Warren Staff EXPOSED Slamming Her Far left Wokeness, Veritas Reveals Dissent Among Warren Campaign
Warren Staff EXPOSED Slamming Her Far left Wokeness, Veritas Reveals Dissent Among Warren Campaign. In newly published videos from Project Veritas Elizabeth Waren's staff are overheard discussing her embrace of far left wokeness over kitchen table issues most Americans care about.The staffer seemed to have similar thoughts to Bill Maher who recently, and several times in the past, criticized Warren and other Democrats for embracing far left wokeness and woke twitter.Many moderate Democrats have expressed fear and concern for the exact same reasons. Democrats embracing fringe issues from a small activists base is why they lose and will likely lose big in November's 2020 election.James O'keefe has been slowly releasing videos exposing the staff for many of these campaigns but perhaps this is the first time his expose actually makes the staffer look good to most people.So long as Warren and others continue this we can expect them to get woke go broke
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Project Veritas Expose 2020 launched a new video today, this time going after Elizabeth Warren's staff, and I gotta say, this might be the first expose that makes those getting exposed actually look good.
Now I think it is bad for Warren's campaign because she's been embracing wokeness to such an absurd degree, Bill Maher's ragged on her several times, and her polls keep tanking.
But what we're learning now from Project Veritas is that several people in her staff are complaining about how she's going after the ultra-woke vote instead of talking about what Americans really care about.
Today is the first caucus, its primary season, and Elizabeth Warren is actually trailing.
Her polls have been slowly dwindling.
One thing I find particularly interesting is a story back from October, when Elizabeth Warren made some comments about transgender prisoners, and this was around the same time her polls started to steadily tank.
I don't know if she got woke and went broke, but it seems to me that Warren's own staff are now upset That Elizabeth Warren did, in fact, with her blossoming and rising campaign spiking very, very high, she decided to get what go broke.
You know who else did this?
It was Kirsten Gillibrand.
She was one of the wokest candidates.
Well, the New York Times wrote an op-ed saying the wokest candidates are the weakest, so why is Warren doing this?
I want to say, I don't know exactly, I don't want to say everything about Warren's staff are good, but I am happy that at least they're talking sanity.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be trickling up to the higher-ups in the campaign, and Warren continues to make absurd comments.
The latest, that she wanted her Secretary of Education to be vetted by a transgender child, to which Bill Maher said, forget the trans thing, why would you give veto power to a high schooler?
What is wrong with these candidates?
Well, we'll find out.
Let's check out what Project Veritas has uncovered in the latest expose.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate.
If you'd like to support my work, there's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, the best thing you can do, share this video.
A lot of people probably won't watch Veritas.
They assume they're lying.
Well, I'll tell you what.
Let me be that happy medium.
I'm not going to be Veritas.
I'm going to show you some sources, but I gotta say, Whether you want to believe what they're uncovering or not, these people are saying these things, and it's not just Warren staff.
It's Bill Maher.
It's the New York Times.
And it's been happening for months.
So let's dive in, see what's going on.
Expose 2020 Part 5.
Elizabeth Warren, Iowa campaign field organizer, says the Democrats lose elections because they prioritize pronouns over making sure people have a decent standard of living.
When you come from where I come from, no one gives an F about a G-D pronoun.
People want to know how to create a job.
That's awesome.
I wish that person were running.
I actually agree.
So Bravo Veritas, you actually made them look good.
Unfortunately, as we saw with the Bernie Sanders expose, I'm willing to bet many of them are going to lock down their social media accounts.
And Elizabeth Warren will not take any of this criticism seriously.
And as we saw with the other candidates, they're going to get woke and go broke.
Most of America does not know or care about wokeness, and for some reason, these candidates are chasing after Twitter to win a general election.
Okay, okay, hold on.
They're trying to win a primary election.
I get it.
They want the activist vote.
But I'm still willing to bet it's going to backfire on them.
They say, Iowa field organizer, Warren campaign, Angel Alicia, at the end of the day, we've become the party that has prioritized pronouns rather than putting food on the table for working families.
And it's like, that's why we lose.
Man, I'm so happy to hear this.
It's like a weight lifted off my shoulder.
Thank you.
Angel, I don't know a whole lot about you, but I'll say that statement alone, good vibes your way, okay?
I respect this, this is right.
Angel says, I got called out for not having those pronouns on my Twitter bio, so I threw them in there just to satisfy the folks.
It's identity politics, and again, I get called on it for calling it that.
Angel Alicia reveals discomfort with another Warren staff member, more prone to identity politics.
Page was like, you're the only straight person here.
I'm like, who effing cares?
I'm not saying you're the only effing trans here or something.
This is what the effing Trump people utilize against us because you say dumb ass like that.
Because I like women, you're going to ostracize me?
Yes, that's what we've all been complaining about.
I'm glad to see that at least some people are pushing back on this.
Regular Americans agree with Angel.
Please tell us how to improve the economy.
Well, Donald Trump did that!
You know what?
You know what, man?
This is gonna be a really Bill Maher-heavy episode because he's talked about this so much.
He recently did an interview with Megyn Kelly where he said people hate political correctness so much they will take it from the mouth of a werewolf if they push back against it.
And that's what, and then Megyn responded, that's what they like in Trump.
He's a fighter and that's the package he comes in.
Man, I feel bad for Angel.
He said, I had to do a diversity inclusion training and I'm like, what are you going to tell me, you white liberals that I don't already know?
Isn't it funny that it's always the white progressives who seem to be the wokest?
Alicia said, the chair of the Stonewall Caucus, which is like the LGBTQ caucus in the state, which has very little credibility.
Their membership is like 20 or 30 people.
They endorse Booker because Booker's team was like, come here with open arms because they need anything at this point.
The main point is, they endorsed Booker because we weren't gonna effing lay out a red carpet for them.
They're a liability, not an asset in the long term.
This is the problem I've had with Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders in 2016 went on the debate stage, and he said white people don't know what it's like to be poor.
PolitiFact covers this.
This is legit.
He said this.
I don't know why he said it, but boy was that a complete 180 from everything he appeared to be fighting for in the past.
That made me distrust him.
He got woke.
At an event, Black Lives Matter activists took the mic from him and he backed off.
He has continually gotten woke, and even gotten woke on immigration.
He's changed his policies.
And as the saying goes, get woke, go broke.
Maybe it's because he needs to court the activist base.
They're all doing.
But trying to go after woke Twitter is the biggest mistake you can make.
They are a tiny, tiny fraction.
Let me warn all of you.
Not only do progressive activists make up less than 8% of the U.S.
population, according to More in Commons data.
It's YouGov data.
This is polling, okay?
I don't know how to explain it to you other than that.
Twitter.
2.2% of Americans are active Twitter users.
Of that, around half are woke.
I think it's fair to say less than that.
Of the active Twitter users, even less are woke.
So we're dealing with a fraction of a fraction of a fraction that is dictating the narrative.
You know why?
Here's the sad reality.
Media companies need reach.
They want reach.
They go after people with large followings who have a better chance of sharing a story.
News companies in the digital age don't care about facts, they care about clicks and shares to make money.
Who's gonna get clicks and shares?
Someone with a large following on social media.
They get prioritized over real journalists who don't want the attention and don't want to be in the media.
Twitter then becomes dominated with well-funded activists who work in media with large followings, and they over-represent wokeness.
The politicians then chasing the news stories from these woke activists start pandering to things no one cares about.
I'm sorry, Angel.
I'm sorry I have to deal with this.
My only advice to you right now is to quit the Warren campaign and go somewhere else and speak your truth exactly as you're saying it because you are right.
I feel bad, man.
I kind of feel bad that this person's getting all of this exposure and pressure.
Often you see bad people exposed by Veritas.
Now, I'm not criticizing Veritas for this.
I think they did a good job.
I just think Angel should embrace the talking point, recognize that he does represent what Americans are truly interested in, making their lives better for everybody, the LGBTQ community or otherwise.
But the problem is that you're hyper-focused on a tiny community of woke activists on Twitter instead of the general population.
I wish the best for Angel.
Look, I gotta say, another caveat.
I don't know exactly what their politics are.
I mean, they work for the Warren campaign.
But I think Warren deserves praise in some areas.
I mean, back when she started spiking in the polls, she was talking about going after big tech, and I was all down for that.
Now, I gotta be honest, she's a liar.
You know, she's lied about so many things.
I would never vote for her.
You know what I mean?
I'd probably fall in that Yang or Bust bracket.
I'm a big fan of Yang.
I definitely disagree with UBI.
But I think Yang is the best we have so far, and I think he's an all-around good dude who's made good points.
There's some things I'd criticize him for 100%.
I don't think he's gonna win.
But he's the only one I believe who has earned my trust and respect.
Save Tulsi Gabbard.
I know, I know, I know.
But I think at this point, I don't think Yang or Tulsi are going anywhere, so I'm just like, that, and of course the DNC is cheating, you know, you get it.
I'd love to see Angel succeed from this.
To be actually given a chance to come out and say, you know what?
Yes.
I said it.
I hope it doesn't reflect poorly on him, because while it is an undercover expose, and I think Veritas is doing the right thing showing there is dissent in the ranks, I hope that somebody who's actually speaking truth and calling out the insanity and actually fighting for what American people actually care about, how to create a job.
I hope they get rewarded, not punished.
You know, when we see people talking about gulags and stuff, yeah, those people should be heavily criticized.
And just criticized.
I don't like a lot of the brigading that goes on the internet.
There is harassment and stalking.
It's not always, you know, a lot of these people try to claim that criticism is harassment.
It's not true.
But at least, as far as I can tell from so far, I feel bad for this person.
But I think it's important that Veritas does what they does.
Otherwise, you just don't know.
And it's really important we learn that within the ranks of one of the progressive far-left Democrats who's actually leading the pack, there are staffers saying no to the insanity.
It's not just like a steamroller of far-left, you know, storming through.
There are people actually pushing back.
They say this.
An Elizabeth Warren presidential campaign field organizer, Angel Alicia, was secretly recorded admitting to his frustration of extreme political correctness taking place within the Warren campaign.
Alicia works out of the Warren campaign Iowa office, says that although he cares about transgender people, Democrats are losing elections for prioritizing gender pronouns over economic issues.
Thank you.
We all, listen, I think it's fair to say everybody, yeah, yeah, like the overwhelming majority, okay, obviously not literally everybody, but 99% of people, want everyone to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
That's what America is all about.
We may disagree on cultural issues, institutional issues, but most people want to respect others' individual liberty.
Not everybody, look, fascists and tankies exist, we get it.
Authoritarian leftists and the right, they're all around.
But most people, most good Americans, most voters are probably like, hey man, you do you.
Even conservatives.
We disagree on laws and we argue over things that we should and shouldn't allow.
I understand that.
But most of us want to focus on how to make our lives better.
When you hyper-focus on the boutique issues, as Rick Wilson said on Bill Maher, boutique issues in a Walmart country, you lose.
