Never Trumper Republicans PANIC As Bernie Sanders Surges Biden Fails, Trump 2020 Landslide On Track
Never Trumper Republicans PANIC As Bernie Sanders Surges Biden Fails, Trump 2020 Landslide On Track. Never Trump Republicans have been actively campaigning Republican Senators to vote to remove Trump in the impeachment trial.These people are adamant that Trump should not be the President.But now they have to contend with a scarier reality, a far left president. Many Never Trumpers are panicking as they start to realize Bernie Sanders is surging and Joe Biden is fizzling out.Many can handle a moderate like Biden but think Bernie is just too far left.In the end Trump's approval is up, his fundraising is breaking records, and he just had 175,000 people trying to come to his rally in a blue state.Its fair to say the anti Trump actions from Never Trumpers and Democrats are failing and Trump is heading to a 2020 landslide victory.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
If you guys have seen those Project Veritas releases over the past few weeks, you know that Bernie Sanders is attracting extremists into his campaign and not disavowing them.
And some of these people are talking about their real plans, that this is their last chance to try and do it the right way.
So we've got multiple things happening.
The other day in Wildwood, New Jersey, according to Trump officials, 175,000 people tried getting into this event.
Let me be honest with all of you.
I applied for press.
The moment they announced, they turned me down.
It's never happened to me before.
I've gone to tons of Trump rallies, and they said, sorry, we're just too full.
And I can respect they don't want, you know, to a certain degree, national level commentators when they try to make room for the local, you know, news outlets.
But you had people lining up outside this event two days in advance.
Think about this.
Joe Biden can't remember where he is.
Never Trumpers try to remove Trump, but he is surging.
His approval rating just hit an all-time high, save for just after he got elected.
It's the highest it's been in the past three years.
Joe Biden is floundering.
Bernie Sanders is rising, and both the Never Trumpers and the Democrats are in full panic mode.
I gotta say, this whole thing is quite I don't know.
It's kind of humorous.
If you're not somebody who takes everything ridiculously seriously, and you don't think the world is ending, you're probably laughing and having a good time right now.
So let's do this.
Let's read the story and see what the NeverTrumpers are saying.
Because I did do a segment about the Democrats freaking out because Bernie was going to win.
I will tell you this though.
To the establishment Democrats and the Never Trumpers.
It's not going to be Biden.
And it's not going to be Bernie.
It's going to be Trump.
And you want to know why?
Because the Bernie camp will not vote Biden.
And the Biden camp will not vote Bernie.
And this is the other side of that coin.
The moderate Democrats don't want to vote for the progressives.
The progressives don't want to vote for the moderates.
And the tiny fraction of Never Trumpers definitely don't want to vote for the socialists.
So they can't even unite behind anybody.
How will any Democrat win if they won't support each other?
Sorry, Trump's got ridiculously high approval rating among the Republican Party.
So let's get started with the Washington Examiner.
But before we do, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are several ways you can give.
I got a new address.
But the best thing you can do is just share this video.
YouTube's algorithm has been putting the boot on a lot of us political commentators.
And aside from that, Let's break some echo chambers by sharing this video.
Maybe some people will hear something they didn't hear before.
Maybe they'll hate my guts and never want to watch again.
But it really does help my channel grow when you do share.
Let's read the story from the Washington Examiner.
They say, it's asking a lot.
Never Trump Republicans draw the line at Bernie Sanders.
The rise of socialist Bernie Sanders is frustrating.
Never Trump Republicans who are hoping the Democratic Party nominates a consensus center left presidential candidate They are comfortable supporting in November.
If Sanders is the Democratic nominee, many will sit out the election and be deprived of the opportunity of voting against President Trump, they said.
Sanders is surging, days before the Iowa caucuses and a couple of weeks before the New Hampshire primary, leaving Republican operatives avowedly opposed to Trump worried and perplexed.
Most are convinced swing voters in key battlegrounds would reject Sanders, paving the way for Trump's re-election.
They are also convinced the Vermont Senator, 78, is simply too liberal to earn their vote.
With a Sanders nomination, never-Trump Republicans are unsure of what comes next.
Bernie Sanders is not liberal.
He is a leftist.
I really hate when conservatives do this.
Come on, DC Examiner, you guys know better.
Bernie Sanders is too leftist.
Never Trumpers would support a liberal.
Joe Biden is your moderate corporate type, but at least they're like, well, he falls in the more liberal camp, meaning he's not an avowed socialist.
There's a big difference.
And I would like to make that distinction.
They said, I don't know where the anti-Trump movement goes from here," said Jennifer Horne, a never-Trump Republican and former New Hampshire GOP chairwoman who is affiliated with the Lincoln Project, a group of anti-Trump Republicans who have pressured GOP senators to support impeachment.
It's a really tough question, added political strategist Sarah Longwell, a never-Trump Republican at the center of an unsuccessful effort to recruit a formidable candidate to challenge the president in the 2020 GOP primary.
That's never going to happen!
Trump's approval rating is 90% or whatever among Republicans.
Anti-Trump Republicans are holding out hope for 77-year-old Joe Biden.
Now that just breaks my heart.
Y'all are, this is ridiculous.
It's not going to happen.
I understand Trump is old himself, but what are your options?
Joe Biden, who can barely speak, doesn't know where he is, who actually said recently, check this out, Joe Biden, talking to a crowd, said if he chose a VP, they'd have to be capable because, well, let's be honest, I'm old.
He then goes on to say, you know, I do work out.
The insinuation was clear.
Joe Biden is not entirely convinced he could fill a full term, a single term.
Now, hold on.
There was a rumor going around that Joe Biden might actually only run for one term just to get rid of Trump.
But Trump could run if, you know, you can do two terms.
You could skip a term, so it made no sense.
Well, Joe Biden rejected that.
But now he's basically saying he needs a capable VP, essentially because he's old and may die in office.
And if he's saying that, it's talking about finishing a first term.
He's 77.
But I'm gonna have to be real for all of y'all.
I understand the concern among these never-Trumpers is that Bernie might win and they will lose.
But Bernie can't win either.
Just face the facts.
You're getting four, well, technically five more years of Trump.
Alright?
Bernie Sanders is a 78-year-old socialist who just had a heart attack.
I'm not trying to be mean to the guy.
I respect him for a lot of the work he's done.
That's fine.
But let's be real.
He's old.
He's weak.
He's mentally weak.
I don't think he's gonna win, so y'all Never Trumpers can calm down.
Well, insofar as it goes with Bernie Sanders, but let's be real.
As much as you don't like Trump, all signs indicate Trump's getting re-elected, especially when you look at Wildwood.
Let's read a little bit more.
They say.
The former vice president is a Democrat they can embrace, they said.
Liberal, but not too far left.
And moderate in tone.
Biden consistently polls well against Trump and leads the Democratic field nationally.
He now trails a climbing Sanders in the February 3rd Iowa caucuses and the February 11th New Hampshire primary.
But he leads in the other critical early states and is better positioned to win the party's crown than other contenders that they could stomach, such as Pete Buttigieg, Klobuchar, or Mike Bloomberg.
If Biden wins the nomination, many never-Trump Republicans are prepared to work on his behalf to attract disaffected voters on the right just like them.
But never-Trump Republicans have limits.
Philosophically conservative and not wanting to be perceived as otherwise, they view Sanders' self-professed democratic socialism as equally problematic and might skip 2020 altogether if he leads a Democratic ticket.
It's asking a lot from people on the center-right or in the old Reagan wing of the GOP to go full Sanders in November, said Jerry Taylor, who runs the Niskanen Center, a Washington think tank that has become a hub for the Never Trump community.
Taylor does plan to support Sanders in the general election if the senator wins the Democratic nod, but described himself and others like him as the exception to the rule.
I would not feel particularly happy about it, but I would swallow hard and pull the lever.
Should Sanders emerge?
Never Trump Republicans say they and independent conservatives itching to oust Trump in the fall are likely to sit on their hands or vote for a hopeless third party candidate in protest.
That is what Longwell concluded after two years and several focus groups with persuadable voters in the Rust Belt as part of our extensive research into the best strategy for holding Trump to a single term.
Longwell conceded Sanders would juice the liberal base, but she said his plans for expansive government and European-style foreign policy would scare away the voters he needs in the Midwest to produce an electoral college majority.
This includes the soft Republicans, suburban swing voters, and college-educated women who often vote GOP.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
We get it.
Here's one.
Bernie Sanders will get beaten by Donald Trump, Longwell said.
He's a non-starter for swing voters.
Well, they got their fingers crossed for Joe Biden, but let me tell you the sad truth.
Bernie voters are necessary to win Biden.
You need the progressive wing to get over that, you know, to get the amount of electoral votes you need.
They're not going to support Biden.
And Joe Biden doesn't even support Biden.
I'm not exaggerating.
I don't think Joe Biden's actually running.
So all these never-Trumpers are spinning their wheels for no reason, and I find it absolutely hilarious.
Listen, as I always say, you don't have to like the guy, but come back to reality, please.
Have you followed the news on Joe Biden?
Do you really think he could beat Trump?
You are nuts.
I get it.
I can't fault you for trying if you really do not like the guy.
But let's take a look at what Joe Biden has done recently.
Here's a story from the Free Beacon from just the other day.
Biden to Iowa voter.
Go vote for someone else.
What?
Why would Joe Biden tell a voter asking a question not to vote for him?
Maybe it's because Joe Biden isn't really running.
I swear, I am convinced that he's running to like, I don't know, sell books or something.
People do it.
A lot of people announce they're gonna run for president to try and build a national profile.
I don't know if Joe Biden necessarily needs that.
Maybe he's hoping he doesn't have to do the work and he can win anyway on name recognition alone, or by, you know, essentially pretending to be Obama-esque.
But he literally told the voter, go vote for someone else.
And the guy was like, whoa, whoa, but I said I would support you in the general.
And he says, yeah, but I want a primary vote.
So, you know, why would you do that?
Why wouldn't you say, what can I do to earn that vote from you?
Instead, Biden's just like, eh, somebody else.
But I'll tell you the funny part.
I'm not, I'm not just coming to this idea right now that Biden's not really running.
I've been thinking about this for a while.
Check this out.
Joe Biden told a voter, let me read this for you, at a town hall event Thursday in Greenwood, South Carolina, an immigrant rights activist named Carlos Rojas asked Joe Biden about deportations.
The exchange came shortly after a woman named Silvia Moreno, speaking in Spanish and using Rojas as a translator, told the former vice president she lived in constant fear that ICE would arrest and forcibly expel members of her family.
Biden listened, as Moreno and Rojas rattled off the deportation numbers that marked the Obama presidency.
