Democrats QUITTING And Vow NEVER To Vote Democrat Again After Pelosi Tears Up Trump's SOTU Speech
Democratic Voters Vow NEVER To Vote Democrat Again After Pelosi Tears Up Trump's SOTU Speech. Nancy Pelosi, in a fit of rage, tore up Donald Trumps State Of The Union speech.This is possibly the biggest mistake she has ever made as Democratic voters called into C-Span to announce that they would be quitting the party over the embarrassment that Pelosi brought to the party.Some are even calling for her to resign amid the dishonor to the chamber, to America, and to the voters.While Republicans praised and cheered Trump, Democrats and the far left refused many times to applaud simple things or honorable people. Far Left democrats were slammed for not standing to honor our servicemen and women.The #WalkAway campaign just got its greatest moment as independent voters, Trump supporters, and now even Democrats stand in unison denouncing Nancy Pelosi over her temper trantrum
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
By now, most of you are probably aware that after Donald Trump finished giving his State of the Union address, Nancy Pelosi stood up and tore in half her copy of his speech.
Many people saw this as disrespectful, yet on social media, in the left-wing or Democratic echo chamber, they're praising what Nancy Pelosi has done.
But in the real world, there's going to be serious consequences for the Democratic Party.
Shortly after she did this, C-SPAN, which is not a partisan news network by any stretch of the imagination, opened its phone lines to callers.
And many Democrats called in to say they were quitting the party.
They would not vote Democrat ever again.
One man, a Democrat for 77 years, said this was it.
Some saying they were embarrassed by her behavior.
Mike Pence has now slammed her.
Some have called for her resignation.
But more importantly, she showed exactly what's wrong with the Democratic Party right now.
Instead of talking about important issues like Donald Trump was doing, she just threw a fit and tore up his speech.
Earlier today, I did commentary on this saying that any opportunity for Democrats to reject Donald Trump's statements or accuse him of lying are gone.
The whole narrative is about Nancy Pelosi embarrassing the Democratic Party.
And at the same time, Donald Trump just keeps getting more and more good news.
He's likely going to be acquitted in the impeachment trial today.
I'm recording this a little bit earlier than when that vote takes place.
And Democrats, according to one story, may have given Trump his best week yet, when you add what Nancy Pelosi just did.
I'll say what I've said in the past several weeks.
It feels like there is no Democratic Party anymore.
When we look at the Iowa caucuses and the whole fiasco, Pete Buttigieg somehow, you know, jumping in front of Bernie Sanders, even though Bernie Sanders has the popular vote, nothing seems to make sense.
They're accusing each other of cheating.
It is all falling apart.
And to make matters worse, amid this entire catastrophe, Nancy Pelosi went and embarrassed the entire party.
So let's see exactly what happened with this C-SPAN story.
I have the transcript from the callers.
I want to read this to you.
I want to show you some of the reactions, and I want to show you just how good.
We have excellent news.
Jobs numbers are in.
Man, Trump is headed for a re-election.
And one of the callers even said that.
Nancy Pelosi sealed the deal.
Before we get started, however, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's several ways you can give.
There's a physical address, PayPal options, but the best thing you can do is share this video.
I don't want to pretend like these callers into C-SPAN are literally every Democrat or represent the entire party.
But I think it's fair to say, on this network, which is not a partisan network, these people do at least speak for many Democrats.
Many who find themselves to be in the middle, regular Americans.
And I gotta admit, what they're saying resonates with me.
It's basically what I said this morning.
It's what I said last night.
What she did was truly shocking and embarrassing.
And when you combine that with all of the other nonsense, the endless scandals, and they seem to be doing nothing for the American people.
The only thing I see is Trump's victory.
But we'll get into all that.
First, let's start with C-SPAN.
This is the State of the Union reaction.
C-SPAN opens the phones for viewers' reaction to the President's State of the Union address.
First, I want to read you what one caller said.
I have been a Democrat for 77 years.
It was appalling to me.
I found it very dis... So, hold on, let me stop.
These captions are not perfect.
He says, I found it disrespectful.
He is still the president.
I am changing my mind.
I am never going for a Democrat again.
I will probably stay home.
I am very embarrassed being a Democrat for what they did in the House with Pelosi and the rest of them.
They seemed like a bunch of idiots sitting there.
The 17,000 families in this country of our family name.
We will a bully.
All get together again and boycott the Democratic Party.
That is how I feel.
I am fixing to hang up on you.
Bye.
Let me just stress, these clips are transcribed, so the translations are not perfect.
Some of these, they're not all from Democrats.
Here's one call that said, Media has tried to make Donald Trump out to be a shallow entertainer.
I think the reality is that there are things that are deep things, masses of people that he connected with.
There is a little reversal of the Bob Dylan song in the 1960s.
There is something going on here and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Liberal?
We see this one.
The Christian nation that we are has tons of truth the media and cable news networks and C-SPAN won't allow us to talk about.
With that gap, there is a thin gap between us getting to say what we really believe and a paradigm shift happening in this country.
The party is over for those that control the truth narrative.
Here's another one.
I thought it was disgusting.
As I sat here tonight and watched the whole speech, it was odd just to watch a State of the Union address and watch my president give a speech on everything great that is happening in our country.
And yet Nancy Pelosi and the others who were dressed in white, just sitting over there, never standing, never clapping for anything.
That might be good for the country.
Never standing for anything that might be good for the country.
I don't understand it.
I used to be a Democrat.
I am no longer a Democrat.
This one says, I agree with the other callers.
I am a Democrat as well, but no longer will I vote Democrat.
I think it is outrageous that they sat there when all these good things are happening to our country, and how much we love our country, and they looked like they hated our country.
Nancy Pelosi.
The whole time she is sitting up there with that disgusting look on her face.
It is outrageous.
I will never vote Democrat again.
I am sick of it.
My whole family feels the same way.
My husband and friends are sitting here.
All former Democrats.
We all voted for Hillary last time.
Therefore, never will we ever vote Democrat again.
Okay.
There's so much more.
There's absolutely so much more.
Some of these callers are actually, I think, fair.
One caller says that, look, Republicans did the same for Obama.
They wouldn't stand and clap.
But Nancy Pelosi's behavior was an embarrassment for the party.
She's supposed to be the top Democrat.
Now, when you hear these regular Americans calling it C-SPAN, does it mean literally every Democrat feels this way?
No, it doesn't.
And it could be just the ones that are the angriest are the ones that are calling.
Because certainly on Twitter, there are a lot of Democrats cheering her on.
I think this is a grave error on their part, though.
You just lost middle Americans.
You lost the independents and the lifelong Democrats who supported you, and you're cheering for it?
I thought it was funny.
I commented on it this morning that people on social media are saying Nancy Pelosi has effectively taken away Donald Trump's news cycle, that the State of the Union address was going to have all of these great things that all the Republicans could talk about.
But because of Pelosi, she's stolen that.
And now all they're doing is talking about how she snubbed the president.
It's so silly to me.
Donald Trump got to say all of these beautiful things to America.
Even the callers on C-SPAN were saying all these great things.
The Democrats didn't argue against it.
The Democrats didn't call Trump a liar.
I mean, many did.
But the main narrative is that Nancy Pelosi just tore up the speech.
What ends up happening then is no one will ever have that argument.
The media cycle is now dominated with conversations like this.
And that's what I'm showing on Twitter.
They say, I'm sorry, the top trend, Nancy Pelosi rocks.
Nancy the Ripper and the third Pelosi tantrum.
Now here's the thing.
Earlier this morning, Pelosi tantrum was number one.
Twitter is not representative of the entire country.
When we are seeing top comments rag on Pelosi, you need to understand it's about 2% of this country driving this conversation.
I actually think it's much more fair to look at C-SPAN and see what these Democrat voters think.
Now, sure, I'm sure a lot of these people are going to say, oh, those Democrats saying they're quitting, they're lying.
Nah, let me tell you this.
I've never considered myself a strong Democrat.
I've never been someone who went around with a D-Year campaign in front of these politicians.
Some people call me a Democrat for some reason.
I voted for Obama in 2008.
I didn't vote again.
And I didn't vote in 2016.
So I am not your strongest, you know, left-year Democrat.
But I have supported Democrats.
I supported Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard, still a big fan.
And I have always considered myself, at least to be, if it ever came to voting, Democratic.
I'm not going to vote.
So take their statements for what it is, but that to me was just kind of like a last straw.
I mean, keep in mind the cheating in the Iowa caucus.
I shouldn't say the cheating in the Iowa caucus, but the cheating with Mike Bloomberg.
You know, the DNC changes the rules to get him on the stage.
Why am I going to play any game with you?
So I'm out.
I'm completely out.
I'm completely independent.
I was looking forward to Yang or Tulsi Gabbard, but I don't think voting for them matters at this point because the game is rigged.
I think that says it best, right?
But I'm not the only one who thinks so.
Dishonored the moment.
Pence slams Pelosi for ripping Trump's State of the Union speech.
I think that says it best, right?
But let's read some.
Quote, I think it was a new low.
I wasn't sure if she was ripping up the speech or ripping up the Constitution, Pence said during an interview on Fox and Friends Wednesday morning.
The contrast here was a president who spent an hour and a half making a speech about America, and Nancy Pelosi in the final moments tried to make it all about her.
And I think the American people see through it.
I think they see through the pettiness and see through the politics of all of it."
He went on, There's always a basic decorum and a basic respect.
But to have her stand up and tear up that speech really dishonored the moment.
And I really thought it was beneath the dignity of a joint session of Congress,
and I think it will be remembered as such.
Now Pelosi said it was the courteous thing to do.