Angel Alicia believes that Elizabeth Warren and the Democratic Party are misguided when it comes to the American people's priorities.
He also thinks that his fellow Warren campaign staffers are part of the problem.
Please, Angel, please make a video, come out, speak openly about this.
I seriously mean it.
Please talk about this.
Call out these people who are pushing this fringe ideology that Americans don't want.
It's hurting the Democrats.
The sooner we can expose the insanity due to the media machine, the better off all of us will be.
Angel said, at the end of the day, if we're going to prioritize pronouns over making sure people have a decent standard of living, that's wrong.
The journalist responded, you're right.
Angel said, and when you come from where I come from, no one gives an F about a GD pronoun.
People want to know how to create a job.
So it's possible this person believes, you know, crazy things too.
I don't know, Angel.
And I think it's fair to point out, as I typically do, you know, a lot of people try to go after Veritas saying it's out of context, but that's not necessarily the case or the issue.
Some of these people on camera bragging about, you know, in the Bernie exposés, like, dude, they're saying this stuff.
We know they're saying this stuff.
They try to downplay it, but no one's condemned the rhetoric.
They've just ignored it and hushed it up.
So I think it's fair to say these small snippets don't provide us with a perfect picture of who these individuals are, but it does show us a little bit about what they're thinking at the time, and based on certain contexts, I think it is relevant.
So he says, the thing is, and I'm here for the pronoun things, but I just feel like I shouldn't have to say he, him, his, like, shouldn't it just be implied?
If I tell you otherwise, like, I've been called out for saying something like that, but this is why we lose elections because we're zeroing on S like that.
Don't call her she in front of her.
She'll be very upset.
He said, use they them pronouns.
But it's like I'm still trying to get up to speed on that.
But at the end of the day, we've become the party that has prioritized that rather than putting food on the table for working families.
And it's like, that's why we lose.
We're zeroing in on something.
And I'm not saying it doesn't matter.
We should make people feel comfortable and accepted.
He says, when you put that over making sure people have decent jobs and healthcare, it's an effing no-brainer why we're going to GD lose an election.
Yep.
So he ended up saying he threw him into his Twitter bio.
So here's what I want to do.
I want to show you this.
Bill Maher, recently on his show, just this past Friday, said we gotta stay away from the crazy stuff.
I want to make sure it's very, very clear.
I don't think that what Bill is saying, or what Angel is saying, or what's being exposed here is anything disparaging about the trans community.
In fact, it's just the opposite.
It's actually...
Well, not the most, you know, the most perfect advocacy for.
I think they're bringing up important issues of, look, we want to be there for trans people, protect them, make sure they have full legal rights and are recognized, and all of that stuff.
But the Democrats are focusing on issues that don't affect 99.9% of Americans.
It affects a small portion of the population, and those are their friends and family, so maybe 99.9% is a bit too much.
But it's not so much about anything having to do with the trans community.
It's about the exploitation of the community by people who have nothing to do with it, who want to use those issues to gain leverage among the activist base.
They don't actually care.
It just comes off like exploitation.
Bill Maher said, you know, he said, now Obama said just people just don't want the crazy stuff.
Is this not crazy stuff?
Is she running for president of Berkeley?
And that was the point.
I'm not going to read through everything of Bill Maher's speech, but he was heavily critical of Warren.
And there is a fear.
These politicians are scared that if they say the wrong thing, it's going to come back and bite them.
Now here's what I want to show you that I find particularly interesting.
This is the RealClearPolitics aggregate polling from throughout the, you know, going back to, what's the first date?
We have August 4th.
Elizabeth Warren, very briefly, it appears, hit number one.
By 0.2%, she beat Joe Biden.
Amazing!
And that was October 8th.
Something happened, and her polls started falling.
They started falling a lot, they fell down fast, underneath Bernie, and now she's in third place in aggregate polling.
In October, we saw this story.
It was from Bill Maher once again, surprisingly.
Now, I do have to make sure I point out Bill Maher kinda went nuts, said he was gonna try not to cry, like, dude's not perfect, but I can appreciate someone on the left actually calling this stuff out and trying to bring sanity back.
Barbara K. Dems need to go beyond Twitter if they don't want four more years of crazy.
97% of tweets mentioning national politics came from only 10% of its users, according to a new U.S.
study.
And that's important.
Because only around, I think, 22% of the country actually uses Twitter.
And 10% of that, 2.2%, are active Twitter users.
And around half of that are ideologically left.
And a smaller portion are the woke left.
And it's what's dominating the conversation.
But the story starts with Bill Maher.
Bill Maher was at the top of his game the other night, delivering a trenchant riff premised on advice to candidates for the Democratic nomination.
This should be easy, he said.
Just be less crazy than Donald Trump.
The waves of laughter mar-mocked the prominence of marginal issues in candidate platforms, such as giving prisoners the right to vote Bernie Sanders, and not to be outdone, the offer of free gender confirmation operations to the minuscule number of transgender individuals in the prison system, Elizabeth Warren.
He also warned manic maximalist Beto O'Rourke that a vow to withdraw tax-exempt status from churches resistant to recognized gay marriage isn't a winning strategy in attracting the black vote.
Whether or not you agree or disagree, this conversation came from famous comedian Bill Maher.
These are things being said on HBO.
I'm convinced YouTube might get mad at me for even talking about it, so I don't know what to tell you, but it needs to be talked about.
Because Warren has been tanking right around the time this story came out.
Right around the time she started talking about these issues, her polls slowly started to drop.
It may be that in her panic and desperation as her polls dropped, she turned to wokeness.
It made things worse.
I don't know.
It didn't help.
It could also be that she embraced wokeness to try and boost herself beyond Biden, and it backfired.
I believe the latter.
I think it's probably the case that Warren was rising in the ranks.
She was talking about going after Facebook.
Hey, people were into that.
And then what ended up happening was she went woke.
She got broke.
And her own staff think so.
And that's why I feel that way.
Look, I got to say, man, as critical as I've been, when Warren came out about the Facebook stuff and the Google stuff, I was actually praising her!
Now don't get me wrong, I criticize her heavily for her lies, but I think going after big tech monopolies was a pretty popular position.
So what happened to make people start souring on her?
At least in part, I'd be willing to bet it's that she got woke, and then she went broke.
That's why we're hearing it from her own staff.
And that's why we saw from the New York Times, now I get it, the New York Times often likes to go after the, you know, the left, and they're the centrist types, but the New York Times even hired some woke individuals.
They've pushed the woke narrative.
But in this op-ed from Jamel Bouie, why the wokest candidates are the weakest.
If the fantasy that Democrats are all zealots were reality, the primary campaign would have turned out quite differently.
In reality, Elizabeth Warren is failing.
You see, Kirsten Gillibrand didn't make it.
Check this out.
This is an old story from back when Gillibrand was relevant in July.
A white woman from Ohio asked Gillibrand about white privilege.
Her answer was spot on.
And as the New York Times said, the primary would be very different.
If wokeness really did matter to the average Democrat.
The average Democrat voter does not care about the issues that affect small fractions of people.
They want the candidate to be a big tent for issues that affect everybody.
So by all means, put in your platform how you're going to protect the trans community.
I completely agree with that.
I think it's fantastic.
Absolutely.
But you need to make sure that when you're trying to tell people what you're going to bring them, it is something everyone can relate to, otherwise they wander around.
And now we have a Democratic Party that is fractured at every different direction.
I don't even know what half the candidates are actually campaigning on.
What is Joe Biden's message?
Seriously, do you know Joe Biden's campaign slogan?
I don't know it.
Does he have one?
Is it, Joe Biden, let's just stay the same?
Let's go back to the way it used to be before Trump made the country great again?
Like, I don't know what his slogan is.
What about Bernie Sanders?
Oh, Bernie Sanders is us, not me, right?
Is that Bernie?
So, look.
I absolutely know what Bernie is campaigning on, 100%.
And for the most part it isn't wokeness, but he's certainly entertaining the overly woke.
For him, I think the important thing is that Bernie hasn't really been playing that game like Warren has, which is why he surpassed her.
Let's go back to the aggregate polling, I'll say this.
While Bernie does surround himself with Ocasio-Cortez, who is very woke, we can see that Bernie has started to go up and up and up while Warren's gone down, and Bernie's capped it to populist left-wing issues like Medicare for All and the environment.
And while, again, I know Bernie is woke, it's not something you hear often of him going out and saying these things that Warren says about having a child determine who a cabinet member would be.
Like Bill Maher said, the transition was not relevant.
Warren said she wanted a child to vet her cabinet members.
It just literally does not make any sense.
So I'll throw it back to that staffer, Elizabeth Warren.
Man, I hope you issue a statement.
I hope you don't just shut things down or quit.
I think what you said was popular and populist and people need to hear it.
They really, really do.
They need to know that you as an individual are still standing up for what the average American is looking for.
Back in April, almost a full year ago, Bill Maher warned Democrats against making immigration issue a woke contest in 2020.
Well, I know the immigration issue is mostly, you know, Trump won on that front.
But beyond that, Bill Maher at least has made that point.
Yep, Democrats have started a woke contest, and it turned out miserably for everybody.
Like the New York Times said, if the party, like the actual individuals who vote, were this woke, things would have been very different.
So why won't Elizabeth Warren get the message?
I don't understand.
You've seen Kirsten Gillibrand, who was the wokest of them all, kind of fizzle out.
You'd think they would have learned their lesson that issues like healthcare and immigration, you know, these are things people care about.
But the smaller issues, the fringe issues, the woke Twitter issues, people aren't concerned about.
You'd think they'd do better.
They're not.
I think Biden is only polling as well as he is because it's Obama.
It's like, yeah, okay, we'll go back to how Obama was, I guess.
You know, there's trust that at least it'll be, you know, not bad, I guess.
But he's not really campaigning on anything.
I don't even know what Joe Biden's asking for.
All I know is he insults people all the time and literally has told people not to vote for him.
I gotta be honest.
I said it before.
I don't think Joe Biden's actually running.
I really don't.
He's not raising money.
His staff is all over the place.
He insults people.
He tells, hey, you should go vote for Bernie.
You should go vote for Trump.
Okay, dude, then why are you here?
Because he has a default vote from people who are like, I don't know, Biden, I guess?
Well, there's actually a joke about that.
A bumper sticker says Bernie 2020.
Okay, I guess maybe Biden.
Like, that's the joke or something.
I don't know what I saw.
Or I think it was, they did the same thing with Hillary.
Like, you know, okay, maybe, I guess.
Anyway, you get the point.
I think one of the biggest things that hurts the Democratic candidates, like this angel exposed by Veritas, is saying, it's spot on.
I think that's why Warren took a hit.
I think it's why Gillibrand fizzled out.
And I think the Democrats who want to win need to avoid talking about this stuff, because you do not want Bill Maher coming after you.
Look, Bill Maher doesn't represent all the left.
He's not perfect.
