Bernie BLAMES Trump Even As Democrats And CNN Rig Primary Against Him, Sanders Is Not Strong Enough
Bernie BLAMES Trump Even As Democrats And CNN Rig Primary Against Him, Sanders Is Not Strong Enough. Bernie Sanders is just not strong enough to be president. He gets pushed around and cheated over and over again but just keeps bowing to the machine.In 2016 he endorsed Hillary Clinton even after the primary was so obviously rigged against him. It was so obvious that Democrats like Elizabeth Warren even said it was.Not Bernie is being dragged, smeared, and lied about but still won't stand up for himself. Supporters of his floated the idea that the impeachment of Trump is actually designed to hurt Bernie by pulling him off of the campaign trail just before Iowa.In a genius move Trump supported the idea forcing Bernie to reject it. Trump actually got Bernie to oppose his own supporters. How completely insane.Bernie Sanders is just not strong enough to be president and this is just another sign.While the media may be rigging things against Bernie I think it would be fair to point out the media is rigging things against Trump more so. Project Veritas recently ran an expose against Bernie that became the most engaged with story online yet the media ignores it. He still benefits from the general bias against conservatives
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
It wasn't supposed to be real news, the story from the Babylon Bee.
Ingenious move.
Trump supports impeachment, forcing Democrats to oppose.
Why, in fact, it's an old joke.
The idea is that everything Trump supports, Democrats must oppose.
He is always wrong.
The actual joke is, if Trump came out in favor of oxygen, Democrats would hold their breath.
So in a literal genius move, Donald Trump came out to support the idea that the DNC and the media establishment are rigging the primary against Bernie Sanders.
And they actually got not just Bernie Sanders, but even at least one left-wing activist site to push back on the idea that impeachment actually hurts Bernie or That the system is rigged against Bernie.
To an extent, I want to be fair.
But what I see here, this response from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump when he was saying, yeah, the system is rigged against Bernie, I find to be Well, I'll just put it this way.
It's a sign of complete weakness.
The system is absolutely rigged against Bernie Sanders.
You don't have to like the guy to recognize how they're doing him wrong today.
I want to show you what's going on with the rigging of the primary against Bernie Sanders, and I want to explain to you why I think This shows Bernie Sanders is not fit to be the president.
I'm sorry.
I know the Bernie Sanders supporters are going to get really, really angry at me for saying this, but listen.
Bernie has showed us several times that he is unwilling to stand up for himself.
One of the things Donald Trump did right in 2016 was he was a bully, and you might not like that, but he did not take flack from anybody.
Trump pushes other people around and Americans, they like it whether you like it or not.
People want to see their commander-in-chief is strong.
And I'm going to show you several examples of how Bernie Sanders gets pushed around and then does nothing about it.
In fact, Comes out against Trump just because Trump said, yeah, it's rigged against you.
So let's get started with this story from Common Dreams.
The real news, not the satire, the actual story.
Let's be clear about who is rigging what.
Bernie Sanders denounces Trump effort to divide Democrats.
2020 candidate says the only reason for impeachment trial is president's effort to use the power of the federal government for his own political benefit.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's several ways you can give.
The best thing you can do, share this video.
Yeah, well, Sanders supporters are not going to be happy with it, but I'm sorry.
I understand there's a few different issues surrounding the idea of rigging the system against Bernie.
I, for one, actually disagree that Nancy Pelosi is staging the impeachment to hurt Bernie Sanders, but I'm not the only one who thinks that, and it was actually left-wing activists who first proposed the idea.
Therein lies the strange paradox of Bernie now opposing an idea put forth by his own supporters.
There's a couple different ways the system is being rigged against Bernie Sanders.
The first, we all saw it.
And I'll get through what happened with CNN and Warren and the hit pieces.
But I believe it was actually Jacobin, the socialist magazine, that said impeachment is designed to hurt Bernie.
Think about it.
Impeachment is driving up Trump's approval rating.
Impeachment has less than majority support.
It's actually majority opposition.
And Trump has fundraised beautifully off of it.
It's certainly not going to hurt the president.
No one thinks it's going to be acquitted.
So a lot of people are asking why they do it.
Now, I know I've mentioned it several, several times, but I need to point this out to explain why this is insane that Common Dreams is arguing Bernie's right here.
This is going to take Bernie Sanders off the campaign trail, Warren as well, as well as Bennett and Klobuchar.
And it serves to help Joe Biden by crippling his opponents in the primary.
It was actually left-wing progressive activists arguing that this was designed to hurt Bernie Sanders.
Well, lo and behold, Donald Trump tweets.
Actually, let me make sure I can pull up the full tweet here on Twitter.
Donald Trump tweets.
They are rigging the election again against Bernie Sanders, just like the last time.
Only even more obviously, they are bringing him out of so important Iowa in order that, as a senator, he sit through the impeachment hoax trial.
Crazy Nancy thereby gives the strong edge to sleepy Joe Biden, and Bernie is shut out again.
Very unfair.
But that's the way the Democrats play the game.
Anyway, it's a lot of fun to watch.
We can see Scott Adams says, basically the Dems are impeaching Bernie.
Here's the thing.
It was progressive activists that proposed the idea.
Donald Trump then agrees with it, and lo and behold, the man himself, Bernie Sanders.
Let's be clear about who is rigging what.
It is Donald Trump's action to use the power of the federal government for his own political benefit that is the cause of the impeachment trial.
Democrats are going to unite to sweep him out of the White House in November.
Now here's the thing.
Like I said, it was the left that proposed that idea.
Trump then tweets that idea out, and Bernie pushes back on what his own supporters had been saying.
It is just like the Babylon Bee article.
Trump supporting impeachment, forcing Democrats to oppose.
Okay, Bernie!
The system is clearly rigged against Bernie Sanders.
Will he not stand up for himself?
Apparently not.
And it's really frustrating to me.
You know, I was a big fan of him back in 2016.
I mean, primarily because what was I supposed to do?
Vote for Hillary?
No, thank you.
But Bernie has shown time and time again it's just not the case.
They say this in Common Dreams.
While it's true the impeachment trial against Trump in the Senate will keep Sanders, as well as Warren, off the campaign trail in the crucial weeks ahead of the
Iowa caucus on February 3rd, Sanders told reporters in Washington, D.C. Thursday that
while he would rather be talking to potential voters in key early states, quote, I swore a
constitutional oath as a U.S. senator to do my job and I'm here to do my job. Sanders said that
even with the importance of the trial before the Senate, we cannot forget the very serious
problem facing the American people.
While we go forward with this impeachment, he added, I hope the American people understand that we have not forgotten that in this country, outside of DC today, there are millions of people who are struggling economically.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get the point.
He literally came out because the president supported the idea that they're rigging it against Bernie.
Now let me show you a few things.
Everyone knows it's being rigged against Bernie, and I want to shine some light on this.
The problem I see is that Bernie Sanders Will not defend himself and that shows me he, I'm gonna say it's bold, he's unfit to be the president, okay?
Listen, Trump is unfit in my opinion for other reasons.
I can recognize all of the things he's accomplished in terms of foreign policy, like crossing into the DMZ for me was huge in North Korea.
The economy is doing really, really well.
I don't want to say... I don't think it's necessarily fair for me to think Trump is completely unfit, right?
I know Tulsi Gabbard has been a lot more strong on that.
I would put it this way.
I think there's things about Trump that make me believe we should have someone else be president, but I think, depending on your argument, there's a lot of reasons why Trump is doing a good job as president.
So maybe it was a little bold for me to say unfit.
Not my choice.
That's the way I would put it.
I want to try and frame it like this because I don't think Trump is literally the devil.
I just think he's not my choice.
The more I see Andrew Yang, the more excited I get.
Check this out.
CNN's Sanders hit piece is a journalistic outrage.
This is from Truthdig.
Left-wing activists pointing out CNN is smearing him, okay?
You probably heard the story.
Elizabeth Warren claiming that Bernie told her a woman couldn't be president.
Now, I have heard from the progressive activists, and I will tell you why they are wrong, why Bernie never said this.
All right?
Now maybe some Bernie supporters might actually like what I'm about to say.
Bernie would never tell Elizabeth Warren a woman couldn't be the president.
On the debate stage, CNN actually takes it a step further.
They ask Bernie Sanders, and I know many of you probably heard what happened.
They said, are you saying you never told Warren a woman couldn't win?
And Bernie says, that's correct.
They immediately go to Warren and say, how did you feel when Bernie told you a woman couldn't win?
And she says, I disagree.
CNN then releases the hot mic audio after the fact in a totally unethical move, in my opinion.
Showing Warren say, I think you called me a liar on national TV.
All of a sudden we see the DNC stands and the crony, you know, the corporate Democrat type saying, we must believe all women.
Do you want to know why it's absurd that Bernie would say this and why he didn't?
It's just, you have to be nuts to think it's true, and you're probably lying if you're going to try and convince me that it's true.
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.
Not only has Bernie Sanders said in 87 and 88, and over and over again, a woman can and should be president, Hillary Clinton won the popular votes!
Why would Bernie then go to Warren two years later and say a woman can't be president?
The progressives argue.
Okay, so here's what David Pakman argued.
He tweeted that he thinks the conversation happened but both remember it differently.
Many people said that Bernie was probably saying something like the United States is too bigoted to support a woman.
None of that makes sense unless you think Bernie is an idiot because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.
Clearly a woman can win the presidency.
Who would think otherwise?
I guess woke intersectional leftists.
I have no idea.
But the media has been rigging the whole thing against Bernie.
Why won't he stand up for himself?
I'm actually more offended by this than anything else.
I used to watch a lot of TV shows growing up.
Many of you probably did.
And you know what I can't stand?
More than anything?
TV shows about losers who won't do what they need to do to succeed.
I'm not going to get into the specifics of TV shows.
I'll keep this one to politics and I'll show you.
Even Bill Maher calling out Elizabeth Warren for playing the woman card.
Why can't Bernie grow a spine and stand up and say, this is absurd, why would I say that after Hillary Clinton won the popular vote?
It's just not true.
Warren is mistaken.
Grow a spine.
He doesn't.
He doesn't.
Instead he says, no, Trump, you're rigging the election.
And then his own supporters now turn on the idea they put forward?
