Nancy Pelosi's Impeachment Stunt BACKFIRED Horribly On Democrats, It's Even WORSE Than We Thought
Nancy Pelosi's Impeachment Stunt BACKFIRED Horribly On Democrats, It's Even WORSE Than We Thought. Nancy Pelosi seemingly for no reason withheld the articles of impeachment from the Senate.It did literally nothing and impeachment was already a boon for Trump in terms of donations and his approval rating. Support for impeachment slightly hangs in the negative with most people saying no to impeachment and removal of Trump.Pelosi is trying to claim victory while simultaneously crying about Russia and even accusing Mitch McConnell of being an accomplice to the election interference.The reality is that the 4 remaining senators in the Democratic race are going to be called in as jurors just before the Iowa caucus and its possible Joe Biden is called as a witness. So what was Pelosi's grand scheme? To prop up Pete Buttigieg?I really doubt itThe democrats were pressured by the far left into impeachment and it is backfiring horribly on them. Her only option is to claim some moral victory as it all falls down around them.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
With the Iowa caucus scheduled for February 3rd, just a few weeks away, Nancy Pelosi's stunt to withhold the articles of impeachment is backfiring horribly on a couple of the Democratic 2020 candidates, notably Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
By withholding the articles until this week, where they're now announcing they'll be transmitting them soon, they're going to force a trial just before Iowa, giving a serious disadvantage to Bernie Sanders and Warren, hurting the Democrats' chance for winning.
Now, There's actually a conspiracy theory that this was on purpose, that Nancy Pelosi purposefully withheld the articles so that they could force the trial now and take Bernie off the campaign trail, giving Buttigieg and Biden that opportunity to go all the way.
I don't think that's true.
I don't think it is a conspiracy, but you actually now have some Republicans saying just that, that this was the real strategy.
I talked to some progressives and asked them, do you think Pelosi is withholding this because the Democratic establishment wants to hurt Bernie Sanders?
And the typical response is no.
They think Pelosi did the right thing, and she says it's a win.
Not just a moral victory, not just a PR victory, but now we're seeing there's new evidence emerging, and that by taking their time, they did the right thing to show the American people that the Republicans are not interested in a fair trial.
Well, I don't know about all that, but I can say the end result will be damage to Bernie Sanders.
So today, let's take a look at why Nancy Pelosi thinks she's won, but I really want to show you how this is backfiring.
You see, McCarthy of the Republicans says Pelosi holding articles of impeachment to hurt Sanders' Iowa chances Look, whether or not you think it's intentional, I don't.
It's true.
This absolutely is going to hurt Bernie Sanders, who is leading the pack in the Iowa polls.
All this is done is backfired on their own candidates.
Now, if you want to believe it was intentional, like Kevin McCarthy does, then sure, it's not backfiring.
It's the intended consequence of what she did.
But I think it's fair to say that, you know, the simple solution is the Democrats are incompetent.
I know they don't like Bernie.
I think it's fair to point that out.
But if this argument was legitimate that it was a conspiracy, they're hurting Warren, too, and they like her.
She's an establishment candidate.
Though she does play to the far left, she was the favorite for a while.
There's no reason they would want to hurt Warren.
But they're gonna hurt her too!
It just seems to me that they have no idea what they're doing.
They're floundering.
And everything is showing that Trump is the strong contender to win, the betting odds in Vegas, the economy, everything is going so well.
I think they're just floundering desperately to figure out something.
So let's get started.
And I'll only read a little bit of this Vox story about how Nancy Pelosi explains what Democrats gained by holding onto the articles of impeachment, calling it a win, the wins.
Yeah, you know what, man?
Warren and Bernie are going to be hurt by this.
Sure, they'll prop up Biden, but Biden can't win.
You know, I don't know if anyone, any of these candidates can win, but come on.
They're going to put Buttigieg and Biden up.
Sure, it makes sense.
They're the moderate, you know, corporate Democrats.
But hurting Warren doesn't fit.
It doesn't make sense.
Why would they want to hurt Warren, okay?
It sounds to me they just screwed up big time.
Let's read.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, cryptocurrency options, a physical address, but of course, the best thing you can do is just share this video.
There's a lot of negative algorithmic changes that are hurting my content.
So if you like what I do, word of mouth is the best way to help me continue growing and expanding.
And I have a new show coming up in just about a week or so.
We're currently building everything out.
We're nearly good to go and it's going to be more general interest, fun, science, paranormal.
So stay tuned for that.
But let's get started with this story from Vox.
They say, Her wins include the public's desire to hear from witnesses and the release of new evidence that strengthened the case for impeachment.
Much has been made of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's decision to not send President Donald Trump's articles of impeachment to the Senate following the House's impeachment vote in December.
President Trump and his GOP allies have claimed the delay shows his impeachment was a partisan effort to stain his legacy rather than an attempt to check his conduct, pointing out Pelosi said Trump asking Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden Constituted an urgent concern to national security.
They argue that if it was an urgent concern, she would have sent the articles immediately.
Instead of going through all the witnesses, instead of charging Trump with an actual crime, just vote for it before the holidays and we're going to go home.
They're going to say on Friday, Pelosi announced the articles would finally be sent,
allowing the Senate's impeachment trial to begin. On Sunday, she appeared on ABC's This Week,
explaining why she chose to hold the articles for so long.
There were three primary reasons.
First, she hoped to pressure Senate Republicans into accepting Democrats' requests
that witnesses be called to trial. Full stop. That makes no sense.
The Constitution says the Senate has the sole power to impeach, I'm sorry, to try impeachments.
The House has the power to impeach.
Why would the House try to leverage power over the Senate?
It makes literally no sense unless Pelosi is trying to abuse her powers granted under the Constitution.
They go on to say that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was initially resistant to Democratic calls for witnesses.
In fact, he reportedly privately spoke to the need to have a trial without witnesses and was criticized by Democrats saying he'd work in total coordination with the White House.
I don't necessarily want to go on to talk about, you know, all these other points they make.
They say Pelosi suggested the delay helped create a contrast between Democrats in the House and Republicans in the Senate.
It's literally meaningless.
McConnell and Senate Republicans, he argued, are not taking impeachment seriously, but rather looking for ways to protect the president.
The process has shown Democrats, on the other hand, as lawmakers, who put the Constitution first, she said.
No, no, no, no, no.
That is mind-numbing and offensive, dare I say.
She is trying to pressure the Republicans.
They have the power of impeachment.
You are not respecting the Constitution.
Donald Trump committed no crime.
You charged him with no crime.
So if there's no high crime or misdemeanor, then I don't know what you're actually impeaching the president for.
But we now know that the articles are going to be transmitted this week.
So this is the latest headline.
She did say Friday it would move forward.
We're now learning that, yes, She will send them sometime this week.
But here's what's really fascinating.
Kevin McCarthy is actually saying her real goal here is to hurt Sanders.
Before we read this, I want to say, personally, I don't think so.
I don't.
I think they're just incompetent.
Because this would also hurt Elizabeth Warren.
Okay?
It will hurt them both.
So let's read.
Fox News reports House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy claimed on Sunday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has held back sending the articles of impeachment brought against Trump to the Senate to hurt Bernie Sanders' chance of winning the Democratic nomination.
Speaking on Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures, McCarthy said he believes the Democratic establishment doesn't want Sanders, an independent from Vermont who caucuses with Democrats, to win the party's nomination, and that Pelosi is holding the articles of impeachment in order to keep Sanders off the campaign trail in the lead-up to the all-important Iowa caucus next month.
That is happening.
As she transmits these articles, and the Senate then holds a trial, Bernie is off the campaign trail, and Bernie is number one in Iowa.
We'll get to that in a second.
He says, The Iowa caucus is on February 3rd.
Bernie Sanders is in first place.
And what this does is benefit Joe Biden.
This harms Senator Sanders, who is in first place and could become their nominee because he will be stuck in a chair because Nancy Pelosi held the papers.
Sanders would be one of five senators running for the Democratic presidential nomination who will be required to be in Washington for President Trump's impeachment trial, where they will act as jury, along with Sanders, Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker dropped out, so that's out, Michael Bennett of Colorado.
So Booker's out, but yes, it's Klobuchar, it's Bennett.
But let's be honest.
I really don't see Bennett, Klobuchar, and, of course, Booker dropped out as contenders.
You know, I think Warren was one of the favorites for a while, and she was actually leading the betting pools.
And Bernie Sanders, of course, is one of the favorites, so this is really hurting them.
Would you?
I'm not going to believe the Democrats are willing to take out Klobuchar and Warren to hurt Sanders unless the real argument is they just want to help Biden.
That makes sense, but I still, I still, I just don't believe it.
Look, Occam's razor would suggest the Democrats are just floundering.
Okay, they need as many aces in the hole as they can get.
If it's not Biden, they want Warren, they want Klobuchar.
This will benefit Biden, but also Buttigieg.
So if you want to argue they're trying to prop up Buttigieg and Biden at the same time, it's just too complicated for me, man.
I think what we're really seeing is that Nancy Pelosi is incompetent.
She was pressured into impeachment.
She regrets it.
And now the only thing she can do is hold on to these articles because if Trump actually gets a trial and they call their witnesses, they could theoretically call Joe Biden to the Senate as well.
Then who is really benefiting?
Buttigieg?
Now, Biden initially said he would not agree.
He would not abide by a subpoena.
He backtracked that.
So in the end, if they have the trial and they call Biden and they call Hunter Biden and all the senators come back, who's left?
Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg, and Pete Buttigieg?
This is not on purpose.
Nancy Pelosi has just miscalculated.
Donald Trump, whether you want to believe it or not, his team has made some key calculations throughout his campaign and his presidency, and they've played out well.
I don't think it's fair to say that sometimes Trump will slip on a banana peel and end up pulling off a perfect backflip.
Like, we might see that in the Middle East?
Well, who knows?
But this to me is not intentional.
If you single out Bernie, you can maybe make the argument.
And the socialists actually have.
I think it may have been Jacobin.
People have been pointing out that this will really hurt Bernie Sanders, and they think that's the case.
Simple solution dictates Pelosi just Really, really screwed this one up.
