You know why?
Not because of the environment.
Because it'll save you money on your electric bill.
How many people leave their lights on, you know, flush their toilets too much, use ineffective light bulbs?
All of that costs you more money, dude.
I don't need to talk to you about reducing emissions.
I need to talk to you about living more efficiently so you can afford more stuff.
Go have fun with your friends, get some drinks at the bar.
I'll tell you what, man.
How much money would you save if you turned the lights off when you didn't need it?
How many dads said, why are the lights on?
How many dads have said, who left the door open?
The AC's on.
We're not air conditioned in the world.
That's the mentality we need to say.
Save resources for you and your family.
That will be better for the environment.
It all comes down to us as individuals making that choice.
Not putting taxes on the resources we need to go to work in the first place.
But I'll leave it there.
You get the point.
These protests in France are austerity.
These photos are pretty awesome, by the way.
Like, this is a man in a clown mask waves a smoke bomb as he takes part in a demonstration to protest against the French pension overhauls in Marseille today.
But, it's, it's, I know it's not the same thing.
I don't, I'm not trying to conflate austerity protests with environment protests.
But this is kind of like, I think the important, one of the, one of the, it really is one of the most important battles right now politically.
How we can create a clean and sustainable future If not everyone agrees on what the problem is.
I tell you what, I would rather argue with a hundred climate change deniers than a hundred climate change zealots.
Because the climate change zealots are going to say, we demand you ban gasoline.
And I'm going to be like, stop.
Okay, that's crazy.
We can't just do that.
A hundred climate change deniers are going to be like, I don't think it's a big problem.
And I say, but what if we still incentivize you to save money?
People would be like, oh, we'll talk about it.
It's like, I can tell somebody, hey, we have a way that you can save money for your family and do right by the environment.
People are going to say yes to that.
But if you say, I'm going to ban gasoline, they're going to be like, no.
And that's why it's harder to talk to the zealots, because they're too entrenched.
And I'm telling you this, man, as somebody who actually worked for nonprofits and fought for the environment, I have spoken to the zealots.
You can't win with them.
And I've spoken to deniers who will compromise if there's mutual benefit.
And there is.
But telling people the world is gonna end solves nothing, so I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast, and I will see you all there.
We often hear about verdicts in which we disagree.
Someone will be charged with a crime, they'll get acquitted, and then we're left stunned.
There's always one important thing you need to know when this happens.
We don't know all of the details.
We don't know what the jurors heard.
We don't know what evidence was presented.
Keeping that in mind, I am still flabbergasted at this story.
New York man, 35, who is charged for offering Twitter users $500 to kill ICE agents is acquitted by federal jury because his tweet is protected speech under the First Amendment.
Whoa, whoa!
I'm not even that much of a free speech absolutist.
And the other thing here, check this out.
Zia Browsky also shared tweets alluding to the killing of John McCain and injuring law enforcement and praising the death of law enforcement.
How this guy got acquitted is beyond me.
You can't incite violence.
So this is a guy.
Apparently they are!
said he would raise he was trying to raise money for people to go out and
hurt and the lives of federal law enforcement officers Wow I gotta say our
our federal government must be weakening dramatically if this is allowed let me
read the story for you guys a man who tweeted that he would pay $500 to anyone
who would kill a federal immigration officer was acquitted by a jury on
Friday in a case that questioned whether social media threats were protected by
free speech apparently they are what's Brandon Zabrowski 35 of New York City
was cleared by a federal jury of using interstate and foreign commerce to
transmit a threat after a week of testimony at the US District Court in Boston.
If convicted, he faced up to five years in jail and a potential $250,000 fine.
Zebrowski said he was relieved the ordeal was over after the verdict was presented in court.
It seems like the right verdict.
It's been a horrible year.
I'm glad it's over, he said, as he walked out of the court with his family and lawyer.
Derejee Dermissy, Ziabrowski's lawyer, said the case should never have gone this far.
He said the government turned a tweet that was made in jest, a hyperbolic political statement,
into a federal case.
Last year, Ziabrowski took to Twitter to air out his frustrations with the U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement Agency, another law enforcement, by verbally targeting officers
on his account.
Now, here's the thing.
This dude didn't just say, I will pay for X.
He said, let's do this, everyone.
He tweeted that he was broke.