He says a bunch of really dumb things, in my opinion.
But I really respect that at least the left has him.
Unfortunately, the progressives really don't like him.
Yeah, they call him all the worst names in the book.
And unfortunately, I think at this point, Bill Maher is more of a classical liberal in line with the intellectual dark web than anything else.
And the only thing keeping him where he is, you know, maintaining his audience, is that he's got Trump derangement syndrome.
But look, somehow Bill Maher became a big piece of this segment, I guess because he's repeatedly ragged on Warren and the wokeness in the Democratic Party.
And the reality is, whether you like the guy or not, he's right.
He is.
So, I'll wrap it up here.
Much respect to Angel for calling this stuff out.
I wish he would speak publicly.
I know not everybody could, but at least you're saying something to some people.
At least, even if it's just someone who's talking about the campaign, you're willing to speak up.
It could be that he doesn't have the platform required to actually stand up to this stuff, but you can see that Angel was absolutely willing to call it out.
Much respect.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
I will see you all next time.
In a Super Bowl interview, Donald Trump says that Nancy Pelosi is going to fall and the radical left is going to take over, and I completely agree, and I can show you exactly why.
First, there's the really obvious reason.
Pelosi's old.
She's got to retire soon.
And many of these establishment Democrats are really old and have to retire soon.
Now, I know Bernie Sanders is old as well.
But Ocasio-Cortez is very young.
Many of these progressives who believe insane things for insane reasons and want insane stuff are also very young.
And that means as the older generation leaves and retires and, yes, passes on, the younger, more progressive activists are slowly taking over.
Now, Donald Trump made this prediction.
He's correct.
He is.
I want you to take a look at this story.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asks why Americans will fund Space Force but won't back healthcare for all.
I love it.
The reason why I highlight this is this is the number one post on Reddit right now.
And I do think there's some dirty dealing going on behind the scenes at these social media companies, because many of the political subreddits are actually just pro-establishment or progressive democrat subreddits, and there's no actual, there's no real conversation about what's actually happening.
Take a look at this story.
I mean, most of you can already understand exactly why it's stupid.
But she makes a point that riles up stupid people.
She tweets, What?
Do you know how much we're gonna put into the Space Force?
My understanding is that it's like in the tens of millions.
going to pay for public college or health care.
This is the richest country in the world.
Our problem isn't a lack of money, it's a lack of good priorities, and that is something
we can change.
What?
Do you know how much we're going to put into the Space Force?
My understanding is it's like in the tens of millions, and it's not even as much as
like Trump wanted.
Do you know how much Medicare for All would cost?
It's in the trillions!
Trillions.
We're not talking jumping from million to billion.
We're talking about jumping millions to trillions.
Do you have any concept of, like, economics?
This is a really funny thing about AOC.
She's like, they make fun of me for having an economics degree.
It's like, dude, they're not making fun of you because you have the degree.
It's the combination of you having the degree and not understanding how economics actually works.
But here's what happens.
She tweets out this stupid insanity, and sure enough, everybody eats it up, saying, yeah, why are we building a space force when we could pay for people's cancer treatments?
Let me tell you something.
It is substantially, and I'm talking like orders of magnitude cheaper, and it's very vital To the technology communications, for instance, our satellites, that we have a space force, which was proposed long before Trump, that actually already exists to a certain degree, something that will protect our space assets.
Hey, how about GPS, which most of you use every single day?
So I know that what they're allocating towards the Space Force is basically taking existing funding that was already going to these other departments and putting it all under one roof.
The general idea is we're already spending the money.
Communication is bad.
We're going to create a Space Force, allocate funds from here to there.
We're not talking about new taxes or new spending.
The money would already be spent here.
We're making it easier for everyone to communicate and protect our assets in space.
You know what, man?
I feel a little bit hopeless from all of this, okay?
Because while you can rag on conservatives for, you know, not always being correct, and you can criticize their bad opinions, when I look to what's dominating Reddit, it is just complete ignorance.
Complete ignorance from people like Ocasio-Cortez, who don't understand how any of this works.
They don't think at all.
They don't Google search.
Case in point.
When the Space Force posted the new name tags, the nameplates, okay?
Existing military uniforms that said Space Force, it was camo.
It was camouflage.
It was like jungle and terrestrial camouflage.
And all of a sudden, we got the big viral trend of, I can't believe they're doing tree camouflage for the Space Force.
Shouldn't it look like this?
And what did they post?
Pictures of, like, pajamas that have galaxies on them and stuff.
And it's like, oh, dude.
First of all, please.
I need you to Google search what the Space Force is going to do.
You see, they're going to operate on Earth.
We're not going to have soldiers drifting around in space wearing black because they're going to be without a spaceship.
You know, this is the craziest thing to me.
When that whole thing happened, I'm like, in what sci-fi reality have we ever seen Entire armies with no spaceships, okay?
You watch Star Trek?
Big spaceships.
You watch Star Wars?
Little spaceships, and big ones too.
But when have we seen people just drifting around in the vacuum of space?
That's what we get.
These people like AOC.
You take the people who are so dumb.
They think that U.S.
soldiers will literally be blasted off into outer space to drift around wearing space camouflage to fight other countries' people who are blasted off into outer space.
None of this makes sense!
They didn't think two steps.
They didn't Google search anything.
And the funnier joke is like, do you think that the Air Force camo is like blue with white puffs on it?
No.
They wear the same camouflage and they change it depending on specific terrain where they operate.
Guess what?
It's the existing army uniform.
The Space Force was just created.
I don't want to re-litigate all this.
I just want to tell you very simply, okay?
Medicare for All costs trillions of dollars a year.
They're estimating, what is it, like $30 trillion over the next 10 years?
Some ridiculous amount.
But here's what we get.
If you go to reddit.com slash all, the number one post, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asks why Americans will fund Space Force but won't back healthcare for all.
Well, why don't we figure out what people are saying?
Now, I will say, fortunately, thankfully, there are some comments in here that are like, guys, what is wrong with you?
Chill out.
But before I read those comments and show you how insane everyone is, I need to make the bigger and more important point.
It used to be that r slash the Donald was always on the front of all, r slash all.
People claimed it was Russian bots or whatever, I'm not going to play that argument, I'm just going to say Reddit panicked, they talked about how they didn't like it, and they started fiddling with the algorithm to prevent the Donald from reaching the front page of all.
Okay, so let me stop.
Reddit is a very, very prominent, you know, link aggregation site.
People go there, you post a link, people upvote or downvote.
r slash all is the entirety of the website.
Meaning, whatever subreddit it could be, there could be one about like, you know, ice cream.
And it just, for some reason, people really like it.
And it's like r slash ice cream.
Right now, if you go to r slash politics, you actually just get progressive activism.
There's no real discussion over policy.
It's just literally orange man bad over and over.
And if you try and say anything to the contrary, in like a post, it typically just gets obliterated.
So now you have the more conservative sites, subreddits, not gaining any traction, and even the moderate ones, and what do you see?
All the time on all?
You see centrists being mocked?
You see political humor in politics where they literally just rag on Trump, and things like F the alt-right.
It's literally just inundated with progressive politics.
You might say, Tim, that's just because most people don't like Trump.
Hey, that's fair.
That's what moderators are for on the politics subreddit.
You would think politics, which is not supposed to be partisan, would have moderation to make sure there could be a real healthy debate.
Not how it works.
Because activists go in and shut everything down.
Let me show you the comments.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, why will Americans fund the Space Force but won't back healthcare for all?
Here we go.
They say the first comment.
Because Fox News tells their followers that only communists give government-funded health care and they're dumb enough to believe it.
There is so much wrong with that top comment.
Okay, that means.
When people are commenting, they're upvoting this the most.
That's what they think.
The people in this subreddit apparently don't watch Fox News, or they assume that literally everyone in this country does, which they don't.
Now, Fox News is the highest rated cable channel.
There are many news outlets that are not Fox News.
And guess what?
You got Pete Buttigieg, you got Klobuchar, you got Biden.
None of them want Medicare for All either.
This is hyperbolic nonsense.
But it's being pushed up to number one on one of the most prominent social media networks in the world.
The next person says, the best part is, the people watching Fox News that rabble on about having to pay for other people's health care are either on ACA or Medicaid.
Yes, you read that right.
That's just not true either, because there are people of all generations saying no to this.
Biden's voters are like Gen Xers.
They're in their 40s, people entering their 50s.
Guess what?
Those people are not watching Fox News.
They're Biden supporters, and they also don't want these things.
This is the weird, weird world of how Reddit Quarantined the Donald so that they can't appear anywhere else for complete BS reasons.
The biggest site for Donald Trump support is basically blocked.
Now look, I say it all the time.
I don't care if you like or don't like the president.
I think it's messed up that you basically have all of these other subreddits completely dominated by progressive activists and the one place for Trump supporters is quarantined so it can't even appear.
You then go to Reddit and you get this insanity.
Why would Reddit want to promote this pure ignorance?
I'm not saying Trump's right.
I'm not saying his supporters are right.
I'm saying these people are dumb.
They're wrong.
And they're prejudice.
They assume everyone who disagrees with them must be an old person watching Fox News.
That's not true.
People, there are moderate young people who are in their 30s who also think AOC is stupid.
Listen, I'm gonna show you some more of these comments.
This one says, I wasn't given a choice.
I'll just, we'll jump over, that's fine.
Space Force sounds so cool, it's like Pow Pow, way cooler than affordably treating a taxpayer's colon cancer, Pow Pow.
Not one of them have asked any questions about what's really going on.
Not one of them.
Not one of them is on a single Google search to figure out what's really going on.
But you eventually do find some people.
Here's one.
They say to protect the profits of both the military-industrial complex and the healthcare industry.
Well, I'm not completely in disagreement with that.
That's a whole other issue.
Here we go.
Finally, we make it to this point.
This comment says, In case anyone was actually interested in why the Space Force even exists, it was proposed long before President Dip S. The responsibility of protecting our satellites was spread across several branches of the military, and communication between them wasn't sufficient.
On top of that, there were budget disputes.
Tons of actual information out there besides this hyper-sensationalist nonsense.
Thank you, good sir.
At least you can find this.
It's not at the top, but at least you can still find some sanity.
This next person says, sure, but the same could be said of healthcare.
It was proposed long before the current administration.
The responsibility for it spans governmental agencies and the private sector.
As a result, communication and budget issues exist.
Okay, okay, hold on.
You still can't compare $2 trillion to like, you know, $50 or $70 million.
Sorry.
It's just an exponential growth in how much you have to spend.
And not only that, moving the Space Force under one administration streamlines communication and expenses.
Launching Medicare for All terminates two million jobs and Warren and Bernie have all been like, yup, maybe we need a transitional fund to protect them.
So now you're talking about more taxes.
The costs go up.
Not only will the costs go up, but then you end up with people who aren't working and there's not going to be taxes.
