Ricky Gervais BACKLASH Exposes The Media's Leftist Bias, They're Calling Him Right Wing
Ricky Gervais BACKLASH Exposes The Media's Leftist Bias, They're Calling Him Right Wing. Ricky Gervais jokingly snapped back asking how it could be right wing to target the world's most privileged people and major corporations.After his viral monologue many personalities on social media and in articles called him right wing or a right wing hero, they said he was pushing right wing talking points.THe reality is that the establishment left is dominated by super wealthy elites pretending to be woke leftists and major corporations that put on a thin veneer of progressivism in order to pander to the left.By challenging that they are trying to discredit him.But we can also see the bias exposed by satire website Babylon Bee which gets targeted fairly frequently by media who claims they don't do enough to show they are a satirical website. In reality neither does The Onion or Clickhole but no one seems to smear them the same way.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Ricky Gervais hosting the Golden Globes was an epic sight to behold.
We all felt really good.
Not just conservatives, but people who feel like the Hollywood liberal elites don't represent us.
They talk down to us.
They're condescending uber elites with tons of money who have no idea how the real world works.
And that's basically what Ricky Gervais said.
So many of us at home gave him a standing ovation, while others in the audience at the performance winced and cringed and were not too happy.
Afterwards, many people started smearing Ricky Gervais.
They started calling him right-wing, but I must admit...
A lot of the backlash hasn't come from major media organizations, it's come from people on social media.
It seems like a lot of the media, not all, there's been smears, I'm going to show you this, but some, or at least a good portion, have kept their mouths shut, and for good reason.
Ricky Gervais was calling them out too.
There's something interesting that we got from Ricky Gervais' performance outside of the fact that he just railed into these people.
It's exposing the bias of the media.
Now, I know most of us know the media is biased.
But right-wing comedy exposes just how biased it is.
And I'm going to prove it to you.
See, it's not just about Ricky Gervais.
I wanted to follow up, as everyone started calling him right-wing, for daring to call out corporations.
But it's also about the satirical website Babylon Bee, who does similar things in politics and gets attacked relentlessly while left-wing comedy never does.
When do people come out and target these celebrities and smear them in the press because they criticize oil companies?
No, they don't care.
Everyone agrees.
But when Ricky Gervais calls out Apple, he's right-wing.
Take a look at this story.
Ricky Gervais, right-wing hero from the Atlantic.
They say the backlash against Ricky Gervais' performance at the Golden Globes is still going strong, but the British Comedians Act has won over one hard-to-reach constituency—Hollywood-hating conservatives.
They have many more stories on this, but I want to point something out to you.
You see, some of you may have already caught this if you're watching this video.
I tricked you.
Let me refresh this story.
And you can see now the date reappears.
January 19th, 2011.
When Ricky Gervais called out bad movies, they called him right-wing.
Ricky Gervais' performance in 2011 was not as political as it was the other day, yet they still smeared him.
Because when you insult their corporations, for some reason, you're right-wing.
How weird is that?
I wanted to point this out as we now go into Ricky Gervais' actual reaction to being called right-wing, today, with a new story.
Ricky Gervais laughs off Golden Globe's backlash, stands by, quote, teasing huge corporations and most privileged people in the world.
He actually said, how, he said, how is it right-wing to do this?
But it is.
Let's get into it.
Before we get started, however, head over to simcast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's several ways to give.
But the best thing you should do, subscribe to my new channel.
I know there's not much there right now.
But go to YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL because a new show will be emerging soon.
In the next coming weeks, I'm going to be doing a more guest-driven and general interest podcast show.
I'll be dramatically increasing the amount of content I'm producing, probably up to like three hours per day, assuming I can talk that much.
We'll see what happens.
But YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Subscribe and get ready.
Maybe I shouldn't even tell you to do it.
I'll just do it.
Whatever.
Let's get back to the news.
So, many people in the media have accused Ricky Gervais.
Notably, this guy Mark Harris said, Here's my Ricky Gervais problem.
The idea that celebrities are not only pampered babies but hypocrites who cause the problems they make speeches deploring and should therefore shut up and act, sing, be grateful is a right-wing talking point and especially stupid one.
No, we really did need Ricky Gervais there.
the Golden Globes mood was already sober thanks to impeachment, thought of war,
Iran and Australian bushfires. The last thing anyone needed was Ricky Gervais
there telling them they sucked. No, we really did need Ricky Gervais there.
But I want to point out, there's another article from the Washington Post saying
nobody cares and while I did mention this in my video segment yesterday on my
second channel, I want to reiterate for those that missed it, when they say this
that no one cares, they're referring to themselves.
They're referring to their bubble of liberal elites living in an ivory tower, looking around the room at all the wealthy individuals shrugging and saying, nobody even cares Ricky Gervais said this!
He must be right-wing!
Because they haven't looked out the window and looked down.
And if you, in the ivory tower, look down, what will you see?
The peasants are celebrating.
First, let me show you Ricky Gervais' tweet.
He said, But I got news for you, Hollywood!
teasing huge corporations and the richest, most privileged people in the world be considered
right-wing, especially when even the Bernie Sanders subreddit was posting his monologue
and cheering him on for calling out sweatshops and for insulting the uber-wealthy elites
who condescend.
But I got news for you, Hollywood.
Look at the YouTube video.
Ricky Gervais, as of this morning, two days later, is still the number one trend on YouTube
with 7.7 million views in just over 24 hours.
So you want to act like nobody cares?
You got another thing coming.
But Ricky Gervais is being smeared as right-wing for this.
And I think what this does, it does us a favor.
It exposes the bias in media.
Why is it that if Ricky Gervais calls out Apple, they're like, that's right-wing?
Yet when they go up on stage and call out other corporations, that's left-wing?
Why?
Because Apple, for some reason, I guess, you know, Tim Cook does a speech about hate speech and all of a sudden now everything they do will be left-wing because left-wing is about tribalism, not about policy positions or principle?
Ricky Gervais called it out.
He called it out a long time ago.
So I want to show you a couple stories.
And then I want to explain why Ricky Gervais is right-wing.
Ricky Gervais mocks right-wing label over ridiculing world's most privileged at Golden Globes.
This I'm showing you because from the Washington Times, a more conservative outlet.
They say Sunday's Golden Globe host has left-wing outlets none too thrilled with his decision to roast Hollywood's elite corporations like Apple and Amazon and the friends of Jeffrey Epstein.
How the F can teasing huge corporations and the richest, most privileged people in the world be considered right wing?
Mr. Gervais wrote to his nearly 14 million Twitter followers.
And I can actually explain it very simply.
First, This story I've highlighted a couple times in the past few weeks, from June 3rd, 2016, at Vox.com, a progressive website.
Democrats are replacing Republicans as the preferred party of the very wealthy.
Perhaps you should have realized, Ricky, that the Democratic Party, the tribal left, is just all of the rich people.
Many of the never-Trumpers who have joined in voting for Clinton, or joined voting for Clinton in 2016, were the wealthy elite Republicans.
The people who joined Trump were the populist Republicans and independent voters and former Obama voters.
Even Bernie Sanders supporters are calling out the media and the Democrats and the press.
Stands to reason right now.
The big corporations, the crony capitalists, the Goldman Sachs types, that's the new left.
They're the ones claiming that private businesses can do whatever they want.
And it's left me, as someone who's always been kind on the left, in the middle, as politically homeless.
Here's a story from the LA Times, arguing about censorship, social media, and conservatives.
They say, Uh, no.
The courts have repeatedly ruled that social media platforms like Facebook and Google are free to make their own rules on what speech to allow and what speech to block because they are private companies, not government actors, subject to the First Amendment anti-censorship rules.
They go on to talk about all this stupid nonsense that never had anything to do with any of the arguments from people fighting big tech censorship.
It is a bit ironic, I guess, to see many conservatives call out Google and Twitter and Facebook when it's typically been the conservatives saying, you know, private companies, you know, we should deregulate and private companies can do what they want.
But like I said, this is the populist versus elitist era.
It's not so much left versus right anymore, at least in many different battles.
So many of these more elitist papers, like the LA Times, misframed the argument, saying, it's a private company.
They can ban whoever they want.
The rules that they've employed do not make them, you know, violating the First Amendment or free speech.
First of all, many of these adults have accurately pointed out, yes, they are not violating the First Amendment, because the First Amendment specifically refers to the government's ability to restrict speech.
But none of us have talked about that.
We were talking about—well, I mean, some people probably did.
But I mean, like, most people are talking about the concept, the principle of free speech.
The First Amendment protects many different rights.
It restricts the government from infringing upon them.
And free speech is but one.
So it was always strange to me to see the modern left and the media defend private corporations and the ultra-wealthy.
How is that left wing anymore?
I don't know.
But when Ricky Gervais calls it out, what do they say?
You're right wing.
It's really weird, isn't it?
The main point I bring up with the private company argument is that the left has always been in favor of regulating companies.
When companies grow too large and start implementing, you know, restrictions or policies or actions that are a detriment to our society, we take action to regulate that to prevent bad behavior.
But the left today doesn't argue that.
The left today argues that private companies can do whatever they want.
And to me, it literally makes no sense.
But there's another story I want to get to in here.
Because it's not just Ricky Gervais who exposes this being called right-wing.
It's the Babylon Bee.
Many of you are probably familiar with the Babylon Bee because they're hilarious and they have many viral hits.
They do satire, religious satire, and political satire.
Well, for the longest time there's been an attempt to smear Babylon Bee as fake news.
There have been websites like Snopes saying that Babylon Bee is purposefully trying to trick people and they don't label their content and here we are again.
They do the same thing.
And now I'm going to show you how comedy like Ricky Gervais and Babylon Bee proves The media is biased against you.
First, let me show you this tweet.
This is from a former CIA analyst.
Not somebody in the media, so who cares, right?
Well, let's read.
She writes, a post from a satirical website has been shared more than 500,000 times saying that the DNC called for the flag to be at half-mast because of Soleimani.
Some family members just called because they're Republican friends on FB are circulating it like it's legit.
We have a lot of work to do.
She links to Donnie O'Sullivan.
