Democratic States And Cities Are COLLAPSING, Census Predicts Major Republican GAINS
Democratic States And Cities Are COLLAPSING, Census Predicts Major Republican GAINS. A new estimate from Real Clear Politics shows that, in fact, my past video commenting on the Center for immigration studies was potentially wrong.The new estimate predicts that in 2024 Trump will make several gains as immigration slows and residents flee the blue states.This net domestic migration out of major blue states will results in gains for republican seats in the house and in turn electoral college votes.With the way things are going it seems like this could be the end for the Democratic party. They are fractured between the moderate corporate democrats and the far left ideological democrats and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight.Short of a major course correction Democrats are in serious trouble.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
New census data has been released, and it shows that many blue states are actually set to lose a congressional seat.
So let this be a very big correction on a segment I did a few days ago.
The original story was from the Center for Immigration Studies, which actually said the 2020 census could show California gaining a House seat and many red states losing seats.
But it looks like the actual census data from 2019 proves that I was wrong.
The story is now circulating as of the other day, and it shows I mean, this is a pretty big story.
It looks like census data is showing that many blue states are going to lose a seat.
Texas could gain three.
But it's not just about the census today.
I've got numerous stories talking about how Illinois, California, and New York are losing residents, with New York losing the most residents.
There's a lot of reasons I think this is the case, but it ultimately shows that there's going to be a major change in the census.
This bodes very, very poorly for Democrats, as many people are expecting Trump to sweep in 2020.
We heard the warning from Tulsi Gabbard about impeachment that impeachment is riling up Trump's base, and they're going to go out and vote in force.
And these 31 Trump districts, now 30 because Jeff Andrews switched, are likely going to lose to Republicans.
Republicans will take these seats back, creating another Republican majority in basically every branch of government.
Add that to the fact that some of the biggest blue states are losing residents and losing congressional seats.
I gotta say, it sounds like really, really bad news for the Democrats.
So let's get started and read this story from RealClearPolitics.
The 2019 Census estimates foreshadow House seats and losses.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do is share this video.
YouTube has implemented some pretty harsh algorithmic changes, which basically spell the end of my channel and many others.
Even people like David Pakman, a progressive, I can't tell you what the factor is.
I think it has to do with the fact we talk about electoral politics.
But they're removing recommendations to our channels and pushing recommendations from our channels to mainstream media.
There's only one real way to overcome this, and it's sharing the video.
So maybe we'll break some echo chambers while we're at it.
Let's read the story from Real Clear Politics.
RCP reports the Census Bureau released its final intercensal estimates of United States population on Monday.
These are figures released every year to track the flow of population in the United States and to give an idea of what to expect in the decennial count.
They are important because the 2020 census will determine the next congressional reapportionment.
By looking at the estimates, we can get a sense of how things are likely to turn out the following year.
To estimate the actual census outcome, some back-of-the-envelope calculation is in order.
I took the estimated changes in population in every state from 2017-2018, and then again from 2018-19, I created a weighted average by counting the 2018-19 changes twice, and the 2017-2018 changes once.
I then assumed this would be the amount by which the state populations would grow or shrink, come the official count 2020.
Using the current apportionment formula, known as the method of equal proportions, we can estimate the following changes.
Texas should gain three seats.
Florida should gain two.
North Carolina, Colorado, Arizona, Montana, and Oregon should each gain one seat.
West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, and Rhode Island should each lose a seat.
Now I'll point out, it's not just blue states losing seats.
Red states will be losing some.
But it looks like Texas and Florida, though Florida is a swing state, we're going to see some swing state gains and Texas making some gains.
And I think it's important to point out, based on Trump's base and the expectations for next year, these are going to be red states.
Okay.
I don't know what that will mean for the individual congressional districts because just because the majority of the state might vote in a certain direction doesn't mean there's not going to be districts that are overwhelmingly blue.
There's also gerrymandering to consider.
I hope you take all that into consideration and I will go through the other story to kind of break down the differences between what they're saying.
Of course, it is difficult to know exactly how this would play out in redistricting.
Obviously, the West Virginia and Rhode Island seats would have to be taken out of the Republican and Democratic columns, respectively, barring a major surprise next year.
It is difficult to eliminate an additional Democratic seat from Ohio, though not impossible, while drawing an additional Democratic seat in Oregon is unlikely, though not impossible.
In the Electoral College, President Trump would gain electoral votes.
But these changes would not take effect until the 2024 election.
Trump could theoretically run if he loses in 2020.
These are, however, just estimates, and we have been surprised in the past.
The most vulnerable seats are in increasingly order of vulnerability.
Illinois 17th, Florida's 29th, Montana 2nd, New York's 26th.
The next seats subtracted, should the actual count for some of the previous seats fall short of the estimates, are in order.
Alabama 7th, Minnesota's 8th, Ohio's 16th, California's 53rd, and Rhode Island 2nd.
I want to read from you a comment about Rhode Island.
I'm not trying to make it seem like this is overtly just going to be bad for Democrats, although it seems to lean in that direction, because it looks like, as they said, Trump would gain electoral votes.
Let's not say Trump, okay?
Let's say the Republicans are likely going to gain electoral votes.
Trump won't lose in 2020.
I mean, maybe he will.
Assuming he does, he could run in 2024.
But if the same base exists for Donald Trump Jr., and he does end up running, because there's murmuring, okay?
There's speculation.
I hate speculation, but people are saying, you know, we got AOC on one side, she'll just barely be old enough, and Donald Trump Jr.
on the other side.
If these would be gains for Trump, they would be gains for Trump Jr., but let's be real.
They'll be gains for any real Republican, regardless if it's Trump or not.
But this is what we saw the other day, and I think it's fair to point out this will be a technical correction.
RCP is offering up an estimate.
Take it all with a grain of salt, man.
I'm doing my best.
I don't know if this is all definitive.
You know, again, RCP is giving estimates.
The Center for Immigration Studies is saying, based on apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives in 2020, we would see the Republicans actually losing seats.
Take the estimate for what it is.
I know some people have said that my assessment was incorrect in the last video.
I gotta be honest.
I'm just commenting on the data as it's presented to me.
So it's important to point out these changes don't take place for a long time.
Maybe I got that one wrong and I apologize if I do.
So just consider it a correction across the board.
I'll read for you the first part of this and then I want to talk to you about some of the biggest blue states losing residents.
They save.
Under current policy, all persons, not just citizens, are included in the population count when apportioning seats to the states in the U.S.
House of Representatives and for votes in the Electoral College, which is based on House seats.
Although we focus on the next census in 2020, the impact of immigration has been building for decades, as the number of people settling in the country has increased dramatically.
This report examines the cumulative impact of immigration, both legal and illegal, on the apportionment of House seats.
This is not an analysis of the impact of immigration only since the previous census.
Apportionment is a zero-sum system.
By adding more population to some states rather than others, immigration will continue to significantly redistribute political power in Washington.
They say the 2020 census will show that the presence of all immigrants and their U.S.-born children is responsible for a shift of 26 seats.
Now, many of these seats swing in favor of the left because they will be going to blue states.
I do believe I now have information to suggest this may be wrong.
Now, listen.
Here's what I do.
I use a third-party fact-checking organization called NewsGuard.
You may have heard me talk about it all the time.
They give The Center for Immigration Studies basically green check marks across the board except for who discloses their funding.
But they regularly clarify errors.
They do not publish false information.
I can only assume their assessment is correct, even if it's just an op-ed.
That's what I'm basing this off of.
I'm just saying this as a disclaimer because you really do got to fact check this stuff.
I know it's my job to do so as well.
I'm doing my best.
I'm just saying Watch other channels, listen to other voices.
I believe there was a Nuance Bro had a counter to a video I made.
If you didn't see it, check it out.
And I absolutely concede if I got things wrong, see what he has to say because again, I am not perfect.
But I do want to stress, they mentioned that illegal immigrants alone will only redistribute three seats.
With Ohio, Alabama, and Minnesota each having one fewer seat than they otherwise would have had, California, New York, and Texas would have one additional seat.
While Texas is technically still a red state, many people believe it is in play for 2020, 24, etc.
California and New York, solid blue.
This is specifically about immigration affecting the census, but it looks like RCP is doing an estimate on current census data, and if you want to take their word for it, it looks like bad news for Democrats.
Now, Let's move on to, well, the actual news, which lends itself to a more, I guess it's fair to say, you know, upon reading the Center for Immigration Studies, the point I was trying to make, not so much about whether Republicans are going to lose out, but, I mean, that was how I titled it, so I'll take full responsibility for that one.
What I was really trying to get at is that people don't realize if illegal immigrants come to the United States and settle in a state, they will be counted in the census and that will give congressional seats and electoral college votes to that state.
The point I was really trying to drive home is that you can convert non-citizens into votes for the president.
It's one of the pitfalls of the Electoral College system.
I still think the EC is the right way to go.
But if Democrats on the left want to get rid of the Electoral College, they would actually lose power because these people can't vote.
So let me, I'll make that point one more time.
If you are not a citizen, but you are living in the country, they do count you for the census.
And based on that individual, they will say, we need more congressional seats in this location.
Congressional seats result in Electoral College votes.
You see how that works.
Check out this story and we're going to hit New York and Illinois next.
California population growth slowest since 1900 as residents leave and immigration decelerates.
This is from December 21st, LA Times reports.
The Golden State remains stuck in the slow lane when it comes to population.
The number of Californians increased to 39.96 million, with new data from the Department
of Finance showing mostly downward trends.
They are rooted in fewer births, coupled with increased deaths, and among an aging population.
The Golden State, however, has also seen changes in international migration, along with more
and more residents leaving the state.
The estimates, which indicate that California's population grew by 141,300 people between July 1, 2018 and July 1,
2019, nonetheless, signal 0.35 growth rate down from 0.57 for the prior 12 months, the lowest recorded growth rate
since 1900, department officials underscored.
According to the agency, natural increase accounted for an additional 180,800 people to the state.
Still, these gains were offset by losses in net migration, that is, the total amount of people moving into the state minus the total amount of people moving out.
Notably, said Eddie Hunsinger, a demographer with the Department of Finance, even though the net international migration added to the state's population, there was substantial negative domestic net migration, which resulted in a loss of 39,500 residents.
