Michael Moore Predicts Trump 2020 Landslide, But His Betrayal PROVES They Learned NOTHING From 2016
Michael Moore Predicts Trump 2020 Landslide, But His Betrayal PROVES They Learned NOTHING From 2016. In a recent interview Michael Moore told Matt Taibbi that if the election were held today Trump would win hands down. But he went on to say something shockingHe said white men who voted for Trump are bad people and that you should be afraid of them. He said you should cross the street if you see white men walking towards you.Moore has betrayed the working class he once spoke for. In 2016 Moore said Trump supporters were not bad people they just needed someone to fight for them and Trump did. Today those factories are returning. Detroit is clearing land for more factories and plants and the people who voted for Trump are proven right.Moore was wrong about what would happen and instead of being there to support the former union democrats he smears them in the worst possible way.The democrats have learned nothing from 2016 and Moore is the best example. As the economy booms and Trump voters are proven right the only thing we hear from Democrats is impeachment and orange man bad.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In a recent interview with Rolling Stone, Michael Moore said, if the election were held today, Trump would win.
But he also said something I found rather surprising, and this was highlighted by Breitbart, of course, that white guys who voted for Trump are not good people, and you should be afraid of them.
The reason I find that interesting is because it's a complete 180 from what Michael Moore said back in 2016, that he understood why the white working class were voting for Donald Trump.
In fact, there was a viral speech he gave That many Trump supporters said was accidentally one of the greatest bits of campaign material for Donald Trump.
Now, it's true that the quotes were actually taken out of context.
Michael Moore was saying that these voters for Donald Trump are not bad people.
They've just been wronged by the system and they want to send the biggest FU in human history to the establishment.
Now, most of the videos that went viral cut off where he then says things will actually get worse and people will probably regret voting for Donald Trump.
In fact, he was wrong.
Today we can see Michael Moore is actually now not only saying they're bad people, the white working class who voted for Trump, but he also implies they're racial supremacists, saying that Trump's voters regard Michael Moore as a race traitor, which is absolutely not true.
Michael Moore has completely abandoned the white working class he once represented.
Now, a lot of people on the right say he never did represent them.
It's not true.
He made a documentary talking about factory workers, union workers.
He used to speak about blue dog Democrats, union Democrats, who are now voting for Trump in droves.
Today, he says these people are bad and that they're essentially racial supremacists.
It's rather shocking, but it's an example of how the Democrats in the left are actually abandoning the white working class.
I think Michael Moore is the perfect example.
This is an article I highlighted just the other day.
Democrats are replacing Republicans as the preferred party of the very wealthy.
This article comes from Vox.com in 2016, a trend that we saw back then that continues today, which shows, it shows why people would support someone like Donald Trump.
I have to then ask this question.
Why would Michael Moore imply that Trump's voters are not good people?
Why would he turn his back on those he once represented?
And in this interview with Rolling Stone, he gloats about how the angry white man has been removed from power.
What happened to Michael Moore?
Well, I can't tell you.
But I can say he's just an example of what's happened to the Democratic Party as a whole.
Michael Moore made a film called Roger and Me.
He talked about the closing of these factories, these automotive plants, back in 1989.
He talked about how Donald Trump made a threat to these auto execs, that if they pull their factories, he was going to punish them, and he was going to be there for the working class in the Rust Belt, the Rust Belt states that actually voted for Donald Trump.
And now, Michael Moore recognizes that Trump is going to win, I mean, if the election was held today.
I don't know where this logic comes from, but it sounds to me like the only conclusion is that they want Donald Trump to win.
So here's what I want to do.
I want to take a look back.
I want to go back to 2016 and take a look at this quote from Michael Moore when he gave this grandiose speech about the greatest FU in recorded human history where he actually said these are not bad people who are voting for Trump.
And he warned them the economy and life would get worse when in fact it's gotten better.
You see the factories are coming back.
Ford is going to be opening a new plant in Michigan.
Things are working out for these people who felt left behind.
And it breaks my heart to see this because today, when Michael Moore said, I'm warning you, things will get worse, not only was he wrong, but he's in the past few years, not only was he wrong, but he turned his back on these people now insulting them, almost guaranteeing the only place that the white working class in America can go is into the arms of Donald Trump.
If you want to defeat Trump, if you really don't like him, if you really think he's bad, the last thing you should do is demonize his voters.
And it seems like Michael Moore knew that.
One of the biggest advocates for those Blue Dog Democrats is now insulting them.
So let's do this.
Let's get started.
I want to show you what he said.
This is a famously viral video, the statements made by Michael Moore.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's several ways you can give.
There's a crypto option.
There's a PayPal option.
The best thing you can do, however, share this video.
I know there's a lot of people who are absolutely Anti-Trump?
They hate his guts?
Well, I'm not saying you should.
I hope you actually watch this if you made it this far.
Because I want to talk to you about where the economy currently is at.
I want to explain to you why people support this president and why Michael Moore is wrong.
And I want to show you why this progressive and far-left attitude that Michael Moore is now displaying will only guarantee Trump's victory.
So if you really do like this video, please consider sharing it, and maybe we can break some of that echo chamber.
I don't think I'm always right, I don't think I'm perfect, I don't think I have all the answers, but at least I can show you this perspective, and maybe it's something you haven't seen before.
So first, to go back in time, October 26, 2016.
RealClearPolitics wrote this.
Now the video that initially went viral has since been removed.
There are other videos now with dramatic music that still continue to get shared and get play because Michael Moore's message was absolutely on point.
It's They Write.
At a promotional event this week in Ohio for his new film, Michael Moore in Trump Land, the liberal documentarian showed that even if he disagrees with their candidate, he can understand the feelings of Trump voters across the country.
This audio recording of Moore's speech has gone viral among Trump supporters, even though it is taken entirely out of context, given the overall message of Moore's film.
Donald Trump Jr.
retweeted a copy of this video Wednesday morning.
More says, on November 8th, you, Joe Blow, Steve Blow, Bob Blow, Billy Blow, and all the blows, get to go and blow up the whole God-D system, I can't say, I can't, believe it or not, I can't say that on YouTube, because it's your right.
Trump's election is going to be the biggest F you recorded in human history and it will feel good.
He opened it by saying, Michael Moore said this, I know a lot of people in Michigan that are planning to vote for Trump, and they don't necessarily like him that much, and they don't necessarily agree with him.
They are not racist or rednecks.
They're actually pretty decent people.
And so after talking to a number of them, I wanted to write this.
Donald Trump came to the Detroit Economic Club and stood there in front of Ford Motor executives and said, If you close these factories as you're planning to do in Detroit and build them in Mexico, I'm going to put a 35% tariff on those cars when you send them back and nobody is going to buy them.
It was an amazing thing to see.
No politician, Republican or Democrat, had ever said anything like that to these executives.
And it was music to the ears of people in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, the Brexit states.
He goes on to talk about these voters, but keep in mind, what did he say?
What was the first thing he said?
They're not racist or rednecks.
They're actually pretty decent people and they're planning on voting for Trump.
They did vote for Trump.
How does Michael Moore view these people now?
In an interview with Rolling Stone, he said, Two-thirds of all white guys voted for Trump.
That means anytime you see three white guys walking towards you down the street, two of them voted for Trump.
You need to move over to the other sidewalk because these are not good people that are walking towards you.
You should be afraid of them.
Michael Moore's attitude, a complete 180.
When he told us back in 2016, they're not bad people, they're just desperate.
Ford executives are going to take away their jobs and Trump is fighting for them.
He's saying what these people want to hear.
Michael Moore was absolutely correct.
Now, he was wrong, and I'll show you the context here that Trump supporters missed.
But today, it was shocking for me to see him say, you should be afraid of them.
The people he once championed, he understood, he empathized with, he now insults.
He says in this interview, I kid you not, that the other person, the third person, is like him.
The person who didn't vote for Trump.
And the Trump voters view him as a race traitor.
As though the only reason these people voted for Trump is because they're white nationalists.
He understood in the past, and he's wrong today.
And you know what really breaks my heart?
You see, I showed you this article.
The Democratic Party is replacing, you know, the Republicans as the party of the wealthy.
This is Vox, V-O-X, the left-wing website, saying that the Democrats aren't representing you as the working class.
And these people then went to Trump.
Three years later, you'd think they would have learned their lesson, that you need to talk to those who are facing economic strife.
Instead, Michael Moore joined their ranks.
Now, I've heard it.
I've heard it from a lot of people.
They say, Michael Moore was never on the side of the working class.
That's just not true.
He talked about Union Democrats.
That was his base.
Michael Moore is from Michigan.
He talked about these automotive plants.
He said, when Trump came to those four executives and said, if you do this, I'm coming for you, he was talking about the white working class.
Now, I know it's not everyone there who is white.
You know, Flint is not predominantly white, I believe.
Michael Moore was not talking about just white Americans, but he was representing the working class, the people who voted for Trump, who, yes, were not, you know, they are mostly white, for sure, but not everybody.
The point is, Michael Moore today has joined the ranks of those who would demonize the people looking for reprieve, the people who are facing true economic strife, who are terrified.
As these plants closed, their jobs were going to evaporate.
Now, the important thing here is that the true context of Michael Moore's statements in 2016 was that things were going to get worse and you will regret it.
Michael Moore was wrong.
But let me show you this.
You see, Salon.com wanted to rebuke the claims of Trump supporters that Michael Moore was praising them.
They said, Michael Moore, Donald Trump didn't quote me fully.
Well, let me just read it for you.
Only a couple days after that RealClearPolitics article, Michael Moore is distancing himself from Donald Trump's recent praise, saying that the Republican presidential nominee is mischaracterizing both what he said and his latest documentary, Michael Moore in Trump Land.
Appearing on Fox News with Megyn Kelly on Thursday night, Moore took issue with Trump, who said that he agreed with Moore's statement that the Republican campaign is going to be the biggest FU record in human history, and it will feel good.
As Moore pointed out, Trump cut off the clip of his speech after the word good and in the process omitted some crucial context.
The very next line was, for a day or maybe a week.
You see, Michael Moore said, it'll be the biggest F you and it will feel good.
For a day or maybe a week.
He then never once told his tongue, nor took advantage of his appearance on Kelly's show to elaborate.
Quote, when you find out that your life isn't going to get any better under President Trump and will probably get worse, that's when you're going to realize what the Brits have realized post-Brexit.
If we elect Donald Trump as president of this country, it won't be the same country after four years.
I am absolutely convinced of that.
This is the most vile, disgusting candidate that's ever run for office in this country.
Moore also used the opportunity to communicate with Trump supporters themselves.
I understand why you're angry, he explained.
You have every right to be angry.
The system has failed you.
But he is not the solution to this.
Think about what he said back then.
He was warning you things would get worse.
Today, where is Michael Moore, champion of the working class who understood them?
