Ocasio Cortez Just BACKSTABBED The Democratic Party And They're Furious, Fueling Calls To REMOVE AOC
Ocasio Cortez Just BACKSTABBED The Democratic Party And They're Furious, Fueling Calls To REMOVE AOC. Ocasio Cortez has consistently refused to play ball with the Democratic party. One of the first things she did after getting elected was join a protest outside of nancy Pelosi's office.Since then she has helped fund insurgent candidates to upend the Democrats and push in far leftists and progressives. The latest news comes as Fox News reports AOC is refusing to pay her dues to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee which helps Democrats seeking election or reelection.Instead AOC has announced fundraisers for candidates who will unseat incumbent Democrats.This fight has been ongoing and it seems that there is no end in sight. There is however a tiny chance Democrats actually remove her. In an op-ed with CNN they called for AOC to leave the Democratic party and other democrats are planning to primary her or even erase her congressional district outright.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Now I know this has been going on for quite some time, but I think it's fair to say Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is declaring war on the Democratic Party.
The latest story from Fox News, AOC riles Dems by refusing to pay party dues and bankrolling colleagues' opponents.
It is no secret that Ocasio-Cortez is very famous and is raising a ton of money.
Now normally, some of this money would go to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to help other House Democrats win.
AOC is refusing to contribute, in fact saying she's going to actually fund challenges to these Democrats.
One of the first things AOC does when she gets elected, not protest Republicans, she joined a protest in Nancy Pelosi's office, a Democrat.
I think it's fair to say there are not two political parties in this country right now, there are three.
You have the progressives, you have the democrats, and the republicans, and the progressives are taking over the democratic party and trying to shut out the establishment.
Now, depending on how you want to frame it, I could actually say that AOC is a progressive force, challenging the crony establishment and taking these people out of power, these do-nothing Democrats.
Or, you could say she's a hypocrite and a bully.
Because in the past, she's demanded that other Democrats vote in certain ways, but she's threatening to primary them anyway.
So what are you supposed to do other than just bow and let her take over?
Regardless of what your view of her is, I think it's fair to say there is a strong case to be made.
She is the future of the Democratic Party because she takes no prisoners, she demands allegiance, and she uses her space in the public eye against her opponents in the Democratic Party to bring in more, you know, other progressives.
However, the Democrats aren't taking this lying down.
They've threatened to primary her.
They might be able to win because they have substantial resources.
They're also threatening to remove her congressional district outright.
So perhaps, at the end of this year, she won't even have a seat to run for.
Well, her district may be gone.
She can still run in whatever district she ends up being in.
But it's fair to say the Democrats are at war and AOC keeps showing her hand.
She doesn't want to be a Democrat.
She doesn't like the Democrats.
Yet still, they do what she wants.
You know, they push for impeachment because AOC says it is a scandal that they won't impeach the president.
So Nancy Pelosi comes out and says, fine, we're going to impeach the president.
What does AOC do right afterwards?
I'm totally over it.
This is boring.
And here we are now with Jeff Van Drew.
And she says, you better vote for impeachment.
I can't tell which way she's coming or going, but I can tell you this.
CNN ran a story saying AOC should leave the Democratic Party, and I gotta say, They make a good case.
Why is she even a Democrat?
Joe Biden's been a Democrat for decades.
Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, they've all been there doing the same thing.
Why bother being a Democrat if that's the case?
You know what?
I'll say this.
For all of the things I don't like about AOC, I really don't like these crony establishment Democrats who have been in office for 30 years and then blame Trump whenever something goes wrong, when Trump's barely been in office at all.
Something seems rotten in the kitchen, so you know what?
I'm not a fan of AOC and her policies, but I'm gonna sit back, okay?
The same is true for Trump tearing through the ivory tower.
The same is true for AOC.
You know what?
You get what you deserve.
For the longest time, these Democrats have not done right by us, the American people.
They are not going out talking about kitchen table issues about economics, immigration, healthcare.
They're complaining about Trump.
So be it!
If you won't do your job, don't be surprised when a more extreme figure comes in to sweep you out.
Now, there are serious problems.
You know, everything they complain about Trump being all the worst.
Yeah, well, AOC is little Trump, okay?
I get it, they're not the same.
One for one, they embody a similar principle.
An upending force waging war on the party.
Now, Trump came in like a bull, stormed through and took everything.
Bernie Sanders and AOC are now pushing through on the Democrat side, and they're not happy about it.
So here's what I want to do.
I believe that AOC and Bernie Sanders have been a bit hypocritical.
I think it's fair to say, and I'll show you why.
But I want to talk about the Democratic Party, the war going on, what Dems are saying, and what AOC is doing.
Let's get started with this story from Fox News.
Before we do, however, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
But more importantly, I have a new show coming.
At youtube.com slash timcast IRL, make sure you go and subscribe.
You can see the link, I hope, in the right side of my main channel.
And seriously, subscribe.
In the next week or so, we should have things on a roll, and I've got some big guests planned, and there's gonna be a lot more fun stories.
Less serious news, but more fun, more interesting stuff.
I'm going to talk about interdimensional travel, and I'm going to talk about, you know, less political stories that are still making the news.
So it'll be silly, but fun.
Check it out.
YouTube.com slash Timcast IRL.
Let's read the story from Fox News.
In an exclusive report, they say...
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has already topped the fundraising charts in her short time in Congress.
But the liberal darling won't donate a cent of her millions to Democrats' House campaign organization, a position that has rankled some of her colleagues, Fox News has learned.
Instead, Ocasio-Cortez is building her own fundraising operation for fellow progressive candidates to bypass the official Democratic Party infrastructure.
Already, she's actively funding primary challengers to oust certain Democratic colleagues.
Quote, sometimes the question comes, do you want to be in a majority or do you want to
be in a minority?
Rep Gregory Meeks of New York told Fox News when asked about AOC's stance.
This is very, very different from socialism, right?
We're talking about crony Democrats who complain about Trump left and right, aren't getting the job done.
Many of these people who campaigned on actually bringing, you know, simmering down the political divide and instead jumped on the impeachment bandwagon.
So I'm not going to shed a tear over these people not getting money from AOC.
However, I do want to point out something based on motives, behavior, and principle.
Ocasio-Cortez doesn't like these Democrats.
Well, that's a shame.
But she's not willing to provide any of her cash to them.
Now, I understand that's not the same thing as government, but I think it's a fair criticism.
I do.
Imagine Ocasio-Cortez as an actual national leader when she says, we have raised all of this money through taxes to fund X program, but I don't like them.
I'm going to give money to who I like.
When it comes to socialism, you have to recognize there are going to be a lot of people you don't like, and they're going to get a piece of the pie as well.
This, to me, is a bad sign about her motivations and what, you know, and she, like many other socialists, happen to do once they gain power.
They shut out the ideas and the people they don't like, often in very, how do I say, lethal ways.
Now, of course, I don't think AOC would ever be in that position.
You know, I don't think America is ever going to end up in a situation like that.
I'm just saying, to tone things down and be less hyperbolic, look, you have to recognize, if you're all about the community, you have to provide for the community members you do not like either.
To me, this seems quite hypocritical.
I will also point out that, you know, AOC and Bernie have tried downplaying, you know, being socialists, but AOC is a card-carrying member of the DSA, the Democratic Socialists of America.
Let's read a little bit more, but then I want to point out how CNN actually ran a story saying AOC should leave the Democratic Party.
I kind of agree.
I've also got some story about dark money funneling into the Bernie campaign.
Oh, surprise, surprise.
They say their gripe is that Ocasio-Cortez hasn't given any money to the DCCC, the party armed with the sole job of electing Democrats to the House.
Records obtained by Fox News show the New York Democrat has failed to pay any of her $250,000 in dues.
Her goose egg of a contribution is no accident.
Ocasio-Cortez says she has beef with the Democrat, with the DCCC, and she'll withhold her money in protest of how the Democratic Party won't back insurgent, progressive primary candidates like herself in the name of protecting incumbents.
She said, for me personally, I'm not paying DTRIP dues.
She said, for a myriad of reasons.
One, I don't agree with the policy around blacklisting groups that help progressive candidates.
She said, referring to a DCCC effort to sideline vendors who assist challengers to members of Congress.
I think we need to evolve as a party and make room for that.
Hey, I actually think that's a pretty fair criticism.
The Democrats are actively trying to stop progressives from coming into the party using the primary method.
AOC wants to fund challengers to Democrats.
Democrats don't like it.
I can understand both sides of the issue.
But AOC is actively waging war on the Democrats.
And like I said, man, on principle, I like the idea.
They've been sitting so happily in their ivory tower, asking for the keys to the castle and getting nothing done for 30 years, and now blaming Trump for all of the problems when he... I'm exaggerating, I know.
They blame him for a lot of problems when he's been in office for only a few years.
Certainly there are things to blame Trump for.
For one, you can blame him for the good economy, I guess.
There are some other things involved in, you know, people being sent from Mexico to Guatemala, things that you might find amoral.
Sure, criticize the guy.
The point is, AOC is waging war on Democrats.
And while it can be a good thing, AOC's policies are not that perfect either.
And at a certain point, you might actually argue, well, she's not a Democrat.
Why should she be allowed to come in and do this?
Well, we can't have this system, unfortunately.
We can't have a system where the Democrats can sit around doing nothing, collecting all this money.
Eventually, if you refuse to do right by the American people, this is what you get.
So you know what?
I like what AOC is doing, but I do think it can be a tad hypocritical.
So obviously, they're ragging on her.
They say this.
Bucking the Democratic Party line, Ocasio-Cortez led online fundraisers for at least two progressives who are trying to defeat sitting Democratic members of Congress.
I don't want to go through all of this.
I want to keep the focus more on Ocasio-Cortez and her clash with the Democrats.
So I'll jump now to this story from Salon.com.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, quote, In any other country, Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party.
Democrats can be too big of a tent, she said, criticizing the party's alleged acquiescence of moderates.
I disagree.
I actually do like, to an extent, the two-party system.
What I don't like is the corporate control and these, you know, career politicians for 30, 40 years who aren't getting the job done.
Who used their position to keep everyone out.
That's a problem.
Two parties, not a problem.
I'll explain.
First, check out this story from CNN Opinion.
AOC should leave the Democratic Party.
Well, if she did, she would lose.
She only won because she primaried her opponent.
Meaning, She got, like, 16-17,000 votes in a district of 750,000 people.
She did not win by any legitimate means.
Well, she did, technically.
But I mean, like, ethical means.
Our system is broke, and it's a joke.
There's a lot of really great things about it.
But the idea that we have private organizations running elections and AOC use an exploit to get elected, to me, It's sad.
But let's see what this Froma Harrop has to say.
She writes.