I'm not going to quote it.
He said he was broke, and he will scrounge and literally give $500 to anyone who kills an ICE agent.
He then told people to at him, message him, seriously, who else can pledge get in on this?
He was calling for them to make it work.
I get it.
You might think he was making a joke, but what if someone wasn't?
He said straight up he would pay for it.
What if someone went out and actually did something?
I don't understand how this is illegal, how he got away with this.
De Missy argued that Ziabrowski's comments were constitutionally protected political speech, and the prosecution of his client was blown out of proportion.
This is a guy who tweets about all kinds of things and says outrageous things.
Assistant U.S.
Attorney Stephanie Siegman pushed back at Ziabrowski's defense, saying that the tweet constituted a true threat not protected by the First Amendment.
She said, I have no idea.
I'm sitting here.
I agree.
How in anyone's right mind could that be?
You know what?
You guys tell me in the comments.
This is not protected speech. This is a solicitation to commit murder.
I have no idea. I'm sitting here. I agree. How in anyone's right mind could that be?
You know what? You guys tell me in the comments. You guys tell me.
Siegmund also asserted that Zia Browse Zebrowski's tweets were not in any way sarcastic or joking,
as DeMisse claims to jurors.
I don't think it matters if he was joking or not.
Look, I'm a pretty free speech kind of guy, right?
But he said he would pay.
He said he would pay.
Joking or not, right?
Have you ever seen that kids, what is it, the Whitest Kids You Know thing?
Where they said the joke was that, I can't say, go do X, right?
That I understand is a joke.
That I understand is protected.
This is a guy saying, hey, I'll give you money if you go do this.
When Zia Browsky shared his disparaging tweet last year, Siegman reminded jurors that the names of ICE agents had publicly been released and Homeland Security officials judged the man's statements as a credible threat.
Judge Denise Casper told jurors the main question they faced was if Zia Browsky intended to communicate a viable threat against officials or if the threat could at least be interpreted that way by others.
Here we go.
I'm going to tell you something right now.
If you go on Twitter and take what he said and say it yourself and add The context is this story.
It's clear you're not really trying to communicate a threat but make a point.
In which case, this just opened the door for quite literally anyone to solicit violent acts and say, I was making a point about this guy getting off.
I was making a point about this guy getting acquitted.
It wasn't actually intended to communicate a threat.
And it is justified by the story itself, the precedent being set.
You can say it.
She noted that a true threat does not include caustic or sharp political attacks, as such comments are protected speech.
In response to the acquittal, U.S.
Attorney Andrew Lelling said in a press release that they accept the jury's verdict, but maintained that the tweet was a threat to federal officers.
Lelling wrote, We respect the jury's verdict, but in this case, the defendant posted a tweet that on its face offered $500 to anyone who killed a federal agent.
In 2019, over 100 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty.
The public needs to know that regardless of today's verdict, we will never hesitate to prosecute apparent threats against law enforcement officers.
In addition to the controversial tweets that spawned an investigation, Zeabrowski replied to a tweet about ICE agents putting their lives on the line to arrest criminal aliens.
He said, Thank you ICE for putting your lives on the line, and hopefully dying I guess was less of you?
So listen, man.
Here's a guy who has expressed desire for these people to die in the past.
That's protected speech.
I get it.
He then escalated to the point where he said he would pay someone to do it.
The Department of Justice contends that Zia Browski shared several tweets expressing his desire to slit John McCain's throat and railed against law enforcement, saying guns should only be legal for... I can't even repeat this.
I cannot repeat what he said!
This is mind-blowing.
He basically said that guns should only be for harming police officers, like the Second Amendment Intentity Claims.
Twitter suspended his account at the request of authorities in 2018.
Zebrowski was initially arrested by officers in August 2018, as federal officials said his comments were part of a broader rise in threats against law enforcement during the nation's increasingly divisive opinions over immigration and other political issues.
I'll tell you what.
This might just be jury nullification.
You familiar with jury nullification, everybody?
Let me tell you.
Jurors can just vote not guilty if they decide and thus essentially nullify the case.
It may be that the jurors in Boston understood it was a threat but didn't care.
Thought he should say it.
I'll tell you this, man.
A lot of people are saying, Tim, where's Civil War?
Where's Civil War?
Look, man, I've said it a million times.
