Democrat SLAMMED By Protests As Impeachment Support COLLAPSES, Majority Now OPPOSE Impeachment
Democrat SLAMMED By Protests As Impeachment Support COLLAPSES, Majority Now OPPOSE Impeachment. earlier today Elissa Slotkin, a moderate democrat from Michigan, announced she will be voting to impeach Donald Trump.Her announcement was met with boos, jeering, and protests holding signs that said "impeach slotkin."As of today the national average polling shows the majority of Americans now oppose the impeachment and removal of Donald Trump. The polls we saw all last month showed that Independent voters had switched to opposing impeachment but now as Democrats also join in opposition national averages show support is collapsing fast.This may be the biggest mistake Democrats ever make as they are sacrificing their House majority for an impeachment that is guaranteed to fail. Mitch McConnell has already stated he is working with Trump and the White house and even Alan Dershowitz says there are no grounds to impeach trump. Dershowitz is a Hillary Clinton supporter, endorsed her in 2008, and has consistently oppose Trump's policies but even he has come out saying there is no constitutional grounds for impeachment.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Earlier today, moderate Democrat Alyssa Slotkin held a town hall meeting to announce her support for impeaching Donald Trump.
Now, many people were curious as to how the moderates would be voting, and we have seen several come out in favor of impeaching Donald Trump.
Slotkin's announcement was met with loud boos, jeering, someone called her a liar, and a group of protesters in the back held up signs saying, impeach Slotkin, keep Trump.
Personally, I was shocked to see so far a few of the moderate Democrats support impeachment, considering it is now officially nationwide unfavorable in the aggregate.
Let me repeat that.
The average of all polls in the country has just flipped in favor of Donald Trump.
Trump has already won.
He's had an explosive past month.
We've got the USMCA, a phase one China trade deal, there's paid family leave, there's the NDAA.
Trump is sweeping through these victories, appointing nearly 180 judges.
He is winning.
The economy is doing really well, record market numbers, record low unemployment, yet the Democrats are wrapped up An impeachment.
Now, most of you know this.
I've talked about it.
But let me start by showing you the data.
And then I want to come back to a few of these moderate Democrats.
Now, I can't go through all 31, but I want to show you why this is the biggest mistake the Democrats are making.
And it seems the Democratic Party is sacrificing their victories for an impeachment that is guaranteed to fail.
Makes no sense.
Some of these moderate Democrat districts are historically Republican districts.
So it does show one of Trump's biggest weaknesses, that his base didn't come out in the midterms, which means bad news 2022.
But we'll see what happens.
We'll see what happens then.
I believe what I'm about to show you is evidence to support that in 2020, Republicans are going to sweep.
Now, mind you, I was wrong in 2018.
But there is new information.
So let's get started with this poll.
Before we dive in, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are several ways you can give.
Many of you may be aware that I missed three days for the first time in three years I was forced to take off work because my throat was hurt.
Let me tell you, when I don't make a video, my income is nothing.
That's it.
So the people who are donating, you know, monthly, that really, really does help because I know that even if I am unable to work for a few days due to sickness or illness, I'm not going to become destitute.
That's the whole point.
for this, you know, backup system. But the best thing you can do, share this video. I know,
I know it's hard to break echo chambers that people are going to refuse to watch it. That's
fine. But you know, if, if, if one person can not necessarily change their mind, I'm not saying I'm
never the person to say you have to like, or not like Trump.
I just want to make sure you're aware of what's going on and sharing the video helps that. Take a
look at this data from RealClearPolitics.
Now, I mentioned the other day that we saw the equilibrium, I suppose, the first time that support and opposition of impeachment were equal.
We can now see that finally, with the latest polls, opposition to the impeachment and removal of Trump has flipped in Trump's favor.
To me, this says he won.
The Democrats needed to keep a negative narrative about the president and show how the country was united in removing him.
And now they're not.
They're not.
For the longest time, it's gone back and forth.
Support and opposition have gone back and forth.
But we do have a lot more information about what's going on now.
And I want to make sure I don't make this video super long.
So I want to get to the Democrats.
But let me show you a few things.
This is an article from The Hill today.
Trump feels like he's having a good month despite impeachment.
Well, I don't need to read through all this, but they mention the USMCA that even Nancy Pelosi praised.
Now she's saying they helped fix it, make it a lot better.
Doesn't matter.
It's Trump's trade deal.
He won that one.
There you go.
Glad to see the Democrats finally stepped up after about a year, year and a few months, pushing that through.
And if they did help, more, more power to them.
Great.
Nancy Pelosi, you know what?
I'll tell you this, man.
If this was the message from the Democrats the whole time, we are going to improve the USMCA.
We're going to take what Trump did.
We're going to fix some things.
I'd be like, wow, that's really awesome.
That's a great thing to campaign on.
And then their campaign could be, we are going to do a little bit better than Trump.
That's why I should vote.
You know what, man?
If the Democrats' whole campaign was, Trump's not that bad, we'll be a little bit better, they would be much, much better off than where they are today with protests erupting at their town hall meetings.
Anyway.
Trump gets his phase one trade deal with China.
So this is a phenomenal, they say it's a phenomenal deal, Trump says, which is going to be great news.
And my understanding is there's been, there's been a positive reaction in the markets.
Maybe that'll change.
They also say Trump, I'm sorry, the House has passed a defense policy bill, the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, giving Trump his space force and paid paternal leave for federal workers.
We have a series of victories for Trump.
It's not just policy wise.
OK, we can say Trump is winning and getting pushing forward his agenda politically in the public sphere.
Trump just took the lead.
He just took the impeachment narrative away.
Can you imagine what the response from the media and the Democrats would be to a record economy, several Trump victories, and Trump now winning an impeachment?
Let me now shock and upset you.
I'm sorry.
Here's an article from NBC yesterday.
Trump's campaigning on the roaring economy.
Here's how Democrats plan to stop him.
The president points to strong numbers on several fronts, but his rivals for the White House paint a different picture.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Hold on.
Trump's campaigning on the wrong economy, which it is.
Democrats want to stop him.
Well, I know they want to stop Trump no matter what, but come on, man.
Like, dude, nobody wants to hear that you're going to make the economy worse or that if the economy is doing really well, you want to stop the president.
Now, I know what they're really talking about.
Let's be honest.
They're saying the Democrats are trying to counter his narrative on the economy.
I'm sorry.
You've lost that fight.
It is insane to me that the Democrats don't see what's happening all around them.
Like I said, if they just ran a campaign slogan saying Trump's not that bad, we'll be a little bit better, you got a good shot of getting some people to vote for you.
But they don't.
They simply say, no, no, the economy is not that good, and they try and paint a different narrative.
They say we're going to impeach him.
That's what we're going to do.
Protests erupt.
What is going on?
They're losing their minds.
You know what I'm going to show you later on?
I got to get through some other stories here.
I'm going to show you how the Democrats are sacrificing the majority for a guaranteed defeat.
What is wrong with their leadership?
What, what, what, how do you get a Democrat saying, well, the Senate is controlled by the Republicans.
Mitch McConnell said he's walking in lockstep with the Republican defense, with Trump's White House counsel.
We're not going to win.
Let's guarantee that we lose the House majority.
How does that make sense?
They've lost their minds.
I'm sorry.
Check this out.
America's interest in impeachment fades.
This is a graph from Axios showing social media engagement on the impeachment story, and it's collapsed from nearly 1,000 engagements to 657.
So what, a 35% to 40% drop in people caring?
Let's not spend too much time on this.
Check this out.
Senate Republicans have already made up their minds on impeachment.
We all knew this.
With the impeachment process concluding in the House, Senate Republicans have made it clear Trump will not be removed from office during a Senate trial.
Everyone knew this was going to happen.
Now the left is claiming that Mitch McConnell and the Republicans are violating their oath, you know, because they're not going to be, you know, impartial or whatever.
If you want to argue that they should sit back and hear the evidence more than what we've already heard, they've got two articles of impeachment, one of which is apparently already been, you know, will be removed due to a Supreme Court ruling.
Check this out.
Alan Dershowitz, famous Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden supporter, Alan Dershowitz says Supreme Court ruling pulls Rugg out from under article of impeachment.
It's a very intelligent article.
You don't got to be a fan of Alan Dershowitz.
He's recently said he would enthusiastically vote for Biden.
But what he says is very simple.
Congress is claiming Trump obstructed Congress by rejecting these subpoenas.
Trump's argument is that he has executive privilege, this information, and he's under no obligation to turn it over without judicial review.
And it sounds like he's right.
I mean, we have three branches of government.
If there is a dispute between the legislative branch and the executive branch, the Supreme Court weighs in.
Why didn't the Democrats take their complaint to the Supreme Court?
Well, perhaps because the Supreme Court has already been stacked in Trump's favor.
Look, man, it is winning, winning, winning.
People like to mock Trump because he said you'd be tired of winning.
He keeps winning!
It's not even about whether it's right or wrong.
And people conflate me saying Trump is winning with me supporting what he's done.
No.
They appointed one judge who's apparently got no experience in a courtroom.
Like never filed a brief.
I don't know anything about it.
But I was reading this and I was laughing.
I'm laughing because it's the absurdity of Trump's victories.
It's that absurd.
Listen.
Donald Trump is winning so much, and the left hates to hear it.
They do.
They hate to hear it!
He is winning so much, he actually got a judge appointed with no experience!
It's a mind-blowing level of victory from the president.
And I'm, again, not saying I agree with it.
I think that's a bad thing.
I think it is bad that there are political appointments from people with no experience.
I think it's bad.
But I recognize Trump is getting what he wants every step of the way.
And if you think anything, like, I'm sorry, man.
I go back to this poll.
I'm like, oh, there it is.
It finally happened.
We knew impeachment was going to be unpopular.
We knew it was going to put all of these Democrats at risk.
The Democrats, you won the House.
You won districts that were historically Republican.
It was an amazing upset.
What did you do?
You're throwing it all away on an unpopular action.