Look, one of the immediate defenses from the left is going to be that, well, Donald Trump always makes it about himself, and that's fair.
But here's what you don't understand.
The Democrats who called into C-SPAN and are quitting the party and people like me We've never liked that Donald Trump makes it about himself.
We've never liked Donald Trump's attitude.
They are so blinded by their tribal zealotry.
They think the only people upset by Nancy Pelosi's antics are Trump supporters.
No!
Moderate and independent voters have been repeatedly expressing these thoughts and opinions.
Polls have repeatedly come out showing that more moderates believe that the left has gone too far left.
The last thing they needed was a nail in the coffin of Nancy Pelosi standing up with her smug face and the smirks she was making, the grimaces, and then shredding the speech.
The speech that included one of the last Tuskegee Airmen, veterans, mourning families.
It was not just about Donald Trump.
Trump was talking about America.
And of course, as a Republican, Republicans were cheering for the most part.
And many Democrats wouldn't stand, but sometimes they did.
Kyrsten Sinema, for instance, is being cheered by moderates and conservatives because she gave the president respect because he had her back on parental leave legislation.
And I'll show you her statement.
But now one of the more shocking results of this.
An op-ed titled, Nancy Pelosi Should Resign from Jonathan Turley.
You might remember him as one of the witnesses in the impeachment trial.
And he said it!
That's it.
Pelosi should resign.
He writes, The House has its share of infamies, great and small, real and symbolic, and has been the scene of personal infamies from brawls to canings, But the conduct of Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the State of the Union address this week will go down as a day of infamy for the chamber as an institution.
While it has long been a tradition for House speakers to remain stoic and neutral in listening to the address, Pelosi appeared intent on mocking President Trump from behind his back with sophomoric facial grimaces and head-shaking, culminating in her ripping up a copy of his address.
Her drop-the-mic moment will have a lasting impact on the House.
While many will celebrate her trolling of the president, she tore up something far more important than a speech.
Pelosi has shredded decades of tradition, decorum, and civility that the nation could use now more than ever.
The House Speaker is more than a political partisan, particularly when carrying out functions such as a State of the Union address.
A president appears in the House as a guest of both chambers of Congress.
The House Speaker represents not her party or herself, but the entirety of the chamber.
At that moment, she must transcend her own political ambitions and loyalties.
Tensions for this address were high.
The House impeachment managers sat as a group in front of the President as a reminder of the ongoing trial.
That can be excused as a silent but pointed message from the Democrats.
Trump hardly covered himself with glory by not shaking hands with Pelosi.
I'm going to stop there and make that point.
Many of you may have noticed that as well.
That when he handed the copy, I believe it was a copy of his speech, to Pence and Pelosi, she reached out to shake his hand and he immediately turned around.
It's possible that he snubbed her.
It is also possible that Pence didn't reach out his hand and Trump didn't really notice and it wasn't intentional.
But more importantly, I have to wonder why Pelosi tried shaking his hand in the first place when there is an ongoing impeachment trial that she started.
Why would she offer up her hand and expect Trump to shake it when she has challenged the legitimacy of his office amid all of his accomplishments?
And yes, I'm going to show you them.
I don't know.
But I have to say, I don't believe it's, in my opinion, Trump didn't snub Pelosi by not shaking her hand.
Pelosi snubbed Trump by trying to make him shake her hand amid all of the trouble she's caused and the failures that have ensued from it.
I also strongly disliked elements of his address which bordered on check-under-your-seat moments and the awarding of conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh with the Presidential Medal of Freedom inside the House Gallery like a Mardi Gras bead toss.
However, if Trump made the State of the Union look like Oprah, Pelosi made it look like the Jerry Springer Show.
What followed was an utter disgrace.
First, Pelosi dropped the traditional greeting before the start of the address.
Members of Congress, I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the President of the United States.
Instead, she simply announced, Members of Congress, the President of the United States.
It was petty and profoundly inappropriate.
Putting aside the fact that this is not her tradition, but that of the House, it is no excuse to note that the President was impeached.
Such an indignity was not imposed on President Clinton during his own impeachment proceedings.
But let's just jump down to the bottom where he says, Pelosi has demolished decades of tradition with this poorly considered moment.
Of course, many will celebrate her conduct and be thrilled by the insult to Trump.
But even those of us who disagree with his policies should consider what Pelosi destroyed in her moment of rage.
She shredded the pretense of governing with civility and dignity in the House.
Notably, she did not wait to rip up her copy of the speech until after she left the House floor.
She wanted to do it in front of the cameras, at the end of the address, and with the President still in the chamber.
That act was more important to Pelosi than preserving the tradition of her office.
In doing so, she forfeited the right to occupy that office.
If Pelosi cannot maintain the dignity and neutrality of her office at the State of the Union, she should resign as Speaker of the House of Representatives.
And guess what?
None of this excuses anything Donald Trump has said.
I keep hearing from the left, oh, all the Trump supporters all angry, but what about Donald Trump and what he's done?
Yeah, I've I've criticized that too.
And I've even questioned some of his policies.
I think you are blind by your tribalism.
Business Insider writes, Democrats may have handed Trump his best week ever and given him crucial momentum for reelection.
One of the comments from C-SPAN said just that.
Near the end of the segment, someone actually says this has solidified Donald Trump's re-election.
I will say that with a simple rip of the paper, Nancy Pelosi has pretty much sealed the deal on a re-election of Donald Trump.
When independent voters see that, watch the rest of his speech.
The optics of her being so childish to rip that speech after the ending of the speech, right after the soldier is brought and reunited with his family from Afghanistan.
The optics of that are so horrible.
They are so childish.
It definitely plays to the base of the Trump derangement syndrome crowd.
When you have independent voters that listen to the end of that speech, they see that whole segment and her ripping pages.
You have lost any independent voter that has been wondering if I go with that person that is there, or do I take a chance on an unknown in the Democratic Party?
And there it is.
But check this out.
Private payroll soar in January.
The best monthly gain in nearly five years.
How can this possibly be?
That Donald Trump has won at every turn.
Impeachment has failed acquittal.
By the time you've watched this, he's probably already been acquitted.
Some Democrat senators are actually planning on supporting him.
Manchin, for instance, said he should be censured, not removed.
Now it's going to come out just like it did in the House, with Democrat defectors.
The impeachment was so miserable, the Democrats actually lost Jeff Andrew.
Now, regular old voters are expressing their opinions as Nancy Pelosi has done everything in her power to destroy the tradition of the Democratic Party.
And then you need only look at what's going on with Iowa.
Now, you've probably been following this, too.
There's a couple things to point out.
Voter turnout is abysmal.
And now, I get it.
Voter turnout's kind of moderate.
But based on what they projected and what they needed to win, the people just didn't show up.
More importantly, is the optics of what's happening.
If the Democrats can't run a vote, how could they run the country?
Or how about the fact that as of right now, they've been slowly trickling out little bits of information to Iowa that makes it appear like Pete Buttigieg is the winner, while Pete Buttigieg is losing the popular vote to Bernie Sanders.
I thought the Democrats were ragging on that system, the Electoral College, and they said, no, it should be the popular vote!
I guess up until it's their own party and their interests and they want Buttigieg to win.
Now they love the delegate system and they don't care for the popular vote.
How about those optics?
Or in the end, the insane comments made on MSNBC, which I'm not going to pull up the article because I know it'll get me in trouble on YouTube, where They claim the only reason that Democrats aren't turning out to vote in Iowa is because they're white and feel no sense of urgency.
They are off message.
They have no message.
They're spinning in circles.
They didn't even try to counter Donald Trump's message, or I should say, Perhaps they did try.
But in her rage, Nancy Pelosi took away any opportunity.
And now we can see media-ite, which is often very critical of Donald Trump, saying, State of the Union speech, Trump beats Democrats at messaging game.
You know why he did?
I mean, it's fair to say, for one, he has a big megaphone as the president.
But there was a Democratic response afterwards, and I haven't really seen anybody care, pay attention, or quote from it.
Nobody's talking about what the Democrats responded with.
They're only talking about the embarrassment that is Nancy Pelosi.
Wow.
And I'll be honest.
I actually defended her last year, especially with the rise of the far left.
But now I can see she is the worst person for her office.
And dare I say, I don't know if I want to completely agree with Jonathan Turley about her resignation, but he makes really good points.
I would say this.
I'm not going to play the game of Trump should or shouldn't be president because he's got a bad attitude as well.
I will take a look at both him and Nancy Pelosi, and I'll tell you this.
Trump is a bad character.
Not a day goes by I don't talk to some local or neighbor who, while they can praise the accomplishments, they think his attitude is awful, and they wish he wouldn't say the things he did.
I agree.
You can't deny the economy is doing well, the numbers are great, we see it in the data, but you can't deny that Trump is also kind of a mean person.
So here's the thing.
I'm gonna let the voters decide come November.
And I think Trump will get re-elected because people recognize his bad attitude.
But take a look at Nancy Pelosi.
And what has she done?
Extremely bad attitude.
Lack of decorum.
All the things you'd criticize Trump for, I suppose, except none of the accomplishments.
So I don't want to say she should resign because people say the same thing about Trump because of his behavior.
I will say, she should not be re-elected because she's failed at every turn and embarrassed the party.
And that's the most important takeaway.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment is coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews.
It is a different channel.
That'll be at 6 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all next time.
It would seem that in her rage, Nancy Pelosi made one of her biggest mistakes yet.
Now we all know impeachment was a big mistake and later today Donald Trump is likely, well in all likelihood, going to be acquitted, taking a huge victory lap and claiming he's exonerated.
But last night, during the State of the Union Address, Donald Trump was whispering sweet nothings into our ears.