This is an opinion piece, by the way.
They say Ocasio-Cortez was not entirely wrong when she said in any other country, Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party, in an interview with New York Magazine.
In this country, however, the two-party system ensures a wide range of views within a political label, and particularly within the Democratic one, exemplified by Biden and AOC's contrasting views.
In the interview, AOC, who represents parts of the Bronx and Queens, complained.
We are not allowed to talk about anything wrong the Democratic Party does.
Yeah, you're not.
I'm certainly not.
Nonetheless, she went on to complain that Democrats can be too big of a tent, and that they let anybody who the cat dragged in call themselves a progressive.
There's no standard.
Perhaps AOC would be happier leaving for another party than let her set the standards.
Well, under the Democratic umbrella, she seems to have made it her mission to fight the Democratic establishment.
In particular, she has worked with a group called Justice Democrats, supporting progressives.
It's no coincidence that the far-left Democrats, including AOC's three colleagues in the squad, were elected in very safe liberal districts.
But the Democrats now control the House, not because of a handful of radicals, but because 40 mostly moderate Democrats took seats from Republicans.
There you go.
The Democratic Party was able to impeach Donald Trump because they have a wide range of views, because people like Jeff Van Drew in Republican districts won on moderate values.
OK, look, the two party system is problematic for a lot of reasons.
It's their private organizations.
They do what they want and then they affect public institutions.
I don't like it.
However, I see a lot of people complaining, saying it's not fair.
Listen, we have a Democratic primary right now with a ton of candidates.
Many are dropping out.
And they're pushing continually to the far left.
The problem is not the two-party system.
The problem is the far left activists who control who gets elected pushing out the moderates.
That's creating chaos.
So you can blame the two-party system?
Sure.
Because if we had a multi-party system or rank-choice voting, that is, you choose in a rank who you like, and if the person doesn't win, your vote goes to the next choice you made, I do like the idea, then we would have a variety of parties and a variety of individuals.
But as far as I can tell right now, Americans, for the most part, agree on a lot of core issues.
If you watched the segment I did earlier this morning, We can see that Democrats are ticking towards conservative now, and America ticked closer towards conservative.
There's been a trend towards liberalism.
Now people are less likely to identify as liberal.
That means the Democratic Party is going to bring in these moderates and give power to the party.
This means that far-left AOC, who completely disagrees with moderate Jeff Van Drew, now Republican Jeff Van Drew, will be in the same party and be aligned on interests.
There are some net positives to this.
But let me show you something.
From the Hill, Ocasio-Cortez calls out Democrats for refusing to impeach Trump.
It is the Democratic Party's refusal to impeach him for it.
Yeah, and then after this, when they started moving forward, she said, I'm so over impeachment.
They didn't even end up impeaching Trump on any substantive issues, at least as far as I'm concerned.
There was, you know, the fact is there's no statutory crime, so call it law-breaking, but then don't impeach him for it.
I think it's nuts.
The reason I bring this up is that Ocasio-Cortez demands allegiance.
That's what it's all about.
She demands allegiance from you.
She does not respect opposing views, and she will not provide in a team manner to other organizations.
I'm sorry, to other candidates, people she might disagree with.
Think about what that means for her in principle.
It means that if she was in power, she would operate in much the same way.
I do not trust people who want power and who do these things.
You know what, man?
I understand it's a rock and a hard place.
We cannot sit around with Nancy Pelosi as the leader of the Democratic Party, essentially, and these other 80-year-old, you know, octogenarian candidates who have been in office for 40 years and are doing nothing.
At the same time, AOC is a bully.
She is absolutely a bully.
Jeff Van Drew was forced out of the party, not because of AOC, because the Democrats said to him, we will primary you unless you bend the knee.
Listen, There's power in having a wide range of views in one party.
That's why a two-party system basically happens.
You can align on certain values and there's some dangerous aspects to it as well.
But Jeff Andrew just joined the Republicans because of these threats.
You need to respect the diversity of opinions within your party.
AOC should recognize everybody pitches in and they don't all agree.
There are blue dog Democrats in southern states.
There are red state Democrats who are not going to agree with on everything, but at least you have them on your team and they will agree with you more often than not.
Certainly the same is true for Republicans, but AOC is not a team player.
She's a hypocrite.
She will slam you unless you abide by her rules, but she won't play by yours.
She isn't on your team, she is taking over your team.
Okay?
And again, I know it's... I'm conflicted emotionally because I like the idea of the Democrats getting comeuppance.
I like the idea of these progressives challenging these crony, keys-to-the-castle Democrats who aren't doing anything, but I don't like the people who are doing it.
This is a big challenge for people like me who have historically been democratic or lean left, and I'm looking at the party, having these crony ivory tower elites getting knocked down makes me smile, and then I look at who's doing it and it makes me frown!
So, let me do this.
You get the point.
AOC plays these games.
Let me show you this other story.
I might do a longer segment on this for the 6pm schedule.
Dark Money has bolstered Bernie's campaign from the start.
I don't want to get into all of the details, but suffice to say, Bernie started a 501c4 non-profit, it's collected tons of money, it's not necessarily a super PAC, maybe you could say it is, but Bernie Sanders does the exact same thing as everybody else.
AOC and these other people, they're all doing the exact same thing they complain about.
The reason I call this out and not say Trump for his dark money?
Trump's a billionaire.
He brags about being a billionaire.
He brags about raising money.
What am I supposed to do?
Trump admits it because he's proud of it.
Okay, I guess.
Trump has also raised a lot of grassroots money.
So has Bernie Sanders.
But it's Bernie Sanders and AOC complaining about money in politics when they're literally doing it.
Look, I get it.
You've got to play the game to win.
And if they don't take advantage of what they can, they'll lose.
So maybe Bernie should be more upfront about all the things he's doing.
Maybe AOC should actually comment on the fact that she accepted a maximum contribution from a billionaire.
Now, I think it's a fair argument to say that individuals can make maximum contributions.
But the average person can't make a maximum contribution, okay?
If Tom Steyer is going to be giving AOC maximum contributions, I think it's fair to criticize her for this, because it's not, it's, it's, it's, look, the average American's not going to pony up 2,800 bucks to their candidate.
And, and that's what happened.
So listen.
I think it was right of Bernie Sanders to slam Michael Bloomberg for his ad blitz, but I gotta say, if you're mad at Bloomberg for doing what he's legally allowed to do, if AOC is gonna legally, you know, be allowed to take billionaire money, again, it was an individual contribution, I think it's fair to point out, I'm not, I think it's important to say there's nuance here, okay?
What Michael Bloomberg is doing is ridiculously bad for democracy, for our democratic institutions, I know we're a republic.
But I still think it's hypocritical for Bernie to criticize, you know, dark money while taking dark, uh, you know, by using 501c4s as well.
I just, I just don't trust any of these people.
Okay, so in the end, who am I supposed to trust?
Well, I'll tell you this.
Donald Trump has dark money networks, same as anybody else.
These are non-profits that bring in money.
But Trump is an overt braggart of a billionaire, and people love him for it.
Bernie Sanders and AOC criticize Buttigieg for taking money from billionaires, and they do the same thing.
What am I supposed to say?
Am I supposed to say, Trump is being honest about being a billionaire and how he made his money, and he's bragging about it?
People like it.
What am I supposed to criticize?
People like it.
Bernie Sanders comes out, the billionaires, the dark money, and then he does it.
And AOC, the billionaires, the dark money, and then she does it.
Well, that's hypocritical!
So, I guess, you know, I don't know if I made my point clear enough or if you got what I'm trying to say.
It's really just about what I perceive as overt hypocrisy.
You know, there are subtle differences, but I think it's important to point out that right now, the Democratic Party is basically the party of, you know, Orange Man Bad.
There was a story in the New York... David Brooks wrote an op-ed in the New York Times saying, The anti-Trump group, Echo Chamber, has become stupid.
Because literally everything Trump does is bad.
And that's all they're campaigning on.
Well, I don't know what's going to happen, but I can tell you this.
There's a war going on in the Democratic Party.
Ocasio-Cortez is not playing by the rules.
She is waging asymmetrical warfare.
She demands that they do what she wants, and then uses her money to go against them.
I think she's gonna win.
I think so.
And I think it's fair to say that come 2024, she might be a contender for the presidency.
You laugh now, man.
You laugh now, but seriously, she's got a ton of followers.
She's raising record money.
It's important to say, America is not becoming progressive.
You'll hear it from people, and even people I respect, like, you know, I think Jimmy Dore's talked about it.
He's a good dude.
He says, you know, I could be wrong about this, so forgive me if I'm misquoting you, but he talks about how America is actually a progressive nation.
Being held hostage by, say, like the Electoral College and Republicans, not the case.
According to Gallup, we are a center-right country, and we are pushing further in that direction.
So while AOC may upend the Democratic Party, it's not going to change what America thinks.
So I'll tell you what I think.
AOC might win.
She's going to bolster that leftist activist base, take over the Democratic Party, and the Republicans will double in size because of it.
Because regular Americans, modern Americans, will join the Republicans when they see AOC take over.
So, the Democrats are right to resist, but you know what?
You reap what you sow.
The whole system's cracked and broken.
It's about time we got some real change.
So, I know.
I know I'm critical of Bernie.
I know I'm critical of AOC.
And that's just how I feel.
I think I'm justified in doing so.
I think the left in this country is fractured and broken, and the right is gloating about it.
They're unified around core ideas.
They're bragging about Trump being a billionaire.
They're bragging about the operations in the Middle East.
What do you want me to say?
They like what they're doing, and they're doing it?
Okay.
The Democrats, on the other hand, are falling apart in a million different ways.
So here we are.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
at youtube.com slash timcastnews.
It is a different channel, and I will see you all there.
Lo, my progressive leftist holdouts, gaze upon the data and despair.
America became slightly more conservative over the past year, reversing, to an extent, a trend where the Democratic Party and America in general is becoming more and more liberal.
The new data from Gallup shows that's actually begun reversing.
And I have a lot of, I can speculate as to why.
I don't necessarily believe the country is becoming more conservative, as the data might suggest.
I think what's happening is people no longer identify as liberal because the left has gone completely off the rails.
What do you think would happen if you took a sane, average Democratic voter, placed them in front of a TV and played the Democratic debate where they all raised their hands to give government health care to non-citizens?
They're going to say, well, I don't identify with them.
So they'll ask you, are you a liberal?
And they'll say, well, the liberals want to give health care to non-citizens.
That's not me.
I'm more moderate.
And thus, we can actually see moderates and conservatives kind of tick up.
Conservatives definitely tick up.
And liberal ticks down.
This, along with other data from a year ago, Conservatives greatly outnumber liberals in 19 U.S.
states.