They're not thinking ahead.
She didn't know what to do.
She withheld the articles because if she handed them off, she gave up all of the power they had, the only card they had.
One of the things she's actually saying right now, Trump is impeached for life.
I think she had no idea what she was doing.
So she apparently heard from CNN.
She could hold the articles.
So she just did on a whim.
Then started saying, haha, it's making Trump angry.
We actually heard that from some Democrats and now it is blowing up in their faces to such a degree that people actually think it was intentionally designed this way.
That's how perfect the backfire is.
They're like, Clearly, the only reason she did this was to hurt Bernie, right?
Because that's what's happening.
It's backfiring on these candidates.
No!
It's just that bad.
Nancy Pelosi did not slip on a banana peel and pull off a backflip.
Or I should say, did, no, no.
She slipped on a banana peel, fell down the stairs, rolled on the ground, stood up and went, ta-da!
And now people actually think she was doing it on purpose.
Let's read more.
They say this.
According to an average of recent polls by RealClearPolitics, Sanders holds a slim lead in Iowa over Pete Buttigieg with former Vice President Joe Biden trailing in third.
In New Hampshire, another key early voting state, Sanders holds an almost three-point lead over Biden with Buttigieg in third.
It's fair to say, you know, Bernie is leading the pack and it will hurt him, but no, I'm sorry, Pelosi just screwed this one up.
And I'm telling you this because I actually floated this idea by some progressives, like, what do you think?
And they don't want to call it a screw-up.
They didn't say that.
They were like, no, it was a great strategy to show that, no, no, no, no, no.
But they certainly don't think it was intentionally designed to hurt the senators who are running now for McCarthy's claim that Pelosi is holding up sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate in an effort to hurt Sanders' campaign dredges up the speculation in 2016 that the Democratic establishment actively worked to suppress the Vermont senator's presidential run in favor of the eventual nominee, Hillary Clinton.
That's a fact.
But just because that's the case doesn't mean what Pelosi is doing today is intentional.
It just means they are... It just means they're really bad at what they do.
Now, I got a few more things for you, man.
Pelosi is nuts.
Completely nuts.
She is not only claiming that Donald Trump is working for Putin, saying again on ABC with George Stephanopoulos that all roads lead to Putin, she is now saying Mitch McConnell is an accomplice.
You know what?
Now let's step off from the conspiracy theory.
And I've got this op-ed from today from Liz Peek.
Pelosi impeachment stunt could boost Biden but infuriate Bernie's army.
We don't need it to be a conspiracy.
It can just be the fact that this is going to make Bernie's base really angry because, look, whether or not you believe she intentionally did this, the intention is less relevant to the outcome.
She did it.
It's gonna hurt Bernie.
Bernie base gonna get angry.
The House Minority Leader's theory is that by delaying the start of the Senate trial, Pelosi will bench two of Biden's most formidable rivals, Bernie Sanders and Warren, and that makes the most sense.
McCarthy is either on to something or he has cleverly launched a political hand grenade in the midst of the Democratic primary.
The very hint that Democratic officials, including Pelosi, might put their thumb on the scale to disadvantage Sanders or Warren would be enough to launch an all-out mutiny among Bernie's army.
They are still livid that the DNC in 2016 conspired to help Hillary Clinton.
Many repaid that villainy by sitting out of the election, and others voted for Trump.
They say McCarthy's explanation of Pelosi's bizarre stall tactic makes some sense.
During the impeachment trial, Warren and Sanders will be locked up in the Senate.
Consequently, Biden and small-town Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, also a top-tier candidate, will face less competition as they make their last-minute appeals to Iowa and New Hampshire voters.
So, I guess she's kind of just... Here's the other hand, okay?
Here's the point I want to get to.
Let's step away from the conspiracy.
She said, if Uncle Joe scores well in those early states, he will almost certainly win big in South Carolina and Nevada, and will head into Super Tuesday on March 3rd with credible momentum.
The top states in that free-for-all are California, where Biden is roughly tied with Sanders and Warren, and Texas, where Biden is ahead by a sizable margin.
Like dominoes falling, those early victories could give Uncle Joe the nomination.
Why would Pelosi scheme to help Joe Biden?
Because she understands the necessity of winning the electoral college.
She knows that to regain the Oval Office, Democrats need to recapture the middle class, Rust Belt voters that helped elect Trump in 2016.
So she's basically rehashing the same conspiracy thought.
I thought she was going to get something else.
So we'll leave that there.
I don't think it's the case.
Let's get into how insane Pelosi is.
I do want to mention, we've got the story from the New York Times, Bernie Sanders leads tight race in Iowa poll, and the caucus is on the third.
But check this out.
In an interview, Pelosi does not rule out the possibility of subpoenaing testimony if Senate skips witnesses.
Let's just see what the Senate does, she said on ABC's This Week.
But she goes on to basically say that it's all about Vladimir Putin.
In the interview, they state, she also expressed concern about Russian election interference in the 2020 presidential election, saying Trump was in complete denial about Russia's role in the 2016 election and efforts to meddle in the future.
As I have said in terms of this president, all roads lead to Putin.
He said he's not going to accept the assessment that they were very much involved in the 2016 election, that 24-7 now they are still engaged.
He's trying to blame it on Ukraine, and this silliness has been debunked again and again, but he and his folks still keep advancing it.
And then she says, and sometimes I wonder about Mitch McConnell, too.
Why is he an accomplice to all of that?
I kid you not.
From the Washington Examiner, the Russia hoax continues.
Pelosi says McConnell is an accomplice to election interference.
I gotta stop.
I do.
You know, when I was planning this video, and I was looking at the news, and I saw the Pelosi comments about Russia, and I said, here we go again.
I am not going to make a segment about this.
And so I kept doing my research and work, and I ended up on this story, and I thought this was more interesting.
But I have to include it.
You see, the reality is there were certain figures within Ukraine who did meddle in our election.
That is an indisputable fact.
Was it on the scale of Russia?
It absolutely was not.
But there were officials who did meddle.
They were trying to dig up dirt on Manafort and hurt the Trump campaign.
They have talked.
There's leak recordings showing them talking about Hillary Clinton being better.
And a court in Ukraine ruled this is the case.
I know many of you already know this.
I have to say it, though, because the more Pelosi and the Democrats lie about Ukraine, the more people believe the lie, and I have to keep bringing it up.
They're trying to make it seem like Trump and the Republicans are claiming Ukraine from the top down did this.
No one said that.
Ted Cruz didn't say this.
Yet they still go on MSNBC and laugh like they're so smart, and they ignore The New York Times, The Hill, Politico, The Examiner.
And now here we are.
I kid you not, it has been years of Russia insanity.
And you want to talk about debunked?
Pelosi is now insinuating McConnell is an accomplice to what's going on?
When will we have a reckoning for the Democrats saying the insanity?
And let me tell you why I'm bringing this up.
As much as I didn't want to, this to me adds evidence that Pelosi is incompetent and there is no effort to end Bernie Sanders on her part.
Perhaps the media is smearing him.
Yes, they smear Yang and Tulsi.
I get it.
I think they've rigged it.
I think they cheat.
I get it.
But what we see here with what Pelosi is saying about Russia And ignoring the reality that is Ukraine meddling is that she has no idea what she's talking about.
She is completely incompetent and pushing the most absurd, debunked insanity.
What is she reading?
You want to convince me that Pelosi coordinated all of this effort in an effort to take down Bernie Sanders, and then we see this?
Why?
She discredits herself by sounding like a lunatic.
The average American doesn't believe this.
We saw the Mueller report.
And after this, people started swinging away from—they no longer identify as liberal.
Not all of them.
It was a two-point swing.
This has been bad, bad, bad for Democrats.
They are completely incompetent, and Pelosi keeps pushing it.
Check this out.
I read this part already.
But they say, The Mueller report proved as much, yet Pelosi still insists on pushing a debunked narrative.
is not only tired, it's false.
The Mueller report proved as much, yet Pelosi still insists on pushing a debunked narrative.
And now she's trying to tie McConnell to it, too.
A few things can be true.
Russia did interfere in the 2016 election.
But its attempts to sway public opinion had little real effect, according to the US intel community.
That is a fact!
And the Kremlin is trying to interfere once again, according to US intelligence officials,
who are now launching a probe to determine whether Russia is targeting former Vice President
Joe Biden by pointing to his past involvement in Ukraine.
Neither of these facts mean Trump or McConnell are complicit.
It took a three-year investigation, dozens of congressional testimonies, and thousands
of taxpayer dollars.
I'm sorry, thousands?
It was millions to prove that Trump had not colluded with Putin.
And no amount of speculation will change that conclusion.
The Mueller report's exoneration is why McConnell blocked the Democrats' election security bills last summer.
A decision that earned him the Democrat nickname Moscow Mitch.
McConnell's stonewalling is certainly worth criticism.
Russian interference is a serious matter, and the bipartisan bills introduced to address this issue should have been taken more seriously.
But McConnell's criticism of the legislation was directed at one bill, in particular the FIRE Act, which would have required all political campaigns to report contact from foreign government to the FBI.
The bill clearly had the Trump campaign in mind, and passing it would have given credibility to the Democrats' false accusations against the president.
McConnell was doing his job, and now Pelosi needs to do hers.
She might disapprove of McConnell's decision to block the election security bills, but she can do so without questioning his loyalty.
It is indeed possible to dislike a person without labeling them a Russia accomplice.
Pelosi would be wise to keep that in mind.
Pelosi is pushing the all roads lead to Putin narrative.
It is debunked.
It is over.
What more do you need to stop saying this?
Millions of dollars, a special prosecutor, years of investigation wasn't enough for you?
So if you want to believe she's really launching this conspiracy against Bernie Sanders, by all means, you can believe that.
But what I see from her is a conspiracy-believing lunatic who is incompetent and screwed up royally on impeachment.
She was pressured into it by the far left, and now it's backfiring on the far left because it's going to hurt Bernie Sanders.
It's going to hurt the Democrats' chances.
She is not propping up Joe Biden because she's hurting Klobuchar as well.
And Bennett, but he's not really in this.
But Warren, OK?
What we can see here is that Pelosi believes nonsense.
