White Working Class Voters Are On The Decline, This Means Trump LOSES In 2020 But Trump Has An Ace
White Working Class Voters Are On The Decline, This Means Trump LOSES In 2020 But Trump Has An Ace. A New report from the Wall Street Journal notes that the white working class voter base in shrinking and being replaced by young college educated voters and minority voters who historically vote Democrat.The argument goes that Trump's core base is declining and thus Democrats will take the lead moving into 2020.But they fail to see Trump's ace up his sleeve. Trump has actually made historic gains among african american voters and other minority groups while at the same time curbing net immigration into the country.Not only that but Trump's base is still larger today than when it was in 2016 and his favorability is higher as well.As much as the general analysis is true I think Trump and the Republicans have planned for this and done a good job of making sure that not only do they gain general support but that they court minority voters as well.Democrats typically have unanimous support from these groups but their far left and progressive policies are alienating many voters.Aside from that, you will never have a better argument than the economy.Trump's record economy has him on track for a major victory in 2020. Union Democrats seem more and more likely to switch for Trump and if he wins them over than we are looking at a Trump 2020 landslide victory.But with massive voter turnout it remains to be seen.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
According to a new story from the Wall Street Journal, Trump's 2020 re-election is being threatened by a shrinking voter base of white working-class voters, and it's being replaced by white college-educated voters who lean Democratic, and by minority groups.
Over the past couple weeks, I did a few videos, first talking about how immigration would impact the electoral college, Some people said that I got some stuff wrong on that, so I did an update.
The next video I did talked about how blue states are actually losing residents to net domestic migration, meaning people from New York and Illinois particularly are leaving the state and going to other places.
And as the internet allows more and more people to work remotely, they're going to be spreading out, and this could reduce the population and the electoral college seats in big blue states.
So it's hard to know exactly who's right about what's going to happen.
But Donald Trump has taken a firm stance on immigration and actually made things much more harder across the board.
I hear stories from friends about how their friends in other countries can't even get tourist visas.
But I think it's fair to point out everybody seems to have all the answers.
Trump will win again.
No way he'll win.
Be wary of 2020 election predictions.
And I completely agree.
Although I kind of lean towards Trump is going to win for a lot of reasons.
Here's what we're going to do in today's segment.
I want to talk to you about this Wall Street Journal story on demographic shifts, and why I think the Wall Street Journal is actually wrong about this.
But then I want to go through Donald Trump's approval ratings, which surprise, surprise, have peaked, tying for the highest position he has ever been in in the RealClearPolitics average, aside from when he just got elected.
So let's see what the Wall Street Journal is saying about why Trump might lose due to a shrinking base of white working-class voters.
Before we do, head over to TimCast.com if you would 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 made some algorithmic changes.
My channel be hurtin', but we're working on some big changes for 2020.
So, outside of my plans to adapt, to improvise, adapt, and overcome, you sharing this video seriously just overcomes any algorithmic, you know, challenge I might face.
I'll put it this way.
I don't care what YouTube does.
If my content is good enough and people are willing to share it, my business will succeed.
If my content is terrible, then don't share it, and eventually I will cease to function like any private business.
But let's get back to the news from the Wall Street Journal.
They say, demographic shift poised to test Trump's 2020 strategy.
Full stop, I disagree.
Trump's support in the black community is way up according to three different polls.
If that's true, I think Trump's strategy is actually working and he's prepared for this.
But let's see what they have to say.
The Wall Street Journal reports, President Trump's 2020 election strategy relies largely on the white working-class base that he excited in 2016.
But he faces a demographic challenge.
The electorate has changed since he was last on the ballot in ways likely to benefit Democrats.
Working-class white voters are projected to decline by 2.3 percentage points nationally as a share of eligible voters.
Compare with the last election.
Because they are older and therefore dying at a faster rate than our Democratic groups.
As those voters pass on, they are most likely to be replaced by those from minority groups or young white voters with college degrees, groups that lean Democratic.
But I do want to stop here and point out.
Actually, no, no, no.
I don't want to stop here.
Let's move on.
We'll get to that.
We'll get to other points later.
I'll come back to these.
That means Mr. Trump will have to coax more votes from a shrinking base or else find more votes in other parts of the electorate.
Trump has a certain hill to climb, and this suggests that the hill gets a little steeper, said Roy Teixeira, a demographer with the States of Change Project, which provided assessments of the 2020 electorate.
They say changing battlegrounds.
Projections show that the pool of eligible voters in 2020 will be different than in 2016, as white voters with a four-year college degree decline as a force in the electorate.
Now let's go back to this point that I've wrapped that up.
Donald Trump's base is larger.
According to the New York Times upshot, they say his favorability is way up, his approval rating is essentially way up, but his favorability today is way higher than when he even got elected.
So while there may be a general decline in white working class voters, not all of these people voted for Trump.
Many of them are, you know, blue dog Southern Democrats or they're Union Democrats.
And while many of these people did support Trump, A lot of them probably voted for Hillary Clinton.
You need to understand, in these blue-wall states, in like the Rust Belt, for instance, Trump won by very, very thin margins.
Razor-thin margins.
While losing one or two of these states wouldn't have changed much, because Trump won by, I think, like 70 electoral votes, he was close.
It was really close to not, you know, making it across that threshold.
Well, necessarily.
The point is, he could have stanned to loss one or two of these states.
Today, while the white working class base may be shrinking, they point this out, and we'll read more, I think it's important to point out Trump's base is larger.
He's won over more people.
The economy.
But rest assured, I have another article from a couple days ago arguing Trump's economy is not good enough!
There's always something.
That's why I highlighted the NPR story.
Everybody thinks they have the answers.
I'll tell you this, man.
I think Trump's gonna win, but seriously?
I don't know, man.
It's such an unprecedented time.
Let's check out this graph here.
They say in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina, white working class individuals are projected to go around between 2 to 2.8 percentage points.
And we're going to see small fractions of minority groups, including Asians, Hispanics, African Americans, and whites with a college degree, going up in these same places.
They say the margin of victory, considering only demographic change for 2016, shows that Trump will lose Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin based on the 2016 election.
Now hold on!
They're arguing that in 2016, Trump won these states.
In 2020, he will lose those three by 0.5, 0.64, and 0.15 points.
But that doesn't take into consideration the New York Times upshot assessment showing Trump's base is bigger today.
Look, man, as I've pointed out time and time again, I think you gotta factor in that people might really dislike Trump, but they love that money!
You tell somebody the money is good, and they're gonna, as I describe it, look over their shoulders, vote for Trump, and then brag about how the orange man is bad and they voted against him.
I think at the end of the day, people are gonna say, put the green in my pocket, and you get my vote.
That's why Trump's base is likely larger today, and it's likely why Trump's approval rating is at its highest point.
So it's 45.3 in the aggregate, the highest it's ever been, just outside of right when he was elected.
The reason I separate that is because right when he got elected, he didn't do anything, so it's like, what was his approval rating really about?
It sank dramatically, and we'll get to this in a second.
Let's read more about demographics.
The project is a joint venture of think tanks with different ideological leanings.
I'm not going to go through all of it, but you've got the Center for American Progress, which is progressive.
You've got the Brookings Institute Center Left, the Bipartisan Policy Center.
And so they're basically more center-to-center left groups.
Naturally, I think it's fair to say, you've got to be careful about these assessments because people vote based on who they think is going to win.
A lot of people do.
It's unfortunate.
And these left-wing groups are seemingly doing this, well, you know, Trump might win, but there's a slight advantage for the Democrats just to create this perception that Trump is actually doing worse.
But what they don't understand is that, check this out, they mentioned that African-Americans are going up in these areas, but do they mention that Trump's support in the African-American community is actually way up to the highest a Republican may have ever seen?
Outside of George W. Bush, but that was related to, you know, conflict stuff.
I have to be careful about how I describe these things because YouTube is going to ban me, but hey, you know how it works.
They say, while analysts say Mr. Trump will likely have to boost turnout from his core voters to counter demographic change, they also say the task is achievable.
They cite Mr. Trump's strong connection to his base, as well as signs the turnout in the fall is on track to set records, given the president has driven up engagement among both parties.
They say demography creates the backdrop for the play, but it doesn't determine the outcome of the play, said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster whose clients have included GOP Senators Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham.
Tim Murdaugh, communications director for the Trump re-election campaign, said Mr. Trump was reaching out to voters from all backgrounds, and they had better tools than in 2016 to draw supporters to the polls.
The voter data we have is unsurpassed, and we have maintained contact and built our voter list by tens of millions of names.
Our ability to contact and turn out the president's supporters will really be unmatched in presidential campaign history.
The analysis by states of change doesn't take into account a myriad of factors that can swing any election, including who may switch parties or whether turnout will rise or fall.
It offers a starting point for assessing the 2020 electorate by looking only at changes in who will be eligible to vote in November 3rd, who has entered, and who has exited the electorate.
So I find the narrative interesting.
I know there have been a lot of angry conservatives, because you simultaneously have this narrative in the press where they're like, the replacement theory is this grand conspiracy among, you know, like, far-right groups, while simultaneously the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post have run stories arguing that as the white working-class base shrinks and minority and immigrant groups come in, Republicans lose out.
It's not a conspiracy theory.
It's not propaganda.
It's literally a fact being put out by numerous organizations, yet for some reason people are mad at me for just reading the news.
Calm down, everybody.
So here's the thing.
There's a lot of things to consider.
The first thing I want to do is lightly pass this story.
I'm not going to get too much into it, but I want to point out They say how Trump created a new global capital of exiles.
Many people on the other side of the border, stranded.
I'm just going to lightly point this out that Trump has had a strong hand against immigration.
Everybody knows it.
It's not just illegal immigration, it's immigration across the board.
Whatever your opinion is, it's happened.
The Huffington Post called this Trump's virtual wall, or something to that effect.
They said Trump got his wall, not the physical 30-foot-high concrete sea-to-shining-sea wall, he got Invisible barriers.
It is much, much harder to come to the U.S.
even as a tourist.
So while they might say immigration will affect these trends, I'm curious if they take into account the fact that Trump has reduced all immigration, legal or otherwise, by 70% from 2008 to 2019.
That will play a huge role.
But more importantly, let's get back to the issue of Americans and who they choose.
Donald Trump is notoriously—maybe that's not the right word, but famously, it's—what's the right word?
It's a very high-profile thing Trump is doing.
I'll put it that way, targeting black voters.
And many people are surprised because that's something Republicans tended to do or well,
at least.
And so there was one story that I found funny that said Trump is shocking black voters by
actually trying to get their votes.
But it's working.
I'll tell you what, man, I saw this podcast.
It was amazing.
It was these these these black dudes were talking about Trump's behavior and they were
equating it to like almost like hip hop culture of boasting and bragging and like talking
big.
And I thought it was funny that...
It's like, Trump is a bragger.
There's a very similar kind of attitude of this like, you know, hip-hop, urban, talk big, bling-bling kind of stuff.
I'm not, I know that sounds very like, you know, I'm a nerdy dude wearing glasses, right?
So I have no idea what I'm talking about for the most part.
But I grew up on the south side of Chicago, and I do see the similarities these guys were talking about.
More importantly, We have a story from the Washington Times.
The president counts on black voters for a second term.
How to win re-election 2020.
It seems that while these groups may be pointing out demographic change is bad for Trump, Trump has already taken action to actually court minority voters.
And I find it really funny that they try to claim Trump is like a bigot of epic proportions, and the dudes literally got massive support according to three different polls.
Most notably, Emerson, which according to FiveThirtyEight, is one of the most credible polls.
Let's check out this story from the Washington Times.
They say, how does a Trump campaign plan to win re-election?
Moving black voters into the Republican camp.
The case for this unlikely strategy is laid out.
Coming home, a laid out in, quote, coming home, how black Americans will re-elect Trump,
a book that has already become a blueprint for the Trump political team.
The authors are Vernon Robinson III, a black Air Force officer and former socialist, and
Bruce Eberl, a prominent political strategist and direct mail specialist.
Both played major roles in Ben Carson's presidential bid in 2016.
They argue that Black voters put Mr. Trump into the White House, having received more than 20% of the Black vote in the key state of Pennsylvania.
Black precincts went overwhelmingly for Hillary, but the low-income and welfare recipients who inhabit those precincts make up just one-fifth of the state's Black population.
They say.
The remaining 78.8 percent, who are working and above the poverty line, the authors observe, weighed in heavily for Mr. Trump, giving him his win.
They also stress that black voters gave Mr. Trump his margin of victory in Michigan.
Even more encouraging, say the authors, is the steady exodus of black Americans from the ranks of the Democratic Party.
A Washington Post headline is telling.
Quote, 4.4 million 2012 Obama voters stayed home in 2016, more than a third of them black.
Approval of the president rose to 34% among registered black voters in November, according to the respected Emerson poll.
Double the number received just a month earlier.
Rasmussen came up with a similar finding.
The mid-November Marist poll landed Trump at 33% among non-white adults.
Other respected pollsters have him at half this number, but far above the 8% figure in 2016.
And there it is!
Washington Times pointing out, regardless of whether or not it's as good as Emerson thinks, it is double at least where it was in 2016.