Donnie O'Sullivan is a reporter for CNN.
Now, CNN certainly is unbiased, right?
What if I said Babylon Bee and their reporters have walked right into a trap and are being exposed now?
Now listen, we know CNN is the Orange Man bad channel.
It's like the only thing they talk about.
So I don't think we need anybody to tell us they're biased.
But perhaps this could provide a bit more evidence that maybe could swing some naysayers who don't believe the media really is biased.
Let me show you the proof.
Donny O'Sullivan says, To put this in perspective, this is the same number of engagements the top New York Times and CNN stories on Facebook had over the past week.
A lot of people sharing this quote, satirical story on Facebook don't know it's satire.
Having a disclaimer buried somewhere on your site that says it's satire seems like a good way to get around a lot of the changes Facebook has made to reduce the spread of clickbait and misinformation.
The data I pulled on Facebook engagements is from BuzzSumo, by the way.
Some of the comments left by Facebook users sharing the link?
Half flag for Suleimani, seriously.
I wish this was a joke.
I wish this was satire.
He then links to a story.
Satire or deceit?
Christian humor site feuds with Snopes from the New York Times.
That's right.
And here's the story.
Snopes, the fact-checking site, was fact-checking the Babylon Bee because of stories that to most people were completely absurd and obvious jokes.
But you might say, Tim, some people still fell for this stuff.
So isn't it fair that they're going to point it out?
Sure.
Let me show you the Babylon Bee.
Here's the Babylon Bee website.
And trust me, I'm getting to the proof of the media lies.
Now, I use a third-party fact-checking site you've heard me cite it many, many times called NewsGuard.
I believe NewsGuard is subject to many of the same biases as these big media companies because they employ many of the same journalists, but they do a decent job.
More importantly, I would say I'd give them a 7 out of 10.
You know, I don't like how they are biased, but They do.
They are substantially more fair than many in the media.
For the Babylon Bee, they don't give it a fake news.
They give it a little smiley face.
This is a satire or humor website.
It's not an actual news source.
It publishes false news aimed at American Christian conservatives.
That's literally a fact.
But they give it a smiley face, not a fake news.
Here's what I want to do.
Let's click this site, this article.
I don't care for the story, but let me explain something.
The story they've posted says, United Methodist Church to split over whether or not to be Christians.
I'm going to do a search for the word satire and nothing comes up.
So perhaps CNN was right.
They're not labeling any of their stories as satire.
This is an outrage and CNN must report on this.
Well, according to NewsGuard's rating, they say that yes, many people have fallen for fake news.
Snopes drew widespread criticism for debunking a B-story titled, CNN Purchases Industrial-Sized Washing Machine to Spin News Before Publication.
Which reported that the network bought the machine to help journalists spin the news before it was published.
Saying, although it should have been obvious that the Babylon Bee was just a spoof of the ongoing political brouhaha over alleged news bias and fake news, some readers missed that aspect of the article and interpreted it literally.
Is that a joke?
Snopes flagged the story as false to Facebook, which hindered the Babylon Bee's ability to share posts on Facebook.
Facebook later said the story should have been initially rated as satire.
Snopes actually got a satire website deranked for making a story about a washing machine spinning news.
Is it serious?
You'd think that was satire.
No.
So, okay, let's go back.
CNN says they're not even saying it's satire.
I mean, you know, people are going to fall for it, man.
That's so strange that nobody ever says the same thing about The Onion.
Once again, we see the media for what it is.
The Onion wrote this story back in 2002.
I've chosen this story specifically for a reason.
Congress threatens to leave D.C.
unless new capital is built from May 29, 2002.
It's a really, really old story.
Nowhere in the story does the word satire or satirical appear.
They don't label it as satire anywhere.
It's just politics.theonion.
The reason I highlight this is because NewsGuard notes China fell for it.
The Beijing Evening News based a news article on the piece, titled Congress Threatens to Leave D.C.
Unless New Capitals Built, they didn't know it was fake either.
My response to people who can't tell the difference between obvious jokes about a washing machine spinning news or Congress threatening to leave Washington D.C.
is too bad.
If you can't tell what a joke is, it's not our fault.
We can't make sure everyone is smart.
You know what George Carlin said?
Think about how stupid the average person is.
Now realize half of them are stupider than that.
And we have a problem.
But what are you going to do about it?
Are you going to put big bold letters on everything?
Now you may be saying, Tim, you're wrong.
The Onion should be labeling their content as satire as well.
Just because Babylon Bee doesn't do it doesn't mean The Onion gets a free pass.
Okay, so I can point out the media slams and smears The Babylon Bee, and doesn't slam and
smear The Onion, and The Onion is owned by the Gizmodo whatever network, and I think
that shows bias.
But fine.
Perhaps you will come out and say, Nope, I think The Onion should label their content as well.
Tim, I think these organizations have to be careful because people might believe the content is real.
Is that your argument?
Your argument is that you're not going to give the onion a free pass?
Well, now I bring you to the nail in the coffin.
Clickhole.com.
Now, Clickhole is made by the same people as the onion.
It's owned by the same network.
Here's a story.
I just clicked it.
It's from a few months ago.
I don't even know.
Animal rights win.
KFC has announced that they will now serve their chickens alive.
Let's do a search for the word satire.
No!
Satirical- No, it doesn't appear anywhere.
The story presumes- is presumably true.
Now, I think any sane, reasonable person would recognize that this story is completely false.
KFC is not giving out live chickens to people to deal with themselves.
It's absurd.
But I'm sorry, it's also absurd that CNN would put a washing machine in their studio and put- Intangible concepts into it to spin around in circles literally makes no sense.
So I think it's fair to argue that ClickHole also has done nothing to show these aren't real news stories.
But again, you might be saying, Tim, listen, ClickHole should also label their content as satire.
But let me now show you the proof in the pudding.
They smear the Babylon Bee relentlessly.
Relentlessly.
Here's what NewsGuard says, a satirical news website that publishes deliberately false content to mock clickbait websites.
It was created by the team at The Onion.
They say this, clickhole.com's stated goal is to, quote, make sure that all of our content panders to and misleads our readers just enough to make it go viral.
The site also warns visitors at the bottom of its homepage that ClickHole uses invented names in all of its stories, except in cases where public figures are being satirized.
Any other use of real names is accidental or coincidental.
In addition, the site says it is not intended for readers under 18 years of age.
However, There have been instances of ClickHole.com content being mistaken for actual news stories.
In 2014, the Washington Post gathered responses of Twitter users earnestly reacting to ClickHole articles.
In response to a ClickHole article headlined, We took an Israeli child and a Palestinian child and put them together in the same room and we're going to keep them.
The point is, ClickHole says their goal, literal goal, is to make fake news that goes viral.
Yet, the media hasn't ever slammed them, or I should say, for the most part.
We don't see the same level of ire against clickhole that we do for Babylon Bee.
And again, I'll go back.
I'll be fair.
You may be saying, Tim, but, you know, the story about half-masks and the Democrats seems like it's based in reality.
I don't think that's an argument because you're presuming what people might expect to be true or not, and that story seems completely ridiculous to me.
It's also the fact that Snopes debunked a story that claimed CNN bought a washing machine, you know, for clothes and put intangible concepts in it so that it could be spun for political reasons.
It quite literally isn't physically possible.
People thought it was real and they smeared the Babylon Bee because of it.
So let me wrap this up.
With Ricky Gervais being smeared as right-wing, and with the media like CNN and Snopes coming after right-wing satire sites, but ignoring the same left-wing mockery of Republicans, and ignoring the left-wing digital sites that do the same thing, have been accused of the same thing, and even a site that says they're intentionally trying to push fake stories to go viral.
I think it's plain to see that when you challenge the wealthy elites, the Hollywood liberal elites, these major corporations and these progressive ideologues, the media is biased against you because that's their tribe.
And so I'll leave you with this.
The Washington Post ran a story a couple days ago, the night of the Golden Globes, saying Ricky Gervais did these things, but who cares?
No one cared.
Nobody cared.
The reason they say nobody cared is because when they look around their ivory tower room at all of their super wealthy liberal elites, nobody did care.
And he's like, I don't even know.
I don't even see anybody caring.
They look at their Twitter feeds of liberal elites.
Nobody says anything.
They say, huh, nobody cared because they failed to look down at the peasant revolt that's been going on for the past several years that got Donald Trump elected and nearly almost got Bernie Sanders elected.
But the Democrats are still facing it today.
So I'll tell you this.
Comedy is great.
They call Joe Rogan right-wing.
Seriously, they do.
They're now calling Ricky Gervais right-wing.
Well, they called him right-wing before.
The fact is, the establishment has a left-wing bias.
The media has a left-wing bias.
It's a fact.
And hopefully this provided enough evidence to at least convince you to start researching more on your own to see they really do.
I'm not saying this to defend right-wing ideas.
I don't think Babylon Bee is pushing right-wing ideas necessarily, other than they're making jokes, and the jokes are funny.
If you can't laugh at yourself, well then you got serious issues, dude.
Trump supporters have learned this a long time ago.
Donald Trump is very self-deprecating when he does his rallies, and his supporters love it.
Yet on the left, they take offense to any joke.
Not all people on the left, not every single person.
Ricky Gervais is on the left.
But look how they reacted to him making fun of them.
They wince, they scowl, they call him right-wing.
Because they can't handle it.
Well, get out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
It is a different channel, and I will see you all then.
A few years ago, there was an article in the mainstream media asking whether or not California is a failed state.
They are facing a series of major emergencies, including homelessness, drug abuse, just general dumps and filth in major urban areas.
The state has some serious, serious problems.
And of course, conservatives say it's failed liberal policies that are pushing this.
Certainly, there are many people who agree outside of the political space, including police officers and many people who deal with literal policy and are looking at what's going on.
You can see that the state has a Democratic, for the most part, supermajority in many areas, resulting in stagnation.
That was actually the opinion of a New York Times progressive.
We now see a California exodus.
More people moving out of the state than for the first time since 2010.
People are leaving the state.
It is riddled with problems.
And that brings me to today's lead.