Telling us of this beautiful country and booming economy, national security, and many other great things including the new trade deal, the benefit to farmers, and very often he got a standing ovation from Republicans, and periodically Democrats actually did cheer for him, especially as he honored many of our servicemen.
But Nancy Pelosi, in her rage, shredded Donald Trump's speech as he closed his State of the Union address.
What this did was shifted the entire conversation from Trump's speech to her rage.
Of course.
Over on Democrat echo chamber social media, they're praising the move.
Saying, aha, all of Trump's talking points, now they're being shifted away and the news cycle is no longer talking about what he was saying, and now they're talking about Nancy Pelosi.
And sure enough, I've even seen some conservatives say the same thing.
We should be talking about Trump's achievements and his speech, not Pelosi.
Don't let her take the narrative.
They're saying she emasculated the president behind him.
Well, here's the big problem.
You see, the talking point the Democrats needed was that Trump was lying.
In fact, it's what they tried using in the first place.
But now there is no opportunity to refute what Trump said.
Let me paint you a picture.
Me and my friends are all sitting here listening to the address.
We're giving commentary.
We're cracking jokes.
But for the most part, we're saying, That's a good thing.
Trump's saying good things.
And we're all fairly, you know, moderate.
Well, there's some conservatives here, but, you know, me and my buddy are fairly, you know, lefty and we're kind of like, I mean, these things are not bad things.
Trump's saying great, great things.
The unemployment is down.
72% of new jobs went to women.
That's amazing.
And the Democrats wouldn't clap for that stuff.
So when Nancy Pelosi ripped these things up, the conversation, the opportunity to address what Trump had said ceases to exist.
Let me show you an example.
I have this story and we'll read a little bit.
You can see how many shares it has.
The Hill reporting Pelosi rips up Trump's speech at conclusion of State of the Union.
But let me just show you how nuts these people are in praising Pelosi for doing this.
My immediate reaction.
I tweeted, Pelosi shredded Trump's speech?
Seriously F these people what is wrong with them?
It's got 3428 retweets.
Now, the reason I said that is because I was genuinely shocked.
That's my legitimate reaction.
Trump finished his speech.
We're talking, you know, in the studio about how we hear all these great things for Trump.
And what did I say and what did my friends all say?
Well, of course, it sounds good because Trump is telling you all the good things.
Where's the rebuttal?
Where's the counter?
Where's the criticism?
Of course, if Trump's going to give you a speech, you're going to like what he has to say.
That's the point.
Not everybody, of course, but at least most of it will sound good.
Well, thanks to Pelosi, that was it.
Instead of us actually having a conversation about Trump's talking points and whether they were true or not, now we're talking about Nancy Pelosi.
And that's exactly what Republicans needed.
This means that Donald Trump was able to whisper sweet nothings into your ears without criticism, without pushback.
Instead, we saw Nancy Pelosi throw a temper tantrum.
And that doesn't make her or the Democrats look good.
It makes them look petty.
Take a look at the first response to Omar Bidar who responded, much respect.
I appreciate that he was actually trying to stay on point.
He said, what's more upsetting to you?
The meaningless theatrics of the opposition or the dozen plus false or misleading statements the president told the American people?
He then linked to a story from the New York Times.
I think these two tweets exemplify exactly why Pelosi made a huge, huge mistake.
At least some people who are critical of Trump are trying to stay on message.
Trump told you all these good things.
Please let me counter what he said.
My genuine reaction was not that.
He asks me what's more upsetting to you, the lies or the theatrics?
I'll be completely honest.
The theatrics.
You know why?
Because Trump says things, and I have no immediate reason to assume the data points he was giving on unemployment or otherwise, were necessarily wrong.
It doesn't mean I trust him, it means he said a thing, and now it's your turn to come out and tell me otherwise.
Also, in Trump's speech, He praised servicemen, and he reunited a family with someone who was deployed.
I mean, those things had nothing to do with facts or anything.
It was heartwarming to see the now-Brigadier General, the last Tuskegee Airman, stand up and salute while everyone cheered for him.
That was heartwarming.
Nancy Pelosi ripped that up, too.
So, of course, her shredding the speech was shocking.
There were mourning families there.
She ripped that up, too.
So, yes, I will fully admit, after Trump said everything, me and my friends were talking about whether or not he was only telling us the good stuff, and now we're not talking at all.
And I realized it this morning when I see the top trend on Twitter.
Pelosi tantrum.
I find it funny.
It's not, you know, praise Pelosi.
It's most people being like, wow, she had a temper tantrum.
And what we see from these two tweets is that My reaction was nothing to do with Trump.
There will not be a conversation about what Trump said being true or false.
Every network is probably going to run wall-to-wall coverage of Pelosi's reaction.
And she said something like, it was the appropriate thing to do, you know, considering the alternative, which is what?
Well, first let me show you this.
United States trends.
Pelosi tantrum number one in the US.
Well, Donald Trump himself is tweeting about it.
We can also see unbecoming.
And Nancy the Ripper.
Nancy the Ripper is probably both positive and negative.
Unbecoming, for the most part, is negative.
And there was another trend popping up that was, you know, Nancy Pelosi rocks or something like that, but it was only a few thousand tweets.
So unbecoming in 26, you know, 26,000.
But the number one trend in the U.S.
is Pelosi tantrum.
They have successfully allowed Trump to say whatever he wants, and now no one will ever think twice because she shifted the narrative.
Get it?
Now Trump was able to say all these great things to everybody, and that's all we'll hear of it.
Let me show you this.
The White House tweet.
They said, Speaker Pelosi just ripped up one of our last surviving Tuskegee Airmen.
The survival of a child born at 21 weeks.
The mourning families of Rocky Jones and Kayla Mueller.
A service member's reunion with his family.
That's her legacy.
You can criticize the president, but now the space has been taken away because Nancy Pelosi was angry.
And what do you think Democrat bubble social media is saying?
They're praising her for doing it.
Let me show you something.
The number one post on rslashpolitics, and this is like a really good example of what's wrong with Reddit.
You'd think rslashpolitics would be a space for people to actually engage in politics, but it's not.
The Donald, where people actually support the president, is quarantined for dubious reasons, and rslashpolitics, which has a lot of the same nonsense, you know, and is extremely partisan, is one of the most prominent subreddits on the platform.
Here we see.
The first post.
When asked about ripping the speech, question, why did you tear up the speech?
Pelosi.
Because it was the courteous thing to do.
It was the courteous thing to do considering the alternative.
The next comment.
It was a clever move.
Trump just held a State of the Union speech and the only thing the media is talking about is Nancy Pelosi.
She hit him right where it hurts.
That's all I'm seeing in Australian media.
Heck, I can't say that on YouTube.
I'm not even kidding.
My friend who has no interest in American politics just asked me who Nancy was and what was she ripping up.
That's Nancy, the patron saint of shade.
Bugger me was not expecting this.
Here's another one.
It's even better when you consider Trump's reaction, which is to stand by cluelessly staring off in the distance as the woman behind him emasculates him on national TV.
Oh boy, is faux news ever going to be busy today.
I wish he'd do another 20 minute long call that has the couch crew itching to let him get back to work, sir.
Let me collapse this and see what the next thread comment is.
I like this is making bigger news than anything Trump had to say.
He lied for two hours, this is not news anymore.
And there it is.
Everything Trump said went into the ears, the hearts and the minds of the American people.
And then Nancy Pelosi stopped the conversation.
They're convinced Trump lied.
That was their talking point.
Now they're praising that it will never come up in the media.
Look man, when I'm talking to my friends and they're saying what Trump says sounds good, and they walk away and that's all they heard?
Trump just won!
I can't believe any of these people.
This is absolutely absurd.
There's a gif of it, I guess.
Did anyone else notice Trump signed an autograph to an old guy with a literal stack of money popping out of his shirt pocket?
And then he says, I've been informed they're fake $45 Trump bills, which I don't, you know, it's funny.
So there was a guy who had $45 bills, Trump's, you know, 45th president, and it was like sticking out of his pocket and Trump signed them.
Here we go, this is great.
Jesus, the pro-Trump response is to this on Twitter.
They're clutching every pearl on the hemisphere and popping the global monocle supply over how disrespectful this was.
Have these people ever encountered even two unscripted sentences by Trump?
Holy S. I can't even fathom the cognitive dissonance here.
They say Trump laughs about grabbing women's genitals, a woman rips up his words, and she's the one being told she's rude.
When you get down to it, it's really just about her being a woman and him being a man.
Trump's a man and he's rich, so he's allowed to do what he wants because he's a stable genius TM.
And he knows best.
Pelosi's a woman, so she should know her place.
Okay, literally no one said that.
That's how they see the world.
No, they don't.
It's the same mentality they apply when calling African Americans uppity.
They see someone they believe deserves to be downtrodden, expressing any form of attitude or disrespect toward their authority figure, and it blows their minds.
Let me stop you right there.
This is what's funny to me.
They live in a bubble.
You know, as it's come up many times, you know, Jack Dorsey mentioned on the Sam Harris podcast, I came up with Rogan last year when I was on his podcast with Dorsey, left-wing journalists were only following left-wing journalists and conservative journalists were following both.
I tend to follow both.
These people have no idea what's really being said.
I'll tell you this.
I talked to a guy who lives near me, who voted for the president, and he complains about Trump's attitude.
You look at the polls Fox News does, or the Man on the Street interviews, and people say things like, you know, they'd vote for Trump, they just wish he wasn't such, you know, a boorish old man, or a braggart, or crude and crass.
Everybody criticizes Trump for his attitude.
Now, his diehard supporters love it and cheer him.
You can criticize them, but that's not the 63 million.
