Democrats PANIC As Democrat Voters Vow To Vote Trump, The "Never Bernie" Movement Taking Over
Democrats PANIC As Democrat Voters Vow To Vote Trump, The "Never Bernie" Movement Taking Over. Establishment Democrats and big ticket Donors are panicking as the "Never Bernie" movement starts to become a thing.The strange conundrum facing Democrats is that no matter which primary candidate loses a decent portion of their base will defect to the Republicans and Donald Trump.Yang voters might vote Trump or just sit it out if he loses the primary. Bernie voters are already warning that only Bernie can defeat Trump while the "Never Bernie" Democrats state they will either not vote or support Trump if Bernie DOES get the nomination.Its possibly the weirdest thing to me that someone who supports Biden would choose Trump over Bernie and someone who support Bernie would choose Trump over Biden.It seems that no matter who wins the nomination Trump is going to grab a large portion of angry Democrats or they might just not vote at all.Far Left Democrats will reject the establishment and establishment Democrats will reject the far left. There is no solution for the dems.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Establishment Democrats are currently panicking that Bernie Sanders is slowly inching toward the lead, and that's going to result in what they call the Never Bernie Apocalypse.
Now, you've heard of the Never Trumpers, right?
Back in 2016, a bunch of conservatives said, if Donald Trump is the nominee, we will vote Democrat because we will never support Trump.
And many of these people actually voted for Hillary Clinton.
Since then, they've been a somewhat small voice, but still popping up from time to time.
High-profile former conservatives now seemingly siding with Democrats on literally everything.
That's the Never Trump movement.
The Never Bernie movement is basically the same.
Moderate and establishment Democrat voters who don't want a socialist president, Bernie Sanders, may actually defect to Donald Trump.
And guess what?
We actually have some numbers to back up how many.
It could be as much as 10%.
You wanna know why this story is so, I guess, funny?
Is that Bernie or Bust is around the same percentage.
That if Bernie Sanders doesn't get the nomination, Bernie's supporters might actually vote for Trump, as they did in 2016.
It seems the Democrats are between a rock and a hard place, and no matter who gets the nomination, around the same percentage of voters are flipping to Donald Trump.
I really can't see Donald Trump losing.
I mean, look, he's about to be acquitted in the impeachment trial.
In fact, some Democrats might even support him and vote to acquit.
And if the Democrats are fractured with both sides threatening to vote for Trump unless their side wins, no matter what happens, Trump's getting those votes.
Now it gets, I guess, a bit worse.
We have another story from BuzzFeed, because Andrew Yang voters are even expressing they won't vote at all unless Yang gets the nomination.
So I know we've talked about democratic civil war in the past, but today let's focus on the new Never Bernie movement and how moderate Democrats are going to join their Bernie or Bust bros from back in 2016 in voting for the Orange Man.
Before we get started, however, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's several ways you can give.
There's a PayPal option, a physical address, but of course the best thing you can do is share this video.
At this point, I don't really know why, because I don't think we're going to break any echo chambers.
There's a lot of people who are absolutely interested in listening to what I have to say, even if they disagree, and there are a lot of people who just don't want to hear it.
They want to believe that Bernie Sanders is the only path forward.
They say this, the progressives.
That if the Democrats go for a centrist corporate type like Hillary Clinton, they will lose once again.
I think that's true.
But then the centrist Democrat corporate types say, if you vote for a socialist, you will lose.
And that's also true!
I think it's fair to say, this story about Never Bernie should be the proof, no matter what happens, the Democrats are gonna lose.
Now, I know, I know.
You know, it's a bit... I don't want to make any hard predictions because, hey, everybody thought Hillary was going to win and Trump was going to lose.
Who knows?
That could happen now.
Perhaps a lot of people really, really hate the Orange Man or the media narrative has been so effective, they're actually going to vote against him.
And come 2020, despite the amazing economy and the amount of money everybody's making, they might vote to, you know, against Trump, whoever it is.
Because as the saying goes, vote blue no matter who.
But you know what the big problem is?
I covered this yesterday.
The Democrats are cheating anyway, so who cares?
I'm not interested in playing the game.
And vote blue no matter who?
It's actually not working.
They're gonna vote red if it's not their candidate, be it a moderate or Bernie.
Let's read the story from the New York Post.
They say, The never-Bernie apocalypse is coming, Dem insiders warn.
These Democrats are feeling burned out.
Democratic donors and party insiders are warning that large swaths of their voters could stay home or even defect to Trump if Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders snags the nomination.
Quote, I'll still put a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker on my car, but a lot of people won't, said Jim Kessler, executive vice president for policy at Third Way, a Democratic think tank not aligned with any candidate.
They'll say, I don't like Donald Trump, but I don't like Sanders either.
We survived four years of Trump.
Maybe we'll survive another four years.
They'll stay home, vote third party.
Or vote for Trump.
And that's a quote.
An insider working with Mike Bloomberg's campaign agreed.
I think that there is a very real never Bernie sentiment amongst both the donor class and moderate centrist Democrats or what I would call regular Democrats.
Bloomberg and Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden, who represent the heart and soul of the party, their supporters are not as apt to support someone like Bernie.
After an October heart attack left many assuming Sanders' candidacy was DOA, the 78-year-old socialist has bounced back.
A new Iowa State University poll found 24% of Iowa voters behind him, with Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren at 19, former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Buttigieg at 17, and Biden at 15.
In New Hampshire, another recent poll gave Sanders a 15-point lead.
This has led to alarm bells among establishment Democrats, one of whom said Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party blow in England to Boris Johnson was a warning shot.
Among insiders, there is near universal belief that Sanders' card-carrying socialist credentials could create enormous problems with suburban and older voters.
Both of whom tend to be wealthier than the general population.
While millennials are evenly split between socialism or capitalism, only 39% of Generation Xers and 32% of Baby Boomers held favorable views of socialism, according to a November 2019 Gallup poll.
We can come back to this.
But I know many people on the left have probably already brought up the point.
Yeah, Tim, but if Bernie-er bust happened and between 12-18% of Bernie supporters went to Trump, they'll certainly come back to Bernie in 2020, right?
Thus negating any moderate losses.
No.
I wouldn't predict so.
You know why?
The people that switched from Bernie to Trump did it for a couple reasons.
Some people it was watch the world burn, but admittedly that was small.
As apparently, in a leaked video, Trump said it was about trade.
That's right.
Many Bernie Sanders supporters were concerned about trade agreements and jobs in manufacturing, something that Bernie supported.
Today, Bernie Sanders is substantially more pro-immigration, says he won't, he will issue a moratorium on deportations and decriminalize border crossings, something that he wasn't for in the past.
But more importantly, these people who are concerned about the economy Who voted for Trump have no reason to now vote for Bernie when Trump has fulfilled his goal in boosting the economy.
If that's the case, they're probably happy where they are.
And you will see very few people defect from Trump to Bernie Sanders because, for the most part, Trump won.
So why would that be the case?
But let me show you the story from November, from the New York Times, the upshot.
We're now going to talk about the Obama voters.
And there's a really interesting point to be made that debunks a lot of the leftist narrative.
Surprise, surprise, Trump's voters, Trump supporters, they're not bigots.
And here's the proof.
Two-thirds of battleground state voters who chose Trump in 2016 but selected Democrats in the midterms say they will return to the president next year.
Now, I know I said I'd get to the proof.
That's the next story.
I'm starting with this to show you.
Many people voted for Trump.
Two-thirds of them, I'm sorry, many people voted for Trump in 2016.
A large portion then selected a Democrat in the midterms, giving the House impeachment powers, which led us to this, I mean, pending acquittal, a waste of everyone's time.
Two-thirds of these people are returning to the president.
So they lost what little power they had because they campaigned upon, elect us and we will work past the partisan nonsense and bickering and actually get stuff done.
What did they do?
They complained about the orange man the entire time.
Scandal, scandal, scandal, impeachment, impeachment, and finally acquittal.
Why vote for them again?
The President has been, well, to a certain degree, to many of his supporters, exonerated.
Acquittal means found to be not guilty.
They didn't prove their case.
But here's the big evidence about Trump's base.
There is actually a Wikipedia article for the Obama-Trump voters.
The only thing I really want to show you is this.
They say, they expressed skepticism of congressional Republicans and a desire to change the status quo.
Approximately 9.4% of Obama voters voted for Trump in 2016.
Why would those people switch to a socialist?
They wouldn't.
Many of these people are going to stick with Trump because Trump delivered.
But let's talk about the people slightly to the left of them.
Holdovers, who maybe didn't vote for anybody.
These are the moderate voters who are probably now deciding, you know what, they're going to vote for Trump.
Because I had a conversation with someone recently, a local here in my Philadelphia suburb, South Jersey area, who said they didn't vote in 2016 and didn't care.
But based on everything that's happened, with the smears, the lies, and the scandals, what they keep doing to that guy, they said, they're thinking about actually voting for him now.
So now uninitiated people are just so sick and tired of the Democrats' scandal-ridden news story, they're saying, you know what, they deserve it.
But here we can see that you had about 10% of Obama's voters voting for Trump.
And you might say, yeah, Tim, so what?
So 10% of Trump's base isn't, you know, bigoted or whatever?
No, listen.
Half the country supported the president, okay?
A little bit less than, you know, well, I shouldn't say half, right?
But it was 63 million people, so half of the voters.
A little bit less than half the voters.
Many of these people believed in trade.
The Bernie or Bust voters who switched to Trump were doing it mostly for trade and immigration.
Trump delivered.
It had nothing to do with race.
They voted for Obama in the past.
Check out this news story from Andrew Yang.
So kind of what I'm getting at here, what I'm trying to show you is every single one of these candidates is a blank or bust.
We've talked about it before, but now I think it's hilarious to see a Never Bernie movement mirroring the Never Trump movement.
This story fascinated me.
from BuzzFeed News. It says, who is the Yang Gang's second choice? His diehard supporters
aren't sure they have one. The Iowa caucus system allows for supporters to pick a second choice if
their candidate doesn't clear a 15% viability threshold.
There's a big potential for us not to move anywhere, said one Yang supporter.
And they elaborate this, saying, in interviews with over a dozen Yang supporters across Iowa in the final days before Monday's caucuses, it was clear that Yang supporters' wide range of political ideologies has made it hard for them to coalesce behind a particular candidate who they support during a realignment vote.
if Yang doesn't reach the viability threshold, which is 15%.
