Impeachment FINALLY Flips In Trump's Favor, New Poll Shows Even DEMOCRATS Voters Starting To Oppose
Impeachment FINALLY Flips In Trump's Favor, New Poll Shows Even DEMOCRATS Voters Starting To Oppose. In the latest poll from Quinnipac we see that impeachment now has majority is opposition to impeaching the president.In the past months we had seen moderate voters flip but now the dam has broken and we are starting to see even some democratic voters moving toward opposition.What has the response from Democrats been?Several Democrats vow to impeach Trump AGAIN even if they lose. They say they can impeach him several times and even impeach him again in 2020.Following the start of impeachment Trump slowly began gaining in match up polls between various Democrats showing that not only do people oppose impeachment but that they would rather vote for Trump after the fact in what may be a massive backfire on the Democrats.Democrats respond by doubling down in what may be the clearest sign of insanity.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The latest poll from Quinnipiac shows that the majority of Americans now oppose impeachment.
This is significant.
It means a dam has broken on the Democrat side.
Because mind you, in the past several weeks, we have seen moderates had flipped, now opposing impeachment.
Opposition was growing among independent voters, which is significant.
Republicans always opposed this.
Yet still, we saw in the average that the majority of Americans were in favor of impeaching the president.
Well, that has changed at least according to one poll so far.
Now, I want to be fair.
The aggregate still has the majority of Americans in favor of impeachment.
But now we are seeing polls that are by no means pro-Trump.
Quinnipiac has Trump underwater 14 points in his approval rating.
But now even Quinnipiac is saying, all Americans are fed up.
What do you think the Democrats do in the face of this information?
That they have two articles of impeachment, that they're flimsy at best, that the Senate will not convict?
They've gone completely insane.
I'm sorry.
I mean, I'm being hyperbolic, okay?
I'm exaggerating.
I'm not literally insane.
But I gotta tell you, I don't know what they're thinking.
You see this story on the screen?
For those that are listening, let me read it to you.
Democratic Rep Karen Bass says House would impeach Trump again if he wins in 2020.
Look down here.
You see this little story about Don Lemon?
Are you people insane?
Now that's for some stupid meme thing, but I will pull the words right out from Don Lemon's mouth and redirect it in this direction.
Have you lost your minds?
You know, we are seeing now with the IG report, the BS that went on behind the scenes to smear the president and his campaign.
The errors, they call it.
Now, in my opinion, I think it's political bias.
I think they hated the guy.
They were saying things like viva la resistance.
They don't like Trump.
So yeah, all of these bad things just so happen to negatively impact Trump.
Impeachment is a scam.
They keep throwing scandal after scandal.
They're not doing their jobs.
Moderates got tired of it, and now the ranks are breaking on the Democrats' side.
That is incredible.
So here's what I want to do.
I want to show you these polls.
And it's not just about this flip nationwide.
We are seeing now, check this out, this is from the Daily Wire, Trump gets seven points swing after impeachment inquiry and dominates with independents.
So more and more polls keep coming out showing that, you know what?
Your scandals, the media, the nonsense, it has failed and people are tired of it.
People have finally groaned a callous to the nonsensical scandal-driven fake news.
And I'm going to go after the news.
So let's do this.
Let me show you what this Democratic rep says about even if Trump wins again, we're going to impeach him.
I'll show you the polls and the aggregates.
I'll be fair.
But then I want to talk about how the media is playing right now.
And the flak they're about to receive from this IG report.
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 PayPal, cryptocurrency, a physical address, but the best thing you can do is share this video because YouTube does not promote content for political commentary.
It seems like they're doing their best to harm our channels, in my opinion.
But it feels that way.
If I'm going to challenge these big, you know, networks, and even bigger YouTubers, the best thing you do is share this video to help me compete, and you essentially act as, like, a decentralized marketing network.
So it is greatly appreciated.
Let's read.
This story from last night.
Daily Caller.
California Democratic Rep.
Karen Bass said she would push to impeach President Donald Trump again if he wins the presidential election in 2020.
When asked by TMZ if she would be in favor of impeaching Trump again if Democrats gain control of the Senate, Bass not only said she would be in favor of introducing the same two articles of impeachment Democrats introduced Tuesday, but that she thinks there could be more evidence to impeach Trump if he won the election in 2020.
Now, she's got a quote here, but I want to stop and say real quick.
So far, the Horwitz report is out, and it shows that so much of Russiagate is fake news, predicated on bar talk, like apparently some guy overheard someone at a bar and then launched a counterintelligence investigation over someone just suggesting a conspiracy idea while they drank a beer?
That is insane to me.
And they won't let it go.
In fact, they even referenced Russia in the latest impeachment.
Adam Schiff said Trump will cheat again.
Do you even read the intelligence reports, Schiff?
A cheat again?
Mind-blowing.
Mind-boggling.
These people have lost their minds.
Quote.
Yes.
But I don't think it would be exactly the same.
Because even though we are impeaching him now, there are still a number of court cases.
There's a ton of information that could come forward.
For example, we could get his bank records and find out that he's owned 100% by the Russians.
Oh, man.
You see?
Insane.
I'm sorry.
The Democrats have lost their minds.
Russiagate was nonsense.
It was debunked.
We're done.
We went through this for years.
The IG report showing even more so.
Nonsense.
And this Democratic rep is saying, maybe he's owned by the Russians.
Wow.
Quote, so you are absolutely right in your scenario.
But the only thing I would say that is slightly different is that it might not be the same articles of impeachment because the odds are we have a ton more information.
And then the odds of that, sadly enough, is that he probably has more examples of criminal behavior.
All assumptions, no proof.
There's nothing.
There's no hard evidence of Trump doing any crimes.
Russiagate was debunked and she's still pushing this.
But I tell you this now, if it was just her, I would have said Democrat.
No, I said plural.
They're all going nuts.
Well, first of all, I know Schiff is nuts, but check this out.
Bass is not the first Democrat to say this.
Democratic Texas Rep.
Al Green said in December that the House Democrats could impeach President Trump multiple times.
The comments come as House Democrats released two articles of impeachment.
They won't stop.
They'll never stop.
And we know why they're doing it.
Because it was that one other Democrat guy who said, if we don't impeach him, he's going to win again.
Now they're saying, well, even if he wins, we'll impeach him again.
They just, there's nothing here.
They have nothing to campaign on.
The only thing Democrats are offering right now, and I tell you this in all sincerity, if you were to ask me, the Democratic Party as a whole, Okay, based on what I've heard from Republicans, they're concerned about immigration.
They're concerned about jobs.
They're, you know, immigration has gone way down.
They're concerned about foreign policy issues.
You know, Trump is talking about sending troops to Syria.
There's a lot of things I disagree with, but I know at least what their targets are.
Trade agreements, trade with China, immigration, national security, foreign policy.
You know, soldiers, you know, troops, deals with Saudi Arabia, conflict with Iran.
It's all there.
Democrats, as a whole.
They've talked about impeaching the president.
Trump did USMCA.
They passed that and praised it.
What have the Democrats done?
I mean, I can talk about the 2020 Democrats.
They've talked about, like, healthcare, but they've been wishy-washy, I guess, giving healthcare to non-citizens.
I gotta be honest, man.
I follow the news all day, every day.
And if I were to tell you the big takeaways from the Democratic Party as a whole, nothing.
I can't find it.
Because even when you get Elizabeth Warren saying big tech, that's just her.
Even when you get them saying healthcare for non-citizens, that's just the 2020 contenders.
What is the party offering?
I can hear what Dan Crenshaw's talking about.
He's talking about red flag laws.
I can hear about what Lindsey Graham, And Marco Rubio and the Republicans are talking about when they're concerned about, you know, borders, for instance, jobs, job reports, etc.
Now, too much of even the Republican side has been dominated by impeachment talk because of the Democrats.
So you know what, man?
This is it.
I ask you, Democrats, what will you give us in 2020?
Why do you deserve our votes?
What's that?
Orange man bad?
You're literally campaigning on impeaching Trump in 2020?
You know what, man?
You deserve everything you get.
Why do you think Trump gets a seven-point swing after impeachment inquiry?
Because I'm not alone in this.
I am one of these moderate voters.
And many of us are saying, enough.
Republicans never cared for it.
But even Democrats now are being like, can we please move on?
You know, let's take a look at this story from Daily Wire.
A new Monmouth poll released Tuesday showed only good news for Trump.
The president fighting off the Democrats' hyper-partisan efforts to impeach received a 7-point swing in his favor concerning the 2020 election.
Trump also cleaned up with independents, pulling double digits higher than any of the 2020 Democratic candidates.
