The Migrant Crisis Is OVER, Trump Declares Victory As Yuma ENDS State of Emergency Praises President
The Migrant Crisis Is OVER, Trump Declares Victory As Yuma ENDS State of Emergency Praises President. The Mayor of Yuma, Arizona has officially ended their state of emergency and largely credited the policies of the Trump administration.Acting Deputy Department of Homeland Security Ken Cuccinelli joined the mayor of Yuma to announce the policies involved in ending the crisis.Regardless of your support for President Trump it is fair to say he got exactly what he wanted. Unauthorized Immigration is down, border crossings are down, and across the board immigration, legal or otherwise, is down nearly 70%.There may be an interesting correlation between these policies and Trump's support from the african american community. A new story yesterday in the Chicago tribune highlights how many young black men are getting jobs following the ICE raids on poultry processing plants.This same story is reflected in an old story form 2007 that showed the exact same thing.Democrats may oppose Trump's policies on immigration but the fact is it does help american workers who can in turn legally vote for Trump in 2020.Regardless, as we watch the emergency declarations end and the number of migrants diminish, it is safe to say Trump has won this fight. There is still the issue of sanctuary cities and California, a sanctuary state, but for now it seems Trump will get his way.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Fox News might not want to say it, but the migrant crisis, for all intents and purposes, is over.
According to some of the latest data, from the peak of the migrant crisis, illegal border crossings are down overwhelmingly.
And across the board since last year, general immigration, legal or otherwise, is down around 70%.
Huffington Post called it Trump getting his wall, figuratively.
But now we have another story.
Yuma, Arizona has ended its state of emergency as migrant crisis diminishes, and the mayor has praised Trump for his policies.
Now, I don't want to act like literally everything's been resolved, but for the most part, it seems that Trump got what he wanted.
Because again, not just illegal immigration, general immigration across the board is down.
H-1B skilled worker visas are down, and those are being exploited by big tech companies, so we'll get to that.
But I also think this might play into why Trump's approval among the black community has actually gone up.
While some people refute this, there are three polls showing that Trump's support may be around 30 or so percent, 36 percent.
One of them from Emerson, which is considered by FiveThirtyEight to be one of the most accurate polls.
I think this actually has something to do with Trump's immigration policy, and I've got some articles to back that up.
But first, Let's get started with what's happening with Yuma, Arizona, why the migrant crisis is effectively over, and why the mayor is praising Trump.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address to send things to.
The best thing you can do, however, is share this video.
YouTube has absolutely been propping up mainstream media, and that includes Fox News.
They're the biggest recipient of the algorithmic changes.
It's bad news for channels like mine.
But if you think I do a good job, Then there's one thing that is absolutely more powerful than any algorithmic change, and it's your ability to just share the video.
Sharing this word of mouth, it will absolutely trump any algorithmic change.
So if you like it, please consider sharing.
Let's read.
Fox News reports, the mayor of the border city of Yuma, Arizona has withdrawn his city's state of emergency that was declared in response to this year's migrant crisis at the southern border, saying that the crisis has diminished in recent months.
Quote, I'm grateful to be able to withdraw the proclamation of emergency due to the Trump administration's policy changes that diminish the flow of the migrant family units to the Yuma area and prevent releases into the Yuma community, Mayor Douglas Nichols said in a statement earlier this month.
Nichols declared a state of emergency in April near the peak of the border crisis, when the number of migrants apprehended or turned away at the border soared to over 109,000.
The number would hit 144,000 in May, but then declined sharply in the months since then, down to about 42,000 in November.
At the time, Nichols said the state of emergency was due to the migrant family releases overwhelming the local shelter system.
Fox News goes on to say, The administration has credited a slew of measures for bringing down the number of migrants approaching the border.
Most significantly is the ramping up of the migrant protection protocols over the summer, which sees migrants returned to Mexico as they await their hearings.
Breaking for a second, for those that aren't familiar, this is the Remain in Mexico policy.
Now there's a lot of people who are upset with it, but it basically says, if you want to apply for asylum, you can wait in Mexico.
So far, more than 53,000 migrants have been returned to Mexico under the MPP.
That has been coupled with asylum agreements with countries such as Guatemala and El Salvador that seize migrants sent there to claim asylum instead.
While those policies have drawn significant criticism from pro-migrant and humanitarian groups, who warn that they could send migrants into dangerous areas and place them at risk of violence, the administration claims it is those policies that have helped slow the crisis and end the pull factors that brought migrants north.
They also mean that apprehended migrants can be processed quicker, and in many cases be sent to Mexico or a Central American country, rather than released into the U.S.
interior.
In a press release, Nichols also credited those initiatives for alleviating the crisis in Yuma.
In fact, what the Border Patrol has said is they've ended catch and release.
I think that's actually in the story.
Well, let me just, let me just wrap this up.
He made the announcement alongside Acting Deputy Department of Homeland Security Ken Cuccinelli, who made the link between administration policies and relief in places such as Yuma.
Quote, the number of Central American family units apprehended has decreased by 85% since the height of the crisis in May.
And thanks to a number of policies we implemented, we have ended catch and release and are returning, removing, and repatriating more aliens from the border than ever before.
Now, communities like Yuma are directly seeing the effect of our efforts.
So I want to show you this graph we have here.
And again, I want to make sure this is clear.
If you're someone on the left and you don't like what Trump is doing, well, then pay attention because this is happening.
I'm not going to tell you whether or not you should support or not support it.
I just want to show you the details and say I really do think Trump has won this.
I mean, 85% decline from the peak of the migrant crisis.
It sounds like a major victory for the president.
Now these numbers from CBP.gov end in September, so this is a bit old, you know, by a few months.
But we can see that since May, the number of families being apprehended has dropped dramatically.
And of course, we've seen this news report across the board.
The Wall Street Journal said in September, that U.S.
border crossings continue to fall as Mexico disrupts migrant flow.
One of the things that Trump did was he organized an agreement with Mexico to secure their borders and make them take care of a lot of the migrant caravans that were heading to the country.
Because Mexico took action, that meant less people actually making it to the U.S.
border.
So it's not just what Donald Trump has done, although you could argue it's his arrangement with Mexico, but Mexico has also taken action against many of the Central American migrants who are coming.
Then we have what was briefly mentioned, the Remain in Mexico policy.
This story from the Epoch Times in November.
Thousands of migrants are voluntarily going back home after being sent back to Mexico under Trump policy.
Now, initially, I was going to use an NPR source, but the NPR source was very biased and framing it as though it was like an evil action or something.
And I thought that was unfair.
The best I could do was Epoch Times, though I'll probably get criticized for using it.
Let me read a little bit of the story.
And then I want to move on to the Trump raids.
Donald Trump, his administration, more specifically ICE, raided several chicken processing plants.
In response, many locals got jobs.
But this is an echo, a mirror of what we saw back in 2007 reported by the Wall Street Journal, that these raids resulted in locals in the black community getting new jobs and actually being happy about it.
Perhaps this is why we're seeing that approval for Trump is going up.
And I'll come to this.
But let's read a little bit of the story about how they're returning.
Epoch Times reports, Thousands of migrants who have been sent to Mexico to wait for courts to process their asylum claims under the Trump administration's Remain in Mexico policy are starting to voluntarily return home, according to a report released by the Department of Homeland Security.
The Trump administration has ramped up efforts in the past year to address the influx of illegal immigrants crossing into the U.S.
and restore integrity to the immigration system.
One of the administration's top priorities is to end loopholes from the current catch-and-release policy in which migrants are released into the interior of the country as they await a court hearing, often never to be seen again.
So I don't want to rehash what I already read, but I want to show you this story from the Chicago Tribune.
The economy is doing really, really well under Trump.
Most people, not even Democrats, can deny it.
One of the most interesting polls we've seen recently was from USA Today that showed 80% of people believe that their life is going to get better in 2020, and they almost exclusively say it's the economy.
In fact, many of them say it's whatever Trump is doing.
One of the most interesting comments was from someone in Boston who said, yes, my life is better.
Things are going well, I'm saving money, but climate change, right?
Well, outside of all of those arguments about climate change or whether or not they'll actually support the president, we can see that even people who don't like the president because he doesn't address certain policies they want to see addressed, they can admit the economy is doing really, really well.
I believe one of the factors as to why the economy is doing well is because of Trump's immigration policy.
Now, many people have argued that there's no correlation between a lack of low-skilled labor and immigrants.
Andrew Yang, for instance, on the debate stage said, take a look at these factories and you don't see migrants working in these factories, you see robots.
Now, Andrew Yang's right.
But it's also true there are some jobs that, as of today, can't be done by robots.
And we have seen not just recent stories, this story from yesterday, Chicago Tribune, but a story from twelve years ago showing that after I don't believe they had ICE 12 years ago, but after there were immigration raids, it was locals in the black community who were offered up these jobs, and the companies that were doing the chicken processing, the poultry processing, actually offered up an increase in the base salary to try and attract local labor.
That backs up a lot of the claims made by Donald Trump about immigration, and perhaps it's evidence to suggest that as Trump cracks down on illegal immigration, and admittedly immigration across the board, that means the demand for jobs will remain the same, but the supply pool will be lower, even if only by a little bit.
In this story from the Chicago Tribune, they highlight how people got these jobs.
Check this out.
Sweeping ice raids in Mississippi's chicken country opened up jobs for American workers.
For some, it's complicated, saying, quote, It's like I stole it.
I'll only read a little bit of the story, but the Tribune reports,
Juan Grant strode into the Coke Foods chicken processing plant for his new job on Wednesday
morning, joining many other African Americans in a procession of rubber boots, hairnets
and last cigarettes before the grind.
At 20, Grant was too young to remember the days of a nearly all-white workforce in Mississippi's poultry industry or the civil rights boycotts and protests that followed.
He was too young to have seen how white workers largely moved on after that, leaving the business of killing, cutting, and packing to African Americans.
He did not know the time before Hispanic workers began arriving in the heart of chicken country by the thousands, recruited by plant managers looking to fill low-paying jobs in an expanding industry.
But Grant clearly remembered August 7, the day the Trump administration performed sweeping immigration raids on seven chicken plants in central Mississippi.
He remembered the news flashing on his phone, 680 Hispanic workers arrested.
He remembers seeing an opportunity.
I figured there should be some jobs.
He figured right.
The raids were believed to be the largest statewide immigration crackdown in recent history, and a partial fulfillment of President Donald Trump's vow to deport millions of workers living in the U.S.
illegally.
The impact on Mississippi's immigration community has been devastating.
For non-immigrant workers, the aftermath has forced them into a personal reckoning with questions of morality and economic self-interest.
The raids brought suffering, but they also created job openings.
Some believe that the immigrant workers had it coming.
If you're someone who ain't supposed to be, they're going to come get you, said a worker named Jamal, who declined to give his full name because Coke Foods had not authorized him to speak.
That's only right.
There was also Shalonda Davis, 35, a 17-year veteran of the plant.
She has seen many workers of all backgrounds come and go.
But she was horrified that so many of her Hispanic colleagues were rounded up.
Some of them, she said, wanted to work so badly, they tried to return the next day.
This story is from yesterday.
I've seen bits of it going around, but they highlight how many African American workers came in and replaced those who were deported or removed by ICE.
Now, you can argue, as they showed here, those people weren't supposed to be working here in the first place.
I'm not going to put the responsibility on the immigrants or on the local African American workers who are taking the jobs.
I think the responsibility falls on the company, who is seeking to exploit cheap labor.