More than 3 million people.
A greater number than any other administration in history, including Trump's.
Rojas asked the aspiring president if he'd halt removals, but Biden refused, saying he'd prioritize deporting people who committed felonies or serious crimes.
Rojas objected, and Biden said, quote, you should vote for Trump.
Then he turned his back on the activist and walked away.
Well, I can say this.
I respect Biden for refusing to bend the knee to the woke left, the open borders left.
But why would you ever tell someone, go vote for Trump?
If the never Trumpers are really holding out, crossing their fingers, it's going to be Joe Biden.
And Joe Biden himself is telling people not to vote for him.
I know he's not literally trying to say don't vote for me, but he is still saying don't vote for me.
I gotta be honest.
I don't think Joe Biden could beat Trump.
I think Bernie Sanders is going to generate way more enthusiasm, and I think you'd be more likely to find some moderate Democrats willing to bite the bullet and pull the lever for Sanders.
However, it's not going to get the Never Trumpers.
The coalition just doesn't exist for any of these candidates to actually make it.
Let's move on, though.
I got some more some more funny news.
Look at this.
New York Times writes, Does Joe Biden want to be doing this?
On certain days, Biden 2020 can feel more like a dutiful slog than the last march of a happy warrior.
Yes.
Joe Biden's not really running, NeverTrumpers.
You gotta stop pretending.
Trump's gonna be your president again.
You know what's funny is when Trump got elected, I laughed.
I'm not gonna get all bent out of shape about it.
What are we gonna do?
We gonna wake up every day angry that the guy we didn't want won?
Nah, man.
Been there, done that.
Guess what?
You don't win them all.
So calm down, but come back to reality, please.
Joe Biden clearly doesn't want to be doing this.
Look at this story.
Iowa is coming up soon, okay?
It's like, what, a week away?
Not even a week away.
It's like five days, six days.
Here's the New York Times again.
Biden is struggling in Iowa, and his supporters there know why.
The former vice president's backers have noted a lack of enthusiasm and a spotty campaign operation as reasons Joe Biden is lagging in Iowa.
Not to mention a formidable moderate competitor in Pete Buttigieg.
No, no, no, but let's be real.
I talked about this a while ago because news came out that Joe Biden's Iowa director, like the main guy, hadn't even been to the state in like almost a decade or some ridiculous number.
Joe Biden doesn't seem to actually be trying to win.
I really, really do mean this.
Joe Biden says he raised $22.7 million in the fourth quarter.
Mr. Biden's, while far short of the haul that Senator Bernie Sanders announced earlier Thursday, was an improvement from the previous quarter.
Whether or not Joe Biden's actually going to run, I'm not going to rain on the Never Trump it parade a little bit more.
I think Bernie Sanders is going to get the nomination.
I think he's charging forward.
The Democrats thought they were going to have this, like, hands-off approach and let Bernie do his thing, and hopefully he'd burn out.
He's only gained steam.
It's like what the Republicans saw with Trump.
He just gained more and more steam.
And, you know, early on, people didn't think Trump was going to be the nominee.
Everyone doubted it, even in some of the early primaries.
But then he ended up winning.
We can see right now, Bernie Sanders, check this out, they say he raised $15.7 million during the third quarter, and they mention this, Mr. Biden's fourth quarter total was much smaller than that of Bernie Sanders, whose campaign announced earlier it had raised more than $34.5 million in the quarter.
Biden, who raised, the former vice president also lagged behind Buttigieg, whose campaign revealed $24.7.
So what, you know, 60 or so percent, 66 percent of what Bernie Sanders raised.
Now, in the polls, they say Joe Biden is the frontrunner.
But I got more bad news for the never-Trumpers.
It's going to be Bernie Sanders.
And now you're going to be stuck between a rock and a hard place.
You don't like Donald Trump for his attitude?
You think he gives conservatism a bad name?
You can choose the socialist.
Welcome to America.
Hey, this is why people love the two-party system, right?
We can see here.
Check this out.
In the aggregate, over the past week or so, Bernie Sanders has been skyrocketing.
Seriously.
Warren is basically out.
Biden took a dip recently.
And Bernie Sanders is closing in with less than five points separating him from Joe Biden.
And I do think it's fair to point out that Joe Biden's popularity is based on Obama.
And the more people see what he's doing and see what he has to say, the less likely there is anything there to actually vote for.
Let me just tell you this.
The guy often doesn't know where he is.
Okay?
He mutters and stumbles.
He tells other people, go vote for somebody else.
And the worst thing he does is he inappropriately touches...
Women and girls.
I'm just gonna straight up say it, right?
But there is more we can still hit at.
Because, well, let me read this little bit about prominent NeverTrumpers.
They say this.
This is from the Emerging Anybody But Warren campaign.
I got more bad news for the NeverTrumpers.
Because they also would reject Elizabeth Warren.
So guess what?
It's gonna be Bernie Sanders.
You don't gotta worry about Warren.
I guess that's technically good news.
But they're rejecting everybody.
The Never Trumpers seem to be in this fringe reality where I don't know who they think they're gonna convince when 90% of the Republican Party supports the President.
But they even had a campaign to say, Never Warren.
Okay, well now you gotta contend with Never Bernie, but guess what?
Joe Biden is the best the Democrats have to offer, and he's not even really trying.
But it's also the Democrats.
This is from the National Review.
The sudden Democratic panic about Bernie Sanders.
They say one week before the Iowa caucuses, with Bernie Sanders leading most polls in the state and in New Hampshire, the rest of the Democratic Party is suddenly realizing that the Vermont senator could well win the nomination.
At NBC News, Politico and ABC News, the big story this morning is that the Democratic establishment has been caught asleep at the wheel for a second straight cycle.
I know not everyone in the National Review audience has such a warm and fuzzy perspective about our old friend and colleague David Frum, but Frum is a guy who at least spent some time in the conservative movement and GOP politics, and periodically he reminds the mostly left-of-center audience of the Atlantic of how the world actually works.
And when he does, it can turn out to be hilarious.
It's like watching a parent try to explain to kids that the coins in their piggy bank cannot in fact cover the cost of a trip to Disney World.
He says, Bernie Sanders is a fragile candidate.
He has never fought a race in which he had to face serious personal scrutiny.
None of his Democratic rivals is subjecting him to such scrutiny in 2020.
Hillary Clinton refrained from scrutinizing Sanders in 2016.
It did not happen either in his many races in Vermont.
A political profile in 2015 by Michael Cruz argued that Sanders had benefited from an unwritten compact between Sanders, his supporters, I'm going to stop here because I think you get the point on Bernie Sanders.
Let me try and wrap this together.
rather than risk lectures about the twisted priorities of the press.
I'm going to stop here because I think you get the point on Bernie Sanders.
Let me try and wrap this together.
I apologize if it feels a little fractured, but the general idea is never Trumpers and
establishment Democrats are the old guard, and they're very similar.
The Never Trumpers want this ideal version of this, you know, pristine suit-wearing Republican who speaks perfectly and clearly and is Ivy League educated.
Instead, they get Donald Trump.
Is Donald Trump Ivy League educated?
I don't know.
Whatever.
They get Trump who's crude and crass, and they say he makes us look bad.
The Democratic Establishment says Bernie Sanders is too far left and he's subverting our party.
They're all losing.
The populists are winning.
In the end, the Democratic establishment and the Never Trumpers are going to lose out.
Because try as they might, both factions, old-school conservative and liberal, they can't stop Bernie Sanders.
Biden is all they have, and he's not even trying.
Bernie's going to take over, and he's going to lose.
He's going to lose bad.
Because here's where it gets really, really funny.
President Trump holds Keep America Great rally at Jersey Shore, in a blue state, New Jersey, next to Philadelphia, a very blue area.
Donald Trump says, according to his campaign, Trump officials said more than 175,000 tickets were requested for the event, which daughter-in-law Laura Trump said in a radio interview is a record for any President Trump rally anywhere.
Now what's really funny about this is the Bernie people trying to pretend like it's not real.
Saying, but the event could only hold 7,000, therefore Trump's numbers must be wrong.
No, I think it's legit.
I think Trump is seeing his best approval rating, essentially, ever.
You know, right after he got inaugurated, his approval rating was high, but now it's higher than it's been in the past three years.
Impeachment is failing.
Nobody cares.
The ratings are down.
Biden doesn't seem to be actually trying.
Bernie is going to lose.
The factions that are resisting Trump are failing miserably, and there is no single unified Democratic Party, and they know it.
This is, once again, just another story about why Donald Trump is going to win re-election.
No, no, no, I'll tell you what.
Hubris will be your downfall, and I often say that to the Trump supporters.
If you think you can sit back and win, you got another thing coming.
Because we can look at all these things, and I can say this, but I'll tell you what.
If you just think you got in the bag because the Democrats can't form a coalition, you'll lose 100%.
So, never underestimate your opponent.
I can point these things out because I feel like all signs currently point to a Trump landslide election.
I really, really do.
The economy is fantastic, and people know it.
Not everybody feels it, but enough do.
And when you look at the weakness of the candidates, and the panic in the eyes of those resisting Trump, you can see, it's Trump, baby.
He's gonna win.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews, and I will see you all there.
A couple days ago, we got some pretty tragic news about Kobe Bryant.
But this video isn't about Kobe.
It's about what happened after with a couple journalists.
Notably, one MSNBC reporter apparently accidentally dropped an N-bomb live on TV.
Now, she says it was because she was mixing the word Knicks with Lakers, and it turned into something else entirely.
Now, I'm not going to say what she was claiming she was saying, because it really does sound like the N-word.
But, immediately a petition emerged where people are trying to get her fired from her job.
And the news now, this story says more than 100,000.
But yeah, we're close to 200,000 people demanding she be fired for accidentally saying a naughty word.
Which, if you listen to it, it seems kind of obvious she wasn't really calling anyone that word.
And it was just an, it seemed like an honest mistake.
Now, I'll tell you this.
What I said was, maybe.
If you're hired to do live news reporting, and you have these kinds of slip-ups, maybe you shouldn't be doing live news reporting.
Because, look, I do live streams all the time, and things like this don't happen to me.
So I get it, it's a mistake.
I'm not saying she should be fired or suspended or anything like that.
But we'll read the story and I'll show you the petition.
But there's a bigger story here that I want to get to.
Because this journalist for, well, I'll do air quotes journalist for the Washington Post, immediately after Kobe Bryant's passing, decided to drag, dredge up 17-year-old allegations against him, posting this story.
She got dragged hard and the Washington Post suspended her.