Journalist and author Ryan Godusky reported on the Monmouth polling Tuesday morning when participants were asked if Trump should be re-elected to the White House.
Trump received a seven-point swing in his favor after the impeachment inquiry.
The no answer to re-election dropped three points and the yes answer climbed four points.
It's remarkable.
We've come to this point.
But let me now show you another amazing bit of why Trump would be re-elected.
I'll put it that way.
Data.
Check this out.
In this poll presented by Aaron Blake of the Washington Post, no less, he said, once again, it will be pretty remarkable if Trump somehow manages to lose re-election.
Whoa!
Washington Post journalists saying this?
Now, what could possibly have happened?
Trend.
Would you say that you are better off or worse off financially today than 2016?
Better off, 57%.
than 2016.
Better off, 57%.
Worse off, 22%.
I gotta give it to Trump.
He deserves it.
He absolutely does.
If a Washington Post reporter is gonna come out and show the data saying that 57% of Americans polled are better off and 22% are worse off, that is a tremendous feat, a tremendous accomplishment, and the man deserves credit.
Trump, I wish you weren't such a boisterous, blowhard, calling people names on Twitter.
I really do.
But I will mention, too, at a certain point, you have to weigh beyond character.
And Trump's reporters have made an excellent point in that who cares if Trump is a mean guy if he's getting results?
You know what?
That's true.
You're right.
Now, when it comes to foreign policy, I'm not getting the results I want.
So, you know, I know you're all going to yell at me and be like, when are you going to accept it?
Listen, I get it.
I get it.
And I do have that fear that Democrats, when they get in office, they're going to hurt this.
But guess what?
There's more.
And I'll come back to this point.
Aaron Blake says, among the groups who say at least two to one that they are better off today than before, young people, white college graduates, and Hispanics.
Incredible.
I gotta say, truly, truly incredible.
So you know what?
Much respect to Trump.
They'll want to say, look, we're three years in now.
A little bit more than three years.
No, no, just about three years in.
Trump deserves credit for it.
You want to talk about Obama's economy?
Well, I'm sorry, man.
Trump's the president.
He's enacted a bunch of changes.
There's been tax cuts.
There's a trade war.
And we're seeing these epic numbers.
I have to say, if he's made the lives of many Americans better, 57%, then he absolutely deserves credit.
So I think you will find many moderate voters will concede that point.
And I said it before and I'll say it again, this is exactly what we can expect when we see the moderate voters say, I wish Trump wasn't tweeting the way he was, but he's getting those results.
Depending on what your core issue is, for me the economy is up there, immigration is up there, but foreign policy, war, and conflict has always been my strongest point.
So I will absolutely concede that while I would never consider myself a supporter of the man, I absolutely have no problem giving him credit for his victories, and I will absolutely concede that Since 2016, my personal favorability towards the men has absolutely gone up.
Because there's only... Listen, I will tell you this.
What you guys need to understand, you know, the liberals will get this, Trump's attitude trumps so much.
You know, Trump's attitude trumps... No, no, but it really does.
Like, there is a visceral reaction to the way he talks about people, to the insults, and that is, in my opinion, not what a president should be doing.
However, there's only so much weight to that.
At a certain point, when you see these numbers, I gotta stop and think about, you know, is it really about how he is, you know, offensive and boisterous and kind of, you know, I'll say it, kind of gross, if he's making people's lives better?
That is a tough, tough call.
Now, I gotta stop you there.
For me, if Trump, you know, Trump is entertaining sending troops to Saudi Arabia.
He said there was a big report, he said it was fake news, but he's talked about it before.
So I think that's a huge factor in whether or not I would be willing to support somebody, but I will absolutely concede.
If Trump brought on Tulsi Gabbard as like Secretary of State, and Andrew Yang is an economic advisor, I think you'd win me over.
I gotta admit it.
I gotta admit it.
Because, look, Trump can be the worst guy in the world, but for me, you guys know this, one of my biggest voting positions is about foreign policy, and that's why I like Tulsi Gabbard.
And if Trump was being led by someone like Tulsi on foreign policy, I might just concede that point.
I think you need to, you know, people who don't get it, don't understand Trump derangement syndrome, you've got to recognize that people react really, really, really, like they really do not react well to Trump's character.
And the saying goes, people won't remember what you said to them, they'll remember how you made them feel.
These numbers, to somebody who's tracking the news, is going to be sitting there scratching their head like, man, you know, at a certain point you've got to recognize what Trump has done.
But to the average person, they're going to remember how Trump makes them feel.
And that's a huge hurdle for the man.
Let's do this.
New poll shows slipping support for impeachment with 51% saying that they do not want Donald Trump removed as he boasts about winning in battleground states.
So I'll tell you this now.
I am not an easy person to sway to vote.
Like I said, I didn't vote for anybody in 2012.
That bomb didn't get me.
I like Tulsi Gabbard.
She probably won't be the nominee.
So I probably will not vote.
But I am not a crazy person.
I can absolutely say impeachment was a mistake.
Trump should not be impeached.
We should respect the conservatives who voted for him.
We should respect the process, the Electoral College, the rules as they were laid out before us.
And for those that are much more terrified or don't like his attitude, you got to recognize that you don't win them all.
It's not the end of the world.
Trump's got major victories.
Well, you know what?
If you want to win, you got to get your head on your shoulders.
And the voters are screaming at you right now.
Impeachment is not what we want.
Here's the point.
I have to concede that Trump has done a good job on the economy.
Absolutely.
I'll concede this too, you know, to the other side.
I never thought the world was gonna end when Trump got elected anyway.
I'm not a crazy person, you know what I mean?
I'm just a regular dude who leans kind of to the left on a lot of issues.
But I can give Trump that respect and concede that he's done a lot better than I thought he would, that's a fact.
And character be damned, I mean, I shouldn't have said that because YouTube's gonna punish me, but no, I mean, Trump's got it.
He's won the impeachment fight.
It's now flipping in his favor.
Even Democrats are souring on it.
The economy is doing really, really well.
What can you say?
Trump's got a bad attitude?
Yeah, that's true, man.
That's true.
But what's the alternative?
Is it really worth risking a threat to the economy for something like Elizabeth Warren's plans?
Man, that's a tough, tough call.
Look, I'm a moderate, and I have no problem saying I fear that risk.
I absolutely do.
So you get it.
This is a Quinnipiac poll.
Now I want to show you this.
President Trump job approval.
Quinnipiac has Trump minus 14.
That's higher than the other polls.
Not the highest.
The highest is minus 19.
But it's the second worst numbers for any poll.
So they're polling people who say, we do not like this man, but we do not want him impeached.
That blows my mind.
Now the Quinnipiac poll on approval is from the 4th to the 9th.
And the Quinnipiac poll from impeachment is from the exact same time.
I'm going to spend these last few minutes ragging on the media.
Because this is mind-blowing insanity.
They're still pulling forward with this, and you know why?
Because the media is there for them.
Because the news outlets will protect them.
I'm not kidding.
Check this out.
CNN, MSNBC, refuse to air DOJ Inspector General hearing live.
We just learned.
from Horwitz in the IG report.
17 mistakes.
They knew the FISA warrant they had was fake.
Like, okay, let me rephrase that.
They knew the Steele report was bunk, yet they pursued the investigation.
This guy is testifying right now, telling everybody, all that you heard about Trump is fake news.
CNN, MSNBC, better turn it off.
Can't let the American people hear what's really going on here.
Really remarkable.
I heard something similar happened when the Republicans aired footage of Joe Biden giving that quid pro quo at the CFR hearing, where he's like, you know, if you don't fire the guy, you're not getting the money.
News outlets turn it off.
Well, I send you now to a quote from Matt Taibbi.
No conservative guy.
Here's what he wrote in his article about the Horowitz report.
He says, I've written about how reporters used sleight of hand to get the Steele dossier into print without putting it through a vetting process.
What Horowitz describes is worse.
A story about bad journalism piled on bad journalism balanced on a third layer of wrong reporting.
That coming from Matt Taibbi, who is not a conservative guy.
I think the Democrats have lost.
And I think because of it, they're going insane.
I really, really do.
That's why Adam Schiff is still... You know what?
They are insane, regardless.
Schiff says Trump's going to cheat again.
What do you mean, cheat again?
We learned the whole thing was nonsense.
It's here.
The Steele dossier was what they used to launch this, and it was nonsense.
Bad reporting, bad reporting.
Why won't these journalists get fired?
And what do we see?
Well, they're going to be moving the impeachment hearings to primetime.
The Democrats may be insane because the media is lying.
I don't know.
New York Times Ukraine Court Rules Manafort Disclosure Caused Meddling in U.S.
Election 1.