Not only is he implying that you, the white working class individual who lost your job as these factories left your state, he's implying that you're a racial supremacist, that you're not a good person, that people should fear you.
Not only that, he was completely wrong.
And now I'm going to prove it to you.
Ford to invest $1.45 billion in two Metro Detroit plants and add 3,000 jobs.
Michael Moore was warning that under Trump things would get worse.
One of his principal talking points was that Donald Trump threatened the Ford executives that if you pull out he would punish you with tariffs.
So Michael Moore said he knew the problem.
Ford was going to shut down these plants.
He knew that if Donald Trump came in, he would never solve these problems.
And where are we three years later?
Just over three years later, Ford's actually coming back.
Not every job that was lost is being brought back.
Not all the money lost.
But this is a reversal.
The people in Michigan who supported Trump, the people who doubted Trump, they're all realizing Trump actually fulfilled the promise.
The threats he made to these Ford executives turned out to work at least a little bit.
And now we're facing the longest economic expansion in U.S.
history.
Record low unemployment, wage growth, record labor participation, record stock market.
Across the board.
Let me show you some news that will blow your mind.
The main reason I'm showing you this Is because, while I agree with Michael Moore that, I'll say it, Trump, I consider him to be a vile character.
The way he insults people on Twitter, the way he can't keep his mouth shut, it speaks poorly to American culture.
And in 2016, I think one of the most apt statements was that Hillary Clinton was everything wrong with government and Trump was everything wrong with culture.
But you know what?
These people in Michigan?
They have mouths to feed.
They have families to protect.
And that means they will take someone who may be a mean person and a vile character if it means he's gonna do right by them.
Where are we today?
I'm seriously, seriously upset to see that Michael Moore has turned his back on these people who needed someone to reach out their hand.
The appropriate response to people Who voted for Donald Trump is to say, you know what?
I understand why you voted for him.
And Trump did right by you.
We now need to find someone who will do right by you in the economy who's going to be a better character.
The Democrats are not offering that.
They're offering platitudes and deception, claiming the economy isn't doing well.
I'm not exaggerating again.
Look at this.
Democrats' 2020 economy dilemma explained from Vox.com, a left-wing website.
Things are pretty good.
Maybe it's okay to admit it.
They go on to say the only thing the Democrats can do is deny it.
All the leading Democrats argue that actually the economy is bad.
It's not.
Now I understand there are some people who think when you look deeper into the economy, things are actually scarier than they seem.
But by most metrics, things are looking up.
And the Democrats, instead of challenging the true faults of the President, are just lying to the people in Michigan, for instance, who are seeing the jobs come back.
I want you to look into the eyes of that working class individual, that union, former Democrat, Who voted for Trump, crossing their fingers, saying, please, bring this factory back.
And the factory came back.
And they're saying thank you to the president.
And the Democrats turn around and say, it's not real.
There is no job.
In Michigan, I can see the factory.
I can read the news.
I can see that Trump did this.
The threats he made worked.
And you're lying to me.
And Michael Moore is calling them racial supremacists?
This is what the Democrats are offering in 2020.
And it's disgusting.
Let's move on.
This is now the longest U.S.
economic expansion in history, from July 2nd, and guess what?
It's only continued.
You know, we had, look at this one.
Jim Cramer, like or hate Trump, these are the best numbers of our lives.
In December, in December he said this, when we saw in July the longest U.S.
economic expansion, has now carried out nearly six months later.
Under Trump, the economy is good.
And you know, Michael Moore was right when he said these people don't like the guy.
Look, Trump's got a base, for sure.
His base is growing and expanding, and it's likely because of this.
But a lot of people who vote for him really don't like his attitude.
But what do you think?
You voted for the guy.
You think he's a bad person, but now Michael Moore is saying that you're a bad person that people should fear?
Is that how you should... How are you supposed to feel?
How am I supposed to feel?
I understand what Michael Moore was saying, and I actually agreed with his initial sentiment.
But let's move on, because there's more.
Take a look at this.
Dugan.
We gotta clear more land for new factories from Crane's Detroit business.
Mayor Mike Dugan pushes land assemblage strategy.
Look at this.
Detroit's ability to continue building new automotive and manufacturing plants hinges on clearing large tracts of land that could be attractive to manufacturers struggling to find workers in suburban locales, Mayor Mike Dugan said Wednesday.
This is from September.
In September, an article came out saying we need more land for new automotive factories.
Three years later, after Michael Moore said things will be worse under Trump and you will regret it, Detroit is struggling to find land for new factories.
How about some of the latest news on the economy?
Take a look at this from Axios.
The S&P 500 doubled its average return under past presidents during Trump's first three years.
Trump's stock market rally is far outpacing past U.S.
presidents.
You've got a problem, Democrats.
And Vox, the progressive website, noticed it.
The economy is incredible.
The best job numbers of our lives.
Factories are coming back to Detroit.
Ford is bringing back these jobs.
The people who were terrified of what their lives were going to look like in three years, desperately voting for Trump, were proven correct.
And Michael Moore's only response is to say they're bad people.
A lesson that Democrats will never learn.
And I learned this a long time ago.
When I see people do wrong, I learned you have to give them a chance to do right.
You have to offer them forgiveness and you have to offer them an alternative.
Because if you look these people in the eye and say, I know why you voted for Trump, bigot!
What do you think they're going to do?
They're going to say, you'll never understand me.
You'll never understand my struggles, what my family was going through, the drug epidemic, the opioid epidemic, the fact that people were digging into their children's college funds to try and keep their rent going, to avoid being homeless.
And so in their desperation, they turned to the only man who was speaking their language.
Well, there was Bernie Sanders.
There was.
The Democrats cheated him.
But they looked at Donald Trump, and they voted for him.
And in response, you spit in their face.
Do you think they will ever come back to you?
Do you think these people who had no choice but to vote for Donald Trump, who actually helped them, who actually brought these jobs back, are going to turn around on the man who actually gave them their jobs?
No.
They're going to say, I did what I had to do.
And for all his faults, at least he never spat on me.
He spat on other people, that's for sure.
Trump calls people, you know, Stormy Horseface.
He goes on Twitter during the impeachment inquiries and he tweets things he probably shouldn't.
But in the end, these voters, they feel like he actually came through for them.
The truth is, he did.
And you can't even deny it.
Vox can't even deny it.
So how dare Michael Moore imply that they're racial supremacists, that they're bad people we should all fear, that when we see them we should cross the street and be afraid of them?
Because you ensure that they will only go in one direction.
They will never come back to you.
The Democrats and the left will never learn.
It's not really about Michael Moore.
It's about the Democrats as a whole.
That instead of asking why this happened, and Michael Moore knew, instead of admitting why it happened and saying, let me be someone better, they spat in the face of the people who had no other choice.
How disgusting.
How despicable.
We have record online sales during Black Friday.
We have record online sales during Christmas.
We have record U.S.
job growth.
This story just from December 6th.
266,000 jobs.
U.S.
wage growth eclipses mortgage rates for the first time since 1972.
Look at this.
U.S.
unemployment among youth is down to around 8%.
The unemployment rate in the United States right now is 3.5%.
Record numbers.
Wage growth, unemployment, everything has just gotten better under Trump.
And we are now in the longest U.S.
economic expansion in history.
Trump is now presiding over the largest, the longest?
I don't know if it's the largest, but it's the longest economic expansion.
With people like Jim Cramer saying the greatest numbers of our lives.
And where are the Democrats?
Ever becoming the party of the uber-wealthy elites of ivory tower universities in New York City, spitting in the face of those who had no other option.
And when we look over to our cousins in Europe, the average EU unemployment rate being 6.2% in the euro area.
You know, so I believe this doesn't include... So the EU includes a lot of countries which actually don't use the euro, but where the euro is at 7.4.
More than double the US unemployment rate.
Michael Moore wanted to rag on Brexit.
He said, post-Brexit Britain is going to really feel that pain.
Well, we haven't had Brexit yet, so we'll see.
But after this vote, you know, there's been a lot of turmoil, there's been a lot of questions.
I mean, the UK is still, they're not doing that bad.
I think the UK's unemployment rate is actually doing really well.
It's 3.8, so it's around the US.
We'll see what happens, I guess, when Brexit is finalized.
Brexit will finalize at the end of January, but the actual end to the trade with Europe and the actual complete severing of the UK from Europe won't be until December 2020.
We'll see what happens, but I'll tell you this.
I'm willing to bet.
I'm willing to bet it's going to work out because Donald Trump actually came out, you know, he pulled through for these people.
So ultimately, I know a lot of people might say, I don't care about Michael Moore and they don't want to watch this video.
Michael Moore is just the example.
He's the example of somebody who made a documentary in 1989 called Roger and Me, where he talked about the GM auto plants shutting down, announcing layoffs, moving these factories to Mexico.
Donald Trump called NAFTA one of the worst agreements when NAFTA was signed.
Donald Trump Threatened these Ford executives said if you bring these plants to Mexico, I'm gonna I'm gonna tax your car so heavily No one will ever buy them and now for its come back
I want to end with this.
In response to many of the people, when I tweeted this, they said Michael Moore was never in favor of the working class.
You're wrong.
Michael Moore is just a tribalist who turned his back on the people who once looked up to him.
When he championed their cause, these unions, these union Democrats, these blue dog Democrats, when he championed their cause and said they are taking your factories and I will fight for you, I will highlight these problems, people on the left celebrated him.
Where is he now?
He says that you are a racial supremacist that people should be afraid of and they should cross the street when they see you.
That's the ultimate betrayal of the Democrats.
They don't care about you anymore.
I don't, you know, it makes me wonder if Michael Moore ever really did care about these people and I think that's fair to point out.
Michael Moore did champion these union Democrats.
It's not just the white working class.
It's the working class in general, but it is predominantly white.
Michael Moore was all about it.
You know what he does in this interview with Rolling Stone?
He gloats about how the angry white man has been removed from power in Michigan.
Now look, I get the sentiment, but I don't see how that matters.
I really, really don't.
I don't care who you are.
I don't care about if you're a single mom like he mentions, if you're a person of color.
I care about whether or not you're going to be there for the working class.
And the working class voted for Donald Trump for a reason.
And Donald Trump brought those Ford factories back.
Not on his own, maybe?
You know?
And maybe through means you might not agree with?
I don't know.
I'm not going to argue that.
The point is, Ford's reopening these plants, and I want to make sure you see this.
We've got to clear more land for new factories.
If we're going to build new automotive and manufacturing plants, we need more land, Mayor Duggan says in September.
Detroit's homecoming kickoff, historic state savings bank, yadda yadda yadda.
So the point is, if today the Democrats haven't learned their lesson, instead of talking about why people are angry and why they supported Trump, he just says, you know what, you're a bad person, we should fear you.
Donald Trump's gonna win a bigger victory than he did in 2016.
The people in Michigan are going to send a message.