This, said the department, marks the first time since the 2010 census that California has had more people leaving the state than moving in from abroad or other states.
So I think it's fair to point out natural population growth is adding to the state and that may, you know, then end up giving them congressional seats.
I don't think it's if you're 18 or not you get counted.
I think they count minors as well.
So this is what we're seeing.
California is still growing ever so slightly.
But as they mentioned in the other articles, The way they apportion House seats is a zero-sum system.
If California grows by 0.35%, say they add 140,000 people, but another state adds 300,000 people, then it stands to reason they'll have to move a congressional seat to the faster-growing state.
The article from the LA Times actually does bring up their fears over the 2020 Census.
They say, phrase that the decline in growth could have implications during the 2020 Census count and the ensuing apportionment that is based on Census figures.
It's something to be concerned about, he said.
California could be on the cusp of losing a seat if it doesn't show up with a decent count.
In an email to The Times, demographer Hunsinger countered, the estimates are for current and historical information rather than the future.
That's a really serious point.
I want to make sure I highlight as we go through this because I know there's going to be a million and one people piling on saying, oh, you're wrong for this, that, and reason.
This, that, and this reason.
I'm doing the best I can, as I stated, but let's move on.
Check this out from Gothamist.
New York is losing New Yorkers.
They're not just losing New Yorkers.
They're losing them at an alarming rate, and they're losing residents more than any other location.
They say, New York has lost the most residents in the country in 2019, according to the U.S.
Census Bureau.
There was an estimated 76,790 fewer New Yorkers in the state this past year, a drop of 0.4%, which made it the biggest percentage decrease in the country.
The major factor in it was net domestic migration.
New York lost 180,649 residents who left our fair state for another area of the country.
Only California outdid us with 203,414 residents moving away in 2019.
New York State, another major blue state, is losing a ton of residents and mostly in these cities.
So I do want to point out as we move into some other states, I'll read a little bit more, but I want to point out the presumed effect when these people start moving out.
They say the rest of the tri-state region also lost residents.
Connecticut may have had only 6,233 fewer residents, but that loss was enough to drop the state population by 0.2%.
New Jersey lost 3,835, a decline that did not change the Garden State's population by a significant amount.
But 48,946 residents moved out of state, landing New Jersey in fourth place of states that lost residents to net domestic migration.
These are people leaving the state.
The census is going to redraw districts, and it stands to reason my assessment was entirely incorrect, but I do want to point one thing out as we move on to the next few stories.
Well, I'll come back to this story in a second.
I want to do Illinois first.
Actually, let's just read about Illinois.
Let's just get right to it.
The Chicago Tribune reported just a couple days ago, Illinois loses population for sixth straight year, and it lost more residents than any state this decade.
Wow, I don't know who's winning, New York or Illinois.
The Tribune reports, Illinois's population decreased in 2019 by an estimated 51,250 people, or 0.4%, marking the sixth consecutive year the state has lost residents, according to new data from the U.S.
Census Bureau.
Since the turn of the state, Illinois has lost more residents than any other state, with a drop of about 159,700 people, or 1.2% of its population.
We just heard it was New York.
You see, I'm highlighting this on purpose because, look, we got conflicting information from verified sources.
I'm doing my best.
Only three other states have shrunk since 2010.
Connecticut, Vermont, and West Virginia, with West Virginia losing the largest share of its residents, a 3.3% decline.
So perhaps they're looking at losing residents over a longer period of time, but they seem to be missing out New York.
They say Puerto Rico, a U.S.
territory, lost an estimated 532,463 people since 2010, or 14.3% of its population.
Population losses in Illinois have been compounding since 2014, when the state began a steady, though not precipitous, decline.
Illinois is the 6th most populous state in the nation after California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania, which passed Illinois in 2017.
Ohio is the 7th, followed by Georgia and North Carolina.
As Illinois's pop- Illinois!
I'm from there, I shouldn't have done that.
Population has rewrote.
Illinois's population has rewrote.
Okay, it was a possessive, sorry.
Potentially weakening its political and economic power.
The trend has become a frequent topic of political discussion.
So, everybody's talking about it.
As these states lose population, they're all highlighting they're scared they're going to be losing political power in Washington.
I now want to point out this first, and the ramifications and the reason why this may be happening.
The New York Post says, New York residents fleeing to sunny Florida and New Jersey.
Well, New Jersey's a blue state, Florida's a swing state.
If blue voters, Democrat voters, move to Florida and Florida's a swing state, that could tip the scales and result in Florida becoming solidly blue for quite some time.
New Jersey's already blue, but as we saw from other data, it looks like the tri-state area's already losing out.
So, I can't tell you exactly, you know, what to expect necessarily, but It's been widely reported, even the past few days, that this could result in blue states losing out.
So if we go back to RCP, it looks like the Republicans will make some gains based on the current electoral maps.
But now let's talk about what happens when someone leaves a city.
First, there have been a lot of people talking about how Colorado, Arizona, and other places have been absorbing California refugees, you know, figurative refugees.
These are people who bring progressive values into these red states and then turn them blue.
That actually could help in the Electoral College in the long run.
Even if California loses a seat, if these blue voters take over certain counties in the state and flip that state, which is winner-take-all, towards the Democratic voter, then California and some other former red state will now give their electoral votes to the Democrat.
Based on what we're seeing about electoral gains, though, it seems like RCPs and Republicans will make those gains.
So here's what I expect will happen.
Let's say a thousand people leave New York City.
They don't all go to the same place.
They spread out around the country.
If rural areas are overwhelmingly Republican, then adding about a thousand or so Democrats won't change the winner-take-all model of many of these counties.
Meaning, as the Democrats leave their Democrat strongholds, they actually completely lose their political power because they're entering places dominated by Republicans.
So, it sounds to me, Republicans have a bright future, actually.
I think what we're seeing with the fight between the Democrats, the far left, the moderate corporate centrist types, people like me, you know, clearly being excised from the Democratic Party, shows that they're already struggling as it is.
And they can't afford to lose voters who say, you know, vote blue no matter who.
But if those people are voting blue and they've moved to a rural area, it won't matter because the rural area is overwhelmingly going to support Trump for a lot of reasons.
I've thought about why this is.
Why it is that so many people are leaving these places, and I can't tell you definitively, but I have a hypothesis.
The internet.
The internet has decentralized how the economy works.
It's also decentralized how we can purchase goods.
If you lived in a rural area before, you had to drive into the city to go and purchase things.
Now, Amazon delivers, like, almost everywhere.
And we're seeing small towns start to light back up because of Trump and his policies bringing back manufacturing jobs.
That's not perfect.
You know, there's been some coal mining increase, some manufacturing increases.
But in the end, I think what we end up seeing, rural areas are becoming stronger.
Cities are weakening.
They're losing residents.
Now, I'll tell you about California.
California's become a nightmare.
They've been dominated not by a progressive elite.
Sort of.
Sort of.
Hear me out.
The conservatives like to say that California is this progressive bastion and all of its failures are the fault of liberal policies.
That's not the case.
It's technically the truth.
It's partly true.
You look at Los Angeles, a Democratic supermajority, yet they have a massive homeless problem.
Why?
Because they refuse to actually implement these solutions over the NIMBY mentality.
The wealthy people in LA are pretending to be leftist and progressive for brownie points likely on the internet or among their social circle.
So when it comes time to actually vote, hey, we can set up housing here, they go, not in my backyard, because you build that shelter near my property, my property value goes down, not gonna happen.
So what ends up happening is filth, homeless cities, and a general homeless crisis, as well as, man, I don't even wanna get into what's going on in San Francisco, especially right now, because YouTube will yell at me if I tell you the disaster that is San Francisco.
But they've got homeless camps across the board, they can't solve the problem.
California, what it really is, it's the capital of greed.
It's people who want money.
They want power, and they'll say whatever they need to say to get it.
So they pander to the emotional play.
They pretend to be the left, and they implement certain policies that, yes, there are many left-wing policies that fail.
That's true.
Overwhelmingly, the state is progressive.
They have a majority in so many places.
So yes, that does play a role.
But let's be real.
The people who are voting them in aren't doing it because they actually care about this stuff.
They're doing it so they look good among their friends and they can pretend.
They're celebrities.
Their whole lives are built around pretending to be something to sell a product.
But I will give a shoutout to NuanceBro one more time.
If I was wrong, I apologize.
Definitely check out his rebuttal over on his channel.
Do a search for NuanceBro.
I think apparently I was wrong on a bunch of things or I misread stuff.
And it happens, man.
I try my best.
And if I have a correction, you know, I'll definitely point it out.
And if someone, you know, if I see somebody, you know, correcting me on some issues, I gotta be honest, I didn't see his video because I've been working relentlessly, but I will definitely get a shoutout.
Nuancebro actually does pretty good content, so hopefully you guys can see if, you know, if and what I got wrong.
And take whatever he says into account with all of this information as well.
It may be We're seeing the end of the Democratic Party, because they're going to lose their ability to actually win a majority in any branch of the government.
And it could be due to the far left fighting with the corporate out-of-touch, you know, air quote, centrist types.
I don't know.
I don't know.
But the economy is doing well and Americans love it.
And Donald Trump is getting the credit for it.
And as much as the Democrats want to screech and cry about it, You know, there was a poll I showed the other day.
80% of people polled said they expected their lives to get better in this new year.
And they're saying it's because of the economy, and that's Trump.
You know these people who I told you about, they're greedy and they want money?
They're gonna look over their shoulder, make sure nobody's looking, and they're gonna vote for Trump.
I seriously think so.
And if the Democrats don't course-correct, there won't be Democrats to win.
But I'll say this.
Although it might be hyperbolic to say the Democrats are gone forever, here's what I think might happen.
They're gonna realize the far-left play failed.
The far-left will be ostracized.
The mainstream, corporate, moderate, and, like, populist types will start taking over, not the intersectional types.
They'll be championing Trump's economic plan while calling out his foreign policy and his demeanor, and that will create a stronger coalition for Democrats.
But for the time being, man, Republicans have it.
And as long as these blue districts keep, you know, losing residents, I think it's another sign that Democrats are in serious trouble.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
I hope.
We'll see what happens.
I'm filming actually very, very early because I have to be on a flight, but thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all in the next segment.