This is what's fascinating to me.
It's always been a left-wing position to oppose these companies exploiting illegal immigrants.
In fact, in 2015, Bernie Sanders said Open Borders was a Koch Brothers proposal, noting that the Koch Industries is not the same.
I'm sorry, the Koch Processing Plant is not the Koch Brothers.
That's my understanding.
But you have to think about it.
Why would the Koch brothers or other industrialists want open borders?
They can pay below minimum wage to people who aren't here legally because they can't do anything about it.
In fact, there were some stories that some plants would hire people, offer them under-the-table cash, And then at the end of the month, call immigration and have them deported.
Now, I don't know if those are urban legends.
They're just stories I heard in the past.
But you'd think it would be the left saying these companies should not be allowed to exploit the working class and these poor migrants with low wages and no benefits.
You'd think they'd be saying they should be paying more to the local community.
Instead, for some reason, the left seems to have abandoned this, and it's falling into Donald Trump to call it out.
Check this out, though.
I showed you this story from 2019.
What if I took you back to 2007?
In fact, January of 2017.
I'm sorry.
January 17th, 2007.
of 2017. I'm sorry, January 17th, 2007, almost 13 years ago, the Wall Street Journal reported this.
An immigration raid aids blacks for a time.
They say after a wave of raids by federal immigration agents on Labor Day, a local chicken processing company called Kreider Inc.
lost 75% of its mostly Hispanic 900-member workforce.
The crackdown threatened to cripple the economic anchor of this fading rural town.
But for local African-Americans, the dramatic appearance of federal agents presented an unexpected opportunity.
Crider suddenly raised pay at the plant.
An advertisement in the weekly Forest Blade newspaper blared, increased wages at Crider starting at $7 to $9 an hour, more than a dollar above what the company had paid many immigrant workers.
And I want to stop.
And just remember, this is 13 years ago, so the wages were very different.
Today, it'd probably be $14 to $15 an hour.
The company began offering free transportation from nearby towns and free rooms in a company-owned dormitory near the plant.
For the first time in years, local officials say Kreider aggressively sought workers from the area's state-funded employment office, a key avenue for low-skilled workers to find jobs.
Of 400 candidates sent to Kreider, most of them black, the plant hired around 200.
They say a customer at a convenience store in Douglas, GA, told April Palk, a part-time clerk, that a recruiter was in town looking for workers.
Ms.
Palk passed the word to her husband, 32-year-old Jermaine Royals, who had just been laid off from the latest in a series of temporary jobs.
Both are African American.
Less than a month after the raids on illegal immigrants, Mr. Royals and three other workers met at a gas station parking lot and piled into a van sent by Peacock Poultry, Inc., one of several contractors hired to fill the ranks of Crider's production lines.
Two hours later, they pulled into an austere complex of brown dormitories owned by Crider, less than three weeks earlier had teamed with Hispanics.
Mr. Royal stashed two small bags of belongings and a boombox in a dingy room and took his place the next morning on a production line in the chicken plant.
For the first time since significant numbers of Latinos began arriving, and still more, in the late 1990s, the plant's processing lines were made up of predominantly African Americans.
Now, 13 years later, we hear the same story.
And what is the response from Politico?
Trump shocks black voters by trying to get their votes.
Really?
They say the president's re-election team knows he's never going to win sizable African-American support.
But that's not the point.
Now, this story is just from a couple weeks ago.
But take a look at this story from around the same time.
Actually, this is from a week ago.
Awakening.
Black voters abandoned by Democrats warm to Trump.
Now, there's a story I highlighted several times in the past few days.
It's a Vox article that says the Democratic Party is increasingly becoming the party of the wealthy.
That's from 2016.
Think about where we're at now.
It used to be the industrialists wanting open borders and bringing in these migrant workers at low wages, displacing the local community and taking away low-skilled jobs.
And in 2007, that was under Bush.
Now it's Donald Trump.
Trump probably saw this.
They knew what happened when they raided these plants and, you know, deported these undocumented workers, and it resulted in locals getting these jobs.
Take a look at this.
Former NFL player Jack Brewer once raised campaign money for Barack Obama.
Now he's among the increasing number of black voters who support President Trump.
Quote, There's an awakening going on right now in the country, Mr. Brewer said, of black voters who traditionally support Democrats.
I'm going to take the guy who's actually putting in the policies that are going to make life better for my young black son and my young black daughter versus somebody who gives me lip service.
Like, unfortunately, the Democrats have done for our community for years.
They go on to say that the approval rating has gone up dramatically from numerous polls.
They say three polls in November.
showed Mr. Trump's job approval rating among black voters in the 30 to 35 percent range,
a significant increase over other surveys that have generally shown black voter support of less
than 10 percent. Quote, I'll remind you, the president received eight percent of the black
vote in 2016, said a senior Trump campaign official. Now, I can't tell you specifically
what Mr. Brewer is referring to in terms of policies Trump was going to enact that would
help the black community.
I can look at the latest story just the other day from the Tribune, that after these raids, undocumented workers are being displaced, they're not supposed to be legally working here in the first place, and it's the local community, the African American community, they're being given these jobs.
And a lot of these people are happy they're getting these jobs.
You know, one of the most important things, and one of the things that bothers me most about racists, period, anywhere in the world, is the assumption that people are racially driven due to some genetic factor or something to commit some kind of crime or to be criminally predisposed.
The reality is data shows us poverty breeds crime.
And this is why you're likely seeing comments like this from people like Brewer.
If the Democrats are going to be all about tacit open borders, not direct open borders, but being welcoming of undocumented immigrants and protecting them and refusing to deport them, as many of them have said, you're going to create people in communities, primarily African-American communities, who don't have jobs.
Thus, you will create more poverty surrounding the area, and poverty breeds crime, not race.
This is fuel for the racists.
It's one of the most frustrating things in trying to explain how poverty does this.
If Donald Trump is telling these factories, you cannot break the law, unfortunately there are people who are being negatively impacted by this, the immigrants, the undocumented immigrants, they're not supposed to be working here in the first place, but it's going to help those who are American first, hence Donald Trump's nationalism.
But I want to end with a few more things because it's not just about, you know, support.
I wanted to highlight this.
I think this is very interesting.
But you have to understand that what Trump is doing isn't just changing the face of illegal immigration, but also illegal practices or sneaky practices by major corporations to skirt immigration laws to bring about skilled labor from foreign countries when they shouldn't be doing it.
First, Well, actually, I'm not gonna get into this.
This is a story that says the radical immigration changes under Trump that went unnoticed.
I was actually looking at this one.
This is Quartz, India.
An Indian CEO is held for duping U.S.
visa authorities to bring in 200 foreigners.
Exploitation of the H-1B.
Take a look at this story.
This is a story from Dice.com.
I'm not super familiar with what Dice is, but this is from October.
This is not a certified NewsGuard source, so just keep it in mind.
But it's one of the very few outlets that actually talk about how Google and Amazon are exploiting H-1Bs.
H-1B is a skilled labor visa, into bringing people into this country, for one.
There's been a story going around, I don't have it pulled up, so this one you've got to fact-check me on, that says, first, if you want to bring in skilled labor, you have to prove you couldn't find American labor to fill that role.
So what they do is they take out jargon-laden, confusing articles in small-town papers, and then when no one responds, they say, it didn't work, and then they stuff the H-1B lottery system to try and get as many workers as possible.
But according to this story, we can actually see they do something else.
They use secondary subcontractors to double up their H-1Bs.
Take a look at this.
While Google is in the middle, Facebook is not the worst.
Apple will offer up—will apply for 836 primary H-1Bs, but use contractors to apply for 2,274
so that Apple can double up the visa for the same—essentially the same job.
You can see Google primarily uses their own—applies for their own visas, but still uses secondary
contractors.
Basically, it's being accused, and I'll make sure this is very, you know, I will be very careful on this one.
What I've been told, as it's been explained to me, is that Google and Amazon and other tech companies will just litter the lottery system with as many tickets as possible.
You know, it's kind of like a raffle, it's a lottery system.
And this makes it very, very difficult for smaller companies, medium-sized companies, to actually get the skilled labor they can't find anywhere else.
When it comes to an H-1B, the general idea is, if no one in America can do the job, and you can explain why they can't, and you win the lottery, we will bring in skilled labor from a different country into the U.S.
Now, Trump, it's my understanding, has cut down H-1Bs and is doing everything to stop the exploitation, or he's doing some things to stop the exploitation.
But what I've heard from medium-sized tech companies is that when they literally can't find developers in the U.S., they still have trouble getting skilled labor from foreign countries because of how the system is exploited by big tech.
I'll end by saying this.
You get the point.
The main takeaway from all of this is, I think, Whether you like Trump's policies or not, he is seeing growing support, likely due, at least in some part, to these immigration policies.
The economy is doing well, likely in part to the immigration policies.
Apprehensions are way down.
Yuma has cleared their state of emergency.
I would say Trump has taken a victory on this front.
It's likely why you're not really hearing about it a lot in the press.
It's probably why they're shifting to impeachment.
Nobody wants to make the story saying Trump, you know, declares victory on this issue.
Or at least I should say, it's not going to become a dominant news cycle story because when do they ever talk about Trump succeeding in something?
But here you can see he did it.
Trump got what he wanted.
Is it perfect?
No.
Did he get a big beautiful 30-foot concrete wall from Sea to Shining Sea?
And according to the Huffington Post, a story I covered several times, they said Trump got his wall figuratively, meaning immigration across the board is just down.
I think it's fair to say that what we're seeing now is the end of the migrant crisis, a victory for Donald Trump as the state of emergency is cleared.
Let me know what you think in the comments below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
I think I'm gonna do something new for the new year.
So this is a heads up for everyone on this channel.
I will have more videos coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6 p.m.
615 and 630.
However, I think starting next year I might put every single segment on this channel and I might turn my second channel into a new live show where every day around 8 p.m.
I would just do a live kind of Q&A style thing But also try and have a guest as we sort of riff about subjects that don't make the main segments.
Essentially creating a whole new show.
I'm building a studio.
If you've gone to my YouTube channel, TimCastIRL, which is in the side, you can see that we've got the early images of the construction, but it's going to be done very soon.
So by the time I'm back home, It'll all be there and I think we're gonna try and we got some work to do maybe design a small set but I think the goal will be to do more of a general news not super political podcast show with a consistent guest and we'll see what happens I'm really excited for it but again I've talked about a bunch of projects some of them have been false starts because they're really difficult to get going and admittedly if I start a new show it's gonna be very difficult to do a road show with the van
2020's coming up.
Just keep it in mind, okay?
Because it may be what happens, but I think regardless, I already put my main segment— I'm sorry, I already put a segment at 10 a.m.
on my main channel.
You may have noticed.
That's probably going to be the case from now on, because certain algorithmic changes have made two channels redundant.
But I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
I will see you all at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
And again, stay tuned.
We'll see what happens the new year, but for those that I don't see again, New Year's Eve is tomorrow.
I hope you have a good time, and I will see you soon.
There's a reason why I like a couple of the Democrats, notably Andrew Yang and Tulsi
Gabbard, because it seems like out of all of the candidates, they're at least honest,
and I kind of like that.
There's also Bernie Sanders, who has been a bit honest, and I'll show you some of the things I think he's been honest about, but I've been very critical of Bernie because I feel like he's pandering to woke outrage and policies he used to oppose.
If you look at Bernie Sanders' track record in the past, or the statements he made in 2015, it seems kind of weird.