Now I'll tell you this, Best be warned, because Michael Moore does bring up another good point, that the hatred of Donald Trump is palpable.
And the popular vote against Trump is going to be heavy.
Michael Moore says he thinks it's going to be 4 or 5 million votes this time, not just 3 million.
He thinks people are going to come out in droves.
So, to all of these people who are diehard Trump supporters, you better believe Orange Man Bad, Trump Derangement Syndrome really does resonate with a lot of people.
You may be in Michigan, and you may be thankful that your job is back, but there's going to be people in California and New York who are going to come out in droves.
Michael Moore said this, Trump will absolutely win if the election were held today.
He'll lose the popular vote because of New York and California, but he'll win today, and he's going to win because of this.
Michael Moore made a mistake.
He could have actually been a voice to speak to these people.
He could have actually worked with Democrats to present candidates who would actually do it as well.
And as much as Bernie Sanders wants to pretend that he's the candidate of the working class, even Vox says he's not.
He's the candidate of the progressive ivory tower elites in New York.
And that's where he draws his biggest crowd and went to Brooklyn.
He got a massive crowd.
And I can respect that.
And I think Bernie's worthy of respect for a lot of reasons.
But I've criticized him a lot for a lot of other reasons.
But Trump is traveling the country, packing stadiums.
And this is why.
Because when Trump says, I'm going to be there for you, it turns out three years later, your factory comes back.
Your jobs come back.
The economy is booming.
And Trump just says, you know, vote for me.
And Michael Moore says, we should fear you.
I'll wrap it up, but you get the point.
I don't think the Democrats will ever learn their lesson.
I really, really don't.
We'll see what happens come 2020.
We're less than a year away.
Will I be proven correct or wrong?
I don't know.
I don't think I'm the smartest person in the world.
I'm just telling you what I see.
And I think it's offensive to so many people what Michael Moore is saying and what he represents.
Again, it's not about him.
It's about what the party as a whole is doing.
And Michael Moore is a great example of what the party as a whole is doing.
Insulting, berating, and spitting in the face of those who had no other choice.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump, for all his faults, pulled through.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
And I'll see you all there.
Donald Trump once again proving that we are in the greatest timeline, as the CBC's Trump Derangement Syndrome drives them to delete the tiny cameo that Donald Trump had from the movie Home Alone 2.
I kid you not, they had to cut Trump out of the movie.
Are they going to ban every episode of The Apprentice?
Now I want to read for you the story.
But this segment has more sinister overtones.
You see, you may be sitting in your living room, lying on a couch, your tummy is full of food, your heart is full of love, the holidays are wrapping up, and now we are being given truly a most humorous and glorious wrap-up to this wonderful holiday.
Now, I know some of you may not be celebrating Christmas, and New Year's Eve is just around the corner, but with Christmas now behind us, What more do we have to look forward to?
Well, we have much.
First of all, I think it's absolutely hilarious that they deleted Trump from Home Alone 2.
Seriously, I laughed.
I had to try and record this a couple times from laughing.
But then we get this glorious, glorious article from Salon.
Hallmark movies are fascist.
It's so hard to read.
Are fascist propaganda.
That's right!
Movies about people who are in love and trying to find the perfect gift for Christmas is nothing more than fascist propaganda.
The dark, sinister, overt undertones of the holiday season are upon us.
Certainly, if they believe Hallmark movies are fascist propaganda, Trump must be excised from Home Alone 2.
Think about how insane this is.
Why would they do this?
Trump exists.
You don't have to like the man, but he's in the movie.
Man, I gotta admit, you know, it is kind of funny.
But it's also kind of scary when you realize, like, they're erasing him from the movie.
I don't like where that's going.
You know, we did revisionism, going in back and editing movies because certain people said naughty words or did something 20 years later.
This is incredible.
Let's check out this first story, because this is the more important story, but admittedly, it is relatively short.
Like, you get the point once I tell you.
The Hallmark thing, fascism, is just the icing on the cake.
From the post-millennial, CBC deletes Trump from Home Alone 2 broadcast.
According to conservative activist Ryan Fournier, the CBC, the state-funded broadcaster of Canada, has edited out President Trump's iconic cameo from their broadcast of the Christmas movie Home Alone 2.
Fournier says, CBC TV in Canada has cut Donald Trump's Home Alone 2 cameo out of their broadcast.
They're so triggered by him that they had to edit him out of the film.
Absolutely pathetic.
Now, I'm going to stop here.
Hold on.
Wait, let's keep going.
The claim has been verified by the American news outlet PJ Media, who reports that CBC edited out Trump's cameo from the 1992 movie, and people watching it were quick to report the suspicious omission on social media.
Some were outraged, and the snowflakes were thrilled.
The deleted scene can be found here.
Well, let's do this.
You know, I always want to use a third-party fact checker when I go through these, because, you know, sometimes these stories pop up, and it turns out to not be true, and, you know, I just want to make sure that's, you know, clear.
Otherwise, they're gonna comment me and be like, Tim's spreading fake news or something.
They say, Many commentators on social media have expressed this particular edit was political.
Comicbook.com first reported on the omission, and they reached out to the CBC for comment on why Trump was cut from their Home Alone 2 broadcast.
The CBC replied, as is often the case with features adapted for television, Home Alone
2 was edited to allow for commercial time within the format.
Oh, is that the reason why?
Okay, I'll just stop there.
I will give them the benefit of the doubt.
It's just because they want to squeeze in more commercials.
Actually kind of makes sense.
You know, to be honest, and I'm going to say the most outrageous and controversial thing, you don't really need the scene with Trump.
It's just a cameo.
It's him pointing.
And if they want to make money, I mean, that's where they could probably fit in more commercials.
So it falls in line with that good capitalist nature of We want to maximize profits.
We don't care about Trump.
However, considering the era in which we live and the articles like this, the ones that say that Hallmark movies are fascist propaganda, I'm gonna go have to assume, you know, maybe they didn't cut out Trump specifically because he's Trump.
Maybe they were, like, looking at, like, where can we cut time, and someone was like, there's that scene with Trump, and they were like, oh yeah, get rid of that, let's, oof.
You know, so basically my point is, it may not have been on purpose, it may really have been driven by commercials, but let's be real.
If they had to look at a series of sections of the film to cut to make time for commercials, you know what their first choice is going to be, and you know why it's going to be Trump.
So, I think this is a wonderful Christmas present, you know?
Because here's the thing.
Don't really care that they cut him out or that, you know, Salon thinks Hallmark movies are fascist propaganda.
It's almost like reading The Onion, you know?
I actually want to say this right now.
I feel really bad for the guys over at The Onion, the satirical paper.
You can't compete with this.
Like, you can't.
I'm sorry.
You can try.
You know, the Babylon Bee tries.
And, you know, the Babylon Bee is really, really funny.
It's another satirical paper.
But I feel bad sometimes because I'm like, aw, you know, they tried to make a satirical article, but it's actually just literally mirroring the psychotic behavior of these weird woke outrage blogs.
Salon has beyond jumped the shark.
You know, it's crazy.
You know Glenn Greenwald used to write for Salon?
Now, he's a pretty lefty guy, but he calls it like it is.
He calls out the FBI, calls out Russiagate.
He's not a Trump fan, so I can respect him, and I've got disagreements with some of the stuff he's done in the past, but he used to write for this website, like a credible, you know, left-wing personality who actually published really important information on foreign, you know, on the NSA and surveillance and violation of civil rights and stuff.
Now what is it?
Hallmark movies.
That's what you're concerned about.
You know what's insane?
I'll tell you what.
They don't like the fact that Hallmark movies typically revolve around a white couple dealing with some, you know, chaos over the Christmas, you know, holiday.
I don't care.
It's not made for you.
How insane is it that they can't just be like, so they made a movie about a traditional family trying to find presents on Christmas?
Like, does anybody complain about, like, a movie about Hanukkah?
Do we go, like, in that film they made that was about a Hanukkah, you know, they had a blonde-haired, blue-eyed guy, and that was a caricature of white?
No, who cares?
It's not for you.
It's a worldview, it's an experience, specific or relatable to a certain group of people, and so what?
If you don't like the movie, don't watch it.
Man, how insane is it?
But I will stop, okay?
This is supposed to be funny, and it is.
You know, it's kind of meant to be... Here's what I'm hoping you get out of these articles in this segment, is that, you know, you're laying on the sofa, you're probably full, some of you are probably hungover, maybe had a little too much eggnog or something, and you can wake up with a good hearty chuckle.
Maybe you'll laugh and say, ah, isn't the world crazy?
Actually, many of you are probably like, this is insane.
The world is falling apart.
Let's read.
Salon says, Hallmark movies are fascist propaganda.
Forget Triumph of the Will.
The most insidious authoritarian propaganda comes in the form of schmaltz.
It's not... Nowhere does it say, like... They're really saying it's insidious authoritarian propaganda.
That's right.
The woman who misses her flight back to Milwaukee, where her husband is frantic and the family is getting concerned, and then her presents get lost on the plane, and then she's desperately trying to find that new action figure for her, you know, for her niece or nephew, Oh!
Authoritarian insidious propaganda!
Think about how insid... Look, there's very little difference between Hallmark movies and, like, Home Alone, and, like, a regular Christmas movie.
The reality is Hallmark movies are just kind of lower budget Christmas movies.
Okay, okay, I'm sorry.
Let's read.
They say, The Hallmark Channel has been having a rough go of it the past few weeks.
The cable TV behemoth, which has been minting money with its patented holiday season schmaltz, drew widespread criticism earlier this month when it polled ads for the wedding company Zola that featured a lesbian couple kissing at their wedding.
The company's initial excuse is that they do not allow ads that feature overt public displays of affection, claiming the policy is regardless of the participants.
This was obviously nonsense, as couples kissing at weddings is not only the outré, but generally seen as mandatory, and features in the channel's numerous rom-coms.
Unsurprisingly, critics quickly found plenty of examples of straight snogging on the channel that shows that sexual orientation was the sole reason for the ad.
I don't think it's the sole reason for the ad poll.
I think a right-wing pressure campaign was the sole reason for the ad poll.
And the lesbian kiss was the sole reason for, you know, the campaign.
So I think, you know, talking about the nuance is pretty important.
However, I do think it's fair to say that Hallmark pulled this commercial because of the lesbian kiss.
People were upset about it and said, oh, you know, we don't like this.
And so Hallmark pulled it.
Then there was outrage from the other side and Hallmark then reinstated it.
Let me tell you something, though.
I don't care if Hallmark pulls it or not.
Hallmark's audience isn't the woke left.
It's traditional Christians.
Like, that's why their movies are made the way they are.
So I'll tell you what, you know, Hallmark.
Yeah, you're putting a rock in a hard place.
You know, you decided to run that commercial.
You should have just let it run and been like, yeah, well, too bad.
You know what I mean?