Well, they say most of them have them at half, so I don't want to be overly hyperbolic.
OK, exaggerating.
But the fact is, Trump's approval among minorities is way up.
And I gotta say, you know, it's kind of a weird thing for me, but I'm kind of glad.
Because I feel like the Democratic Party has taken advantage of low-income and minority communities, and this is one of the reasons I have great disdain for them.
Although I disagree with Republicans, don't like what they stand for.
I feel like the Democrats take advantage of me, where I grew up, and that's why I kind of feel the way I do.
Policy-wise, I'm rather left.
You should come, like, hang out with me and you'll see just how much of a lefty I am.
And, you know, that's why I was a big proponent of Bernie in 2016, because he stood for civil rights and I trusted him.
Now I think he's pandered a bit too much.
I still do, you know, like the guy a bit, but I've soured on his politicking.
I'm not a fan for a variety of reasons, but I'll put it that way.
I do think he's a bit too far left for me, so... But here's what I want to say.
You know, I think that there's an importance in balance.
And when you have only certain groups of people only supporting certain parties, there's no competition politically.
I think now if we see more people, you know, although it's still a minority, move to the Republican Party, there can be an actual competition of ideas, and that will help us solve problems.
As much as I disagree with a lot of what Republicans stand for in terms of, like, culture and religious-type issues, I think economically it's just a general argument, right?
Should we implement this policy in terms of taxes or minimum wage or whatever?
And you're going to have people arguing up-down, left-right, top-down, whatever.
When it comes to moral questions, I stand more firmly on the left.
I do lean left on a lot of economic issues, but I like the idea of rigorous debate.
To put it this way, in big cities where it's dominated just by Democrats, there's no challenging bad ideas, and bad ideas get implemented and never get fixed.
I welcome the competition.
I welcome those to challenge my ideas, and if that means people move to the Republican Party, but still overwhelmingly Democrat, I think it's typically a good thing.
More importantly, my perspective on the Democrats, as probably why you see the way I frame things that I do, it's really, really simple, man.
I grew up in Chicago.
Like I said, they took advantage of me.
I've seen the politicians lie.
They've lied to my face and my friends, and I've seen just how they manipulate, but there was never anyone to challenge them.
Because everybody who lined up would just say the same thing and do the same thing.
And so, I felt betrayed and I felt angry.
And I carry that with me.
It is what it is.
While I can disagree politically, I feel like the Democrats don't, literally don't exist for the most part.
That's again why I liked Bernie in 2016.
It's why I like Yang and I like Tulsi.
When I look at the Republican Party, I see a group of people that I disagree with.
When I look at the Democratic Party, I see people who are just lying to my face and don't actually believe anything.
And therein lies the big problem.
I'm not going to be supporting Trump on what he's doing, but at least I really believe Republicans, for the most part, are doing what they think they should do.
And therein lies the main challenge.
It's not true for all Democrats.
There's a bunch of good ones, okay?
I do like Yang.
I do like Tulsi.
Yang's not really a politician, but that's the point.
Anyway, you get the general idea.
I see the story, I'm kinda like, I like this, I do.
I think we need political competition.
I think we need people to fight as hard as possible to prove they have your best interests at heart.
And if you only have one party, they don't gotta do anything.
As Nancy Pelosi put it, at an event she held up a glass of water and she said, in my district, in AOC's district, you put a D on this glass of water and it would win.
That is not good for the people.
There is no incentive to actually improve the lives of anybody.
So I like this.
I do.
You know what?
I'll tell you this.
When Donald Trump won in 2016, I laughed.
And I love this story.
I'm proud of the laugh.
I laughed when he won.
Because to me, it was finally seeing the liars getting, you know, comeuppance.
I want a good, strong Democratic Party.
I want people to challenge the ideas of Republicans.
And I want things to improve for everybody.
But you don't win by cheating.
And Hillary Clinton cheated.
You get what you deserve.
But let's move on.
Because I got a bit more for you.
Why Trump will lose in 2020.
Okay, says Rick Newman over at Yahoo.
They say this.
First, the economy isn't strong enough.
He goes on to talk about a variety of issues.
Corporate issues.
Growth isn't that high.
I'm not going to read through everything because I do want to get to more.
Bloomberg's money.
Trump's healthcare blind spot.
And I believe he might have one more.
And Obama's role.
So let's address this.
First of all, I disagree, okay?
I see the point he's making.
The economy is amazing, especially in the black community.
You need to understand that Trump's support in the black community is probably very high because he's done whether you like it or not.
The policies under Trump have improved conditions.
Unemployment at record lows.
I believe it's around 5% in the black community, 3.1 or so nationwide.
I mean, that's incredible.
Bloomberg's money is a serious factor, however.
Bloomberg is dumping insane amounts of cash.
And I am outraged that he's only putting about 10% in digital.
I'm right here, buddy.
Don't you want to run ads on my contents?
So he's doing like 100 plus million per week, or maybe it's not that high.
It's like 30 million per week, some ridiculous number.
And they're projecting he's going to spend around 360 million by the time Super Tuesday comes up.
You got to take into account that is serious.
However, for now, Bloomberg's targeting Democrats, not Trump, so I'm gonna have to disagree, while it may play a role going into the, after the nomination.
Right now, Bloomberg's in third place, he's not going to get the nomination, so what is he gonna do after he loses?
He's currently not targeting Trump, and he can't do what he's doing if he doesn't get the nomination, because there's limits on, excuse me, how much you can spend.
Hiccups.
So, right now Bloomberg's just dumping money hurting Democrats.
Sorry, I'll disagree.
While I think there is a serious threat from this money, it's only if Bloomberg wins, and he's likely not going to.
Trump's healthcare blind spot is a legit issue.
I know Trump has mentioned it to a certain extent, Republicans have mentioned it to a certain extent, but you've got to take this one seriously, man.
Seriously, seriously.
I do not hear enough of this from Republicans, and this is going to be a main driving force because you've got a lot of older people, and although they're likely to lean Trump in a lot of ways, many of them are hearing that sweet, sweet Medicare for All from Bernie Sanders, and that's good news.
That's good news for Bernie, I should say.
Barack Obama's role is absolutely serious.
The man is extremely popular.
Trump and Obama tied in the Gallup poll for America's most admired man.
That means a lot of moderate voters, they're going to listen to what Obama has to say, and he hasn't said much.
After the nomination is clear, I think Obama's going to have a ton to say, and his voice carries weight.
If you are a Trump supporter, and you think you've got this one in the bag, You got another thing coming.
Hubris will be your downfall.
Mark my words, okay?
Hillary Clinton's hubris was her downfall.
A lot of people are very confident.
Do not be confident.
If you're a Democrat or a Republican, you will lose when you think you're gonna win.
Never underestimate your foe.
I hate to refer to politics as like an enemy or foe, but let's do it more in a friendly competition kind of way.
I know a lot of people think this is life or death, so the point is, I don't care if you're gonna vote for a Democrat or Republican.
I'm telling you this right now.
If you think you are going to win, that's when you lose.
You need to make sure you double your efforts no matter who it is you're voting for.
Get out there and vote, Democrat or Republican.
Okay, but let's wrap up with a final thought on the matter.
Will Trump lose?
Well, I'll tell you this.
There have been some major international instances today, or in the past few days, which I can only vaguely in passing mention, and that may have an impact on Trump's approval rating and favorability.
But for the time being, the latest poll going into January 2nd, Trump's approval rating is tied for the highest it's ever been outside of when he was first elected.
Let me tell you something.
The peak was 45.3 in the aggregate.
That's where we're at today.
If we go back to right when he was elected around the beginning of February, yeah, he got 46.1.
And I think it's fair to mention, okay, this is second highest, but the reason I exclude that is because when he got elected, he didn't do anything.
He got elected and that was it!
Almost immediately after, his approval rating tanked very, very, like, a lot, a lot, a lot.
And it spiked and waved up and down, and it fell to a low point in December of 2017, around, what do we got here, 37.1.
As of today, Trump's approval rating is tied for the highest it's ever been in the bulk of his presidency, okay?
And the reason why this is interesting, first, Rasmussen, of course, has him at 50%, but they highlight Obama's approval rating.
Lo and behold, According to Gallup, once again, we have seen Donald Trump's approval rating surpass Barack Obama's for the same time period.
You have to take this stuff seriously.
Obama got re-elected.
Trump's got a booming economy, he's got growing support in minority communities, and his approval rating is teetering just above Obama's at the same time.
Well, I can tell you that, you know, going back into a year ago, Obama's consistently been above Trump.
We can see this.
In April of this year, Trump surpassed Obama.
Then it happened again around August of this year, happened again in September, and as of today, Donald Trump is two points above Barack Obama.
Obama's approval rating started to recover.
I'm not sure if Trump's will, but I will tell you this.
The economy is golden.
It's going to play a major, major role.
Now as for the favorability of Trump, which is different from his approval rating, this is kind of just like, do you like him or not?
Trump's favorability is way higher than when he got elected, and you need to remember this.
When he got elected over in November, it was in the 40s, and now it's around the same place.
But look at his favorability in the election and going up to it.
Around the time he got elected, it peaked.
It's not the highest it's ever been.
But a month after the election, it was, it peaked and now Trump's favorability, it went down similar to his job approval and it's slowly been climbing.
The reason I highlight this is because his favorability before the election was a lot lower.
And he won.
And after he won, people warmed up to him.
Now the economy is roaring and his approval rating is, in the aggregate, it's tied for the highest point.
If you think Trump is going to lose, you got another thing coming.
But if you are a Trump supporter and you let hubris get in your way, you just might lose.
If there's one thing that'll hurt Trump, it's gonna be hubris.
So let me wrap up.
The crux of this segment, what I want to get to.
While it's true demographics are changing, this should be good news for progressives that Trump is trying to court minority votes and offer them something.
It kind of flies in the face of the narrative that Trump is a bigot.
He's doing everything he can to court minority voters.
So, sorry, Trump is transforming the Republican Party into at least a better, into like closer to representing, you know, America's changing demographics.
I know there are a lot of people who are, you know, very racialist, I guess, and they're very concerned about this.
But in the end, I don't think American nationalist types, economic nationalist types, really care about race.
The left wants to claim that because it's a weapon to try and convince minorities not to vote for them, but Trump is doing everything in his power to actually get those minority votes.
Well, I shouldn't say everything in his power.
I should say Trump's trying very, very hard.
And the fact is, there is concern among some Republicans that they need to address issues of diversity.
Fact remains.
I think the left went too far off the rails.
And Trump has approached this in a very slow and steady way that's benefiting him greatly.
Because the polls show in the black community, Trump is doing really, really well.
He's got great support from people like Kanye West and Candace Owens, and that means a lot.
As much as many progressives don't want to admit it, it does.
If you want to defeat Trump, you cannot ignore how he is offering things up to minority communities.
You can call him a bigot all day and night.
That's not changing the minds of people like Kanye and Candace Owens.
I'll leave it there.
I don't think demographics are going to matter.
I think Trump knows it.
And I think the Republicans have planned for it.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
It is a different channel and I will see you all there.
Over the past couple of months, I've been noticing something about the cultural conflicts pertaining to left and right.
And it's that a lot of the conversation around social justice outrage, anti-SJW versus SJW, all that stuff, it's kind of been slowly fading away, and now things are becoming more overtly political.
And so I was looking at a lot of the news.
I was thinking about what I can or can't do on YouTube.
And if you watched my main video on this channel yesterday about Maxine Waters and the Russian pranksters, I talked about how YouTube basically told me I couldn't talk about mainstream current events.
Well, the fact remains I still can't.
And that says to me that there is still a serious problem with cancel culture and woke outrage and how it's negatively impacting media and social media.
But I do think it's dying.
I think we're entering a point now where the right is actually going to start dominating.
YouTube is going to start kind of reversing.
But the big corporations and big tech platforms like Twitter and YouTube and Facebook will probably lag behind actual culture for quite some time.
Let me show you this story.
Leftist YouTuber ContraPoints explains why cancel culture mobs should drop the pitchforks.
ContraPoints is great.
I disagree with Contra on many issues, but I think that she presents a lot of really good arguments that actually speak really well to the left.
And with her latest video on cancel culture, I think we're actually seeing that the left has to recognize they're losing this one, it's gotten out of control, and it's likely going to cease to exist.
But there's a couple other big Big controversies in politics that I think show us cancel cultures on the way out.
Notably the JK Rowling fiasco where she tweeted in support of a woman who said that there were, you know, that biological sex was real.
It's more complicated than that, but essentially people tried to cancel JK Rowling and she refused to apologize.
She's gonna win this one.
We saw what happened with Dave Chappelle doing his special.
We see people like Joe Rogan.
And now we also see Ricky Gervais, another major controversy, as he made numerous jokes about trans people and said, I'm not going to apologize.
In fact, the more offended you get, the more I'm going to press the issue.
Ricky Gervais is set to host the Golden Globes.
There are certainly attempts to maintain whatever this cancel culture vigilante outrage system is, but it's not working.
And I want to be fair, too.
It's not like it doesn't exist on the right.
There was a Netflix show called Gay Jesus or Something, resulted in a lot of anger, and there was a lesbian kiss on some Hallmark commercial, and there was a bunch of outrage from the right.