Trump is not the most popular president.
He's actually one of the most unpopular presidents according to the aggregate polling.
But most people won't trust it because things in this country are going too well.
So this article from Dershowitz basically outlines that argument, essentially, that the Supreme Court would have to weigh in on whether or not there's a real claim of obstruction of Congress.
And that may get this tossed out immediately.
When it goes Senate trial, Justice Roberts, who's going to be leading it, might say, What are you doing?
There's no merit.
Checks and balances.
You gotta dispute.
You take it to the Supreme Court.
You take it to the federal courts.
Any court.
At least a court.
A lawyer.
One person.
They didn't do that.
They said, Trump refuses, therefore we have the supreme authority to impeach him over this.
No.
Congress does not have that authority.
Congress can subpoena.
Congress can impeach.
But if they have a dispute, checks and balances.
He goes on to say that there's already been a ruling that the courts need to review this.
So basically what he says is really interesting.
He says they haven't necessarily ruled on these few cases.
I don't want to get into the nitty-gritty because I'm not a legal... It's a lot of information.
The gist of it is...
The Supreme Court decision to review three cases in which lower courts ruled against Trump provides support for his constitutional arguments in the investigation.
Essentially, they didn't rule necessarily on these cases yet, but they did say, we need to review them.
That, he's claiming, sets a precedent, or not like a legal precedent, but shows that if Congress wanted Trump to have these people testify, or wanted to challenge his challenge, the courts would have reviewed them, in which case...
They don't have a leg to stand on.
Now let's start moving into the first.
McConnell and White House counsel agree to coordinate impeachment trial plans.
Most of you know this.
I made this point already, but I want to show you the source.
It's all there.
I source everything.
Mitch McConnell is in line with Trump.
They've looked at the evidence.
Alan Dershowitz, famous Democrat, says same thing.
There's nothing here.
There's no crimes.
What are you doing?
Now we have this.
Focus group.
These Obama-Trump voters are just Trump voters now.
It's from today.
This is from Axios.
How much... How much needs... You know what I mean?
I'm sorry.
I'm a little speechless now because I've made so many videos about impeachment backfiring.
Like seven.
Impeachment backfires again.
Impeachment backfires again.
Democrats supporting Trump.
Trump wins.
How many videos do I make where it's like, Trump is winning.
Trump is winning.
And it's mind-blowing to me when I see these progressive commentators and YouTubers try and act like Trump is not winning.
It's... Dude.
He's taken the impeachment narrative.
He's getting major positive polling now in swing states.
The Democrats who were in front of him in the polls are now underwater in these swing states.
They have lit everything up.
So here's what happens today.
Alyssa Slotkin, she went on Fox News recently and said, I'm not sure how I'm going to vote.
Well, she's announced she will vote for impeachment.
And that's what I showed you in the beginning.
Protesters holding up signs saying impeach Slotkin.
What's really incredible to me is when I looked at their voting histories in their districts, it's very clear Trump is going to wipe the floor with these moderate Democrats.
I believe, listen, in 2018, I thought Trump's base was lit up.
They didn't come out.
According to the New York Times, Trump voters did not come out in 2018.
That's why the Democrats won the House.
And Trump said it.
He said, if the Democrats get in, they'll impeach me.
Here they are!
It was their plan the whole time.
This is Trump's Achilles heel.
His base loves him.
They don't care for these old crony Republican types.
They don't care.
They care that Trump wins.
So in 2016, they vote.
They vote Trump.
They check R across the board.
Then the Republicans win.
In 2018, they don't show up.
It's sad but true, and I'm going to show you.
It's not true for every district, but I've got a few districts pulled up, and I will show you this.
Let's see what else we got.
In this poll, before we get into the hard numbers, There was an MSNBC interviewer at Alyssa Slotkin's district.
I believe it was outside of Town Hall.
MSNBC asks a voter, he says, I think it's wrong.
I think Congress is wasting their time and our time.
This seals the deal.
I will not vote for her.
Now, someone did comment she got a standing ovation.
This, I believe, was very early in the morning or last night.
I'm not entirely sure.
Okay, so this is early in the morning today.
So, yes, someone's saying she got a standing ovation.
She also has protests.
And I think it's fair to point that out, this reply as well, because it is divisive, OK?
It's not like everyone is pro-Trump.
No, the reality is it's split.
But this shows, and I'm going to show you the numbers, they're making mistakes.
They're making, let me show you this.
First we have here, Alyssa Slotkin's district.
You're seeing here, the vote turnout, Mike Bishop was the Republican in 2018, and
he lost by just about 13,000 votes.
Let's go back in time though, to the 2016 election when Donald
Trump was on the ticket.
In 2016, Mike Bishop got 205,000 votes and the Democrat got a hundred and four.
Remember those numbers?
Let's go back to 2018.
In 2018, Slotkin got 172,000, which is more than the Democrats got.
But Mike Bishop only got 159,000.
Now, it's probably true that some moderates flipped against Trump, and that contributed to Elissa Slotkin's gains.
If that's the case, let's go back to that 200,000 vote number.
And it looks like they have, there's a really good chance that Bishop or whoever runs in 2020 will reclaim the seat.
If it's true that some of these Democratic voters are former Republicans or independents who switched to the Democrat side, then it looks like it's a neck and neck race.
However, I think we're actually seeing, as the New York Times said, whether you want to trust them or not, they said Trump's base didn't show up in strong enough numbers to win for these congressional candidates.
I think it's fair to say if Mike Bishop only needs 13,000 and he's shy 40,000 from Trump's election, I think he's gonna get it.
Even if you want to give 27,000 of those votes to Slotkin, I think he's going to see a big surge in those diehard Trump voters.
But again, I stress, it's entirely possible that moderate voters soured on Trump, Democratic voters got, you know, riled up and came out to vote, Trump has ignited a Democrat base, and we're expecting a large turnout.
But wait!
There's more.
Based on these numbers, my belief, from Russell Slotkin, is that when Trump's name is on that ticket, people are going to check our across the board, and we're going to see the Republican take back this district.
But this is a close district.
Check this out.
This is Kendra Horne.
Kendra Horne, moderate Democrat, who was the first Democrat to win since 1975.
1975 in this district in Oklahoma.
I think it's fair to say Trump riled up the Democrats and his base didn't turn up to support him.
That's one of his big weaknesses.
But think about Kendra Horne now coming out in opposition to Trump.
Assuming she does.
I don't know where she's at officially yet, but she's one of these vulnerable, moderate Democrats.
If she comes out and says she's going to impeach the president in a district that has voted Republican since 1975, I don't think you're going to make it.
But you know what?
It's hard to know for sure.
The polls fluctuate.
Everybody thinks they know.
But once again, let me show you.
This is Kendra Horne's voter turnout for 2018.
She won her district by only about 3,500 or so votes.
It was close.
What do you think will happen when Trump's base turns up, excited and bigger than ever?
That's right.
I covered this many times.
The New York Times upshot polls show Trump's base is bigger today than when he got elected.
Take a look at this.
Steve Russell got 117K and lost to 121K.
$117K and lost to $121K.
Let's go back to 2016 when the Republican Steve Russell got $163K.
That's that Trump bump.
And the Democrat got 103.
It was still, the numbers were relatively comparable.
But when we look now at Steve Russell, he was shy 40 or so thousand votes.
Similar numbers.
They're going to reclaim these votes, man.
They're taking it back.
And now here's the big one.
Max Rose, Staten Island.
He came out in support of impeachment.
People are angry.
Trump supporters are angry.
Anti-Trump people are happy about it.
Now what's interesting here is that this is a blue district, man.
This is Staten Island.
This is New York.
We can see in 2018, Max Rose won with 101,000 compared to Daniel M. Donovan, who got 89,000.
So it's around 10 or 11,000 votes.
101,000 compared to Daniel M. Donovan, who got 89,000.
So it's around 10 or 11,000 votes.
In 2016, however, the Republican got 134,000 votes compared to the Democrats, 78.
Anti-Trump people were fired up and voted in the midterm.
And unfortunately, Trump's base didn't turn out.
So that's your Achilles heel.
But I'll tell you this, man.
New York Post has this story.
They say, Rose's Staten Island and South Brooklyn district gave Trump a 10 percentage point edge over Clinton.
Rose won on a pledge to oppose Pelosi's hyper-partisan leadership, but said on Friday he will follow her vote, he will follow her and vote for both articles.
I'm sorry, man.
I feel like that is a betrayal of your constituency.
Trump is a plus 10 in this district.
They voted you in because you said you were going to bring balance to the force, to use a silly analogy.
And instead, you know an analogy I really love?
It's like, There's a bunch of voters who are sick and tired of the hyper-partisan nonsense and just want things to get done.
It's the One Ring.
It's the way I described it before.
Bear with me.
I think it's funny.
And if you've seen The Lord of the Rings, you know, it's, um, uh, Isildur cuts the finger off Sauron.
That One Ring represents the Orange Man scandal political strategy.
How the Democrats are obsessed with targeting Trump's character.
Targeting scandals and investigations instead of just legislating.
What has the House been doing?
They've literally just been focused on, can we get rid of Trump by talking about him being bad?
The moderate voters led these Democrats to the fires of Mount Doom and said, get rid of it.
Get rid of it.
Cast it into the fire.
That's what this is.
Max Rose said he was going to cast that into the fire.
And what did he do?
As soon as they brought him to the court, he looked, smiled and said, No.
And he's voting in line with Pelosi.
You look at these districts, and I think it's fair to say that in presidential election cycles, people care about the president.
They don't care about these, you know, Congress and stuff.
Less likely to turn up.
Big mistake.
If Trump's base came out in full force in 2018, this would not be happening.
The wall would be 10 times bigger.
But you know what?
Trump's not perfect.
Trump's, well, he's far from perfect as far as I'm concerned.
But what I mean is Trump is not, he's winning, but it's not without some losses.
It's not without resistance.
And this is what the Democrats are bringing.