How insane is it that simply because Trump said it now it must not be true?
Can you seriously imagine?
What's going on here?
You look at what Trump does policy-wise.
I think Trump's a bad character.
And I talk to Trump supporters all the time, they agree!
But they voted for him for a reason.
I didn't.
Okay?
I don't like that behavior.
Andrew Yang at one point was insulting Trump and calling him a fat slob and stuff.
I don't like that either, okay?
But, when Trump does something, they say, it's bad.
The economy is good, Democrats say it's bad.
Trump wants to pull troops out of the Middle East, it's bad.
He wants to send troops to the Middle East, it's bad.
It's always bad.
Leftists say they're rigging it against Bernie.
Impeachment is designed to hurt him.
That's why Pelosi's holding up the articles for two weeks.
And they all start hooting and hollering.
Trump comes out and agrees.
It's bad.
It's wrong.
Bernie must reject it.
That is an insane way to do politics.
Even Bill Maher ragging on Warren.
Everyone knows what's being played up is complete nonsense.
Let's go back in time.
Asked if DNC system was rigged in Clinton's favor, Warren says yes.
November 3rd, 2017.
Why can't Bernie Sanders come out and be like, the system is clearly rigged against me?
I understand there's political reasons.
They're going to scream he's a conspiracy theorist and all that stuff.
But to come out against the idea?
Why would you do that either?
You know what, man?
Remember that moment, and I think I have the article, when the activist took the stage from Bernie, and he backs off and bows down?
Donald Trump would never do that.
Look, man, you can like Bernie's policies, you can agree with him policy-wise, but you have to understand that when he won't stand up for himself, it shows people he's not strong enough Let alone the dude had a heart attack.
And again, I know the Bernie supporters are going to be furious about this one.
The dude had a heart attack.
Okay?
He's nearing 80 years old.
This already puts him in a really weak position against Donald Trump and many others.
I understand Trump's old as well.
So they're all old.
But I'll tell you this, man.
Bernie, you gotta stand up for yourself.
We know CNN is rigging everything.
The Bernie Sanders subreddit banned all content from CNN.
Saying it was, it was like, you know, malpractice, it was journalistic, a lack of journalistic ethics.
We know the game is rigged.
Everyone knows it.
And because Trump came out, Bernie says, no, it's Trump who's rigging the game.
So I don't know if you saw this one, I did cover it the other day.
They say, a Bernie Sanders subreddit has banned all content from CNN over the network's coverage of the presidential candidate.
A moderator with Sanders for president, which has more than 373,000 members, announced the decision on Wednesday following the presidential debate in Des Moines, Iowa.
The Post argues that CNN, which hosted Tuesday's evening debate, has abandoned their journalistic integrity in an effort to derail Sanders' campaign.
You know they've been doing it the whole time?
Take a look at this.
This is from February 28th of this year.
I'm sorry, of last year.
Paste reports.
CNN Bernie Sanders town hall included questionnaire with Hillary Clinton ties.
It wasn't just that.
A bunch of the people in the town hall who were asking questions were actually DNC operatives in some capacity, donors to the Democratic campaign, and CNN was like, oh, we should have told people that.
You know, listen, I have no problem calling out the fix.
I like Bernie for his honesty.
I do not like him for his weakness.
He's weak.
You know what?
He is weak.
Take a look at this article, Inside Hillary Clinton's Secret Takeover of the DNC, November 2nd, 2017.
Donna Brazile outlines how there were supposed to be donations being set up that would go to the Democratic primary winner, but they were already being, people were already saying it was for Hillary Clinton.
The whole thing from the top down was rigged against him and the dude can't even stand up for himself.
Why should I support that?
It's about to get a whole lot worse.
I'm gonna get angry on this one.
From January 17th, the Sanders campaign researched whether Warren could be both vice president and treasury secretary at once.
Why is this story coming out?
Well, it's because, I guess, even progressives don't want to stand up to Hillary Clinton.
Now look, I get it, okay?
You want to beat Donald Trump.
You don't want him in office.
You'll do whatever it takes.
But why would you consider Elizabeth Warren at this point?
Everyone's called her a liar.
Progressives and democratic socialists have called her a liar.
They call her a crony capitalist.
She's been referred to as Hillary Clinton wearing a Bernie Sanders mask or just as Hillary Clinton 2.0 or something like that.
Yet there are still calls for unity.
No, no, no.
We must not fight each other.
We must defend the woman who is smearing our candidate.
We must push back on Trump when he argues Pelosi is hurting our candidate.
You know what, man?
This is why Bernie is going to lose.
And this is the problem I have with the Bernie camp.
You know, Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016, and that to me was a punch right in the gut.
Because I was like, I want to see Bernie win.
And then he's like, I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton.
Why?
Why?
After Bernie Sanders said Hillary Clinton was not fit to be president, I kid you not, he said it.
Look up the article.
I'm sorry, I don't have it pulled up.
I should have the source.
He said Hillary Clinton wasn't fit.
Yeah, because they hate Trump that much.
They hate him so much that even when he agrees with them, they then turn around and disagree with him.
How does that make sense?
How do you work that way?
Listen, there are a bunch of other reasons why Bernie Sanders is not fit.
First, as I noted, Black Lives Matter activists disrupt Bernie Sanders' speech.
This was one of the first times a lot of people saw Bernie Sanders' weakness.
You know, this is the most aggressive I've been towards a politician for a while.
And I'll tell you again, it's because I seriously, I get frustrated when people don't stand up for themselves.
I understand that everybody can.
And I understand that sometimes people need leaders to defend them.
Not everybody is strong.
But Bernie Sanders is running to be the President of the United States.
If he can't stand up for himself, how will he stand up for America?
Look at this.
Black Lives Matter activists stormed the stage.
They say this.
Black Lives Matter activists interrupted Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders at a rally in Seattle, stopping the politician from speaking at the first of two engagements he had attended on Saturday.
The activists took over the rally at a city park, marking the anniversary of Social Security and Medicare, before Sanders could even speak, according to The Hill.
Two women and a man from the Seattle chapter of Black Lives Matter shoved Sanders aside, grabbed the microphone, and addressed the crowd.
After some confusion, campaign officials allowed the group to take the stage for four and a half minutes to commemorate the four and a half hours Michael Brown lay in the streets of Ferguson.
I get it.
If you want to argue that Bernie Sanders was trying to give space to Black Lives Matter, fine.
Okay?
Fine.
Okay?
But at a certain point, with everything that's gone on, I feel like Bernie Sanders doesn't have the strength to defend himself.
And if he can't do that, he can't defend me.
Or the people who disagree with him.
The president has to be the president for everybody.
If he's coming out and blaming Trump when Trump actually agreed with the left-wing argument that the impeachment was hurting Bernie Sanders, what?
How is he going to defend the people of this country that he doesn't agree with?
There's also this.
I bring this one up a lot and people don't believe me that it's real.
That's right.
Bernie Sanders said, when you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor.
From PolitiFact, they deemed it false.
Most poor people in this country are white.
I have told this to many people and they say, that's not true, that never happened.
Yes.
Yes, it did happen.
Bernie Sanders said it on the debate stage.
I don't know why, because Bernie had always been a champion of the working class, and for some reason, I'll tell you why.
I think it's because the consultants told me to say it.
That's my opinion.
They said, hey man, the activists of the Democratic Party are woke, and if you don't push this line, they won't vote for you.
Hillary Clinton's a woman.
She's gonna get the woman vote.
She's gonna get the intersectional vote because of that, and Bernie had to do what he had to do to win.
I believe that since 2016, I have continually seen Bernie Sanders push BS positions for the sake of trying to win.
And that's what soured me on him, because I'll tell you this.
Jimmy Dore, okay, left-wing commentator, was on Joe Rogan, and he's like, Trump just blurts these things out and just tells you.
People like it.
People don't like this.
Bernie, this is false.
PolitiFact is calling it false.
Why would you say it?
Bernie knows better.
I just did not believe Bernie thought that was true.
I saw him on the stage say that and I'm like, he's lying.
Why?
It's an insane lie.
Because Bernie doesn't have the strength to stand up for what he believes in and his own positions.
And because of that, I don't think he's fit to be president.
But I would be remiss if I didn't at least mention there is still media bias that does favor him.
James O'Keefe tweeted, actually let me show you the first tweet.
Axios tweeted this story.
A viral video from right-wing Project Veritas about a Bernie Sanders field organizer underscores how splintered the partisan digital universe is and how difficult it is to get different slices of the electorate to pay attention to the same things.
James O'Keefe responded, it actually underscores the partisan nature of legacy media
and its refusal to report the news.
If a paid Republican Iowa State organizer was talking about killing people
or putting those who disagree with the candidate in re-education camps,
the below would not be your narrative.
And the journalist who exposed that shocking tape of the Republicans saying those things would not be labeled
left-wing.
This is why people don't, I'm assuming you meant trust, trust the media.
All the media has is narrative labels, hearsay, anonymous quotes, characterizations, and defamation lawsuit settlements.
While I can point out That the machine is rigged against Bernie.
This shows me the machine's actually more rigged against Donald Trump.
But Trump has... I'm sorry he has strength.
Look, I'm not saying you have to like him or Bernie.
That's never my position.
But you have to recognize American voters want to see someone... They want the person in charge to be the bully!
Think about it.
Imagine you're in high school or grade school and there's a bully who says, if you elect me class president, I won't let anyone bully you, because I'm the bully and I'm gonna go push people around.
Or you've got the nerdy guy who's getting bullied!
Yeah, everyone's picking on the nerdy guy and you're gonna vote for him?
No, I want the bully standing in front of me, because then he's gonna be like, vote for me, I got your back.
Yeah, okay, I'll vote for you.
You don't gotta like the guy.
You might not even agree with him, but you're at least like, look, the commander-in-chief needs to be tough.
I'm not gonna pick Bernie Sanders.
You know what, man?
I actually like Bernie so much more than most of the other Democrats because he's honest.
Not all the time.
I just ragged on him for being a liar.
But he's willing to be honest about some things.
I will admit, I liked him a lot more in 2016 because I really did feel he was really honest.
Now I feel he's just a little bit more honest.
And I can respect when he says, like, we're gonna raise your taxes and stuff.
Take a look at this story.