I don't know what it will look like, and we're probably already in it.
It may not be overwhelmingly violent.
It may be information wars.
But I will tell you one thing.
If you are concerned about an escalation of violence, this story should terrify you.
that a man actually offered money for people to go and cause harm to federal agents and he was acquitted.
If it's true the jury just didn't want to prosecute or didn't want to convict, sorry, not prosecute, convict, he
was prosecuted, stands to reason the divide is that fierce.
Now I get it, Boston's a very liberal place.
But it's gonna be, it's damn terrifying if a jury's gonna look at what he said and said it was okay.
Not that he's not guilty.
You know, a joint notification is basically, we know you did it, but we don't care.
It's the right thing to do.
It's not though, and that's what's truly horrifying, that we're really coming to this point where people on social media can incite call to action.
And there's no repercussions.
None.
So, you know, I'll tell you another thing.
It's not even about whether or not... Let's step aside from right or wrong, legal, illegal.
How do you think law enforcement agents are going to feel when they see this kind of rhetoric?
When they see these people getting away with it?
Do you think they're going to feel safe?
Or do you think when they're approaching protesters, they're going to act ten times harder?
I'll tell you what, man.
When you see people like this saying these things, and you have these law enforcement agents out in the field, And a bunch of protesters show up.
Do you think they're going to say, everything's cool, the guy was joking?
Or do you think they're going to say to themselves, these people are serious, man.
These people have done it, they're serious, and it's only a matter of time before they really do hurt someone.
This is going to cause massive apprehension between law enforcement and regular old civilians walking down the street.
It's going to result in more cops who are scared and worried that these people are calling for this behavior.
It's going to make things tenser and that leads to a more dangerous future.
You know why?
I'm not going to blame a cop if he reacts to someone like this by punching him in the face or knocking him down when they get in his face.
Let me put that better.
Let's say someone like this, screaming these things, gets in the face of a cop who then knocks him out and arrests him.
The cop is rightfully now seeing the escalation in political tensions, seeing that the people are justifying this behavior and genuinely fearing for his safety, their safety, man or woman.
In which case, when they say to the court, I feared for my safety, here's why.
And they're going to show the tweets.
And is a jury at that point going to say, you know what?
I can understand why the cop feared for his life.
These people have been calling for their deaths and getting away with it.
That will result in more protests thinking they're getting away with it, and it's going to cause a massive escalation in these tensions.
I don't understand how you can have a guy who has apparently alluded to threats towards John McCain, who's repeatedly championed or expressed appreciation for the death of federal agents, and then called for this and be acquitted.
But hey, man, you know what?
We don't know what the evidence was, but I'll tell you this.
He literally said this.
We know he said it.
We see the tweet.
That's messed up.
That's really messed up.
Yeah.
Comment below.
Let me know what you think.
Podcast, YouTube, or whatever.
I will see you all in a few minutes in the next segment.
Only a liar and a fool would have you believe it's been bad for Trump in any capacity.
Now, now, hold on.
You know, the impeachment thing can be bad to some respect.
But it's flipping moderates.
They're opposing it.
Trump's fundraised off of it.
So I have to say, while Trump hasn't taken a clear victory, right?
Let's say on a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 being nothing stopping Trump, I'd put him at like a 75.
Like he's had some roadblocks.
Democrats have thrown things in his path.
But you know what?
It doesn't matter if Donald Trump is re-elected at this point.
He's already won.
And I can prove it.
And I'm not just going to jump around with a conservative outlet.
No, I've got a couple outlets.
One's left, one's moderate right, and one's more of a conservative outlet.
Donald Trump is on track to confirm 180 federal judges, just as he predicted in November.
You see?
The judges are going to shape the law for decades to come, for the next generation.
It's going to have a profound effect on the law, on our culture and society.
And while the Democrats have been shrieking about trying to impeach the president, Donald Trump has been on a spree with confirmations of 180 federal judges, not just his Supreme Court picks, which he's probably going to get more of.
This is permanent, okay?
These are lifetime appointments.
Trump could resign today and he's still won.
We'll read this story, but it's not just this.
Check this out.
Markets rocket on job report as investors shed recession fears.
Now, there've been a lot of people in media talking about a recession's coming, gonna hurt Trump.
Record jobs.