She then rallied her union and an activist base to get her rehired because apparently there were many people who were adamant about telling the totality of Kobe Bryant's life.
Listen, man.
The dude just passed.
Can we get a few minutes before you decide to start digging up old accusations to make the guy look bad?
But now what's really funny is, first of all, there's two stories here.
I've got them from the Postmillennial.
Not only is it a kind of ironic, because she is one of their number one cancelers, as the Postmillennial says.
She's tried to get other journalists fired, apparently.
But now she's trying to get her boss fired, I guess.
No, I don't think she's trying to get her boss fired.
But the Postmillennial says she immediately tries to cancel her boss.
You know what, man?
This is what's fascinating to me.
This poor woman at MSNBC, I really do feel bad for her.
I really don't think she was trying to say the N-word.
I think she just made a really, really awful mistake.
And now you've got nearly 200,000 people who want her terminated because of a mistake.
Meanwhile, the woman who deliberately went after Kobe to smear him right after his passing Literally is trying to make the situation worse.
To exacerbate the story.
To point the finger at her boss.
And she's calling for people to come out and... I don't know what she wants.
Canceling her boss?
I tell you what, man.
These journalists.
They do air quotes again.
Because the MSNBC reporter seems like a fine person.
She apparently worked for a local Fox affiliate before getting hired at MSNBC.
She's not particularly famous.
She's not like Rachel Maddow or anything.
She seems to be just like a regular old news reporter.
And that's cool.
This woman's an activist with a chip on her shoulder.
She wants to get her critics fired.
She gets suspended for being a kind of mean person damaging the brand of the Washington Post.
She wins the fight because of the union.
And now she's stepping things up.
Man, I tell you what, you need to fire these people.
I was at an event.
You know what, I'm not gonna name the event, but I said, this was like seven years ago, every single journalist needs to be fired.
All of them.
Just get rid of all of them.
And that includes Allison.
Now, I'm not saying fire all of them because I hate them or anything like that.
It's because you have an infected culture.
And so, I'm being a bit hyperbolic when I say fire literally everybody.
Obviously, I don't think Allison should be fired.
I think she's the one who should be, you know, defended.
And this woman's the one who should be criticized.
But you have too many people who are snooty, entitled elitists.
They get paid too much money for what they do.
And they demand, I don't know, subjugation?
This is entitlement.
It's absolutely absurd.
So let's do this.
I'll read a little bit about the first host so you can get a sense of where we're at with these petitions.
I really don't think she will get fired, but man is it nuts that the woke left wants her job and they're defending her.
It's crazy to me.
If you make a mistake, they want to scalp.
If you deliberately go after somebody but it fits the agenda of the tribe, well, you're just great and we're gonna come and defend you.
So in this first story from ABC 8 News, they say more than a hundred K signed petition for MSNBC anchor to be fired after racial slur allegation.
They go on to basically explain what I already explained.
And they say, um, most of Twitter isn't convinced she said the words she thought she said, a combination of Knicks and Lakers.
MSNBC has yet to respond to the controversy.
And that's basically it.
Look, so we have this change.org petition.
It means nothing.
The petition says, During a time of the family, friends, and fans grieving, it's unacceptable to call any person a N-word.
I need answers and national apology from MSNBC reporter and the company.
Reporter Allison Morris needs to take accountability for her actions.
She apologized.
She said it wasn't her intention.
I believe her.
But these people want her scalp?
But she didn't do anything intentional.
She didn't do anything on purpose.
So let me ask you this question.
Excuse me.
I just refreshed it, and it's up a couple, I think a hundred, couple hundred more signatures.
Why is it that she accidentally says a word, and everyone's angry, but this chick deliberately tries to besmirch Kobe, and they come rushing to her defense?
No idea.
We'll call it the circular firing squad.
Maybe it's because Allison Morris is not in the tribe?
I don't know.
But it doesn't seem to make sense, does it?
This is what I... I often talk about how, with the woke left, there is no way to do the right thing.
I mean, I get it, okay?
This reporter did kind of say the N-word, and so I can understand why people would be mad.
It's shocking.
But this chick deliberately smeared, you know, Kobe right after his passing, and we have Christina Hoffsommers pointing out that she's actually tried to get her critics from other outlets fired before, yet she's being protected.
Man, I have no idea how this game is played.
I really don't.
I should say it's kind of just like random.
So one of the examples I often give is there was this really funny thing that happened last year, where this non-profit organization used the word Wimixin.
Okay, you heard me right.
Wimixin.
W-O-M-X-N.
It's supposed to be pronounced women, I guess.
It's an X in there for some reason, because apparently replacing letters with Xs is a woke thing to do.
And the idea was, by putting an X in it, we are being inclusive to all women who aren't traditional women.
Well, of course this sparked outrage.
Because many people started saying, trans women are women.
You don't need a special word for it.
Okay, so the word that was meant to be inclusive was actually offensive because it doesn't need to exist, and so now you have competing, within the same ideology, women, standard spelling, is not inclusive, and Wimixin, X spelling, is also not inclusive, so there's quite literally no way to say the right thing to actually please the woke left, because they are an amorphous blob of chaos and destruction.
And that's what I think we're seeing.
In reality, I don't think anyone really cares this woman accidentally said the word.
I think they're bullies.
I think they're a chaotic blob mass of rage and destruction that is just seizing upon the path of least resistance.
I think of it kind of like, imagine you have a concrete foundation full of cracks and it's just seeping through wherever it can.
This woman said a word.
It was an accident.
Doesn't matter.
They see the opportunity.
They want to penetrate straight through and say, terminate.
Now this woman posted a story.
What can they really say about her?
So the union defends her and they do nothing.
But it may also be that this woman is one of the chaotic destructive forces.
We can see this, they say, at the Postmillennial.
Sanmez is also the person behind two mobbings of women writers.
She tried to get Caitlin Flanagan and Emily Yoffe fired from their positions at the Atlantic.
for the high crime of criticizing her.
And we can see here, Christina Hoffsummer's tweet, where was the upstanding post guild
when Felicia Sanmez tried to get Caitlin Flanagan and Emily Yoffe fired for daring to criticize her?
They say Brett Kavanaugh was shamed by Sanmez for his lighthearted speech to the Federalist Society
in 2014, which she published along with excoriations against him and his college behaviors.
She called him out for comments such as, always act as if your actions are public, and you will make mistakes, sometimes big ones.
Admit it, resolve not to do it again, and make sure you don't do it again.
Apparently that's no good when you're going to end up in confirmation hearings before the Senate, and a woman who you don't even remember ever meeting, uh, 30 years ago, accuses you- I'm sorry, no, she didn't accuse Kavanaugh of- of, uh, actually, you know.
She accuses him of falling around to a bed and jumping on top of her.
That was about it.
But, uh, no evidence.
So- so anyway, yes, we get it.
Felicia Sámez for the Washington Post has played the same game that was played against her.
She said something that besmirched the name Washington Post, which is apparently, I don't know, I think it's kind of hard to do because of how awful, excuse me, the Washington Post can be sometimes.
I'll tell you what.
With Kobe, you got a beloved legendary figure, and she comes out, says something dumb, and so they suspend her.
Well, here's the latest.
The Washington Post reinstates reporter.
She immediately tries to cancel her boss.
The Post Millennial reports.
What's the first thing you do after your activist colleagues pull out all of the stops to get your job back?
Try to cancel your boss for suspending you in the first place.
Mere hours after being reinstated from a suspension by the Washington Post, Felicia Sanmez took to Twitter to start another mob.
The reporter who thought it was prudent to tweet out Kobe Bryant's allegations from 2003, on the day he and his daughter died tragically, attempted to launch a new cancel campaign.
This time, her quarry is her boss, Marty Baron.
You know what, Marty?
You reap what you sow.
All of these people, you deserve this.
I don't know.
You've got a couple problems here.
These businesses unwilling to terminate people for insubordination.
They're unwilling to stand up to the mob.
She should have been fired.
Okay, maybe she couldn't because the post guild, you know, the union was like, you can't do it.
So that I can respect to a certain degree.
But there lies a deep, a deep seated problem with these organizations is that you have these awful people with awful intentions and you can't do nothing about it.
They report from the Post-Millennial, it's a bold move to try to get the internet to attack your boss for suspending you after you've been reinstated.
Basically, she wants to blame him for her own bad judgment.
This was immediately applauded by disgraced defamation artist Talia Lavin, a person whose major accomplishments in media include lying about a military veteran's tattoo and attempting to get him fired.
I believe that was an honest mistake.
Okay?
I think, you know, so for those that aren't familiar, Lavin worked for, I think, the New Yorker?
She was a fact-checker.
And I don't think she intentionally was trying to smear the guy.
I think she's just, she didn't fact-check.
Which, you know, she's bad at her job, I guess?
She then went on to work for an activist organization, producing, like, literal propaganda.
But, you know, I'm gonna walk their thing back, because I don't think she deliberately lied.
But Talia said, you're an absolute goddess and I stand with you 100%.
On Tuesday in the Postmillennial, we stated how Sanmez's saga was a cautionary tale showing just how toxic cancel culture truly is.
We pointed out that she smeared Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Atlantic writer Caitlin Flanagan, Raisin contributor Emily Off and her former colleague John Kimen.
While we hope that she might have learned a lesson that participating in witch hunts and online mobs never ends well, we were predictably wrong.
A mere 24 hours later, here she is trying to ruin another career.
Well, let's calm down.
They say, in the end, we are not defending Marty Baron.
It's the tactics being used that are in question.
We are advocating for a better way to handle this kind of conflict.
If the only culture you know is cancel culture, then you will wind up tragically canceled and pathetically uncultured.
There's actually a saying for this.
Live by the sword.
You may be familiar.
So, after being reinstated, she tweeted, So, I don't know if I ultimately care too much about what her statement is.
She said, Oh, please, man.
deserve to hear directly from Post Baron on the newspaper's handling of this matter, my statement.
So I don't know if I ultimately care too much about what her statement is. She said,
I hope Washington Post newsroom leaders will not only prioritize their employees' safety
in the face of threats. Oh, please, man. Listen, threats are bad.
Don't threaten people.
No one deserves it.
But, come on, man.
She knows what she did was over the line.
She knows why it hurt the company.
And now she's acting like it was all about her safety.
Oh no, they won't protect me, please, dude.
You know what, man?
You tweet on your time is your fault and your responsibility.
Nobody should be threatening you, but what's the saying?
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence.
If you want to smear a beloved legendary figure literally hours after he passes, you're free to do so.
And people should not threaten you or be violent or anything like that.
But don't be surprised if it does happen.
So while I will actively discourage it, I think we can all recognize why people show up to rallies with shields.