Politico Ukrainian Efforts to Sabotage Trump Backfire 2.
A CNN Article Reports Multiple Democratic Sources Said a DNC Contractor Whose Work Included Organizing Political Events for Ukrainian Americans did tell DNC operatives that Ukrainian officials would be willing to deliver damaging information on Trump's campaign and most notably Manafort, his then campaign head, who has previously advised Yanukovych, the former Ukrainian president, with close ties to Moscow.
They said Ukrainian officials.
So there it is.
I laid it out for you.
The press told us.
What's this?
Cruz promotes conspiracy that Ukraine blatantly interfered in the U.S.
election.
You can't trust the press anymore.
They will tell you one thing, and then they will tell you something else.
It's trash.
Right now, they are not airing the Horwitz report.
Why?
Because it essentially exonerates Carter Page, provides exculpatory evidence about Trump and his campaign, debunks Adam Schiff, Trump cheated.
The Democrats have lost it.
They went insane the moment Trump won.
They have lost their minds.
And now, what are they telling us?
Well, if he wins again, we're going to impeach him anyway.
Do you think this is what Americans want?
Because I'll tell you what, the polls show the opposite.
What's the definition of insanity?
They say it's doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.
I leave you with this.
If the Democrats have seen all of the polls of the last month showing they're failing, and they keep pushing it, even expressing a desire to try again later, it's no different from them putting their hand in the fire and saying, ouch, and then putting their hand back in the fire and saying, ouch, and they just keep doing it.
That, to me, is insanity.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
I'm Tim Castor, and I'll see you all then.
There's no poll, there's no, you know, list of accolades you must produce.
They literally just decide if they think you should be the person of the year.
So now it's Greta Thunberg.
And this is a really good example of why I, you know, one of the biggest problems I have with the left.
It's like they don't believe in earning things.
I know that's not absolutely true, but Greta Thunberg is famous because she skipped school.
And I know that might be a bit reductive or dismissive, but that's really what she did.
Let's take a look at her storied career.
Just over a year ago, she refused to go to school.
Someone then published it in the press.
Someone then asked her to talk about what she was concerned about.
She was then propped up by people with political motivations because she fit the narrative.
That's really it.
It's not an accomplishment to skip school.
It's not an accomplishment to speak out about climate change.
I've been speaking out about climate change before she was even born.
I'm not even kidding.
I was working for several non-profits.
Actually, no, she was probably alive.
She was probably like one or two.
But I was actually doing environmental fundraising, signing up members to various organizations to protect the environment.
Greta literally just skipped school.
So look, I want to make it clear.
I know a lot of people are disappointed or whatever, and I think it's fair, but listen, Time Magazine's an editorial choice.
They then went on to feature me as one of their top Twitter accounts.
And they really loved me.
But it's completely editorial.
And so I actually know people from Time.
And they have a list. When they do the Time 100 every year, they ask you to vote on who you think
should be in the Time 100. So I was actually nominated for Time's 100 most influential people,
and I just didn't care. You know, so I found out, I thought this list was like how they actually
choose it. And And I was ranked number 74 in polling.
So don't ask me how or why, but basically what happens is they put up 200 people.
They said, vote for who you think should be on the list.
And I was like the 74th out of 200.
And I'm like, wow, that's great.
I was like, I was higher than some SNL cast members or something.
And I'm like, hey, great.
I guess a bunch of activists liked what I was doing.
I did not make the list.
The official, you know, I was nominated, I did not officially make the list.
And I was confused by that because I was like, wait a minute, I was number 74, like, wouldn't that make the cut?
And I was told by one of the editors, no!
It's not how it works.
The whole list is editorial.
It's just a handful of people in a room just writing names down.
That's all it really is.
So, what ended up happening that... I think it may have been that year, I'm not sure.
4chan, I think, voted for Moot, the founder, to get him on the list.
And I think it worked.
You know, I think they were using botting techniques and manipulating the polls.
Because apparently how it worked was the number one person was guaranteed to be on the list.
But I want to show you something that's really disappointing.
Here's a poll from today's show.
You can see how I voted.
Who should be Time's 2019 Person of the Year?
96% of users agree with you out of 253,000 votes.
Nancy Pelosi has 1%.
Donald Trump has 1%.
The Whistleblower presumably has less than 1% because the Hong Kong protesters have 96%.
And Greta Thunberg has 2%.
That's right.
The Today Show ran a poll asking 250,000 people who should be on Time's Person of the Year.
Now stop.
I understand the Today Show is not Time Magazine.
I'm just showing you they made the shortlist and said who should be on it.
Everybody said Hong Kong protesters, and I gotta admit, I think so too.
They've been protesting for quite some time.
There have been protests on and off, and they're fighting for their lives.
Some people are dead, okay?
It is a very serious and nightmarish battle for freedom versus the Communist Party of China, who's currently detaining people in concentration camps.
With respect to Greta Thunberg for being a protester, She does not deserve more respect than the Hong Kong protesters get.
Greta Thunberg, as a young person who skipped school to complain about, you know, inaction in climate change, while I can respect the protest, absolutely, I'm not going to weigh that above, I don't know, even Al Gore, you know what I mean?
So I get it, Al Gore is not really in the picture.
But I'll tell you what, man.
There are substantially more people involved in fighting for climate change who are doing more work than Greta did.
I can respect that she's actually doing a lot of this work now that she's been propped up in this way, but let's be real.
The only thing she has going for her is that other people decided she would be a good mascot for their cause.
That's it.
What she's doing requires no special skills.
She has no special knowledge.
In fact, she's quite ignorant over how these things work and to their own detriment.
I was just talking to a friend about how, you know, I said this, you know, a couple days ago, sent me a couple videos about Greta.
Look, man, I would rather debate 100 climate change deniers than 100 climate change activists.
Because the climate change activists right now, for the most part, are like, smash the patriarchy, destroy capitalism.
None of those things will solve the problem, because you look at what's going on in France.
In France you have ongoing riots for over a year, protests, some riots, going on for over a year, because they tried raising, they put a tax on gasoline, because we gotta reduce carbon emissions, right?
That's what you get.
So if you try and come in the way Greta does, saying, you know, smash patriarchy and colonialization, and that's literally what she said recently.
She wrote in an op-ed saying this.
And like AOC saying, you know, no planes, farting cows, you know, get them out of there.
People are going to look at you like you're nuts.
Because you cannot, you cannot convince the system to do a 180 overnight.
It just would destroy the lives of every American if we outright ban fossil fuels.
What we can do, and I know you've probably heard me say it a million times, is just figure out where we can get an economic incentive that can bolster the economy, create new jobs, and allow us to compete against China, that conservatives will be on board with, that would also result in reduced carbon emissions.
I don't know.
How about nuclear energy?
Nope.
Nope.
I've worked for these companies, man.
They don't care about nuclear energy.
They don't care about, you know, solutions.
I'll tell you this.
If they really cared about solving the problem, nuclear would be on the front of the list.
Now I understand.
You got waste problems.
You got Fukushima.
You got Chernobyl, Three Mile Island.
Yes, but we have new technology.
You know, just because our technology in the past failed at a higher rate doesn't mean we stop.
Could you imagine if the first time there was a major plane crash, they just shut all air traffic down?
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Nobody can fly because a plane crashed.
No!
We realize that some of these things make mistakes.
Out of how many reactors ever built have we had major disasters?
The return on energy investment for nuclear energy is so high, it could be a short-term fix that will allow us to advance to new technological solutions.
Solar and wind?
Fantastic.
Big fan.
Geothermal?
Not as much of a fan of solar and wind, because geothermal does pull gases up from deep earth vents and stuff.
Tidal energy, perhaps?
The way tidal energy works is you put generators where the tide comes in, and then when the tide comes in, the water rushes through generators, spinning turbines.
It's all about spinning them turbines, transferring that energy.
So there's a lot of things we can do, but wind and solar have a really low energy output relative to how much energy we have to use to create.
It takes a long time to get that investment back, meaning we're spending more energy with fossil fuels to produce these things than they're going to put out for a long time.
So I certainly think wind is a great choice.
The problem is we need battery tech.
How do we store all that energy for when, say, wind isn't blowing?
There's also been a really interesting development.
They were able to store solar energy chemically and release it as thermal energy.
This is incredible.
You really gotta understand how incredible this is.
So basically they have this fluid.
It's a closed system, which means they don't open it up.
It's sealed.
And when light hits it, there's a chemical reaction inside that they can then reverse to release heat.
Think about what that means.
Throughout the summer months, you have this network, this fluid, absorbing all the sunlight and converting a chemical in a closed system, and then in the winter you can release that solar energy as heat for your home.
That's extremely efficient.
So I hope we get to that point.