They're also talking about a wealth tax to pay for it, but you can only tax the wealthy one time on a wealth tax and eventually there's no more billionaires and there's no one left to tax.
It's just like watching people It's just like watching stupid people say stupid things.
I don't know how else to describe it.
Here's the thing.
When you're playing a strategy game, okay, when you're trying to strategize about your mission, you can't just say, hey, this does this.
You have to think about all of the steps involved and where you end up.
Donald Trump is right.
Let's go back to the first story.
Donald Trump is right.
The fallout's gonna take over, and it's not just because Pelosi and others are retiring or aging out.
It's because AOC can say something that almost makes sense, but really doesn't.
She says, Trump just did a Space Force?
Why are we spending money in space?
Now, I know she didn't say that.
I'm being hyperbolic.
But when Elon Musk launched a car into outer space, a Tesla, a bunch of progressives started tweeting about how Elon Musk was wasting money.
Why are these billionaires wasting all this money when they could be doing healthcare?
Did you know?
that the space race helped us invent a ton of products. Did you know that the money spent on
the space race is actually spent on earth and that those expenses generate tax revenue and
the new technologies developed actually can improve health care and it also inspires the
world and the nation.
It makes people hopeful, and it creates a morale boost.
The world isn't so simple to where you can just say, everybody gets healthcare!
We can't cure every disease.
There will never be a cure for everyone.
That's what they don't seem to understand.
If today, coronavirus.
Hey, the best example.
There is no cure for the coronavirus.
We don't know how to treat it.
There are some tests going on right now about certain medications, the antivirals that may help.
But hold on!
How come we can't cure it?
Why can't we just spend the money and give everyone free healthcare and then they will be not sick anymore?
Oh, I'm sorry, there's no cure for it.
Therein lies the big problem.
How much time and energy will be spent to actually try and provide healthcare to those who contract something that can't be cured?
There will always be things we can't cure, unless we become immortal gods.
Okay?
Now I think, you know, a fair argument is that basic level care, like if you break your arm we can patch you up, we could provide something like that on a national level and pay for it.
What we can't do is just constantly talk about how everyone gets guaranteed healthcare.
Because here's how it really works.
Let's say we have penicillin.
Well, not penicillin anymore.
We're now using a bunch of different antibiotics because antibiotic resistance.
But I don't even know which current antibiotic people use.
But we've constantly had to update it and change it and create these cures.
It's a very difficult process and it costs a lot of money because people have to do the labor.
Then we can't just give it out to everybody because it's a finite supply.
So, let's say today, there is no cure for a specific disease.
And they say, I'm sorry, there is no healthcare for you, your disease has no treatment, not even for the symptoms.
Bye-bye.
A week later, they finally discover the cure for a rare genetic disease, and it costs $10 million to do.
Are they going to give that to everyone?
No, they're not.
It's literally impossible.
And so this idea that you can actually have guaranteed healthcare to cover all ailments just literally does not make sense.
But they're not having a real argument.
AOC is conflating things that don't make sense, but people eat it up.
There are similar criticisms of Donald Trump.
They say that he scapegoats problems.
Fine.
There's a big difference between claiming, you know, immigration and trade is causing problems in the economy, and then Trump actually comes out and the economy improves.
Maybe Trump is too hyper-focused on one small portion of the problem, and that was the big criticism he got.
That he was a populist, telling the people what they wanted to hear and promising them solutions.
Well, The economy's better than ever, right?
There's a big difference between what AOC is doing right now, conflating things that just have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
The Space Force and Medicare for All are on other sides of the room.
There's no relation to a $40 million, $50 million expenditure and $2 trillion per year and terminating 2 million jobs.
She has no real solutions other than she's like, I'll just say it, she's not that bright.
And she's seeing things and going, hey, why are we going to outer space instead of healthcare?
And it's like, uh, we were already in outer space.
The healthcare thing would terminate two million jobs and radically alter the economy, probably of the world, and could potentially cause a world economic collapse.
You know, at least for a temporary period.
And so we're trying to figure out how to solve the problem.
But you see the same thing with people like Greta Thunberg.
And she actually said, not 2050, not 2030, not 2021.
They don't think about what comes next.
So they tell all these people, hey, fossil fuels cause climate change, right?
And they go, yes.
We should stop using them, yes.
We should stop using them immediately, right?
Yes.
Congratulations.
Now people who rely on that are dead.
So, you know, basically I want to do this segment because it's just so frustrating when every day I browse Reddit and I constantly see these half-formed, half-brained ideas that no one thinks through.
And I'm not here to give a free pass to any conservative.
You can be dumb and be on any part of the political spectrum.
The real problem is this is the number one post on all.
Something that literally makes no sense that stupid people are rallying around.
There's another comment, I think.
Let me see if I can find it.
Here, someone says, We already had a Space Force.
It's simply being moved out of the Air Force to become a separate branch.
No additional budget allocation.
Here's what we need.
Here's what I want to see.
I don't care if you say, you know, we can't have Trump supporters, fine, whatever.
Okay, fine.
We'll stop that argument.
First of all, they shouldn't quarantine the Donald.
Full stop.
It was completely ridiculous why they did.
For those that don't know, it basically means their posts don't appear on the site, and it's very difficult to actually get to the forum.
What they do need, however, is legitimate moderation.
But what do we get?
r slash politics, which is supposed to talk politics, is frequently full of activist websites like Truthout and Common Dreams.
Look at this.
Common Dreams is not news.
It is an activist website.
Why is that the front of political discussions?
Partisan actors, not moderating this platform, and you end up with nothing but Slate and Newsweek and Common Dreams?
You're not getting real information.
And it's reaching number one of all.
So Trump is right.
The far left is taking over because social media companies are panicking because allies in, you know, ideologues in media smear and defame people, which cause these companies to then purge anyone who dare have a right wing or even moderate opinion.
And then the moderators come in and prop up their ideological allies and post activist content to what's supposed to be a neutral political forum.
But it's not.
You then get the number one post on all to be complete BS.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
And I'll see you all then.
The coronavirus is absolutely worse than we thought it was, and I've got to issue a semi-correction, because in past videos I said the flu is typically worse, be more worried about the flu, and that is actually wrong.
Not completely wrong, but the reality is the coronavirus has a substantially higher mortality rate, and that's why people are freaking out.
Right now I'm seeing the narrative pop up everywhere where they're like, you need to get your flu shot.
Take more, you know, be more concerned about the flu.
The reality is the flu has a mortality rate, according to NBC, of 0.095, whereas the coronavirus can be from 2 to 4%.
So it is much more serious than I realized.
I apologize.
It's much more serious than most people realized.
And I think it's fair to say that China has been lying this whole time.
And this could turn into something substantially more serious because the amount of people infected, it's increasing all the time.
We have this story from Fox News.
Experts warn about pandemic as coronavirus numbers increase.
I want to come back to this.
But the first thing we need to talk about is why it is serious and push back on some of the misinformation that continues to downplay the coronavirus.
Again, apologizing because I did try to keep everything a little down when I first started.
Now I think that was a mistake.
Even if the coronavirus is not that serious, over-preparation and over-reaction, to a certain degree, is safer than under-reaction.
So it's better that you prepare, you keep yourself safe, and you stay focused on the story, lest you actually get really, really bad, and then you're unprepared for it.
It's also better, in my opinion, that these governments and organizations are taking it more seriously, even if you don't think it's a big deal, because that can help prevent this.
One of the concerns about SARS and past epidemics and pandemics is that they were downplayed, underestimated, and allowed to grow worse.
Look at this story from CNBC.
It says, the flu has already killed 10,000 across the U.S.
as world frets over coronavirus.
Interestingly, the article actually says that the mortality rate for flu is substantially lower.
They do make a couple good points, though, that I do agree with.
They say, one of the quotes is from this, from a doctor saying, In the U.S., it's really a fear based on media, and this being something new.
Dr. Jennifer Leiter, hospital epidemiologist at NYU Lingone Health, said of the new coronavirus, When in reality, people can take measures to protect themselves against the flu, which is here and prevalent, and has already killed 10,000 people.
However, The coronavirus outbreak, however, is proving to be more deadly than the flu.
It has killed roughly 2% of the people who have contracted it so far, according to World Health Officials.
This compares with a mortality rate of 0.095% for the flu in the US, according to CDC estimates for the 2019-2020 flu season.
According to CDC estimates for the 2019-2020 flu season, the CDC estimates that 21 people
will eventually get the flu this season.
But wait, just 21 people?
Wow, that's not a lot.
2% case fatality is still a tough case fatality when you compare it to the case fatality for the seasonal flu or other things.
Dr. Mike Ryan, Executive Director of the World Health Organization Health Emergencies Program, told reporters Wednesday.
A relatively mild virus can cause a lot of damage if a lot of people get it, he added.
And this is the issue at the moment.
We don't fully understand it.
Now I'm going to stop you there.
Based on current reporting, the mortality rate is around 2%.
And we've seen people lie in the past to save face and because they don't want to take responsibility for their problems and what they cause.
Let me tell you.
They've quarantined several cities.
Like, several is probably not even enough.
I think it might be over 10.
I'm not sure.
Tens of millions of people.
And it seems like they're taking it substantially more seriously than they're letting out.
They've started arresting whistleblowers.
These are things we all know.
And one whistleblower claimed there were 90,000 sick and that was like a week ago.
If it is growing and 90,000 people had it, it's way worse than anyone realizes.
And when I saw this video, For those that are listening, I'll describe it.
You can see doors with Chinese writing.
There's a bunch of men wearing masks, and they are jamming iron bars, what looks like some kind of door stopper, to prevent the door from opening.
Let's read the story.
They say...
Chinese police used huge iron bars to barricade a screaming woman inside her home in a bid to stop the spread of the deadly coronavirus that has already killed at least 360 people.
Authorities in Nantong Jiangsu province were filmed locking the woman in her apartment and stopping the family from leaving.
Police even put up a sign warning neighbors to stay away and not to have contact with the people who lived inside because they had recently returned from the outbreak's epicenter of Wuhan.
These people might not even be sick.
They don't know.
That's how much they're panicking.
Look, I get it.
It is a higher mortality than the flu.
It is airborne and contagious, so yes people are worried.
I think it's worse than that.
I think if they're downplaying the numbers, The mortality rate could actually be a lot higher.
What does it matter?
Two percent.
That's high.
They say, in a video posted on social media, a woman could be heard screaming as uniformed officers locked her inside.
Around seven officers barricaded the family inside with one telling them don't come out as the bars were put in place across the front door.
A sign was then stuck next to the door after it was sealed off, reading, This family came back from Wuhan.
Stay away.
No contact.
Some officers used their mobile phones to film the final stages of the bars being put in place.
Online videos from other areas around China showed similar scenes in which authorities locked potentially infected families into their homes.
One video reportedly taken in the capital, Beijing, showed wooden planks being nailed across an apartment door.
Feng Suozhou, a Chinese human rights activist, said he had seen videos in at least four different areas across the country, all showing people being locked inside.
