Trump LAUGHING As Hypocrite Democrats Bicker Over "Wine Caves" And He Rakes in MILLIONS
Trump LAUGHING As Hypocrite Democrats Bicker Over "Wine Caves" And He Rakes in MILLIONS. Mike Rowe said it best, that Democrats are millionaires arguing about how much they don't like millionaires.At the last Democratic debate mud was being thrown about who makes money from rich people and who really represents the working class. The truth is, its none of them.Democrats have long since NOT represented the working class and even the left wing media site Vox admits it. In 2016 they wrote about how the Democrats for the first time in decades were the party of the very wealthy and even bernie Sanders base is not the working class like he claims but is in fact just young educated elites.Trump on the other hand has record donations and from small donors. His base is growing and he has won over old Democrat strongholds in blue states.Democrats are so worried about appearing to work for the people that they failed to actually do it and have lost ground to Trump and the republicans. They spend all their time screaming "orange man bad" instead of keeping on message and working for the people of this country.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
My political affiliation can probably be easily described as sitting back and laughing as the Democrats lose because they're hypocrites, liars, and deceivers who are trying to trick poor people into supporting them so they can enact laws they don't actually care about and might not actually work because it just empowers them and gives them keys to the castle and I better slow down.
But we have this story from the Daily Caller.
It's actually just a comment from an MSNBC reporter and it's spot on.
MSNBC reporter says Trump campaign is laughing at Democrats raking in cash.
That's a fact.
The GOP and Donald Trump have been having record months, month over month.
The Democrats are in debt, they're fighting with each other, and they're insulting each other for being rich, and it's the weirdest thing in the world.
And here's what I want to go through today.
You see, the Democrats aren't the party of the working class.
And they do it because they stand around acting like they represent the working class.
They're the ones fighting bigotry.
And they're not.
And I'm not even sitting here saying that I think Republicans are doing better necessarily, but it's funny to watch as the Democrats pretend to care about certain issues, when they really don't, and then they lose.
Because to me, what they're doing is deceptive, right?
So this story about Trump laughing at Democrats is rooted in the idea of wine caves.
You see, go ahead and fight over wine caves.
You may have heard this because in the Democratic debate, Elizabeth Warren, a millionaire, was mocking Pete Buttigieg, not a millionaire, over having wine cave fundraisers.
It is one of the stupidest stories and one of the things I care about the least.
But it can be summed up in a quote.
All of this can be summed up in a quote from Mr. Mike Rowe.
Rad dude.
He said, Democratic debate was millionaires arguing over who hates millionaires the most.
Most of these Democrats that are running are rich people.
I mean, people who judge isn't.
So, you know, I respect him.
And he's actually trying to fundraise from some wealthy donors and some, you know, corporate billionaires, whatever.
And he's getting dragged by the literal millionaires over it.
And I think that's Silly.
I think it's ridiculous to be like, why are you taking money from rich people?
It's like, well, listen, man, rich people donate.
I don't like the idea that rich people control every, you know, that have, they have disproportionate control, but it really depends on the kind of rich person, the kind of control.
It's, it's, it's, it's all very nuanced to say the least.
But it's funny to see those of great means ridicule the one guy who isn't simply because he's trying to raise money from wherever he can.
But hey, Pete Buttigieg is pretty unabashed about it.
He's like, I'm not going to stop.
I'm going to keep doing it.
Well, the Democrats want to raise money through a grassroots effort.
They want to claim they're raising money from the poor people, right?
Yeah, they kind of are.
But so is Donald Trump.
The reality is, as Mike Rowe said, they're the millionaires arguing over who hates the millionaires the most.
And even Vox.com will tell you.
Oh, that's the wrong one.
Democrats are replacing Republicans as the preferred party of the very wealthy.
This is the reality.
The Democrats are not representing the working class.
They're not representing the poor.
Well, some Democrats may be, and I will give them some respect.
You know, I believe Bernie deserves a certain amount of respect.
Don't like the pandering he does.
But he does have a grassroots base.
The only issue is that his base is also not the working class.
This is the issue the Democrats need to come to terms with.
Stop pretending you represent blue-collar workers.
You don't.
You represent the very wealthy, and you represent the elites of universities.
These white, upper-class young people who are more likely to, you know, have college degrees, more likely to make six figures.
That's who you represent.
It is not America.
That's why you are losing.
That's why you can't raise money.
It's why you're in debt.
So let's get started before I just rant nonstop.
I want to go through all this with you.
The story.
Trump is laughing and raking in the cash.
He is.
And I'm going to show you.
Before we move on, head over to TimCast.com slash donate because it's Christmas!
And I, although I'm not a particularly religious individual, you know, my family is still very much, you know, celebrates a tradition of Christmas and I think it's become more of an American tradition these days.
So if you like what I do and you want to support my work and you don't mind the dog barking behind me, which I apologize for, you can go to TimCast.com slash donate, give a Christmas gift, or just share this video.
But in all sincerity, just watching the video is the greatest gift of all.
I really do mean that.
The fact that I get to yell at my camera all day and somehow make a living out of it is the greatest gift I've ever received.
So Thank you all so much.
I hope you're enjoying your family holiday.
I hope that you've come upon this video simply because you've got some downtime as the pheasant is in the oven or your Chinese food is on the way.
Whatever it is you may be celebrating.
But seriously, thanks for watching and hanging out.
Let's talk about how somehow Trump is the politician of the working class and the Democrats aren't anymore.
The Daily Caller reports MSNBC's Shannon Pettypiece said Tuesday that President Donald Trump and his supporters were laughing and raking in cash while Democrats argued amongst themselves.
Well, that's true.
I mean, that's common sense.
We're in the primary season.
The Democrats, of course, are arguing amongst themselves.
But the issue isn't so much about how the Democrats are arguing among themselves.
It's about how they're rich people pretending like they're not.
Donald Trump is also unabashed in being very wealthy.
He celebrates that he's wealthy.
He uses that to push his argument that he knows how to do what he's doing.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are like self-loathing rich people.
Let's read on.
Petty Peace was responding to questions from MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle about the recent infighting among Democrats over the influence of big money in politics and references to fundraisers held by billionaires in wine caves.
John Lederman, an NBC News political correspondent, was first to weigh in on the topic.
And he noted that Americans viewed the argument among Democrats as petty.
Yes, thank you, they do.
Saying, President Trump is going to take money from rich people and poor people and anyone in between and that's why you hear Pete arguing he should not be tying one hand behind his back as Democrats trying to defeat the president.
Is the Trump campaign laughing at this fight between Democrats over wine caves when the president is in the throes of impeachment and he's being impeached for soliciting a foreign government?
Oh, it's so pathetic.
I'm sorry.
It is just a pathetic thing to say.
I can't anymore.
You know what?
When the impeachment inquiry was announced, the Trump campaign raised $5 million, Petty Peace replied.
The biggest funds were on these days when impeachment has been in the headlines.
Thank you, Petty Peace, for pointing out.
You know, they were like, is Trump, you know, is he celebrating?
Is he being impeached?
Yes, he is.
Please stop.
Trump is literally celebrating.
They don't read the news.
They don't pay attention.
Trump has been celebrating nonstop as he's raked in more support, more grassroots donors, more small donors.
That's what impeachment is doing.
His approval rating is up.
We know this.
It keeps happening.
And they're acting like they're winning.
Well, Trump is upset over being impeached.
Is he really?
Is he?
Is he upset that he raised $10 million in a day?
I don't think he is.
I think he's laughing about it.
I think he's weaponizing it.
And I think it's rallying his base.
And I think you look petty.
But thank you, Petty Peace, for pointing it out.
The biggest funds were on these days.
You go ahead, Democrats.
You go ahead and fight over wine caves and who has small donors.
We'll rake in the money because campaigns are expensive, is their argument.
Trump's campaign had $125 million in cash at the end of the third quarter.
They're just bringing the money.
Go ahead.
Fight among yourselves.
They say Massachusetts Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren drove the attack on wine cave fundraisers during last Thursday's final Democratic primary debate of 2019.
Take a look at this story from CNS News.
Just from about a week ago.
Merry Christmas, everybody, if you're a Trump supporter.
Trump campaign announces incredible fundraising numbers on impeachment day.
RNC has record month.
Oh, a record month, you say?
Again?
Every month I read the news about Trump's record month.
You know why?
My mind was blown when I saw this report from CNN that a Democrat stronghold that hadn't voted Republican in decades was voting for Donald Trump.
And it's sad to me because we should have a Democratic president and a Republican president who have net positives and net negatives and we have to decide who we think is gonna be better or worse.
Instead, you've got right now people saying, well, the economy is really good.
Donald Trump is actually working on things that have benefited the American people and the Democrats are bickering about wine caves and about impeachment.
So you literally have... I'm gonna say it.
I'm gonna use the talking point.
Do-nothings.
Now, let's be fair, okay?
The Democrats in the House have passed many bills, and Mitch McConnell is not bringing them into the Senate, okay?
I think that's fair to point out.
The problem then lies in the messaging from the Democrats.
They are obsessed with impeachment.
They could have taken the fight to USMCA.
They could have said, this is a good trade deal, but here's the problems Trump has introduced.
They could have used that.
They could have had a legitimate policy argument with the President, and we could be talking about those things.
So you know why Trump is having these record fundraising numbers?
Because impeachment means nothing.
Impeachment tells the American people, I am not fighting for you.
I'm fighting against a guy I don't like.
Yeah, sure, you're fighting for the people in California who think the orange man is bad, but are you fighting for me to get a better job?
No, that's Donald Trump, and he's a potty mouth narcissist.
So we literally have a president right now.
Who is done right by the American economy.
Who is a potty mouth narcissist.
And people are saying, okay, but he's helping, right?
And the Democrats are saying, yeah, but he's a potty mouth.
And they're like, so what?
You're not doing anything but bickering about wine caves.
Like, I get it.
The Democrats do, they are doing things.
It's unfair to say they're not.
But their messaging has been so off-point.
And it's Trump's game, man.
But here's the main issue I'm saying right now, and we'll move on, is that when you look to who the president's going to be, you have Donald Trump, who's a bad character, character defect, bad personality, whatever you want to call the guy.
They've called him the worst of American culture.
But you cannot deny to Americans he's still doing things that help them.
The Democrats aren't, and that's why Trump is laughing.
And you can argue about why it is, and I think one of the big reasons is that Trump has successfully kept them off message every single step of the way.
And you know what?
The responsibility lies with them.
CNS News reports President Donald Trump's re-election campaign raised more than $5 million on Wednesday, the same day House Democrats voted to pass articles of impeachment against Trump, which they never filed.
On Thursday, Fox News reported the Republican National Committee had its most successful fundraising month ever in November.
It's just every month.
Every month, right?
And as long as they want to keep that as the focal point.
But let's move on.
Let's move on because I made the point and I want to show you this real quick.
I do frequently want to highlight Trump's approval rating.
This is not about And I know, forgive me if you watch my videos all the time, I say this all the time, it's not about whether you like the president or not, this is an objective fact.
I am looking at the aggregate polls, and Donald Trump has recovered from the impeachment scandal, and his approval rating continues to climb.
It is Christmas shopping season with record Saturday sales.
We had Black Friday, record sales.
You tell that to the American people, and they're going to say, Trump can say all the naughty words in the world.
Trump can do the entire bit from George Carlin, the seven words you can't say on TV, and they're still going to vote for him, because he's putting money in their pocketbook.
Keep that in mind.
Stop denying reality.
And, you know, Vox has pointed this out.
So, Vox did a segment, you know, explaining the Wine Cave controversy.
I don't think, you know, we need to get into details about what the controversy was really about, but let's move on to this next story.
This is from 2016.