Or if they'd even continue voting for a Democrat in the caucus and in the general election at
all. They actually say, he's not a po- so here's one of the quotes, he's not a
politician, he's a normal person like us.
Yang's argument for automation, AI, is doing to society, what's his- okay,
his argument for what AI is doing to society really spoke to me and made a lot of sense.
If Yang doesn't meet the threshold at their caucus site, they're not decided on what to do.
There's a big potential for us not to move anywhere.
It's just really something I'd have to feel on the night I think, there's other candidates I like.
Here's another one.
There's nobody that really compares to Yang, Dina said.
Though Chris likes Bernie Sanders, he doesn't think his plans are viable, and said he probably wouldn't move to Sanders during the caucus process, and doesn't expect him to be viable at the caucus site.
Yang has hinted that his supporters might gravitate toward the Sanders campaign, telling a Bloomberg News roundtable last week, there's a lot of overlap in support, but he admitted on Sunday that he did not know where his supporters would end up.
We have a very, very diverse group of supporters.
I can't speak of where they would head, Yang said.
I do have a sense that many of them have supported Bernie in the past, but many of them supported President Trump, and they might just leave.
Yang added that his campaign doesn't currently have plans to direct his supporters to support a particular candidate during a realignment vote.
Well, it may be that Yang's voters go to Bernie, but we can see that at least for the most part, they're not entirely convinced they would stay at all.
You have a hard split.
Go to the Yang subreddit and what do we see?
It's Yang or Bust, baby.
It's Bernie or Bust, baby.
It's Biden or Bust, I guess?
Man, there really is no unity with the Democratic Party at all.
So much so, that Vote Blue, no matter who, falls on deaf ears, and the only people really saying it are resistance establishment Democrats who just hate Donald Trump.
Unfortunately, that's not going to be enough for the Democrats to actually win.
I gotta say, the paradox is astounding.
Here's a story from 2017.
They basically said about 1 in 10 of Bernie Sanders supporters voted for Trump.
As you can see, it doesn't matter who gets the nomination.
There are going to be a large quantity of defectors to Trump, plain and simple.
And I think that means Trump is going to win better than most people even predicted.
Now, a lot of people are saying Trump's going to get, you know, 40 states or 45 states, so I don't know about that.
You know, some people are saying it's gonna get 70 million people.
I'll tell you what, if Yang's base flips to Trump, if Bernie's base flips to Trump, it's a very confusing prospect, I must say.
And it stands to reason those, you know, blank or bust voters, their second choice is Donald Trump.
So, as much as someone might really like Bernie, they think Trump is better than Yang.
Someone might like Yang, they think Trump is better than Bernie.
Somebody might like Buttigieg or Biden, but they think Trump is better than Bernie or Yang or Tulsi or whoever else.
That's the weirdest thing to me, but apparently it's what's gonna happen.
Now, one of the things that's happened recently, which we'll see.
You know, we'll see what happens come Wednesday, I believe.
The Los Angeles Times reports some Democrats might vote to acquit Trump.
I'll tell you what.
The impeachment process was so awful that it might actually result in not just Democrat defectors in the House, but Democrat defectors in the Senate.
I mean, that's a huge win for Donald Trump.
This establishment play to smear and slander Trump the whole time has been meaningless to most Americans, and it's failed every step of the way.
In fact, the process cost the Democrats Jeff Van Drew, who is now a proud Republican.
So what do we end up seeing in the polls?
GOP is fired up for 2020 and the Democrats are anxious.
This is a poll that came out a few days ago from the AP.
The Democrats are worried.
And rightly so.
Because, I'm just going to say it, I said it before, I'll say it again, there is no Democratic Party anymore.
And I really do mean it.
I think it ended with Hillary Clinton.
Or with the rise of Bernie Sanders, however you want to say it.
But you can't compare Andrew Yang to Biden or Bernie to Klobuchar.
They're just not in the same realm.
There is no unifying principle that brings Democrats together.
Thus, it's just a name.
It's a brand that means not Republican.
That's all it means.
If I said to you, to someone, I get these complaints.
They're like, Tim, when you say Democrats, you know, it's not fair because you should say this.
It's like, dude, I can't fit the word establishment Democrat on a thumbnail.
It's massive.
You know, but I do try to say leftist Democrats when I can.
The reality is, If I said to you, Democrat, what do you envision?
Do you think of Joe Biden or do you think of Bernie Sanders?
Do you think of Antifa or do you think of some, you know, moderate dude wearing a suit walking around with a tie on?
There's no real way to describe it based on the word Democrat anymore.
But in fact, when you say the word Republican, you have a general idea.
Now, of course, the Republicans have their factions as well, but they're all waving Trump flags.
All of them.
Okay, 90% of them are waving Trump flags.
You know what they're kind of into.
When you look at these graphs about manifesto or ideology, they're mostly unified.
When you look at the moderate Democrats, they're more likely to be for Trump.
That's why I think it may be true that Trump really does get these moderate voters.
And I think one of the big reasons why that's going to happen is potentially Well, the far left is gaining support, right?
Bernie Sanders is leading in the polls.
But he's not strong enough to even stand up for himself, and they're being bullied by the likes of Hillary Clinton.
So ultimately what ends up happening is, as we know, it doesn't matter who gets the nomination, be it Biden or Bernie, both factions are willing to defect to Trump, which I think is just weird.
It's like, you won't give me Bernie?
Well then fine, Trump it is.
And then they're like, if you don't give me Biden, then fine, Trump it is.
Like, okay, why don't you just go vote for Trump, everybody?
But what I end up seeing is something truly fascinating.
Why the far left can't win.
Why the moderates will probably strong arm the nomination and then see a bunch of defectors to Trump.
This is a story we already talked about.
Hillary Clinton slams Bernie Sanders for not working to unite Democrats in 2016.
Or how about this story?
Nobody likes him.
Hillary Clinton reignites feud with Bernie, after everything Bernie did for Hillary.
And what did Bernie do?
Nothing.
Did he stand up for himself?
No.
So how could he possibly win?
How could he possibly be a figure that people want to stand behind?
The far-left Democrats, the progressive Democrats, do not have the strength to actually win.
Because when Hillary Clinton pulled out all the stops to go after Tulsi Gabbard, who I get it, fine, many of them, they hate Tulsi anyway, fine.
But she went after Bernie, too.
What did we see?
Well, at first, Rashida Tlaib said, you know, I will boo Hillary Clinton.
And then she apologized and bent the knee.
Well, they actually, so some people say it wasn't a real apology.
But I find it fascinating.
That the progressive Democrats, for all of the chaos they've brought to the establishment, when Hillary Clinton smears and defames and lies and does whatever she wants, they don't do anything.
Nobody tells her to be quiet.
Nobody tells her to embrace party unity.
They just say, oh, there goes Hillary Clinton again.
And then when they boo her for it, they get yelled at.
Rashida Tlaib issues an apology because they don't have the strength to tell them to stop.
I think this is why ultimately you will see no unity there.
Well, actually, hold on.
This is actually evidence to an extent that there may be, that they're being forced in line to bend the knee to Hillary Clinton and the moderates.
And the never Bernie message is probably a part of that.
The Democrats are desperately trying to coalesce and they're doing it by force.
It won't work.
It really, really won't.
Bernie or bust, Biden or bust, whatever you want to call it, it's going to happen again.
But I don't necessarily know what we can or can't predict.
But I certainly think it's fair to point out this story from just the other day.
We can lose this election.
What top Democrats fear could go wrong in 2020.
Democrats worry that a bloody drawn-out primary, candidates fighting each other, running out of money, and failing to attract swing voters could cost them the election.
So, look, I'm not gonna drag this story out because you get the point.
But I will add a couple things.
Just to wrap up, I might do a longer... No, I don't think this next story really deserves a longer segment.
Just something in passing.
From The Free Beacon, Bernie leads 2020 field in private jet spending.
Yeah, okay.
I don't trust any of these politicians.
I don't think they actually care about what they're claiming they care about.
At the very least, you take into consideration this story from Bernie, and what do you get?
You get a look at four years of Donald Trump.
Did Trump get everything done that he said he would?
Technically not.
Technically, you know, maybe.
Trump says he fulfilled more promises than, he kept more promises than he even made, which makes no sense and made his supporters laugh.
But I'll tell you this, you take a look at Bernie Sanders who talks about the Green New Deal and his AOC, but then he flies around in private jets, and people are going to say, I'm not sure I trust that guy.
You take a look at where he was on immigration in 2015, you take a look where he's at now, people are going to say, I don't trust that guy.
You take a look at the four years of Donald Trump, the economy doing better, illegal immigration is down, the wall, I'm doing air quotes because it's some kind of a wall, is being built, it's the bollard fencing.
So, they can take a look at Trump and say, you know what?
He's at least got some of it done.
But Bernie Sanders is a hypocrite.
And who wants Joe Biden?
Okay?
They can, you know, they poll for him, but I don't think anyone's actually really paying attention.
But of course, as always, I must try to be as balanced as I can.
Because it wouldn't be fair to just claim it's only going to be Democrats defecting to Trump.
The reality is, following the Senate vote to deny witnesses, a lot of people started coming out, freaking out, claiming democracy is over and the end is nigh.
And I'll tell you what.
You might want to mock Bill Maher for saying he might cry, sure, but that might actually scare a lot of people.
I mean, this extreme rhetoric might have people truly worried and they may actually flip come 2020.
Never Trump Republican Bill Kristol comes out of the political closet and declares he's a Democrat for now.
They've gone beyond Never Trump.
The Never Trumpers are now officially stating they're just literal Democrats.
They're Democrats now.
Okay.
Well, that's bad news for Trump to an extent, but these people were never with him in the first place.
It is to an extent good news for the Democrats.
They're going to get some people, but I'm not convinced that your average Democrat is going to be enthused about lifelong Republicans now joining their party.
Something weird is happening, isn't it?
Like, look, I grew up as a Democrat.
I'm not excited to call Bill Kristol an ally.
I'm like, uh, that's kind of weird.
No, it shows you that whatever the Democratic Party is today, it's literally not a thing.
It's just, it's just a name only.
I'll say it again.
It basically just means not Republican.
And that's about it.
So, Never Bernie.
Will the Never Bernie voters officially come out as Republican?
In fact, many have.
Some people say, you know, there's a personality named Jack Murphy, who I've mentioned before, he calls it Democrat too deplorable.
That flip happened in 2016.
I know a lot of people who now call themselves conservatives or Republican that used to be Democrat.