This is also very important data when you now look to a year in the future and the country has become more conservative.
The reason why I think this is so important when they track the 2018 data on states is that last year, a month before this came out about conservative states, We saw that the country had remained steady, right?
Democrats stayed where they were, moderates stayed where they were, conservatives stayed where they were, or I should say liberals, conservatives, and moderates.
And today, the new report from Gallup shows it's actually ticking downward for liberals.
So let's read this, and I want to talk to you about why and what I think is going to happen.
And I really want to lay into the media because the double standard has become so insanely palpable.
I think one of the other reasons, one of the reasons that's driving people away from the left is that it's become so painfully obvious the media is biased.
I'll just show you right now.
I won't bear it.
I mean this seriously.
This is a story from the Washington Post.
Rep Stefanik tweets altered photo of Pelosi in GOP fundraising appeal, and the headline might make you think she's pushing fake news.
It's literally just a campaign ad the same as basically anyone's ever done.
And if you're a regular, sane, liberal voter and you see this, you're probably going, This is insane!
Do they think we're stupid?
Well, the answer is, in my opinion, I believe that the average journalist today is less intelligent than the average person.
Don't ask me how or why, it may have to do With being, you know, most of these people go to college, they get institutionalized, they don't experience the real world, they live in a bubble away from sane regular human beings at the top of an ivory tower and can't tell what's happening, and then they start pumping out media like this, and when regular Americans who have been Democrats or liberals their whole lives see it, they say, that's not me.
So basically, here's what I think happens.
What does it mean to be liberal?
Well, I guess liberal and conservative kind of more represent a tribe nowadays.
And so for people who are, you know, long-standing liberals, they're probably looking at the leaders of the Democratic Party as the liberals.
They're not, but that's what they call them.
And thinking, I don't align with them.
I align more so in the other direction.
What's really happening, as I've shown you in all the different graphs, the left has gone so far left that if you're a liberal, you are closer to Republican than you are to Democrat at this point.
That's why people are now saying they're not liberals.
I hate it.
We're liberals.
Accept it.
They're leftists.
There's a big difference.
But let's read this story.
Now Gallup says the U.S.
remained center-right ideologically in 2019, but the graph actually shows liberals going down, conservatives going up, and I think that's very significant.
I got more data for you, but before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
Sign up.
You know, it's a subscriber thing.
You can crypto, physical address, etc.
Also, though, I have a new show coming very, very soon.
Equipment and everything will be here in less than a week.
And it's going to be more stories.
A lot of the, you know, it's going to be very similar.
I'm redesigning the whole set.
It's going to be epic.
YouTube.com slash Timcast IRL.
It's going to be a longer-form podcast.
A lot of guests.
So it'll be a supplemental to everything I already do.
Check it out.
Let's get back to the news.
Gallup reports.
As Americans continued to lean more Democratic than Republican in their party preferences in 2019, the ideological balance of the country remained center-right, with 37% of Americans on average identifying as conservative during the year, 35 as moderate, and 24 as liberal.
And here's what we can see.
So moderates remained steady over the last year at 35%.
Conservatives went up 2%, and liberals went down 2%.
What this means is that, well, I can speculate a million different things, but it would seem the simple answer is many people who consider themselves moderate probably became conservatives.
Many people who consider themselves liberal now consider themselves moderates.
But it's also entirely possible there was an entire party flip.
We saw Bernie or bust voters, right?
12 to 18 percent of Bernie Sanders supporters voted for Donald Trump.
That's someone who might say they're liberal now saying they're conservative, skipping over moderate entirely.
I would like to lean more towards, I think we're seeing people who claim to be liberal now claim to be conservative because moderates choose themselves as moderates for a reason.
There's a reason why I don't consider myself, you know, a far leftist.
No, I consider myself a liberal.
I think that's fair.
But I think what we're seeing here is more of a tribal reaction of what it means to be liberal.
Liberal is supposed to be, you know, kind of based in liberty, right?
It's somewhat progressive.
It's freedom.
Conservative is supposed to be about tradition.
But now we're seeing the Conservative Party become much more liberal, classically liberal, and we're seeing the Democratic Party become much more authoritarian, far left.
But because people still say liberal and conservative for the two parties, I'd be willing to bet you have regular old Democrats saying, I'm not liberal anymore when they really, really are.
Or it's also fair to say, you know what?
Maybe liberal is conservative now.
Maybe what used to be Democrat is literally now conservative because everything's moved over, I guess.
Let's continue.
They say the 2019 findings are based on combined data from 21 Gallup telephone surveys conducted throughout the year, encompassing over 29,000 interviews with U.S.
adults.
The percentage identifying as conservative in 2019 was up two points from the 35% measured in 2018, while the percentage liberal was down two points from 26.
Well, these changes are statistically significant.
Some two-point changes in the past were short-lived.
So it will be important to see whether these trends continue in 2020.
It will.
But I'll make a prediction, man.
Listen.
I was wrong about 2018.
I thought Trump's base would come out.
I thought the Republicans were going to sweep everything, potential supermajority.
And it's because of the insanity.
But I was wrong.
Trump's base didn't come out, at least according to the New York Times.
Most Trump voters stayed home.
Or I shouldn't say most, I should say a large portion of Trump voters stayed home.
And that's one of the reasons Trump was really adamant about campaigning, saying, consider it my name on the ballot.
But it didn't work.
Trump's voters like Trump.
Many of these people are not Republicans.
Some are independent, some are Obama voters, so they don't care to show up for the midterms.
And this was taken advantage of by Democrats who showed up in droves.
And reclaimed the House and used that to impeach Donald Trump with no statutory crime.
They still haven't handed over the articles.
It is sheer absurdity.
But now because of impeachment, because of Trump's name on the ballot, I believe 2020, the end of the year, November, we are going to see a massive sweep.
Hey, don't get me wrong.
I was wrong about 2018.
I have my reasoning.
But I will add one more thing before we go on.
Look, I've been saying over and over again the Democrats are hurting themselves, they're going to keep losing, and there's more data right now showing that my general assessment is correct.
I don't think I'm right all the time, but I've been warning the Democrats and the left, it's literally what I do all day, ranting and raving about how insane they've gotten.
Well, what happens if you don't listen?
Conservative goes up, liberal goes down!
That's right.
Well, let's see what we got here.
They say Republicans remain mostly conservative party.
While the country as a whole may be center-right, that is not the case for Republicans who overwhelmingly identify as conservative.
Conservatism averaged 73% among Republicans in 2019, maintaining the peak level recorded last year and previously in 2012.
Most other Republicans, 21% of the party, identified as moderate, while 4% were self-identified liberals.
So wait, wait, wait.
There are people who are registered as Republicans who actually consider themselves liberal.
That is also serious bad news for Democrats, though the number isn't really significant.
And the amount of moderates have gone down.
We can see since 2015, Republicans have skewed a little bit more conservative.
But I'm not super concerned about what's going on with the Republican Party.
They're going to vote for Republicans, right?
Let's read.
The large majority of Republicans have consistently labeled themselves conservative in Gallup polling over the life of this trend, although the proportion has inched up from about 6 in 10 during the early 1990s to over 7 in 10 more recently.
The shift may relate to the decrease in the percentage identifying as Republican over the same period and the corresponding increase in political independent identification.
People who once might have been liberal or moderate Republicans may increasingly identify as politically independent instead.
Now, this is interesting.
Liberal identification levels off among Democrats.
Now, I'm really interested, you know, why Gallup is framing it this way.
They titled the article, The U.S.
Remained Center-Right, when clearly we're seeing a shift towards conservatism, and even the Democratic Party has become more conservative over the past two years.
Take a look at this.
Democratic, they say it leveled off.
Leveled off?
Okay, I think that's fine, but you can say ticks towards conservative.
Democratic partisans are more ideologically diverse than Republicans, with 49% identifying as liberal, 36% as moderate, and 14% as conservative.
There's probably a big boost of never-Trumpers in there.
The liberal wing of the Democratic Party has about doubled in size over the past quarter century, rising from 25% to 51% in 2018.
The slip to 49% in 2019 suggests the trend may be slowing or leveling off, at least temporarily.
It could also be suggesting it's reversing.
But, you know, we'll see, because I do think it's fair to point out there have been downturns.
You know, from 2010 to 11, it did tick downward before going back up.
So it's entirely possible that things change.
We saw an increase in conservatism at the same time.
Now here's the important part.
Moderates outnumber conservatives among independents.
This is really important for Democrats because independent voters lean conservative.
Independents typically mirror the country as a whole, but in this case they are more centrist than center-right.
A large plurality identify as politically moderate, whereas 30% call themselves conservatives and only slightly fewer are liberal.
Independents' political views in 2019 are nearly identical to those from 2018 and are generally in line with the long-term pattern, although conservatism was a bit higher among this group during the Obama years.
In 2019, among independent voters, the amount identifying as liberal has gone down.
Conservative has gone up over the past year, and moderate has stayed relatively stable.
Politically independent voters.
People like me.
I lean slightly to the left.
I'm probably more of an independent liberal, and I keep shrieking, and this is why.
I scream at the top of my lungs, and I complain all day on the internet about how blue party bad.
I know, it's a bit annoying even to me.
But at a certain point, I think it's fair to say the data shows that I'm right.
Independents are skewing slightly more conservative.
What did you do last year and why did you do it?
Well, I think it's fair to point out that the economy is doing better and better.
And I think people are starting to realize the media is full of it.
And that means, you know, the average person who watches the news and says, they're lying.
You know, I think it's fair to point out that 2019 was the year we learned about all these hoaxes.
You know, like Russiagate.
And people probably had, like, a smack-in-the-face moment where they're sitting there saying, like, you know, look, the media has said over and over again, Trump and Russia, and then boom, the hammer drops, fake news.
For three years!
What do you think that's going to do to the average person?
For three years, bashing everyone over the head with this insane narrative, and the economy is skyrocketing.
I pointed out in a segment I did last night at 4pm that I was speaking to a saleswoman who told me she made more money, she said, I made more money last year than I ever have.
And I said, yeah, the economy's great, isn't it?
And that's why people are going to vote for Donald Trump.
But when you combine these things, what do you get?
You get an insane media pushing out insane nonsense, you get record economies, and people are confused as to why the TV keeps saying the same thing when everything is going great.
You look at what's going on now with, you know, Middle Eastern tensions.
I'm not going to get super specific, but the reaction from the Democrats is mind-numbing.
I mean, look, I am an anti-war person.
Very much so.
I've always been a left-leaning, very staunchly anti-war.
And I'm looking at the narrative coming out from these leftists, and I'm just shocked.
I'm just shocked.
It's insane.
So I'm not surprised and I would be willing to bet the trend will continue.