So let me lay it out for you.
We know China is an authoritarian dictatorship for the most part.
There's no free speech.
They've got concentration camps.
They're deploying massive drones to spray the cities down with what they say is disinfectant.
They're now locking people in their homes.
They're imprisoning people in small quarantines out of not even, they don't even know if they're infected, just a fear of it.
We're not reacting that way.
Now why is that?
Is it because we know something they don't?
Because we're underestimating the virus?
Because we're not authoritarians?
Maybe it's not a big deal?
Or maybe it's because China knows something that we don't?
The outbreak started in their country.
Maybe they know something we don't.
I honestly have no idea.
I do think a good contender for why they're locking people in their homes is because, well, China's authoritarian.
They lock up people.
They've been arresting whistleblowers.
Yeah, we get it.
So they're not going to take any chances.
They will sacrifice the individual for the collective.
America doesn't do that.
Perhaps it's not that big of a deal.
The people who have lost their lives so far have been older, and it's typically those under 15 or older than over 55 who have the most to worry about.
But I do think it's a bit absurd that we constantly hear this narrative that the flu is so much worse.
The flu already killed 10,000 across the U.S.
It's true.
And you need to take precautions over the flu.
They say, the flu season alone has sickened at least 19 million across the U.S.
and led to 10,000 deaths and 180,000 hospitalizations.
Roughly a dozen cases of the deadly coronavirus have been identified in the U.S.
The number has mushroomed across the outbreak, its outbreak zone in China.
If coronavirus breaks out in the U.S., the mortality rate is substantially higher, like 20 times higher.
That is really, really bad.
Take it seriously.
But let's see what the experts are warning about over at Fox News.
They say, experts believe the highly transmissible coronavirus will become a pandemic as infected numbers continue to increase in China and countries around the world, according to a startling report.
A pandemic is described as a disease that spreads across a large region, across continents, and even the entire globe.
The coronavirus is reportedly spreading at a similar pace to influenza compared to the slow-moving SARS and MERS, according to the New York Times.
And there is the final nail.
Please take this seriously.
The mortality rate is substantially higher, and it's spreading as fast as the flu.
It is worse than all of us thought.
I apologize.
I act off of information I knew at the time, but it is getting worse.
And if we're now hearing that it's getting worse, there is a potential it could be worse than it is today.
Is it the end of the world?
No, of course not.
Are you going to be fine?
Yes, in almost all likelihood.
Should you panic?
Absolutely not.
For the most part, just like the flu, many of us will not even know someone who contracted it.
But the mortality rate is substantially higher, and it is moving as fast, so they say.
They go on to say it is very, very transmissible, and it almost certainly is going to be a pandemic.
Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, told the paper.
There are now 11 confirmed cases in the U.S.
I believe it's fair to say, within about two weeks' time, that number will be substantially higher because of the incubation period.
This is what we worry about.
When this first broke, and I talked about this, and people were getting worried, I said, we should be concerned if it's airborne, and if it has a long incubation period, it has both.
It has a higher mortality rate than the flu, it travels as fast as the flu, take it seriously.
As of Monday morning, there are six in California, one in Arizona, one in Washington State, one in Massachusetts, and two in Illinois.
No deaths have been reported in the U.S., and 99% of cases still remain in China.
Three more people were announced to have been infected in California on Sunday.
Quote, I understand that people are concerned, but based on what we know today, the risk to the general public remains low, said Dr. Sarah Cody, Santa Clara County's health officer.
A second case is not unexpected.
With our large population and the amount of travel to China, for both personal and business reasons, we will likely see more cases.
The U.S.
announced Sunday that Americans who travel to China within the last 14 days would be sent to designated airports for enhanced screenings.
Foreign nationals who recently went to China would be denied entry, other than the immediate family of American citizens and permanent residents.
China's foreign ministry said on Monday that the U.S.
hasn't given the country any substantive help in its fight against the coronavirus outbreak.
They added the U.S.
was contributing to the international panic surrounding the illness, according to a report by Reuters.
Three people in New York City are also being tested for the coronavirus after they made recent trips to mainland China, according to the state's Department of Public Health.
China is blaming us.
They're blaming the media.
CNBC blames the media.
Oh, I'm sorry, the quote from the doctor blames the media.
Absolutely fair.
The world is not ending.
Remain calm.
But I think it's unfair to tell people to downplay this.
If we're seeing Chinese react this way, Barricading people in their homes, and then telling us we're the ones overreacting?
Dude, I think if anyone's overreacting, it's you.
When you're locking suspected cases, not even suspected cases, people who travel to the city, so you lock them in their house with iron bars?
You want to talk about overreaction?
Now, if you think that's not an overreaction, it must truly be worse than you're letting on.
So, I don't want to tell you, man, I have a serious concern, and I've talked about this, the media trying to drum up panic, because they always want to do this, but you can't have an optimism bias.
Don't panic.
Remain calm.
Go to the store, grab some water, chill out.
It'll probably be fine.
It's gonna be like a substantially worse flu.
Not the end of the world.
Don't panic.
And don't underestimate it.
I think there's a concern that, you know, China, when they're claiming we're overreacting, it's simply because they're trying to save face.
Look, if you've got a doctor saying the media is overplaying it, take it seriously.
If you've got other doctors saying this is going to be a pandemic, take it seriously.
It doesn't matter who's right.
Err on the side of caution.
They say, quote, we're continuing to work closely with our partners at the CDC, state and federal government as the coronavirus situation evolves, said Health Commissioner Dr. Oxiris Barbette.
If you have traveled to the area affected by the outbreak in the last 14 days and feel unwell, call your doctor or visit a clinic and you will be cared for.
Test results conducted by the CDC will take roughly 36 to 48 hours to determine if the three people in New York City were infected with the virus.
Weeks after China announced the outbreak of the coronavirus, the international community has increased measures to prevent a widespread epidemic.
The World Health Organization declared the outbreak a global emergency as it spreads to countries outside of China and the number of infected patients continues to grow.
Countries around the globe have increased travel restrictions to the infected mainland China and Hubei province, with the U.S.
State Department increasing its advisory level to four do not travel.
The U.S.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention has advised travelers to avoid all non-essential travel to the country.
Coronavirus has now infected more people in China than were sickened during the SARS outbreak in the early 2000s.
Here are the latest figures.
They say the death toll from the virus increased to 361 on Monday, with a total of 17,205 infected.
An increase of nearly 20% in the last 24 hours.
Now, I do want to stop.
I'm not sure if they count in projected infections.
Or is this confirmed?
Because if it's just the confirmed ones, stands to reason we know the number's going up.
The first death outside of China was recorded in the Philippines on Sunday.
The 44-year-old Chinese man from Wuhan was hospitalized last week with a fever, cough, and sore throat, and died after developing severe pneumonia, according to the Philippines' health department.
The World Health Organization said the number of cases will keep growing as tests are pending on thousands of suspected cases.
Roughly 99% of new cases have appeared in China, with the vast majority of the cases in the Hubei province and its provincial capital, Wuhan, the epicenter of the virus.
About 150 cases have been reported in at least 25 countries globally.
The United Kingdom announced on Friday it has two cases of the virus, who are reportedly members of the same family.
The patients are receiving specialist national health service care, and we are using tried and tested infection control procedures to prevent further spread of the virus, said Chris Witte, England's chief medical officer.
We then can see all the countries, the numbers.
I'm not going to read through all of them.
Some notable mentions, however, is that Japan has 20 cases, Thailand 19, Germany has 10, South Korea has 15, Taiwan 10, Vietnam 8.
So obviously a lot of Southeast Asian countries near China We have many confirmed cases, it makes sense.
Most of the cases are there.
But seeing Germany with 10, Australia with 12, Russia with 2, France with 6, those are serious.
Now, Fox says, The flu has estimated to have killed roughly 10,000 to 25,000 people, with nearly 19 to 26 million infected in the U.S.
19 to 26 million infected in the U.S. between October 1st, 2019 and January 25th, 2020,
according to the CDC.
Coronavirus has impacted a far lesser number, although it's not yet clear how many have
been infected or how widespread it is.
There have also been reports it can be spread without symptoms showing up.
In respiratory illnesses, people with the most symptoms are the most contagious.
The agency said, children and those over 65 are the most likely to get sick from the flu, the CDC added.
Unlike the coronavirus, there's a special vaccine for the flu.
People over six months out are advised by the agency to get it during annual vaccination, with certain rare exceptions such as severe allergies to the shot.
No vaccine has been developed for coronavirus as of yet, which makes it dangerous in that respect.
The U.S.
declared the coronavirus a public health emergency on Friday, with Trump signing an order barring entry to foreign nationals who recently were in China other than the immediate family of American citizens and permanent residents.
Officials in the CDC have advised travelers to avoid nonessential travel.
So we read all this stuff.
Let's wrap the story up from Fox.
They're giving us a basic rundown.
Okay, so they've shut down a bunch of flights.
I see what we're saying.
The Allied Pilot Association, which represents 15,000 pilots for American Airlines, filed a lawsuit to halt
service with the airline, citing serious and in many ways still unknown health threats posed by the coronavirus.
All right, let's wrap this up.
China's either overreacting or lying to us.
Keep that in mind.
It's already worse than the flu in mortality rate, but not in terms of how many people are infected.
Take it seriously, because if this does reach the proportion of the flu, we're talking about a serious, serious mortality rate.
It causes pneumonia, you know, so you've got to be very, very careful here.
I'm gonna say it for one last time, so forgive me for repeating myself, but for real, everybody, I want you to stay safe.
I want everyone to be okay.
For humanity to prosper, it just means panicking is bad, reacting overly emotionally can cloud your judgment.
Just remain calm.
It doesn't seem like it's really gonna be the end of the world.
Nothing like that.
But it is more serious than the flu, and if you're already concerned about that, go to the store, pick up some extra water, go get some 5-gallon water jugs or something, keep them saved, so that if it really does get bad, you're always prepared.
Now listen, I'm adding this as well because I say it often, don't let anyone shame you into making fun of you for trying to take care of yourself, your friends, and your family.
Hurricanes happen, earthquakes happen, natural disasters occur, it's always wise to prepare at least to a certain degree.
Don't go out and build a bomb shelter bunker to, like, hide from the apocalypse.
Nothing's... it's not that bad.
I just think what we're looking at is going to be a minor blip in the history of humanity, but for the time being, there are people whose lives are in danger, and we want to make sure they stay safe.
So do not underestimate this.
Stick around.
I will see you all at 4 p.m.
in the next segment at youtube.com slash timcast.
It is a different channel, and I will see you there.
I gotta issue an apology to some of these Republicans, notably Lindsey Graham, when I said the Republicans were too ineffective to actually do anything.
I guess a lot of people agreed with me.
They were like, why is it that we have scandal after scandal targeting the president that seems to fizzle out conspiracy after conspiracy and no accountability?