The shift seems to be happening in the other way.
But these Never Trumpers, for some reason, desperately tried to hold on to the Republican Party.
I know a lot of people point the finger at me because I used to be very much in line with the Democratic Party, but you're probably never going to hear anything close to that from me because I would rather just be an ambivalent centrist and avoid all of the nonsense.
But I'll tell you what, I do find it funny when the left points the finger and calls me right-winger conservative, and then people on the right call me a leftist.
I don't understand why anyone thinks I should be an example of either side for anybody because I'm a weirdo.
I don't know.
I don't know.
All I know is I think everybody's nuts.
I think it's fair to say, you know, if it's true, it's true.
The Democrats are losing, plain and simple.
Trump is going to win.
That's not a Republican talking point or position.
It's literally happening.
So if some never Trumpers who didn't vote for Trump in the first place are going to now call themselves Democrats when they literally, they basically were, then so be it.
And maybe the Democratic Party really just is a big tent for everybody.
It doesn't seem to work well for the actual voters who are threatening to leave.
So let me just wrap this up as to why I thought this was important.
Plain and simple.
If Bernie wins, moderates vote Trump.
If a moderate wins, Bernie voters vote Trump.
What a weird and twisted world.
Not everybody, okay?
Not everybody.
Not every Bernie voter.
I'm saying about 10% of each side is gonna defect if the other side wins.
It's just the weirdest thing to me.
It just doesn't make sense.
Maybe you both agree that Trump is the next best choice and 20% should just vote for the guy, I guess?
I think that's going to happen.
We'll see, though.
It's going to be a wild ride.
Super Bowl Sunday.
I hope you go watch some football, have some chips, or do whatever.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews, and I will see you all there.
Just when I thought Antifa could not get any stupider, they go and do something like this.
Protesting a trash cleanup.
Many of you may be familiar with Scott Pressler.
He's a conservative activist, Trump supporter, and guess what he does?
He goes and he cleans up trash.
That's basically it.
He shows up to cities where there's messes and he cleans up the garbage, along with many volunteers and supporters.
And that's about it.
That's kind of awesome.
Rad.
Anybody who wants to help the environment clean things up and do the right thing, you'll have my respect and support.
For some reason...
Media individuals, I guess because the media is infected with insane fringe leftist protesters who have no idea what they're talking about, the media has actually smeared Scott Pressler trying to imply nefarious motives as to why he's actually cleaning up trash in cities.
Sorry, man.
Let me tell you something.
As I love saying whenever a story about Pressler comes up, If, if somebody, like Scott or anybody, wants to go clean up trash, okay, maybe not anybody, but if someone, like, you know, a Trump supporter, fine.
If they're gonna clean up trash to make Trump supporters look good, uh, it works.
Sorry, that's just a fact.
He's literally cleaning up, like, dump sites and, like, you know, litter and pollution.
I mean, that's a good thing.
You can, you can, you can look all day and night at these left-wing activists who preach about the environment, but how many of them are actually gonna go out and clean things up?
Now here's the best part.
There's two stories here.
First, Antifa actually protested a trash cleanup hosted by Scott Pressler, which is just insane.
And here's the best part.
A couple days ago, when Pressler did another trash cleanup, I believe this one was in Oregon, they actually tried insinuating the purpose of the trash cleanup was to make, dare I say, this is their words, not mine, brown people look bad.
I'm not kidding.
They're arguing that because Scott Pressler showed up to a city with a bunch of volunteers and started cleaning things up, the intent was to paint brown people as inherently dirty.
If you think I'll tell you this, if all he has to do is go out and clean up, and you're going to write psychotic articles about this, man, I'll tell you what, that's ten times the propaganda power that a garbage cleanup could ever accomplish.
Like, imagine someone walking up like, hey, we've just cleaned up your neighborhood, here you go.
And then someone walks by and calls that person, like, a far-right, you know, anti-immigration whatever, and you're gonna be like, I don't know why you're yelling at them.
Check this out, this is from Elijah Schaefer.
Quote, why is Antifa protesting a trash cleanup?
Good question, Scott Pressler.
Radical left-wing protesters accidentally mistook the San Francisco trash cleanup as a homeless removal campaign.
While volunteers cleaned the city, protesters called them racists and fascists.
So we have this video, basically what Scott did.
I think this is from San Francisco.
He was actually talking to homeless people and asking them how they felt about, you know, the laws they pass in San Francisco that help illegal immigrants when they're not taking care of the homeless.
And surprise, surprise, yeah, the homeless people were kind of upset about how they do that.
Because it doesn't make sense, does it?
But let's move on.
I want to show you this.
So, this is what Scott Prosser tweeted.
This is just from the other day.
day. He said, Mom and Dad, you taught me to say yes, sir and yes, ma'am. You encouraged
me to become an Eagle Scout. Today, your son was protested for picking up trash on the
streets of San Francisco. You also taught me to never give up. And I promise to promise
not to stop leading with love. Scott, I got to tell you something.
I think I figured it out.
They want their trash.
You see, think about it.
There's human waste all over the streets of San Francisco.
They hire the poop patrol.
I'm not kidding, literally.
It's a department that goes and cleans up poop.
There's needles and trash everywhere.
And I think the problem is, us outsiders see that and we say, that's gross.
And, you know, people complain about it.
But that was an assumption on our part.
We assumed they don't like trash either.
Well, sure enough, if you come and try and take that garbage city, you know, and clean the garbage, take the garbage away from it, they get mad.
Because you're taking away their garbage.
See, they like their garbage city.
That's why they're protesting you.
Okay, not really.
I'm joking.
But isn't it kind of funny?
Like, what assumption should I make when you're, like, taking garbage and they're like, ah, get out of here, you racist fascists!
Like, okay, you can keep the garbage.
I didn't know you wanted it that much.
Is that really what it's about?
But, uh, that's the gist of what we saw with their San Francisco cleanup.
But let me get to the absolutely I cannot believe this story, man.
I absolutely can't believe this.
And lo and behold, every time Scott Pressler does one of these cleanups, someone's gotta smear the guy.
How crazy is this, okay?
That instead of going out and cleaning things up, or having a contest like who can clean up the most, they're like, we're not going to clean up the trash.
We're not going to pass laws to help the homeless.
We're not going to hire someone to even clean it up.
No, we're going to do nothing.
But if someone else comes, we're going to write really, really bad things about them.
How do you get anything done if that's the case?
You actually have people coming out to help, and the media is smearing them, and Antifa is literally protesting it.
Okay man, let them have their garbage cities, I guess.
Check this out, this is from Willamette Week on the 29th.
An Oregon trash pickup is part of a conservative campaign to make liberal cities look like garbage dumps.
It was broadcast on social media by its orchestrator, a traveling conservative activist named Scott Ryan Pressler.
First of all, no one needs to make your town look like garbage dumps when they're literally garbage dumps.
If you got a problem with someone pointing out that you got crap on your boot, maybe you should wash it off instead of waiting for someone else to wash it off for you and then getting mad when they do.
First of all, and secondly, how can you make that leap to say that that's his intention?
I can't read his mind.
All I know is the dude's cleaning up trash.
I'll tell you what.
This is what I always say.
If his intent is to make these cities look bad, well, he didn't put the garbage there, dude.
The people in your city did.
So him cleaning it up, surprise, it does make Trump supporters look good.
And when you smear him for doing it, it doesn't make him look bad.
It makes you look bad even more.
I kid you not, you are going to laugh when you see what I'm about to read you.
Check this out.
Quote, Guys, I found another needle!
Shouted a woman wearing an Oregon Women for Trump t-shirt.
She picked up the syringe with her grabber and held it in front of her cell phone for a photo.
She was one of 50 people searching for trash January 25th in a football field-sized grassy lot adjacent to the Days Inn in Salem.
The scent of fried chicken from a nearby Denny's hung in the air.
I don't know why you had to tell me about the fried chicken.
That's very strange.
But I'll do this.
I have to interject very quickly.
I absolutely detest these journalists who wanted to be novelists, I guess.
So they end up writing articles that have nothing to do with anything.
Instead of being like, today a group of activists came and did X, Y, and Z and picked up 10 tons of trash, it's like a dark night in a field the size of a football with fried chicken sent in the air.
I look to my left.
Trump supporters.
Terrified, I said, oh no, the fascists are here.
They always write like a novel.
You know?
And I think it's really funny, too, because if you've ever done a Google search for a recipe, there was a meme going around recently where it was basically like, every time you Google search a recipe, you get like a 500-word essay on how the recipe comes from the ancient Nordic lands in Scandinavia.
And you're like, I don't care, dude.
Tell me how many eggs I need.
And that's exactly how I feel reading this stuff.
Thank you for letting me know that you could smell fried chicken.
I'm not sure how that's gonna help me understand your story, but I digress.
I gotta get to the best part.
When they explain exactly why Pressler did it.
But let's read.
But it did!
There's literally camps all over these cities that Pressler goes to.
So what do you think?
court-mandated community service.
In fact, it was political theater.
Part of a campaign to prove homeless camping had turned Oregon into a garbage dump.
But it did!
There's literally camps all over these cities that Pressler goes to.
So you're, what do you think?
Do you think he's like, hiring a production company to come down
and put the camps in the trash there, and then go and film it and go,
oh heavens, look at the trash?
No, he literally goes to your city and says, Oh heavens, look at the trash.
It was there before he got there.
If anyone's at fault, it's not him for cleaning it up.
It's your cities for not dealing with the problem.
And now you're mad that someone's basically pointing it out and fixing it for you.
That is absolutely insane.
The best they can do instead of actually clean it up is complain that someone might look good from doing it.
He's not wrong!
pickup was being broadcast on social media by its orchestrator, a traveling conservative
activist named Scott Ryan Pressler.
Oregon legalized needles and banned plastic straws, Pressler wrote on Twitter alongside
video of a syringe.
Something is seriously wrong here.
The system is broken.
He's not wrong.
Look, I understand why they legalized syringes, but you like how are you going to ban plastic
straws when the US does not contribute that much plastic waste relative to other countries?
Cigarette butts are a much bigger problem and no one's banning them.
So how does that make sense?
Now the legalization of syringes, in my opinion, does make sense to a certain degree.
You're trying to reduce the amount of needle sharing and dirty needles and stuff.
But in the end, the point is basically, I can understand why there's different issues, but why are you banning plastic straws when you're still going to be producing more plastic garbage, and why aren't you dealing with the bigger problem of, say, cigarette butts?