I want to bring it back to the point about how the media still does help the left more than Trump.
We can see the story basically complaining.
Well, maybe not complaining, but pointing out how Project Veritas' story on the Bernie Sanders campaign staffer got more interactions and engagements than the Elizabeth Warren story.
But what was covered in the media?
Not Project Veritas.
I look at Veritas and I don't care if he's conservative or not.
If he uncovers malfeasance and wrongdoing, then he's doing journalism.
It doesn't matter if you're conservative or liberal.
But we can still see the system is rigged.
I'll tell you how rigged it is.
We'll wrap this all together.
The media isn't caring the Project Veritas story.
Trump will.
Trump will use that against Bernie, absolutely, if Bernie wins the nomination, and he might.
But you look at how the media is framing the whole political battle.
And Bernie targets Trump.
The left goes after Trump when he even agrees with them.
Trump comes out and says, you know what, I actually agree with that left-wing talking point, the progressive talking point, that impeachment is hurting Bernie, and Bernie comes out against him.
That's how the bias works.
So, I don't know, man.
I'll leave it there.
I know I'm going to get all the Bernie people really, really angry, but so be it.
There's no defense for Bernie refusing to stand up for himself after all of this.
After everything I have laid out, Bernie won't stand up and say no.
What did Bernie stand up to?
You know what?
I'm getting really angry.
Bernie won't stand up to the machine being rigged against him, but he'll stand up and yell at the guy who agreed with his own supporters?
Think about that for two seconds.
The machine rigs it against Bernie.
CNN rigged against Bernie.
DNC against Bernie.
Donna Brazile points it out.
And I say, there you go, Bernie.
Raise your fist in the air and say, enough.
Donald Trump steps up and says, I agree, they're rigging against Bernie.
You can see- everyone getting your back on this one.
I got your back on this one.
But when Trump comes out and agrees, you turn around and- you know what?
That's- that's pathetic.
You can't- you can't stand up against the people who are actually messing with your campaign, so you point the finger at Trump and blame him when he agrees?
Ah, that's nuts, man.
That is nuts.
I'm done.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
Stick around, I'll talk about something more fun maybe.
I don't know, whatever.
I'll see you then.
The Electoral College is extremely important for a bunch of reasons.
I'm going to elect because I always do.
But the big story right now is the Supreme Court is set to rule on whether state electoral college voters have to abide by the popular vote of their state.
If it becomes a cultural norm that electors just start deciding they can vote for whoever they want, then the popular vote literally becomes meaningless.
Now, Democrats would tell you for the most part it is.
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and still lost.
No, no, no, no.
The nationwide popular vote doesn't choose the president, but statewide popular votes kind of do.
So long as the electors vote based on what their state wanted, the system makes sense.
So for those that are not familiar, let me try and break it down for you.
We don't have a direct democracy, okay?
We have a constitutional republic, most of you probably get this, but you look at a state like Wyoming with 500,000 or so people, I believe they have three electoral votes.
They have one House of Representative seats and two Senate seats.
Those two Senate seats essentially give them a weighted bit of power in deciding who the president is, but let's be real, they still only have, I think, three votes.
So they're not the most powerful.
But the point of the electoral college was to make sure that smaller states weren't being cut out and that the president was going to be determined, will not be determined simply by, you know, New York, Chicago, and now Los Angeles.
At the time, there wasn't one.
And California, actually, it was a red state and actually very, very empty.
It was pretty empty for a long time.
If the Supreme Court rules, That electoral college voters can just vote for whoever they want and they start doing this?
It all depends on whether or not they start doing it.
Then we're going to see basically a big push to dissolve the electoral college because you will end up seeing states just not representing their own votes.
Case in point, the lawsuit which brought us to this point, it's about a guy who my understanding is he refused to vote for Hillary Clinton and instead wrote in John Kasich, got removed and sued saying, I can vote for whoever I want.
And now the Supreme Court is going to hear this.
The Democrats want to get rid of the Electoral College.
I think it is a huge mistake.
I have seen how proportional voting in states works.
In California, when the cities vote to take the water rights away from the rural areas, it doesn't make sense.
Now, we can't prevent that entirely, okay?
We can't prevent big cities from voting for interests in their, you know, for the most part.
But the Electoral College does provide some weighted defense for smaller jurisdictions.
Basically, what I saw in California was these areas that were semi-rural, well, they were totally rural, they were farmland, and they didn't have enough people.
So Los Angeles and San Diego vote for policies statewide that strip away the water rights to a certain degree, and it leaves the poor migrants in the farm areas completely without water.
The situation is entirely more complicated than that.
I'm oversimplifying to give you more of an analogy.
The point is, we would have states secede from the Union.
I mean, probably not, but who would want to stay in a country where they had absolutely no representation because they just don't have enough people?
So, you know, Montana, Wyoming, they have their resources and all of a sudden other states are voting to take away those resources and those rights from the people who live there because they don't have a proportional response.
We are not a direct democracy.
We are a constitutional republic, meaning we must protect the sovereignty of each state.
Otherwise, we fall apart.
Well, let's read the story and see what's going on.
My big fear about this is that it's the Democrats who actually want to end the electoral college, what we might see here.
If it becomes a cultural norm that electors just vote for whoever they want, and they ignore the will of the people, then we will end up with, say, Donald Trump winning re-election, and then the electors saying like, yeah, but we're gonna vote for Bernie anyway because we prefer him, and then what are you gonna do about it?
Supreme Court already ruled.
That's dangerous.
Let me stress, what works about the Electoral College is that we provide weighted votes.
So basically, The Electoral College should vote how the people want.
That way they represent the will of the people.
But we give slightly more electors to certain areas, technically.
Like I said, Wyoming has three, they have two senators, and they have one representative.
That gives them three electoral votes.
Normally, without the Electoral College, they would have the equivalent of just one electoral vote, essentially.
Because they basically just have one district.
So we give them a little bit more power per resident to weight their authority.
If the electors decide they're not going to abide by that, then you're going to have left and right furious.
And 2016 was the biggest year for faithless electors.
This will open the door for an argument from the left to actually get rid of the Electoral College if the voters, you know, dissent and stop voting for how the people want.
Let's read the story from the Daily Mail.
They say, Supreme Court is set to rule on whether state electoral college voters have to support the popular vote winner or are able to be quote faithless in landmark case which could bring 2020 election chaos.
The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide ahead of the 2020 election whether presidential electors are bound to support the popular vote winner in their states or can opt for someone else.
Advocates for the court's intervention say the issue needs urgent resolution in an era of intense political polarization and the prospect of a razor-thin margin in presidential elections, although so-called faithless electors have been a footnote so far in American history.
The justices will hear arguments in April and should issue a decision by late June.
About 30 states require presidential electors to vote for the popular vote winner, and electors almost always do so anyway, because it's a cultural norm.
But my general understanding is they can vote however they want.
Check this out.
This guy right here.
Faithless voter Michael Baca was removed as a Colorado elector when he tried to vote for John Kasich in a write-in.
Now he's at the center of a Supreme Court case which could rock the 2020 election.
The electoral college system is established in the Constitution.
When voters cast a ballot for the president, they are actually choosing members of the electoral college, called electors, who are pledged to that presidential candidate.
The electors then choose the president.
It takes 270 to win.
The elector of the center of the case, Michael Baca, was part of a group known as Hamilton Electors who tried to convince electors who were pledged to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump to unite behind a consensus candidate to deny Trump the presidency.
Calls for electors to go faithless were made also by anti-Trump campaigners who wanted the college to reflect the popular vote, which would have given Clinton a clear victory.
Almost 5 million people signed a petition calling for the Electoral College to use their apparent right to be faithless and put Clinton in the White House.
After a flurry of filings in state and federal courts, the electors met on December 19, 2016, and Baca crossed out Clinton's name on his ballot and wrote in John Kasich, the Republican governor of Ohio who also ran for president.
Then-Secretary of State Wayne Williams refused to count the vote and removed Baca as an elector.
He replaced him with another elector who voted for Clinton.
The federal appeals court in Denver ruled that electors can vote as they please, rejecting arguments that they must choose the popular vote winner.
The state does not possess countervailing authority to remove an elector and to cancel his vote in response to the exercise of that constitutional right, the ruling said.
The ruling applies only to Colorado and five other states in the 10th Circuit.
Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming.
But in Washington, the state Supreme Court upheld a $1,000 fine against three electors there and rejected their claims.
Check this out.
It was what?
Five million people.
You see this petition right here.
Electoral College, make Hillary Clinton president.
That was their goal, to have as many electors as possible become faithless and put Hillary Clinton under the argument that the popular vote deems it so.
There's big, big problems the Democrats don't understand about the Electoral College.
First, many states have large populations of voters who don't vote, okay?
You have blue states with tons of Republicans who don't vote because they feel like it's a waste of time.
You have red states with Democrats who don't vote because they feel like it's a waste of time.
The challenge, ultimately, I see is Or the question I would ask, are there more Republicans who don't vote in California than Democrats who don't vote in red states that are typically rural, right?
Many red states have smaller populations.
Most of the Democrats come from wealthy urban areas.
So imagine this, California is dominated by the urban elite.
There are certainly rural areas with many conservatives, but the state is typically a Democratic supermajority.
How many people would consider themselves moderate or Republican and vote for a Republican, but feel like it's pointless?
If we go by percentage of state, I think it's fair to argue, although not entirely foolproof, or I should say bulletproof, there's an argument to be said that there are more blue state Republicans who don't vote than red state Democrats, because red states are typically overwhelmingly Republican, and blue states that are pretty much Democrat, just don't, you know, Republicans don't come out and vote for the president.
Now, I could be wrong.
It could be wrong.
But I think there's a few things Democrats need to consider before they push forward with basically dissolving the Electoral College.
For one, seats in the House, which determines how many electoral votes you get, can actually be boosted by immigration and illegal immigration.
If you have people who are not citizens, but they're still counted in the census, you will get redistricting to boost how many seats you have.
Well, it seems for a variety of reasons.
For a variety of reasons, blue states are actually losing seats.
Maybe this is why they want to get rid of the electoral college, because think about it.
If California is losing tons and tons of residents, and they are.
Tucker Carlson just did a segment about it with a liberal host, and they talked about how native-born Californians are fleeing like Idaho and Texas and Colorado.
