Republicans May NEVER Win The House Again Due To Immigration, California Set To Gain ELEVEN Seats
Republicans May NEVER Win The House Again Due To Immigration, California Set To Gain ELEVEN Seats. According to a new report from the Center for immigration studies, states that voted for Trump in 2016 are set to lose 24 house seats and electoral college votes and solidly blue states are set to gain 19 seats and EC votes.If this trend continues Republicans as we know it may never win the house again and possibly the presidency as a disproportionate amount of power will be handed to heavily blue states.The GOP has two choices, cater to immigrants or restrict immigration and it seems that Trump has opted for the latter. According to report form the New York Times immigration is down 70% across the board. Trump's efforts on adding the citizenship question also show that he has been paying attention to these massive demographic changes.This is likely why California is a "sanctuary state." See House seats are not based on how many citizens live in your area but how many people, regardless of whether they can vote or not.This means that blue states essentially convert non citizens into legal votes for the president and for policy through the House and electoral college.Trump is certainly resisting and it seems that if his plans continue he may avert the rapid shift which is costing republicans representation in congress.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
According to a new report from the Center for Immigration Studies, Republicans are going to lose 24 House seats, and solidly blue states are going to gain 19 House seats, and in turn electoral college votes, due to legal and illegal immigration.
If this trend continues, many people speculate Republicans will never win the House of Representatives again.
It also means that blue states are going to gain a disproportionate amount of power in choosing the president.
Many people on the right are concerned that illegal immigrants are voting illegally, and there's no real evidence of widespread voter fraud.
There certainly is voter fraud, and there's evidence it happens, but not in the millions.
The real issue is the way we draw congressional districts and give out electoral college votes.
It doesn't matter if you're a citizen or not.
So states like California are set to gain 11 House seats, and they have a large population of illegal immigrants.
This will give them more power in federal elections.
So I gotta say, I do find it strange that they want to get rid of the Electoral College, but we'll get to that later.
The first thing I want to do is take a look at what's going on with this report from the Center for Immigration Studies, and I want to show you how Donald Trump and the Republicans are actually fighting back.
You see, Republicans have two choices here.
Cater to immigrants, make more immigrant-friendly policies to win over those votes, or Restrict immigration and change the way the census is collected.
And so far it seems like Donald Trump has actually restricted immigration and tried changing the census.
But if we look to states like Virginia, we can see that while Trump's not making his decisions arbitrarily, whether you agree with his policies or not, the New York Times ran a story saying how voters turned Virginia from a deep red state to solid blue, and they go on to talk about how it's mostly immigration.
So let's get started with the story from CIS, and then we'll go into Trump's countermeasures.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but the best thing you can do, share this video.
I know that it's impossible, for the most part, to break echo chamber bubbles, and because I'm not anti-Trump, like screech on top of my lungs, probably a lot of people on the left don't want to watch this, but hey, it's still the best we can do to try and get this information out to other people and, I don't know, share different perspectives.
Or if you think my content is trash, then just comment and tell me you think I'm awful, but thanks for watching anyway.
CIS reports!
Under the current policy, all persons, not just citizens, are included in the population count when apportioning seats to states in the U.S.
House of Representatives and for votes in the Electoral College, which is based on House seats.
Although we focus on the next census in 2020, the impact of immigration has been building for decades.
As the number of people settling in the country has increased dramatically, this report examines the cumulative impact of immigration, both legal and illegal, on the apportionment of House seats.
Apportionment is a zero-sum system.
By adding more population to some states rather than others, immigration will continue to significantly redistribute political power in Washington.
They say, among their findings, the presence of all immigrants, which includes naturalized citizens, legal residents, and illegal aliens, and their U.S.-born minor children, will redistribute 26 seats in the House in 2020.
To put this number in perspective, changing the party of 21 members of the current Congress would flip the majority in the U.S.
House.
They go on to say that Ohio will have three fewer seats in 2020 than it otherwise would have had, but for the presence of all immigrants and their minor children in other states.
Michigan and Pennsylvania will have two fewer.
They then go on to list a series of states that are losing one seat.
I'm not going to read every state for you, but here's where it's important.
California will have 11 more seats in 2020 than it otherwise would have.
New York and Texas will have four more seats each.
Florida will have three more seats.
New Jersey will have two more.
And Illinois and Massachusetts will each have one additional seat.
I want to stop here.
I want to mention something about California.
They recently passed legislation saying that they'll give health care to non-citizens under the age of 26.
We saw something similar with the Democratic presidential candidates saying that they were going to give health care to non-citizens.
California has a lot of problems.
It essentially operates like an oligarchy.
In San Francisco, you have these figurative ivory towers where billionaires run massive tech companies.
Meanwhile, homelessness is rampant, drug abuse is rampant, human waste litters the streets, and now California is going to get 11 more seats in 2020.
And the reality is, illegal immigration does play a role in this.
Because if they come to California, and California, which proclaims itself a sanctuary state, refuses to deport, they gain power in the federal electoral system.
States like Alabama think that's entirely unfair.
They filed a lawsuit against this.
Donald Trump wants to change this.
He wants to add a citizenship question, but we'll get to all that.
Let me read through this, and then we'll follow up on how states are fighting back.
Of the 26 seats that will be lost, 24 are from states that voted for Donald Trump in 2016.
Of states that will gain because of immigration, 19 seats will go to the solidly Democratic states of California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Illinois.
Texas is the only solidly Republican state that gains, while Florida is a swing state.
But I gotta stop there, too.
Texas?
Solidly Republican?
I'm sorry.
Due to immigration, people believe that Texas is in play.
Now, I understand it's not absolute, because some people have argued that many of those who are voting for a Republican in Texas actually are transplants, but the issue remains that Texas might swing blue very soon, in which case, that's going to be more electoral votes for the left.
So I do want to talk about the Electoral College.
Maybe we'll get to this.
Because there's actually been more Republicans coming out saying, maybe we should abolish the Electoral College, when they realize illegal immigrants can't vote.
They don't.
Some people believe there's millions, you know, voting, but there's just not evidence to suggest that's true.
There is evidence to suggest that there are a lot of cases of illegal immigrants who do vote and voter fraud, but it's in the thousands, not the millions.
Think about what happens then in a state like California.
An illegal immigrant who moves there gets counted in the census.
They then get a representative and electoral vote based on people who are here illegally.
They gain electoral votes.
They're essentially converting illegal immigrants who can't vote into legal Electoral College votes.
That's why I keep telling the left, you're actually hurting yourself when you say you want to get rid of the Electoral College.
And that's why, again, there have been Republicans saying, maybe we should get rid of it.
Because at least then you will retain your percentage in states like Texas and California if Texas flips blue and when California does.
But I want to read one very, very important thing.
They say this.
Illegal immigrants alone in 2020 will redistribute three seats in Ohio, Alabama, and Minnesota, each having one fewer seat than they otherwise would have had, while California, New York, and Texas will have one additional seat.
There are many people on the right who are saying, you know, it's about illegal immigration.
In reality, it's not.
Illegal immigration is only swinging three seats.
So I think it's important to clarify that as we get into the battle that Donald Trump is waging, because in reality, Donald Trump is not just targeting illegal immigration.
Trump has made it harder across the board for all immigrants.
And this is your evidence why.
Of these 26 seats that are flipping, 23 Are due to legal immigration.
That's what I said in the beginning.
Trump has two options.
The Republicans have two options.
You can talk to the immigrants, offer them things so they vote for you, or you can just try and shut it down.
Now we've seen some Republicans like Geraldo say, please POTUS, free the dreamers.
Geraldo is, you know, Fox News personality.
He's very much a defender of Donald Trump, but he's also criticized Fox News for the rhetoric around immigrants.
And he recently came out and said, you've got to start talking about what immigrants need and want in their families.
Otherwise, you're going to lose.
He's right.
But Donald Trump seems to take the other approach.
You see, let me show you this story from the New York Times back in September.
They say this.
The net increase of immigrants in the American population dropped to about 200,000 people in 2018, a decline of more than 70% from the year before, according to William Frey, chief demographer at the Brookings Institution, who conducted the analysis.
It's remarkable, said David Beier, an immigration expert at the Cato Institute, of the 2018 numbers.
This is something that really hasn't happened since the Great Recession.
This should be very concerning to the administration that its policies are scaring people away.
An administration official said it was impossible to comment without seeing the details of the analysis.
The numbers were released on Thursday as part of the Census Bureau's American Community Survey, a kind of annual mini-census it started in 2005.
The net immigration figure made up of all foreign-born people who came to the United States, minus those who left and those who died, gives demographers a picture of how the United States population has changed over the past year.
I think it's funny they say this should be very concerning to the administration.
I don't think it is.
I think it's exactly what Donald Trump wanted.
I think he knows about this.
I think Republicans have talked about this and I think they understand.
They want to make immigration generally harder.
There's a lot of legitimate reasons for making immigration harder.
One of the things Trump did recently was this, you know, he has this rule where you have to prove you can take care of yourself medically if you want to come here.
It actually kind of makes sense.
I mean, if you come to the United States from a country and you have no insurance, and your country won't cover your medical bills, and then you get hurt, we have to pay for it.
It's not fair because you're kind of just exploiting the system.
And the way California is operating kind of shows us how that could play out.
They're not going to enforce federal immigration laws.
They're a sanctuary state, but they're also going to give free health care to people under the age of 26.
Well, now you're incentivizing people to come and just get that health care.
I don't want to accuse California of doing that on purpose, but you can see how that then converts into electoral college votes.
Admittedly, and I want to make sure it's clear, even the Center for Immigration Studies, who has been smeared relentlessly by people on the left, says it's only three, it's only three electoral college votes.
But this still has caused outrage among some states, notably Alabama.
Here's a story from the Washington Post.
The census citizenship question failed, but Alabama is seeking to exclude undocumented immigrants in apportioning congressional seats.
I think it's a really funny way for the Washington Post to frame this.
Alabama isn't seeking to exclude undocumented immigrants in apportioning congressional seats.
Alabama is seeking to maintain fair representation based on citizens of this country.
Now, there's a big challenge here.
You see, Donald Trump, let me show you this.
Here's a story from The Guardian back in July.
Trump abandons effort to put citizenship question on 2020 census.
They say executive order tells federal agencies to turn over citizenship data.
Many people on the left said that Trump was trying to add this question because it would scare illegal immigrants into not filling it out.
And I don't know if that really matters necessarily, because whether or not they do or don't, I don't think has anything to do with that question.
Some people have wrongly said, there's been this fake news going around for a while, That Obama removed the citizenship question from the census, and that's just not true.
As far as I can tell based on people I know who track past census data and ancestry, they've usually only asked you if you were born in the US.
The reality is...
It doesn't matter so much whether or not you are or aren't a citizen, because the census isn't just about apportioning congressional seats, but it's also about the distribution of funds.
So the left has a decent argument in that we do need an accurate representation of undocumented immigrants if we're going to talk about federal funding.
The problem then becomes the electoral power.
Of course, don't be surprised when the Washington Post tries to frame it as though Alabama is bigoted and just trying to say no to undocumented immigrants, when in reality, I look at it this way.
If you're Alabama and you want adequate representation in the federal government to make sure that, you know, your people are being taken care of, the citizens are being taken care of, the ones who are paying the taxes, well then you're going to be upset when you find out people are coming here and then giving weight to states like California.
But let's see what the Washington Post has to say and then I want to get into another really big problem and why I think the Democrats are desperate to win this fight.