When you enter the fray, you will be chewed up and spat out.
I want to talk to you this morning about political shields and how the left uses young people to protect themselves from criticism.
Notably, the story of David Hogg and Greta Thunberg.
And this will serve... I'm not trying to be overly disrespectful.
I will say this.
It is a warning to these people about how you will be used.
And as young people, you don't see how it's going to happen.
And I want to share with you some stories from my own personal experience.
But we're gonna start with Mr. David Hogg.
You see, the other day he tweeted, Y'all have no idea what is coming.
Enjoy your last year's heart-to-heart NRA.
Many of you may be familiar with David Hogg.
He is an activist for gun control, and almost all of his tweets comprise statements about, you know, fighting the NRA to a certain degree.
But the NRA isn't relevant to the press anymore.
The NRA isn't Donald Trump.
The NRA isn't constantly in the news.
I mean, they kind of are, but for the most part, not really.
So sure, there are many people who are still cheering on David and retweeting him, but the fact is a lot of these people who engage with him are probably just naysayers.
Here's what I want to do.
I want to show you some stats, and I want to talk to you about the dangers of being used and public relations in general.
I'm going to highlight the follower counts, the Google Trends for these individuals, and I want to explain to you why they are no longer relevant and why this is going to be really, really bad for them in the long run.
Before we get started, Head over to TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do, share this video.
We're gonna break some echo chambers, break some, you know, bubbles.
And the best way to do that is by sharing this video.
It's not perfect, but with the algorithm changes on YouTube that negatively impact my and other channels, we can completely overcome all of that if you just, well, share the video so other people can see it.
Again, I'm not going to be criticizing their activism necessarily, but I do want to criticize how they are being used.
And I think it's really important that people on the left listen to this, because I have personally experienced this to a certain degree.
I show you this tweet from David Hogg, because David Hogg has, well, he used to have a million followers.
He doesn't anymore.
And he doesn't get that much interaction on a lot of his tweets.
In fact, a lot of the retweets are actually from, I'm sorry, a lot of the comments are actually from people who don't like the kid.
So you can see here on his Twitter account, he got around 724 retweets on this tweet at the time of filming.
David Hogg has 999,024 followers.
Here's the thing.
David Hogg has been losing followers all throughout the past month and probably before this.
He used to have over a million followers, fell, gained a few, and he's been falling, well, he's been falling, you know, steadily over the past few months.
Let me go back before I get into David, The Trends, and Greta Thunberg.
And I want to tell you what I experienced back in 2011.
During Occupy Wall Street, I started doing live streaming.
And I was one of the first people to do mobile live and commentary on the ground.
And guess what?
It was a beautiful message challenging the corporate media.
MSNBC had me on the air.
I was interviewed by a bunch of different magazines.
And I knew something.
It's called the Flavor of the Month, and I thought about it.
I had book offers.
I had TV show offers.
I said to myself, I'm not going to do any of it.
I turned it all down.
And you know why?
Let me show you my Twitter thread, which better exemplifies what's going on with Hogg and what will happen to Greta Thunberg.
I tweeted this.
David will learn a lesson in 2020 about public relations.
His notoriety is based off one thing—gun control and one event.
The topic will not always be relevant to most people, and even if it is, there will be someone else with more power to fill this role in the press.
David is notable for a singular moment, and he has my sympathy and respect for everything that happened at the time, but it's important to point out that now that this time has come to an end and the year has now rolled over, when it comes to the message of the Second Amendment, they're not going to ask David Hogg, a young person with no experience, to come on TV shows and talk about this message.
That event is long since passed.
They're now going to need somebody who's, say, you know, a think tank expert or a journalist to talk about statistics, which means for someone like Hogg, he is no longer relevant.
And the only thing he has is a Twitter following.
That's new.
Back in the day, you didn't have that.
So that will allow him to sustain some kind of press attention.
But for the most part, you don't have anything.
Now let's go back to Occupy Wall Street.
I'll explain something to you.
I knew That, with only one thing behind me, they would chew me up and spit me out.
So I refused it all.
I said no to it.
And then I decided, with this press attention, I need to focus on something else.
And I started working on drone technology.
A buddy of mine had some really crazy ideas.
We did the first, as far as I know, the first live broadcast via drone for a news report we did during an Occupy Wall Street immigration protest.
Not that it was good or anything, but we also did several live streams via drone publicly to the internet.
This garnered a ton of press attention, and all of a sudden, I had something forming.
It turns out Tim Poole wasn't just a flavor of the month.
He was this skater-hacker-journalist-spy.
And that's what GQ magazine said about me when they gave me a front-page feature on one of their editions, which I believe was released in three countries.
I'm not saying this to brag, okay?
I'm pointing out that I saw the pitfalls that will now affect David Hogg, who, again, I'm not saying this to be mean, but it's true.
He's a one-trick pony.
He's a, you know, a one-horse show.
The same is true for Greta Thunberg, which we'll get to in a second.
I said this.
He played a role for certain political groups.
Greta Thunberg is the same.
Neither are experts, and their opinions only hold weight for emotional reasons.
This isn't effective in the long term.
There will come a time when Greta is no longer relevant, and it's coming soon, and I've got the proof to show you.
I said, I advised a few friends about this after they gained press attention several years ago.
They were too arrogant and they were sure that they had made it.
I explained that you need a series of accomplishments to remain relevant.
They ignored me and drifted off into obscurity within a year.
You see, if your only relevance is one flash in the pan, well then no one's going to talk to you about it.
Like, what do they talk to you about?
You're not an expert.
You're not a PhD.
You're not running a program.
You're not running a business.
Your relevance is time-based.
And when that time passes, you're out.
That's happening to David Hogg.
I said it's similar to a lot of bands.
One hit wonder.
If you can't produce more hits, then you won't last in the eyes of the public.
Let me tell you about a band I really like.
I'm sorry about the light.
It's gonna get bad for a second.
You ever hear the band Fastball?
Fastball's awesome.
They have a couple really good songs.
They have, what's the song, Out of My Head and The Way.
But their next albums didn't have any hits.
And so sure enough, no one knows or cares who they are anymore.
Forgive me if you're watching on YouTube, the light is bad.
So that's the point I'm making, right?
It's not like they're a bad band.
But they only were able to produce a couple hits.
That's the one-hit wonder.
And that's what the press and political groups will do to these young people.
Because instead of focusing on, you know, Creating a program or expanding their repertoire.
Becoming known for more than just one thing.
It's all they're doing.
David's Twitter feed is literally just complaints about the NRA.
So what, dude?
The NRA isn't the end-all be-all, but it's all he has.
Take a look at this.
David Hogg's notoriety spiked.
It spiked.
There were a few big protest moments.
You had the... I believe this was the March for Life moment.
But as of today, his relevance, according to Google Trends, is at a 4 from a peak of 100, meaning...
The way Google Trends works is relative.
100 is the most search volume you've ever received.
Relative to the most you've ever received?
It's a 4.
He's losing followers.
It's over.
David's no longer relevant and there's nothing he can really do other than tweet about the NRA.
Now, she only really gained some notoriety around September, and she reached maximum notoriety September 24th.
And then nothing.
Her relevance evaporated until December 12th to a 42.
Nowhere near as relevant as she's ever been.
Now, her story's a little different.
She's up from a rating of 5 from a peak of 100.
Relative to the press attention she received, it's gone.
There's not even a steady stream of attention or searches for her.
She's losing relevance.
And it's going to be the case because she has nothing to say.
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be mean, but the reality is Greta Thunberg and David Hogg both have nothing to say in politics.
They don't have a strong body of work.
They've contributed nothing other than their concerns and complaints.
So in the end, When these political activist groups prop them up because they're young people and they provide a certain image, eventually that image is worthless because there's no substance there.
I'm not saying this to be disrespectful.
I'm pointing out the truth.
There's one big reason why we see this so often with young people.
I'll read you a little bit of the story from Vox that tries to pass the blame off to the fact that she's a young woman.
Not the case.
And David Hogg is the proof.
But it seems like so many people, and I'll just say it, it's on the left for the most part, they prop up these individuals because then when you criticize them, they say, why are you criticizing?
Why are you insulting?
Why are you targeting children?
I'm not targeting children.
I feel bad for these kids.
I feel like they're being exploited for political ends.
And now let me explain to you why this is really, really, really bad for them.
David Hogg is pigeonholed.
He's produced a lot of enemies in politics and the kid's only like 18 or 19 years old.
What job will he get when he gets out of college?
Does anybody want to take the heat from hiring him?
The answer is most likely no.
They have set themselves on a track for which they will never escape.
Greta Thunberg will always be, in some capacity, in this area.
Maybe she'll go to school.
My recommendation would be go to school for climate science.
That would be a really good idea.
Now, when she's older and she applies at, you know, maybe she wants to work at a theater, maybe this isn't what she really cares about.
It's the adults who are propping her up.
There's going to come a point in her life where she says, I really want to be, I don't know, an actress.
Never going to happen.
She's much too famous for a political cause.
And that's divisive and it's bad for the market.
Right now in politics, politics is kind of dominating a lot of these, you know, businesses for some reason.
Movies are dominated, video games are dominated by all this stuff.
So sure, maybe there's something there.
Maybe she'll get a cameo in a film.
But when it comes to running a business, the last thing someone wants is a divisive actor being involved in their product.
I feel bad, man.
I feel really bad for these kids.
Now, let me read for you the story.
They say, Why America Loves and Hates Outspoken Young Women.
Women like Greta Thunberg and Ocasio-Cortez were leaders in the 2010s, and they were vilified for it.
They weren't vilified for being women.
David Hogg is a young person who's outspoken.
He has political beliefs, whether you agree with him or not.
He was vilified by many, many people.
He's male.
This is passing the buck.
But let's read a little bit of this, and I'll explain to you one last thing.
How they use these young people, why they use them, and the political advantage to using them.
Vox writes, When Greta Thunberg was chosen as Time's Person of the Year earlier this month, the accolades quickly rolled in.
The hashtag CongratulationsGreta went viral as everyone from celebrities to newscasters to ordinary people around the world offered their praise for the 16-year-old and her outspoken climate activism.
President Trump, however, said she had an anger management problem.
We get all that stuff.
They say, It was part of a bigger pattern.