The plastic straw ban is just nonsense.
Let's read.
Pressler 31 is a member of Gaze for Trump.
He addresses people as sir and ma'am and wears his wavy brown hair long.
The activist from Northern Virginia once worked for Act for America, which the Southern Poverty Law Center describes as an extremist anti-Muslim organization.
He organized a march against Sharia and landed a guest spot on the Fox News program Tucker Carlson Tonight last October.
Let's just get right to it.
Let me not waste any more of your time.
Randy Blazek, a Portland consultant who studies extremist movements, says right-wing groups have long used beautification projects as a form of publicity.
Quote, The rhetoric is, there are these evil forces that are making society ugly.
The quote from him is basically that minority crime or brown immigration.
Blazek says, the narrative is, they say, okay, I gotta be very careful, they're accusing Scott Pressler of claiming it's not white people.
They say it's about brown people and immigration.
So the reason why I'm not gonna read this quote is because I know how they're gonna take it out of context.
But let me play this game.
Randy Blazek just said, and I quote... I can't read the quote.
I'm not going to do it.
Randy Blazek says that it's not white people who made the world an ugly place.
You see how the game is played?
Based on what they're already doing to Scott Pressler... Look at this photo.
Look at these smiling, happy people just walking around with a wheelbarrow picking up trash.
And look what they write about them.
That's why you gotta be careful with the media.
Willamette Week lied about me before.
Like, ridiculous narrative twisting.
And they had to, they had to, like, take out some words and, like, change it when I, when I actually, like... I actually, you know, made a phone call and said, if you don't change this.
And they were like, oh, no, no, no.
They made some accusations.
They were false.
So, you can see what they'll do.
If you read someone's quote, they will clip it so it sounds like you saying it.
Randy Blazek just said it.
But no, let's be real for a second.
He just insinuated, okay, and they insinuated by putting in the article, which is insane, that the attempt by Pressler is to make brown people look bad, is to claim that white people, you know, are not, you know, committing these things or doing these things.
That's what they're trying to insinuate.
That's how insane these far-left Antifa types really are.
They don't know what they're protesting.
They really, really don't.
As exemplified by what we saw the other day at Grand Central, when a bunch of antifas started screeching at anarchists, essentially anarchists, journalist Luke Rutkowski, who literally makes anti-Trump videos, and they're calling him a fascist because they don't know who he is.
As exemplified by them showing up to a trash cleanup and protesting, calling them racists and fascists for picking up garbage.
Then they write an article about- well, the article came before.
But this is- this is total absurdity.
How are- you know what it is?
You know what it is?
I gotta tell you, man.
I know I was joking.
You know, I was being facetious when I said they want their garbage.
No, they really do want their garbage.
And I mean it.
You know why?
They need a problem only they can solve.
So they can go on TV, so they can run these ads and say, look how bad this problem is.
Don't worry, we can fix it.
And they don't because they need to make sure that problem exists so that you keep voting for them.
When someone like Scott shows up, unprompted, and starts cleaning things up, he's taking away their leverage.
So naturally, they're going to get angry.
Now, I don't think it's a conspiracy or anything like that, but it is true.
If the garbage goes away, what are they going to campaign on?
How are they going to claim the poor are being disenfranchised?
How are they going to claim that you need our help to save the environment?
Look at this trash!
Oh, what's that?
A dude literally showed up and just picked up all the trash?
Well, now what?
Now what do you campaign on?
That's why I think they don't want to solve the problems.
I really don't.
They need the problems to convince you they should be in power.
They say Pressler's visit touched a sore spot for Oregonians.
The state ranks fourth nationally in the rate of people sleeping outdoors, a point of embarrassment and frustration for residents across the political spectrum.
Pressler's event shows how right-wing media tactics are evolving, and how they seek to weaponize Oregon's homelessness crisis, much as they made Portland's anti-fascist protesters into a recurring feature on Fox News.
Pressler said his visit was innocent and bipartisan.
I think one thing we can agree with is, nobody should have to live in an area with trash, Pressler told Willamette Week during the event.
If my coming to town as an act of love to pick up trash provokes people, I think that says something about their character, not mine.
Yup.
But it was clear from the event's invitation, sent by Oregon Women for Trump, that organizers intended to annoy the left.
Scott is known for going into the most infested parts of the country and cleaning up tons of homeless camp garbage.
The event Bright Description read, Oregon Women for Trump is proud to be able to help him accomplish this in the Portland area.
And?
You're upset that he's pointing out that you have trash all over your city?
Maybe you should clean up your trash.
In fact, the trash pickup was supposed to happen in downtown Portland.
Pressler moved the location to Salem the morning of the event.
Explanations for the venue change varied.
Some attendees told Willamette Week the city had deep-cleaned downtown Friday night in anticipation of Pressler's appearance, leaving nothing for them to clean up.
Pressler said the location was moved after he learned Antifa planned to counter-protest.
I think the Antifa story probably makes sense.
I think both actually make sense, or both probably true.
Because Pressler has gone out and done other events, not, you know, cleaning up.
Portland's Old Town did look unusually spiffy last weekend, but city officials said it was unrelated to Pressler's visit.
It is unclear whether anti-fascists did, in fact, threaten to show up at the event.
Anti-fascist group Roe City Antifa tweeted extensively prior to Pressler's visit, but did not indicate any plans to protest the cleanup.
Well, let me just show you that, yeah, at least in San Francisco, they literally did protest.
And this is the most dangerous thing to me.
These activists are not real.
You know how I know?
Because I used to work for non-profits doing environmentalist, you know, action and stuff.
And even many of those people are not real.
They don't actually care.
You look at someone like Greta Thunberg.
You think she cares?
If she did, she'd be talking about India and China, not just the United States.
But she doesn't talk about China at all!
And she also doesn't... It's also obvious she doesn't care when she says she wants to shut down fossil fuels.
Her quote was something like, we won't wait to 2050, we won't wait to 2030, or even 2021.
We want it done now.
If we cut off fossil fuels right now, millions, tens of millions would die.
They don't really care.
It's not real.
As exemplified by, finally, the people who stood up to go clean up were not Antifa.
It was Scott Pressler and a bunch of Trump supporters going out and doing it.
Now, look, I get it.
He does go out and film.
They wear their Trump shirts.
They fly their banners.
It does make Trump supporters look good when they're going out and cleaning up.
But how insane does it make the left look when they protest it or write smear pieces about it?
Sorry, you look insane.
Average Americans don't care.
They really, really don't.
Look, I've talked to a ton of people, and maybe it's just my area, because it varies.
You go to New York City, probably everyone hates Trump.
But I find regular working-class people are like, I don't know or care.
Don't know or care.
My liberal friends, my left-wing friends I grew up with are like, oh, I don't know.
And I went to a skate park once and I asked people about this, like, if you saw a bunch of people with Trump flags and hats, what would you think?
I said, what if you saw a bunch of people wearing black masks, all black, carrying crowbars and bats, and they were chanting and marching around smashing things?
They'd be like, yeah, I'd avoid that.
So here you have it.
A group of people cleaning up.
The average person, even in Los Angeles, that's where I did a bunch of interviews with skateboarders, are going to look at this and they're going to be like, oh, that's cool, man.
They probably might even join in and help.
But then you get these fringe left wackos show up protesting, and regular people are going to see that and be like, these people are absolutely insane.
So I don't know what they're thinking, but I'll tell you this.
From a PR standpoint, the smartest thing these left-wing activists could do is clean with them.
Or actually, try and clean more.
Make it a competition, and then everyone looks better.
Instead, they try to smear those doing good.
You know what?
If it is a campaign to make Antifa look bad or the left look bad, congratulations, you helped make it.
You helped make that campaign.
Because you could do nothing.
You could literally just not show up and not talk about it.
Instead, you do, and you say insane things.
So, I'll wrap it up there.
You get the point.
I look forward to seeing more from Pressler, because I like the fact he's cleaning up, you know why?
Because I actually care about the environment.
I don't care if he's doing it to make Trump look good, congratulations, it does make Trump supporters look good.
But whatever, my concern is, when I go outside, do I see trash everywhere?
Littering is gross, and people do this.
I don't care who's going up and cleaning, I'm glad you're gonna do it, okay?
Stick around, next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Major breaking news!
A terror attack in South London.
A man wielding a machete stabbed two people and was shot and killed.
They feared that he was wearing a suicide vest.
The details are still emerging.
Statements are coming out.
So I'm going to be straight with this one and just read you what's happening to the best of my knowledge and ability.
But again, details change.
By the time you watch this video, new details may have emerged.
There may be corrections, but we definitely need to cover this just in general terms of people knowing what's happening and being safe.
Before we dive right in, however, it was only a few months ago we saw that other attack on the London Bridge, okay?
So I think it's important to address that London has a serious problem that needs to be solved.
We don't see these recurring things happening in the United States.
They happen sometimes, for sure.
These need to be talked about.
Something must be done.
I don't know what the solution is.
Let's read the Daily Mail reports.
They say, a terror attack in South London.
Armed police shoot dead machete-wielding suspect in possible suicide vest who stabbed two people in high-street rampage.
Armed police have shot at the suspect.
We read this three months after two were killed in London Bridge horror.
Officers raced to the scene outside a supermarket on High Road in Streatham at around 2 p.m.
today following reports of gunfire.
Photos from the scene show a lifeless body facedown on the pavement with what has been described as silver canisters strapped to his chest with a large knife laying beside him.
In one video, police-toting machine guns and masked undercover officers are seen approaching the suspect's body before rapidly moving away from the area.
Scotland Yard declared the broad daylight carnage as a terror-related incident around an hour and a half after first reports from the scene.
The area remains on emergency police shutdown.
The incident comes just three months after the London Bridge attack, where Usman Khan was shot dead by armed police after he killed two people and injured three others while wearing a fake suicide vest.
We can see these photos.
They are censored, but just keep in mind there may be more as we move on, for those that are watching.
We can see in one photo the man slumped over on the ground with police pulling up.
Officers raced the scene outside a supermarket on High Road around 2 p.m.
today.
So that's that's uh, I believe that's what GMT or universal time.
So about five hours in front of us, I think?
I'm not entirely sure because the daylight savings time nonsense, but we have a photo here of the weapon.
They say...
Metropolitan Police issued a statement that said, a man has been shot by armed officers in Street M. At this stage, it is believed a number of people have been stabbed.