And if you couldn't see the signs, well, you know what?
This is why Trump wins.
It's why you lose.
Vox, the left-wing Vox, said Democrats are replacing Republicans as the preferred party of the very wealthy.
If they could see this three and a half years ago, and you can't see it now, you will lose.
Period.
Look, and then look at this, they used a smug photo of Hillary Clinton.
Let's read a little bit of the story, and then I want to show you, I want to highlight the story about Bernie Sanders.
And the reason I do is that in the segment from MSNBC, they highlight Bernie Sanders saying, we are representing the working class.
No, you're not.
I'm sorry, but you are not.
That is just the facts.
And I'm going to use a left-wing source to back up my claim.
Not a right-wing source, a left-wing source.
So please, if you do like this video, share that with someone on the left.
I'm not here to tell the left they're wrong.
I'm here to tell the establishment... Well, I'm here to tell the left, I guess technically you're wrong.
The establishment is leading you on a dark path.
And if you want to defeat Donald Trump, don't listen to what these lunatics are saying.
Vox reported in 2016.
In 2012, something unusual happened.
The wealthiest 4% of voting-age Americans, by a narrow plurality, supported a Democrat for president.
That hadn't happened since 1964.
Before that, it hadn't happened since possibly the 1880s.
So was 2012 a blip like 1964 or was 2012 the start of a phase shift in which the Democrats replaced the Republicans as the preferred party of the wealthiest Americans?
Take a look at Donald Trump.
He's a rich guy.
He's an outsider, though.
He was talking about these trade deals like Bernie Sanders was.
Hillary Clinton?
She's a Goldman Sachs-speaking crony capitalist Democrat establishment whatever.
Of course she was going to get support from the establishment machine and the big corporations and the wealthy and the billionaires.
She still does.
They're right.
I'm pretty convinced that it does mark a phase shift.
My strong hunch is that for the foreseeable future, the wealthiest Americans will prefer Democrats.
But before getting to the future, let's start with the past.
I'm not going to get into all this.
I just want to show you that they say in 2012, you can see that flip finally happened.
It was in 1964.
Republicans were the party of the wealthy industrialists, and now it's the Democrats.
Take a look at this.
Bernie Sanders, he claimed in his video that he represents the working class.
I'm sorry.
That's just not true and it hasn't been true.
Vox wrote in 2016, Bernie Sanders' base isn't the working class, it's young people.
Once again, I am not using a conservative source for this.
Vox is left-wing.
They're progressives and they're telling you this to your face.
You look at that CNN article.
It was a segment where they went to this town, I believe it was in Minnesota, and all of these people voted for Democrats at the local level.
Because the Democrats at the local level were—not necessarily local level, but like Congress—they were talking about issues relevant to this community.
They were talking about moderate policies, helping the working class, unions, etc.
At the national level.
Which Democrat is doing that?
It's not happening.
So Bernie Sanders can claim this, and while it's true to a certain extent, at this point, it's absolutely not the case.
Bernie Sanders is being represented by many young, wealthy progressives, elite urban individuals.
I'm not saying Bernie's a bad dude.
I've got criticisms of him over his pandering.
I think he's done things that are respectable, like when he said, we're gonna raise your taxes.
Don't lie about it.
On the debate stage, he straight up said it.
Bravo, good sir.
Be honest about it.
But the reality is, when it comes to the grassroots, and when it comes to the working class, the fact is, it's Donald Trump.
Take a look at this from Open Secrets.
Democratic Party falls further behind GOP in October fundraising.
So we can set aside arguments about grassroots, about billionaires.
The fact remains, the Democrats are in debt.
They're failing to raise money.
And who, in the end, is raising money from larger groups of small donors?
It is Donald Trump.
I've got a ton of shade to throw at the Democrats.
This is from last month.
The DNC raised $9 million in October but burned almost as much cash to get there.
The committee entered October with $8.86 million in the bank and exited the month with just $8.7 million on hand and $7 million in debt.
The RNC demonstrated unmatched fundraising power.
It netted $25.3 million in October and spent $23 million, leaving $61.4 million in the bank with no debt.
Check out this fundraising.
We've got a graph here showing Republican versus Democratic fundraising.
This is the RNC versus the DNC.
You tell me how this is, that the Republicans are just raking in cash end over end, month over month, and the Democrats can barely muster an increase.
The Democrats have been stagnant every single month, while every month the Republicans just have more and more cash on hand.
It's because small donors and working-class people don't believe the Democrats when they say these things.
They're millionaires arguing with millionaires.
Oh, but I got a story for you.
I want to throw this one in there.
Take a look at this from the left-wing intercept.
I love it when I can tell these stories using left-wing sources.
You know why?
Because I'd like to see the progressives deny the facts right now.
They like to claim that I'm biased, okay?
I certainly think I have personal biases, so to an extent, fair.
They say that people on the far left will accuse me of lying, pushing right-wing talking points.
Oh, it's a right-wing talking point that Bernie doesn't represent the working class?
No, that's a left-wing talking point.
It's a right-wing talking point that the Democrats are representing the wealthy?
No, that's a left-wing talking point.
And how about when The Intercept says Mike Bloomberg exploited prison labor to make 2020 presidential campaign phone calls?
Okay, Bloomberg, you want to get on your high horse and act like you're better than Donald Trump?
By all means, I'm willing to listen, because I'm pretty disposed to not liking the man, and everybody knows it.
But I'll tell you what, I don't deny reality.
And the reality is, you are not better.
None of these people are better.
They want to act like Donald Trump is better or worse.
Now, let's be real.
I honestly, I don't like any of them.
Literally none of them.
You know what?
Okay, figuratively.
There are two people I really, really do like.
Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang.
Andrew Yang has done some things I didn't like.
He was insulting the president, getting really petty.
I was very, very upset with that.
That is not the game we should be playing.
That's one of the reasons I don't like Trump.
Tulsi Gabbard has some policies that I disagree with, but ultimately I think they're good people and they're principled.
And I'll also give a shout-out to Rand Paul and Dan Crenshaw, who I also disagree with on some policy issues, but I do respect them tremendously.
Mike Bloomberg is one of these ultra-wealthy people dumping tens of millions of dollars into the campaign because the orange man is bad.
And where is that money going?
Well, I don't know if the money's going to the inmates who are making phone calls on his behalf.
Could you imagine getting a phone call from someone telling you, you should vote for Bloomberg?
Who is this?
I'm a prison inmate in Oklahoma.
New Jersey and Oklahoma prison inmates were making phone calls on behalf of the Bloomberg campaign.
Now, to be fair, he said he didn't realize that was happening.
Well, the buck stops with you, dude.
So you want to talk, you know, they talk big, these Democratic candidates.
They talk big about representing the working class, fighting for, you know, felon rights
and things like this, fighting racism.
They don't do it.
So let me tell you, there was a chart put together by a researcher and he had three
categories.
The left, the right, and people exclusively critical of the left.
And I was in that one category and I said, that's not fair.
Because I'm not exclusively critical of the left, I just tend to be.
Because the reality is, never been a Republican, not a Republican, and I hate the Democrats.
I don't hate all of them.
I don't hate everything they've ever done.
I generally have a disdain for them because I feel like they're pretending to fight for my community and my people, but they're not really doing it.
They're hurting us.
That's what it feels like.
I've never expected anything from Republicans.
I didn't grow up in a Republican area.
I grew up in Chicago.
It's not a Republican place, so it didn't matter to me what Republicans were doing.
It mattered to me that the Democrats were constantly saying, here's what we'll do for you, and then putting a knife in our back.
And I've experienced it firsthand with the city.
When the Democrats came out and promised us stuff, when we worked hard, and they came with nothing but a knife in our backs.
That's what I see all the time from this.
Exploiting prison labor.
Pretending to fight for the environment, but putting out weird socialist bills.
They're exploiting what I believed in, and I don't like that.
Listen, when I talk about why I care about the environment, why I think climate change is a problem, Republicans tell me they disagree.
Well, they've always disagreed.
I can have a conversation and I say, well, I'm looking for some support in these areas.
When I go to the Democrats, they say, trust us.
We agree with you.
We're going to fight for everything you want.
And then they turn around and put a knife in your back.
Case in point.
The Tulsi Gabbard story.
Matt Taibbi is awesome.
And he tweets, A Yahoo piece asserts Tulsi Gabbard may seek a spoiler role involving a third-party White House bid to author writer Ryder Knowles.
You say this is easy to imagine, but is this story based on anything else?
How can you not include her repeated denials on this score?
Matt Taibbi is awesome.
Far from conservative.
But once again, my disdain is exemplified.
It is essentially justified.
Because of what they do to Tulsi Gabbard.
Okay?
I came out saying, you know, initially, I was like, you know, I really like Tulsi.
I'm paying attention to what she's doing.
I think she's got integrity.
She stepped down from the DNC to support Bernie Sanders.
I respect that a lot.
At the time, she was in the debate stage.
You know, they didn't like her.
They smeared her.
But I saw her as somebody who was actually principled.
And what's happened since then?
It's been endless smears, insults, lies, and it's just gotten worse and worse and worse.
And it's a perfect example of everything I just said.
I can't stand the American foreign policy and war.
I can't stand the money we waste overseas.
While they simultaneously talk about how they're going to help the poor people in Flint, they're voting to send money and bombs to foreign countries.
That's not helping us in any way.
Okay, you can argue it helps us by dominating the planet, controlling the petrodollar.
I get all that stuff.
But that's money that could be spent nation-building in our own country.
So when I hear Tulsi Gabbard come out and say, I want to end regime change war, I'm like, that's pretty specific.
But if you're talking about withdrawing our troops and spending that money, On the people in our country who are suffering, who are supposed to care for, our brothers and sisters?
How about when you talk about those huddled masses coming in as refugees through Ellis Island or whatever, what the Democrats on the left like to say?
You also talk about the war machine.
Now, shout out to all the progressives who do, and there are many.
There are people like, you know, Matt Taibbi.
I don't want to say he's a progressive, but you've got people like Kyle Kalinske, who would absolutely call it out.
Much respect.
We can disagree politically, but if you want to talk about helping the needy, the first thing we should do is stop blowing up the needy in foreign countries because we're involved in proxy wars where another foreign country is going to dump trillions or, you know, billions of dollars in our economy.
And how about we just send some of that money to Flint and fix those pipes for once?
Instead, what do we get?
We get the Democrats on stage complaining about wine caves.
How many people in Congress are talking about what Tulsi is talking about?
That's not happening.
It's just not.
She's very critical of the President.
And you know what?
I agree with her.
Donald Trump launched missiles in Syria.
I don't like any of that.
But what happens when you get a Democrat who brings up a legitimate point about foreign policy, who says, here's what we want to do.
They throw her under the bus.
She checked all their boxes.
First, she's a woman of color.
She's a major in the National Guard.
She's currently serving in the Armed Forces as a major.
She is a woman of color.
She's running for president.
And what do they do?
They treat her like garbage.
When they do that to her, I feel that.
That's how I feel.
I feel like there is no party for me.
So look, Tulsi's not a Republican.
She's very critical of Trump.
And she's very critical of Republicans.
And I agree.
Yet they're gonna call her a Republican, they're gonna call me a Republican.
Where do I go?
This is where I can't stand about any of them.
Any of them.
I just...
This is where I am, you know what I mean?
So there's a weird space.
I don't know what, you know, for those of you watching, I have a general idea because we did a poll once of like, you know, people's political leanings.
But they want to pretend that anybody who disagrees with their establishment crony BS and anyone who challenges their lies, they're gonna say, you must be a Republican.
I'm certainly not.
Um, certainly not.
No, my preferred person for president is a woman of color.
Very progressive.
Very diverse.