This was back in August.
Washington Post writes, When the government announced plans last year to ask about citizenship on the 2020 census, analysts inside and outside the Census Bureau warned it could scare many immigrants from being counted.
The question was ultimately blocked by legal challenges.
But the fight over the census citizenship question seems to have been just one skirmish in a larger war over who deserves to be a part of America's democracy.
Over the course of Donald Trump's presidency, administration officials have signaled a desire to fundamentally alter the country's system of representation, making it far more restrictive than ever before.
In doing so, some have alluded to a lawsuit that, even if it fails, may still succeed in shaping the debate over representation.
Filed last year by the state of Alabama and Rep.
Mo Brooks against the Commerce Department and the Census Bureau, it argues that the current system of apportioning congressional seats gives an unfair electoral advantage to states with more undocumented immigrants.
That's true.
It does, but only by three seats.
And the reason I want to say this is because, let's make one thing clear.
No state should be given an unfair advantage due to the fact they have non-citizens there.
You shouldn't be allowed to vote for the president, get more votes for the president, simply because non-citizens live in your state.
That's essentially giving votes to non-citizens.
But I think you've got to be rational and reasonable and recognize it's not just about illegal immigration.
And if you're a Republican and you're concerned about this flip, and you keep talking about illegal immigration, you're missing the fact that 23 seats are flipping to do legal immigration.
Now, again, I get it.
Trump is still absolutely coming out against legal immigration as well, for the most part.
I don't want to act like Trump is saying no to all immigration.
He's just making it stricter for a lot of reasons.
And I think that's a fair argument for why there should be restrictions on immigration.
And I don't think it's fair to say, you know, the narrative they tried to push is that Trump is racist and just doesn't like brown people or something.
And I think it has more to do with rapid cultural shifts, which can be dangerous.
And I really do mean this.
You know, a lot of people are going to say, oh, now I'm defending Trump and I'm being a bigot, but let me show you something.
Take a look at this story from the New York Times, how voters turned Virginia from deep red to solid blue.
There is a serious problem with what happened in Virginia that could be very, very damaging for the whole of the United States.
Now, this story from the New York Times goes in great detail to talk about how I believe one in five or one in four people who live in Virginia are now an immigrant, and because of this, because of the non-white population, more Democrats are getting elected.
And they show some really interesting data, I believe.
I'm not sure if it's at the top or the bottom.
Here we go.
Check this out.
In 2000, Virginia was solid red across the board, everything.
And then it started shifting, and now, in 2019, it's solid blue across the board.
The reason why this rapid shift is so dangerous is that large portions of Virginia are still staunch conservatives.
We're not talking about a state that is moderate.
We're talking about a state that is staunchly conservative, that saw a rapid demographic shift, which flipped it Democrat.
And the big problem now, the main issue, is gun reform.
The state wants to confiscate certain weapons, they want to enact reforms, which has resulted in 95 districts declaring themselves sanctuary states for the Second Amendment.
This is scary.
When you have a slow immigration over time, when you have controlled integration, when the government can say, here's the best place for you to go to integrate and we can then expand the economy and welcome you to our country, you avoid rapid demographic shifts which result in culture clashes.
It will be a very serious problem if the National Guard or someone tries to go out and confiscate weapons from people who are die-hard constitutionalist Republicans because people were empowered by immigrants who don't hold the same traditional values.
So the issue isn't whether or not immigration is good or bad, it's whether or not you can take two different cultures and mash them together instantly.
The reality is, in this case, because it's not absolute, I'm just saying, take a look what's going on in Virginia, This is scary to a lot of people.
There have been, I've seen some memes from the right saying not to react, not to go out armed and things like this, but there's really, there's big concerns about a rapid demographic shift because some people have cultural values that are just at odds with each other.
We've seen how negative, you know, red flag laws could be.
And so again, I want to make sure it's clear.
When you talk about the importance of controlling immigration, I'm sure there are racists and
white nationalists who love this stuff, but the reality is you need to make sure you can
stabilize your culture and your economy and what people believe because the fact remains,
if you bring in a bunch of people who completely disagree with another group of people and
their beliefs are very, very far apart, you might start seeing destabilization fighting
and it's not a good thing.
It's going to be really, really bad.
So of course, though, the left has always deferred to it's all about race and Trump's
obviously a racist, but if we look to the reporting I did in Sweden, for instance, one
of the problems a lot of countries have with immigration is a failure to properly integrate
new populations.
So again, like I said, you can bring in tons and tons of immigrants so long as you plan
for it to stabilize the economy and prevent major culture clashes.
But when it comes to what happens in the US and many other countries, they didn't do that.
What do you get?
You get immigrants coming and forming enclaves.
They don't integrate properly.
They develop their own cultures.
And then they start, you know, there's potential economic issues that, you know, result in gangs and poverty.
So when it comes to immigration, you know, for me, I'm fairly pro-immigration.
I think it just needs to be, you know, monitored and controlled to avoid, I guess, chaos.
Trump, on the other hand, is taking a very heavy-handed approach against it.
And many people on the left think there should be no borders at all.
Not every person on the left, but a lot of them.
I don't think.
I think, you know, Trump has been a bit harsh on immigration, but I can certainly see the argument.
And I certainly think what Trump is doing is definitely a defense of Republicans, because as much as Republicans might not be paying attention to what's really going on behind the scenes with the census or otherwise, Trump definitely knows about it.
But let's do this.
Let's shift now.
I don't tell you why I think the Democrats are so desperate to win on this front, why they keep saying they're going to give health care or otherwise or other benefits to non-citizens.
It's because they know they can't win.
And the way they win is through the House.
It's through the census.
It's why Trump got blocked on a citizenship question.
That's the fight they need to win.
I don't understand.
Look, impeachment has been ridiculous.
But take a look at this story.
Vox.com.
Democrats' 2020 economy dilemma explained.
Things are pretty good.
Maybe it's okay to admit it.
Even Vox has to admit that, look, man, the economy in the United States is doing really, really well.
And the Democrats aren't going to win on policy issues related to the economy, the working class.
So when they go to Ohio, for instance, what are they going to tell them?
We're going to take your jobs away?
Well, that's what they've been doing.
Where the Democrats are winning, however, is telling immigrants that they're going to, say, help the Dreamers.
There's going to be comprehensive immigration reform.
And then you get many of these first and second generation immigrants saying, I'm going to vote for a Democrat.
It's better for my family.
There's challenges here because a lot of the conservatives in this country, not all of them, have historical values and traditional values with the United States of America.
They don't.
And I'm not trying to be mean or criticize the perceived loyalty of immigrants.
No, I think people who swear an oath to this country and become citizens have my profound respect.
But I think you have to recognize somebody whose father's father fought in these great wars and they had those traditions down are going to have a much more profound respect or they're going to value the country substantially more than someone who just moved here and they're chasing after the American dream.
It's also true that immigrants who come here might value the country substantially more than a lot of these progressive millennials, and I certainly think that's the case, too.
I think one of the problems the left has is these anti-America leftists who crap on a country that immigrants are desperate to come to.
So I think what we're going to see from all of this, whether Trump wins on the immigration front, is that in the end, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are going to be dramatically different.
Immigrants are going to shape the Democratic Party, and that means these anti-America immigrants They're not—you know, they're—I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
Hold on.
Let me rephrase that.
The anti-America millennials—that's what I meant to say—are probably going to get washed out because the people who come to this country, to the United States, like the idea of the United States.
They want to live here.
They want to have that American dream.
You know, not all of them, but I'd assume most of them.
So they probably won't align very much so with these progressives who are, like, talking about destroying the country they so desperately want to get to.
But I think, you know, what we're going to see now and what we are seeing is a recoil from the right.
And as I showed you from the New York Times, immigration is down around 70% in 2018.
I'm really interested to see what the number is going to be for 2019 because it'll probably be similar.
If this trend continues, Republicans will not be wiped out.
They will not lose the House.
But now I want to show you one more disastrous thing for Republicans.
You see, many Republicans are so confused.
Why is California failing so much?
Their homeless problem.
Take a look at this.
Homelessness rose 2.7% in 2019, driven by a surge in California.
Well, I know why Trump is mad.
California makes him look bad.
The country is doing great across the board, but now homelessness is going up, thanks to California?
Why can't California get a hold of its homeless problem?
Why does California seem to incentivize people to come there?
They don't solve the problem.
They don't really do anything.
Not every place in California is doing this, but homelessness is desperately on the rise.
And it seems like with all this money, California isn't doing anything about it.
They're not cleaning up the camps.
Well, as it turns out, homeless people are absolutely counted in the census, as they should be.
The issue is, California has beautiful weather and offers up tremendous benefits, which means there is a small percent—I shouldn't say small, it's 18%—18% of people in Los Angeles County moved there.
They're homeless and they moved there.
You know what that means?
They get counted in the census, too, and California will get more electoral power.
They will get more power in the House of Representatives due to attracting homeless people.
And I have no disrespect for homeless people.
I actually fought and worked with nonprofits to help them.
And so this is more of a dig at California's refusal to adequately help the homeless.
I think it's because they know the more homeless people they bring in, the more immigrants and illegal immigrants they bring in, the more power they will have federally.
But take a look at what California is.
And then take a look at them gaining 11 electoral college votes and 11 House seats.
That to me is worrying.
I do not believe we want California to be representative of the United States because of the problems they're facing.
And I'm surprised the left doesn't agree with this for the most part.
San Francisco is an oligarchy.
It is insane the wealth inequality in that city.
The homeless camps littered through Oakland, and that's supposed to be the shining city on the hill that we're supposed to look up to?
All the billionaires who have all the money in the world, and they can't clean the streets of human waste?
No, California is not an example of what we want to strive to be.
Unfortunately, they're the ones gaining power.
They're the ones who will be voting in the House, and they're the ones who are going to have the most power in choosing who the president will be.
I'll end with this.
To all the Democrats who want to get rid of the Electoral College, by all means, go and do it.
Because legal immigrants, legal residents, can't vote.
Okay?
And illegal immigrants can't vote either.
The Electoral College allows you to get House seats and electoral votes based on those individuals.
But if we switch to a national popular vote, for one, all of the blue state Republicans will start voting, and you will actually lose relative votes because you will no longer be able to convert In the end, I don't know, man.
It's really difficult to broach—to talk about any of these issues because I'm pretty sure, based on everything I said, this video is somehow going to be turned into some like uber nationalist and people are going to accuse me of all these things.
Whatever, man.
I don't know.
I don't know what to tell you.
I think Trump is well aware of what's happening.
And I think while many people, there's a lot of conservatives saying the Republicans will never win the House again, you've got to pay attention to what Trump has been doing.
Because Trump is paying attention to this.
So I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
at youtube.com slash timcastnews and I will see you all then.
Ricky Gervais is the hero we need.
A comedian refusing to apologize, refusing to back down, and in fact, doubling down.
Saying, the more people get offended, the funnier I find it.
Bravo, good sir.
Most of you probably know that Ricky Gervais is nowhere near conservative.
He's a PETA-loving lefty.
But he's a comedian who recognizes what jokes are really about, not supposed to be taken literally.
And just because you get offended doesn't mean we can't make jokes about certain things.
Ricky Gervais goes on to say he makes jokes about a whole bunch of really offensive things.
And they're funny.
Now, so I've got to walk you back because this is...
This story is complicated, and it all starts with J.K.
Rowling saga, which many of you may have been following as I've covered in the past few days, J.K.