Michael Bloomberg sees California as model on climate change and guns.
His plan?
Export it.
It may be the most insane thing I have ever heard.
California has so many problems, the last thing we want to do is take those policies and expand them to the rest of the country.
But it seems Michael Bloomberg does.
Now, let me stop you.
You may be saying, oh, Bloomberg, who cares?
I don't care about Bloomberg.
He's nobody.
He's in third place.
Did you know that?
Did you know that Michael Bloomberg is now in third place?
Did you know that he's spent over a hundred million dollars?
I recently talked to a local near my house and they said the only ads they see are for Steyer and Bloomberg because they're wealthy and they're dumping money into ads like crazy.
If you think Bloomberg isn't going to win or that he can't win, you got nothing coming.
Bloomberg may become the nominee because he's just got so much money he's shutting all the other Democrats out.
I don't think he can beat Trump.
But in the event that he does, maybe it'll happen, he is going to take the failed policies of California and he's going to expand that and export it to the rest of the country.
So I certainly hope you're paying attention.
I want to read for you some of the stories and then I want to show you a new report from Fox News where they have a police lieutenant saying it is the leftist policy, these liberal prosecutors that are causing this problem and Michael Bloomberg is praising the criminal reforms they've made.
So as somebody who's actually worked in the homelessness crisis in California, I want to share with you what I think is going on and how California is making everything worse.
Before we get started, you can head over to TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
There's several different ways you can give, but the best thing you can do... I got a new show coming!
The studio is nearing completion.
They've finished the basement.
I'm waiting for the inspectors.
Go to youtube.com slash TimCastIRL for a new show that's going to be coming up in the next few weeks.
I've got some excellent guests prepared.
And there's going to be a lot of segments that are just not the most important news stories in the world.
It's going to be more about, like, ideas and smaller news stories and funny happenings.
But I will be dramatically increasing my production.
Let's start with what Bloomberg is doing and we'll come back to the exodus.
And I want to talk about the problems California has like disease, drugs, etc.
Michael Bloomberg's plan for California?
Export it, according to the Star Tribune.
They say the Democratic presidential candidate and former New York City mayor likes a lot of what he sees in the Golden State and thinks its efforts on climate change, gun control, and criminal justice reform set a benchmark for other states to emulate, saying, quote, I think that California can serve as a great example for the rest of this country, he told supporters at the opening of his L.A.
campaign office.
Yes, there are problems, including homelessness, struggling public schools, and scarce, costly housing.
But California is something the rest of the country looks up to.
No, they don't.
You're nuts.
California has been a leader in an awful lot of things.
You know, in the past, I'd say people looked up to California.
It was my dream when I was younger to move out to California, and I did, and then I left because I was like, that was all a lie.
California loves pushing this narrative of Hollywood dreams because they want you to come there and give up your money, but you'll never be a star.
You'll never be wealthy or famous.
The last place you want to go is California.
It is a mess.
And I learned that firsthand.
But more importantly, as I showed you, I opened this video by explaining People are leaving California in large numbers.
They have some of the worst domestic migration than many other states.
Now, they do see a small growth, for sure.
They're not in decline like many other states are, but they do have massive migration out of the state, which says to me people are not...
They're not really looking up to California anymore, for the most part.
I mean, it's an opinion.
Maybe there's some data showing it could be the case.
But I think you've got to be nuts to look at all of the problems that California is facing.
Let me tell you something.
You know how your city has, like, a fire department?
A police department?
You know, you see ambulances?
Yeah, you've got public services, right?
That makes sense.
What if I told you that in San Francisco, one of the public services was to clean up human waste off of the streets?
Called the Poop Patrol.
I'm not kidding.
Could you imagine if your town had to pay for a poop department?
That's what San Francisco has, and apparently they need to expand it.
That's how bad things are getting.
So when when Bloomberg says criminal justice reform, oh, let me tell you, Fox News has a new report where they actually talk to the police about what's causing these problems.
And what do they say?
Liberal prosecutors.
You see, here's what happens when you have one party control.
In California, for the most part, it's blue across the board.
A lot of these cities have their Basically, Democratic supermajorities.
So no one has to compete.
Because no matter what happens, Democrat wins.
And that means there's no market competition in the political space.
No one has to fulfill any promises.
Nobody cares.
No competition.
Let's read a little bit more.
Bloomberg says, yes, there's these problems.
His comments marked a sharp departure from views of Donald Trump, whose administration has been in a long-running feud with the nation's most populous state over issues from environmental protection to homelessness.
Trump called California a disgrace last year, shortly after its Democratic-controlled legislature passed a bill that would have required presidential candidates to release their tax returns to get on the 2020 ballot, a proposal aimed squarely at the president.
It was later voided in court.
They say Bloomberg's visit came as part of a swing through a state that he sees as central to his hopes of winning the White House.
After a late entry into the race, Bloomberg is bypassing the first four primary and caucus states, and is anchoring his strategy to California and other Super Tuesday states on March 3rd.
His TV ads have been appearing routinely on television, Attempting to connect with voters who might know little or nothing about the billionaire businessman.
The political moderate argued that Trump has divided Americans while he can unite them.
And that as Washington languishes in gridlock, he has a record of accomplishment as mayor.
Among the crowd was L.A.
investor Mike Connolly, who said he feared the Democratic Party was drifting too far to the political left and was drawn to Bloomberg's fiscally conservative, socially liberal blueprint.
Right now, what does it mean to be fiscally conservative?
It basically means you don't want far-left policies.
I can respect that.
But what does it mean to be socially liberal?
Michael Bloomberg likely is not.
an independent who voted for Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
Let me tell you something.
Right now, what does it mean to be fiscally conservative?
It basically means you don't want far left policies.
I can respect that.
But what does it mean to be socially liberal?
Michael Bloomberg likely is not.
I mean I guess if he's praising California, he probably is.
So am I super concerned about the far left in terms of them wanting socialism?
A bit, yes.
Am I concerned about the far left cultural issues like letting people roam the streets doing really gross and awful things and then not solving those problems?
I'm also concerned with that, yes.
And Bloomberg is no better.
Sure, he's a moderate on financial policy, But not on cultural issues.
And that brings me to... Well, let me start with this.
The threat of Michael Bloomberg.
Do not dismiss this man outright.
Michael Bloomberg has spent a staggering $100 million on campaign ads in a month.
You know what?
Most people don't care about the guy.
They really do not care.
And I feel like, you know, you're underestimating this extremely wealthy man who is shutting out all the other candidates.
He doesn't have the same base, the same viral push, but he can manipulate the passive Democratic voters.
And now we see this.
Bloomberg surges into third place tie from January 4th.
Yeah, a guy you probably didn't care about and didn't think was going anywhere is now tied for third place according to HillHarrisX.
They say this.
His six-point surge to 11% ties him with Elizabeth Warren, and it comes amid nearly doubling the ad
spending of his next closest candidate at $155.3 million.
Former Vice President Joe Biden still holds a commanding lead at 28%.
So Bloomberg's probably not going to win.
I don't know.
They say his rise coincided with a four-point fall for Pete Buttigieg.
But the dude has clearly spiked.
And this guy's got the money to do it.
But now let me show you this story.
Let's talk about his plan for exporting California.
Fox News has the report.
San Francisco police lieutenant.
Liberal prosecutors responsible for chaos disorder on city streets.
They basically say in a new report that Tucker Carlson's... I don't know if it's like, say, he's working on it, but, you know, Fox News.
Showing that they no longer arrest people.
Everything's just a warning or a citation.
So there's no more concern.
There was a story a while ago that I read on my second channel that in San Francisco, if you steal or damage something under $950, they don't do anything about it.
So people know they can go into stores, look at the price and say, 800 bucks, take it.
You're never going to get in trouble.
So what's happened?
People have been incentivized to actually start committing these crimes.
It's kind of funny because it's the reverse.
Of broken windows policy.
You know, Michael Bloomberg has apologized for stop and frisk.
Oh, it was a mistake, right?
Stop and frisk was this policy in New York where they stopped and frisked random people and they tried to find, you know, contraband.
It was widely panned and criticized by the left as being racist.
Well, this was a part of what's called broken window policing.
This is an idea that goes back, I think, to the 80s.
The idea is this.
If there's a building with one broken window, then most people won't care if another window breaks because the building is cruddy.
It's similar to litter.
If you're in a room or you're out in the street and you see litter on the ground, you're more likely to litter.
So the idea was, if we could shut down the lightest level of crime All other crimes would start to evaporate.
If you get strict on jaywalking, you'll see less muggings.
That's the general idea.
Now we're seeing San Francisco kind of do the opposite.
Now this is not me defending broken windows, because as far as I know, it didn't work.
But I will tell you this.
If you start telling people we won't punish any crimes at a certain level, then don't be surprised when those crimes start spiking.
And don't be surprised when the police blame you!
Could you imagine if this was exported nationwide?
Is this the criminal justice reform that Michael Bloomberg thinks we need in the United States?
I certainly hope not.
Fox News says, Police Lieutenant Tracy McRae says the city's left-wing prosecutors are to blame for rising crime and disorder.
They make the decision whether criminal cases will get charged or not, and most of the time it's like, nope, not charged, nope, not charged, McRae said during an exclusive interview with Tucker Carlson tonight.
According to the FBI, San Francisco has the highest per capita rate of property crimes among America's 20 most populous cities.
Violent crime in the city's mass transit system has more than doubled between 2014 and 2018.
According to a tracker published by the San Francisco Chronicle, an average of 66 smash-and-grab car thefts were reported each day in December.
Many more go unreported.
Quote, our car windows got busted, McRae said.
I didn't bother making a report.
Just ask anybody, you know it, we feel it.
Crime is really out of control, says City Journal contributor Erica Sandberg, who lives in San Francisco and has reported extensively on the city's deteriorating street conditions.
Whether it's property crime or even violent crime, it's scary.
This is the gun, this is the criminal reform that Michael Bloomberg thinks is a good idea?
So let me explain something to you as someone who's worked on these homelessness issues and has worked with activists.
They have this mentality that, for one, let me point out the correct position that leftists actually have.