And now Lindsey Graham is saying the Senate Intelligence Committee will call the Ukraine whistleblower.
I'm giddy with joy.
I want to know how this started.
I would like to see everyone brought to justice if they're committing crimes and exploiting our government for personal gain.
And that includes the president.
However, based on the track record of the Democrats who cried wolf, I really just think Trump acts egotistically and improperly.
But nothing he did was impeachable.
I'm sorry the Democrats just didn't make their case.
Now listen.
A lot of these people on the left don't want to believe I'm being sincere when I say it.
They seem to think that I'm only saying this to pander to the right.
Perhaps.
What you need to realize is that I'm a moderate.
I've always been and always proclaimed to be, and I'm rather ambivalent for the most part.
And you need compelling evidence, for me, beyond a reasonable doubt, to convince me Trump is actually abusing his office.
As far as I'm concerned, there is reason to believe Hunter Biden is doing things That he's corrupt.
I think Joe Biden is, too.
I think Joe Biden was trying to look out for his son.
So Donald Trump was going to look into it, and at the best, the only thing I see the Democrats having proven, or the worst case scenario for Trump, is that they've proven he believes fake news.
But so what?
Russiagate was fake news, and the Democrats believed that.
Are we going to impeach literally every Democrat?
No.
It's about time the Republicans stood up and said, let's figure out what's going on and why, especially after Rand Paul pointed out and a real clear politics, a real clear investigation story said that the potential whistleblower was colluding with somebody who wanted to join Schiff's staff.
If that's true, let's call them and testify.
Does it mean we think it is true?
No!
It just means if the report is out and it's possible, he testifies.
But again, I'm gonna apologize to Republicans who I thought weren't gonna do anything.
I thought they were gonna squeak this one by and say, okay, that's good enough for me.
When Lindsey Graham said that impeachment is not the proper venue, I really thought that was the end of it.
I thought he was never gonna... Well, hold on.
I will say...
We'll see what happens.
If he really will end up doing it.
But he's saying he's gonna.
Let's read.
They say, Washington Examiner reports Senate Intelligence Committee will call Ukraine whistleblower.
They say, with impeachment headed to a likely acquittal next week, Senator Lindsey Graham described on Sunday how Republicans in the chamber are gearing up for investigations on three fronts.
Yes!
The Senate Intel Committee under Richard Burr has told us that they will call the whistleblower.
Yes!
I want to understand how all this crap started.
Thank you!
Me too!
It's been years of the insane nonsense!
Please, enough!
Can we stop this?
The ship is leaking of American democracy.
It's about time someone figured out where the water was pouring in from.
The impeachment effort began to take root with the emergence last year of a whistleblower complaint raising concerns about a July phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
In which the American leader pressed his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate the Bidens and other Democrats.
The complaint, which the Intelligence Community Inspector General determined to be urgent and credible, was submitted by a CIA analyst whose identity has never been publicly confirmed.
Republicans have accused House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff, who is now the lead impeachment manager, of being complicit That, to me, seems to be at least a minimum to ask the question, right?
I'm not gonna accuse anybody.
Intelligence Committee aide seeking guidance before filing the complaint.
And because the California Democrat recruited two former National Security Council aides
who worked alongside the CIA official, some believe to be the whistleblower at the NSC
in the Obama and Trump administration.
That to me seems to be at least a minimum to ask the question, right?
I'm not going to accuse anybody, but how about we say, hey, that looks a little weird.
Why don't we ask some questions?
Why don't we talk to them, see what's up?
I think it's finally gonna happen.
Fingers crossed.
You know, maybe I'm speaking too soon, we'll see what Lindsey Graham pulls off, but I'd like to see this investigated.
If the whistleblower is a former associate of Joe Biden, I think that would be important.
If the whistleblower was working with people on Schiff's staff that wanted to take Trump down a year and a half ago, I think that would be important.
If the Schiff staff people helped write the complaint, that would be important.
We're going to get to the bottom of all this to make sure this never happens again, Graham said.
Thank you.
I'm excited for this.
Please don't let me down.
I'll say this too.
It's not a policy issue.
That's one of the biggest problems in politics today.
I'm not talking about policy.
I probably agree on very little with Lindsey Graham as it pertains to current US policy.
I mean, I will say.
I think most Americans agree on, like, most things.
But when it comes to the political issues we're fighting over, I probably disagree with Lindsey Graham on a lot.
I probably do.
But what we're talking about right now is a justice issue.
I don't agree with Bill Maher that we should cry over the end of democracy.
Unless, of course, you're talking about the Democratic Party cheating and letting Michael Bloomberg in.
I have concerns and questions and disagreements with Republicans, but I think the Democrats have been cheating the whole time.
There's a big difference.
Let's read more.
They say...
Senator Richard Burr, who hails from North Carolina, said last year he absolutely wanted to hear from the whistleblower, but Republican members of his panel were split on the matter as House impeachment proceedings were underway.
When asked for a comment, a spokesperson for Burr pointed the Washington Examiner to past statements by the chairman, including him saying the whistleblower had not yet agreed to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee, and stressing, the panel does everything it can to protect whistleblowers and witnesses.
I will be absolutely fine.
If they want to do a private closed door off the record meeting where the person's identity is protected and no one knows about it because we want to protect the identity of the whistleblower, fine.
So long as it's now the Republicans doing the investigation and we get a counterpoint to what was brought up by Schiff, a lot of information Schiff has not yet released, and you know what?
If they're going to play that game, fine.
So long as there is balance in the government, the Republicans get a chance to ask questions, I'll be partially satisfied.
Though I would like to know exactly what happens.
If it turns out it's nothing, so be it.
I don't need to know anything about this person.
If it turns out to be true, then we should find out who this was.
They say, impeachment proceedings began last fall, with Democrats accusing Trump of improperly leveraging- Oh, okay.
No, no, no, no, no.
We know all about what started the impeachment.
I am not rehashing that.
The House charged Trump, Graham, who is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and does not reside on the Chamber's Intelligence Committee, also described two other investigations that will be taken up by GOP-led panels in the Senate.
He said the Foreign Relations Committee, of which he is also a member, will look into Biden's alleged conflicts of interest and the Judiciary Panel will deal with all things FISA.
Aw, man.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Please follow through on this.
I don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat.
There have been some Republicans who were recently indicted.
We can call them out all day and night.
If Trump did wrong, I'd like to know about it.
But let me tell you something.
Did you know?
I entertained Russiagate, and I feel bad for doing so.
But you know what?
I still did.
When they claimed Trump was probably working for Putin, I said, OK, well, let's see what the investigation turns up.
Guess what?
I want another investigation.
Tit for tat.
This time, we're going to figure out how this all began, because it was fake news.
And that means it's the time for the Democrats to now be investigated.
Not because we're going to accuse them of all these crazy, wishy-washy nonsense.
We don't need to.
We just have some questions as to what is going on, and we're going to look into it.
I look forward to that, and I'd like to know.
And if it turns out to be nothing, I'll be fine with it.
Not like many people on the left, who want to just rehash Russia over and over and over again, and they still bring it up even though it's been debunked.
They just keep doing it.
I don't know why.
They say, quote, Let me tell Republicans out there, you should expect us to do this.
If we don't do it, we're letting you down.
I guarantee you, if the shoe were on the other foot, Democrats would be eating us alive if Republicans had done any of these things he said.
So, this was apparently just announced the other day with an update this morning.
I got my fingers crossed, but let me tell you, I'm not super confident.
You know why?
First of all, I'm not... I've never been big fans of the Republicans, and I've considered them for a long time to be completely ineffective.
I can't believe all of this stuff has gone down, and they've done nothing about it.
The Republicans controlled everything, basically, throughout 2016 to 18, and they couldn't get much done.
There was too much fighting.
They just... I don't get it.
And then they lost the House.
I don't have any confidence in those people.
So Lindsey Graham is saying this, and he had some reassuring words at the end, but we will see.
Okay.
Now, first of all, I'm not a Republican, and likely will never be, because I don't vote based on, you know, party, like, you know, actually, I'll take that back.
Let me tell you this.
If the Republican Party continues to expand, bringing on people like Jeff Van Drew, it's entirely possible people like me and any others eventually join in.
The Republican Party has to grow a bit bigger before people like me hop on board, because I'm not interested for the most part.
I think Jeff Van Drew has done some things.
I actually kind of like Jeff Van Drew, and he's just down the street from me.
You know, I'm not in his district, but I'm very, very, very close, like literally a mile or two.
I like what he stands for.
I like that he stood up for himself, and I think he's a moderate, and I really respect that.
So the Republican Party is getting close to being big enough for former... I mean, they've already brought in about 10% of Obama voters.
They already brought in some Bernie voters.
As long as Trump is willing to endorse and support someone who's voted against him, who wants to ban offshore drilling, who's pro-choice and all of those things, I'm like, Trump wants to win.
And Trump...
You want to call it his ego?
You want to call it whatever you want?
It doesn't matter.
His motivation can be one thing, but in the end, he's building a coalition of people who disagree to an extent that's good.
The left's coalition is too big.
It's not a coalition, actually.
It's people who disagree fighting each other.
If the Republicans can cast a big enough net to bring in the moderates, then they will shut down the Democrats for a decade to come.
I don't know exactly what will happen, but I'd like to see this.
I ragged on the Republicans really hard in the past couple of days because impeachment is nearing an end, and I wanted them to call witnesses because I want to see these people testify.
Well, apparently I spoke too soon.
Lindsey Graham said it wasn't the venue.
I didn't have faith he would move forward, but it seems like he is, and this is probably going to protect Republicans.
They're going to be able to call these witnesses without Democrats being able to leverage anything against them.
We'll see what happens.
It may result in nothing, fine, so be it, so long as they try.
Stick around, I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
John Kerry was overheard discussing possible 2020 bid amid concern of Sanders taking down the Democratic Party.
That Kerry would even discuss the possibility suggests that prominent members of the Democratic Party remain deeply unsettled by the current field.
I actually don't care about this story.
The story that I'm bringing you today has to do a little bit with that, but it's mostly about how the Democrats have embraced absurd wokeness On Twitter, from people who refuse to compromise, and they've created, because of this, a field of people who all just generally don't like each other, with Elizabeth Warren being potentially the weakest of all of them, I guess.
I did a segment the other day talking about blank or bust.
The Democrats are so fractured that people are straight up vowing not to vote for the other candidate, and maybe even not vote at all.
There's no Democratic Party.
Then I saw the story about John Kerry, which I found really funny.
The establishment Democrats are so scared of Bernie Sanders winning, that John Kerry is actually in discussions.
Now, let me actually talk about this a little bit.
John Kerry says it's absolutely not true, and he posted something, you know, an expletive in his tweet saying it's false.
And I will point out the creepiness of NBC News, because they overheard him on a phone, you know, they eavesdropped on his phone call.
What he was saying was, he said, uh, maybe I'm effing deluding myself here, and explaining that to run, he'd have to step down from the board of Bank of America and give up his ability to make paid speeches.