People who identify as liberal are going to keep ticking downward so long as the Democrats stay on this course of action.
And of course they are because they're addicted and it's the fault of the media.
Let me show you a few more things.
I think it's really important to point out.
Data tracking from 2018 Gallup published February 22, 2019.
Conservatives greatly outnumber liberals in 19 U.S.
states.
This is significant because some of these states are considered in play or swing states.
We can see this.
Ohio, for instance, more conservative than average.
Ohio is going to be a very, very important state.
We can see, you know, for the most part, this tracks normally with what we would expect.
I mean, a lot of the blue states are blue, a lot of the red states are red, but there are a few very important swing states that are slightly leaning conservative, and that's going to be good news for Trump.
The reason I point this out is because this data kind of tracks in line with what we expect from a presidential election.
But with more people now, a 2% swing, think about this, a 2% swing within the Democratic Party, And within the independent voters and among Republicans in general, as a whole, in this country, a 2% swing from liberal to conservative, that says to me, you know, if Trump won in 2016, he's got a 2% bump in general voter mentality, in general general voter identity.
That's going to be huge for him, let alone the fact that the economy is doing ridiculously well.
Now there is something else I really want to briefly mention.
A couple things as we move on.
I want to get to the economy and I'll talk about what we can expect.
This is a chart called Political Polarization in the American Public going up to 2014 from Pew.
And it shows that for the most part, the Republicans have barely moved, right?
A lot of people have highlighted this.
I'm highlighting it now just as we move through to make this point.
This is just more data to show the Democrats have moved far left.
Republicans have ticked only slightly to the right, showing that when the left says the right is far right, conservatives are going crazy.
No, no, no, no, no.
It's them on a train off into the wilderness.
And the conservatives and the moderates are sitting right there confused.
And as your train goes faster and faster, further and further left, you leave people behind who now say, I'm not on the liberal side anymore.
They're going to say they're conservative.
They're going to vote that way.
Another important piece of data from last year is that Generation Z is the first generation in nearly 100 years to slightly tick more conservative, and I think this may have to do with birth rates.
But let's get to the other more important reason.
I think a big factor We got this story from the AP today.
employers are expected to have added 160,000 jobs in December.
There's no denying it.
The economy is great.
In fact, the economy is so good, Taco Bell recently announced they're going to pay six figures to their managers and they're going to provide all employees with paid benefits.
We saw from the story, I think it was Business Insider, that even Shake Shack is now offering a four-day work week.
All of these things the left claimed they wanted—higher wages, benefits, four-day work week, less hours, more pay—it's being accomplished under Trump.
So what do you think the average person's going to say?
Now, I'll be fair.
Listen, this all makes sense.
Most liberals are not going to simply be like, I'm conservative now and just, you know, jump off the bandwagon.
But some will.
2%.
These people are looking around the news and they're looking at this psychotic story.
Look at this.
Rep Stefanik tweets altered photo of Pelosi.
It's literally just a filter on Pelosi.
It's what they've always done.
Is the Washington Post going to run a story now saying that, you know, Republicans running doctored footage because they used a red filter and they put splatters on it and they used it and they say they use manipulation tactics to make it seem evil?
What do you think political ads have always been?
But let me exemplify this for you.
Check this out.
The Washington Free Beacon shows how Nancy Pelosi and many other people literally do the same thing.
At a certain point, the average person is going to say, this is insane.
The Washington Post ran a story, the paper, the Democracy Dies in Darkness paper, runs a story claiming she published an altered photo.
And literally everyone does this all the time.
There's going to be a certain amount of people who think, stop calling me stupid.
An average liberal picks up that Washington Post, or clicks the link, sees the story and says, what is this?
What is wrong with these people?
Yeah, they're nuts.
Absolutely nuts.
But let me wrap up with a couple more stories just to explain.
Things are going so well, and people are starting to take notice.
This is a story from August 30th, 2019, from the Foundation for Economic Education.
Check this out.
The poorest 20% of Americans are richer on average than most European nations.
The privilege of living in the U.S.
affords poor people more material resources than the averages for most of the world's richest nations.
I know most people probably don't see this story from FEE.
They're probably not, you know, sitting around all these Democrats talking about how things are going great.
The issue isn't so much whether they know it, it's whether they feel it.
And when these people go to the store and they have their, you know, widescreen TVs at discounted rates and their air conditioning and refrigerators, they got gas, their wages are going up, their jobs better than ever, there is massive competition in the low-skilled labor market because unemployment is so low.
People notice, okay?
They don't notice for the same reasons we do.
The average person isn't gonna watch my video, see all this, and say, wow, this is a really good reason to, you know, vote conservative or vote Republican or something like that.
The average person's gonna feel it.
They're gonna be like, I paid off my car.
I'm paying down my mortgage.
I got my kids, you know, the bills are being paid.
My wages are up.
It's been a great year.
I don't want to rock the boat.
That's what they're feeling.
Now I'll tell you this.
I'm not sitting here telling you all this saying you should or shouldn't vote for anybody.
But I will tell you this.
The Democrats, on their current course, chasing after the woke Twitterati, are driving themselves off the cliff while the rest of us stare, confused, and the country becomes more conservative.
Not, in my opinion, because they actually hold conservative values.
But because what the left now represents is, is, I mean, it's, it's, no one knows what it is.
It's, it's, it's indiscernible.
It's something strange and confusing to the average person.
The average liberal, my friends and my family, I talk to them and I say, do you identify with any one of these candidates?
And they say, absolutely not.
You know, Bernie Sanders, several months ago, last year, six months or so ago, said we can't have open borders.
Then several months later starts talking about bringing in 50,000 climate refugees.
It's a flip-flop because they're chasing each other off the cliff.
They're constantly trying to one-up each other to win the activist vote so they can win the primary.
But because of the internet era, this is what's really fascinating.
I should probably write a book about this.
Because of the speed of information, to stay ahead in the polls, you have to move faster than ever.
Back in the day, the one-upsmanship among political parties happened during debates, for the most part.
Somebody would go on a debate stage and say, I think we need healthcare for all Americans.
And then someone else would chime in and say, well, we need to make sure we take care of everyone who's here, even if they're not American.
The debate ends, no one hears from these people for seven months, so they don't have to consider one-upping the other person until they're back on the debate stage.
But now we're in the era of social media where everything is rapid response.
So Pete Buttigieg tweets out something about detentions in the Middle East that everyone's shocked by, and in order to win over the woke Twitterati, we're going to see another candidate come out and tweet something even more extreme to be like, I'm better than him, vote for me, I'm more of an activist.
Because of rapid response media, where everything is just instant, instant, instant, no one cares about the debates anymore because we already know what these candidates think, and they're one-upping each other every single day in a desperate bid to win over the activists, and they're going insane.
So, as the train speeds off towards the left, it starts going faster and faster and faster because they're all one-upping each other, especially with this large field, and people start jumping off the train, crashing into the ground, confused and politically homeless, people like me.
And I jumped off a long time ago.
But now we can see the data from Gallup that a lot more people are jumping off.
Nobody wants to be, no one knows what that is anymore.
So when asked, are you a liberal or conservative, they say, most people, I don't know.
But a lot of people only know liberal, conservative.
And they're going to go ahead and assume, if you support the economy, if you recognize the wealth and grandeur of America, well you're certainly not a liberal because they trash it all day and night.
If you think we should have, you know, controls on immigration like most Americans do, well you're not a liberal because they're talking about giving away health care.
If you think we've got a problem, if California is disastrous, you're certainly not a liberal because liberals control that state.
Voters in three red to blue swing districts oppose impeachment.
I'm gonna wrap it up here.
It's a failed plan.
You know, I was talking to some family, and they said that they were lifelong Democrats, they will always be a Democrat, and I said, and they were complaining, like, you need to talk more about Republicans.
I'm like, okay, let me ask you a question.
Do you identify with any of these Democrats?
No.
How do you feel about them saying X, Y, and Z on the debate stage, this policy?
I think it's insane.
So if you're still claiming to be part of the Democratic Party while recognizing how insane they've gotten, Don't get mad at me, okay?
I don't consider myself to be, but I do like Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang, and I don't care about the word Democrat or not, I care about the principles of the individual.
Now Trump's the incumbent, I'm not, he's not my first choice.
It's gonna be Tulsi or Yang, and they happen to be Democrats, okay?
But they're the ones who are the least crazy, the most sane, and more importantly, the big issue for me, I'm really impressed with Andrew Yang, because he's focused on forward-thinking solutions.
Bernie Sanders?
AOC?
No, it's regressive policy from a hundred years ago.
Yes, we need this policy a hundred years ago.
It worked.
It'll work again today.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
You need to listen to Andrew Yang, man.
I'm not saying Andrew Yang's gonna win.
I don't think so.
The point is, I think it's absurd to take offense at me criticizing the Democrats because you so strongly identify with a party that's gone completely nuts.
And this is what I asked.
I said, You're mad at me for criticizing the fact that the Democrats won't campaign on, they're not getting up on stage and talking about health care, and they're not talking about, you know, the border, they're talking about impeachment.
You're mad at me that all they ever say is Orange Man bad.
And my family agreed with me.
You're right.
That is annoying.
Great.
So if they want to stand up and talk about important issues that are affecting the American people, they have every opportunity to do so, but they will not do it.
And thus, as they ride the Orange Man bad train off the cliff, by all means keep identifying with this party that is losing support Keep doing it!
I don't care!
And I will keep criticizing them because they're nuts!
It's lost their minds!
I don't know what they're doing, man.
You know, the moderate, corporatist-type Democrats do not represent the average person.
The Democratic Party is becoming slightly more conservative, while the progressives are convinced their path to victory is bringing in the far left, and it's just not the case.
So I don't know what to tell you, man.
We'll see what happens.
Look, I'm entirely open to being wrong, but the data so far today Backs up what I've been saying for the past couple years.
Whether or not this holds true to 2020 is an entirely different story.
And it could have to do with Trump's actions pertaining to, you know, Middle Eastern tensions and things like that.
So, you know, we'll see what happens.
There's a lot of people who believe that we're in a state, that we're facing a recession.
A lot of people are getting close to that panic mode.
But as far as I can tell, the media is trucking along saying everything's fantastic.
Keep in mind though, they did the same thing in 2008.
So while the economy is running fantastically, you know, it's really, really hard to predict.
And we're in the longest economic expansion in U.S.
history.
I don't know.
I don't know.
It's entirely possible in a couple months something bad happens.
We just don't know what's going to happen.
But for the time being, the Democrats are losing support.
They're flipping conservative.
The country is flipping conservative.
Trump is winning.
His approval rating is up amid everything that's going on.
The latest poll shows approval rating is holding steady, slightly in the highs, highest it's ever been.