They say if someone's sleeping on the street, they can't be arrested for that.
They can be told to move, but so long as they're not blocking the street, they're allowed to be there.
That's correct.
This is liberty, I'm sorry.
You can't arrest someone for just sleeping on the sidewalk if they're not obstructing it.
But the left also has this view that every single person who is downtrodden is simply a victim of some kind of oppression.
And so when it comes to actually arresting and charging people, they say, err on the side of, you know, let's not, you know, let's recognize their victimhood status.
Oh, these poor homeless people.
Many of these homeless people are in fact poor homeless people.
Like, we really want to help them.
I know, I worked on this.
And I'm really angry with California for not doing right by some of these refugees who have lost their homes due to wildfires.
I think we can do a better job.
The problem is, they're just placating their voter base by saying, Look how much I care.
It is unfair that these victims be arrested and jailed.
It makes their lives harder.
Therefore, we're no longer going to prosecute anybody who's publicly doing drugs or, you know, stealing things under a certain amount of money.
To me, that's insane.
I think what we need are laws, but we need human, you know, implementation of these laws.
The problem isn't that we're jailing people who are committing, you know, nonviolent offenses for the most part.
Like, and what I mean by that is these people who are, you know, doing wasteful business, like doing their stuff in the middle of the street.
Yes, you arrest them, okay?
You don't destroy their lives.
You say you can't do this.
It's illegal.
The people who are doing drugs in public, you say you can't do this.
The people who are stealing things under a thousand dollars, you say you can't do this.
You arrest them.
But, The issue is sometimes people are victims, sometimes people are downtrodden, and then it's the decision of the arresting officers to determine whether or not they're going to now let them, you know, stay in a jail cell until a court date, or to say this particular individual is one of these cases.
What's happening is, these prosecutors are taking a more left-wing approach, likely in my opinion, because they're scared of being accused of being bigots or something by the overly progressive place they live.
In which case, you get people saying, I want to get re-elected as a prosecutor, so I'm not going to prosecute because they will pull up my numbers and accuse me of being, I don't know, bigoted or racist.
What ends up happening, then the street becomes littered with waste, and then for some reason, people like Bloomberg go, I think it would be a good idea to push this to the rest of the country.
Sorry, I happen to think that's a really, really bad idea.
This story from the Daily, uh, this commentary from the Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson says, in San Francisco, civilization itself is coming apart, and I've certainly talked about the problems California is facing.
But what do you think California's going to do about it?
Do you think they're going to, I don't know, actually start recognizing you do need sometimes to arrest these people who are doing their business in the streets and who are committing crimes?
This is what Michael Bloomberg thinks the rest of the country should have.
California Democrats want their own Green New Deal to fight homelessness and climate change.
They've created the problem by refusing to prosecute the low-tier crime, refusing to arrest people.
And again, I understand some people are in dire straits and need mental health, you know, checkups and support.
Some people just don't care and want to commit crimes.
Now, instead of recognizing their faults, what do they say?
We couldn't solve the problem.
Or, I'm sorry, they say, look at this big problem affecting us.
Here's the solution.
Major government overhaul.
A green new deal.
And what do they say?
For equity.
That's what they say they're fighting for.
Let me read.
Under the banner of a so-called California Green New Deal, liberal state lawmakers on Monday unveiled sweeping new goals to reduce homelessness, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and improve living standards in poor communities within 10 years.
Their bill does not yet include any specifics about how they want the state to reach those goals or how they'd pay for it.
Among other things, the plan aims to hasten the state's compliance with targets that are already in place under California law to wean the state of fossil fuels.
Assemblyman Rob Bonta of Alameda said his legislation will grow to become more meaningful as it moves through the legislature.
He expects it to include concrete goals that would require Newsom's signature.
They say it's ambitious and all this stuff.
The name of the plan is modeled after AOCs.
They say, same name, same pillars addressing climate change as we promote equity.
But this is California's Green New Deal, so it's different.
Basically...
They have this problem created by leftist policy, at least according to the police, and their solution is to go further left and give the government more control.
I'm sorry, man.
If you were a moderate in 2008, you are no longer whatever this is.
Because all they're doing is just pushing forward further and further and further without ever reflecting on what's causing the problems in the first place.
At a certain point, you have to recognize that where the left was 10 years ago is not where the left is today.
And I've had conversations with people, and they say, Tim, you know, when you rag on Democrats, like, I'm a Democrat.
And I say, OK, how do you feel about California?
Oh, man, California's got serious problems.
Well, that's Democrats, dude.
So listen, the way I've been described, the way people describe me is politically homeless.
That's it.
We're not, whatever this is, California's nuts.
Michael Bloomberg is supposed to be the moderate, but he wants this policy for the rest of the country?
Get out of here, man, you're nuts.
Rest assured, California will ban flavored vaping, and they're gonna ban a statewide ban on gas-powered gardening equipment, sure, whatever, but are they gonna actually deal with the problems that their state is facing?
Well, they claim to, but all they're doing is doubling down, and to me that's absolutely insane.
Listen to what your police are saying.
You're having people commit crimes, and you're telling them, don't worry, you'll be fine, we're not going to charge you with anything.
In one of the interviews, the cop, they're asked, what if someone does their business in the street?
Citation?
What if they do drugs?
Citation?
What if they, you know, have a weapon?
Seriously, just a citation.
Stop asking.
Here's the thing.
When a homeless person or a broke person commits a crime and you give them a citation, they laugh because they can't pay it anyway.
So California continually thinks that Everyone is a victim of oppression, and they push this equity narrative, and their response to the growing crisis, which is their fault, because they can't pass actual housing bills for the life of them, they say, you know what?
We need a Green New Deal.
Guaranteed state jobs, healthcare for non-citizens, we're not going to deal with the homeless crisis, we're just going to implement a Green New Deal.
So the problem is created because of their policies, so they enact even more insane policies to carry on, you know what man?
During the drought several years ago, you know there were places in between LA and San Diego where they were told they couldn't water their lawns, so they were freaking out.
Like, how dare you tell me I can't water my lawn?
Across the street from a town called East Porterville, where they had no more groundwater, a golf course with sprinklers on.
Could you imagine living in your home and across the street is a bunch of, you know, I don't want to say super wealthy, but wealthier individuals watering their golf course and your well has gone dry.
That's what California is.
It's a dystopian nightmare.
And if Bloomberg actually starts taking over the Democratic Party, as he's gaining more and more traction and his polls are going up and he's buying more and more ads, dismiss him all you want.
But his plan is to make California the rest of the country.
Now, I'll tell you this.
He could be pandering.
You know, for all the fear and like, oh no, California's a nightmare and Bloomberg's going to destroy the country, he's probably just telling California what they want to hear.
California's problems, they can't even deal with chicken.
Look at this, even chickens have diseases.
New wave of chicken-killing Newcastle disease hits SoCal.
Even the chickens are sick.
And even the oranges are sick.
These, I know, these things happen.
I'm not blaming California for this.
You can't say some of the policies they enact result in chicken sickness or whatever.
No, this is more of a joke.
But the point is, I find it rather shocking that anybody would look to California at this point and say, go for it.
Because several years ago, it was mainstream leftists saying California was a failed state.
I'm not exaggerating.
It was like the Daily Beast.
California is a failed state.
And today, Bloomberg Let's make the rest of the country like California.
All right.
Well, I'll tell you what.
Dismiss Bloomberg.
Fine.
But at the end of the day, he's the one buying hundreds of millions of dollars in ads.
Put $100 million this past month.
We'll put $100 million more.
And his message about California being great is going to be spread around, and people are going to—they're going to hear it.
They're not going to hear a counterpoint because other Democrats are being shut out.
There's Donald Trump, though.
He's the other side, saying California's a mess.
So I'll leave it there.
I don't know if anybody cares about California, but I thought this one was rather interesting, because I couldn't believe that anybody, Democrat or otherwise, would actually say California is the role model for the country.
I assumed even Democrats would call it out.
But 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.
Donald Trump is going to war for former Democrat Jeff Van Drew, announcing he will hold a campaign rally in Wildwood, New Jersey.
New Jersey is a blue state.
Trump has no reason, for the most part, to campaign in New Jersey.
It's going to go blue.
Except one, helping the former Democrat win his reelection.
And to me, this is really crazy.
I want to show you some stuff, man.
Jeff Andrew is not a Republican, but because he was willing to back the president, Trump is going to do a rally in his district.
Now, here's the thing.
It's crazy to me, man.
I basically live here, okay?
I don't live in Wildwood.
I don't live in New Jersey's 2nd district where Vanjue represents.
But I'm seriously like a mile away from where- I'm in NJ1, which is- It's like the only blue pocket in South Jersey.
Because it's basically the Philly suburbs.
When I heard this news, I thought it was nuts.
Trump is gonna go defend a guy.
Let's read this, and I want to explain to you what's going on in South Jersey.
disagrees with him on a ton of policy issues, but he is moderate.
So he agrees with Republicans on some things.
Let's read this and I want to show, I want to explain to you
what's going on in South Jersey.
I believe this may be one of the most important battlegrounds for
Donald Trump in 2020, for one reason, if he can successfully defend a
former Democrat who's pledged allegiance to Trump, I know I'm being a little
hyperbolic when I say that, but he said, you know, you have my support and Trump
endorsed him.
This sends a massive shockwave to the Democrats who have lost a moderate member as people like AOC threaten the moderates.
How many of them are going to say, If I come out for Trump, they're going to defend my district and I'm going to keep representing my people?
Yeah, this might be a message to the moderates.
If you do not get on board, or if you stay on with the Democrats, they will sacrifice you.
But if you support Trump, he will defend you.
Let's read.
This is from Philly Voice.
Trump will host a MAGA rally.
Actually, it's a CAG rally.
Keep America Great.
In Wildwood on January 28th.
I am going there.
His campaign announced on Monday.
Seriously, I'm, like, right here.
It's not that far away from me.
Granted, it's on, like, the water, so it's not, like, super close.
But this is basically where I live.
The location of the event falls within the congressional district of Rep.
Van Drew, who recently switched his party affiliation to Republican.
Van Drew is expected to attend.