While Thunberg has become a hero to many, perhaps more than she wants, she's also become a perennial target for attacks by Trump and others on the right.
And she's not alone.
In recent years, other girls and young women from gymnast Gabby Douglas to Ocasio-Cortez have found themselves in similar positions in American culture, held up as subjects of adulation by some, even as they're torn down and vilified by others.
It's a symptom of the position of young women in the 2010s, still so underrepresented in many spheres, that when one rises to prominence, it's an exciting event.
And by the same token, their relative isolation makes them a focal point for the collective anger of everyone who would prefer young women to be seen and not heard.
But I'm sorry.
This affects literally everybody.
I was vilified relentlessly.
People started digging into my past.
And there's a reason why I started with David Hogg on this one.
I did want to highlight the politics around Greta Thunberg.
But I realized this is the narrative they go for.
This is the weaponization of identity for these political ends.
And that's why young people are used to push it.
They say, you're targeting, you're attacking children.
Why are you attacking children?
What is wrong with you?
Grow up, etc.
Greta Thunberg went to what?
She was at the UN, right?
She's talking about how she refuses to meet with Trump.
It would be a waste of time.
She's speaking as one of the most prominent voices in climate change activism.
She was placed there by political groups seeking political ends, and now she will be heavily criticized for it.
Now, I'll say this.
Anybody who wants to rag on Hogg and Greta Thunberg because they think they're ignorant or naive or evil or whatever, you gotta stop this.
That's not the case, man.
In my opinion, and I know a lot of people are gonna roll their eyes at this, no, they're victims.
I really think so.
Just like a child actor doesn't know what they're getting into, neither do these kids.
Let me explain to you why I highlighted this story from Vox.
This is a second round attempt to use Greta for a political end.
It's just not true.
Greta Thunberg's relevance is that she decided not to go to school.
She sat outside saying it was on strike because of climate change.
The narrative worked well for particular groups that had funding and propped her up.
But next year she won't have the same...
The same press.
If their relevance is only rooted in a singular moment, then what do they have to look forward to in the future if they will be pigeonholed as a particular character for the rest of their lives?
So I'll throw it back to the Google search.
Greta Thunberg saw a spike in her notoriety because of Time magazine, but before that she was Nothing.
I mean, that was it.
She had her spike when she did the climate strike thing and that was gone.
And now she's only maintained slight relevance because Time Magazine deemed it so.
Because the press saw an opportunity to gain something from it.
We can see the same thing with Ocasio-Cortez with Greta Thunberg.
But at least for Ocasio-Cortez, she's currently in Congress and she has a long track record in front of her.
She didn't just win.
She's continually stolen the press attention.
Unfortunately for Greta and David Hogg, they themselves are not what the attention is about.
And I'll leave you with this.
No one cares about the individuals, Greta or David.
They care about the moments they exemplified with the idea behind it.
Ocasio-Cortez had the idea, she had the position, and she continually garnered press because of the position she was in, and now she's become a solidified character who will be relevant for a long time, so relevant that when she moved into an apartment, everyone was talking about it.
Clearly, she was the story.
When it comes to Greta, when it comes to David, no one cares.
I'll show you one more time and I'll wrap up.
David's losing followers.
These young people were used for political reasons.
They were shields, but that was it.
They exemplified a moment.
There was a moment in time that Greta and David captured, and they needed someone to be on TV to represent that moment.
But a moment doesn't last forever.
It lasts a moment.
And so in the end, David, Greta, and all the other young people propped up for political reasons will find themselves pigeonholed and facing a very difficult future, because they will always be that person.
The same is true for these meme characters.
You know, they've probably found it better out because they're not as famous, but David and Greta are so—we're so incredibly famous that there's not going to be an escape for them.
In five years, they're going to be like, oh, you're that person?
It's going to be bad for us politically.
And we also don't know how things are going to change.
There's a lot of information coming out that Republicans are probably going to sweep in the future, and this may create an unpopular and hostile territory for people like David and Greta.
So, you know what?
I sympathize.
I'm critical of the organizations that would prop them up, but it is what it is.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
It is a different channel, and I will see you all there.
Starting off the year with a bang, we got a big old story about Antifa.
This from the Washington Examiner.
Philly restaurant owner accuses Antifa of vandalism after Proud Boy's allegation.
In fact, he called Antifa terrorists.
You see, what happened was, Apparently, several months ago, Turning Point USA had some people there, like, playing pool or something.
And then, you know how Antifa is.
They don't care about what's true or what's evidence.
They just go around bashing skills and stuff like that.
So, sure enough, they showed up and they trashed the place.
I've got some photos here posted by Andy No.
We can see it says, F. Pissboys.
ACAB.
The windows are all knocked out.
And people are, like, mocking the guy.
The dude, you know, it's absolutely insane.
Even if he did host the Proud Boys, it's this crazy assumption that Antifa thinks everyone's supposed to know everything that they know, right?
So what ends up happening is you get a group of black-clad lunatics going around smashing up windows, punishing you for not paying attention to their obscure political references.
But I do have something else I want to show you.
A problem with the left.
But first, so actually, I'll just show you, right?
My response to somebody who said that Republicans are more likely to appeal to independents, I want to show you exactly what's wrong with the modern progressive left in America.
And if you're somebody on the left and you find yourself watching this video, I know it may make you angry, but you got to watch because I'm going to show you something.
It's really going to help open your eyes.
All right.
The story from the Examiner.
They say, a Philadelphia restaurant was vandalized in the early hours of New Year's Day, and the owner has accused Antifa of being responsible for the damages.
Vandal spray-painted F Piss Boys on the side of Mill Creek Tavern and broke a number of windows.
The restaurant is owned by retired police officer Jack Gillespie, and he told the Washington Examiner that there was approximately $20,000 worth of damage.
Gillespie blamed Antifa for the vandalism.
The two parties have a tenuous relationship after a November incident in which Mill Creek Tavern was accused of allowing the Proud Boys to recruit members in its restaurant.
The owner claims that a conservative group called the restaurant to see if they could accommodate a party of approximately 20 people.
Which they said they could do.
While he said they had a file with them labeled Proud Boys, Gillespie maintained the group was connected to Turning Point USA, a conservative organization.
The night ended without any incidents.
Mill Creek Tavern were on their Facebook page at the time.
The group had no meeting that have knowledge of, I guess they have knowledge of, no recruitment nor any interaction with other patrons.
On Saturday, 11-16-19, November 16, 2019, something came over on FB that caught my attention.
Mill Creek allows Proud Boys as a recruitment haven.
I was confused because I had no idea who, what this meant.
After doing some research, I was appalled.
It went on.
I have since found out that the group that had came in on Friday evening are not members of the Proud Boys.
They are, in fact, Turning Point USA.
He then strangely says Proud Boys don't like Turning Point USA because they are far too moderate.
I don't know what that means because I don't know if they actually talk to each other.
I don't think Turning Point and the Proud Boys ever clash or anything.
That seems weird.
But let me tell you a story.
You see, Last year, I believe it was September, I had an event.
And we had a bunch of moderate and libertarian speakers.
We had some progressives.
And we had discussions and arguments about social justice.
We had some offensive comedians.
And Antifa, it would seem, I want to be careful, threatened to burn down the theater.
So they cancelled on us, terminating our contract, which we had for the entire year.
Without cause.
And because some lunatics in Philadelphia.
So Philly's nuts, you know?
If I was gonna say, you know, which East Coast city has the biggest psychotic Antifa presence, it's probably Philadelphia.
And it's exemplified here.
So you can see all the photos.
You can see it.
Look, man, I don't think I need to elaborate too much on this.
We get it.
Antifa goes around bashing out.
Look, all the windows are all busted out.
Because several months ago, Turning Point USA had a meeting there?
That's how absolutely insane it is.
You gotta think about what this means, man.
This guy doesn't know anything about Antifa or the Proud Boys or Turning Point USA.
But Antifa demands that he does.
They live in a paranoid, delusional state where everyone's a Nazi.
You ever see that Chris Raygun video, Punch a Nazi?
It's hilarious.
He's singing about how the left thinks everybody's literally a Nazi, and the guy's like, They're everywhere!
And he's like looking at everybody in Starbucks.
That's literally what we have in this country.
Something needs to be done about it.
I don't know what you can do about it because, you know, what is Antifa?
I guess if you fly the flag, you're assigning your alignment to them, but whatever.
Let me now explain to you.
The big problem, outside of this, what progressives have in the United States.
First, assuming there are very few progressives who actually watch this kind of content, and I can just show you why, I mean, like, you know, most of you are probably finding yourselves in between this graph I show all the time for the New York Times, where the left has gone completely off the rails.
Fine.
If you find yourself more in line with the left, you need to hear this.
First, look at this graph.
I know I show it all the time.
Think about what Antifa is doing.
You may say, Antifa are fringe extremists.
They don't represent the left.
That's fair.
It's fine.
I understand.
The Proud Boys don't represent the right either.
They're another small faction of people doing their thing.
Of course, when the Proud Boys go out, they say, oh, it's all the conservatives.
And when Antifa goes out, they say, it's all the left.
Look, I understand there are moderate centrist types.
There are left-leaning and right-leaning people who don't like either side, OK?
But I don't see the Proud Boys going out and smashing up business windows and accusing people of being Antifa.
I'm not saying the Proud Boys are perfect.
They started that fight in New York.
Technically, I know people are going to get mad at me for saying that, but I understand, you know, Antifa comes and protests their event, and then they charge at them, refuse to back down.
It's a long, complicated problem.
I don't like either side fighting in the streets.
Whatever.
The point is, When you have one faction claiming that you support the Proud Boys and going around bashing Skulls, you are helping the Proud Boys.
Don't you understand that?
Because what do you think the average person is going to see when they see this business all smashed up?
Do you think they're going to be like, those darn Proud Boys running that business?
No, they're going to be like, did you hear Joe's business got smashed up?
Pennsylvania's gonna go red if you were to ask me.
But take a look at this.
Aside from the fact that Antifa is causing serious problems for the left and making them look really, really bad.
Look, I get it.
You might not like what they're doing.
You might be on the left.
It's Antifa's bad fun, but you gotta recognize the optics.
Whatever.
You can see how divergent the two parties have become.
And for me, I'm typically closer to where Obama is.