Kerry said donors like venture capitalist Doug Hickey would have to raise a couple million, adding that such donors now have the reality of Bernie.
They are so terrified of Bernie, as he said it, the possibility of Bernie taking down the Democratic Party downhole, that they've actually talked to John Kerry.
Okay, I'm sorry.
John Kerry is not even the B-team of the Democrats, he's the C-team.
That's how desperate they've become.
I don't know what they're trying to do, but I can tell you this.
New data from Pew shows Democrats on Twitter are more liberal and less focused on compromise than those not on the platform.
The Democratic Party is being dominated by the woke Twitterati, the activist base of the activist base.
I am talking about the fringe of the fringe, the 1% or, you know, it's like 1.3 or 4% of the population active on Twitter that are woke.
That's what they're chasing after.
And it's created pockets of individuals who refuse to compromise.
They're expanding, they're spreading this around, and it results in one of the most extreme blank or bust candidacies.
You see, every top contender right now in the Iowa caucus, we'll see what happens, has a faction of bust voters.
What that means is, in 2016, there was Bernie or bust.
They said, if it's not Bernie, we ain't voting.
Some of them actually voted for Donald Trump.
Around, depending on the polls, there's 12%, maybe even 18%.
10% of the people who voted for Obama went on to vote for Donald Trump.
Now we have this tweet, which I find pretty funny.
Sawyer Hackett says, I'm a bit late, but it's pretty incredible that 0% of Warren supporters said they wouldn't support the nominee if it wasn't her.
It's a testament to the unifying nature of her candidacy.
Is it?
Let me make sure I don't bury the lead.
The point is, why I read to you about John Kerry, is that there is no democratic establishment anymore.
There's Hillary Clinton.
She's powerful.
But if they're going to say Biden can't do it, bring on John Kerry.
If they're going to say Buttigieg can't do it, Klobuchar can't do it, Bloomberg can't do it, bring on John Kerry.
If anyone is going to talk to John Kerry about the potential for running, and he's going to flip out and deny it, it doesn't matter if he's actually going to run.
It matters that people in John Kerry's circle are panicking over the fracture of the party, and no one has any confidence in anyone, I think Bernie's going to take it.
Let me show you this.
This is basically an expanded Blank or Bust segment where I want to show you this amazing tweet and talk about what it really means.
Joe Biden, Emerson College, which tends to be very accurate, asked, Will you support the Democratic nominee even if it is not your candidate?
Biden said 87% of his, I'm sorry, 87% of Biden's supporters said they would.
Meaning if Biden doesn't win, they'll support anyone else.
5% said no, and 9% said it depends.
That's a 5% Joe Biden or bust.
Some of those voters might not vote.
Some might support Trump.
But let's move on.
Bernie Sanders has 16% Bernie or bust.
That sounds like more than what we heard in 2016, but it could be between the 12 to 18 we know of.
That means only half of Bernie Sanders supporters would actually support the nominee.
16% said no.
It's Bernie or bust.
How many of them might actually go for Donald Trump?
Now here's what's really interesting is Elizabeth Warren.
A straight no.
Like nobody.
90% of her supporters said they would.
10% said it depends.
Warren has no bust voters.
And I found this when I google searched it.
There is no Warren or bust.
There's people who are like Bernie, then Yang, then Warren or bust.
But for Warren, if it's not her, they're straight on board for literally anybody else.
Some have said she's unifying.
Perhaps that means she has no independent support.
Get it?
The 16% of people voting for Bernie might actually be moderates.
Biden might be moderates.
Buttigieg, moderates.
Meaning they might say, I'll choose the other party.
Warren, all of her voters saying they would, shows they're all diehard progressives or Democrats.
She has no independent support.
She can't possibly win.
Sorry.
No, some people are saying she's unifying.
I think that shows the opposite.
She hasn't unified anybody.
Now, Buttigieg has a 14% Buttigieger bust, which I find funny, but Andrew Yang has the biggest.
And this is shocking.
42% of Andrew Yang supporters said no.
If Andrew Yang does not get the nomination, we will not support the Democrats.
Lo and behold, I've been saying the same thing, and I've recently been on board hard.
Like, I've been seriously praising Andrew Yang.
I've said it a million times.
I know you've heard me say it a million times.
I don't think he's right all the time.
I think UBI is not a good idea.
I think he's got a lot of problems.
But I think he's the only candidate who's having a serious conversation about economics and our future that would be fair for the American people to hear that conversation with Donald Trump.
I don't think any of them can win, to be honest.
But I like Yang as a person.
He's cooler, he seems more real, he seems down-to-earth and more honest, and he's got a lot of comprehensive policy proposals.
I really do dig the guy.
And guess what?
I might, well, I might vote for Yang in the primary.
We'll see.
I'm not gonna vote for anybody else.
Tulsi, you know.
But I think, with all due respect to Tulsi, I'm still a huge fan.
I think at this point, A rational individual recognized that for one, neither of them are really going to win the nomination.
I don't want to be an idealist.
I'll be a realist.
But Yang is still up there.
He qualified for the debates.
He's in a better position than Tulsi.
I really, really do, and was very in support of Tulsi over her anti-war stance.
That was the most important, though I disagree with both of them.
At this point, I think the best chance we have is to get Andrew Yang on that stage to debate Trump.
But let's be real, neither of them are going to take it.
It's going to be Biden or Bernie.
But those Yang voters and people like me will absolutely not be supporting the other candidates.
Now, half of them will.
9% said it depends.
But, wait, actually, 9% said that number doesn't add up.
The point is, I think what this shows is that Yang is the most viable candidate.
You know why?
Those 42% A large portion are probably Trump supporters or Trump voters who are saying, I'll give Yang a shot.
They're the moderates, maybe that 10% of Obama voters, maybe that large portion who voted for Trump.
They're willing to give Andrew Yang a chance, but they'll definitely go back to Trump if they have to.
That says to me, it's not what people think.
Warren is not a unifier.
She's a hyper-partisan.
Yang is the unifier.
He's been able to attract progressives and moderates.
And the moderates are saying, sorry, I won't support the Dem if it's not Yang.
I understand that sentiment.
It won't be me.
Now, Michael Bloomberg has an 11% Bloomberg or Bust, but one of the more important things as well is Bernie Sanders.
31% said it depends.
I think what this shows us is that Bernie Sanders, while he does have a 16% Bernie or Bust base, the depends is probably Bernie or Yang or Bust, or Bernie, Yang, or Warren or Bust, meaning Joe Biden, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, and his other candidates are not going to get the support.
All in all, all that really matters, the fact that the no's and the depends are so high at all shows, no matter what happens, no matter who gets the nomination, large portions of the Democratic base are walking away.
And where to?
I can't say, but I can wrap up with one special little tidbit.
Who's gonna come in 2024?
I'll tell you this.
Donald Trump is likely going to win 2020, at least I'd be willing to bet.
I could be wrong.
And I think we all learned a lesson with Hillary Clinton's defeat.
You might think everything's great, but you really can't, you know, if you ignore why people like Bernie Sanders, then you will lose.
Trump really needs to recognize the points Bernie Sanders is hitting and why he's so popular.
Joe Biden is nothing.
I have no idea what Joe Biden is.
I don't believe he's real.
Bernie Sanders has real grassroots support, as does Andrew Yang.
Trump needs to make sure he at least looks at some of these things that have driven people to Bernie.
Now, some of it, it's progressive, far left, some of it's socialist, some of it's communist, whatever.
But it could just be healthcare.
And Trump hasn't been the best on healthcare.
He has not.
Bernie's making a bunch of promises I think he can't keep, but it doesn't matter.
People want to hear that you're going to be focused on that.
Trump has done great by the economy.
That means more money in people's pockets for healthcare, sure.
But Trump needs to make sure he's paying attention, and so do the Trump supporters.
Otherwise, you'll get the rug pulled out from under you.
But when we move to 2024, a look-ahead poll.
GOP voters eye a Trump dynasty.
Now, for obvious reasons, 2024's biggest, you know, the favorite is Mike Pence.
He's the VP.
That's typically how it goes.
Mike Pence will then make his chance.
But let's be real.
Mike Pence isn't much in the public eye.
He's not a big speaker.
He kind of just chills and does his thing, for good or bad.
Who do we hear from the most?
Well, Donald Trump.
Trump Jr.
Ivanka Trump.
So number two is Trump Jr.
And I think that's a good bet.
I think Trump Jr.
isn't as economically savvy as his father.
Not to disrespect, I'm not saying he's bad.
I'm saying Trump clearly knows a lot about how this stuff works.
He's an older guy, but whatever he did worked.
Trump Jr.
is clearly gonna ride that.
He's gonna understand a lot of that.
But Trump Jr.
is better culturally than senior.
Donald Trump Jr.
is much more focused on the culture war and cultural politics, and that's going to benefit him greatly.
But be careful, because one thing that benefited Donald Trump is that, well, he's not on Twitter, right?
He's focused on middle America.
Trump Jr.
is going to benefit greatly from the Trump name, from the Trump economy.
We'll see what happens in the next four years, but I think Trump Jr.' 's a shoo-in.
We'll see what happens.
Nikki Haley is next, followed by Ivanka Trump.
So there could be a dynasty.
Who knows?
A lot of people really do think it might be Ivanka.
Some people who are diehard fans of Trump think Ivanka will be the first female president.
I think Ivanka could do well.
I do.
Especially with the Trump name, considering how well we've done this past four years.
But it really does come down to, is Trump going to get re-elected at all?
I mean, I think he will be.
I can't predict the future.
I've made bad predictions in the past.
We'll see what happens.
Suffice it to say, the Democratic Party is fractured with, you know, Biden-er bust, Buttigieg-er bust, Yang-er bust, Bernie-er bust, Warren-er, well, there's no Warren-er bust, sorry.
But that means they're not gonna support each other.
How could the Republicans lose at this point?
They have a coalition.
We'll see what happens in 2024, but I think the split, as described before, shows the Democratic Party will lose for the next 10 years.
No unity.
Stick around, I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
In a video that is almost certain to be demonetized, Vice asks, Should you shag someone with bad politics?
A fun Q&A to help you decide what's more important, your deeply held political convictions or your disgusting sexual appetite.
While I can appreciate this fellow Albert Moore is humorous and is probably a bit tongue-in-cheek, it is still this leftist perspective on dating.
And I think this article comes at a very interesting time.
We have seen a series of blog posts and articles that made a really interesting point.
First, we saw a story that said it was the dangerous rise of men who won't date woke women.
This female writer said that, you know, this famous actor talked about how wokeness is bad and he won't date woke women and how it's dangerous and, you know, whatever.
We then saw a researcher write an article saying the reason they're worried is that when it comes to dating, if men won't date them, many of their diehard followers will have no choice but to change their political ideology to become more attractive to a potential mate.