That's the smaller handful of really diehard, you know, Trump-can-do-no-wrong people, whereas most of the Trump supporters are critical of him to a certain degree, but understand that, for the most part, you never completely agree with the president.
And now we're looking at Nancy Pelosi, who's offered up no real solutions to any of the problems the country is facing, other than to constantly complain about the president.
Here's my favorite piece.
Here's my favorite bit about all of this.
I've never been a big Trump supporter.
Never.
I'm ambivalent for the most part, and I kinda don't like the guy, and that's where I've always been.
Alright?
I laughed when he won, but whatever, it's another president.
I've criticized him for his behavior, I've criticized Andrew Yang for calling him a fat slob, and I will criticize Nancy Pelosi right now for tearing up that speech.
Yet they act like it is only the die-hard Trump MAGA zealots who actually care about this.
This is why they will lose.
In the real world in America, regular Americans were sitting on their couch, you know, eating nachos, ordering a pizza, whatever they were doing that night.
Maybe they had fried chicken for dinner.
And they watched Donald Trump say all of these beautiful things.
Now, everything Trump said wasn't great to everybody.
Some of the things he said probably made some people not so happy.
But he talked about some great economic stuff, and regular Americans are going to love that.
They're not sitting there screeching about, you know, Trump's behavior.
They're not diehard Trump supporters or regular Americans who heard great things and then saw standing behind the president after all of the good things he promised and accomplished, Pelosi tears it up.
Imagine if you're in the Rust Belt.
You know, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania.
These are states that voted for Trump.
Imagine you're in Michigan and Ford is bringing back that plant.
These are a lot of people who don't care about politics.
I went to a furniture store, okay?
We set up this new room, this new podcast show, and the saleswoman told me last year was the best year of her career in terms of how much money she made, the sales she was doing.
And she was not super political.
She didn't know a whole lot about it.
So imagine this.
These people who don't pay attention to politics, who don't know about what Trump is promising or otherwise, are now being told first that he's a liar.
The economy isn't doing well.
The Democrats get on stage and say it's not working for everybody.
Well, it's working for most.
Wages are up.
The economy is growing.
Record low unemployment.
Yeah, things are working out for people.
But they tell you it's not.
Okay, I'm pretty sure you tell that saleswoman who just told me she made more money last year than any other year in her life.
And that's not the first time I've heard that from other people.
They said business in 2019 was amazing!
You tell them the economy is bad, and they're gonna look at you and say, I don't know about all that.
But then, the only real opportunity you had was to call out the president on anything else he said, but Pelosi decided to take it all away.
Pelosi, in her rage, that's what she did.
So it's funny to me to read these comments on Reddit, where they absolutely believe it was the smart thing to do.
And that's why they lost in 2016.
That's why there was low voter turnout in Iowa.
Did you guys know this?
Have you been following my commentary on this?
They were talking about all the record voter turnout.
Iowa was going to see that it was going to surpass that of 2008.
And they needed record turnout in order to beat Trump.
Instead, the caucus is a disaster.
The talking points from most Democrats and most on the left is chaotic.
Accusing each other of cheating.
Accusing Buttigieg of being a spy.
It has fallen apart.
And what do we see now?
The DNC cheated to get Bloomberg on the debate stage.
They could not even handle their own caucus.
They can't count votes.
They couldn't use an app.
And then Pelosi thought it was appropriate to shred a speech that was shifting the whole discussion to decorum.
And that's what we see now.
We don't see the Democrats offering promises.
They haven't gone on TV and said, here's what we've accomplished for the American people.
All they've ever said is orange man bad.
In the past several years, we've had Russia gate Ukraine gate impeachment, and now the president's going to be acquitted.
And what does a regular American see?
They see a president who says, here's what I've done for you, and she rips it up.
They see a president who goes on trial for impeachment get acquitted.
Now many will say, yeah, but the Republicans said no witnesses.
Do you think the average American knows or cares?
As they even pointed out, the guy who said, my friend asked me, who's Nancy and what did she rip up?
Yeah, exactly.
They don't know anything about the nitty gritty of politics like most of us do.
So I'll tell you this.
Nancy Pelosi made a huge mistake.
She was angry.
In her rage, she just helped Donald Trump.
And it seems like that keeps happening.
Let me end by saying it just one more time.
The Democrats needed to counter Trump's speech.
Me and my friends were hearing great things from him.
And I said, but keep in mind, he's only telling you the good stuff.
That's what he's going to do.
So where were the Democrats to come out and say, now here's what you missed?
Didn't happen.
Because Nancy Pelosi shifted the entire news cycle to her temper tantrum.
And as much as these people are like, haha, you go, Nancy, I assure you, regular Americans are not saying, wow, it was really great that the Speaker of the House just threw a fit.
They're going like, yikes!
That was my reaction.
And so you want to act like it's all Trump supporters who are going, eat God, and clutching their pearls.
No, no, I criticize Trump for his attitude.
I criticize Yang for calling him a fat slob.
You get it.
You get it.
That's what regular Americans are going to think.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
I can't believe it!
James O'Keefe of Project Veritas suspended on Twitter for demanding a retraction from a journalist who posted false information?
Oh heavens!
Who could have ever seen this coming?
Except literally everyone saw it coming because it's not the first time Veritas has been censored.
I've been censored for talking about Project Veritas.
They might even delete this video because I'm bringing it up.
You see, It was a couple days ago, it was the day of the Iowa caucus, the 3rd, when James O'Keefe published a video exposing an Elizabeth Warren staffer who was saying she's too focused on these woke issues and regular Americans don't care about it.
Well, for some reason, Twitter went back to January 22nd to a tweet where James requested a retraction from Dave Weigel, I believe still of the Washington Post, and they said apparently it was, we'll see what they claimed it was, I think it was harassment or like private information.
It was journalism.
I find it really interesting that no one in the media world cares, for the most part, when James O'Keefe's rights to publish news as a journalist are threatened.
And it's for obvious reasons.
They don't like the fact that he makes their ideology and their political tribe look bad.
You see, when these other journalists, like, I think it was Channel 4 in the UK, did an undercover sting, oh, everybody loved it.
When the alt-right was exposed in an undercover sting, well, the media loved it.
When James O'Keefe filmed Bernie Sanders staffers talking about gulags for conservatives, well, all of a sudden it's, but this is illegal!
He's invading privacy!
Or, it's out of context, but he's editing it!
Ah, yes, that's right.
The media isn't biased, they say.
Let me tell you something.
We're going to read about James O'Keefe.
He should not have been suspended, and I'll show you the tweet.
It's absurd.
But you see, I did a video about James O'Keefe months ago.
A few days later, people started messaging me saying, why is this video about Veritas gone?
Sure.
I looked, and there it was.
It was completely removed.
It was weird.
I'd never seen anything like it.
I didn't get a notification.
Eventually, I found something buried in the social tab of my email.
And when I reached out to Google and said, yo, bring my video back, they said no.
And they gave me a BS reason that, oh, but you publish someone's name or something.
I said, I didn't!
It's on a publicly available website.
I'm commenting on a news story going viral.
Too bad.
Well, guess what happened on the day of the Iowa caucus when I published a video about Project Veritas with commentary?
Something strange happened around 4 p.m.
You see, 99.9% of my political commentary videos are monetized and confirmed.
There's something called self-certification.
All the videos on my main channel, they're typically me talking about the political process.
What are the poll numbers?
What did the Democrats do this time?
What's going on with impeachment?
And so I saw a story about a Warren staffer criticizing her for getting too woke and ignoring kitchen table issues, and I commented on it.
I got a notification that at the very last minute, when the video was to go live, around 4, that the video contained sensitive issues dealing with war and terror.
Well, that's certainly not true.
But you know what happens when they give you that notification?
The video gets suppressed.
Viewership was down by around 50% of the average, and I thought to myself, you know, this has happened before.
I've done videos about Antifa, which surprisingly, They suppress.
So I learned my lesson.
When they demonetize a video and tell me things like that, I have no choice but to move it, and I've talked about it in the past.
And that's what this channel is for.
So, a lot of these videos get suppressed.
A lot of them, you know, you won't see.
You won't get notifications either.
My main channel, though, I do one video per day.
So I try to make sure it's basically the biggest culturally relevant story, and right now that's typically politics.
So when I did a video about a Democratic headquarter in Antifa, and they suppressed it, I was like, whoa!
And I didn't realize, so I went in, I blurred a bunch of stuff, and they restored it.
So, sure, whatever.
Well, sure enough, I sent a request to Google, and I said, this is a false flag.
Like a false flagging of the video.
There's no war or terror in this, I'm talking about Elizabeth Warren!
My video got suppressed.
James O'Keefe got suspended from Twitter.
Weird, right?
Well, something happened around 2 a.m.
They restored the video.
That's right!
They restored the video, the primary was over, and then I got an email saying, sorry about that, it's been fixed.
And then I saw in my analytics, some of the views started to come back because the suppression was removed, but guess what?
From the time period of publication to 2 a.m., views were suppressed by over, I would say around 50%, and by the time they restored it, it never recovered.
In fact, you can go to my channel, you can look at the Warren video and compare the views on it to the views of the past several videos, and you can look at the past views I've done on the Project Veritas exposés, And I think it's fair to say, based on me actually having to email Google and be like, please remove the suppression, and the fact that the video did start getting more views.
It got around 200,000.
The other videos the day before, 300.
The other Veritas videos, 300, 350, 400.
The other Veritas videos, 300, 350, 400, but this one was knocked down.
I think it's, you know, look, I don't think it's a conspiracy.
What I think it is are people who work at these social media companies who love Elizabeth Warren.
So when Project Veritas started doing this expose, they dug back to an old tweet from the 22nd and they got him shut down.