She engaged in a nonsense campaign that is hurting the Democratic Party.
And like we've seen time and time again, they're emboldening fake news.
And that is what we are really seeing.
It was AOC and other far left who pressured her into this.
She finally agrees to do it, and it is hurting her.
The only option she has is to claim victory, make up some ridiculous points about how it's contrasting the Democrats and the Republicans, when it's not.
It is a backfire across the board.
Regardless of what you think about Bernie, Warren, Biden, or otherwise, it is hurting Democrats' campaign season.
Period.
She believes ridiculous nonsense about Russia.
I do not believe she has the wherewithal to actually pull off a conspiracy against Bernie.
I think she is completely incompetent, and she is hurting Bernie, hurting Warren, and hurting the Democrats.
And it's about time the Democrats accept it.
Stop trying to act like she pulled off this majestic move to hurt Trump.
It didn't hurt Trump.
Trump's polls are up.
His fundraising is up.
Impeachment was good for him.
She screwed it up.
And she's screwing it up even more.
It is getting worse.
Accept it.
You know what, man?
I am sick and tired of this placating Nancy Pelosi's sheer incompetence.
Absolute sheer incompetence.
And as she keeps bumbling around, falling over, they say, excellent move, Nancy.
You've pulled it off.
No, we can hear what she has to say about discredited, debunked nonsense having to do with Russia, and that should be the evidence we need to realize she is incompetent.
She is absolutely incompetent.
So you know what?
I get riled up with the Russia stuff, because if there's one thing I really hate, it's the fake news machine.
They want to smear Trump about Russia for years, and their own investigation shuts it down, and here we are again.
And now she's saying, well, what about Mitch McConnell?
You know what?
You've lost your mind.
The impeachment backfired miserably.
It helped Trump, and now it's hurting your own candidates.
Just stop.
Enough already.
You know what?
I'm done.
The next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews, and I will see you all there.
This morning, I awoke, got on Twitter, and was surprised to see hashtag Nancy Pelosi fake news trending.
Because typically, top trends are more leftist, I guess.
Typically, not always.
And so I was interested.
Certainly, there must be something interesting here.
Maybe it's about impeachment.
But in fact, it's actually about Iran.
You see, Nancy Pelosi, according to, well, we have this video clip here from ABC, essentially was dismissive of the protests in Iran as their They're angry with the government over the downing of this commercial airline.
Nancy Pelosi says there were different reasons why the people are in the street.
George Stephanopoulos actually says, well, they're calling out the government.
And Pelosi says, no, look, there were other people.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, full stop.
I don't want to take it out of context or anything.
What did she say?
Make no mistake, there are plenty of reasons that people are out in the streets protesting in Iran.
The fact is, I need to say that, okay, so that's nothing.
Someone made a meme.
But the fact is, many people, the real fact, is that many people view her statements as particularly dismissive of the protests that have been going on for a long time.
Nancy Pelosi essentially says they were protesting before and they're protesting now, but protesters came out.
Okay, check this out.
This is serious stuff, right?
Protesters came out against the government.
Let me just read you the headline.
Iranian anti-regime protests enter third day after Tehran admits it did shoot down passenger jet.
As singer and film director back protesters and two state TV hosts quit over military lies.
Not just that, but we also saw this woman, Iran's only female Olympic medalist, Kamia Alizadeh, has already announced her defection from the Islamic Republic, piling further pressure on the regime.
These people are protesting over what Iran has been doing, what they are doing, and what they do with this commercial airliner.
So I'll tell you this, You got that guy from Vox.
I'm not going to say his name, but many of these people on the left blaming Trump for what happened with the commercial airliner, full stop.
That is insane.
The escalation in the Middle East has been going on for a long time, much longer than we were even involved.
We shouldn't have gotten involved.
Bush lied to us.
I put the blame on him for most of this escalation.
I don't like the current escalation.
I don't like Trump's actions, but the only real solution In my opinion, it's not to be like Trump started to say, no, no, no, no, I don't care.
I don't.
I don't.
Bush started this.
OK, but let's stop.
And Bush senior, technically.
But let's stop.
Bring our troops home.
Stop the escalation and move on.
That being said, Iran is wholly responsible for shooting down a commercial airliner.
They should not have been having flights.
And I'll give Nancy Pelosi credit for this.
She is correct when she said they should not have been allowing commercial flights this time.
Yes.
Okay, I think, you know, my advice to you, if you're in an active war zone, do not get on a commercial flight.
Wait till things calm down.
And my heart goes out to the families and the victims and all that.
But I will tell you this right now.
We have crazy, crazy developments.
And this is why people are mad at Nancy Pelosi.
Iran cracks down as protests over downing of airliner grow.
Remarkably, some criticism is coming from some within the government's hardline power base.
They took out a commercial airliner, Protesters showed up.
They refused to step on the American and Israeli flags.
They're chanting, America is not our enemy.
They're blaming the government.
And now the government has started shooting their own citizens.
And they're now talking about shutting off the internet.
Now, I've seen various reports, various Twitter accounts.
I haven't been able to confirm it.
It may be the case that Iran is going to switch to an intranet, meaning the information they get won't come from anywhere but inside Iran.
They can't access external information.
They can't send information out.
I think this is likely the case.
I mean, Iran bans the internet and various social media platforms all the time.
But you have to look at what happened with that footage showing the missile hitting.
Iran was forced to admit they did this.
Now we have this story from the New York Times.
The government is shooting their own people.
Now here's the big challenge.
Iran is firing missiles over its borders into other countries.
Iran is engaging in military action with militias in other countries.
Iran is killing its own people, its own protesters, and it's shot on a commercial airline.
There's a hard question that has to be asked.
At what point does something need to be done?
I honestly don't know.
I'll tell you this.
There's a big reason why I'm very anti-intervention.
George W. Bush lied, okay?
They lied about what was going on.
They got us involved in Iraq in the first place.
And Iraq wasn't... There was no issue here, right?
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
There were many, many issues, but not for America.
Iran right now is doing a bunch of different things.
And so, for me, the conundrum is, at what point does the international community have to get involved?
We all agree about World War II, right?
Yes, we needed to get involved.
Everybody thought so.
Well, China's doing really messed up stuff.
At what point do we need to get involved?
You know, I know a lot of people say America shouldn't be the world's police, and I tend to agree with that.
But there is still a red line for all of us.
I'm saying not just America, but Russia and China and Brazil and India, Japan, all of these countries.
At what point do we say Iran took out a commercial airliner, killing 176 people?
I don't care if it was a mistake or not.
They say it was an accident?
They did it.
They fired missiles into another country because they were mad at America.
They targeted Iraq because they were mad at what Americans did.
At a certain point, we have to say, This can't go on.
Now, I'm not saying military intervention.
By no means.
Okay?
But we need to see accountability.
We need to see Russia and China backing, you know, not just the United States, but coming together with some kind of resolution.
Because at a certain point, okay?
Let me read some of this.
They're killing their own protesters.
They're shooting them.
They're tear-gassing them.
Commercial airliners.
Let me read.
A top Iranian military commander made a rare public appeal for forgiveness on Sunday as security forces fired on protesters and outraged.
You know what, man?
They know it.
They're shooting their own protesters and now a rare public appeal for forgiveness because they know the end is nigh.
I think, you know, I don't like the U.S.
getting involved, but I will say at this point with all of the serious, serious, horrifying things this country has done, We would be, it would be good if the people of Iran rose up and ousted this regime.
It really would.
I don't think the U.S.
should be doing it, by no means.
But I certainly respect the right and the will of the people to challenge a corrupt government that's killing its own people because they're mad that they took out a commercial airliner.
I will respect those protests.
It was the second day of protests after the military acknowledged early Sunday that it had launched those missiles.
We know this.
The disaster unfolded amid... Okay.
For the first three days after the crash, Iran denied growing international accusations.
Okay.
I think we all know this.
They denied it.
Now they've admitted it.
Let's move on, New York Times.
This analyst argued, yadda yadda yadda, okay, come on.
On Sunday, unrest spread outside Tehran, the capital, to at least a dozen cities.
Security forces fired tear gas, rubber bullets, and eventually live ammunition to disperse demonstrators in Tehran.
By late Sunday night, several people had been wounded, witnesses said.
Unlike previous waves of opposition, some of the outrage this time has come from conservatives, who ordinarily support the government, as well as from the usual critics.
Headlines in hardline newspapers demanded resignations, and the commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary Guards, Hussein Salami, issued a very rare public apology.
In a televised address, he all but begged Iranians to return to the nationalist zeal that only days earlier had seemed to fill the country and General Soleimani's killing.
No, don't.
Join the international community in condemning all of this.
Let's get Iran to a place where they have a strong economy, where they have normalized relations with other countries, where things are flourishing in the Middle East, and stop them with the militia actions and the shooting down airlines, targeting their own protesters.
This is archaic.
This is medieval.
And it's time for it to end.
And this is an opportunity now for Iran to do this.
They say, Iran responded to Soleimani by, okay, New York Times, can you please?
The editor-in-chief of the Revolutionary Guard Tasnim news agency, Kayhan Abdullahi, said the attempts by government officials to lie about what had happened were as great a catastrophe as the crash itself.
Officials who misled the media are guilty too, he said on Twitter.
We are all ashamed before the people.
I have respect for this.
To come out and admit it and accept shame and fault is respectable.
And I'll say the uproar, however, is unlikely to dampen the Iranian appetite for confrontation with the West.
Iranian hardliners habitually suspect that American covert operations are behind domestic protests.
It's so absurd.
And the unvarnished pleasure the White House seemed to take in the events unfolding in Iran over the weekend may only harden that view.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
You know what I see here?
It's a very similar mentality to, like, the woke far-left that the Iranian zealots have.
They refuse to accept responsibility.
Everything's a conspiracy.
Everyone's secretly far-right or a nationalist or working for the CIA.
Sorry.
That's just not the case.
The case is that you are zealots, overzealous, and you hurt innocent people.
And you need to accept it's time to change.
They say, we are following your protests closely and are inspired by your courage, Donald Trump tweeted on Sunday.