New York and Illinois are losing residents.
The Democrats lose that electoral vote power.
When those states get redistrict, or when redistricting happens, and those states lose seats, they're gonna lose votes.
But if we switch to a popular vote, then those Democratic individuals who move to rural Republican areas will still vote Democrat, and they will maintain the majority.
I think that's one of the big plays they're looking at.
But they should absolutely consider There could be a massive proportion of sleeping Republican voters.
According to Gallup, the United States is a center-right country.
I wonder where all of these people are, then.
You've got around 35% Republican, or I should say conservative, 35 or so percent moderate, and only around 24% liberal.
Is my math right?
Yeah, okay, I think my math's right.
I don't have the graph pulled up, but the numbers were something like that.
And so the liberals end up getting a lot of power because of these big cities dominating the states and then getting all the electoral votes.
Think about this.
In a state like California, you do have, I believe, around 30 or so percent of the people being conservative.
But the entire state gives all of their electoral votes to the Democrat, even though some of those electors are coming from districts that are completely Republican.
They're Republican rural districts, they have a representative, and because of the entire state going blue, that Republican district votes for the Democrat.
How many people then... You know, I'm sure someone could actually look up the data.
How many people then would actually end up coming out and voting Republican, and could the popular vote swing in favor of the Republican?
I don't know, but I will say, if it becomes, as I stated earlier, if it becomes a normal thing where people just decide because... Actually, let me read this so I can lay it out for you.
They say this.
In all, there were 10 faithless electors in 2016, including a fourth in Washington, a Democratic elector in Hawaii, and two Republican electors in Texas.
In addition, Democratic electors who said they would not vote for Clinton were replaced in Maine and Minnesota.
In asking the Supreme Court to rule that states can require electors to vote for the state winner, Colorado urged the justices to decide the case in the next few months, not in the heat of a close presidential election.
They literally are going to be doing this.
This is nuts.
But I guess, I don't know when you do it, the election cycle is getting bigger and bigger.
Colorado officials welcomed the court's intervention.
Unelected and unaccountable presidential electors should not be allowed to decide the presidential election without regard to voters' choices in state law.
The three Washington electors, while contending they should be free to vote their conscience, also said the court should avoid the dangerous possibility of having to resolve the issue following the 2020 vote.
We are glad the Supreme Court has recognized the paramount importance of clearly determining the rules of the road for presidential electors for the upcoming election and all future elections, Lawrence Lessig, the lawyer for the electors, said.
So I think that's the gist of the story.
So this talks about one court case.
We actually have this one from NPR.
They're going to be hearing two cases challenging attempts to penalize electoral college delegates who fail to vote for the presidential candidate they were pledged to support.
Look, man, I wouldn't consider myself a constitutional expert or anything like that.
My opinions on how the Electoral College works are just that, they're mine.
But I kind of think electors should absolutely vote as their states determine.
I think another big factor here is how states operate when they don't play win or take all, okay?
I don't know the exact number, but I think it's 30.
They're win or take all, right?
Some of them actually split their delegates based on what you win.
And that's more of a popular vote style system.
But think about how many electoral college votes California would give to Republicans and how many Texas would give to Democrats if they didn't use a winner-take-all.
This is the other question I have when it comes to the ruling here.
If they say That you have to vote based on the popular vote of the state.
Doesn't that mean that every state will become winner-take-all?
I mean, if that's the case, I think what we'll end up seeing is a huge landslide for Donald Trump.
I could be wrong, whatever, I don't know.
But if they vote, if they vote right now, that electors can vote for whoever they want, wouldn't that effectively make every state not winner-take-all?
Meaning that it'll become proportional?
Which would be kind of a halfway point to a popular vote.
Honestly, I have no idea, man.
But I firmly believe that the Republicans in the end will benefit the most by getting rid of the Electoral College.
Because I think Democrats underestimate how many Republicans don't vote in major urban cities and districts.
That number would be massively bolstered.
But I don't know.
It's absolutely hard to predict.
So I'll put it this way, too.
There's probably a lot of Democrats who don't vote.
They're like, my state's blue, it's always gonna be blue, what's the point of voting?
So they don't vote either.
Perhaps, if we got rid of the Electoral College system, we can't predict who would win or who would lose.
But I do think it's fair to say, none of that really matters.
What matters is, the Electoral College exists to make sure that small states are not bullied by the entire system.
You gotta understand, California was not always a very popular state.
Los Angeles was not always this major urban center.
California was once like Wyoming.
California was once Republican.
Democrats need to understand, you can have a state that eventually switches colors or becomes much more populous or less populous.
California is seeing tons of its residents leave.
I think it's one of the reasons they're desperately trying to encourage migrants to come to the state, why they declare themselves a sanctuary state, because they know if they lose population, they will lose proportional power In the Senate, in the House, in the Electoral College.
I think that's part of the game they're playing.
And I also think, as I stated earlier, getting rid of the Electoral College makes sure that those people who leave their states will always have the same weight of their vote.
You know, if a Democrat leaves California and moves to, you know, Idaho, like they are doing, It's possible Idaho turns blue, sure.
And if they play winner-take-all, that's really great for Democrats.
But it's also more likely that those individual votes lose their weight because the state will remain red.
If that's the case, Democrats are in for a very serious problem in the future.
But I will end with one more little tidbit.
Maybe none of this matters.
Maybe none of this matters.
Based on the video I did yesterday on my main channel, youtube.com slash TimCast, if you've not followed, I did a segment.
It's titled, Democrats are in panic mode over Trump's black support.
Three polls that are considered highly credible.
Marist, Rasmussen, and what's the third one?
Emerson.
Now Rasmussen isn't considered to be the most credible but they are I think 78% accurate according to FiveThirtyEight.
But Emerson and Marist, Emerson I believe is 81% and Marist is 84%.
They say Trump's support in the black community is at 30%.
Now, a Washington Post Ipsos poll says 83% of black Americans think Trump is racist.
We'll see who's right, but I think we've got more data suggesting Trump's support in the black community is exploding.
And I think when you consider... I might be rehashing this, but I really want to get this in this segment to make a point.
For those that already watched yesterday's segment, with people like Kanye West, Candace Owens, Diamond and Silk, I really do think it's fair to point out that Trump really has garnered a lot of high-profile support from the black community.
30%?
I don't know.
But the Electoral College may not matter at all.
Because the rule in politics, as it's been stated, you know, Wall Street Journal said it, is that if the Republican can get at least 20% of the black vote, a Democrat will never win again.
Unless they can win back that support.
If that's true, None of this matters.
Well, it matters a little bit.
If Trump's support in the black community really gets that high, Republicans are going to dominate for a long time.
So let me tell you this.
With the economy being as good as it is, with the woke far-left fringe ideology infecting the Democrats, the Democrats going to war with each other, rigging the game against Bernie Sanders, everybody basically hates CNN.
I'll tell you this right now.
I think we are going to see for a million and one reasons a Republican supermajority.
Now hold on!
I said the same thing in 2018 before the midterms and boy was I wrong!
So look, I'm not a psychic.
I'm not here to predict things.
Basically what I do every day is I give you my thoughts and feelings on current news and try and rope these into other contextual matters that make sense.
And I'm just telling you how I feel about it.
It's the best I can do.
Right now.
And I could be wrong.
I think based on the economy, based on how impeachment has played out, based on the fringe far-left ideology, which most people do not agree with, the war on the Democrats, I think Trump's base comes out.
I think more members of the black community, black voters, come out than people would expect.
I think the Republicans sweep across the board.
I think we're going to see House, Senate, Supreme Court, Executive Branch, super Republican.
But I'll tell you this.
Supermajority?
Okay, maybe, maybe not.
Supermajority would imply, you know, the Senate sweeps to like, you know, 67 seats or something.
Okay, it's not gonna happen.
Plus, I don't think enough Senate seats are even up in 2020.
We'll see what happens.
The House?
Maybe.
If you're paying attention to what happened in the UK, I hope the left, the progressives, and the Democrats are paying attention.
Now they say, but Jeremy Corbyn was so unpopular and was leading his party to ruin, just like Trump is.
Nah, man.
It's right-wing populist.
Regular people are not playing this woke far-left game.
And I'll tell you this, I'll tell you one more thing and then I'll wrap this up.
The left in the UK and in the US, not like the general left, but this woke fringe left, yeah, they've got an anti-Semitism problem.
So let me wrap this together.
If the electors decide to vote for whoever they want, we're running the risk of rogue electors that just break the system.
If they vote for whoever they want, then truly the popular vote is meaningless.
But right now, the system is mixed.
It is not a group of appointed elites like lords who choose the president.
They are supposed to represent the will of the people.
What that means is the popular vote per state does matter, but the federal government weighs each state differently to protect minority rights.
Pay attention in school, y'all.
This stuff's very important.
I'll leave it there.
We will see what happens, but stick around.
Next segment is coming up at 1 p.m., and I will see you all then.
A leftist, anti-Trump activist journalist named David Levitt He called the police on a Target employee for not selling him a one-cent toothbrush.
And I believe he fundamentally misunderstands what the display price is supposed to mean.
But he's arguing that under Massachusetts law, if they display a price, they must sell it for this much.
And this poor young Target manager, he blasts her picture out.
And they've started to go fund me for this Target employee, and they've raised over $15,000.
Now, I'm gonna read you these guys' tweets.
This may be the biggest ratio I have ever seen in terms of outrage on Twitter.
It's got 22,000.
Replies.
And only 908 retweets.
I don't know why anybody would directly retweet this, but I think a lot of that actually may be quote tweets.
I think quote tweets are counted towards retweeting.
But I also gotta point out too, this guy David Levitt is a notorious troll.
He posts inflammatory things to get people angry.
It's what he does.
It's his shtick.
I almost don't even believe he's anti-Trump, and maybe it's black propaganda.
I don't know.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
This guy just might be, like, a bad guy, okay?
But for those that aren't familiar with black propaganda, it's basically a form of propaganda where you pretend to be your enemy, so you make them look bad.
It's possible.
I doubt it, though.
Also, can I point out, this guy tweets all the time about Magic the Gathering.
I am extremely triggered and offended by this because I love Magic the Gathering, and this guy is a bad dude, giving Magic the Gathering a bad name.