And so, you know, this is how I explained it before.
Look, if you can see on the screen where the mouse is.
Who's closer to 2008 Obama?
Not the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party have veered so far off the left, nobody has any idea what the hell they're talking about anymore.
Now I just said the H word.
You seriously can't say that on YouTube.
But let me show you this, okay?
I wanna actually show you this post from Facebook.
from a progressive activist that exemplifies the problem.
He posted this.
I feel like the Republicans are more likely to try and appeal to independents compared to Democrats.
I saw that and I was like, wow, that's a very astute point.
I completely agree, leftist progressive activist.
So here's what I said.
Tulsi is doing that.
She made a video saying we have to respect our fellow Americans even if we disagree.
But for all her efforts of trying to oppose foreign intervention and reaching across the aisle, she gets destroyed by the press.
The purity testing on the left is destroying their chances.
Meanwhile, Trump and Republicans fan over anyone, even those who vote with Nancy Pelosi 100% of the time, like Van Drew.
Then, if Trump is willing to endorse someone like Van Drew, who, for instance, supports equality laws and wants to ban offshore drilling, then the right will form a large coalition and crush the left.
Maybe they already have.
I didn't say in any ways your politics are dumb.
I didn't say you were wrong.
I was agreeing with him.
I completely—Tulsi Gabbard made a video where she said we must respect Trump supporters, otherwise we will lose.
She said we need to talk about why people who voted for Obama twice went and voted for Trump.
Okay?
They're not all racists.
This is basically what I've been trying to do with everything.
I'm trying to figure out, like, there's a divide in this country.
The problem is, it's exemplified by this graph.
Yeah, it's really easy for me to reach out to a Republican and say, I disagree, I disagree, and we can talk about stuff because we are still relatively close to each other's politics.
You know, when I went on the Glenn Beck program, we had a great conversation.
It was awesome.
I really, really enjoyed it.
And it came to the point where we were, like, at a fundamental impasse on the difference between life and choice.
And we're like, anyway, you know, we're friends.
We respect each other.
I understand the point he was making.
I feel an ethical conundrum.
It makes me hard to be on his side, like, to agree with him.
And I think we both recognize that.
And that's what you have to learn to live with in America is this battle.
And you've got to convince people.
You've got to vote.
And that's what it's really all about.
But here's what he ends up saying to me.
He says, My response?
Hubbard is a faux anti-imperialist and has dined with dictators around the world.
Don't talk about purity tests when you hang out with the War on Christmas crowd.
That is a purity test of Catholic whiteness.
My response?
I love how you exemplify your own post.
I have no idea what he's talking about the War on Christmas crowd.
I don't hang out with anybody.
I sit at home all day yelling at a camera.
That's what I do.
It's such a weird, psychotic, paranoid, delusional state these Antifa types have, where they seem to think that I'm going to secret Proud Boys meetings.
Dude, I went, interviewed a handful of people, and tracked protests for a period of time.
That's what I've always done.
And it was like a year out of my 10-year journalism career, or 8-year journalism career.
I've interviewed former Soviet generals and protesters and gang leaders in Brazil, but these people live in this paranoid, delusional state where they think everyone is secretly a Nazi.
That's why they smash up these windows, and that's why they say things like, What does that even mean?
Who am I hanging out with?
What are you talking about?
Like, it's nuts.
You know what I do?
I wake up, I read the news, I complain about things, and then I go out to eat with some friends.
My friends are all fairly lefty, moderate individuals.
I come home, watch movies, and play video games.
That's basically my routine.
We're changing things up, though.
There's a lot of stuff in the background.
You know, over the past few months, there's been a lot of travel.
We're getting a studio built.
So I'm being, you know, a bit self-deprecating when I act like I'm not doing anything.
But here's the point of this post.
How can you?
Notice.
It's like so close.
Self-aware wolves.
You know self-aware wolves on Reddit?
I feel like Republicans are more likely to try and appeal to Independents compared to Democrats.
True fact!
And then I, as an Independent, someone who is a big fan of Tulsi Gabbard, who is to the left of the Republicans but too far away from the Democrats, says, yes, you're correct.
Donald Trump shakes the hand of Jeff Van Drew, a man who voted with Pelosi almost every single time, who wants to ban offshore drilling, and Trump said, I endorse this man.
If the Republicans are expanding their base and absorbing the former moderate Democrats who want to ban offshore— You know, Trump purged a ton of environmental regulations, and the Republicans are cheering about it.
Jeff Van Drew wants more, but Trump endorses the guy!
Bravo, good sir.
I clap for that.
I do.
I do.
Because look at what happens.
If Trump is willing to endorse someone like Van Drew who, for instance, supports equality laws and wants to ban offshore drilling, the right will form a large coalition and crush the left.
His response is negative.
His response is hostility.
His response wasn't, I disagree with you, Tim.
I'm trying to understand you and doing a better job of appealing to independents.
Nope.
Take a look at the top comment.
More like independent and libertarians are already closer to the conservative scale than they are towards the liberal or progressive scales to begin with.
Not liberal.
Sorry, not liberal, okay?
And I can prove it, and I do it all the time because I regurgitate this graph from the New York Times like literally every other day.
You've seen it so many times, you're probably begging me to stop showing it.
The problem is, and please let me explain, you know.
I understand, you know, a lot of people who watch all of my videos are like, Tim, you've shown us this so many times.
It's true, but what you need to understand, too, is that the average person only watches, like, one or two of my videos.
So they don't see these kinds of posts.
Check out where independents are.
Independent voters are likely where Obama was.
But in 2008, those were liberals, okay?
Liberals!
We're here in 2008.
So if you want to talk about where liberals are today, yeah, they haven't changed much.
People, you know, ten years later, aren't all of a sudden foaming at the mouth, fervent far leftists, you know, ideological socialists, whatevers.
Some people, yes.
That's the zombie bite theory, that if you simply hear a political opinion, you just act on it.
No, but many liberals aren't engaging with you anymore.
And that's why the Democratic Party is fractured six ways from Sunday.
It's not that liberals and independents are closer to conservative.
Or, I'm sorry, that, what did I say?
Independents are closer to Republican than liberals and progressives are?
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Liberals are closer to the Republican Party than progressives are.
Progressives have gone nuts.
I'm sorry.
It's a fact.
You go and watch some of these shows.
Not all of them.
Not all of them, okay?
I always give a shout-out to a couple, like, you know, Jimmy Dore and Kyle Kalinske and David Pakman.
They're good dudes.
And they make great content.
But you look at what's going on with the manifestos, you look at what's going on with the purity testing, what Obama calls circular firing squads, and yeah, y'all got serious problems, man.
So I know I want to wrap this up and loop it back into what's going on with, you know, what happened with the tavern in Antifa.
These progressive people live in this hyper-bubble of woke Twitterati social media activism.
It is getting further and further away and will eventually fly off a cliff.
They think their world is objective reality.
It is not.
The average person has no idea what you're talking about.
So you show up, you throw bricks through windows, and the average person says, the left has gone insane.
This is Philadelphia, man!
Okay?
Philadelphia might vote Democrat, but this is not your far-left Democrat.
This is Philadelphia.
This is Philly.
These are sports bros, okay?
These are tough mother effers in Philly who may be like union Democrat types, slightly
left-leaning, opposing big corporate structures and stuff, but you come and throw a brick
through their window and they're not going to mess around.
It's Philly we're talking about.
See, they don't get this.
These aren't your New York liberals.
New York is your ivory tower academic liberal going, hmm, hmm, well, I never.
And then you've got Los Angeles where they're putting on their hipster shades and going,
huh, well, I never.
Philly is like, yo, you got a problem?
That's the kind of people in Philly.
You throw a brick through the window of a retired police officer in Philadelphia, you
think those, and these are people who probably vote Democrat or probably did who will never
vote Democrat again.
So fine.
If your goal as a progressive is to make sure that the Democratic Party ceases to exist, bravo!
You're doing a good job.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are absorbing people like Jeff Van Drew, and they're going to become the moderate coalition.
And you will chase yourself off into obscurity, brick by boring brick.
It's a Paramore reference.
Anyway, stick around.
Next segment is coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
That's my main channel.
Full disclosure, these are all out of order because I have to fly today so I had to record like a bunch of segments early and then, you know, whatever.
You know, you get what you get.
It was either this or do nothing.
So anyway, stick around.
Next segment will be up at YouTube.com slash TimCast and I will see you all then, 4 p.m.
This story posted by Frank Luntz is actually several months old, but considering the main segment I did today, I thought it'd be important to talk about.
See, back in August, it seems like Ocasio-Cortez is in, I don't want to say panic mode, but kind of panic mode.
You see, one of the big strategies the Democrats have to cut her out of Congress and stop the rise of the far left is to redistrict.
And there are two strategies.
We are seeing moderates and Republicans, moderate Democrats and Republicans, primary challenge AOC.
We'll see what happens.
They'll probably win.
I don't know.
The easier solution for Democrats, just erase her district outright through redistricting.
When the census comes up, Frank Luntz points out New York is expected to lose a House seat after the 2020 census, and state Democrats are looking to draw out AOC's district.
So that brings me to the story.
Now again, the story's from August.
But Ocasio-Cortez was going out campaigning to try and encourage people to engage in the census.
That says to me she's seriously worried about losing her district.
Now, what's kind of dumb is even if her district is to exist, the place where she lives will be absorbed by other districts.
It's just, it's not like she can never run again.
She'll just be in a different district.
But I guess the strategy is...
Her district, right now, comprises a ton of illegal immigrants.
And if they redraw it, they can gerrymander it in a way where it makes it very difficult for her, where she lives, to actually win a primary in a particular district.
Like, if they put her, you know, combine her with, like, something in Manhattan or something, and you got a bunch of, you know, limousine liberal Upper East Side, Upper West Side types.
I don't know exactly how she does it.
I don't know exactly where she lives.
But that's the strategy.
Draw her district.
She gone.
Let's read this story from back in August.
This is from thecity.nyc.
They say, So the narrative about states losing their seats has been around for a while.
And once again, I did that Center for Immigration Studies thing that said, like, Republicans might lose seats.
Well, it looks like the data's been out for a while.
I should have checked that one.
That's my fault.