Following a meeting with Trump in the Oval Office last month, Van Drew announced he was planning to leave the Democratic Party, a move that many, including Governor Phil Murphy, believe to be a campaign strategy, I'mma call BS.
I mean, to an extent, sure.
But what, you're telling me that all the other Democrats who have sacrificed their offices weren't doing it because of party lines?
Please, don't play games with me.
We know why everyone's doing everything.
The freshman congressman is up for re-election this year.
As a Democrat, he would have faced a difficult primary against candidate Bridget Harrison, A political science professor from Montclair State University.
Also, Anne Kennedy, wife of former Rhode Island rep Patrick Kennedy, on Monday announced her bid.
I'll have that story in a second.
This will be the president's fourth rally in 2020.
Trump held the first campaign in Miami, launching Evangelicos for Trump, then came after.
Yeah, I don't care about this stuff.
Now here's the thing.
Trump is pulling out all the stops.
stuff. Two rallies will proceed the president's New Jersey appearance, including a rally on
Thursday. Now, here's the thing. Trump is pulling out all the stops. Washington examiner
says Trump fires up reelection campaign early. Trump is getting into these rallies before
most people ever do. Check this out.
They say he's actively campaigning for re-election earlier than any incumbent in modern history, with a flurry of major events scheduled in just the first two weeks of 2020.
So here's what I want to focus on.
I get it.
Trump's campaigning.
I want to show you this stuff.
I want to talk about this place in which I live.
Now, I'm in here.
See this one?
For those that are listening, I've got a map of the congressional districts of New Jersey.
And we can see that the urban centers up here, 10, 8, 9, 10, and 13, 6, and 12, these districts are bordering, for the most part, New York City.
You've got Staten Island over here.
You've got Bayonne.
And then you've got, you know, very obvious, like, Jersey City and all that stuff.
So this is basically New York City runoff, so of course it's blue.
You've also got Newark.
But when you come to South Jersey, you've got District 1, which is where I live, which is basically a Philadelphia suburb.
I'm like seriously 10 minutes from Philadelphia.
I just cross the bridge and I'm there.
But then you've got two.
The second district, Jeff Van Drew, and it is red.
Now here's what's crazy.
This district went for... Okay, so I'll come back to redistricting in a second.
This district is R plus 1.
It is a Republican district.
Jeff Van Drew won it as a Democrat.
You know why?
The blue wave.
That's right.
Let me show you something.
I'm gonna go back to redistricting and say this.
So this is the New Jersey Redistricting Commission Wikipedia page.
And right here it says this.
In 2018, U.S.
states' House of Representative elections were dominated by a blue wave of Democratic wins, with Democrats winning 11 of the 12 districts.
So I don't understand why it says 13.
I don't know what that means.
I think they may have combined some.
I'm not going to read too much into it.
They say that after 2010, they combined the 13 House seats into 12 districts.
But they basically said, 11 of the 12 were won by Democrats.
That's actually really crazy.
When you see this map, shows that, I mean, look, most, you've got three, four, five, six districts that were Republican flipped Democrat.
No surprise that a lot of the districts where Democrats took over in the blue wave were in blue states.
Here's what happened.
Donald Trump's base, as many of you, if you listen to my content, they didn't come out.
They didn't come out in 2018.
According to the New York Times, at least, whether or not you want to trust them, that's what it seems like.
What ends up happening then is all of these Democrats who really hate Trump came out and they swung things slightly in favor of the Democrats.
Jeff Van Drew won.
But here's the thing, man.
I don't think... I think Jeff Van Drew did the right thing.
Let me zoom in so you can see it better, right?
I got Jeff Van Drew's political positions pulled up.
The dude is a moderate.
At this point, considering how far left the left has gone and how crazy they've gotten, it's very...
Rational, in my opinion, that he joins the Republican Party, except for a few things.
Here's why I want to read this about Jeff Andrew.
Donald Trump supporting this guy, to me, is nuts.
Now you've got Seth Grossman.
He's the Republican in New Jersey's 2nd.
I don't know what's going to happen.
There's going to be a primary.
But I think the Republican Party is going to throw everything behind Jeff Van Drew to prove a point.
If you're a moderate Democrat and you defect, the president has your back for loyalty.
And I think they're going to try and make sure Jeff Van Drew beats Seth Grossman to make the statement.
Jeff Vandrew winning again is so bad for Democrats, proving that he made the right move.
So they need to make sure he loses.
That's why I think New Jersey second is going to be one of the biggest political battlegrounds in the country.
Jeff Vandrew is the one Democrat to defect at a national level.
And the Democrats and Republicans need to make sure that they get that victory.
If Jeff Andrew loses, the Democrats will say, he should have been a Democrat and should have defended us.
But if he wins, the Republicans will be like, he did the right thing.
You get the point.
Check this out.
They say this.
In 2007, Van Drew remarked, I'm proud to be a Democrat because to me, it always represented working people, middle class people, and issues of compassion.
During his congressional primary campaign, he had a 100% rating from the National Rifle Association.
In 07 and 08, he received 2,700 from National Shooting Sports Foundation.
This dude's Pro 2A.
In 2010, he sponsored legislation that would allow residents to carry handguns after going through a background check, taking a firearms training course, passing a test, and paying a $500 fee.
That one actually sounds like anti.
This dude's a moderate.
They say he voted as the only Democrat against a series of 10 gun control bills following the events in Connecticut, which if I say, YouTube's gonna punish me.
Van Drew also voiced support for expanded background checks and regulation for silencers.
Despite his pro-gun stance, the gun control group Moms Demand Action designated Van Drew a gun-sense candidate because he's been moderate.
He was looking at, you know, background checks and training and all that stuff.
As a state senator, he voted against same-sex marriage.
Now you might be thinking he's a Republican.
Well, let's get to some of the bigger issues of why he might work for the Republican Party.
He voted against the minimum wage, which many people where I live agree with, okay?
So I'm in NJ1.
I kid you not, if I drive a mile, I'm in Vanjure's district.
It's very close to me.
I mean, it's a relatively small district I live in.
I've talked to people.
They do not like the minimum wage increase because they feel that it's going to dramatically increase the prices for small business while protecting Starbucks and Walmart and McDonald's, Subway, etc.
These big chains can absorb these costs because other businesses can, those profits will subsidize other stores.
But small businesses have to see like overnight their costs go up by 10, 20, 30 percent.
So a lot of people here are moderate and don't agree with it.
They say this.
He supported fully funding children's health insurance programs, protecting net neutrality, not a Republican position.
They say as state senator, he withdrew sponsorship of a bill to reinstate the death penalty in the state, which he previously favored.
Now here's where it gets interesting.
He opposes offshore drilling.
In 2019, he joined Republican John Rutherford to introduce Atlantic Coastal Economies Protection Act, which would prohibit seismic airgun testing in the Atlantic Ocean.
The state senator previously voted to withdraw Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and support the construction of a pipeline through the Pinelands.
That doesn't sound like a Democrat.
They say this.
He has a 0% rating from the National Right to Life Coalition, and a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood, 0% from Conservative Review.
Okay.
So forgive me, it's kind of droll and boring, but I needed to highlight this for a few reasons.
This guy, if I was going to lay all these things out, is a Democrat.
Just barely.
If the Democrats lose him, and Trump, now going to Wildwood, which is essentially going to be pushing for Jeff Van Drew, he's showing his support for someone like Van Drew.
If Van Drew wins, it means the Republican tent got bigger, they're accepting of more ideas, and that means the Democrats are going to lose so much.
Because I'll tell you what, man.
A lot of independent voters down here, they don't care if you're a D or an R. They really don't.
They want to know that you're for sane, moderate policy.
They're regular suburban people.
And look, you've got your diehards, you've got your crazy progressives, you've got your staunch conservatives, but a lot of people are in the middle saying, be reasonable, please.
They don't care if the dude's a Democrat or a Republican.
We are not in one of these districts where, like Nancy Pelosi says, you slap a D on a glass of water, the glass of water wins.
Not here.
Here, they want to know what you're talking about.
So Jeff Van Drew, his positions matter.
So here's the thing.
Ann Kennedy is running against him.
This ad offended me.
Okay?
I got no beef against, you know, Ann Kennedy, or I'm sorry, Amy Kennedy.
She's running in the second.
I don't live here, so that doesn't affect me for the most part.
But she says Van Drew and Trump are a symptom, you know, blah, blah, blah.
She blames them both.
There she goes.
Symptoms of a bigger sickness affecting our country.
How dare you?
Jeff Van Drew, a moderate, who has been considered sensible on gun policy, who has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood?
Please.
You know what, man?
Disaffected liberals are going to see what Jeff Van Drew is doing.
And with Trump's support, they will get all of these other independent voters who are going to say, I don't care if you're Trump, I don't care if you're a Democrat, I just want the guy who's being reasonable.
And that's Jeff Van Drew.
Now, Jeff Van Drew got that boost from the blue wave.
These were the crazy staunch progressives who are now coming out calling him a sickness.
You know what, man?
The only thing Jeff Van Drew did wrong was that he didn't support impeachment.
And she's calling him a sickness because of it.
I cannot stand these people.
Jeff Van Drew was the perfect Democrat for all of them.
Voting with Nancy Pelosi, getting that 100% Planned Parenthood rating.
He was a moderate.
Fine.
But they voted for him.
They backed him.
And now they're calling him a sickness.
Why?
One reason.
He said, I will not support impeachment.
These people are insane.
You know what, man?
All they care about is whether or not you're blue and the D is next to your name.
That's it.
Well, I don't and many people down here don't.
And you see this now, this weird hypocrisy of calling him a sickness when for the longest time you supported him up until he refused to back impeachment.
Impeachment for what?
Trump's been accused of no crimes.
I get it, you don't like the guy.
But how dare you?
Like, how could you rallies go out in a blue wave and say, Jeff Andrew, he's our man.
If he can't do it, no one can.
And then you wait, he didn't vote for impeachment.
He's a sickness who must be purged.
You're nuts.
These people are crazy, man.
And whatever this, you know what I'll tell you, man?
The sickness is on the left.