So if it is black propaganda, here we have this activist, lefty, anti-Trump journalist, not only making the left look bad, but he's making Magic the Gathering players look bad.
Yo, what's your beef, dude?
Or he's just a Magic the Gathering player anti-Trump guy and he's a bad guy.
Check this out.
He says this.
This target manager, Tori, is not honoring the price of their items per Massachusetts law.
And then he posts this picture right here, and it's an Oral-B Pro 5000.
I guess he really wants his vibrating toothbrush.
And you can see it says display, one cent.
He then posts this picture of, like, this target employee who clearly is just not having it.
I mean, I'm not trying to be mean, Tori, but she is just, like, You know, she's like eye-rolling, like, oh man, so out of it.
And then he posts this image from Massachusetts government website.
You can also see that his battery is really low.
Charge your battery, dude.
And basically the law says, technically he's correct.
The law says, if they price an item, they must sell it for such.
It says, the pricing law requires food and grocery stores to individually price mark most items at the actual selling price.
The law also requires food and grocery merchants to sell any item at the lowest price indicated on an item, sign, or advertisement.
He's wrong!
First of all, I'll come back to why he's wrong and why I think he's full of it.
But check this out.
He actually calls the cops.
He says, I just had to call the police because Target refused to sell me the toothbrush.
I did not call 911.
I called the business number for the police and told them it was not an emergency and they could take their time and explain the situation.
The police verified.
Target displayed the price of the toothbrush for one cent.
The store manager, Tory, refused to sell me the toothbrush for the displayed price.
The police said I need to sue them and that they are making me a verified report To take to court.
And then he actually includes, I think this was the Better Business Bureau?
Yes.
The Better Business Bureau Boston.
Which is not a government organization.
It's like Yelp before the internet.
That's my understanding.
And he tags Target.
He says, Corporations like Target are not above the law.
The police officer told me they'd testify they saw the price, that the manager wouldn't sell me the item for the price listed.
I almost don't believe it.
I gotta say, I don't believe it.
Could you imagine?
Look, man.
I don't know about Boston.
I've called the police before for more serious matters than this.
Like, I've actually gotten... Someone, like, hit me once and the cops were like, you're fine.
You're fine.
Ignore it.
Like, I really doubt a cop's gonna show up and be like, really?
They wouldn't sell you this clearly mislabeled product?
And I'll get to why he's wrong right after this.
Let me read his last tweet.
I do not believe this guy is telling the truth.
He says, corporations like Target are not above the law.
I said they testify.
I have not been able to afford to go to a dentist in over three years.
So yes, I wanted a good toothbrush and was thrilled to see such an amazing prize on an Oral-B, but Target refused to honor it, and now I have to take them to court.
First shout-out to Lauren Chen.
She says, delete this, you absolute psychopath.
I agree.
The right-headed libertarian.
Tory was gonna lose her job if she sold it to you and lose her job if she didn't.
At least you gave her a good public shaming on her way out.
Everybody clap for David.
I have done a couple videos in the past few days about how they say cancel culture is not a real thing.
They cherry-pick these celebrities who have come out after waves of cancel culture has already been like denounced.
After cancel culture things have already happened.
These weird moments.
People like Dave Chappelle, who can't be cancelled because they don't care.
Ricky Gervais, Joe Rogan.
And they say, see, there's no cancel culture.
And they ignore store managers like Tory, who's like, dude, I'm not going to sell you a one-cent toothbrush.
Not only that, the dude's completely wrong.
Check this out.
Yes, it is listed at one cent.
The display is listed as one cent.
Okay, he could have grabbed the display item and said, I want this fake hollow plastic model.
And yes, they'd give you the one-cent model.
I do not believe it's actually listing the real toothbrush.
It says display.
You can see it right there.
There's the display.
For some reason, it's listed as a penny.
You can have it.
So this dude's completely wrong, and I'm willing to bet he goes to this poor Target employee, Tori, and he's like, I demand it for one penny!
And she's like, it's not a penny.
Well, I got a picture, and she's probably like, yeah, that's the display, dude.
And he was like, no, I refuse.
He actually claims to have called the police.
Man, you gotta be truly nuts.
So yeah, I mean, Tory can't sell it for a penny.
Michael Tracy chimes in.
So you decided to publicly shame a random target worker because you're mad about a toothbrush.
First of all, must stress, this dude is a troll, man.
I think he's just lying.
I think he's just making up an absurd story because he knew it would get videos like this and get traction.
And I begrudgingly do this video, okay?
I know...
Look, I don't want to give the guy more attention.
You know, he's trying to get attention, but I'll tell you this, man.
This stuff works.
This guy's verified.
He's got like 200,000 followers because he does things like this.
He once mocked the victims of the Ariana Grande, you know, bombing.
He mocked them, okay?
And he got dragged for it, and he's carried on doing these really offensive things because he gets ratioed, because everybody wants to share how vile he is.
And here's the thing.
I know he's trying to do it.
And I know that I may be contributing to his gaining of notoriety off of his intended manipulation.
But people like Tory really could lose their job off of a guy doing this.
A guy who's got 200,000 followers.
Now, I think Target's not gonna fire her.
They're gonna be like, good job not selling a, you know, $100 toothbrush set for a penny, I guess?
Or they might bend over to pressure, but I don't think anyone's really gonna pressure Target over this.
Left and right seem to be pretty much in agreement.
So we have Joey Salad said, literally in my face right now while reading this tweet.
And you can see like, Tori's face is very much just like, I don't know, deal with this guy, right?
So there's a few things I do want to highlight.
First of all, check this out.
Somebody pulled up an old tweet where he said, you are winning when you get the dentist office waiting room to turn off Fox News.
Underneath it, I couldn't go to the dentist in three years.
This tweet's from two years ago.
So maybe the guy's exaggerating, whatever.
But Carpe dunked him!
That's the archive.
So Joey Salad said he was gonna offer to pay her lawyer expenses to sue the guy.
I don't actually know if she can sue him.
But Carpe dunked him!
To the rescue.
Many of you may know Carpe.
He is the, uh, one of the, he's basically THE memesmith for, like, Trump memes.
He said, I've started to go fund me to send Tori on a vacation.
Anyone that has to deal with this twerp definitely deserves it.
I'll start with a $50 donation.
He says, hey Target, would you be able to help us get in contact with this employer, with this employee?
I want to respect her privacy, but we have already raised more than $200 for her, and we will need to contact her to send her on vacation.
He then goes on to say that public response to the harassment of your employee has been overwhelming.
We have raised $750 so far.
Guess what?
Nah.
Let me refresh it.
$15,810.
$16,125.
Could you imagine being this Target employee and some guy, you have no idea who this guy is, starts trying to buy a $100 toothbrush for a penny.
I'm assuming it's $100.
I don't know.
Maybe it's not.
Maybe it's more.
And you're just like, oh, I can't believe I've got to deal with this.
It takes a picture of your face, tweets it out, and then a bunch of random people are like, we just raised $16,000 for you.
Now, here's the thing.
This dude, David, whether he's really whatever he is, I don't know, anti-Trump, he tweets about a bunch of stuff all the time.
Why does he gotta tweet about Magic the Gathering, man?
Come on.
But he tweets all of this anti-Trump stuff, all this pro-Democrat stuff, and although I've said several times that it's probably him trolling, I mean, I think a lot of people are gonna believe.
He's probably just a cancel culture leftist.
Look at this guy, dude.
He's got 212,000 followers.
And my understanding is they're fairly legit followers.
He's not some guy who, like, he bought them.
He gets a decent amount of retweets on a lot of his posts.
He gets ratioed on a lot of his posts.
He retweets Hillary Clinton.
He rags on Trump, promotes Bernie Sanders and stuff like that.
Retweets Mark Hamill.
I think a lot of people are just going to say clearly this dude represents what the woke left cancel culture people are really about.
I don't understand why he actually has followers, but I can zoom up and actually see the followers we share.
They're actually kind of, you know, right-leaning individuals, so I don't know if this dude's... Oh, never mind.
Anna Kasparian from the Young Turks follows this guy.
Look, man, call it a joke, call it a game, call it whatever you want, but the dude is actually playing this game.
He's actually going to get people fired.
And whether or not you want to call him real or not, he's the perfect example of exactly who these people are.
And I throw it back to what happened with Vince Vaughn, all right?
Do you guys see the thing Vince Vaughn was shaking hands with Donald Trump?
And then a bunch of tweets came out like, oh no, oh, what was me?
And we see two things at the same time.
The left simultaneously claiming, there is no cancel culture, no one really cares about Vince Vaughn shaking hands with Donald Trump.
Washington Post writes about it saying, this is how Fox News plays the game.
You know, some nerdy Washington Post guy.
At the same time, there were several tweets from people saying, oh no, Vince Vaughn is cancelled and stuff like that.
So, look.
For some reason, you have these people on Twitter who pretend to be outraged, they fake the whole thing.
Whether this guy is literally, you know, angry at this woman doesn't matter, because the people who are calling out Vince Vaughn clearly didn't know he's been a conservative his, like, whole life, basically.
Like, I posted the photo, there's an article of him with Ron Paul, and, like, praising Mitt Romney.
Anybody who's actually followed the guy, who's actually a fan of his, would know he's a Hollywood conservative, which is rare, and people have written articles about it.
So all of these people are going on Twitter and acting like they're outraged, just like this guy does.
Okay, so I can call him a troll.
Look at this one, his pinned tweet.
Retweet if you belong to the 1% of Americans who has never seen an episode of Keeping Up with the Kardashians.
We gotta stick together in trying these times.
I know that's not political and irrelevant to the segment, but I'm saying that because he's got legitimate followers.
He tweets his outrage, his follower count goes up.
None of these people who engage in this cancel culture stuff actually care about any of it.
I mean, a few of them probably do, but that's the main point.
Yes, I think this guy's faking, I think he's lying, but then I look at the people who are ragging on Vince Vaughn or Ricky Gervais, and I think they're just saying whatever the crowd says because they want to get retweets and gain followers, and it works for the guy.
He's just the most blatant example, right?
So we look at his Twitter account, we can see he's got 22,000 replies on his stupid tweet targeting this poor young woman.
It worked.
Here I am talking about it.
That's the game they play.