It's a sponsor spot.
You know?
It's like a commercial for a wedding company or whatever.
I don't know.
But here's the thing.
Hallmark bent over backwards for people who don't actually watch the Hallmark channel.
And this is a good example of everything wrong with, like, of the culture war problems we're facing, is that people who don't actually cater, you know, are not actually patrons of a service or business, are the ones getting that business to then bend over for those people who don't actually buy the product.
Like, you can look at the video games, the comic book industry, the movie industry.
You have all these companies being like, a large group of people who don't watch our movies are complaining.
Let's change the movies to be for them.
How does that make sense?
Look, you don't gotta make, like, they should have left the commercial.
I think it's fair to point out we know why they pulled the commercial.
But why are they bending over backwards for people who call them fascists?
Hallmark then flip-flopped, apologizing for pulling the ads and claiming they have been a progressive pioneer on television for decades and committed to diversity and inclusion.
Okay, look, you know what?
Rock in a hard place.
For whatever reason, the cultural power rests in the woke outrage and not in the traditional conservatives who want to see a Christmas movie and that's about it.
Wait, they say, which is of course laughable to anyone who has even glancing knowledge of the channel's offerings.
Running down this year's schedule of Christmas movie offerings is like a trip into an uncanny valley of shiny teeth blow-dried heteronormative whiteness with only a few token movies with characters of color.
It's like watching The Stepford Wives, but scarier, since the evil plot to replace normal people with robots is never actually revealed.
None of this should be a surprise because Hallmark movies, as cloying and saccharine as they are, constitute the platonic ideal of fascist propaganda.
Oh, wow.
You know, some of this stuff freaks me out, and I gotta admit, This probably should be freaky to so many people because the innocuous nature of these silly Hallmark movies, their low-budget Christmas message, is threatening to, like, basically no one.
And they're now calling it insidious, authoritarian, and fascistic propaganda.
And there's a certain threshold where, like, if you say something, it's frustrating.
Like, if you accuse Batman of being, you know, like, racist or something, it's like, oh no, here they go.
And it's annoying, right?
And then they start saying, like, well, Batman is a dangerous vigilante.
It's very fascistic.
And you're like, oh, jeez.
But once they cross a certain line, like here, like Hallmark movies, it breaks this barrier where things go from being alarming to some of the most hilarious content you'll ever read.
So we've definitely crossed that threshold where it's like, if they said something like, You know, Hallmark is under fire for pulling this commercial.
There's also concerns about, you know, overly traditional content.
If they were much more light about it, saying, like, these movies are a relic of a bygone era, and as times change, we're wondering when Hallmark will start, you know, adapting and trying to cater to new audiences.
I'd see that and be like, that's an interesting point, actually, you know?
If Hallmark is going to keep doing these, like, traditional Christmas white family things, look, the fact remains, at a certain point, Their market is gonna be shrinking and it's not just because about demographics or anything.
It's about what young people are watching and are into.
So I'm not saying they have to change.
I'm just saying I'd be curious if they will go down that path of like now we must start, you know, making certain movies.
And apparently there's some article from last year where like Hallmark did a Jewish film and they did like a Hanukkah film and they did like a black family and stuff.
Like so Hallmark is saying like, you know, we want to expand our audience here, right?
There's no con—the conversation isn't really about that.
The conversation jumps the shark straight away to be like, fascist propaganda!
And so there's no—that's why it's just funny.
Because there's no sane logical argument.
Like, it's absurd to me.
Well, no, no, no.
They think everything is fascist.
Like, everything's a Nazi, everything's a conspiracy theory.
And then they come out here and they accuse the Hokie family movie of being fascist propaganda.
Like, you could argue, like, you know, this is something people used to watch 20, 30 years ago, and they're just kind of, like, remaking lower-budget versions of it.
Sure.
But this is a whole other level.
So, you know, I laughed.
A hearty laugh when I was reading this.
Let's read a little bit more.
We'll go a little bit longer.
They say, that is probably a startling statement to some.
When most of us think about fascistically propagandistic movies, we think about the grotesque grandeur of Lenny Reifenstahl's film, South Teleprompter.
I can't read this.
Okay, but cold-sweeping shots of soldiers goose-stepping and flags waving, all meant to inspire awe and terror.
But the reality is, even in Nazi Germany, the majority of movies approved by the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, were escapist and feather-light, with a Hallmark-movie-style emphasis on the importance of normality.
That's right, Hallmark movies are following in the footsteps of Joseph Goebbels.
There's plenty of reason that Empty-Headed Kish fits neatly in the authoritarian worldview.
It's storytelling that imitates the gestures of emotion without actually engaging with real feeling.
The Hallmark movie steers clear of the real passion or deeper emotion that tends to be the engine driving more artful fiction.
Characters who have real feelings, after all, can prompt empathetic reactions in the audience.
And empathy of others is the greatest single threat to the authoritarian mindset.
And so Schmalz walks through the paces... Okay, you know what?
Full stop.
They're criticizing the movie for being low quality.
They're like, B-movies have bad actors.
Therefore, fascism.
Okay, listen, I'm sorry, Hallmark Movies.
You're not Hollywood, and I'm not trying to be mean, but we get it.
Hallmark Movies are hokey and kind of campy, and that's why they're calling it fascist?
I thought they were gonna say it was because white Christian families having tons of babies and buying presents and celebrating a Christian holiday was why.
Instead, they're saying it's because the acting is bad?
I'm impressed.
Alright, I'm gonna wrap this one up.
I hope you all had a good laugh about Donald Trump being cut out of a broadcast of Home Alone and Hallmark being fascists.
Here's what they say.
Ultimately, there is probably no way to square the claim to believe in diversity with fascistic impulse that guides the current crop of Hallmark movies, which center always around these, frankly, MAGA-style ideas about what constitutes real America.
As the Jewish movies show, the best that Hallmark can do is some token diversity that wipes out most of what makes people actually diverse.
Their money comes from selling a vision of America that increasingly authoritarian conservatives wish to believe once existed and can be restored again.
An America that excludes most of an increasingly urban, racially diverse, cosmopolitan nation that won't change no matter how many inclusive Zola ads the network airs.
I would like to inform these people at Salon That there are many places in the United States that are overwhelmingly white, traditional, and conservative.
Because, yes, around 67% of the country is white.
There are many suburban areas that still are, and even urban districts is the case.
And Christianity still is about the same proportion in the country.
Which means the overwhelming majority of the country is Christian and white.
I get it, man.
You want to talk about diversity.
You want to make a movie for other holidays and stuff.
I feel you.
Totally hear you.
But they're targeting their demographic.
Just because they are doesn't mean it's fascist propaganda.
Look at these photos!
It's just like smiling couples eating a donut.
That's fas... Okay, you know what, man?
These people are off their rocker.
I tell you what.
I don't care what you celebrate.
I don't care, you know, what the movies you make are.
If you make a movie about your, you know, Festivus or about some, you know, new holiday you want to do, I'm not gonna attack you for it.
None of these movies are actually fascist.
It's just families eating cake and, like, you know, trying to catch the flight, like, Home Alone.
And then Kevin's mom is hanging out with that John Candy band or whatever, and then the burglars are coming.
What are you talking about?
Is Home Alone fascist?
Because it's very, very similar.
It's a white, large, Christian family, and their son goes missing, and then the son creates a bunch of weapons to hurt poor people who are just trying to get by.
Yeah, we can play the framing game too, anyway.
I hope this was a good morning for all of you.
I hope you woke up, some of you maybe, again, hungover, and you see this story and you have a good laugh and it makes that headache go away.
Others, you're probably looking for now that the holidays are coming to an end, the Christmas holidays, and again, I know New Year's is around the corner, and now you're feeling sad like my family has left and dinner's over and I have to wait another year.
At least you'll get a little bit more humor and laughter and joy before this holiday season comes to an end.
I will see you on the next segment at 1 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out.
I can't tell you why.
I can just tell you that apparently they aren't doing anything to solve the problem.
There was an article written in the New York Times a few months ago talking about how the problem is actually wealthy progressives who don't want to do anything about homelessness.
It's essentially the not-in-my-backyard mentality.
That in places like Los Angeles with a Democrat supermajority, they can't even pass housing reform, let alone even figure out what to do to solve the homelessness problem.
So sure enough, it always seems to be California And again, I can't tell you why.
I know exactly what the Republicans will say, but, you know, in full honesty, I think one of the problems is there's no governmental competition, period.
I don't think it's necessarily— Okay, let me stop for a second.
Republicans will tell you the problem of California is failed liberal policies.
I think it's fair to a certain degree, considering California is basically controlled by progressives.
But I think the problem is more so just a lack of general competition in government.
That's what I wanted to say.
That you basically just have one party saying, sure, let's do this and it doesn't work.
Nobody cares.
Nobody wants to take responsibility for the failure because it'd be bad for their careers.
Thus, you end up with a state covered in waste that's essentially becoming an oligarchic system of super billionaires who, for some reason, the progressives are saying the private companies can do whatever they want.
Meanwhile, people are out in the streets taking dumps in the streets.
Okay, you get it.
Let me slow down.
Let's read the story and figure out what Donald Trump was saying, what's actually going on.
The Daily Mail reports Donald Trump blasts California Governor Gavin Newsom for state's homeless crisis and says federal government may get involved as it's revealed that more than 140,000 residents are now without shelter.
Now, this is significant.
The number of homeless people in California increased more than 16% in the past year alone.
Why?
Look at this.
They say, meanwhile, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Virginia, North Dakota had the lowest rates of homelessness per 10,000 people.
The story reports President Trump has taken time out of his Christmas Day festivities to blast California Governor Gavin Newsom for failing to adequately address the state's growing homeless crisis.
The president took to Twitter on Wednesday afternoon, threatening to get the federal government involved in the crisis because Newsom is doing a really bad job.
The tweet comes after the Department of Housing and Urban Development released data last week revealing that the homeless rate in California has surged a staggering 16.4% in the past 12 months.
Now, more than 140,000, you know, so we know the numbers, let's read on.
Newsom, who only took office this year, appears to be blaming the Trump administration for the escalating crisis.
Oh, oh, oh, it's Trump's fault.
He was seen on camera last week stating, They're not serious about this issue.
They're playing politics with it.
Expect nothing but division coming from, coming and emanating from the folks at HUD and the
president.
Now let me stop you right now, man.
I lived in California, about, where are we at now?
What year is it? So seven, eight years ago?
The homeless problem in California eight years ago, as I knew it, was steadily increasing.
That was well before Donald Trump.
Okay, the problem is systemic within California.
And I think what Newsom said right here is exactly the problem.
For one, Trump does have some responsibility.
Of course he does.
He's the president of these United States, which includes California.
But California has a problem of blaming the federal government for their problems.
If Gavin Newsom's first reaction is to say, well, they're not serious about it.
They don't want anything but division.