Ali Vaiz, Iran project director at the International Crisis Group, said that even as they took tough measures to suppress protests at home, Iranian leaders might lash out against Washington, covertly or otherwise.
Quote, they believe the U.S.
and its allies in the region are fueling and exploiting internal discontent in Iran.
The game will return to Iran's comfort zone, indirect attacks against the United States and its allies in ways that would allow plaudible deniability and minimal risk of reprisal.
You see, this is what needs to stop.
And now we've got athletes defecting, journalists leaving.
There was like a British ambassador was filming, he got arrested or something.
Over the last year, the Trump administration has hit Iran with a so-called maximum pressure campaign of painful economic sanctions aimed at pressuring Tehran to submit to new restrictions on its military activities and nuclear program.
Iranian officials describe it as economic warfare, and I would describe what Iran does as guerrilla tactics destabilizing the region and causing problems for everyone.
So I will say it is, you know, Obama tried to appease them.
It didn't work.
It did not work.
It may have worked to a certain degree in some capacity, but for the most part, here we are.
Obama gave them cash.
He tried to appease them.
Why are we still dealing with militias showing up and attacking American soldiers?
If hawks in Washington view the protests as evidence of success, that could work against Iranians who favor compromise with the United States and strengthen hardliners who favor confrontation, said Sanan Vakil, a scholar at Chatham House.
Security-focused conservatives are thinking they can't come to the table now because it would be weak.
General Salami of the Revolutionary Guards, in his apology and plea for unity on Sunday, appeared eager to rally Iranians once again against their perennial rivals since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
We are at war with the United States, he said.
We do not consider the conflict with the United States over.
We are the soldiers of the people, and we will sacrifice ourselves for you.
Iran has risen, he said, noting that its military had dared fire missiles toward American forces on bases in Iraq, even if it did so without much chance of damage or casualties.
Iran is proud, and the whole world has seen our power.
So let's get back to the main point at hand.
The main reason we are seeing this trend, which as of right now, as of recording, is still Nancy Pelosi fake news with 22,000 tweets, Is because, for some reason, we have Iranian protesters, we have the most liked Farsi tweet ever, in a social media post, Donald Trump's tweet in Farsi supporting the protesters, yet because the orange man is always bad, always, always wrong.
Nancy Pelosi would come out and say there's a lot of reasons why they're out there.
No, they're out there because they're mad at their government.
They've been protesting for a long time.
Women have been rising up and tearing off their veils.
They don't want to wear them, and they're being punished for it.
In the previous protests, Iran was killing its own people, and they're doing it again.
I'm not saying everyone in Iran is, quite literally, on board with these protests. And here's what you really
need to consider.
What we're seeing with these protesters who refuse to walk on the American flag
and the Israeli flag are essentially the hard left of Iran.
They probably have more in common with American conservatives and libertarian
types, people who want freedom, than they do our far left, because granted,
left and right is different in different countries. But this is not the
overwhelming majority of the country.
So while we absolutely should support the right of people to protest and to protest against what the regime is doing in killing its own people and shooting down a commercial airliner and firing missiles into another country, we should recognize that when people come out for that funeral for Sulaymaniyah, there's a lot of people who support that country.
And so over the next few years, we'll see which side gains more and more strength.
But There may be an open window with this closed door, right?
We saw this tragedy with this airline, but now it's reinvigorating people to refuse to step on the American flag, saying America's not our enemy.
I'll tell you this, man.
I think the American government is the enemy of a lot of people in a lot of different ways, for sure.
I think we have enemies, you know what I mean?
We do these drone strikes, commando raids.
You know, Trump is stationing troops in Saudi Arabia and talking about the cash they're paying.
There's a lot of bad things America does.
But the American people and the Iranian people don't need to be fighting.
You know, I know there are a lot of Iranian people who are zealots, nationalist and religious, and that is something you can't reconcile.
I think people, a lot of the hippy-dippy left, you know, anti-war left, need to recognize this too.
They seem to think that the only reason we fight is because the billionaires want us to, and it's like, listen man, I've seen the fire in the eyes of the ideological zealots, of religious zealots.
I have seen that rage and anger, and there is no compromise.
You know, if you came to me and said you wanted to dissolve due process and install a religious theocracy, you will see the fire in my eyes as well.
There is no compromise there.
Okay?
We have liberty.
You know, English common law provides for the presumption of innocence.
If you come to me and tell me you'd take that away, expect resistance.
Absolutely.
And they feel the same way, and that's where war starts to come from.
It's not always about resources.
There's about a threat to one's ideology.
So when you have, you know, a group of people who believe in theocracy, and America is imposing democracy, well then, yeah, you're gonna see violent opposition.
Should the United States be imposing democracy?
No, no, we shouldn't.
We should be protecting ourselves, bolstering our own borders and economy, and staying true to our value and our culture.
Instead, the United States has done these, yes, they have done adventurous, you know, Middle Eastern expeditions, we should not be doing.
Well, Iran's mad about it, because we're, you know, like, You know what, man?
I'd like to point the finger at one thing or another, but the truth is this goes back decades, decades upon decades, and even beyond that.
And here we are today.
It's never going to end.
But I'm hoping that these protests, if they would be acknowledged properly by, you know, Pelosi, if you would stop screeching the orange man is bad, maybe we can get behind protesters who are more secular, you know, liberal types.
I mean liberal in the true sense, not American liberal, like believing in freedom.
Wanting better normalized relations, stopping the militia activities and the terror.
If we can get more people in Iran to support that...
We inch closer towards literal world peace.
There's a big difference between the fear, the globalism as it's feared, which is authoritarian globalism, and like, just literal international cooperation.
And that's what I want to see.
You know, have your country, have your laws, have your culture, protect what you want, work on your economy, but stop fueling people to go around blowing stuff up.
Stop targeting your own protesters.
Get with the times.
To a certain point, we have to recognize these countries do have to change.
Now let me get back to the big point at hand, outside of Nancy Pelosi is, where is the line for us, for Europe, for Russia, for China?
With China, they have the Uighur-Muslim problem.
At what point are we going to stand up and say they need to release these people?
You know, people have called this out.
We stood up when it came to World War II.
Are we going to stand up now to China?
The same thing is true with Iran.
I don't know what the answer is, man, because I do not like the U.S.
getting involved in foreign affairs.
But what do you do when you sit back and watch them execute their own citizens who are protesting, quite peacefully, I might add, demanding freedom and respect and liberty and civil rights?
I don't think it's the job of the United States necessarily to get involved.
But at a certain point, do you act in the defense of others?
The challenge is that, you know, engaging in war may just result in worse circumstances.
But, I don't know.
I don't know.
At what point, what can we do?
I think the answer for now is diplomacy, 100%.
And we need to see the total international community, Russia, China, everybody getting on board.
We need to see the American left stop screeching about the orange man and start actually, you know, talking about how we can be supporting these protesters.
Nancy Pelosi's in a very difficult position where she has to say the orange man is bad, but that puts her at odds with the protesters in Iran who are calling out the atrocities and the accidents.
I get it.
I don't tell you, man.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
I will see you all then.
We got major breaking news.
Cory Booker has dropped out of the presidential race.
And I'm going to be completely honest.
I am actually sad to see him go, mostly because of who's still in the race.
And I'm going to say right now, I am absolutely disgusted with Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg.
Why is Tom Steyer qualified for the Democratic debates before Cory Booker is?
You don't gotta like Cory Booker at all.
You can think he's kooky, corny, and all these awful things, but Tom Steyer is quite literally only in the race because he's a billionaire dumping money to get access to these debates.
So let me calm down, I suppose, because I'm not a big fan of Cory Booker, but I do think he's substantially better than Biden and Buttigieg.
Let's read the news and see what The Times says about him.
They say, the New Jersey senator who built this campaign around a message of unity I do want to talk about money in politics and how this plays into Booker's role.
I want to say this too before we move forward.
It is fair to say that if you just don't have it, you just don't have it.
And Booker just doesn't have it.
And that's fair.
Buttigieg clearly resonates better.
I don't like that because I think Buttigieg is a grey blob.
I don't even know what he is.
He's just some guy from Indiana who apparently still somehow made it.
Don't ask me.
He probably does well with old people.
Booker should be doing way better than Buttigieg is.
But I guess, hey man, when you're Spartacus, I'm sorry, if you call yourself Spartacus, you probably are going to lose a lot of credibility.
And Booker kind of did it to himself.
But let's read.
They say, Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey dropped out of the Democratic presidential race on Monday, ending a nearly year-long quest built around a message of peace and unity that failed to resonate with voters eager for a more aggressive posture against President Trump.
The departure of Mr. Booker from the crowded Democratic field, heralded at the outset as the most diverse in history, leaves just one African-American candidate— No, no, no, no, stop, stop, stop.
Deval Patrick, I'm sorry.
I'm not saying this to be mean, but, dude, come on.
He's not polling.
He's polling at, what, 0% with no donors?
Why?
That's so dumb.
Like, am I gonna go out and find a random guy, too, and be like, this person is Indian, and now we have an Indian?
No, come on.
Just because Deval Patrick's saying he's gonna run doesn't mean he's deserving of any credibility beyond, say, like, a Libertarian candidate or any other third-party candidate.
They say vying for the Democratic nomination in the party where black voters are an essential block of the Democratic base, but yes, you gotta recognize right now, try and deny it, Trump's approval among African Americans in this country is really high according to three different polls, including Emerson.
Call it a fluke, but it's three polls.
The decision came after Mr. Booker, who never cracked the top tier of Democratic contenders and consistently polled in the low single digits, fell short of qualifying for a second consecutive debate stage.
A setback the Booker campaign conceded in the past few weeks would likely doom their underdog candidacy at a time when the Democratic race for president is being overshadowed by an impeachment trial in Washington and a growing conflict in Iran.
I got in this race to win.
And I've always said I wouldn't continue if there was no longer a path to victory.
Mr. Booker said in a statement to supporters.
Our campaign has reached the point where we need more money to scale up and continue building a campaign that can win.
Money we don't have, and money that is harder to raise because I won't be on the next debate stage, and because the urgent business of impeachment will rightly be keeping me in Washington.