All in all, you take a look at all this data.
It's shocking.
Trump victory across the board.
Constantly.
This may be his biggest month of his presidency.
With USMCA, with the China trade deal, paid family leave, the Space Force, record economy.
I mean, we saw those economic numbers.
What did Jim Cramer of CNBC say?
The best numbers of our lives.
This is a golden month.
Especially for Donald Trump, but for America.
Now, you can disagree with Trump, because I am not saying—I want to make sure this is clear—simply because Trump is winning, I'm agreeing with what he's doing.
That judge thing is, in my opinion, it's hilarious.
It's like, man, the Democrats have lost so miserably.
Trump is appointing people—oh, man.
But it's not the end of the world.
It is not the end of the world.
We as a country have stood strong for hundreds of years.
We've been through a lot worse.
A literal civil war.
Everybody needs to calm down a little bit.
I'll tell you this.
If the Democrats stopped screaming fire when they look at Trump and started saying, like, here's what we can do better, they'd win.
You gotta be calm.
When you panic, things go south.
You can't formulate a good plan.
And if they just chilled out, thought about what the American people were asking for, they'd probably be doing a lot better.
Instead, I picture it like this.
Trump is leading a horde of his supporters on horseback with spears and red MAGA caps.
And instead of the Democrats forming a phalanx and saying, you know, stand strong, they're running around in circles screeching.
You're not going to win.
You're going to cause some harm to the opposing faction, but you will lose.
And that's what we're seeing.
It's frustrating, I'll tell you what, but I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
It is a different channel.
I'll see you all then.
One of the most shocking developments in the whole impeachment debacle is Democrat Jeff Vandrew flipping to the Republican Party.
Now, for the most part, it's only been reported that he's going to do this.
I think he may have denied it, but we now have, I guess you can call it confirmation.
Five of his employees have resigned.
And they've said he's siding with a president who's using the office for political gain.
All this other stuff that was never proven.
And I tell you what, it is the stupidest thing the Democrats could do.
I have much respect for Jeff Van Drew for doing this.
I'm sad that he's doing it.
And perhaps, you know, these employees may feel similarly.
They released a statement.
Let me tell you something.
First, the Democrats are calling him a traitor and a rat.
Did you know that Jeff Van Drew's district hasn't voted in a Democrat since 1994?
Let's go through the important facts here.
Here's New Jersey's 2nd district.
In 2018, Jeff Van Drew won by 6 or 7 percentage points.
But look at this, going back 2016, 14, 12, it was Frank Lombiando the entire way, all the way back to 1992.
So I was wrong, it's 92.
The last time a Democrat won was in 1992.
This seat has been held by a Republican up until Lombiando, I guess he didn't run again, Seth Grossman run, Jeff Van Drew won.
I'll tell you what.
This is, as some people have referred to it, South Jersey is Trump country.
That's what some people have said, but let me tell you something.
It's not the Trumpiest of Trump country.
It is, you know, moderate.
I live just outside of Jeff Vandrew's district, and I talk to my neighbors, and guess what?
First of all, many are actually conservative Trump supporters.
Some of them are tacit liberals, meaning they don't really follow the news all that much.
They just kind of vote Democrat if they vote.
They're not really active.
I have met no hard leftists, progressives, none!
I know they exist.
I'm not saying they don't.
But I live here.
I go to the mall, okay?
I go to the restaurants.
I go to the bars.
I have not met one AOC-type person.
I have not met one person who likes her.
Not that I go around and people are saying things like, oh, I can't stand her.
No, nobody cares!
So you have a bunch of moderate, you know, it's a very moderate place.
Granted, I'm in a blue district, right?
I'm in like a district that's been blue for a long time.
I'm just next to him.
I'm in NJ, New Jersey's first, I think.
So Jeff Van Drew represents the second.
The Democrats are mad that Jeff Van Drew won't support impeachment.
So they're calling him a traitor and a rat, even though Impeachment is guaranteed to fail.
Think about that.
So here's what I want to do.
I want to show you the story about the resignation, but before we get into this and talk about, I have no respect for those who resigned.
None.
You know why?
Check this out.
Jeff Vandrews, for Congress, his campaign website, his issues would make many Republicans recoil in terror.
Ah, I'm exaggerating, but listen, he's got, you know, the civil rights thing is, I mean, Here he says, I will strongly defend civil rights, everybody, including Eddie Ariadna, regardless of race, religion, color, gender identity, or orientation.
Jeff Van Drew is in favor of policies based around gender identity.
I'm a moderate, and even I am.
I questioned that.
Jeff Fenn drew on that issue.
It was a little bit to the left of me.
I'm actually, admittedly, in favor of some gender identity laws, so long as they're done thoughtfully and correctly, and I think they're being implemented poorly.
But that's a blanket statement.
So I'm not going to speak to exactly what he's saying on that, but that is a very Democrat statement.
Equal pay for women.
Not something a Republican would say.
Immigration.
Comprehensive immigration reform to help people get in.
Yeah, not something, you know, he's moderate.
He's moderate.
A lot of moderate Trump supporters might see it and say, yeah, okay, I agree.
But look at this.
Net neutrality.
He is a hardcore advocate for net neutrality.
He is a Democrat and he's voting to stop offshore drilling in New Jersey.
The dude is clearly a Democrat.
Now here's the good news.
There's always a light at the end of the tunnel.
There's always, you know, when God closes a door, he opens a window.
The bad news is that Jeff Van Drew leaving the Democratic Party means that they can only shoot to the left.
Okay?
With a moderate like him in the Democrats saying no to impeachment, the Democrats are constrained.
But they were going to primary him, and he would be guaranteed to lose because the Democrats have gone insane.
Democrats in this district overwhelmingly support impeachment.
I think it's like 60 to 70 percent.
But the Democrats aren't the majority, for the most part.
I would say it's fair to say, technically, they won 2018, so I'll give them that.
But this is a place that's voted Republican for more than 20 years.
Now, they typically have voted for Democrats in the presidential election, so it's a moderate district.
But here's a guy who's taking a temperature check of his district and saying, look, man, where I come from, they don't want this.
And I'll tell you what.
I don't live in his district.
In all seriousness, I think I'm like a mile and a half or two miles from his district.
I'm really, really close.
I actually thought I was in his district, because I think he actually represents half of the town I live in.
It's like something ridiculous like that, right?
So I'm in a bluer area.
But I tell you what, man, I think he was right.
Look, I live here, you know what I mean?
And you know my thoughts on the whole matter.
I'm like, dude, Trump's got a wave of victories, you know, this past week.
It's been, it's been just absolutely epic for the president in terms of getting, getting what he wants.
And I think, I guess, you know, these, these Democrats, you know, let me show you what they say and I'll explain to you why.
Here's what they said in a letter addressed to Allison Murphy, Van Drew's Chief of Staff.
The aides wrote that the politician's latest move does not align with the values we brought to this job when we joined the office.
What values?
What values have anything to do with being a Democrat?
I don't care about Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Green Party.
Your values are your values.
Your values are not the D stamped on your chest.
And that's what I see when I see this move.
If Jeff Vandreu still believes in everything he campaigned on, why would you resign?
Because they are... You know what?
Jeff Van Drew is not the traitor.
If Jeff Van Drew is standing up for what he's always believed in, then he has my respect.
So we'll see.
He wants to switch to be a Republican.
That's what they're reporting.
Okay.
He will likely face a primary challenge from an actual Republican.
He might lose.
I'm not convinced a far-left pro-impeachment Democrat is gonna win this district.
It's possible.
Because you gotta understand, a lot of people will claim it's hardcore Trump country.
It's not.
But it does lean that direction.
Okay.
I tell you, when I go out and meet people, I've met more conservatives out here, but they're not hardcore, you know, they're not the most, I don't know, heels dug in Trump supporters.
They're like regular people who don't pay attention too much, who want to see the job get done, and they happen to say, you know, they like Trump.
That's about it.
So it leans that way.
That's why I think he knows this.
Like, you have to imagine that Jeff Andrew didn't just blindly be like, you know what, I'm just going to side with Trump on this one.
No.
He probably got a ton of phone calls and he probably talked to a lot of people and they probably said, listen man, impeachment is a waste of time.
It is not what we want.
We just want you to get the job done and do what you campaigned on.
And he said, okay.
I doubt this is a guy who, you know, decided randomly just to be like, I'm going to defect from the Democrats for no reason.
No, he knows what's going on in his district.
He knows that for 20, 25 or 26 years, they elected a Republican every step of the way.
And then he finally gets in.
And the Democrats are willing to give that seat up for a symbolic victory.
We got everyone to support impeachment.
Because you didn't, we will primary you.
And that's the problem with the system.
Primarying works.
You have to fall in line with whatever the party wants.
Otherwise, they will primary you and you can't run.
So what are his options?
Switch to Republican.
But I tell you this.
He won last time.
I'll tell you what, I think he can win.
Because listen, I'm not super familiar.
I've only been down here about a year and a half.
I'm not super familiar with... What do we have here?
So this is Frank Lobiondo.
I'm not super familiar with Frank Lobiondo's positions.
I could pull it up.
I'm, you know, whatever.
But he's a Republican, right?
Here's the thing.
Jeff Van Drew didn't win because he was a Democrat.
Maybe.
Maybe he did.
Maybe because you got a bunch of Democrats who said, I'm just gonna come out and vote Democrat.
But I tell you this.
Seth Grossman got 110,000 votes.
David Cole got 110,000 votes.
Seth Grossman was the Republican in 2018.
And David Cole was the Democrat in 2016.
Frank Lobiondo got 176,000 votes in 2016.
You know what that means?
the Republican in 2018 and David Cole was the Democrat in 2016.
Frank Lobiondo got 176,000 votes in 2016.
You know what that means?
Trump bump.
Well, in 2012, he also got 166,000.
But here's the important takeaway.
Jeff Van Drew is not going to win if he votes to impeach the president.
You know why?