They don't actually have an ideology.
They don't actually support or post Trump.
They're saying shocking things to get retweets.
And he's actually pretty good at it.
This is what's really funny to me.
Is that this guy is, it's so obvious what he's doing.
But it still works.
You know, you can look at some of these other woke, progressive types.
Like the Vince Vaughn is the perfect example.
The people who are, like, shocked.
Even though Vince Vaughn's been a conservative forever, they're shocked.
One woman tweeted something like, I used to have a big crush on him, now I don't.
It's like, did you ever actually know anything about the guy?
No.
They're just saying whatever it takes to get those likes and retweets.
So...
I don't know.
You get the point.
Let's see if people can find Tori because she's got $16,000 waiting for her.
That's gonna be great.
She's probably making, you know, like 10 or 11 bucks an hour.
Well, she's in Boston, so she's probably getting like $13 an hour over at Target.
Now she's gonna basically get like half a year covered, but whatever, man.
If you know her, I guess, and you want to help her get that money, you know, Carpe Donctum is organizing this.
I don't know if you guys know this poor young woman who was blasted in the limelight, really is.
But, um, I don't know, whatever, man.
You get the point.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
at youtube.com slash timcast, and I will see you all there.
The story from the independent Trump administration mocked for launching woodland camouflage Space Force uniform.
How stupid does Trump have to be?
He's so dumb.
Look at this.
Look at this image from the United States Space Force Twitter account.
Can you believe it?
How stupid they were to make jungle camouflage for outer space?
I mean, think about it.
Now when our space soldiers are drifting around without spacesuits in outer space, fighting other space soldiers from other countries, they'll be able to just see them so easily!
They're gonna be drifting in space, and the Chinese space soldier, who's got his laser gun, is gonna look and say, hey look, that guy's green!
And they're gonna- and- and- how crazy does Trump have to be?
No, let's- let's be real for a second.
Oh my god.
The left is so stupid on this matter at least.
Okay, fine.
I don't want to say the entire left, but oh man, this is one of the most brain-breaking, mind-numbing, idiotic things I have ever seen.
On your screen right now is an image of someone wearing a Space Force uniform.
Yeah, it looks like jungle or forest terrain camouflage.
Yeah.
Now, some people, many of you may be thinking, but wouldn't it be space-style camouflage?
Now, for those of you that are honestly thinking that, I'm not trying to be mean to stupid people.
I'm not trying to call you stupid, but I'm not trying to be mean.
Listen, do people in the, is the Air Force uniform blue with white puffs on it?
No, the Air Force wears camouflage too, you know why?
Because the Air Force isn't in the air, it's on the ground!
I know many people say, yep, the Navy wears blue and they're in the ocean.
They actually got rid of that.
That's my understanding.
They got rid of it.
I want to spend this segment showing you just how dumb people are.
Because you know what, man?
This is a really great example of what's wrong with politics.
All of these people, even Smash Mouth, right?
The band Smash Mouth tweets.
unidentified
Shouldn't space- shouldn't they be having, like, space camouflage?
Because the US soldiers are going to be adrift in space with no space suit, and they're gonna be fighting other space soldiers, and they're all gonna have spacey kind of- What?!
What do they think the Space Force is?
They think these people wouldn't be wearing spacesuits, they'd be adrift in space?
Like, could you imagine a shuttle launching full of Space Force soldiers, and they're like, Here's what we're doing.
We're deploying you in U-ships to the shores of space, and then all the soldiers get ejected, wearing this camouflage, and then just immediately suffocate.
Is that what they think?
Listen, even if they were going to be in space, Who cares what their outer uniform is?
They have to put on a space suit!
What's wrong with people?
More importantly, Space Command is doing, like, space technology ground support.
So there's so many funny tweets.
Let me read you this story.
And then I just want to tear some people up, you know what I mean?
I try not to be mean, but...
The Independent writes, the Trump administration has been roundly mocked after launching an official Woodland Camouflage Space Force uniform.
Critics questioned why there was a need for the camouflage pattern in space and drew attention to the fact that there are no trees to blend in with outside of planet Earth.
And there's, why would the Air Force have green camouflage?
Are they trying to blend in with trees in the sky?
What is, do you know how many pilots there are relative to like the full force, like the full Air Force?
Most people in the Air Force are not pilots, and they aren't floating around in the sky shooting at each other.
Okay, listen.
You know why we have camouflage?
In combat, it's hard to see you.
You know what I mean?
So it's cheaper to make the uniforms essentially Earth-terrain combat-ready.
Everybody kind of wears it.
Could you imagine somebody... So people keep posting these images of like... Actually, maybe I can pull some up.
Do I have the... Check this out.
So, look at all these tweets.
Let me see if I can find one.
One of the most viral is from Aaron Rupar.
He says, Trump's Space Force troops wearing camo in space is perhaps the strongest evidence yet that idiocracy is a documentary.
Actually, he's wrong.
His tweet is perhaps the strongest evidence that idiocracy is a documentary.
Him literally thinking, look man, I don't know how to put this.
No one's going to be floating around in space wearing camo.
Why would you think that?
The first thing that is so insanely obvious here is that they just made the Space Force!
What do you think?
That as soon as they were like, we hereby are signing the legislation to create a Space Force, and look, we've already hired a seamstress to make a uniform.
That's not how it works!
First of all, no one's gonna appropriate funding for actual Space Force uniforms before the creation of the Space Force.
The Space Force just got created.
Now they have to do a ton of testing.
Figure out what works and why.
I'll tell you this.
People who actually go to space, they're probably just gonna wear a blue jumpsuit.
Think about this.
When you're on the ground in combat and you're wearing desert camo, it's because you're in combat, you don't want them to see you, right?
Do they think US Space Force soldiers will be drifting around in space camo fighting enemy troops?
Does Aaron think that Space Force troops will be wearing cloth uniforms in space?
Like, without a space suit?
Most will likely operate from Earth.
Are Air Force uniforms blue and white?
A bunch of people... Why are people so surprised Space Force will be using the same uniforms as any other branch of the Armed Forces?
Would they prefer we spend a couple of million dollars of taxpayer dollars on developing spandex uniforms that look like Star Trek or something?
Here's one.
U.S.
It'd be cool if everyone had affordable healthcare, so y'all can do that, please.
Them.
There's no money.
Sorry.
Also, we made a Space Force to fight aliens.
No!
I get it.
It's a joke.
Listen.
The budget for the Space Force... I don't know the full budget.
I believe it's an increase.
But we're actually moving people from the Air Force to the Space Force.
Because the Air Force was the one controlling our space apparatus.
We're now gonna create a dedicated Space Force.
I'm actually excited for that.
Because, you know, moving forward, the Space Force can become something much cooler.
Kyle Cassidy asks, shouldn't Space Force camo be black and white with little stars on it?
Now, I think this is fair.
He's asking a simple question.
Kyle, let me tell you, no.
First, it is cheaper to just use the uniforms we already have for most people who are going to be on Earth operating in the Space Force.
More importantly, if they're doing satellite support or other communication support with space technology, they may actually find themselves in similar combat zones.
So if someone, say, in, like, Iraq, and they're doing satellite support in the Space Force, they're not going to be wearing little space uniforms.
Could you imagine that?
Like, I'm thinking about all the people who are posting these images of, like, shirts with galaxies on them and stuff.
I want to see a picture of, like, in the middle of the desert, and it's like, can you find the American Space Force soldiers?
And it's just, like, dead bodies wearing galaxy spandex, and, like, you can just see them.
These people... I'm sorry, dude.
I'm gonna say it again, I know.
But just think about how hilarious it is that when they heard of the Space Force, the first thing that came to their mind is American soldiers drifting around in space, fighting other people drifting around in space.
First of all, if you've watched any sci-fi show, we don't have people People floating around in space, nor in the sky!
I mean, to a extent we do in the water.
We've got like, you know, people who actually, you know, go scuba diving and harpoons and stuff.
We have paratroopers.
But paratroopers don't wear blue with white puffs on them!
I'm just imagining how hilarious it would be if, like, you know, we go to war with Russia or something, and then there's, like, the Great Space Battle, where it's literally just a bunch of dudes with, like, a helmet on, with air in it, and they're wearing cloth galaxy-colored uniforms, like, galaxy-patterned uniforms, and they're shooting at each other, but every time they fire their gun, they flip around like crazy and spin in random directions, because... you're in space.
That's the first thing they thought of?
Like you're... They thought the people would be in space.
They have the Klingons and the Romulans have cloaking technology.
And part of like a peace agreement between the Klingons and the Federation is the Federation can't do cloaking.
Just stop making your ships bright, sparkly lights with white all over them.
They actually did this in one of the movies, where they actually had one of the star- the Federation ships was just like a big black ship.
So you can't really see it moving around in space.
I don't know.
Look at this.
This guy says, people are mocking Pentagon's new camo Space Force uniforms as if the Battle of Endor never happened.
They seriously don't understand anything with the military.
They don't get how any of it works.
They assume that we're going to spend a billion dollars on uniform designs and uniforms right after the whole thing was launched.
It's just, you know what, man?
Julio Rosas says, Aaron here is demonstrating how despite describing himself as a journalist, he did zero research into why the Space Force has the current uniform.
It also shows he did zero research on how long it takes the DoD to design, test, and approve new uniforms.
Hint, a hot minute.
But I got a few stories, check this out.
The Navy says goodbye to the blueberry camouflage uniform.
This is from StarsAndStripes.com, and this was back in September.
I see a lot of people mocking the Navy for having blue camo because when you fall in the water, how are they going to find you?
And you're all in ships for the most part.
So they actually got rid of it!
They're going to be wearing green!
In the water!
Okay?
You know what?
These people don't understand that uniforms aren't necessarily about being in combat.
It's just a cheaper way to make uniforms.
Now, the Air Force, the Army, they have dress uniforms, too.
But they all wear this because it's just cheaper!
Like, I don't understand, like... You know, when I saw this, it was really, really mind-blowing.
Look at this.
Smash Mouth.
So why are the Space Force uniforms camouflage?
Shouldn't they be black with white dots?
Let's see what people are posting about Space Force for images.
Oh, here's one with cats on it.
Oh, wait, wait, here's a funny one.
Are people making the, whatever.