Because he's kind of flip-flopped on some issues, and he's said some weirdly offensive things to white working class voters.
Notably, that they don't know what it's like to be poor.
Don't take my word for it.
That's a quote from the 2016 cycle, when he was on the debate stage.
But now we have a story about Andrew Yang.
Democrats are still in denial about why we lost the 2016 election.
Here's another reason why I like the guy.
Certainly don't think he's perfect.
Want to make sure that's clear because I know people are going to come out and be like, oh, but Yang is wrong on this.
Oh, I'll show you where Yang is wrong on some stuff.
But I think it's fair to say, at least he's self-reflecting.
Because that's something the Democrats aren't doing.
And, well, he's being honest.
He's saying it's not about Trump.
In fact, there's another article, I don't think I've pulled up, maybe they have this quote, where he's saying they can't keep blaming Trump for everything.
And I'm sitting here saying, thank you.
Finally.
Please.
Andrew Yang's a quick learner.
He's a smart guy and I can respect that.
I don't think he's right on everything.
But let's see what he had to say.
Before we get started, I'm going to let you, I'm going to tell you, you may notice, this is an early morning video on my main channel.
I'm going to be doing this probably for the new year as we're entering the 2020 election cycle so I can sort of differentiate between my big strong personal opinions and kind of just focus on stories where we look at what some of the Democratic candidates are saying.
I think it'll be more useful.
It probably will be less effective as like a business thing, you know, because doing opinion tends to do better.
But I want to do this.
I want to show you what Andrew Yang said, and I want to show you some of his positions, and I want to talk about what it means to truly work hard, and why Andrew Yang, or some of the more far lefties who support him, are wrong.
First, let's read from Town Hall.
But, again, before we get started, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are several ways you can give.
The best thing you can do, share this video if you think it's a good video, and you think it's, I don't know.
Otherwise, just watch, and you can hate me.
Fine.
Whatever.
Let's read.
I want to start with your campaign slogan.
It's not left, not right, but forward.
joined ABC News' This Week on Sunday.
The very first question he, I'm assuming they said he was asked, copy editor guys.
I want to start with your campaign slogan.
It's not left, not right, but forward.
What does that mean?
Yang said, well, John, to me, it's clear the reason why Donald Trump is our president today
is that we automated away 4 million manufacturing jobs that were primarily based in Michigan,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Iowa, the swing states he needed to win.
And what we did to those jobs, we are now going to do to the retail jobs, the call center
jobs, the fast food jobs, and eventually the truck driving jobs.
And I don't know if Yang's timeline is correct.
I think it's happening faster than you realize.
So first, we are absolutely automating away a ton of jobs.
That's going to result in a lot of people out of work.
Along comes Donald Trump and says, these free trade agreements sent your jobs overseas or to other countries, and we're going to bring them back.
Now, here's the thing.
Trump's right about that.
Trump got some of these factories to be rebuilt in, say, Michigan.
Andrew Yang is also right that some of the factories that exist don't hire as many people because they're automating away jobs, especially low-skill jobs.
If you think it's bad now, I think it was Yang who talked about this, too.
Take a look at the Industrial Revolution.
When people started losing their jobs, people got really, really angry because people like working and people need food.
And if you have no security, shelter, or food, you have no access to resources, that's when things start lighting up.
So I view Yang as kind of the actual response to Donald Trump.
All of these Democrats that are running, in my opinion, for the most part, are regressive.
And I don't mean like a buzzword regressive.
I mean like... I like Tulsi Gabbard, right?
I'm a big fan.
I think she's awesome.
Full disclosure, I donated to Tulsi and Yang.
I think they're great.
Tulsi's principal position is ending these foreign wars.
The reason I agree with that is because it's a massive waste of our money that could go to literally anything.
Alright?
Say you're a conservative.
Yeah, if we stop spending trillions of dollars on war, that's less taxes you have to pay.
Let's say you're a Democrat or a liberal.
Let's say we take those trillions of dollars and we fix the pipes in Flint.
It's the first thing you have to do.
It's mind-blowing to me that we have any people on stage at all running for president when the first position should be, hey, we got a ton of money, we're dumping it over there.
I know, I know, I know.
Hold on, hold on.
A lot of people are now screaming, saying, that's not how the economy works.
You're right.
When we spend money on supplies and things for war that are manufactured here in the U.S., that money does stay in the economy.
But I'm talking about literally building roads and infrastructure and building bases overseas, sending drones and, you know, multi-million dollar Hellfire missiles.
We don't need to do that.
So let's get back to the main point at hand.
Donald Trump's solution to essentially automation and loss of jobs was to target the free trade agreements and these bad trade agreements.
And that makes sense.
Donald Trump is a tradesman.
He's got character defects.
We'll sidestep that for now because I know people on the left will be like, ah.
But the point is, Donald Trump's proposed solutions fit his worldview.
Business.
He proposes business solutions.
They work.
Will they work forever?
Not necessarily.
Andrew Yang is a tech entrepreneur.
His solutions are tech-based.
Will they also solve all the problems?
Not really.
That's why I think you need some kind of combination of the two.
We need to recognize that when companies send jobs overseas, that's taking jobs away from Americans.
That's hurting our people who are now Without a way to access resources.
We also have to recognize, man, fast food restaurants and businesses, they're going to be cutting jobs as they put in kiosks.
And yeah, factories are going to build more and more robots and automate, and those jobs are going to go away.
Self-driving cars are on the corner.
Andrew Yang is right.
But I'm sorry I buried the lead on this one.
I want to show you what he said about being in denial.
So let's read on more of what Yang said.
According to the Entrepreneur, how America deals with technological advancements should be something, quote, that works for all Americans independent of your political affiliation.
I agree.
These people are technological.
These problems are technological and apply to us all.
Carl followed up by asking Yang if he believed the Democrats have been too ideological, too far to the left, and the Republicans have been too far to the right.
He said, I was an ambassador in the Obama administration, but to me, the Democrats have still not asked themselves the hard questions as to how Donald Trump won in 2016.
If you look around the country, you see 30% of stores and malls closing.
You see record high levels of stress, financial insecurity, student loan debt, even suicides and drug overdoses.
The Democratic Party, unfortunately, is acting like Donald Trump is the cause of all of our problems.
He's a symptom, and we need to cure the underlying disease.
There are two symptoms.
I'm sorry, the disease is not just these jobs being automated away.
But I will say this.
I do like the Yang guy, man.
I gotta admit.
You know, when he first popped up on the scene, I was skeptical because there were these weird internet campaigns.
And he's got this Freedom, the Freedom Bucks thing, the Freedom Dividend, which I am a bit skeptical on, but I do appreciate, and we'll talk about that.
But it's a bit refreshing to have someone finally say, stop blaming Trump.
It's basically the conversation I have all day.
I go to people and they're like, oh, but Donald Trump.
Donald Trump is the perfect solution for what ails so many people.
You might not want to hear it.
You might say, no, Tim, Trump is the orange man.
He's evil.
He's wrong.
He's bad.
He's corrupt.
I don't care.
That's not the point.
The point is, you had a tradesman, an international businessman, who is telling you, he's been telling you since NAFTA was signed, this is bad.
I'm going to fix it.
I know how to fix it.
I got my name on buildings all around the world.
Trust me, I know what I'm doing.
People, listen to that.
Even if he's a bad person, you've got someone who's more qualified to fix the trade problem.
More importantly, Trump's bad attitude played a major role.
People are tired of being told what they can and can't say.
This is a fact.
Look at the polls, look at sentiment.
Nobody likes the idea they gotta zip their mouth shut and they're scared of talking the way they want.
Donald Trump comes along and he calls people horseface.
You know, he insults people, questions their professional credibility.
Or the credentials.
People finally are saying, I'm not scared anymore.
There are still a ton of people who are scared to say they support the president.
And there are a lot of people on the left who just think Trump is literally the worst incarnation of any leader ever.
But the reality is there were two big problems, two really big problems.
Bad trade, which resulted in a lot of loss of these jobs.
Not just trade, I understand, it's loss of jobs in general.
But Trump's solution was trade.
It worked.
They're opening factories in Michigan.
Okay, if you're on the left and you want to deny that, fine.
Listen to Andrew Yang when he says you're in denial about what got Donald Trump elected.
It is the automation.
It is the trading away our jobs to foreign countries.
It's TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Trump finished off.
He nuked it.
And Bernie wanted to do the same thing.
This is why people said Bernie or Bus.
This is why so many people, 12-18% went from Bernie to Trump.
If you're not paying attention, you're gonna lose.
However, when asked if they went too far to the left, what did Yang say?
Well, he didn't really say yes or no, but I want to show you this.
Because certainly there are a lot of people who would like to claim that I'm right-wing and fine, whatever.
You can call me whatever you want, sure.
What you're seeing right now is a graph I've shown many times.
For those listening on the podcast, let me explain.
We can see that there's two lines, a blue line and a red line.
The red line shows the left and right swing of the Republican Party.
The blue line shows the left and right swing of the Democratic Party.
In 2008, the Democratic Party swung super far to the left.
And by 2016, the Democratic Party is now to the left of the average European party.
Many European parties are more socialistic.
Not socialist entirely, but they're social democracies, so they have very, very massive welfare states.
The Republicans have barely moved relative to the Democrats.
If you find yourself where Barack Obama was, he was actually decently far left.
I mean, he campaigned on universal health care.
Then yes, 100%, the Democratic Party has swung too far to the left.
So let me add to Andrew Yang's statement that the Democrats are still in denial about why they lost in 2016.
Because in 2016, they moved so far left, they abandoned the Obama base.
Number one.
This also led to the rise of absurd authoritarian political correctness, also known as the anti-SJWs.
This brought us a wave of YouTube channels of anti-SJWs, of which I am lumped into to a certain degree.
And it's because while many of the people who oppose what people refer to as SJWs were mostly opposing authoritarianism.
Nobody cares if you have a Latino female lead for your movie.
Just don't insult people as you do it.
One of the complaints about, say, like, Ghostbusters 2016 was that they mocked men and belittled them in an effort to make women look stronger.
It doesn't work.
Wonder Woman does work because you just have a good, strong character and the movie was fun.
And Chris Pine was awesome in that movie, by the way.
But this is the point.
Andrew Yang is correct when he says the Democrats are in denial.
Automation, bad trade, political correctness.
Trump was the solution to so much of that.
He came out and said whatever he wanted to say.
He did the trade deals that resulted in the factories coming back to Michigan.
These jobs are coming back.
Trump is going to landslide 2020.
And you know what?
The Democrats don't seem to care.
But I'd like to step forward and talk about this idea, a tweet from a former Vox personality, Carlos Maza.
This tweet has been making the rounds, and I think it's a very important thing that needs to be addressed when dealing with issues of Andrew Yang's freedom dividend, which we'll talk about in a second.
But first, I want to read you this.
Carlos Maza tweeted, I don't know who needs to hear this, but the whole point of having a developed economy is that we get to work less while still getting our basic needs met.
The goal is to spend as little time as possible at work so we actually get to enjoy being alive on the planet together.
This is a post on a subreddit called Late Stage Capitalism that mocks capitalism in its late stage.
But Karl Smasa is 100% wrong.
And I think you can see the rose in his account because I believe he's a democratic socialist.
I don't want to, you know, put his views on him.
But he's 100% incorrect.
The goal of a developed nation is not that we get to work less and reap the benefits because you can.
You literally can.
You don't need an iPhone.
You can get a cheap smartphone.
You can do the bare minimum.
You can work at a fast food restaurant.