They say, Ocasio-Cortez got a rock star reception as she greeted constituents under the roar of the elevated number six train Wednesday morning.
The freshman member of Congress, who became a national figure after her upset Democratic primary victory last year, surprised Parkchester passerby with a pop-up event promoting participation in the 2020 census.
Quote, our strategy is all about building trust in the community before the city enumerators even come to your door, Ocasio-Cortez told the city.
The trust is crucial in a district where 47% of the residents are foreign-born, and fear of taking part in an official government count is expected to be widespread.
There's been an increased use of one's immigration status as a form of intimidation.
Let me stop you right there.
Couple questions.
What does foreign-born mean?
It can mean a lot of things.
Illegal immigrants, permanent residents, and naturalized immigrants.
If you're an American citizen, I believe representation is paramount.
If you're a legal resident, I believe representation is particularly important.
If you're an illegal immigrant, I do not believe it's fair that we assign congressional seats based on people who are illegally in the country.
We're giving, you know, providing political power to people based on someone who's not even allowed to vote or even be here or work in the first place.
Legal residents need representation.
They can't vote, but whoever is in Congress is going to represent their interests and they're in the country legally with the right to work and they deserve all the protections that come with it, though they can't vote.
If you're a naturalized citizen, you're a citizen.
By all means, you get a congressperson.
But AOC's district is heavily illegal immigrant as well.
So she's trying, you know, look, I don't get the argument, but I believe them when they say it, that people who are permanent residents and immigrants won't fill out the census out of fear.
I'm like, if you're here legally and you got a green card and all that, what are you worried about, you know?
But I guess AOC's putting her money where her mouth is.
Certainly she's concerned immigrants don't want to fill out these forms, which could be really bad for her district.
She gonna lose her job!
Let's read.
For Ocasio-Cortez, a full census count is more than a matter of making sure her district gets all the funds and services it's due.
In a sense, her own political fortunes could hang in the balance.
A review by the city, building on data and analysis by the Texas Tribune, suggests Ocasio-Cortez's district could be particularly vulnerable to undercount because a little over a quarter of those living there are non-citizens.
That's a higher percentage than any other congressional district in the state.
A census undercount in Ocasio-Cortez's district and elsewhere in the state could lead to the elimination of congressional districts, potentially setting off politically charged redistricting battles.
New York already is on track to lose up to two congressional seats during reapportionment due to the population decline and slower rate of growth, according to a December report by Election Data Services.
So that was back in 2018.
The number now gets one seat.
No idea.
The data's different from every site.
They're all verified.
What do you want me to do about it?
Every member of Congress should be concerned about the census, said Jeffrey Weiss, a fellow at SUNY Buffalo Law School and redistricting expert who's a senior advisor to New York Accounts 2020.
Quote, the damage has been done.
The Trump administration— I'm sorry, let me say it more menacingly.
The Trump administration recently attempted to add a citizenship question to the once-a-decade count, which dictates how $675 billion in federal funding for things like Medicaid, Section 8 housing, foster care, and school lunches is allocated each year.
This controversial effort was unsuccessful, though.
The damage has been done, Weiss said.
Ocasio-Cortez's district is full of communities with apprehension about the census process, said Noreen Octor, the lawmaker's deputy district director.
You know I'm really bad at pronouncing last names.
It's not intentional.
We have a high immigration population, a lot of undocumented folks, a lot of distrust from the community and the government.
Okay, I'm gonna stop you right there and ask you this question.
Undocumented people.
They're in the country illegally, they're violating our laws, and that should give a district political power in who votes for president and what laws get passed?
I don't like the idea that people get into the country illegally without, you know, undocumented or otherwise, overstay their visas or otherwise, and then we're going to give political power to a certain region based on people Listen, man.
Let me tell you.
America has some of the most welcoming immigration laws.
You don't want to hear it?
Fine.
It's true.
We're one of a few countries that actually have birthright citizenship because it's a particular point in our history where this became an important factor.
But we also let in millions of immigrants every single year.
Under Donald Trump, that's dramatically lower.
And, you know, for whatever... I think Trump's very, you know, concerned about how many people are coming in.
He's a very nationalist-type person.
You know, secure the borders, bring the aid back, all that stuff.
Whatever.
The point is, I don't understand how you justify allocating an electoral vote and political power to a district that's heavily undocumented.
These are not citizens.
They're not legal residents.
They're working under the table.
They're displacing jobs.
Argue.
Argue with me.
Comment below.
You say I'm wrong.
It's true.
I mean, I just did a whole segment talking about how the Chicago Tribune said that when Trump, you know, deports all of these unrecommended workers who aren't supposed to be working here, the jobs are filled by locals and mostly in the black community.
In-person contact, like home visits, likely will be key to district residents' census participation.
While the 2020 census will mark the first time the national survey is conducted, primarily online.
Close to 40% of those who live in Parchester, nearby Castle Hill, and Classen Point, do not have broadband internet access, according to a July report by the cities.
But what does broadband have to do with it?
If you want to, like, dude, you could use dial-up to open a website.
It doesn't take that long.
People are intimidated in many different ways, said Judith Goldiner, who runs the Law Reform Unit at the Legal Aid Society.
Some tenants have contacted the organization, reporting that their landlords have threatened to call ICE.
Wow.
Wow.
At a time when fear of ICE raid runs high, in one case in Brooklyn, Goldiner said a landlord asked only non-white tenants to sign a lease with a clause requiring they prove their citizenship.
A door-to-door effort.
I'll only read a little bit more of this because I think you get the point and, well, there's only a little bit left anyway.
All right, let's finish it up.
As Ocasio-Cortez greeted constituents Wednesday, Census Bureau representatives standing nearby handed out flyers seeking workers to go door-to-door in the neighborhood for the crucial population count.
As of July 12, the Census Bureau had filled 28% of the top 121,240 New York area positions it's recruiting for, according to a presentation last month by Jeff Beller, director of the Regional Census Center.
So I'll tell you what, man.
You know, the big conversation, I guess, is around the influence of certain populations in certain areas.
But what I think we're seeing here has very little to do with illegal immigration at all.
What I think we're seeing is AOC is at war with the establishment Democrat types.
And you know what really bothers me?
Here's what we get.
We get out-of-touch corporate centrists, people like Joe Biden, who's like, I'm a centrist, and Hillary Clinton, like, I'm a centrist, and then people point the finger at them and say they're centrists, and I'm like, no they're not, they're crony corporate shills.
They're trash, okay?
I'm not gonna vote for those people.
I want a more centrist type, but like, I don't know, populist, not elitist.
Yeah, we don't get those.
We get far-left ideological loons like AOC who wants to provide, you know, the green... Look, you know what, man?
The left hates it when I rag on the Green New Deal.
I don't care.
Because none of you actually worked for environmental nonprofits like I did.
Because I worked for like four of them, okay?
And I was actually raising money and fighting for the environment while you're sitting around complaining on the internet about people, you know, in your imaginary, you know, political bubble where you think the world is a delusional state full of Nazis and stuff like that.
I was actually out there doing the work.
And when I saw the Green New Deal, before it came out, I praised it.
I made a couple videos praising it, saying most people want it.
It's a good idea.
And then she released it, and it was basically like someone took a piece of paper and spat on it, and then shoved it in our faces.
The Trump base, the conservatives, they're centralized around a core general concept of, like, American nationalism.
And it's their opinion!
The left is fractured.
It's absurdly fractured, okay?
And there's no way to be left anymore.
It's all purity tests, it's all circular firing squads, and there ain't nothing we can do about it.
So then Trump recruits all of the former moderates who give up, and this is where we go.
So anyway, I wanted to do this because, I know it's an old story, but Franklin just posted it, and I thought it was interesting that AOC is actually fighting this battle because if any seat goes, It's going to be hers because the establishment Democrats are trying to get rid of her.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
I love, I love this story.
I love it because when I saw this, I laughed and I facepalmed.
Trump ends decade with a bang, nixing nearly 100 environmental regulations during his first three years in office.
And I'm going, no!
Come on!
Like, even George W. Bush had a bunch of—he protected a bunch of natural parks, and he set aside a bunch of land for natural parks to protect them and stuff like this.
No, I'm not a fan of ending environmental regulations.
However, as a rather modern individual, I think this is what you get when you don't clean the system, okay?
The problem with the left is that they'll keep imposing more and more regulations, more and more restrictions, without assessing whether or not they worked.
So, I'm not going to go through each and every single environmental regulation that Trump has nixed, though I tend to be against the removal of environmental protections.
Trump is doing it for economic reasons, and the economy is booming.
So, I'll tell you this.
On the left, you'll have people saying, we have to take a hit, okay?
We've got to pay more taxes.
We've got to pay more for gas.
We've got to use gas less.
It's going to hurt for all of us, but we have to do it to protect the environment.
I somewhat agree with that.
Somewhat.
On the right, they're saying climate change is anthropomorphic.
Anthropological climate change.
Human-caused climate change.
Put it that way because I'm probably saying the wrong word.
Human climate change is a myth.
The climate is changing for a variety of reasons.
Whatever the argument is, they're pulling back on regulations because it'll make the economy do better in a variety of sectors.
And that's true.
But at what cost, I ask?
The problem with the left is that they're unwilling to compromise with those that are suffering, and you end up with riots in the streets like France.
So clearly that isn't the solution.
I don't like the idea that we're now seeing these environmental regulations taken out, but I want to make one very, very important point.
You see, America is now the largest producer of fossil fuels.
And everybody's blaming Donald Trump.
He's getting rid of these environmental regulations.
And Republicans are cheering for the removal, for the most part, of regulations.
Although there are a lot of Republicans who are conservationists.
You know, you live out in the wilderness.
You live out by national parks.
I get it.
Do you know when America became the largest producer of fossil fuels?
Was it during Trump?
No.
Was it during Obama?
Yes!
I love it.
I love it.
Look, man, I have no problem criticizing this, but I gotta admit, I don't know enough about all of the regulations that are being removed, hence why I'm typically the milquetoast fence in a lot of these issues.
But like I said, I lean towards I don't like that Trump is doing this.
Let's read the story, and then we'll talk about fossil fuels!
President Donald Trump nixed nearly 100 environmental regulations during his first three years in office, effectively rolling back much of his Democratic predecessor's environmental legacy.