Maybe if you stop blaming the federal government for what your state's problems are, you might actually solve those problems.
And this is coming from somebody who actually worked on these problems nearly a decade ago.
And for some reason, actually, yeah, wow, about 10 years ago.
And for some reason, they're unable to actually solve the problem.
So it wasn't from the Trump era.
Okay, it wasn't from the Newsom era, no, but you are continuing down this path.
So if someone calls you out saying you need to fix your problems, okay, I'll give you a pass.
You're new here, okay?
It's now your responsibility.
Let's read on.
Donald Trump tweeted, Governor Gavin N. has done a really bad job on taking care of the homeless population in California.
If he can't fix the problem, the federal government will get involved.
And maybe they need to, because California is messed up for a lot of other reasons.
They go on to mention that Tommy Loren, Now, I'm not one who typically agrees with Tomi Lahren on a lot of issues.
week and edit the comment.
Take accountability Gavin.
This is your state and you and your democratic cohorts created this mess.
You can't blame real Donald Trump forever.
Step away from the hair gel and get to work.
Now I'm not one who typically agrees with Tomi Lahren on a lot of issues.
I find her to be particularly bombastic.
But she's 100% correct.
Newsome, you need to take responsibility for this.
Okay?
There's nothing shameful in admitting it is your responsibility, it is your role, and you need to now come out and deal with the problem.
Now, I will be the first to admit many people don't know what the solutions are.
When I worked on the homeless crisis in California, we found that many people just didn't want help.
A lot of people come to California because the weather's really nice.
But I will tell you this extends beyond just the homeless problem.
What we are seeing here is just another grain of sand in the heap of California's growing wealth inequality.
And it's so hilarious to me that I have to be here criticizing California, which I'm sure Republicans like, because the problem of wealth inequality the progressives won't actually deal with.
San Francisco is the perfect example of this.
Home to so many... Or the Bay Area, I should say.
Home to so many of these massive, multi-billion dollar international corporations.
With some of the craziest gadgets and gizmos and public benefits.
Or, I'm sorry, private benefits for their employees.
And then just across that little pond, you've got mass homeless camps.
In San Francisco proper, with so many of these companies operating at the billions and, you know, billions of dollars.
Human waste everywhere.
The problem is California.
Now, I'll tell you what, I'm not gonna, again, you know, there's a lot of factors that contribute to this, but I'll tell you what I think is one of the biggest factors is hypocrisy.
And it's also this, it's deception.
People claiming to be progressive so they can win woke brownie points and doing nothing for the actual problems that exist in their state.
That's it.
And then, of course, you have the government, which is going to be like, it's not our fault.
It's Trump's fault.
Don't expect anything.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
This is your problem.
If the federal government wants to step in to help you, well then, you know, there you go.
So actually, Trump's tweet was actually a quote from Tommy Loren.
Which they then highlight.
We got a bunch of photos here, man.
We know it's bad.
They say... Okay, I'm sorry.
Meanwhile, the recent study from HUD found that homeless rates are more prevalent in
Democrat-controlled states.
Blue states such as New York, Hawaii, California, and Washington had the highest rate of homelessness
per 10,000 people.
States with the lowest rate of homelessness were—okay, I'm sorry, I'm going to stop.
I will be the first to admit I was wrong.
I said I didn't think it was necessarily liberal policies, but okay.
If government data is saying that blue states have more homelessness than red states, I think it's fair to say that the blue states' policies are failing the homeless.
Now listen, we can argue all day and night about what causes homeless, but I think you've got, for one, an incentive model.
Okay?
Because I know, because I've lived in these states, where they're much more willing to give benefits to people who are in need, and that's a good thing in a lot of ways.
But don't be surprised if it incentivizes and attracts more homeless people.
You are not helping them by enabling them.
There's a difference between helping someone and enabling someone.
The way I described it, again, for those that have listened to every video I've made, forgive me for the analogy, but if you think someone should pick themselves up by their bootstraps, give them a pair of boots and then be on your way.
If you want to teach a man to fish, fine, but he's going to need a fishing pole if he's going to fish.
So I think, yeah, we can definitely help people, but the way they're doing it clearly isn't working.
So you know what?
I wanted to be the milquetoast fence-sitter saying, I don't think it's necessarily just the policies, and there's a lot of factors here.
The fact remains, the blue states are failing.
Absolutely.
You know what?
Again, it is still fair to say there's a lot of factors involved, but it's clear that whatever the policies being enacted in these blue states, whatever those policies are, they're not working.
Okay?
So you can blame the liberal states and whatever their policies are.
I have no idea.
They say the HUD report found that California was not the state with the largest percentage increase in their homeless population.
The number of homeless people in the state of New Mexico increased by 27% in 2019.
Meanwhile, furious residents in California have begun taking matters into their own hands.
Fed up, the state government appears to be adequately addressing the crisis.
Do they mean inadequately?
In Oakland, business owners recently put large logs over their streets to deter homeless people from setting up camps.
In San Francisco, residents placed boulders on the sidewalk to stop encampments outside their doors.
We then have a bunch of photos.
Several neighbors combined a few hundred dollars to buy the boulders and placed them in a row near street curbs.
A spokesman for the San Francisco Public Works Department said the city was not involved in the boulder placement and originally said they would not remove the boulders because they weren't blocking the main walkway.
The response angered advocates who said the Boulder placement was anti-homeless architecture.
Man, I think we've got tribalism problems.
You know, we can look at these blue states and the report from HUD says they're doing worse to an extent.
Like they have more homeless, you know.
And what's the response?
They blame Trump's administration.
California does, at least.
So nobody wants to take responsibility for their own faults.
And I think that's going to be the downfall of... I mean, it's not just these blue states.
It's not just homelessness.
It's everything.
Nobody wants to take responsibility.
Say authorities eventually removed the boulders after saying they posed a road safety hazard.
Meanwhile, the city's Tenderloin district is a particular grievance for residents who want to clean up the area.
The Tenderloin District hosts a series of addicts and homeless who reportedly leave behind human waste as well as used needles.
The city set up public toilets in attempt to combat this, and last year, the formation of the Poop Patrol, a special six-person team tasked with cleaning up the feces around San Francisco, was announced.
Okay.
This is what I want you to explain to your friends.
You know how you have, like, a fire department and, like, a police department and you have ambulances and you have hospitals?
You have public services, but I think the main takeaway is you have a fire department and a police department.
San Francisco has a poop department.
It's not an exaggeration to claim they have a small team tasked with cleaning up poop.
That's how serious the problem is.
I don't know.
Whatever, man.
I feel like I'm just rehashing what we already knew.
Donald Trump is calling them out.
I think the main takeaway here that I probably should have highlighted from the get-go, and it's my fault for missing this point, is that the report from HUD shows it's blue states that have the serious homelessness problem.
So I'll point one thing out that's very important.
A lot of people think it's weather.
A lot of people think Los Angeles has a homeless problem because you go down there, it's always, you know, 70 degrees, there's a nice beachfront, you can sleep on the beach.
That's not true.
It is not true.
New York, okay, is cold.
New York is not a beautiful beachfront.
Now, Hawaii is, but neither is Washington.
It's not fair to say that the factor here is weather.
There are certainly nice areas in the South, you know, for sure.
And I think, to an extent, you can claim that the nice weather of Hawaii and California definitely play a role.
You know, you can go to Hawaii and just be a beach bum, eat fruit and stuff.
But I think the reality is when you look at Washington, when you look at New York and other blue states, It's not a weather issue.
There's something happening at the policy level that they're refusing to solve this problem.
I guess you could argue there's maybe a magnetic pull factor, right?
That if red states are less accommodating to the homeless, they will move to blue states that are.
That's a problem.
That means you're not solving the problem at all.
It means you're actually increasing homelessness.
And I want to point out something else I highlighted, too, to discount the idea that what we're seeing is a pull factor.
So I think it's... Okay, let me clarify.
I think there is a pull factor to an extent.
You know, if California is more accommodating, then people are going to leave Mississippi and go there.
I think it plays a role.
I think weather plays a role.
But What we saw from a report in the New York Times, which I highlighted a few days ago on my main channel, is that most of the people who are homeless in California have lived there for a decade.
They're not moving there.
They were there already and became homeless.
That's a very, very important factor.
So while there are some homeless people that move around, I think what we're seeing now from this report Trump is right to yell at him, man.
Something is happening at a governmental level.
So yeah, I think it's fair to say you could presume their policies are contributing to and making the problem worse.
Anyway, I'll keep this one short.
I'll wrap it up there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It is a different channel, and I will see you all then.
Ladies and gentlemen, every day at 6.30pm, at least I try to make it 6.30pm, a podcast version of all of my segments will appear on every single podcast platform, or at least most of them.
Usually starts with my main segment, and it's about an hour and a half every single day, so if you like these segments, you like what I talk about, and you want to just hear like my whole day, an hour and a half every day on podcast platforms.
Now, there's a reason why I'm telling you this.
YouTube deals a massive blow to cryptocurrency community, calls it harmful or dangerous, and mass deletes video.
That's right.
I am telling you now about my podcast.
You should check it out.
The reason is YouTube is once again retroactively enforcing new rules they never warned anyone about.
It is extremely dangerous to run your business on YouTube because YouTube does this all the time.
Before we start the story, I want to show you something truly horrifying.
This is a tweet from a man named Alex Saunders.
I don't know who Alex Saunders is.
He's the CEO and founder of Nuggets News AU, a blockchain education since 2012.
That's about as much as I know about him.
He tweeted, Hi, Team YouTube.
With over 100 videos removed and two strikes in 24 hours, I have still not even received an email from you.
This is really scary.
We've hired new staff.
I have a wife and baby to support.
I can't fix the problem if I don't know what I've done or who to communicate with.
And this is what YouTube does.
YouTube does this all the time.
Now, this is a tweet.
Alex Honors tweeted this on the 26th, but this story is on the 24th.
Apparently.
Let me start by saying this.
You might not be a fan of the cryptocurrency community.
You might know very little about it.
This is a YouTube rules issue.
Because YouTube retroactively enforces rules.
If you've got a video from, I don't know, seven years ago talking about Bitcoin and maybe talking about a website that was no good, you can get a guideline strike.
This is what YouTube does.
The stupidest thing anyone can do is think they can run a business on YouTube without having a backup plan.
Now, I'll tell you this.
Most of my income comes from YouTube, and it is scary.
That's why I'm talking about it.
So let's read and see what's going on with cryptocurrency.
Reclaim the Net says, YouTube made no announcement that this was coming
and quietly dealt the blow as people were wound down for Christmas.
Another community of creators on YouTube is starting to get a taste of the giant video platforms'
That's how one of those receiving a harmful content strike against a video from 2018, who goes by the name IvanOnTech, dubbed it in a tweet announcing that he had been banned from uploading content on YouTube for a week.