Because the other people dressed in all black show up with clubs.
They recognize that by expressing themselves, there is an inherent risk.
No one denies that there's not going to be some consequence to you standing up for what you believe in.
For you, you should recognize that.
And surprisingly, they're all about cancel culture up until it's them getting canceled, right?
She said, Washington Post journalists endeavor to live up to the paper's mission statement which states the newspaper shall tell all the truth so far as it can learn it concerning the important affairs of America and the world.
My suspension and Post Barron's email warning me that my tweets about a matter of public record were hurting this institution have unfortunately sown confusion about the depth of management's commitment to this goal.
Yes.
There's a commitment to the truth, and there's also human decency.
And these people seem to be lacking in the latter.
By all means, tell the truth.
But you can at least wait.
A day?
You know how there's jokes where they say, too soon?
You know, someone will tell a joke and everyone will go, oh, is it too soon to tell the joke?
It's because we recognize as human beings, we should have a grief period, okay?
We should have empathy for one another.
What she did was like woke baiting.
And I think BuzzFeed wrote a story about this where they were like, we better talk about the totality.
And I think the reason they did that was because, seemingly in response to this, I could be wrong about the time frame, but a BuzzFeed reporter posted the same story.
Thanks, BuzzFeed.
Real classy.
Targeting a guy who literally just passed.
Everyone's sad about this.
They're doing moments of silence at all these different games.
Different teams are retiring the number 24.
Much respect to Kobe Bryant is going around and everyone seemed to really love the guy.
Yet these people just can't wait to be a wet blanket and to rain on your parade.
Be ants at a picnic.
All of the most awful things in the world.
And when she gets called out for it, what does she do?
The union defensor protects her from cancellation, from, you know, air quote cancellation, and then she tries to flip it on her own company.
I think this woman should be fired.
Because she's seriously hurting the Washington Post at this point.
You know, like she said, he said, your tweets are hurting this institution.
That's true.
Most people did not want to, you know, don't want to feel more pain than they already did when someone they looked up to or were inspired by lost their lives.
They want to grieve.
We want to remember the best in people.
And Kobe was not even a bad dude!
It's like, listen man.
Joe Rogan recently said, you can dig into someone's past and find the worst things about them.
If you only focus on that, you'll make them look really bad.
But everybody's got bad things in their lives, and there's a reason why when someone passes, we focus on the good things.
Because we want to feel better.
By all means.
You know, a week later, a couple days later, if you want to write something called, like, The Totality of Kobe Bryant, you know, being honest about his life, More power to you.
It's about having empathy, which she doesn't apparently have.
But now from a business standpoint, the Washington Post is being seriously harmed, not just by her initial tweet, but now what she's continuing to do.
She writes, I hope the Washington Post newsroom leaders will not only prioritize their employees' safety in the face of threats.
Okay, so we read that.
You get the point.
I'll wrap it up.
These people who work for these news companies, not all of them, but a lot of them, are narcissistic sociopaths.
And as I've explained several times in the past week or two, these companies want to hire journalists who are verified and have large followings.
It's a sign of status.
The verification badge of a journalist.
The large following.
How many followers does she even really have?
Let's see, is it gonna show me?
Apparently not.
Let's load her.
Okay, she's got 77,500.
So, there's something inherent to somebody who has this desire to have a following like this, to tweet these things out, to be provocative, to generate rage, and to consistently push the buttons.
Most journalists I know, the real ones, don't want to be the story.
So you'd think a real journalist would say, I apologize for tweeting the story.
As I would like to not be, you know, the centerpiece of this, I will, you know, I will no longer be addressing it.
No, she's doubling down.
She wants the story to be her.
She wants them to address what happened to her.
She wants to be the center of attention.
My friends, I call that narcissistic personality disorder.
She is the story.
She wants to be the story.
All about her.
You know how many people work for companies like the Washington Post who feel the same way?
That's why news is becoming trash.
That's why almost every single journalist has an, you know, they inject their agenda.
They're becoming pundits instead of reporters.
Now, for me, I'll fully recognize any criticism and all criticism, how I used to do field reporting and now I do mostly commentary, but that is a traditional trajectory for a lot of journalists.
A lot of journalists would go on the ground, and then, you know, ten years later, you'd see them behind a desk, anchoring and doing commentary.
A lot of people do this.
I'm not going to pretend to be a reporter for a prestigious paper.
When I do it, I will tell you straight up I'm doing political commentary.
This woman is a national political reporter who really, really wants you to know who she is.
You see, there's a big difference.
When you have people claiming to be journalists, but what they really want is to be the center of attention, they want to be celebrities, then you don't get real journalism.
You get agendas, lies, deceit, and activism.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
So many of you may have seen the segment that went viral yesterday where Don Lemon, Rick Wilson, and Wajahat Ali were mocking, belittling, and just laughing in their condescension at how dumb Trump supporters are.
There's a few updates.
I'll go through the context.
Basically, they were talking about this NPR interview where Pompeo essentially challenged some journalists to find Ukraine on the map, and she did.
And then Rick Wilson, who's a never-Trumper conservative, I guess, said something like, you know, Trump couldn't even find Ukraine if there's a letter U with a literal crane next to it.
Not even a real joke.
Like, in what way is that a joke?
I mean, fine, just because it's a bad joke doesn't mean it's not a joke.
I get it.
But Donaldman goes nuts.
He starts laughing and hooting and hollering.
And so Rick Wilson, seeing that his joke landed, I guess, doubles down and starts mocking Trump supporters during a Southern drawl, being like, you know, Trump's a smart one, y'all elitists are dumb.
And then the other guy watching Ali is like, you elitist with your geography and your spelling.
So they thought it would be funny to do this mockery of Trump and his supporters.
Well, this led to a bunch of responses.
Rick Wilson called it fake outrage.
But now we're seeing the latest update.
Don Lemon has issued what can only be said is like a fake apology.
It's not really an apology.
He's like denying wrongdoing.
What was the point of addressing having mocked and belittled Americans if you weren't actually going to apologize for it?
We have the story from Fox News.
And so we're gonna engage in some good old-fashioned CNN-bashing.
Because I'm also gonna... There's some other news, you know, Fox News, hitting all-time, or its highest ratings in three years, the best ratings it's had in, like, history, while CNN fizzles and, you know, kind of burns out.
So I'll tell you what, man.
This is exactly what they needed, right?
That Don Lemon clip got like 11 million views.
Well, let's read the story because they make some really, really funny points.
Fox News says Don Lemon addresses CNN panel mocking Trump voters.
CNN anchor Don Lemon, who let me just add, once asked whether or not a black hole could swallow an airplane, appeared to be on the defensive on Tuesday night after a panel discussion mocking Trump supporters went viral.
He said, This is personally important for me to address this, okay?
Ask anyone who knows me.
They'll tell you.
I don't believe in belittling people, belittling anyone for who they are, what they believe, or where they're from.
Lemon said towards the top of his show.
During an interview on Saturday night, one of my guests said something that made me laugh.
And while in the moment, I found that joke humorous, and I didn't catch everything that was said.
The anti-Trump anchor added, just to make it perfectly clear, I was laughing at the joke and not at any group of people.
They say, it is unclear what specific joke Lemon was referring to.
The first joke was at the expense of President Trump, while the rest of the jokes are at the expense of his supporters.
Let me just stop you right there.
I don't know.
What's the point of Don Lemon trying to address this when he didn't apologize?
Just don't say anything if you're not going to apologize, right?
But let's just break this down.
I think Don Lemon's a liar.
I don't take him seriously, right?
He was laughing at the first joke, and they kept saying more jokes, and he kept laughing.
So yes, he was laughing at multiple jokes.
You know what, man?
I don't care if you want to laugh at Trump supporters.
By all means, go ahead and do it.
Put on your Southern draw, but what's really funny Because I did cover this on this channel the other day, is that there's a New York Times poll, or not really a poll, but a survey they asked people to find North Korea on a map, and Republicans were more likely to be able to find it.
Now, independent voters were the most likely to find it, so I'll take credit there, right?
But the Democrats were the least likely.
So who do you think you are?
How do you get off mocking Trump supporters as morons and laughing at them?
But here's the real issue.
Look, man.
I don't care if you want to tell a joke.
I don't care if you want to make fun of somebody.
Go ahead and do it.
The issue with what Don Lemon did was that it's the perfect example of 2016.
And it lends itself to this other thing SNL did, which is really funny.
I don't know if you saw that viral clip.
It was called White Male Rage.
Basically, this woman, it's really cringy.
It's like, what is SNL doing?
She's playing clips from Joker.
Explaining what it is, and then all of a sudden just stops and goes, White male rage!
White male— And that's it.
And I'm like, what's funny?
Somebody tweeted this.
They said, what's ironic about SNL mocking, you know, the Joker, is that it's literally a movie about an out-of-touch TV show host mocking and belittling the poor, and that's literally what she's doing.
But both of these are an example of something that Trump will absolutely love to see.
That the elites have not learned anything from 2016.
In fact, they doubled down.
They're living in this weird bubble where they just mock and belittle Americans.
You know, it's crazy to me.
Vox ran that story in 2016.
The Democrats have become the party of the wealthy.
And they just don't realize it.
It's really hilarious to see these BuzzFeed reporters and these other digital media reporters who make somewhere between $40,000 to $90,000 a year complaining about how their benefits aren't good enough, how they're not paid enough, and all that stuff.
And I'm like, man, you realize there are people who live in New York City who make $12 an hour, right?
It's just so funny.
To see the uber elite, rich people, so completely out of touch with the rest of America.
And that's why people love to see Trump win.
You know?
It's like Michael Moore said.
That the American people were sick of it, and they were going to deliver the biggest FU in the history of the world in 2016.
And he was right.
Now Michael Moore has kind of gone nuts, so we'll leave that at that.
Let's read a little bit more, because I do bring up another funny point, and then I want to get into how Fox News is doing well.
They say, Later on, during a panel discussion about the dust-up between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and an NPR reporter, Lemon went on to defend the journalists who get it wrong.
We're not perfect.
When we get it wrong, we say we got it wrong, we apologize, and we move on.
On Monday night, a panel discussion went viral and faced intense backlash for mocking Trump supporters, so we know all this, right?
They go on to explain this.
So one of the important updates here as well is that Wajahat Ali, and I'll show you this in a second, is trying to deflect saying, but we were actually criticizing Pompeo who was insulting a journalist that wasn't about this.
I don't care, dude.
Look, man.
People get mad.
It happens.
Deal with it.
You make fun of someone.
Look, I made a series of videos talking about 30-year-old feminists who can't find dates.
And they got really mad.