The president rolled back more than 90 environmental rules and regulations, the New York Times reported in December.
Whoa, really?
Just this past month?
The New York Times relied on an analysis from Harvard Law School, Columbia Law School, and other sources to keep tabs on Trump's numbers during his time in office.
Let me tell y'all something.
It's a secret.
Don't repeat it.
I'm not gonna vote for Trump.
This is one of the reasons, okay?
Now, look, foreign policy is pretty much the biggest reason, and that's why I like Tulsi Gabbard.
We'll see what happens with what's going on with Iran and Baghdad.
I think Trump had a good response, you know, to what was happening.
I mean, certainly better than Benghazi.
He got Marines in there.
The Ospreys came in.
That was pretty cool.
And he made sure people were safe.
Saved some lives.
We saw the media was trying to spin it as, like, protesters and mourners when it was, like, militia supporters and Iran supporters.
However, we shouldn't be there!
We shouldn't be in Iraq!
Look, I get it, man.
Whether or not we're there, It was our embassy.
We have embassies everywhere and everybody has embassies everywhere.
So a lot of people are trying to make it, you know, make it out like, we shouldn't be in Baghdad in the first place.
Why stepping?
No, no, no, no, dude, dude, dude.
That was our embassy.
Like, you know, we have embassies in countries.
Even if we weren't, you know, in having troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, we'd still have an embassy there.
But I do think we should not be there.
I do not like it.
And I want to see whoever, I don't care who the president is, get them out, bring them home.
And that's actually one of the arguments.
I think Trump is trying.
I really do think so.
Based on a lot of things I've read, I think Trump is between a rock and a hard place where he's trying to basically pull back all of this American imperialist foreign intervention stuff, but he kind of can't because it's a web, man.
We're tangled up.
I don't necessarily trust Trump on this because he's come out straight up and said, we're going to give a bunch of weapons and stuff to Saudi Arabia because they pay well.
I'd like to see it happen, though.
But anyway, I digress.
The environmental stuff, here's the big challenge I face with this.
It makes me question Donald Trump.
Obviously, I've never been the biggest fan of the guy, and y'all know that.
But here's the problem.
Why aren't the Democrats coming out and telling us what's happening?
Why isn't the media coming out and saying, like, Trump just did this, that, and this?
And I understand some journalists will probably write about it, saying Trump just got rid of regulation, protecting certain birds, or something like that.
I get it.
But where's the national conversation around it?
It's the Democrats' fault.
When they hold press conferences, they don't tell us what Trump is doing.
They don't say, Trump did X. They let him do it, and then they go, we're going to impeach him.
We've been working on it for two and a half years because we don't like the orange man.
What?
Dude, if you want to be Trump, be like, did you know Trump repealed a regulation that prevented this, that, and this?
And then people will be like, wait, really?
He's going to allow companies to do what?
Clearly these regulations were put in place, and whether or not they were good or bad, the Democrats could at least try and spin it, right?
No, they're not even talking about it!
So listen, man.
I'll make my position clear.
I don't know enough about what regulations were removed.
I do think it's important to clean house and government periodically, but I don't like the idea of pulling back environmental regulations on the surface.
The problem is, there has been no effort from the left to actually talk about what this is other than some ridiculous far-left ideological Green New Deal, which doesn't address anything Trump is doing, or the Orange Man Band narrative and Impeach Trump scandal, scandal, scandal.
Fine.
If that's the game you're playing, I'll have no idea why this is good or bad.
And I speak for the average voter when they're like, did Trump do good?
Were the regulations from Obama bad?
I honestly have no idea.
They say, the NYT's list includes regulations that are officially reversed and rollbacks still in progress.
Trump has fully eliminated 25 rules designed to rein in air pollution.
Why is that a good thing?
And emissions, as well as 19 that regulate energy producers' ability to drill and extract oil and gas.
Trump uses a one-two punch, according to Caitlin McCoy, a fellow at Harvard Law School who tracks such measures.
First, a delay rule to buy some time, and then a final substantive rule, McCoy told the New York Times.
And I'll tell you what the problem is, man.
If you watched my segment at 1pm, you'll know exactly what happens when I try and engage with the left on this one.
And it's almost like they want Trump to do this, and they want Trump to win.
I tell you what I need, progressives.
When I say something like, I don't know much about the environmental regulations Trump is pulling back, you say, let me break it down for you.
And I'll go, oh wow, that's really interesting.
I didn't know Trump do that.
Why would Trump pull back rules designed to rein in air pollution?
We want clean air, right?
Well, for me, it seems like Trump is trying to bolster the fossil fuel industry, the energy sector, and that can be very beneficial to America economically, but also strategically.
More energy output means more growth, more expansion, a good economy.
It's probably one of the contributing factors to our good economy.
I can respect that.
I am not, you know, as much as I believe we have issues with climate change, I don't think the France method is the solution.
You see what's going on over there?
Been a year of rioting and protests and fighting in the streets.
So we've got to figure something out.
And perhaps humans are addicted.
But as I've always said, the solution isn't just like, we're going to ban this.
No, you can't be anti.
You got to be for something.
And I think we need to be for renewables.
And I'll throw some criticism at Trump.
He rags on wind energy.
I know the media takes them out of context.
And this is the other problem.
Trump's talking about wind.
And he says, I never get it, you know, have you seen the manufacturing process fumes?
My God, the fumes everywhere.
And then they try making it seem like Trump's arguing that fumes come out of wind turbines.
And I'm like, dude, can you just criticize Trump for being opposed to wind energy without making some ridiculous nonsensical statement like the president thinks fumes come out of a wind turbine?
I like the environment, man.
I worked for non-profits for the environment for a long time.
I am trying to, like, figure out a solution.
The problem is the left is so far left and off the rails.
They're not even talking about this.
They just hate Trump.
And so I'm sitting here saying, like, dude, we need to talk to people.
I used to do this.
I'd go up to people and shake their hands and be like, let me just make a few points, right?
We need trees.
Trees, you know, take in carbon dioxide, take that carbon out, turn it to mass, spit out that Well, it is a mess.
But they use it to grow their mess.
They spit out that oxygen.
And then we breathe that oxygen.
It bonds with the carbon in our body.
It's a cycle, man.
Trees are great!
Let's do something to help the trees, right?
I work for some tree non-profits.
And it works.
What do we get now?
Greta Thunberg?
How dare you!
How dare you!
And it's like, dude, that is appealing to no one, man.
Like, if I'm some dude sitting in my lounge chair, just got off work after a long day, got yelled at by my boss, I crack open a beer, maybe it's, you know, a nice, you know, local brew, micro-brew, crack that lid, and I'm sitting back and I'm like, Finally, man.
All my stress is, you know, is going away.
I get to sit back, have a beer.
We got the game, okay?
I TVOed it, or whatever it is they call it.
I recorded it.
And then all of a sudden a commercial comes on and it's like, or a news segment, and it's this young girl going, how dare you stolen my childhood!
And the dude's thinking, like, I don't want to think about this, man.
I don't want to be yelled at.
I don't want to be insulted.
I don't want to be berated.
I don't want to be attacked for who I am or what I'm doing.
I just want to relax.
Work is not easy.
Life can be stressful.
People want to relax.
And this is what we get.
Well, Greta Thunberg is out there yelling about how we've stolen her childhood, Trump's rolling back regulations, okay?
So if you really want to counter it, you have a calm, rational conversation, and you say, well, let me break down for you what Trump, you know, rolled back on, and I'll tell you if it was good or bad, if it made sense, or it doesn't.
Instead, we get this scowling, the insults, and the socialist Green New Deal.
That's what we get.
That's what their counter to Trump is.
You know what, man?
Trump is what these people deserve.
Because instead of coming out and being... Like Tulsi Gabbard said, okay?
You know I'm a fan of hers.
She said in a video, we have to respect Trump supporters, otherwise we will keep losing.
We have to understand how they voted for Obama twice and are now voting for Trump.
They don't do it.
They don't.
They just yell at you.
So whatever, man.
I'm not a fan of rolling back environmental regulations, but the problem is, it's just not in the national conversation.
When I saw this, I was like, I didn't even know it happened!
It's just not in the media, you know?
So, hey, I'll take responsibility for that.
I should be doing this job.
I should be looking this stuff up.
I should be more actively tracking this stuff.
But I do gotta point out...
The U.S.
has held the top spot for the past six years, and this Investopedia report is from October.
So that's Obama era, man.
Obama helped the United States become one of the top oil-producing countries in the world.
So if you've got a problem with what Trump is doing, well, it goes back to Obama, too.
I get it.
Obama did put in a lot of these regulations.
Trump pulled them back.
They're both big oil people.
It's the game being played, and we get it.
I'll tell you what you can't do.
Whether or not you like fossil fuels, you cannot campaign on taking away people's jobs.
That's insane.
I'll leave it there.
Whatever, man.
You guys comment below and let me know what you think about the environmental regulation stuff because I feel like you're going to find a lot of moderate liberal types going and voting for Trump simply because the left refuses to actually put up a real political fight.
They're not talking about it.
Anyway, I'll see you all in the next segment in just a few minutes.
Thanks for hanging out.
I don't care what the polls say.
The polls were wrong in 2016.
I don't necessarily trust them today.
If I had to make a bet, I would tell you Bernie Sanders is the real frontrunner for the Democrats.
That doesn't mean that most Americans on the left would vote for someone like Bernie, an avowed socialist, even though he's not really a socialist, he kind of is.
Most Americans wouldn't vote for him.
But we're talking about the fractured Democratic Party.
We're talking about a large portion of activist Democrats who are going to vote for Bernie, and then regular Americans will run screaming to Donald Trump.
I'll tell you this, man.
Bernie could have won in 2016.
I firmly believe that.
I do not believe he can win today.
And I'll tell you why.
But first, we got some bad news for Donald Trump.
Actually, it's not necessarily bad news.
Depends on how you take it.
Donald Trump raised $46 million in the fourth quarter of last year.
That's a huge haul.
Trump has consistently shattered records, raising more money than any other presidential campaign up to a certain point.
But Bernie Sanders raised $34.5 million in the fourth quarter.
Now you may be saying, Tim, how is this in any way bad news for Trump?
He's raised $46 million.
It's well more than what Bernie Sanders raised.