That's what it is.
I'm going to keep this one short.
I'll wrap it up here.
That pissed me off.
I'll see you all at 4 p.m.
on the main channel, youtube.com slash TimCast.
Following up on my segment from 4 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCast, I have a story from the Washington Examiner talking about California's failed progressive policy.
Now, I am not one to play this game where it's like, look, there's a lot of conservatives that will always point the finger and say, failed liberal policies.
There's a lot to go through.
Before you get to the point where you say it's a complete and total failure, except when it comes to California Assembly Bill 5, which everybody thinks is an abject failure just from the get-go, but I love how journalists are being negatively impacted by this, and they didn't say anything when the bill was going through because they're all progressives and they're like, a major victory for the left!
And then they were like, wait a minute, we're being fired now.
That's right.
AB 5.
California's latest bill.
They say this.
California's latest destructive regulation is already backfiring.
So let me explain.
AB5 is this gig economy bill.
It's basically supposed to limit how you can hire people for gigs, like Uber, Postmates, and freelance writing.
And what happened is, this provision says freelance writers can only write 35 articles per year, I think, or something like that.
Some absurdly low number.
So all these news outlets are just firing all these journalists.
Well, now that the journalists are panicking, people started to realize this law was a bad idea.
It's backfiring now, however, because truckers are leaving the state.
Why would you want to be in a state where you can't freely trade your labor?
You wouldn't.
Congratulations, California!
So let me say this.
I've done many a segment on the California wasteland, and now California is the future of our country.
And let me just say, it is a gift.
It is.
California is one of the greatest gifts to America we could ever have.
I'll tell you why.
We watch the policies get implemented, and it's somewhat isolated.
We watch them fail, and then say, maybe we shouldn't do that in other places.
So now that they've enacted this gig economy law and the truckers are all leaving, they're going to have to backpedal.
So long as California acts as the guinea pig for the rest of the country, maybe we can avoid these things.
Although the point of my main segment is that Michael Bloomberg is like, I think we should push these policies out to the rest of the country.
Yeah, sorry Bloomberg, it's not gonna happen.
I hope!
Let's read.
Californians barely had time to ring in the new year before the state's independent contractor law, which went into effect on January 1st, started wreaking havoc.
The law, formerly known as AB5, was supposed to offer more benefits to workers in the modern gig economy.
Instead, it has spectacularly backfired on those very workers.
Once lauded by Vox as cracking down on the gig economy by offering workers basic labor protections for the first time, AB5 has forced news outlets, including Vox, to cut ties with hundreds of freelance journalists in California.
This is due to the law's stipulation that any writer submitting more than 35 pieces a year be given full employee benefits.
The funny thing about Vox is that they praise this and then, you know, the
law goes into effect and then the headline is, Vox lays off hundreds of writers.
Congratulations! You praised this.
This is literally what you wanted. It's, it's, it's, I don't even know what to say. I mean,
you got what you wanted. Congratulations. There you go. But I will, I will point something
out. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I really don't like it.
But I will say, you can argue that these people wanted this bill and it's backfiring. Or
you can say they wanted the bill because it would backfire and then they can call for
more government control to fix the failing economy.
This is likely going to make more people homeless when they lose their jobs.
Truckers are going to flee the state, there's going to be a crisis, and they're going to say, only we can solve it, and no one is going to stop them.
Whether or not it's intentional, that's what's going to happen.
AB5 affects roughly two-thirds of California's two million independent contractors, ranging from janitors and childcare workers to retail and construction workers.
Notably exempt from the law are white-collar jobs such as medicine and dentistry, but the level of clout matters in this distinction.
A physician specialist who contracts his labor is exempt from AB5, a nurse is not.
California has spent decades imposing onerous regulations on its employers and its workforce.
There's no doubt that stay-at-home moms who benefit from freelance writing gigs and some of the state's 325,000 Lyft and 200,000 Uber drivers will simply have to eat the cost of government cracking down on their income.
But for others, the law is simply a bridge too far.
Despite securing an 11th hour legal exemption from AB5, truck drivers began to flee the state before the clock struck midnight on New Year's Eve.
The California Trucking Association, one of the many organizations challenging a law in court, claims that it's fielding daily calls from despondent truckers, plenty of whom have emigrated from the state or plan to do so permanently.
Although truckers have thinner profit margins to cushion the blow of the law, it's not hard to imagine that workers such as interpreters and copy editors, who require multiple clients but are covered by the law anyway, will soon follow suit.
Could you imagine a state without truckers?
How are you gonna get your food?
Sorry, you need the truckers.
And these people, and I know there may be people coming from other states, come and drop it off and leave, but what about people who gotta drive from, you know, the produce, you know, produced by farmers in, you know, Tulare County, and ship that off to Northern California?
If there's no truckers, what are you gonna do?
Man, California, y'all are nuts!
There's more to read, though.
I say this.
Still, not all hope is lost, at least just yet.
Uber and Postmates have launched a sweeping court challenge to AB5.
They're not the only companies or associations to do so, but their case incorporates the most wide-reaching arguments.
As Josh Blackman of the Volokh Conspiracy argues, aspects of the suit likely will not hold up in court.
But seeing how Uber's operations have continued unfettered into the new year, it might just be recalcitrant enough to persevere against California's political poison.
The reason I'm laughing right now Is because people have often pointed out to me that sometimes, I don't notice this, I use like large and sometimes obscure words.
I can never really think of large, obscure words off the top of my head, but I can certainly say recalcitrant enough to persevere against California's political poison is a particularly above average, verbose kind of statement.
Maybe verbose is a word?
I don't know.
The point is, most people, you know this?
I'm gonna deviate right now, but I have to do it.
You know most people in all languages use like a hundred words?
It's actually really easy to learn a language, like relatively.
All you need to do is learn the 100 most commonly used words and you'll find yourself being able to converse at a general level.
So when words like recalcitrant pop up, people go like, I don't know what that means.
And, you know, I get it.
But people point this out to me because not everybody knows weird obscure words like defenestrate.
Go look that one up.
I love that word, by the way.
Anyway, let's read.
If legal challenges don't force California to change course, another development might.
By capping the state and local tax deduction, the 2017 federal tax law forced wealthy Californians to absorb the full cost of their state's high taxes.
These taxes, along with the state's complex web of regulations, are harming workers and employers alike.
fueling a mass exodus of Californians that is already expected to cost the state a seat in the House of
Representatives.
If AB5 further exacerbates the trend, it may be the cold hard hand of political reality rather than the courts that
undoes this disgraced law.
Well, I'll tell you what.
Like I said, I think it's a good thing.
California's a guinea pig.
They're gonna enact all these laws, they're gonna hurt themselves, and then they're gonna desperately backpedal, and we're gonna see other states say, maybe we shouldn't do what they did because it backfired miserably and really, really hurt them.
But there is hope.
I have another story here from the Washington Post that talks about Uber's secret project to bolster its case against AB5.
They say the ride-hailing giant launched a version of its app for its California drivers in an attempt to push back on a law aimed at turning independent contractors into employees.
They say, excuse me, Uber's chief technology officer, Thuan Pham, put out a cryptic call for volunteers
to join a critical project on AB5 that would involve, excuse me, hiccups, involve developing new app features,
according to an October email viewed by the Washington Post.
The effort, undertaken by policy legal marketing technology and operation staffers, was regarded as one of the most
critical, impactful, and urgent efforts at the company, expected to deliver most of its value
through the end of the year.
Those volunteers formed a team to work on what was dubbed Project Luigi, a company-wide initiative tasked
with changing Uber's app for California drivers, according to internal documents and people familiar
with the company's thinking who asked not to be named for fear of retribution.
The initiative sought to revamp some inherent aspects of driving for Uber, including adding the ability to see estimated trip fares up front and then reject a trip without penalty.
Basically, it sounds like what Uber is doing is trying to remove the job aspect of Uber.
Give more control to the drivers so they can claim you run you?
Straight up.
Those new features, some now publicly unveiled, would help Uber build its case that its drivers are free from its control and are independent, key aspects legislators outlined as exemptions to the new statewide employee mandate.
Obviously, Uber wants to make the case that drivers are operating on their own because without that they have no argument on their worker classification.
They clearly are worried about losing and want to have a backup plan.
They say Uber spokesman said, the company's making a number of changes to the Uber marketplace.
The reason I highlight the general gist of this is to say two things.
There is a light at the end of the tunnel.
It's possible that the lawsuits against this law failed and California pulls out of its tailspin.
The other thing I want to point out is that massive companies like Uber can invest tens of millions of dollars to find a loophole in your law.
This is the most mind-numbing thing about expansive progressive policies.
They never stop to ask, did we go too far?
Because I think some of these rules, some of these policies can work, but at what point do you stop and say, this is as far as we should go because going even further will cause harm?
Put it this way.
Uber, Starbucks, Walmart, whatever.
They can afford legal fees for any change in regulation, increase in base rates like minimum wages and stuff like that.
Small businesses and contractors cannot.
So who gets hurt by regulation?
Not big business that's got, you know, Uber operates all around the world.
They can eat the loss in California to get a business victory.
But what about that single mom who writes, you know, blogs about fettuccine alfredo recipes, and now she's lost her job, and she can't make money to feed her kids?
These laws aren't helping anybody.
These people are nuts.
I'm not- I keep these ones short, so I'll leave it there.
But I got a million and one things to say about California, man.
Hence the California Wasteland series.
I'll make a playlist about it.
But stick around, I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Bravo BuzzFeed!
BuzzFeed News!
I give you a firm clap, a slow clap.
You're doing the right thing.
This is an excellent report.
They say, if you're going to share a map of the Australian bushfires, please make sure it's correct.
I'm sorry, bushfires.
Bushfire maps of Australia keep going viral, but think twice before you hit share.
It's all fake!
It's climate alarmism.
These people don't know when to stop.
There's this really great dude on Twitter.
He's a meteorologist.
I forgot his name.
But he's like, climate change is a problem.
The world is not ending in 12 years.
Tornadoes are not climate change.
Floods are not climate change.
Calm down!
But you see AOC, right?