But they don't care about that.
They just pretend to.
They literally just pretend to.
They'll talk about war when it benefits them, but in the end, it doesn't matter.
They will write smear after smear after smear about someone like Tulsi.
And I'll tell you what.
I think if it came down to it, you'd find Tulsi Gabbard and I probably disagree on a lot of policy issues, because I'm more of a moderate.
She's fairly progressive.
But the big issue to me is putting your money where your mouth is.
And if we want to talk about actually solving problems, you see all these Democrats go up on stage and talk about things they don't really care about.
And where is the conversation about war, foreign policy, and the money being spent overseas building a country in which Americans do not live?
Americans are footing the bill for roads being built, for water being built, for plumbing, in a country none of us live in.
Now look, I get it.
Foreign aid, helping other countries, sure.
But war, drone strikes, bombings?
Intervening for building pipelines?
You know what, man?
You've lost me.
I think you're lying.
I do.
And that's why Bernie lost me, because he's playing their game, he's pandering, and I'm not about that.
Tulsi...
You know, in a sense, it's kind of like falling on your sword and it seems stupid to me.
I feel kind of stupid sometimes when I realize Tulsi has been attacked by the machine and beaten over the head by these people because she refuses to back down.
And it means it's going to be impossible to win.
But that's what I'm looking for.
I'm not looking for someone who thinks the ends justify the means.
And that's what I think Bernie has been doing.
So anyway, This one got heated because the Democrats are the party of the billionaires.
The Democrats are the party of the millionaires arguing about how millionaires are bad.
At least Trump accepts he's rich and brags about it.
Trump, you know what I mean?
I look at the Trump supporters and they're like, we're glad our president is a successful billionaire and we're glad that he boasts about his wealth because he's talking about success and the American dream.
The Democrats seem to hate themselves for being rich and then blame rich people when they don't actually do anything.
So you know what?
It's not about me liking Republicans.
It's about me being sick and tired of what they do to the candidates I actually care about.
I liked Bernie in 2016.
I saw what the machine did.
And then he decided to say, you know what, if you can't beat him, join him.
No way, dude.
I'm not playing that game.
Tulsi said, if you can't beat him, I'm out.
And I was like, yeah!
I don't think running third party is the right thing to do.
And she said she's not going to do it.
But once again, here we go.
Another Christmas Eve story where they're trying to claim she's going to do it.
She may seek a spoiler role.
You know what, man?
I'll be the first to come out if Tulsi Gabbard runs third party to slam her for doing so.
Because I respect her when she says repeatedly she will not do it.
Because she's standing for what she believes in, and I believe she has the track record to prove she's standing for what she believes in.
And when she enters the Democratic debate and stands there as a Democratic candidate, that is the most important message of all.
It's one of the first reasons I donated to her, and it's why I continue to support her today, or I continue to appreciate and be a fan of her work.
The fact that she's willing to say, here's what I want to bring to the Democratic Party, here's what I want you to hear, And I'll end with this.
The most glorious thing that Tulsi has given all of us is when she called Hillary Clinton the personification of rot.
That made it all worth it.
It made it all worth it.
But I'll leave it at that, man.
This is what I see and experience.
And there are other people who feel the same way or similarly.
You know, I'm a big fan of Jimmy Dore.
You should watch his stuff because he's a progressive guy.
He's pretty far left.
But he will call them out for the same stuff.
I'm not the only one.
We exist.
There's principled actors on the left who are sick and tired.
You know, I'm not the furthest left person.
I'm fairly moderate.
But I'm sick and tired of the Democrats playing this game.
So let me wrap up with how I opened this video.
Go ahead and argue about wine caves.
Donald Trump is laughing all the way to the bank, and so are his supporters.
But you know what?
This is why I said in 2016 I laughed.
Because they want to treat us like garbage.
They want to act like we're stupid.
They want to promise us, you know, they dangle the keys in one hand while smacking us on the head with the other.
And so I laugh when you lose.
Because that's what you get.
It's what you get when you insult the intelligence and you play these games.
I'm gonna wrap it up.
Long video, but Merry Christmas, everybody!
I may have more segments coming up on my second channel, youtube.com slash timcastnews, at 6pm.
If you watched today, thank you for listening to my emotional rant about the billionaire Democrats.
It's December 25th, and there are certainly a few people who are trying to get into the festive spirit.
So, it may be no surprise to many of you that on the holidays, there are very few people working.
So, most of the news is about the holidays, not a whole lot of political stuff, but I thought there was a couple stories.
That we could open the day with that were particularly fun and funny.
Now, I recognize not everybody celebrates Christmas.
In fact, there are some people, they actually have, I think Jewish families, they do like a thing where they go and have Chinese food.
I could be wrong.
I'm not trying to be mean to anybody.
I grew up in a, you know, to an extent Christian household for a little bit.
That's my perspective.
It's mostly all I know about, so forgive me if I'm not understanding of your religion.
But, because Christmas is, you know, the holiday that everybody's celebrating, for the most part, I wanted to highlight two stories that I find, well...
I appreciate the effort.
I'll put it that way, sort of.
We have two stories.
The first is about a man, this man here with a white beard, they want to make sure you know that, who robbed a bank and then threw the money in the air outside yelling Merry Christmas.
Okay, I'm not okay with that, but sure, I get maybe it's a Christmas thing.
You can't do that.
But there's another story that a lot of people saw the other day.
Maybe you missed it.
Rapper throws money at poor people on Skid Row from a top car.
Chaos ensues.
Mixed reactions porn.
I'm gonna stop right here.
I actually appreciate what he did.
I think he screwed up.
I think, you know, he didn't do it right.
But it's Christmas, he went to a poor area, and he wanted to give out money, and he did it very poorly.
But I appreciate the sentiment.
So let's do this.
As many of you are probably waking up bellies full, or about to go to Christmas breakfast, or perhaps you've finished your Christmas breakfast already, I'm gonna read for you some stories about people who did the wrong thing, but for the right reason, I guess.
From the Daily Mail, the first story.
Old man with a white beard robs a bank, then throws the cash in the air while shouting Merry Christmas.
They say a man who allegedly robbed a Colorado bank and then threw the stolen cash into the air while shouting Merry Christmas, two passerbys, has been arrested.
See, here's the thing.
Okay, the right reasons, you know, wanting to give to people on Christmas, but the wrong, very wrong execution.
Look, man.
The first story, don't rob banks.
Like, that's not okay, man.
There are people probably terrified.
You're freaking people out.
That's not a good thing.
The rapper dude, it's kind of like, I get it.
You want to give out money.
I was thinking about something that would be funny.
But the way I imagine is like, you'd be better off going out and handing out money.
You know what I mean?
He's like standing on a rooftop and like making it rain on people.
But anyway, that's what's real.
David Wayne Oliver, 65, was found by cops while sitting at a nearby Starbucks coffee shop after he allegedly held up the Academy Bank in Colorado Springs on Monday afternoon.
Police said he had threatened to use a weapon and left the bank with an undisclosed amount of cash.
A police spokesperson could not immediately be reached for comment, but Colorado Springs television station KKTV reported that eyewitness Dionne Pascal recounted Oliver stepped outside the bank and tossed the money all over the place.
He started throwing money out of the bag before yelling Merry Christmas, the TV station quoted
Pascal said bystanders retrieved some of the money and returned it to the bank as Oliver
walked to the Starbucks, sat down, and appeared to be waiting for police to arrest him.
The Denver Post quoted police as saying thousands of dollars remained unaccounted for, adding there was no indication Oliver used a weapon in the alleged heist.
Oliver pictured in police mugshots with gray hair, gray and white hair, and a full white beard is being held.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it.
I think the only reason they're really telling us about the beard thing is because they're like, look, like Santa!
Okay.
But then we have this story.
This story was from the other day, and there was a viral tweet.
I don't know if you saw it.
I can try and play some of the video.
Maybe I'll get in trouble, but he's just chucking money out of a bag off of the roof of an SUV.
Not poor, just not, oh man.
For those that are listening, you can't see it, but there's just people running around, stuffing their pockets, grabbing stuff.
The wind is blowing the money away.
I get he wants to give people money.
I don't know how you actually, you could do it, because if you went out and handed out $100 bills or something, People might, you know, you're still not gonna get everybody.
But then you get people like... This is not the worst thing in the world, right?
Okay, I get what he's trying to do.
I'm also curious, like, how much money is he giving out?
Is he giving out a dollar?
Is he giving out twenties?
Are they hundreds?
If he's throwing hundreds, he's throwing like, I mean, that's a lot of money.
That's tens of thousands of dollars he's throwing out.
So maybe he's throwing 20s in the air.
But anyway, let's read the story and see what the reactions are.
The Daily Wire reports on Monday, a rapper known as Blueface, whose real name is Jonathan Michael Porter, posted a video of his unique charitable giving this Christmas.
He said, hey, I think it's okay to criticize the guy for doing it poorly, but I understand what he was trying to do, I guess.
In a video posted to his Twitter account, Blueface is standing atop his vehicle, throwing wads of cash at poor people on Skid Row in Los Angeles.
As shown in the video, desperate folks swarm the rapper as they fight over the cash.
One man even climbs on top of the rapper's vehicle.
It's unclear how much money Blueface gives away, though YouTuber DJ Academics said he tossed out $50,000.
Yeah, he may have been throwing out hundred dollar bills.
Like, that's crazy.
Some people probably stuffed their pockets and got a thousand bucks.
Wow.
Blueface's bizarre execution of generosity was met with mixed responses online.
They say a lot about Blueface, but they never mention that he won of the most generous rappers in the game.
He is humbly donating $50,000 to the less fortunate.
Is that what you call it?
Listen man, I think it's fair to point out there's a PR spectacle of standing on top of a vehicle tossing cash in the air.
So, you might, you know, some people might criticize the dude for doing that.
I'm not gonna consider tossing cash in the air as a donation.
If he went around and, like, gave bags of food and supplies and stuff, you know, I've actually worked for these organizations, then, yeah, I could consider that a donation, but just chucking money in the air on Christmas, well, I think it's for the right reasons.
I think it's, you know, well, you know, even if he's just trying to generate press, it's still doing something good, just in a really, really bad way.
Oh, man.
I had an opinion about this, and then I asked myself, how much money did you give?
The answer was none.
Carry on, Blueface.
What does that mean?
What do you mean he gave none?
This person says, Blueface traveled to Skid Row.
So if you don't know, Skid Row is like this very, very famous place in LA with all of these homeless tents.
It's been like that for a really long time, and it's likely why he showed up and started tossing out cash.
They say human events.
Ian Mile Chong was not as impressed.
Ridiculing the rapper for treating poor folks like peasants beneath him.
Utterly dehumanizing.
This isn't the Middle Ages.
You don't need to act like royalty and you don't need to treat homeless people like plebs.
I disagree with you here, Ian.
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree.
I just, I think his heart was in the right place.
He's thinking like, yeah, let's go give out a bunch of money like a bunch of homeless people.
He just didn't know what he was doing and he ended up doing it poorly.
So, I think it's fair to say, yeah, it is dehumanizing, but I don't think the guy was trying to hurt people.
I thought he was doing something... I imagine he thought he was doing something cool and good.
I mean, it went viral anyway.
I wouldn't do it this way.
You know, my idea... Actually, I'll tell you my idea.
Let me read these first.
I have an idea that I wanted to do, and then when I saw this video, I was upset, because I was like, they stole my idea.
The Daily Wire's Jessica Fletcher posted, 10 points for generosity, minus 10 points for execution.
Which, uh, brings him to zero.
No, I don't know.
I think it's cool that he still gave out money.
Here's the problem with giving out money like this, though, alright?