Now, we don't know what Is causing these takedowns?
Is it simply talking about cryptocurrency?
Did they do something specific in these videos?
Advocate for something specific?
Here's the thing.
New regulations are coming.
I don't wanna necessarily just blame YouTube for this one.
New regulations are coming.
I believe, I'm not a super big crypto person, but I heard there's gonna be on the new tax forms, there's gonna be a crypto option.
YouTube might have no choice but to regulate.
But here's where it is YouTube's fault.
YouTube could send out a notice to all of the creators saying, if you've done X, Y, or Z, you must do A, B, or C. Instead, they're just wiping people out who have no idea what's going on and destroying their careers and their businesses.
That's par for the course for YouTube.
We really need competition.
Anyway, moving on.
Ivan, whose channel with 211,000 subscribers is dedicated to cryptocurrencies and the blockchain tech behind them, as well as financial and investment aspects of the decentralized currency scene, explored the predicament of others in more detail in a stream on YouTube on Monday asking the pertinent question, Crypto YouTubers in Trouble?
This YouTuber said that at least nine of the top crypto channels received strikes on Monday, and speaks about a growing sense of uncertainty among the platform's top talent about their future on YouTube where each day could be the last, and the need to be prepared to move to alternatives, which he argues need to provide visibility of content along with decentralized hosting.
Let's stop real quick.
Okay, I always try to be fair.
I believe that YouTube should give warnings to people and should act, you know, accordingly like they have to with regulations.
And I also want to point out that YouTube does this all the time, okay?
I'm about to say something and people are gonna get mad at me.
There are a lot of people who never pay attention to the rules.
And simply because YouTube didn't enforce the rules, they are now shocked to find that YouTube starts enact- enforcing those rules.
The reason why some of these channels may be banned, some of them, I'll give you this warning.
I have had people reach out to me for cryptocurrency advertisements, for financial advertisements, for investment advertisements.
If you sponsor content, if you promote content, you are legally required to give a ton of disclaimers, especially on financial advice.
It is actually kind of scary.
In the past, I had done some commercials.
I deleted them because I ended up getting some strikes.
I'm not going to get into the whole thing about what happened, but some of the ads that I spot, like some of the companies I sponsored, no one knew it was against the rules, but it was.
YouTube didn't announce this because it had always been against the rules.
They just didn't enforce it.
All of a sudden, the ad, look, all of a sudden people started getting strikes.
I got a strike.
I went deep in the rules and I found there is a There's a ton of rules nobody knows about.
They don't pay attention to.
When it pertains to crypto, investment, currency, etc., there are a lot of rules and there are
a lot of laws.
So YouTube should probably warn people, it's not a notice saying if you do this, but I
want to make sure it's clear.
A lot of these channels probably already violated the rules a long time ago and they just don't
understand because everyone else did it.
So you have this like sort of tacit allowance from YouTube and then one day someone comes on YouTube and says, hey man, you can't do that.
These got to come down and say, okay, and they just snap their fingers and wipe everybody out.
You can't do that, okay?
We cannot function.
YouTube will cease to function if they keep doing things like this.
And individual businesses are being threatened because YouTube retroactively enforces new policy.
Whether or not the rule exists, enforcing them would be a policy change.
They say this.
As years' worth of videos started disappearing from several crypto YouTubers' channels, many began speculating about the giant's motivations.
Some believe that YouTube is sensing a rise of new blockchain platforms that can compete for creators both by offering them better job security and a higher cut of earnings.
And that is technically true.
There are some platforms that would compete with YouTube that use crypto.
I mean, look at Minds.conference.
They have a whole crypto system for advertisement and value and there's a big system behind it.
YouTube doesn't do that.
YouTube, for whatever reason they're taking these channels down, or these videos, I'm sorry, there's another rule.
Did you know that you can't promote content on other channels using YouTube?
I kid you not, there's some weird rule where it's like, if you made a YouTube video where you are like, Hey everybody, just want to give you a heads up.
I'm going to be doing a live stream over on Twitch about X, Y, and Z. YouTube says it's against the rules.
Because you're essentially... It's the weirdest thing ever.
Like, if I go on Twitter, I can tweet whatever I want.
I can be like, hey everybody, stop following me here and go follow me on Instagram.
Oh, follow me on Instagram, by the way, at TimCast.
But anyway, the point is, YouTube actually has punished people for putting up videos where they're like, tune into my live stream on Twitch at this time, because YouTube doesn't want the competition.
Or they might claim it's for another reason, but that's probably what it's for.
They say this.
Be that as it may, what's undeniable is that more and more crypto creators are now suffering on YouTube.
The carnage started with Chris Dunn, who also received a strike and was banned from uploading on his channel with 211,000 subscribers for a week.
In a tweet, he said YouTube informed him that he allegedly engaged in harmful or dangerous content and sale of regulated goods.
And this is where I want to highlight.
I think what they're saying, what people don't realize, Back in the day, okay, with cryptocurrency being new, there were no regulations.
Once cryptocurrency starts becoming official investment property and starts being tracked by the IRS, all of a sudden now you got a ton of regulations.
So YouTube needs to be responsible, in my opinion, and talk with their creators and say, here's what's happening.
You know, heads up, we've got to start enforcing these investment rules and disclosure rules, and these videos that do these things will be in violation.
You've been warned, you have 30 days.
How about that?
How about they could start working with their creators to solve these problems?
It makes no sense to build a system that is inhuman, you know, and that's one of the big problems we have in law enforcement, period, like the legal system.
You know, there could be certain circumstances where we can actually be more human and say, I understand you didn't realize, I'm gonna give you a warning right now, right?
We do that.
Your cop pulls you over and he says, I'm giving you a warning, don't speed again or else.
With this, YouTube, because it's a machine, this is the dystopian nightmare.
People building businesses through an algorithmic system that will just purge you without question.
Chris Dunn said, YouTube just removed most of my crypto videos citing harmful or dangerous content and sale of regulated goods.
It's been 10 years of making videos, 7 million views, WTF are you guys doing?
And look at this, a whole list of guideline strikes.
Another tweet, Dunn says, I should have put my videos on decentralized platforms a long time ago, but lesson learned.
I'll tell you this right now.
BitChute.
Now, I manually upload to Mines because Mines has a big user base, and it's more versatile, and they have a partner program.
So this is really, really important, actually.
For those of you that are watching this that are concerned about what's happening with the crypto community, I tell you where you will find a more friendly space.
They launched a partner program, meaning you actually get paid similar to YouTube.
Like, YouTube, you get a certain amount of views, YouTube pays you money.
Minds is doing the same thing.
That's why I use it.
BitChute is great because it automatically archives videos like this in my content, but the monetization is typically through, like, you know, direct sponsorships from people.
Like, people will sign up to tip me or something.
Now, Minds actually has a partner program that is somewhat on par with YouTube. And if you're getting
a certain amount of views, it actually can beat the average CPM. I don't know if you
know what Mimes plans for the future is going to be, how they sustain this, because YouTube
certainly has its issues. But I'll tell you this right now, if you're in the crypto community, well,
Mimes uses crypto in its back end for various systems. So they definitely are on
board with what you guys are doing.
If you are someone who wants to make a channel, make sure you have alternatives set up.
Because if you only run your business through just YouTube, don't be surprised when your business evaporates overnight and YouTube does not care.
This is the problem with monopolies, okay?
And YouTube has essentially a monopoly on the digital video space.
Now, I get really frustrated when people are like, they don't have a monopoly.
There's like 800 different video services.
No, man.
They've combined a whole bunch of systems into one.
And if you want to start a company, a business where you produce content that's video, that's audio, that's educational, YouTube's where you go.
They have the people.
They have the biggest audience.
And so people might argue, well, it's their audience.
Then fine, but be clear with the rules.
This is why we need to use other platforms.
So you know what, man?
I'll wrap it up here.
I've got a couple more segments.
I will just say one more time, M-I-N-D-S dot com.
Minds.com.
If you're not using it, you should.
I'm on there at Timcast.
I put all my main segments there.
I've got like 147,000 subs.
It's a good platform.
They've got a lot of work to do, okay?
I'll tell you that.
It's not perfect.
But if we get addicted to YouTube in the face of the 800th time they've arbitrarily banned people, okay, we're in trouble.
And I'll be the first to admit the money on YouTube is better than anywhere else.
And that's why people use it.
But as more and more of us start relying on fan funding and sponsorships through like, you know, Patreon or PayPal or Subscribes or whatever it is you're using, We don't need YouTube.
Granted, the opportunity for growth is there if you do good, and that's why people want to use it.
If you do well, sorry.
But I think it's important to use alternatives.
So, I'll leave you there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks said that Democrats don't care about their voters, but Republicans do?
This is weird.
Now, you know what, man?
I think Cenk is a guy of—he's got his opinions.
I respect his right to his opinions.
I respect the hard work he puts in for his show.
And I disagree with him on a decent amount of things.
And I am particularly upset because he yelled at me last year.
But I'll tell you this, man.
When the media comes to smear him and attack him and make up fake news about him because they don't like the fact that he's running for Congress, I'll be one of the first people in line to defend him.
Okay?
I don't gotta like the guy's opinions.
I don't gotta like Trump.
I don't gotta like Cenk.
But I will tell you when the media lies.
Because I think politically, we play fair.
Okay?
If Cenk's got a good idea, then he should say it because it'll help us.
If he's got a bad idea, we should call it out because it will hurt us.
And I think Cenk's got a lot of bad ideas.
I think he's got some good ideas too.
I want to be respectful.
But look at this tweet.
I want to clap for this tweet because he's right.
He said, Reason Democratic Senators are considering voting with
Trump on impeachment, but for now there aren't Republicans considering doing the opposite,
is because the GOP has real contested primaries.
Republicans are scared of and respect their own voters.
Democrats are not concerned about their own voters.
Ick, I can't believe he tweeted this.
He tweeted it not that long after I'm recording, like right after he tweeted this.
I agree with him.
The Democrats are in these districts where they don't actually care.
And you know what it is?
Now I'll say something that Cenk would probably not like.
I think Democratic voters aren't paying attention.
So when it comes to, like, Nancy Pelosi, she doesn't get to do anything.
Because the Democratic voters are going to go in there and just check the box next to the D. Republican voters are reading the news.
They're going to vote out these people who oppose them.
You know, the RINOs, right?
The Republicans in Name Only?
Yeah, Republicans are tracking these Republicans.
Okay, the voters are tracking these politicians saying, we will primary you, we will put someone else in.
The Democrats aren't doing that.
So the Democratic politicians do not care about their base.
So here's what Cenk is saying.
They're actually Democratic senators who are going to support Trump.
You know why?
Because the Republicans are paying attention.
The Democrats aren't.
The GOP isn't willing to defy Trump because they know that the Trump base, the Republican voters, are watching them.