But the fact remains that most of the outrage, most of the people who lose their jobs and lose money, it happens when the social justice ideological left targets them.
I think they're losing.
And I think what we see on YouTube with the censorship I was dealing with the other day is the result of YouTube fearing these media companies.
So one thing I've talked about quite a bit over the past couple years is that as these woke outrage websites, you know, kind of like BuzzFeed's not the worst, but they're pretty bad.
And Vox and, you know, other I don't know.
It's also the individuals at big companies.
As these people lose their jobs, as the media starts to fade into obscurity because these companies don't make money, that press attention will cease to exist.
And we will, I hope, come to a point where we become more resilient and resist this psychotic nonsense.
However, for the time being, Facebook is scared, YouTube is scared, Reddit is scared, and so they bend over backwards.
Even the Wall Street Journal helped contribute to this, and they're more conservative when they went after PewDiePie.
Let's read a little bit about what ContraPoint says.
This is an article from Reason, written by Robbie Sauve, and praising Contra.
Contra's been great!
I'm sorry, you know, you don't have to like Contra or the videos she makes or anything like that, but the fact is, she's been a very reasonable person on the left, actually talking to people on the left, and now they're going to have to contend with the fact that I guess the right is winning this one.
But I do want to get a little political and talk about what this means moving forward, particularly with the elections coming up.
I think there's a few things to consider.
One is that demographic shifts, according to the Wall Street Journal, are a big threat for Donald Trump.
We've also seen that article from the Center for Immigration Studies talking about how immigration impacts the Electoral College.
But I do think that there's a lot of reasons why the right is going to dominate, and this is one of them.
And the left should be extremely grateful for ContraPoints and other people like Ricky Gervais and J.K.
Rowling for telling them to knock it off, even Barack Obama.
Because if they keep pushing this authoritarian, purity-testing, cancel-culture stuff, They're gonna lose.
I will save some of this greater conversation for after I read you this news and talk more about this.
So let's get started.
Before we do, head over to TimCast.com slash Dunnit if you'd like to support my work.
There's several ways you can give.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But the best thing you can do is share this video.
Let me explain something to all of you, as we're talking now about cancel culture.
It's not just about a bunch of angry people on Twitter coming after you.
Yesterday, I prepared a video talking about Donald Trump and mainstream current events.
I was warned by YouTube that essentially the video would be shadowbanned and no one would see it.
Oh, they'll allow me to post it because I'm allowed to talk about news, because I'm not breaking any rules, but I got that warning.
I had no choice but to quickly try and record something else, once again, talking about the Democrats, which is really boring to me at this point because it just never ends.
And so I moved my main segment over to my second channel.
Where sure enough, well, it is still demonetized, but it wasn't shadow banned.
And so I'm now facing the tail end of this outrage cancel culture stuff where they did broad stroke lies about YouTube and pipelines and rabbit holes.
And it has gained a ton of ground for the ideological left, but they're still losing.
Another segment I'm preparing for later in the day is about how Donald Trump's approval rating, I kid you not, I'll just show you actually.
I think I have it right here.
Donald Trump's approval rating has tied for the highest position it's ever been.
Technically the second highest, but I'm excluding the point at which he just got elected because I think that's unfair.
He didn't do anything at that point.
So people were just like, yeah, Trump got elected.
So when he first got elected, his approval rating was like 46.1%.
The highest it's ever been following just after his election was 45.3.
I think the right is going to start dominating.
And I think it's because the left overplayed its hand and no one reeled them in.
So, I'm grateful for people like ContraPoints to finally start calling that out.
Let's read the story.
I don't want to bury you in just, you know, my rant here.
I want to read a little bit about what Contra said, and then I want to talk to you about J.K.
Rowling, Ricky Gervais, and how cancel culture is kind of failing.
Reason Reports.
Leftist YouTuber ContraPoints explains why cancel culture mobs should drop the pitchforks.
I have no faith left in call-out vigilante justice.
Natalie Wynn, the YouTube personality known as ContraPoints, has just posted her first video of the year, a two-hour rumination on cancel culture, that criticizes fellow members of the left who rely on the tactic to stifle dissent.
Quote, we do have a teensy bit of a Reign of Terror situation on our hands, says Nguyen, likening cancel culture to a milder digital version of the show trials and public executions led by Maximilien Robespierre during the French Revolution.
In a fantastic video, and well worth the considerable time it takes to watch, Nguyen is particularly successful at defining how canceling someone is different from merely criticizing them.
The latter is directed at a person's actions or views, whereas the former is directed at the person itself.
When a trans woman, who has herself been cancelled by some social media zealots in the trans activist community because she made comments they interpreted as heretical, spends the second half of the video patiently explaining the emotional harm she suffered as a result of being barraged by unfair attacks.
These attacks largely centered around her perceived friendship with Buck Angel, a transgender man who is seen by some in the trans community as being dismissive of non-binary transness.
In the video, Wynne notes that a Twitter mob expected her to denounce Angel when she failed to do so.
The mob branded Wynne transphobic and urged all other leftist trans YouTubers to disassociate from her.
Some lost followers and subscribers for failing to take an anti-Wynne position.
So that's basically the gist of what's going on with Contra points.
And I think it's fair to say the personal experience that she had with cancel culture probably led her to the point of saying, hey, this needs to stop.
I think it's fair.
I think it's unfortunate that it took actually being the victim to finally speak out against it to an extent.
Contra's been pretty fair for a long time.
But many people on the left have been targeting each other, and for the most part, we see them bend over backwards to appease the mob.
But now that just doesn't work anymore because there's a certain point where you can't!
You can just end your career, you can't talk about what you want to talk about, you can't express your ideas, so at a certain point, the back snaps.
And the people on the left say, I'm not playing this game with you anymore.
And because it's become so volatile, many people on the left then abandon it.
And eventually you'll find the larger portion of the left being in opposition to cancel culture because they don't want to be cancelled.
But as ContraPoints notes, cancelling someone is different than criticizing someone.
Of course, there's still an attempt to maintain whatever this twisted culture is.
In an article from November, Time Magazine wrote this, Cancel culture is not real, at least not in the way people think.
I'm not going to get too in-depth in this article because, well, there's a lot of offensive and silly things in it that YouTube's going to punish me for, and I'll talk about censorship after I get to the news.
Bear with me.
But they do mention that people don't really ever get cancelled.
They say, you know, Louis C.K.
lost his agency, but now he's selling out shows.
Yeah, sorry, Louis C.K.
lost, what, 30 plus million dollar deals, and now he's selling out shows to, what, a couple grand?
Nah, I'm sorry, cancel culture is effective, and that's why people have used that power for so long.
They've targeted people and industries to try and shut down political ideas they don't want, but the reality is it has nothing to do with actual ideologies.
It has to do with people who want to be a part of something bigger because they have no purpose.
Now, there's a lot of, I guess, you know, speculation and personal opinion in that statement, but most people would assume that the woke outrage is about someone fighting for a better world, but I do not believe that to be the case.
Otherwise, they wouldn't target each other, and they do.
Even Barack Obama had to call it out, calling it a circular firing squad.
The reality is, I think many of these people are just bullied or bullies, and they found a way to actually exert force and feel like they matter.
Rick and Morty made an interesting point about this when Rick says the R-word.
I kid you not, I can't say it.
And Morty explains that it's not that the word is actually offensive, but that it's being pushed by powerful groups who think they're doing the right thing.
That's kind of true.
But I believe what we see with Twitter... Actually, let me stop real quick and explain to you what Time Magazine says.
The way they explain it, when they say cancel culture is not real, is they're saying that There's no such thing as cancel culture, it's just marginalized voices finally being on an even playing field with billionaires and white people and their privilege.
And that's not really the case.
Race relations are perceivably worse than they've ever been.
I say perceivably because that's what the polls say.
It's not that they literally are worse than they've ever been, actually they might be, but that people think it is.
I think what we've seen from Facebook, primarily from woke outrage sites like Vox and Huffington Post and BuzzFeed, driving the left further and further left, amplifying racially motivated, you know, like racially charged videos, has resulted in people becoming extremely more, well, racist, and race conscious, I suppose.
BuzzFeed just ran an article the other day I criticized talking about how it was a chatbot About interracial dating.
It wasn't really a chatbot.
It was just an anonymous submission form.
But anyway, the point was...
Buzzfeed writes an article talking about interracial dating that presumes all interracial dating is literally white people and any other people.
So we can see how they've chased after this particular narrative, this ideology, but it's not because they actually believe in it.
It's because it gets clicks and the money motivation drives it.
Again, I will talk about censorship and money motivation in YouTube coming up.
There's going to be some changes.
I don't know what the plan is for the future.
We'll explain in a second.
I want to get to the news first.
I'll explain to you my motivations and the decisions that I'm making and the changes to this channel.
J.K.
Rowling, the Washington Post says, or asks, has J.K.
Rowling figured out a way to break our cancel culture?
No, she just refused to apologize, like we've been saying forever.
Stop apologizing for this stuff.
J.K.
Rowling made a tweet in support of a woman who didn't have her contract renewed for her job because she said she repeatedly talked about biological sex.
J.K.
Rowling defended her, and people tried to cancel J.K.
Rowling.
She has not tweeted since.
But she's also refused to meet with these activist groups, and she's also refused to apologize.
She's taken a kind of neutral stance.
But here's the thing.
What's happened?
Has Harry Potter been shut down?
Are they no longer going to release The Crimes of Grindelwald?
No, I see commercials for it non-stop, and that movie was terrible!
What's happening is that when you refuse to bow down, the power breaks and cancel culture fails.
There are some good and bad things about this.
Because in reality, criticizing someone for saying something bad, it should be effective in some way.
If you say something that truly is callous and offensive, then perhaps you should be criticized for it.
But the problem with woke outrage cancel culture is that they don't criticize you like Natalie Wynn is saying, they just target you and try to destroy your career and your business endeavors, like they did with Ricky Gervais.
And interestingly enough now, Vox is still writing about it, but Ricky Gervais just don't care!
How to tell a Ricky Gervais joke.
Offend, defend, repeat.
I don't actually agree with that for the most part.
Ricky Gervais is a comedian.
He's funny.
And good on him for refusing to back down.
And he said he will never apologize for jokes.
And what's happened?
Nothing!
Ricky Gervais is still hosting the Golden Globes.
Now this says something important though.
Because Kevin Hart initially refused to apologize.
But maybe it's because he kind of played that game where he was like, you know what, I apologized before, I didn't know.
And he fed the beast.
Kevin Hart eventually ended up, you know, caving in and apologizing again.
Ricky Gervais just told him off.
And the Golden Globes have done nothing.
Ricky Gervais has not been canceled.
His show will go on and he's going to keep doing his thing.
Here's the important point about this video.
Maybe it's not relevant.
Maybe there's bigger news things happening.
And now we're going to start segwaying into censorship.
But I think I wanted kind of to tie off some of what I've been saying because I've pointed out a while ago that I thought cancel culture and woke outrage was losing.
The conservatives are winning.
I believe this even more now than ever because no one cares anymore!
The places that I normally go to look for cultural, political issues, no one even talks about this stuff.
No one even really cares.
Maybe it's because we're entering the 2020 presidential race, but I think it's the fact that, well, for the most part, woke outrage has lost.
We're becoming more resilient to it, and for the better.
Ricky Gervais can make his offensive jokes and they can't do anything about it.
But this spells really bad news for the left because they've invested so much in this and they've pushed themselves so far to this point where they have nothing left to stand on.
And I look at it this way, the way I've explained it is like, you know, it's like an island with cliffs in both directions, and while the right cliff has completely collapsed and far-right groups, like literal far-right groups, have been purged from the internet due to cancel culture, and now even I face censorship, and I'm nothing, I'm like furthest from far-right, We can see that it's going to start happening to the left as well, as people get sick and tired of walking on eggshells.
And it's true, most people really don't like this.
They don't like living in fear.
The problem is, too many people were scared.
And unfortunately, in my opinion, well, it's pathetic.
It's very pathetic.
But at least now we're seeing even J.K.
Rowling, the person who retconned Harry Potter because the outrage mob kept coming for her, and she kept changing this character and this character.
And now people are saying, shut up!
You should have shut up a long time ago.
And now she has!
She's stopped tweeting!
Technically, you could say she's cancelled because they went after her and she doesn't tweet anymore, but she's refused to apologize.
And as more and more people refuse to apologize, it means we're not going to have to live under the boot of these weird leftist authoritarian ideologues anymore.
It also means, in my opinion, that that's potentially good news for Democrats.
They need to get away from this stuff.
Let me tell you, the most dangerous thing to the Democratic establishment is woke outrage.
It's fueling the far left.
It's fueling, you know, voices the Democrats don't like.
And they need to stop it.
Which is why I find it strange that Facebook and YouTube has been censoring content that talks about mainstream issues.
Because I'll tell you this, Currently there's action underway in foreign countries.
I can't tell you what it is!
Because YouTube has warned me.
So I'm faced with very serious questions.
Conundrums, I should say.
The questions I ask myself about what my career can be and where we should go.
Let me wrap up the Ricky Gervais thing, and then we'll talk about censorship.