I don't have to tell you, man.
The Democrats are just a name now that represents nothing.
They're fractured between the far left, the moderates.
The moderates are out of touch and don't know what they're talking about.
Joe Biden can't speak straight.
Nancy Pelosi has no idea what she's doing.
She's campaigning on Orange Man Bad and no one cares.
And then you have the far left that they're proposing things that literally make no sense.
Don't be surprised when people no longer identify as liberals, and even within the Democratic Party, more likely to identify as conservative.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
at youtube.com slash timcastnews.
It is a separate channel, and I will see you all there.
A U.S.
Pentagon official, an intelligence official, an Iraqi official, Canadian intelligence now all saying Iran shot down The Ukrainian airline.
Video emerged, obtained by the New York Times, and was also posted to social media, showed what appeared to be an anti-aircraft missile striking something in the sky.
Bellingcat did an analysis of Google Maps, satellite data, and the image, and it appears to sync up with exactly where the plane went down.
It is, in my opinion, beyond a reasonable doubt at this point.
We all thought this was the case.
Iran mistakenly shot down this plane.
It's a tragedy, it's unfortunate, but now it appears Iran is trying to cover everything up.
Has the cover-up begun, Daily Mail says?
Iran clears debris from plane crash site with bulldozers before investigators even arrive after condemning big U.S.
lie they shot the jet down and insisting Iran will handle the black box data.
Not only are they not handing over the black box data, they don't necessarily have to, but they should.
They've already cleared the area.
Investigators are furious.
Canada is particularly angry because there were Canadian citizens on there.
Ukraine is angry.
This is the stupidest thing Iran can do.
But I will tell you, as I mentioned the other day, there may be an open window from this tragedy, you know, they close the door, open a window, in that the more Iran digs its heels in and makes things worse, the more the world will be united against them and all the things they've been doing.
They recently came out and tried claiming that the plane was on fire and tried turning around, and I find that absolutely disgusting.
The plane wasn't trying to turn around.
There's map data showing the plane took off in a straight line and crashed at a different angle.
It wasn't turning around.
It was shot down and went down in a fireball, and it was Iran's fault.
They don't want to accept it.
They're the ones who fired into Iraq.
Let me make something clear, okay?
A lot of people are claiming Trump had no authority to strike Suleimani in Iraq.
Well, I agree that technically there was a major stretch, but unfortunately, thanks to Congress back in 2001-2002, there are two separate authorizations for use of military force, one against terrorists and one for use in Iraq.
Now, I think it's fair to point out, I think it was Rand Paul said this, that anybody trying to claim That the AUMF that was to be used against Saddam Hussein could now be used against anybody is wrong.
The problem is, there is still the 2001 AUMF against terrorists.
Suleimani was named a terrorist, my understanding, by Barack Obama.
So yes, Trump was acting within what Congress voted for, and I blame Congress, and to an extent, Trump.
The problem is, Trump is new to political office, okay?
Trump has only been in for three years.
He wasn't in politics before this.
So while I can criticize his actions today, and I think this dramatic escalation, look, to act like there are not two parties involved is wrong.
The United States and Iran are both involved in this.
Iran is the one who screwed up and is now trying to cover things up, and they should be blamed for this.
But I think it's important to say that so long as we are here, we will continue to see escalation.
So I can criticize Trump for the actions he's taking, but I can also say it's time to get out.
I'm glad he listened to Tucker Carlson and is trying to tone things down.
It's fine.
Suleimani was a bad guy.
The Middle East is destabilized.
And now from left to right, the populist position is time to leave.
Okay?
I'm going to do this.
I'm going to say, you know what?
Both sides are freaking out.
Let's everybody shut up.
I'm going to give everybody a pass right now and say, if we can leave, good.
Back in Libya, Obama and Hillary wanted to take action against Gaddafi.
We had absolutely no business there and no congressional authorization for Obama to do that.
And now you've got this really weird argument where they're saying Trump had no congressional authority to do it.
Technically, yes.
Because like I said, the AUMF against Saddam Hussein made no sense.
And technically, the 2001 AUMF doesn't apply to Suleimani because he was named substantially afterwards, but now you see the problem of Congress authorizing these blanket AUMFs.
That means Authorization for Use of Military Force.
And what happened in 2001 with this authorization was everybody, I'm pretty sure Bernie Sanders voted for it, okay?
So this needs to be repealed, and we need to take serious action against the blanket authority given to the executive branch.
But to act like Barack Obama had authority to go into Libya, a country we had never agreed to go into, is anywhere comparable to Trump is insane, and I am critical of the escalation and To an extent, Trump's leadership.
But I'm going to say this.
I'm trying to simmer everybody down.
Okay?
Let's stop chucking blame around.
Let's stop pointing at Trump and Pelosi and all this stuff.
And let's just say, okay, how about we all agree we just leave now?
Let's read this story.
Iran's trying to cover things up.
I'm not happy about what's going on.
But at least now we might see the world unified against what Iran is doing.
The Daily Mail reports.
Iran has bulldozed the crash site where a passenger jet came down two days ago, sparking fears of a cover-up after Tehran denied the West's big lie that Iranian missiles shot down the plane.
Never mind that we actually have videos of it.
Check this out.
This is a video that's been uploaded.
I'm not going to play it, but you can see Bellingcat outlines, you know, the angle, the building.
They did a fantastic job analyzing this.
You can see where the airport took off, where it was filmed, where the crash was.
And you can see fragments of what looks like an anti-aircraft missile.
Iran is playing stupid games at this point.
The only thing I can say is, as stupid as they are, at least the world might come out against them and this might make real change.
They say debris of the Boeing 737 had been removed from the crash site near Tehran before Ukrainian investigators had even arrived, leaving the site at the mercy of scavengers.
Iran says it is opening the plane's black boxes today, but has indicated it will not allow the U.S.
government to analyze their contents.
Fine.
Get in an independent third party.
Now, it's too late.
They bulldozed the site.
I think it's also really funny that the United States has done similar things in the past, but we'll leave that for another segment.
Washington and its allies believe that the plane was shot down by two Iranian surface-to-air missiles, which were launched and detected by satellites just minutes after the airliner took off.
This aligns with the video we saw published.
Now, When this video came out, a lot of people said, why were they filming?
That's a big question.
It's actually simply answered.
The individual claimed they heard what sounded like gunfire, started filming, and then they captured it.
That makes complete sense.
The U.S.
said they heard, they believe there were two missiles fired, one maybe missed or hit, and then they started filming, and you can see the hit happen again, it all lines up.
They say.
Washington and its allies believe the plane was shot down by two missiles.
Footage which emerged last night showed the Ukraine International Airlines jet exploding in midair after it was hit, killing all 176 people on board.
It is feared that the Iranian forces may have mistaken the passenger plane for him, but we know all this.
Justin Trudeau, Donald Trump, and Boris Johnson have all pointed the finger at Iran As a chorus of Western countries rejected Iran's explanation of a technical failure and NATO also backed the shoot-down theory today.
So now we got NATO on board.
Iran accused the US of waging psychological warfare and inventing a big lie as it denied the claims.
If that were true, they wouldn't have come in with bulldozers and gotten rid of all the evidence.
They say America's FAA has banned U.S.
airlines flying over Iran just hours before the crash, potentially saving American lives from the misdirected shootdown.
I gotta say something, man.
I read that apparently 33 planes had taken off before this one.
But I'll tell you what.
I'm gonna give you some advice.
If you are in a country that is actively firing missiles over the border, skip the flight.
I know hindsight is 20-20, but I'll tell you what, man.
I have been in countries that have been in dangerous situations, and we're very careful about how we choose our flights, okay?
I can't believe there are people who... You know what it is?
It's optimism bias.
The world is not a safe place.
These things can happen.
If you are in the airport and you get word that more than a dozen missiles, ballistic missiles, have been fired into another country, skip the flight, wait it out, let things simmer down, and you know what?
Maybe you'll be stuck for a day.
But a lot of people lost their lives, and I can't believe this.
I'm not trying to blame them, I'm just saying, take this into consideration, okay?
I'm surprised there'd be someone willing to get in a commercial airliner, especially after what happened in Ukraine.
Remember that?
There was a commercial airliner that was shot down.
Looks like it may have been separatists.
So we've got a bunch of photos here.
They're all coming in and scooping up the debris.
We've got what looks like a photo of a flight recorder.
Do not open, it says.
We've got pictures here of what appear to be part of a anti-aircraft missile.
They say supposedly near the site.
Now, initially, I couldn't verify these, but I guess everyone's using them, so, you know, it is what it is.
We have now, uh, we also have a map of where approximate extent of aircraft, aircraft debris were found, and the location of the actual plane crash.
It wasn't, it wasn't turning around.
It just got hit and then veered right and crashed.
And we can see this.
I don't know if this is, uh, this, this, this is, this is not a one-for-one map.
Apparently people are mad at Trudeau.
Let's read a little bit more.
They say, visiting the crash site today, CBS reporter Elizabeth Palmer said virtually all pieces of the plane had been removed with no security around the site and scavengers now scouring the remaining debris.
This is...
Look, man, if there's not an international response to this, I'm gonna be really, really disappointed.
Not that I'm happy with what America's doing, and not that I'm saying intervention in any capacity, but if Russia, China, and other countries don't, you know, come on with sanctions, or demand independent investigations, or something, this is insane.
They say bulldozers were seen at the crash site.
We know this.
Ukraine says its investigators have been granted permission to look for missile fragments, but they were nowhere in sight by the time the debris was removed.
This is a cover-up, man.
And it's stupid.
We're in the age of social media.
Everyone's seen the photos.
We're not in a time period like in the 70s or the Gulf of Tonkin.
Where we had only press reports to go off of.
We now have videos coming up.
We actually have more than one video.
We have one video that showed the plane crashing.
Now we have another video showing what appears to be the hit.
We have pictures coming up of fragments.
And we have Iran bulldozing the area!
Alright, you know what?
We are not in this era where it is so easy to stage these false flags for intervention means.
And while I am absolutely critical of the lies that got us into this war in the first place, and I'm saying straight up, let's get out!
I think it's fair to point out, we have a serious situation where Iran Overzealous.
Listen, okay?
You're sending one of your generals into a foreign country that the U.S.
There's active military conflict and your dude gets taken out.
I understand.
I do not like the escalation, but I also think there's a big difference between us engaging in anti-terror activities for a long period of time, again, which I've been very critical of because we're there for underlies, but it's a big difference between what the U.S.
is doing in Iraq and Iran firing missiles into Iraq.
It's mind-numbing to me that we're still there after all of this.
But to act like the left is saying this is anyway like what happened in Libya is absurd.
