Bernie And Warren Are IMPLODING Amid Dual Scandals, Sanders Staff PANICKING After Veritas Expose
Bernie And Warren Are IMPLODING Amid Dual Scandals, Sanders Staff PANICKING After Veritas Expose. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are facing a scandal involving either Warren or Bernie lying.But Bernie is being hit with a second scandal from Project Veritas after they released now two parts to a series exposing Bernie's Iowa Staff as far leftists.Just weeks before the Iowa Caucus and Bernie Sander's staffers are shutting down their social media accounts due to the release of undercover videos from Project Veritas. it now seems that one of his staffers has responded.You'd think this would be huge news but as of now the media is more interested in Warren targeting Bernie.In response to the Democratic debates last night Sanders fans are sending snake emojis to Warren and calling CNN trash.These scandals could be poison to both campaigns so close to the Iowa caucus. But if you think its bad now wait till Veritas finishes their series and wait until the primary gets into full swing for super Tuesday.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Elizabeth Warren is facing a major backlash after she accused Bernie Sanders of telling her a woman couldn't win the presidency, and Bernie Sanders denied it.
It looks as though CNN at the debates were biased against Bernie and still framed it as though it was true, even though Bernie denied it.
At the end of the debate, she refused to shake Sanders' hand.
And now Bernie Sanders supporters are putting snake emojis in replies to her on Twitter.
At the same time that Bernie Sanders and Warren are embroiled in this conflict, Project Veritas has released part two of their expose on Bernie Sanders' Iowa campaign staff.
We now see this man, Kyle Jurek, praising gulags, saying that conservatives should essentially be put in them, and he says many other things that are so offensive, I literally can't repeat them on my channel, because YouTube would actually shadowban me.
Now, the latest update on the Veritas expose is that the Iowa state directors for Bernie Sander have begun locking down their social media.
I would think, with only a couple weeks to the Iowa caucus, It would be major news that Bernie's state directors have all locked their accounts.
Yet, mum's the word, we hear very little from the mainstream press about this.
The big news, apparently, is that Bernie Sanders is sexist, and that Bernie Sanders supporters are putting snake emojis into Warren's replies.
And I kid you not, many of Warren's defenders are saying, the snake is a biblical symbol representing the evil of women, therefore it proves Bernie Sanders is sexist.
But here's the bigger picture.
I'm going to go through these stories.
But it seems that both of these things show Bernie and Warren are kind of imploding just before the Iowa caucus.
And the current polling aggregate has them neck and neck with Biden and Buttigieg in Iowa, one of the most important votes in primary season.
Whoever takes this is going to set themselves apart.
And as we know, many people like to vote based on who they think is going to win.
They will vote for the person they think is the winner.
So here's what I want to do.
I first want to talk about what's going on with Project Veritas because we do now have a statement published by one of the state, I'm sorry, one of the Iowa campaign staffers for Bernie Sanders in relation to what's going on, it would seem, with Project Veritas.
I want to show you what's going on with Bernie supporters and Warren and then it appears the consensus, or at least many people are saying, this is the Democrats kind of burning themselves out.
Both Bernie and Warren supporters know this scandal is going to hurt both of their campaigns at one of the most crucial times.
Now, there's a big conspiracy theory that Nancy Pelosi's impeachment was timed to hurt Bernie Sanders.
Well, it's going to hurt Warren Sanders and Klobuchar, so we'll address that.
But first, I want to show you this from James O'Keefe.
Before we get started with that, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical latch, but of course the best thing you can do, share this video.
The algorithm on YouTube is unkind.
They've changed it so that my channel struggles to grow and many others.
It's not just moderates or conservatives.
It also includes some progressives.
YouTube apparently is trying to shut down these kinds of channels.
If you like the work that I do, all you gotta do is just share this.
If you're on Facebook, hit the share button.
Share the link on Facebook or Twitter or wherever else.
It really does help the channel grow.
Let's take a look at this tweet from James O'Keefe of Project Veritas.
He says, I'm not going to read through all these names, but I can show you the image.
We have here nine accounts that have been locked, and this isn't everyone who works for Bernie Sanders.
There is a woman named Misty Rebick who appears to have addressed the controversy, saying,
The hundreds of thousands of Iowans we've talked to this caucus season don't care about political
gossip. They care about making health care a human right, taking on climate change,
making college affordable, and ending endless wars.
That's our focus, Bernie 2020.
Now let's win.
Now, this isn't directly addressing Veritas.
She doesn't say Veritas.
She doesn't mention their names.
We can see that she's also locked her account as well.
But the response from one of the supporters is this.
There's no underselling how big a disaster this is.
The gulags weren't supposed to be unveiled until the general election.
Seriously, though, nobody cares.
Keep up the good work.
Now, I'm only going to lightly cover this because the bigger scandal is hashtag NeverWarren, which is still trending on Twitter around number two or number three.
People are saying they would rather Trump win than Warren win.
It's crazy, but some people are actually saying that.
But here's what's important.
If you saw my video yesterday about the Project Veritas release and why it was so damaging for Bernie Sanders, this is the perfect example.
Most Americans would be shocked to hear the things that this man in the Sanders campaign is saying.
That people need to be re-educated, that gulags were good, overt calls for violence.
I mean, this guy went so, like, what he said is so shocking, I can't repeat it!
Now, Veritas does have the video, so make sure you go watch that and check that out.
One of the points I made was that Bernie's staff, instead of denouncing it, will dismiss it.
And then you're going to see people mock it and say, who cares?
Showing that they don't care about this language.
They're in a bubble.
They've heard this stuff so much, they don't realize how extreme they've gotten.
They've been led down this radicalization path so far that when they hear someone literally saying Trump's voters need to be put in re-education camps, they say, so what?
So what?
Go show a regular American this who doesn't pay attention, and they're going to be shocked and scared.
See, one of the big fears about socialism and communism is that they did this to people.
And Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have been trying very hard to say no.
Democratic socialism is about people voting for new policies toward socialism.
Bernie has tried very hard to make sure this is not the rhetoric of his campaign, which is why they've been placed in a very difficult position.
If they address it, denouncing it, they publicize it.
If they dismiss or ignore it, it shows that Bernie really doesn't care about his Iowa staff saying these things.
And as we can see, although this individual responding is no one particularly important, I'm not trying to be mean or anything, just another Twitter account, a couple hundred followers, but they don't care.
They really don't care that staff members in Bernie's camp are saying this and going on to say that other staff members believe similar things.
That should be shocking to many people.
But there's a lot more information that has to come out from Project Veritas.
So, I know a lot of people in the Bernie camp absolutely detest and hate me for talking about this and they're so angry saying, who cares, who cares.
I'm not telling you Bernie deserves to lose.
I'm not saying that Bernie, you know, should or shouldn't.
None of that.
I'm telling you that this scandal is bad.
I don't know if the press will weaponize it because it seems they're more obsessed with Warren and calling Bernie sexist.
Fine.
But I think Trump absolutely will weaponize this if Bernie wins in the general.
You can't ignore this.
It will be bad for Bernie.
And that's why I think, admittedly, a lot of the big Bernie people who normally yell at me haven't said a whole lot.
Because I think they recognize that I'm right, okay?
But it is on record, and it will be used against him.
And more importantly, before I move on, these people are locking their social media accounts.
Where's the press?
This is ridiculous!
The Iowa caucus is in a couple weeks!
This is huge news!
Nowhere to be seen.
But maybe it'll come up, maybe it won't.
Maybe Bernie will manage to get past this one unscathed because nobody in the media wants to legitimize Veritas.
They're scared because Veritas has targeted them too.
Let's do this.
Let's move on now to the dual scandal affecting both Warren and Bernie.
Hashtag never Warren trends after democratic debate.
I appreciate this one.
I really do.
You see, Elizabeth Warren and CNN absolutely framed everything against Bernie.
I talked about this in my 10 a.m.
segment over at youtube.com slash TimCastNews.
But when they would ask Bernie a question about Medicare for all, they would say, how do you avoid bankrupting the country?
You owe Americans an explanation.
They don't mention anything about Elizabeth Warren.
They framed hers in a positive way.
Oh, Elizabeth Warren talks about her great ideas.
When it came to the sexism scandal in question, which is probably fake and very few actually believe, that Bernie would have told Elizabeth Warren a woman can't win, CNN actually asks Bernie Sanders, so you're saying you've never said this?
And Bernie's like, that's correct.
And the woman goes, okay.
Warren, how did you feel when Bernie told you a woman couldn't win and everyone, and people laugh in the crowd because it was so insane?
Even MSNBC's Micah Brzezinski said, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, he just told you, he denied it.
And then you turn and ask the question, ignoring what he just said?
So this, this really made Bernie's fans angry.
It made me angry.
I'm pretty sure it made a lot of Trump supporters angry too.
CNN's brazen bias against Bernie Sanders.
I would be willing to place a hard bet Many Trump supporters, conservatives, would rather win a fair fight against Bernie's ideas than see the media rig the system.
More importantly, I think there's kind of a like, you know, there's kind of a anger by proxy here.
So many Trump supporters have seen CNN smear the president that when they see it happening again overtly to Bernie Sanders, they get angry about it too.
Shocked.
And there's a meme now, you know, this was Jack Posobiec, Trump supporter, showing the black and white hands grasping, saying Bernie supporters, Trump supporters, CNN is trash.
Right now, there's another major trend on Twitter, CNN is garbage.
Well, surprise, surprise.
Let's read a little bit of the context from The Hill, and then I want to get to the next bit.
So it wasn't just this bias from the media, but Warren refusing to shake Bernie's hand, and now we've got this.
I want to show you this before we dive in.
All of the snake emojis are being sent to Warren, and here's the big update.
I know I talked about this earlier.
People are saying the snake is the biblical symbol of the evil of women, therefore it proves his fans are sexist.
I'm not kidding!
I'm not kidding.
It's that absurd.
Let's read a little bit.
A spat between Sanders and Warren over whether Sanders said he believed a woman could not be elected president spilled onto Twitter after Tuesday's Democratic primary debate in Iowa, causing the hashtag NeverWarren to trend in the top three on Twitter in the United States.
The trending topic comes after Sanders and Warren publicly disagreed over whether Sanders had made their remark.
We know all this.
We know all this.
So I think that's, you know, for the most part, I'm not going to read through everything everyone's saying.
That's the gist of the story, but I will tell you.
Out of the thousands of tweets I've seen, there have been many people saying, they're not going to vote for Warren if she gets the nomination.
And a lot of people are saying, vote Blue no matter who.
There are some people saying, if you're willing to not vote at all, because Warren got the nomination, then you're basically voting for Trump.
And this has caused an even bigger rift, where Bernie Sanders supporters, remember, Bernie or Bust was big.
12 to 18 percent, depending on the data you're looking at, of Bernie supporters actually voted for Trump.
Many of them didn't vote.
They're angry now, saying, no, I will not vote blue no matter who.
Elizabeth Warren is a snake, and I will not vote for her if she gets the nomination.
I'll tell you this.
Many Yang supporters have said, Yang or bust, Bernie or bust.