Because if you do a simple Google search of Ricky Gervais, do you find anything about controversy relating to his jokes?
Seriously?
No.
This is surprising to me.
You know, in my research for this segment, I was thinking, like, what's going on with Ricky?
He made a bunch of offensive jokes.
They tried canceling them.
They're trying to get him kicked off the Golden Globes.
Nobody cares!
Literally nothing.
The top story three days ago, Golden Globes host has a few more things to say to Hollywood.
Good genes, good docs.
Ricky Gervais at J-Lo, Golden Globes, what's his net worth?
There is one thing from Patricia Arquette from 11 hours ago, but for the most part it looks like There's one.
There's there's two stories technically one critical and one just talking about what happened for the most part nobody cares I find that really interesting.
But let's talk about censorship.
Let's talk about what I'm gonna end up doing.
You also may have noticed I just did a scene change!
Yeah, I'm gonna be ramping things up.
Gonna be building a new set, going to be changing the format of how I produce content, and weathering the storm.
So let me explain a few things.
Yesterday I tried doing a segment on mainstream news because that's what I do and what I've always done.
Culture, conflict, you know, civil unrest, political issues.
And yesterday YouTube told me in no uncertain terms that I don't wanna, I don't, no, actually, I gotta temper that statement.
No one from YouTube came to me and said, we're gonna ban your video.
I basically got a warning on my video explaining why it was a no-no video.
It was gonna go up just fine, they claim, but I know what happens, okay?
The first time this happened, I said, it was a demonetization, and I thought, They claim demonetization and they claim that suppression are not related.
So I said, fine, I'm willing to do the news if it means I don't get any money, I don't care.
And then the video was shadowbanned.
I kid you not, shadowbanned.
It didn't even appear on my YouTube channel.
The only reason people saw it is because of, like, email notifications or something.
If you went to my actual YouTube channel, it wasn't there, and it didn't appear in recommendations.
It ended up getting only a few thousand views until I went in, blurred a bunch of stuff, and then YouTube reinstated it.
It happened a second time.
I was trying to talk about a particular left-wing activist group with a penchant for destruction, and YouTube once again gave me the warning, and I said, I don't care, I'm fine not making money on these videos, but then the video was shadowbanned.
Once again, I got the warning yesterday, and I said, I get it.
There's no point in even trying to do the video if you tell me this is the warning and we know where the warning leads.
You know, for the first time, shame on you for not telling me.
The second time, I should have known better.
And the third time, I did.
So I took it down, I recorded something else.
But this means...
As many people have annoyingly emailed, yes I'm going to be critical of the people emailing me because it is frustrating when they say, stop giving in to the censorship.
Do you understand what that means?
When you tell me not to give in to the censorship?
It means that quite literally I just don't do anything, okay?
If I choose to upload a video that YouTube tells me they will shadow ban, I may as well not upload it at all.
I have a podcast available on all podcast platforms that is not restricted or censored in any way, to a certain degree.
But YouTube is harsh.
So as we face the decline...
Of cancel culture.
And we've, there have been these, you know, essays, video essays done by people talking about the wave of censorship and political correctness has come and gone in the past.
I think we need to recognize that.
Well, my assumption is in time, this will backpedal, especially as we get close after the, I would say after the 2020 election, things will start to lighten back up.
Cancel culture is sort of failing.
And I think for now, if we want to survive this, we have to make some changes.
You may be saying, this is BS, Tim.
Why would you give in to censorship?
And let me reiterate for the 800 millionth time.
If I make a video talking about a mainstream news subject, YouTube will not show it to anyone.
Not you, not me, or otherwise.
Why bother uploading something that is shadowbanned?
I may as well not do it at all.
Stixx Hexenhammer, great YouTuber by the way, uses other platforms, so do I. I have a podcast, it's up every day, you can listen to all of my content, and if I produce a segment that YouTube says they will not allow, it will still be in the podcast.
But if YouTube's not going to show it to you, what's the point of putting it on YouTube?
YouTube is the biggest platform, has the biggest reach, and YouTube does promote content for you.
From a business perspective, just saying I'm never going to use YouTube again would mean me literally saying I'm just done working.
Well, I'm not going to stop working.
I'm going to improvise, adapt, and overcome.
So here's the plan moving into the new year.
On my second channel, which you've noticed this segment has moved over, I did a scene change, yes, we're ramping things up, I'm gonna be doing set design, and the show's gonna be a lot more professional, and potentially sold to some other networks, so that regardless of what YouTube does, my content will exist and be secure.
I also mentioned that you can support me through donations, this also guarantees that in the event YouTube finally says, you're done, Then I can still produce the content for the podcast.
I'm going to be using my second channel, which is youtube.com slash TimCastNews, to produce a new kind of show.
It's going to be more general interest, more cultural.
There's been a lot of discussions that I've been having with people about what to call it, what the podcast will be.
It will likely be live.
It will likely have guests.
It will address mainstream political issues, and we will then record maybe an hour or two, so I'm going to be actually increasing the amount of content I do, maybe like doubling it, but the goal will be to do a new show which is going to be more general interest.
Here's the point.
I'm going to move all of my segments over to this channel.
What that means is that the things that YouTube says they're not going to show to anybody, I'm going to upload anyway.
And if they don't want to monetize it, and if they want to shadowban it, then it'll be here and you'll have to manually search for it.
Otherwise, or just you won't see it.
Fine, whatever.
What this means is I can continue to produce content without fear because the new show, which is general interest, is going to essentially subsidize news content.
So if YouTube wants to suppress and demonetize mainstream political issues that everyone is talking about, fine.
My mainstream, you know, political commentary and general interest show will help make up the difference, allowing this channel and the content I produce to continue on regardless of whether YouTube censors it.
So let me make it clear for those that are saying, stop giving in to censorship.
I am.
That's literally the plan.
But I can't just snap my fingers and shut everything down.
What I'm gonna do is, the next time, you know, so I've got work, a lot of work to do.
You know, my studio is now, like, basically done.
Not set design, but I mean, like, the construction is all complete, it's gotta be inspected, there's some other work that has to be done.
Once that's good to go, maybe in about a week or two, there will be an entirely new show.
And I'm going to be hiring people, probably maybe even having like a co-host, but pulling in guests and stuff like this.
I've got a bunch of new equipment.
That show will be something I've wanted to do for a long time because it's going to be more general interest.
Like, you know, if you watch my second channel, I talk about UFOs, talk about movies and Star Wars and stuff like that.
And my primary passion has always been culture, conflict, politics.
It's what I want to talk about.
It's what I care about.
It's what I follow.
And YouTube has basically told me if I carry on on that path, they will just delete my videos.
No one will see them.
For the time being, I am working out ways to try and protect my business and myself And my channel without getting deleted so I can get to that point where I can subsidize this content.
Okay?
That means with the new show, I'm not going to be at risk if I do a segment talking about very important issues and YouTube says, we're going to suppress it.
I'll say, well, you know, then it's up to you guys watching to manually come here to watch it if you'd like to watch it.
If YouTube decides they're going to shadow ban my content, I don't know what else to tell you.
The content will exist on other platforms like Mines and BitChute and the podcast.
So instead of trying to, you know, so for the time being, here's where we're at.
YouTube caught me off guard with this, okay?
I've done numerous videos in the past few days about big mainstream political issues that are I don't know, contentious.
And YouTube's been fine with it.
And then one day they say no to this one.
I don't know what they actually want, and I have no way to rectify it if YouTube decides at the last minute to shadow ban a video that's the same as any other video I've done.
Which means I need to diversify.
For the time being, I am in a storm and I have to walk very carefully to make sure YouTube doesn't ban me outright, like they've done, to many other people without warning.
Or strip away partner program benefits, meaning I would literally just not even have a business, can't even put thumbnails in the content.
But it means, in the next coming weeks, when I launch a new show, which is gonna be more academic, I'm gonna have guests, there's a lot of work that's gonna be done, but the first thing in starting any new venture is to just do it.
Okay, so that means the new show will be my general interest safety net that runs the business and supports things, so that when YouTube says, this video is a no-no and we're gonna shadow ban it, I'll say, What are you going to do?
Blame YouTube!
But I'm going to intend to do the same content I've always done, and it's all going to be on this channel, so all six segments will be here, and what I'm going to do for YouTube.com slash TimCastNews is every day at 8pm a live show, general interest, science, mysteries, fun general topics.
It's going to develop over time to figure out formatting, guest bookings and things like that, but you just if but my
advice to you when you're when you're doing any venture is just
Start doing it so it may start off not as good I don't know
But it'll slowly get better and what we'll do is the show's gonna be as long as it needs to be I'll record for as
Long as we have typically over an hour maybe two hours Then we're gonna break it up that that live stream we've
broken up into segments per story and upload it on my second channel
which means substantially more content
Substantially more issues and it means this channel is no longer just gonna be the blue party bad channel
I'll tell you this.
A lot of people seem to think that Tim Pool chases after the views, that I produce content about Democrats because people click it.
That's not true.
Over time, YouTube has been socially engineering their platform to force me And other people to produce the same content, not because it gets more views, because they threaten us with being banned if we deviate outside of what they want.
I do not like this, so I'm going to do more work, and if YouTube wants to ban these videos on this other channel, at least I'll have a different show, and my content will exist on other platforms.
The point is, I am not producing videos, crossing my fingers and tracking the views, hoping that this time when I criticize the Democrats, it's going to get more views.
No, I literally just talk about what I want to talk about.
And I think the easiest way to exemplify what's ended up happening is that if you look at the recent data from Mark Ledwich, which is recfluence.net, I believe.
Google him.
I don't have it pulled up.
It shows that my second channel is considered centrist because I talk about a wide range of issues because when they get demonetized and suppressed, I just don't care.
My main channel became top political news because it was what YouTube basically only allows me to make.
And because me, as like an old school moderate, am now far away from the left, my criticism of the left is that the left is doing a lot of things wrong.
You'll never find a video where I'm like, Trump is the greatest, but Trump is not that bad.
And right now we're in an era where not liking Trump and wanting someone like Andrew Yang or Tulsi Gabbard is considered right-wing, I kid you not.
They call both of them the alt-right Democrats.
So there's no real center anymore.
I have no idea what's going on.
But if the only content I can produce without being censored by YouTube is about what Trump and the Democrats are doing, and it turns out that the Democrats tend to be playing stupid games, not that the Republicans don't, but the Republicans are doing their thing.
Then the only thing I can ever really make is boring content about Maxine Waters getting tricked by Russians.
I just, I'm sick of it.
I really, really am.
So that means if being pushed into a corner non-stop by YouTube due to censorship and suppression means that I have to adapt if I want to survive.
That's the reality.
And I'll be completely honest with you about it.
But I do think this video has gone on a bit too long.
I've got to wrap things up.
But there it is.
I don't know exactly... It's going to be changing slowly over time.
Early in the year, people don't like working, so things are shaky.
But I will say this.
Business over the past year with my content has been phenomenal.
I am not hurting in any capacity.
We're expanding.
Subverse is doing really well.
We've got a bunch of amazing projects on that end.
We are doing a really, really amazing job.
I fully expect that my plans are preemptive.
I think the changes I'm going to be making and adapting to are earlier than they need to be.
But it means revenue will be going up in the long run.
This video might actually get suppressed for some of the things I've talked about.
Yeah, well, you know what?
So be it.
I think we're at a turning point with the political world.
I think hopefully by next year, cancel culture will be completely gone.
I think Republicans are going to sweep in 2020.
I made the same prediction in 2018!
Maybe I'll be wrong again, but I really think so.
And I think once this starts happening and the left is really being beaten down, they're going to turn to people like me and other more sane leftist types who have been screeching nonstop.
And they're going to say, tell us what we need to do to win again.
They're gonna look at my content and say, you know what, Tim was actually right about this.
And then YouTube will have a turnaround point where they'll say, oh, it's now socially acceptable?
The point is, YouTube and Facebook are like three years behind where cancel culture is.
Now that we're seeing Ricky Gervais winning and Dave Chappelle winning, then it's gonna come to a point where YouTube's gonna be like, oh, we don't need to ban this stuff anymore because now it's socially acceptable.
And that's where I think we'll head.
Hopefully it happens sooner rather than later.
But anyway!
Cancel culture is dying.
I hope it's a good thing.
I will see you all in the next segment at 1pm at youtube.com slash timcastnews for the time being.
And then probably in the next two or three weeks, I'm going to be doing a live show like basically every day, which means I'm gonna have about three hours of content every day, not just an hour and a half like I've been doing.
Although I think yesterday was like two hours.
But it means substantially more content.
And it means if you watch my second channel, you're gonna get a very, very different kind of show.
We're gonna build it as we go.
But I'm gonna talk a lot about science.
It'll probably get a lot less views.
Good.
So be it.
It's a new venture, and I'm excited to start something new.
And all of that political and cultural stuff will exist on this channel here.
But I'll end with one thing.
What made me want to talk about cancel culture was that it looks like the culture war is kind of winding down with a right-wing victory.
I say right-wing, but the reality is it's a liberty victory, because I never consider myself right-wing.
The left has gone nuts on this stuff, and even leftists are starting to acknowledge it.
If J.K.