First of all, the bank robber dude, whoa, whoa, don't rob banks, man.
That's like, you didn't help anybody.
They gotta pick that money up, they gotta bring it back to the bank.
Nobody can spend it.
A lot of that money's gonna blow away, someone's gonna find it, they're not gonna know, yeah, they're gonna spend it.
But if you see somebody rob a bank, and they throw money in the air, you can't just take that money and keep it, okay?
Like, the police will make you give it back.
There's a lot of stories about people who get in trouble because you try and take it and run, they're gonna say, hey, no, you're stealing.
Now, for this dude, this is not gonna help anybody, all right?
I'm gonna be honest.
It might be nice, it might feel good.
I'm assuming these are $100 bills, I have no idea.
Maybe they're not, maybe they're 20s.
But you don't, man, you don't help people by just giving them money.
There's a reason why people end up homeless.
It's not always because they're bad people or drug addicts, but oftentimes it is.
Oftentimes people are in not good mental positions to be just being handed money.
And it's a big challenge, right?
Because there's an argument over, like, if you think about Andrew Yang, should we just give people $1,000 so they can deal with it themselves, or should we tell them what they can spend money on?
It's an interesting argument.
I do lean more towards the freedom nature of what Andrew Yang proposes, though I do think there's a lot of issues surrounding his idea of a UBI, universal basic income, or freedom dividend.
I'm not the biggest proponent of it, but...
I think what he's proposing is interesting.
Anyway, the point is, you take somebody who can't manage their money, you take somebody who's addicted to drugs, you take somebody who's addicted to alcohol, and you hand them cash.
And what are they going to do with it?
Right?
I was in L.A., most of you know this, I used to work with a homeless non-profit.
I was out with some friends and there was a homeless woman outside of a supermarket and she was asking for money and I said, you know what man?
Because I have experience.
I know what happens and I know why we don't just hand out cash.
But I was like, it's a good day.
I want you to have a good day.
I'm going to hand you $20.
And I said, I hope you don't do anything really bad with it, but I hope you do something with it that makes you happy.
When I was a teenager in Chicago, I remember getting off the train.
I was going to the north side of Chicago, the Red Line train.
I was like 16.
I got off the train and there was a guy who was begging.
He was like, hey man, I'm hungry.
And I said, you know what?
I'm gonna give you a good idea.
Let's do this.
I said, I'm not gonna give you any cash, but I walked up to this little kiosk where they sell things.
You know how they sell the magazines and food and stuff?
And I said, pick one food and one drink.
And the guy goes, awesome.
He's like, I'll get the bag of Cheetos, I'll get that Pepsi, and Newport Box 100s.
Okay, those are cigarettes for those that don't know.
And I was like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
I can't buy cigarettes.
And the guy was like, come on, man.
I haven't had a cigarette in so long.
You have an idea?
And I was like, dude, I'm not going to buy you cigarettes.
And the funniest part was the clerk, who was like, I can't sell a 16-year-old to get cigarettes, so you're not getting cigarettes.
And then, so he ended up getting his food.
And then as I was walking away, he asked for more money.
And I was like, dude, man, I'm like, I'm 16, man.
I just gave you like 10 bucks.
That's a lot of money to me.
And he was like, man, I thought you were cool.
And I was like, what, dude?
You know what, man?
Look, this is the issue with when you think you can just give people something because it's going to help them.
It doesn't always.
Some people, it will.
Some people, it won't.
So I'll wrap it up with this, right?
I don't know, I think the dude's, I think he was trying to do something cool.
I think he thought it was going to be fun and exciting and cool.
He does kind of look like, kind of like a jerk, just tossing money in the air.
But I'll tell you what, man.
There's, the way I've explained it over the past few days, and I'll wrap it up with this, we'll keep this one short.
It's Christmas, so I'll probably have shorter segments today.
You know, the left says, we need these programs, we need to give out money, and we need to help people.
The right tends to say, pick yourself up by your bootstraps, you know, individual responsibility.
And I think people closer to the middle will have something closer to like, You know, they say give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man a fish, feed him for the rest of his life.
But just because you teach someone to fish doesn't mean they have a fishing pole or the actual means to fish.
So you can put it this way.
Teach a man a spearfish and teach him how to make a spear and then you feed him for the rest of his life.
Or what we can do is we can figure out what we can do to put them on a positive path that leads them down a road where they slowly improve.
It's not possible for everybody.
It's just not.
So just giving out cash doesn't work.
It doesn't.
But you know what it does do?
I'll wrap it up with this.
What this dude did, I'm sure he made a lot of people really, really happy, at least for one day.
So I've seen these videos about homeless people, and the dudes will like, find a homeless person, they'll say, hey, we're gonna get you cleaned up, we're gonna get you a suit.
We're gonna get you a night at a really nice hotel and get you a fancy meal, get you a toothbrush and everything.
And then you see these homeless people, they cry because it's like being given something really, really nice.
If not for just one day, you feel really, really good, right?
So they maybe fall into the hard times afterwards.
I heard stories about homeless people who fall into, they come upon windfalls of cash, and then it's very quickly, they're back in the same position.
But at least for that one day, life was perfect.
And that's the thing about Christmas, right?
That's why I think there's—this is still—I still respect what he did to a certain degree.
It's the holiday, man.
We can't fix everyone's problems.
We can't make everybody self-sufficient.
I don't know what we do.
We certainly don't want to just let them die.
I mean, look, if there are people who can't take care of themselves and they're getting sick in the streets, I mean, that's going to spread disease.
It's bad for everybody.
But for the most part, no, we're kind, gentle humans.
We want to protect people.
We want to help people.
We want to help those who can't help themselves.
Especially on Christmas, when that's like, I don't know, like the principal message of Christianity.
I'll give you, you know what I'm gonna do?
I'm gonna wrap up, for all of you Christmas fans, with something that you can tell your friends and family.
And I hope for those that made it this far, you'll appreciate this story.
I've told it before.
I grew up Catholic until I was like 10 and then my family left the church and we went
to public school and we had like a falling out and my parents kind of just got over it.
I don't know, I just stopped caring.
I don't know how to explain it but we just stopped going to church.
It stopped becoming a part of our lives.
And so I went from being, you know, decently Catholic to just like all of a sudden secular
atheist out in the world.
There was nothing around me that was religious in any way.
So I grew up, excuse me, I started, I grew up, I was, you know, more punk rock and I
was very arrogant and very atheist.
Very much like, there's no God, religion is stupid, why do these people believe all this stupid backwards bronze age nonsense, blah, blah, blah.
And then I met this dude who was like a moderately popular skateboarder and I was really excited.
I was like, oh, this dude's so cool, you know what I mean?
Like, it felt cool to be able to hang out with the cool kids.
And I go to his, he invites me to come jam, like hang out at his place with some friends and stuff.
I'm like, yeah, yeah, let's chill.
I go to his house and he's got a picture of Jesus on his wall.
And I'm immediately like, Jesus?
Like, what are you, Christian or something?
And he was like, no.
And I was like, then why do you have a picture of Jesus on your wall?
And he was like, I just thought a story about a dude traveling around helping people was a cool story.
And I was like, and that was a big, that was a formative moment for me.
And that helped open my mind to like, made me realize I didn't really understand what I thought I understood.
I thought I was arrogant, I thought I knew everything.
And I thought when I saw that picture, I knew exactly who this person was gonna be, right?
These religious people, I know who they are.
And it turns out, no, the dude wasn't religious at all.
He was just like, you know, at its core, Jesus was a dude who traveled around helping people.
Look, you can argue with all the horrible things done in the name of religion, and you can argue with the weird laws of the ancient era, but there are a lot of really important things that have come out of religious texts that we've retained to this day.
Most notably is Blackstone's formulation, the presumption of innocence, and the general idea that Jesus is a dude who traveled around helping people, telling people to be good and kind to one another.
You can't argue with it, man.
Look, you can take issue with religion.
I'll look to someone like Bill Maher, who's very...
Atheist, and he did that show, that documentary Religulous, and I have absolutely no problem with people who question religion.
I just think it's important to respect other people and not to be pessimists about everything.
You know, there's a lot of people on the left, and to an extent on, you know, certain factions of the right, who hold just general disdain for people of any religion, and I don't think so.
I don't assume the worst.
I'm not a pessimist.
You know, if someone is going around preaching good things, And saying this is the stuff we want, like it's the better parts of this faith tradition, I'm totally okay with that.
And if you're inspired by someone today, if you're inspired by somebody who today is their birthday, and their life story is essentially about helping people, saving lives, and trying to make people be kinder to one another, I mean, we need a lot more of that, especially today.
So, I'm not going to sit here and pretend like Christian conservatives in the United States have always been perfect, peaceful, loving individuals, because I know a lot who are absolutely not.
But just because people would, you know, pretend to be acting in the name of someone, you know, who is supposed to be loving and caring and preaching, you know, peace and love for all people, it doesn't mean they actually believe anything about this.
So, the way I see it is, if the core of the story and what people are really spreading is Love, kindness, respect.
It's a good thing.
And don't let the naysayers, the pessimists, and the deceivers trick you into thinking you can't respect someone, even if you don't believe.
You know, I'll put it this way.
To all of my secular atheist friends who may be watching, and to all of my, you know, Christian, Christmas-worshipping, celebrating friends, You know, the way I see it is, I'm not super concerned as to whether or not Jesus Christ was a real person, because the story for me is enough.
And that was something I learned 15 years ago.
It's just a story about a guy who was helping people.
And if you can't be down with that, then I think you need to reflect on, you know, what you're doing with your life.
And so I'll wrap this up too for all of the other religions.
I apologize if I don't know enough about your religions.
Unfortunately, I grew up Catholic and the only real thing I understand is Christianity.
I don't know a whole lot about what Hanukkah is or what they celebrate.
I know that I lived in a Jewish neighborhood and there was a lot of Chinese food.
It was awesome because that's what I did.
I'm not really celebrating anything.
But yeah, anyway, I'll wrap it up.
I hope that was a good early morning Christmas video for all of you guys.
The greatest gift you have all given to me is just simply watching my videos.
It's been a blast, so I look forward to another year.
New projects, got a studio being built, and hopefully I will have more segments coming up for you later today.
It's Christmas, very few people are working, but I'm going to be working through it, and yeah, just doing my thing.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you all in the next segment, presumably at 1pm.
Click the bell to get notifications because, you know, holidays, I can't, it's hard to know exactly, but I think I do have segments planned for the rest of the day, so I will see you then.
Once again, Merry Christmas, and we have some wonderful Christmas news.
Virginia Governor Northam increases corrections budget in anticipation of jailing gun owners.
Now, the story sounds much more shocking than I think it really is, but I do think it has some massive weight to it.
It's essentially talking about a budget increase of $250,000, which will go towards an increase in the operating cost of adult correctional facilities resulting from the enactment of Ralph Northam's new gun control measures.
Flipped red to blue very, very quickly.
And it's true that most Democrats are not fans of guns, nor are they gun owners.
But most... I don't wanna say most, but many independent voters are.
People who aren't tribalistic, just regular Americans.
And conservatives are... Well, very... I mean, you get it, right?
Conservatives, gun owners, more likely to defend gun rights.
Here's what we're going to do.
We're going to do a Christmas gun special, but I want to read the story, and I've got some stuff pulled up I want to talk about.
Notably, demographics in politics as it pertains to guns, because for me, I'm kind of annoyed that the narrative in politics is always that liberals don't like guns, or the left doesn't like guns, or that only conservatives want guns.
But the reality is, there are a ton of blue states on the East Coast that are very rural and these people want guns and they want their gun rights
protected.
And that's why Bernie Sanders had a decent amount of support back in 2016.