You can do the bare minimum.
And the standard of living is still increasing.
You can not stop spending your money.
You can save your money.
This is what's crazy to me.
When I was working a few years ago, say, like Vice, I saved all of my money.
I save almost all of my money today.
I don't just spend every single penny I get.
And even though it might seem like you can't afford, say, a specific treatment, the fact that the treatment exists is an increase in the standard of living.
So, as the saying goes, John Rockefeller, or was it David, I don't know, whatever, Rockefeller, you know the guy with the oil?
You have better dental care than he did back when he was alive, and he was the oil baron.
The point is, poverty is relative.
The reason we keep working even though things are getting better is because there's always going to be a development that makes things better.
The reality is, as we automate away jobs, We're not going to work less.
That's like a false reality, I guess, where people think if every job is being done by a robot, you won't have to work.
That's not true.
Your standard of living will increase, your access to resources will increase along with it, but you will still do some kind of work.
And this brings me back to that point about automation, Yang, Trump.
The reason why I want to highlight this is because it's not about people wanting to work less.
People don't want to work less.
People want purpose.
Carlos Maza, you might not want to work, but the reality is most people do.
People get depressed when they sit around doing nothing.
So as technology improves, as our access to resources improves, the poverty line will always be relative to our economy.
But I'll tell you this.
Somebody below the poverty line in the United States, within reason, is still making substantially more money than many other countries in the world.
Capitalism is still lifting people up.
Let's move a little bit forward, and I want to highlight some of the faults of Yang, as well as the Democrats.
Andrew Yang has three big policies.
The Freedom Dividend, Medicare for All, Human-Centered Capitalism.
For the sake of this, I'm going to ignore the Human-Centered Capitalism.
I think that's a push to be like, we're not socialists.
But let's talk about the Freedom Dividend, very quickly, because I really want to talk about Medicare for All.
The Freedom Dividend basically is, some people refer to it as universal basic income.
That's not necessarily true, but the general idea is there would be a value-added tax, essentially a sales tax on major corporations, big tech companies, and that revenue would then be dispersed to people who opt into the Freedom Dividend, meaning they opt out of other government welfare programs.
The goal is to give you a thousand bucks a month.
I'm skeptical on the idea.
It's a much better version of the standard UBI.
Typically when people talk about universal basic income, they talk about taxing everything and everyone, and then redistributing wealth on an even level.
What people don't understand is that The minimum wage is not relevant.
What's relevant is the value of labor at the lowest level.
It doesn't matter if you give someone $10 or $20 an hour, because if you make the lowest level job more expensive, then everything underneath it has to become more expensive.
If somebody went to school for four years to be a doctor, so that way they could buy ten pizzas per day, and you now increase the cost of producing the pizza, that doctor can only produce five pizzas per day, devaluing their labor, and they're going to want to raise, it would cause rapid inflation.
But the Freedom Dividend is a bit different.
He's only charging the biggest corporations a VAT tax, which will capture some of the revenue lost by, say, these businesses are closing, malls are closing, stores are closing.
The general idea is that he's going to capture that back.
I'm skeptical.
But I appreciate the idea.
At least he's talking about it.
I'm going to speed up now, because I'll wrap this one up.
But Medicare for all.
This is a big policy push from all of the Democrats, basically.
The problem is, it's too expensive.
But Andrew Yang's approach to it is much more intelligent than everything the other Democrats have been proposing.
For one, Elizabeth Warren refused to admit they would raise your taxes.
They will.
Andrew Yang has no problem saying, listen, If we can free up small business to not have to worry about paying healthcare costs for their employees as benefits, then we're going to see it easier to start a business.
That was the smartest thing I have ever heard out of any Democrat as to why Medicare for All makes sense.
The problem?
Probably too expensive.
The other problem?
Andrew Yang was one of the Democrats who pledged to give government health care to non-citizens.
That doesn't work.
I'm sorry.
They've estimated something like, what, $3 trillion a year?
It's $30 trillion over 10 years for Medicare for All.
We can already not afford it.
Let alone add that to, you know, add costs to, say, non-citizens now getting access to that as well.
It's just, it's not affordable.
Well, Andrew Yang has a really smart approach.
If we can make it easier to start a business, then more businesses will emerge, there'll be more tax revenue, and the economy will flourish.
He's right.
That's absolutely true.
It should not be the burden of small business to pay healthcare benefits because people need insurance.
However, unfortunately for today, The costs are just too high.
So for me personally, I fall into more of a public option bracket.
Not because I want the public option or because I don't want Medicare for All, but because I don't think there is a clear path in the short term to actually get Medicare for All.
Because I say something like that, people are then going to criticize me as being anti-progressive.
It's like, you know what man?
You can push your purity tests.
You can try and say that any reasonable solution is a capitulation or giving up, but you're wrong.
The reality is, there are a lot of people who like their private insurance.
You can't take that away.
And many people said they would.
A lot of people don't want to see their taxes go up because they do have a good health insurance program through their employers, and they don't want that to go away either.
So you can't step in and just say, we're taking it away, we're changing the system, you don't get to choose.
I'm sorry, but the reality is they do get to choose.
And if it's a choice between losing health insurance they like, Or keeping the health insurance they like?
They're going to go to the voting booth and they're going to vote for the person who says, I'm not going to raise your taxes and you can keep your health insurance plan because you're stable.
Which says to me, the most appropriate thing we can do as a compromise is a single step in one direction.
You can buy into a public option.
Now, the public option may be subsidized.
There are a lot of problems there.
But one of the things Donald Trump has done, which I'm not hearing a lot about, is he's making health care providers, they have to disclose the prices.
So you know what, too many people on the left are so concerned with the demeanor of the orange man, and they blame him for everything, as Andrew Yang said, instead of recognizing Trump is doing right by a lot of people, he's doing wrong by some people.
You gotta admit it.
The way he talks, the way he behaves.
But the reality is, if the Democrats remain in denial and refuse to accept that the President has done good things, you are not going to win.
I'm going to give a shout-out to Mr. Bernie Sanders, because I think it's fair.
Bernie Sanders says Medicare for All will cost jobs.
I really respect this.
This is a story from the Boston Herald.
Bernie Sanders' long-championed Medicare for All health system will cost people their jobs.
He said, quote, will there be job loss?
Yes, there will be, Sanders said in response to an audience question.
You've got to hand it to Bernie Sanders.
He really does believe in what he's pushing.
Unfortunately, he's pandered too much.
He's given up the microphone and I'm really let down by that.
More importantly, and I mean this with no disrespect, Bernie Sanders is just a bit too old.
So there's a lot of reasons why I've been turned off by him and his policies and the way he's behaved politically, and it's why I'm a much bigger fan of Yang and Tulsi Gabbard, though Andrew Yang did say some really offensive, like, gross things about Trump being a slob and stuff.
I don't think we need to play that game.
Yang, you don't need to do that.
There's a reason why many people don't like Trump, because Trump is crass and boorish.
So don't play that game.
The Democrats need to come out and recognize Trump was right about a lot of things, and then offer up a clean, charismatic alternative, but they don't want to do it.
They don't.
I think Yang is, at this point, the best choice.
While my first choice would be Tulsi because the hard focus on foreign war makes more sense, don't talk about freedom dividend and taxing companies before you talk about the money we waste on war.
I think Yang has done a tremendous job of maintaining, boosting his polls, raising money, just bolstering, generally getting better at what he does.
I think it's fair to say Trump is going to win, Republicans are going to sweep, and Andrew Yang is right.
Democrats are in denial.
That's why.
But I will end with one little snippet from just a few weeks ago from The Intercept.
A purity test for raising middle class taxes would eliminate every Democratic frontrunner.
Listen, I know you might want Medicare for All, but let's be real.
It's going to be too expensive.
You can't give it to non-citizens, okay?
You can't have a welfare state but also open up your borders to more and more people to get access to that welfare state.
It will collapse.
It's just reality.
Bernie Sanders is being honest.
I respect that, saying there's going to be job losses.
Even Warren said two million jobs will be lost through Medicare for All.
He said he's going to raise your taxes.
I have absolute respect for that.
Listen, man, if you like what he's preaching, then you probably absolutely respect the man as being honest to you, for the most part.
Again, I'm not trying to say Bernie's perfect, because there's some stuff he's really, really peddled and pandered on.
He said, you know, there's too many poor people in the world, we can't open the borders.
Then he's also said we need climate refugees.
I think Bernie's flip-flopped on a lot of issues, and I think he's done what a lot of politicians have done.
Say one thing in one district because it sells well, and then say something else in a different district because it sells well.
And you can see what Ocasio-Cortez did in New York where she banned the press from her events and that's why they do it.
They don't want people to hear what they're preaching because they preach different things in different places.
It is what politicians do.
Donald Trump doesn't.
Trump just says whatever.
So I can respect them for being honest about it, but let's be real.
If you keep trying to push far-left policy and ideology, you will lose.
So let me wrap this video up by showing you this chart again.
And I know it's kind of, you know, redundant.
Many people have seen it before.
But remind people of this chart when they talk to you about radicalization or whatever.
The Republican Party is doing what it's always done.
This is why my videos tend to point in the direction they do.
The Republican Party is the Republican Party!
I grew up in Chicago.
They never mattered to me.
They never did anything to me.
I grew up under Democratic supermajorities.
And now I can see the Democratic Party leaving us all behind.
They're duplicitous.
They're lying.
They're going too far left.
And as Andrew Yang said, they are in denial.
So you know what you get?
You get Donald Trump.
Please.
Wake up.
But props to Yang.
Stick around.
So for those that are listening, I think I'm going to be doing more segments 10am on my main channel from now on.
We'll see how it works.
Maybe it won't work.
I don't know.
But the goal is to You know, my main channel has always been about my personal, like, what I think is the most important thing and how I feel about what's happening in mainstream politics.
But with the elections coming up, I think it would be fair to actually make it... My 4pm segment will always be like...
You know, I'm constantly angry at the Democrats.
I just explained why.
And there's a lot of things they do that, you know, I question and it makes me angry.
But I also think it's important to start highlighting positions of actual Democrats, what they're saying, because we're getting into Super Tuesday.
I think that's a more, you know, a better utility for a lot of people.
I think, as most of us know, the business decision that works the best would be Like, you know, being outraged all the time and just making opinion videos.
But I'm trying to do something better.
So maybe this will work out, maybe it won't, but stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 1pm, youtube.com slash timcastnews.
This is going to be more cultural, more off-the-cuff.
That's my second channel.
If you're not familiar, go check it out.
And I will see you then again on this channel at 4pm.
So thanks for hanging out.
I will see you all then.
That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
It's called Hitchin's Razor.
And for the past several years, we've heard this story about YouTube radicalization.
Just the other day, I did a long segment talking about YouTube radicalization and also the difficulty of trying to classify what someone is politically.
One of the most interesting things about this new research on YouTube is that most people tend to be anti-something and not pro-something.
I found that interesting.
I guess we're all kind of pessimists.
But you heard the story.
I told you yesterday.
YouTube actually steers people away from radical videos, researchers say.
We now have two academic studies providing evidence that YouTube is in fact not a radicalization engine, as the mainstream media has tried to purport.
However, strangely, many journalists are actively trying to debunk the story without evidence, having presented none in the first place.
Perhaps it's because it goes against their industry, and perhaps because it goes against their politics.
I want to show you this story first from CNBC.
But for the longest time, we've seen stories like this.
How YouTube serves as the content engine of the dark side.
YouTube's secret radicalization for the right.