Rowling tweeted in support of a woman named Maya Forstater whose contract was not renewed with her job because she essentially said several times that biological sex is real.
In response to this, a satirical Twitter account named Jarvis DuPont wrote an article J.K.
Rowling is a TERF.
TERF means Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist.
Speaking as a trans woman, the thought that I will no longer be welcome in a fictional school for wizards has destroyed me.
My latest Spectator USA piece.
Jarvis DuPont is fake, not a real person.
And as you can see, it's a man bun with a, you know, it's a guy with a man bun and a beard, and they're claiming to be a trans woman.
Ricky Gervais responded, Those awful biological women can never understand what it must be like for you becoming a lovely lady so late in life.
They take their girly privileges for granted, winning at female sports and having their own toilets.
Well, enough is enough.
Someone then responded, Kindness is magic.
Try to remember that.
Gervais' response exactly.
We need to protect the rights of women, not erode them because some men have found a new cunning way to dominate and demonize an entire sex.
Ricky Gervais is essentially saying he's, essentially, sarcastically, playing along with a fake Twitter account.
And I don't care what you see in these tweets.
The fact is, Ricky Gervais is a comedian.
Okay?
You can't take his tweets at face value.
He's trying to make a point through humor.
Well, what we end up seeing, for whatever reason, is that You know, one of the biggest problems the left has in the U.S.
is they don't understand jokes, but they also seem to take everything literally.
You look at how Donald Trump speaks, and he'll say something, and it'll take him literally.
And this was one of the big features of 2016.
The media would take Trump literally, but not seriously, whereas the right took him seriously, but not literally.
That's the famous saying pertaining to Trump's demeanor.
So, my favorite was when Donald Trump claimed Hillary Clinton acid-washed her server, meaning she wiped the hard drives.
We get it.
We understand the point he was making.
And NBC, I think it was NBC, said, false.
Hillary Clinton did not use a corrosive substance on her computer.
That's literally what's happening right now and it keeps happening.
I actually want to walk you through a bunch of things.
So, listen.
Ricky Gervais has also tweeted that trans women are women.
They're trying to get him fired now.
Well, I should say, They, I don't know, listen.
The media has written a bunch of stories, a bunch of different outlets, that keep bringing up his tweets and then highlighting the, will he get fired?
There's no real outrage here.
It's a handful of Twitter accounts no one cares about.
But the media, desperate for controversy, trying to get those clicks.
Once again, riling everybody up for woke rage bait and that's where this is headed.
But Ricky Gervais has refused to double down.
Ricky Gervais is the hero we need.
Well, I say that somewhat as a joke as well.
But I do want to explain to you the function of jokes.
I know that's preaching to the choir because one of the reasons you probably watch content like mine is because we understand when someone is trying to be literal or figurative or just make a stupid joke and they're not actually trying to target somebody.
I think you have to have a certain level of I don't know, understanding of the world and human nature to watch a video like mine.
Naturally, the people on the left who take everything literally probably don't like watching my content.
But let's read a little bit of this story from Fox News.
Ricky Gervais is firing back at critics that called him out for transphobic jokes made on Twitter.
The comedian began taking heat online after leaving a comment on a parody story written after author J.K.
Rowling offered public support to a researcher.
So I went through all this.
We read his tweets.
Ricky Gervais tweeted, I don't try to offend, but the more people are offended by a joke, particularly on Twitter, the funnier I find it.
Me too.
Bravo, Ricky Gervais.
I absolutely adore this man.
He is a hero.
And the angrier the tweet, the more chance of me using it and turning it to laughs and cash.
PC culture isn't killing comedy, it's driving it, as it always did.
This is a tweet from October.
It's a tweet from October, and yes, Ricky Gervais is mostly right.
I think you need to see that for a while there was a serious detriment to comedy, and to an extent there still is.
Ricky Gervais, Dave Chappelle, Joe Rogan, many, many comedians have found a way to capitalize off of this insane, authoritarian, woke, rage-bait culture and turn it into cash.
I mean, Ricky Gervais is getting more and more attention, he's absolutely playing up to this, and he's saying, what are you gonna do about it?
I'm gonna keep doing it, you can't stop me.
It's unfortunate when you see people back down and apologize.
They don't care.
Look, just because some cartoon avatar on Twitter insulted you and called you a bigot doesn't mean you should change your political opinions.
But they are figuring out a way to capitalize on this.
However, however, I want to highlight the ever-famous Count Dankula.
Because as much as Ricky Gervais is correct that, to an extent, PC culture is driving comedy, there is an opportunity for this, Count Dankula simultaneously proves and disproves this.
You see, Count Dankula is now a famous comedian, whether you like him or not.
The left hates to call him a comedian.
He's not a comedian!
He's a bigot!
He's alt-right!
Sorry, Count Dankula is a comedian, and he's a really funny one at that.
He posted this the other day, last night, and I wake up.
So full disclosure, I didn't have any videos yesterday.
I was really sick.
I got food poisoning.
And you know I'm one who hates missing work.
I absolutely hate it.
I miss a few days because I'm losing my voice.
It all seems like, you know, when it rains, it pours.
So now I've missed, I think, four days this month, and that's brutal for me.
So I wake up, I'm really upset, and I see this tweet.
Count Dankula, he retweets it this morning.
And it made me laugh.
And it helped brighten my day.
And you know what?
He was making fun of Jewish people.
But he's not really making fun of Jewish people.
So here's the thing that the left doesn't understand about comedy.
Well, I gotta admit, I probably can't play it.
I have to be careful because I can understand why it would be offensive.
But in this segment, this routine that Dankula does, he goes through a series of jokes in one minute.
And he talks about how he got arrested for doing the pug thing.
He talks about how, you know, he was considered to have offended all seven, you know, the Jews in Scotland, all seven of them, because there's not that many, and people laugh in the audience.
And then he goes on to say something to the effect of, you know, he mocks the stereotype of Jewish people wanting money, essentially.
Everybody laughs.
He then says, I clearly haven't learned my lesson and I've decided to become a career criminal.
And it's hilarious.
Here's the thing.
In this bit, if you don't understand jokes, if you take everything literally, you just heard a man make fun of Jewish people.
But if you understand context and nuance, you realize he wasn't making fun of Jewish people.
He was making fun of the government and their authoritarian arrest, you know, prosecution of him.
He wasn't making fun of Jewish people because he was upset with them.
He was saying something offensive to make fun of the fact the government had arrested him for making a joke.
That's the point.
And it seems like, for whatever reason, the left used to have humor on their side, you know, when I was growing up.
They don't anymore.
So now when Ricky Gervais comes out and makes a series of tweets that are, look, he said, even this will annoy someone.
He's just digging in deeper.
Bravo, good sir.
I love it.
Absolutely.
The left used to be funny, and that's why they won.
That's why they were winning young people.
Because I explain to my friends like this.
Let's say you're an impartial observer.
You have no idea what's going on.
And you walk up, and there's a bunch of people on the left, and they're scowling and frowning and saying, how dare you?
How dare you?
And you look over on the right, and it's a bunch of people with cartoon frogs, and they're high-fiving and laughing and smoking cigars and drinking and having a party.
What do you think the average person's going to want to join?
The one where everyone's laughing?
Where they won't throw you out?
Where they won't ostracize you for doing something wrong?
You think about what Count Dankula did, right?
When he made these jokes.
Perhaps somebody, who actually is a fan of Dankula, might have said you crossed the line.
Is Dankula going to say, get out, get out, you bigot?
Is the fan of Dankula going to say, you're a bigot?
No!
They're going to be like, I get it, man.
He's not trying to deride or hurt people.
He's poking fun at society, its norms, its cultures.
He's pushing the envelope.
It's what comedians do.
On the right side, and including the moderates and people like me, there are jokes that offend me, but I'm not a whiny baby and I just say, eh, not for me.
And you know what I do when someone really does something truly outrageous, offensive, and actually derogatory?
I just say, hey, you should consider not doing that.
That's about it.
So here's the thing.
You look over at the left and what are they doing?
They're trying to get Ricky Gervais fired.
Why would someone want to align with that?
Some people do, don't ask me why, but the risk is so high.
When you think about what people really want, they want to fit in, right?
They want people in society to look at them and say, you're a good person, I respect you and I'm here for you because humans are social beings, social connections.
Donald Trump is one of the most self-deprecating individuals I've seen in a long time, and I really do mean it.
I got invited to the White House, and I didn't know what to expect.
I thought it was going to be like a sit-down conversation about social media.
jokes, even about themselves. Donald Trump is one of the most self-deprecating individuals
I've seen in a long time. And I really do mean it. I got invited to the White House
and I didn't know what to expect. I thought it was gonna be like a sit down conversation
about social media. Instead it was Trump doing like a Trump rally for VIPs. So I kind of
rolled my eyes the whole thing. But Trump made fun of himself.
Like, half of the jokes and bits he was doing, it was hilarious.
Everyone was laughing, having a good time, but Trump was mocking himself.
He takes what they say about him, and he turns it into a joke.
And it works.
So now you can see it this way.
All of these people on the right, and people like Ricky Gervais who are not on the right but are clearly totally fine with telling jokes, are saying, you know what, even if it's something offensive, I'm not going to cast you out to the wolves.
We'll still accept you.
Even if you do something we don't necessarily like, we're like, yeah, you know, so what?
We're adults here.
And that's safer.
Ricky Gervais is making the safe bet, if you were to ask me, saying, I'm going to side with the people who are less likely to get me fired for making a joke.
But let me show you this, right?
So, Ricky Gervais says, Well, we'll see what happens, Ricky.
Because you end up seeing tweets like this.
The outraged SJWs like, who is this Titania McGrath?
insult or threat will lead to society ending like a battle scene from Game of Thrones.
Hopefully, science, truth, and common sense has all the dragons."
Well, we'll see what happens, Ricky.
Because you end up seeing tweets like this.
The outraged SJWs like, who is this Titania McGrath?
Look at this.
I'm going to organize a protest against that hideous Nazi turf JK Rowling.
Titanium McGrath is a parody account.
I think most of you realize that.
I wonder how many of you are like, oh no, Tim thinks she's real.
No, this is a hilarious joke.
don't own any. They're all available on Amazon. What an absurd social... I'm just kidding.
Titanium McGrath is a parody account. I think most of you realize that. I wonder how many
of you are like, oh no, Tim thinks she's real. No, this is a hilarious joke. Titanium McGrath
is satire.
Mocking outrage culture.
Basically saying, go buy a bunch of Harry Potter books so we can burn them.
Essentially fueling.
But people, they do this.
They literally do this.
They literally go buy books and then burn them.
It makes no sense.
There was a famous meme.
about, it was on Reddit, and the book was called, like, What Men Want in Women, or something like that, and it was
like a book for young women, how to be better women for men, and it was a picture of
someone burning the book, saying it was patriarchal, when the book was actually about
how you need to be yourself, and don't define yourself by what men want.
The point of the book was essentially to say, you know, to function like this.
If there was a young woman who felt she needed to be validated by what a man wanted from her, she would find the book, open it, and then realize, you know, it would tell her to be herself.
But they literally judge the book by the cover and then burn it.
That's what they do.
They buy the book and say, oh, I'm offended, and they burn it.
So I will give a shout-out to the ever-famous, funny Andrew Doyle.
I don't believe I have his Twitter pulled up, but Andrew Doyle is the comedian who runs, I believe, he's the comedian behind Titania McGrath.