And they started passive-aggressively tweeting at me, and I laughed about it.
I'm like, dude, look, man.
For me, my intention isn't to mock or belittle or insult.
I was actually reading data and making points as to why I thought these things were happening and what would result from it, and they got mad about it.
So they started dragging me and insulting me, posting screenshots, calling me incel, whatever stupid insult.
I don't care.
You know what, man?
This dude, these people are so bent, like, oh no, we insulted people and now they're mad at us.
Yeah, welcome to the world.
Like, what else is new?
But here's what I like.
I'm not going to read through everything they did, but they bring up something funny.
But I'll get there first.
They say others on social media mocked CNN as they pointed out the viewership difference between the network and the viral clip.
Because the network got 713,000 views and the clip got 11 million.
The most telling thing about the Don Lemon segment is no one commented on it when it aired.
No one watched it.
That's from Steven Miller, and here's one from a Twitter user.
It said, Underrated hilarious aspect of this is that it took two full days for anyone to notice, and it got more attention being tweeted from an account with 20,000 followers than it did when it aired on CNN.
So here you go.
Fox News primetime ratings for January 2020 highest since November 2016.
That's crazy.
I mean, their ratings were high in November 2016 for an obvious reason.
It was the election cycle.
And now their ratings in January are up?
I'll tell you what, man.
They all know the Trump bump is coming.
In this election cycle.
And they are loving it.
Absolutely loving it.
I'm willing to bet CNN loves the outrage over what Don Lemon did.
It's what he does.
Did you see the viral clip where Don Lemon's all like, are you people insane?
What is this?
Oh, heavens.
Well, I never.
There's a viral clip where he was commenting on like a meme.
And they do this.
Don Lemon is not a newsman.
It's like they try and claim that they're a credible, rational news agency.
So I'll give a shout out to Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy.
You guys love to rag on Fox News.
Are you kidding me?
Come on.
You're the same thing.
I mean, I gotta be honest.
Even Fox News isn't that bad when they, you know, mock and laugh at it.
But here's where it gets really funny.
Coming off that last point.
No one noticed they did this!
Nobody was watching.
I'm willing to bet those ratings, that 713,000, was like 90% an airport or a hotel lobby.
You know, apparently CNN pays airports to run CNN.
Yikes.
But I guess, hey, you then go to the advertisers and say, listen, we're gonna run that ad for Coca-Cola, and we are in every airport in America.
Ah, yes, the airport demographic.
Yep.
That's how they do it. So I don't know if it was a report saying they paid like millions of dollars.
I don't know the exact numbers. I don't care. But while nobody noticed this until someone,
I don't know who this person was who initially found it.
Why were you watching Don Lemon?
I have no idea. Tweeting it out. We now get to learn about how Fox News is winning.
So, you know why I bring this up?
Because CNN is the example of the really nasty person.
Here's what I said.
Like, if you're a really nasty person.
No, no, no.
I'm sorry.
If you're a really nice person and you slip and fall in some mud, everybody wants to pick you up and like, oh man, they'll help brush you off.
And they're like, yeah, oh, that nice guy, he fell.
We're going to try and help him out, right?
Well, CNN is the snooty elitist in the room who is like walking around acting like they're better than everyone else.
Like, you know, it's like the Globo gym from dodgeball.
And then they slip and fall in the mud, and everyone just laughs.
Yeah, sorry.
Your ratings are trash, okay?
Now, I'll give a shout-out here, to be fair.
Tucker Carlson frequently calls Brian Stelter a eunuch, and I think that's detestable.
I routinely criticize that.
There's no need for that.
And I don't know why Tucker Carlson would do that when he simultaneously talks about how he's not gonna rag on someone for their opinions, but, you know, because everyone has opinions, but I'll stick to the facts.
Well, there's no reason for you to call someone a eunuch.
You know what I mean?
He's making a point.
The point is, Fox News isn't perfect by no means.
But what CNN did was, like, that was out there.
Well, Fox News is doing better than you.
So at this point, even with Tucker Carlson saying stuff like that, they can be bombastic.
I don't care.
You guys deserve it.
CNN is trash.
That Sunday morning segment on media where they bring on media matters and then act like they're telling people the unbiased truth?
Spare me, dude.
As much as people like to claim that I'm objective and unbiased, I wouldn't even say that.
I do political commentary, and what Brian Seltzer does, and CNN does, is the same thing I do, but they pretend like it's reporting.
Fox News is giving you the spin.
Tune them out and watch us.
Nah, man.
Anybody telling you that is trying to sell you snake oil.
It's like a cult, okay?
I'm not gonna say CNN is a cult.
But it's what they do.
You see it with Antifa and the activists.
They'll say, don't talk to anyone.
Heaven forbid you hear an idea.
Nah, I'll tell you the opposite.
I'll say, hey, watch them.
Because then you'll know I'm telling you the truth.
But watch your critics.
See what they have to say.
And then you'll be better equipped to argue and fight against them in the battle place of ideas or whatever.
But let's take a look at Fox News' ratings.
And then I got a really quick update on BuzzFeed.
I think BuzzFeed is about to go under.
Maybe not.
That's not fair.
They're expecting profitability, but something's happening.
They say, Daily Caller, Fox News Channel won big in the ratings this month, with January giving Fox News Channel its best month for primetime ratings since 2016 November.
Fox News Channel has marked yet another historic milestone, notching its 18th consecutive year as the number one cable news network.
I'm pretty sure it's the number one cable channel, period.
They say according to Nielsen.
The release notes that Fox News Channel scored its highest rated month in total viewers since February 2017 with Total Day and November 2016 with Prime.
For the 43rd straight month, Fox News crushed all of basic cable in total day viewership with 1.7 million viewers for the month of January.
In primetime, they were the most-watched network in all of basic cable, with 2.9 million viewers, dominating ESPN.
That's amazing.
They say Fox News personalities like Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Laura Ingram, and the network in general, have all benefited since impeachment drama started this fall.
Yeah, but here's the thing.
So has, you know, CNN.
They do say other networks have not replicated the success.
I'll tell you why, though.
The Trump bump exists.
But when you get years of Russia insanity, and Fox News was right, guess who I'm turning off?
And guess who I'm turning on?
More importantly, man, the most frustrating thing to me—you'll see this—go to my Instagram.
Go to Instagram.com slash TimCast.
Follow me if you haven't.
I'm not super active, but there are some clips you'll see if you scroll down.
What I would do, and I do this to my friends all the time, we got Fox News on, and Fox News, they talk about Trump, they talk about impeachment, of course, they do, they're conservative, they're political, but they do talk about coronavirus, they do talk about, you know, Hong Kong and Iran, and so when something comes on, like, there was like a weather story, and it was like severe weather, you know, in Texas, I asked my friend, what do you think, they're talking about weather, right?
That's important, it's travel season, what do you think's gonna happen if I put on CNN?
I don't know what...
Trump, right?
And so I do this every time and without, you know, it never fails.
Never failed.
Never failed me once.
I've done it like 30 times.
I'll be like Fox News.
They're talking about Iranian protests and CNN.
Trump, Trump, Trump.
All they do.
All they do.
It's all they got.
And you know what?
They're struggling and they're grasping at straws, but hey, I guess they would rather become the Orange Man Bad Network, as the Babylon Bee called them, than defunct?
I guess?
I get it.
Here's my favorite part.
This is a story from just at the end of December.
Fox News, its highest viewership in network's 23-year history.
CNN finished 22nd, not even breaking a million viewers per night.
I'm pretty sure I get more than a million viewers per night on my podcast.
I don't know what that means, but I think it's fair to point out, on YouTube, they do ridiculously well.
So, relative to cable TV, sure, I can play that game, but I think if I was going to compare CNN to my channel, CNN's doing like a thousand times better than I am.
But at least I can still say it like that.
Their TV channel nobody watches, but they watch me here on YouTube.
I'm gonna wrap up with one more quick shout-out in the media space, because BuzzFeed Ben, the editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed News, is joining the New York Times and leaving BuzzFeed News, and this struck me as odd.
He's gonna be joining the New York Times as a columnist.
Now, I know, many of you may be saying, Tim, I don't care, but hold on, listen.
Give me a second.
Why would someone leave the highest position at BuzzFeed's news branch to become a columnist?
I mean, it seems like a major demotion, right?
Unless BuzzFeed News is stagnating and or sinking.
Now here's the thing.
According to the news, I guess, we have an Axios story here from a few days ago.
They're expecting BuzzFeed to turn a profit this year.
But not BuzzFeed News.
And here's what you guys gotta understand.
The stories we see about, you know, Gamergate or Wokeness, that's BuzzFeed News.
BuzzFeed produces the weird woke stuff too, but that's like weird listicles about, like, what kind of banana are you or something, you know?
And it's like, are you a small plantain or a sweet, you know, Chiquita banana?
I don't know.
Whatever.
Whatever dumb listicles they do.
Ben Smith ran BuzzFeed News.
And I'll give a shout-out for some respect, because I think Ben's actually a pretty decent dude.
There are some things I disagree with him on, but whenever I take issue, he always responds, and that is tremendously respectable.
Because at least I feel like he really does mean it, and he really does engage.
So I will admit, I do have some concerns, because he does seem like, you know, for all his faults, he's kind of a stopgap to stop BuzzFeed from going nuts.
But...
He's leaving.
And so, some of the speculation is that, as much as he might try to deny it, they say this.
Many within the industry have been left the impression that BuzzFeed's news division is hardly a growth area.
Indeed, the initial reactions I got from media gossips about Smith's departure tended to assume that he was moving on either because of stifled ambition or an acknowledgement that his operation was no longer an expansive one.
Do you guys know that Vice News, like, got really big and then eventually it just, like, laid off most of its staff?
That very well may be heading to BuzzFeed News.
Look, we've seen many of these digital outlets lay off tons of people and fall by the wayside, and now we've got the editor-in-chief jumping ship going to the New York Times?
I think it's a fair bet.
Now, he denies it.
He says, no, no, of course not, but I'm not gonna take his word for it, man.
Look, I've played the game.
You know, the PR person calls you, the journalist calls you, and they say, like, why would you leave the company?
You say, you know, everything was really, really great, but I'm on to greener pastures.
You know, the company's gonna do great, make all this money?
Nah, we all know it.
We know why people leave.
He went from being the head honcho.
BuzzFeed News is, you know, pretty well established.
Why leave from being the top to go be a columnist?
I don't know.
But I will admit, this story is less relevant in the long run, so I'll wrap it up.
Ultimately, Don Lemon, fake apology, wanted ratings, CNN eventually will cease to exist in some capacity.