Regardless of right or wrong, regardless of a primary or not, in 2020, Trump supporters will be out in droves.
Here's what happened in 2018.
And this is a New York Times article.
This is amazing stuff.
They found that Trump supporters did not vote in the midterms, for the most part.
Shocking, isn't it?
Trump supporters like Trump.
They don't care about anything else.
And that's a blanket statement.
I mean, obviously, the majority of Trump supporters are focused on a lot of issues.
But many of them went out for Trump.
And when they did, they checked R across the board.
Come 2018, Trump wasn't on the ballot.
They didn't come out.
They didn't care.
Most people don't, it seems.
And so you can see, when Frank Lobiondo gets his biggest turnout, it is presidential election year.
And that makes sense.
I think that's true for everybody.
So we can see that based on 2014, look, that's a big bump for Democrats, a seriously big bump for Democrats.
So I tell you this, here's a warning, serious warning for Republicans.
In 2018, a non-president, a midterm election, Seth Grossman, the Republican, got 110,000.
In 2014, non-presidential election, Frank Lobiondo got 104,000.
But the Democrat was consistently getting 50, 60, all the way, going back all the way.
Now, presidential election years, they saw a bigger bump, but check this out.
Jeff Van Drew, 125K in a midterm election.
That should be worrying to every single Republican.
Okay?
Now, I think Jeff Van Drew knows he won't win in 2020 because of Trump voters coming on full force.
But this is the biggest weakness that Trump and his base has.
They've upended the party.
They have gotten rid of a lot of the establishment cronies, many retirements.
But they don't come out for midterms.
So first I'll point this out.
Going back to 1992, that was the last time a Democrat won.
Frank LoBiondo ran and he got 98,000 votes.
But next year, Louie N. Magazu, I'm sorry, two years later in the next election, Magazu only got 56,000 and LoBiondo won with 102,000.
Every year there was an election, there was a big bump for both sides.
And the fact is, people don't vote in these elections, right?
So I'm going to make sure it's very, very clear to you.
In 2014, Frank Lobiondo won with 104,000 votes.
In 2018, Seth Grossman got 6,000 more votes than Lobiondo did in the last off-cycle election, and he lost to Jeff Van Drew.
I think, and I'll say this too, a lot of people are looking at the UK and they're saying Boris Johnson's victory spells danger for the Democrats if they go too far left.
This is what's going to happen.
But I'll tell you this.
It's also entirely possible it's inverted.
Seriously.
Jeremy Corbyn in the UK was deeply unpopular.
People really hate the guy.
And a lot of people in this country do not like Trump.
Whether you want to take the polls, I look at the aggregates.
His approval rating's at like 46, 45.
Better than it's ever been.
It's between like 43 and 46.
Rasmussen had some higher.
I think Quinnipiac had him a little bit higher.
But there are a lot of people who are going to come out and vote simply for the sake of pushing back against Trump.
That we are going to see record turnout, I believe.
And according to Moody's, if we see maximum voter turnout, Trump loses by only a few electoral votes.
But, I will stop now and say this.
LoBiondo, in 2016, got 176,000 votes.
You know why?
Trump supporters.
If, in 2020, those same Trump supporters come out, and Jeff Van Drew is running as a Republican, and he gets $176,000, and the other Democrat gets $125,000, Van Drew wins.
He wins re-election as a Republican.
That's the game.
That's the play.
I'm not saying Jeff Van Drew is doing it because he wants to win and keep his career going.
I look at his policy positions as a moderate dude, and I have a lot of respect for the things he stands for.
Not that I agree with a lot of it, but that he's trying to be a sane, balanced individual, you know, to say like, listen, you know, we can fall somewhere in the middle and make compromise and not be extremists on either side.
I have tremendous respect for that.
I'm going to be really, it's going to, you know what, man?
2020 is going to be a roller coaster.
It is going to be sheer insanity.
But looking at the numbers of 2018 versus 2016, it's hard to know exactly what's going to happen, okay?
You are going to see a massive turnout of people voting against Trump.
That's it.
It's become a cultural phenomenon.
You gotta vote against Trump.
That's it.
A lot of people who don't care to vote, all of a sudden now want to vote just because they hate Trump.
Will that number go up?
I don't know.
Because again, Jeff Van Drew got two to two and a half times more votes than Bill Hughes Jr.
did in 2014 in a previous off-cycle election.
So it's hard to know exactly what'll happen.
2018, that may have been the resistance.
And it may not get any bigger than that.
This might be it.
2018 may have been all those people who hated Trump coming out to say, we are voting Democrat because Trump is bad.
And that's all they could muster.
Enough to defeat a Republican in an off-cycle election.
Off, you know, off of the presidential cycle.
But I don't know if that'll work come 2020, when you look at the numbers.
Because even in 2016, David Cole got 110K, and Lo Biando got 176K.
I think if Jeff Vandrew runs as a Republican, and I think he will, you know what's going to happen?
A lot of people are saying the Republicans will primary Jeff Vandrew.
Well, first of all, if he stays as a Democrat and he refuses to support impeachment, they're going to set him on fire.
They're going to kick him out.
You know what?
They're burning it all down.
Stupid move.
Jeff Vandrew won, he's defended, he's resisted impeachment, and that's going to give him a lot of favors with moderates who might vote Republican, who might like Trump.
Because you'll find a lot of these middle-of-the-road people voted for Obama in the same district.
But now that Jeff Van Drew is switching to the Republicans, I think that the smart play for the Republicans is not to primary him, to make a point, to say, we are going to stand by you for defending us.
So I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
and we'll see what happens in 2020.
Conservatives in the UK scored a decisive win in this past election.
Boris Johnson is the Prime Minister.
Everybody was shocked.
Now we're hearing the economy is already doing really, really well.
And I'm going to show you this.
But here's what I want to show you first.
See, three days ago, beware the economic consequences of Boris Johnson's election win.
A conservative majority equals Brexit and substantial repercussions for the nation's finances.
Oh, heavens!
Let's read a little bit.
We'll read a little bit.
And then I want to talk about the United States, our economy, 2016.
To borrow a Keynesian phrase, soon we will all discover the economic consequences of Boris Johnson.
Now with a majority and a mandate to carry out the opaque terms of the conservative manifesto, what will the next five years and more have in store for our economy and our standard of living?
Sajid Javid boldly stated a few weeks ago that the benefits of Brexit were self-evident.
If so, they are also unquantified.
The first thing to say is that we don't really know.
Not helpful, I suppose, but there are so many known unknowns, yadda yadda yadda.
Okay, I'm not going to read too much of what this guy has to say.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful or anything.
You know what's really funny about this though?
Do you remember what happened back in 2016 with everyone saying, oh, the market, it's going to collapse.
Oh, the economy is going to do so bad.
The first thing we saw.
Well, as the market actually started spiking as soon as Donald Trump got elected.
Now it's been up and down.
And I'll admit, when Donald Trump tweets, uncertainty creates chaos.
That's a fact.
Sometimes he tweets, it goes up.
Sometimes he tweets, it goes down.
You can't predict what the guy's going to say.
But the reality is, initially, what we see with these economies, it's not so much about whether or not, you know, conservatives will do a better job.
It's about certainty.
It's about people saying there will be less obstruction, a plan will happen, and that means you will likely benefit if you invest now.
I take you back, after looking at this, to the old year of 2016, where Mr. Kurt Eichenwald tweeted, in preparation for a completely unpredictable Trump presidency, I sold all my stocks in my kids' education accounts today.
I urge you to do the same.
Quite possibly the worst advice anybody could have given.
You know we're at like 28,000 in the, what is it, Dow Jones or whatever?
I'm not a big stock person.
Don't quote me.
I probably got it wrong.
But anyway, the point is record market levels, record economy, low unemployment.
It's not just that the certainty drove the markets up, proving Kurt Eichenwald very wrong, but it's that Trump's policies, whatever, whatever he's done, it's worked.
The economy's doing really, really well.
Why rock the boat?
Kurt Eichenwald also tweeted, I hate to say this, but against my investment advisor's recommendation, I sold all stocks and went all cash months ago.
Oof.
Oh, so brutal.
So sad.
Now, he later went on to claim he invested in foreign markets, emerging markets, and made 22%.
Fantastic!
I'm glad to see that you are now claiming you did invest, just not in the United States.
Because if you did, I think some people are seeing their 401ks and stuff like 30% up.
and stuff like 30% up. So you lost money. And the reason I highlight this is because
of course they would tell you, don't vote for them.
The economy will collapse.
Ooh, the end of the world is coming.
Let me show you a few bits of data.
Why, what's this?
In bright red, plastered, huge on the screen.
UK stock market in biggest one-day rally since 2016 amid Boris bounce.
Yes, we have the Trump bump and now we have the Boris bounce.
The UK stock market is spiking, but don't, but wait, there's more.
Oh, I've got more for you.
First, let's read a little bit of this.
FTSE 100 has surged by 190 points, the biggest one-day jump in over three years.
UK PMIs show economy struggling in December.
So there's some bad stuff, but that's less related to the election.
Let's read a little bit.
So this is mostly... FTSE 350 jumps by 50 billion pounds.
Boom!
50 billion pounds have been added to the value of Britain's biggest companies as the city continues to celebrate Boris Johnson's election victory.
The FTSE 100 index of top blue chip companies has just closed 165 points higher at 7519, which is a four-month high.
higher at 7519, which is a four-month high.
That lifts its value around $42.6 billion and is the biggest points rally since the
aftermath of the Brexit vote in 2016.
Yes, after the Brexit vote, stocks went up.
They would still have you say, the economy will do really bad.
Oh no, heavens, don't vote for them.
There's not just this.
I'll come back to this.
We'll talk about the stock market.
Make some predictions.
Take a look at this.
This is from DailyForexFX.
Sterling, the British currency, soars to fresh 2019 high in reaction to conservative win.
Now, I warn you all, this is mostly about certainty, okay?