And Pelosi defended that saying, you know, Obama doesn't need approval for this.
It's a NATO operation.
No, no, no, no, you don't, man.
There's already two active AUMS for Iraq.
They need to be repealed.
Stop pushing executive authority.
This is Congress's fault.
And what have the Democrats done since they got in?
A non-binding war resolution.
Because they're lying to you.
They don't care about any of this.
The establishment Democrats want this as much as any other party.
At least the Republicans are being honest about it.
Praising the action.
Okay.
I think it's wrong.
I think we need to leave and stop the escalation.
But at least they're being honest.
The Democrats in Libya said, Obama can do this.
Now they pass a non-binding resolution.
You have the majority of the House.
Repeal the AUMF.
Oh, they're not going to do that.
No, they love what's going on.
It's all a stupid political game.
Absolutely stupid political game.
But let me stop dragging, you know, politics in America right now.
Let me point the finger back at Iran.
I apologize for that.
I want to see left and right come together right now, condemn this.
I personally want to see a legitimate investigation They've already tainted it all, so maybe we won't get one, alright?
But this is a step over the line, beyond what could be considered the line at all.
I mean, this was Iran's overzealous response, their stupid, symbolic, our pride.
You know what they did?
They fired missiles, they missed, they hit nothing.
My understanding is nobody lost their lives in those conflicting reports, but the general idea being pushed around right now, even by Trump, Is that it was a symbolic retaliation to maintain their honor, and in this, in their hair-trigger fear, they ended up taking out their own citizens and citizens of many other nations.
And now they're trying to cover it up and lie.
And, I gotta say, it is deeply offensive.
When I heard them claim that the plane tried turning around.
You sick mother effers.
You did this.
Accept responsibility.
It was your own people.
You know what?
You jumped the gun, hair trigger, fear, whatever.
I don't care.
It's your fault.
Now they're covering it up.
I want to see, I want to see, you know what I mean?
I don't know, justice for these people.
Let me end by saying for the second time, if you're in an active war zone, do not fly, okay?
Seek shelter, stay safe, wait for things to calm down.
It was only hours after these missiles had been fired, people are boarding commercial airlines, and this is what happens, man.
So my heart goes out to the families, to the friends, to everybody who knew these people, and I'm sickened by what Iran is doing.
I'll see you all at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast, my main channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
Boeing knew that the 737 Max was a bad plane, and they actively covered it up.
Two planes crashed, and several hundred people lost their lives.
We need more journalism calling out corporate malfeasance.
We need more journalists to be digging into these companies, looking for sources.
And admittedly, we need more people within these companies to blow the whistle on this stuff.
Listen, man.
Here's the story.
Hundreds of damning emails reveal Boeing employees knew about 737 MAX issues and even mocked the FAA when they appeared to cover up problems.
I think we got a cultural problem, man.
I think ego, narcissism, selfishness is taking over.
And so you have people who would straight up say, I will not put my family on one of these planes, not telling anyone.
And then what happens?
People died.
Planes crashed.
And it makes me really, really angry that they knew that you could have been one of these people to stand up and say, this is what's going on, but nobody wants to risk their jobs.
What do we get instead?
People losing their lives.
What happened to the era of journalism that would dig into this stuff and find this stuff out?
Now, I'm not saying every journalist is obligated to actually find these stories.
We never know what's going on.
But so many people are obsessed with stupid things these days.
Video game controversies.
Look, if you're a fan of video games, I understand.
But if you're a journalist trying to do serious work, and you're writing about stupid cultural nonsense and the Orange Man, we've got serious problems.
But I blame the companies, too.
Let's read the story.
Hundreds of damning internal emails have revealed that Boeing employees knew about problems with the now-grounded 737 MAX and even mocked the Federal Aviation Administration when they appeared to get away with covering those issues up.
Boeing released the trove of internal messages on Thursday that raised serious questions about its development of simulators and the 737 MAX that was grounded in March after two fatal crashes.
In the messages which were handed over to Congress and the FAA, Boeing employees talked about misleading regulators about problems with simulators.
Quote, I still haven't been forgiven by God for covering up what I did last year, one employee says in a 2018 message.
One employee also told a colleague they wouldn't let their family ride on a 737 MAX.
But you know what?
That person has no problem with you and your family.
And some families lost their lives.
Would you put your family on a MAX simulator-trained aircraft?
I wouldn't, one employee said to another colleague.
The colleague responded, no.
In an April 2017 exchange of instant messages, two employees expressed complaints about the MAX following references to issues with the plane's flight management computer.
This airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys, one employee wrote.
In one message dated November 2015, which appears to shed light on lobbying methods used when facing demands from regulators, a Boeing employee notes regulators were likely to want simulator training for a particular type of cockpit alert.
We're going to push back very hard on this, and will likely need support at the highest levels when it comes time for the final negotiation the employee writes.
In the messages, employees also complained about Boeing Senior Management, the company's selection of low-cost suppliers and wasting money.
Names of the employees who wrote the emails and text messages were redacted.
Boeing, who went into damage control, said it was considering disciplinary action against some employees over the message exchanges.
Quote, some of these communications relate to the development and qualification of Boeing's MAX simulators in 2017 and 2018.
These communications contain provocative language and in certain instances raise questions about Boeing's interactions with the FAA in connection with the simulator qualification process, a statement from the company said.
Having carefully reviewed the issue, we are confident that all of Boeing's MAX simulators are functioning effectively.
The qualification activities referenced in these communications occurred early in the service life of these simulators.
Since that time, both internal and external subject matter experts have repeatedly tested and qualified the simulators at issue.
Why don't we know about this stuff?
Why don't people stand up?
You know, Project Veritas says, be brave.
And I'll tell you this.
Don't look at me.
You got something to say, say it to them.
But they're one of the few organizations actually digging into corporate malfeasance, and they have my respect because of it.
I wish these people went on the record and told journalists like Veritas what was going on.
And you still can.
I don't know where you work or what you do, but if you recognize something illegal or some wrongdoing, please warn somebody.
I don't care if you talk to journalists or otherwise.
Post something online.
Tell people what's happening.
You know, too many people in today's day and age are narcissistic.
You know, it's all about me.
It's all about, hey man, don't bother me.
I just want to get by.
I just want to do my thing.
Time and time again, this is what we tend to see.
You know, when it comes to history, you know it was actually the minority of this country who supported the Revolutionary War, and the biggest faction you had opposition to independence, you had support for, the biggest group was, leave me alone, I don't care.
And that still is a fact today when it comes to voting.
Well, if you don't vote, You know, I'm not going to blame you because I didn't vote, but it's not so much about that.
I understand there can be problems in the system, but you can stand up and call something out.
You can speak out about these problems, man.
Look at this.
They say, these communications do not reflect the company we are and need to be, and they are completely unacceptable.
That said, we remain confident in the regulatory process for qualifying the assimilators.
No, not at all.
The Macs have been grounded worldwide since March after two crashes that killed 346 people.
Boeing is still working to update software and other systems on the plane to convince regulators to let it fly again.
I'm never going on one of these planes!
Are you nuts?
I don't even want to fly in a Boeing ever again.
The work has taken much longer than Boeing expected.
An FAA spokesman said the agency found no new safety risks that have not been already identified, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Okay, we get it, man.
I'm gonna do this.
You know that saying?
Good times make soft people.
Soft people make hard times.
What is it?
Strong men make good times.
Good times make weak men.
Weak men make bad times.
Bad times make strong men.
Something like that.
I'm probably getting it wrong.
You know what?
We have been in such a long period of just non-stop decadence and gluttony that we now have people who would actively cover up failures in planes.
You are putting people's lives at risk, and it has cost lives.
And I look to... I'm gonna do it!
The millennial generation.
A generation of young people who only care about themselves, who complain about how they want more, and I think one of the big factors as to why so many millennials are socialists is because they're jealous, entitled, whiny babies that wouldn't stand up and say, this is bad.
They wouldn't do it.
Now, I don't know the age of the people working at Boeing.
They're probably a little older.
I don't know.
But we are headed towards, you know, hopefully it reverses, right?
You know, as I pointed out in my main segment at 10 a.m., the U.S.
is becoming more conservative.
I guess it's a good thing.
But I feel like we're likely going to see more arrogant, despicable, ignorant, selfish humans.
George Carlin said he doesn't vote, right?
And he said, the problem isn't the politicians, it's the public.
If you have a selfish, ignorant public, you get selfish, ignorant politicians.
If you have a selfish, ignorant public, you get corrupt, you know, regulation, regulatory processes, you get people covering up bad planes, and Boeing knew about it, the employees knew about it, And they let it go.
Who cares?
Not on me, they say.
I think these people who knew about it, I think the people who covered it up should face criminal penalties.
Some responsibility.
I look at the young people today.
They're overwhelmingly socialist.
They live in, you know, I'll tell you this.
Let me tell you some stories.
We're going to turn this into everyone's entitled.
When I worked for Vice, you have the Williamsburg neighborhood in New York City.
Williamsburg was the hipster neighborhood.
I don't know what's going on there anymore.
I think property is going down because of the L train or something.
All the hipsters want to live there.
It was really expensive.
You had people making like $30,000 a year, spending 50 to 60% of their take-home income on paying rent to live in this upscale neighborhood, and then getting angry about it, and they couldn't afford healthcare, and they deserved all of these things.
And I would say to them, dude, I live in Bushwick, where I spend a quarter of my income on rent, and I sleep on a couch, and I save all of my money.
or actually no, when I moved to Bushwick I had my own apartment,
but I was in Williamsburg, sleeping on a couch, because I didn't want to spend 50% of my income.
You know, it's really funny when I hear people talk about how they can't afford their bills.
My question are, what are you spending on your bills?
How did we build this culture where we now just have
self-pleasuring I'm trying to be careful.
My language can be family friendly.
People who actively knew and wouldn't put their own family on this but had no problem sending you and your family and your kids to their deaths.
346 people because of the sheer selfishness and refusal.
You know what?
I don't know what to tell you, man.
But this is one of the, like, most mind-numbing and frustrating stories.
Boeing employees knew about the MAX issues and mocked the FAA when they covered up the problems.
God hasn't forgiven you.
But I'll tell you what.
Depending on your religion, he will.
But I think what we need to say, and I hope this message resonates, I'm gonna give a shout out to Veritas.
Dude, if you work for a company and they're doing stuff like this, send a good ol' email to Project Veritas and they will do the right thing.
And they will shine a light on this.
And I trust almost no one else.
I gotta be honest.
You look at ABC News, you send this to them, I'll tell you exactly what happens.
Here's how it goes.
Boeing employee contacts ABC.
ABC says, we got a big story.
The boss comes in and says, nah, we're gonna scrap this one.