I think it may very well be that CNN's ratings are going to keep tanking.
Nobody watches TV.
You know, I have it on as kind of like a backdrop.
When I'm working, I might hear something pop up.
It's just another news feed.
But I will say, I guess so long as they have that airport contract, they'll be around for some reason.
But if it's true that the ratings are really driven by airports and hotel lobbies, then CNN's real ratings are probably, what, like 40, 50,000?
Like, how many people actually turn on CNN?
I mean, a lot of people watch it in the airport, but if they're counting that towards ratings, yikes.
I gotta say that.
So, I'll be fair though, I kind of think they don't.
I don't think they count the airports.
unidentified
Because there's no one choosing, like, how do you measure that?
I think Nielsen goes by, like, households and stuff, so.
I mean, it would make sense if they were getting 900,000.
But 22nd place, and so long as they want to be the elitist, snooty news network, go for it.
You're gonna see your ratings continue to shrink and, you know, eventually cease to exist.
But hey, so long as YouTube keeps giving them advantages and propping up corporate media, and yes, even Fox News, then they got nothing to worry about, do they?
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.
Elizabeth Warren proposes criminal penalties for spreading voting disinformation online.
I'm gonna stop you right there.
Pretty sure that would violate the First Amendment, but it is fair to say if they keep the scope of any law specifically to disinformation around voting, it might pass muster.
The challenge is when it comes to incitement, okay, a lot of people get away with literal incitement.
There was a guy recently Who tweeted something about offering money in exchange for people targeting law enforcement, essentially.
He didn't get in trouble.
Apparently, I guess he won his court case, I don't know exactly how it happened, but they said that it was a joke, therefore, you know, it's fine.
I don't understand what Elizabeth Warren thinks she's doing in trying to police speech, even if it does try to, you know, spread disinformation in elections.
The reality is, a lot of people are gonna get things wrong.
I'll put it this way.
When you incite something, you have to have some kind of intention about what you're writing for the most part.
How do you prove someone's intent when they say voting day is Saturday when it's really Sunday?
You're then gonna be like, they knew it wasn't and they're just trying to trick their opponents.
I don't see how that would actually work.
People would just say, not my bad, I made a mistake.
So maybe Elizabeth Warren is just, I don't know, spinning her wheels and trying to make it seem like she's doing something.
I will say, in the press release, she basically makes it about intersectionality to an extent.
Like, the people who are being targeted are primarily the black community.
It's like, okay, I see where you're going with this.
Yeah, I don't think your laws make sense.
Let's read this story from CNBC, and I have a press release we'll read too.
CNBC reports, Elizabeth Warren proposes criminal penalties for spreading disinformation around voting online.
They say, quote, disinformation and online foreign interference erode our democracy, and Donald Trump has invited both.
Warren said in a tweet Wednesday, anyone who seeks to challenge and defeat Donald Trump in the 2020 election must be fully prepared to take this on, and I've got a plan to do it.
Oh, does she?
Warren proposed to combat disinformation by holding big tech companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google responsible for spreading misinformation designed to suppress voters from turning out.
She says, I will push for new laws that impose tough civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating this kind of information, which has the explicit purpose of undermining the basic right to vote.
I guess technically, if you can prove intent, that's kind of like fraud, and it might actually work out.
I think the challenge is, how do they determine this, in which case the state, you know, the prosecutors, the federal prosecutors, will have to err on the side of assuming innocence, so it's not likely to ever actually do anything.
Warren, who has been an advocate for breaking up big tech companies like Amazon and Facebook, has said that she wants to make big structural changes to the tech sector to promote more competition.
It's part of a broader policy to stop disinformation, requiring action on tech companies and the government to come together to solve the problem.
Other candidates, such as Senators Amy Klobuchar and Bernie Sanders, have also been skeptical of large technology companies.
Sanders has repeatedly targeted Amazon, saying it should increase its wages and benefits to workers.
Warren has slipped in recent polls ahead of the Iowa caucuses next week.
She is in third place in national polls and fourth place in Iowa.
Warren also criticized how the company's emphasis on profit contributed to misinformation in the 2016 election, such as false ads That led to polarization and could have suppressed votes from groups like black voters.
I don't think she needed to actually put the emphasis on a racial group.
She does mention in her press release, conservatives and young people as well.
We'll get to the press release.
They say as president, she would reinstate the position of cybersecurity coordinator at the National Security Council, a position crucial to protecting the US.
She added she will also open up data for research so that academics and organizations can provide the public with knowledge on disinformation.
Quote, the stakes of this election are too high.
We need to fight the spread of false information that disempowers voters and undermines democracy.
Warren said, I'll do my part and I'm calling on my fellow candidates and big tech companies to do their part too.
Well, let's take a look at the actual press release.
Where she says, push to create civil and criminal penalties.
It says government actions to address disinformation.
Let's get specific.
Is this lady trying to violate the First Amendment?
Let's find out.
In addition to the steps that campaigns and tech companies can take by themselves, I'll take a series of actions as president to further address the spread of disinformation.
Push to create civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating false information about when and how to vote in U.S.
elections.
Voter suppression efforts of any kind offend basic American values.
I completely agree with that, Elizabeth Warren.
In both 2016 and 2018 elections, online disinformation sought to depress voter turnout by telling people they could vote via text, giving people the wrong date for election day, and more.
I will push for new laws that impose tough civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating this kind of information, which has the explicit purpose of undermining the basic right to vote.
Now, she says, knowingly, and therein lies the big problem.
I gotta stop.
You know what, man?
I'm actually not too, uh, on the surface, I kind of like it.
I kind of like the idea.
There are a lot of people that will make, you know, memes or posts where it's like, you know, hey, voting day is the 17th, when it's actually not, or they'll give the wrong time.
I don't like that.
If you can't win an election fairly, then you shouldn't win an election.
And if there are people actively trying to win by cheating out other people and suppressing votes, by all means, I think we should do something about that.
Can you actually do it the way she's proposing?
I honestly don't think so.
I don't think so.
Because what you're gonna have is people cleverly disguising their efforts, and there will always be some kind of loophole for spreading disinformation.
There's nothing you can do about this.
You can make a meme and say, I just got the date wrong.
Sorry, my bad.
Prove they knew.
Maybe they could.
Maybe it'll be very specific circumstances where we know somebody is trying to manipulate an election, and that's fair.
But for the most part, you know, Elizabeth Warren's got a whole bunch of fake ideas that just seem to be complete and utter nonsense.
Case in point, the wealth tax, which literally makes no sense.
But they go on to say this.
Reinstate the position of cybersecurity coordinator, we know that.
She also adds, convene a summit of countries to enhance information sharing and coordinate policy responses to disinformation.
Countries around the world are struggling to address disinformation.
You can't do anything about it, man.
That's the big problem.
People are stupid.
Okay, not everybody's stupid.
But as George Carlin says, think about how dumb the average person is, now realize half of them are stupider than that.
What do you do?
I'll tell you what, man.
You go on Twitter right now when you search my name, and I assure you will find wave after wave of leftists saying Tim Pool is the dumbest man on YouTube.
And maybe they're right!
I don't think so, but hey!
I'm not the king of YouTube, I don't know everything, and maybe it's true.
So what?
Who do we get to figure out who's actually smarter than somebody else?
If people are spreading disinformation because they're dumb, you can lock them up.
Look, you've got people who think the earth is flat.
They're free to do so.
There's nothing you can do about that.
There are people who believe a lot of crazy things.
I probably believe a lot of crazy things.
I tend to be a skeptic.
But I've got, you know, personal intuitions and ideas, spiritual ideas, faith-based ideas.
People would claim one religion is crazier than the other.
There's no way to police knowledge.
You just can't do it.
So while I can respect the effort, All I really see from this, from Elizabeth Warren, is two things.
One is an attempt to become relevant.
Obviously, she's going to put out these plans.
She's trailing.
Her polls are dropping.
She needs to do better.
So she's like, what can we do?
I know.
Let's address misinformation.
But all she's really saying is a buzzword.
Russia.
Disinformation.
You know, she talks about the Internet Research Agency, the Russian group that was engaging in this.
The reality is, Disinformation, intentional disinformation, is not that big of a deal.
It's really not.
We know from the Mueller report.
We know from cybersecurity experts.
The efforts of the Russians didn't have that big of an impact.
So what Elizabeth Warren is doing is she's pointing to the fact that people sometimes get things wrong and trying to inflate that into this grand scale Russia problem.
I'm sorry, man.
It's just not the case.
I think there's a reality here that she's missing.
The sad truth.
A lot of people are stupid.
They believe stupid things.
Now, I'll tell you what.
When I look at stories, when I comment on them, I go to the source, okay?
You know, I'm really tired today.
It's just been crazy, crazy.
And you know what?
I still have enough energy.
If I'm gonna do a segment, I'm gonna look at the source.
You see the story from CNBC talking about Warren?
I pulled up her press release to see what she was literally talking about.
Let me tell you something.
I have seen people spread disinformation.
Prominent YouTubers, progressives, because they don't know how to use Google.
Or they're too lazy, or they're just stupid.
You'd probably agree with me if I said progressives were stupid.
They're not all stupid, but when I use that example, I'm sure people are going, yep, that's right.
But there are conservatives who get things wrong, and there are people who choose certain sources over other sources.
So you know what, man?
What Warren's trying to do is she's just trying to take the issue of Russia and misinformation and turn it into a talking point so she can try and gain some kind of traction.
I think it was a failed effort.
It's not gonna work.
In fact, I don't think her idea for criminal penalties will even pass First Amendment muster, I think.
Even if you want to lie, you're allowed to lie.
Granted, fraud isn't allowed, so maybe she will get past that.
Fine, I accept that.
So let's read the last two things she says.
She says she wants to establish rules around information and data sharing to ensure that platforms can share with each other and with government while respecting individuals' privacy.
That's never going to happen.
You know what's going to happen once the big tech companies who have everything on you start sharing with the government?
Yeah, they're not going to respect your privacy.
They're going to play the game where they're like, we're not looking directly at your profile, just the information around it, and then they know literally everything about you.
And she wants to consider additional sanctions against countries that engage in election interference or disinformation.
In the case of Russian interference, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, there you go, the R word popped up.
Let me tell you something.
If this ever happened, it would be used by the U.S.
government to impose sanctions on countries they, and they, and they, look.
How do we know they're actually engaging in this?
Have you ever seen the IRA?
Have you ever met these people?
The answer is no.
They can just say it, and you can only assume it's true.
I don't know if we should give the government the ability to police disinformation.
Can't say I'm surprised it's coming from Warren's camp, though.