When people say, oh no, no, no, don't vote for them, the economy will do bad, ignore it.
I'm not an economic advisor, so there's probably a lot of people who are going to say, Tim, you're wrong, you don't get it.
Fine, by all means.
But I'll tell you what, it seems like whenever there's a certain action, like whenever there's an action that breaks up the fight and says, this is what will happen, things do really well.
Now, what I think is benefiting the UK is a conservative majority, like a serious majority.
You know what that means?
It means they can snap their fingers, turn on a dime.
If something's going bad, they can just do it.
It's almost like they have a clear path to implementing their plans and their strategies, which is going to be great for investors when they're trying to figure out how to grow these companies.
Less so.
When you have these mixed majorities or like a slight majority, you'll get the left saying no and then obstructing and the economy hurts.
And a lot of people were concerned in the US the Democrats were going to try and obstruct and harm the economy so that Trump wouldn't win.
Now I'm not going to sit here and pretend there's a conspiracy among Democrats to hurt
the economy.
I will say though that the US trade agreement between Canada and Mexico was sitting on that
desk for over a year.
Now Pelosi claims it was, you know, she was, we were negotiating, we were making it better.
Fine, fine, fine, whatever man.
The point is it sat around for a year.
All we hear about is impeachment.
So maybe they're not trying to hurt the economy.
They're certainly not trying to help it.
The USMCA is a great deal, according to basically everybody.
Trump's super happy with it.
Even Nancy Pelosi said it was better than NAFTA.
Well, you can thank Trump for negotiating that, I guess.
You know, what's funny is they claim Trump is a failed businessman.
They say, oh, he's had five or six bankruptcies.
And I'm like, how many companies?
Guys, they're like 600 companies.
So this is the mentality they don't get.
You know how many times I've failed in my life?
Man, I've had so many attempts at launching things.
The big difference, the guaranteeing factor as to what makes someone succeed is not race, gender, identity, silver spoon, none of that.
It's grit.
It's perseverance.
The people who succeed are the people who don't give up.
Yet they look at Donald Trump and they say six of his companies went bankrupt.
First of all, bankruptcy protections are a business move often to save a business, not like it's failed.
He didn't shutter the businesses.
Some of them he did.
I'm just saying bankruptcy is different from shuttering and abolishing the company.
He also has, what, like 500 plus companies?
They're like Trump steaks without a business.
So what?
Who cares?
And then I think it's funny that I don't know how many companies, I think it's like 500 something, whatever, and like six bankruptcies, so it's like a 1.1% failure rate.
That's pretty good.
So now we can see that the British pound is spiking.
It's bad news for us Americans.
You know why?
Because we got a great conversion rate when we would go over to the UK.
You want to go on vacation, go to the UK?
Man, their economy was in the gutter.
You could go there and exchange that money nearly one-to-one.
Well, unfortunately, The Conservatives won, so now us American tourists have to deal with the fact that it's going to be a little bit more expensive to go to Britain.
They say it's spiked over 2% in reaction to the UK exit poll, which projects a larger-than-expected majority for the Conservative Party of 368 seats.
As such, a majority of this size will pave the way for a smooth Brexit process, with Boris Johnson able to pass his deal through Parliament.
With ease.
And take the UK out of the EU at the end of January.
So there you go.
They're even kind of saying it.
This is certainty.
This majority, right?
Which means that if you're going to invest in a company, you know that they're... I'll put it this way.
If Boris says, I want to do X, then you can say, I will bet on X. But if Boris says, I want to do X, and then the Labour Party says, no, we're going to do Y and we're going to fight you the whole way, you're like, I don't know if you can get it done.
So now that they've got certainty, this is good news.
You know what, man?
When it comes to the stock market... Actually, let me read a little bit more before I... They say nearly every share on the FTSE rose today, with the banking sector up 3%, industrial stocks up 2.7%, consumer non-cyclical firms up 2.5%.
I believe that with this majority, you will likely see the British economy start doing extremely, extremely well.
I also believe Brexit will do really, really, really well for the British economy.
Let me explain something that a lot of people don't understand.
The bigger the range for an economy, the worse it can be.
So there's challenges here, right?
Think about small towns in the U.S.
The U.S.
dollar can enter, you know, let's call it Bufu.
We'll use, for those that are familiar with the term, Bufu.
Let's say there's Bufu, Illinois.
It's a small town of a thousand, let's say 10,000 people.
The U.S.
dollar that they make in Bufu can be spent in some other town in Chicago.
That means if that town has a million dollars circulating, but people keep spending money outside the town, then the town starts losing its pool of money.
And eventually, if there's no money in that town, the town evaporates.
So the town needs to pull in money from somewhere else.
A lot of places use tourism for this.
Here's what I think is going to happen.
If you keep an economy internal, so a lot of cities have used local currencies.
There's the very famous Ithaca hours.
I think those are like defunct now, I'm not sure.
Basically, it's money that can't leave.
Let's say you're a plumber.
You live in Bufu.
And you are going to fix someone's, you know, kitchen sink.
If they give you U.S.
dollars, you can then go spend that on a store a hundred miles away, and those dollars are outside of the economy now, not being traded, no longer facilitating any value.
But if you only have a local currency that can't leave, that money will always be in that town, and so long as everyone has confidence in it, that someone will accept it, the economy does well.
That's why I think it was smart for the UK not to take the euro, keep their own currency within their, you know, within Great Britain.
But I think Brexit will force the UK to start expanding more businesses and relying more internally than externally.
There are benefits to, you know, wider international trade, ease of travel, ease of expansion for bigger businesses to grow and all that stuff.
But I think for the, you know, I think when you look at how Trump has handled the economy here in the US, there's a lot of reasons to look at why it's done well.
Notably why we decided to renegotiate NAFTA?
Because U.S.
money was going to Mexico and going to other countries.
Same thing, well it's mostly Canada and Mexico.
But with how China was doing trade with the U.S.
it was also really bad.
So now you've got basically everybody agreeing Trump's trade deals are better and we need to do more to make sure U.S.
dollars are Cycling through American citizens' hands and not foreign countries, otherwise the money supply goes down.
It's really complicated.
I'm not an economist.
I already know I'm gonna get a ton of emails from people who think they're economists.
It's so annoying.
But whatever, fine.
The point is, Trump got elected, economy did well.
Boris Johnson, Conservative Party wins, Prime Minister Johnson, the economy starts doing well.
That's certainty.
I think their policies will be streamlined.
I think you're going to see a lot of growth in the UK.
I'll leave it there.
I'm not here to say that I think Conservatives have the better plan, period.
I just think, without opposition, they can enact their plan to see growth.
Whatever.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
youtube.com slash TimCastIt is a different channel and I will see you all there.
I couldn't believe the headline when I saw it.
PewDiePie quits YouTube saying he's too tired to go on.
Well, I didn't believe it, but you know I thought maybe it's true.
Maybe PewDiePie is super rich.
I'm assuming he's super rich unless he's really irresponsible,
but yeah, the guy makes a lot of money.
Maybe he just said enough is enough.
Decided to move on.
Well, turns out it's fake news.
See, when I first saw this story, I thought, that seems weird.
I need to dig into this, as I normally do with most things.
Found the video from the other day, where it's literally the last 15 seconds of PewDiePie's video, and he goes, I just want to give you guys a heads up.
I'm going to be taking a little break from YouTube at the beginning of next year.
Just a little break, and just wanted to let you know in advance.
I'm tired.
And that was it.
Low break.
What does that mean?
Two weeks?
A month?
Two months?
He's not quitting.
He's taking a break.
Everybody takes a vacation.
Not a big deal.
But, I tweeted about this, citing PewDiePie, and now, PewDiePie's actually quit Twitter!
And he made a video called, I Hate Twitter.
Check this out.
This is big.
PewDiePie has like 20 million followers.
I hate Twitter.
It's an amazing video.
You should go watch it.
He talks about philosophy.
And boy, I tell you what, man, if there's one thing that our generation is lacking, Millennials and Gen Z, actually everybody.
Everybody's lacking philosophy.
Please, read a book.
Okay?
Learn about Aristotle.
And that's what he mostly talks about.
There are other people to read, I know.
But the video basically talks about virtue signaling.
and why PewDiePie hates Twitter.
So let me do this. Let me pull up this year post-millennial.
And I want to do two things in this video.
I want to talk to you about PewDiePie's view on why Twitter is awful
and the virtue signaling is awful, about what Twitter is.
But I want to talk about media trusts.
Because all these media outlets are claiming PewDiePie's quitting YouTube.
And this is a good... I think he brings this up.
How it's like they're just making things up for the desperate need to get those clicks.
And it's on hyperspeed.
It's like they're addicted, right?
So the Post Millennial wrote it up.
They said, YouTube personality PewDiePie has apparently deactivated his Twitter account, stating that he doesn't like the constant posturing that goes on there.
And that's what annoys him about social media, is the virtue signaling gets rewarded, and he would be correct.
He says it's not always easy to tell what is genuine online, and contrasts decades and centuries of people being rewarded for their actual accomplishments versus how things play out on social media.
Where people are praised for what they say, not what they do.
He calls social media a cesspool of opinion, and more often than not, the people who boast about being virtuous often reveal to be hiding the fact that they are not.
He then goes on to define what virtue is, and it's very smart, some of his best content, I would say.
You know, PewDiePie makes silly internet meme videos, and he made a really smart breakdown of, like, what's wrong with social media, how we get, like, he talks about the desires of humans, They say it's primarily about the current study of Greek philosophers.
He brings up Aristotle to answer the question of what is virtuous.
Virtuous habit.
You can't teach someone how to be a good person or how to act the right way.
It comes through practice.
One good act doesn't make you a virtuous person.
Not only that, people on Twitter don't do anything.
It's armchair activism to an extreme degree.
Is it contrasting that to the reality of social media?
He says that for many of us, there exists a gap between what we perceive ourselves of being capable of and what we have actually achieved.
And this gap creates anxiety for us.