And it's not just this.
I got more.
And we'll go back to that main story about the judges.
Check out this story.
Every day heroes.
ICE completed a record-breaking year of criminal arrests.
Illegal immigration is way down.
Immigration itself is way down.
Donald Trump has won across the board, and you can't really... Look, anybody who's arguing that Trump is losing or in trouble, They're lying to you, man.
They are.
It's frustrating that we're in this world where if you recognize Trump's victories, they call you a Trump supporter.
No.
But they want me and other people to just only ever rag on Trump.
Sorry, man.
I don't care.
I really don't care about your goals, your politics.
I care about what's happening.
And the truth is, the victories behind Donald Trump are staggering.
You know Donald Trump said you get tired of winning.
It's a joke.
Of course you'll never get tired of winning.
But he was right.
He is winning every step of the way.
Every scandal they throw at him, he's won.
Impeachment backfired.
Markets are up.
Jobs.
The media.
And I'll tell you this.
There have been some roadblocks.
Donald Trump demands CNN retract totally false information and reporting.
Yeah, the media tries.
That's what I'm saying.
It's not a clean victory.
Not a perfect KO.
Pretty damn close, though.
Let's read about the judges, because this is what matters.
I've already talked about everything else.
I've talked about the markets.
I've talked about immigration.
Let's see what's going on with the judges.
Newsweek.
Left-wing publication.
They report.
President Donald Trump, who campaigned in 2016 on a promise to remake the federal judiciary, predicted last month that he would nominate more than 180 federal judges to the bench by the end of the year.
He is well on track to do so.
This year alone, the Senate has confirmed 90 of the president's nominees.
The pace of confirmations has significantly increased.
You know, the partisans, the tribalists, they want to tell you, they want to screech and they want to cry, but I'll tell you what, man.
Trump is ramping things up, and the Senate is getting stuff done.
This is going to shape our country for the next generation.
They say.
The pace of confirmations has significantly increased, rolling along twice as quickly compared with the first two years of Trump's presidency, when he placed 85 judges on the bench.
Those first years saw two of the president's most polarizing and legacy-making nominations so far.
Supreme Court Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
This week, the Senate confirmed eight of Trump's nominees.
As it now stands, Trump has 51 more judicial nominees pending before the Senate.
Should only a handful of these clear the upper chamber?
The President and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will have made Trump's promise a reality.
Let me tell you something.
You know what?
You know what?
I'll call this schadenfreude.
You see, I've told you about how in 2016 I chortled a hearty chortle when Donald Trump won.
I laughed.
And it was the greatest laugh ever.
And I can tell you when Michael Moore said the people who voted for Trump would be sending the biggest F you to Washington, I get it.
I felt it.
And I laughed.
I didn't vote for Trump.
I probably won't.
I'm that milquetoast fence-sitter.
You know, I sit back, but I'll tell you what.
They certainly got what they deserved.
Bernie Sanders, for all his faults, should have been the nominee.
And we all know it.
And I'll let you in on a secret.
Not really a secret.
Trump won in a couple states by a few margins.
It's entirely possible.
Bernie Sanders would have won.
Now, will Bernie Sanders win today?
Probably not.
Because the economy is just too good.
You see, the thing with Trump and Bernie was that when it came to borders, when it came to trade, they were very similar.
The media said it.
But I traveled to these Trump rallies after the nomination was stolen from Bernie.
And I met a lot of Bernie Sanders supporters who were there for Trump.
And I met a lot of people who said they would have preferred Bernie.
They don't like his socialism, but they thought that he had more experience in politics, which would have played better and gotten more done.
That's what I heard from a lot of people.
It's anecdotal, I know.
But I think about that, and in my experience, it says to me that those people who thought Bernie would do a better job are now looking at the job Trump has done and saying, you know what?
He pulled it off.
The economy is great.
He's getting those judges.
And these people are moderates.
You know, they're not fringy, so they don't care about the judges.
But conservatives, man, conservatives are probably kicking back, popping open a Corona, stuffing in that lime, and laughing with a cigar in their mouth as Trump sweeps the judiciary with new judges.
On Wednesday, the Senate confirmed one judge, Sarah Pitlick, who was rated as not qualified by the American Bar Association.
Republican Senator Susan Collins was the only member of her party to vote against Pitlick's confirmation.