Now he's definitely playing that mainstream establishment game, which I'm not a fan of,
but he made some good points.
First, let's see just how serious this is and what's going on in Virginia.
And I wanna stress that I've made this point before.
I'm absolutely concerned.
The dramatic flip of Virginia, I mean, it took 18 years, okay?
So it sounds like a long time, but it's now completely blue, and you have deep red pockets and blue, you know, immigrant urban areas.
This is a worrisome culture clash, and we're seeing the emergence of Second Amendment sanctuary zones popping up.
This is, I don't know, man, it's freaky.
Because this could result in actual conflict, and as bad as things have been over the past few years, it is kind of worrisome.
So, I will say this.
If you are a gun owner in Virginia, it looks like they're slowly inching towards dealing with you, to say the least.
Now, I definitely, I always want to try and keep things toned down.
I don't want to act like the end is nigh, the sky is falling.
It's $250,000, and it looks like it's for the state, so it's not really a lot of money, but let's read.
The Daily Caller reports—actually, this is from the NRA, I suppose, so gun rights advocates are writing this, I would imagine.
I mean, well, it's conservative, so let's read.
They say as if Virginia Governor Ralph Northam's wholesale attack on law-abiding gun owners wasn't enough.
The disgraced public official and his Michael Bloomberg-bought allies in the General Assembly now want the state's hardworking taxpayers to foot the bill for their unconstitutional schemes.
The budget bill, HB30, includes an appropriation of a quarter million dollars to carry out a host of gun control measures that Northam and his anti-gun allies hope to enact.
The $250,000 is appropriated to the Corrections Special Reserve Fund in order to provide for the, quote, increase in the operating cost of adult correctional facilities resulting from the enactment of Northam's gun control measures.
Among the enumerated laws that this allocation is meant to fund is a ban on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms, the criminalization of private firearms transfers, and gun confiscation orders issued without due process.
Aside from the insult of forcing law-abiding Virginia taxpayers to pay for the diminution of their rights, the gun control allocation is a severe waste of resources.
Northam's Bloomberg-backed gun control measures will not make Virginia safer.
Okay, I got a lot of problems with this article and it's really annoying for me to read.
I don't like that they keep saying Bloomberg-backed and it's like very sensational and bombastic.
The Daily Caller is mostly credible, and there's very few outlets that are actually talking about this appropriation.
And so I thought it would be interesting to dive into what's going on with Virginia gun control issues outside of this.
So there is a serious concern, now that the Democrats control everything in Virginia, that their ideology has just kind of inched out.
The Republicans, right?
So we're not talking about an overwhelming majority of the state all agreeing that they should do something about guns.
We're talking about just enough to take control of the state-level government and now wanting to increase budgets for corrections and, you know, I don't know, criminalize certain weapons and things like that.
And as I decided to talk about this, for me, I wondered why I cared.
Look, I'm not a gun person.
Never have been.
I grew up in Chicago.
We had a lot of gun problems.
But I think there are some interesting arguments that are being ignored by the left.
And I think what we're seeing here does play into one of the issues I have with Democrats.
And as I've explained it before, they don't know when to stop.
They don't know when they've gone too far or they don't know how to like kind of stop and assess and figure out if what they're doing is working or not.
And I think there's an interesting correlation between people who are very, very pro-government and people who want to enact laws without looking at what those laws are doing.
The way I've always explained private versus public is that, and I think most of you get this because this is basically true, a private business can fail.
If somebody opens a business that creates some kind of object, and then nobody wants that object, the business ceases to exist because they can't collect resources.
The government, however, will just take it at gunpoint, even if the program is failing.
So if you have a welfare program that is becoming bloated, it's not helping anybody, it's actually hurting families, at what point are people going to stop and ask, is this actually helping people?
And that's the big problem I see on the left.
They never do that.
And they dismiss conservatives as being callous for thinking there's a problem.
I look at both and I think that, well, you gotta look a little bit further.
For one, when you see the Democrats take over in certain areas, I'm gonna have to, I'll be the first to admit it.
You know, as somebody who actually grew up in these areas and likes some of these programs,
they're not doing right by fixing the problems.
They take a look at a surface level, you know, solution without calculating as to what's
going to happen next.
And then when things get worse, if they refuse to stop, they just double down.
So some people have brought up, and I don't want to act like there's a correlation or
it's a fact, but they say, you look in the past and back in the 60s when there were no
gun-free zones and stuff, we had very little mass shootings.
I think the real issue is now that we have more or less, I think there were shootings happening all the time, it's that there are substantially more people.
And if a small percentage of people, and it's a percentage, will commit crimes, as you get more people, you will see that number increase, even though lethal violence is going down for a lot of reasons.
But we also have rapid communications, so people are assuming there's more things happening than there really are.
And not only that, when you look at Chicago, I think it's safe to say that the gun control measures they've enacted haven't really done anything to solve any of these problems because Chicago has serious gun violence.
The problem isn't whether there's a law or there isn't.
The problem is the culture of violence and people wanting the quickest means to hurt someone they don't like.
So, if you pass a law in Chicago saying we're going to ban this weapon, all you're doing is hurting people who follow the law legally, not the people who are going to commit the crime anyway.
I know, conservatives say that all the time, but the point is it doesn't matter if the law exists or it doesn't.
Adding the law won't change, increase or decrease.
Taking it away won't increase or decrease.
It'll just result in people going to jail.
Hence, we see the story from The Daily Caller saying they're going to increase the budget for corrections, even though it's only $250,000.
You've got to understand it's a tiny, tiny amount of money when it comes to a statewide budget.
And I'll point out, listen, I, you know, constantly calling it Bloomberg-backed, I do not like Mike Bloomberg, but we can leave that out of it and talk about what's going on.
I really, really don't like this game that you see played where, you know, they'll blame the Koch brothers, they'll blame Soros.
Listen, man, people finance things.
It's a fact.
It happens.
Let's talk about the problem at hand, not, you know, try to create a supervillain as, you know, it reminds me Okay, I'm gonna go off on a tangent real quick.
It reminds me of Wonder Woman, right, if you've seen the movie, where she blames Ares, the god of war, instead of the fact that people are at war.
Okay, so if Mike Bloomberg is doing something illegal, let's call out what he's doing that's illegal.
If Soros, if the Koch brothers are doing things that are illegal, call it out.
If they just happen to be industrialists and wealthy individuals funding things, okay, it's fine to point it out, but let's talk about what the real issue is.
And here's what I really want to drive home right now.
Maybe a bit of light at the end of the tunnel for some conservatives.
It's that this data from Pew shows that independents, a large portion of them, personally own guns.
12% don't, but they know someone or someone in their house does.
And they say the net gun in household, 48% among Independents and 57% among Republicans, but only 25% among Democrats.
But that's still 1 in 4 Democrats that has a gun in their house.
It's still about, you know, 1 in 6, 1 in 7 Democrats who literally owns a gun.
I know many left-wing people who have weapons.
You know, I don't need to elaborate on that, right?
They say this.
Among Republican-leaning people, it's 56%.
Among Democrat-leaning people, it's 30%.
You know what that means?
It means the gun owners in this country are still making up a strong majority.
Strong majority.
Because if you just go by leaning Republican, leaning Democrat, we can see that you have, still, a large portion of the country has weapons.
And it seems, I'm not gonna go through all the math real quick, but there's still more people who like it than they don't.
And this is one of the big challenges for Democrats right now, is they chase the woke Twitterati.
And people look to Virginia.
This is all just more information, in my mind, that shows the Democrats are in serious trouble.
Because guess what?
You might say, Oh, Democrats don't want guns.
Democrats are stupid, don't understand gun laws and all that stuff.
Maybe in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles.
But what about New Hampshire?
What about Boston?
You know, well, not so much Boston, but Massachusetts in general.
Vermont.
Bernie Sanders, when he campaigned, he said, we're talking about urban versus rural issues.
It's not just about, you know, gun issues.
Granted, I think his positions have evolved as he's tried to pander to more urban liberals, so I take issue with that.
But the fact is, there are rural northeastern states Completely blue, safe blue, full of Democrats, and they want their guns.
And there are union, working class, blue dog Democrats in the middle of this country who have always voted Democrat, always supported unions, and they also want guns.
So I'll tell you what.
We in the United States, we got problems.
We do.
Are they gun problems?
Peripherally, okay?
To act like the problems we face aren't due to guns, or I'm sorry, they don't involve guns is wrong, but are they due to guns?
Absolutely not.
Some people try and say it's mental health issues.
I don't even necessarily think that's fair to say either.
We do have mental health issues, but you have to recognize when it comes to mass tragic events with weapons, there are going to be more of those as population increases Period.
And because of mass communications, you're gonna see them more, and it's gonna seem like it's worse than it's ever been.
But think about what it would have been like a hundred years ago.
If there was some kind of mass tragic event that happened in, say, I don't know, Sacramento, and you lived in Chicago, how long until you heard about it?
Well, a hundred years ago, maybe it would take a day or two, a couple days, maybe you wouldn't even hear about it.
Because even if it traveled by wire or radio or, you know, someone on horseback or train or whatever brought that message to the middle of the country, It might not even, you know, permeate through the various people before it gets to you.
Now we're all sitting on our phones and we can see it all happening in real time and it seems like the problems are getting worse.
Now, because of this, you have the initial problem I talked about, and this is what I'll wrap up with.
Democrats have a problem of refusing to look back and addressing, here's what we did, here's what happened, should we go back and remove that?
It doesn't seem to ever happen.
Okay, and it's not just Democrats, but it is, you know, as the Democrats try to expand gun control, as they try to expand, you know, more regulation, this is the problem I think we're seeing.
There needs to be a point at which the left can recognize they've gone far enough, We need to reassess and then we need to either get rid of the program, reshape it, reverse it, and figure out if it worked.
Long story short, the main point of this is I do want to make sure it's like The reason why I want to talk about Virginia is that it's freaking me out.
It really, really is freaking me out.
I don't know if you're freaked out by it.
I know a lot of gun owners and 2A people are freaked out by it.
I am not a gun person.
I likely will never own one, and I actually do lean in favor of gun control laws.
I understand.
I've had arguments with conservatives about it, and my opinions are somewhat loose considering I don't think I know everything about weapons.
I do think the Democrats have serious problems in not knowing what weapons are, and you can't regulate something you don't know, like you don't know what it is.
But I think the bigger issue, which really freaks me out, is that Virginia is making these changes very rapidly, very aggressively, and they're telling people, basically, we don't care what you think.
And so this is the danger of rule by, you know, oppression by the majority.
If certain urban areas are now dominating the political landscape, and it's giving power to people who are ideologically very, very far away from the average American, or at least the slight majority of Americans, you're going to start seeing people take action that's very unpopular.
But more importantly, when we look at, say, red flag laws, this is why Virginia is freaking me out.
With the enactment of red flag laws, basically laws saying someone can go to a court, say they think you're dangerous, and the police can come and confiscate your weapons.
That is nightmarish and dangerous and it should not be done.
And it's already resulted in people dying.
What was the point of passing this law if people who otherwise wouldn't have committed any crimes or hurt anybody are now dead because of it?
That's scary.
I understand the idea of a red flag law.
On the surface, it makes sense.
Is it going to work?
It probably will not because of 3D printing and 3D milling.
And people can make these things at home and they can get ghost weapons and ghost ARs.
This is not the solution.
These are regressive policies.
They're authoritarian policies.
And when you look at what happened with red flag laws, what do you think is going to happen now when Governor Northam It starts talking about confiscating commonly owned sporting rifles, accusing people of owning weapons of war, when they continually demonize people just because it earns them brownie points in their urban districts.
It's not going to play out well.
And if the red flag laws are any indication, Virginia is starting to freak me out.