Biden supporters will probably vote for whoever, because that's kind of like vanilla ice cream when it comes to the Democrat debates, or the Democratic option.
And Pete Buttigieg, too.
But when it comes to Warren, when it comes, well, when it comes to mostly Bernie, Yang, and Tulsi, their supporters are diehards.
I mean, look, I really like Andrew Yang.
I think he's a great dude.
I'm not gonna vote unless it's Yang.
And they already kept him out of this debate, so... Let's take a look at this story from BuzzFeed.
Bernie Sanders' very online fans are filling Elizabeth Warren's Twitter mention with snakes.
Long-brewing frustration with Warren among Sanders' online stans has blown up this week.
They say, the barrage of emojis, which are often used by stans of pop stars in the comments section, have boiled over as supporters of both Warren and Sanders have escalated a proxy battle online, as the candidates have disagreed over the characterization of a private meeting.
We know about it.
I'm not going to read it.
The fight between Warren and Sanders supporters has always seemed inevitable.
On various platforms, leftists and Sanders supporters have criticized Warren for being a capitalist and for her health care plan, which they see as her campaign backing away from a commitment to Medicare for All.
Democratic Socialists of America, which launched its own independent campaign for Sanders, told BuzzFeed News in September that it wasn't ruling out the idea of distributing materials to canvass- to canvassers pointing out the differences between the two candidates.
I think for the most part that's a story.
In the lead up to the debate, Sanders supporters trended a refund Warren hashtag, demanding refunds from the candidate through ActBlue, the Democratic-aligned fundraising platform, and posted screenshots of emails claiming ActBlue was experiencing high volumes of refund requests from Sanders supporters who donated to Warren.
It's not just Sanders supporters.
These are people who supported both Sanders and Warren, now retracting their support for Warren because Look, you're going to ask me?
She's lying.
Warren lies all the time.
Sorry, it's a fact.
She lied about being Native American, about her pregnancy, about her kids, about her job, about her school.
I don't want to hear it.
She's a liar.
Bernie, on the other hand, between the two, she wouldn't admit in the one debate she'd raise your taxes.
Bernie said, no, we're going to raise your taxes.
I say, hey, that's an unpopular position, Bernie was willing to say.
I'm sorry.
I do not believe Warren on this one.
But let's get to the main point.
This feud is causing major damage to both campaigns.
You know, you've got people getting refunds from Warren.
She is burning herself to the ground.
But here's the thing.
Her polls were already tanking.
She's become desperate.
What we're seeing here is Democratic crabs in a barrel.
You ever hear the saying?
Basically, you put a bunch of crabs in a barrel or a bucket or whatever, and when one starts to climb out, the others grab it and pull it back in.
Elizabeth Warren is sinking, and as she goes down, she latches onto Bernie with the most extreme, absurd story that, for the most part, no one cares about.
Let's be honest.
Does anyone really care if Bernie said this?
I mean, for the most part, most people probably wouldn't believe it.
Many of the establishment cronies who love, you know, Hillary Clinton 2.0, aka Warren, will pretend to believe that Bernie would say this, and they call the Bernie bros all sorts of names, but it's just completely absurd.
In the end, though, we see this.
From Politico.
I sort of can't believe this is happening.
Young progressives mourn Bernie Warren's feud.
Young Democrats in Iowa fear that an unwelcome fight over sexism might end up harming both candidates.
You'd be right.
This is bad news for both.
It's going to cause damage for both.
Bernie supporters are going to say no to Warren.
Warren supporters are going to say no to Bernie.
They're going to drop in the polls, and it's going to prop up Buttigieg and Biden.
Now, we will get to the Grand Pelosi conspiracy in a little bit.
I want to read a little bit of this before we get to the Grand Pelosi conspiracy, which I've talked about before, but I think it's silly, and I'll tell you why, but I'll show you.
They say this.
The past two days have been building to the must-see moment now airing live on CNN.
Bernie Sanders was denying the allegation.
Elizabeth Warren, maintaining that he had said it, was disputing the perceived electability of Sanders and other male candidates.
The only people on the stage who have won every single election that they've been in are the women, she said.
As the tense exchange unfolded inside an auditorium on the campus of Drake University, the implications were manifest to the dozens of young people gathered in a college bar nearby.
With 20 days remaining until Iowa's first-in-the-nation nominating caucuses, two of the leading candidates were now engaged in a zero-sum, identity-based conflict that could reshape the democratic race.
And for many of the young voters watching Tuesday night, it wasn't just any two candidates entering the Thunderdome, it was the two candidates they admired the most, the two candidates they had struggled to choose between, the two candidates they believed would never attack each other until now.
Quote, I sort of can't believe this is happening, says Nicole Margheim, shaking her head between sips of a local porter.
Maybe this is naive, but I was hoping they would ignore this infighting and focus on policy.
Now I'm really worried.
We should be building a coalition to make sure one of them gets the nomination.
And instead, this is going to divide us on the left.
It already did.
It absolutely did.
Kyle Kalinske.
Oh, he's the progressive.
Is he the president?
I don't know his channel.
Kyle Kalinske is a progressive commentator on YouTube.
He said that he thought Bernie would choose Warren as VP if he got the nomination, but not so much anymore.
Check this out.
National Review says the great progressive duel ends with both candidates throwing away their shot.
They are crashing head-on, but I gotta tell you, I blame Elizabeth Warren for this one.
What's really happening, in my opinion, is not that they're colliding.
It's that Warren is grabbing the leg of Bernie as she sinks to the bottom.
She is a liar.
She is duplicitous.
She has no idea what she's talking about half the time.
And as she sinks in the polls, She grasps at the pant leg of Bernie Sanders, screeching, trying to yank him down to climb back up.
It's not going to work.
It's going to bring them both down.
They basically say the exact same thing, but I'll read the first paragraph because this is a conservative outlet.
They say, we had 48 hours of buildup to the great progressive presidential candidate duel, and then both contenders threw away their shots.
About 30 minutes into tonight's debate, we finally got the long-awaited Bernie Sanders-Elizabeth Warren showdown.
But clearly, both candidates lost their nerve.
Okay, so that's actually wrong.
I misunderstood what this article was about.
They actually—no, wait.
It ended with Elizabeth Warren not shaking Bernie Sanders' hand.
And I'm surprised National Review would frame it this way.
Maybe they just didn't finish watching the debate.
But I'll skip over this one for now and bring you all to the great Nancy Pelosi conspiracy, which has now expanded.
Let me tell you.
Donald Trump Jr.
tweets, After watching CNN railroad Bernie last night, doesn't it become obvious that Nancy delayed her sham impeachment transfer to the Senate to make sure that Bernie isn't able to be on the campaign trail?
The fix is in again.
Well, first, the fix is in, for sure.
The only problem with this theory is that it would pull Amy Klobuchar and Warren both off the campaign trail.
Here's where the Great Pelosi conspiracy actually expands.
They do want Warren off the campaign trail because Warren is in on it.
That's right.
I don't think this is true.
I think it's silly.
But the general idea now is that Warren is trying to destroy Bernie on purpose.
Yes, they want Biden to win.
Warren is the establishment candidate.
Klobuchar is also an establishment Democrat.
They know that they need to get Bernie off the campaign trail.
Impeachment is all a part of this plan.
Warren's lies about Bernie is all a part of this plan.
It is a grand Pelosi-Democrat conspiracy?
I'm sorry, it's just not true.
The Democrats are just incompetent, okay?
I know a lot of people want to believe what Donald Trump Jr.
is saying.
Doesn't it seem that way?
It kind of does.
I want to believe it, but I can't.
I'm sorry.
Listen, not only will this hurt Klobuchar and Warren and Sanders, listen to this.
Ted Cruz floats witness reciprocity to get Biden and whistleblower to testify.
Sure, maybe they want to pull Bernie off the campaign trail, but you've got to take into consideration everything that will occur.
If the Senate, if Ted Cruz says he wants Biden, then Biden's off the campaign trail too!
Now it could be that Biden will come in for one day of witness testimony, and the rest of the senators will be there for the duration of the trial, giving Biden the advantage.
But the only real possible conspiracy is the Buttigieg conspiracy, which I'm sorry is just not true.
Could you imagine if the real grand conspiracy was to get Biden, Klobuchar, Warren, and Bernie off the campaign trail so that Pete Buttigieg is free To campaign all throughout Iowa and win the primary in the first state?
I'm sorry.
I just don't think so.
I think Buttigieg has been able to maintain his position.
Props to him.
He's got a commanding voice.
He's calm and rational.
He's great at debate.
And that's why he's been able to hold his position.
But let's be real.
Buttigieg is, he's vanilla yogurt.
I'm not saying that to be mean.
He's just, he's vanilla yogurt.
There's nothing special about the guy.
I respect him for his service.
I think that puts him above many of these contenders for the Democratic Party.
But what does he have?
He's a small-town mayor.
He hasn't served a long time.
He's not really done much.
I will say, though, I gotta be honest, his military service makes me feel like he's probably more qualified than the rest of them.
You know, I thought it was funny when they, during the debate, they asked the Democrats, why do you think you should be commander-in-chief, pointing out Pete Buttigieg actually served.
And no one had a real good answer.
And I thought about it, and I'm like, you know the real answer the Democrats should have given is, I actually defer, I would defer to the advice of Pete Buttigieg, 100%.
I think the best point they could have made was that You know, Buttigieg has real military experience.
He's served in a real tour, so he actually knows more about this than most of us, and I would rely on his experience should I become Commander-in-Chief.
Also pointing out that Buttigieg would lack the political experience to make moves in Washington, D.C., and it's fair to say.
But I don't know what they have against Buttigieg.
Look, I don't want to derail.
I'm going to wrap this one up.
I do not believe there's a grand conspiracy here.
What I really think is that when it comes to Warren and Sanders, it's crabs in a barrel.
We knew the bout was going to happen at some point.
The caucus is soon, and they need to start taking swipes, and they are.
It's going to cause them to burn down.
As for impeachment, Pelosi is just incompetent, man.
That's it!
Come on!
Impeachment has helped Trump across the board.
Either she's a sleeper agent to help Trump, Or she's incompetent.
And that's what I think is likely the case.
But let me wrap it up with the main idea.
Listen.
Project Veritas.
They released this information about this staffer.
More to come.
I suppose.
And I would be willing to bet O'Keefe is slow-rolling this like he usually does.
He wants everyone to say, oh, it's just one guy, oh, it's just one guy, but I tell you this now.
All of the staffers, not all of them, but many of them, I think all of them, are locking their social media accounts.
This should be major news.
Not even that, look, yeah, so it's Iowa's field directors, a regional field director even.
This is bad.
Here's what I think.
When you see this video from O'Keefe, you see this one guy talking.
I have to imagine they didn't only hang out with one guy, right?
They had to hang out with a couple different people.
Maybe they were at a bar.
If this is how a guy talks to people he doesn't really know, how does he talk to his friends?
I'd be willing to bet O'Keefe has more, and that's why everyone's locking their accounts down.
But you know what?
I don't know whether or not the media will pounce on this, because again, they don't want to, you know, legitimize James O'Keefe, but the fact that all of these staffers for Bernie are locking their accounts down should be major news and for some reason...