And when they saw my video, the people working in California who manually flag videos, Maybe it was an accident.
Maybe it was bias.
I don't think so.
I don't think it was an accident.
Again, not a conspiracy, but a biased person being like, this is too sensitive for you.
Suppress.
And that's probably what happened.
And that's why when I escalated it, they said, sorry about that, and removed it.
I can't imagine it was an accident that 99.9% of my videos are always monetized.
In fact, dare I say, in the past three months, 100% monetized.
I think it's strange that the one time They suppress it.
It's around the same time, the Iowa caucus, when James O'Keefe gets suspended too.
Let's read a little bit of the story.
They say, Twitter has suddenly locked Project Veritas founder James O'Keefe out of his account after he tweeted at a reporter from the Washington Post and successfully requested a retraction.
Ryan Saavedra tweeted, Twitter suspends Project Veritas founder.
And we get it.
So here's the image from James O'Keefe.
It says, your account has been locked for violating the posting of private information Twitter has determined that as a journalist, you have no right to post certain things.
Because the information James O'Keefe got wasn't secret information, it was publicly available.
But we see how they behave.
In the past, you've had actual Democratic candidates outright threaten to dox people.
Look at the Covington case.
None of those people got suspended or banned.
It was all A-OK, huh?
And we talked about this with Jack Dorsey, but they didn't seem to care.
I mean, they did.
That's unfair.
They pretend... They seemed to care.
That's the right way to put it.
They seemed to care, but, in my opinion, likely did not.
They say, oh, well, you don't understand.
I'm sorry, man.
Listen.
He said, retraction request.
Dave Weigel of the Washington Post, the subjects featured in Exposed 2020 are not Sanders volunteers.
Both Kyle Jurek and Martin Weisserberger are still paid employees of the Bernie Sanders campaign.
Kindly retract another factually inaccurate bit of reporting.
22nd.
And they finally came after him.
Now?
I'm sure they were, you know, people were flagging James O'Keefe.
I'm sure they flag almost every tweet he puts out.
They claim that his videos are literally illegal.
Why now?
I don't know.
I can't honestly say.
They say he has to remove the tweets that violate our rules.
Twitter claims O'Keefe violated its rules around posting private information after he responded to a tweet from Dave Weigel, a reporter at the Washington Post that accused Project Veritas of putting moles in the campaign to find that Sanders volunteers talk IRL like they do on Twitter.
Weigel was referring to undercover videos from Project Veritas, which exposed Sanders campaign staffers Kyle Jurek and Martin Weisgerber.
Weisgerber, that's his name, calling for violence.
O'Keefe tweeted back at Weigel, the subjects featured were not volunteers, they're still paid employees.
My understanding, they still are.
Weigel then deleted this tweet minutes later.
And there you have it, James was right.
It appears that Twitter suspended O'Keefe for posting either the names or the paystub, despite both individuals being newsworthy subjects and the paystub being publicly available on the FEC website.
O'Keefe will now be unable to tweet from his account until the suspension is lifted.
O'Keefe slammed suspension and said, they don't suspend Dave Weigel's account, they suspend us for correcting the erroneous information that Weigel tweeted.
Surprise, surprise!
Who's shocked by this?
I think it's really, really bad.
The biggest problem I have with these journalist activists is that when they approach news, the first question is not, is it true?
The first question is, does it help or hurt my ideology?
So when I look at James O'Keefe, the last thing I consider, or I should say down the list of considerations, is his personal bias.
It plays a role in my assessment of his work.
The first thing I consider is, is it true?
Well, guess what?
Veritas publishes videos, and you see their mouths and lips moving.
Okay?
My understanding is that James has numerous retractions from tons of people who have lied about the work he does.
If I see a video clip, and someone says, ABC 123, is it possible it's out of context?
It is.
In this circumstance, I tend not to think that's the case.
So those are the considerations down the line.
First, there's a video of it, there's text, and I'll do that for anyone left or right.
When I read a story, it's the same way.
These other journalists who work at the Washington Post and these other companies, the first thing they do is they say, but is James O'Keefe conservative?
Or they say, he's conservative.
They don't consider the actual information presented until after they question his bias, which is why they always say things like a right-wing journalist instead of a journalist.
They consider his political orientation as a conservative first and not him as a journalist.
I don't do that.
Now, you'll often see that I will do videos where I say, a left-wing journalist.
And that's kind of the point, right?
We're entering a world now where those are the considerations that are being presented.
And so, basically everyone now is a journalist is defined by their political ideology.
I don't know what people would call me because I think it's funny that conservatives call me a liberal and liberals call me a conservative because maybe I'm just in the middle.
But you know, it doesn't seem to work for most people.
Anyway, let's read.
They say, During the caucuses, another popular Twitter account, Comfortably Smug, was temporarily suspended after tweeting out, Where's Hunter, fat?
A reference to 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden calling a voter fat.
And days before the caucuses, the Twitter account of Zero Hedge was suddenly hit with a permanent ban after BuzzFeed claimed it had doxxed someone by sharing publicly available information.
I said it last year!
Thought it was bad in the past few years?
Just wait until 2020.
And as we get closer to November, it's gonna light up baby.
I hope you are strapped in and ready for that rollercoaster when all of your favorite accounts go belly up and get purged from the internet because it has begun.
The Iowa caucus is here.
My video got suppressed for dubious reasons.
James O'Keefe is suspended for completely BS reasons.
Other accounts have been suspended for nonsensical reasons, but they all tend to flow in one direction.
Are we seeing progressive Bernie supporters getting suspended?
I mean, it happens sometimes, but not really.
Are we seeing establishment, corporate, moderate, whatever you want to call them, Democrats, getting suspended?
Of course not!
Even after Covington, they didn't get suspended.
And yet, Jack Dorsey and Vijay Agade had the gall to look me in the eye and say, it's just not true, Tim!
I think it's funny, because it's kind of like, Someone lying to you over and over and over again, and them expecting you to be stupid enough to be like, it's just 1,500 mistakes!
Every single time it happens, it's just a mistake!
At a certain point, come on, man.
Like, we get it.
James O'Keefe has had YouTube videos deleted.
I think I actually, I might have the story from Breitbart.
YouTube censors Project Veritas video exposing anti-Christian bias at Pinterest.
They deleted my video too.
And in my video, I actually pointed out that James O'Keefe was biased.
You know why?
In his list, when he exposed Pinterest as banning live action, above it was anti-media.
Now, I'm not saying his bias was a net negative on the story.
His story was correct.
They were absolutely censoring live action.
I noticed anti-media, because I know what it is.
It's a left-wing, anti-war website.
And I know a lot of these left-wing, anti-war personalities.
They're very anti-democratic establishment, too, and so we kind of get along on certain issues.
And that was an example of bias.
The first thing I considered, is James' story true?
And I checked it out, and it seemed to be he had the evidence.
And then after, you know, a few steps down, when I looked into his bias, I noticed, here's something he missed, and I think he should have included it.
I think he absolutely should have, but the framing from his perspective, in my opinion, is still true, and it wasn't in any way taking anything out of context.
He was focusing on one issue.
So that's where bias comes in.
But anyway, you should consider that for all media.
Is there more to the story?
Right?
The point is, I've been censored, he's been censored, several people have been banned and suspended.
Now Facebook says they're gonna support free expression.
We'll see.
Will they reinstate people like Laura Loomer and Alex Jones and, you know, Paul Joseph Watson?
I doubt it.
And Miley Yiannopoulos?
I doubt it.
I don't think so.
I think they're now, having purged the people they need to purge, now they go, oh well now we're gonna change our tune.
But after the damage has already been done, right?
So I guess we'll see what happens as the time goes on, but I think we're going to be heading down the fastest and most fun roller coaster you've ever been on.
So hedge your bets, plan for the future, because you might not exist on social media.
Again, if you thought it was bad when they were banning people in the past few years, wait till your small Twitter account with 20 followers posts that you like President Trump.
And they call you a Russian bot and delete you.
Because I've talked to so many people who have had that happen.
I have talked to endless people at parties and events that say, I had something like 17 followers and they banned me.
And the thing is, James O'Keefe is a big fish.
He's got a ton of followers.
When they suspend him, we see it.
We know about it.
But think about how many small channels, how many small accounts, smaller, you know, individuals on social media are banned every day, every minute, and you just don't know.
If you see the big fish going down, rest assured, they're taking down substantially more smaller fish.
The grassroots efforts.
And that's why, in my opinion, when you go on Reddit, what do you see?
The front page is dominated.
By left-wing talking points that often make very little sense or are omitting tons of information, you go to r slash politics, which has 5 million subscribers to the Reddit channel, and they post activist websites.
And then you go to the Donald, and they're quarantined because they accuse them of threatening police.
Tell me that doesn't sound insane.
Yeah, that sounds like something you made up.
threatening police so they decided to shut to quarantine the the the reddit
channel yeah that sounds like something you made up because those are the people
who wave the blue lives matter flags so yeah baby It's gonna be a whole lot of fun.
Maybe we'll all end up sitting in our basements with no social media access, and all the influencers are gone, and all that's left is... Buttigieg.
Because apparently they're cheating to win.
We'll see what happens.
Stick around.
The next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It is a different channel.
And boy, is this one gonna be a doozy.
Chaos!
After the State of the Union, the impeachment trial is coming.
I hope you're ready for this wild ride that is 2020.
I will see you all in the next segment.
Thanks for hanging out.
With all the news about the State of the Union and the economy, Trump's successes, I was wondering, you know, if the media and democratic establishment didn't have Trump Derangement Syndrome, would Trump actually be one of the most popular presidents in U.S.
history?