And maybe I'll come back to this, okay?
But let me say this.
We still have...
Hold on.
I gotta stop right now.
New York Times says who's running for president, and they actually show the Republican primary candidates.
Stop.
They're not real, okay?
Everybody in the Republican Party is going to vote for Trump.
The economy is great.
Trump is not the best person in the world.
But they're certainly not considering these other people.
Just stop pretending, okay?
Now, they're going to talk more about his campaign.
But you know what I want to talk about?
I want to talk about this guy.
Tom Steyer.
This guy.
Michael Bloomberg.
I am not happy.
Okay?
I'll tell you this.
First, Tom Steyer is a wealthy man.
I'm not entirely sure how he raised his money.
Michael Bloomberg is also a very wealthy man.
In fact, All of these people are millionaires except for Pete Buttigieg.
Amy Klobuchar, with her husband, has a net worth of just around $2 million.
Warren's, I think, is in the high single digits.
Bernie's is around $1 or $2 million.
I don't know about Biden, but I'm pretty sure he's a millionaire too.
Anyway, the point is, I will give Buttigieg respect for making it as far as he did on somebody whose net worth is $100,000.
Seriously, Buttigieg's net worth is $100,000.
And it's because he owns a house.
He's not a rich guy by any means.
But why is it that, you know, I shouldn't ask why.
I know why.
Let me start by saying this.
I can respect Bloomberg and Tom Steyer have made so much money they can afford to buy things.
But there's a serious problem in my opinion With, like, I don't know, let's say you're a... I'll go extreme on this one, okay?
I'll be hyperbolic.
Let's say you're a drug dealer, and you make a ton of money.
Should you then be allowed to use that money that was obtained illicitly to influence the public to put you in these debates?
In my opinion, the answer is no.
But I know, I know, I know.
These guys aren't drug dealers, to be fair.
If you make all of your money with, like, Bloomberg News or, you know, Bloomberg has that kiosk thing for tracking, like, stocks and stuff, should you then be allowed to use all that money to influence the public?
The answer is actually, to a certain extent, yes.
I can respect that.
You see, these people, Tom Steyer and Bloomberg, to a certain degree, have merit behind them.
And it may be in a different area, but that merit is being now converted into pushing their message.
That I can absolutely respect.
But I want to make a bigger point about how I feel it should be.
While I can certainly respect the idea of merit, I kind of think when it comes to issues of public discourse, law, policymaking, it shouldn't be about your ability to be rich or not.
I understand to a certain degree in this country we have a meritocracy and you have to have something behind you to validate your ability to even be on the stage.
But Cory Booker, in my opinion, should be on the stage... Well, you know what?
I guess I'll put it this way.
I'm not gonna stand for Booker.
He failed on his own right.
He didn't have what it takes.
He's got a kooky personality.
He's kind of corny.
And it didn't resonate with people.
And I understand that.
Sometimes you just don't have it.
But outside of Booker, we can look at how the democratic debate system is set up to basically favor the establishment.
CNN refused to run Trump ads, right?
Think about that.
Now, I'm not saying they're refusing to run ads from other people, but I will point this out.
CNN says we're not going to run Trump's ads.
Trump is not getting this advantage based on being a billionaire when it comes to the press.
Trump earned natural press in 2016.
But now we can see how Bloomberg and Steyer's weight is actually negatively impacting the ability of other candidates, and this is why you likely only see the ultra-wealthy who ever run.
And there's a net positive, I suppose, to the idea of meritocracy, but some of these people are not meritocratic individuals.
They're people who are propped up for political reasons.
Like, you could theoretically argue that Buttigieg has earned his way here.
Or, you can take a look at the criticism about wine caves and billion-dollar donations and say, ultimately, whoever makes it to the stage are people that the establishment is likely to support.
Bernie, in my opinion, is squeaking through the cracks, and he's kind of lucky to get as far as he did.
Trump, they certainly wanted to stop, the Republicans did, and one of the reasons Trump actually made it in, I don't want to say the only reason, is the Democrats wanted a Pied Piper candidate, that's what they called it.
They wanted Trump, who wasn't spending much money on this campaign, they wanted him to win the Republican nomination, because they thought he would never win.
So, you know what man, I guess I'm kind of conflicted.
You know, you think about the idea of Citizens United, the Citizens United ruling, where they said that basically super PACs, you know, money is speech, you can spend it as you see fit, and I understand that argument, but I kind of feel like Too many of these people are beholden to the special interests who prop them up.
And that's why the Democrats are dominated by establishment, crony, capitalist-type individuals, people like Hillary Clinton, people like Joe Biden.
Bernie Sanders is breaking through, but he's not going to reach the regular American public.
And this is what brings me to the big point I want to make right now about the Democrats that I've been really frustrated about.
I'll say this, to stay on point, you know, I've actually seen some stuff from Cory Booker where he's not on, where he's actually just having conversations, and it's entirely respectable.
Cory Booker's problem is he tries to be this personality on stage and it just comes off as really unappealing.
It's his own fault.
The problem I see with the Democrats is the only thing we have are crony, you know, air quote, centrists, they're not real centrists, or far left.
Why can't the Democrats put forward a candidate who isn't a multi-millionaire crony capitalist type speaking to Goldman Sachs or a socialist?
Why are my only choices between conservatives and a corporatist elitist or a socialist?
Is there no sane, rational, middle populist?
I guess the answer is no.
I'm not saying that Cory Booker is that, but I'm certainly saying what we have right now, I am not enthused.
Let me look at his current lineup.
Cory Booker is basically out because he can't make the debate stage, he didn't make it in the polls, they're increasingly making the criteria more difficult, and that means without that exposure, he will struggle to raise donations.
The same is true for Yang, for Tulsi.
Yang was in the last one, he's not making this one.
So I do want to point out, it's funny that basically all the candidates are like, you know, white, and there's only two women, so it's like mostly white men.
I think it's funny Democrats are doing that.
But anyway, the point is, I look at this lineup, and I got billionaire, millionaire, Buttigieg, give him some credit.
Millionaire, millionaire, millionaire.
I know Bernie is only recently a millionaire after 2016.
So, but what do we have?
Joe Biden.
I don't even know what he's saying half the time.
I'm not going to vote for him.
Bernie Sanders has started pandering to the political nonsense, and he's pushing policies I completely disagree with, even though he has said some things I do agree with, and I don't want to vote for him.
Warren?
She's Hillary Clinton wearing a Bernie Sanders mask.
Buttigieg is a gray blob who apparently just says whatever he needs to say.
I don't even know why Klobuchar is here and how, I'm surprised she got past Booker, but I will say the media pushed her.
And Tom Steyer's only here because he's dumping money into the election.
None of these people, like, are in any way anything we actually need.
I don't even know why they're considering Deval Patrick to be here, because I think when you look at Patrick, not only has not met the donor threshold, he has no polls, neither does Delaney, neither does Bennett.
Tom Steyer has the donors because he is dumping money into TV ads.
Bloomberg isn't taking donors, and Bloomberg is polling because he's dumping money.
So I'll give Klobuchar respect.
I guess she's made it somehow, but whatever.
I don't know.
I'm not gonna make this one long.
It's a breaking news segment.
I'll be honest with you guys.
I don't really care for the most part.
I think the sentiment I was trying to get across with this, with Booker and everyone we have, is None of these candidates speak to me as a moderate.
None of them do.
None of them.
Because they're either, like, Pete Buttigieg is nothing.
Like, I'm not trying to be mean, but Buttigieg and Klobuchar are literally nothing.
They say nothing to me.
They're not saying anything.
Tom Steyer is screaming orange man bad.
Elizabeth Warren is the fake Native American wearing, you know, Hillary Clinton with a Bernie mask on.
Bernie started flip-flopping and pandering to the woke far left, and, you know, apparently, I'll put it that way.
I think Bernie's going to have some bad news coming soon.
And what's Biden?
Biden's just the Obama administration.
Like, none of these people speak anything at all to me.
Not that Cory Booker did, but there's two things I do get out of the current Democrats, Yang and Tulsi.
Yang opposes the minimum wage.
Why?
Because he's actually thinking about solutions to our problems.
I have a lot of respect for that.
Yang's not a military guy, so I'm kind of like, do I want him to really be president?
I do want him to do better.
I do want his ideas to persist because I think what we need to do, Trump has done great by the economy.
We now need Yang's forward thinking to kind of combine with that.
I really, really do.
And Tulsi is the anti-war, anti-regime change candidate that I think truly means it.
I would love, I would absolutely love this if Tulsi and Yang got hired by the Trump administration in some capacity.
And I think that would cause Democrats' heads to explode.
Because as much as a lot of people don't want to vote for Trump, if he gave Tulsi a position of power in dealing with issues of war, and he gave Yang a position of power in dealing with domestic economics, combined with their strong economy under Trump as it is, I think it would be the biggest landslide, like 40 states flipping red, it would be absolutely nuts.
Because Tulsi and Yang are actually capturing moderates, okay?
Steyer, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, these candidates, they're not speaking, they're reaching for the activists.
Steyer screams orange mad bad, hoping that it's the activist base, the resistance that's voting for him.
Bernie's pandering, Warren's pandering, Buttigieg is saying whatever he thinks he needs to be said, and so is Biden.
They're all trying to find that space where they're being propped up simply by, you know, whatever large voting bloc, but it's typically the more active or even activist bloc.
Yang and Tulsi have actually spoken to independent voters.
Yang is actually doing a lot better than Tulsi.
He really is.
But, you know, Yang is... Seriously, if you look at Yang's proposals, he's actually, you know, sorting out all of the problems we're facing and his ideas for it.
I can respect that.
So I'm not saying either of them should necessarily be president, although I prefer them over most of the Democrats.
I think if Trump gave them positions of power in the administration to do what they're talking about doing, None of these Democrats would stand a chance.
I think it would be a smart, smart move for Trump.
Appointing Tulsi to an advisory or defense position doesn't mean she can do whatever she wants.
Trump would, you know, be the final say.
Appointing Andrew Yang to an economic position wouldn't mean he can do whatever he wants.
They'd be advisors, both with, you know, with those positions.