All they're talking about is Warren and Snakes.
But you know me!
I'll talk about it all, to the best of my abilities.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
I think this spells... It's potentially the end for Warren and Sanders.
I mean, Warren's been tanking, Sanders embroiled now in two scandals.
It's bad for him.
It is.
Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, I don't care if you're a fan of Bernie or not, this is bad, bad news for Bernie.
Warren's already, you know, collapsing.
We'll see what happens, though.
Iowa's soon.
Bernie's in the lead.
This might not hurt him.
This actually might help him.
I gotta be honest.
These far-left activist types who are gonna vote in the primary, they might wanna hear this.
But in the general, Bernie's gonna drop like a rock.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
I'm sorry, 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews, and I will see you all there.
Two trending hashtags this morning.
Hashtag CNN is trash.
And hashtag never Warren.
The Democrats are going to war against each other.
It's primary season, so we can expect this.
But Bernie Sanders fans are not happy with Elizabeth Warren's lying.
And they are not happy with CNN's bias.
But you know what?
We all knew it was coming.
Bernie Sanders is doing too well in early polls.
He's in the lead now in many states, Iowa, I think New Hampshire, and the establishment is going to do everything in their power to knock him down.
So I got a couple things for you today.
First, the Democratic debate last night was an unmitigated disaster.
Not because something profound happened.
There were these really messed up moments between Bernie and Warren, sure.
But for the most part, it was just beyond boring.
I'm going to be honest.
I got ready.
I got my popcorn, figuratively.
I'm sitting down.
I turn the debate on the TV.
And then I fell asleep.
I fell asleep in like 10 minutes because it was just the same mindless nonsense.
We're learning nothing new.
Nothing's happening.
Even Van Jones came out and said this was this was boring.
There was nothing here.
He said this was what we got here.
Here's the quote.
There was nothing I saw tonight that would be able to take Donald Trump out.
And I completely agree.
I'm sorry, man.
You know, if there's one person I think could actually... No, I take it back.
You know, I would have said in the past, I was gonna say, I think Bernie Sanders maybe, but not at this point.
Not with the Veritas leaks.
Not with the Me Too smears against Bernie.
So here's what I'm gonna do.
I gotta walk you through this.
This is a lot to go through.
First, we have the hashtag, CNN is trash.
This is because Bernie supporters feel that the whole thing was rigged against him.
And it, and it, and it, I gotta be honest, it really was.
Right here, we see this, this bit between Bernie and Warren.
They said to Bernie, we want to make it clear, you did not say to Elizabeth Warren a woman could not win the presidency.
And Bernie says that is correct.
And then they go, okay, Elizabeth Warren, how did you feel when Bernie told you a woman couldn't win?
And she goes, I disagreed.
And people are laughing and Bernie's like, he looks down.
He just said it didn't happen.
They could have framed the question much, much better, but they launched it under the implication that Bernie lied.
Check out this.
I got this photo of you.
A photo for you, not of you.
I don't know who you are.
Anyway, the point is, here's the chyron.
Warren supports a new trade deal with Mexico and Canada.
Why is Sanders' opposition to it wrong?
Sanders' proposal would double federal spending.
How will he avoid bankrupting the country?
Does Sanders owe voters an explanation of how much his health care plan will cost them?
Okay.
The point here is that Bernie is not the only person advocating Medicare for All, but he's the only one being dragged for it.
Now, I certainly think it's fair to question Bernie's policy ideas and things like that, but the way they set it up was to prop up Warren, and I will tell you why.
Elizabeth Warren is Hillary Clinton wearing a Bernie Sanders mask, and the mask is slipping.
They need to knock Bernie down, so what do they do?
Me too!
Bernie told a woman she couldn't win the presidency.
Okay, it's not really a Me Too moment, but it's basically they're weaponizing sexism against Bernie like they did in 2016.
They said, oh, his staffers, you know, were harassing women.
Well, I'll tell you this, man.
Bernie, to a certain extent, is reaping what he has sown.
Now, I think it's fair to say Bernie is not the worst of the intersectional feminists.
We've certainly seen purple-haired, shaved head, morbidly obese, screeching women pounding on walls, like the most extreme case of extreme.
Bernie is not there.
But, Bernie has still played to these politics and tried to court this ideology, and now it is being weaponized against him.
So, to an extent, Bernie is reaping a bit of what he has sown.
He is an old white male.
Did you think you were going to travel through this unscathed, Bernie?
But, because of Elizabeth Warren's duplicitousness, her deceit and her lies, the number two trend in the United States right now is Never Warren.
I agree.
Warren is trash.
She is awful.
She is scum.
Let me show you why.
Not just the lies.
Elizabeth Warren rejects a handshake from Bernie Sanders after CNN debate.
How disgusting, man.
Look, you can argue, you can debate.
Welcome to politics.
Some people have said, I've been seeing people say that even Trump shook Hillary Clinton's hand.
I don't know if that's true.
I pulled up the final debate.
I don't believe they did shake hands, but a lot of people said, no, he did at some point.
Well, I'm not going to compare every moment to every moment because I'm just going to leave it here.
Whether or not he did or he didn't, Elizabeth Warren, when Bernie reaches his hand out to shake her hand, she snubs him.
I can, for those that are watching, I can show you this moment.
Bernie's hand is out for a handshake.
And what does she do?
She pulls her hand away, refusing to shake it.
They argue a little bit.
Bernie puts his hands up and then walks away.
So they're certainly arguing about what did or didn't happen, but I'll tell you this.
Warren is lying.
You know why?
Because Warren is a liar!
Elizabeth Warren claimed for how long that she was a Native American, put it on her little business card, you know, that bar card.
It's named the first Native American woman.
She's trying to improve her chances using minority status.
Liar.
She took a DNA test.
That, you know, blew up in her face.
That was insane.
But she also lied about her pregnancy and work, where her kids went to school.
It is her M.O.
She is Hillary Clinton wearing a Bernie mask.
Now, Bernie has his faults.
I disagree with Bernie on a lot of policy positions.
I think Bernie pandered too much.
And you know what?
Some of this is his fault, just the way it is.
The establishment was always going to come for him, but Warren is a snake.
And right now, everyone is responding to Elizabeth Warren's tweets with snake emojis.
Not only did she snub him on a handshake, that was dirty.
Come on, dude.
Who in their right mind would think Bernie would tell a woman, I don't think a woman could win the presidency?
Bernie, again, is not the wokest of woke feminists, but Bernie is still holding this weird far-left ideology where you know he's gonna be like, a woman could absolutely win!
In what world does intersectionalist Bernie think a woman would never win?
Now, I'll be fair.
There is the argument that we've seen the woke left say they think America is too sexist to win.
And so some people have posted the meme saying, even if Bernie really did say it, it's hypocritical of the left to claim America is sexist and patriarchal.
And then if Bernie said that to Warren, they're going to smear him for it, even though Warren says it, right?
The argument is that Bernie actually told Warren that, not that a woman shouldn't be able to win or shouldn't run, but that he doesn't think America would actually accept a woman.
I still don't believe that's true.
I really just don't believe it.
Tulsi Gabbard says Bernie was supportive.
Bernie encouraged Warren to run.
They were friends for a long time.
Warren put a knife in his back because she is scum.
Sorry!
Look.
Bernie's got his faults.
Bernie's got kooky policy ideas, I think so, in a lot of ways.
Some of them I'm actually okay with.
I agree with Bernie.
There's like this test the Washington Post has where it's like 20 questions, and I got 13 out of 20 for Yang, and that was my number one, so go figure, I do like Yang.
And Bernie, I agree with him on like seven positions.
I think anybody who thinks you wouldn't agree on some things is nuts, right?
Obviously, most conservatives are gonna agree with Democrats on some things.
So me and Bernie, we agree on some things, we do.
But that being said, I do think Bernie has been more honest than many politicians.
Like at the other debate when he straight up said, no we're going to raise your taxes, it's a fact.
And we're going to do it to try and bring down costs.
I understand that.
I still don't think you'll be able to pull it off.
Bernie was talking about a transitional fund for healthcare workers who would lose their jobs due to Medicare for All.
I don't think it'll work.
I think the estimate's gonna be, like, over five years, something like $700 billion, some ridiculous number.
So I get it, when you're talking about a trillion-dollar-a-year program, tacking another trillion dollars over five years, yeah, it doesn't seem to make sense.
But anyway, the point is, the way they're doing him dirty.
Look, I can disagree with Bernie, okay?
I can think that he's got bad ideas, or that I don't think he's good to be president, or his health is a concern.
And I think, even if you're a staunch Bernie supporter, you have to understand and respect why I feel the way I do.
But I think we can all agree with how Jack Bosovic put it, Trump supporters and Bernie supporters linking hands because CNN is trash.
Now, I want to mention this real quick.
The day before the Democratic debate, Bill O'Reilly said the fix is still in against Bernie Sanders.
Of all people, Bill O'Reilly, on his show, saying they fixed it in 2016, they're fixing it again.
And I want to get to Van Jones and the disaster of the Democratic debates, but I got to show you this.
This, to me, was the slimiest scum from CNN I've seen in a long time.
Chris Eliza doubles down on Bernie Sanders' criticism.
Elizabeth Warren is on the record saying this happened.
He complains that when Bernie Sanders was asked, he was too dismissive in saying, I never said it.
And the co-host, this was this morning, Alison Cameron or whatever, they were like, what is he supposed to say?
And he goes, well, I mean, I don't know, maybe he should have said that he respects war, but he was too dismissive, too dismissive.
What are you talking about?
If the media was lying about what I had been saying, I would say, I didn't say that.
And then you're going to drag me for telling the truth?
CNN is complete trash.
We know they rigged it against Bernie in 2016.
Of course they're doing it again.
And you know what?
If we saw people like the Young Turks and other progressives who supported Bernie coming out sooner and agreeing with moderates and conservatives on why the media is trash, maybe you could have called this out beforehand and done something about it.
But I'll tell you this, when the media pushed around that fake story about YouTube and the rabbit hole and all that, these Bernie progressives, not all of them, but many, they loved it.
They loved it.
Oh, the far right.
Oh, you know what?
Every opportunity, okay, to disagree with Trump on everything he's doing, but agree with him when he trashes the press.
And some of you did.
Many Bernie supporters absolutely have trashed the press.
I can respect that.
But so many, like the Young Turks, did nothing, said nothing, ragged on Trump for targeting the press, saying he's a bad man, and then what happens when Cenk runs for office?
Now they're smearing him, and he's all surprised.
Why would the New York Times lie about me?
Oh, heavens!
Oh, woe is me!
Yeah, man, listen.
You're not going to like Trump, but you certainly can't be in a position where everything he does is wrong, okay?
I have no problem saying, I just said, there's like 7 out of 20 positions I agree with Bernie Sanders on.
I defended Bernie Sanders for being more honest than most politicians.
I have no problem giving credit.
Not everything someone does is bad.
Can we be sane for a minute?
Trump does things that I don't like, and I laugh at some of these things because of how absurd they are when he cusses and swears and mocks people.
When he said that dude who recently died was possibly looking up, implying he was in hell, I was like, oh no, dude.