Yeah, Epstein, you can't do it.
But you look to people like Veritas, you look to independent, smaller organizations, and they will carry this out and do the right thing.
The New York Times ran a fake story about a Trump supporter regretting his decision.
Local news called him out.
Dude never voted for Trump in the first place.
Man, this kind of stuff gives me very little hope for the future, so maybe I need to do a better segment in the next few minutes to lighten up the mood, but dude, we had two planes crash, and these people knew what was going on, and I hope we actually get some retribution. But I fear that criminal
penalty and civil penalty will not be enough to deter this kind of behavior because the real
problems at our core, we are a selfish, ignorant society where people are so entitled, they care
not for their neighbors. And this is why, you know, I think probably one of the reasons you'll
see me calling out the Democrats is for, you know, philosophically in line with this.
Yeah, conservatives rally around a cause and community and they have concerns about their community.
And the left, just socialists who are entitled to demand more.
I don't know the political alignment of these people.
I'm not saying everybody on the right's perfect, but we've got a twisted, selfish, ignorant culture growing.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes.
I'll see you all shortly.
Why did you do it, Chick-fil-A?
Why did you bend the knee to people who are still going to war with you?
It's so funny.
Chick-fil-A, a sandwich shop.
I don't care who they donate to.
What was really funny was that for the longest time, Chick-fil-A has donated to a few organizations that were Christian, like the Salvation Army.
The left protested them, saying they were bigots.
Well, eventually Chick-fil-A bent the knee, bowing down.
Please don't, please don't protest me anymore.
Aw, poor babies, Chick-fil-A.
You know what?
I honestly don't care.
I really don't.
It was funny for me to see then conservatives, I think it was like Charlie Kirk, Chick-fil-A has betrayed us!
I don't care!
It's a sandwich restaurant.
I don't care who they donate to.
I'll tell you what I do care about.
They bent the knee to the outrage mob.
And guess what?
Do you think the outrage mob, the leftists, have come out and said, now that you've done the right thing, we're gonna pull back and just be totally cool with you?
Of course not!
Of course not.
First of all, after Chick-fil-A, the CEO now says he regrets discrediting faith-based organizations, after he came out and said, we're not going to donate to them for a variety of reasons, the Salvation Army was like, we help the homeless, man.
What are you doing?
What did the leftists do?
They said, good, now we demand you actually donate to our organizations.
There you go, Chick-fil-A.
There was nothing you could have done.
Here's my favorite part.
Here's the news from today.
Lawsuit against San Antonio for banning Chick-fil-A at airport moving forward.
Oh, what was that?
Chick-fil-A was banned from airport.
Did the airport say, now that you've done the right thing, we're going to let you open your shop?
Nope.
No, of course not.
You earned nothing but the ire of those who once supported you.
Now, I'll say this.
If you're a conservative who's really mad at Chick-fil-A because they stopped donating, come on, man.
Have some standards, all right?
We all complained... No, no, hold on, hold on.
You know, don't get angry yet.
We all complained about the left targeting Chick-fil-A.
If you are someone who is defending Chick-fil-A and demanding they do continue donating for these reasons, and then they turn their back on you, you're allowed to be mad.
I accept that.
What I mean to say is, for everybody who claimed, who cares?
It's a chicken shop!
If you're now getting mad because they cancelled, it's called standards, man.
If Chick-fil-A wants to donate to, like, I don't know, a clown college, I'm not gonna complain about it.
Nobody talks about Wendy's or Taco Bell, I'm certainly not gonna care what Chick-fil-A is doing.
In fact, I'm telling you this right now, as soon as I'm done recording, I'm going to Chick-fil-A.
Whenever I do these stories, I always do.
But listen, Chick-fil-a's been under fire.
Their shops, one shop got shut down because of the protests.
They had constant protests.
And they finally said, maybe if we just give in to the far left and give them what they want, they'll leave us alone.
And they didn't.
And anyone with a morsel of brain matter could have told you this would happen.
Here's the story from The Blaze.
Surprise!
Chick-fil-O CEO Dan Cathy says he regrets discrediting faith-based organizations after cutting charitable donations.
And now we can see, quite literally a day later, they have to sue an airport because they are still being pushed out.
You accomplished nothing, Chick-fil-A.
Do not apologize.
Do not bend the knee.
You will regret it.
Let's read.
The Blaze reports Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy said he regrets discrediting faith-based organizations.
In November, Chick-fil-A announced that it would no longer be donating to the Salvation Army and other operations that some people consider to be anti-LGBTQ.
What are the details?
In a letter to the American Family Association, Tim Wildman, Kathy expressed regrets of Chick-fil-A pulling funding from a variety of faith-based organizations.
Wildman had written Kathy with his concerns about yanking funding to Christian groups.
One of Wildman's questions read, will Chick-fil-A publicly state that it does not believe the Salvation Army and FCA, I think that's the Christians Association or something?
Our hate groups because of the ministry's belief about sexuality, marriage, and family.
A December AFA petition that garnered more than 100,000 signatures prompted Wildman to write a strong letter to Cathy about reconsidering the company's new given structure.
Cathy responded to the letter by saying that he'd inadvertently discredited several outstanding organizations and insisted that the company never intended to make a statement or support a political or social agenda.
The letter went on to draw praise.
We get it.
But now that you know, look, I want to read you this story.
This is from News 4 San Antonio.
A lawsuit against the city of San Antonio for banning a popular fast food restaurant at the airport is moving forward.
District Judge David Kanellis ruled Friday against the city's motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
Not only is the city actively blocking Chick-fil-a from opening a restaurant in public space, which they're not legally allowed to do because they're doing it for religious reasons, for ideological and religious reasons, they're actively trying to stop them from fighting back.
They're trying to get the lawsuit dismissed.
Well, they're losing.
Chick-fil-a, if you want to open a restaurant, this is how you do it.
You fight back and refuse to bend the knee.
San Antonio City Council voted on March 21 to remove Chick-fil-A from the San Antonio International Airport after the popular fast food chain came under fire for donating some $1.8 million to groups that discriminated against the LGBTQ community.
Six council members voted in favor of the agreement while four others voiced their opposition.
Quote, we're disappointed with the outcome of the hearing and will evaluate our legal options going forward, said First Assistant City Attorney Liz Provencio.
We maintain that the city did nothing wrong and certainly did not violate any law and we will continue to vigorously defend the city's interests.
You know, it's funny.
They say it's an anti-LGBTQ group.
The CEO says, I never intended to make a message.
Listen, you did.
You did, Chick-fil-A.
They said, we're going to focus our donations now on organizations that help the homeless and those in need.
And Salvation Army was like, uh, right here, buddy.
You were donating to us in the first place.
If that's what you're looking to support, why aren't you supporting us anymore?
Now, I'm not a fan of any of these organizations.
I know very little about the FCA or AFA or whatever, nor do I care.
Chick-fil-A is playing politics and they failed because they lack a spine and you know what?
You reap what you sow.
Good.
Good.
I'm still gonna eat there because I don't care.
I'm not gonna let politics get in the way of a tasty chicken sandwich.
Although I hear Popeye's is better.
The San Antonio Family Association filed a lawsuit September 9th under the new law known as the Save Chick-fil-A Bill that prohibits the government from discriminating against anyone who donates to, affiliates with, or supports a religious organization.
Quote, any vendor that attempts to occupy this space should be on notice, said plaintiff Patrick Von Dolan.
The city's efforts to replace Chick-fil-A violate state law, and we are suing to stop this from happening.
Any vendor that tries to replace Chick-fil-A could soon be facing an injunction that prevents them from operating.
I mean, I'm pretty sure this violates the First Amendment.
The city can't tell a chicken restaurant that because they've donated at some point to a religious organization, we're banning you.
The City of San Antonio approved the Food, Beverage, and Retail Prime Concession Agreement with Paradis Lagardère at the San Antonio International Airport, but the agreement excluded Chick-fil-A.
With this decision, the City Council reaffirmed the work our city has done to become a champion of equality and inclusion.
Ah, and there it is!
San Antonio is a city full of compassion, and we do not have room in our public facilities for a business with a legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior.
Full stop!
That right there is based on religious affiliation and is a violation, as far as I can tell, of the Constitution.
Everyone has a place here, and everyone should feel welcome when they walk through our airport.
I look forward to the announcement of a suitable replacement by Paradis.
Chick-fil-A is a chicken restaurant.
Chick-fil-A does not actively discriminate.
The owners might.
The corporate might make donations to organizations who might then discriminate.
But that is such an insane leap.
They are accusing Chick-fil-A of wrongdoing, and Chick-fil-A pulled their own spine out of their back and handed it straight to the woke leftists who will not back down.
You know what, man?
They deserve it.
They really, really do.
Chick-fil-A said the vote banning the restaurant from the airport was disappointing, and the company hoped for more dialogue with the city.
Texas Attorney General Caxson filed the request March 28, seeking calendars, records of council member meetings regarding the contract, and any internal communications among the city employees about the inclusion or exclusion of Chick-fil-A from the concessionaire contract.
The decision to discriminate against any vendor based on religious beliefs associated with the company and its owners flies in the face of the Constitution and Texas law here here, Paxton said in a release.
I look forward to reviewing the City of San Antonio's records explaining why the City Council targeted this respected restaurant chain for exclusion from the city's concessionaire contract from the International Airport.
Texas Senator Ted Cruz called San Antonio's decision to ban Chick-fil-A from the airport ridiculous, and not Texas.
The controversial seven-year agreement will generate at least $2.1 million, and I will tell you this.
You know, they say, the left says, you know, we support the First Amendment.
You know, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence.
Quite literally, right now, they banned a chicken shop, who has not discriminated, who donated to a non-profit, who may or may not, totally unrelated, discriminated.
The point is, This restaurant has done nothing.
And it is being banned due to affiliation with a non-profit that holds values they don't like.
This not only flies in the face of the First Amendment, but common decency.
We can't punish businesses because they've donated to other businesses.
Non-profits are businesses who operate as... You know what?
Imagine the insane purity testing that's going on.
I'll say this.
For shame, Chick-fil-A.
And I don't think I'm alone when I say, for shame.
You were warned.
You could have asked ten.
You could have asked anyone.
Any one person.
You could have asked any one person.
They would have told you.
If you do this, it will backfire.
It will backfire.
They will never support you.
And you will come to regret this decision.
And guess what?
Chick-fil-A did.
You reap what you sow, and you deserve it.
You bend over backwards for these people, and this is what you get.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I will see you all shortly.
This is actually a really great article, and I'm grateful that anti-Trump personality David Brooks has finally come out and accepted it.
Trump has made us all stupid.
The decline of discourse in the anti-Trump echo chamber.