And so I absolutely respect everybody who's willing to be funny, double down.
And I'll tell you this, man.
You need to stop being so angry over jokes.
Because you know what?
If you go to Ricky Gervais, and you're polite to him, Ricky is gonna... Well, he posts pictures of cats.
But Ricky's gonna be nice to you back.
He's not a crazy person.
He's making a joke.
And if you're upset while you talk to him, then Ricky Gervais will be, you know... I don't have it, um...
I don't think I have it pulled up, but someone actually asked Ricky on Twitter, and he responded, trans women are women.
Now, I don't necessarily know what, you know, he's trying to say by that, because the whole trans women are women thing is a really confusing partisan phrase.
And I guess the issue with this phrase trans women are women is, like, you have to understand how they define women, but I have never gotten a clear definition, so I don't really know.
But he's very clearly on the left.
He's very clearly on the left, and he's also telling people to, you know, STFU.
The reason I like Ricky Is that he's willing to say something like that, like trans women are women, but then also mock, mock, you know, make, I shouldn't say mock, but make jokes about the whole issues, mock people, certain people I will leave unnamed, and make fun of generally anybody because it's, it's funny.
That's really all it is.
You know, comedy, Comedy kind of takes the stress and the aggression out of the air.
It kind of calms things down.
It makes us laugh.
It makes us chill.
That's what it's supposed to do.
It's supposed to do a lot of things, I guess.
But interestingly, around the same time that Ricky Gervais is doing all of this, you know, tweeting and getting all this flack, Andrew Doyle, who runs Titania McGrath, writes this article, Comedy in the Era of Twitter Outrage, an interview with Ricky Gervais.
Absolutely fantastic.
Andrew Doyle and Ricky Gervais, you guys are awesome.
I just want to read for you the beginning of this article to make the point.
They say.
There was a moment in Ricky Gervais' 2018 Netflix stand-up show, Humanity, when he talks about buying a first-class air ticket, only to be informed that nuts would not be served on board due to a fellow passenger's serious allergy.
I was fuming, he says.
If being near a nut kills you, do we really want that in the gene pool?
I've never wanted nuts more.
I felt that she was infringing on my human right to eat nuts.
A member of the public tweeted him directly to complain after hearing him tell the story on The Tonight Show.
But instead of apologizing, Ricky wrote a routine about it.
As he points out, when someone is needlessly offended, it makes it funnier.
Contrary to those who argue that political correctness is killing comedy, he insists that it is driving it.
Let me go back to that point I want to make about Count Dankula.
There are smaller-tier comedians, and it is hurting comedy.
So that's why I said Dankulo simultaneously proves and disproves it.
If you're someone who's trying to get started, and you make an offensive joke, they'll ban you.
Sorry, you can't come back to the venue.
They will literally do that.
Not every venue, not every person, but you run that risk.
Ricky Gervais is famous, a famous millionaire with millions and millions of followers.
So yeah, it provides him the opportunity.
But it's creating a bottleneck.
And that's what's risky.
Count Dankula was lucky to come out on the other side by sticking up for himself and refusing to back down.
But I want to point one thing out about the joke made by Ricky Gervais.
I was fuming.
If being near a nut kills you, do we really want that in the gene pool?
Let me tell you something.
People who have peanut allergies, severe allergies, yeah, if you're on a plane, then it could be really, really bad for them.
There could be peanut, you know, dust, you know, like particles.
It could get whipped up in the air.
So it makes sense to say, okay, we don't want this person to die.
We all understand that.
Ricky Gervais is joking.
He doesn't literally want to genocide people who are allergic to nuts.
Are you crazy?
This is the big problem the left needs to get over.
If you want to defeat Donald Trump, if you want to defeat the Republicans, you need to embrace humor and, I don't know, not take everything so literally and seriously.
So what that he made a joke about people who have nut allergies.
It's possible the reason they have nut allergies is because it's nothing to do with genetics necessarily, but some people who never get exposed to nuts as youth develop allergies later on.
He's joking.
He's literally... Do you think Rick... So, you know what happens?
They look at this and they think to themselves that Ricky Gervais is literally part of a group that wants to genocide people allergic to nuts.
Instead of just him making an exaggerated joke about how he was angry over nuts, when he clearly wasn't really that angry.
Obviously.
This is what people don't seem to get.
So when the memes start working, what do we see from the social media companies?
They start banning jokes.
They ban memes.
Learn to code.
That was funny.
The right loved it.
Banned.
And you'll be banned if you use it.
Who wants to be a part of a world where the authoritarian regimes of big tech and government are telling you jokes are verboten?
No thank you.
I'd rather live in a world where everyone's extremely offensive, but they're laughing all the time, and we recognize what a joke really is.
You know what, man?
This is why I think these comedians are going to be the saving grace of the left.
The better way to explain it, they could be the saving grace of the left.
You see, the left won for so long because they were funny and fun and people wanted to be having a party.
People wanted to be on the fun side.
Sorry.
It's the conservatives that are partying now, having a good time.
It's the conservatives that are being treated like underdogs on social media.
Whether you want to believe it or not, they're the ones telling the jokes and having a good time.
Ricky Gervais is the hero we need.
The left refuses to accept it though, or at least many of them will.
You know, the reality is I would be willing to bet 90% of people on the left like Ricky Gervais.
The problem is the establishment, from the politicians to social media to general mainstream
media, follows through with this mainstream progressive narrative that even Ricky Gervais
will not abide by, that Dave Chappelle will not abide by, that Joe Rogan will not abide
by.
And Joe Rogan has said things about trans people that are not jokes, that are definitive
statements from him that people have deemed offensive or transphobic, and he refuses to
apologize or back down.
So why is it the comedians that have to do this?
Why is it the comedians are the ones who are saying, no, let's actually really
simple?
Because comedians tend to be the first to get the ax when the authoritarian regime tries
Because comedians are the ones who point out the hypocrisy, who mock and belittle.
And I'll tell you this, mockery is one of the most effective weapons in society and politics.
To push an idea, to win favor, you make people feel good and you make them laugh.
The right discovered this, the right embraced it, and the left has abandoned it in exchange for offense culture.
So yeah, if the left is going to survive, and to another extent, conservatives, if we want to have a truly balanced political system where you have good people on both sides arguing real policies, then you need people like Ricky, Rogan, Chappelle, etc.
to be offensive comedians, to try and reinvigorate that, you know, jovial attitude and less serious and literal behavior from the left.
Unfortunately, I will leave you with one final thought.
I don't believe the left will do it, no.
I think there's a serious risk of Ricky Gervais getting booted from the Golden Globes.
We'll see, though.
The tides have been turning, and this is good for the left.
It's good.
Okay, with Dave Chappelle, that's special.
Everybody loved it.
That's good news.
Ricky Gervais refusing to back down?
Bravo, good sir.
Absolutely.
And he's a very lefty guy.
You know, he's a big PETA supporter, I think.
I could be wrong.
But he posted a picture of a cat.
I respect that.
This is what we need.
By all means.
Ricky could, uh, uh, you know, when Ricky says trans women are women, he's, he's, he's very clearly like, okay, no, no, let me say this.
I want to wrap this up.
I'm going on for a long time.
Whether or not you agree with him saying that or not, if you get offended, he's gonna double down on it.
He's gonna keep doing it.
He's gonna keep trying to offend you.
And I love it.
I absolutely love it.
I love that people get so worked up and so shocked and outraged.
It's a good thing.
I'll leave it there.
I'm glad to see comedians stepping up.
So I will give a shout out to, obviously you guys know Count Dankula.
That bit he did that he posted on Twitter, he hit the mark on every joke.
It was fantastic.
It was a great routine.
And I wanna stress that point.
That, you know, it sounds like he's making fun of Jewish people, but he's not.
He's trying to say something offensive, and the closer was, I haven't learned my lesson and now I'm a career criminal.
The joke was that he was making fun of being targeted for being offensive.
That's humor!
So anyway, Andrew Doyle as well.
Check out Andrew Doyle who runs a Titanium McGrath account.
Comedy will save us.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
I honestly don't know where to begin, so I just decided to run with the BuzzFeed story as the lead for this segment.
But the reality is, we got a bad news media day hat trick.
Yes, three stories for one.
BuzzFeed's international business losses have quadrupled.
That's bad news for BuzzFeed UK, which, in my opinion, is trash compared to BuzzFeed US.
Now, BuzzFeed News US is pretty bad, okay?
But they're not the worst.
They're actually willing to engage and make corrections, but they're biased.
Let's be real.
BuzzFeed UK is substantially worse.
But it's not just this.
We've got another story.
Verizon Media plans to lay off 150 people this week.
Another bad, bad day for the news industry.
And possibly the biggest story of the three.
But not what I think necessarily warrants the most attention.
Bloomberg News is being fined $7.6 million for publishing a hoax report that sent stock prices tumbling in France.
Now, this story is really complicated.
It's less cultural, more a free speech issue, and I actually disagree with the fine.
But again, it is, you know, cultural differences between the US and France.
As much as I love to see fake news getting comeuppance, I don't like the idea of the government fining a news outlet because they don't like what was reported, even if it was fake.
But, because BuzzFeed is more culturally relevant to the United States, I thought I would lead with this story and let you all know that BuzzFeed's international business is not doing too well.
The Financial Times reports, BuzzFeed's losses in its international business quadrupled last year, underscoring the challenges facing one of the trailblazers of digital publishing.
The company said pre-tax losses in its non-U.S.
US business, including countries such as the UK, Germany and Brazil, widened to €8.9
million in the year ending December 2018, compared to a loss of €1.9 million the year
before.
Turnover fell by 35% to €21.6 million, which BuzzFeed UK attributed to no longer booking
ad sales and other marketing services, carried out for its US partners.
parent company, BuzzFeed Inc., causing intercompany revenue to fall by 14.8 million euro.
The same changes helped the international business reduce costs by 4.3 million euros.
BuzzFeed said the operational and accounting changes were due to the international business becoming more independent from its parent company.
These changes are perfectly normal decisions for companies to make, especially those still in investment mode.
I'm going to stop right there and say, a company that's failing.
And dependent upon investment needs to make sure there's confidence in their system.
So naturally, when they start bleeding money, they say, no, no, it's all on purpose.
We're making the company more independent.
And that's why we lost nearly $10 million in revenue last year.
Or it's fair to say, this is PR spin.
And the fact remains that these lefty digital publishing, you know, rage bait online media sites are not doing well.
Verizon Media is going to be laying off 150 people this week.
Over 3,000 jobs this year in digital media have gone away.
And you know what should be worrying to these lefties, to Democrats or otherwise?
That's not happening over on Republican media.
The conservative blogs, commentary sites, they're expanding like crazy.
So what's the difference?
I can't tell you.
I mean, you probably have your assumptions, but I will tell you this, in my opinion, The woke rage bait is not sustainable.
OK?
See, the thing about the conservative sites is they call out the woke rage bait.
They call out what they can clearly define as something lacking principles or being hypocrisy, things like that.
So all they have to do is keep looking at the failures of these media saying, hey, here's why they're wrong, and people agree, right?
So I don't want to get into the nitty gritty.
You know, we can argue that it comes down to political leanings.
We can say conservatives are winning in the long run.
People on the left aren't interested.
And I think that's a big play as well.
You know, when we look at the data from hidden tribes, for instance, most liberals are exhausted majority.
So they're probably not paying attention.
And that means we're going to see something from media, more and more fake news, more hyper-partisan rage bait, and it will probably get worse.