Count Dankula noticed, saying PewDiePie deleted his Twitter WTF.
They go on to add that PewDiePie's had a rocky relationship, that we understand, and it's exemplified in, look at this article right here.
PewDiePie quits YouTube saying he's too tired to go on.
Totally not true.
He literally put out, like, a video yesterday and today, what is wrong with these people?
You know what I mean?
And when I scroll down, we can see all the other articles they've written about PewDiePie and his wife Marzia, PewDiePie's miraculous.
It's like, no matter what he does, and I get it, it's celebrity culture, but I tell you this.
One of the biggest problems with Twitter, Twitter to me is that magazine rack at Walmart.
You ever look at one of those things and they've got, what's up top?
What's up top is you've got National Enquirer or The Globe or whatever and it's like aliens and like shock celebrity content.
It's literally this.
I mean this is the mirror.
I mean it's tabloid trash.
What happens when you have a constant stream of tabloid trash?
You need more of it, right?
They call Twitter the firehose.
I kid you not.
I've worked at tech companies, and what you see on Twitter is a tiny fraction of what Twitter really is.
Let's say you follow 500 people, you see their tweets.
It's a stream.
But the reality is, in the backend, when you actually look at all tweets, it is just a firehose.
It is a wave.
You can't even read it.
There are so many tweets at any given moment.
Because of that rapid flow of information, you need to constantly be digging up.
And so what happens is, I've described it as, they're scraping the bottom of the barrel so hard, they're pulling up wood chips.
PewDiePie quits YouTube saying he's too tired to go on.
No, that's a lie.
They're just trying to trick you into clicking the article, seeing the ads.
And that's what Twitter is.
But Twitter doesn't reward you with ads, it rewards you with attention.
And humans like feeling accepted.
They like feeling, you know, they like feeling like they're involved.
You know what I mean?
Like, I don't know how many of you can relate to this, but being in high school and feeling like an outsider, not being one of the popular kids, and always really wanting to be involved in that popular click.
Whether or not you understand that feeling, take a look at most movies, and they show you that third-person perspective of what this is.
You have the in-group, the popular kids, everybody wants to be a part of that cool kid clique, and then you have the loners, outsiders who feel like losers.
Twitter is a place where people can feel like they're part of the popular group by virtue signaling.
So impressively, PewDiePie has deactivated his Twitter account.
Shortly around the time he posted this video, I hate Twitter.
Bravo, good sir.
See, I actually deleted Twitter from my phone a while ago.
However, I did end up bringing it back.
I have purged all of my past tweets.
I periodically do that, and I had a lot of historical stuff in there.
I mean, I covered major events around the world, in Egypt, in Ukraine, for instance, Occupy Wall Street, all gone.
I just said, you know what?
I don't care anymore.
Just get rid of it.
Delete.
But I keep Twitter basically because I have a news feed there, and I'm following journalists and outlets, and it's an effective tool for that reason.
Now, I do tweet my opinions on things, and boy do people not like me when I do.
I have a decent amount of followers.
Nowhere near the 20 million that PewDiePie had.
I have about 410,000, and I seem to gain a decent amount.
But you know what I stopped doing?
I stopped caring.
I used to use Twitter in a different way.
I used to use Twitter to interact with people.
And I used to talk about how powerful that was, that I could tweet to a celebrity and we'd have a conversation.
You couldn't do that in the past.
After a while, I think it was like earlier this year, I started tweeting about how I was going to tweet less, the platform is trash, and stop interacting with people.
And that I, for the most part, have done.
I've definitely toned things down in terms of having conversations.
I used to do long Twitter threads with people.
Now, I'll have a thought.
I'll tweet it.
I'll walk away.
I don't check notifications.
I don't engage with people.
I don't care if you like it or you hate it.
I will tweet what I think.
And sometimes I get ratioed.
Don't care.
I literally don't care how people respond to what I tweet.
I am not going to virtue signal and pretend like, you know, oh, I'm only going to believe this because I think it'll get me retweets.
Nah, I just tweet what I feel like tweeting.
I'll be sitting playing video games.
I'll have TV on the background.
I'll hear something and I'll tweet that.
I tweeted something about that family guy a couple nights ago.
I just don't care.
It's like a fun place to post a little blog.
But so many people...
They don't have within them the capacity, I guess, for confidence.
For me, I got too much of it, okay?
You know, PewDiePie talks about the difference, you know, between, like, the gap between what we're capable of and what we want to achieve and stuff like that.
I'll tell you what, man.
I know what I want to achieve, and I think I'm capable of doing more than that.
I've repeatedly said, like, I'm ready to get my van, go fishing down by the river.
You know what I mean?
So I know I can do it.
I know what I want to do, and we'll see.
We'll see.
I'm, I'm, I, you know, Stoic, pragmatic, calm, rational, planning.
But I think a lot of people have no confidence, no self-esteem, and no idea how to move forward with their lives.
So, I'll tell you this.
It was the right move, PewDiePie.
I can respect it.
You're not a journalist, right?
So for me, as somebody who's in the political sphere, tracking these stories I find to be particularly relevant.
There are interesting conversations and opinions and statements made by politicians that are relevant.
Civics versus tabloid celebrity trash.
For PewDiePie, he has no reason to be on there.
But I will say as well, it's the political sphere that is infecting everything else, which seems to be one of his biggest problems, this virtue signaling.
But let me tell you a quick story and we'll wrap things up.
I know you came in for PewDiePie, but let me tell you something important.
I knew a journalist once.
Had a couple thousand followers.
You know, for a regular, for your average journalist, getting two, three thousand followers isn't too difficult because you're tweeting stories and people will start following you.
But this person found that if they mocked Trump, they would get more followers.
Now they are known in Trump circles, they are ridiculed and derided because they don't make good points.
This person says things that are silly and nonsensical, but for the craziest of resistance Twitter, they love it.
Saying something like, you know, if you were to tweet, Donald Trump is the worst traitor America's ever seen, he trumps Benedict Arnold, and he is clearly worse than any dictator of the past hundred years.
You're gonna get all the resistance Twitter being like, you speak truth to power, yes!
And they'll follow you.
And then you'll see those followers, and you'll think, wow.
I'm doing good, people like me.
But guess what?
You're chasing yourself off a cliff.
Take, you know, there are some people, I'm going to avoid naming people because I don't want to start flame wars and stuff, but there's one individual who chased racist content.
The edgier his memes got, the bigger a response he got from certain groups of people.
Eventually, this person was posting memes that were really, really, really bad and I would dare say life-destroying.
You know, if you don't have a sense of self and a center and principles, you will be easily led astray.
When people go on Twitter and they see that tweeting that Trump is a traitor and, you know, that we don't need proof, string them up, all this other nonsense and other insane garbage that no one should ever be saying, and they do, they get rewarded for it.
They get rewarded for this insanity.
They shouldn't be.
But I tell you this, the average person doesn't feel this way.
The average person would smile and be excited to meet the president.
There was a photo of some doctors and nurses who meet Trump and they're smiling and shaking his hand and they're all so happy to meet him.
So this is what I say, Twitter is a huge problem.
You don't gotta like the president.
But seriously, why so much psychotic hate for the man?
He's not that bad.
And so, I think one of the things that separates me from so many other people, and why I respect PewDiePie's move, is that I recognize, look man, Donald Trump won.
Okay, I get it.
I've lived through Bush.
We'll see what happens come 2020.
I'll probably win again.
If we do right, if we speak well, if we speak positively about Trump, and then talk about the things we want to do better, we might actually win.
It really is just that simple.
You say this.
You know what?
You get the point.
It's people who want to tweet insane things to get those retweets and clicks, and they don't really mean it.
And I'll tell you what, about that journalist I told you about, they destroyed their career.
They'll never work at a reputable publication again.
Because all they do is tweet insane things.
But that's what rewarded them.
And it goes left and right.
I've seen it happen to the right, I've seen it happen to the left.
Good on you, PewDiePie!
I was going to get into media nonsense and BS, but I'll save that for the next segment, because I'm going to be talking about the smear against Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks.
Oh yeah, I got a good defense.
I kid you not, you're going to like it.
I'm going to be defending the guy.
See you all in a few minutes.
In a previous video, I asked the question of why doesn't Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks kinda let Trump run his course?
Like, they're so opposed to allowing Trump to win or make any ground, and I can understand that for a lot of reasons, but here's my point.
The media hates the progressives, the anti-establishment, to an extent.
They hate the anti-establishment left.
And they hate Trump and his supporters.
It's the anti-war left that gets banned.
It's the Trump supporters who get banned.
So it happens to conservatives more often than the left, but the way I see it is like, listen, man, I'm not somebody who would want to, who would enthusiastically vote for Trump.
I'm not somebody who would, at this point, not going to vote for the guy, didn't vote for him last time, but I recognize it's not that bad.
Okay.
And I want to make sure that's clear.
It's like, come on, dude, chill.
And I'm curious about the Young Turks because it's like, listen, when Trump targets the press and he says they're lying, They often are.
So I look at Trump as the bull rampaging through the ivory tower and I'm like, so be it.
Let the corruption go to war with the bull.
unidentified
And then when the bull leaves, we'll vote for somebody else.
You don't gotta agree with him politically, and I think Cenk is wrong on a lot of things.
But what the media is doing to him now, like the New York Times, this example right here, it's exactly what Trump complains about.
You challenge the machine, they come for you.
Look, the democratic establishment and the media walk in lockstep.
Vice News just hired a former White House appointee under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton staffer.
Lockstep.
They pretend to be in alliance with you progressives because you also don't like Trump and they weaponize that against him.
Check this out.
Kyle Kalinske.
Kyle Kalinske is a good dude.
I respect this guy.
He said, this is stunning.
New York Times' Jenny Medina claimed Cenk Uygur said David Duke is, of course, not a bigot.
This is the interview she was citing.
They should immediately retract and apologize.