Can you believe it?
Not only... Okay, there's a reason I'm laughing.
Not only is Donald Trump sweeping through the judiciary, Record economy.
He's even getting judges that are deemed not qualified confirmed.
That's winning.
Okay, that's winning.
I'm not saying I like Pitlick.
Don't know a lot about her.
I heard some complaints from leftists that she's a very staunch pro-life individual and she's never actually served or anything.
You know, she has no experience.
Hey man!
You know, I'm concerned about that, but I will tell you this.
It doesn't matter if I'm concerned.
It matters the question that I'm asking right now is, is Trump winning?
And what are you going to do about it?
Well, I'll tell you this.
You want to talk about how to get Trump out?
Highlight people like Pitlick and explain why you think she's unqualified.
And challenge Trump's nominations.
They're not.
They're screeching impeachment.
They're screeching Orange Man Ben.
And they're ignoring all this.
Like, let's be real, man.
This is one of the biggest cultural fights right now.
Surprisingly, they are not talking about it.
Trump is pushing these people through.
The American Bar Association is not qualified.
Trump is winning so much, he's getting people with no experience and no qualifications on the bench?
I said it in the main segment, if you cannot accept If you cannot accept that you're losing, you will never win.
Because the only way to correct course is to recognize the fault.
In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Lindsey Graham and Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, the ABA noted that Ms.
Pitlick has never tried a case as lead or co-counsel, whether civil or criminal.
She has never examined a witness.
Though Ms.
Pitlick has argued one case in a court of appeals, she has not taken a deposition.
She has not argued any motion in a state or federal trial court.
She has never picked a jury.
She has never participated at any stage of a criminal matter.
Whoa!
Now, I got concerns about that, man.
That does not sound good.
To me, that is very, very alarming.
And you know what?
I still laugh.
You know why?
Because I'm not the one who played the stupid, corrupt game the Democrats did that resulted in the real nominee, who should have been Bernie Sanders, and they put up Hillary Clinton.
You reap what you sow.
The bull is charging through the ivory tower, and I'm laughing as he kicks around and stomps your fancy vase and your curio cabinet collapses.
The ivory tower for too long kept their doors shut.
And when Bernie came up and said, peasant revolt, you dropped a stone on his head and laughed.
And so the other side brought a bull, and that bull is stomping around, and I gotta admit, I find it funny.
Now look, man, I have concerns.
I wouldn't vote for Trump, okay?
I don't like the idea of a judge with no experience being put in just for political reasons.
And you know what?
We're going to have to deal with that.
Us politically homeless moderate liberal types who are principled want to have a real conversation.
This is an absolutely excellent point that I will bring up when I challenge conservatives.
I tell you the problem though.
It's not the real fight.
And I'd be willing to bet there's going to be a lot of conservatives who agree with me.
I've sat down with principled conservatives and had conversations about Trump's faults and wrongdoings and they acknowledge it.
That's the thing that, you know, I'll tell you what, man.
The people who say vote blue no matter who.
Wow.
Wow.
Because I've met people on the left who apologize for everything Obama's done.
Apologize for Hillary Clinton.
Apologize for the flip-flopping wishy-washiness.
And I've met Trump supporters who fully acknowledge all of the bad things Trump's doing.
Look, I know there's a lot of Trump supporters who would say he does no wrong.
I get it.
I tell you what, man, every day, like look what we saw with AOC earlier today, trying to claim she's doing right.
You know what, man?
I'd be willing to bet, I would bet a substantial amount of money, that a decent amount of people watching this will concede, wow, Trump should not be appointing people with no experience if, you know, there's these objections being made.
However, I bet a lot of people will concede Donald Trump wins.
He's the president.
He can do what he wants.
So if you're on the left and you are shocked by this, and I'm looking at that like, man, I will add this to a list of things I am concerned about with Donald Trump.
But I'll tell you what, man, he's the president.
He won.
It's the Democrats' fault.
It is their fault.
That vote blew no matter who.
That's your fault, man.
No.
You played that, you propped up Hillary Clinton, and now you reap what you sow.
So I get it.
There will be negative impacts for me, for my beliefs, and you know what?
I know that I'm not going to win unless I point these things out, challenge them, and recognize Trump is winning.
This may be the best symbol of a Trump victory.