Wow, I understand what people think it's funny.
Okay, but it is a level of crassness.
I have no problem saying here's what I don't like about Trump.
The economy is good.
I love what he did with North Korea.
You don't understand my perspective on this coming from my family.
Seriously, the North Korea thing was like profound.
Let me just stress this point.
When Trump crossed the DMZ with Kim Jong-un and everyone rolls their eyes saying he's giving them what they want, what they want, blah blah blah.
Dude, stop.
Donald Trump crossed into North Korea.
They could have snatched him.
They could have dragged him away.
They didn't.
He walked in, shook hands, and walked back.
He was completely vulnerable.
It was an amazing sign of an olive branch, of moving forward.
He deserves respect and credit for that.
And I'll look to Bernie Sanders and say, here's what I don't like.
Now, I'll tell you this.
Elizabeth Warren has called out Facebook and Google.
She absolutely deserves respect for that.
If she does the right thing, I will say it's the right thing.
I have no problem doing that.
But Warren is a duplicitous, lying snake, so I don't trust her when she does.
When Bernie Sanders comes out and says, I want free college, I believe him that he does.
When he says, I want free college because America, you know, should have a chance for a good job and education, I believe him when he says it.
I really do.
I just think he's got bad ideas.
I used to be a big fan because I thought he was honest.
I still think he's more honest than most, but I think he's played the game too much.
He's pandered too much and he's been dishonest following this.
So now, anyway, the point was with Mediaite...
If somebody lies about you, and you just say that didn't happen, and then CNN drags you for it, I think it's fair to say CNN is trash.
Straight up.
But check this out.
Even CNN was unimpressed with the way their debate turned out.
This was one of the worst democratic debates ever in the history of America.
I know I'm biased because I'm only alive today, but I gotta say, man, in terms of Democratic debates, this one was awful.
Let's read a little bit of this story from Newsbuster as they talk about Van Jones.
They say, while CNN's panel of partisan analysts and journalists had their thoughts on which Democratic candidates did well in their debate, co-host Chris Cuomo stated it best when he deducted that, the consensus, though, is that this was not the type of night of ambition we expected.
One analyst was so distraught he declared he was dispirited, not what the Democratic National Committee wanted to hear going into the Iowa caucuses.
The first to register his displeasure with the debate was former Obama adviser David Axelrod.
He thought Warren and Joe Biden had their toutable moments, but seemed disappointed there were no fiery moments that stood out.
There were some confrontations, but for whatever reason, it may be that people are uneasy in a race where people are well-liked, generally, to take on folks that might drive second choices away, drive the undecided away.
Former Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe was surprised and shocked by the lack of aggression from the candidates.
He said, I mean, this is the last shot you've got until the Iowa caucus in three weeks.
The four frontrunners, nobody went after each other.
I was really surprised at that.
Joe Biden has been leading the race since he got into it.
Nobody touched him tonight.
Nobody went after him.
It was just shocking to me that this is your last shot to make an impression before you go in.
Most of the panel agreed with him when he noted the debate didn't change the dynamic of the race in any way, including chief political analyst Gloria Borger and liberal activist, CNN Weekend host Van Jones.
No, let me point out Kyle Kalinske.
I don't know if I showed this one already, but Kyle Kalinske said, genuinely thought that if Bernie won, he'd pick Warren as his VP.
Now I don't.
Yeah, that seriously changed the dynamic, man.
When she snubbed him, they're done.
She's poning up for Biden, I bet.
And I'm willing to bet Biden gets the nomination and he picks Warren as his VP.
How much you want to bet?
I'm not saying I think it's a great chance.
I'm just saying that seems very likely.
We have this quote here from, I think, who is this?
Cuomo?
All right, of course.
We're listening to you all here, Anderson.
It's so interesting to get all of these different perspectives on what happened.
I think the consensus, though, is that this was not the type of night of ambition we expected.
And then we have Cuomo, I guess, going on again.
Oh, no, it's Danabash.
Was it fiery?
Could you feel the crackling in here?
No.
I don't think anything really changed tonight in this race, and I agree that caution was the most active participant on the stage.
Do you think caution will beat Donald Trump?
Do you think playing it safe and being calm and passive?
No way, dude.
Trump called Hillary Clinton a nasty woman in the final debate.
He interrupted her, and he would lean in the mic while she was talking and go, wrong.
No.
Wrong.
You think you're gonna go up against that?
You have no idea.
What I saw from this was dispirited.
I fell asleep.
I gotta be honest.
I fell asleep.
I fell asleep like 10 minutes into it.
I woke up during the reruns and I'm like, whoa.
I zonked out on that one, and I pulled up Twitter, and I'm like, well, there it is.
That's how boring it was.
I wonder if this had the worst ratings yet.
I'd be willing to bet it has the worst ratings yet.
Plus, no Yang, no Tulsi, no Booker.
It was so dry.
They really needed Yang in there, man.
Even Van Jones mentioned that he was missing, you know, Yang and Booker.
I say this.
The most distraught was Van Jones.
As a progressive, to see those two have that level of vitriol was very dispiriting.
He bemoaned when speaking of the feud between Warren and Sanders.
His emotions appeared to run high as he worried the Democratic division could lead to Trump's re-election.
Yup!
So I'll tell you what, man.
You know, I've been sitting here as a lifelong lefty, Democrat, liberal, whatever you want to call it.
I was very far left when I was younger and I slowly, you know, became more moderate.
And I've been complaining That they rigged the system in favor of you've either got the crony corporate faux moderates and then you have the far left.
The far left are being propped up by the activists and regular rational liberals can't compete with that.
So then because liberals are passive and aren't active, and that's their own fault I guess, we get Biden.
We get Klobuchar.
We get Buttigieg.
Great.
Where's like a sane moderate, you know, Just a centrist individual.
Someone who can recognize the economy is doing really, really well under Trump.
Trump deserves credit for a lot of things.
But we should have someone who is going to be more stern on bringing our troops home.
Someone who is going to be less bombastic.
There's a lot of things I would prefer to see, but we don't get any of that.
We get either faux corporate centrism or far-left psychosis.
And so here I am, the Democrats are fighting, and I'm proof.
They really want me to appear as conservative or right-wing because they don't want to admit the Democrats are falling apart.
That's the fact.
I voted for Obama in 08, I didn't vote again, and I didn't vote in 2016.
Will I vote in 2020?
Probably not.
Maybe Yang.
Maybe I'll vote for Yang in the primary, but they're not going to give him the nomination.
And I'm not playing games.
I don't vote unless I want the person to win.
I don't vote against someone.
That's just how I roll.
And I'll tell you this.
A lot of Yang supporters have straight up said on Reddit, Yang or bust.
A lot of Bernie supporters are still saying Bernie or bust.
In fact, they're saying hashtag never Warren.
Never Warren.
This is real time.
It's trending.
Number two on Twitter.
Never Warren.
They're saying Trump over Warren.
I kid you not.
What else we got here?
I'm not going to read.
Okay, I can't show that stuff.
Hopefully YouTube doesn't get mad at me.
The point is, a lot of people are willing to vote for Trump if Warren gets the nomination.
Here's never Warren, never the snakes who elevated Trump to begin with, Bernie or bust.
Yeah, this guy's not going to vote for Trump, but he's not going to vote unless it's Bernie.
So what do you think's going to happen?
I'll tell you this.
The Democrats are at war.
Period.
The Democratic debate was pathetic.
The B roster standing up with no real strength behind anything they were saying.
No fire and no aggression.
And now we're supposed to try and see who's going to go up against Trump?
Could you imagine what's going to happen if Biden goes up against Trump?
Trump will look like a giant, dwarfing Joe Biden as Joe Biden struggles to speak.
And Trump's going to be like, I don't even know what he's saying.
What does her mum from mean?
Biden just mumbled her mum from.
What does that mean?
And he's going to drag him.
Biden's teeth will slip.
Now listen, Trump has had his gaffes.
Trump, you know, recently mispronounced words at some event.
I'm not saying Trump's perfect.
I'm saying Trump is aggressive.
Trump is aggressive and he is going to poke and prod at every single thing.
Now, I do think Bernie has a bit of that fire in him where he could push back a bit on Trump.
After seeing this though, you know, I'm reminded of that moment when Bernie was giving a speech and the activists took the mic from him and he just backed away and got all sad.
Yeah, nah.
He doesn't have it.
And this is bad news for all Democrats.
They don't want to accept it.
I don't care.
I'm willing to talk to whoever's going to listen.
And I'll tell you this, the Democrats don't care.
They don't care.
They would rather say, like, Tim Pool is a liar.
He's just trying to pander to the right by smearing Democrats.
Or I'm a disaffected liberal, like many other disaffected liberals.
And that's it.
I'm looking at a field of corporate faux-centrism versus far-left psychosis sitting here being like, what do I get?
When do I get to choose somebody?
A sane, rational, moderate candidate.
They don't exist.
Look, you could theoretically argue like Klobuchar or Buttigieg.
But Buttigieg is pro-Middle Eastern interventionism.
I'm not going to support that.
Where is the populist moderate?
We have the populist right in Trump.
We have the populist far left.
Where is a regular old populist liberal is going to be like, you know, the economy is pretty good, but, you know, I think we need more environmental regulations and Trump's been pulling back on those and here's what we need to implement.
Doesn't exist.
There's nobody.
You get socialism or you get nothing.
I'm not going to vote for Joe Biden.
Anyway, I'm going to wrap this up.
You get the point.
The debate.
Unmitigated disaster.
Seriously.
Don't take my word for it.
Van Jones.
Van Jones.
CNN's own panel saying, oof, this was bad.
It was bad.
Trump's gonna win.
He's gonna win re-election.
Impeachment is nonsense.
Whatever.
I'll see you all in the next segment coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
What would you consider to be worse?
Posing with the severed head of the president or making an off-color joke?
Both individuals involved apologized, and one seems to be doing a little bit better than the other, perhaps because she's begging.
The people I'm talking about are Roseanne Barr and Kathy Griffin.
And the story?
Kathy Griffin says she begged for that You Cameo Talks Life After Trump Photo Fallout.
Cancel culture.
Cancer?
Cancel!
Culture is real, people.
Uh, cancer is real too, but cancel culture is real.
And a lot of people lately have been trying to pretend like it isn't because Ricky Gervais and Dave Chappelle and other people have been calling it out with much fanfare.
They now try to claim because they're losing it never existed in the first place.
But I'll tell you this.
It certainly does.
And I've got a long list of people who have been cancelled.
I will show you.
But I want to talk about Kathy Griffin for one reason.
For one, I'm sure a lot of people are going to be gloating at the fact that she's begging for work while she's getting work.
But this says to me something very important.
Kathy Griffin did something truly disgusting and offensive.
I mean, that was what CNN said.
Roseanne, late at night, tweeted a stupid joke.
Guess who is doing better?
Now, I'll tell you this.
Kathy Griffin basically lost everything.
She was fired from her CNN job, she can't find work, and she's reduced to begging.
Maybe the only real reason, I guess, is Roseanne doesn't beg.
But it's not just that.