You know the best example of Democrats, and I'm gonna do this, I'm gonna show you proof.
Absolute proof.
Cenk is right.
100% right.
The Democratic politicians do not care about their voters.
House Democrats supporting impeachment from districts Trump won.
Yeah.
How many people defected?
How many Democrats out of the 31 districts that Trump won actually cared what their voters had to say?
Two.
Two of 31 actually rejected impeachment.
Now, there was one dude from Maine who, I'll give a 50-50, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, I guess, fine.
Maybe three Democrats.
Because the one dude from Maine said he'll support abuse of power, but he's rejecting obstruction of Congress.
But there were two Democrats from these Trump districts who said no.
So here's what this means.
There were 31 Democrats who come from districts that are majority Republican.
Most of them said, I don't care what my constituents want.
I'm going to impeach the president.
Because they're not worried.
They don't care.
They don't care what their voters think.
Jeff Van Drew did.
So what did he do?
He switched the Republican Party.
That shows you the people who actually care about their voters was that one dude, I think from Minnesota, and Jeff Van Drew.
And yes, to an extent, the guy from Maine.
So, I do think it's pretty funny then, when you consider this, right?
That the moderate Democrats don't care what their constituency wants.
That Cenk Uygur would then tweet this, because I'll tell you what, man, okay?
I will respect him when he makes a good point.
I will defend him when people come out to lie about him.
But I will criticism when I think he has bad ideas.
Cenk also tweeted this a couple days ago.
Here's the problem I have with Cenk, right?
I don't think he thinks through the details, the system that he is actually talking about.
I think he sees things on the surface and then just like, you know, without analyzing the depth of what's really going on.
So let me tell you something.
Cenk Uygur is upset that Democratic Senators don't care, or that Dems are not concerned about their own voters.
Right.
They're not concerned about their own voters.
They don't care.
Well, maybe not caring and being concerned are different things, but I'll be light on this.
He says they're not concerned at all about their own voters.
Jeff Van Drew was.
And Cenk's also criticizing him.
So it's kind of like you're criticizing both at the same time.
You're upset that Democrats aren't concerned about their own voter base, but then at the same time you criticize them for recruiting people who are.
Well, I'll tell you this.
I'm going to leave you with, in the last half of this segment, talking about Nancy Pelosi, her feud with Donald Trump, but more importantly, Pelosi is facing a primary challenge.
The problem is, the evidence in this article suggests she won't care.
And Cenk is right.
The Democrats have absolutely nothing to worry about.
Nancy Pelosi won her primary in the last one by like 70% or something.
Yeah, because people just go and say, oh Pelosi, checkmark.
Why?
What has she done?
Why does she deserve your vote?
She's facing a real primary challenge, and I'm going to show you by who.
Trump lashes out at Crazy Nancy, and San Francisco suggests a primary challenge.
So, you know, we get it. Trump calls her names and then says stuff about how it's a sham.
Democrats accuse Trump of abusing power. Yeah, we get it. Yada yada.
Trump also wrote that the bogus impeachment scam has made it more difficult for him to negotiate
with foreign leaders. Trump also continues attacks on Pelosi's San Francisco district
as a filthy, dirty district. And one of the worst anywhere in the U.S.
when it comes to the homeless and crime.
He called on Pelosi to clean up her district and help the homeless.
I agree with Trump on that one.
Pelosi comes from San Francisco and it is a disaster.
It's an oligarchy, okay?
You know what this is?
It's a massive wealth disparity of uber-rich individuals littering the top of these big fancy buildings with their beautiful offices while the poor people are living in squalor and can't afford the rent.
The fire department and the police officers, they can barely afford to even live in the city where they work.
Yeah, that is not the way something should function.
That's on you, Nancy Pelosi.
I get it, you're representing the district to the federal government, but still.
Here's where we go.
If she didn't do so, Trump suggests another California Democrat should challenge Pelosi in a primary election.
A primary challenger to Pelosi faces stiff odds.
Pelosi took a commanding lead in her 2018 primary with 68.5% of the vote and won re-election in November 2018 with 86.8% of the vote.
Why?
What has she done?
She's just another millionaire in political office and I don't get it.
And that brings me to something I've highlighted before.
The conundrum of the primary.
You see, the people who want to primary these Democrats are actually typically, you know, far left ideologically, as we would describe them in the United States.
They tend to be, like, intersectional feminists or quite socialists.
But you know what?
I'm gonna give another shout-out to Agatha Bacilar.
You see, it was a few months ago she contacted me because I had donated to the Andrew Yang campaign, and she was very nice.
And you know what?
I disagree with a decent amount of her proposals.
She's pro-Green New Deal.
I think the Green New Deal is a disaster.
And I wonder if she actually read it or if she actually supports it.
I'm not going to question her integrity.
I'm just going to say I disagree with this woman on many issues.
I agree with her on some of the issues that I think are the most important like Agatha's got a straight-up anti-war, one of her policies is straight-up like ending this foreign war stuff.
You're always going to get me on that one.
You fan that smell to me and I will drift to you with my, you know, by my nose like the old cartoon does because that's one of the things I'm most concerned about.
Because I'll give respect to people when they do the right thing.
But here's the problem with Nancy Pelosi is that she has no control over the Democratic Party.
She's floundering.
Impeachment is a disaster.
It should have never happened.
And she's doing nothing.
Nothing.
The USMCA, on the same day as impeachment, was the most ridiculous and idiotic thing I've ever seen.
Okay?
So I have, at this point, mostly just disdain for Pelosi.
And I said, you know what, man?
These people who are multi-millionaires, who are in political office, who just want the keys to the castle, they don't actually care about what's going on.
These people gotta go.
We gotta do something.
And what you do, you're not, no Republican is gonna beat Nancy Pelosi in San Francisco.
So you need a primary challenge.
And that brings me to the conundrum.
Agatha Bacilar seems like a very nice individual.
I had a good conversation with her on the phone and I respect her for, you know, reaching out.
It wasn't necessarily, it wasn't really a cold call.
You know, she knew that I had supported Yang, but I support Yang for the conversation, not so much.
Well, actually, no, I take that back.
Yang's had some good policies.
But she's actually to the left, ideologically, of Yang.
The challenge is, would she be better than Nancy Pelosi?
And this is the question I have for everybody listening.
You want to comment on the podcast or on YouTube?
What do you think?
Is it better to get a 27-year-old idealistic engineer and social justice advocate to replace Nancy Pelosi in Congress because Pelosi is one of the do-nothing, keys-to-the-castle Democrats?
Is it better to have someone who actually believes in what they're fighting for, seeking to challenge the establishment powers, even if we disagree with them?
Is that better?
Let's pull up her issues.
And it's a real question, because I've got to tell you this.
I've been leaning towards, I absolutely would rather see Agatha Bacilar in Congress than
Nancy Pelosi.
Because I'll tell you this, man.
When I look at, let's pull up her issues.
When I look at what she stands for and what she believes in, she actually believes in
I really do.
I really think so.
I think she's young and idealistic and wants to bring about change.
The same could be said with Ocasio-Cortez.
And therein lies the big challenge.
Because AOC is celebrity-driven and narcissistic.
Okay?
She's got stupid ideas.
She's naive.
She refuses to accept when she's wrong.
And she's the worst kind of tribalist.
When AOC won, I praised a good portion of her platform.
And then what happens?
Whenever something goes wrong, she goes, the Republicans are mad at me.
Dude, when you cost those jobs, when Ocasio-Cortez lost the 25,000 jobs from Amazon, it was the Democrats in New York who were yelling at you.
The narcissistic refusal to accept responsibility is the problem.
I disagree with her ideology.
I think she's duplicitous and she's lying.
But whether or not a person has bad ideas or is just a bad person, those are different things.
I think AOC is a bad person.
Narcissistic, celebrity-driven, and lying.
Plus with bad ideas.
I look at Agatha and I actually think she's nice.
She seemed honest to an extent on the phone.
But the risk I suppose is, you know, you switch out someone like Pelosi with Agatha Basilar who believes kind of, you know, more far lefty kind of ideas.
And is that worse for us?
I kind of feel like... I'm gonna keep this one short.
I think the answer is no.
I really do mean it.
I don't agree with, like, Kyle Kulinski, for instance, on a lot of policy issues, like Medicare for All.
I idealistically would like Medicare for All, like, you know, everybody having access to healthcare.
I just don't... I don't see the path towards that, you know, to get there.
And so I disagree policy-wise.
But I absolutely respect Kyle Kulinski a hundred times more than Nancy Pelosi or these other crony establishment types or, like, these weird Democrat people in media.
So, you know what?
I think the Democrats had their chance.
The challenge becomes, is it time for new fresh faces, even if they have bad ideas, to replace the crony do-nothings?
The reason I think so is because the crony do-nothings are absolutely worse.
They're absolutely worse.
They say whatever they want to say, and so Nancy Pelosi comes out and says, if the bad ideas emerge, you know, if they start getting passed around, Nancy Pelosi goes, sure, fine, whatever.
Like, impeach was a terrible idea.
And she's like, okay, fine, I guess, I'll do impeachment.
No, we don't need that.
We need someone who's going to be there and say, no, I really do believe we're going to do it for this reason or that reason, period.
Instead, Nancy Pelosi is like, we better hurry up and get impeachment done, and then I'm not going to give the articles to anybody.
I'm sorry.
You've expired my goodwill.
I'm not interested.
So much respect to Agatha for challenging her.
I don't think she'll win.
But I'll tell you this, Trump is right.
If her district does not improve, then she deserves to be primaried.
Whether or not it results in something better nationwide is a question to be had.
So comment below and let me know what you think.
Is it better to replace Nancy Pelosi with someone who actually cares, even if they have bad ideas, or to let the do-nothing sit around with the keys to the castle?
I'll leave it to you, man, because, you know, milquetoast is a fence-sitter.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up.
It's going to be a silly segment.
I hope you enjoy it, and I will see you in a few minutes.
I went and saw the movie Cats, and the reviews about the film were all wrong.
And I really do mean this, for two reasons.
First, I watch a ton of reviews, and as everybody's heard, the film Cats is a nightmarish disaster.
Okay?
It's weird and creepy and boring and all of these things.
Okay, that's technically true.
And so I listened to a bunch of these reviews and I thought, man, now I really, really want to see it.
Because for those of you that aren't familiar, Cats has, you know, one really, really famous song, Memory.
It's like super, super famous.
And then there's another moderately well-known song, Mr. Mistoffelees.
And so I was familiar with those songs.
And there was a couple other I had heard before.
So let me not bury the lead.
Cats is an unmitigated disaster.
The reviews were wrong for two reasons.
It's not bad.
It's complete torture.
Okay?
Complete torture.
And I'll tell you why.
The reviews I saw, I guess these people don't know what Cats is.
They're not familiar with what the play was.
I'm only, you know, slightly familiar with it.