And where are any of the Democrats, right?
The leftists, the mainstream left, I'll tell you what.
You look to someone like Eric Weinstein.
Weinstein?
I always, whatever.
And he'll be the first to point out his concerns with conservatives, and he's a progressive.
And he gets respect from conservatives for having those conversations because he's a calm, rational guy.
And that's important.
I agree, and I occupy a similar space.
But unfortunately for us, our ideas are not being backed up by any allies.
See, the people on the left hate us.
They push us out.
They tell us to go away.
Okay.
So I laugh.
I laugh.
I'll tell you what.
I get it.
I see the problem.
I'm going to sit back and say, you deal with it.
You know why?
Because I've tried explaining to you.
I've tried talking to the left.
I've tried telling them, stop pretending.
AOC trying to claim she won the Amazon fight.
Accept you lose, stop the impeachment nonsense, bring up real issues, real ideas, and use this!
So I will sit back and laugh as the ball charges through the ivory tower because you told me to F off.
Okay.
What do you want me to do, man?
I'm trying, right?
There are things I believe in.
I've explained in great detail over the past several years about my positions, why I lean left on policy issues and things like that, and what I'm trying to do by having a rational conversation with people I might disagree with to figure out how we can move forward.
And you know what?
Conservatives disagree with me.
And I hear it all the time.
But I get a lot of respect for trying to be balanced fair and recognizing, you know, Trump is the president.
You know, what are you going to do?
He won.
There you go.
Let's play fair.
Like, when I lose, I'm not a sore loser.
I'm not a sore winner.
The left just kicked me out the door.
Fine.
So be it.
You're on your own.
You're on your own.
And the political homeless, me and so many other, you know, individuals who are attracting moderate centrists, libertarian types, and even some conservatives, are going to just sit back confused and say, you know what, man?
I don't tell you.
I don't.
But I'll tell you one.
Here's one big warning I'll end with.
When people like Dave Rubin I don't want to single out Dave, but there are people who used to be very liberal, now can't even have a conversation.
You know what happens?
You hear persuasive arguments from the right from those willing to talk, and you hear F you from the left.
It's going to make it really hard for someone to push back on a right-wing argument when the only argument you know of is the rights.
I'll see you on the next segment in just a few minutes.
China has made the world's first monkey-pig hybrids.
Well, they were born.
So world's first monkey-pig hybrids are born in Chinese lab as part of groundbreaking bid to grow human organs inside animals for transplants.
Chimera piglets contained DNA from both pigs and cynomogus monkeys.
They died within a week of being born at a laboratory in Beijing.
Scientists claim the research aimed to find a way of growing human organs.
Where is Alex Jones when you need him?
Wasn't Jones just on Joe Rogan talking about the creation of animal hybrids and human-animal hybrids and all this other nonsense?
I'm kidding.
I don't know where Jones has gone with all this.
But they're doing it.
This is real.
This is a real story.
This is from just the other day.
I'm gonna read you the story.
And then I want to talk to you about something I find particularly interesting.
It's not really news related, but because of this, I want to talk to you about the Human-Z.
That's right.
You may not have heard of this.
A chimp-human hybrid.
And some of the creepiness around how that was made.
If it was made.
Let's read the news.
Two chimera piglets containing monkey DNA have been born in China.
Although both died within a week and appeared to be normal, the baby animals had genetic material from cynomolgus monkeys in their heart, liver, spleen, lung, and skin.
Scientists said the research, which required more than 4,000 embryos to get the piglets, aims to find a way of growing human organs and animals for transplantation.
I'm gonna stop real quick.
I'm willing to bet China is doing crazy, freaky experiments.
Now, Part of me is excited by the idea of an evil Chinese mastermind, you know, like these evil labs where they're creating like superhumans with wings and like giant claws.
But in reality, I'm horrified by the idea of what they're doing in China with organ harvesting and capturing people.
While it certainly would be fun for someone to discover how to give humans like Special gene therapies to give them the ability to like, you know, electrocute people like an electric eel or some other superpower.
That's just not a reality at this point, and unfortunately to do that requires a lot of weird experimentation.
And, um, human torture.
Not really.
They could do it on animals first.
Maybe we'll get to the point where there's real gene therapy, but it is a really scary future.
I'm willing to bet China's doing a lot of really freaky things we don't know about.