Bravo, good sir.
Much respect for them finally coming out and saying it.
And Unity talks about?
First of all, the dude's basically gone pro-war, so you know what?
Let's hold on a second.
Here's the thing.
I think I might have a bunch of stories pulled up for you that absolutely provide excellent proof of what he's saying.
The anti-Trump echo chamber basically hates literally everything Trump does, no matter what.
And he writes about it.
I want to read a little bit from this, and I want to show you a bunch of examples of how literally no matter what Trump does, it's wrong.
Notably, Trump says, I'm pulling troops out of Syria.
You're wrong, Trump!
Don't pull our troops out!
Trump says, I need to defend our embassy and retaliate against those who attack us.
You're wrong, Trump!
Don't target people!
You know what, man?
Trump does something?
It's wrong.
Every single time.
Yes.
You're all becoming stupid.
You see, my position is more of ambivalence.
I say Trump's bad, not that bad.
I say Trump did good here, he did bad here.
I actually like to assess what the man is doing and determine whether or not it is good or bad.
You see how in a sane world, people with principles and integrity understand that not everything is bad and some things can be good?
When you have a group of people who literally say every single thing Trump does is bad, eventually I say, I don't believe you anymore because you literally think everything is bad.
You complained about the man getting two scoops of ice cream and then ran multiple segments because his salt shaker was bigger than someone else's salt shaker.
I'm sorry.
I can't take you seriously anymore.
But you see how this gets me worked up?
Because I actively try to navigate this.
And because my position tends to be, they're nuts, they think everything is bad, and it's not, Tim Pool is right-wing!
Oh, and there it is.
And there it is.
Okay.
Donald Trump is impulse-driven, ignorant, narcissistic, and intellectually dishonest.
So you'd think that those of us in the anti-Trump camp would go out of our way to show we're not like him.
That we are judicious, informed, mature, and reasonable.
But the events of the past few weeks have shown that the anti-Trump echo chamber is becoming a mirror image of Trump himself.
Overwrought, uncalibrated, and incapable of having an intelligent conversation about any complex policy problem.
I've got to stop right now.
Mirror image Can be confusing, because it means a similar thing in the reverse, or it means a copy of.
And so I tweeted earlier about Vice, and people were like, mirror image?
Don't you mean the same?
I'm like, well, I was like, was I wrong about that?
I looked it up, and it says a mirror image.
The phrase typically refers to something that seems identical, but is actually in reverse structure.
So, I could, you could argue this, right?
They're the mirror image of Trump.
They do the exact same thing he does, in the exact same ways, but in the other direction.
He goes on to talk about why we should go after the Middle East and Sulaymaniyah and all this stuff.
I don't need to read all this.
We need to do the right thing.
Yeah, we get it.
Now let's get to the point about him admitting they're all stupid.
But in the anti-Trump echo chamber, that's not how most people were thinking.
Led by Bernie Sanders and Warren, they avoided the hard, complex problem of how to set boundaries around militias.
Instead, they pontificated on the easy question, not actually on the table.
Should we have a massive invasion of Iran?
Nobody said that, but that's what they talked about.
A great cry went up from the echo chamber.
We're on the brink of war.
Trump is leading us to more wars.
We're on the precipice of chaos.
This was not the calibrated language of risk and reward.
It was the fear-stoking apocalyptic language.
By being so overwrought and exaggerated, the echo chamber drowned out any practical conversation about how to stabilize the Middle East so we could have another righteous chorus of Donald Trump is a monster.
Gee, I wonder why y'all watch me.
Is it perhaps because we all want to avoid that?
That when you go on Twitter, All they do, okay, here's what I want you to do.
After you watch this video, Google search, man gobbles at turkeys, turkeys gobble back.
You gotta watch this video, and you will immediately understand exactly what this is.
Trump goes outside, and he goes, we shouldn't have troops in the Middle East.
And what does the left do?
And then Trump goes, okay, we are going to keep our troops in the Middle East.
And what does the left do?
That's what it is.
Watch the video, you'll laugh.
Trump said, I'm pulling out of Syria.
They all complain.
How could Trump do this?
Trump then says, OK, we'll keep our soldiers in there to protect oil infrastructure.
And they all complained.
Like, what do you want?
How am I supposed to accurately assess what is happening in the political world when literally everything is bad?
So Trump, there's one thing he can do.
I don't know if you saw my segment earlier on Chick-fil-A.
CEO regrets, you know, canceling his donations.
And that shows us exactly what you need to do.
Bend the knee.
No matter what it is, no matter what they say, Trump needs to resign.
It's the only thing he can do.
But I'll tell you this, if Trump were to resign, they would be like, Trump has no spine.
He can't even stand up for his own office and defend his own actions.
And here he goes, leaving like a coward.
There's nothing you can do.
So here I am, right?
I want to figure out how to vote and who to vote for.
I look over to the left and what do I see?
A bunch of turkeys gobbling back at Trump.
I look to conservatives and I see a bunch of people wearing suits, drinking beers and wearing mug hats, but having arguments, saying things like, Tim, we should do this.
And I'm like, nah, I don't want, I don't want to do that.
I don't, I don't want, I don't, I don't like that idea.
So what are my options?
To vote for the gobbling turkeys or vote for the guys I disagree with?
Ultimately, I guess there's, among the turkeys is a couple of people standing up waving and I kind of like those people.
But for the most part, the left has become a flock of gobbling turkeys.
What do you call a group of turkeys?
A goblet?
I'm gonna call him a goblet.
This is Trump's ultimate victory.
Every argument on every topic is now all about him.
Hating Trump together has become the ultimate bonding, attention-grabbing, and profit-maximizing mechanism.
For those of us in anti-Trump world.
So you get a series of exaggerated fervors, the Mueller report, impeachment, the Steele dossier, that lead ultimately nowhere.
Most of this week's arguments about the Middle East wasn't really about the Middle East.
It was all narcissistically about ourselves.
This guy, Brooks, man, taking it home!
Bravo!
Democrats defend terrorists, Republicans are warmongers, actual Iranians are just bit players in our imperialistic soap opera, the passive recipients of our greatness or perfidy.
The world is more complicated than this cartoon.
Love or hate him, Trump has used military force less than any other president since Jimmy Carter.
When it comes to foreign policy, he is not like recent Republicans.
He is, as my colleague Ross Douthat put it, a Jacksonian figure wanting to get America out of foreign entanglements while lobbying a few long-distance attacks to ensure the crazy foreigners stick to killing one another and not us.
And this is the final paradox for all the sturm und drang that surrounds Trump.
Populist Republicans and Democrats are gravitating toward the same foreign policy.
We're in the middle of a clash of civilizations.
The Middle East is so screwed up we should just get out.
We're too stupid, ineffective, racist, imperialistic to do any good there anyway.
Yes, please leave!
Stop spending money.
We fight viciously about Trump, but underneath, a populist left-right curtain is descending around America, separating us from the Mideast, China, and even Europe.
The real high-risk move is the one both parties are making together.
And if we ignore the world, it will ignore us.
It won't.
Maybe once the inflammatory one is finally gone from the scene, we can have an intelligent conversation about that.
No, it's your fault, not Trump's.
We are having an intelligent conversation.
You know, the people in this faction, whatever it is, the politically homeless, the intellectual dark web, the, you know, anti-SGW communities, some of them, and conservatives and Trump supporters, are all sitting here talking about stuff while you guys gobble like turkeys at Trump when he gobbles back.
Let me now show you some amazing stories.
Maybe, maybe if Obama declares somebody to be a terrorist, and you find yourself comparing him to Princess Diana, you need to stop and please reflect.
At least David Brooks did.
Here's one of my favorites.
Ah, trying to be a bit fair.
to pull out troops from Syria. He's right that United States is overextended. Ah, trying
to be a bit fair. Yes, Trump is wrong to pull our troops out of Syria, but Trump is sending
more troops to Saudi Arabia, they won't make up for backing out of Syria and failing to
stand up to Iran. I know they're two different circumstances. And I know there's reasons
to say we should be in one place and not in the other. But I just think it's kind of funny
that on the surface, it's always the same thing.
Trump is sending troops to Saudi Arabia.
How dare he?
Trump is taking troops out of the Middle East.
How dare he?
Wait, there's more.
You don't think I'm gonna end there, do you?
What's this story?
Oh, yeah.
Why it's wrong to refer to the cult of Trump.
This one I love.
They basically say, guys, you gotta stop referring to Trump supporters as a cult, right?
Yeah, it's really, really funny that you have active Trump supporters complaining about his military actions, people like Cassandra Fairbanks, and getting dragged by other Trump supporters for it, yet they're over here gobbling like turkeys, claiming that everybody on the Trump side agrees with literally everything he does.
Certainly there are some people who do, but the left is literally made up of people who believe insane things, and no matter what Trump does, it's bad.
I'm sorry.
If you are in a group of people, and you're quite literally like, sending troops to the Middle East is wrong, but pulling troops out of the Middle East is wrong, I think you maybe need to reflect on what you're doing when you're saying Suleimani is like Princess Di.
I'm sorry.
Trump may have a cultish-like base, But it is not the majority and certainly there are people who think Orange Man not that bad and are willing to have conversations with people who think the Orange Man is good.
Over on the left though, it ain't happening.
Here's one of my favorites.
Check this out.
In referencing the idea of the cult, I'm going to now kind of drive away from everything just about the Orange Man for a second and talk about the general left.
No, the Green New Deal doesn't aim to end air travel, as Florida Senator Rick Scott says.
This is nuts.
Rick Scott tweeted what he said.
He said this.
The Democrats' Green New Deal includes, quote, quote, working towards ending air travel.
PolitiFact says it's false, and then literally includes this quote from the Green New Deal FAQ saying that we want to get rid of farting cows and airplanes.
You know, we aren't sure if we can get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.
Our goal is to build a high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.
This is another part of the whole... You know, the left is nuts.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry it is.
You might find yourself on the left.
I consider myself to be.
But I'll tell you this.
This faction, this group, is full of insanity.
I gotta fly, I'm sorry.
But here's why I show this.
I want to make a point now about how everything Trump does is wrong.
Because the reality is everything they do is wrong.
First of all, they literally said in the FAQ they want to work towards getting rid of airplanes and build high-speed rail, and PolitiFact says it's false when you claim it.
Sure.
Here's my favorite.
HS2 begins evicting activists from protest sites.
I covered this a couple days ago.
You literally have environmental activists saying, no high-speed rail, while you have other environmental activists saying, we need high-speed rail.
There's no right answer!
Please, pay attention to this.
There's no right answer.
I'll see you all tomorrow at 10 a.m., podcast every day at 6.30.
The new show, youtube.com slash Timcast IRL, is coming soon.