How YouTube built a radicalization machine.
None of this is true.
None of it's true.
And we now have two studies that basically prove it.
I won't bury the lead for you.
Essentially, they found that what's really happening is it's supply and demand market economics in terms of ideas.
People choose to watch what they already kind of agree with and then seek out what they want.
People who like pizza tend to buy pizza.
People who like Superman tend to watch videos about Superman.
And people who are conservative are more likely to watch conservative content.
But what all of these stories missed is one simple, basic bit of math.
Most content produced is either politically left or slightly to the left.
That's just the way it is.
And that means, if you're looking at YouTube content, you might watch someone like Jimmy Kimmel.
Jimmy Kimmel is not overtly political, but when he does tell jokes, it is not conservative.
That means, if you watch anything on YouTube, because most content skews slightly in this direction, you are more likely to go towards the left than you are to the center or to the right.
The partisan politics of some of these websites, like Motherboard, The Daily Beast, and Buzzfeed, and Columbia Journalism Review, who are overtly liberal, and The New York Times, which leans to the left.
When they say YouTube is fueling the far right, it benefits them politically because then YouTube is scared into action.
YouTube then takes action, and they did.
The other thing it does is it protects the mainstream media.
It forced YouTube, and YouTube did this, to then start directing content to mainstream news channels.
The greatest recipient?
Fox News.
Now, I know I'm just rehashing what I told you yesterday, but here's what I find truly fascinating.
First, In this story from CNBC, which basically tells you what I said—YouTube is actually steering people away from radical videos—we can see New York Times writer Kevin Roos saying, The premise of this article's study is so odd.
Studying the YouTube algo of late 2019, after YouTube made some very well-publicized algo changes to reduce recommendations of extreme content, doesn't say anything about what YouTube recommendations were like before then.
What's interesting is, once again, Kevin Roos is presenting a point without evidence.
I don't know if they do it on purpose.
In my opinion, journalism is just dead and nobody does any research.
Well, if Kevin Roos bothered to actually read the report, they claim that much of the analysis of the latest recommendation algorithm goes back to 2018, well before the algorithm change.
More importantly, A lot of the data collected, because there's different lists, goes back to the beginning of the channel.
Look at this.
The Jimmy Dore Show.
Relevant daily views from 12 December 2012 to 19 December 2019.
Substantially before the algorithm change.
Now here's what's fascinating.
In their effort to claim there was a great radicalization engine, they have inadvertently forced YouTube to make major changes, which for some reason now makes it so that if you watch Jimmy Dore, who is a social democrat, maybe socialist, Jimmy, I'm not trying to mislabel you, but big Bernie fan, Tulsi fan, you watch his channel, you're now going to Fox News.
How does that make sense?
You might say that proves it's a radicalization engine, but in fact it doesn't.
It literally makes no sense why somebody would watch Jimmy Dore and then want to watch Fox News.
Yet that's what they created after the fact, based on what they're saying.
But I bring you now to how the media responds.
And, you know, I never like dragging people personally, but this was rather shocking to see from Julia Alexander and Taylor Lorenz.
I think Julia has done some pretty good work in the past.
I'm not super familiar with a lot of what she's done.
I know she's been criticized.
Taylor Lorenz has been criticized before, but she actually tends to do better than most people.
And I've actually publicly praised some of the reporting she's done because she avoided a lot of this fake narrative.
Now it seems like they're getting on board and saying this.
Julia Alexander tweets, Hey, a quick request.
Journalist friends, don't write about the YouTube report going around, but if you do, please reach out to anyone who covers this space on a daily or regular basis and other academics to understand why the data collection process is flawed.
In fact, the data collection process is not flawed.
Like any other academic paper, this paper from Mark Ledwich and Anna, I'm forgetting her name.
It's Zaitsev.
Sorry.
I know who Mark is.
I've followed his work before.
But anyway, like any academic paper, it lists its limitations, saying, we use an anonymous account to go through each, you know, rabbit holes to see what the recommendation would be.
And there's two big arguments that make no sense.
First, let me just say, why on God's green earth would a journalist tell someone not to do journalism?
That's so weird.
Take a look at the report she's criticizing.
The CNBC story, which is reporting on the academic research paper, actually shows criticism of it, which is what a good journalist would do.
I think it's important to point out, once again, that which can be claimed without evidence can be refuted without evidence.
And as we already know, all of these stories were presented without evidence.
It served a Traditional corporate media narrative.
It's telling YouTube you're bad and trying to scare advertisers.
You know what the big problem is?
YouTube is spineless.
The market is changing.
Media is changing.
People don't want to watch Fox News.
They want to watch me.
Why would you send someone who watches Jimmy Dore or my channel to Fox News when they clearly want to watch Jimmy Dore?
Because they hold one of the most amazing views of human beings, as noted by Mark Ledwich.
He's got a lot of data here.
It's really great stuff.
But I think one of my favorite things is this image right here.
What you're seeing is the NPC meme.
Let me read a little bit from his story.
So, he goes into the New York Times report about a man named Caleb Cain who claims to have been radicalized, but he says this.
Curiously, just as Caleb Cain was radicalized by far-right videos, he was also then de-radicalized by left-wing ones.
Over time, he had quote, successfully climbed out of a right-wing YouTube rabbit
hole only to jump into a left-wing YouTube rabbit hole.
Kevin Roos remarks that.
Kevin Roos remarks that, what is most surprising about Mr. Kane's new life
on the surface is how similar it feels to his old one.
He still watches dozens of YouTube videos every day and hangs on the words of his favorite creators.
It is still difficult at times to tell where the YouTube algorithm stops and his personality
begins.
Mark says, In his own way, Caleb defines what the left-leaning legacy media sees as the archetypal actor in our mediatized post-truth era—someone who completely lacks all critical thinking, consumes an endless stream of online information, and dogmatically believes any political position they are told.
It's hard not to notice how this meme is symmetrical to the NPC meme created by the online right.
NPC stands for Non-Player Character, and is someone who has no agency blindly believing left-wing media propaganda.
Penn State political scientists Joseph Phillips and Kevin Munger describe this as the zombie-bite model of YouTube radicalization, which treats users who watch radical content as infected.
And that this infection spreads.
As they see it, the only reason this theory has any weight is that it implies an obvious policy solution, one which is flattering to the journalists and academics studying the phenomenon.
Rather than look for faults in the algorithm, Phillips and Munger propose a supply-and-demand model of YouTube radicalization.
If there is a demand for radical right-wing or left-wing content, the demand will be met with supply regardless of what the algorithm suggests.
YouTube, with its low barrier to entry and reliance on video, provides radical political communities with perfect platforms to meet a pre-existing demand.
Writers and old media frequently misrepresent YouTube's algorithm and fail to acknowledge that recommendations are only one of many factors determining what people watch and how they wrestle with the new information they consume.
I believe their fixation with algorithms and tech comes from subconsciously self-serving motives.
A mechanical understanding of radicalization and a condescending attitude towards the public.
It works like this.
If only YouTube would change their recommendation algorithm, the alternative media, the racists, cranks, and conspiracy theorists would diminish in power and we would regain our place as the authoritative gatekeepers of knowledge.
Old media's war on decentralized media is not limited to misinformation about YouTube's algorithm.
I believe this motivation partially explains why this wild piece against free speech and this hit piece on Cenk Uygur found their way into the paper of record.
Mark is making reference right now to Cenk Uygur being accused of defending David Duke.
It's insane.
But I think we're seeing now why progressive media needs to actually get on board with the fake news narrative.
You know what, man?
They hate Trump so much, many people, even the Young Turks, were more than happy to stand side-by-side and walk in lockstep with people who would see them completely destroyed.
Well, Donald Trump was the target.
First, they came for Trump.
Me?
I think I, for the most part, act on principle.
So when I saw the lies, the deceit, the censorship, I called it out.
Unfortunately, there were many people, like the Young Turks, who parroted the narrative.
And when I confronted Cenk Uygur about showing a video with my name while trying to claim this radicalization engine was real, he yelled in my face.
He started screaming at me, and I was surprised, because I know the guy.
Not like I'm good friends with him or anything, but I've been on his show a couple times, and he screamed at me.
And now he reaps what he has sown.
By defending this narrative, by using it, thinking the enemy of my enemy is my friend, he has now become the target of the smear machine, same as anyone else on YouTube.
And you know what?
I still defended the guy.
Because what the New York Times did to him is wrong.
I can certainly disagree with the Young Turks and Cenk Uygur while pointing out simply because they're wrong doesn't mean they should be smeared and lied about.
I can tell you Cenk was wrong to use that report.
I disagree with his use of it.
I disagree with his politics.
But in no way do I think he would ever defend David Duke.
That's ridiculous.
And it's unfair for the media to lie about him.
It was unfair for Cenk to use the fake report, which was targeting Dave Rubin, which inadvertently ropes me in because my name was right in the middle.
And it's wrong for the New York Times to do the same to him.
But here we can see what we get.
You see, these journalists They don't want you to do journalism.
And it's the strangest thing.
But it's the same thing that I experienced when I was going to Sweden.
Donald Trump said, at a rally or something, last night in Sweden, you see what happened.
So I announced I would go check it out.
And I got messages from journalists I know saying, don't do the journalism.
Don't do it.
Don't go.
Strange to me.
Why not?
Why wouldn't I go do journalism?
Because perhaps it's bad for their politics?
I think we can see a combination of things here.
Over the past several years, decades even, news jobs have been centralized in major cities, especially with the expansion of the internet.
For some reason, Every time I try talking to someone about opening up a studio in the middle of nowhere where they have excellent internet, but there's a small, dying town, everybody wants to live in a big city.
Journalists tend to be left-leaning, conservatives tend to be commentators, and therein lies a huge disparity between the power and what information is produced.
More importantly, as these companies see a lot of people in journalism don't want to work in rural areas, they say, let's open an office in New York City, a city that is deep blue.
Thus, most of the people they're going to hire are going to be left-leaning, and then they're going to say, we don't report on things that don't support our narrative.
Let me make one thing clear.
The narrative about YouTube radicalization has never been proven.
It has always been conjecture and opinion.
And I will show you this again.
We can see here in Mark's piece, Opinion, New York Times.
Opinion, New York Times.
Their opinion piece is, in fact, one just asking the question.
Yet, it's fact.
Yet, these journalists will say, don't cover the academic research papers.
They will target anybody who pushes back on their narrative because they have weaponized the media to promote their personal ideologies and their industry.
I'm sorry.
I think YouTube is losing.
YouTube is so desperate to placate the media, they're actually giving up their core business to the media.
It makes no sense.
Why would YouTube bend over backwards for their competitors?
I honestly can't tell you.
YouTube controls such a massive amount of advertisements, they could simply say to Pepsi, when Pepsi says, hey, we heard this story, they can say, it's fake.
Do you want to advertise with us or not?
And if Pepsi says, well, we're not going to do it until you fix us, buh-bye!
Guess what?
Now Coke is going to be all over YouTube and no one will ever see a Pepsi ad again.
Buh-bye!
What do you think Pepsi's gonna do?
Okay, okay, okay, we'll advertise with you.
Instead, YouTube cowers, shaking its boots strangely, considering it's a massive platform.
But anyway, the main takeaway from this is that for some reason, for some reason, you tell me, journalists are trying to lie.
They're refusing to cover, they're arguing that people should stop covering an academic paper that disputes their personal political opinion.
The reality is this.
The data does not suggest YouTube radicalization.
The data actually suggests there are... It's nuanced.