Rowling refuses to back down, then I think it's fair to say that, however you want to define the factions in this one, liberty versus authority, The Liberty side is winning.
Ricky Gervais did not lose his job and we are coming out on the other side of this with cancel culture having lost.
Hopefully social media stops being as effective or however you want to describe it and people just, I don't know, people just carry on with their lives and stop freaking out because some cartoon on Twitter called you, you know, a cartoon squirrel called you a fascist or something.
But we'll see what happens.
I'll tell you this.
If we're going to survive, we have to adapt.
There have been a lot of channels that have been purged outright.
I'm smarter than that.
Which means if I don't make the changes I'm making, I can just stop making content.
I mean, hey, I can get in my van and go skateboarding all day.
I haven't been skateboarding in a while, man.
I miss that.
But no, I'm passionate about this, and I refuse to lose, and that means, as a chess player, and as a Magic the Gathering player, you might notice my Magic stuff, I think about the cards my opponent is holding, figuratively and literally, and I think about what I need to do to make sure in the next turn I get my advantage.
And that's what I'm doing here.
Thanks for hanging out, stick around, I'll see you on the next segment, and then again on this channel at 4pm.
Okay, this time Donald Trump slipped on a banana peel and pulled off a backflip.
If you don't get the analogy, let me explain.
I don't want to bury the league, though.
Iraqi MPs back call to expel U.S.
troops.
The United States has about 5,000 soldiers over in Iraq.
They should not be there.
It's time to come home.
And it seems that Trump may have accidentally just ended the Iraq war.
Yes, accidentally.
I know a lot of people are like, what do you mean by accident?
Let me explain.
It is often accused that Donald Trump is bumbling around, spinning in circles, wrapping himself
in toilet paper, slipping and falling.
But for some reason, no matter how much he fumbles and bumbles, he lands perfectly.
Ten out of ten, say the judges.
They claim that everything Trump does that benefits him was just an accident or a mistake
and he got lucky.
But how many times can Trump get lucky and pull off a perfect backflip?
So the analogy I use is that Trump is walking along, slips on a banana peel, does a perfect
backflip and lands to applause from the audience.
What do I mean by this?
I don't think it's an accident when Trump distracts the press.
I don't think it's an accident when Trump says something bombastic, and then everyone says, oh, Trump is such an idiot, and it benefits him politically.
I'll give you an example.
He changed the rules on asylum last year and at the same time tweeted about the squad like Ocasio-Cortez.
The media immediately runs to Trump's tweet and rants about how Trump's a bigot and they completely ignore the asylum change.
It wasn't an accident.
Trump tweeted on purpose.
However, following the escalation in the Middle East and the actions taken by Donald Trump, Iraq now wants the U.S.
to leave.
And this is amazing because, I mean, maybe you think it's not an accident, but I'll tell you this.
There's no way that we would have seen bipartisan support for completely withdrawing our forces from the Middle East because the establishment Democrats and Republicans, whatever, the machine loves war.
Ain't gonna change.
There's a potential that we escalate into war with Iran.
I think it's not particularly likely considering this terrain of the planet.
We're not going over there.
We're actually leaving.
And now if Iraq says get out, which this is a non-binding resolution, by the way, we're probably not going to leave.
But it is funny to think that Trump takes an action in retaliation for like what's happening in Baghdad.
And then all of a sudden they're like, Iraq says time to leave.
And now Trump Doesn't need a vote.
There's no—oh, sorry.
We have to go now.
Regardless of what Congress or Senate or any republican thinks, time to leave.
Let's be real, though.
It's a non-binding resolution.
Likely nothing will happen, but there is more to the story.
NATO suspends Iraq training mission after Soleimani killing.
unidentified
Did Donald Trump took action and accidentally ended the Iraq war?
I'm not a fan of what's being done in the Middle East.
Never have been.
I'm not a fan of Trump escalating things with drone strikes.
I'm not a fan of Trump tweeting out we're targeting 52 culturally relevant sites or whatever he said.
I'm not a fan of any of it.
But I gotta admit, if there's one thing that would get us out of Iran, I'm sorry, Iraq, I never thought it would be this.
Let's read the story from the BBC.
They say, Parliament in Baghdad.
I'm sorry, Iraqi MPs have passed a resolution calling for foreign troops to leave the country after the US killed top Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in a drone strike at Baghdad airport last week.
Parliament in Baghdad also called for a ban on foreign forces using Iraqi land, airspace, or water for any reason.
The U.S.
has some 5,000 military personnel in Iraq, mostly as advisors.
Thousands of Iraqis attended a funeral procession for Soleimani before his body was flown to Iran.
Iraq finds itself in a difficult position as an ally of both neighboring Iran and of the U.S.
Thousands of U.S.
troops remain in the country to assist in the broader struggle against the Sunni Muslim Islamic State.
But the government sees the killing as a violation of its sovereignty and of the terms of the coalition presence in Iraq.
Meanwhile, a variety of Shia Muslim militia groups in Iraq are supported by Iran.
And there are concerns that parts of Iraq's population sympathetic to Iran have been alienated
by the killing and that militant groups may seek revenge.
Iraq's parliament met as hundreds of thousands of people turned out in Iran to mourn Soleimani.
So Iraq, their parliament seems to be taking the best course of action they can to try
and stabilize the country.
In turn, they're saying time for the US to leave because this was a violation.
I'm weirdly conflicted, right?
So I'm very anti-war, man.
I'm never going to give Trump praise for any of this stuff.
It's just not going to happen.
I understand there's retaliation.
I understand there's escalation.
Just leave!
It's time to go.
I'll be fair.
An attack on an embassy could happen anywhere.
It wasn't like they targeted a military base.
They went after the embassy.
So I get that.
But I still think we need to get out of the Middle East.
It's causing nothing but problems for us.
It's a waste of our money.
And we know for the longest time the permanent government of the U.S.
has been lining up a conflict with Iran.
They invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.
They're now surrounding Iran, loading up military bases, and then putting sanctions on the country, putting pressure on them.
And then, you know, conflict erupts from this.
And then the U.S.
gets a pretext to be like, oh no, we have to go after Iran now.
Time to go.
Time to come home.
Time to take care of America.
Time to spend money on our roads, on our infrastructure, on our healthcare.
And I'll say this to the Democrats, okay?
I can sit here all day and complain about Trump's actions in the Middle East.
I can complain about Obama's.
I don't care which president it is.
Obama did the same thing.
And other Democrats complained.
Trump does the same thing.
And I have the same criticism.
But I will tell you this.
Stop getting up on stage and talking about how we're going to tax the wealthy.
Start talking about ending this.
So if you love him or hate him, the conflicted emotion I have now is that Donald Trump escalated tensions, and I'm like, bad, and it resulted in the opposite effect.
Now Iraq is saying get out.
And although it probably won't lead anywhere, I'd like to hope that this puts pressure on the U.S.
to finally be forced to leave.
So maybe?
I don't know.
Oh, man.
If, like, Trump committed this, like, action under— I believe the action against Soleimani was authorized both under the 2001 AUMF against terrorism as well as the AUMF of Iraq, 2003.
Most of them— I believe many Democrats voted against— or maybe it was 2002, the second— the authorization for use of military force in Iraq.
But everyone supported the terror one.
And Suleimani was targeted under the terror AUMF because he was designated a terrorist.
So to all the Democrats screeching and crying about how, oh, what has Trump done?
It's like, dude, look at the Democrats back in 2001 who voted for this, okay?
Like that included Bernie Sanders, I'm pretty sure.
Although Sanders did resist the Iraq one because we shouldn't be there in the first place.
The question now is, How should I feel?
Should I be angry at Trump for escalating tensions or should I be happy that it resulted in us now being pressured to leave the Middle East, at least Iraq?
So it's kind of like, you know, I don't know, man, but I don't like killing.
And so that goes, you know, a thousandfold for Suleimani.
And it goes, you know, for America as well.
We've got Trump escalating drone strikes, you know, commando raids, conflict in Yemen and stuff like this.
So I think it's fair to point out when conservatives rag on Democrats, For, you know, never complaining under Obama, but it doesn't excuse Trump.
So I will absolutely join in the chorus, screeching, where were y'all when Obama was doing this?
And then I will turn and say, but that doesn't excuse Trump.
It doesn't matter.
We shouldn't be there.
It's time to leave.
Let's read a little bit more.
An unbinding resolution was passed by the Iraqi parliament on Sunday after the caretaker Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi called for an end to the foreign military presence in a speech to MPs.
Calls for revenge have multiplied in Iran since Soleimani's assassination, which has thrown U.S.
foreign policy in the Middle East into question.
It's possible Trump was like, we're going to take this guy out and it's going to force America to leave, I really doubt it.
I think they've been planning the targeting of Soleimani for a long time.
I believe it was in April they deemed the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terror group, but I believe Soleimani was designated that under the Obama administration, so.
You know, so a lot of people are saying we took out a terrorist, but it's like, we gotta be careful with terror designations, okay?
If this guy's literally a general, and they're doing guerrilla warfare in a foreign country, and Iran is a major stabilized and, like, developed nation...
Then, call him a terrorist all you want, but we gotta be careful about, you know, allowing the government a blanket 20-year targeting of terrorists and the ability to label anybody a terrorist.
See how that works?
We say, go ahead and go after terrorists, and then at any point the president can be like, you're a terrorist, and you're a terrorist.
Granted, I understand how bad of a guy Soleimani was.
Let's not, let's be real.
I'm just saying.
We should never cheer for the expansion of executive authority.
We should be reigning it in.
Period.
But more importantly, outside of any of these anti-war arguments, can we just PLEASE get out of this region?
You know, there's concerns that China and Russia will move in.
I get it.
Let's read more before I start reiterating the same nonsense.
What does the resolution say?
It calls on the government to revoke its request for assistance from the International Coalition Fighting IS due to the end of military operations in Iraq and the achievement of victory.
Congratulations, America!
You've won!
We can come home!
So saith Iraq.
It says the Iraqi government must work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace, or water for any reason.
Furthermore, the government must file a formal complaint to the UN against the U.S.
for its serious violations and breaches of Iraqi sovereignty and security.
Ahead of the vote, the Prime Minister said the U.S.
military presence in the country should be ended as soon as possible.
Ending the U.S.
military presence in Iraq was better for reorganizing healthier and correct relationships with the U.S.
and the rest of the states, Mr. Abdul Mahdi said.
I'm going to tell you for the millionth time I think Trump made a huge mistake doing this.
I understand the escalation.
I think the Democrats are playing games because they just don't like Trump and most of the narratives coming out are orange man bad narratives.
But I think what you have to understand when it comes to any kind of conflict situation is we need to make sure we're not playing into a Chinese finger trap problem.
That it may seem like the easiest course of action to, you know, stopping this is taking out one of these leaders when in fact it could actually spark a bunch of militia groups and calls for revenge and actually make tensions worse.
So what I mean by Chinese finger trap problem is sometimes the simple solution isn't the correct one.
You try and pull to get your fingers out and it has the reverse effect.
However, I'm kinda conflicted on this because this might actually result in a dramatic de-escalation, I gotta admit.
If Iraq is serious and forces the United States out of the country and says, time to leave, and we have to, the tensions between us and Iran are gonna slowly dissipate, outside of sanctions and other issues.
If we leave Iraq, we're still in Afghanistan, that's a big issue, and so we definitely gotta get out of there as well.
But this is a major de-escalation.
It's kind of weird.
There's like a weird simultaneous thing happening where Iran's really mad at us and wants revenge.
But then if we leave Iraq, it's going to be like less clashing and conflict in the region.
I think Trump was trying to... You know, they say the best defense is a good offense, and I think that's what Trump's plan was.
By targeting Suleimani, he was letting him know, you're fair game.
A lot of pundits have been pointing out that the reason a lot of these Democratic individuals are so opposed to this, saying don't target officers, is because they don't want to be targeted either.
And so the game has always been this.
Actually, have you ever seen the movie The Patriot with Mel Gibson?
There was a part of the movie is that in the Revolutionary War, they targeted officers, you know, like higher ranking people.
And the British were shocked, saying without our officers, it would be nothing but chaos on the battlefield.
And the Americans are like, we don't care.
We're coming for you.
And so, you know, there's been this long-standing thing where the officers, you know, sit back and let the peasants do the fighting, and they say, oh, well, we lost too bad.
And now that Trump is targeting high-ranking officials, there's a fear among basically everybody that the cat's out of the bag, and that no matter who you are, if you're a political official, a military official, it's all fair game now.
This is dangerous.
It could lead to dramatic escalations in war, but At the same time, it looks like there may be an inverted effect?
I don't know.
So maybe the whole solution was counterintuitive.
Maybe we needed a dramatic escalation to shock the system, to force these countries to finally tell the US to GTFO.
You know, as there's been a slow maintenance of our conflict in the Middle East, no one's really ever been shocked enough to say, get out, even though things have gotten really bad.
But maybe this was it.
Maybe Trump really did accidentally end the Iraqi war.
Granted, we only have 5,000 people there.
You know, I think the U.S.
has like 1.2 million troops, so 5,000 is not a big percentage of that.
But it's about time we get out, you know?
Now, Afghanistan's a whole other story.
Afghanistan is unstable, but let's be real, man.