It would be an amazing good faith effort from Trump to bring in moderates and people on the left who want to see these candidates have their ideas implemented.
And it would create a coalition so big The downward death spiral of Doctor Who is upon us.
Get woke, go broke, they proclaimed as Doctor Who appointed their first female doctor.
Now that wasn't the problem.
The problem was actually that the narrative of the show became Magic School Bus.
and I will see you all there.
Well, admittedly, I am not the biggest Doctor Who fan, but I do know a little bit.
I've watched a little bit.
It's basically a very, very old show, and they always, when they change Doctors, it's like getting a new cast.
The show can carry on as a sci-fi time travel interdimensional adventure by, you know, constantly being fresh with new Doctors.
So I don't want to, you know, get into the lore of the show.
I want to talk more about the politics.
And I'll tell you this.
I'm a big fan of Star Trek, okay?
I grew up watching Star Trek.
I was a little kid.
My dad would watch The Next Generation.
And as I got older, I started to appreciate it more and more because it was a very smart and good show.
And then they had, you know, Deep Space Nine and Voyager.
And I got mad when they started doing prequels, but I really liked the exploration of Philosophy and technology.
The philosophical consequences of technological advancement.
Things like that.
Doctor Who hits a lot of those chords.
And so, there's a lot of Doctor Who I really liked.
Admittedly, not as big a fan of Doctor Who as I am of, say, Star Trek.
But here's what happens.
It was, I believe, a couple of years ago, they decided, we're going to do the first female Doctor.
And all of a sudden we heard from the typical fair, the, oh, here come the incels all angry about a female Doctor, and no one really cared.
In fact, on a lot of forums they talked about how in the lore of the show, when the Doctor regenerates, they sometimes, you know, Time Lords sometimes become female.
It wasn't that big of a deal.
So now they want to do the first female doctor.
And admittedly, there were a lot of fans I saw who were not SJWs or anti-SJWs.
They were just regular fans who were like, cool, yeah, I'm excited to see how they do this.
Because it's actually an interesting idea.
You know, the doctor has always been male.
You do a female doctor, you can maybe get a different perspective, different kind of storylines.
You know, so it could be really interesting.
Here's the problem.
The show became the magic school bus.
Yeah, like Miss Frizzle brings the kids on an adventure in the school bus to go explore, you know, science and stuff?
Well, they started doing shows where, like, they go to occupied India, and they go, like, meet Rosa Parks.
And here's the story now.
I'm sorry it took two minutes to get to the point, but you can see it on the screen.
Season 12 of Doctor Who has a 7% audience score, with 402 ratings.
So let me stop you right now, woke Twitterati!
Okay?
This is not a bash campaign.
This is not a brigade against the show.
It's 402 ratings.
It's not 10,000.
It's not 50,000.
This is not wave after wave of angry fans coming and giving it a bad rating before they've seen it.
It's quite literally just 49 critics, 400 users, who really don't like the show.
And lo and behold, even some of the critics are calling out, say, this.
Doctor Who delivers a pointed message in a pointless episode.
It's not just the fans who are angry, although many of the critics are saying, what a great series.
Yeah, great.
We're adults.
I don't want to watch Magic School Bus.
If I want to see Miss Frizzle bring the kids into the bus to go on a magic adventure in outer space or whatever, I'll watch the Magic School Bus.
When I want to see a show talk about, you know, interdimensional travel and aliens and cyborgs, and there was one episode where it's like, There's a spaceship caught between a gravitational pull of I think it was a large star or planet.
And so a certain portion of the ship was experiencing gravity much more differently than the other part of the ship.
So time moved very differently.
Time in the bottom of the ship was going really, really quickly and really slow up top.
It's a really, really fascinating idea.
Well, now the doctor's bringing us back to go check out Rosa Parks and talk about...
Climate change!
Yeah, great.
If I want a preachy political show, I won't watch Doctor Who, okay?
But even Star Trek is doing this.
Now, I'll tell you this.
I do believe, and I have another segment coming up in a few minutes, that the era of woke TV is actually behind us, while Doctor Who may be one of the last to reap the benefits of getting woke and going broke.
Take a look at this.
I'm just heartbroken that Jodi Chibnall and the team destroyed one of my favorite shows and turned it into a political correctness drama.
I just wonder at what point will BBC bow their heads to the fact that people are no longer even interested in watching it.
Terrible.
I cannot find the words to describe how bad it is.
My show is over.
Series 11 was S, and Series 12 continues to be a platform for virtue signaling with terrible writing and bad story decisions.
Congratulations, Chibnall and BBC, you destroyed Doctor Who with this rubbish.
Yada yada yada.
I'm not bothered by...
The doctor being a woman.
But Jodie Whittaker is wrong for this part.
She's just trying to emulate previous doctors.
Nobody likes who plays the doctor at first.
I get that.
But I still don't like Jodie.
Okay, I don't care about that.
Someone said, five stars just to piss off the blind boomers who think climate change is political and not indeed actual science.
Okay, no, no, no, no, no.
You don't get it.
Even AV Club, which is part of Gizmodo and Jezebel, is saying it's a pointless episode.
Oh, they can praise the politics, but recognize the show is bad!
It's a bad show.
You want to preach about climate change?
Fine, I get it.
But when you make crappy TV, that's the problem.
Look, Wonder Woman.
Great movie.
Oh, it had a female lead.
There you go.
Mission accomplished, feminists.
But then you look at Ghostbusters, an all-women reboot of Ghostbusters, and it was a terrible movie.
No one cares that they're women.
Nobody cares if you want to do an episode about some kind of idea like racism.
Make good shows.
The problem is, they're making the magic school bus, okay?
She goes into a nightmarish climate change or whatever.
All right.
Here's the thing.
Check this out.
Dr. Hugh viewers praise climate change message in Orphan 55, but some fans thought the issue was handled with too much heavy-handedness.
Heavy-handedness.
That is the key takeaway.
This era needs to go away.
I'm looking forward to the end.
When we can say, listen, we could do an episode where they go to a planet where humans are polluting and destroying the planet and the problem the humans are facing is that they've toxified their environment and the food sources are depleting.
Star Trek did that stuff all the time and it was awesome!
Okay?
There was one, man, Star Trek, so good.
Data goes to Picard and he says, there's something I'm trying to understand, you know, I'm going to paraphrase here because I don't remember it word for word, but he basically says, you know, people talk about how terrorism is wrong.
But if you look at the history of these, you know, several instances, we can see that it has been an effective course of action to bring about political change.
And Picard says, indeed, it is something that has troubled humanity.
But I do not subscribe to the belief that political power is drawn from the barrel of a gun.
And I'm like, oh man, they're talking about issues of revolution, of terror.
It was at a time when we had, and we still do, we have this insurgency and terror around
the world, and they were tackling a political issue in the future saying, if it works, why
is it bad?
And Picard tries to grapple with this, and they explain it.
It's awesome.
It's not the only time shows have done this.
They have, of course, done shows about inequality between men and women.
But the problem with what they do here for this woke social justice show is the show is literally an educational magic school bus episode where instead of having them, like, come to a planet where there's no food and people are fighting in the streets or going to a planet that's authoritarian or communist or something like that, it's they literally go there and she preaches, she says, I know what you're thinking.
But it's one possible future.
It's one timeline.
You want me to tell you that Earth's going to be okay?
Because I can't.
In your time, humanity's busy arguing over the Washington- Okay, dude, we get it.
You're breaking the fourth wall.
You're telling us to do something about climate change.
I get it.
You don't have to do that.
Here's the episode I propose.
Instead of literally telling us, it's like it reminds me of South Park.
You know what I learned today?
I learned this.
And then they literally tell you.
But it's supposed to be tongue-in-cheek with South Park.
They make it funny.
They say like, there's that one really famous episode where they say, you know what I learned?
And they go on, it's a beep, it's just beep for like three minutes because Comedy Central had to censor everything they were saying because they were attacking, they were attacking the people who bend the knee to terror.
That's funny.
What's not funny is when I want to watch a show that explores the future.
What would the world look like if this happened?
They instead turn it into, today I learned.
Come with me children, we're gonna go explore the white blood cell!
They literally went to Rosa Parks in the last season.
They literally went to like occupied India.
Dude.
We don't need history lessons.
We need new intellectual property, exploring new ideas around this.
Otherwise, what you'll get is a 7% Rotten Tomatoes score.
And they don't seem to get it.
Because what happens now is they've combined doing the diversity hire with social justice educational TV, and then when people get mad about the show being bad, they say, you just don't like it because she's a woman.
Oh, dude, you know what, man?
Keep saying that as we go and watch Hunger Games and Wonder Woman all day and night.
As, you know, the Black Widow trailer drops, and everyone's excited for it, and the new Wonder Woman 1984 trailer drops, and it is epic.
But this is the line they draw because they are too stupid to see why their product is failing.
You want your message to get across, it's not the way you do it.
Star Trek has always been fairly progressive, and they tackled these ideas in intelligent ways.
They talked about humanity.
They talked about data.
Dude, that episode where data's on trial, trying to figure out whether or not an android is actually a life form, was an incredible, incredible, like, analog to the issue of slavery, personhood, race, and they even say it to your face!
I am not comfortable with creating an intelligent, sentient life and telling them they must be property.
They were saying it, but they did it in a way that was entertaining, was interesting.
They didn't insult you.
They asked the question, they entertained it, and they said, what does this really mean?
And they showed both sides arguing in it.
You had the one side saying, no, he's property.
One side saying, no, he's sentient life.
They can have these storylines.
They just need to make good shows.
These shows are bad.
Because instead of having an... So here's that episode, right?
Data is challenged by the scientist who wants to take him apart because he wants to make more of them.
And Data says, I'm a sovereign life form.
I can do whatever I want.
And they challenge it in court.
And they have both sides arguing whether or not he's free to do so.
Amazing.
This, however, is, come aboard the TARDIS, children, as we go and meet Rosa Parks and learn about history.
Congratulations with your 7%.
So you get the point, man.
She's preaching to the audience.
I'm not surprised.
But I'll tell you this.
I'm a Star Trek fan.
A lot of what I'm saying is really me venting about what's going on with Star Trek and what they did to Star Wars.