I don't know how expensive that chemical is, but I looked at things like that and say, That's, that's your solution.
What if I told you, a conservative, what if I said, what if I went to a conservative, somebody or, I shouldn't say conservative, because not everybody on the right, you know, doesn't blame climate change.
Let's say I went to every, every climate change denier and said, forget all that.
What if I could save you $200 a month on your winter heating bill?
You'd be like, whoa.
Cause heating bills can be a lot, man.
I don't know if you live in Minnesota or Chicago, you see that bill for a 3-4 bedroom house, you're gonna spend a couple hundred bucks, right?
What if I said, I will get rid of that cost for you?
You will never pay that bill again.
People are gonna say, sign me up, man.
Free heat?
It's not free heat.
You gotta install the system.
So I tell you what, you spend a couple grand now, And then for the next 5-10 years, no heating, like you're
going to make all that money back, no heating bill.
Right?
That's a solution.
It's a solution that speaks to people for economic incentives, for efficiency, and it's
not, it's actually going to make people's lives better.
It's not even about, you know, your heating bill, like saving money.
It's about a more efficient system of heat for your home that can have like a network of fluids throughout the house, more evenly heating your house.
It all comes down to this.
Everybody wants to make their lives better.
How do you do that?
What Greta is proposing is like, destroy everything before it's too late.
And my response is, if you had to destroy everything, what's the point?
Like, if we're trying to stop everything from being destroyed, why tear everything down?
And I'll tell you this, man.
I'd be willing to bet people like Greta are the last people to go and work on a farm and use human energy to replace the energy they remove from the system.
Without fossil fuels right now, a billion plus people would die in what, like a month?
Yeah, we got big problems, man.
And we can change these things.
But talking about smashing patriarchy and all that stuff is not the right thing.
So I'll tell you what.
This is what I really, really just hate about the left.
They don't care about how- There's no adults in the room, okay?
This is what I see.
There's no adults in the room.
Politically, I align with a lot of what's going on on the left.
I like social programs, but there's no adult in the room to tell people when it has to be fixed.
All they care about is care and fairness.
You look at Jonathan Haidt's research.
I love citing this stuff.
Care and fairness.
Actually, I think I have it pulled up.
Let me see if I have it pulled up.
Moral foundations theory.
So basically, Jonathan Haidt said that the left only adheres to two moral foundations, whereas the right, and many moderates, adhere to all five.
On the moral foundations test, they added liberty as a sixth foundation.
I am a left liberal.
My biggest foundations are care and fairness.
But combine care and fairness with ignorance, and you get Greta Thunberg.
She says, I'm doing right by the world.
Burn it down.
And I say, no, no, no, first of all, care and fairness falls, you know, is an umbrella that covers even conservatives, which means we have to respect them, their lives, and their liberty as well.
But it also means we have serious problems other people might not be interested in talking about.
What happens then is the left has very little loyalty, respect for authority, and sanctity.
All they want to do is say, if someone says they're hurt, I want to be fair.
But you combine that with ignorance and you get the modern left.
So I am a care and fairness individual.
I do have decent amounts of loyalty, authority, and sanctity.
I did a video about it.
And liberty for me is pretty high.
I think care, fairness, and liberty are my highest.
So for me, I'm like, yes, I want to help, you know, marginalized communities.
How do we do that?
Well, we've got a bunch of conservatives who disagree on these policies.
Okay.
How can we be fair and take care of everybody?
Well, it's simple.
When we talk about affirmative action, that's not fair.
It's not fair to say one person based on their race gets something and the other person doesn't.
Class is the best we can do.
So I want to be fair and care for everyone.
Unfortunately, you have an ignorant tribalist left that doesn't actually care about everyone.
I don't know what they care about, but apparently care is their biggest foundation.
Oh, funny enough, libertarians basically only have the liberty foundation.
I kid you not.
When they take the moral foundations test, libertarians score ridiculously high on liberty and really low on everything else.
Because they're like, all that matters is that you have the right to control your own life and you are responsible for yourself.
I can respect that, right?
But I'm a bit of a lefty, right?
I want to help people out.
I want to make sure we can take care and preserve what we have.
So conservatives are about equally balanced on all of these foundations, tend to look at someone like Greta and say, you're threatening the system.
So, when you have someone who believes in authority, loyalty, and sanctity, they're not going to say, burn the whole system down, smash the patriarchy and colonization and colonialism and all that stuff.
They're going to say, they're more likely going to be reformist.
The tribalists is where things get dirty.
Because then you get people saying, I don't care what the scientists say, they're wrong.
And then you get people on the left saying, I don't care what the economists say, they're wrong, the climate's more important.
I'll tell you what.
Without a functioning economy, life will be miserable.
Okay?
That may not be an excuse for avoiding climate change issues, but you will get rioting.
Life will break down, as you know it, if you pull the rug out from the system.
The best thing we can do, then, is look for mutually beneficial solutions.
Greta Wins, Times Person of the Year.
Congratulations.
The Hong Kong protesters who are fighting for their lives against a corrupt regime Did not.
And to me that's sad.
Because they have propped up a child whose claim to fame is skipping school.
You know what?
What can you say?
It's the same old pattern.
We need a new left in this country.
We need adults.
We need people on the left who are willing to, like, you know, for all the bad things Obama did, at least when it came to certain issues, he compromised.
Because that's what an adult would do.
It's a child who would say, you have stolen my dreams while being named person of the year.
Man, get out of here.
Spoiled privilege.
You know what I'm gonna do?
Whenever someone asks me what white privilege means, I'm gonna print out little cards with a definition and a picture of Greta Thunberg.
She is exactly what that is.
She is a wealthy white child who skipped school and made the cover of a magazine for doing so.
And yet I tell you this, man, growing up on the South Side, I can't tell you how many people in Chicago are fighting for their lives, for a better future, and they get nothing.
Think about what's going on with, like, you know, the violence in Chicago.
You know how many activists are Greta's age, who are risking their lives?
How about, you know, how about these people who are in Chicago, who know how bad it is, standing up, saying, I refuse to go to school until ceasefire.
Nobody cares about them.
But hey, you give her a yacht, bring her to the UN, slap her on the cover of a magazine, and you've just stolen her childhood.
Yeah, you know what, man?
I'll tell you whose childhood was stolen.
The girl who died in Hong Kong.
The girl who died in Hong Kong.
And there's more than one, but there's this big story.
How about the girl who lost an eye?
I think more than one.
Yeah, those are people who have lost their childhoods, okay?
Not you, who's wealthy and privileged and gets to sail around the world and be on the cover of magazines.
For shame.
You know, I wish we could have sane, reasonable activists.
Who talked reality, instead of just screeching.
You know?
You have stolen my childhood!
Oh, come on, man.
That's the most repulsive thing I've ever seen.
I'm done.
I'll see you guys.
I'll see you guys at 1 p.m.
I'm losing my voice.
Hopefully I'll make it.
Thanks for hanging out.
Oh, you love to see it.
I gotta say, there is an emotional reaction I have when I see someone take the fake news to task.
You see, I'm sure most of you are familiar with how the fake news operates.
You've seen the smears.
You've seen the lies.
And it's probably frustrating every day because they get away with it.
Dan Bongino files $15 million defamation suit against the Daily Beast for reckless disregard for the truth.
Bravo, my good sir.
Bravo.
Thank you.
Look, I've had fake news written about me relentlessly, and it's expensive and difficult to sue, and you'll probably lose.
I think Mr. Bongino here has a good chance of winning.
I'll tell you something else.
One of the reasons I went off on my own and didn't want to be involved in these companies anymore is because I watched them lie all day.
How can you be a journalist?
If you don't tell the truth.
It's mind-blowing.
We don't have journalism, right?
And I think it's because for a lot of these media companies, particularly the ones I worked at, they felt like their audience couldn't handle the truth.
They really did.
They told me to side with the audience, they said.
And my argument is, you know what?
Sometimes the truth hurts.
Sometimes you can't tell... Look, you go to people and say, we're going to give you universal healthcare, free, free medica... No!
It's just not a thing you can do.
You gotta be honest about it!
But see, here's the problem.
A lot of these people on the left, who consume these leftist tabloids, well, they don't want to hear the truth.
They don't want to hear an economist say, you know, look, one of the big problems with universal healthcare is, if we did it overnight, or even in a short few years, we'd get rid of millions of jobs.
That would, you know, harm us economically to an absurd degree.
Could you imagine adding two million unemployed?
It's a dangerous, dangerous number.
And so that's a dangerous issue now.
The other big problem is that we don't have enough hospitals or doctors, as it is.
So it's just not a reality.
You gotta tell the truth, right?