I'm not going to play the clip, but it's very clearly Cenk Uygur
tearing apart David Duke's arguments and saying, no, you're wrong, and pushing back.
And I respect his position.
And look what they put.
Secular talk, Kyle Kulinski says.
This is how the New York Times and Jenny Medina described Cenk Uygur pummeling David Duke.
Shameful.
Time for an immediate retraction.
It says, Mr. Duke ends an interview by saying, I am not what you call a racist, to which Mr. Uygur replies, no, of course not.
Sure, I love this game the media plays.
It's called Technically the Truth.
Oh, Jen Cougar said that, but did he say, no, of course not.
Sarcastically pushing, that's why I'm very careful with how I record videos, how I avoid reading quotes, because you will read a quote from someone and they will publish that as though you said it, because technically, I mean, literally you did say those words.
Let me tell you a crazy story.
There was an article.
And I think it was the Boston Globe that referred to a Trump supporter as a white nationalist.
Well, I messaged the person and said, this individual has come out against white nationalism.
And you know what the response was?
Well, he's a nationalist, right?
Yes.
He's white, right?
Yes.
So he's a white and he's a nationalist.
And I'm like, dude, whoa, there is a stark difference between someone who is a nationalist who happens to be white and someone who is a white nationalist.
You get the point?
They're two different things.
They didn't care.
They didn't want to retract.
They wanted to mislead people into believing negative things about a Trump supporter.
And I was like, dude, listen, you don't got to like Cenk Uygur.
You don't got to like the Trump supporter guy.
But come on, man, can we get some honesty in the press?
So for all of the things the Young Turks have done that I disagree with, I'm going to set those things aside right now.
You know, I'll mention.
They ran this hit piece on Rubin and my name was in it.
It was fake news.
And I criticized, you know, I criticized them for it.
But for right now, the important thing is the media is full of crap.
And Cenk Uygur, for all of his faults, you don't need to be spring.
Let me show you something.
The OEC register says Cenk Uygur is an opposition researcher's dream.
How do they say it?
I don't want to read through this whole thing, but here we go.
Yeah, I get it, man.
The dude said a lot of offensive things, but I tell you this.
dream from blog post in 2000 declaring that the genes of women are flawed yada
yada yada yeah I get it man the dude said a lot of offensive things but I
tell you this if Jen comes out and says I'm you know look I shouldn't have said
those things Bravo brother Much respect.
And he has.
And he's clearly pushing back against the racists.
To try and claim that in any way Cenk of the Young Turks would praise or defend David Duke is such a disingenuous lie.
And I'll tell you one thing, the most important thing.
Do you know what my biggest gripe is?
Why the content I make is in the direction I make?
It's not because they say, oh, Tim's conservative.
They're really good people I know who work in these companies.
When these journalists publish these stories, they're not writing their best.
They're sending liars and activists and journalists.
And some of these people, I think, are good people, if you get the joke.
The point is, there are a lot of people working in these media companies who are evil.
Dare I say evil?
Someone who's willing to smear Cenk Uygur in this way.
Listen, man.
I've criticized the guy a lot for legitimate things.
For things that he can say, yes, that's true, and I see, you know.
When I say, hey, you did this, and he got mad and he snapped at me, okay.
Those things happened, and I'll criticize them over it.
And that's the way it should be.
The media is trash.
So, Crystal Ball, who is also awesome, a rad person, from The Hill, tweeted, if the New York Times can lie about Cenk Uygur, who gets 30 million, 40 million views per month, They can lie about you.
They'll twist your words, pretend not to hear your sarcasm, and make you sound like you're saying the exact opposite of what you're saying.
This is outrageous, and they should immediately retract and apologize.
And I completely agree.
You got a problem with Cenk running for Congress?
You speak up and you target him on his positions.
You challenge his ideas, and even if you want to criticize Cenk for being, you know, playing similar games in the media, I don't care about any of that.
Right now, I am not here to say, oh, but Cenk did this, but Cenk did that.
No, no, no, no, no.
The media is full of liars, and deceivers, and cheaters, and they're biased.
And it's not all of the journalists, okay?
It's not all of them.
Crystal Ball is at The Hill.
She has an excellent show.
She's very clearly... I don't want to ascribe political beliefs to people.
I hate doing this.
But she comes off as kind of a progressive.
You know, has praised Bernie Sanders.
I got tremendous respect for that.
They did, it's Crystal and Sagar, who I hope I'm pronouncing your name right, I always, you know, get it wrong.
They have a show called Rising, and they had a guy on who smeared Tulsi Gabbard as like a Russian, and they both immediately were like, no, no, no, no, you can't do that.
I'm like, thank you.
That's why their show is great, On the Hill, you should check it out if you haven't.
Because you can actually hear a progressive and a conservative, and they'll talk about the news, they'll talk about their ideas, and they're being honest.
It's so amazing to watch, because I turn on, look, I'm not a big fan of Hannity.
I think he's too bombastic.
I understand, I'm not perfect either, but Hannity, there was a segment I watched from
CNN, and I also can't stand CNN, but at least a decent point was made where Hannity puts
so much emphasis into certain stories, it makes them sound much, much bigger than they
really are, and that can make people, I mean, that's the game, right?
I'm not saying he's doing it to manipulate people, I'm saying he's a showman, he's an opinion guy, and so when he gets shocked by something, it translates well into shock and outrage to the audience, who then might see one smaller story as something bigger than it really is.
I'm always careful to try and, like, hold things back and say, well, hold on, you know, here's what's happening.
Like, so the example I cite is Ukrainegate, where Hannity is much more bold and brazen, like, a massive, major scandal, and it's, like, really shocking and bombastic.
Yeah, I can criticize that, okay?
Granted, I think there's a big difference between being shocking and bombastic and lying or omitting information, which is, you know, I don't know, CNN.
But anyway, the point is, That's just me.
I recognize people want to watch Brian Steuthert, go for it.
You want to watch Hannity, go for it.
I try to do my thing because I'm a very freedom-oriented person.
I'm not going to tell you, you know, what you should or shouldn't watch or what you should or shouldn't believe.
I'll tell you what I think.
I'll do my best to try and keep it, you know, tempered and chill.
If I see a big story I'll say, you know, let's hold on and wait.
And the reason I do that Is because instead of screeching into the wind and lying about people I don't like, like, say, Cenk Uygur, for instance, no, I'll just do my thing, and I will stand up to counter that, and I'll stick to myself.
You know what's really fascinating?
What I found.
I feel like one of the reasons I'm often ignored in a lot of hits is that I don't get into these wars with these people.
I'm not going to sit there screaming at Jen.
I'm just going to make a video saying what I think, and I'm going to leave them to their own devices.
Tucker Carlson said something similar.
I respect this.
He says he thinks Rachel Maddow's really wrong, but it's an opinion show, and she's allowed to have her opinion.
And that I agree with.
But I'll tell you what, man.
It's not just this story where they're trying to twist his sarcasm into a literal statement.
There's been several things that have come up about Cenk Uygur that are like taking out
of context comments, digging into his past, and I can't stand it.
I hate it.
I deleted all of my past tweets.
I just absolutely detest it.
People make mistakes.
People's opinions change.
I don't care what Cenk said in 2006.
I know there are even Trump supporters.
I don't care.
Literally don't.
Now I understand.
When it comes to civics, it's different from celebrities in sports.
If Cenk Uygur says he believes in a certain policy like animal love or whatever, which
was something that came up recently, listen, I know he said it, but the way I see it, for
one, out of context, I'm not going to pay attention to your video, but more importantly,
if someone's being silly, if someone's purposefully trying to be like a shock jock, am I going
to pretend that their positions are reflected by this?
Whether it's Donald Trump, whether it's Hillary Clinton, whether it's Cenk Uygur, whether it's George Papadopoulos.
I will ask you right now.
What will you do?
Why should I trust you?
Tell me, and that's where we'll go from there.
Because when I was 18, like, I don't even know what I was wearing, like, skin-tight black pants and screeching about anarchy or something stupid, like, skateboarding and, like, whatever.
I don't know what I was doing.
Probably drinking too much beer.
Am I gonna... Could you imagine if someone pulled up your 18-year-old self's stupid statements and they were like, look at what they were saying.
It's just insane.
So, I'll say this, man.
As far as it goes with like my past comments and videos, yeah, my opinions change too.
You can probably dig up one of my old videos and be like, wow, I can't believe Tim believes it.
Did you know I praised AOC when she won the primary?
Oh yeah.
I was like, wow, this is really great.
I'm super excited to see the establishment Democrats getting knocked down a peg or two.
And then if you go back, if you go a year forward, it's like AOC is stupid.
And I'm like mad at her.
Yes, because opinions change.
So I'll tell you what, man, what really bothers me about this is that I am very critical of Cenk Uygur for a lot of reasons.
But for legitimate reasons.
Reasons that he can actually agree with.
Like, oh, okay, I see why you're mad about that.
I did say that.
And then we can move on from there.
And we can determine whether or not he should get the support of the people of California.
But not the way the New York Times does it.
So, you know what, man?
In the end, I can't stand the media.
You know what?
Because they're supposed to be the people telling us the truth.
They're supposed to be the people letting us know what's going on.
They're not.
They're activists.
They're establishment players who want to make sure Cenk can't get into office.
Many of you might like that.
No, I don't.
If Cenk speaks in a way, if he promises things that people of California want, so be it.
That is the way it should be.
That's called integrity.
It's called honor.
It's called, you know, truth.
The media doesn't play this game.
Or I should say, many in the media don't play this game.
And again, you might point to Cenk and say a lot of times he does something similar.
Fine.
The point is, I'm not going to dig in his past.
I'm not going to try and smear him and say, oh yeah, well what about you, Colin Ketelbeck?
No, no, no, no.
The point is, let him speak in his own words.
I want to see what he has to say right now about what his plans are for his, you know, congressional run.
I don't care about his stupid comments about animals from 2010 or whatever, or his comments about Israel from 2006.
I don't care.
I want to know what his thoughts are today.