It doesn't tend to be the right arguing about this kind of stuff, though.
It does when it comes to certain issues of adult content, strangely.
Anyway.
You get the point.
I think it's interesting.
I agree with the sentiment.
I don't think Warren actually cares, nor does her plan make any sense, so... Important I have to talk about, though.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around, and I will see you all shortly.
I want you to close your eyes and picture in your mind this scenario.
You're in your house.
You're lulling yourself to sleep.
Maybe the TV just turned off, you're laying in bed and you're pressing buttons on your phone, when all of a sudden, you smell something.
Why, that's smoke!
You get up and all of a sudden you notice smoke is starting to billow into your room and you go to the door and the door is hot and you say, what do I do?
My house is on fire.
You panic.
You fall down when all of a sudden the door kicks open and from the burst of flames and smoke comes your savior.
But, before we go on, I want you to make a choice.
Would you prefer a 210 pound, 6 foot 3, ripped man with bustling muscles, looking down saying, I've come to save you?
Or would you prefer a 120 pound woman, dragging her jacket and coat, slowly opening the door saying, can someone help me carry this guy?
Look, I'm not trying to be mean.
I think there is absolutely a role for women in the fire departments.
This story from the LA Times says, LA has hired more female firefighters.
Why is the department still dominated by men? I honestly don't know why it's still dominated
by men, but to a certain degree, I think it should be. Let's be real.
Men tend to be bigger than women.
Tend to be.
There are certainly many women who are larger than the average male, or stronger than the average male, and can certainly do the job.
But the reason I told you that story, for one, I come from a firefighter family, and I personally would prefer the burly, ripped, tall man to lift me up, you know, with one arm, and run full speed out of the building.
I'm exaggerating.
But when you have to choose between your average man and your average woman, I assure you most people would prefer to see the man being the person to kick the door in to drag you to safety.
Now, that doesn't mean women can't do it, but they're asking why is the department dominated by men.
First of all, it's an extremely risky job.
Perhaps women don't want to do it.
This is really strange to me.
We get to this narrative about how there should be, like, complete gender parity in all things, as if men and women are completely the same.
Men and women have completely different bodies.
They have different fast twitch, slow twitch muscle counts, different size shoulders, their bodies are different heights, different muscle mass, different bone density.
They're driven by different hormonal urges.
Perhaps women don't want to be running into the flames to try and carry out a 150-pound dude.
But let's play this game.
Think about the inverse scenario.
If you were a firefighter, who would you rather be running in to save?
You know, a guy?
Average weight, you know, 160, 170 maybe?
Or a woman, maybe 120, 130?
I know, maybe I'm making these people fat.
Whatever.
120 130 I know maybe I'm making these people fat whatever the point well Americans are fat
The issue is if you're a tall super strong ripped guy, you're probably gonna be like doesn't matter to me
But if you're a short and frail person, you're gonna be like, I'd prefer the woman.
Because people have so much strength, okay?
Some jobs are 100% predicated on your body, your biology.
You can't change it.
I mean, they got those things where they can like break your legs and make them longer, but the reality is, some people can do better jobs.
What if your job was to lift rocks?
Who would you rather have lifting rocks?
A woman or your average man?
Probably a guy.
Doesn't mean women can't do the job in certain capacities, especially firefighters.
They can absolutely do a lot of the jobs related to firefighting.
But I'm pointing out why it's probably dominated by men.
The risk factor.
But let's read the story.
The LA Times reports Mayor Eric Garcetti is on track to miss his 2020 goal to greatly increase the number of women who work as firefighters for the Los Angeles Fire Department, renewing questions about why Mormon aren't on the force.
Just 3.3% of the city's 3,372 firefighters are female, according to the latest data prepared by the LAFD.
That's short of the 5% that Garcetti and the department had vowed to reach this year.
When Garcetti first took office in 2013, women made up 2.9% of the force.
Perhaps it's because women don't want to do it.
Has that occurred to you?
That seven years later they've increased it by 0.4%?
Maybe women don't want to run into burning buildings and carry heavy bodies out of said burning building.
You know, I'm not trying to generalize.
You got an increase of 0.4%.
But perhaps the reason you struggle to recruit is that it's a job better suited for men.
They exist, you know?
They say.
By other measures, the LAFD is making strides in changing... Let me stop, let me stop.
I know.
Not every firefighter job involves running into a burning building, okay?
Like I said, I come from a firefighter family.
But the other point is, perhaps the reason the number is 3.3% is because the administrative jobs, the truck driving jobs, perhaps those jobs are few and far between.
And most of the firefighters have to be able to run into burning buildings, they say.
By other measures, the LAFD is making strides in changing an institution that struggled to overcome a legacy tainted by allegations of sexism and racism.
Also, a Times investigation in 2013 found the department's hiring system potentially favored insiders and therefore failed to increase the number of women and minorities.
Today there are 110 sworn female firefighters compared with 92 in 2013, an increase that Garcetti quotes in speeches and interviews.
Now, I think it's fair to say, I don't care if you're a man, woman, you know, Jew, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, whatever.
graduating in greater numbers from the fire academy according to the city staff
and department data. Now I think it's fair to say I don't care if you're a
man woman you know Jew Christian Muslim Buddhists whatever whatever your
religion is if you can pass the test by all means should be a firefighter
A lot of these tests, I don't know about every jurisdiction, but they make you carry like a 150-pound duffel bag downstairs and out of a burning building.
It's like a controlled, you know, fire to test.
And that makes sense.
So perhaps these women who are getting these jobs are stronger than the average man.
Some women are taller and stronger.
That also explains why it's probably only 3.3%.
Because the average woman is smaller than the average man, and who's gonna be more capable of passing these tests?
I can't believe I'm having this conversation, you know what I mean?
Especially because most of you, it's like preaching to the choir.
We all know reality.
We all know the facts.
Why would you want a bunch of short, average women running into burning buildings to save, on average, potentially men and women, and the men who are gonna be bigger than they are and it's harder for them to carry?
But I tell you this, the fact that the LA Fire Department is having a conversation about trying to increase the amount of women in the fire department is worrying to me.
Now look, I do agree that there can be many jobs filled by women and we should encourage them to apply.
But if they have a finite amount of jobs available, if you have a guarantee, you know, we have X many departments, we can have 3,300 firefighters, and they start saying, we're going to hire less men in favor of women to get a better parity ratio, you are now risking people's lives, and that makes literally no sense.
Firefighting is one of these jobs that really is impacted by your biology.
I don't know if they actually get to this, though, but the whole article, I don't think even really talks about the issue.
They just call it progress.
Chris Larson, the first black female battalion chief of the department, said she's encouraged that more women are joining the academy and graduating compared with years past.
Where we were and where we are now is a lot of progress.
Nationwide, about 3.5% of all firefighters were women last year, according to the National Bureau of Labor Statistics.
I don't care what your race is.
I really, really don't.
have made increasing the number of women at City Hall, including the Fire Department, a top priority.
After his first election, Garcetti vowed to bring much-needed change to the culture of the predominantly white male force.
He also suspended hiring in 2014 after the Times investigation.
I don't care what your race is. I really, really don't.
And honestly, I don't care what your gender is.
I care that when I'm laying down, about to pass out from smoke inhalation,
a door gets kicked in by somebody who's 6'5", couple hundred pounds, and super ripped,
and they're like, I got you.
And they grab me with one arm and pick me up and just jump out of the building and it's an explosion, and they tuck and roll, and I'm like in the arms of this giant burly man like, thank you sir!
That's what I imagine.
It could be... Well, I said thank you, sir.
But it could literally be anybody.
The issue is, who is it more likely to be?
So, you know what, man?
I think this is a really, really dangerous precedent.
It's a really, really dangerous precedent for our society when we start ignoring biological reality.
When we start saying, we need more women firefighters.
You know, because not enough people are being dragged out of burning buildings by women, I guess?
Think about it the other way to frame this.
We need more women risking their lives doing extremely dangerous jobs, or they might die.
Now that's not too exciting, is it?
I think one interesting statistic in all of this is that women tend to take less threatening jobs.
Men take the riskier jobs.
So I'll tell you what.
I think there absolutely is a role in leadership positions having to do with coordinating, putting out a fire.
I think at a certain point, a firefighter gets a promotion, and I could be wrong, it's been years since I've gone over any of this stuff, where they end up coordinating the crew on the ground and less so running in, so you have somebody organizing.
It's entirely possible a lot of really, really dumb men get in the fire department.
In fact, half of them.
As they say, you know, as I mentioned, George Carlin says, think about how stupid the average person is, half of them are stupider than that.
So these guys, a lot of them, they got to pass the test.
But some of them are the bare minimum.
There are probably tons of smart women who could do a way better job commanding and leading than a lot of the really dumb guys.
And that's absolutely fair.
When it comes to the physicality of the job, I think it's absurd to be like, we should have more women in combat roles!
You know what I mean?
Like, there's the meme where it's called the combat death gap.
Did you know that men make up 99% of combat death?
We gotta close the gap!
No!
No we don't!
Alright?
It's sad enough the guys are dying, but to a certain degree, men just are, on average, better suited for certain roles.
It doesn't mean there would be no women.
It doesn't mean we keep women out.
It means anyone, man, woman, you know, whatever your race is, whatever your gender, you can take the test.
And if you can pass the test, you can be a firefighter.
You know what that means?
It means that your ratio is gonna be like 3.5% are female.
It's not just about whether they can do it, it's about whether they want to do it.
I can't believe this is the conversation we're having these days.
How insane.
But I'll be honest, my family, we saw these same conversations back, you know, when I was a kid.
When the department in Chicago was going through the same thing.
And it was absurd.
This idea that you would want to tell a man he can't have the job.
We have a finite amount of jobs.
We can't have, we can't have, you know, we have ten positions open.
We gotta have five women.
It's like, okay.
That's nuts.
But I'll leave it there.
You get the point.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes.
And I will see you all shortly.
It's true, that whatever the left was, has gone completely insane.
And this one, this segment I'm gonna do is gonna be a little bit more personal, and I'm gonna make some people angry, but it's gotta happen.
What you're seeing on your screen, or for those that are listening, let me tell you.
This is a woman named Jenny Jardine.
I know her, not like good friends or anything, but we had, I remember, it was almost a decade ago, we had lunch together, and we had a great conversation.
I could be misremembering a lot about what we talked about, because it's been a long time.
Like I said, it's like nearly a decade.
But she told me that she knew Andrew Breitbart, and that Breitbart used to be a liberal.
And something happened where he kind of flipped, and she didn't understand why.
It was so strange.
And I always remember she told me this story.