Trump was trying to negotiate with the Taliban, and people were mad he was gonna bring them to Camp David because apparently it was like, it was around 9-11 too, because people were saying like, what this means as like a symbol is really, really bad.
And I agree with that criticism, but you gotta admit, Trump was, that's a heck of an olive branch, to reach out to the Taliban and be like, we wanna end this war.
So here's what I think's happening.
As much as nobody really wants to admit it, if you look at the bigger picture, it really does seem like Trump is essentially ending the default American empire and the permanent government.
I don't like using the word deep state because it implies a more conspiratorial nature.
But the intelligence agencies that maintain their plans throughout different presidencies are angry because they had a plan.
And it's even been in messages they've said, like, he's dismantling the government.
It's like, no, he's dismantling the ridiculous foreign policy machine where we fund the defense, put military bases all over the place and then invade foreign countries.
You can call Trump whatever you want.
You can insult him.
But I think what we're seeing is Trump is taking actions, not as directly as you might think, but he's pulling back on American foreign military power.
And that's why I think the Democrats constantly say, oh, all roads lead to Russia, because the implication is that if America sticks to defending itself and, you know, bolstering its own economy and fixing its own roads, that opens the door for Russia to come in and take over and do other things.
And I think it's ridiculous because Like, listen, I understand Russia and China have interests, but I also think if the United States doesn't have a strong economy and isn't protecting itself, what's the point?
Like, what do you think's going to happen in the future?
Russia's going to keep growing, they're going to gain power, and the American economy is going to crumble.
Now, one of the theories about what the United States has been trying to do is build these massive trade lines to prevent war, and I think that still works, but I don't think you have to do it.
I think trade agreements happen no matter what.
Communications technology has been a big, you know, boosting factor in preventing full-out ground war.
Now we're in the era of the information warfare.
We're in information war and cyber war.
Here's what I think's really gonna happen.
I don't think we have to be concerned about ground conflict anymore.
I really don't.
I understand ISIS and regional conflict.
That'll happen.
But I mean, like, full-on world war.
I just don't see it.
What I think's gonna happen now is gonna be influence campaigns, like what we saw with Russia, to a minor extent Ukraine, with, like, some officials trying to, you know, manipulate things.
For the most part, though, most countries are engaging in influence campaigns to try and manipulate populations because you don't need to force anyone to their knees when you can trick them into bowing.
So I think what's going to happen is social media manipulation, which has been happening for a decade.
And I think that's going to... That means... Why use a gun when I can post something on social media and trick you into bowing in front of me?
If nobody loses their lives, it's better because it's more efficient.
If you want to gain control of resources or an economy, and you go in with force, you damage that economy, make it worthless.
Syria was completely wiped... Their cities are wiped out, you know, for the most part.
If you could just convince them to do something, then you don't got to worry about it.
I think that's where we're heading.
I think we're heading into a future of cyber war and manipulation.
And I think, ultimately, it will mean that there's not going to be any real conflict.
But hey, for the time being, if they tell American soldiers to get out and come home, I think Trump accidentally did a good, like, at least, look, I don't want to say Trump did a good thing, right, with the escalation in Iran, but I'll say this, you know, God closes a door, he opens a window.
So, let's, here's hoping, it's a non-binding resolution, I get it, so probably nothing's going to happen, but let's, fingers crossed, man!
I'm just like, You know, it's kind of weird to, like, see what Trump does and not like it, but the result being something where I'm, like, kind of happy about?
You know, if Iraq is trying to get us out and we get out, like, that's a good thing?
And so it's kind of this weird begrudging, like... If Trump keeps accidentally doing the things that are right, should, like, people comp... I don't know!
Should the left be complaining?
Like, should they be happy now?
It's kind of weird.
We'll see if the U.S.
actually does the right thing and removes themselves.
We pull out of Iraq.
But I will say this.
It's not just the U.S.
NATO is suspending training missions.
So even outside of whether or not we pull our troops out, we're seeing NATO simmer down.
So maybe all in all a good thing.
I have a question though.
I'll wrap up with this.
I was wondering why it is that we're so obsessed like the United States isn't trying to actually be allies with Russia.
Is it is the assumption that like Vladimir Putin is an evil mustache twirling villain who wants to take over the world and kill people or something?
I really doubt it.
I assume the dude just wants prosperity and prominence for his country and that's about it.
And if we can actually create big treaties with China and Russia, what are we really worried about?
You know, I don't know.
Why should we end up going to war in the long run if trade is going to be working across international lines and what people really want is just security and prosperity?
I think the U.S.
can negotiate those terms if we just stop trying to put soldiers everywhere and blow stuff up.
I guess the fear is that Russia would end up doing that, but I think we're over this.
I really do.
I think we're entering a new era.
Social media.
Manipulation.
I think it's possible for everybody to kinda get what they want?
I don't know.
We're not in this era anymore of, like, fear of the unknown, which was a big driver of war and conflict.
You just didn't know if someone was gonna come after you.
And I think we're now in a different time.
And I actually think one of the benefits here with, you know, like Hillary Clinton was very hostile to Russia and it was weird.
It was like, if you want to be a globalist and like, you know, secure these trade lines, you should be working with them to figure out what makes them happy so that tensions cease.
I guess their mentality in the past, though, was complete dominance of the planet.
Therefore, you don't have to negotiate.
I kind of think negotiating is the easier way in.
And you know, Putin's not going to be around forever.
Russia's a weird place for a lot of reasons.
But maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm naive.
I just wonder why it is we can't have a president who says, okay, Russia, you know, we're going
to secure things for you.
We're going to stop this pressure campaign and allow you to prosper and we'll do trade
and we'll make things work for everybody.
I don't, I don't, I don't understand why that's not possible.
They get mad when Trump meets with Putin and I'm like, Obama met with Putin and asked for flex, and told me, hey, I'll give you flexibility after I get elected.
Why?
What's wrong with that?
I think it's all political, and that's the real dangerous thing, is that international tensions will probably flow from domestic tensions, as Democrats try to blame Trump for everything and put pressure on him when he tries to negotiate peace, or, you know, if he does something bad like this.
We'll see if anything comes of this, but I'll wrap it up here!
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4pm, youtube.com slash timcast, and I will see you on my main channel.
Andrew Yang's campaign is being accused of not following the law, and thus the petitions to get him on the ballot in Ohio are being blocked!
Which means Andrew Yang is going to have to do a write-in campaign, and I can't help but think immediately Democrats cheat!
I'm sorry, they do!
We know they do!
Come on, man!
Is it biased of me to point out that the DNC Doesn't do polls, right?
So Andrew Yang wanted polls.
He wanted polls done.
He says, hey, it's been like, what, 40 days?
No polls?
So we can qualify for the next debate.
And they're like, nyah!
We know what they did with Bernie in 2016, and now it's the state apparently saying, well, you know, we gotta follow the law.
And because Andrew Yang didn't disclose perfectly enough that he was running for president, apparently they're saying it's not good enough.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it, man.
The system's rigged.
The game is rigged.
We're being censored on social media.
Independent commentary is being shut down because I'm willing to point out things like this.
You see, let me explain something to you.
The RNC and the DNC are private organizations.
That's right.
Our public elections are basically controlled by two private companies.
However, the RNC didn't cheat.
I mean, Donald Trump came in, as I've pointed out many times, they did not like him, but when he won, he won, and they rolled their eyes, got angry, many people left, and a lot of people got on board.
The Democrats cheated, kept out Bernie, and they're cheating again, but they're still losing.
Well, Andrew Yang's an outsider.
And I gotta admit, he's barely a Democrat.
I mean, he doesn't fit a lot of the things they try pushing.
He pushes back on a lot of the rhetoric they try using.
A couple examples is he's against the minimum wage.
Granted, he's for a form of UBI, which I think doesn't necessarily work.
But he's also said the Democrats can't keep blaming Trump for everything, and they do keep blaming Trump for everything.
So now, of course, he's being kept off the ballot, which is seriously going to hurt his chances in the primaries.
Now, look, I know Andrew Yang is a bit of a long shot candidate, but I want to be fair.
Andrew Yang He's been skyrocketing.
I mean, how many followers do you have on Twitter now?
Dude's become a superstar.
He's huge.
He's polling better and better every time.
And he's got a massive base.
He's raising tons of money.
The dude's got something behind him.
And he's got this interesting, technocratic, kind of moderate approach to a lot of things.
I think the Freedom Dividend is a good idea, but I think it's tough.
I think the money would mostly work for import products.
I don't want to get into the UBI stuff.
I like the dude, I do.
I think he's sincere and I like hearing him telling the Democrats to stop screeching about Trump.
That really makes my day.
But let's read the news and see how he's going to be cheated once again.
Well, I shouldn't say once again, but how the Democrats will be cheated once again.
Andrew Yang is being forced to launch a write-in campaign in Ohio because a bureaucratic paperwork issue has prevented his name from being placed on the upcoming March 17th Democratic presidential primary ballot.
Yang and his supporters are accusing Ohio state election officials of denying voters their First Amendment rights after he acquired three times the amounts of signatures needed to appear on the ballot in March.
Ohio officials have denied his application to appear on the ballots due to an issue, they'll report it, as involving the state's code for filing.
A declaration of candidacy.
Filing a declaration of candidacy.
None of the other Democratic primary candidates have been kept off the ballot over this or any other paperwork issues.
Now let me stop.
I gotta be fair.
It is entirely possible Andrew Yang just kinda screwed this one up.
It's true.
Like, let's be real.
I'm not gonna act like everything's a conspiracy.
It's fair to say the simple solution is that Yang's campaign put together a petition for Ohio and they didn't follow the law and they're being kept out for it.
Eileen kind of I'm never one to want to believe in conspiracies, but I feel like with the Democrats having cheated in the past, I think it's fair to say it's possible there's some foul play afoot.
But it is true, Yang may have just kind of screwed up.
But I know no matter what I say, people are going to get angry.
If I claim that the Democrats are cheating, then establishment cronies are going to be like, Tim believes conspiracies!
And if I say, well, maybe Yang just screwed this one up, then, you know, Yang gang supporters are going to be like, dude, no he didn't.
You know they're cheating.
So it's like, eh, what is what it is.
Let's read!
Frank LaRose, Ohio Secretary of State, explained the issue in a statement Saturday.
He wrote a tweet, by failing to follow Ohio law,
Mr. Yang's campaign has let down the Ohioans who wanted to support him.
That's truly unfortunate.
That is a brutal statement.
But my oath requires me to uniformly carry out the law, and that's what I will do.
Stupid.
How do we live, like, you know...
We have to have an understanding of what the law is supposed to mean, right?
Everybody knows Yang should be on the ballot, so he should be on the ballot.
But everybody knows Yang is a decent contender for the Democratic primary, although he's not as well-known, I should say, as Biden or Sanders.
This is ridiculous.
He wrote, As Secretary of State, I am duty bound to follow the law, and the law is clear.
When Ohioans sign a petition, they deserve to know what they're signing.
This is why petition forms must be submitted to complete with a statement from the candidate stating their intention to run.
By their own admission, the Yang campaign failed to do that.
I sincerely sympathize with those who had hoped to support his candidacy in the Ohio presidential primary, It's truly unfortunate that the Yang campaign has let them down.
Virtually every presidential, congressional, and state legislative candidate in Ohio has successfully completed the process over the many decades since it became law.
Yang's campaign confirmed in Newsweek that Ohio's Secretary of State's office denied the campaign's application to appear on the ballot, saying, quote, My campaign submitted nearly three times the amount of signatures needed, virtually ensuring I would be on the ballot in Ohio.
Nevertheless, because of a bureaucratic paperwork issue caused by an awkwardly worded law, nearly 3,000 Ohioans' First Amendment rights have been denied.
As a non-politician, it's unfathomable that this could happen.
But we're not going to let democracy be thwarted, and we are thrilled that we've made every other belt with ease, Yang wrote in a statement issued Friday.
The Yang campaign declined to elaborate on the bureaucratic paperwork issue in an email with Newsweek Saturday.
But a campaign insider was optimistic about their ability to mount a significant and credible write-in campaign in which Andrew Yang could still finish in a way that would ensure secure delegates.
Now, let me tell you this.
I'm willing to bet Anybody who knows who Yang is will still vote for him, and I'm willing to bet...
He doesn't need his name in the ballot, let's be real.
The people who go to vote for the primaries, they're not going to sit there and be like, hmm, who's this Andrew Yang fellow?
I'll checkbox that one.
They're going to go in there knowing who they want to vote for.
Now, some people are going to go in for the primary, and they're going to look at a bunch of names, and they're going to be like, I don't know, Biden?
And they're going to check off Biden.
That's why Biden's probably going to win, because he's got the vice presidency behind him, right?
So I think it's fair to say the writing campaign will be as effective as it probably could be.
They say Yang himself has expressed hope and offered a Pete Buttigieg joke in regards to his write-in.
Despite this setback, Ohioans will have the opportunity to cast their ballot for me in the Democratic presidential primary as I'm officially announcing a write-in campaign in Ohio, aided by other incredible grassroots support, 400,000 donors across the country, and the fact they have such an easily spelled last name.
It's true.