But a lot of people said, I guess if you like the music, you'll probably, you know, be okay saying, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
You were wrong.
They were all wrong.
The music was trash.
It was like the worst renditions of these songs I'd ever heard, and I was furious, and I am going to rag on this, and this is the review you need to see.
But more importantly, I guess, what is this?
Last week, Judi Dench says her cat's character is trans.
Out Magazine actually covers this.
So, Judi Dench played one of the most important characters, Old Deuteronomy.
Basically, the plot is that all these cats want to go to Heaviside Lair or something where they can be reborn into a new life.
It's kind of cult-y.
And Old Deuteronomy makes the choice and chooses who.
Played by Judi Dench, which is supposed to be a male character, she claims the cat is trans.
I guess it was somewhat in jest, it was said, but would that be disrespectful or respectful?
I don't honestly know.
It's confusing because when Scarlett Johansson was cast to play as a trans woman in a movie, everybody got angry and then she ditched the role and it was a big backlash and she had to apologize for it.
But when Judi Dench comes out and goes, haha, I guess my character is trans, everyone's like, okay, that's good, I guess?
You know, I don't want to act like it was done on purpose.
I think a lot of people are using cats as, like, I think they're exaggerating a lot about it and I think this story is also being exaggerated a little bit so let me read this and break the context down for you and I want to talk to you about all of the problems of the film.
Trust me, it's interesting.
Judi Dench has a very interesting take on her cat's character, one that we can't tell if she's serious about or not.
It was clearly not serious.
In the Big Christmas musical adaption, Dench plays Old Deuteronomy, a wise old cat who judges the annual Jellicle Ball, during which different cats perform for the chance to ascend to the Heaviside Lair and be reborn into a new life.
The role is traditionally played by a male actor, but Dench was tapped for the big-screen version, a full-circle moment, as she was supposed to star in the 1981 West End stage production of the musical as Grizabella, the Glamour Cat, And Jenny Anydots, the old Gumby cat, but had to drop out after snapping her Achilles tendon.
Quote, It's glorious to have been included in it, I must say, Dench told out at a London press junket for the film on Thursday.
It was nerve-wracking because all I can hear is, Brian blessed all the time in the production that I wasn't able to be in.
She added, referring to the actor who played old Deuteronomy in the West End production.
Being cast in the traditionally male role was totally unexpected for Dench.
I kind of call it trans-Deuteronomy.
Is the part for me, you know.
Do the cats of cats have access to hormones?
And when exactly did old Deuteronomy transition?
Dench added, Okay, first of all, the movie is trash?
No.
This is not good visibility, if that's the case.
Judi Dench actually told Out Magazine that her cat was trans, so it's kind of... I don't understand why they're not finding it to be disrespectful that she was kind of playing this up.
If for some reason you care about the film Cats, I am going to now explain to you why all of the reviews are wrong.
Okay?
This was actually strange to me.
I watched like six or seven reviews of the film Cats, and people don't seem to understand what Cats is.
One thing I heard from every reviewer is that I guess there's no plot.
There's not a plot.
There's never been a plot.
It's Cats.
It's literally just songs.
Okay?
So these people go to the film not knowing what Cats is, thinking that there's supposed to be a storyline.
There isn't.
There's more of a storyline in the movie than the actual play.
The play is sung through, meaning there's no point at which people talk and have dialogue.
It's literally just song after song.
And so I'm watching all these reviews and people are like, I guess it just is like people will sing and then all of a sudden someone, some other cat comes in and then sings and then leaves.
Yes, welcome to the play Cats.
But I'll tell you where they got it wrong.
It was the most frustrating thing to me.
First of all, I love the song Memory, okay?
And I love the song Mr. Mistoffelees.
They're fun.
And they brutally murdered all of the music.
Imagine this.
Here's how I'll explain it to you.
And then I want to explain to you this article from CBR.
Cats is a dumpster fire, but it always has been.
Always.
For whatever reason, cats is popular.
I don't know.
People have criticized in the past for having no plot.
It's just songs.
But when the songs are done well, it's fun to sit there and listen to the music of the musical cats.
Let me explain something to you about what this film was.
First, there are movies that are so bad, they're good.
And I will admit, there are many people who explained this.
Notably, Amanda the Jedi.
If you follow her on YouTube, she does like cultural commentary stuff.
She said, this is not that.
Okay?
Do not think this film is so bad, you will actually enjoy it.
So at least when you go and see the musical, you're like, hanging out with my friends, and there's a play, and they're interacting with the audience, and they break the fourth wall, and you have that experience in the movie.
No.
No.
So, let me explain to you.
Here's what I want you to do, okay?
I want you to look up the original—no, there's a 1998 version of Memory by Ellen Page, and it is glorious.
And one of the top comments says something great.
It says, she has ruined this role for any—someone commented saying she has ruined this role for every other, you know, performer ever.
It's true.
That rendition of Memory is beautiful.
Now, I'm gonna be mean.
And I'm gonna tell you what's wrong with this movie.
And you're gonna be upset because it's gross.
Jennifer Hudson plays Grizabella the cat.
And she sings the song Memory.
And it is... I'm sorry.
I'm not trying to be mean, okay?
But it literally was the worst rendition of the song Memory I've ever heard in my life.
In School of Rock, again, I'm pulling this from Amanda the Jedi's video because she, I think this is where she, maybe it wasn't her, I don't know, but she shows the clip from School of Rock with Jack Black where that girl Miranda Cosgrove, actress, very poorly sings the first line of the song Memory.
That was better.
It was supposed to be shrill and bad and like to highlight how this little girl couldn't sing.
The problem with the rendition from Jennifer Hudson is that as she's singing, she's like whispering very softly while crying and snot is pouring out of her nose.
I'm not exaggerating, okay?
Do not go see this movie.
It is not a movie where you're like, wow, that's so bad.
It's good.
It's literally like cringe-inducing and painful.
I kid you not.
It was painful to hear this just tragic and terrible rendition of memory.
Because here's what I'm thinking.
As I'm sitting through this god-awful version of whatever this is supposed to be, and it was trash, okay?
They're creepy, weird cat monsters, and my favorite criticism is, they're so horny for some reason.
I mean, they always were, I guess, in the playoff.
But I'm sitting there thinking, OK, I know some of the songs.
I don't like… not well.
But at least I'll enjoy them.
And some of them were kind of fun.
And I'm like, OK, it's not bad.
But you know what?
It was really, really boring.
It was hard to sit through.
But I'm thinking, you know what, man?
The payoff is going to be a new epic version of Memory.
This is a great song.
It's a classic.
You probably know.
You probably heard it.
Go check out that Ellen Page version from 1998.
It'll pop up.
It's famous.
And I'm thinking it's gonna be great, okay?
Because the movie's really, really bad, but I'm watching it, and then we'll see.
First, let me tell you, the reason I went to go see it was because I genuinely thought it might be one of these films that's so bad it's good, even though I was warned.
It's really just a boring bit of, like, nothing.
You're sitting through nothing.
It's like sitting in a dark room, bored.
I wanted to pull out my phone and just, like, play games.
But I was hoping the two songs I wanted to hear, Mr. Mistoffelees and, you know, the amazing Mr. Mistoffelees, and Memory, would at least be fun.
Think of your favorite song.
Think of your favorite point of that song.
Many songs that do really, really well have like a good bit of rising action and then the crescendo.
Boom!
The song picks up and there's the chorus and you're like, oh, it's so satisfying.
Now imagine your favorite song is playing and that favorite part you really like, right when they're about to get to it, you're getting that feeling like, oh, it's my favorite part of the song and then it cuts to a whisper.
And the music disappears, and it's just someone, like, quietly talking, and that's what it felt like.
And it's painful, because, you know, humans have this urge to see things finished through, right?
I was watching this thing about how, like, clickbait works, because people will see a title, and their brain is unsatisfied by not seeing the conclusion, so it'll be like, you know, this is why so-and-so did X, and you're like, what?
I have to know, because your brain doesn't want that incomplete bit.
You have to have the complete story.
So listening to music that never reaches the crescendo or only does for like three seconds and then stops again, it was like someone was punching me in the face repeatedly.
That bothered me, man.
I wanted to hear these songs and they were done so awfully and miserably.
I don't know what they were trying to do this film, but you know what?
Okay, I'm gonna stop ranting on this, but um...
I have this article pulled up from CBR because one of the things that people get wrong is that Cats has always been weird and bad, okay, from a storytelling perspective, but it's a fun experience as a musical where they break the fourth wall and you go to sit there and you actually watch people dance.
It's also interesting to see the dancing and the singing and it's upbeat and exciting.
This movie was twisted and depressing.
It was off-putting for the weird monster-ish form of these weird people cats.
There were CGI mistakes that were really creepy and weird.
They tried putting some weird dialogue and plot bit in it, and at a certain point it makes no sense.
Rebel Wilson saying things to be funny that were not funny.
So, you know, the whole thing was just genuinely awful for several reasons, but one of which was that They didn't know what they were doing, right?
They wanted it to be Cats, which is a sung-through musical, but then they wanted to put some dialogue in it.
Well, then don't.
But then, you know what, man?
You know, you get the point.
Cats continues to be mauled as Evan Rachel Wood brands it the worst thing I have ever seen.
I really want to drive this home, okay?
There's one reason why I'm recording a segment about Cats.
I wanted to see it because of the cultural conversation, I suppose, because people have been talking about it.
Not because I necessarily wanted to record this video.
I thought I would find that these reviewers were all wrong.
They just didn't know what the play was.
When people were saying things like, I guess there's no plot to this movie, I'm like, duh.
It's Cats, dude.
Like, what do you think?
It's a sung-through musical.
It's not going to be people, like, having a conversation.
There's no script.
It's just music.
And then I thought I'd enjoy the music.
But they butchered the music and it was miserable and mind-numbing.
And so I gotta be honest.
I left like a few minutes before the end.
So I left like when they started doing this round-up thing where they're singing about cats aren't being dogs or whatever.
And I'm like, I've had enough.
I've had enough.
Okay?
When they ruined the song Memory, I was like, let me end with this, okay?
So I'll stop.
Jennifer Hudson, singing the song Memory, literally with snot pouring out of her nose as she whisper cries the lyrics, was the most anger-inducing thing I've ever experienced.
Okay?
It was just, it was a combination of annoying and like, you ever talk to somebody and they're muttering and you're like, can you speak up?
I can't hear you.
And you're like, it is so annoying when you keep muttering and I can't understand what you're saying.
Yeah, now do that.
Watch this movie.
I'm warning you.
Do not see this movie.
Do not think that you will laugh at it.
Do not think that you will enjoy the music.
Do not think anything positive about this.
I am warning you because I made this mistake.
I thought it would be so bad I'd at least be laughing at the things I heard about.
I'd go to the film and be like, I know it's not so bad, it's good, but I want to see what people are saying.