There are many people who have been cancelled who did much, much less than what Kathy Griffin did, and she seems to be kinda still making something of it.
So, cancel culture is real, and it primarily affects the right, for the most part.
Not always, as Kathy Griffin is an example of, but she seems to be doing a little better.
Let's read the story.
USA Today reports, if you blink, you may have missed Kathy Griffin's cameo on Netflix's You, but as the industry saying goes, there are no small parts, only small actors.
You know, I never understood what that really means.
What, like physically small?
I have no idea.
Griffin played herself on the show and was tasked with giving a speech at a pivotal moment.
Griffin's cameo lasted approximately 90 seconds, but the actress, who said she had a rough time in Hollywood since she posed with a fake severed trumpet in 2017, feels her bit part only happened because she was persistent.
I straight up was just begging for five lines on something that would be seen by people that had nothing to do with Trump, nothing that was controversial, Griffin told USA Today in a phone interview.
You showrunner, Greg Berlanti, called me up.
He was so nice.
He said, you know, he's a gay guy.
He said, you know, Kathy, after all you've done for the community all these decades, I'm happy to do this for you.
Griffin, who said she was, she is no longer represented by an agent, has taken to trying to secure roles by contacting executive producers and showrunners on social media via direct messages.
I'm certainly learning how to do more things, as they say in-house, and it's one of the things that I've become proactive about after the Trump scandal.
It's kind of like Hollywood feels like I have something that they're going to catch.
People don't want to get Kathy Griffin.
Yes, it's called, you posed for the picture of the president's head covered in blood, and most people were kind of like, ooh, you're gross.
Listen.
For the most part.
The left doesn't know when they go too far.
With Kathy Griffin, they kinda realized she went too far.
And there is a hard line being drawn now around you.
The problem with cancel culture is that, you know, Roseanne Barr being offensive should not have warranted her being excised from the industry, especially when she had a hit show.
It was a bad joke.
And many people said it could have been a learning moment, where she said, I didn't realize, and we have to understand that sometimes we don't realize how damaging what we say can be.
Because there's a big difference between a stupid joke that's offensive and what Kathy Griffin did.
I will also say, however, while I certainly respect Kathy Griffin's right to free speech within reason, what she did resulted in her being investigated by the government because...
Let's be honest, man.
There are boundaries, okay?
Yes, everyone knows freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence.
No one is arguing that Kathy Griffin should be allowed to do what she did.
Actually, I take that back.
To a certain degree, yes.
The challenge is where the line really is.
It's hard to know where the line is between an actual threat and just tasteless art.
I don't think Kathy Griffin should be really seen as someone who's threatening the president.
It was just disgusting what she did.
There have been people who have overtly called for violence who have not been punished in any way.
But I'll tell you this.
When it comes to celebrity, when it comes to acting, when it comes to Hollywood, they want you because you sell something, okay?
Your brand represents something.
They say, oh, look at this person people will watch because of the actor.
They want to put an A-lister in a movie so the A-lister can sell the movie.
Marvel pays notoriously low because they know the Marvel movies will do well no matter who the star is.
So Kathy Griffin, the real issue is that you've toxified your brand.
And I could argue the same thing is true to a certain extent with Roseanne.
But look, Kathy Griffin, she just got work.
They want to say on the set, Griffin was welcomed by cast and was given some creative liberty with her lines.
It was a day where I got to be on planet normal, Griffin said.
It was such a fantastic gift.
If there's anything the past few years have taught Griffin, it's the ins and outs of her First Amendment rights.
That's why she still speaks out against Trump.
I'm not going to stop.
I'm not going to back down from this president or this administration one bit, and they know it.
Griffin said that she's been advocating for roles in part because she didn't want people of color, the LBGTQ community, and young women to see her disappear from the limelight.
You're pulling the intersectional line, but you are a white cis woman.
Why should any of them care about you?
Or at least the intersectional feminists, why should they care about you?
Between her cameo on You and her surprise wedding to Randy Bick, New Year's Eve has a certain significance for me.
Let's face it, it's kind of bittersweet.
She was fired from CNN because of the photoshoot.
Randy actually had the idea.
He said, you know, what if we did it like basically, I don't care about her getting married.
Okay, the point is, I'll move on from this.
I think I made my point.
Uh, no you didn't.
said her life has changed and she isn't the same person as she was before her
scandal. While the picture has caused me a lot of duress, it's also made me
global. Everybody knows the crazy red-haired lady from the photo, she said.
It has made me more fearless and I really feel strongly that whoever comes
at me, they have to understand I've prevailed against the President of the
United States. No you didn't. Trump probably... listen, you started a stupid scandal.
I really don't think Trump cared all that much.
You didn't win against the president.
You're talking about your own industry that said what you did was too shocking and we don't want to have anything to do with you anymore.
Well, certainly the intersectional types will have no problem with it.
We've all seen what Project Veritas is releasing, the language coming from Bernie Sanders camp, that many people are dismissing and saying, oh, so what?
It's only one people and a handful of Bernie's Iowa staff.
Yeah, that language is really shocking to the average American, but to these people who are so used to it, they don't care.
It says to me that we're in for a heck of a future, but here's what I want to show you.
I want to show you the ramifications of the backlash.
Basically, I mean, we get it.
What I do want to highlight is that Kathy Griffin was under federal investigation, well, she says she was, by the Justice Department for two months and on a no-fly list during that time.
The reason I'm highlighting this is that When I contrast Kathy Griffin, who is an anti-Trump leftist, to Roseanne Barr, here we have somebody who was under federal investigation, couldn't fly, everyone said it was bad, and she's actively getting support and getting work.
I haven't seen anything from Roseanne or from Milo or Alex Jones, for the most part.
They've been excised.
And what did they really do that was nowhere near as bad as what Kathy Griffin did?
So, Yasir Ali tweeted, If you believe cancelled culture is real, name some folks who have been cancelled.
Now I want to stop here and say, a lot of people took this as though he was saying it didn't exist.
Maybe that's his position, I don't know if he tweeted it a different time, but Yashir didn't say it didn't exist, he said, name some people.
Well, John Levine says, Roseanne Barr, cancelled culture is so self-evidently a real thing and so many lives have been ruined, this tweet is bizarre.
The reason why I'm highlighting this is because I think it's really fair to point out that Kathy Griffin was cancelled, okay?
A lot of people came out and said it was tasteless, it was wrong.
CNN said it was disgusting and offensive.
So yes, you can be cancelled.
But the reason why I'm highlighting this is to make one important point.
I've been talking a lot about Roseanne.
There's a difference between what Kathy Griffin did and what many of these other people did.
Jack Murphy, for instance.
You may be familiar, maybe not.
He is a... I guess it's fair to call him conservative, Jack.
I don't know if it's right to call you conservative or whatever.
I think Jack used to be kind of like your regular old liberal.
Now he's a Trump supporter.
He responded to Yasir Ali saying, Me bro, and it was your fault.
You tweeted out a private photo of me and it led directly to my doxxing, firing, and destruction of my life.
Remember that?
You should ask my son if he remembers all the tears he shed because not only did I get fired, I got banned from coaching Little League because you tweeted a private photo of me without my permission.
Remember, bro?
My son does.
Jack was essentially forced into being a public figure.
To a certain degree, he was writing stuff like that.
They doxed him, accused him of having ties to people he didn't.
So let's talk about what cancel culture really should be.
Because people should be cancelled.
Yes, dare I say it.
Kathy Griffin was cancelled for good reason.
Jack Murphy was not.
Roseanne Barr was not.
Okay?
Now, Roseanne Barr is more... She's closer to being legitimately cancelled because I'll point out, a high-profile public figure is selling a product.
They're a brand.
And what Roseanne said was toxic for the brand and the show, and they risked their business.
So if they want to cancel her, I could understand it.
However, I think the appropriate thing would have been to have her apologize, and they could have done an episode about that.
They could have had her as his inoffensive, and had her directly do an opening thing where she says, it was a mistake.
What Kathy Griffin did was actually led to a criminal investigation.
Okay, you want to talk about toxic?
What Jack Murphy did was have bad opinions.
And he was doxxed, and he lost his job, and they lied about him.
So yeah, cancel culture is real.
He then links to the full story.
PSA Sitch then says, Alec Holoka, I'm not super familiar, but he says, Zoe Quinn accused him of abuse.
He was fired in response.
He then committed suicide.
So yes, there are some serious issues of people who have been falsely accused or lied about in the media, and I'll tell you this.
Kathy Griffin is working again.
Think about it.
Think about Jack Murphy getting fired because of his bad opinions because they lied about him.
Think about Kathy Griffin choosing to post that photo being under criminal investigation, being put on a no-fly list, and then her friends being like, I'll do this for you.
Yes, because we can see where the line is.
To the mainstream media, if you step over the right side of that line even a little bit, You're gone.
But what about someone like, you know, Kathy Griffin, who went so far past line even CNN said, yikes, and fired her?
Well, people are still willing to work with her and put her on Netflix.
Let me remind you, Netflix put Kathy Griffin on their show.
Now, I'm all for forgiveness, I'll be honest.
I think if Kathy Griffin wants to apologize and they want to give her work again, I think she should absolutely be allowed to come back and work.
Because by, you know, the way I put it was like, I've talked about Joey Salads in the past.
Many of you probably know who he is, YouTube prankster.
And he got busted doing these really, like he was hiring, you know, black people to damage Trump property, like a Trump car.
And he got caught doing it.
And he was doing it for clicks.
And he came out and he admitted it and he apologized.
And a lot of people said no.
And at first I did.
But I'll tell you this.
The reason why I'm willing to accept an apology from Kathy Griffin, I would like to see her come back, I would like to see Roseanne come back, is that when you tell people there's no path to salvation, their only option then is to double down.
Nah.
We don't want that.
We want Roseanne Barr to apologize and get her show back.
We want Kathy Griffin to apologize and get her show back, because then we tell people, here's the line, don't cross it.
We want Jack Murphy to get his job back and have them say, hey Jack, kind of keep a low profile, we don't want... We want people to be given a chance to come back into the fold But what we're seeing now, and to an extent it's kind of both sides, but it really does come, you know, more from the establishment, which promotes, you know, leftist ideology, or is more willing to protect it.
Like I said, Kathy Griffins on Netflix, Roseanne Barr is fired.
We can see where the bias is.
But when you do it this way, okay, when people are never allowed forgiveness, then they polarize and things get worse.
We want to say, here's the acceptable Overton window.
You step out of bounds, apologize, come back in, and don't do it again.
You know, pencils have erasers.
Let's look at a few more of the people that are highlighted in this thread.
Jordan, I believe this is the guy from Vox.
Is that the guy from Vox?
I don't know who he is.
Jordan all says, Jesus of Nazareth.
Okay.
I don't know what point he's trying to make, but technically, sure.
I think, okay.
But let's get, you know, to the real world.
This guy says, Gavin McInnes, Milo, Robert Stone, Laura Loomer, should I continue?
Right.
All people who were cancelled.
And Gavin, for instance, was cancelled because, well, the Proud Boys.
The Proud Boys started getting into more and more fights, the profile was escalating, and Gavin and all the Proud Boys got purged.