The circumstances are being assessed.
The incident has been declared as terror-related.
Gold Bullhan, a 19-year-old student from Street M, claims to have witnessed the shooting on Street M High Road in front of a boot store.
He said, I was crossing the road when I saw a man with a machete and silver canisters on his chest, being chased by what I assume was an undercover police officer, as they were in civilian clothing.
The man was then shot.
I think I heard three gunshots, but I can't quite remember.
After that, I ran into the library to get to safety.
From the library, I saw a load of ambulances and armed officers arrive on the scene.
Mr. Bullhand said people began running into nearby stores after the incident.
We were all informed to stay in buildings by armed police until we were evacuated, he said.
We can see a photo here posted by the Daily Mail.
Police were filmed standing behind an unmarked police car and pointing their guns towards a suspect who appeared to be lying on the pavement outside the Boots store on High Street.
More censored photos.
What we can see here, this officer, I believe it's an officer, appears to be telling people to get away.
They are declaring this as terror-related.
More photos show police officers armed.
A tweet from Metropolitan Police says... Okay, so we know this.
The circumstances are being assessed.
The incident has been declared as terrorist-related.
Please follow Met Police UK for updates.
And absolutely, look, if you're somebody who's in the UK, You never know what comes next, you never know what's happening around this, so take this all into consideration with the breaking news that's happening.
You need to know exactly what's going on.
I'm just saying this because I want to make sure everybody stays safe, so forgive me for breaking away from this story, but seriously...
Let's read again.
Let's read more.
Dozens of emergency vehicles lined the area and an ambulance landed on Tooting Beck Common a few hundred yards from the scene of the shooting.
London Ambulance Service said, We have a number of resources attending an incident in Streatham High Road.
A large section of the A23 remains sealed off to traffic and buses are being diverted.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has since tweeted about the attack.
He said, Thank you to all emergency services responding to the incident in Streetham, which the police have now declared as terrorism-related.
My thoughts are with the injured and those affected.
So, it does seem so far, I don't think they've reported any deaths, just some stabbings.
We can see they've since closed the area off.
Local resident, Stuart Birch, 50, a bookmaker, said, I was just coming back from the dentist at around 2.30 p.m.
when I saw a helicopter ambulance on the Common And a police helicopter hovering above the high street.
Police have cordoned off a section of the main road either side of the White Lion.
I saw customers being evacuated by the police from a coffee shop near the pub.
Then, an ambulance turned up outside the pub with horns blaring and the blue lights flashing.
Once again, you have masked undercover police and armed officers with rifles apparently.
People were being removed from the stores nearby.
Hopefully this is resolved.
Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, also wrote a statement which read, A man has been shot dead by armed police in Streatham following an incident that is being treated as terrorism-related.
A number of people are believed to have been stabbed.
I am in close contact with the Met Commissioner and local representatives and wanted to thank our police, security, and emergency services staff.
For their swift and courageous response.
They truly are the best of us.
Terrorists seek to divide us and to destroy our way of life.
Here in London, we will never let them succeed.
Labor leadership favorite.
Sir Kerr Starmer added.
Shocking reports from Streatham.
My thoughts are with everyone affected.
Huge thanks to our emergency services for everything they do to keep us safe.
And that goes doubly for all of us here in the United States.
You know, the people who are willing to run out there and risk their lives, you have my respect, absolutely.
Okay, I think we get it at this point.
It was terrorism.
They've said it a million times.
by Met Police UK on this afternoon's incident in Streetham which has been declared, okay,
I think we get it at this point, it was terrorism. They've said it a million times, but it is
important. Listen, it was only a few months ago this happened again, so I really want to stress,
if you're out and about, just stay safe.
Maybe go indoors, sit down, have some coffee, or just get out of the area.
We had an incident happen here in the Philadelphia area where someone locked down in a house and was shooting at cops.
It's never wise to remain out because you don't know the circumstances, so... Let me give you one more, just really important warning.
Never, never stop to gaze, okay?
I have seen, uh, you know, uh, major disasters, and what happens is there'll be a car accident, there'll be a fire, and I see people start gathering around to watch, and you don't know the circumstances.
Especially when it's a fire.
Or a violent attack.
You don't know if there's more people involved.
The best thing you can do is get out of the way.
Let law enforcement do their job and protect yourself.
The most important thing is getting out so that you remain safe.
That includes anybody who might be there right now.
Again, details may have changed at this point.
But just don't think, you know, don't have an optimism bias.
Don't underestimate the circumstances.
They say, my first thoughts are with the victims, our brave police and emergency services and their families.
So that we then see the tweets that they reported on.
An officer was filmed telling pedestrians the suspect was wearing a possible suicide vest.
Jack O'Dell, 28, from Street M, told MailOnline, Police came and knocked on the door and told us to evacuate.
They just told us to move away from the area.
I only saw what was pictured in my tweet of the junction.
Mr. O'Dell said officers did not say when he could return to his property.
We then see just more photos of the police securing the area.
Richard Mostonen Smith, 59, a response pastor for Ascension Trust, has lived in the area all his life.
He said, I'm shocked it's happened in Street End.
I've been here all my life.
We're always getting accidents down here, but not this.
My grandson was in the Odeon, and they got told to go out the back because there was a bomb.
They got them to go out the back of the cinema.
They were there to watch a film.
When it's a member of your family so close to you, you don't expect it.
You're always worried about your family being on the streets, but this is even worse.
I heard two people got stabbed and apparently one man was shouting Allahu Akbar, but people thought he was just a crazy man, so he got away.
Apparently he had two rucksacks.
So, we have at least one witness report coming from the Daily Mail that the man was in fact yelling, Allahu Akbar.
Not that I want to play any stereotypes, but I think most people understood, you know, the likelihood of what this was going to be.
And I will point out, you see the left and the right, you know, immediately want to call these things out.
Don't play these games.
Let the law enforcement do their job.
Give them the respect they need to figure out what's going on.
Okay?
Beyond that, it'd be great if journalists would do their jobs and dig up some details, and we could actually assess what's really happening, because there seems to be a recurring problem.
They say a 33-year-old woman who lives near the scene also told MailOnline how she was locked in a nearby Odeon for 20 minutes after the attack before being rushed out a fire exit around the back.
She said officers came in and ordered them to stand well away from the windows.
She continued, I heard it and just thought it was a car backfiring.
Everyone did.
I ran into the Odeon just down the road.
There were quite a few people in there.
Only a few ran inside to start with.
She said staff shut the doors.
Everyone just thought it was a car.
She said another woman locked in the cinema, who had been on the way to Poundland, witnessed the shooting and was shaking with fear.
She thought it was a gang shooting because the two men were all dressed in all black.
She was really shaking.
She was quite distressed and was panicking all over the place.
The woman ran upstairs in the cinema before people were let out the back.
She said she sprinted home as police cars zoomed around the area and helicopters circled above.
She had to take a scenic route back home due to the main road being sealed off.
Members of the public have been commenting on social media.
I'm not entirely sure.
I need to read you, you know, more Twitter speculation.
We've got air ambulance here.
Another witness was quoted as saying, I was walking up the street after going for brunch with some friends and we saw a woman screaming outside a small hardware shop next to Iceland.
She said the distressed woman who owns a hardware shop shouted, he's just grabbed a knife from my shop and stabbed a lady.
The 31-year-old said the woman was just five yards in front of her being treated by paramedics.
Ms.
Taylor described how there were armed police everywhere and said the woman was being treated was in pure shock.
And therein lies the serious problem with whatever the laws are that the UK has.
They're trying to ban knives.
You need them.
You can use them.
And what we're hearing now from at least one witness apparently He didn't even bring it with him.
He snatched it from a store and used it on the spot.
So I don't know what your solutions are, but I think the UK needs to be serious about this.
I do think it's important to point out, you know, when it comes to the United States and illegal immigration here, we got people coming in from Mexico, as Trump said, meant that, you know, a lot of these people are not the best.
That's what he described, right?
Well, it's true.
There are people who are not the best.
There are a lot of people who are economic migrants.
That's the most of it.
But I think one of the challenges for Europe is that their landmass is connected to, you know, Asia and the Middle East and these war-torn areas.
So when they get illegal immigration or, in many instances, some of these people have become nationalized, they're coming from a specific ideology and a specific culture.
I think that's one of the main reasons we don't see it.
Regardless of whether or not we do or don't let people in, the United States borders are not near these more extreme ideologies.
We have a photo here of a car.
A car believed to be an armed response car that crashed on the way to the scene as officers investigate the incident.
They've suspended some bus routes that are diverted.
I'm sorry.
Bus routes 57, 201, and 333 are diverted due to emergency services.
This one says just more people saying that they were evacuated.
So for now, as of the time of this recording, these are the details that I have.
Again, take it seriously.
These details could very well change.
I'm not going to play any games trying to speculate as to what or why these kinds of things keep happening.
It was only a few months ago it happened before.
I know that there are political groups that are always interested in pointing things out for whatever reason.
But I do think it's fair to highlight at least the ideological pattern that we see with people wielding machetes, yelling these things that keep happening in the UK.
Now, most of you may know Brexit just happened.
So for all we know, they're going to start securing their borders, you know, much better.
They will do a better job with national security in general.
There were issues, my understanding, with the European Union over what they were and weren't allowed to do with immigration due to EU Commission laws and rules.
Many people in the UK felt that the EU should not supersede the Crown and what the UK has a right to do.
Perhaps this is maybe going to be now a downtrend as the UK starts to take over and regain sovereignty and all these things.
I can't tell you.
To those that got hurt, I hope everyone stays safe.
I hope, you know, no deaths or anything like that.
But if you happen to find yourself in the area, or in general, for those in the future, whatever, look, the world isn't Skittles, candy canes, and rainbows all the time.
These things happen.
You don't want to live in fear.
You don't want to panic.
But you also don't want to have an optimism bias.
If you see something like this happen, just get out.
Because when you leave, you allow more space for law enforcement to secure the area, and you guarantee your safety.
Don't gawk.
Don't sit around.
These can make things worse.
So if there's any updates and the story expands, I'll definitely have more updates.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It is a different channel, and I will see you all there.
On Bill Maher's show on Friday, he was mourning democracy, said he would try to avoid crying, and even said, I don't feel like voting matters.
And I gotta agree, Bill Maher.
Yes, the recent news of the Democrats cheating to allow Michael Bloomberg into the debate by changing the rules, even though they kept out Tulsi and Yang and Booker.