Star Wars is a bit different.
Star Wars wasn't like, you know, far-left insanity.
So I can empathize with Doctor Who fans who are really upset that their show is being destroyed, because I'm equally scared about what's going to happen to Picard as they do the- finally they're doing a sequel series to the 90s era, you know, Deep Space Nine, Next Generation.
We're going to learn about what happened after the Dominion Wars and things like that.
I'm excited, but I'm scared because this is what's going to happen.
It's what we're going to be fed.
And it's about time this era ends.
They're doing the new Ghostbusters movie.
They learned their lesson.
Hopefully, this all changes, but I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
In my previous segment, I talked about Doctor Who and the era of woke television, educational TV kind of going away, and I hope that's the case.
And I think we might be seeing it here now, with the Joker.
This guy, Bob Chipman, he's the movie Bob, tweeted.
That face when you have 11 Oscar nominations, more than any other film nominated, but you're still going to spend the night screaming into your Xbox because girls don't want nice guys.
I'm just pulling up his tweet because he's pointing out the Joker Oscar nominations.
Because the Joker is leading the pack.
An epic movie.
But here's the important point.
There's a couple things here.
The Joker was subjected to a relentless smear campaign by the media trying to claim it was propaganda for incels and the far right and all this other nonsense.
Nobody bought it.
They went to see this movie.
It was an epic movie.
It is leading the pack.
It is being rewarded.
And people saw it, and they understood what it was.
It was a great character-driven movie.
I love that ending scene when he tells the final joke.
Man, that is a great movie.
I'm so excited to see they're winning.
And now we're seeing, like, the new Ghostbusters film.
We're seeing these people learn.
And we saw what Star Wars tried to do with The Rise of Skywalker, and these woke far-leftists are screeching, saying, Stop!
The fans of Kyle and Ren who wanted, like, the Reylo people are, like, sending threats.
So that's the new fanbase you courted.
But here's the thing.
It's not just about woke outrage.
It's about a new era of movies.
They're coming back to their senses.
Hopefully they stop what they're doing to Doctor Who.
Hopefully they stop doing what they're doing to Star Trek and his other franchises.
And they realize You gotta be there for your fans.
They're not bigots and far-right.
You're listening to the insane people, but also.
Are Joker's 11 Oscar nominations a turning point for comic book movies?
Not only are we at a point now where the media smear campaign failed, but an actual question is arising where superhero movies might actually be entering this era of high-quality cinema.
Remember when Scorsese, I think it was Scorsese, said that, you know, superhero films are not cinema?
Say it to Joker.
I disagree.
You're wrong.
You can't do it.
Joker was incredible.
Incredible.
Not big action movie.
It was a character-driven, enthralling piece.
I was glued to my seat watching this like, wow, man, I love it.
And they're gonna do more of these.
We're seeing the superhero genre grow up and become something bigger.
You know, he said something like, it was a theme park?
Yes, so what's wrong with a theme park?
I was watching Winter Soldier the other day and I'm like, nah man, these movies are good.
They balance action, suspense, with an interesting story.
And The Joker takes the cake.
Not only is the woke outrage failing, but the movies are actually getting industry accolades, awards.
This is the biggest failure of the woke manipulation campaign we have ever seen.
And so I'm both equally happy to see that good movies will continue to be made, that the media smears won't work, and that the industry is accepting you will make money when you do films like this.
Stop pandering to the outrage-weird cultists and start making delicious ice cream again.
You see, the analogy I often use is ice cream.
Imagine going to an ice cream shop.
And inside, you notice a bunch of people have broccoli hats on.
And you're like, well, that's a weird thing I've never seen before.
And they say, we've put broccoli in all of our ice cream because ice cream is bad for you, bigot.
And now we've made healthy ice cream, broccoli flavored with broccoli.
And so you say, I'm not interested, thanks.
And you leave.
The business starts doing bad.
And eventually the business owner has to realize either nobody wants to buy your stupid cultist far-left propaganda and you can make a new product like chocolate.
People like chocolate.
Or you can go to business.
Well, The Joker was one of these movies that said, we're not going to do what you want.
We're not going to make some woke outrage film.
We're going to make chocolate ice cream.
In fact, this was like double fudge swirl cookie dough chocolate with whipped cream on top.
Because it's literally a dude they claimed was like an incel icon.
He's the Joker.
And then they make the movie, and what happens?
The people in broccoli hats show up with bricks, throwing bricks through your window, screaming.
But a year later, they're all gone.
The broccoli people failed.
And the ice cream, you know, the restaurant industry bestows upon you 11 awards, saying, you know what?
The ice cream is actually really good.
This means, as I stated with Ricky Gervais, The pushback against this is going mainstream, and that means as businesses start to recognize you are safe, you will make money, and you will be rewarded by the industry, this could be the end of the PC woke outrage.
Let's read a little bit of the story from CBR.
They say...
People were generally expecting Joker to get a good amount of nominations for the 92nd Academy Awards, but few predicted that it would lead with the most, beating out other heavyweights like the Irishman in 1917, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, all three of which are tied for a second with 10.
Todd Phillips' box office smash was bestowed 11 nominations.
Best Actor, Director, Picture, Cinematography, Editing, Adapted Screenplay.
Certainly, a comic book adaptation has never garnered as much attention before in the Academy.
The news is sure to excite fanboys for a number of reasons.
Many would think this will open the floodgates for other comic book adaptations to be award winners, which the community likely feels has been a long time coming.
There was a mild uproar in 2009 when The Dark Knight wasn't nominated for Best Picture, which many attribute to why the Academy increased the number of nominations for the category.
Eleven years later, we see another dramatically prestigious attempt at the Batman mythos with Joker, and it successfully garnered awards in all major categories.
Is the Academy finally registering the potential the genre has as an art form?
They say, first of all, Joker is hardly a superhero movie, or even a comic book film.
It's actually a bit erroneous that the movie is even nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay, as Phillips and Scott Silver's script doesn't ostensibly adapt any existing comic book.
Sure, it features a titular character, Batman's most iconic nemesis, as well as a young Bruce Wayne and the boy's parents, but aside from a few nods here and there, that's all rather irrelevant.
Phillips really wanted to do his own story, and the intellectual property from DC is little more than a marketing tool.
This is a great launching point.
I don't necessarily think it should happen, but I think they could do an amazing sequel.
If they did a more gritty, character-driven style of some kind of Batman story, showing the evolution of Arthur Fleck becoming the Joker, and then why he becomes substantially more depraved, I think that would be incredible.
Because in the movie, He's actually, to a certain degree, sympathetic.
His benefits are cut.
He's mentally ill.
He's got no medication.
He's bullied.
He's beaten.
And finally, he just snaps, and he becomes a symbol.
Now, he, a nihilist, becomes a symbol for those who want to push back against the wealthy, the anti-fascist types.
That generated a lot of controversy.
Conservatives were like, don't give them the Joker!
And anti-fascists were like, that's not us!
How dare you!
I thought it was hilarious.
The film takes more influence from early Scorsese films like Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, and therein lies a crucial reason for it receiving its nominations.
Scorsese has been a staple for the Oscars since the 1970s.
And the borrowing of his aesthetic obviously proved attractive in the eyes of Academy voters.
Once again, it's actually a bit inconsequential that the city in the film retains the name Gotham, as it clearly is meant to evoke the grit of New York in the 70s and 80s, and Phillips could have just as easily called his Joker a resident of the Bronx.
And it didn't have to be the Joker.
But here's the point I'm getting at, right?
There's a reason why I'm reading the story combining these two ideas.
Joker is a comic book movie.
This is pandering to the fans.
I don't want to say pandering, but it is fan-serving.
It was an epic... It was a movie made to say to the fans, we're going to do Joker right.
We're going to do it in a way that's not only going to make you feel good, we're going to make the industry cheer.
And it's one of the reasons I think The Woke Outrage targeted it.
They want their adaptations to be intersectional.
They want the new Iron Man to be, you know, Riri or whatever Am is, the young black woman.
They don't want a white male.
They want the adaptations to be diverse and intersectional.
And what did they do?
They made a white male comic book movie for the fans.
And they loved it.
And everyone loved it.
The Woke Outrage failed.
Here's what I think we can see.
There are a lot of comic book movies that were made in a bygone era of, you know, American exceptionalism.
It's kind of going away.
Maybe it's coming back with Trump, making America great again.
I don't know.
But now these comics are being made in their core likeness.
They're making comics the way the comics were originally made.
Instead of doing race and gender swaps and all that stuff, they're saying, we'll just make it the way the fans want to see it.
It's the right thing to do.
You want to make a character, right?
A gay, a trans, a female.
Make a character.
Don't change a character.
Okay, there's comics that people already like, but not only do I think marginalized communities are deserving of their own content, their own heroes, there's no reason to take it away from someone else and give a hand-me-down hero to a marginalized community.
That's why I'm surprised they don't actually get on board saying, do better, make new characters.
Some people might say the characters wouldn't sell.
Okay.
Try a run.
If that's what these people are asking for, try it.
I'll tell you what, though.
These people don't buy comics.
They have no intention of buying comics.
And therein lies the big problem.
It's not just comics, it's video games, it's movies, etc.
So now, you know, I'll keep this one short.
You get the point.
I am so excited to see Joker doing so well.
It is a rebuke of all of the outrage, all of the attempts at crappy movies like Captain Marvel, because in reality, if you make good content for the fans, you will be rewarded, and that's a good thing.
Hopefully, after what I was saying about Doctor Who, with stories like this, with the next Ghostbusters coming out, hopefully these movies prove a point.
We want good stories.
We want to be true to the source material, with some, you know, creative adaptations, sure.
And we don't care if you want to put a narrative, a progressive idea, or social justice in it.
Just don't force it down everyone's throats with a heavy-handed bash over the skull.
You can make a character in Joker who is a black woman and a doctor who says, they don't care about you.
They will cut your benefits same as mine and I'm losing my job.
And that message resonates with people.
That's how you do it right.
Hopefully they listen.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
Rapper Cardi B is giving up on her bid to move to Nigeria.