Humans are driven by these desires, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, and many of the people who claim to be woke and push these things, in fact, are just doing it because of societal pressures and norms.
And when they encounter an attractive person with bad politics, guess what they choose to do?
Go for the dangerous bad person anyway.
This writer actually admits the same thing.
What I think we're seeing with these stories telling you, don't do it, don't do it, is they're actually starting to get worried.
That when people go on Twinder, I'm sorry, on Tinder, I was gonna say Twitter and Tinder, when they see someone attractive, they swipe for it.
And when that person who is attractive says, oh, by the way, I believe these things, they say, oh, well, I mean, you know, that's not so bad.
Case in point, Emma Sulkowicz, also known as Mattress Girl.
There's a big story about how she is now, you know, people are calling her red-pilled.
She was the wokest of the woke, wasn't she?
But she says she met someone on Tinder who opened her mind to other ideas and she decided to engage with him and now she hangs out with conservatives and libertarians.
Why?
When it came to dating, she had no luck.
Why is it that so many of these early 30-year-old women who are working struggle to find men who are attractive or who make as much as them, as all these articles have posted?
It's because of the, quote, dangerous rise of men who won't date woke women.
They're taking notice, they're getting worried, and they're trying to enforce the cult.
I'm sorry.
If people don't want to hook up with you because of the weird things you think, it's because you're weird.
Right?
Maybe you should try and be like everyone else, not in the sense that you should be, you know, a conformist, but just not a fringe extremist.
You can be a unique lefty, you can be a socialist, so long as you're not nuts.
Although many of them, I think, are nuts, including the far right, right?
Let's read the story.
Albert writes, two weeks ago, I went on a date with a man, and after we'd got the small talk out of the way, declared himself an enthusiastic supporter of a late 20th century dictator, and not even one of the cooler ones like Fidel Castro, or Scar from The Lion King.
I was disturbed by this information, but instead of taking in a task, pulling out Wikipedia, and sassily reading out a list of atrocities, I calmly finished my drink, invited him back to my flat, where we made foul-grunting two-backed beast.
Sure.
The point is, even this guy, who is on a date with another guy, praising Fidel Castro, clearly he's an extremist, they're both at the other end of the spectrum, and they both agreed to go bang.
So clearly, that's, look, the shirt says, never kiss a Tory.
They're seriously trying to tell people, don't do it, don't do it.
Why?
Because they want to.
And then what happens?
Their politics change.
This is why they say don't talk to them.
This is why they say you can't engage them.
They're liars.
This is why they chant over and over again instead of having debates or discussions.
They don't want anyone to realize that the people who are roped into this are in a cult.
It's a cult stew, right?
He says, when I told a friend of mine what happened, she accused me of only caring about politics when it affected me directly.
Had my date instead said something nice about Michael Gove, she suggested, I'd have launched into an excoriating rant before storming out.
I was flattered by this characterization of myself as political firebrand, but I'm not sure if it's true.
Had my date been a plain old Tory, I'm pretty sure I would have taken him home.
He then goes on to talk about things I'm not going to read on YouTube because this video is already demonetized, but let's stop there.
Anyway, he says, should you eff a Tory?
I've never encountered someone involved in conservative politics whom I found attractive.
This is because there simply aren't any.
Although the same could be said for far left, for left-wing politics, or centrist politics, or any kind of politics at all.
People associated with the Conservative Party are pallid, devoid of patter, terminally unfashionable, so it's unlikely, excuse me, so it's unlikely to be much of a dilemma deciding you won't want to bang them.
But aren't we lying to ourselves if we claim that everyone on the right is un-effable?
Who among us hasn't strolled through the city and felt a twinge of desire and attendant self-loathing for some cold-eyed Patrick Bateman in a tight blue suit or a husky-voiced Chelsea siren named Bella?
This guy's from the UK, obviously.
Or actually, I think this might be India.
Is this India?
He's talking about Britain, but this article is India, I guess.
Whatever.
The reason this is funny is that he specifically talks about Count Dankula and Sargon of Akkad.
What I see from this, as I kind of already said, and we'll read this section about Dankula, is that there is clearly a reaction that's been happening for the past year or so to the fact that many feminists are struggling to find dates, relative to everyone else it would seem.
And I find it truly, I find it really interesting that many of these stories are written by like single women who are saying, it's good to be single, don't get married, don't have kids.
While biologists and evolutionary psychologists scream, this is what most people care about.
How can your politics survive when it's pushing against the very nature of humanity?
I guess the great experiment or argument is we can resist those urges to an extent we should, but for the most part, people just end up saying, you know what?
Sorry, I'm going to go have fun.
You're, you're getting me down.
Let's get to the fun part.
He says, should you F a fascist, Nazi, or member of the alt-right?
I think it's really funny that he then goes on to talk about Carl Benjamin and Count Dankula, who, no, are not alt-right in any capacity.
And the weirdest thing about Dankula, whenever they bring him up, it's like the dude doesn't even make political videos.
I mean, he does.
He made, like, a Brexit video.
But the mad lad's thing is just, like, historical humor.
But let's read this.
You're gonna love it.
He says, The alts right of today bear little resemblance to the scowling, jackbooted alphas of gay porn.
They're smarmy losers with nasal voices and milkshake-sodden suits.
Many of them are vloggers, too, and you wouldn't want to eff a vlogger at the best of times.
Consider the absolute state of Count Dankula.
An appallingly dressed man who reminds me of every 18-year-old mosher in my hometown who, in a desperate bid to win their approval, would buy bottles of Glen's for underage girls.
Or rape joke lover Carl Benjamin, a man with the vibe of a regional games workshop manager.
Okay, let me just stop you right there, buddy.
They're both married!
I'm pretty sure they're both married.
Okay, I know Dankula's married.
Pretty sure Carl is married.
Carl's got kids.
What are you talking about?
What world do you live in?
Women have clearly already chosen them.
Dankula's marriage was decently public with tweets about it.
I don't know, you know, for the most part, where they went, what they did, but people knew they got married.
You want to tell someone, don't do it?
Don't pick the people that actually have successful relationships, or children!
It's the weirdest thing, when they call Ben Shapiro an incel, and it's like, the dude's married with kids, man!
What are you talking about?
He's got children!
Do you know what you have to do to make children?
Do you think, like, he went in a lab, and they, like, took a needle into his abdomen to extract his biological mater- No!
He's got a wife!
Of all the people you would bring up, I never understood this.
This is the problem with what they're saying.
I get it, he's kind of joking.
But I do find it interesting that these ideas keep popping up around the same time, like it's getting more and more, where they're like, the dangerous rise of men who won't date woke women.
But their argument is clearly just not working.
If you wanted to go around telling women, don't date these people, don't date these people, it's like, but women are dating them.
They got married.
You look at someone like Emma Sulkowicz, and the story is true that she found a guy on Tinder and she went after him.
Your argument doesn't work.
I think at the end of the day, people want to be loved.
And when they see a strong, attractive guy, these feminists, these females, are probably going to compromise.
Here's what I think.
Controversial opinion time.
I think that most people are driven by a desire to be social and be socially acceptable.
I think that's fair to say.
We're social creatures.
I think that many people are being polarized, but it's creating a big problem for the woke feminists who primarily target men for being privileged, and this puts men off.
We then keep seeing stories about male feminists who are abusers.
Why?
Because they're predators who never cared about you in the first place.
I think you then see strong, confident, moderate individuals who say, I don't have anything to do with you.
I'm not going to date a woke woman.
What's left?
The feminist side is being drowned in a field of either male predators or pansy white knight men who just say, OK, OK.
And I don't think anyone finds it attractive.
I don't find it attractive in a guy, and I'm not into guys.
If I was hanging out with a dude, and he was a pathetic loser who could never stand up for himself, I'd be like, listen, man, it's really, I'm not interested in hanging out with people who can't stand up for anybody.
It's not about relationships, I'm not into that, right?
The point is, I want my friends to actually be able to, you know, to have some confidence.
Who wants to be around those kind of people?
Now, as for women who actually want to be in relationships, I can only imagine women don't want to be in relationships with guys who are like, whatever you say, dear.
Yes, dear, whatever you say.
I just... I don't think... Some women, sure.
You know, I know some women who don't care about the guy for the most part.
Like, they care about him, but they're like, I just want someone to be around for the kids.
I'm gonna go work.
That's fine.
But that's few and far between.
Here's the problem I end up seeing, then.
When women go on Tinder, and they swipe on somebody, and the guy's gonna be like, Wokeness is dumb.
Are they gonna go and choose the abuser who's lying in the community, which keeps happening?
Are they gonna choose the guy who's hunched over and out of shape being like, whatever you think, dear?
Or are they gonna go to the guy who's tall and chiseled and he's gonna be like, yo, I don't wanna hear it, man.
That stuff's nuts.
If that's what you're into, you can leave.
I'll tell you something funny.
I had someone on OkCupid hit me up.
And it was very obvious from their profile that they were, you know, intersectional woke, talking about their work with people, discussing lived experience and stuff like that.
And I said straight up, I think you're an identitarian.
I think you embrace a fringe ideology that I would have nothing to do with.
And boy, did they spin around in circles real quick.
And I found it very strange.
They were just like, you know what, you know, I'm not really, you know, I don't really think about that stuff.
I think, I think I'm kind of over it.
Like, oh, here we go.
Yeah, that's right.
They messaged me.
It was a woman.
I think she was interesting in a lot of ways, but I'm just like, dude, you are not going to convince me to go out with someone who's talking about this fringe ideology cultist stuff.
It's never going to happen.
And boy, oh boy, did she change her tune fast when I said I'm not interested in that.
And I still wasn't.
Because even if you want to claim, no, no, trust me, I'm not really about that anymore, I'm going to be like, I don't believe you.
I'm sorry, man.
I just don't.
I think you're weirdos.
So, you know what?
We went on a little bit long for this one.
Not too long, but I'll just wrap it up.
He goes on to say, should you F a centrist?
And I think it's funny, because his only real argument is that it must be terrible.
Centrists, a politically active centrist, he says, it's bound to be terrible.
Sure.
Whatever.
Don't care.
In the end, there's just two funny things about this.
I really love that he brought up Sargon and Dankula, because I'm pretty sure they're both married.
I'm fairly certain.
I mean, Sargon's got kids, and Dankula is married.
It's like, why would you choose the people who have succeeded?
Wouldn't you want to prove your point by choosing the people who aren't in relationships?
Whatever, man.
But I'm also willing to believe we're going to keep seeing articles about this.
Like, the silly warnings about, like, don't date these people!
Don't do it!
You shouldn't do it!
Who are they going to choose?
Who are they going to go after?
The weak white knights or the abusers?
Or the regular people.
Because I'm willing to bet, like, regular people who aren't political are gonna be like, what are you talking about?
Privilege what?
I'm sorry, this is weird.
This is not normal.
You represent 1% of the population on Twitter, not the rest of us.
I'll leave it there.
I will see you all tomorrow at 10am on this channel.