And, you know, they essentially rejected calls and Yang.
They rejected calls to change the rules to allow them to debate.
Instead, the billionaire who gave them hundreds of thousands of dollars is allowed in too.
I agree, Bill Maher.
I don't know if voting really matters.
What's that?
Bill Maher wasn't talking about the Democrats cheating?
Bill Maher was talking about the Republicans throwing out the impeachment?
Is that it?
So you mean to tell me you mourn democracy when elected officials say there's not enough evidence to remove the president And the Schiff has already claimed he's proven his case, so why call witnesses and rejected an argument from the Democrats?
And not only that, but where were you about democracy when the House Democrats rejected Republican witnesses in the first place?
Now listen.
Personally, I think the Republicans should have called witnesses.
You know why?
If they want to make claims about Hunter Biden and whoever else, then they could call them as witnesses.
But apparently they didn't want to do it.
They wanted to shut it down.
So I'll tell you this.
The Republicans deserve to win this one on the facts.
I think it's fair to say the Democrats have been cheating nonstop in the in the election
process and an impeachment the way they withheld witnesses from the Republican side and then
cried when the Republicans wouldn't give it back.
But in reality, there's no evidence of Trump's motive.
And I think the Republicans had this one.
I do think, however, if they want to make continued accusations, they should have called
witnesses.
Now, Lindsey Graham and other Republicans said this is not the venue.
So at least they have that argument.
In the end, I'm not going to cry because a Republican Senate rejected a partisan impeachment that everyone considers partisan and was so bad, in fact, they actually lost a member of the Democratic Party in Congress.
I don't think the Republicans are the problem, for the most part.
But this is what Bill Maher is crying about.
And you know, I gotta be honest, I didn't really care to talk about Bill Maher freaking out.
And I am a fan of Bill Maher.
Look, I'm throwing some shade his way right now.
Everybody deserves a pie in the face every so often.
Bill Maher has been good on a lot of issues.
And I got another story for him.
I'm gonna give him some respect.
But this was too much.
And he's got a really serious case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And you know what?
If he didn't have that, he'd have nothing in common with any of these Democrats or his audience anymore.
The only thing they share is orange man bad.
He even put a congressman on the spot about Elizabeth Warren's statements on trans kids, and you could tell she was really uncomfortable, like, uh-oh, what am I gonna say now?
Bill Maher's calling me out!
So here's the real story.
Yeah, Bill Maher, you're upset that Republicans don't want to hear from Democrats' partisan witnesses, whatever.
Listen, they wanted to call Bolton because the New York Times said people familiar with Bolton's manuscript claim Bolton claims something.
Okay, you know what?
They should have called witnesses, but come on.
Chill out.
Democracy is not dead simply because elected representatives said no to your impeachment, okay?
I'll tell you why democracy is really dead.
The DNC's moved to accommodate Bloombergster's outrage in Iowa.
Candidates, members of Congress, and activists are outraged over debate rule changes that bow to a billionaire.
That's the real issue.
And I know I've talked about this, but I really wanted to highlight Bill Maher's selective outrage.
Here's what he says.
I don't know if voting matters, the comedian said at one point during Friday night's edition of Real Time with Bill Maher.
Maher also described the Senate's cynical move as a finish line moment for the American experiment that began in 1776, saying, I feel like anything we talk about tonight is almost moot.
We're going to talk about politics in Iowa and who's going to win, and I feel like we're talking about a world that doesn't exist anymore.
We're in a post-democracy world.
This is funny.
Maher had already opened the show with a downbeat welcome.
He said, the impeachment trial is almost over, the bad, so is rule of law in America.
I think it's funny that he would say, we're going to pay attention to Iowa, the caucuses.
What is it, tomorrow?
And he's not talking about the fact the DNC is overtly cheating.
Even, look, Michael Moore went nuts!
People are making fun of Michael Moore for freaking out over what they did for Michael Bloomberg.
Yeah, you want to talk about why voting doesn't matter?
You want to talk about why Iowa doesn't matter and why this world doesn't exist anymore?
It's simple.
The Democratic establishment has been cheating for a long time and everyone knows it.
They cheated Bernie Sanders in 2016.
Bernie Sanders, in my opinion, started pandering and playing a silly game to try and win in 2020, but they're still cheating.
Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang, Tom Steyer, well Tom Steyer was complaining, but Cory Booker.
These are people who were kept out of debates, who asked for rule changes, and they gave it to the billionaire.
But Bill Maher is seemingly upset.
Let me tell you where it gets funny, because I did highlight this in my main segment video.
Here we go.
Bill Kristol comes out of the political closet.
Bill Kristol, I guess he's technically a conservative, but he's not because now he's temporarily a Democrat.
And he said something I find truly laughable.
Now the stories from the Daily Wire.
We can see Bill Kristol's tweets.
He said, not presumably forever, not perhaps for a day after November 3rd, 2020, not on every issue or in every way until then.
But for the time being, one has to say we are all Democrats now.
Are you joking?
After they just cheated to allow a billionaire into the race?
You're nuts!
Isn't it hilarious how the Democratic Party has become the party of kowtowing to billionaires and neoconservatives?
Think about the people who are never Trumpers and what party they're going to.
Think about how they loved and jumped up and down dancing in defense of John Bolton, one of the most notorious warmongers of our generation, or the past generation, or whatever generation he was in, of our time.
That's who they're cheering for?
It's really, really weird.
Now I get it.
Bernie Sanders and the populist left are fighting for the soul of that party.
I think their policies are nuts.
But the whole thing is just collapsing as far as I'm concerned.
Bill Maher did say something interesting, which allows me now to say, no, we are not all Democrats.
Now look, I can look at the DNC's move to cheat and immediately reject Bill Kristol.
We are all Democrats.
Are you joking?
Why?
They're cheating.
And the progressives are calling him out for cheating.
Michael Moore is calling him out for cheating.
Sorry, no, we're not all Democrats.
You want to just... Ah, it's just the most disgusting...
But on Bill Maher's show, he actually created another bit of controversy, which makes me kind of laugh.
Not at the circumstances or the communities involved, it makes me laugh that Bill Maher can't see what's happening around him.
I know, I know, people say the same thing about me, but...
Crazy stuff!
Bill Maher rips Warren vow to vet her education secretary using transgender child.
The segment was actually funny for one reason, in my opinion.
Nothing to do with the trans child or Warren.
It was the fact that Bill Maher asked a congresswoman about the circumstance, and she seemed extremely uneasy and unwilling to engage.
And that's because of how volatile the entire political landscape is, especially when dealing with trans issues.
She looked at me like, uh oh, how do I navigate this one?
Am I going to come out against what Warren said and get the activists all over me and then lose elections?
Let's read.
Comedian Bill Maher blasted Elizabeth Warren's promise to have her nominee for Secretary of Education vetted by a transgender child as crazy.
He said, Now Obama said people just don't want crazy stuff.
Is this not crazy stuff?
Is she running for President of Berkeley?
You know what I love?
Because I'll read more.
How simultaneously Bill Maher can make me laugh with a poignant position.
But at the same time, cry over the Republicans voting to get rid of a partisan impeachment when the Democrats were playing the exact same game?
Oh, please, don't be silly, Bill.
You got TDS and you got it bad.
They say, Mar was referring to a comment Warren made last week, during which he said, I'm going to have a Secretary of Education that this young trans person interviews on my behalf, and only if this person believes that our Secretary or Secretary of Education nominee is absolutely committed To creating a welcoming environment, a safe environment, and a full educational curriculum for everyone.
For everyone, will that person actually be advanced to be Secretary of Education?
Warren was presumably referring to a nine-year-old transgender boy she spoke with in October during a CNN presidential forum.
Maher has criticized Warren in the past and has made it clear that he identifies more with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
But here's what was really interesting.
They jumped to, I think it was Rick Wilson, that former conservative now Democrat guy, basically, who said, don't run on boutique issues in a Walmart country.
And the point was, like Bill Maher said, is she running for president of Berkeley?
Bill Kristol says we're all Democrats now.
Fine.
But think about what that means when you see what Elizabeth Warren is saying.
Bill Maher said what you need to understand is there are two parties.
And everything the left says goes in the blue bin.
And that includes this.
People will ask her about this if she wins the nomination.
They will ask her, and what will she say?
Because to the average person, they have no idea what she's talking about.
And Bill Marmon had an even better point.
He said, I don't care about the trans thing.
Why would you give a high schooler veto power over your cabinet?
Good question.
Because she doesn't mean it.
Because they're lying.
So you want to talk about the death of democracy?
Let me go back, Bill.
It's not about the Republicans saying no to an impeachment, no to removing the president, or not wanting to have witnesses come in.
I do think it was dumb, but I'm not going to cry about it.
It's a partisan game.
Impeachment is a political process, as Nadler said himself.
But I'll tell you what, when Warren just spews word vomit that means nothing to anybody in order to pander to an activist base to win, I say democracy is in trouble.
When the DNC cheats and changes the rules now for the second election in a row, or I shouldn't say changes the rules for the second election in a row, but they cheat for the second election in a row, and they put a billionaire who just gave basically a million dollars to establishment Democrat institutions, including some of which went to the DNC, I say democracy is in trouble.
So when Bill says, I don't know, voting matters.
You're right, Bill.
The caucuses are tomorrow, starting with Iowa.
And I don't know, voting matters.
And based on the cheating so far I've seen, I'm extremely angry.
You know why?
There are two candidates I've been very, very excited by.
Yang and Gabbard.
And guess who they've cheated and then propped up?
They cheated Yang and Gabbard out of debates, but they are cheating once again to get Bloomberg on the stage.
Why should I play a game with you when you're cheating?
How would you feel playing poker, watching them cheat?
Wouldn't you just get up and walk away?
Some people in the Wild West would have another reaction.
In today's day and age, I just say, I'm not playing with you, man.
You cheat!
So they want me to come out and vote?
I'm sorry.
I'm not convinced voting matters, as Bill Maher said, but for all the wrong reasons.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Justice for Johnny Depp Trends After Amber Heard Admits to Hitting Actor in Audio Clip The story's been going around for a long time.
Before the evidence, I mean.
The story of whether Johnny Depp was the domestic abuser or was Amber Heard.
And many people sided with Heard, claiming that Johnny was in fact the abuser.
And you know why?
It's just the bias.
I don't know if you've seen the viral videos where it's like, they do this thing where a guy will be walking down the street with a woman, and he'll push her around and yell at her and like threaten to hit her, and then people intervene to stop him.