We have this poll the Washington Examiner is highlighting, I believe it's from Gallup, that says record economic optimism under Trump, better than Reagan, Clinton, and Obama.
So why is it that with this roaring economy, this tremendous success, with the new trade deal, with this economic optimism, Trump's approval rating isn't higher?
Now, admittedly, Trump's approval rating based on Gallup's data is actually higher than Obama's for the same time period.
So, I mean, that says something.
But I do think, while Trump is absolutely worthy of criticism, and you don't have to agree with his policy plans, I think he's absolutely held down by a lying press.
And I'm not playing a game where I think all of the press is always lying.
I'm saying there are people in media who lie, and they play the game for the Trump bump.
But I want to show you something.
Right here we can see that, as I mentioned, Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Trump is doing better.
But take a look at this story.
Impeachment gets 77 times more TV time than Trump's economic successes.
Could that be why Trump's approval rating has been as low as it is?
I mean, even though it is, right now, relative to Obama, a bit higher.
Perhaps it's because, as most of us know, the media is lying about it.
Or they're not talking about it.
Or it's a lie by omission, or their bias is in what they're talking about.
All they do is talk about impeachment, which he's gonna get acquitted.
It's complete nonsense.
But what matters to the American people isn't being talked about.
Let's take a look at this story.
They say, economic optimism has reached a 44-year high and economic gloom a record low under President Trump in the latest survey that shows people are cheering their best personal economy in decades.
For the first time in its history, the Gallup Mood of the Nation economic survey found that 59% of people believe that they are better off A trend that has soared under Trump.
I have to admit, I certainly am.
The guys that are helping me put together, you know, they laid concrete on my iPod.
Go to my Instagram.
It's at instagram.com.
You'll see they're pouring concrete.
I was talking to some of these guys and they were saying business is great.
You know, I went to the furniture store to buy this table.
They said it was the best year of their lives.
And I agree.
The economy, as far as I know, and most people I'm talking to, everyone's in a really good mood.
Seems like Trump pulled something off, huh?
They say it is higher than when President Ronald Reagan made his economy a campaign rallying cry and better than the so-called dot-com bubble under President Bill Clinton.
And Gallup found that those who feel that they are worse off are down to 20% the lowest
Most of these people are saying, yeah, but you know, I'm still doing better than I, you know, I'm still doing okay.
It's not as bad as it used to be, or the gloom is just the lowest it's ever been.
I mean, that's amazing.
And this is a, the positive survey comes a day after Gallup reported that Trump had reached his highest job approval as president.
I gotta stop right here and say something.
You know, someone once asked me, why is it that you don't like Trump, but often make all of these videos defending Trump?
And that to me was an interesting comment because it sounded just like the same framing that the left says.
Tim claims to not like Trump, but then makes videos defending him.
Uh, this is data.
As I always say, you don't have to like him to recognize things are working.
And we can argue about foreign policy, and that's my biggest criticism.
And I can talk about general Republican policy, which, I'm a fairly modern individual, but, like, the easiest way to describe it without going through a big list of all these policy ideas is, you know, I don't know, pro-choice and stuff like that.
Like, the old-school Democrat-Republican arguments that we used to have, we don't have anymore!
So here's what ends up happening.
I say, you know, I'd like a moderate Democrat who wants reasonable limits on, you know, like, pregnancy termination type issues.
That's a big one.
It's the easiest go-to for me, right?
Because it's a classic issue that creates a stark divide between what used to be the left and the right.
But right now, when I talk to conservatives, they're actually like, yeah, you know, third trimester, that kind of stuff.
So there's a big agreement now, and I think I know why.
Admittedly, With what happened the other day, you know, with Nancy Pelosi, and I've talked about it a million times now, and Donald Trump's State of the Union, I think we've already started seeing, as I covered in my main channel, Democrats quitting the party.
They don't want to vote Democrat ever again.
I certainly agree.
I mean, for me, it's more so the cheating, right?
The cheating with Bloomberg and whatever's going on with Buttigieg.
I'll cover that in the next segment.
But yeah, Trump is doing better and better.
The country is doing better and better.
And there really is a certain point where, just because Trump is an awful character who does really bad things, you can't deny it.
Because what's the alternative?
And so I will say this.
You know, typically my approval rating of the president really has tracked very closely to the RealClearPolitics average.
I would say, you know, over the past several days, like the past, you know, several weeks or months, it's typically around like a 43 to 44, right?
It's at a point where I'm like, I'm not really, I don't want to vote for them, I'd rather vote for somebody else, and I don't vote based on, you know, thinking someone else is worse or better.
I vote if I think I want to endorse this.
So right now it's at 49 in Gallup, and RealClearPolitics has him just shy of 45%, and that's kind of where I am.
Like, 45% of what Trump does, I'm pretty much in agreement with.
Actually, now take that back.
I think a lot of what he does, I'm in agreement with.
But I do think the Office of the Presidency is a bit more specific in its requirements, other than just being able to do the job.
It really is a nuanced problem.
And I also think it comes down to, you know, I'm kind of trying to hold out that there's some kind of hope for what the Democrats can offer in the end.
But what really worries me is that where I am politically, recognizing the economic boom, the successes of Trump, how people are feeling better, even Democrats are feeling more optimistic than ever, even though I can recognize all that, there is a concern I have that if all of the people in a similar political space to me, which is just slightly center-left, concede And say, we have to vote for this.
It's all we have.
Then we really do lose a very important piece of what makes this country great.
Because the saying goes, you need two strong wings to fly.
If the left wing is being damaged and torn apart, there need to be some people who are willing to stand up and say, you know, and remain steadfast.
And whether it's the ashes crumbling of the Democratic Party and then something new emerging, I don't think it's safe to just walk away because then it's just the eagle falls.
So I know a lot of people are willing to concede on political points they don't necessarily agree with, because Trump really is the better option at this point, considering what's going on with the Democratic Party and the caucus, whatever that nonsense is.
I have a concern that if too many moderate individuals just concede, then you have a dramatic imbalance in the force, to say it lightly.
If there isn't a decent balance and some real pushback, because we're not getting it from Democrats, like it may be too late already, then we're going to see the rise of this fringe, deranged left running around doing crazy things, and that's going to be really scary and dangerous.
But let's move on.
The point I'm trying to make is, let me just put it simply.
It is becoming harder and harder every day to argue against voting for the president for one simple reason.
While Trump touts his victories, and we see it in the polls, and we see it in our pocketbooks, at a certain point the Democrats have stopped arguing.
And so, while I can certainly say Trump's got a bad character, and I think that's very important for the presidency, Trump's foreign policy is starting to clear up relative to where Obama was.
Now Trump's not a saint.
He's done commando raids in Yemen.
These are the things I'm very, very concerned about.
And it's a bit of why I just, it's why I don't vote.
But if the Democrats can't mount a real reason, what ends up happening is people watch the State of the Union, they hear all of these sweet nothings from Donald Trump, and they say, I'd like to hear an argument against this.
It's gone.
There's none.
Impeachment.
No evidence.
He's a bigot.
I'm sorry.
He's got rising support from the black community.
I just don't see it.
You've lost the argument.
The only real thing is, like, Trump's kind of a gross character.
But I think it's fair to point out how the media is smearing him, and I kind of feel like this next term for Trump, assuming he wins, and I think we are assuming he wins, his popularity is going to spike dramatically.
I mean, you've got a lot of people starting to recognize just how good things really are, and no matter what his character is, I mean, look, yet a lot of people vote for that anyway.
So I think it's fair to point out, for me at least, my approval rating typically floats around, you know, where the RCP average is.
But I tell you, I took a serious hit to the gut the other day with Nancy Pelosi, with the State of the Union, with impeachment.
I'll tell you this, man.
I'm hearing people say they want to vote for Trump simply because of how insane the Democrats have been in treating him.
And I'm like, for me, that's not good enough.
You know, Trump would really have to be a person that I wanted to stand behind, and unfortunately he's not.
But I do think it's fair to say at this point, you cannot deny he has done a tremendous job and succeeded where he said he needed to succeed.
Now here's the problem.
Well, I think I kind of hit the nail on the head already.
I'm not going to read too much.
I do try to keep these short.
But if the media only ever talks about impeachment, it's probably the main reason why people have negative opinions of him to such an extreme degree.
Like, for the most part, I'm ambivalent.
I think Trump's funny.
I really do.
He's a funny guy.
Self-deprecating often.
And I think because you don't hear about what he's doing for this country, the assumption is he's just playing golf and he hates everybody and he's stealing money.
But when you actually pay attention, you're like, He's not doing a bad job.
He's just not my choice.
And that's the big difference.
But I think for people like me and my friends, man, you know, I'll tell you this.
I really do think some of my friends are going to vote for Trump.
I really, really do.
And I'll tell you why it's a big deal, because a lot of people are going to say, oh, so what, Tim?
No, no, no, listen, man.
Okay, I grew up with skateboarding lefties.
You know, anarcho-type people.
And now they're saying, but all the stuff Trump just told us at the State of the Union was awesome.
Like, that sounds really great.
And the Democrats never came back with a rebuttal.
They just ripped the speech up and walked away!
And so it's kind of like, did you just concede?
Is that what that was?
Did you just drop your gloves and walk out of the ring?
It is.
And now my friends are kind of like, I don't know.
The media narrative is kind of crumbling because the Democrats haven't mounted a legitimate criticism of the president.
And as I mentioned in my main channel earlier, with the economy doing really, really well and all this shenanigans, the Democrats have given Trump his best week ever.
But we'll see what happens come the election time.
I'll tell you this, as I said last time, too.
I'm not voting in the primaries.
I'm not voting for the Democrats.
It doesn't mean I'm voting for any Republicans.