I don't know if that's a dig at Buttigieg, I guess.
Both Yang and Buttigieg posted large fundraising numbers to close out 2019.
Prompting optimism.
That two candidates who began the race with very few national connections and little name recognition can move deep into the primary elections.
But let me tell you this!
Pete Buttigieg seems to be one of the establishment favorites.
He's playing up to big money.
He's playing the game they want him to play.
So yeah, he's getting propped up.
Not only that, he's not a senator.
So when the impeachment trial kicks in, guess who doesn't have to show up?
Well, Yang and Buttigieg.
Yang's problem is that he's an outsider.
MSNBC has refused to show his name on several occasions.
At this point, it's insane to think it's an accident.
They're just pushing the guy out.
And Buttigieg is an establishment player.
I think it's fair to say Yang has substantially more credentials in a lot of ways than Pete Buttigieg.
But I do think it's more fair to say that Pete Buttigieg served in the Armed Forces, so when it comes to commander-in-chief experience, I think Buttigieg has it.
But Buttigieg is playing a game that Andrew Yang isn't.
He's an outsider.
And that's why I'm not surprised to see something like this happen.
The Democrats are, you know, it's fixed.
Come on.
I have no faith in the Democrats following 2016.
Okay?
I was surprised Obama won in 2008.
I guess a lot of people were.
But I have no faith that the system is going to be fair to outside candidates who want to win after what we saw with Bernie Sanders.
That includes Tulsi Gabbard, who was an insider until she refused to endorse Hillary Clinton.
Well, You see how the game is played?
They pushed her out.
Andrew Yang was never supposed to be on the inside.
But he's popular because he's a rational dude and he's saying things that people agree with.
You know, what's crazy to me is that you have so many Democrats hell-bent on pushing the Orange Man bad narrative.
And while Yang is not, like, the most innocent, you know what I mean?
Like, he certainly had his Orange Man bad moments.
He's also been, you know, he said some very offensive things about the president.
And I'm not saying you shouldn't be offensive or make offensive jokes.
But Andrew Yang was calling Trump like a fat slob and stuff, and that makes me angry.
It's like, dude, one of the reasons I personally don't like Trump is because Trump does things like this.
I get it.
It's not the end of the world.
I don't give it the most weight.
But like, how are you gonna run against the guy, complain about his behavior, and then do the same thing?
But more importantly, Andrew Yang has told the Democrats to chill.
And there's a lot of Democrats who want to hear that!
You know what my prediction is?
And I think I said this this morning, but there will come a time when, you know, in 2020, 2021, after Trump wins re-election, or 2024, when the Republicans win again, when the Democrats come knocking on my door, asking people like me, what can we do to win?
And I say things like, dude, You should have known the whole time, and it's only your fault.
I think we get the point.
I don't want to read a million things about Yang.
I like the dude.
I really do.
I've donated to him because he's more of a sane, rational individual.
And I seriously mean this.
Check out his policy positions.
He's got basically a policy position for everything.
It's quite impressive.
While I disagree with him on a lot of things, he wants like a journalism ombudsman or something for the government.
You can't do that.
We have the First Amendment.
The Freedom Dividend, his flagship proposal.
Cool, but I just don't see it working outside of, like, buying imports.
The democracy dollars thing is a good idea, or I should say it's an interesting idea.
Here's what I like about Yang.
Let me wrap this up.
The dude's got a bunch of wacky ideas.
And I don't mean wacky as in, like, not serious.
I mean, like, they're out of the box.
Like, they're outside the box, you know what I mean?
I'm so sick and tired of the establishment's same old crap.
And Yang comes along and he says a bunch of things I haven't heard before, and I'm like, good!
We need new ideas.
But more importantly, when he goes up there and he says, you know, impeachment is not what Americans care about, I'm like, thank you.
When he says, the Democrats need to stop blaming Trump for everything, I'm like, thank you.
Please!
Please!
So is he perfect?
Not really.
Neither is Tulsi Gabbard.
I don't think Trump is.
But I'll tell you what, man.
The Democrats have a sanity problem.
They're insane.
We need people like Yang, front and center, to bring back sanity.
Okay, you don't got to agree with every policy position he has.
But clearly, like Biden isn't even saying anything.
Biden may as well just say yada yada yada the whole time, because I have no idea what he's talking about.
He's saying random trash.
And Pete Buttigieg, same thing.
The moderate Democrats seem to say nothing.
At least Bernie Sanders is saying, I'm gonna do a revolution.
You're like, I understand what that means.
And you listen to Buttigieg and Biden and they're like, whatever is acceptable to the lowest common denominator.
And I'm like, You're not telling me things.
OK, anyway, I'll wrap this up.
You get the point.
I personally lean towards they're trying to keep Yang out.
They did it to Bernie.
They'll do it again.
And the Democrats are corrupt.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump is shaking the hand of Jeff Van Drew, a guy who wants to ban offshore drilling, who is clearly not a Republican.
And he's bringing in moderate Democrats into the fold of the Republican Party.
That means come 2020, The Republicans are going to be 70% of politics in this country, and the Democrats will be fringe far-left ideological weirdos, and the real arguments will be coming from Republicans among themselves.
Whatever, man.
Thanks for keeping Yang off the ballot, though.
Stick around, I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Did you know that several years ago, Michael Moore gave me, I think it was $1,000.
That's true.
During Occupy Wall Street, Michael Moore donated to my work about $1,000.
And I was very excited.
He put my live stream on his website, and I was very excited.
I was like, wow, that's recognition from this guy.
And he recognized me in the street once when he was doing an event, and I was like, this is really cool.
Now I'm a bit disappointed.
Because Michael Moore seems to be just saying whatever it is the left... He's just like, he's the left, therefore he must say what they say.
And this is upsetting to me.
Because I used to see Michael Moore as a guy who stood up for the working class.
He stood up for the poor.
He would yell things like, tax the rich, and I'm like, I get it, right?
Today, you know, I went and saw that film, what was it, Fahrenheit 11.9?
And it was one of the worst things I've ever seen.
It was just like, he was just regurgitating leftist talking points.
And it's sad because the left has gone off the rails.
They're not, like, the unions aren't even on board with these people anymore.
Like, are you paying attention?
CNN runs a segment where they're like, a Democrat stronghold is voting for Trump.
They vote for local Democrats, they vote for Trump nationally.
But Michael Moore is going to say whatever he's got to say to appease the left for the sake of being the left.
Sorry.
Sorry, Michael Moore.
When you abandon the working class in Michigan and now start pushing these weird lefty things, you are no longer, like, you're not preaching to anybody but fringe weirdos.
Well, I did a segment about this, but now we got another one.
Michael Moore personally messages Iran to beg for forgiveness for America.
You know what, man?
Listen, I'm critical of Donald Trump's actions in the Middle East.
I think it was bad to escalate the tensions with Iran.
I do not think it makes sense to send a message to Iran begging for forgiveness, especially when you recognize... Let me say something.
It was bad what Trump did.
Period.
But... I said period, but.
That's stupid.
But here's the thing.
The escalation in Baghdad was... It wasn't like Trump was just like, I'm gonna target this guy.
First of all, the guy's been... The Iranian Revolutionary Guard's been considered a terror organization since back in April.
This wasn't willy-nilly.
My understanding is that this guy Soleimani was considered a terrorist going back to the Obama administration.
This has been a long time coming.
I mean, the government's been planning this.
The escalation has been back and forth for a long time.
Iran has been engaging in a bunch of, you know, really messed up things for a long time.
They supply weapons to really bad people, and it causes major, you know, instability in the Middle East.
I don't think we should be there.
I think instability is going to continue there, and I guess there'll be war.
I don't know what the plan America has is there, so I don't like any of it.
And the problem I have with Trump's actions is partly due to, like, I oppose killing people, even bad people, to a certain degree.
I understand the escalation.
I understand why Trump did it, but I don't like the escalation.
But the point is, this is virtue-signaling psychosis.
Okay?
We saw Rose McGowan say that stupid, like, please forgive us, please don't kill us, to Iran.
Dude, this is an Islamic theocracy, okay?
These are not good progressive people.
They're a nation.
They deserve their sovereignty.
They can do what they want.
I do not like them violating human rights, and to a certain extent, I believe we do Have a duty to stop things?
Yes.
Lo and behold, anti-interventionist, anti-regime-change-war Tim Pool recognizes there are certain circumstances where you do need to do things.
There's a lot of things going on and have gone on in the past, and I think everyone recognizes that certain atrocities committed by world leaders need to be stopped.
Now, Iran isn't necessarily at that level.
Iran is a developed nation.
They're sovereign.
Let them do their thing, fine.
If they're committing acts of war, then we do sanctions.
And I'll tell you this, man.
As much as I hate everything that happened, I recognize it's a rock and a hard place.
You know, the Soleimani guy is arming and training and planning for militias and stuff, and it's just really, really bad across the board.
It wouldn't be our problem if we weren't there.
So, you know, it's not the level of, like, World War II where I think we need to intervene.
But anyway, let's read the story about Michael Moore, who, in my opinion, is just—this is the stupidest thing ever, okay?
You can criticize Trump without reaching over, like, bending over backwards and up and around your own waist to try and desperately appease the, you know, the fringe left.
Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore on Sunday announced he had personally messaged Iran's Supreme Leader to ask the Ayatollah not to respond to a U.S.
airstrike against his top commander with violence of any kind.
In a post to his social media accounts, Moore reported that he had recorded the message of peace on his podcast and DM'd it to Ali Khamenei.
Khamenei – Khamenei, I would pronounce his name – he said he had suggested that instead of retaliating for the killing of the Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani, Khamenei should let me and millions of Americans fix this peacefully.
Oh, that's right, because everybody knows under Obama, relations between Iran and the United States were perfect, and by electing a Democrat, everything will be skittles and rainbow, and you think Iran cares?
I'm sorry, Iran?
You think they care?
Listen.
Obama had the nuclear treaty.
Obama did try to appease Iran.
But it's not like things were going well.
You think the Supreme Leader's gonna be like, Michael Moore makes a good point.
If I just let them vote for another Democrat who's pro-war, then things will be great.
This is ridiculous.
These people are nuts.
You know what, man?
Here's the problem I have with it.
Okay?
I would like to see a de-escalation of tensions.
I think Trump went too far.
I think Trump is sending a—he's dropped—he dropped the hammer.
Okay?
I'm a more of a diplomacy kind of person, and we shouldn't be there in the first place kind of person, so I don't believe the retaliation serves us in any way.
We can just leave!
But I get it.
It's very... You know, how do you deal with the escalating tensions and the attacks in an embassy?
There are hard questions that need to be answered.
So I don't like it.
I don't know what to tell you.
You know what I don't like as well?
When these, like, woke celebrity types pretend like they care.
They send these stupid tweets out.
Let me show you this stupid tweet.
This is... He posted it to Instagram, apparently.
He said I have just had the Ayatollah of Iran a personal appeal asking him not to respond to our assassination of his top general with violence of any kind, but rather let me and millions of Americans fix this peacefully.
I recorded and DM'd him a message on my podcast, Rumble.
You can hear it on any podcast platform like Apple or Spotify.
We need to prevent war, any war now.
When the Ayatollah responds, I'll post his reply.
Let me tell you what Michael Moore actually did.
What Michael Moore actually did is a promo for his podcast.
Michael Moore posted the image of the Ayatollah and claimed he did this, he probably did, so that he could promote his podcast.
Because he's a virtue-signaling progressive pretending to hold progressive values while abandoning the working class and acting like he actually cares about any of this.
I appreciate the money, Michael Moore, but I do not trust you actually care.
After I watched Fahrenheit 11-9, after you started ragging on white people, after he said in a podcast with Rolling Stone, if you see white men walking down the street, you better cross the street.
These are not good people.
This is the guy who is supposedly standing up for the white working class union laborers in Michigan, who's now blaming them and calling them evil, bad people you should be afraid of.
So when I see this stuff, I get really angry.
You know what really makes me angry?
Excuse me.
I burped.
That's what makes me angry.
Grinds my gears.
I burp when I talk.
No, I'm kidding.
It's that here's how I see the Republicans.
Ideologically driven individuals who say what they mean for the most part and are fighting for what they want.
Here's how I see the progressive left for the most part.
You've got a lot of people who don't pay attention to the news.
You've got Democrats who lie because they want keys to the castle.
And you've got people like Michael Moore who pretend to care so they can get podcast views.
They simultaneously claim that they're not racist when they're very racist.
I'm not saying other people aren't racist, I'm just saying they are.
They simultaneously claim they're there to support the working class and the poor, and then Michael Moore comes out and insults them?
And says he blames the white people?
They're liars, and hypocrites, and deceivers.
They're people who are attracted to the fastest path to power.
And what's really frustrating is when they accuse me and other people of doing the same thing.
Listen, man.
The right-wing has their stupid grifters.
They exist.
They annoy the hell out of me.
Okay?
But typically, I look at these Republicans, and they're like, here's what I'm doing, and here's why I'm doing it.
And I'm like, yeah, okay.
I disagree with you on those cultural and religious issues.
I look over at Michael Moore, and he's simultaneously saying, like, we need to help the working class, but those white people are bad.
What are you ta- white- what?