But as I've explained it before, As these media companies become more desperate, they increasingly become more conspiratorial, more just insane in their desperation, ultimately resulting in people abandoning them faster.
There's a story I read a few days ago.
Slate.com claimed because Supreme Court Justice Merrick Garland said, Merry Christmas, he was pushing a conspiracy theory about the war on Christmas.
They wrote this huge article about this conspiracy theory and they claimed he was pushing it simply for saying those two words.
That's how insane it gets because they're that desperate.
I believe, I'm sorry, did I say slight?
I believe it was salon, just to make sure that was clear.
But let's read the story from CNN.
Verizon Media Group is laying off 150 staffers this week, which means the telecom company's 2019 is ending much in the same way it started.
Verizon's portfolio of media brands includes Yahoo!, AOL, TechCrunch, and HuffPost plans to lay off about 150 people in the U.S.
across multiple teams in the organization, according to a source familiar with the matter.
Excuse me.
Verizon Media employs around 10,500 people, so these cuts will amount to 1.4% of its workforce.
It's unclear which brands will be affected.
In January, Verizon Media laid off roughly 800 employees, or about 7% of its staff at the time, as the division's revenues failed to meet expectations.
A spokesperson for Verizon Media confirmed the layoffs to CNN Business.
Our goal is to create the best experience for our consumers and the best platforms for our customers.
Today, we are, ooh, you see how they differentiate between the two?
Because I'll tell you this, you're the consumer, the customer is the advertiser.
So not you, you're not the customer.
You're what's being sold.
Today we are investing in premium content, connections and commerce experiences that connect people to their passions, and continue to align our resources to opportunities where we feel we can differentiate ourselves and scale faster.
Let me just stop you right there, okay?
We know the media's doing bad, and we know that they're increasingly becoming more and more unhinged, pushing fake news stories and becoming lazier.
And it's sad.
We need journalism.
We need good journalism to know when there is corruption, malfeasance in corporations or government.
When was the last big story about, say, I don't know, a major corporation doing something wrong?
Come on!
We know that corporations, you know, bend the rules, break the rules, bribe.
We know that bad things are happening.
But when you turn on CNN, what do you hear?
Orange man bad, non-stop, all day and night.
So you could make the argument that at least they're targeting government and holding government to account, but they're not even really doing that.
They're targeting woke rage-bait insanity.
They're complaining about the way Trump talks, about him being a mean person.
They're arguing over semantics.
They're not talking about policy.
Neither are the Democrats.
They're all walking in lockstep.
Let me show you exactly why and exactly how the media is failing.
You see, Bloomberg News has just been fined.
I don't like this.
I don't like this at all.
They've been fined $7.6 million for publishing a hoax report that sent stock prices tumbling in France.
They say the AMF said in a statement that the news organization should have known the information was false according to multiple outlets.
Yes, they should have known it was false.
The AMF took action against Bloomberg News last Monday over its publishing of a fake statement claiming the construction group Vinci would revise its 2015 and 2016 accounts and fire its chief financial officer without verifying the information, Reuters reports.
Here's the gist of the story.
Somebody made a fake press release, sent it out, and several news outlets, like I believe the Associated Press and Reuters and otherwise, noticed it wasn't from the real website and concluded it was fake and a hoax.
But Bloomberg, for instance, and I must also add to this, Bloomberg is the organization owned by Michael Bloomberg, which recently said they wouldn't be investigating Democrats.
Yeah, we'll talk about corruption.
They should have known better.
But here's what happens.
As media companies struggle, as revenues decline, the quality of journalism collapses.
That's what CNN is right now, okay?
You turn on CNN, there's no quality.
It's gone.
It's completely gone, okay?
When was the last time CNN actually set somebody on the ground?
I mean, maybe they did recently, but it's few and far between.
I've done a few videos on my Instagram.
Follow me on Instagram and you can see for yourself.
Instagram.com slash TimCast.
I've got a couple videos where I switched back and forth from Fox News to CNN.
What is Fox News talking about?
Protests in Hong Kong.
Protests in Iran.
Very important.
Switched to CNN.
Orange man bad.
A few days later, hurricanes sweeping the South.
You know, people losing their lives.
Catastrophe.
Winter travel season stuff.
CNN.
Orange man bad.
The quality is gone.
They're not informing us anymore.
They're just opining on why they don't like the president.
They're not even talking about policy for the most part.
They're talking about their opinions on whether or not abuse of power is legitimate, and it's boring.
That's what happens when there's no quality in media anymore.
But it's also this.
A massive stock drop.
18% Vinci shares.
This company lost 18% of its share price because Bloomberg News ran a fake story.
Now, it wasn't just Bloomberg News, but they're being fined.
So let me stress.
I do not like the government coming in and saying, here's how you have to run your business.
So I'm really glad we have free speech in the United States.
And that means if we get something wrong, we made a mistake, well, the government can't do anything about it.
We're allowed to speak.
But there's still some remedies for defamation.
When it comes to public figures, you have to have willfully defamed somebody.
It's a challenge to actually win these cases, right?
Because we have something called anti-SLAPP laws, strategic lawsuits against public participation.
So when it comes to people like the Covington kids and these other lawsuits, they have to prove these organizations knew they were publishing false information.
I think it's rough.
I think it's challenging.
But I don't necessarily disagree with this because, look, you're not always going to be right.
You're going to make mistakes.
And if we want to protect free speech, we recognize this.
But the way this should—or I should say when you look to the U.S.
media organizations, we see how things should actually be handled in a free market kind of way.
Now, I believe in regulation.
I like the idea of the government saying, hey, you're a swindler, right?
If Bloomberg News was purposefully putting out fake news to destroy a company and drive their stock price down, that would be illegal.
And in the United States, that would be dealt with.
You know, because it could be a scheme to drive down the stock, their buddies come in and buy it, and then, you know, they make 20% overnight.
Because once the real news comes out, guess what?
The price goes back up.
What we see in the U.S.
is more in line with how I think things should be handled.
When you publish fake news, when you play games, you lay people off, you lose money, and nobody wants to watch your content anymore.
Now, I get it.
What happened with France and Bloomberg is very, very different because this was like a hammer dropping.
This isn't one bad story where someone's like, how dare you insult me.
This is literally a major corporation losing 20% of its stock, causing massive economic damage to the country itself.
So I like the idea that they're going to punish these companies for not doing their jobs.
But at the same time, I kind of think, you know, the market will react appropriately.
Bloomberg's credibility is going to be shot.
People are not going to trust them.
But I guess here's the big challenge too.
There's another challenge.
The average person doesn't know or care what Bloomberg is.
They're not going to know or care about the credibility of Bloomberg the same way they don't care about the credibility of newsmegacorp.info.
People can produce these random URL websites and people just believe it.
Because they don't care about the brand anymore.
So we got serious issues with fake news.
And I think one of the biggest problems we're facing right now is that as the quality of news collapses and their desperation rises, they're trying to create a dedicated zealous base of, you know, I'll call them cultists.
You look at CNN.
There's a viral tweet right now by a guy who works for CNBC basically advocating for journalists to condemn the Republican Party, and it's like, the left likes playing this game about both-sides-ism, saying that, you know, the media pretends both sides are equal, blah, you know, and that's their excuse for why it's okay to be biased.
Let me explain something to you.
It is not my job to tell you what to believe.
I'll tell you what I think.
I'll give you my opinion.
But as a journalist, what I try to do is say, here's how Republicans feel about it.
And I'm not completely correct all the time.
I've just asked them, and this is what they've said.
And here's how the left feels about it.
I've asked them, this is what they've said.
Now, what ends up happening is they say, you're propagating lies.
Okay, let me tell you something.
If the left is lying and the right is lying, well, I'll tell you what, I'll do my best to fact check.
But if you think your side isn't lying, you're wrong.
Both sides have BS information coming out.
I'm going to cover this later on today because there's a big immigration story coming out, but it was widely pushed that Obama removed the citizenship question from the census, and that's just not true as far as I can tell.
Just not the case.
And this is not coming from some lefty publication.
It's coming from the fact that personally, I have family members who have been studying, you know, ancestry and looking at census, and it's just not there.
So absolutely the right has misinformation and the left does as well.
I think the bigger challenge we see is the right, the left is not critical of the media.
They're more trusting of it.
And that's a fact across the board.
So I'll tell you what.
The right can get things wrong.
I get it.
So does the left.
But when the left puts it in mainstream press and publishes it and drives the stock price down 20 points, around 20 points, well then you've got a problem if the left is going to just generally believe the press, believe whatever they hear.
So I'll put it this way.
Both sides can be wrong for various reasons, and they need to be called out when they are.
But guess what?
It's the Republicans and the right that tend to be critical of the press.
And as the quality declines, and I'm telling you this, it's simple, it's simple math.
If BuzzFeed, if their international losses are quadrupling, if Verizon is laying people off, they don't have the money to hire quality journalists.
They're going to be hiring people with no skills, who don't fact check, and this is what you get.
So stop blanket believing everything.
Don't just believe me either.
And I say this all the time.
Fact check me to the best of your ability.
It's very difficult and it's getting worse.
Because the reality is, you know, my take on Bloomberg, Verizon, and BuzzFeed are coming from different news sources.
Sources that I'm likely to trust in their reporting.
But they could also be wrong too.
So here's what happens.
Let's say this story about Bloomberg turns out to be false.
Then tomorrow, this video will still exist with fake news in it.
That's not my intent, but it does happen.
That's why you have to be vigilant and fact check everything.
If you're watching this.
This video was published December 23rd, and there are probably going to be many of you who are watching this days later.
In fact, some of you might be watching it a week or two later.
If that's the case, fact-check on this stuff.
News changes, alright?
But I'll tell you right now, the quality of journalism is gone.
It's absolutely gone.
And so, if we have a large base of our population that still believes this stuff, You know, for the most part.
I do trust media for the most part.
But you've got to be very, very careful because it's getting worse.
And we're entering a territory now where many sites are just not trustworthy.
I would say BuzzFeed, I give them a 5.5 out of 10.
They're more likely or not to be okay.
They're not the worst, they aren't.
And they're willing to correct, but they're biased, they frame things, they do publish fake news.
CNN on TV?
Complete trash.
Just stay away from it.
The Hill is really good.
And here's how I determine whether or not a site is credible.
When I read The Hill, I take a look at a few things.
What are their opinion columns?
Are they balanced?
What are their personalities' views?
Do they try to mix things up and create, you know, not so much as like a consensus, but kind of a fair take on right or left, top-down, religious or otherwise.
But more importantly, I fact-check these stories against other sources.
That doesn't mean the stories are true.
It just means the more stories you have that align, you can start to see where the truth actually lies.
So if we know BuzzFeed has a left-wing bias and Vox has a left-wing bias and Fox has a right-wing bias, you can find the truth is usually closer to the middle, but typically you can actually source information to determine what is true or what isn't.
So I'll leave it there.
I don't want to make this one too long, but bad news for the media industry.
And you know what?
I'm hoping to fix this, change things, and maybe there will be a resurgence.
There was a recent Joe Rogan podcast with Matt Taibbi, and I stood up and clapped.
Yay!
I'm saying that figuratively, I didn't literally stand up and clap, but I was very excited when Taibbi mentioned that because of the partisan explosion in media, there's going to be an opportunity for more fair, middle-of-the-road, nonpartisan content.