The media doesn't want to play that game.
So I tell you this.
If there's one thing that should be bringing the left and the right together right now, it's the media lying to all of us.
That's it.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around, I will see you all there.
Well, to end this day on a lighter note, that's a joke by the way, a Texas Democrat doubles down on wishing Barack Obama had cancer.
You might—what?
So first of all, it is a Texas Democrat, but it appears they're a Democratic Socialist running a Democratic ticket.
Because I don't think any sane, rational person would wish cancer on somebody, especially a former president.
That's insane.
Listen, man, I understand the idea is, can we get people to feel some empathy, to understand the pain of others, but this is just beyond reproach.
Let's read the story and then I'll pull up the guy's Twitter account.
So the Daily Caller reports, Democratic Texas congressional candidate Justin
Leccea said he hopes former President Barack Obama gets cancer and is
I'll read his tweets.
tweets posted Sunday night.
Lucia attempted to justify his ill wishes towards the 44th president by calling Obama
a war criminal and citing his administration's record on deportations and immigration enforcement.
He said, y'all are, well, I don't want to get to this y'all are defending part yet.
I'll read his tweets, but I will add first, Barack Obama.
It is reported that he may have committed 2,500 plus extrajudicial assassinations.
I am not a big fan of the man over this.
I think he's charismatic.
I think he can speak well and be a celebrity and create an image of what a president should be.
I'll respect that.
There's a lot I would respect domestically.
His willingness to compromise and try and move things forward.
He wanted universal healthcare and he gave up on it.
But Barack Obama, when it comes to foreign policy, war criminal?
I'm going to avoid that because it's not for me to decide.
But did he definitely kill innocent people?
Oh, you betcha!
What is that?
We accidentally blew up a bunch of military-aged men?
Call them enemy combatants!
That's what they did!
Fly a drone.
You want to hear a joke?
What's the difference between a terror headquarters and a children's hospital?
I don't know.
I just fly the drone.
Yeah.
YouTube is probably going to get me in trouble for that joke.
But that's a joke.
And a lot of people might get offended by that, but let me tell you something.
As somebody who is extremely anti-war and very critical of Obama's foreign policy and Bush's foreign policy, I laugh at the joke.
You know why?
It speaks truth to power.
It exemplifies the horrific nature of what they do when they wait.
First of all, to speak to the economic, domestic, individuals in the country who are worried
about economic issues, they'd be wasting our money, dropping bombs on innocent people.
But to speak to the good nature of everyone in this country, be it a secular atheist who
cares about children, to the staunch conservative Christian who believes thou shalt not kill,
dropping bombs on civilians who are like 20-year-old dudes who are carrying buckets of water and
then saying, military age male equals enemy combatant, is nightmarish.
But let's get back to the cancer thing.
So he tweeted, People are criticizing me for wishing cancer on Obama.
I say that having lost a parent to brain cancer after 12 years of fighting.
Still, not a good excuse, dude.
And getting to see just how terrible our healthcare system is.
And I still think he deserves it or worse.
What?
Why?
If you've seen how horrific it is, why would you wish that on anybody?
Dude, I wouldn't wish a paper cut on my worst enemy.
And I really do mean that.
Man, I'm too much of a hippie lefty liberal type, aren't I?
Now listen, I'm very anti-death penalty, as most of you know.
And I still believe that compassion... You know what, man?
Let me tell you about the cycle of hate.
People look at this guy and they'll say, I hate him.
And so they'll do something bad to him.
And then he'll say, I hate you back.
And the cycle continues.
The only way to improve things is to break the cycle of hate.
I do not believe in retribution.
I believe in rehabilitation.
Retribution feels good, man.
It feels so good.
Righteous justice.
Those people who caused you pain, suffering, schadenfreude?
Ugh!
Feels amazing, doesn't it?
Makes you feel great!
And it makes your problems worse.
And it makes people angry.
And it makes their brother... The story goes like this.
Somebody slights you, so you slight them back.
Or it's like somebody dies, and then their brother says, it was your fault, so then they kill the other person.
And then that person's dad says, it's your fault, then kills the brother.
And then the cousin says, you killed my cousin, and then goes and kills the dad.
It never ends.
At a certain point, you have to say, you know what?
You did me wrong.
But I forgive you.
There's a great video you should watch, and it brings a tear to my eye.
There's like a serial killer guy, or it's like a murderer, and he's sitting in trial, and he murdered a young woman, and the father says, I forgive you.
And the murderer starts crying, and it's crazy, because this murderer dude, he's like stone-faced.
Nothing they say faces him.
They scream at him, they yell, you murderer!
You killed these people!
And he's just like, I don't care.
And then this bumbly old man walks up and says, I forgive you, and the murder breaks down and starts crying and shaking.
I wish, for all of the evil and injustice in the world, we could break that cycle and prevent it from happening again.
Because a lot of what we see overseas, with a lot of this jihadi stuff we've seen affecting the US and US resources, it's what the CIA called a blowback.
Our operations slighted somebody, they slighted us back.
The cycle continues and never ends.
You know the sad reality is, We have competing interests, and we may not be able to ever stop that cycle, because it's not always about hating somebody.
It's not like I hurt you on purpose, it could have been an accident, and then they blame you for it.
Take a look at, like, the Avengers movie, right?
Age of Ultron.
The Maximoff twins were negatively impacted by a Stark weapon.
So they want revenge against Tony Stark.
Tony Stark was a way different person when they tried getting revenge.
So it wasn't like Tony was like, I want to harm these people, but he didn't make the weapons.
So there's sometimes indirect and inadvertent actions that result in people who want retribution.
This is the problem with retribution.
In fact, I know it's fiction.
Okay.
But in Age of Ultron, if the Maximoff twins didn't push for retribution, it could have prevented the tragedy which affected their home country with the destruction of their city.
Again, I know it's fiction.
I'm just making a point.
Justin for Congress goes on to say...
Y'all are defending a war criminal who was in authority during the deportation of over 3 million immigrants, continued the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, allowed the continued poisoning of citizens in places like Flint and also, recently bought an $11 million home in Martha's Vineyard, and demonstrated privilege so great that he gives zero F's about y'all.
Obama is part of the club that is going to let y'all burn in climate change.
So at me all you want, I said nothing directly threatening.
No, but you're kind of just a part of the problem.
Listen, Here's what it comes down to.
Is what he's saying about Obama true?
Well, that's an opinion, for the most part.
But Obama did a bunch of really bad stuff.
And then he did buy an $11 million mansion.
So, yeah.
You know what, man?
I kind of agree with him on a lot of these points.
Obama, not someone I'm going to look up to for a lot of reasons.
Like, he recently did something stupid.
He said women would make better leaders.
Oh, cut the pandering, bro.
Cut the pandering.
But I'll tell you this.
What would happen if Justin for Congress was president?
What do you think he would do?
What do you think he would do to Obama?
When someone expresses a desire to cause suffering and pain to others, it worries me about what they would do when they wield power.
There's something I've cited several times, mostly in the past.
I'll bring it back up.
It's this Magic the Gathering card.
If you're familiar with the game, Magic the Gathering, it's a card game.
Swords to plowshares.
Melting down the swords in a war into plowshares so that you could farm and make peace and help people instead of hurting people.
Now, I'm not a stupid person.
I recognize that sometimes people got crazy beliefs.
They want to hurt you and you can't do nothing about it.
I understand that sometimes police have no choice but to, you know, take someone out.
A lot of people don't seem to understand that.
They think cops are all evil villains who just want to cause harm.
No.
But there are some that exist.
There are some bad people on the police.
It's a fact.
But the reality is a lot of cops enter dangerous situations, they take action, and it destroys them for a long time.
And I can respect that.
I can respect the individuals while calling out the bad behavior of others, recognize they're different people.
But I tell you this, the people who do enjoy suffering of others, or would ever entertain that someone should suffer, it's the last person you'd want to be in power.
The people we want in power are the people who don't want to be in power.
And it's tough, because the people who don't want to be in power won't be.
They're not going to try.
They're not going to run for office.
They're not going to get elected.
And the people who want power will get it, because they strive for it.
And that, to me, is scary.
That's dangerous.
You know, I've had people say to me stuff like, when are you going to run for office, Tim, or whatever?
Like, Cenk Uygur's doing it now.
Will I?
No, I will never.
It's never going to happen.
No way.
Look, man.
I'm a milquetoast fanciter for a reason.
I don't think I'm smart enough to dictate what should or shouldn't be in terms of law and policy, and I don't think there's a solution to end, you know, the frustrations everybody faces.
It may come to a point, you have two people, and they're arguing as a land dispute.
I've been growing crops on this land for 50 years.
The other guy says, I've been grazing my cattle for 50 years.
Now they're trying to draw a line.
What do you do?
You're gonna slight somebody.
There's no...
Easy way to do it, right?
I mean you could argue shared space but then eventually people will fight over resources when it comes to that point.
So I look at what's going on in Congress and boy I can tell you If I was, there's a lot of positions I would absolutely take.
There's a lot of things I'd just be like, I don't know, you know?
Because what happens if you come out and say, someone says to you, hey, this crop is really bad for the local bee population or something, and you're like, whoa, whoa, we gotta do something about that.
And then the next day, the guy comes in and says, if you shut down this crop, you will destroy the economy of my entire town, and you will put 5,000 people out of work.
Well, what are you supposed to do, man?
It's not easy, right?
So these climate activists say, shut it down, ban fossil fuels.
Okay, well, that will destroy the lives of millions of people.
It's too difficult, you know?
I'll tell you this.
My intention would always be to do good, to minimize harm.
But it's almost impossible to figure out how exactly you do that.
But I will leave you with one thing.
Beware people like this.
People who would wish for the suffering of others.
Because when someone like this gets power, you better damn well believe it, they will wield that power to hurt other people.
This guy and this statement should disbar him from being in office, as far as I'm concerned.
Expressing a desire for suffering in others, do not ever give someone like that power.