Five-day-old piglet embryos had monkey stem cells injected into them that had been adjusted to produce a fluorescent protein, allowing researchers to find out where the cells ended up.
Scientists said it was unclear why the two chimera piglets died, but as eight other normal piglets that were implanted also died, they think this is a problem with the IVF process rather than chimerism.
Despite the research, some members of the scientific community have warned against creating chimeras due to ethical concerns.
Neuroscientist Douglas Munoz at Queen's University in Kingston, Canada, said that research projects like this just really ethically scares me.
Me too!
This is freaking me out.
It's kind of cool.
Like, dude, I love sci-fi.
I love the idea that maybe, like, you know, we can actually improve humans and make our bones stronger, muscles stronger, live longer.
But the reality of it is much scarier than the science fiction of it.
Like, it's cool to imagine a sci-fi world of, like, mutants with crazy powers.
In reality, it's going to be deformed, tortured, vomiting humans with, like, three eyes going, kill me!
As we get to that point, and I'm kind of freaked out by that.
He says, for us to start to manipulate life functions in this way, in this kind of way without fully knowing how to turn it off or stop it if something goes awry really scares me.
Yes.
You ever see the movie Splice?
Like what if we create a human with a scorpion tail and big claws and they're super smart and they go around implanting their eggs in people's stomachs and then we got a whole breed of these monsters and then the world falls apart because we're walking around with guns trying to fight off these things that we created.
I'm calf kidding, but you know, I don't know.
Maybe we'll have better lab conditions than that.
However, China shows no sign of stopping after proposing in July to create monkeys with partially human-derived brains in order to better study diseases like Alzheimer's.
And Yale University stem cell expert Alejandro de Los Angeles has written The Search for a Better Animal Model to Stimulate Human Disease has been a holy grail of biomedical research for decades.
Now, I want to stop.
I don't want to be a Luddite.
The reality is, we've done tons of experiments for decades to find cures for diseases and things like that.
So while, you know, I think we've grown organs in other animals before and things, you know, things of that nature, this isn't the first time they've made weird chimeras, it won't be the last, and I really don't think the world is gonna end.
I think it's possible that this research really does lead to, you know, creating organs that can be implanted perfectly.
Now here's the thing.
When you get a transplant, you need to be on medication because your body will reject it.
If they could grow an organ with your DNA, then if your heart fails, you'd get a brand new version of your own heart your body won't reject.
If we can get to that point, this is actually a pretty good thing.
So I think it's fun and exciting to joke about the sci-fi future of, like, scorpion monkeys attacking us in the streets because we went nuts.
It's just not reality.
It's just fun to talk about Realizing the promise of human-monkey chimera research in an ethically and scientifically appropriate manner will require a coordinated approach.
A human-pig hybrid embryo was created in January 2017 at the Salk Institute in San Diego but died 28 days later.
It is hoped the research could offer an alternative to organ donation.
Around 3 people a day die in the UK according to the NHS and 12 in the US because replacement organs cannot be found.
And not just that.
Even if you get an organ, your body might reject it and it might fail.
Think about what life would be like if they can grow your own organs.
Now, you ever see the movie The Island?
It's got Scarlett Johansson and, uh, Ewan McGregor, I think?
And it's about this big company, takes your DNA, clones you, and then if you ever need replacement parts, take it from the clone.
That movie was really interesting, but what if we didn't have to create full-body clones of their own minds and their own lives that you're stealing organs from, and we could just grow your organs in a lab or in an animal?
Amen.
Let me ask you this.
You can comment.
If you had the choice between dying because your heart was failing or your kidneys were failing, or you could take your own genetically created kidneys from a pig and have a brand new pair of kidneys, would you do it?
And I mean this as a serious question, because I know a lot of people would say no.
They would turn down pig-grown kidneys, even if it was their DNA.
Let me know what you think.
And now I have a special treat.
There were some other stories I wanted to pull up in this vein.
I decided to do this instead.
I decided to pull up the Human Z on Wikipedia, just to entertain the idea.
They say the Humanzee is a hypothetical chimpanzee-human hybrid.
An unsuccessful attempt to create such a hybrid was made by Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov in the 1920s.
That's gross and that's creepy.
They say this.
The possibility of hybrids between humans and other apes has been entertained since at least the medieval period.