I'll put it this way.
Most Democrats don't talk a whole lot about immigration.
They talk about Medicare.
They really care about health care.
Conservatives do, to a certain extent, but they're more concerned with immigration.
That means, if you are someone who is interested in health care, you will be radicalized to the left.
If you are someone who is concerned about immigration, you'll be radicalized to the right.
The reality is, it's not actually the case.
If you go on YouTube and look up immigration videos, you have to choose to watch those videos.
And you can choose to put immigration is good in that search bar.
The reality is that it's simply a numbers game.
Supply and demand will be met.
Communities that believe in certain things exist.
And that is it.
No one is being dragged in any particular extreme direction because it literally makes no sense.
And the argument would be that YouTube is quantifying what words are more extreme than other words.
The way I always explain it.
Imagine if you saw a bunch of Superman extremists walking around.
You saw a group of people wearing Superman costumes with hoods walking around and praying to Clark Kent.
Nobody does that.
There's no extremism in Superman.
You just see more Superman content.
The issue is supply and demand.
Are there groups of Superman cultists?
No.
So then no one goes on YouTube and becomes this.
Otherwise, the argument would be the tiny fringe faction of Superman cultists would be getting play because you watch too many DC Comics videos.
Makes no sense.
But it's an easy narrative.
Because they say radicalization.
Why are people becoming conservative?
Why are they supporting Trump?
The reality is they're not.
Republicans have always been where they are.
Democrats are veering to the far left.
And the Democrats in the media don't understand they're flying to the far left.
So as they move on their train further and further away, sure, it looks like the Republicans are moving, but they aren't.
They are not.
Republicans are exactly where they've always been according to the New York Times.
Of all outlets.
So I'll tell you this.
We're doomed in the sense that as the media collapses, we're supposed to expect an alternative to arise, people like me.
But in response to the decay and the collapse of this industry, YouTube bends over backwards to prop up that industry.
So we're screwed.
These people are becoming more depraved and corrupt.
They're becoming more inept.
The company is hiring less skilled journalists to accommodate for the fact they don't have any money.
And in the end, what happens?
YouTube promotes them.
YouTube literally promotes the crappy misinformation.
As Mark Ledwich notes at the end of his article, he says, We might rely on authoritative sources to set the record straight, dispel falsehoods, and explain the broader context for those who aren't aware.
But a New York Times political correspondent in a now-corrected article failed to do all of these things.
They made no mention of context or the fact that it was sarcastic.
They're referring to Cenk Uygur.
Cenk Uygur sarcastically said David Duke wasn't racist.
He was like, oh yeah, right.
But the New York Times framed it incorrectly.
And the story went out.
The lie traveled halfway around the world before the truth could strap on his boots.
And Mark points out, why should we trust them over literally anyone else?
Now don't get me wrong, there are certainly more authoritative voices.
But when the New York Times lies about radicalization, literally in their own story, if you actually read it, you'd be like, that's the opposite of what they claimed.
Somehow they still publish the story.
They are going to destroy channels like mine, and that'll be the end.
And if you think that's not true, you're not paying attention.
So stick around, because these news agencies are going to be hiring crappier and crappier writers who do worse work than I do, and then they're going to destroy my channel and prop up the bad writers.
That's what they're building.
We are doomed.
I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel.
I mean...
Maybe.
We'll see what happens.
But I don't know what to tell you, man.
Don't be surprised, but I'll tell you this.
When journalists start arguing against reporting the facts because it goes against their political narrative, yeah, we're in a dystopia.
I'll leave it 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.
A tweet gone viral saying that San Francisco is not, in fact, a leftist communist nightmare, but in fact a right-wing technocratic dystopian nightmare, with a veneer of superficial progressivism not-so-thinly veiling far-right ultra-capitalist social Darwinism.
Whoa, whoa, whoa!
San Francisco!
Hold on, hold on.
I see a lot of people are looking at this tweet and they're laughing, saying, are you nuts?
San Francisco is super far left.
No, actually, this tweet's more correct than it isn't.
I wouldn't call San Francisco far-right ultra-capitalist.
I guess it depends on your understanding of what left and right means, and there's no real shared understanding of what the word means anymore, because left and right can mean everything, or anything.
Right could be cultural, it could be economic, but the point is, No, Lydia XZ Brown Esquire is actually more correct than incorrect.
California is in no way a leftist communist nightmare.
It's something different.
Now, they do enact a lot of leftist policies.
They do have a lot of leftist ideology.
But I think what you actually see from California is a kind of degeneracy, a breakdown due to prosperity.
It's almost like You know, there's a word I want to use that YouTube will ban me for using, okay?
But basically, it's kind of like a growth of exploitative individuals who put on a veneer of superficial progressivism, not-so-thinly-veiling ultra-capitalism.
I don't think it's fair to say far-right, because I don't think the people in San Francisco are, like, traditionally or economically far-right.
California is actually, I would say policy-wise, leans a little to the left, but is mostly dominated by this.
The response says, we Chicagoans refer this as lakefront liberals supporting leftist causes as long as it's not in front of their condo or BMW.
What California really is, is the epitome, the concentration of superficial Social justice, selfishness, and it's what we see in a lot of countries actually.
It's very similar to what I saw in Sweden.
They claim to not be racist.
They're pretty racist.
They claim to want to fight for the poor, but not in my backyard.
I wouldn't call San Francisco communist.
I would call it a dystopian nightmare where all of the people who are grifters who exploit the system, who sell snake oil,
use this place as their base to extract resources from the rest of the world
and pretend like they're the good guys, but they're actually more of a drain on our society.
See, you have the massive VC function of the tech industry in San Francisco.
You have a housing crisis.
You have a homeless crisis.
You have feasts in the street.
You have drug abuse.
You have rampant taxes.
It's everybody clawing to get whatever they can.
There's no community.
So I certainly wouldn't call it communist, and I wouldn't call it far-right.
What it really is is selfishness and narcissism Epitomized.
It's the people who want to say whatever they have to say to get things from other people, but in no way do they care about anyone.
Let me show you some stories to back up this claim.
So first, I wanted to highlight this tweet I think is funny.
It's actually leaning towards being correct, because I guess, you know, far right, left, whatever's an opinion.
But no, it's true that there's a lot of progressive insanity in California, but think about this.
Bernie Sanders said open borders was a Koch brothers proposal.
It used to be the Democrats who voted for border security, and it was the industrialists who wanted open borders.
Now it's California.
Just because they claim to be progressive doesn't mean they really are.
I don't think it's fair to say, oh, far right.
But social Darwinism also kinda, like, you think they're doing anything for the poor?
Come on!
Check this out.
From The Intercept in August.
Twitter helped Chinese government promote disinformation on regression of Uyghurs.
Twitter?
You think Twitter cares?
Twitter doesn't care.
Twitter enacts policies that are biased against conservatives.
Fact.
Are they doing it because the people who run the company are leftists?
No.
Their employees are probably to an extent leftist, communist-y, and like ideologically left.
Sure.
But these people in California mostly do it.
The employees?
I don't think they actually believe half the stuff, which is my biggest criticism of the SJWs, is that they pretend to to earn points.
And a lot of people that do push this stuff are authoritarians.
But the people at Twitter who run the business are doing it because they want that sweet, sweet green.
Think about it.
Conservatives are dangerous.
The media is dominated by, you know, progressives and leftists and tribalists and narcissists.
The real problem, I see, is that you take a look at the conservative community, and they're more than willing to excise the grifters.
Not all of them.
There's a decent amount that I roll my eyes, they say whatever they think conservatives want to say, and I'm like, and they got a million, they got a ton of followers, okay?
But when it comes to the worst of the worst, conservatives excise bad actors, racists, bigots.
They do.
The left doesn't.
As we've seen from that, you know, chart I've shown a million times now how the left has gone crazy, this is what happens.
You end up with purity testing, fake tribal nonsense of a bunch of people who just really want power.
That's what it's all about.
So when it comes to, I don't know, calling out China over their mistreatment of the Uyghurs, what does Twitter do?
Twitter helps the Chinese government promote disinformation.
Yeah, wonderful.
And now we can see the bigger story.
President Trump tweets video to bash SF Homeless Crisis and CA lawmakers.
You see, California is a disaster zone.
But you know what's really scary?
They say that California is our future.
So the reason why I wanted to highlight that opening tweet is because it is a dystopian nightmare.
It's going to be our futuristic dystopian nightmare.
California is what is to come for the rest of us.
Sorry, that's just a fact.
Now, I want to read the story about what Trump said, but I want to highlight.
California salon owner welcomes a Trump intervention on the growing homelessness crisis after the president accused the state of incompetence and insisted they should politely ask for his help.
California isn't leftist communist, okay?
There's a lot of people there who pretend to be, and I think that's the important difference between what it really means to be on the left and what it means to be whatever California is.
This is the big issue I've taken with many of the leftists.
It's why I like Yang and Tulsi, and why I criticized Bernie Sanders, because Bernie Sanders is pandering, and he's flip-flopping, and he's saying why people don't know what it's like to be poor.
It seems like he's lying.
He's playing this game.
Now, of course, there are a lot of people who think Bernie is more honest than most politicians, and that's true, but I don't like that idea.
Tulsi has flip-flopped a little bit on some issues, but for the most part, I think she's been honest, and Yang, I think, has been, you know, rather honest.
I don't think they're right.
But it's not so much an issue of policy.
It's an issue of, on the conservative side, I see a lot of people who genuinely believe they're right and genuinely want to do things for the good of their community.
In California, there is no community.
It's people pretending to care about things so they can earn brownie points from another person, get them to buy a product, and they can walk away.
Let me put it this way.
It's a weird paradox.
The conservatives are staunch individualists, for the most part, but do believe in protecting the community, notably America, for instance.
California pretends to be communal, but they act with nothing but self-interest.
They claim to be collective, but come on, they tear each other apart, and they don't care about any of the people sleeping in their own feces on the streets of San Francisco.
SF is an oligarchy.
It is massive wealth disparity, the ultra-poor sleeping in the trash, and the super-rich atop their ivory towers, implementing the laws, and using this weird progressive dogma to pretend to be the good guys, when in fact they don't care about anybody.
It's like when I was talking to Jack Dorsey on the Joe Rogan podcast, and he was like, oh, well, you know, these people are at risk, so we're going to protect them.
I'm like, you don't care about anybody else.
There's tons of groups that are at risk.
You only care about this one because the media complained about it.
You're only doing this to protect your bottom line.
Your worldview is built upon whatever you have to do to get what you want.
And these people in media, man, people in media are narcissists, I'll tell you what, and in San Fran, use this idea of leftism as a cudgel to attack anyone who dare oppose them.
And you know what?
For the longest time, a lot of progressives were more than happy to jump on board with them, and you reap what you sow.
So I think it's funny that this Lydia individual, Would say, you know, it's not really a leftist communist thing.
Okay, fine.
But you have to recognize that there have been many progressives and socialists who have sat back and allowed these oligarchs, you know, the oligarchs of San Francisco to implement their insane corporatist policy, which resulted in them helping China.
You know, it's mind-blowing to me that you'll have these big corporations.
Yes, you want to say far-right?
That's why I think the tweet's funny.
You look at what Twitter and Facebook and Google does.
They're not left-wing.
They have this thin veneer of progressivism so they can trick the left into supporting them and saying, but my private business.
And this is what really, really frustrates me about the whole thing and why I like that tweet.
Tweet is right!
Mostly.
I wouldn't call it far-right, but here's the thing.