It's duplicitous, deceitful, and it's because they want power.
That's about it.
They want views, and they turn around and accuse everyone else of doing the exact same thing.
Wasn't that one of Saul Alinsky's strategies anyway?
This is the problem I have with the left, is that I genuinely believe in a lot of left-wing policy positions, but every time I look to the leadership, look at this.
This is an advertisement for a stupid podcast.
He doesn't care about what's going on.
So you know what, man?
To a certain degree, I don't care about motivations.
Do the right thing.
Bernie Sanders came out with a bill and he's saying we're going to block the war with Iran.
And I'm like, I don't care why he's doing it.
I care that he's doing it.
So good.
I will support Bernie Sanders in his efforts to say no war with Iran.
Period.
And, you know, I care not for the virtue signaling, for the outrage, for the people saying, oh, Trump, he's a terrorist or whatever.
Shut up.
I don't care.
The presidents have always done this.
Trump is not special.
Trump is not doing anything unique.
Obama, thousands of drone strikes, George W. Bush launches the war.
I get it.
What Trump did here was a dramatic escalation targeting a military leader.
I understand that.
But I've been sitting here watching this foreign policy play out for my entire life, and I'm not convinced any of it will ever be different.
When I went on Crowder, what I said was, in my view, the office controls you.
There are intelligence agencies and there's a machine at play, and Americans are addicted to this.
They don't want—it's like there's seemingly no other course of action.
Trump may have had good intentions, but he gets into office, and then they say, here's what we have going on, and he says, well, we have troops here.
Iran then attacks us because they're tired of us being there, so then Trump says, not on my watch, and he strikes, and the next president will do the exact same thing.
So Michael Moore comes out now with, we better apologize.
Oh, I'm so happy that you posted all these messages during the Obama era.
I'm not saying, I'm not saying this because I'm excusing what Trump is doing.
I'm sick and tired of all of these people pretending like they care, but they said literally nothing when Obama was doing the exact same BS.
Okay?
So I'm sitting here criticizing the president for the escalations in the Middle East, explaining that America is addicted to war and the machine is bloodthirsty, and I will criticize Obama all day and night for the same thing like I've always done.
And you know what's really funny?
I'll end with this.
I'm not going to name the person, but they thought they were going to drag me on Twitter.
Because I tweeted a joke about Obama and drone strikes.
It was a complete thread.
And I ended the thread by pointing out an article that said Trump is increasing drone strikes.
Well, these progressives were like, you know what?
Tim will never tell you that Trump has actually increased drone strikes.
And I'm like, literally, it's in the thread like a minute apart.
Okay?
This is what these people do.
They're grifters.
They play this game, and they act like I'm the grifter, like you guys watching are the people who are being played or whatever.
No, I'll make a Twitter thread.
I'll say Obama did thousands of extrajudicial assassinations, and I'll mention that drone is up in the drone strikes too.
I will point out that Barack Obama executed American citizens, and I will point out that Donald Trump ordered a commando raid in Yemen which killed an eight-year-old little American girl.
I don't play games.
I'm sick of all the BS, and I'm sick of people like this.
So when I look to the Republicans right now and the Conservatives, and they're cheering on Trump, I believe them.
And I get it.
And I hate it.
And I look to Michael Moore, and he's a liar.
You see the problem here?
I can look into the eyes of a Trump supporter, where they say, I agree with Trump's actions.
And I say, I don't.
And they say, too bad.
I say, you're right.
And I look to these Democrats, and they're like, oh, it's, oh, I never, I can't believe Trump would do this.
B.S.
I don't want to swear, but you said nothing during Obama.
Okay?
The Republicans weren't slamming Obama for this stuff.
The Republicans weren't coming out and being like, Trump shouldn't be doing this.
No, they were saying, I'm sorry, Obama.
The Republicans back then were like, this is American policy and at least Obama is doing this right.
And they accused him of being weak.
The Republican policy position on this has been consistent.
Okay?
There are a lot of people out there where I get it, but it's been consistent.
I can see that.
I can watch it on Fox News and they're like, thank Trump for doing this.
It's always been that way.
But when it comes to the left, they're like, oh, oh, you know what, man?
This is probably the easiest way to explain it.
If you want an example of exactly what's wrong with the Democrats, it's this.
Republicans have consistently praised strong arm tactics and military intervention, for the most part.
And Democrats pretend like it's a bad thing when a Republican's in office and say nothing when the Democrat's in office because they are lying.
Okay?
I got one more video coming up for you in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I'll see you then.
Greta Thunberg, climate warrior, takes another swipe at Australia's leaders over the country's bushfire crisis.
Australia is aflame.
Massive, massive fires are sweeping across the country.
The skies are burned red.
It's really creepy and really sad and really scary.
My heart goes out to all of these people fighting these fires.
I hope everyone is okay.
There have been deaths and it's terrifying.
I'm sad it's happening.
And it's true.
Climate change is playing a role in making their fire seasons longer Making it harder to put out these fires.
So Greta Thunberg, taking a swipe at Australia's leaders because it's time to make some climate change change!
Is it true that climate change plays a role in making the fires worse?
As far as we know, the answer is yes.
Is it true that 87% or more of fires are man-made?
The answer is yes!
We know that a good portion of the fires so far were started by lightning strikes and
you know other like ground, like you know stuff falls from the trees and it builds up
and then it dries out and then it starts fires, lightning strikes, it gets really hot out.
There can be a bunch of factors which start these fires naturally.
We also know that there's arson.
It's a fact, okay?
So when I post about this, people immediately say, but Tim, why are you saying this?
It's climate change.
And I'm like, dude, I get it.
Climate change is a problem.
But you can't ignore that a good portion of this is arson.
So this is the Sydney Morning Herald.
I did have a source from the BBC I posted on Instagram.
And this one isn't rated by NewsGuard, so I try to be careful about doing this, but I want to show you a timeline, okay?
Let me read this for you.
They say, there are on average 62,000 fires in Australia every year.
Only a very small number strike far from populated areas, and satellite studies tell us that lightning is responsible for only 13%.
Uh, not so the current fires, wait what, not so the current fires threatening to engulf Queensland and New South Wales.
There were no lightning strikes on most of the days when the fires first started in September.
Although there have been since these fires joining up to create a new form of megafire, they say, although there have been since, these fires joining up to create a new form of megafire are almost all man-made.
The source I had initially, which, you know, I didn't pull it this time, I should have, whatever, was the BBC.
Saying that on any given day, I think it's 85 fires every single day are started on purpose.
Okay?
They say a 2015 satellite analysis of 113,000 fires from 1997 to 2009 confirmed what we had known for some time.
40% of fires are deliberately lit, another 47% are accidental.
This generally matches previous data published a decade earlier that about half of all fires were suspected or deliberate arson, and 37% were accidental.
Combined, they reach the same conclusion.
87% are man-made.
The cycles of the seasons are changing beyond that which can be explained by known forces, both ancient and modern.
Every lethal wildfire since 1887 has happened at the height of summer, until now.
The size of these fires has never been seen in Australia's history this side of summer, and certainly not starting as early as September.
Seasonal changes in part due to climate change on top of natural oscillations causing the drought and westerly winds have some origins in man-made emissions.
More directly, however, the source of ignition is human.
Don't take my word for it, and don't take theirs.
November 27th, BBC.
Australia bushfires.
Firefighter accused of arson in ultimate betrayal apparently starting multiple fires in Australia.
I'll tell you this.
I recognize the problems of climate change.
Greta Thunberg should shut up and back off, because we got a serious problem of evil, evil people starting fires.
I get it.
You want to fight for climate change?
I hear you.
I agree.
The problem is right now, man-made fires.
I get it!
We can talk about climate change, but right now we got a problem of literal arsonists!
Police arrested the man, 19, for seven counts of alleged arson in an area south of Sydney, New South Wales.
The fire service there described the alleged acts as the ultimate betrayal to crews already under immense strain.
Six people have died so far, and over 650 homes have been lost in bushfires which have ravaged the east coast in September, and it's only gotten worse.
This article is from November 27th.
January 4th, globalnews.ca.
I bring you now to a Canadian source.
Australia is on fire, but what's igniting the blaze?
Even this source mentions arson.
Okay?
So let me, uh... They talk about fire season, heat waves, climate change, global warming, all that stuff.
Excellent.
They say it's one of the worst drought in decades.
Yes, we can talk about climate change and droughts and how this is impacting these things.
But you need to understand that we can have an argument about climate change all day and night.
How we explain to people grand macro changes is difficult.
What we do know is according to the BBC and the Sydney Morning Herald, assuming it's a credible source, It's that humans, accidental or otherwise, are starting most of these fires, the overwhelming majority.
Look at this.
Actually, no, no, sorry.
Let me just jump to the arson point.
They say this.
Geoscience Australia, branch of the nation's government, said human activity is another factor.
In November, the New South Wales Rural Fire Service said they arrested a 19-year-old volunteer member on suspicion of arson and charged him with seven counts of deliberately setting fires over a six-week period.
Geoscience said fires originating from human activity and lightning could account for about half of all ignitions in Australia each year.
So Geoscience said fires originating from human activity and lightning strikes account for about half of all emissions in Australia every year.
That's the point.
So the other sources say it's more than that.
This one's saying about half if you combine humans with lightning strikes.
The point is arson.
has become so bad in Australia.
Check out this story.
Australia should implement a register of arsonists.
Sky News host Chris Smith has called for a register of arsonists saying the public has a right to know where they reside and what they've been convicted of.
Don't tell me an act of arson is not potentially catastrophic or deadly.
It is.
He said, Mr. Smith said, Australia is a country that suffers from drought-fueled firestorms and that a single act of arson can have incredibly destructive results.
Mr. Smith said the proposal is one worth considering when this fire season is done.
You know what?
I don't disagree.
And this is a story around the exact same time.
When these arsonists are lighting fires, when Australia is already vulnerable to a massive drought, to an expanding fire season, to climate change related problems, the point is, when you see these stories and people show you the severity of this, look at this, police say fire bugs will be put to court.
If it weren't for the arsonists, you wouldn't be seeing these things.
So I wonder why they're doing it.
I don't know why.
Perhaps there's a light at the end of the tunnel in that because the arson has become so bad, people might wake up to the serious problems of expanding droughts and maybe climate change, whatever, I don't know.
But I will tell you this.
This news cycle is not about climate change.
I know climate change activists will get mad at me for saying this.
No, this... It reminds me almost of Rorschach, right?
What's more important?
Telling people the truth or tricking them to force them into taking some political action.
If arson is driving the fires, and the media knows it, but the media keeps playing it up like it's climate change, and then Greta Thunberg steps up and says, how dare you, to Australia, when the real issue is that the bulk of these fires is being caused by arsonists.
I believe we're headed towards a very, very bad future.
I do not believe in building a world based on lies.
They say the ends justify the means.
That's not true because you will never meet the ends.
So you have these activists, you have these people who think you can trick someone into policy because ultimately things will get better, but then you create a world where everything's built upon lies and no one knows what's going on anymore and we can't actually solve the problems when you convince people that arson is climate change.
Now you get Greta Thunberg jumping on for political brownie points and I'm disgusted.
These activists don't actually care about what's going on.
They don't care about the truth.
They don't care about what's actually happening with these fires.
Take a look at California.
A good portion of fires are exacerbated by mismanagement.
Look, a certain degree of fires are natural.
When the leaves and the twigs fall and create this ground brush and it dries up, fires start.
And because we work really hard to prevent fires, we end up with extremely severe fires.
It is true.
That the severity of fires can also be exacerbated by the fact that we prevent them.
It's a sad reality.
And we need forest management to prevent fires properly so that the brush doesn't build up and create megafires.
I also think it's fair to say that climate change plays a role in expanding the fire season and contributing to droughts.
Okay?
I go by what the science says.
But it's frustrating me when the left pretends that these issues don't take place and uses it.
Greta Thunberg, in my opinion, is an opportunist.
She has no idea what she's talking about.
She's angry and yelling all the time.
She scowls at people.
And she's just a tool for political individuals who think they're doing the right thing.
But the ends do not justify the means.
Australia is on fire and the summer there has only just begun, she wrote.
Yes.
Perhaps you should bow out unless you want to talk about this because meanwhile in Australia, even they are saying arsonists need to be brought to justice.
Again.
We can talk about climate change.
But if you ignore the threat of arson, and you ignore the threat of the real man-made fires, people deliberately or accidentally starting them, then you're not going to actually solve the problems.
Because you will create all of the rules in the world and say, we've done it!
We've stopped climate change!
Oh, but the fires are still here!
I wonder why that could be?
Because people are setting them.
You know what, man?
It is what it is.
I'm sorry for being a little angry in these last couple segments, but I'll try and light things up.
We're doing a new show and we're getting ramped up.
Ordered a bunch of new equipment.
Got the basement all ready to go.
Inspections got to be done.
I am excited for this good news.
So I'll leave it there.
I don't know, man.
It's tough to try and solve these problems.
Everybody's got, like, a little bit, a small piece of the puzzle.
But these sensationalists, these political people who want to weaponize it for virtue signaling brownie points, they make it worse.
I'll see you all tomorrow at 10 a.m., podcast at 6.30.