And you know what?
Maybe it's nothing.
Maybe it's nothing, but I tell you this.
If there are people who have deep-seated beliefs about their right to own weapons and why they're allowed to own them, and they're law-abiding citizens who do no harm, I think people should be trained, absolutely.
Accidental deaths are a serious issue, and people should be held accountable.
When kids get a hold of things, if they're not locked properly, if they're not trained properly, you've got to take serious, serious responsibility when you're holding that much power.
And it is power.
But when you take people who hold these views, and then you put in power people who don't care, they don't know anything about your culture, they don't know anything about your weapons, they don't believe what you believe, and they start imposing laws, or regardless of whether I impose the laws, they announce they're going to increase budgets to come and arrest people?
We're looking at dominoes falling over in a dangerous direction.
And as we've seen over the past few years with the dramatic escalation of political violence, political partisanship, the last thing we need is this.
Overzealous, ideological, and ignorantly driven laws and a threat to gun owners.
Look man, I don't have a weapon.
I don't plan on owning one.
I get why people do own them and I try to listen to them because I really want to figure out a solution.
But the solution is not to say, perhaps we should increase the budget on how we detain and arrest people who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
Because even if you just say that, you will find people rushing to the store, buying guns and saying, pry it from my cold dead hands.
It is rhetoric that adds to the escalation and that's something we do not need right now.
So I'll tell you what, man.
Too many people I've talked to do not know anything about weapons.
And I'll be the first to admit, I know very little, too.
Relative to these people who actually train, buy weapons, most of you who watch who actually own weapons, who've actually put them together, taken them apart, cleaned them, gone to training, I know very little.
I know one thing.
I know one thing.
I know that I know very little.
So it's not for me to come and say, here's what has to happen, because I've listened to the arguments from both sides about mass tragic events.
You know, in Chicago, one of the problems is people go to Indiana to buy weapons where it's easier to bring them back to Chicago.
Well, if your proposal is some kind of like nationwide background check or something, then it has to be done in tandem with You know, gun rights advocates.
It has to be done in a way that people would agree.
And it might not be in the form that the left wants.
I certainly think there are solutions to deal with crazy people getting weapons, absolutely.
The problem is, at the end of the day, there's not going to be any one solution both sides will agree to.
And I understand the argument from the right being that you give the left an inch and they'll never stop.
And that's true.
And this is an example of it.
That's the point I was making.
Once they enact that program, they won't stop and check to see if it made sense.
So now we can see that gun-free zones have a lot of gun violence.
You know, maybe not relative, but there tends to be gun violence in gun-free zones.
The argument then would be that it didn't do anything.
Should we then stop and assess and say maybe that didn't make sense?
Anyway.
You get the point.
I don't talk about guns a whole lot.
It is admittedly a slow news period.
But, you know, I've got some stuff to talk about.
So I figured I would talk about this.
I don't want to act like it's the end of the world.
But I will stress that point that this stuff kind of freaks me out because if you think people aren't serious when they say, my cold dead hands, you need to look up these stories about red flag laws and what literally happens when the police show up randomly saying, turn over your weapons.
People say no.
I don't own a weapon.
and there is no reason for us to escalate to that point.
And at a certain point, the government needs to take responsibility
for causing that situation.
But what can I say, man?
I don't own a weapon.
I just know that we need to have a system where...
Nah, I'm gonna wrap it up.
This will be too long.
My point is, you know, policy-wise, people say like, oh, here comes Tim defending guns again.
He must be a conservative.
It's like, not in the least.
One in four Democrats lives in a house with a gun.
One in six or seven actually owns one, okay?
And the Democrats seem to think they're ideologically, you know, walking in lockstep.
They're not.
This is going to be bad for them come 2020, I assure you.
And it was said, when Beto O'Rourke said he was going to come and confiscate your weapons, there was one Democrat who said that will haunt them for years to come, for generations to come.
I'll wrap it up.
Stick around.
I believe I will have another segment coming up at 4 p.m.
on my main channel, youtube.com slash timcast.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all there.
The J.K.
Rowling saga continues.
Many of you may be familiar with the musings of Miss J.K.
Rowling, the creator of the Harry Potter series, as she has gone on Twitter to retcon her series to make certain characters gay or people of color or whatever.
Many people saw that as pandering to the woke, outraged culture of Twitter.
Well, eventually it came back to bite her in the behind, because she tweeted in defense of a woman who tweeted that biological sex was real, so then According to the principle of woke outrage, J.K.
Rowling becomes a TERF, a trans-exclusionary radical feminist, by proxy, and then in turn herself a TERF.
It's complicated.
I don't know all the rules.
But suffice it to say, she dared crossed the woke outrage left, and now they're resurfacing old critiques from decades-old movies to come after her.
You see, in the Harry Potter films, they have a very peculiar depiction of what they refer to as a goblin.
And the goblins are little hook-nosed creatures who are cunning and clever and covet gold!
And they're bankers.
So many people, you know, when it first came out, gave like, you know, a look to each other like, what, what, this kind of, oof, this kind of, is this anti-semitic?
But most people said nothing.
And from then on, no one has really cared that the goblins are hook-nosed little bankers.
Even though some people did think there might be some anti-semitism in there.
Maybe it was an accident.
Well, here's the thing.
You see, J.K.
Rowling, because you've crossed the woke outrage left, they are now going to say, no, you're an anti-Semite.
That's literally what's happening now.
You see, once the floodgates have opened, it's all gonna come rushing back.
So they're digging into a very, very old movie series, now we're over like a decade or so old, to say, yes, J.K.
Rowling, you are anti-Semitic, first.
We had the whole controversy over the trans tweet thing.
We then see this story.
This is from Hey Alma.
I don't know what it is.
It's just some website.
There's probably a bunch of stories that are similar.
And they ask this.
Are the goblins in J.K.
Rowling's Harry Potter anti-Semitic?
Even if she didn't intend to, many people find the creatures offensive.
And that was six days ago.
Well, Using the principle of Purple Monkey Dishwasher on the internet, we can then surmise that it would take only about six days to get... Harry Potter's Gringotts Goblins are definitely anti-Semitic propaganda.
The principle of Purple Monkey Dishwasher is a reference to The Simpsons.
It's talking about the game of telephone, where as the game of telephone continues, things get crazier and crazier, and eventually you end up with some nonsensical word.
But in the principle of social media woke outrage, here's what happens.
J.K.
Rowling says something offensive.
People then write—or offensive, I guess fake offensive—and then people write about it saying, oh, I'm so angry, oh, harumph, I say.
Those articles get a bunch of attention.
Everybody wants to know what's going on, so they click the article with J.K.
Rowling and say, why's everybody mad?
In order to get more traffic, you need to one-up the game.
So then articles start popping up saying, you know, it may have been anti-Semitic to depict little bankers as greedy hook-nosed goblins, right?
But then, using the same principle, in order to get more traffic from this concept, six days later, we can see how media evolves.
I've talked about this before.
It's a really good example of this media principle where... It happened to Donald Trump, right?
The first thing they write is, Donald Trump maybe, you know, says something that some people say is racist.
You know, he says something offensive.
The next day, they want to get another million views.
They can't write the same article.
And they can't write a lighter article saying, no, no, it was a mistake.
Trump's not a bigot.
It needs to be more shocking.
So they say, is Donald Trump racist?
Two days later, Donald Trump is racist.
Two days later, Donald Trump is the worst racist.
And then finally, Trump is literally Hitler.
That's what we're seeing right here.
First, J.K.
Rowling's a bigot.
She's a TERF.
Was it antisemitic for her to do the goblins this way?
And then, finally, we have this.
No, it literally was.
Now, I'll admit, take a look at this picture, and I gotta say, you know, I don't think they're wrong in trying to argue that it was antisemitic to make wrinkled-faced, hook-nosed little goblins working as bankers, because I think it does fall in line with, like, old antisemitic propaganda.
But I don't think it was on purpose.
I mean, I don't even think that it was J.K.
Rowling who made the depictions of the goblins.
I mean, she wrote the book.
I don't know what was in her head.
When I think of the word goblin, I imagine little green creatures, you know, like World of Warcraft or Lord of the Rings or something.
But I guess that's how they view goblins.
They're just short, humanoid, pale, gray-haired, big-nosed creatures.
And, yeah, it's really weird because, like, the noses aren't hooked, like, they're not, like, pointy, like, you know, a lot of depiction of goblins, they're, like, green creatures, they're, like, twisted faces.
No, these just look like people, like wrinkly old people.
It's kind of weird.
But I'll show you something.
I'm gonna give a shout out to my friends over at the GamerGazi subreddit.
You may be familiar with GamerGazi.
They refer to themselves as SJWs.
And they posted a link to this article.
It's actually how I found it.
And the top comment says, you know, if someone would have posted this a year or so ago, I would have argued that at the very worst, it was unintentional.
After the past year, no effing way.
Rowling must be a Corbin supporter and it's got two upvotes.
For those who aren't familiar, Jeremy Corbyn was leading the Labour Party, and people call him, well, he's an anti-Semite, right?
No, she thinks supporting Corbyn is the same as supporting Trump, dirty liberal that she is.
Whatever.
The point is, at least one person who tweeted is saying she must have done this on purpose.
Now, let's be real, okay?
She did consult on it, it's my understanding.
Like, they said, here's what we're gonna do, here's what we're gonna make, what do you think?
And she said, go for it.
I'm not entirely sure.
She went there and said, To me, a goblin is a short individual with a big nose and a pinstripe suit who covets gold and works in a bank.
I don't think that's literally what she said.
I think she did write—actually, no, I take that back.
I mean, she did write the description of the goblins.
That was probably—look at this picture!
It's so nuts, okay?
And they have, in this article, like, they have—this is amazing.
They actually show, to prove it is, old-school anti-Semitic propaganda to prove—so let's read.
From PopDust, they write, You too can experience the wonder of entering through vaulted
bank doors and handing your hard-earned coin to greedy money-grubbing
little men with long crooked noses, receding hairlines, and shifty
eyes.
Okay, when it's written out like that, it sounds very anti-Semitic.
But don't worry.
These aren't Jews.
They're goblins.
Sure, the goblin's trait sounds similar to Nazi-era propaganda, but that's probably because they both play off banking tropes.
It's not like they look similar.
They show this.
Oh, damn.
The Gringotts' goblins are totally coded as anti-Semitic Jewish stereotypes.
Here's the thing.
J.K.
Rowling almost definitely didn't do this intentionally.
Okay, that's fair.
If anything, the Harry Potter novels are, by and large, anti-fascist in nature.
Voldemort is a dictator aiming to eradicate half-blooded wizards.
Not true.
He wants to get rid of, like, the messy... He wants wizard superiority, basically.
It doesn't get more blatant than that.
Rowling also borrowed and pestiched from all sorts of fantasy and folklore while writing Harry Potter.
So it's likely that a lot of the Goblin's more anti-Semitic features are actually related to older fantasy affairs surrounding bankers.
It just so happens that those were probably inspired by anti-Jewish propaganda.
Of course, the intention hardly matters.
The fact of the matter is that the Gringotts Goblins are absolutely coded as anti-Semitic Jewish stereotypes, propelling an image that has been and continues to be used against Jewish people by supporters of racist and nationalist ideologies.
This goes beyond mere physical imagery, too.
I'm just going to stop here.
It's so strange to me that they're trying to make nationalists, like, anti-semitic.
It's like, dude, everybody has a country and they wave their flag.
I can go to literally any country in the world and they have a flag.
It's a weird thing to try and shoehorn in here.
If you want to talk about, like, I don't know, supremacist groups and anti-semitic conspiracy theorists, which can exist on the left or the right, fine.
Certainly you've got left-wing antisemites who are total globalists.