Well, they lied about Mr. Bongino, and for no reason!
I literally don't know why they lied about him.
They just, it's, you know, they wanted to make a negative story about an NRA personality, and they lied, and they knew it was a lie, and it seems, that's what's being presented here.
It seems like, according to the statements from Bongino, This left-wing publication, The Daily Beast, overtly lied and admitted it.
And that's how you know he might have... I think he has a good case based on these facts, but we'll see what happens.
Let me read you the story.
Fox News reports, Secret Service agent turned conservative pundit Dan Bongino filed a $15 million defamation lawsuit against The Daily Beast on Tuesday for acting with, quote, actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth by reporting he was dropped by NRA TV.
Now, let me try and define some things for you.
I'm not a lawyer.
But actual malice and disregard for the truth basically means it doesn't mean they were trying to hurt him.
It means they knew for a fact what they said was not true and published it anyway.
Now Bongino, to his credit, just asked for a correction.
What a stand-up guy.
He says, hey, you were wrong.
Why don't you fix it?
They said no.
Check it out.
Quote, I have been in an ongoing battle for a long time now with fake news media people that just report blatantly false things about me.
It gets old, folks, really old.
It's been personally exhausting, Bongino said on his podcast.
It's not a crybaby snowflake thing.
It's my fight.
We all have our own fights.
The Daily Beast a while back wrote a story about me.
They wrote a story about me that was patently false.
Bongino is a Fox News contributor, explained, That a December 2018 report by the Daily Beast reporter Lachlan Markay said he was dropped by NRA TV, which is a euphemism for being fired.
But the conservative pundit says the story was false.
Let me stop right here.
Dropped.
What does it really mean?
It means they opted, like the vaguest interpretation, NRA TV dropped Dan Bongino, meaning they opted not to have him remain.
So maybe they didn't fire him, but maybe they said they dropped his show, right?
Often what these journalists will do is they'll use assumptive language to get away with lying.
In the instance of me.
They said that I pushed the Seth Rich conspiracy theory.
Why?
Because I talked about it one time.
How about that?
Yep.
Fox Business.
I think it was Fox Business.
Fox Outlet reported that Seth Rich had contacts with WikiLeaks.
I talked about it.
I said I'm not entirely convinced, you know, but we'll see what happens.
It's a complicated story.
I basically said, I think there's like a 65% chance this is true based on the fact that Fox News was saying he had contact with WikiLeaks.
We'll see what happens.
And because I talked about it, Fox News, ultimately later retracted the story, they claimed I pushed it.
Saying I don't think it's completely true, the reporting from Fox News, which turned out to be false, is not pushing anything.
Oh, but you could argue it is.
That's the game they play.
It's how they lie.
Because the average person hears that, and they think pushed as in you're ranting like Alex Jones.
So was Dan Bongino dropped by NRA TV?
No!
In fact, apparently he says the reporter even reached out to him and said, I heard you aren't re-signing or something to that effect.
Basically that Dan Bongino was choosing to move on, but then he tried to make it seem like the NRA cut him off.
Why?
You know what?
Some people just want...
They want to lie, I guess.
Look at this.
He says, The author of the story texted me that he had heard from sources the opposite.
The opposite was the true story.
That I did not renew my contract.
I was offered to stay.
I was not dropped.
I did not return by choice.
I left.
That story was false.
They did the same thing to me with Fusion.
When I worked for Fusion, I tried leaving.
I asked them to sever my contract, and they said no.
Finally, when my contract was up, I waved goodbye, and then a bunch of these people started saying, Tim was let go.
They wouldn't renew his contract.
What?
No.
I went a year early and said, it's time for me to leave this place, because I see what y'all are doing.
We had another meeting several months later, and I said, it's time for me to leave this place, because y'all don't know.
I see what you're doing, right?
You have no idea what's going on.
And they said, well, you know, we'll talk about it.
And then come, it was the end of August, my contract was up and I left.
And sure enough, people started writing, Tim was fired, Tim was let go.
It's, you know what, man?
They want to do this because they don't want to accept that... I can't tell you in the case of Dan Bongino.
I'll tell you in the case of me.
They don't want to accept that I, on principle, refused to stay there.
And I was trying to get out of my contract.
I gave them the opportunity multiple times.
Asked them on Twitter to correct it.
They refused.
I gave them an opportunity via text recently to correct it.
They refused.
We are suing the Daily Beast for $15 million.
The Daily Beast and Markay did not respond to comments.
Markay, I'm going to throw some shade and give him some credit for a second.
There was a story that was published by the Washington Post about Kim.com that was fake.
It was pretending to be Seth Rich conspiracy theory, coincidentally.
It was fake.
It used euphemisms and qualifying words like may have, seems to be, and it was just, it was like made up.
Well, Markay tweeted it out like it was a fact.
Kim.com hacked Seth Rich's Gmail account.
And I told him, hey, that's not true, and he ignored it.
But, I'll give him this credit, like a year later, I mentioned it again, and he apologized and deleted the tweet.
Sure, the lie traveled around the world several times for a year, and then a year later you correct it.
I get it.
He says, there is only one way to make these people pay and that we have to use the legal system and do it the right way.
Bongino said, this is really disgusting.
They've picked on the wrong guy.
I'm not going to allow you to defame my character.
Well, bravo, good sir!
I wish you good luck in your fight.
The complaint obtained by Fox News was filed in the Southern District of Florida.
The complaint calls the Beast a digital assassin owned by and controlled by billionaire Clinton devotees Derry Biller and Diane von Furstenberg.
The complaint says the Beast falsely stated that Bongino was fired by NRA TV despite the news organization having proof of the contrary.
The document includes a text from Marque which read, quote, heard you didn't renew with NRA TV.
As evidenced by his texts, Marque knew that NRA TV had not dropped Plaintiff.
Marque knew the truth.
The Plaintiff had simply decided not to renew his contract.
Rather than report the truth as told to Marque by his source, Daily Beast deliberately misrepresented that NRA TV fired Plaintiff and terminated his show.
I don't know what you think dropped means.
But dropped, even if he wasn't fired, means his show was ended by their choice, not his.
No, he chose to move on.
And look, he says it.
Somebody's lying, right?
And if it's true that text exists, I think that's proof that Daily Beast wrote fake news.
And it's not the first time, okay?
There are several writers at Daily Beast who make things up.
I will say this as a statement of fact.
Several writers at the Daily Beast have published falsehoods, and in some instances, completely made things up.
And I tried to reach out for comment.
I've called them.
Hey, where did you get this information?
This is made up.
They just make it up.
That's what they do.
Daily Beast's false and defamatory statements were not published in good faith.
The falsity was not due to an honest mistake of the facts, and there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the statements about Plaintiff were true.
According to the complaint, in spite of Plaintiff's request for a retraction and apology, Daily Beast refuses to make and issue a full and fair correction, apology, or retraction.
Daily Beast's false and defamatory statements caused Plaintiff to suffer and incur both presumed and actual damages, including loss and injury to his business, insult, pain, embarrassment, humiliation, mental suffering, harm to Plaintiff's name and reputation, out-of-pocket loss, and other actual damages.
Bongino declined to comment when reached by Fox News.
So I'll tell you what, man.
We can't sit around anymore.
The media has become a corrupt and twisted machine.
Are you watching the IG report stuff right now?
You should be, okay?
I'll tell you what's happening.
We learned that not only was the FBI You know, I gotta be careful in how I say this because they're playing, you know, they're trying to be careful themselves.
The FBI knew the Steele dossier was bunk.
They pursue it anyway.
The FBI used Christopher Steele as a source and then double-dipped by using a news report citing Christopher Steele as a second source even though it was the same source.
No, why do I bring this up?
Because the media ran these stories uncritically.
Oh, there are some names.
I won't call you out.
You know who you are.
And I hope you lose your jobs.
I met with one person who told me, I know for a fact Trump did it.
Oh, of course he did.
Of course Trump did it.
And they still push fake news to this day.
These are the lackey stooges of the intelligence services.
These people who say, I want this narrative in the press, and they uncritically report it.
These people are corrupt.
The media is rotten to its core.
Not everybody on YouTube is a good person.
Not everybody in the press is a bad person.
But I tell you this, these tabloid digital outlets, even the New York Times has been infected.
They are being infected by a corruption that cares not for the truth and cares only for political and personal gain.
They are rotting to their cores.
Bongino needs to win this.
I don't know if he will.
Damages are important and hard to prove.
So if he can prove they lied, and he's got the evidence, he's got a good case, at least I'm not a lawyer, right?
But damages are hard to prove.
How did he lose money and what is he suing for?
Why $15 million?
Perhaps in the suit they'll go through that, but I will state that's the hardest part.