They do the inverse where the woman is beating the man and people laugh and they giggle because they don't think it's a big deal.
So a lot of people just didn't want to believe that Johnny Depp was actually the victim but in this leaked audio tape we learn Amber Heard, the woman, admits to hitting Johnny Depp.
It sounds like she absolutely was the aggressor and she says, I was hitting you.
Now it's possible it's mutual domestic abuse because both claim that each other hurt each other and they both have photos showing it.
Based on this audio, I think the new narrative emerging is that if Johnny Depp did hit Amber Heard in any way, it was likely in self-defense because she really does sound like the aggressor calling him a baby.
She tries to gaslight him.
Now, I didn't really care to talk about celebrity Me Too drama stuff or anything like this.
I think it's an interesting angle in the presumption of innocence.
Here's what's really interesting to me.
There's a forum of social justice activists, and in it, they're talking about how they need to reassess what it means to believe women.
It's funny because what they then describe is like basic English common law, the presumption of innocence.
See, believe women is a fine saying.
You know what it means?
Like, what it really means?
Well, hold on.
I guess what it really means to a lot of people is believe women no matter what.
Don't need evidence, just believe what they say.
To me, there's something better there.
If someone says something happened and files a report, we investigate that report.
We don't assume it's true, but we do take it seriously.
Right?
It's kind of like, it reminds me of what they say about Trump.
When they say that, you know, the left doesn't take him seriously, but they do take him literally, and Trump supporters take him not literally, but they do take him seriously.
What that means to me is, when it comes to someone making an accusation, be it Johnny or Amber, we'll take it seriously.
We'll look into it.
We'll make sure we get to the bottom of it and figure out who's the victim.
In their rush to judgment, many feminists and people on the left accused Johnny of the worst.
And they harmed the victim, they blamed the victim, because they didn't want to wait for evidence.
Well, now evidence has emerged and it seems reasonable to assess, to say, Amber Heard was the aggressor.
The woman was the aggressor, not Johnny Depp.
Although he may have fought back, although he may not be innocent, maybe he fought her at some point, the reality is she admits to hitting and tries to gaslight him, even insulting him, calling him a baby.
Well, let's read a little bit about this, but I really want to get to the new understanding that these social justice activists have for English common law, which is fascinating because many of us have been saying exactly what they're now claiming.
Let's first learn a little bit about this celebrity drama from Newsweek, they say.
After a leaked audio recording appears to reveal Amber Heard admitting to starting physical fights with her ex-husband Johnny Depp, the hashtag JusticeForJohnnyDepp trended on Twitter as fans expressed support for the actor.
The couple have accused each other of domestic violence in legal documents after Depp filed a $50 million lawsuit saying Heard defamed him after the Aquaman star, Amber Heard, published an op-ed in the Washington Post.
Although Heard, 33, didn't mention 56-year-old Depp by name, the actor claimed it was clear she was talking about him.
The lawsuit said Depp had suffered financial losses and his career has suffered as a result of the accusations, including being dropped from the Pirates of the Caribbean film franchise, the Associated Press reported.
I gotta stop there.
I can defend Johnny Depp only so far.
I'm sorry.
I think the Pirates of the Caribbean film franchise is about done.
I think we're all a little old.
Okay, maybe now that's the most controversial thing I've actually said.
Maybe you like pirates.
Fine.
You can have your Jack Sparrow.
Don't let me stand in your way.
I digress.
Since then, H.E.R.D.
has provided evidence to support her allegations of abuse in court filings, including photos of her with bruises on her face and scars on her arms.
D.E.P.
has denied the abuse and claimed it was H.E.R.D.
who was abusive toward him during their marriage.
Now, an alleged audio recording obtained by the Daily Mail that was recorded during a conversation the pair had to talk through their marriage problems in 2015 appears to lend credence to D.E.P.' 's version of events.
In the clip, the couple are heard discussing numerous arguments and Heard admits to hitting Depp and pelting him with pots and pans during one violent altercation.
It's not true.
It's not true.
I'm not the one who throws pots and whatever the effing else at me.
Depp replied after Heard claimed he took her for granted.
Later, Heard denied punching Depp but conceded she had hit him.
She said, I'm sorry that I didn't hit you across the face in a proper slap, but I was hitting you.
It was not punching you, babe.
You're not punched, she said.
I don't know what the motion of my actual hand was, but you're fine.
I did not hurt you.
I did not punch you.
I was hitting you.
Okay.
That's gaslighting.
You hit somebody, you hit somebody.
Someone's called a punch.
Okay, you hit him.
All right?
Call it whatever you want.
Just because you're weak doesn't mean you're not punching somebody.
But fine.
She admits she was hitting him.
Now, I'm not... Look, I gotta be honest.
He said, she said, I'm one for innocence until proven guilty.
If you got evidence, present the evidence.
And I still will reserve judgment.
It's one audio recording.
It gives some points to Johnny Depp's version of events, and so I'm more inclined to believe Johnny Depp especially.
But I do think it's fair to say, present everything you can in a court of law, or civil court, criminal court, wherever it might be, and get a legit judgment.
For the time being, as far as I can say, evidence supports Johnny Depp.
Because she admits it.
It's also fair to point out we just don't know what else went on.
Maybe Johnny got physical with her the first time, I don't know.
But I'm not going to accuse him of that.
So, this is the danger of the game they play with the Believe Women thing.
If you don't know, you don't know.
Just say nothing, I guess.
If I got an audio recording where she says she admits it, then I lean towards Johnny Depp.
Maybe there'll be more evidence in the future.
You don't want to go all in on something just because you heard one audio clip, but again, I'm here to defend Johnny because it sounds like he's the victim.
And that's the main point.
Over at the Gamer Ghazi subreddit, which I frequent very often, and many of you may be familiar if you're not, this is a subreddit dedicated to people who presumably facetiously call them SJWs, or Social Justice Warriors, post articles.
The articles are typically in favor of social justice issues and causes.
And this was posted.
I find it interesting.
It's actually just a story that says, you know, Amber Heard admits to hitting the actor in the clip.
I was curious as to how social justice activists would respond.
And they responded, in my opinion, to an degree, agreeably.
That believe women doesn't mean you just assume they're always telling the truth, you take the claim seriously.
Now, this individual, I'm not going to claim is a bad person, or a hypocrite, or anything like that, because I don't know who they are.
I just think it's fair to point out, in the past, social justice activists tend to say, just believe women no matter what.
You don't need evidence, you know, and the worst of the worst, I would imagine.
But this, to me, is a good thing.
So, I want to give that shout out and say, I'm really glad to see this comment.
I agree with it, to a certain degree.
I had to read through it all.
I want to act like I agree with everything they say.
But I think it's cool when you see people you might disagree with and you actually come to an agreement about protecting the innocent and safeguarding victims.
So let me read some of this for you.
The commenter writes, As someone who does academic research related to crime and gender, and as someone who has been a victim of harassment, violence, abuse, and false allegations at the hand of my former partner, Uh, yadda yadda yadda.
I think that what we as a society need to reevaluate, our interpretation of believing victims, regardless of gender, specifically the meaning of the phrase believe.
My interpretation of believing victims is that we, the public, the justice system, should approach victims and perpetrators without preconceptions or prejudice.
That is to say, putting aside preconceived notions and taking in and interpreting the facts of the case without judgment, in particular, while these facts are still coming out.
I want to make the most important point.
A true feminist, in my opinion, would completely agree with that statement because gender isn't a qualifier for being a bad person.
A true feminist should realize women can be abusers too.
Women can be heroes and villains the same as men can be.
And if you truly believe in equality of the genders or sexes or whatever you want to say, then you recognize what makes a person isn't those immutable characteristics.
It's just that some people are good, some people are bad, and anyone can be anything.
A woman can be a sexist or a bigot, as much as they might not want to agree with that definition because they believe in the power and prejudice thing, the reality is, if a story comes out with a man and a woman, you shouldn't make assumptions about who's guilty and who isn't until there's evidence.
They say, when I see someone accused of wrongdoing, I suspend a judgment and wait for the facts.
I don't assume the accuser or the accused are telling the truth or lying, and I would hope that this should be the approach of law enforcement.
As well.
Meaning they should listen to an accuser or victim without assuming things about her or him.
For instance, they would listen without asking a woman why she was wearing a short skirt or why she was out drinking at 3am.
I completely agree.
Because in a free society, you should be allowed to do that.
Or they would listen without asking a man why he didn't stop her if he didn't want it and so forth.
That is fundamentally, however, not believing victims in the sense of taking all their words as fact at face value.
Yet this seems frequently to be the way this idea is interpreted.
If I suspend judgment and observe facts without judgment as they come in, as I would hope police would when questioning an accuser and her or his accused, I feel pressured to side with the victim by default.
But I think that this does not capture the true spirit of believing victims that ought to be intended.
Because think about this.
Johnny Depp was the victim, and you didn't believe him.
Who did you believe?
Well, some of you believed the perpetrator, and therein lies the big challenge.
When two people point the finger at each other, how do you know who's telling the truth?
So when they both make those accusations, we treat them seriously.
We believe their intent, and we investigate.
Trust, but verify.
They say, It seems to me that while the justice system has a tendency to fail to handle many people who engage in assault or domestic violence, the popular court of public opinion shoots first and asks questions later, and uses the above concept regarding belief wrongly.
Even the fact that we can make this argument is indicative of the faulty ways that we deal with assault and domestic violence.
We too often fall on one extreme or the other in terms of 100% believing the victims, or 100% victim blaming.
Without considering the facts, of course.
Without considering the facts.
Of course the facts themselves need to be heavily scrutinized, but I think the above approach is the most rational one to situations where there is inherent ambiguity, like in a number of assault or domestic violence cases.
This is the top comment.
It's only a few points on a big subreddit, but I have tremendous respect for the most part what they're saying.
If there's a woman who's a victim, and you're gonna make assumptions about what happened, I think that's a bad thing.
If there is someone who's accused of being a perpetrator, and you make assumptions, that's a bad thing.
Sometimes women lie.
Sometimes men abuse.
Sometimes women abuse, and sometimes just everybody lies.
So we gotta make sure we dig up the facts.
I'm glad to see that, you know, people in subreddit are actually agreeing with that sentiment, as they now come to realize Johnny Depp was in fact the victim.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around, next segment's coming up in just a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
The famous ZeroHedge was suspended or banned from Twitter, and they were accused of doxing by BuzzFeed, when in reality, they published publicly available information, so this whole thing seems really, really odd.