But I'll tell you, that's where I'm at.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
How many times have we had to hear from Democrats complaining about the Electoral College, saying that the will of the people is the popular vote and the Electoral College is archaic?
It doesn't work.
And why should people in Wyoming get more vote power than someone in California?
Harumph, I say!
No matter how many times we've told them why this is, because we're a republic, not a direct democracy, they don't seem to care.
And people like Elizabeth Warner have campaigned on removing the Electoral College.
Well, now something interesting is happening.
In Iowa, we are, at the time of filming this video, only looking at around 71.4% of the votes being tallied.
Guess who's winning?
Pete Buttigieg.
Yes, I know.
You probably heard this, but who would have seen that coming?
Pete Buttigieg has more delegates pledged than Bernie Sanders, but Bernie Sanders has the popular vote.
Now I think it's fair to say AOC has ragged on the Electoral College, and she supports Bernie Sanders, so I think it'll be safe to say she'll come out and say the popular vote in the primary is who should get it.
But what about the rest of the Democrats, who cried kicking and screaming the whole time saying Trump shouldn't have won, it should have been Hillary, she won the popular vote.
But you voted for Buttigieg.
So you're saying Buttigieg should lose?
No, no, no, no.
Wait.
Yeah, they don't want to do that now because their person is winning, right?
Come on, it was obvious.
They only complain about the Electoral College when they lose the Electoral College.
I know there are going to be progressives complaining about the system, and they do believe in the popular vote.
Respect to them for maintaining their integrity on that issue.
It's the Democrat establishment that will play the game and then spin around as fast as they can the moment it hurts them.
So we have this story from Aklatchee, D.C.
Why does Buttigieg lead in early Iowa caucus results if Sanders has more votes?
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont leads in the popular vote tally, as delayed Iowa Democratic caucus results trickle in for the 2020 presidential race, a New York Times analysis of caucus data shows.
So how is it possible that Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, is in the lead in the result that matters most for Monday's contest?
It all comes down to something called State Delegate Equivalence.
With 71% of precincts reporting midday Wednesday, Buttigieg had about 419 State Delegate Equivalence to Sanders' 394, according to the Iowa Democratic Party.
Next in those early results was Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts with roughly 287 State Delegate Equivalence.
Begone to say, The Washington Post reported Tuesday, when 62% of votes were counted, that Buttigieg's tentative edge in the state delegate equivalence is most likely a result of him faring better than Sanders in rural areas, where there are more delegates per caucus-goer.
Sounds like the Electoral College, doesn't it?
Boy, oh boy, when those moderate Democrat establishment types need the Electoral College on their side, it certainly works out for them.
Okay, we're not talking about the Electoral College.
We're talking about their caucus system, which very much looks similar to how the Electoral College does work.
Do you think Pete Buttigieg is going to come out and say, I concede to Sanders because he got more votes?
No.
It'll never happen.
The same thing would happen if Hillary Clinton lost the popular vote but won the electoral college.
She'd say, that's the game you play because everyone will say it all the time.
I don't care what party you're in.
Whatever advantages someone gets, they're justified in taking that.
They say the phenomenon might sound familiar to anyone who remembers the 2016 presidential election.
Hillary Clinton won millions more votes across the U.S.
overall, but President Trump won a substantial majority in electoral college votes, which determine the actual winner.
This is possible because of how state delegate equivalents are distributed.
NBC political correspondent Steve Kornacki said on Twitter of Buttigieg's lead.
Basically, rural areas tend to get more bang for their buck at the expense of college-heavy areas.
And why should it be that a dense population area would just dictate what the rural areas get to do?
I hate to say it, but it does make sense.
It's the same exact thing.
Buttigieg appeals to more people in different communities.
That's important in my opinion.
Think about it this way.
If you have swaths of rural areas, the people on one side of the state don't necessarily agree with the people on the other side of the state.
They probably agree on a lot of things, like most Americans do, but they're in different areas.
One might be farm territory, one might be oil country, and they're gonna have different focuses.
Many of the farmers might have concerns about pollution, while the oil people have concerns about how the regulation on certain environmental issues impact their business.
So they might disagree.
And if Buttigieg, or anyone running for office, appeals to a wider base, it's actually safer for the country than key hot-pocket areas of, like, you know, a specific ideology dominating the entire conversation.
Because you might have a big faction of people who are socialists, and if you only did delicate by, you know, popular vote, Or vote—or just, you know, general election by popular vote.
You'd get an overwhelming group of people of one ideology dictating the conversation, and then everyone else from different areas who aren't being catered to or talked to are going to get angry, and fighting could break out.
Clashes could break out.
People are going to get upset they're not being listened to.
So if you have a candidate who can appeal to a wide base and more people than just one community, I think you're better off.
So it does make sense.
They say State Delegate Equivalent Projections matter because that's the number that indicates how many Iowa Delegates at the Democratic Convention in Milwaukee will support each candidate.
The Iowa Democratic Party defines State Delegate Equivalents, or SDEs, as the projected number of State Party Convention Delegates the candidates will receive based upon results of the precinct caucuses.
Now I'll tell you something important.
My understanding, it's a private process, not a government process.
So, cheating?
Yeah.
They can do it.
The DHS wanted to review the security on the app they used, and they rejected it.
No, we don't want that.
That's right.
I'll tell you something else, too.
Even though Bernie Sanders is losing in delegate count, it may have to do with, well, out of the, what, 25 delegates he's down by, there were some coin tosses that are kinda...
Well, suspicious, to say the least.
Some viral videos showing people doing coin tosses between Buttigieg and Bernie, and then... I'll just leave it there.
You watch the video and you're confused as to how they actually called it when the guy catches the coin and then looks at it and flips around with the coin before calling it.
Seems not to make total sense, but here's what happens.
If you have two Bernie people and two Buttigieg people and someone flips a coin and then lies and gives it to Buttigieg, the Bernie people can see it and say, hey, you're cheating.
And the Biden people can say, hey, you're cheating.
I'm sorry.
Bernie people can say you're cheating, but the Buttigieg people be like, that's not true.
And then a fight, not like a physical fight, but like, oh, it's an argument.
So they flip coins, they round up and down, and there are many areas where Bernie Sanders won.
There was one famous one where he got 101 delegates to Buttigieg's 66, and they got the same delegate count.
So check this out.
Wall Street Journal has Sanders technically in the lead because they're basing it on vote percentage.
Bernie has 26.2%.
Buttigieg has 25.2%.
But Buttigieg has way more delegates, which means when it comes time for the, you know, the nomination process, Buttigieg has got this one.
But I will point out some of the more interesting conspiracy theories, I guess.
The funny one being They're trickling out the results.
Someone posted on Twitter that yesterday they had calculated all of these votes, but for some reason weren't releasing the data.
Now, I can't tell you why, but I can tell you what many Bernie fans think.
By slowly trickling out results that keep Buttigieg in the lead, he does victory lap after victory lap after victory lap.
And as the psychology data shows, People are more willing to vote for someone who is winning.
People want to be on the winning team.
So the more Buttigieg gets to do those victory laps, as they claim he's in the lead, he's going around saying, it's me, I won.
Yes.
Maybe in a few days or a week or whenever they finally release the data, Bernie Sanders will squeak just ahead.
But at that point, what?
New Hampshire's already over?
Some of these key caucus states have already passed, the primary states have already passed, and Buttigieg used that media cycle to his advantage.
Not just that.
But with Buttigieg in the lead, I'm sure he's getting a ton of press requests.
So you're gonna have CNN, you're gonna have MSNBC, Fox News, all these other outlets being like, he's in the lead for now, let's get him on TV and ask about what's going on.
You're the leader, you're the frontrunner, the data's not in yet, but what do you think?
And all of that press access will boost Buttigieg in the next elections.
I think they cheat.
I don't know what's happening here, nor do I want to play any conspiratorial games, but the DNC changed the rules for Bloomberg because they cheat.
They cheat in 2016, they'll cheat again, and they want you to know they cheat so that you give up hope.
I'm not a fan of Bernie Sanders.
I'm not a fan of Warren.
Biden's in fourth place.
I'm a fan of democracy, democratic institutions, and I think if the people want Bernie Sanders, they have every right to have Bernie Sanders be their nominee.
And if they're going to play dirty games, I mean, you count me out.
That's what I said.
I've said it over and over again.
I'm not playing this game anymore.
I'm not going to go into their primaries.
I'm not going to give them a vote of confidence.
But I will absolutely defend Sanders voters if they're getting cheated.
Because as much as I don't like the guy, I say the same thing for Trump, but you have a right to vote for him and I respect you and understand for the most part why you're doing it.
That's the way this country works.
If the people choose Bernie, that's what happens.
So while the popular vote is for Bernie, the delegate count is for Buttigieg.
Admittedly, I'm not completely opposed to how they do that system, as I explained.
What I am opposed to is the weird goings-on that seem to benefit the establishment the entire time, or the billionaires.
Yeah, the game is rigged.
They want you to think it's rigged.
And you know what?
It'll be rigged next time.
Maybe this is the end.
Maybe it's their last-ditch effort.
Maybe Bernie will pull ahead, the polls are showing it.
Maybe he'll finally get in and push out the cronies.
I don't know.
But I'll leave that there.
Stick around, I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Elizabeth Warren spotted getting off a private jet in Iowa as Trump supporters accuse her of trying to hide behind a staffer when she realizes she's being filmed.
And let me just say, boy, does it look like Elizabeth Warren is trying to hide from the camera because she was spotted getting off a private jet.
Yeah, man, you don't have to fly private.
It's so expensive, it's a waste of energy, but of course they're gonna do it because they don't really care about the environment.