And I was filing in Florida.
I don't know what that necessarily means.
I believe the Daily Beast is based in New York.
I believe it's in New York, so... We'll see what happens.
But Godspeed, good sir!
I hope they at least issue a correction.
And I wish you the best.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
on YouTube.com slash Timcast.
And I will see you all there.
The Trump team published a meme video of Donald Trump as Thanos snapping his fingers and erasing several House Democrats.
The media is shocked.
Don Lemon's reaction is probably the greatest reaction to anything I've ever seen because the dude loses his mind over this.
I want to read this story first and talk to you about the reaction.
I got to say, Trump team, I was questioning why I chose this scene for those aren't familiar.
It's the scene where Thanos steals the glove from Tony and there's no stones in it.
So when he snaps, nothing happens.
And then and then in their version, you know, and then basically Thanos loses and Tony snaps
and Thanos gets wiped out.
But the funny thing is, the left, there's like a viral tweet from this guy who's like, you mean to tell me you're depicting your favorite president as the guy who loses, like a maniac who loses because of his arrogance or whatever and thinks he's inevitable?
Okay, hold on, hold on.
Let me read this a little bit.
And I want to explain to you why the meme is fine.
You know, I can't believe I have to do this.
Let me just- No, I'm just gonna say it.
I'm not gonna bury the lead.
Did you know that many people made memes about things being Thanos-ed after Avengers Infinity War?
There was a meme for literally everything being wiped out, and no, it wasn't a reference to genocide.
It is just a movie.
Okay?
Now I can say, hey guys, not the best scene to pick, but I know you wanted to say, you know, I'm inevitable.
Fine.
That point in the movie, it is when he loses.
But it's just a meme about snapping.
It's Trump snapping.
Like, any other meme that people made of all the different things getting snapped away, nobody was saying, like when the ice cream cone gets snapped away, you're like, are you saying that Ben and Jerry's are tyrants?
You know, megalomaniac?
No!
It's just a meme.
It's a joke.
It's just saying that Trump is erasing you.
What are you doing?
They put it in a video.
Calm down.
Check this out.
They say, in the Avengers franchise, superheroes struggle to prevent a supervillain from wiping out half of all life in the universe.
On Tuesday, President Trump's team released a video depicting the president as the bad guy, Thanos.
It's funny.
That's all that matters.
You know what?
I'll stop, too.
Because it's probably not even about the meme.
It's about this.
Like, Don Lemon's reaction.
They're trolling you, bro.
They're trying to make you angry.
And it worked.
It's so predictable.
In the video shared on the Trump War Room Twitter account, which is managed by the team of the Trump 2020 campaign, Trump's face.
Yeah, okay, we get it.
Thanks for describing, you know.
The video came after House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against Trump, charging him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
After the announcement, Trump on Twitter accused the Democrats of lying.
Then came the video.
Thanos snaps people out of existence.
Thanos, a genocidal warlord with a bulbous head and shin, uses a weapon called the Infinity Gauntlet in the movies.
Avengers, you know, whatever.
When Thanos snaps his gauntlet-clad fingers, half of everything in existence dies.
I am inevitable.
Thanos tells Iron Man at the climax of Avengers.
I love how this became a news story.
Twitter users called out the comparison of Trump to Thanos.
Here we go.
It's gonna be juicy.
Many Twitter users were quick to point out Thanos' evil nature, questioning the choice to compare the president and his re-election campaign to the villain.
As I already mentioned, everybody was doing snapping memes.
No, they weren't pretending to be, you know, Space Hitler.
Jordan D. White says, Trump's official campaign Twitter just tweeted a meme comparing him to Thanos.
You know, the villain who wants to murder half the universe and depicts him killing the Democrats.
Comparing him to Thanos?
Come on, it's a movie.
Some people brought up how Thanos commits genocide, even murdering his own adopted daughter in his quest for power.
It's good the president identifies with the character that commits, checks notes, universal genocide.
Others noted that Thanos dies at the end of the battle, he doesn't turn out to be the victor.
Right, I'm pretty sure everybody's seen the movie.
Plus, Thanos doesn't succeed in making anyone disappear for good either.
Kevin M. Cruz, you made Trump a supervillain and depicted him in the scene where he plans to kill everyone in the universe, falls apart—well, half the people.
Oh, no, no, that was everyone in the universe, yeah.
Falls apart due to his arrogance and incompetence.
Arrogance, yeah.
I guess you can say incompetence.
He just fails.
On Twitter, one Twitter user wrote, Could you imagine every meme that was ever made about Thanos snapping something away?
If, like, when someone posted a picture of a cat getting snapped, the response was immediately a news article that said, and that the people doing the snapping are bad guys.
Are you saying you're a bad guy?
Oh my God, I can't believe you would do that.
Dude, how worked up do you have to get?
Now stop.
Hold on.
This is nothing compared to Don Lemon, who's like, look at his face.
What are you doing?
Don Lemon meltdown over Trump meme.
I could not believe it when I watched this clip of Don Lemon losing his mind.
I think it's fake.
I think Don Lemon is pretending to be outraged.
unidentified
He says, I can't believe I have to report this on the news.
I cannot believe that I'm even having to report this on the news.
You didn't have to.
You didn't have to.
You did it because you want to pretend to be outraged at something stupid that no one really cares about, okay?
And I'm doing this now to point out you don't actually care.
You're a liar.
They don't care about this.
It's like the 50th meme Trump's posted in like a day, okay?
I'm exaggerating, but come on.
You think anybody cares about this?
Lemon appeared shocked by what he referred to as stupid juvenile meme game.
You!
This is crazy.
This is literally crazy.
Are you people insane?
Are you insane?
Go ahead.
Troll the Democrats on Twitter.
Do this stupid, silly, you-know-what.
Play this stupid juvenile meme game.
History won't record this meme stupid crap.
Yes, they will!
Yes, they will!
Trump is going to go down in history as the meme president.
Sorry, it's a fact.
He posted Pepe's.
He posted himself as Rocky Balboa recently.
Now as Thanos.
And you're all angry.
Guess what?
It's gonna be in the history books.
In a hundred years, people will be like, Mommy, what's a meme?
And they'll show a picture of Donald Trump.
They'll show Donald Trump posing something.
So, Lemon noted that history would record the day that the House of Representatives in the United States of America introduced articles of impeachment against President Donald J. Trump, the President of the United States of America, for committing high crimes and misdemeanors.
And I assure you, Don Lemon, alongside that article, whether you like it or not, is going to be a picture of Trump as Thanos.
There's gonna be a historical article about this.
The day of impeachment.
And there's gonna be a picture of Nancy Pelosi all angry, and a picture of Donald Trump smiling as Thanos snapping his fingers.
People are gonna look back on this, and they're gonna laugh.
I'm sorry, they are.
They're gonna be like, man, what a goofy guy.
Was he not taking it seriously?
Do you think people, like, you know what, man?
The world is a dangerous, scary place.
And one of the things people like about the president is that he makes things a bit more lighthearted.
We had this very bad day, I guess, you know, for our history as Americans.
And Trump made a joke.
And whether you like the joke or not, he's being silly.
He's actually a funny guy.
It is a fact.
You know, you don't gotta like the president to recognize he's funny.
He knows how to entertain.
Don Lemon's furious.
Well, unfortunately for you, Lemon, I look forward to the day when they do... There's gonna be like a... This is gonna be awesome.
In a hundred years, a seventh grader will have one of those, you know, whiteboard things, the cardboard withholded, and it'll be like the impeachment of Donald Trump.
And on one side, it'll be like Pelosi and Schiff and Nadler, and the other side, it'll be Thanos Trump snapping his fingers.
Isn't that funny?
I think it's funny.
Playing into the culture, right?
Anyway, stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly, if I can still talk.
The New York Times published fake news.
Fake news.
Surprise, surprise.
See, everybody was freaking out claiming that Donald Trump was changing the definition of Judaism to a nationality or something.
And apparently, that's not the case.
And apparently, the executive order Trump is signing doesn't even mention Israel.
So let me give you a gist.
I don't necessarily agree with this executive action.
We'll see what happens.
I'm going to wait a little bit.
But basically, Trump is signing an executive order telling these universities that if you receive federal funds, you must enforce rules against anti-Semitism.
So basically, if there's a hate crime against the Jewish community, anti-Semitism, then they want to see that you're actually going after those people, otherwise they will pull your funding.
Not too dissimilar to what Title IX was for women.
I'm not a big fan of these things.
This to me sounds like more hate speech legislation.
So be careful here.
A lot of people have come out and said it's a bad move.
It's a threat to the First Amendment.
You know, so okay, okay.