And then they say globalist is also antisemitic.
You know what, man?
These people are all nuts.
In Sorcerer's Stone, the caring Hogwarts groundskeeper Hagrid, who raises monsters as a passion, warns Harry about the goblins before he enters Gringotts.
They're goblins, Harry.
Clever as they come goblins, but not the most friendly of beasts.
This is especially biting considering the fact that in the world of Harry Potter, goblins are not beasts, but rather a fully sentient, intelligent race much like humans.
So are you saying they're saying Hagrid is racist?
In Goblet of Fire, we learn about goblin creditors who hold debts in the highest regard and are willing to pursue a debtor to the end of the earth, taking everything he has if he cannot repay them As was the case with Ludo Bagman.
In Deathly Hallows, Griphook, the only goblin we come to know personally, betrays Harry by turning him over to the Gringotts' guards when Harry tries to destroy one of Voldemort's Horcruxes.
This happens after Harry saved Griphook's life, showing that goblins have little loyalty outside of that to money.
Ultimately, the depiction of goblins in Harry Potter is extremely negative.
Not only are they physically repulsive, but they are sneaky, dangerous, and disloyal, caring only about themselves and their money.
These traits are identical to the anti-Semitic propaganda that has spread throughout history.
So here's the point, okay?
I don't need to go through this whole thing.
You may have actually heard about this before, that she's been accused of making anti-Semitic tropes.
I'm gonna tell you something.
I could be wrong.
I'm not super familiar with a depiction of goblins in this way outside of Harry Potter.
Like, in World of Warcraft, goblins are green.
They have big ears and big noses.
They're engineers.
They are greedy.
But they're not suit-wearing, pinstripe bankers.
So, I mean, maybe I'm just wrong about that.
I've played Magic the Gathering my whole life.
Goblins in Magic the Gathering are also, like, oafish, club-wielding, green creatures.
They're not bankers with white skin, gray hair, and trading gold.
That's something very different.
So, I'm not going to accuse J.K.
Rowling.
The point of this video is just to highlight one important fact.
When J.K.
Rowling crossed the woke left, this is what happened.
Because this movie has been around for a very, very long.
The movies.
They've been around forever.
Why now?
Why now are they coming out at J.K.
Rowling, accusing her of this antisemitic trope?
This is how the machine churns.
Look at this.
December 19th.
December 25th.
This is how the machine churns.
They don't care if you're a bigot or make tropes so long as you bend the knee to them when they ask.
But then when you actually say something out of line, and you offend their religion, they will dig through your past, and all of these articles will start popping up.
Welcome to the gravy train, J.K.
Rowling.
Money is to be made in pointing out that you're a bigot.
And that's what's coming next.
But you reap what you sow.
You played the game.
You fueled it.
You helped them.
You retconned things.
And what do you think's going to happen next?
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I've got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Thanks for watching.
That's not true.
That's not fair.
I like Andrew Yang, too.
They excluded her, and many people were wondering why.
It appears we now know.
You see, the Democrats care about unity for money.
It turns out, at least they're being accused, that the reason many people didn't appear in an advertisement for the DNC was because they had to pony up $175,000 to appear in the ad.
And many didn't.
So you may be wondering, if you've seen the ad, why there are some candidates who polled at 0% who appear in an ad for Unity, but people like Tom Steyer or like Tulsi Gabbard would not appear in it.
Well, many people felt that it was a bias.
The Democrats were kicking out Tulsi because she is refusing to play their game.
I certainly think so.
Well, that's technically the case, and that's the game of money.
If you got the money, you're in the party.
You see, the Democrats are increasingly becoming the party of the wealthy.
If you missed the main segment I did at 4 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast, I'd recommend you check it out.
But I point out, using left-wing sources like Vox.com, the Democrats represent the wealthy.
So how many Democrats could afford to pay $175,000 to appear in the ad?
The wealthy ones.
For the most part.
Well, Tom Steyer has the money, but apparently he stood back on principle.
Let's read the story and see exactly what happened.
The Daily Caller reports, Yang Bennett rip Democrats for cowing to billionaires after
DNC posts video of candidates but leaves out Tulsi.
Senator Michael Bennett lit into the Democratic National Committee Christmas Eve
for supposedly engaging in pay-to-play politics after the party posted a video excluding him and other
third-tier candidates.
The Democratic Colorado senator criticized the DNC for posting a video that included only candidates, quote, who ponied up six figures.
The video includes former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and billionaire businessman Tom Steyer.
Okay, I'm sorry.
Tom Steyer was in it.
It was Bennett who was complaining.
My bad.
Correction.
Both of whom are running for president as a Democrat in 2020.
Here's the tweet.
With less than a year until November 3rd, 2020, we must come together now and work toward the common goal of defeating Donald Trump and sending a Democrat to the White House.
Join us today.
Bennett and Democratic Rep Tulsi Gabbard were not included in the DNC's video, which is part of a fundraising push for the DNC's Democratic Unity Fund.
Hard to come together when you're only including candidates in the video who ponied up six figures, Bennett said on Tuesday.
Neutrality and unity shouldn't come at a price, but for the DNC it does, and that amount is $175,000.
So yeah, we read that.
The DNC is making clear that pay-to-play politics is the name of the game.
If we want to get money out of politics, it has to start with us.
Wow, Democrats!
Truly proving the hypocrisy of the machine.
I'm glad Tulsi Gabbard didn't pony up the money, assuming she was even invited in the first place, because it's ridiculous that they're gonna try and play this game of, we're unified in fighting Trump, for money.
They wanna claim their, you know, time and time again.
We've got examples of the Democrats claiming to oppose one thing and then absolutely supporting it.
You've got Democrats going around saying, oh, fake news is bad, we gotta stop fake news, and then going and lying, and pushing fake conspiracies about Ukraine being a conspiracy, when in fact it's actually real!
You got Chuck Todd over on MSNBC laughing at Ted Cruz because Ted Cruz believes news reporting from the New York Times?
Yeah, they claim to fight fake news and they push the fake news.
All of the big top stories that, you know, percolated through the United States came from mainstream news sources.
They claim to want to get money out of politics and then they tell you you need $175K to appear in their ad.
So you know what?
Don't be surprised when people like me lean left on politics and despise the Democratic Party.
Now here's the big problem.
You've got people, like, when it comes to politics, yeah, I don't like the Democrats, and then you've got more progressive characters, like Kyle Kalinske, who also doesn't like the Democrats, but I disagree with him because he's too far left.
I think he's a good dude, though.
I think there's a lot of really principled and smart progressives, and I would absolutely recommend, you know, Kyle Kalinske and David Peckman, for instance.
I disagree with him politically.
I don't know where David is so much on this, but Kyle Kalinske's absolutely got no problem with calling out the BS, and I can respect that.
I'd much rather have a political landscape of people who don't like each other for policy reasons, but can trust each other in that we're actually trying to be honest.
Look, man, I don't care if you're the stupidest person in the world, so long as you're not, you know, lying.
You can have dumb opinions about politics and I'll still be your friend.
There's a lot of dumb people in the world.
Could you imagine if you were never friends with a stupid person again?
You'd lose half your friends!
Or half your friends would lose you.
Yeah.
But anyway, let's read.
Other candidates similarly took issue with the DNC's content.
Businessman Andrew Yang, for instance, lambasted the party on Twitter Tuesday for excluding Gabbard before deleting his tweet and noting in an additional post that she did not make the donor threshold.
What does that mean?
In order to make the thing into a donor threshold?
Gabbard, for her part, saw an 11-point drop in net favorability rating among Democratic primary voters after she voted present on articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, according to a December 23rd morning consult poll.
Gabbard registered her vote on December 18th.
And I'll tell you what, man.
I got so much respect for Tulsi for doing that.
And it may feel a bit like falling on your sword, as I explained in the last video, but you know what, man?
She knew.
The Democrats were telling you, like Jeff Van Drew in New Jersey Second, he said a Democrat came to him and said, if you don't support this, I will destroy you.
And so he was like, fine, I'm leaving the party.
Get away from me, you weirdo.
Tulsi knew.
She absolutely knew if she refused to support the impeachment, this is what would happen.
And that's why she flipped.
When impeachment first came out, she said, no, there's nothing here.
And she was right.
She then flipped and said, you know, I've reconsidered.
Now she's saying I think he's guilty.
I don't like she did that.
I don't like that, okay?
But I'll tell you what.
She refused to play the game and she's being punished for it.
And that's a sad, sad thing, you know?
Let me tell you a quick story, right?
Have you ever heard of the Yes Men?
These activist guys?
They pulled off one of the most epic activist stunts in history when they appeared as fake representatives of Dow Chemical on the BBC apologizing for the Bhopal disaster.
Okay, it's all very, you know, there's a lot of history here.
I'm not going to get into the detail, but basically, They pretended to be corporate executives and they said, we're apologizing for a disaster.
And it resulted in a massive stock drop.
The stock of the company was collapsing.
And a lot of people, a lot of activists said it was a good thing.
They punished the company for doing wrong.
In reality, what the yes-men said was, no, it's actually really sad.
The market will punish you for doing the right thing?
That's a huge problem we have.
You've got to give people, you know, when people do the right thing, you've got to praise them for it.
So here we see, Tulsi Gabbard does the right thing, and so the Democrats punish her for it?
Why would I want to be involved in your political party when you're going to punish someone for doing the right thing?
At the very least, they could have said, Tulsi Gabbard was wrong, but we respect her willingness to stand up for what she believes in.
We hope we can make her see the light.
We hope we can change her mind.
She's still welcome in this party if she's willing to talk.
She's not going to earn any favors among Trump supporters because she didn't vote no, and she's going to get flack from the Democrats for not voting yes.
She stood on principle, and she's punished for it.
Welcome to the real world.
That's how it works.
Okay, so we get all that.
Okay, so we get all that.
I think it's interesting that Andrew Yang would tweet, you know, where's Tulsi?
And then I guess he went on to say that the real issue here was that she didn't make the donor threshold.
That was one of the things I did speculate on.
So if that's the case, you know, fine.
I guess Michael Bennett is saying they wanted money from him or whatever the deal is.
I thought it was entirely possible only the people who made the debate stage were gonna appear in the ad, but then there was this other dude, some guy who's running for president who's polling at 0%, like nobody even knows who he is.
So I guess, you know, you know what I should do?
I should pull up this, uh, I'm gonna pull up Bennett's tweet actually.
Okay, now this is the Democrats' tweet.
I don't know what they were linking to then.
Never mind.
But I'm curious as to what Michael Bennett... Oh, I'm sorry.
The actual tweet from Bennett.
This is what I want to pull up.
Okay.
So Michael Bennett is running for president.
He goes on to say that they're making it clear.
I guess... I guess it is what it is.
All right.
Well, the other main issue that I wanted to get to before I wrap things up, I want to make sure that was closed out, is that it seems like the Democrats are kind of...
I don't know, not campaigning for the American people, if you get what I mean.
I'll keep this last little bit short because I do have another segment I want to get to about disinformation, but Jill Biden recently was feeding foreign nationals in Mexico, and the story I don't think warrants a whole segment, which is why I'm just tacking it onto the back of this one, but we've seen now several Democrats go to Mexico to Campaign, I guess you could call it.
Check this out.
In a story back from July, they say Democrats look like they're running for president of Mexico.
Because Cory Booker went down there, Beto O'Rourke went down there, and we have Jill Biden now doing some... Jill Biden attending an event with asylum seekers in Mexico.
Who are you trying to convince that you're fighting for them?
The Democrats want to talk about unity.
Okay, well, unity, you know, the whole ad, that would involve actually unifying with the people who are going to vote for you, right?