While I certainly think my content is centrist-partisan, for sure, I have a perspective, a biased point of view, and I'm just not overtly right or overtly left, though I'm very critical of the media, and that's where my point of view comes from.
There is an opportunity.
And so Subverse, what we're building, is very, very different and is editorially independent for me.
But I'll say this.
Taibbi and Rogan were correct.
There is a hunger for it.
So maybe there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
at youtube.com slash timcast.
It is a different channel.
And I will see you all then.
Get woke, go rich?
I thought the saying was get woke, go broke.
Apparently that's not true.
Now, in all seriousness, I've mentioned this before.
Get woke, go broke is not a law because there are many things that get woke and do just fine.
And there's a correct way of doing diversity and social justice that typically social justice activists don't do, and that's the real problem.
But anyway, here's the story.
Colin Kaepernick's new Nike shoe sells out on the first day.
Get woke, Get rich.
See, there are certain instances where it makes sense to get woke.
And I think the reality is Colin Kaepernick isn't catering to the NFL or to Americans who like sports.
They're specifically catering to woke social justice types.
So you may be shocked.
Why would people be buying his shoe?
We all don't like him.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
That's because you're sports fans.
This is Kaepernick branching out and realizing his NFL career is over and it's been over for a long time.
Now he just needs to maintain martyr status so that people who don't care about football will be attracted to his product.
Then you can see what Nike does.
Nike is in on this not because they're concerned about what football fans will do, because they know they've got a way to reach a new market, a new demographic of people who normally don't buy their products.
And best of all, Nike has a sordid history with labor in foreign countries.
Now...
Some reports that I haven't pulled up will say they've stopped doing that, but activists have been very critical of Nike.
Nike has just won them over.
They found their cause.
They found their martyr.
Congratulations, Kaepernick.
It's working out.
The dude's going to be rich forever.
Just admit it.
Let's read the story.
CNBC reports Nike's new True 27 shoe with former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick has already sold out on the first day of its North American release, according to the company's website.
Now I want to stop here.
How many shoes did they make?
Maybe they'll tell us.
But think about it this way.
If they put out 10 shoes and then sold all of them, and then when we sold out all of the shoes, it might sound really great.
So I think it's important to know, did they make a thousand of them?
Did they make a million of them?
How many people really bought this shoe?
Maybe they'll tell us.
Let's read.
This Air Force One season, Nike partnered with a collective of collaborators to design an Air Force One that connects to their life personally.
Colin was identified because we believe his voice and perspective inspire many generations on and off the field, said a Nike spokesperson in an email.
The $110 black and white shoe sports an embroidered portrait of Kaepernick on the heel tab, reflective swoosh, and his personal logo on the tongue.
The successful release suggests that Nike's ties to the controversial athlete has paid off so far, despite the NFL's tumultuous relationship with the former San Francisco 49er.
Earlier this year, Nike nixed the release of its Betsy Ross American Flag shoe after Kaepernick reportedly criticized the shoe for being offensive.
You know what?
How insane.
Here we are, entering 2020 amid absolute psychosis.
They cancelled the shoe with the Betsy Ross flag because he claimed it was representing slavery and white supremacy, which is just nuts.
It's not true.
He made it up.
I really don't like this guy.
The shoes were to be released in advance of 4th of July.
That's right!
You can't make a 4th of July shoe, but they'll make a Kaepernick shoe and they will sell it out.
They say in September 2018, Nike included Kaepernick's Kaepernick as the face of Nike's 30th anniversary Just Do It campaign.
A boycott Nike hashtag soon trended on Twitter, and Nike shares took as much as a 3% hit when the campaign was announced.
But online sales surged after the ad's release, and the commercial was also met with critical acclaim, winning Nike an Emmy for Outstanding Commercial for the first time since 2002.
But Emmys are editorial, okay?
Let me just tell you something.
You want to win an Emmy?
You pay, essentially, to submit yourself, and if the editorial committee decides they want to give you an award, congratulations.
So if you cater to the sensibilities of woke outrage, then yeah, they're going to give you an award, like I care.
How many shoes did they actually make?
I'd be willing to bet it's a small number.
Shares of Nike were a little changed Monday, trading around 100 day midday, its shares were up.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, okay, here's the question that didn't get answered.
How many shoes did they actually make?
I'd be willing to bet it's a small number.
But you know what?
Take your good press.
I don't know what the amount they're going to put out is, but I want to show you something.
Check out this op-ed from AZ Central.
They say... Actually, let me see if I can fix the size on this one.
Roger Goodall says, NFL has moved on from Kaepernick.
They ask, what if blacks move on from the NFL?
Opinion.
NFL commissioner escalated battle over police brutality by focusing on the wrong thing.
He has to change his response for this to get better.
I think what we're seeing here is that people in the NFL know, they know absolutely that Kaepernick, first of all, you guys know that he did that show where he threw some passes.
What is it called?
It was like a scouting thing.
He was going to do this training session with the NFL, but they wouldn't let him have cameras.
And so he said, I'll do my own.
The scouts said he was average.
So why deal with the heat?
If he was one of the best football players in the world, maybe they'd be like, all right, it's worth taking flack over.
No, the reality is, and I think we should all recognize this, the NFL has moved on from him.
They don't care anymore, and most of the fans likely don't care either.
This outrage and this support we're seeing, it's one-sided.
I'd be willing to bet most NFL players probably don't even care anymore.
They're probably like, oh yeah, that guy, I wonder what he's up to.
Whatever, don't care.
He's not relevant to the game anymore.
But here's what they have to maintain.
They have to maintain an image that he's doing well.
So here you can see his shoe sells out, but they don't tell you how many shoes he actually made.
You know, they make a hundred shoes and sell them all out.
It's not a big deal.
They made a million and sold them out, sure.
But the fact is, it's literally just a social justice brand.
Okay, that shoe?
I'll tell you this.
If you're somebody who likes football and plays football and you bought that shoe, prove me wrong.
Comment and tell me that's the case.
So let's see what Greg Moore has to say because he's angry that people, the NFL commissioner says the league has moved on from Colin Kaepernick.
He says, Now I'm going to stop here.
You know what the problem with Kaepernick and what he did was?
of an anti-police brutality movement when he listened to the advice of a Green Beret
and respectfully kneeled during the national anthem.
It was a peaceful protest to the very violent deaths of unarmed black men that sparked riots
and protests around the nation.
Now I'm going to stop here.
You know what the problem with Kaepernick and what he did was?
It's a product of algorithmic manipulation.
Is there an increase in police brutality and violence in the United States?
Honestly, I'm not 100% sure.
But what I can tell you is for sure is that there are certain websites that make their money specifically pushing police brutality videos because injustice and woke outrage makes money.
What ends up happening is that people like Kate Burnick and other people of the woke left end up being inundated on Facebook with all of these videos and they think, it won't stop.
Why are there so many instances?
And you have to realize, with 330 million people in the U.S.
and an ever-expanding police force around the country, as there are more people, they hire more police officers, you will see more instances of police brutality, but that doesn't mean that proportionally police brutality is actually going up.
Now, that shouldn't matter, because I'll be fair.
I think even if you had one instance of a cop doing something brutal, we could protest that.
That's fine.
But I think it's also important to point out the reason why someone like Kaepernick would protest and kneel in the first place is due to being inundated with—it's what I call the scaling problem, okay?
And for those of you who watch all of my content, you've heard me say it, but I'll explain it very simply.
If you have a hundred cops and one commits an act of brutality, then people are going to be like, look, we get it.
It was one cop.
It's bad.
And we'll prosecute.
What happens if you have a hundred million police in the country and then you have the same percentage, one million?
Well, now you've got a serious problem because there are a million videos of police brutality and people think it's worse than it really is.
Now, admittedly, any police brutality is bad.
And a million cops, it's really, really bad.
But it's not actually that high.
There's also instances where cops do things that are misinterpreted, falsely framed.
There was a video that went viral recently showing cops ride, they're riding their bikes on the street, they ride into someone's back and then grab them and throw them.
The left put out a fake narrative saying they were randomly crashing into people and then charging them with assault, when in reality, They were most likely looking for this person.
Even people on Reddit were like, it's very obvious they were passing other people by, and they were targeting that guy who was being filmed because he did something at a protest.
You don't know what's going on.
But when you see videos like this, people assume it's police brutality.
So I'll tell you this, there's likely an increase in the perception of brutality, which results in people like Colin Kaepernick making a career move that benefited him wildly.
Because I will tell you this, As an average quarterback, I'm not a big football person.
I can't tell you how it all works.
I barely know anybody who actually plays.
I can't even name many of the athletes.
But I will tell you this.
Regardless of what sport you play, average doesn't last long.
Look, I've been skateboarding my whole life, and I'll tell you this, there are a lot of skateboarders who are average, who went, who are like average pros, and you don't hear their names anymore because now they're in their 30s, and they're not competing with 19-year-olds.
In skateboarding, like, 19 is like the best age.
I think football's a little bit older than that, because you get a little bit more muscle mass.
I have no idea.
The point is, Colin Kaepernick knows a football career is not going to last a long time, so he's pushing a social justice brand.
They're only pretending it's about football.
When they sell these shoes, I'd be willing to bet, and I could be wrong, I'd be willing to bet that the people who are buying these shoes are activists Who believe in the social justice issues that he's pushing.
I also believe that those narratives are being amplified by algorithmic manipulation companies like BuzzFeed and the Huffington Post.
And so it creates a market.
Colin Kaepernick, Roger Goodall, they moved on from him.
He's not going to play football anymore.
But he is going to be a social justice martyr talking about white supremacy and privilege and how, you know, he was ousted from football for daring to stand up for what he believed in, even though the problem isn't nearly as bad as he probably says it is.
But again, I will be fair, okay?
If you see one instance of brutality, you want to protest it.
I can respect that.
But what I don't respect is the manipulation of real issues and problems of brutality in an effort to sell a product and make money.
Because this dude, Colin Kaepernick, is likely getting very, very rich off of everything that's happened all around.
I'm not going to pretend like I know how much money he's making.
To all the Get Woke, Go Broke people, I know it's fun to say, but check it out.
Colin Kaepernick's new Nike shoe sells out on the first day.
Get woke, get rich.
Again, We don't know how many shoes were made, were pressed, printed, whatever you want to call it.
Maybe it was very few, but I think it was probably a decent amount.
And he's still getting press, and he's still benefiting from it.
So whether or not he's actually going to be rich off the shoe, it's still a net gain.
Get Woke seriously helped the career of Colin Kaepernick, who was an average quarterback who would have probably been out, you know, at a certain point, but now his career will last forever because he got woke.
Keep that in mind.
Stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Following up on an article I used in my main segment, I wanted to highlight how even leftists are starting to acknowledge, you know what?
The economy is too good and it's actually causing problems for Democrats.
Yes, you heard me say it!
A good economy is bad news for Democrats.
Now, you may think that seems strange.
No, I mean, let's be honest.
If you're watching my videos, you know exactly why that's bad news for Democrats.
Because when it comes to politics, it's not about whether or not the country is doing well.
It's whether or not the political faction can win in the end.
And if Donald Trump is doing right by the economy, then he can say all the nasty words in the world and people are still going to vote for him.
The Democrats can pretend to play nice.
They don't.
But they can pretend.
And if the economy is good, who's going to vote for him?
So what do they do?
They've tried pretending the economy was bad.
They've tried lying.
There was even a story, I think it was from Vox as well, I think it was actually Matt Iglesias who wrote this article, where he said something to the effect of, most people believe they did not get a tax break, which is a messaging victory for progressives, because in reality, they did.