But here's what I gotta say.
Because of the fake news, I reserve judgment.
I gotta do it.
Listen, the left is right now, I'm seeing these people say, where's the intellectual dark web and the free speech advocates calling out Trump for, you know, For this attack on free speech, I said, listen, man, the New York Times puts out fake news.
I gotta wait a day.
I gotta wait a day or two.
OK, I'll tell you what my concerns are.
But sure enough, the New York Times says he's changed the definition.
It's not the case.
People were screaming.
This is literally what Hitler did.
Oh, you know what, man?
Look, how is it that I can tell you?
All day, every day.
The hate speech rules are a bad idea.
Because, next thing you know, Trump will come out with hate speech rules.
There we go.
He did.
You reap what you sow.
Welcome to the fight.
They're all concerned now.
They're worried that Palestinian rights activists will lose funding or get disbanded or be kicked out or something, which is just absurd.
It's just not going to happen.
So I'm not super concerned about this.
You know, I don't like the hate speech stuff because I think it's overbearing, but let's read.
Jewish Insider.
Now I must stress, I'm not super familiar with Jewish Insider, they're not certified by NewsGuard, I want to make sure that's clear, but considering they're mentioning this in the news and they claim to have a document, I'm going to read the story.
They say, Jewish Insider has obtained a draft of the executive order that Donald Trump will sign this afternoon at the White House.
As first reported by the New York Times on Tuesday, the order formally calls on government departments enforcing Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance definition of anti-Semitism.
The order calls for the enforcement of, quote, Title IX against prohibited forms of discrimination rooted in antisemitism as vigorously as against all other forms of discrimination prohibited by Title IX.
That's actually not that big a deal.
That's just him saying, don't, you know, make sure you take care of this.
Same as everything else.
I respect that.
The order also calls on departments enforcing Title IX to consider, quote, Contemporary examples of antisemitism identified by the IHRA to the extent that any examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent.
Initial reporting indicated that the order would include language defining Judaism as a national origin, setting off a frenzy among major Jewish organizations, activists, and lawmakers.
The draft text of the order obtained by JI makes no such reference.
Of note, there is no mention of Israel in the text of the Executive Order draft shared with JI.
However, IHRA includes, as contemporary examples of antisemitism, the accusation of dual loyalty, using symbols associated with antisemitism to characterize Israel or Israelis, and claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.
IHRA also notes in its working definition that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
Well, there you go.
You know what, man?
I'm sorry.
I think all these people, not everybody, but a lot of these anti-Israel activists, I think, just hate Jewish people.
And I know it's a bit hyperbolic, a bit for me especially, but listen.
Why is it that Ilhan Omar will say sanctions on Turkey are bad because sanctions can hurt people, but then call for sanctions on Israel?
That's not a fair application of a standard.
Turkey was being heavily criticized for what they were doing in northern Syria.
Listen, we see it very often.
Even the IHRA is saying, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.
I completely agree.
If you've got a problem with foreign aid, 100% call it out.
But for some reason, these activists are all about foreign aid to one country, not to Israel.
They're all about calling out everything that is about Israel while ignoring the foreign wars in the Middle East.
You know, and then you look at what, you know, uh, uh, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and, and Lindis Arsour say, and I gotta say, man, I think we know where their opinions really are rooted.
Whether, you know, you have to agree with me.
So that's, that's, that's basically the gist of it.
I can, I can, I can go through this a little bit, but the main point that I, that I really want to get to is I think they have a link here to the New York Times story.
Let's, let's pop this one open.
And this story from the New York Times was heavily criticized They say this.
The president's order would allow the government to withhold money from campuses deemed to be biased, but critics see it as an attack on free speech.
To an extent, I can respect that.
They say, the order will effectively interpret Judaism as a race or nationality, not just a religion, to prompt a federal law penalizing colleges and universities deemed to be shirking their responsibility to foster an open climate for minority students.
In recent years, the BDS movement against Israel has roiled some campuses, leaving some Jewish students feeling unwelcomed or attacked.
Let me tell you a story.
A friend of mine was complaining to me that they have not been to Israel, they are Jewish, they don't know a whole lot about Israel, they're just Americans, but they were getting yelled at at a college campus simply for being Jewish.
And this is why I want to point out to you, while many people probably don't agree, The reason why I say these people, I think, really just don't like Jewish people is because my friends, regular Americans, who have no... They don't go to synagogue.
They don't go to Israel.
They just happen to be Jewish.
They happen to have certain symbols.
They happen to celebrate, you know, Hanukkah and stuff like that, but they're not, like, practicing Orthodox or anything like that.
They get yelled at.
They get insulted.
They get berated.
The Jewish star on a rainbow flag, they get harassed.
Like, there was a Pride event where people had a rainbow flag with the Star of David on it, and they were told to get it out because it looks too much like Israel.
It's like, dude, if you're going to take issue with Israel, take issue with Israel.
But they take issue with the symbol itself.
So I think it stands to reason there is a big anti-Semitic... You know what, man?
I believe a lot of these college groups are anti-Semitic.
I do.
I really, really do believe it.
I don't believe... There's a lot of voices behind BDS that make good points, and I completely agree.
Like, you got a problem in the West Bank, man.
You know, we've got problems in the Gaza Strip.
Israel, it's a conflict.
I recognize there are a lot of issues going on.
But I'll ask you a few questions.
What about Egypt?
Do we see people calling out Egypt?
You know that Gaza borders Egypt too, right?
Don't see it.
Makes me wonder.
When people talk about Israel, their right to exist, they're not, in my opinion, talking about governmental policy actions.
They're not talking about law.
They're not talking about human rights abuses.
They're just talking about what happens to be the only Jewish country in the world, and it's actually a very tiny country bordering, you know, in a conflict.
There's a problem with the identitarian left in that they pretend not to be racist, but they're racist.
They pretend to fight against racism and anti-Semitism, but they are overtly anti-Semitic and racist.
They claim not to be sexist, but they are.
And I think moderate individuals know that when you're trying to protect the civil rights of people, you do have to look for a real dog whistle.
And you have to look for those who would lie, cheat, and steal, and who would weaponize our good faith against a minority group.
I have concerns about what Trump is doing with this executive order, whether or not it will stifle free speech, even for those who hate Jewish people like BDS protesters.
So let me clarify.
As I stated, I think a lot of these people are anti-Semites.
I think they have a right to speak.
I don't think, institutionally, a university should be telling Jewish people that they're not welcome or that, you know, there's problems in their community and insult them for something they can't change.
I think universities, as an institution, Should not do that.
If a student wants to complain and protest and say whatever they want, I can respect that.
So we'll see where the hard line is, right?
They say in signing the order, Mr. Trump will use his executive power to take action where Congress has not, essentially replicating bipartisan legislation that has stalled on Capitol Hill for several years.
Prominent Democrats have joined Republicans in promoting such a policy.
I have no problem with people promoting BDS.
It's their right.
It's free speech.
I do have a problem with people lying and using BDS as a cudgel because they don't like Jewish people.
So I'll say it for the millionth time, but I've seen some people have some honest debates with people about their concern over what Israel does with Palestine and the West Bank.
But they never seem to have the same criticism for the same thing.
It's not principle-based.
So while I will say I defend the free speech of the BDS protesters, I defend the free speech of the far-right, they won't say the same thing.
They'll say I defend BDS, but I don't defend the free speech of the far-right.
So how can you come to me and tell me it's about free speech, tell me it's about, you know, civil liberties, but you only point in one direction, towards the Jewish people?
Like, you know what, man?
The whole time I've fought for free speech, even for those who are deplorable and those who are honorable.
They're nowhere to be found.
Up until someone says, you just can't rag on, they come out right now and say, we don't want you ragging on Jewish people.
And all of a sudden they have their arms and they're screeching.
Oh, oh no.
Did Trump say you can't, you can't promote BDS?
No.
He said, they specifically say you can criticize Israel same as any other country.
Why are they freaking out about it now?
Because the bill stops them from being anti-Semites.
They're racists, they're bigots, they're anti-Semites, and they pretend not to be.
This should be the easiest example.
So you know what?
If somebody came out and said, I believe in free speech, even for the far right.
And I would say, what about the far left?
Yep, even for the far left.
I'd say, okay, I believe you.
These people come out and say, I do not believe in free speech.
Oh, what's that?
You want to ban antisemitism?
Now I'm for free speech.
Yeah, okay, dude.
Okay, dude, please.
I'm not buying it.
I got one more segment coming up in just a few minutes.
YouTube, new rules.
It's about to get bad.
I'll see you in a moment.
YouTube has dropped new rules, and I'm just so sick of it.
There's no point.