But wait!
There's more.
Andrew Yang raised $16.5 million in the last three months, his campaign says.
Donations to Mr. Yang in the fourth quarter of 2019 were his highest at any such period, and put him among the top fundraisers in the Democratic presidential field.
If you combine all donations in quarter four to Democrats, there is a lot more than Trump received.
But, so on the surface I can say, If people hold the mentality of vote blue no matter who, then those donations, that fervent, you know, zealotry, will come to the future nominee.
So if by the end of the primary it is Bernie Sanders, imagine that all of the different Democratic factions who are donating to like, you know, Buttigieg or Biden, all put their money towards whoever the Democratic nominee is, they will probably be out-raising Donald Trump.
However!
However.
And we'll read this story and break it down.
I will say this.
The bigger risk, in my opinion, is the blank or bust factions, of which Mr. Tim Pool is a member.
Somebody posted on Twitter saying, like, no matter who wins the nomination, I'm gonna vote for them.
Will you?
And I said, no.
It's not gonna happen.
I like Andrew Yang.
I don't think he'll be the nominee.
Maybe he will be.
He's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination.
And I honestly, I don't know if for a variety of reasons he would be particularly better than Trump, and I'll explain this.
It's not that I ever expected Yang to be elected.
I'm not trying to be mean to Yang supporters or Yang himself.
I like the guy.
I think he's a good dude.
I think he's a rad dude.
in the Oval Office. He's seen a record economy. I do like the idea of Andrew Yang coming in
and helping to bolster our plans for the future. It's one of the reasons I like Yang. It's
not that I ever expected Yang to be elected. I'm not trying to be mean to Yang supporters
or Yang himself. I like the guy. I think he's a good dude.
I think he's a rad dude. He's one of the best candidates we have for the Democratic Party.
But I don't think Yang is presidential.
I really mean it.
What I want to see is Yang in an economic advisory position, helping set policies so that we can adapt for automation and, you know, help grow businesses as someone who's a successful entrepreneur and clearly successful as he's been able to transform this campaign the way he's done.
At this point, I think there's a lot of faults with Donald Trump.
But the economy is doing so well.
You know, I was talking to a friend and they said, would you vote for Trump?
And of course, my answer is like, it's not going to happen.
You know why?
It's just not.
Listen, the bigger conundrum, though, is should I vote against him if it risks destabilizing the economy?
If it puts someone in a position that hurts the economy and makes life worse for Americans, and that's why I'm kind of like, I think I'm a fence-sitter on this one, man.
I would definitely vote for Tulsi, though.
Absolutely.
Because, to me, ending the foreign war and the waste of money overseas, outside of that, everything is stamp collecting.
You get all these Democrats trying to talk about how we should be spending money, and like, we're gonna tax the rich, and I'm just like, what are you talking about, dude?
Look at all the money we waste overseas building roads in a country we don't live in.
Right? So to an extent, Trump does have that populist nationalist bent about him.
But I also really do believe that the office is a position of like, I don't want to say elitism.
I really, really hate elitism.
But there's, like, a certain class to it that Trump doesn't bring.
I get it.
A lot of people like Trump's attitude.
They like when he, like, mocks body-slamming a reporter or calls people horseface.
I get it, man.
I really, really do.
Maybe not perfectly, but I understand that when you have someone like Trump, who's boorish, bullish, and will push back on people and point at them and insult them to their faces, he brings that to the negotiating table.
And thus, we got a better trade deal.
Even Nancy Pelosi said the trade deal was good.
The economy's doing really, really well.
Look, man, it really just comes down to the conundrum I'm looking at is voting for someone on the Democrat side that I don't like simply because is a vote against those who were rescued by Trump's economy.
That's a fact.
I don't like the idea of vote blue no matter who.
Oh, it's Bernie Sanders.
I better vote for him anyway because Trump's bad.
I think Trump is bad, okay?
Um, I think Bernie is better in some ways.
I also don't know if it's right to put in somebody who is clearly wrong about a lot of economic issues, notably the wealth tax.
If you want me to explain that, I will.
I know a lot of progressives are going to get angry.
But it's like, I don't know, man.
I was thinking about it talking to a friend and I'm just like, do I have to tell a Trump supporter?
You don't deserve the economy as it stands today.
The suffering you went through, the opioid crisis, you know, the burning through your kids' college savings, the loss of your home.
Now that the economy is better, I should vote that away from you?
I'm kind of like, man, that's a tough position.
You know, my position is kind of like Trump shouldn't have won in the first place.
I blame Hillary Clinton.
I blame the Democrats.
And that's why I laughed the whole time.
It's like, you get what you deserve.
And I gotta admit, Trump's, you know, surprised me in a lot of ways.
The economy is doing really, really well.
I honestly didn't see any of this coming.
I was in the camp of like, if Trump gets elected, he's gonna tear everything down and it'll be hilarious because the Democrats are the ones who deserve it for stealing it from Bernie.
The problem is right now, we're in a position where we have a president who's been in for four years, he's been obstructed relentlessly by Democrats trying to impeach him for two and a half years, all this ridiculous investigation stuff, and the economy is still doing well.
So at a certain point, I have to ask, is my apprehension towards his character, his boorishness, his crassness, his brashness, is that worth voting away or risking the economy?
You know what, man?
I know all of a sudden the far left is gonna accuse me of being an apologist and all this other nonsense.
Like, dude, it's not about that, man.
It's like, the people who are on the far left view Trump through this lens of absolute psychosis.
Trump is not that bad.
I just don't like him.
He's just not my choice.
But I'm not like, Oh no, Trump!
No, I'm just like, I'd prefer somebody else.
And that's where it brings me to, as somebody who's like, I would prefer not to vote for the man.
I'm not crazy.
They've called every Republican president, all these activists have called every Republican president, going back to Nixon, they've called him Hitler.
I get it.
It's ridiculous.
I don't like the guy.
I'm not going to vote for him.
But I also am questioning whether it's worth voting in a Democrat for the sake of voting in a Democrat.
I really, I really, really don't think so.
So I suppose I could talk about Bernie Sanders raising money.
They say because, you know, but anyway, yeah.
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont raised more than $34.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2019.
Sanders received more than 1.8 million donations, an average donation of $18.53.
His fourth quarter total is larger than any candidate has raised in a single quarter so far in the primary race.
In the primary race, I know, because Trump has raised a lot more.
And it soundly eclipsed the totals of two other candidates who have reported figures for the three-month period of October.
We get it.
On Wednesday, Pete Buttigieg's campaign said he took in more than $24.7 million in the quarter, and Andrew Yang brought in $16.5 million.
So you add those numbers together, man.
Trump's not raising it as much as the Democrats as a whole.
But again, the reason why I talk about my position and how I want to vote is because I want to express these people who demand party loyalty, even though they prop up candidates we don't like, don't deserve our party loyalty.
That's insane.
And it's really annoying to me when people are like, Tim will never learn, he's gonna keep voting Democrat even though they do blah blah blah.
No, dude!
Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard are so dramatically different from the rest of them.
Come on!
Tulsi Gabbard is desperately trying to bridge the divide.
She's trying!
It's impossible, okay?
Because the Republicans demand you vote no on impeachment, and the Democrats demand you vote yes, and she says, I'm not gonna do either!
And then the Republicans are like, you should have sent a stronger message, but at least you didn't vote, and the left is like, trigger!
So Tulsi is actually more appealing to Libertarians than she is to the Democratic Party, and she's progressive!
I'll tell you what, man.
Tulsi has shown, over and over again, integrity, okay?
She stepped down from the DNC because she refused to endorse Hillary Clinton, she wanted to endorse Bernie.
She's got the integrity needed to be a leader, in my opinion.
She's not gonna get it, though, because that's not how the game is played, it's not what people want.
They demand that I vote for Trump simply because almost all of the Democrats are bad.
Like, Pete Buttigieg actually talking about military intervention being a good thing, and I'm like, is it the best we have for a young moderate?
Oh, man, no, no, no.
I don't like it, man.
I don't.
And I do like Andrew Yang.
I think he's different, but I really don't see him as a president.
I'm not trying to be mean.
I know Yang supporters are going to get mad at me, but let me tell you something.
The commander-in-chief, in my opinion, is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
It's one of the reasons I don't like Trump.
I can criticize Trump for his attitude.
The economy is great.
He deserves credit for that.
Trump has done some good things on foreign policy and many bad things.
That's a fact.
Tulsi Gabbard is a major in the National Guard.
It's one of the most important things to me.
Pete Buttigieg is serving the armed forces, but he's going around preaching about how we need to have more.
I disagree.
Right?
I like Dan Crenshaw.
I like Tulsi Gabbard.
They disagree on foreign military presence in the Middle East or otherwise.
And I happen to be, you know, my confirmation bias falls with Tulsi when she says we shouldn't be spending our money in this way.
And of course, the progressives tear her apart.
So anyway, here's the point.
I'll wrap this up.
I don't—what I'm trying to say with all of this, you know, if you've listened to me rant, is basically, while all of the Democrats combined have raised a lot more money than Donald Trump, I'm not entirely convinced that when the nominee is chosen, that will translate into the nominee.
Because Bernie Sanders is hated by so many in the establishment.
I think Bernie might run neck and neck with Trump.
I think if Bernie gets the nominee, he'll end up raising, you know, $40 million and Trump will raise like $45 million.
You know, Bernie's numbers will go up a little bit from people who are like, I'll take Bernie because I'll take him, you know, vote blue no matter who's what they say.
But I'll tell you what, man, you've got Tulsier bust people, you've got Yanger bust people, and these are big factions.
I don't know what's going on with Buttigieg people.
I don't know if they'd vote for Bernie Sanders.
And this is the main point.
Bernie Sanders is leading the pack, but among the youth activist base.
If he wins the nomination, I do not think regular Americans, like your average American, is going to get behind it.
Trump will then sweep.
We'll see though, man.
The biggest mistake Trump supporters will make right now is hubris.
And I tweeted this, and a bunch of Trump supporters started, like, you know, not all of them, but some of them were mocking me, being like, yeah, right, like, we're gonna lose, blah, blah, blah.
I'm like, that's exactly it, dude!
You think you've got in the bag.
That's what Hillary Clinton thought, and look what happened to her.