Twitter wants money.
Google wants money.
They use the left as a shield because they know the left is safer.
They know the media will side with them if they side with the left, and then they turn around and do this.
Twitter helped Chinese government promote disinformation on repression of Uyghurs.
Thank you, Twitter.
And what about Google?
Google is doing a bunch of things in censoring political information, including the LGBT community.
And the left, for too long, stood side by side and said, but my private business!
Maybe you shouldn't have done that.
Maybe you're supporting technocratic dystopian oligarchs in a disgusting city riddled with feces, and perhaps Trump does need to go in and knock a few, figuratively, knock a few buildings down.
You know what, man?
I'm going to say something bold.
If Donald Trump came out and said he was going to anti-trust all of these big tech companies, that would be the strongest case for me voting for the man.
However, right now we got Elizabeth Warren.
Now, Andrew Yang has taken the position that, you know, sometimes because it's a monopoly isn't the issue.
Like, who wants to use Bing?
And he's got a good point.
But these companies have too much power.
I don't know what the solution is.
And I kind of feel like after they started banning journalism and they're doing shit like...
That doesn't count as swearing, YouTube.
That doesn't count.
I said shh.
I didn't say the full word.
Oh, I'm going to get in trouble.
Anyway, the point is, I can't even swear.
You see what the problem is?
But no, no, no.
Swearing is a choice.
You know, I'm trying to make this family friendly.
But anyway, the issue is these companies will do whatever it takes to get money.
YouTube will ban things that make no sense because they're scared of the press.
And this shows you that it's not about protecting any communities.
It's about protecting their bottom line.
There are a bunch of authoritarian narcissists who pretend to be on the left, who pretend to be for social justice.
I don't necessarily trust this Lydia person because a lot of people on the left claim to be for the left when they're not.
The simple answer is this.
They're authoritarians and they're narcissists and they want power.
If I was going to describe San Francisco, I would say it's actually like center-left authoritarian.
Kind of fascistic.
Giant corporations running rampant.
The government taxing people to oblivion.
Ridiculous progressive laws.
None of it adds up other than the fact that the state is a nightmarish technocratic dystopia that flickers both towards the pro-corporate massive corporation and the insane progressive laws.
It is the worst of everything.
So, I hate California.
I can't believe people live there, man.
I'm actually thinking about moving to the sticks out in the middle of nowhere, finding a good backhaul line, getting two gigabit internet, just building my own house wherever I want.
But anyway, that's the point.
I'll end with this.
It is said that California is our future.
I certainly hope not, but I think it is.
People say that everything California does, we do, the rest of the country sweeps up a few years later.
I think it's fair to say that's true.
We'll see what happens, though.
They didn't expect Trump to win any one.
Trump's probably going to win again.
Trump Jr.
will probably win in 2024.
Who knows?
We'll see.
But California, no, I think it's fair to say it's not communist, man.
It's the worst of everything.
It's authoritarian narcissists who control whatever little fiefdom they have, and they expand it to the worst possible ultimate outcome.
The government is insane, and the corporations are insane, and they're both running rampant and doing insane things.
So it's the worst of everything.
Call it whatever you want.
I will call it an oligarchic dystopia.
Whatever.
Stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
In episode 846,000 of Tim Pool's Disdain for the Democrats, we take a look at what's wrong with the Democrats in this one.
A Gallup poll shows us Trump and Obama tie as America's most admired man.
Wow!
Trump and Obama?
Wow, that's actually pretty incredible.
So they have a list, and I'm gonna explain to you why this is me pointing the finger at the Democrats once again.
You see, politically, I'm probably where Obama was on domestic issues.
No, actually, on all of his issues back around 2008, because he was talking about ending war and all that stuff, and then he went, you know, blew a bunch of kids, but that's a different issue.
The point is, in America, the number two people, or the top number one people, is both Obama and Trump.
The only problem is the left thinks Obama's a conservative.
So if Obama and Trump are both conservatives, then it stands to reason there's no Democrat on the top of the list of who Americans like.
Let me read you this, and I want to show you an older story.
This is a story from Axios, they say.
President Trump and former President Obama shared the honors as America's most admired man in 2019 in Gallup's annual poll.
The big picture.
With both receiving the support of 18% of Americans, it's Obama's 12th time in the top slot and Trump's first.
Trump had previously come in second place for the last four years.
The results skewed heavily along partisan lines, as 41% of Democrats and just 3% of Republicans chose Obama, while 45% of Republicans and just 2% of Democrats chose Trump.
2% of Democrats chose Trump?
That's amazing.
Former First Lady Michelle Obama took the top spot as America's most admired woman.
She was the only woman to poll in double digits.
She actually beat Melania.
Melania, I think, is number two.
So that's basically it, okay?
Check this out.
If Obama is the overwhelming choice of the Democrats, then I have no disdain for the Democratic voter.
The clear problem is always the Democratic establishment and the weirdos who are taking over the party.
I'm not surprised Donald Trump is also tied for first place.
He came in second last time.
The economy is a-boomin'.
People are getting cash pouring in.
They're making it rain in their own homes.
People are happy about that.
Now there's a lot of cultural issues that people are mad about, but Obama seemed... Look, the economic expansion we're seeing started under Obama, so people are giving Obama credit for that.
It's expanded dramatically under Trump, but certainly it started under Obama.
There's a lot of reasons people like the man.
Foreign policy-wise, they're actually kind of similar.
So I'm sitting here as somebody who is closer to where Obama's politics are, and actually agree with Obama on a lot of issues, but now I'm going to explain to you why the Democratic establishment is wrong.
You see, Obama's a conservative.
So let me explain something to you.
Here's a story, it's Fox News videos, Yahoo News carrying it, November 26th, about a month ago.
Has Obama become too conservative for the Democratic Party?
You see, the Washington Post called Barack Obama a conservative.
They say, as the Washington Post declares former President Barack Obama a conservative, Democrats admit they are abandoning the broad coalition that led to his historic election.
Former Bernie Sanders 2016 campaign staffer Tez Lynn Figueroa reacts.
So I'm not gonna actually watch the video, but you get the point.
I covered this when it happened.
What do you think happens when you have a Gallup poll?
Actually, can we pull up the poll?
When the number one person, well there's two number ones, but the tie, are two conservatives, do you think the Democrats will win?
Do you think moving to the far left is how you get your victory?
So then I have people saying like, Tim, why are you ragging on the Democrats?
I was supporting Barack Obama!
You see all the videos I made where I'm like, Barack Obama's right, I agree with Obama, man.
How amazing that we're in a place where I can say, I don't like Trump, Obama is right, and they say, that's right-wing, because by today's standards, it actually is.
I'm curious to see if Gallup has an analysis on this.
Let's read a little bit.
Gallup says, After Obama and Trump, no other man was mentioned by more than 2% of respondents.
The remainder of the top 10 for men this year includes Jimmy Carter, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Pope Francis, Bernie Sanders, Adam Schiff, the Dalai Lama, and Warren Buffett.
11% of Americans named a relative or friend as the man they admire most.
Aww, that's kind of heartwarming.
18% named some other living man and 25% did not name anyone.
The incumbent president has typically been America's choice as the most admired man, having earned the distinction in 58 of the 72 prior Gallup polls.
When the incumbent president is not the choice, it is usually because he is unpopular politically.
Excuse me.
Which was the case for Trump in 2017, with a 36% approval rating.
Trump is more popular now than he was in the past two years with a 45% job approval rating, among his best as president.
Coincident with the rise in his job approval rating, the 18% of Americans currently naming Trump as their most admired man is also up from 13% in 2018 and 14% in 2017.
Increased mentions of Trump as the most admired man have come almost exclusively among his fellow Republicans.
Obama's 18% mentions among U.S.
adults as the most admired man are in line with 2018, whatever figures.
And they track Obama's policy and they accuse him of being a conservative.
If Obama is a conservative, and he is still the most popular man in the country, and Trump is a conservative, and he is just tied with Obama, it sounds to reason, it sounds to me, the overwhelming majority of people in America must be conservative.
Is that what the intent was?
Because Trump controls the executive branch, and the Republicans control the Senate, and now Republicans technically control SCOTUS.
I say technically because SCOTUS is not supposed to be partisan, but they kind of are.
What do you think is going to happen?
Do you think the people who like Obama, who agree with Obama when he said, you know, tell the left to stop beating itself, saying social justice and cancel culture aside activism, do you think the average American is going to be like, I don't like Obama.
No, they're straight up saying they do like him.
So when you come out and say Obama's a conservative, you know what these people are going to start thinking?
If Obama's a conservative, they must be conservative too!
And if they're going to vote, they should probably vote conservative, right?
Not only that, let's not pretend that voters are just mindless morons who go and check the box because they think they're conservative.
They're going to look at your candidates and they're going to be like, well, Obama deported a ton of people, was in favor of border security, was very heavy-handed in military policy.
Why should we vote for any of your people?
At all?
I think it's kind of amazing that Obama is such a popular figure considering it's just he basically got away with so much you know like killing Americans and blowing up kids and you know it's not like Trump is better for the most part in foreign policy.
They say the post-presidency popularity for Obama and Eisenhower Yeah, yeah, yeah.
to finish first at a record 12 times. Each man was named the most admired man in the year he
was elected president and all eight years he was in office plus three additional years. Obama has
finished first during the three years after he left office while Eisenhower won once before he
ran for president. Yeah, yeah, yeah, you know it's funny the narrative about Obama being a conservative
it kind of started after I think was the second debate.
CNN ran a story saying, when did Obama become a Republican?
Because all the Democrats on stage were attacking Joe Biden and attacking Obama's record saying he wasn't good enough.
Think about what that means.
Obama is extremely popular.
Democrats still love him, but there they were on the debate stage saying they're going to give your health care to non-citizens and Obama is a bad man.
That, to me, is incredible.
So I think, I'll think, you know, we'll take a look at Michelle Obama and why she beats Melania.
I think it's fair.
But I think you get the point I was making about my problem with the Democrats.
You see, people like to say it's right-wing for me to criticize the Democrats, but I'm criticizing them in the same way Obama is.
Or Andrew Yang is.
They just don't like the fact that I do it too much, I guess.
Well, too bad.
The Democrats are insane.
Barack Obama is not a conservative.
The dude campaigned on universal healthcare and free college.
Or actually, I think the free college thing was in his second term.
Yet now here we are.
The left has gone so left.
They've gone so nuts.
The Democrats have gone so crazy.
They're actually attacking Obama, the dude so incredibly popular.
What are you thinking?
I know the Trump supporters are kicking back and laughing about it because they're going to landslide in 2020.
They say historically it has been more common for a former first lady to be named the most admired woman than a former president to be named the most admired man.
Michelle Obama is the sixth former first lady to win, along with Eleanor Roosevelt.
Cool.
The 10% naming Obama this year is down from 15% last year.
The 2018 poll was conducted shortly after she released her best-selling autobiography.
Current First Lady Melania Trump finished second, mentioned by 5%, with former talk show host Oprah Winfrey, Clinton, and Greta Thunberg named at 3%.
I actually gotta say, I think it's actually pretty impressive.
Do they have the list here?
Alright, let's read the implications.
They say Trump's popularity grew enough this year to allow him to tie Barack Obama as the most admired man, but not to end Obama's streak of 12 first-place finishes.
The results reflect the significant party divide in the U.S., with Republicans overwhelmingly naming Trump and Democrats Obama and a few other men garnering significant mention.