So, there was a lot of people posting things, I guess, okay, here we go.
They're mocking it, saying that people should be wearing, like, I don't know.
Whatever, man.
This whole thing is making me sad.
I'm kinda just losing it.
Yeah.
That's about it.
I'm gonna leave you with one final thought.
I want you to imagine right now.
A bunch of people drifting around randomly in space.
They can't control their motion.
They're just drifting, you know, just slowly drifting.
And they have little American flag patches.
And they're wearing spandex that looks like galaxy patterns.
And they're just floating in space.
Because apparently the plan for the U.S.
Space Force is to load up a bunch of people in Space Force camo that looks like outer space and just eject them into the vacuum of space and let them sort it out for themselves.
You know what, man?
These people are arguing for policy positions, and this is how they react?
As George Carlin said, think about how stupid the average person is.
Now realize half of them are stupider than that.
I'll see you all in the next segment coming up in a few minutes.
Apu is officially gone!
I mean, technically the Simpsons might still use the character, but Hank Azaria, the voice actor, has announced he will no longer voice Apu on The Simpsons after 30 years, but will continue to voice various other characters.
The Apu Controversy The Fakest of Fake Controversies has been going on for a really long time, and there was a point where Simpsons was like, maybe gonna get rid of Appu, and they finally did.
For those that aren't familiar with the story, basically the intersectional left is outraged and wants to cancel Appu, because they think it's, I guess, racist, to show a convenience store owner being Indian.
You know what's really funny about this?
Did you know that there's actually a decent proportion of Indians who run convenience stores?
And they were making a joke?
Jokes are meant to be funny.
It's a stereotype.
It's like a 7-Eleven, you know, where the guy who runs it is Indian.
There are a lot of people from different countries who are, they market different franchises to them, and so what if they run those businesses?
Apu was a very successful businessman, and he was smarter and harder working than Homer, but they don't want that.
Some other people, you know, made a, like, said, why don't we make it up so Apu is, like, I don't know, he ends up owning Quickie Mart Franchise Corporation or some other stupid nonsense, dude.
Let me tell you exactly why this is a fake controversy.
I will come back to this, we'll read this in a second, but I want to point this out.
The New York Times, August 27th, 2009.
Spinning off into uncharted cartoon territory.
Mike Henry, with models of some of the characters he voices on Family Guy below.
Including, dun-dun-dun, wait for it, Cleveland Brown.
That's right!
Mike Henry, a white male, voices a black man on The Cleveland Show.
And guess what?
Nobody cares.
You know why?
The Apu controversy is fake news!
No one really cares about Apu.
They're just bored bullies who want to knock things around and prove to the world they can make a difference or something.
It is a mindless hive that just wants to destroy things.
I don't see them going after The Cleveland Show.
Granted, it got cancelled already, but it still airs.
Nobody complained that right now on Family Guy, a white dude voices a black dude.
But get a white dude to voice an Indian guy and oh, the whole world's gonna end.
The Daily Mail reports after 30 years, Hank Azaria will no longer voice Indian immigrant and Kwik-E-Mart owner Apu on The Simpsons.
The 55-year-old actor told Slash Films the news on Friday, though he will continue to voice other characters.
In recent years, the character Apu has come under fire for perpetuating racial stereotypes, and Azaria has openly expressed willingness to step aside.
Now, I'll stop.
That's fair.
I'm gonna be fair, okay?
Cleveland Brown was not a stereotypical black... Well, no, no, no.
Hold on.
I think that's not true.
They make jokes about Cleveland being black all the time.
They did one joke in Simpsons where Cleveland Brown has a subscription to Grape Soda monthly and then he, like, offers it to a judge.
The judge is black and the judge also says, I already have a subscription or something like that.
So they make stereotypical and racial jokes in The Simpsons.
I'm sorry, on Family Guy.
Family Guy makes a ton of jokes about Jews all the time.
So does South Park.
Fake controversy.
What about on South Park?
When Cartman, even to this day in the show, rags on Kyle for being a Jew.
They say, in the actor's statement, it was unclear as to what the fate of the character might be, and if the role would be recast or written out.
All we know there is, I won't be doing the voice anymore unless there's some way to transition it or something.
We all made the decision together.
We all agreed on it.
We all feel like it's the right thing to do and good about it.
What they're going to do with the character is their call.
It's up to them.
And they haven't sorted it out yet.
All we've agreed on is I won't do the voice anymore.
Azaria first debuted as a character during Season 1 in 1990.
Despite the character's South Asian ethnicity, Azaria comes from a Sephardic Jewish family and himself described the accent he gave Appu as stereotypical.
Accusations against the show of perpetuating stereotypes heightened in 2017 with the release of the documentary, The Problem with Appu.
The problem with Appu is that he's a stereotype that someone noticed a pattern and made a joke about.
So when people were making fun of the idea of an Indian person being a shopkeeper, the Simpsons didn't invent the idea.
The idea was a joke about something that people already thought.
Hence, it's a joke.
It's mocking the idea.
What is wrong with people, you know?
They don't know what jokes are.
Apparently in this documentary, it's like this guy said that when he was growing up Indian, people would make fun of him.
It's like...
Yes, you will get made fun of no matter what.
This is the weirdest thing to me, right?
Everyone gets mocked or made fun of for something.
If you have freckles, you get made fun of for having freckles.
Redheads sometimes get made fun of for being redheads or whatever.
Or ginger kids, I should say.
So, actually, I'm just kind of poking ginger kids.
Anyway, the point is, everybody gets made fun of for something.
Maybe you got scraggly hair.
Maybe you got crooked teeth.
Maybe you're fat.
Maybe you're skinny.
Maybe you're weak.
Whatever!
Someone's gonna find a reason to make fun of you.
So here's the thing...
I don't like racism.
I don't like the idea that someone would make fun of you based on a certain characteristic.
I also recognize kids are going to make fun of each other no matter what.
So for me, it's kind of like, you know, when I was growing up, and my friends would make racial stereotype jokes about me, it didn't feel any different to them making fun of literally anything else.
You know what I mean?
Like, if we called one kid fat, and everyone laughed at him, and then they called me, like, you know, good at math Asian or something, or, you know, certain words I can't say on YouTube.
Whatever.
Everybody made fun of everybody else.
So what was the difference?
It was like, why would that affect me?
Okay?
Like, you call this dude names all day and night.
You call me something based on a stereotype.
It's the same making fun of, you know what I mean?
Should I be, like, more or less offended?
Well, I guess now, apparently, like, you can't criticize anybody for any reason.
Not that I think, you know, I actually think it's absolutely wrong to criticize someone for immutable characteristics, but now I mean, like, even the fatphobic thing.
It's like, if someone's overweight, you can't say anything because it's fatphobic or whatever, and there's thin privilege and stuff.
What I love about the fatphobia stuff, I don't know why I'm getting into this with a picture of The Simpsons on the screen.
Anyway, the point is, if it makes sense, The fat phobia thing is funny because like you can just, you know, like exercise and stop eating, you know, I don't know, sugar and ice cream and stuff.
I remember this one time I went out to eat with a bunch of my friends and we're all like moderately skinny.
Admittedly, I've put on a few pounds.
I haven't skated as much as I'd like to, but that'll change soon.
But I remember this one chick who came out with us was like morbidly obese and when we ordered a plate of fries for the table to share, she was shoveling them in her mouth like crazy, you know?
And I'm sitting there like, you know, each of us just takes like one fry and dips in some ketchup and then like, you know, eats, like takes a bite and then holds it for a second.
We're talking.
The fries were kind of just like, so we weren't sitting in the restaurant doing nothing, but this one chick's grabbing handfuls.
And then like, yeah, in like five minutes, the fries were just literally gone because the whole bowl got eaten by, and I'm thinking to myself like, look man, if you want to be fat, it's fine.
But, you know, you could just not eat the fries like that.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make, if you've realized it, is that these people complain about being made fun of when they were kids.
It's like, do you realize no matter what you could have done, you'd be made fun of for something?
Look, I think it's wrong to make fun of people based on their race.
I get it.
But it's also kind of like, is the kid now going to do a documentary?
Is someone going to do a documentary called, like, The Problem with Freckles?
And they're going to be like, I was bullied for having freckles.
Like, people were mean to me.
It's like, grow up.
Seriously, grow up.
As somebody who grew up and has been called racial slurs and made fun of, you know, for my family, grow up.
I realize something.
As an age-old adage told by some of the wisest people on the planet, passed down from generation to generation, written in ancient text, it goes something like this.
Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
Grow up!
It's no surprise that people who are outraged by this think words are violence.
I think that's it, right?
Oh, there's more.
I say, the doc's writer, Hari Khandobolu, told BBC, Apu's funny, but that doesn't mean this representation is accurate or right or righteous.
It gets to the insidiousness of racism, though, because you don't even notice it when it's right in front of you.
Zaria expressed on Late Show with Stephen Colbert that he was perfectly willing to step aside as he worried about doing harm by reinforcing stereotypes.
While creator Matt Groening brushed off concerns of the poo in 2018 and told USA Today, I think it's a time in our culture where people love to pretend they're offended.
Bravo, good sir!
Matt Groening nailed it.
Because I want to come back to this one.
I'm going to wrap it up here.
Spinning off into uncharted cartoon territory.
2009.
Cleveland Brown.
Family Guy is racist.
It's anti-semitic.
Homophobic.
You name it!
But it's not really any of those things.
They're jokes.
They're not meant to cause harm.
They're meant to mock an idea and kind of break it down.
It's weird that the left and the right kind of view comedy in different ways, you know?
The left kind of views comedy as you are gaining... I think the left views jokes as schadenfreude.
Like, when you joke about something, they see it as you taking pleasure in someone else's suffering.
Whereas the right-wing view and the correct view, I guess... I say right-wing, but I don't know, it's like the main culture word.
The correct view is that jokes actually Take the power away from ideas by making them silly.
I refer you to...
A boggart from Harry Potter.
Now, J.K.
Rowling is cancelled.
Whatever.
But this idea certainly has existed before, that something evil and scary, like a boggart... If you don't know what that is, basically, in Harry Potter, there's this shape-shifting monster, and whenever it emerges, it becomes your worst fear.
And to defeat it, you think of the silliest thing possible, say the spell, and it turns into something silly.