Milo was basically cancelled for the most part for, you know, him talking about his past and praising bad things, to put it lightly.
Robert Stone, I'm not familiar with who that is.
Laura Loomer was cancelled for the most part because she challenged a politician.
I don't care if her opinion was offensive.
I don't care if you don't like her opinion.
You can say all the worst things in the world you want about her, but she was cancelled for criticizing a politician.
That, to me, is freaky.
Granted, look, Laura Loomer was cancelled in other places for other offensive statements, but she really got the axe after she criticized Ilhan Omar.
Someone says Kathy Griffin.
And this is where I'll probably wrap it up here and get to the point, but I'll mention a little bit about social media censorship.
Kathy Griffin was absolutely a product of cancel culture.
It was people outraged that you had done something offensive.
But I think it's fair to say that Kathy Griffin's canceling Is part of the larger, like, okay, we have always told people you can't do certain things, okay?
So I think it's fair to say that while Kathy Griffin technically was cancelled within the new umbrella of whatever it is we call cancelled culture, she would have been cancelled even if cancelled culture wasn't a thing, okay?
You cannot be a high-profile brand that is hired for your personality and cross the line.
What cancel culture really represents to me is the line is shrinking for the most part, typically from the right.
And so while in the past there were certain things you couldn't say, there was always things you couldn't say, you could always speak afoul of society, in the past you couldn't say things against certain religion.
You know, people would be, oh heavens, heavens me.
Today, we've expanded free speech, but now the line is being curtailed mostly because of the left.
So Kathy Griffin was cancelled, but she would have been cancelled at any point in our history for what she did.
People would say, I don't want to work with you, what you did is offensive.
Roseanne Barr?
There was a time where she wouldn't have been cancelled for what she said.
But she shouldn't have said it.
And, you know, that's not a good thing.
What should have happened is that she should have apologized.
But this brings me to a better individual, which would be Jack Murphy.
He said offensive opinions on a private blog.
He got doxed, and they lied about him.
Jack actually, in my opinion, represents real cancel culture.
Kathy doesn't, and Roseanne Barr only sort of does.
The real cancel culture is that people who aren't high-profile millionaires are lied about and smeared, and their lives are destroyed, and it's fake.
I was putting on an event.
Someone called the venue and lied about us.
And then threatened the venue.
And so they cancelled the venue.
I wouldn't say that's me being cancelled because it was an event.
And the event still went on somewhere else.
But that is a real example of what cancel culture really is.
It's not that someone got fired for being offensive.
I do think it's important to say the line is being pulled in mostly from the right.
A little bit on the left.
Or actually, no, I think the whole Overton window shifted.
So now there's a lot of conservative opinion that will get you banned.
And there's a lot of crazy leftist stuff that probably won't.
Like right now, Veritas is releasing this Bernie Sanders stuff.
His staffers in Iowa are locking their accounts.
But did the media talk about it?
They don't care that Bernie Sanders' staffer says this stuff.
And they say, oh, it's not Bernie, you know, Bernie didn't say it.
I don't care, man.
Bernie's got a staffing problem, okay?
While Bernie didn't say that's fair, I'm saying, like, where's the outrage over what this guy was saying?
So I think it's fair to say it's the Overton window shifting, the right is losing ground, but here's what cancel culture is.
Far-left activists, for the most part, calling venues, calling people's businesses, calling their jobs, lying about them and getting them fired.
Kathy Griffin's a celebrity.
She did something gross.
Everybody disliked that.
Roseanne Barr was a celebrity.
She did something not as gross, and basically everybody disliked it too, but should Roseanne Barr have lost everything over it, and should Kathy Griffin be welcomed back in the fray, I think it's unfair.
But I think they both should be allowed back in.
I think everybody should.
Let me make this clear, and I'll wrap this up.
Cancel culture is when you target non-public figures, okay?
When you smear people and lie about them.
When you find someone online who's got a tiny, you know, maybe a couple thousand followers, and you make things up, and they lose their job.
That happens all the time.
And it scales up, I get it.
You know, Milo was cancelled, these people got banned from Facebook, and they did it for PR reasons.
So it's really just about people drumming up fake outrage, getting venues cancelled.
Yeah, it happens all the time, mostly to people on the right.
Anyway, you get the point.
I'll wrap it up.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
at youtube.com slash timcast, and I will see you all there.
One of the biggest bits of news that's not particularly breaking is that we may be close to the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.
It's essentially an amendment to the Constitution that says you can't take issues of sex into- like, you can't discriminate on the basis of sex.
I'll read you the actual language here.
But there's a bit of a controversy going on right now.
For the most part, Probably not going to happen.
So let me explain.
The Equal Rights Amendment was made by feminists back in like 1921 and the language currently reads, section 1, equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on the account of sex, The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
I'm sorry, it was proposed in 1923, not 21.
Known as the Lucretia Mott Amendment.
Here's the thing.
Back then, we didn't have the Civil Rights Act of, I think, 1964, was it?
It was 64?
Anyway, the point is, we didn't have the Civil Rights Act, so people were proposing an amendment.
The amendment didn't make it.
However, in 1972, I believe, they actually voted for a decent amount, but with an expiration date of 1982.
Well, it's long since passed since then, but Virginia has become the latest state, the 38th, to ratify the ERA.
And now there's an argument that this means we should be allowed to push it forward.
Unfortunately for the proponents of the ERA, it's just way too late.
I mean, 1982, that was a long time ago.
So your 30-year-old plan, look, you've got to do a new ratification from all of the states, which likely just won't happen.
But here's the big story I want to get to.
First, I will read this to you.
This is the breaking news.
Virginia moves to the brink of becoming the 38th state to ratify the ERA.
So let me correct.
They didn't vote for it.
They may vote for it.
More importantly, As of today, many feminists are really pushing for the Equal Rights Amendment, not realizing it actually could hurt them very much so.
You see, the time at which the ERA was being proposed was very, very different.
And if you impose a constitutional amendment saying, You can't discriminate on the basis of sex.
You could actually take away federal funding from, say, Planned Parenthood.
You could end certain programs.
It could be wacky.
We gotta think about this one.
It could backfire horribly.
Let me explain to you why.
First, let me read a little bit of the story.
They say this.
The votes in the House and the Senate carried enormous symbolic weight and showed how much once subtly conservative Virginia had changed.
Okay, so actually, let me go back.
All right.
Virginia moved to the brink of becoming the crucial 38th state to ratify the ERA on Wednesday,
a momentous victory for many women's rights advocates, even though it is far from certain
the measure will ever be added to the Constitution.
The affirmative votes in both chambers of the Virginia legislature came decades after
Congress sent the ERA to the states in 1972, passing it with bipartisan support.
However, they didn't get enough states to ratify, and the date has passed.
But a member of the grassroots VA Ratify ERA group that's worked on it says we're euphoric.
The state has undergone seismic political shifts due to the increasing diversity and growing activism and political power of women.
Democrats who retook control of the legislature in November made passing the ERA a top priority after Republicans blocked it for years.
I bring you now To Vox.com.
The drive to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment explained.
Virginia is about to ratify the amendment.
Here's what that means for the country.
And let me add the things they miss.
And first, stress, I believe we're looking at a tremendous backfire for feminists.
I believe that if they ratified this, if it really did go to the Constitution, we would see the stripping of women's rights across the board because the language and laws produced today would be in violation of that amendment.
I'll give you one example.
It says that you cannot discriminate.
Actually, let me go to the fact from the Equal Rights Amendment website.
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
They talk about the history of it, things we already know.
They say, let me go down, it will guarantee gender equality in the Constitution for the first time.
There are laws in the books that ban sex discrimination in some areas, in some arenas.
The Equal Pay Act, for example, requires that men and women get equal pay for equal work.
But Foy noted, laws can be changed just as easily as legislators change their minds.
A constitutional amendment is more permanent.
Moreover, An amendment would give people more tools when they challenge discriminatory laws or practices in court.
Federal courts have interpreted the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment as conferring some protection against sex discrimination, Martin said.
But adding an explicit ban on such discrimination in the Constitution would likely force courts to take the issue more seriously.
People could use the ERA to challenge anything from unequal pay to restrictions on abortion, Martin said.
And it wouldn't just affect women's rights.
By banning discrimination on the basis of sex, it could implicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity as well, offering protections to gay and trans people regardless of gender.
Full stop.
It could do the exact opposite.
Let me tell you this.
The government funds certain programs.
If the government was only funding a program for women, would that be discrimination on the basis of sex?
Technically, no, up until a man says, I would like those same programs.
If the government does not offer it to both sexes, it would be discrimination.
So I'll give you a better example.
There was a recent ruling.
I don't have the details pulled up.
There's a ruling that said it's not discrimination to have a woman's only course if a man's only course of equal weight was offered.
So if you did a woman in science special event, that's not discrimination if you also have a men in science special event because men and women both have the opportunity to attend a special event.
That actually makes sense.
I agree with that.
Because if you did an event that was like You know, how women should do backflips.
Well, women and men, you know, might have different techniques or something like that.
In which case, make sure both sexes have access to a program for learning backflips, but being trained by people who could tell a woman or man how to do it, because men and women are physically different.
But here's the problem.
They say restrictions on abortion.
Well, I then assert to you.
Potential argument.
Now, I'm not a legal scholar or constitutional scholar, but it's just an idea, so maybe I'm wrong, and if you think I'm wrong, comment below.
Or on the podcast, or wherever you may be.
Restrictions on abortion.
Okay.
Well, the federal government provides funding to certain organizations.
Say, Planned Parenthood, for instance.
I know there was a big thing recently.
They lost a lot of funding.
Let's just say this.
There has been, my understanding is there's been a law stopping the federal government from funding abortion for a long time.
But women's services in general, if they do not provide comparable services to men, or can't, then could you argue that's discrimination?
I think there's a potential.
I mean, you could argue it, absolutely.
Would you win?
I don't know.
But I'll put it this way.
If they offered breast cancer screenings to women, would they then have to also offer breast cancer screenings to men?
And if they said, you know, we could, but it's not a mammogram or something, because men don't have, you know, develop breast tissue like women, would it then be discriminatory for the government to fund a program only for women?
The answer is...
Well, you could argue it.
I don't know how the courts would rule.
The court might rule that women are biologically different.
But that brings me to the trans question.
And therein lies the big problem.
The answer is, this could upend the legal precedent and system as we know it, and backfire horribly.
They say, You can't discriminate.
Well, actually, let me get the language of the amendment as best I can.
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on the account of sex.
Well, equality of rights.
The way I would interpret this, not as, you know, I'm not a judge or a legal scholar, is that there can't be a law specifically referencing only one sex because that would be abridging the rights of some or, you know, one person.
Could you then even have, you know, bills protecting women?
Could you then even have programs for women at colleges?
If you had a, you know, get women to, you know, join STEM, you'd have to have a get men to join STEM, too.
Now, it's entirely possible because of the 1964, I believe it's 64, Civil Rights Act, you could already do these things, and nobody really has, so we'll see what happens.
But I would put it this way.