So why go to a foreign country and do these things?
Like, who are you trying to convince?
Democrats who care more about foreign individuals than their own citizens?
I think this is really, really bad for the Democrats, man.
This whole campaign, the unity thing, I don't think I even need to really go into great detail because I've made probably 800 videos talking about how the Democrats are completely fractured and who are they even trying to cater to?
You want to talk about who represents the working class of this country, but the Democrats go to foreign countries?
I don't think it's the Democrats.
And I'll put it this way, even the Democratic voters.
If this is supposed to work among Democratic voters, then I don't think the Democratic voters even care about the American citizens either.
And if we're all paying taxes, then who do you think these regular Americans are going to turn and vote for?
So anyway, I want to just briefly mention this one, take it down to the end, so I'll leave it there.
The next segment I want to do talks about the misinformation.
And, you know, it's really funny, Chuck Todd thinking like he's telling the truth.
Thanks MSNBC, sure.
Anyway, stick around.
Next segment's coming up in just a couple minutes, and I will see you all there.
Jay Rosen is a journalism professor who once praised me as the most innovative journalist in the street.
Well, that was a long time ago.
I used to do a lot more field reporting, now I do a lot more desk reporting.
It's kind of a normal track that journalists tend to do.
Many of the journalists you may be familiar with used to actually do field reporting and then eventually just became anchors and pundits and now I think, you know, my big focus is on building a company.
I have other journalists who go out in the field and they do their thing totally independent from me.
But Jay Rosen is a journalism professor who tweeted this.
He says this is a remarkable interview with Chuck Todd.
He admits several times he has been naive about the Republicans' commitment to disinformation.
That's right.
Jay Rosen, journalism professor, is somewhat blaming Republicans for disinformation, but that is also disinformation.
And this, to me, is one of the most offensive things.
I will tell you this.
When a white nationalist goes on YouTube and calls me, you know, ugly or, you know, race mixer or whatever stupid insult they might want to think of, I laugh.
I don't care.
I think a lot of insults can be clever and funny and I just laugh about it because, you know, sticks and stones, right?
But you know what really triggers me and offends me?
The people who are supposed to be the authorities on journalism who lie!
I'll tell you this.
This story about Chuck Todd.
Is a direct reference to Ted Cruz accurately saying that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 US election.
Does that mean that the top-down government had this big plan to hack servers?
No, it doesn't.
It meant that some people who were officials in Ukraine were meddling.
And we know it's true because it's been reported by like 30 different mainstream news outlets.
The only alternative that we can believe is the news outlets were all lying to us.
I guess that's fair to believe too.
So, I can only assume Jay Rosen's literally read the articles from, say, Politico, from The Hill, from the DC Examiner, from the New York Times, from the Washington Post.
The list goes on.
They all exist.
They all talk about this problem that happened with Chalupa and embassy officials.
It happened.
Yet, so why would he push this out and claim Republicans are pushing out disinformation?
Because either he's a complete moron or he's a liar.
Yeah, which is it?
I'm going to go ahead and say I think Jay Rosen is a liar.
And that's coming from someone who actually praised him in the past.
We have this story from Rolling Stone.
How disinformation spreads according to Chuck Todd.
Are you joking?
Of all the people you're going to interview, you get Chuck Todd on here?
Hey, I'll tell you what, Rolling Stone.
You guys have Matt Taibbi on staff.
I believe he's on staff.
Whatever.
He writes for you guys.
So I'll give you some respect because Taibbi is awesome.
But I don't know what the hell this garbage is.
Great, now I'm swearing on Christmas.
Of all days.
YouTube's gonna demonetize me.
Of all days.
Chuck Todd has a front row seat for the spread of disinformation.
Here's how he sees it happening, and the media's rolling it.
Are they saying that he has a front row seat, like, on the stage?
Espousing the fake news?
Because he does.
Because he's also on MSNBC, who for years pushed trash information and spread nonsensical conspiracy theories that even the left criticized because Rachel Maddow lost her mind.
Rachel Maddow, who also was on the verge of tears when the Mueller report came out proving that Donald Trump did not collude with Russia, thanks MSNBC for your years of insanity, and bringing on someone who actually said Donald Trump may have been a Russian asset since 1984.
How nuts.
Let's read.
Chuck Todd is at a front row seat for the spread of disinformation while hosting NBC's Meet the Press.
I'm assuming they say that— I'm gonna go ahead and interpret that to mean a front row seat as the person doing it, but anyway.
Whether it was Kellyanne Conway using the phrase alternative facts to dispute media reports about the crowd size at Trump's inauguration, Senator John Kennedy blatantly using a Russian talking points to blame Ukraine for interfering in the 2016 election, or Ted Cruz spreading Russian conspiracy theories, full stop.
Full stop.
Those last two points were literally the same thing, and they're lies.
Rolling Stone is lying right now.
You know what, man?
If there was anything in this world that made me want to go punch bricks and like bash my monitor and flip the table up and just start howling and stomping around, it's this.
I don't get offended or angry by very much, but blatant lies from despicable, detestable, twisted individuals They're like information demons spewing vomit into the ears of the unsuspecting.
That's what they're doing.
First of all, look at how they framed this.
John Kennedy blatantly using Russian talking points to blame Ukraine for interfering in the 2016 election, and Ted Cruz spreading Russian conspiracy theories.
The conspiracy theory they literally refer to later in the article is the Ukraine meddling in the election.
It's the exact same thing that they just said.
They're framing it in a way to make it seem like they're two different things because they're deceitful.
Because these people are twisted individuals and they know what they're doing.
Man, if there was anybody, if there was anything that would ever drive me to violence, it's those who would try to manipulate through deception, through this kind of deception.
Fortunately, I'm a bit of a pacifist when it comes to this kind of stuff, so no, I deplore violence.
I think the best way to actually confront it is through a video like this.
The challenge is how do we shatter that echo chamber, that bubble?
I don't know.
The reality is people who hate Trump will believe whatever they hear, so long as it's bad about the president.
There are many people who are willing to hear things that contradict their point of view, and it's probably why you watch videos like mine.
But admittedly, you must acknowledge, to a certain degree, you're still getting confirmation bias from me.
I know it.
I just talk about what I feel like, but I have a certain point of view.
And that point of view fits a worldview of people who don't trust the media.
So it's very hard to find people who do trust the media who are going to watch this video and then find reason to not trust them.
I'll tell you this though, if you're less trusting of media in general, you're probably better off.
Don't quote me, I'll quote Thomas Jefferson.
But anyway, let me tell you something, just to get it out of the air.
There are several stories, the New York Times wrote a story saying Ukrainian court rules That there was meddling in the 2016 election from Ukrainian officials.
The New York Times wrote that, man.
Do you want me to say, okay, I won't believe the New York Times?
What happened when Politico wrote it?
Okay, I'll choose not to believe Politico and the New York Times.
The Hill wrote it, too.
I'll choose not to believe them.
The Examiner?
I won't believe all four of them.
Washington Post?
The Financial Times?
I refuse to believe all six separate sources who independently verified the same story.
It's absolutely insane.
And Ted Cruz's position was basically like, I don't think there was a top-down effort from Ukraine to do this, I just think there were some individuals who did.
And Chuck Todd's response was to laugh.
And the people on the show laughed.
And now they're gonna ask him, this guy who's either too dumb to read the news, or who's lying, they're asking him to be an authority?
Let's read more.
I spoke with Todd about the erosion of truth ahead of an upcoming... You know what, man?
It's really hard to read because it makes me so angry.
This is what these people do.
They say, I oppose racism.
And then they're actually racist.
They say, I oppose fascism.
And then they want corporate and governmental control and authoritarian systems to restrict free expression, free speech, and general civil rights in the United States.
They say that they're anti-racist, but they tend to be white, wealthy, educated elites.
They tend to... And then they insult and berate people.
for you know people of color for disagreeing with them.
They claim to support the truth when they are the purveyors of lies and they do it to make
it harder for you to crack through to the people they are tricking, the people they are
manipulating. You know I was I was at the airport um about a week ago and there was a guy who said
something that was just so blatantly false about uh it was about the protests in the northwest and
And when I told him, I was like, actually, no, that's not true.
Yep, and then Rolling Stone props him up, so you know what?
Hey, hey, Matt Taibbi, can you please go and sort this out?
We don't need to act like Ukraine is this evil villain, bigger than Russia, trying to destroy the democracy of America.
But when Ted Cruz accurately points out there's been copious amounts of news reporting, that yes, there were some government officials in Ukraine who did directly interfere, That really happened!
Chuck Todd should not be laughing at it.
Nor should he be getting a Rolling Stones story.
I'd love for Matt Taibbi to go there and be like, hey guys, this is wrong, can you please correct it?
Put a big update.
It turns out Ukraine officials did actually do this, and we're nuts.
So they go on to talk about this, you know, whatever, the biggest problem in 2020, but he goes on to talk about Ted Cruz, and I think, let me, I don't know if I, here we go, let me read this.
He asks, in your recent interview with Senator John Kennedy, he used Russian talking points to defend Trump.
Somehow he gets that disinformation from Russia.
Why do you think Republicans are willing to come on your show and run that exact line?
from Russia.
They're making that up.
They live in this paranoid, delusional state.
Rolling Stone, what is wrong with you?
The Russia collusion thing is nonsense.
It broke apart.
It's not real.
We know that Russia was interfering.
We know there was hacking.
We know that stuff.
But literally not everything is a Russian talking point.
The New York Times is not pushing Russian talking points.
Well, Chuck Todd, being the purveyor of lies, says, Look, I'll just be honest.
When I had the third senator to spread Russian disinformation, Senator Ted Cruz, come on my show and do this, who I did not expect to do this, I started to think he wants the confrontation.
He wants to use this for some sort of appeasement of the right.
You know what, man?
That's as far as I need to go.
Let me tell you something.
They get mad at conservatives because they don't trust the New York Times, and then when the conservatives do trust the New York Times, they accuse them of being conspiracy theorists.
Let me tell you what the United States currently is.
Let me tell you about the state of journalism.
The state of journalism right now is a journalism professor lying to your face.
It is a major magazine lying to your face, propping up a guy who pushes fake information to claim he's the one telling you the truth.
If you watch my videos, you will notice a few things.
99% of every article I read is certified by a third-party fact-checking organization, NewsGuard.
I have openly criticized them.
I have openly countered some of their hypocrisy.
I still think they're typically pretty good, and I recommend them.
I do this because the point is, don't take my word for it.
I have standards.
I don't think I'm always right, and I try to only use sources that are certified by a third-party organization that I personally think is biased in favor of the left.
As a conservative, you may say, that's not fair, Tim.
You're biased in favor of the left.
Yeah, well, heavens, aren't I?
But I actually try and break down the fake news.
So if you see the New York Times, Politico, The Hill, The Examiner, The Washington Post, etc., all saying there is evidence of some form of Ukrainian meddling, well, I think it's fair to say that it's true, at least beyond a reasonable doubt if all of these sources which are certified are going to say it.
What do we do then when Jay Rosen, a professor of journalism, spits in your face with deception and lies?
But people believe it.
I don't know what to tell you, man.
Journalism is dead.
And it's only gonna get worse.
Because I don't think I have all the answers.
I think I have my bias.
I try my best.
I'll tell you this, I think I'm better than a lot of these people, especially people like Rosen, who's gonna prop up this ridiculous trash.
You know, but even I'm not perfect.
It's gonna come down to you.
You gotta fact check everybody, including me.
I'll leave it there.
Merry Christmas.
I hope you had a fun hour and a half.
Podcast every day at 6.30 p.m.
I will see you all at tomorrow.
I will see all of you at 10 a.m.
tomorrow because there ain't no rest for the wicked.