In fact, now she wants to run for Congress, saying, and I quote, I dead ass have so much ideas.
Cardi B Would likely win.
I kid you not.
Welcome to the new era.
Idiocracy coming true.
Did you know that Donald Trump is in the WWE Hall of Fame?
That's right, Trump.
He's not really Camacho, but come on.
So have you ever seen Idiocracy?
It's that movie with Luke Wilson and he goes to the future, everyone's really dumb.
Because basically, evolution rewards those who reproduce the most, not those who survive, right?
And so technically, reproducing the most ensures your survival.
So in the future, everyone's really dumb, and the president is a wrestler named Camacho.
I think it's—who plays it?
I can't remember the guy's name.
Anyway, who plays the president is Terry Crews.
Terry Crews.
Terry Crews is awesome.
He's a funny guy.
Anyway.
Cardi B, celebrity, if she ran for Congress, her fans would come out in droves and she would win a primary.
In fact, Cardi B might actually be able to run a third party or independent and win.
These celebrities could probably pull it off.
Donald Trump, the Republicans didn't like him.
He got new voters, his fans, people who loved the Trump idea.
But there's a really funny thing I want to point out.
There's a reason why I'm talking about Cardi B. Let's read this.
The Examiner reports, in one of the silliest stories ever, but quite funny, singer Cardi B, who last week said she wanted to leave America because President Trump is putting American lives in danger, now wants to be part of the U.S.
government, even though she doesn't agree with it.
Well, no, hold on.
It's an excellent reason to run for Congress.
You're looking at the system, you're upset, and you say, vote for me, I'm gonna come in and change it.
I respect that.
And Cardi B has every right to run for Congress.
Just because you're a bartender, or just because you're a celebrity, doesn't mean you're not allowed to run.
And she'll probably, let's read.
I think I want to be a politician, tweeted the pop star.
I really love government, even though I don't agree with government.
Respectable.
Cardi B, 27, said she was filing for a Nigerian passport the day after the Iranian escalation with Soleimani.
And, um, I say Iraqi militia leader.
Yeah, we get it.
We get it.
I do feel like if I go back to school and focus up, I can be part of Congress, added Cardi B in a follow-up tweet.
Quote I deadass have so much ideas that make sense the word a deadass implies that Cardi B is serious
She is serious about making her about her ideas making sense
I'm gonna have to stop you right there and say I I really don't believe that
Cardi B is successful for a lot of reasons, but I do not believe her ideas make sense
Look, Ocasio-Cortez's ideas don't make sense.
There are several Republicans with ideas that don't make sense.
Not everybody's ideas make sense, and I really don't think Cardi B is somebody who's gonna have ideas that make sense.
Kanye West has ideas that don't make sense either.
In fact, I have ideas that don't make sense too.
So I'll say that too.
It'll be a little self-deprecating.
I wouldn't want to run for that reason.
I don't think I know everything, and I certainly think I know more than Cardi B when it comes to politics.
This isn't the first time Cardi B has dabbed in politics.
Last year, a clip of the pop star demanding to see the receipts for the 40% in taxes she pays a year went viral, with many suggesting that Cardi B run for Congress.
She said, Uncle Sam, I want to know what you're doing with my effing tax money.
Because you know what I'm saying?
Like, when you donate to a kid from a foreign country, they give you updates of what they are doing with your donation.
I want to know what you're doing with my effing tax money.
And then she goes on to say like, Uncle Sam, what are you doing with my effing money?
What are you doing with my... And then it cuts off.
I never saw this clip, right?
This clip went viral.
Yasir Ali tweeted it.
Cardi B is getting into tax policy now.
She says she's paying 40% of her income in taxes and wants to know where the money is going.
Yes, that's a great point.
I completely agree.
Now, you can look at a tax breakdown, but I mean, like, if I'm giving my money, shouldn't I know, like, what it's being used for?
Cardi B's spot on with this.
And this was March 22, 2018, so almost two years ago.
Here's the thing, though.
Since then, Cardi B has gone on to praise Bernie Sanders.
Now hold on.
That's cool.
If she agrees with Bernie on his policies and all that stuff, I'm okay with it.
Much respect to those who have different opinions than mine.
And hey, I know a lot of Bernie supporters.
Me personally, I outgrew Bernie in a lot of ways.
I don't like the game he's playing politically, but Cardi B, you go ahead and support Bernie.
You have my respect.
However, you're gonna rag about taxes, then go on to support Bernie Sanders.
Bernie's the tax guy, okay?
So clearly she's gone through like kind of a 180.
As it pertains to her feelings on government, because with Bernie Sanders, your taxes will go up.
Now, I get it.
They're not the exact same problem.
She's saying, basically, I want to know where my taxes go to.
She's not saying I don't like paying taxes.
So with Bernie, he says, here's why I want to tax you.
OK, fine.
But if you're upset about your taxes being taken by the government and you're not knowing, Bernie's not going to give you a play-by-play of your tax money, same as anybody else.
He's going to tax it.
I'm going to tell you what happens with government.
You get taxed.
They waste your money.
They take stupid trips.
You know what, man?
I don't know if y'all ever worked for a big company.
I have seen how people with expense accounts operate.
They're not saving money.
They're burning money.
They're like, what's my budget for the year?
I've got $20,000 for travel or whatever.
I'll take first class.
You don't need to.
They do.
So what do you think happens with government?
They say, how much do we raise in taxes?
We got a million bucks?
Eh, whatever.
Spend it.
There you go.
So you bring Bernie in.
Here's my prediction.
Bernie's got a lot of ideas.
He wants a tax to pay for it.
I think tax revenue can be increased through other means.
And I think, you know, the problem with increasing the tax rates is you decrease trade volume and could potentially decrease the amount of tax you actually generate.
So here's what's going to happen.
They're going to do Medicare for All.
They're going to tax everybody.
Cardi, I hope you're listening.
They're going to tax everybody.
And then you're going to say to yourself, OK, I supported this Bernie guy.
Where's my tax money going?
Don't worry.
It's going to Medicare for All.
It's going to health care.
OK.
But then it turns out the system is corrupt and bloated.
You see, every time a spring leaks, they say, oh, the ship has got a hole in the hull.
What do they do?
Well, at a certain point, the ship is sinking.
You say, we abandoned ship.
It failed.
I'm sorry.
That's not how government works.
What government does is they say, Slap a sticker over that hole.
Another hole breaks.
The ship is sinking.
So what?
Bail more water.
Take more resources from the people so we can bail water.
Listen, men.
If the program is failing and can't be sustained, and all you do in response is take more resources from people to keep your crappy boat floating, You got serious problems.
Now, government can work for certain things, but I don't think it works necessarily here.
I think it works for regulation, for one.
It's hard to know exactly how you could implement government programs, but I will be fair and say, fire department tends to work, police department tends to work.
But I do think it's really funny that you simultaneously have people supporting Bernie Sanders who say, the police department is corrupt, you know, they're targeting minority communities, they're racist, and we need accountability.
What do you think's gonna happen when you have a medical department, you know?
When the hospitals are all paid for through taxes, do you think all of these institutional problems will evaporate overnight?
No, you're going to exacerbate them.
One of the big problems with police accountability is that there's no competition.
You literally can't do anything.
Not only do the cops are in unions, so if the cop does something wrong, then the union protects him.
And I do think the activists are a bit over-resolved in a lot of ways, but when a government program is failing, They just take more money.
So Cardi B, if you're upset about your taxes, you do not want to push for more taxes.
Here's what we gotta do.
I do think Medicare for All could be implemented and done.
However, Not overnight.
Maybe not in 10 years.
And actually, maybe because of the size of the United States, maybe not as a federal program, but maybe on the state level slowly and city levels.
The thing is, we've got like 2 million jobs tied to it, right?
I don't want to get fully into this, okay?
I want to talk about government programs.
I don't want to get into Medicare again.
The point I'm making is, You want to complain about taxes.
I'm right there with you.
But the problem with what Bernie's proposing is that we need to stop.
Free college is not the answer.
All you're going to do is take more money because high school is failing.
Okay?
Grade school is trash.
High school is failing.
You know what we need to do?
We need to clean house and rebuild.
The private sector does this easily because if nobody buys your product, your business ceases to exist.
But in government, they tax you.
You get in your car saying, where's my effing tax money going?
And they say, don't worry, it's going to this program.
You say, okay.
Then you actually go and look at it.
These things need to be audited.
If they're broken, they need to be shut down and rebuilt from scratch.
One of the biggest problems government has is they can't fail.
Failure allows for competition and evolution, and it's why the private sector works.
The government can work too, but when you launch a program based on current methodology and technology, it could stagnate.
And then how do you fix it when it's broken?
When your ship is sinking?
So I will say, Cardi B, When you came out ranting about taxes, you know a lot of conservatives probably agreed with you too.
Libertarians, conservatives, moderates, and even a lot of liberals probably said that's a good point.
It'd be great if the government told us what they were spending our taxes on.
But if you're going to come out a year later and say you're supporting Bernie, I'm not saying it's unfair.
I respect you for your opinion.
You can come out and support whoever you want.
I think you do need to address the fact that Bernie is the increased tax guy.
He's the more school guy, alright?
The problem with school is that school is the perfect example of the problem of government.
High school should be training people.
But you go to high school and you do what?
You twiddle your thumbs.
They teach you the same thing they already taught you.
You're learning nothing.
We should take college, put it into what high school is supposed to be, pay teachers more, get rid of the predatory lending.
That gets rid of the student debt problem.
That gets rid of the college problem.
Ah, they don't want to do that though.
Bernie wants to, you know, send people to free college, but high school is already failing.
See how that doesn't make sense?
That's one of the reasons why I've kind of moved on from Bernie.
Because while I trusted him in the past for being honest, he's gotten to a point where the pandering makes me feel like he's not honest.
And I don't think his ideas are good ideas.
So it's time to move on.
But anyway.
Anyway.
I'll wrap this up.
Keep it short.
Should celebrities be politicians?
Technically, no, but they're allowed to be.
So, Cardi B for Congress?
If she ran, she would win.
I really think so.
Maybe a lot of people would get out and freak out, but I don't know, I think she'd win.