First, the most important thing I wanted to bring up with this segment is, I know it's probably boring, I know most people probably don't care, You know, whatever.
I think it's really interesting and I've been wanting to talk about the ERA for a while because we've been getting to this point where Virginia now swinging blue means this might be ratified.
But there are a lot of laws that we don't know how they will be affected if this amendment comes into play.
Some people might actually say that, you know, there are certain laws specifically designed for women in the case of, you know, like assault.
And it shouldn't be that way.
And a lot of people both, you know, left and right agree it shouldn't either.
But we're going to see a lot of dramatic changes.
Is it even legal to have different bathrooms?
For the most part, many places know because of trans rights bills.
Well, this might actually result in lawsuits against that!
Like, you can't have a bathroom for, you know, gender... Like, people are going to argue crazy things.
I'll put it that way.
Some people say it's simply just going to be redundant.
That we already have the 1964 Civil Rights Act, all this will do is stand behind it, won't really change much.
But it also means you need to consider, in many jurisdictions, this could open the door for a stronger argument from, say, men's rights activists, or from, you know, I don't know, contrarians, who want to challenge grants, programs that benefit women.
If there's a scholarship for women, Gone.
You can't discriminate on the basis of sex.
They do say, however, it's the denial of rights.
So you could theoretically be arguing if they tax both men and women and use that to fund women, they are granting women a right, an access to resources they don't grant to men.
The point is, I think this is redundant and I don't think we need it.
My understanding is the Constitution doesn't actually even talk about men or women for the most part.
I don't think it mentions anything like this.
It talks about people in general.
And I'm not sure if they say the word man or not.
But I know there's like, you know, all men are created equal.
I think it's the Declaration of Independence or whatever.
I think the general idea back then was that man was referring to humans.
But look, I'll put it this way.
We don't know what's going to happen, but it will be largely chaotic, so long as people want it to be.
But I want to end with one more important thing.
Things might really, really change.
January 2nd, a poll shows Biden as the only Democrat who would defeat Trump in Virginia.
Now, Virginia flipped blue, but there's a lot of polls coming out saying it's going to revert back.
There were too many people who sat out.
People don't pay attention to these elections.
The activists took over, and now all these 2A proponents are freaking out.
Yeah, well, you got to get up and vote, and so this is going to wake people up.
We'll see what happens.
It's not the biggest story in the world.
Whatever.
I just wanted to talk about it.
But I got a couple more stories that I think are more interesting related to Virginia.
One more, and I will see you all in the next segment in a few minutes.
Virginia has proposed some sweeping gun legislation that has many people furious.
And I don't know what the last count is, but the last I heard was like 95 counties in Virginia declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries.
So I got a couple gun stories for you.
This may be one of the funniest, but really one of the most interesting things I've heard in a long time.
West Virginia lawmakers invite Virginia counties fed up with gun control to secede and join West Virginia.
Could you imagine if Virginia became a small urban pocket around D.C.
and West Virginia absorbed 80% of Virginia into one super state?
Likely not going to happen because Virginia won't allow it.
But hey, man, we're heading for a major, major culture clash in Virginia with these new gun laws.
So I got another story about the AR-15 I might get to, but I want to read you this one, and if we have time, I'll go to the next one.
It's actually interesting.
I'll mention it now.
It turns out the AR-15 may be immune to gun control thanks to a random quirk.
Basically, by selling it part by part, you can't regulate it.
I guess I gotta change the law, but let's read this first story.
They're both from Pluralist.
They say, In a display of pro-Second Amendment solidarity, a group of West Virginia lawmakers have introduced a resolution inviting Virginia counties frustrated by gun control efforts to switch states.
Delegates in the lower house of the West Virginia legislature put the proposal forth on Tuesday.
House Concurrent Resolution 8 would allow certain Virginia counties and independent cities to be admitted to West Virginia as constituent counties.
The group of 20 West Virginia Republicans and one independent introducing the resolution said in the proposal that Virginia lawmakers have repudiated the counsel of that Tribune of Liberty, Patrick Henry, who stated to the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788 that, quote, The great object is that every man be armed.
Everyone who is able might have a gun.
Quote.
The government at Richmond now seeks to place intolerable restraints upon the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution to the citizens of Virginia, the proposal reads.
If it passes, the Virginia General Assembly would need to approve the resolution as well and hold an election prior to August 1st, 2020, allowing residents in Virginia counties to vote on whether they'd like to join West Virginia.
Well, that will never happen because nothing ever happens.
Life is boring.
Let's be real.
Everything's routine.
Everybody wants to imagine there's some great fight.
But for the most part, we do have our generational struggles.
This is not going to happen.
I mean, actually, you know, Virginia's never going to let it go.
But I don't know what they do now that they're passing the sweeping gun control laws over a populace that doesn't want it.
You see, this is the problem.
This is a really good reason why we have the Electoral College.
OK, let me explain something to you.
What these people on the left who want to get rid of the EC don't know, they don't understand, is that right now, you have in Virginia, oppression by the majority.
I don't even know it's the majority, for the most part.
They just won, blew across the board.
They're now imposing laws that fly in the face of the life values of many people in their state who are now freaking out.
This is going to result in a desperate culture clash, which could be very, very dangerous.
I'll tell you this, man.
If Virginia calls the National Guard or police to go and confiscate weapons from people, you will see a civil war in this country.
And I'm not exaggerating.
A lot of people are like, oh, it's irresponsible.
Don't say that.
I don't care.
It's a fact.
Go tell a rural Virginian county that the National Guard is coming for their guns, and they're going to say, not on my life, red coat.
And it's scary.
So you got, look, we got the Second Amendment in this country, and you're not going to change that.
That's an American tradition.
And that's what West Virginia is saying.
But we got serious problems.
And actually, the smart solution might actually be for these counties to join West Virginia and for Virginia to let them.
Otherwise, it's going to get bad.
Let's read a little bit more.
They say, If it passes, the Virginia General Assembly would need to approve it.
We read that.
HCR 8's language makes clear West Virginia lawmakers are motivated both by their state's historically close ties to their neighbor in the east and the ideological battle currently raging in Virginia over gun laws.
In response to threat of sweeping regulation in the newly blue state, a fierce grassroots pro-gun movement has risen up across the state.
Dozens of counties and towns have declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries in recent months, and some Republican lawmakers in Richmond have championed the cause.
This is a proxy for the country.
If the federal government starts to enact these similar laws, you will see this.
You will see civil war.
I firmly believe it.
People will just say, like, listen, you know, the revolution started, I get my history a little wrong, but there was an effort by the Redcoats to come and seize weapons.
And this resulted in one of the first major clashes that sparked the revolution.
Not a good idea.
Not a good idea, Virginia.
I tell you this, man, they're playing a dangerous game with this, and they probably need to back down.
Let's read more.
Already this week, a huge number of pro-gun activists have flooded Richmond in a show of strength.
Meanwhile, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam plans to declare an emergency ban on all weapons, including guns, from Capitol Square ahead of a massive rally planned next week over gun rights, according to the AP.
Let's do that one.
I might not get to the IRS story.
We've got to cover this.
In the unlikely event the resolution advances out of the West Virginia legislature and is approved by the Virginia General Assembly, the measure would be submitted to West Virginia voters at the next general election.
That would be so cool!
I wish something like that would happen, but probably not.
Here's a story from U.S.
News, an AP exclusive, Northam to ban guns from Capitol grounds.
It is one step after another.
One grain of sand in the heap.
I'll tell you this right now.
The First Amendment, the right of the public to speak, religion, the press, etc., shall not be infringed.
Assembly shall not be infringed.
They infringe it all the time.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It is infringed all the time.
The right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, it is infringed all the time.
Fortunately, the military ain't taking quarter in our house.
At least we have that, I guess.
The right to a speedy trial also is infringed.
The Constitution I dare I say it is being used by people who want power no better than toilet paper.
I know that may be shocking and offensive to a lot of people but I really do think these politicians are crapping all over what was supposed to be a firm statement by the founding fathers.
They don't care.
Now I for one fully respect that the Supreme Court provides balance and interprets the best way to move forward and we do have to recognize times be a changing.
There's one of the reasons I didn't like Kavanaugh is because of his archaic view of search.
Now, I don't want to go into the full details, you know, about Kavanaugh's position on data seizure, metadata, and stuff like that, but we have seen from many federal judges that they think collecting metadata doesn't qualify as an unreasonable search, but it does.
We need to consider the bigger picture, the macro.
All right, so we have the Fourth Amendment, right?
We're not supposed to be searched for no reason.
Back then, all it really was, if you're carrying stuff, they can't come up to you without probable cause.
I respect that.
But now we have metadata.
Little tidbits that we leave a digital trail.
On their own, don't tell you much.
Together, tell you literally everything.
And the government collects that.
Or they were for a long time.
It's been, you know, there's been some changes.
The violation of the Constitution, it just keeps going, right?
While I can certainly respect some slight limitations on speech, like incitement to violence, my understanding is that the fire in a theater thing no longer was repealed or, however, ruled against.
This argument that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, apparently now you can.
That was a short-lived thing.
It was a mistake, apparently.
Incitement to violence I can understand.
There's a difference between your right to freely express yourself and telling people to go commit crimes.
But there absolutely are some First Amendment absolutists.
I think it's a bigger question of what the Founding Fathers had in mind for the amendments.
And I think it's fair to say Founding Fathers had in mind for the Second Amendment something very simply.
It's not about, in my opinion, stopping a tyrannical government.
I've heard a lot of people say, you know, Dave Chappelle, for instance, said, the Second Amendment is there in case the first one doesn't work out.
This idea that if we're all armed, the government can never take over is true.
There can never be a tyrannical takeover of government.
But I believe the true intent was that we could never be invaded, foreign or domestic.
The idea that if there's a gun behind every blade of grass, it ain't never coming in our country.
You can try, it ain't gonna work.
I'll tell you this.
People talk about, you're not gonna stop the government or a foreign invader who's got scud missiles and fighter jets, and the response is simple.
You can't occupy a street corner and imprison people using a fighter jet or a scud missile.
Sorry, not gonna work.
You can hurt people and break things, but what you need to control any country or territory is an individual carrying a weapon.
That individual must take the actions necessary to occupy a space.
America learned this the hard way in Vietnam and in Afghanistan.
So there's a reason why we have a Second Amendment.
Now, I am not a staunch 2A, you know, gun nut or anything like that.
I've been thinking about this for a while, though, when it comes to gun rights, and I think the challenge we have right now is, well, I'm actually in favor of not restriction, but some type of registration regulation.
Some people have argued that if I've got to register my gun, you've got to register your speech.
Yeah, I get the point, but I disagree.
I understand why there's concern about the government having access, knowing everybody who's got a weapon.
And I think it could be a slippery slope, but I think, you know, I've been thinking about it, and I think we need less restriction and more knowledge.
I think we'd be better off as a country if we had people register their weapons and we had no restrictions on those weapons.
Straight up.
Well, I shouldn't say no restrictions, but less.
So I think the problem is, across the country we have different laws for different places.
I think we've got to have a major national reform.
I think we need to stick true to the Constitution.