After Occupy Wall Street, I think I may have met her after Occupy, I'm not sure, but she interviewed me during Occupy Wall Street for Boing Boing.
BoingBoing.net is one of the first blogs ever.
I don't know Jenny well enough to talk about her personal ideologies, but I can tell you right now it appears that she's gone completely insane.
And I'm reticent to actually say something like that because we have a lot of mutual friends.
Jenny is a well-known high-profile personality in tech writing and in the hacker community to a certain degree.
I used to hang out at a hackerspace in which I believe she was one of the co-founders.
If you're not familiar with what a hackerspace is, it's like a mutual space where everyone pitches in a certain amount of money, and then you have a place where you can work and hang out, and so I'd hang out there.
And there were a few other people I'm not going to name that are high-profile hacktivists, hacker activists.
When I saw these tweets from her, I honestly thought she was hacked.
I really did.
But as it turns out now, the left has gone insane.
Now let me stop right there.
There are a lot of leftists who have always thought crazy things.
I get it.
And a lot of people who think that the Democrats and the Liberals were never the left.
I don't care about the argument about your Marxist literature.
I'm talking about in the United States, the Democrats were left, Republicans were right.
They've slowly moved to the left.
I get it.
I'm going to read you these tweets.
And I'm actually extremely shocked by them.
Jenny Jardine tweeted, Been a while since I flexed on here, but I just want to say, F Glenn Greenwald, I hope he dies in a prison, and I know things you don't know about what the H he really did to America.
Like 5 minutes to be honest, he's a liar, but that's his trade so I don't blame him.
He's a paid predator and I don't forget it.
Questions I ask that man in front of others, that he and they never answer, have been answered.
I know what you did baby, the world will eventually.
Now when I read that, I'm thinking, and this is from the other day, I'm like, oh wow, maybe Glenn Greenwald really did something.
I've never been his biggest fan.
I've been very critical of him.
But I tend to think he does, he's better than, you know, he's better than a lot of people on the left, because he calls out the woke insanity.
And so, you know, he calls out CNN and the corporate dems and stuff, and I can respect that.
He called out Russiagate insanity.
Much respect.
But then I started seeing some of the other tweets he started posting.
And it turns out, she's Rachel Maddow-level insane.
And I'm gonna say this right now.
This is the danger of Rachel Maddow, okay?
Rachel Maddow, for years, screamed about the Russians.
And people listened.
You wanna complain about Alex Jones?
Making people believe insane things?
Fine, whatever.
They're still doing it.
Congratulations, you got Jones banned.
But Rachel Maddow is still on the air, driving people I know insane.
I am not being hyperbolic when I say she's insane.
And I'm going to show you what she tweets.
First, this is what I said.
What the ever-living F happened to the left?
The people who once challenged authoritarianism now embrace it.
The people who opposed corporate control and censorship now embrace it.
Because this is what she tweeted.
She tweeted, it's loading.
Okay.
If Glenn Greenwald dies in prison, justice will have been served.
And this is a ridiculous ratio.
1.2 thousand comments, 62 retweets.
The liberals embracing fascistic ideology and authoritarianism to own the Russians?
That's the most insane thing I've ever seen.
Look, man, I may not be a big fan of Glenn Greenwald.
I might not be a big fan of Rachel Maddow.
But to advocate for their death in prison is insane.
What did Glenn Greenwald do?
He's a journalist.
He's published information you don't like.
He's got bad opinions.
Yeah, well, you know what?
She says this while Glenn Greenwald is actually having charges levied against him by the Brazilian far-right government.
Imagine that.
Embracing a far-right government... I'm using far-right because it's their language, by the way.
I don't know enough about Bolsonaro, so I know people are going to attack me for that.
The point I'm saying is, from their perspective, she is siding with apparently what they're supposed to oppose.
This may be the same... She said that... Well, let me show you some of the other tweets she said.
She tweeted, Julian Assange is an enemy of America.
Yeah, technically I can understand that point of view, but Julian Assange only ever published factual information.
You cannot like the fact that he's targeted, that he's released information damaging to America, but hey, welcome to freedom.
America should get with the program.
Edward Snowden is an enemy of America.
Seriously?
Look, I'm not a big Snowden fan either.
I think when, you know, she points something out I actually kind of agree with.
Snowden's not a whistleblower, he's a leaker.
He didn't read every single thing he published, and I think it's fair to criticize him.
But to call him an enemy of America, no, I think he was ignorant, and what he did was potentially dangerous.
But I don't think Edward Snowden is evil.
I think he saw programs, you know, he took it one step too far.
My general understanding could be wrong, but He uncovered the NSA spying.
Violations of our constitutional rights.
Horrifying things.
But he went heavy-handed with it, and he leaked a bunch of information he didn't actually read.
Okay?
That... fine.
I guess technically, I understand why you call him an enemy of America, but what's happened?
This isn't how the left used to behave.
The left used to challenge authority.
Now it's just, Glenn Greenwald is an enemy of America.
Wait till I show you some of this other stuff.
She tweeted, I'm so I'm sorry that so many of my longtime friends are going to go through so much
pain as the involvement and impact of Russian foreign active measures in our politics, technology,
media, even our dialogue on social are finally revealed. Ego death hurts. I too was once in a
cult. What? I do not judge you. I love you. I I speak provocatively sometimes for maximum impact.
My hope is to light a fire.
Evidently, I did.
The blind spot grows.
The deeper in you get.
When my blind spots were torn away, it was like losing a layer of skin.
Nobody wants that.
I don't judge you.
I love you.
But I won't be flinching out here.
Quote.
She's crazy.
Bless your sweet baby heart.
Gaslighting doesn't work when you already have professional help.
And there you go.
Once I was indeed crazy, now I'm well-adjusted, well-cared for, and pretty immune to abuse.
Good morning, FSB botnets, and sad suckers who don't know you're in them.
Wow.
Seriously, I blame Rachel Maddow for this.
I'm not exaggerating.
Look, man, I know people who believe in flat-earth insanity, and I really do think there are some people to blame for why they believe this absolutely ridiculous nonsense.
Completely ridiculous nonsense.
But to a certain extent, you know, if you choose to go on social media and watch things, it's very different from a major cable network broadcasting this stuff every day and night for years and driving people like this insane.
Literally insane.
She has professional help because something is wrong.
And I'm saying this from a point of empathy, like, I'm worried when I look at her tweets.
Look at this.
She tweeted, I'm worried about how many dots there are connecting Bernie to Russia.
What?
And I'm worried that you aren't as worried as I am.
And I'm worried that we're going to get fooled all over again.
Did you know that an American company, I believe it's American, New Knowledge, was exposed creating fake Russian bots, Twitter accounts with Cyrillic alphabet in them, so that it looked like Russians were supporting Roy Moore in, I think, Alabama?
Yeah, that was fake.
Did you know that most of the analysis and data from security companies shows that the Russian interference was minimal and had very little impact?
Why then would such a prominent, high-profile member or individual on the left, 154,000 followers, we don't even follow each other anymore, because she started going off the rails.
What's driving her truly nuts?
It's people like Maddow.
It really, really is.
Look, again, criticize Jones all day and night.
I'm not here to defend the guy.
You got him banned.
Congratulations.
But Maddow is still there espousing this.
She said, and now I'm muting this thread.
I don't come here because I care about what people think of what I know.
Why do so many links connect Bernie Sanders' campaign to Russian support?
And why is he not as freaked out about this as, say, I am?
If the person who's telling you to vote for Bernie Sanders works for or has worked through Russia Today, maybe think about that.
If they're Ed Snowden, maybe flush your brain down the toilet.
He ain't America's ally or your pal.
Let me tell y'all something.
I used to appear on Russia Today frequently.
I did a few interviews on Russia Today.
And I would tell you Bernie Sanders is not fit to be president.
Straight up.
I would also tell you I'm not a fan of Donald Trump.
I like Andrew Yang.
Pete Buttigieg isn't super bad, but he's kind of a gray blob as I describe him.
I don't know who we really have as Americans, but are you going to tell me now that, say, Andrew Yang is a Russian?
Oh, but it's Bernie Sanders.
Come on, man.
Bernie Sanders has his faults.
But seriously, the media smears the lies and the psychosis permeating what the left used to be.
It's not everybody on the left, but I used to hang out with hackers and activists, people who would challenge the establishment, challenge the government when it was authoritarian, and then something strange started to happen.
You know what was really, really crazy?
When I went to, I think it was DEF CON, And somebody who used to work for the government was giving a speech about Russian interference and got the audience to clap and applaud.
And it was kind of a shocking moment when the hacker community was praising the intelligence community.
And that was, to me, nuts.
Because they call them spooks.
They're like, you know, they used to play games where they try and spot the Fed.
Now all of a sudden they were cheering for it.
Now listen.
I'm not an anarcho-far-lefty type crazy person.
I got no problem with people who work for the intelligence community, who are doing their best to actually protect this country, and believe in the Constitution.
Of course.
Law enforcement is not all evil, etc.
But it was an amazing flip.
The trust in the system sparked within what used to be the anti-establishment left.
And Jenny is probably one of the greatest examples of the conspiracy theory insanity.
It's not a rabbit hole, though.
They try to tell you that YouTube will make people go far right.
But what really happens, and maybe, you know, maybe, although I think it's less pronounced than they would like to claim, what about when your high-profile TV personalities every day scream Orange Man bad, only ever put out the most alarming and the worst information possible, and then try and convince you every single day Russia's there to get you?
You lose your mind.
You lose your friends.
And you have to say this to them.
Let me get to that apology she said.
I'm so sorry to many of my longtime friends that are going through so much as the involvement and impact of Russian foreign active measures in our politics are finally revealed.
Apologizing to the people who have pushed her away because she's gone insane.
Claiming she's not crazy but she knows the truth.
Thinking the people responding to her are Russians.
Ah, man.
It's kind of sad.
And you know, for me, it's like, this was somebody that I knew to be of prominence in the tech community, in the hacker community, in the online community.
And now they're crazy.
So I go back to that story when she told me that Breitbart used to be a liberal.
You guys know Andrew Breitbart.
And he became conservative.
And she says, I don't know what happened to him, how he flipped.
I'm sitting here feeling the exact same way.
My politics as it pertains to freedom and liberty are the same.
I hung out with people in the hacker community who believed in free speech, free expression.
Many of them still do.
My position never changed.
But this, she fully admits her eyes have been opened to see the reality of Russia.
What happened to these people?
It's just nuts.
No idea.
I think it's Rachel Maddow, though, to be honest.
I mean, I know it's a bit hyperbolic to blame her for all of it, but she plays such a massive role, and she's rich because of it.