I have three words for Elizabeth Warren.
How dare you!
How dare you go around claiming to care about the environment.
Preach to all of the poor people of the world to reduce your consumption and you maximize your consumption in a quest for personal power.
Make a statement.
Fly first class.
Come on.
First class is still awesome, right?
But you don't want to wait in line.
You want to take your car through the gates and go to your private jet.
It's just so much faster, isn't it?
So what about what you're talking about?
What about your preaching?
You think we're supposed to believe you're being honest?
Now listen.
Maybe she really wasn't trying to hide behind people because the camera spotted her, but she's still in the private jet.
They all do this, man.
All of these celebrities go around bragging like, oh, we gotta do better for the world, but not me.
Rules for thee, but not for me.
You see, while I want you to reduce, reuse, and recycle personally, I got 800k cups.
I got a private jet.
Wait, not back.
Two limos in front.
In fact, not just a limo, but I got a limo for my dog behind it.
Okay, I'm exaggerating, but let's read the story.
The Daily Mail reports, Senator Elizabeth Warren was spotted getting off a private plane ahead of the Iowa caucus with Trump supporters accusing her of trying to hide when she realized she was being filmed.
I think she was!
The Democratic presidential candidate touched down in Des Moines on Monday on the private jet ahead of the caucus.
Footage obtained by Fox News showed the 70-year-old stepping off the plane with several campaign staffers.
They include this tweet from Paul Joseph Watson.
Elizabeth Warren, life on earth is at risk because of CO2 emissions, but not at risk enough for me to give up the convenience of flying on this private jet then hiding behind a staffer when I'm caught.
The Massachusetts senator could be seen thanking a member of the ground staff before making her way towards the airport building.
She was filmed following closely behind two female staffers.
Several Trump supporters quickly started sharing the footage on Twitter.
as they accused Warren of trying to hide behind the staffer when she spotted the camera.
Some pointed to her being a Green New Deal advocate and claimed she was being hypocritical
by flying on a private jet.
Yes, she is.
Now it is entirely possible that she was just standing, you know, walking behind the staffer,
but it really does seem because, okay, at first when she gets off the plane, they're
all walking together kind of side by side and you can see her.
And then she looks up and looks straight at the camera and then all of a sudden looks down and turns and then begins walking perfectly behind the staffer and you can't see her.
You could only see a little bit of her behind.
Like, it really feels like, you know what, that makes it so much worse.
She should have just waved and been like, hey, how's it going?
And she could have explained, you know, listen, We have to make sacrifices, and she could have given some hypocritical speech about, the best thing we can do is win, and we have to use the resources available to win, and you know, we'll do our best to reduce things, but we're up against Donald Trump, and you gotta understand, she could have said any of that.
Nah, she didn't.
She just ducks down.
So they have some photos of it.
Here we have Warren.
There's a tweet from her that says Trump's first HHS secretary still hasn't repaid taxpayers
for the private jets he took while flying to rip health care from millions by repealing
the ACA.
But it's okay, though.
It's the donors to Warren's campaign who are paying for her private planes.
How about that?
Hey, Senator Warren!
Why are you trying to hide behind your staffer after you just got off that gas-guzzling private plane?
Guess climate change is a hoax?
A bit hyperbolic, I might add.
Charlie Kirk said, Here's Green New Deal advocate Elizabeth Warren deboarding her private jet.
When she realizes she's being filmed, she tries hiding behind her staffer.
Now look, I get the general idea of why they do it.
They claim that, basically, there's security issues, because having to go through the airport, you know, there's tons of people everywhere, and they'd have security with them as potential nominees, so it's easier to take a private plane, but it's still... Listen.
What's more important?
Your time?
Or, I don't know, the world?
What message are you sending if you claim people need to cut back and then you won't because you think you deserve that position?
Yeah, it's called a rock and a hard place.
It's hard for us to find a solution, especially when you have people like Donald Trump not only being proud of his private planes, but Trump literally has a jumbo jet pull up behind him when he's doing his rallies.
He's the opposite of them.
I get people all the time saying, Tim, why don't you call out Trump for flying in a private jet?
Excuse me, excuse me, Donald Trump doesn't fly in a private jet, technically.
It is like a 757.
Very different from the colloquial understanding of what a private jet is.
The point, he has his own Donald Trump, like seven, it's like a 757, or is it a 47?
I think it's a 40, it's huge!
I've been to his rallies, and they park the plane behind the hangar, and I'm like, the dude's got a giant plane behind him.
Trump embraces it, and brags about it, and cuts regulation, and it's one of the reasons I'm not a supporter of his.
Because I don't like those things.
I'd like Warren to stop flying in private planes too!
I'll tell you what, I understand that Trump comes out and says, I do it and I love it.
That's not being hypocritical.
He's embracing his ideology and he's in line with what he's telling people.
Warren, on the other hand, is doing the exact opposite.
And so people like Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore, why should I believe any of them?
I believe Trump when he says he doesn't, you know, he's not as concerned when he deregulates, you know, the oil industry or when he flies around on his own private jumbo jet.
I'm like, yep, that sounds like Trump.
He's a billionaire, that's what he's gonna do.
A lot of people like it.
If you're somebody who doesn't believe that man-made climate change, or that man is creating or causing a massive problem, or that it will be a great catastrophe, why would you care?
Trump's been honest with you the whole time.
He says he doesn't care, he says it's a hoax, and he gets in a big plane and flies around.
That sounds like success.
Personally, I disagree.
I think climate change is a big problem.
I think we should take it seriously.
I don't think lying to people or tricking them is the way to solve these problems.
I don't think screaming how dare you in people's faces is a way to solve the problem.
And especially don't hide when you get caught flying in a private jet.
So, um, there's just a bunch more tweets.
I'm not gonna read it.
Here, I'll read two more.
This person said... They already caught you, Warren!
boards private plane in Iowa.
The best part is when she looks up, notices the camera, then ducks her head and hides
behind a staffer as they continue to walk.
They already caught you, Warren.
Stop.
This person says the best part is after she realizes she's caught on camera exiting a
private jet, she attempts to hide behind her staffer.
Well, I'll tell you what.
Everyone seems to know that these world leaders are complete and total hypocrites.
Like this story from The Guardian from today.
When it comes to climate hypocrisy, Canada's leaders have reached a new low.
Oh, and you gotta love Greta Thunberg cozying up to these hypocritical world leaders, taking these photos, but then yelling at everyone else.
She has no idea what she's talking about.
I feel kind of bad for her, as she sits there yelling, how dare you, you've stolen my childhood, but then takes smiley pictures with Justin Trudeau, and they say, A territory that has 0.5% of the Earth's population, that plans to use up nearly a third of the planet's remaining carbon budget.
Excellent photo opportunity, Greta.
The person you need to be standing next to, Justin, or I'm sorry, sitting next to, Justin Trudeau.
The story from The Guardian reads, Americans elected Donald Trump who insisted climate change was a hoax.
So it's no surprise that since taking office he's been all in for the fossil fuel industry.
There's no sense despairing.
The energy is better spent fighting to remove him from office.
So they say.
Canada, on the other hand, elected a government that believes the climate crisis is real and dangerous, and with good reason.
Since the nation's Arctic territories give it a front-row seat to the fastest warming on Earth, yet the country's leaders seem likely in the next few years to approve a vast new tar sands mine, which will pour carbon into the atmosphere through the 2060s.
They know, yet they can't bring themselves to act on the knowledge.
Now that is cause for despair.
Thank you.
The people who elected Donald Trump know he called it a hoax.
I'm sorry.
I have a disagreement with that, but it's not hypocrisy.
It's actually standing by your thoughts, what you believe.
But how is Canada going to come out?
How is Trudeau going to sit with Greta?
And they're literally going to build this tar sands mine.
The story says, the Tech Mine would be the biggest tar sands mine yet.
113 square miles of petroleum mining, located just 16 miles from the border of Wood Buffalo National Park.
A federal panel approved the mine, despite conceding that it would likely be harmful to the environment and to the land culture of indigenous people.
Oh wow!
So now you're hitting all the intersectional points.
You're literally going after marginalized groups, you're destroying the environment, and you don't care!
Man, talk about hypocrisy.
Listen, I'll write this up.
I'll keep it short.
How are you going to rag on people and then fly in a private jet?
How are you going to rag on people and scream, how dare you?
But then you have these people you take photo ops with, knowing or believing they're destroying the planet and just doing it anyway.
If you really thought the planet was falling apart, you'd stop, wouldn't you?
So why should anyone believe you?
I don't believe any of these people.
I think Greta believes it.
I think she's been fed a bunch of crazy nonsense.
No, the world's not going to end in 8, 10, or 12 years.
And yes, we can wean off fossil fuels in a couple decades.
It's not a big deal.
There are serious issues.
We'll deal with them.
Humans survive.
New technology will emerge because necessity is the mother of invention.
I have faith.
But I think she really believes it.
Trudeau?
These other governments?
They don't believe it.
They're lying.
That's why they're carrying on as though the world isn't ending.
It's why they're buying oceanfront properties.
Why would they do that?
It's why they're investing in Miami Beach condos.
Of all the places to buy property, why do it there?
If you really thought the city would be underwater, you wouldn't buy the property, would you?
So, no.
They don't believe this.
They're hypocrites.
And while it may be we have serious issues because the scientific community is saying, hey, we gotta do these things, they just don't care.
You know why?
Because these are the people who just want the keys to the castle.
Their attitude is, you know what, it's good for me.
Who cares about anybody else?
And they pretend like they care.
Well, I hope Elizabeth Warren enjoys the comfort of her private jets, but I also hope people film her doing it and call her out for her hypocrisy.