Okay?
That's the idea.
When you mock it, it loses its power.
So when someone says something like, you know, oh, they're a shopkeeper, and you'll be like, that's just a joke, dude, that's not real.
Like, if someone seriously said, oh, isn't it funny how everyone does this, but like, you mean the joke from The Simpsons?
Look, I don't care if Mike Henry, a white dude, is voicing Cleveland Brown, and apparently no one else does either.
Are we gonna have this big moment where it's like, Cleveland Brown pushed stereotypes about me?
Nobody cared.
So why Apu?
No idea.
Stick around, I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Following up on my main channel segment about Bernie Sanders being, dare I say it, spineless, lacking the ability to stand up for himself, I want to focus on some electoral spending and how the news operates.
I think James O'Keefe, I don't want to say accidentally, I mean this is what he does, but he seriously exposed the bias and fracture in the media.
One of the tweets I highlighted at the end of my main segment over at youtube.com slash TimCast, James O'Keefe tweeted in response to Axios.
Axios tweeted a story saying that a viral video from right-wing Project Veritas about Bernie Sanders' field organizer underscores how splintered the partisan digital universe is, And how difficult it is to get the different slices of the electorate to pay attention to the same things.
It's actually not difficult at all, because conservatives do pay attention to both things.
Fact.
Conservatives know what Don Lemon is saying, and then they mock him when he says it.
The only way they'd be able to do that is if they watched!
So conservatives are watching news from both sources.
They're mocking CNN.
But the left, they're not.
They're getting their news from CNN, and they're ignoring right-wing sources.
Don't ask me why, but that's a fact.
So Axios does this story, and James O'Keefe says, it actually underscores the partisan nature of legacy media and its refusal to report news.
If a paid Republican Iowa State organizer was talking about killing people or putting those who disagree with a candidate in re-education camps, The below would not be your narrative.
And the journalist who exposed it would not be right-wing.
It's exactly right.
Somebody responded to Veritas' first release on Bernie Sanders saying that Veritas only targets the left.
If that were true, I thought this was funny, I'm like, so you're basically saying CNN and Washington Post and Facebook and Pinterest are all left-wing?
They're all liberal?
Yes.
Recognize it.
They view themselves as the default.
I think it was Andrew Breitbart who said that default liberals.
But here's what I want to point out.
Project Veritas had the biggest story last week.
They set the news cycle.
Where was CNN, Fox... Well, actually, no, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Fox News was on top of it.
Fox News actually reported this on multiple segments.
Where was CNN?
Where was MSNBC?
Where was ABC?
Where was CBS?
Nowhere to be seen.
Check this out.
Axios Reports.
A viral video from right-wing Veritas underscores a partisan yadda yadda.
They say it's a vivid lesson in what happens when a thriving conservative media ecosystem competes with the mainstream media by the numbers.
Of the 30 biggest stories about Sanders between Monday and Wednesday, seven were related to tensions between Sanders and Warren, resulting in 390,000 interactions on social media, according to Newswhip.
They say those were the days when the alleged comments were first reported.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it.
Plus the audio.
But 10 of the biggest stories were about the undercover video from Project Veritas, amounting to 426,000 interactions.
Why it matters.
The numbers highlight the divide between how much a story is covered in the media and how much of a groundswell is generated by readers online on stories that may not be visible to most of the country.
Why aren't they visible?
Well, it's because big media companies did not report it.
They say, on Tuesday, Veritas released video of an Iowa field organizer for Sanders making threatening comments.
Conservative media picked up the video, and it became the most engaged story about Sanders during this period.
The Daily Wire, Breitbart, The Washington Times, The Daily Caller were among the outlets that registered among the most interacted stories.
Now, I also covered the story.
And that's probably why they say, I thought about this for a long time, you know, clearly my opinions are not pro-Trump.
I obviously am not psychotic like many of the Trump derangement syndrome people.
I'm just, he's not my choice for president.
It's that simple.
I've lived through Republican presidents before and I shrug saying, well, you know, we gotta vote.
We've got to bring in, you know, better people.
We've got to change the system over time.
We've got to figure things out so that we can, you know... I say change the system as in, like, Supreme Court precedent and legislation, not to rig anything.
That's not, you know, in case anyone's thinking that.
What I literally mean is, if we want to implement changes, we have to vote for people, bring them in, reform things we don't like, pass laws to fix things, not screech, throw bricks, and scream about the Orange Man.
So I see Trump and I'm like, been there, done that, dude.
I'm gonna be 34 in like a month and a half.
I'm not gonna scream that I lost an election one time.
But what we see here is, if you are in the digital space, covering news like the digital space tends to prefer, focusing on stories that are important to most people, you must be right-wing.
Put it this way.
Yes, I covered the Veritas release.
I said it was bad news for Bernie Sanders.
That's not a political opinion.
Yet, it's the subject matter they deem to be conservative or liberal.
But here's what I want to do.
I want to talk about this.
Something really, really fascinating.
In line with this idea that Republicans dominate digital spaces.
Take a look at this story.
New figures show billionaire candidates spending big with little return.
It's really fascinating how much money Bloomberg is spending.
We'll come back to this.
But here's what's really important.
Trump's numbers.
Check this out.
How much Trump spent on ads.
They say, as of January 13th, Trump campaign and affiliated groups have spent more than $40 million on ads.
Much, much less than like Steyer and Bloomberg.
And all Democrats combined.
With most of the money allocated to digital ads.
See this big red... For those that are listening, basically, Broadcast is very small, followed by cable.
Digital dominates the overwhelming majority of Donald Trump's spend.
I wonder why that is.
Well, Facebook recently said Trump didn't cheat to win.
Said Trump ran a good campaign.
He knew how to use Facebook.
On Bill Maher, just the other day, he was talking with Andrew Yang, and they talked about how the left is failing when it comes to social media.
I now bring you back to the original numbers.
First of all, check this out.
How much can it spend on ads in New Hampshire?
No one's spending any money on digital.
It's all broadcast.
It's all broadcast.
This is nuts to me.
Look at this.
In Iowa, Steyer, 90% broadcast.
Buttigieg, broadcast.
Sanders, broadcast.
Yang, broadcast.
Even Yang, broadcast.
It is all broadcast.
Where's my digital money, man?
unidentified
I'm making this sweet, sweet digital political content.
But when you look at the overwhelming majority of campaigns, Gabbard was definitely digital.
So, thank you.
Thank you, Gabbard.
It is fair to say a lot of the spend for their campaigns is digital.
So let me clarify.
Warren is mostly digital.
Biden is a little bit more, a little bit majority.
Klobuchar is, Gabbard is, and Bennett is.
Patrick is cable TV.
Look at Bloomberg and Steyer and Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders.
Okay, actually, I take this back.
I think my perception of digital was actually just based on Bloomberg and Steyer, though I do think it is fair to say when you look at Trump's numbers, the Democrats spend way more on terrestrial than they do on digital, proportionately.
But also, look at Bloomberg.
This is an insane amount of money going towards broadcast TV, and so is Tom Steyer.
Buttigieg, Bernie Sanders, they all seem to be about 50-50, but still spending way more relative to their fundraising on TV than on digital.
So, well, I don't think, you know, I think everyone does have a certain focus on digital.
I'm actually glad that, you know, these Democrats are spending on digital.
Because that's my industry, right?
I'm not saying that I'm like, you know, give me that sweet Warren money.
But no, I run a business.
The amount of money I make based on the content I produce is dependent upon the auctions and the demand.
So, right now you've got limited supply.
I mean, you have a ridiculously large supply of content.
But the Democrats want to be on big shows and big channels, and so the more they spend on digital, the better it is for my business.
Bloomberg?
What are you doing?
Broadcast?
Well, I actually think it's probably smart.
Bloomberg is targeting older people.
Trump is targeting younger people, and conservatives who use the internet.
It's really, really interesting.
So here's the point I want to get to.
I saw this story, and I thought it was fascinating.
First of all, Bloomberg is.
It is working for him.
It certainly is.
Because he's rising in the polls, he's jumping up, and it's gonna help him out.
We'll see what happens.
But it is fair to say that Trump spends way more on digital, relatively, than the other candidates do.
Save, like, I think Tulsi Gabbard.
Actually, no, I think he really does.
I don't think anyone else comes close.
Gabbard comes close.
But Trump barely spends anything on broadcast TV.
Or cable TV.
It's mostly digital.
A little bit of radio.
Nobody does satellite.
Here's what I think.
I think the conservatives control the internet.
I really do.
What I mean by that is not the institutions.
I think the left is panicking and censoring conservatives the way they do because they know conservatives have a dominating message on their platforms and it's causing them to freak out.
They then panic.
The activist journalists try and find cause to get people banned and suspended, and it works.
It works.
You know, what's truly crazy to me is that it appears, according to recent data published, there is a whitelist YouTube has made punishing channels like mine, like David Pakman, like Steven Crowder, yes, believe it or not, progressives too, because they don't want to deal with independent creators.
So they push our viewers to cable TV.
David Pakman is several orders of magnitude better than MSNBC.
You don't gotta like the guy, and you don't gotta agree with him, but I think it's fair to say David's way better than MSNBC.
Steven Crowder, way better than Fox News.
Now for me and Jimmy Dore is where it gets weird.
Jimmy Dore is a lefty.
I mean, I think he's a socialist.
You know, he's a big Bernie supporter.
Why are they sending his viewers to Fox News?
They are.
Then you have my channel.
I'm certainly to the left of Fox News, to actually a decent degree.
Why are they sending my viewers to Fox News?
It's the weirdest thing.
So if the question was about extremism or like, you know, rabbit holes, sending Jimmy Dore's viewers to Fox News is making it worse, you see?
So YouTube does these changes, I think, because the media panicked.
Pushed a fake narrative because they know they're losing.
Check it out.
Bloomberg and Steyer.
The left, for the most part, targets television more so than the Republicans do.
I think that says something to me.
The Democrats don't know how to do digital, and when you look at James O'Keefe's story with more interactions on the Bernie Staffer story than the Warren story, yeah, conservatives dominate the conversation online in a certain respect, and the left is desperately trying to shut that down because they can't compete.
So anyway, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up tomorrow at 10 a.m., podcast every day at 6.30.