Ocasio-Cortez, there's like a tornado warning in D.C., and she says, the new normal under climate change, and it's like, no!
You have the tornado sirens because it happens!
Like, how insane do you have to be?
Could you imagine if your smoke alarm went off, and you were like, there are fires in our house?
This is Trump's America!
It's climate change!
No.
You put smoke detectors in your house because sometimes there's fire.
It's not climate change.
It's not Trump.
Calm down, everybody.
But anyway.
There's a lot of fake news coming out about Australia.
First, many people, I believe over a hundred or so, throughout the past several months have been arrested for arson.
I'm sorry, maybe not arson.
I don't have the numbers pulled up, but I'll tell you this.
A large portion of fires in Australia were started intentionally.
A decent amount were started by lightning strikes and I think it's lightning strikes.
But a very large percentage, according to the BBC and other outlets, is arson.
Or, I should say man-made.
I think what a Sydney Morning Herald said, 87% are man-made, meaning about half of those are accidental.
People are flicking cigarette butts.
There have been citations and arrests over that.
There have been actual people arrested for arson.
The argument from these people, okay man, I'm so frustrated by this.
Climate change is not starting fires.
Climate change is making fire season longer.
That's it.
Are we done?
Can we go home now?
But you get all these people saying like, you know, oh, Greta Thunberg.
Oh, you know, they're not responsible.
No, no, no, stop, stop, stop.
The likelihood of a fire starting naturally goes up as fire season grows due to arid and the likelihood increases due to a drought and things like that.
But these things all happen.
What the climate change extremist types are ruining for actual environmentalist types like me is that climate change, and this is my layman understanding, is slowly increasing probabilities for more extreme weather events.
It's not making them happen.
They've always happened.
And when you go around screeching that arson is climate change, you lose support.
What this basically means is, if it used to be from September to November, there was a potential for fire.
There's a higher potential for fire.
It's now like mid-August to November.
It's slightly longer.
Plus, we've seen droughts.
The problem is droughts happen.
We don't know if the drought is caused by climate change or droughts happen.
Literally, the word drought exists.
Droughts have happened throughout history.
What we do know is that it is getting slightly warmer in many places, and certain seasons are being extended.
Now, I am not arguing about man-made climate change.
I'm just saying climate change in general.
We can save that argument for later.
I want to show you how BuzzFeed is debunking these fake news maps.
It's not real.
Stop sharing this stuff.
Look at this map.
It's like Australia is literally all completely on fire.
No, there's key areas that are burning and the smoke is traveling.
I believe it's going westward.
So it's going over cities and it gets dark.
BuzzFeed reports.
If you've been on social media in the past few weeks, you've probably seen a map, or five, of Australia's devastating bushfires.
Maps displaying alarming red flames dotted around Australia keep going viral, but while such images are certainly raising awareness, they can also be a source of confusion and even misinformation.
What's that you say?
The left is pushing fake news?
Oh, where's the Washington Post and New York Times and Snopes to debunk all of this?
Well, certainly here's BuzzFeed news, so I'm glad they're at least doing it.
That's why I say, seriously, bravo, guys.
Thank you for debunking this stuff.
They say, here are a few examples of the maps being shared and what to watch out for.
Before we get into it, the maps in this post should not be taken as current bushfire information.
Visit your state or territory fire service site for the latest information and emergency warnings.
Here's an image.
We see this one.
All of the fires all around, literally everywhere in Australia.
Not real.
They say the first map is called My Firewatch, which is run by West Australian Statutory Authority, Landgate, and based on data collected by various satellites through the Australian National Ground Segment technical team, it uses little fire icons, colored in shades of red, orange, and yellow, which make for a very dramatic picture, one that tens of thousands of people have shared in recent weeks.
But reading this particular map is more complex than it seems.
It's based on satellite data that shows sources of heat.
They are usually, but not exclusively, fires, including bushfires and grassfires.
Second, the color system of red, orange, and yellow is about time, not severity or danger.
So my Firewatch, our red flame icon, means a heat source was detected in the past 12 hours.
It's very different to, for instance, a map where a red flame icon means there is a fire.
I also want to point this out.
See all these little fires?
They say here's a comparison.
What you're seeing here is someone zooming way out.
So when you see all of these fires covering all of Australia, you think there's these massive fires burning down cities.
If you zoom in, you'll see the icons get smaller and smaller, and it's probably teeny heat sources.
The point I'm making is...
An individual fire icon talks about one source of heat, which means while you zoom out on Australia, one icon might cover a hundred square miles.
It's not what it means.
You zoom in, it might be literally 10 square feet heat source, but they zoom out so it looks like the whole country is covered in fires.
Stop pushing this fake news.
You look at this and you see these little icons.
This is what I mean.
When you zoom in, it's like, oh, there's a little fire just outside of a road.
It's not a massive, massive fire.
Let's look at this one.
Oh, I love this.
If you overlaid what's happening in Australia right now to the US, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
If you look at Chicago, the fire is literally bigger than the dot that represents Chicago.
No!
There is not a 300 square mile fire burning in one area.
It could be literally like 50 square feet.
Not even.
It could be a spattering of fires in that particular area.
But the way they've made this map look, showing all these fires, they're like, Whoa, all of Los Angeles is on fire?
No!
There's three fires, okay?
That could be a building fire.
There's probably three bu- buildings burning right now in Chicago as we speak, and it's probably- it would look even worse on this map.
Dude, the left shares fake news all the time.
And the reason I'm pointing out the left doing it is that we know, you know, Grandma on Facebook retweets stupid stories and doesn't know the difference.
Well, the media pounces every single time there's some right-wing story.
They're like, the right is sharing fake news like they're doing with Babylon Bee right now.
They wrote a story about Democrats putting the flag to half-mast.
Okay, dude, it's a joke.
Calm down.
But where is CNN's outrage at the incessant fake news with 9,000 retweets?
Nowhere to be seen.
Once again, BuzzFeed News, good job on this.
Okay?
Where is the mainstream media's outrage when left-wing personalities are screeching climate change and sharing fake photos of fake maps to shock people and scare them into passing laws?
Where are they at?
I don't hear anything.
Except from BuzzFeed.
I am absolutely proud of BuzzFeed News for calling out this fake BS.
I'm sick and tired.
Listen, man.
The left has shared fake news all the time.
But because the media is dominated by the left, they never call it out.
That's why I'm particularly happy with BuzzFeed News.
Good job.
Here's another one.
Look at this!
What is this?
The whole continent is covered in fires!
That's... It's like... Okay, for those listening, it's literally an image of, like, 10,000 red dots that are so close together, you can't even see the word Australia.
The map is literally just covered in dots.
No!
Like, people think the whole continent is one big flame.
Look at this!
Misleading.
It's, it's, it's, oh, they're little triangles.
They're so densely packed.
It, it quite literally looks like an equivalent of the entire east coast is one big fire.
Man, look at this one.
This one's amazing.
Look at this!
Guys, this photo taken by NASA shows the true horror of the bushfire sweeping Australia.
It's truly frightening.
No, it doesn't!
What they did was they took one of these maps, they converted the fires into a graphic, and they make it look like literally the entire eastern board of Australia is one big fire.
So, you know what, man?
Here's another one.
And what's funny about these photos being shared is they're not even consistent.
Look at this!
They're trying to make it look like the entire coastline of Australia is that one big fire, dude.
That's nuts!
A superimposed map of Australia over the U.S.
shows the scale of the massive wildfires that have spread across the country.
ABC News!
And BuzzFeed gave it a WTF!
Bravo, BuzzFeed!
Dude, could you imagine if there was one fire traveling 5,000 miles, and it was like 1,000 miles wide, or maybe 400 or 500 miles wide?
They literally show from Baja California, basically San Diego, going up Through, what do we have, like, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, what is that, Missouri?
I'm terrible with states.
South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, into Canada!
That's how big the fire stretches?
You'd have to be daft to believe that was true.
So they get that absolute WTF.
And I'll tell you this, Fox News did it earlier.
They showed one of these fake maps and I'm like, dude, there is not a fire as big as Chicago, okay?
It means one fire.
Zoom in and you will see it's one building, but you zoom out and the fire icon stays the same size, if you know what I mean.
So, I don't know.
BuzzFeed gives the links to the actual map, so fine.
They say, in fact, it's pretty unclear what it meant to be conveying at all.
Also, where is Tasmania?
Wait, I gotta read this.
I gotta read this.
The image is an artistic rendition of data.
It is not meant to show what Australia looks like currently.
I never expected the image to reach anyone past my own friends.
I have a fairly small social media following.
In a nutshell, the image does not represent a single moment in time, and while it is a visual representation of fire activity in Australia over a month-long period, it is not accurate.
This is amazing.
Generally true.
Oh, they're talking about this fire in Australia thing.
You know what, man?
Here's what's gonna happen.
BuzzFeed, thank you for debunking this, but ABC News, Fox News, and many other outlets are sharing this fake news, and all of these people are gonna start screeching, and Chernoff down-swoops Greta Thunberg, going, how dare you?
This story will be evidence that the left is overhyping climate change.
There are some good scientists who will tell you the truth about climate change, okay?
That humans play a factor.
That it is increasing, you know, the probabilities of certain more extreme weather events.
But no, the world is not ending.
No, all of these fires are not because of climate change.
Arsonists are setting a ton of them, for one.
Climate change does play a role in it.
But it's like this.
You know, you talk to one of these scientists and they're going to be like, yes, there's quite possibly a, you know, like small percentage gain in the probability that we see wildfires due to the likelihood of a drought, the increased likelihood of drought, and the longer fire season.
And you go, huh, and then no fire happens.
Or you get arsonists starting fires and they say, well, it's important to bear in mind that the fires are harder to put out and the season is longer, creating more opportunity for these fires.
But the world is not ending.
Calm down.
You know, we can make some changes.
We can develop new technologies.
But then the left comes out and posts photos of Australia literally as one giant fireball.
And it's like, you know what, man?
Whatever.
Maybe a tsunami will come and you clean all the fires out.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
Donald Trump is a madman.
And he has created, quite possibly, the craziest asylum rules I have ever seen.