So, go fact-check me on this one, but basically, the middle class got a tax cut.
It's a fact.
You know, Trump gave everybody a tax cut.
And progressives have tried convincing everybody they didn't because they want to win.
To me, that's freaky.
But now they have no choice.
The economy is too good.
You can't lie anymore.
These regular people in the middle of the country are seeing their paychecks.
I've talked to, like, minimum wage employees who are telling me about how raises are coming through.
Well, I was told by one person that because of the tax cuts, the companies are giving raises to everybody.
And I'm like, I thought trickle-down didn't work.
Now, for the most part, I don't think it does.
I gotta be honest.
I think a lot of the tax breaks will get put in an account, in some kind of investment.
But some of it does come down.
So I can't argue with somebody who works a minimum wage job and says, once Trump pushed these corporate tax cuts through, I gotta raise.
They're happy about it.
What do you want me to say?
You want me to tell them, no, you should be mad?
Let's hear what they say.
Matt Iglesias of Vox writes, Full stop.
What do you mean not true?
How do you define greatest?
It's an opinion.
It's the weirdest thing.
They're saying Trump's lying about the greatest economy.
Do you know this is the longest economic expansion in U.S.
history?
I think it's fair to say that that could qualify as the greatest economy in U.S.
history, right?
But they say it's a lie.
Now look, I think if we're going to be fair and aggregate all of the data, It's fair to say we're in one of the best, not necessarily the greatest.
But come on, man.
Greatest is an opinion.
How is an opinion not true?
This is ridiculous.
Some people could argue that a recession is a great economy for its corrective measures.
It's just an opinion.
He says it isn't, but something can in fact be quite good even without being the best ever.
The unemployment rate is 3.5%.
The stock market is at an all-time high.
The poverty rate is falling.
employers have started showing refreshing willingness to hire people with criminal records
because there just aren't that many conventionally qualified people left to hire.
But I thought they needed the illegal immigrants because Americans didn't want to do these jobs.
No, the fact is it's not true. Even convicted criminals who people normally don't want to
hire are getting jobs because the market needs to hire people. I don't know what Trump did,
but when Vox comes out and says, y'all, Trump is doing this, Yikes.
That's bad news for the Democrats, isn't it?
That's good news for American workers, and probably good news for Trump's re-election campaign.
It also poses the question of what exactly Democrats should say about an improving economic situation.
They need to find a way to make the case for change, but also to connect with the sentiments being experienced by voters.
At Thursday's debate, there seemed to be a firm consensus among the candidates that the right path is simply to deny that the economy really is performing all that strongly.
The wealthy, very wealthy, are growing.
Ordinary people are not growing, said former Vice President Joe Biden, probably the least radical candidate in the field.
They are not happy with where they are, and that's why we must change the presidency now.
This might work.
Certainly, Trump massively overstated problems with the economy in 2016, making up wildly inflated unemployment numbers and won the election.
But legitimately, most indicators really are looking good these days.
And that's not just superficial ones that mask hideous problems beneath the surface.
Let me reiterate for all of you.
Vox is saying that the democratic strategy is to deny the fact the economy is doing well.
So here's where I find myself in an interesting position.
There's a funny story in the New York Mag.
Tulsi Gabbard and the return of the anti-anti-Trump left.
Yes, they go on to smear people from the Hill for some reason and never make the cut.
And I'm a bit let down as a big fan of Tulsi Gabbard and moderate leftist.
Don't I get to be an anti-anti-Trump left?
Look, the reality is Trump has a slew of character defects, to put it lightly.
But the economy is doing really, really well, and you can't deny it.
And so I want you to go to one of these, you know, poor people in the middle of the country and say, I don't care what you want, or lie to them, and then tell them you want to elect someone who's talking about giving healthcare to non-citizens.
They're going to look at you like you're nuts.
So if we really want to be sane, rational individuals who can actually win on principle and shape the country the way we want to, the way that, you know, in opposition to Donald Trump's cultural values, you don't do it by lying.
You do it by saying, gotta be honest, Trump was right by the economy and he's helped a lot of people.
What can we do from there to be better?
Well, the Democrats' strategies apparently just lie.
It's not going to work in today's day and age.
People have the internet.
People can watch videos from people like me, where I'm going to straight up tell you, yeah, Trump, character defects.
We get it.
Do we really care?
Look, I don't like the way that Trump talks.
I don't like the way he behaves.
And you'll find that from most people, even his own voters.
But how will you deny what he's done for the American people?
You can't do it, even if you hate him.
So when the Democrats come out and lie, and say things like, the economy's just not doing well, only for the wealthy, and you've got middle class people looking at their paychecks and their pay raises saying, y'all are lying to me, and even the people who aren't seeing raises are seeing in the news all day every day, the economy's doing well, they're like, you're lying to me!
So this is what we get.
We get these smear pieces.
So I'll tell you this, man.
The left is finally starting to admit it.
You can't run from it.
You can hate and scream and kick and yell all you want, but the economy's doing great and people love it.
But they're still going to write these weird smear pieces that show us one important fact.
The Republicans are unified and the left is fractured to bits.
Now they want to say Tulsi Gabbard on the return of the anti-anti-Trump left and I love, I love how they smear people like me and other leftists who like Bernie or like Tulsi because we exist.
We just think you're lying doesn't make sense.
We just think you're not going to win by being duplicitous and deceitful.
We need to recognize that people in this country are trying to make their lives better, and they're not as concerned about the nasty words of the Orange Man.
Sorry.
It's just not going to impact them.
And you gotta recognize, too, a lot of people really like the nasty words of the Orange Man.
Tulsi Gabbard, in my opinion, takes a principled approach, and she tried to avoid being partisan with the impeachment vote.
She said, you know what?
Present.
It was a protest against the rapid and rabid partisanship that was engulfing the process.
And while she believes Trump did wrong, she didn't want to partake in a partisan process.
So what do they do?
They smear her and anyone who would dare defend her, when she's basically the only Democrat, as far as I'm concerned, who's actually concerned about the divisions in our country and trying to unite them.
Now, she takes a very anti-Trump stance that even I think is a little bit further left than I would.
I think Trump is not that bad.
Okay, I don't like the guy.
Not gonna vote for the guy.
There's a lot of reasons for that.
But, ultimately, he's following the footsteps of so many other presidents, and I gotta be honest, there's very few presidents I actually care to vote for, and I've only been through, you know, a handful of elections in my life anyway.
But anyway, back to the main point.
I'm wondering how long until even Vox will be smeared by some of these establishment personalities for saying something positive about Donald Trump.
Because they're trying to play this game that Tulsi Gabbard's a Russian asset, that her supporters are fake Russians or otherwise.
Nope.
No, I actually really respect her, and I think she's principled, and I think she's served in the armed forces, and I think she's talking sense.
And they don't like that.
But again, I'll wrap up that point and say this.
The left admits it.
We're fractured.
We're fractured six ways from Sunday.
And the Republicans are completely unified around Trump.
And you know what does not help is this.
Let's read a little bit more of this story from Vox.
What doesn't help is that they lie about what's happening.
I won't lie to you.
I couldn't be wrong.
I'm wrong often.
I'm not the smartest person in the world.
I don't know everything.
But I'll never lie.
If the economy's doing well, I'm going to be like, what do you want me to say, man?
It is.
And if that's what you need, then I understand why you would vote in that direction.
I think we need something better.
We need change.
We need personality, charisma, but also policies that will continue the course of strengthening the economy.
I do also think some of Trump's policies are aggressive.
That's why I really like Andrew Yang.
Yang says, you look at these auto manufacturers, you don't see immigrants, you see robots.
He's right.
So I'll tell you this, if Trump appointed Tulsi and Yang, he'd have a strong position for a lot of the politically homeless to vote for him.
Because one of the biggest problems I see with the presidency has always been the abuse of military power.
And I think Trump definitely would need a more progressive voice on economics like Yang.
I don't think Yang's Freedom Dividend necessarily is a complete thought.
I like the idea, but more importantly, you know, you look at what the Democrats are saying, Andrew Yang says no minimum wage, it's not the problem.
And you're like, oh wow.
And he talks about issues that Democrats ignore and they lie about the economy.
Let's read a little bit more.
They say, more importantly for political purposes, most voters are clearly saying they feel the economy is doing well.
Trying to talk them out of that might be counterproductive compared to the possibility of simply trying to argue about something else.
The Democrats running for president disagree about a lot, but they seem united in rejecting the premise of moderator Judy Woodruff's question.
What is your argument to the voter watching this debate tonight who may not like everything President Trump does, but they really like this economy, and they don't know why they should make a change?
All the leading Democrats argued that actually, the economy is bad.
Joe Biden, I don't think they really do like the economy.
Look at the middle class neighborhoods.
The middle class is getting killed.
The middle class is getting crushed.
Mayor Buttigieg, the economy is not working for most of us.
Elizabeth Warren, a rising GDP, rise in corporate profits is not being felt by millions of families.
Bernie Sanders, Trump goes around saying the economy is doing great.
You know what?
Real inflation accounting for wages went up last year.
1.1, that ain't great.
Okay, you know what?
I tend to keep these segments short, so I will.
But how can you have all leading Democrats lie to your face like that?
Lie to your face.
Let me tell you something.
Vox, certified by NewsGuard, green checkmarks across the board, except they don't differentiate between opinion very well, is a leftist website telling you the economy is doing well.
Admit it.
Donald Trump is telling you the same thing.
Yet when you turn on that TV and look at the Democratic debate, what do they say?
No!
Don't believe them!
Don't believe what you see with your own eyes and hear with your ears and feel in your hearts.
It's not true!
Trust us, the snake oil salesmen who are the only ones who can save you from what doesn't exist.
The economy is doing well.
We don't need your help.
We don't need to be saved from anything.
It's going great.
So if you want to defeat Trump, you've got to figure out what Americans are looking for that he isn't delivering on.
And that's why I've said the key advantage Democrats would have is if they came out, agreed with a bunch of his domestic policy and trade policy, but I still think people would vote for Trump because he's got a lot of people who love that he does that and a lot of people aren't willing to risk rocking the boat.
But I will say this for the millionth time, a Democrat that is more in line with Donald Trump's policies, who is more charismatic, less offensive, is the best bet the Democrats have.
Instead, what do we get?
Liars!
Liars!
They're lying!
And what do you want me to do?
You want me to come out and lie to you too?
Just for the sake of appearing not like I'm on the left?
Oh, let me try and convince everyone I actually believe in left-wing policies by lying about the economy.
No.
If Matthew Iglesias is going to be honest and he's running Vox, why wouldn't I?
And that's a sad reality.
The Democrats have no problem going up on stage and lying to your faces.
So I don't see them winning because people aren't falling for it anymore.
They're seeing their wages.
They're seeing their tax breaks.
I get it.
Trump does a lot of things that are bad.
You want to talk about foreign policy, man?
I will go all day and night, all the time.
I do it all the time.
Trump has followed in the footsteps in a lot of ways of his predecessors in doing things that I find absolutely abhorrent and disgusting, and I think the guy's got attitude problems.
Economy's doing really, really well, though.
And so there are a lot of people in this country, they don't care about foreign policy in the same way I do, and they're gonna vote for him.
You wanna win those people over?
Stop lying to them, for one.
But I'll leave it there.
Stick around, I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
In my main segment today over at YouTube.com slash TimCast, I talked about how immigration is a serious problem for Republicans.