Saint Peter Damian, 11th century, claimed to have been told of the offspring of a human woman in Italy who had mated with an ape.
Oh, jeez.
Chimpanzees and humans are closely related, sharing 95% of their DNA sequence and 99% of coding DNA sequences, leading to contested speculation that a hybrid is possible.
The closest known data is that hybridization between chimpanzees and bonobos, which share 99.6% of the genome, is easily possible.
Some authors even say that the population split between bonobo and chimpanzee occurred relatively close in time to the split between the bonobo-chimpanzee ancestor.
We'll go on, we'll go on.
Humans have one pair fewer chromosomes than other apes, with ape chromosomes 2 and 4 fused in the human genome into a large chromosome.
Having different numbers of chromosomes is not an absolute barrier to hybridization.
Similar mismatches are relatively common in existing species, a phenomenon known as chromosomal polymorphism.
Reports of attempted hybridization.
It's been attempted.
But I don't want to make this video super long.
So I want to just tell you one really creepy thing.
I once read a great deal about the human Z. Because I'm curious.
I read a lot of stuff.
And one of the most interesting arguments I've heard as to why it doesn't exist.
If you took a human male You could take their genetic material, if you know what I'm talking about, and they would have no idea what you've done with it.
In fact, you can go to a bank, where they carry many of these things, and just get a vial of male genetic material to be implanted in a chimpanzee.
Now, I know this is getting gross, but we're gonna be gross.
I'm gonna wrap this up soon.
Unfortunately, humans are much larger than chimpanzees.
So a female chimp could not carry a humanzee because it would probably just be too big.
The head would be too large.
The timing wouldn't make sense.
See, here's the thing.
The reason why human babies are so, I guess, helpless is because we have big brains.
So the baby, humans give birth to the baby rather early relative to other species.
And this is my understanding.
Correct me if I'm wrong, biologists and, you know.
Doctors.
But the babies have to grow outside the womb because of our big heads.
Other animals, like a dog, within two years is basically an adult, fully functioning and kind of smart.
But a two-year-old human doesn't even understand these words, right?
It takes humans a lot longer to develop.
So I was reading something that argued, and this may not make sense, because that could be wrong, okay?
But I'll just say it.
That the reason why we don't have these is because you would need to take Male chimp genetic material and implant it in a human female who would have to then carry it, which they probably would not want to do unless they didn't realize what you were doing.
But now with lab-grown life, we may actually get to this point.
That may be wrong.
It's just some stuff I read, you know, on the internet that I thought was interesting.
But let me read you this.
They say, In the 1980s, there were reports on an experiment in human-chimpanzee crossbreeding conducted in China in 1967, and on the planned resumption of such experiments.
In 1981, Zhiyang Zhang, head of a hospital in Shenyang, was reported as claiming to have been part of a 1967 experiment in Shenyang in which a chimpanzee female had been impregnated with human materials.
According to the account, the experiment came to nothing because it was cut short by the Cultural Revolution, with the responsible scientists sent off to farm labor and the three-month pregnant chimpanzee dying from neglect.
According to Timothy McNulty of Chicago Tribune, the report was based off an article in the Wenhai Bao paper of Shanghai.
Lee Guang of the genetics research bureau at the Chinese academy of sciences was cited
as confirming both the existence of the experiment prior to the culture revolution and plans
to resume testing.
The reason I bring up the human Z is because if anything is going to happen, it would be
in China.
In 2019, unconfirmed reports surfaced that a team of researchers led by professor Juan
Carlos Esposua Belmonte from the Salk Institute in the US.
successfully produced the first human monkey chimeras.
Belmonte and others had previously produced a pig and sheep embryos containing a small percentage of human cells.
As with those embryos, the human monkey chimeras were reportedly only allowed to develop for a few weeks.
Although development was stopped prior to the formation of a nervous system or organs, avoiding more severe ethical concerns.
The research was reportedly carried out in China to avoid legal issues.
Due to the much larger evolutionary distance between humans and monkeys versus humans and chimpanzees, it is considered unlikely that true human-monkey hybrids could be brought to term.
However, it is feasible that human-compatible organs could be grown in these chimeras.
I will leave it there!
With a more interesting and apolitical story, kind of, about the weird world of animal chimeras.