And I am not a fan, but I will say, this is 4D chess.
I kid you not.
The Trump administration will begin deporting asylum seekers from Mexico to Guatemala.
It's an expansion of a controversial plan to stop the flow of refugees and immigrants to the U.S.
southern border.
Let me not bury the lead, and I'll tell you exactly what Trump is doing.
If you come from Guatemala through Mexico to the United States, Trump says you must remain—I say Trump, but the Trump administration—you must remain in Mexico pending your court date.
Well, one thing they've started doing, and it's weird because it's framed strangely, is they're sending some people or they're keeping them 350 miles away from their court date, meaning if you want to go to court, you've got to go to El Paso from Nogales, which is 350 miles away.
This may be the most ingenious and maybe, maybe like, I don't know if it's the right word, like, I don't know if, how can I describe this?
I'm critical of it.
But here's what Trump is doing.
If someone from Mexico, a Mexican citizen, comes to the U.S.
and requests asylum, they fly the person to Guatemala and tell them to apply for asylum in Guatemala.
This is nuts.
Wow.
Talk about Trump.
And the argument is, well, there's two countries.
You know, you're in Mexico.
Why come to America?
Go to Guatemala.
You'll be safe there, right?
Let me read you this story from BuzzFeed News.
The Trump administration will now deport Mexican nationals, including families who come to the U.S.
southern border, seeking asylum to Guatemala.
An expansion of a controversial program that will spark outrage among advocates and lawmakers, according to documents obtained by BuzzFeed News.
The program, which was signed in July, was implemented in late November.
Emailed guidance was sent to asylum officials across the country in recent days, detailing how Mexicans were now to be included in the process.
The plan was initially only focused in El Paso, but was later expanded to the Rio Grande Valley, according to the documents.
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson confirmed the news on Monday.
Listen to this.
What?
Trump is a madman.
seeking humanitarian protections in the United States, may now be eligible to be transferred
to Guatemala and given the opportunity to seek protection there. Under the terms of
the Guatemala Asylum Cooperative Agreement, the spokesperson said. What? Trump is a madman.
Look, man, I know some people will think the way I'm describing is a bit callous,
but let me tell you this.
I think if people come here and they request asylum, and they have a legitimate claim, then we take them in and we help them.
And if they're people coming from Mexico, we do that.
But they can wait in Mexico, if they're Mexican.
I get it.
Some people might say, yeah, but what if they're in danger?
Look, man.
Not everywhere in Mexico is the same.
So, yes, they can remain in Mexico, but it doesn't mean they can just get free entry to the U.S.
while, you know, most time claims are cancelled.
But what Trump is doing here is...
They will be eligible for the opportunity to be sent to a country thousands of miles in the other direction.
Man, that just seems brutal.
They will be eligible for the opportunity.
I certainly don't believe anybody in Mexico who's coming to the U.S.
thinks it's an opportunity to be eligible to be sent to Guatemala.
But I'll tell you what, man, Trump has figured out some crazy workarounds To these rules and these laws.
And if the argument is you're not safe in Mexico, would you then be safe in Guatemala?
Now, I think it's fair to point out, too, they say may be eligible.
Yes, certainly if there's like a gang or something operating in both Guatemala and Mexico, you probably don't qualify.
But if you're in like northern Mexico and you're in trouble, they can be like, this problem doesn't exist in Guatemala.
Why don't you go there?
Why does everyone want to come to America?
Well, it's obvious.
This country's nice.
It's wealthy.
Who wouldn't want to live here?
Now, I'll tell you what.
The GDP in Mexico, I think, is like $10,000 to $20,000.
And in America, it's like $30,000 to $50,000 or something.
I'm sorry, I'm talking about Mexico City.
I don't know what the GDP per capita is in Mexico, but if you're working a minimum wage job in the United States at McDonald's, you're probably making more than the average Mexican.
So yeah, they're willing to come here and do these jobs because the pay is better.
It's not better in Guatemala.
As of late December 2019, 43 asylum seekers from El Salvador and Honduras have been deported to Guatemala under the agreement.
That we understand, though, according to government data obtained by BuzzFeed News.
The plan was initially limited to adult asylum seekers, but was expanded to families on December 10th, according to documentation seen by BuzzFeed News.
But I would also like to point out the migrant crisis is over.
Nobody cares about this news anymore.
It's not on Fox, not on CNN.
They're talking about impeachment or Iran or something else.
And now Trump is ramping things up.
They say the administration says the plan is a key element in its strategy to deter migration at the border and restrict asylum seekers from entering the U.S.
Advocates and asylum officers previously told BuzzFeed News that the unprecedented plan lacks legality and organization and will lead to immigrants being placed in dangerous circumstances.
They say that all the time.
Many of these people went home already.
Listen.
To quote Bernie Sanders, you know I was criticized, or not necessarily criticized, they say Tim Pool's political position on immigration aligns with conservatives.
No it doesn't!
It aligns with Bernie Sanders, who said there are too many poor people, we can't open the border, and who voted for a border barrier and border security like ten years ago.
Okay?
Now, right now, Bernie Sanders is saying he wants 50,000 climate refugees.
I still am more likely to align with Bernie Sanders than Donald Trump.
I don't like this plan.
I can recognize that Trump is implementing a bunch of these very difficult processes to make it harder for asylum seekers to get in.
I don't know if 50,000 is the right number, but I think if someone's a refugee or asylum seeker and they have a legitimate claim, they should be allowed to come here.
That's a Bernie Sanders position!
It's so insane how they try and smear everyone as like, because conservatives are concerned about immigration and so is Tim Pool, that means Tim Pool aligns with conservatives.
Sorry, did you even listen to what Bernie Sanders said about it?
Now, Bernie's not perfect, and he's flip-flopped.
The point is, it's like, the moment you say, I have issues with immigration, they go, only conservatives do.
What?
You know, I'm sick and tired of it, man.
In recent months, the administration has been concerned about an increase of Mexican nationals arrested at the border.
In December, Ken Cuccinelli, the second in command at the Department of Homeland Security, said that Mexicans could be sent to Guatemala.
Could you imagine?
Could you imagine someone living in like Tijuana going to the border and being like, I'd like to declare asylum and right this way so they put him on a plane and fly him to Guatemala?
This expansion of the agreement continues to prevent legitimate asylum seekers from having their cases heard by the U.S.
and foist upon the Guatemalan system, which has about a dozen staff, said one asylum officer, who was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.
Asylum in the U.S.
is now practically available only for people wealthy and privileged enough to get visas, shutting out many of the most vulnerable groups asking for help at our borders.
The interviews with asylum officers determine if a person is eligible to be deported to Guatemala.
The immigrants are told they will be deported to Guatemala and can obtain protections there instead of the U.S.
Before this interview with an asylum officer, immigrants have no access to legal counsel, unlike their initial asylum screening.
I'm gonna tell you right now, dude, this is an enderon around the system.
This is a federal policy that basically makes it so you can't be an asylum seeker here.
I think there's a fair point to be made that if you're in danger in Mexico and that danger doesn't exist in Guatemala, then why do you have to come to America?
I don't understand why people on the left are like, they shouldn't be allowed to come here.
Dude, we got people from Africa flying across the world to try and come to America.
That literally makes no sense.
It actually does make sense that some people would be eligible To go to Guatemala instead.
If you're truly concerned about your safety, economics shouldn't matter.
If your life is at risk in Mexico, why come to America?
You could go to Guatemala.
So I think there's a fair point to be made there.
I will say, however, I think you'd be a moron or a liar not to admit what this is really about is Trump just cutting down on immigration, period.
70% across the board, legal or otherwise.
Now, we know most asylum seekers are not legit, and maybe then, if they're found not to be, you know, eligible in America, they get sent to Guatemala.
But I think, I'll say this.
On its surface, the left should have no problem with this.
They're not saying that if you're going to be in danger in Guatemala, we'll send you there.
They're saying, if you are okay, and you could go there, we'll send you there.
We'll help you out.
On the surface, there should be no argument.
I still think what the U.S.
is doing is using various circuitous, difficult things to try and, you know, stop immigration.
The thing about what Trump is doing is that he's doing things in a way where you technically shouldn't be able to argue against it.
Like I said, if you're going to be—like, economics shouldn't matter if you're talking about safety.
If there's a gang in Mexico who says, we're coming for you, You should be safe in Guatemala if that gang doesn't exist there, right?
Yes.
But the economy is worse.
So what is the leftist legitimate argument against what Trump is doing?
While I certainly feel like Trump and his administration are doing this to curb immigration, I don't really have any proof of that, although I think it's obvious.
There's no real argument against sending people to Guatemala.
If the left is going to argue, but the economy is better in America, so what?
Asylum isn't based on whether or not the economy is better than another country.
You can't just come here and be like, I want Buffalo Wild Wings, like some have said.
Yeah, so in that case...
Could you imagine someone in Mexico coming to the border, being sent to Guatemala?
Yeah, this will deter a lot of people.
But I think it's fair to say, if you have a legitimate asylum claim, and you can't go to Guatemala, they're not going to send you there.
Because I'll tell you this, Trump is trying to win the battle.
Which means, sending some asylum seekers into Guatemala who then get kidnapped or hurt is going to be really, really bad news for Trump, and it's going to disrupt his plans.
So, I'll put it this way.
As far as I can see, I don't see a legitimate argument against what Trump is doing, other than... I can point out I think it's an end run around the system, but at the same time, why would we insult Guatemala?
Guatemala's dangerous for some people, not everybody.
I know a lot of people who like Guatemala.
I don't know, man.
You let me know what you think, but I'll tell you this.
Donald Trump and his team are crafty, to say the least.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at tomorrow at 10 a.m., but I believe I will have a live stream tonight.
I'm going to aim for 8 p.m., so maybe sooner.
Maybe it'll be before this video goes up.
I don't know.
I'll aim for 8 p.m.
But I should be live.
I'm gonna try and keep it not too long because I went nuts the other day with like a three hour stream and I almost lost my voice, so... It may or may not happen, but if it does it'll be at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL where I'm slowly ramping up a new show.