They say they want to reduce borderline content, threats, harassment.
I'll tell you what YouTube's doing.
Let me just cut to the chase.
It's a new harassment policy.
It's based around Carlos Maza and Steven Crowder.
Already people are being banned.
Let me show you.
Download your favorite bullying vids before YouTube takes them down, says iDubbbz.
Your video has been removed from YouTube.
They say hi, iDubbbzTV.
As you may know, Community Guidelines, yadda yadda, Content Cop Leafy was flagged and removed.
Guess what?
YouTube applies rules retroactively.
Basically, here's my understanding.
The rules are vague.
They make no sense.
YouTube is basically saying, if you comment on other YouTubers, we're gonna ban you.
YouTube does not want to be this.
YouTube wants to be Google's version of Apple TV.
Google and Apple are big competitors.
Apple comes out with a premium, over-the-top streaming service.
They're buying big shows, million-dollar budgets.
Google can't just do that.
They've tried YouTube Originals.
YouTube is their video platform, and boy, do they regret it.
It's expensive.
It's full of controversy.
And YouTube wants desperately to be rid of me, be rid of you, be rid of Steven Crowder.
Yes, even be rid of David Pakman and Jimmy Dore.
They don't want us on the platform.
What do they want?
They want Jimmy Kimmel on the platform.
They want approved mainstream voices that toe the line.
That's why they're on the trending tab and we're not.
That's why the rules apply to us but not to them.
It's why Jimmy Kimmel can insult whoever he wants, and they will ban you for making a facetious, humorous video that's just meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but too close to bullying.
Official blog.
An update to our harassment policy.
Now, listen.
They want to get rid of veiled threats.
Okay, fine.
Don't make veiled threats.
The problem is the rules are vague.
We don't know what the rules are.
Mumkey Jones got banned a long time ago.
We don't even know why.
He broke no rules.
Steven Crowder got removed from the Partner Program.
He broke no rules.
We get it.
The rules don't matter.
If YouTube... Here's what you do, guys.
YouTube, if you're listening, make a policy that just says, we're going to ban you if we want to ban you.
It would be too much bad press and it would rock the boat and potentially destroy YouTube.
But YouTube today, I'll tell you this, YouTube today is, the top channels are overwhelmingly corporate-sponsored channels.
In 2010, 80% of the top channels on YouTube We're homegrown creators.
Today, it's like 20%.
YouTube is slowly erasing us.
They are slowly getting rid of what we do, and they're doing it by slowly changing the rules so that we get banned, so our content can't appear, and then in a year from now, they're gonna say, you knew the rules!
They're gonna apply them retroactively.
That's another tactic.
iDubbbz is getting banned for an old video.
They're gonna, or got a video removed.
Here's what they say.
We've always removed videos that explicitly threaten someone.
Reveal confidential personal information.
That's vague.
They've removed videos from me because I said someone's name.
That was in the public domain.
Or encourage people to harass someone else.
Moving forward, our policies will go a step further and not only prohibit explicit threats, but also veiled or implied threats.
That, fine.
But what does that mean?
This includes content simulating violence toward an individual, or language suggesting physical violence may occur.
No individual should be subject to harassment that suggests violence.
So if I said, like, man, John Doe, you're asking for trouble if you keep doing this.
People are going to get really angry if you go out and do X. Yep.
What if I said, what if there was a video of someone, like, punching a dog?
And I said, oh man, you're asking for trouble, man.
If people find out you're doing that, you're gonna get hurt, you know?
I'm not saying that I'm threatening you, you know what I mean?
Yeah, you're gonna get banned.
This is vague.
What if we're talking about video games?
What if I was playing a video game with someone, and I said, I can't even say it, I can't even say it.
What if you're playing GTA?
And you're like, I am going to end you, but more explicitly, like, I'm gonna hunt you down and, you know, can't say it.
There's a really funny thing, like Chris Ragon made a joke, somebody about, you know, calling his roommate gay or whatever, and they suspended him on Twitter.
Beyond threatening someone, there is also demeaning language that goes too far.
Uh-oh!
To establish a consistent criteria for what type of content is not allowed on YouTube, we're building upon the framework we use for our hate speech policy.
We will no longer allow content that maliciously insults someone based on unprotected attributes, such as their race, gender expression, orientation.
This applies to everyone from private individuals, to YouTube creators, to public officials.
I don't see them saying major corporate figures, but fine, whatever.
Here's what's funny.
You know that immigration is a protected class?
So is veteran status.
So if someone called you a dumb vet, like, I didn't mean veteran, I meant veterinarian!
They're different!
Yeah, I'll ban you for it.
Consequences.
Something we've heard from our creators is that harassment sometimes takes the shape of a pattern.
Of repeated behavior across multiple videos or comments, even if any individual video doesn't cross our policy line.
To address this, we're tightening our policies for the YouTube Partner Program.
This means, to all of those progressives, let me warn you, you guys who love ragging on Dave Rubin, keep doing it.
You'll be banned.
Hey, I tell you what, I was complaining about this for a long time.
I said they will come for you next, and now here you are.
Because you got these channels that love ragging on Rubin.
Multiple videos.
Repeated pattern of behavior.
You will be banned.
There you go.
Now, I certainly think it's fine if you want to criticize someone.
You can't anymore.
It's just not gonna happen.
I hope Keemstar will be alright.
I think this might be bad for him, but he's not a mean dude or anything, but they might still say, hey, you can't make videos about people, right?
They say what they'll do is channels that repeatedly brush up against our harassment policy will be suspended from the YouTube Partner Program, eliminating their ability to make money on YouTube.
We may also remove content from channels if they repeatedly harass someone.
If this behavior continues, we'll take more severe action, including issuing strikes or terminating a channel altogether.
So let me remind you.
If you made a video smack-talking me, please do it.
You know why?
You're gonna get banned!
So, guess what?
I don't make videos about other YouTubers.
I rarely make videos about people outside of the public sphere.
Politicians.
And I typically try to avoid using direct insults.
I might say stupid, naive, or ignorant.
But I won't say horseface.
But a lot of people like to insult me.
So you know what?
I'll kick back.
I welcome it.
I'm being facetious, by the way.
This is dystopian.
I'm confident that in a few years, several creators won't be here.
I'm worried about Steven Crowder, to be honest.
Because he's a snarky comedian.
So you can't even make jokes.
Because jokes are offensive.
You know, in the instance of Crowder and Carlos Maza, Maza was calling himself You know these words.
I can't say them.
So Crowder repeats what Maza said.
They pulled him out of the partner program, even though there wasn't a rule.
It was a retroactive enforcement.
They said, you know what?
You broke new rules, but we're going to punish you anyway.
They should have given him a warning.
Stop now.
New rule.
Nah, the rules don't matter and we know it.
Toxic comments.
Here we go.
Oh yeah, they're gonna start banning comments, I get it.
They say, we continue to fine-tune our systems to make sure we catch toxic comments, whatever.
All of these updates represent another step towards making sure we protect the YouTube community.
No, it isn't!
Yeah, sure, technically.
You're mad that woke progressives are insulting you in the press and hurting your bottom line.
I get it, man.
If the YouTube ads go, we're all in trouble.
But at a certain point, you have to stand up for yourself.
If these advertisers don't want to be here, tell them bye-bye.
Guess what?
Only one YouTube.
Go somewhere else.
If you want access to this massive platform, you gotta understand.
People sometimes say mean things.
I'll tell you what.
Veteran status is protected.
Immigration status is protected.
What's next?
Cat lovers, dog lovers, trade unionists?
Yeah.
Have you read Fahrenheit 451?
We get where it's going.
YouTube says, if you're offended, we're going to make you a protected class.
All right.
Journalists, make it so that if you're... Journalism is a dangerous job.
And with the president, I demand that YouTube make it, make it bannable to insult people for being journalists or to use journalism as an insult.
How about that?
You see where we go from here?
Everyone gets offended.
Everybody demands they're protected.
And then YouTube keeps pushing this nonsense.
So, you know what, man?
I know there are a lot of apolitical YouTubers out there.
Maybe there's somebody who watches this who doesn't care about news.
iDubbbz had a video taken down this morning.
Now, I'm not going to say it was because of this policy, but I feel like it was.
I'm saying I can't prove it, but this dude, iDubbbz, he does these content cop videos where he calls out other YouTubers.
That's going to go away.
Maybe.
I was, you know, I was under the impression that, for a long time, YouTube would allow you to do things so long as you didn't break the rules.
We started to learn later on that they'll ban you if they look bad.
Make the rule later.
That's this.
I don't know what comes next, but I know that I'm planning for my life outside of YouTube, so I'll see you all tomorrow at 10 a.m.