Unless you want to ratify it and amend the Constitution, you have to allow people to own weapons, even if you don't like it.
However, the Constitution says nothing about whether or not people need to register those weapons.
I think the real compromise is a law-abiding gun owner has nothing to worry about if they have a serial number on their weapon and the local police know who has what weapons.
I'll tell you this, if you're concerned about them coming and rounding everybody up, it won't matter if everybody can be armed and armed to the teeth.
But it will be good when someone goes to commit a crime or people recognize, you know, this person committed a violent crime, we also know he happens to have these weapons.
All right, so here's the point.
I'm not super concerned about a government takeover.
The cops can know who's armed if everybody's armed.
You ain't gonna do anything about it.
You can legally serve, right?
So I think ultimately the challenge is right now, we don't really have a unified goal in how to deal with this, and the left seems to think banning it will work when it will not, and it will spark chaos and revolt.
So, I don't know, man.
I'm not a gun person.
I guess I'll put it this way.
I'm sure many of you are going to respond with exactly why you think it's a bad idea, and I respect that 100%, because I recognize one of the main reasons I don't, for the most part, get involved in a lot of this stuff is because I'm not an expert.
How insane is it that you have people trying to ban weapons, they don't even know what the weapons are.
They're like, we're going to ban fully semi-automatic weapons, and I'm like, you're nuts!
You're talking about nonsense.
You know what, I'll tell you this.
I propose we start telling all the Democrats to ban fully semi-automatic weapons.
I really think we should ban all fully semi-automatic weapons.
You know why?
Because then we'll be basically dangling the keys over here, they'll go chase a thing that literally makes no sense and doesn't exist, and quite literally there is no fully semi-automatic weapon.
So if they're so content on banning things they don't know about, just give them something to ban that they don't understand, and then we can go mind our own business.
For me, I'm probably not going to buy a gun.
I don't care to.
I'm not a gun person.
But I think the bigger challenge is not about the gun argument.
It's about the constitution argument.
So I'll leave it, I'll leave it at this.
As far as I'm concerned, I would like to see some gun control measures, but I recognize until the constitution is amended, you can't do it.
So I'll accept that one.
I don't know, man, whatever.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up in just a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
From the post-millennial, snitches get riches.
University rewards student callouts with cash.
Sort of.
It sounds like they're hiring people to be, like, culture-minders.
This is one of the creepiest, most Orwellian things I've heard in a long time.
But, uh, let's read, and then I've got more alarming and bad news for all of y'all.
Students can now get paid to snitch on their peers at the University of Sheffield.
The students will earn £9.34 an hour to be race equality champions.
Ooh, you get to be a champion!
You know, in the past, to be a champion, you had to actually win the tournament.
But I guess now it's just a title awarded to anybody who wants to be a race equality champion.
And their training for the work will include teaching them how to lead healthy conversations on racism, microaggressions, and how to deal with those peers who commit infractions.
Hours range from two to nine hours per week, like any part-time work-study job, but Sheffield University's foray into snitch culture sounds alarm bells.
Here's a tweet from Konstantin Kaysen.
I don't know who that is.
They say, Students at Sheffield University are being paid £9.34 per hour to report on their fellow students.
This is tremendous progress.
As in the Soviet Union, these rolls were unpaid.
That's true.
Snitch on your neighbor and you got nothing.
But they got taken to the Gulag.
Following a report from the Equality and Human Rights Commission that cautioned about the common occurrence of racism for some students on campus, the university decided to combat the problem by weaponizing other students.
20 lucky kids will get this job, and it's probable that plenty more would have done it for free, as have their authoritarian forebears.
Toby Young tweeting, why pay them?
The little woke Nazis will do it for free.
We have this here, it says, Happy New Year.
The University of Sheffield is to pay students to tackle so-called microaggressions.
So, do you know what a microaggression is?
Basically, like, if I'm walking down the street, and you're a lady, and you, like, clutch your purse, that's a microaggression.
If I'm walking down the street and you see me and you cross the street, microaggression.
That means you're a bigot, and I should report you, and I'll get paid to do it.
Let's read on.
This new job, such as it is, is rightfully being hailed as completely authoritarian and crazy.
Anyone who has studied 20th century history knows that the worst dictators and totalitarians of that era counted on citizens to report one another under threat of punishment if they did not.
Citizens in the Soviet Union, Germany, China, Spain, and other nations with brutal paranoid leaders impressed upon their citizens how important it was that they rat out their friends, family, and co-workers.
Now that the trend has some, uh, now, now that, now that trend has some to the ultimate allied nation has come.
Sorry.
Copy editor, guys.
The students who take these jobs will undoubtedly think they are doing the right thing in carrying out their duties, but in trying to overcome racism, they're dividing them further.
We have this tweet here from Andrew Doyle, who is the man behind Titanium McGrath, the famous parody account.
Sheffield University is paying students to spy on their peers and report microaggressions.
One example they give is, quote, why are you searching for things to be offended about?
Oh, jeez.
Creepy.
Given this sinister Stasi-like initiative, that's a very good question.
Let me tell you a story.
A long time ago, it probably still exists, there's a service that pays you to write down license plate numbers.
It's one of the creepiest things I've ever heard.
But it was about eight or so years ago, it was going around on Facebook, where they were saying you get paid something like, I don't know how it worked, but it was like a dollar or a quarter for every license plate you write down.
They wanted you to go outside and start writing down the make, model, and plate number of every car you could, submit them to the system, and they would then pay you.
But more importantly, they would pay you a bonus when those cars were repoed or impounded.
And that was the point of the game.
If the city or a company was trying to track down a lost vehicle because someone didn't pay their loan bill on time, or because it was being repossessed, or because the city wanted to boot it, they cut you in when the service was used to locate the vehicle.
It is one of the most nightmarish and Orwellian things I had ever seen.
And I had friends being like, this is really cool, you can make quick cash.
And I'm like, dude, that's nuts!
Snitch on your neighbor for cash?
Sorry, not interested.
The surveillance apparatus can rely on itself.
Don't get me involved, I'm not playing that game.
Let's read on.
Part of the job description is for students to call up their peers for microaggressions.
We read that.
Titanium McGrath is a satire account, but promoting it like it's legit.
Here are a few to look out for, some microaggressions.
Quote, I don't see color.
Where are you really from?
Why are you eavesdropping on our conversation?
They say, if a fellow student says to another, stop making everything a race issue, that's considered a microaggression, and is a reason for reporting under this new plan.
This is freakish, nightmarish, and horrifying.
What they're really trying to do is terrify people, and they're hiring... It's essentially a culture patrol.
It's not about microaggressions.
It's about anybody who would dare oppose their psychotic religion.
Somebody's standing there saying, stop making it about race, and they say, you.
Now you're in trouble.
How dare you question our orthodoxy?
These people are lunatics.
It is a cult.
And this needs to be stopped.
If a student says, why are you searching for things to be offended about, that's considered not okay.
And that peer must be punished.
The question, where are you really from, is apparently out of bounds, and other geographical infractions like, I don't want to hear about your holiday to South Africa, it's nowhere near where I'm from, is a reason to call out a kid for being racist.
Students complained about the microaggression of, quote, being compared to black celebrities that I look nothing like.
Which would be pretty annoying for the kid who got that wrong, but it is a reason to be reported.
The University of Sheffield claims that they are just, quote, opening a conversation by paying students to help their peers understand racism and its impact.
In 2018, the university suffered some racially motivated incidents with racial slurs found written on a whiteboard and slurs yelled at games.
Of course, there's no place for racism on campuses.
But the way to root it out is through education and conversation, not monetized McCarthyism.
Call-out culture, snitch culture, and the reframing of the conversation around how to control our thoughts does not alleviate racism, it buries it where it can fester.
Not only that, it encourages it.
Because people become resentful and angry.
They bottle it up, and then finally they hear something they like, and they start talking about it more.
They get entrenched in their beliefs, they get angry, and they reject it.
And they attack you for it.
People don't want to be told they must live in a box.
People want to be free.
Nobody wants to live walking on eggshells.
I say this.
Fighting racism is a positive project, but it's not done through dividing us, through pitting peers against each other, but through a culture of egalitarianism and equality.
Knowing that we are different is not as important as recognizing all the ways in which we are the same.
And now I bring you...
To the worst news I've heard just yet, this story from ScreenRant, though it isn't confirmed and may be a myth as of now.
Why would you send money via Twitter?
Company reportedly working on tip feature.
You're gonna love this one.
You might be able to tip someone through Twitter soon, but why would you want to?
More importantly, who would really benefit from Twitter tipping?
Well, I'll tell you this.
This story is the other side of the university paying snitches.
This is the people who produce the most outrageous, rage-inducing, rage-bait Twitter tweet to get as many retweets as possible to make money.
If you thought it was bad enough that people wanted to earn invisible internet points, like karma on Reddit, or retweets and likes on Twitter, imagine what happens when they actually monetize this.
Already, there are many woke Twitterati who have hot takes about things they don't care about.
They lie.
So Vince Vaughn, for instance.
He's getting dragged on Twitter for shaking Trump's hand.
People are pretending to be outraged, saying, I can't believe Vince would do this to us!
Here's my PayPal.
Seriously.
In their profile, they have their Venmo, their PayPal, and they say, You've seen my tweet.
Send me money.
Reward me for my woke outrage.
The reality is, Vince Vaughn's always been conservative.
These people were lying.
Imagine what happens if you add not just the likes, the invisible points they so desperately crave, but hard cash.
We're going to create an economy based on being insane and outraged all the time.
So you've got people marching around a university, snitching on you for cash, and then going on Twitter and telling everybody, hoping the retweets get them more cash.
They say Twitter is a great place for sharing your thoughts, and it now looks like you might be able to share your wealth on the social media site soon, although it remains to be seen why you would want to in the first place.
Twitter is a service that's constantly in flux, with the team always looking for new ways in which users can engage with each other.
In some cases, new features can actually slow down the rate of engagement, as is the case with one of the latest features that allows users to control who can respond to their tweets.
However, the suggestion the company might soon let you send money over a tweet seems like it might be a step too far, albeit one that would appear to be in line with current trends.
You know, Facebook and, uh, I don't, I don't think I need to, well, I can read a little bit more.
They say, a recent report suggests Twitter is working on implementing a new payment feature to let people send money to each other.
This does fit in nicely with the online tipping economy that's been developing over the past couple of years, with online businesses and companies having been replaced with individuals and influencers.
Okay, you get the point.
I'm going to keep this one short.
We'll wrap it up.
They say Twitter tipping is probably not a good idea, but I don't care.
I'm just going to tell you what I think.
I think people are going to start posting insane, outrageous fake news.
They're going to tweet lies and out-of-context clips because they're hoping to make money.
Twitter is bad enough because it incentivizes this behavior.
We don't need to encourage more of it by telling people you can now press a button on a tweet to give them cash.
In the end, we are building a culture that is going to be nightmarishly dystopian, and we're already living in it.
Social media is censoring people.
The left is now praising big corporations.
The democratic primaries are rigged.
We get it.
And now you have a university paying people to snitch.
And now you have, potentially, Twitter saying, we want to monetarily incentivize your woke outrage.