I'm not super familiar with ZeroHedge.
I did follow them.
They post a lot of stories.
Some of it are, you know, I wouldn't call it, like, hard-vetted news.
NewsGuard does not certify them.
I don't really read ZeroHedge, so I don't know a whole lot.
However, as someone who is typically opposed to censorship, I think there's something generally alarming about companies like Twitter getting rid of organizations because they don't think the information they're putting out there is legitimate.
By all means, you can criticize whoever you want, but we should not enter a world where giant tech companies can ban information.
What's particularly scary about this story is that what they say is Zero Hedge was basically writing a story about the potential source of the Wuhan coronavirus.
And they were entering a more conspiratorial view of what was causing it.
While BuzzFeed says they're liars and it's all wrong, I'm not here to litigate who's telling the truth and who isn't.
I'm just simply going to say this.
If an investigative journalist accused someone of serious wrongdoing, Why would you assume it's a conspiracy theory?
I mean, people commit crimes, right?
Chernobyl happened.
They didn't tell the truth about that.
What's disconcerting to me here is that whether you trust or don't trust Zero Hedge or think they're legitimate or not, is that even BuzzFeed could get banned for doing something similar in the future.
More importantly, why is BuzzFeed the authority on what is or isn't true in the first place?
They write fake news often enough.
Let's read the story from Fox News because Zero Hedge gave a statement.
Now, I will tell you a few things.
First, I mean this with all due respect, I'm not trying to disparage anybody.
NewsGuard does not certify Zero Hedge, having accused them in the past of publishing false information.
And they've been described by some people, and maybe this is actually a good thing, as being a gateway to conspiracies, because they themselves are actually not.
So, I looked at some researchers, and the way they describe Zero Hedge is that they often talk about legitimate things, but in very speculative ways that could lead someone into believing a conspiracy after the fact.
Essentially, I don't know how else to explain it, like, the story they did on the Wuhan virus gave you a bunch of legitimate information, but no conclusion, and the concerns are that that makes people conspiratorial?
I don't know.
I'm just telling you what I heard about them.
I'm not saying it to disparage anybody.
I will say, definitively, ZeroHedge should absolutely be reinstated, as many other people should be, and they should be allowed to speculate on whatever they want.
But this more important thing here is that they were accused of doxing.
That's just not the case.
Okay?
The information they presented, and I looked at it, it's publicly available information.
BuzzFeed lied.
Surprise, surprise!
Here's the Fox News story.
They say Financial Blog Zero Hedge suggested the ban was potentially motivated by reasons other than the stated ones.
Fox News says, Financial Blog Zero Hedge called its permanent suspension from Twitter on Friday arbitrary and unjustified after the site posted a link to an article on the origin of China's new coronavirus outbreak.
The article published Wednesday titled, Is this the man behind the global coronavirus pandemic?
Shared the name and personal information of a Chinese doctor and researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and linked him to a theory claiming the new virus is an engineered bioweapon.
Now here's the thing.
I've talked about that too.
I always tell people don't jump to conclusions and don't assume it's true.
It's just something that people are talking about because of past news stories and we have legitimate reporting.
If you want to speculate based on legitimate news, that's fine.
People do it all day and night.
A conspiracy theory would be to make something up, a connection that doesn't exist.
But of course, the guy got banned anyway.
Or the account, I'm sorry.
Twitter said it suspended ZeroHedge, which had 670,000 followers, for violating its rules against abuse and harassment, according to a screenshot of a notification from Twitter shared by ZeroHedge pseudonymous author Tyler Durden.
I think we know who that person is.
I think actually BuzzFeed doxxed this person, Tyler Durden.
Isn't that funny?
Is BuzzFeed gonna get banned for doxxing Tyler Durden?
The ban comes as social media platforms have been trying to fight misinformation on the virus.
Twitter has reportedly been steering users toward more credible sources when they search for coronavirus-related hashtags.
Facebook said last week it would remove false content or conspiracy theories flagged by leading global health organizations and health authorities, an unusual move for the social media site, which normally labels false information rather than outright moving it.
Well, I will tell you this.
I understand the fears about false information as it pertains to the coronavirus.
When I was in, during Hurricane Sandy in New York, somebody lied and claimed the stock exchange had flooded.
That's extremely dangerous because it could cause people to divert their plans or go somewhere that could put them at risk.
It could cause people to flee the area which was not flooded.
So they would go from safety to a more dangerous location.
You are risking people's lives.
I understand the fear.
In this instance, I think they overstepped their bounds and I think BuzzFeed lies.
So it says, they were violating the rules against abuse and harassment.
You may not engage in targeted harassment of someone or incite other people to do so.
This includes wishing or hoping that someone experiences physical harm.
What?
When did they do that?
Here's a quote.
We are confident that we did not violate any of the stated Twitter terms.
We neither incited harassment, nor did we dox the public official, whose contact information is, as of this moment, listed on the Wuhan Institute website.
As such, we find the suspension arbitrary and unjustified, and potentially motivated by reasons other than the stated ones.
Twitter was just looking for a reason to make more, I don't know, purges.
The article that led to the suspension, which is still live on ZeroHedge.com, claims that an original version of the virus may have first been weaponized in Canada before it was obtained by a doctor at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, who is also a leader of the Bat Virus Infection and Immunization Group, and accidentally or not, released it to the public.
Something tells us, if anyone wants to find out what really caused the coronavirus pandemic that has infected thousands of people in China and around the globe, they should probably pay the doctor a visit.
That's where they, I guess, cross the line.
Durden wrote in the article.
He then lists the doctor's email and phone number.
So, the information was public, but I think when he said, pay him a visit, that's where he crossed the line.
That's probably what Twitter's going to argue.
BuzzFeed reporter Ryan Broderick, who published a story about the ZeroHedge article before the website's Twitter account was suspended, said ZeroHedge had doxxed the Wuhan doctor in question.
After tweeting about the article, he said he had received a statement from Twitter saying ZeroHedge's account was permanently suspended for violating our platform manipulation policy.
So, Twitter's apparently saying it has to do with false information.
Now, Ryan Broderick is also an individual Who once claimed that a bunch of people using a meme, a hashtag, were likely bots.
Or I think he actually definitively said it was bot activity.
And Twitter later denied this.
This reporter published fake news.
And instead of just saying oops, tried to weasel around justifying their fake news.
So I take nothing that they say seriously.
Zero Hedge also posted another article detailing another coronavirus theory by Durden on Saturday titled, Now here's the thing.
I talked about the exact same thing.
There is a scientific journal that published non-peer-reviewed articles, it's called BioRxiv, and in the story they said that was true.
It doesn't mean it was man-made.
And I pointed out how a lot of people are jumping the gun, and the reality is, just because it has these insertions doesn't mean any of us know what that means.
We're not biologists or virologists.
We don't know.
But it's interesting to talk about.
Are you not allowed to talk about information that emerges?
That's insane.
Don't go tell people to do things.
I mean, if you want to talk about crazy conspiracies involving the Clintons or something, I'm going to say, okay, well, that's your prerogative.
I'm not into that.
But if there's a biolab, if there's a researcher, if there's, you know, questionable activity emerging in scientific journals, why can't you talk about it?
I think you draw the line at telling people it's true and it's proven, but journalists have to investigate these things and talk about it.
What would happen if BuzzFeed said the same thing?
What would happen if Twitter said BuzzFeed talking about this person is a violation of our rules and banning legitimate journalism?
And who gets to determine what legitimate journalism is?
Therein lies the big problem.
So the reason I brought up the earlier, you know, Comments about Zero Hedge's credibility was to make that point specifically.
It doesn't matter if Zero Hedge is conspiracy or not.
It doesn't matter if the stories they're telling are true or fake.
It doesn't matter if they intentionally lied.
They should be allowed to publish information.
Otherwise, we'll end up with a techno dystopia where major corporations determine what is real and what isn't.
I'm not into that.
I can only hope that humans can determine for themselves what is true information.
And you know what?
Maybe they can't.
But I don't think the answer is giving the government or these major corporations the power.
They go on to say, The Saturday Post alleged Indian scientists also discovered strains of HIV in China's new coronavirus, and the virus responds to HIV medication.
Those are both... I shouldn't say true, but they found HIV insertions were very similar.
They said it's likely not to be fortuitous.
It's possible it did evolve.
If Zero Hedge speculated beyond that, well, they shouldn't have.
It does respond to HIV medication that's been reported by, I think, like NatureMag and a bunch of other science publications.
What are you supposed to say?
The Saturday article also disputes pushback by media against a theory detailed in Wednesday's article, saying, Over the past few days, the mainstream press has vigorously pushed back against a theory about the origins of the coronavirus that has now infected as many as 70,000 people in Wuhan alone.
The theory is that China obtained the coronavirus via a Canadian research program and started molding it into a bioweapon at the Institute of Virology in Wuhan.
I don't believe that, okay?
And I think it's jumping the gun to even make that claim.
The more likely solution is they're working on a SARS vaccine.
If you want to believe, at least for now, that it broke out of the biolab, going off these stories, then it sounds like they're working on a vaccine.
I think it's dangerous to assume that it was an attempt at a bioweapon, and we're dealing with some James Bond-esque grandiose story.
Listen, I'm not talking about whether or not any of these stories should or shouldn't be true, or whether we should or shouldn't believe in them.
It's that we literally need the evidence.
By all means, explore and investigate.
And that's why I take serious issue.
I'm not a fan of fake news.
If someone's intentionally spreading lies, I hate that.
Hence, I criticize the media all the time.
They do this.
If someone believes they have an educated guess, and they dig up some evidence, fine.
I will say, however, last little bit, they shouldn't have said pay him a visit.
I think that was the serious issue.
I mean, that's the gist of the story.
I really don't want to get into the conspiracy theory or theories about the origin of the coronavirus for the most part.
I've done videos on that in the past.
We don't know.
We don't know.
Speculation is only going to make things, you know, harder to understand.
The best thing you can do is take care of your friends and your family, prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and let the information come as it does.
ZeroHeads should not be banned for exploring these stories.
I don't know what to tell you.
News organizations, media outlets, whether real or fake, it's not for you to judge.
If you think they're fake, I'll tell you what, I will come out and say, I debunk this.
All right, that's it.
You can't ban the press, but corporations are doing it.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around, next segment is coming up at 10 a.m.