That's just a fact.
I'm not saying you should be pro or anti-immigrant.
But there are still a lot of signs that Democrats are seriously in trouble as well, and that's why the immigration battle is so important to them.
Take a look at this story from the Washington Post.
Party-switching Rep.
Van Drew could be an odd fit among House Republicans.
And they're completely right.
Democrat Jeff Van Drew from New Jersey's 2nd District switched to the Republican Party with a handshake and an endorsement from President Donald Trump.
That's probably going to get him a big boost.
But here's the thing.
Van Drew voted in line with Nancy Pelosi nearly the entire time.
He voted against the president.
He is a Democrat.
He talks about left-wing... He's got the same left-wing social justice talking points.
Not the craziest.
But he's a moderate.
Here's the thing.
This is actually really, really bad news for the Democrats.
They say he's an odd fit.
But I think you need to recognize, with Trump's endorsement, the Republicans are embracing a broader Republican party and bringing in other voices defecting from the Democrats.
That means the Democrats are polarizing, not for now.
The Democrats are kind of breaking apart.
The Republicans are unified.
But what happens when these defecting Democrats join the Republicans, making their base even bigger?
It's entirely possible that over time, the more extreme, outraged, deceitful left gets wiped out.
Now, in my previous segment, I talked about how the Democrats are lying about the economy, trying to convince you it's a bad one, it's really good, and even Vox.com is now accepting.
Yeah, the economy under Trump is good.
So what happens when Republicans, the president, the leader of the party who's got like 90% approval among Republicans says, I endorse this guy.
I am behind him.
Republicans are going to vote for him.
Republicans are going to vote for somebody who agrees with Nancy Pelosi?
How long until all the cards fall down and all that's left of the Democratic Party are fringe leftists that nobody wants to vote for?
And the Republican Party becomes a super majority.
That's the sign we're seeing here.
Does that mean it's going to happen?
But when you get somebody who's willing to support Nancy Pelosi nearly, like, walk in lockstep, nearly, completely, now joining the Republican Party, we're looking at a potential, a potential, not, not, not, not, I'm not saying it's greater than chance, I'm just saying, this is a sign.
We could be looking at a Republican supermajority where the Republican ropes in even old-school Democrats who don't want to have anything to do with the fringe far left.
Let's read a little bit, a little bit about this story from the Washington Post.
They say, Announcing a switch of parties Thursday, Rep.
Van Drew sat next to President Trump in the Oval Office and professed his undying support.
Meanwhile, Van Drew's voting record in the House painted a different picture.
Loyalty to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's policy agenda.
Let me also say something.
If you've just lost somebody who was walking in lockstep with Pelosi, you are seriously screwing up.
How do you get somebody who's going to walk in lockstep with Pelosi to then flip and give their undying support to Donald Trump?
You gotta be making some really big mistakes here.
Aside from votes against Trump's impeachment, the freshman member of Congress had been a loyal vote for key Democratic bills in 2019, highlighting the odd fit he might be in an increasingly conservative House Republican conference and the potentially tough path he might face at next year's GOP primary.
No?
You know what may be happening?
A grand correction.
You see, Fox News hired Democrat Donna Brazile.
Fox News hosted a town hall for Bernie Sanders.
Fox News routinely criticizes Trump, and Judge Napolitano said there is, I don't want to misquote him, but I think he's gone on to say there's grounds for impeachment here.
That's Fox News, and Trump's criticized them.
Perhaps what we're seeing is that moderate, politically homeless individuals, Bernie or Bust, and even moderate Democrats, are saying they don't fit with the Democrats anymore and they're joining the Republicans.
So you know what might actually happen?
If the Democrats don't course-correct and recognize they're ceding ground to Republicans, that segment I did earlier about immigration might not matter at all.
If the Republicans actually start winning over the overwhelming majority of Americans, then immigration is completely irrelevant and the Democrats become a weird fringe party of left-wing identity politics.
And then they're nothing.
Republicans win a supermajority in the House and the Senate, they control the executive branch, they stack the courts, and they are?
It's possible.
Many people are predicting a massive Republican sweep in 2020.
That they're going to win the House, the Senate, just control everything all over again.
And you know what that means?
It means the Democrats need to learn the orange man bad narrative is not working and they need to shift back to the center.
They can't.
Because of woke outrage.
Because of the press.
Because of the Twitterati.
Targeting them for making mean jokes.
Now I'll throw back to my segment earlier today.
Ricky Gervais, Dave Chappelle, Joe Rogan, these comedians are really going to be the saving grace for the left.
But if the left can finally push out this insane, outraged faction, they might actually survive.
Otherwise, the Republicans are just going to be too strong.
Let's read a little bit more.
They say, Among the legislation Van Drew supported this year were measures blocking Trump from withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, opposing Trump's ban on transgender military members, opposing Trump's effort to undo the Affordable Care Act in the courts, and overruling Trump's efforts to rein in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Van Drew also opposed Trump's withdrawal of U.S.
troops from Syria, condemned Trump's racist comments against minority congressmen, and twice voted to overturn Trump's emergency declaration to build the border wall.
Van Drew, they are sitting here explaining to us how he is walking in lockstep with the Democrats in opposition to Trump, and because of what you did with impeachment, one of the staunchest opponents of Trump walked up to him, shook his hand, and said, you have my undying support.
Talk about epic failure.
It breaks my heart.
I'm sad to see Jeff Vandrugo.
I want to see the Democrats survive.
I want to see rational and principled opposition to the Republican Party that helps our country move forward, that improves upon the discourse, gets rid of the political divide.
And you know what?
It's sad the Democrats can't see it.
My concern here, first, I think there's still some, there's a light at the end of the tunnel.
There's good news with Jeff Van Drew joining the Republicans because perhaps he will bring a new perspective, dare I say, a diverse opinion to the Republican Party and actually help might pull the Republicans a little bit closer to the center, which in my opinion is a good thing.
I would have preferred it if he helped the Democrats pull to the center, but they've pushed him out.
My concern Is that while he may do that for Republicans, making him move a little to the left, the Democrats might become a massive force of absolute insanity.
What we may be seeing is that moderates have no place in the Democratic Party, and they attract more and more insane extremists.
And then we're going to have crazy people versus, you know, kind of center-right people who I disagree with.
And then I'm sitting here just like, I don't know what you want me to do, man.
I don't know what I'm supposed to do here.
Look, Where I sit politically, you all get it, right?
I lean a little bit more left on a lot of these policies.
I think we should, you know, Trump's cutting back on immigration.
I'm not a fan of that, but I recognize why he's doing it.
The Republican Party is threatened due to this stuff.
There's a lot of things I understand why Republicans do, and I disagree in the long run.
I do.
The way I put it, the other day, the left likes to have this more absolutist view of welfare, like, if you, you know, how can someone pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they don't have bootstraps?
And the Republicans are like, pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
And I'm like, the left used to be like this.
I'm going to give you a pair of boots, but then you've got to pull yourself up.
It's kind of like that saying, you know, if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for the rest of his life.
Well, what if the person doesn't have a fishing pole?
You can teach him to fish with their bare hands.
That might take a little while.
Or I can do this.
Hey, buddy.
Here's a fishing pole.
I'm only gonna give you the one.
So make sure you save up some of them fish, sell them, save some money in case your fishing pole breaks, but I'm gonna make sure you have the means to fish and then teach you how to do it.
You see that compromise?
What we kind of have now on the left is just, I mean look, you look at the previous segment I did, even Vox acknowledges the Democrats are lying.
I don't know what they're actually even campaigning on at this point.
So that's my opposition to Republicans, right?
I think you could, you know, here's a thing.
You go back 20 years, you look at the data, Democrats and Republicans, like, agree on a ton of stuff.
I refuse to concede this position.
And I know a lot of people of similar politics to me who are absolutely saying they do concede and they will join the Republicans, and you see Van Drew doing it, and I'm like, no!
Like Tulsi Gabbard says, The party must take it back from these cronies, from this corruption.
The party needs to be sane, represent the working class of the United States, and present real principled opposition to what Trump is doing, instead of making things up, lying about the economy, and screeching that his white national stories are racist.
You need to recognize why people voted for the guy.
Instead, what do we get?
We get lies.
And we get someone like Jeff Van Drew, who is a staunch supporter of the president, being pushed out of the party.
So what am I supposed to do?
What am I supposed to hold on to?
Hope, I guess?
You know, I don't know what to tell you, man.
Let's read a little bit more of the story.
They say, he also backed key policy bills opposed by the Trump administration and all
but a handful of Republicans.
Bills that would raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, ban most oil drilling along the
U.S. coastline, and expand background checks for gun buyers.
This is a guy who's campaigned on banning most oil drilling on the U.S. coastline.
coastline.
This guy is such a Democrat.
At the White House on Thursday, Van Drew said he believed the Republican Party was just a better fit.
Think about what that means.
Somebody who's opposed to offshore oil drilling, who supports a minimum wage increase, somebody who's walking in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi, thinks he's a better fit with the Republican Party?
Wow, I think this bodes very, very poorly for the Democrats.
So while we can talk, you know, look, there's context, there's nuance.
The Republicans have a serious threat from immigration.
It's absolutely true.
And you see people like Geraldo Rivera saying, look, Republicans, if you don't get on board with the DREAMers, you know, you're going to lose out.
And I agree with Geraldo on this one.
I think we absolutely should have a path of citizenship for DREAMers and even for many Illegal immigrants.
And I think there are a bunch of Republicans, there's like 34 Republicans who voted to provide a path of citizenship for illegal immigrant farmers.
I agree.
Now the Republicans are concerned that will provide votes, a massive shift for the Democrats.
Well, you know what?
Perhaps that means Republicans have to become more moderate on immigration.
But here's the reality.
When they pull in someone like Jeff Van Drew, perhaps they will be.
And they know it.
There may be a bunch of staunch conservatives who are concerned about losing the Republican Party due to immigration.
But it may also be the fact that the Republicans may be, we may be witnessing a correction in this polarization.
That if people like Van Drew join the Republican Party, they are, he's not the only one who's defected, at least at the federal level he's the biggest.
If the Democrats keep becoming more and more extreme, they'll lose immigrants too.
And they'll eventually start falling apart, Republicans will take over.
If the Democrats don't pay attention, The Republicans might not change due to Van Drew.
They might say, no, Van Drew, you fall in line with us or else.
And that would be really bad for everybody.
Think about it this way.
The Republicans are going to grow, the Democrats are fracturing and shrinking, and eventually the Republican Party will split back into what the parties used to be.
This might be the course correction.
And I don't know what's going to happen, but you might see a changing of the parties.
I have no idea.
If the Democrats shrink too much, maybe we'll finally see a third party replace the Democrats.
Because if you look back in time throughout US politics, you know there were a bunch of other parties.
The Federalists, the Whig Party, the Democrat-Republicans.
And then it became Democrat versus Republican.
That's all we've had for a very long time.
Maybe the Democrats lose their moderate base, and we... I'll tell you this.
The Democratic Party is already two parties.
The progressives and moderates are very different.
And now we can see the moderates joining the Republicans.
So I don't know what that means.
Maybe the Republicans just absorb the moderates, and then, what, we get a supermajority of Republicans representing 70% of the country?
Yeah, then immigration won't matter at all.
I'll leave it there.
You get the point.
Jeff Van Drew.
This is a bad sign for Democrats.
They're losing their most ardent supporters because they're losing the plot.