Meanwhile, Obama's wife Michelle has been named as the most admired woman for the past two years, and for 25 years saw that Hillary Clinton finished verse 22 times.
In fact, Obama has had stronger finishes in the past two years than during her eight years as First Lady when no more than 8% of Americans named her.
Maybe that's why they thought Hillary Clinton had it in the bag.
Maybe these polls are wrong.
Hillary Clinton finished first 22 times?
I'm sorry, I don't buy that.
That's weird.
Anyway.
The main point, which I think all of you have gotten, and I'll wrap this up, keep this one short, how can the Democrats expect to win?
If the Democratic voters love Obama, if non-voters, if people generally just love the man that he's won 12 years in a row, they're going to smear him as conservative, they're going to attack him, and then they think they're going to win?
Nah, sorry man.
You're gonna find people like me who end up politically homeless because my politics are closer to where Obama was, and you call him a conservative, and I don't know where else to stand!
So yeah, expect more of that.
I'll see you all in the next segment in a few minutes.
I don't think these leftists understand the concept of backfiring, or shared power, or you don't have the right unless everyone has the right.
You know what I mean?
Like, they seem to think that they can enact certain things and there will never be a comeuppance.
Or backfire.
Case in point, this story.
Pelosi, quote, has the right to submit Trump to an involuntary evaluation, Yale psychiatrist Brandy Lee.
Here's the quote, I am beginning to believe that a mental health hold will become inevitable.
I have a question for you.
If the Speaker of the House can hold the President for a mental health evaluation, what's to stop anyone else from doing the same to Nancy Pelosi?
In fact, we've seen videos of her slurring her words and drinking alcohol and her teeth falling out.
I'm not trying to be mean, but if you're going to point the finger at Trump for all his bombastic behavior, then why can't the President do the same in the reverse?
I mean, the branches are supposed to be equal, right?
There's a checks and balances.
To a certain degree, I understand they're not.
Let's read the story.
And maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe she has the exclusive constitutional right to do this.
I'm not a constitutional scholar.
Maybe only the Speaker of the House can say the President is mentally unfit.
But I kind of feel like with checks and balances, there can be, you know, a back and forth, and maybe they could impeach her.
Solon, of all websites, of course, writes, a Yale psychiatrist who has repeatedly sounded the alarm
about President Donald Trump's mental health has cautioned that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
is not doing enough to respond to the danger it poses.
Brandy X. Lee, a professor of psychiatry at the Yale University School of Medicine,
who serves as president of the World Mental Health Coalition,
began warning about the dangers posed by the president's mental health before his election.
Lee then edited the book, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, 27 Psychiatrists
I seem to recall a couple physicians saying Hillary Clinton was sick, and the media said that was a conspiracy.
So you know what?
I'm going to close this out.
Thanks for hanging out.
It's a conspiracy.
I'm not going to read it.
Have a good day.
Next video.
I'm kidding.
Let's read.
The point is, it's hypocrisy, isn't it?
It's a double standard.
They say, Ann convened a conference on the president's mental health at Yale shortly after the president's inauguration.
Before he said anything?
Come on.
She was recently joined by psychiatrists across the country in calling for the Judiciary Committee to convene a panel of mental health experts.
Could you imagine if we had more hearings where a bunch of people came in and said the president is sick based on my external assessment from watching the television?
Lee also translates some of Trump's tweets on her own Twitter feed.
Translates?
I'm pretty sure Trump speaks English.
Which she described to Salon as a public service.
Lee said she wants her translations to help readers see past Trump's efforts to muddle reality with his negative influence.
She recently translated, they put it in quotes, Trump's scorching six-page letter to Pelosi, accusing her of trying to steal the election ahead of the House vote to impeach him in a Medium post.
You know what, man?
So articles like this, I'm gonna give a shout out to Jacobin, that's Socialist Magazine, because they praised The Hill, they praised Crystal Ball and Sagar and Jati, who are like, they're really great personalities, but it's a progressive and a conservative, and I'm like, Jacobin's been more fair in the past articles than Solana has.
I tell you what, man.
When you play insane games like this, this is what causes the left to lose, and I almost gotta wonder if, like, they want it to happen.
Like, maybe there's a secret conspiracy of these establishment leftists who are like, we actually don't like Trump, but they really do like Trump, and the economy's doing well, and they're pretending not to.
No, I think in reality, they hate him so much, and they're just really bad at what they do.
They write articles like this, where they write this insane conspiratorial nonsense, accusing Trump of being unfit or whatever.
It's like, we played that game with Hillary, dude.
You can't, you know, let's chill out right now.
I mean, Hillary actually was sick.
Her campaign said she had pneumonia.
But if you want to get rid of the president, you don't do it this way.
And so you look at what Jacobin is saying, you get the actual socialists saying, like, the media is lying to you.
Arguing that the letter effectively serves as a confession, Lee said that Trump's letter was an example of the president projecting his own motives onto Pelosi, but Lee warned that Pelosi has not done enough to respond to the president.
As a co-worker, she has the right to have him submit to an involuntary evaluation, but she has not.
Does that mean Trump can do the same to her?
Anyone can call 9-1-1 to report someone who seems dangerous, and family members are the most typical ones to do so.
But so can- Oh, this is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
These people have lost their minds.
Co-workers, and even a passerby on the street.
The law dictates who can determine rights to treatment or civil commitment, and in all 50 U.S.
states, this includes a psychiatrist.
Quote, the advantage of a co-worker starting this process is that a court can mandate a mental capacity evaluation before the dangerous person returns to work.
The committing physician is preferably the patient's theater, I'm sorry, treater, but does not have to be.
Do you seriously think the cops are gonna roll up the White House, tell the Secret Service to stand aside, and say, Trump, Nancy Pelosi has dialed 911 and said you're unwell, so we're involuntarily committing you?
In what deranged reality do you think Anything like that could ever happen.
And if you're saying co-worker, you're quite literally saying Devin Nunes can call 911 and say Nancy Pelosi be acting crazy and needs to be locked up.
No, that can't happen.
You're insane.
Salon is nuts.
What happened to this website?
I kid you not.
Glenn Greenwald used to work here.
Not the biggest fan of the guy, but I lean towards more, I have a more favorable opinion of him, especially now as he's called out the BS.
He used to work for this site.
The website didn't used to be this absolutely psychotic, did they?
Maybe they did.
Maybe.
They got some really creepy articles they've deleted in the past.
But this takes the cake.
This is beyond... Listen, man.
I've used an analogy, right?
Scraping... People say, scraping the bottom of the barrel.
It's a reference.
Try to get that food out.
You got a barrel and you're scraping the bottom.
So I've said they're scraping the bottom of the barrel so hard wood chips are flying out.
Then I've escalated and said, they're scraping at the bottom of the barrel so hard, they punched a hole in it.
Well, you know what this is?
They're scraping the bottom of the barrel so hard, they're ripping up asphalt from the street underneath the barrel, and they've hit a sewage line, and it's exploded, and it's spraying sewage all over their face, and then they're writing about it.
That's how insane this is.
This is the bottom of the barrel of trash.
There's literally nothing in this that makes sense in any capacity, and for some reason they're writing about it.
I'm glad I found the article, though, because I get to make fun of it.
Isn't that fun?
I don't know.
Complaining about things.
That's what I do for a living.
They say, while Lee added that Pelosi's strategy of withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate has been effective, she also warned that the delay risks making Trump even more dangerous.
I am beginning to believe that a mental health hold, which we have tried to avoid, will become inevitable.
Okay, that means quite literally at any point, anyone working anywhere can file against anybody.
So what, like, does that mean somebody who works for Devin Nunes, one of Nunes' staffers, can file a mental health hold on Adam Schiff because he's got that crazy look on his face and he says crazy things?
No, of course you can't do that!
Let alone to the president!
In a recent interview with Salon, Lee discussed her translation of Trump's letter.
Pelosi?
This reeks of, like, an unhinged cat lady, like, scrawling on paper, being like, Rawr!
Why go through the trouble of translating Trump's lengthy letter?
I started translating.
They put translating in quote over and over again.
Trump's tweets as a public service sometime in the summer because I could see his negative influence as he tries to reform others thoughts.
Even for those who do not believe him, he pushes the needle.
The impressive inefficacy of former special counsel Robert Mueller's report, and then the impeachment proceedings in changing people's minds, should convince people of how powerful these mechanisms are.
I intend my translation to neutralize some of his effects, as well as to immunize, to put it in quotes, readers by arming them with the right interpretation.
For example, they can now see that his severe symptoms make it right to decipher up as completely down and black as completely white.
Or you're insane, like, no!
You can't, Nancy Pelosi can't be like, I'm a co-worker, Trump's crazy, come and arrest him.
Without this, it is easy for people to get confused about what is reality.
And all will become of equal validity without being testable.
I love the irony.
It's like a perfect paradox.
This article claiming they're telling you what the truth is while simultaneously saying completely insane psychobabble.
It is a fire truck on fire.
Quite honestly, the perfect depiction of the word irony.
I love it.
Psychoanalysts will recognize the method.
It's a very standard way of coming to understand someone.
First, you arrive at a formulation of the person from detectable external patterns.
And many clinicians say that they know more about Donald Trump than any patient they've ever had in their careers, as he's extremely transparent from his unfiltered tweets and from that overabundant high-quality information that is available, including sworn testimonies.
Basically, I don't want to read this.
What she's saying is, the people who don't like Trump have a negative view of Trump, write about how they don't like Trump and have a negative view of Trump, and then they use that to compile some kind of psychoanalysis dossier to accuse the president of being mentally unfit, in which Nancy Pelosi can then call 911 and claim her co-worker, Donald Trump, is mentally unwell, and then she believes the police will actually come and arrest the president.
Welcome to the psychotic salon.com.
What was Trump trying to tell Pelosi with the letter?
He was not telling her anything so much as telling himself and his base.
He sent his— Let me stop you there.
I'm not gonna read this.
I know why Donald Trump wrote the letter.
He wrote the letter for public record.
That's about it.
I'm pretty much over this.
This article has devolved into the most insane, psychotic nonsense.
Pelosi called the letter really sick.
No, it was Trump's public record Refuting of impeachment.
That's what it was.
The letter contained several key points Trump wanted to make and wanted to exist in historical record.
If Trump didn't respond, impeachment would have happened, and then in a hundred years, they would say, here's what he said about impeachment.
By writing the letter, they'll say, here's what he said about impeachment.
Here was the president's response.
That's why Trump wrote the letter.
These people are insane.
Do I think Trump is like this amazing genius?
No.
Do I think he has good people around him?
Yes.
Do I think Trump has a general strategy for what he does?
Yes.
When I say I don't think he's a genius, I'm not saying I think he's a moron.
I think he clearly has an idea of what he's doing, and he has good advisors who understand how the system works, and they're giving him somewhat, you know, to a certain degree, good advice.
But I'll tell you this, if the left is going to run rampant with this psychotic nonsense, somebody's giving you bad advice.
Well, I hope you enjoyed CrazyConspiracySalon.com.
Stick around for tomorrow.
Next segment will be coming up at 10 a.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
I'm going to be moving over my segments, I think, in the next coming month or so.
This channel might become a new live show.
I'm gonna try to do more interviews with people, bring on guests, and do more conversations and stuff, like an actual podcast.
Like a conversational podcast.
And then my main channel will probably... I'll put it this way.
There's certain redundancies in algorithmic changes that make it pointless for me to now have two channels.
So while it worked before, I think it might make sense to move most of my segments over to my main channel.
