Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Feb. 9, 2020 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:49:29

Crazed Man PLOWS Van Into Republican Voter Tent In Florida, Civil War 2 Closer To Becoming Reality

Man PLOWS Van Into Republican Voter Tent In Florida, Civil War 2 Closer To Becoming Reality Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

01:49:09

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yesterday, a van plowed into a Republican voter registration tent in Florida.
		The assailant got out of the vehicle, started filming, flipped off the victims, fortunately no one was hit, and then fled.
		Law enforcement says they're not entirely sure this was a politically motivated attack, but I think that's kind of silly.
		I think we can make a safe assumption that it was.
		At the same time, there was a massive Antifa protest in Portland.
		Go figure, it happens all the time.
		And now one of the top trends in the United States is Antifa terrorists.
		I think the prospect of a civil war is a real one.
		And I'm not the only one.
		I may have been one of the earlier voices saying, be warned, it's possible.
		And of course, many people in the mainstream media were saying things like, Tim's being silly.
		Bill Maher then came out and said he was going to tone down his rhetoric because the prospect of a civil war is real.
		And while we haven't seen a whole lot of high-level street clashes, I think the reality is we have gotten substantially closer.
		If you look at what's going on with Donald Trump, the firing of the people in Washington, Sondland and the Vindman brothers, it seems like we are inching ever closer to an irreconcilable future.
		I just watched a video about the Civil War.
		I still have a lot more to learn and read, and of course, one source is never perfect.
		But I can see parallels between the government changing rules, changing ideologies, and the feeling that one side is either not being represented or being oppressed in some capacity.
		You have James Carville, the Democratic strategist, saying that 18% of the population is electing 52 of its senators.
		Bill Maher said the Electoral College is guaranteeing, you know, the Republican victory and the game is rigged in their favor.
		To a certain degree, there is some truth about the imbalance in a republic.
		The Democrats and people like Maher think they're talking about a direct democracy.
		But it doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong, or what should or shouldn't be.
		What I'm talking about is the prospect of a civil war, because two sides refuse to see the other.
		And I don't blame... It's an impossible thing to solve, I have to admit.
		You have people who gave a standing ovation to Alexander Vindman.
		You have others who think he was insubordinate, defying the president.
		There's no reconciling that difference.
		Some people just hate Trump so much they view him as a despot and a tyrant.
		Now, personally, I think that's insane.
		They're acting like they're saying on Twitter, we're at the heads on a pike phase of a dictatorship.
		You kidding me?
		Trump reassigned some people from the White House and you're acting like he's literally taking out his opponents.
		I think they've gone nuts.
		But it doesn't matter whether they're sane or not.
		What matters is that they are in stark opposition to what the government does.
		Then you also have Virginia.
		For those who haven't been paying attention, what's going on in Virginia is actually one of the scariest things in this country.
		As the Democratic-controlled state, now with the latest election, has begun very intense and sweeping gun reform, you have sanctuary counties popping up, all too reminiscent of what was going on.
		Seriously, read up on the first Civil War.
		And I think we're getting dangerously close.
		I think gun issues may be one of the catalysts, but it could just be ideology.
		You have a president that one side views as a literal dictator who can never be stopped, another side who sees him as being obstructed by either, you know, petulant children on the left who are sore losers or a deep state, whatever it is.
		Let's read this story and we'll come back to this.
		I don't want to, I don't want to bury the lead.
		I know you came here for this main story.
		From Kiro7, a van plows the Republican voter registration tent, narrowly missing volunteers.
		Jacksonville, Florida.
		The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office is reporting that a van drove through the Republican Party of Duval County's tent around 3.45 p.m.
		while volunteers were registering voters.
		The Republican Party of Duval County had six volunteers at the Kernan Village Shopping Center.
		An older brown van, driven by a white man in his early 20s, approached the tent, officials said.
		He then drove right through the table and tent with his van.
		The driver then stopped, got out of the van, took a video of the scene, flipped off the victims, and fled.
		As of now, the driver has not been identified.
		Investigators said that intelligence detectives will be looking to this as an aggravated assault case, as several people could have been seriously hurt.
		They do not know if the motivation of the driver was political in nature, as the investigation is just starting.
		We are outraged by this senseless act of violence toward our great volunteers, said Duval, GOP Chairman Dean Black.
		The Republican Party of Duval will not be intimidated by these cowards, and we will not be silenced.
		I call on every Republican in our great city to stand up, get involved, and show these radicals that we will not be intimidated from exercising our constitutional rights.
		The Republican Party of Duval County posted on Facebook that it plans to redouble its efforts to register voters.
		And I'll tell you what.
		If this guy was truly doing it because he hated Republicans, he just made a huge mistake.
		Because now regular people who probably aren't registered are getting up and saying, I'm going to.
		And it's things like this that embolden and empower the Republicans and Trump.
	But what do you think's going to happen when Trump does landslide this November?
	Assuming he does.
	Look, I know we all expect him to.
	But hubris is what cost Hillary Clinton the election.
	I think if we actually see moderates and independents overwhelmingly side with the Republicans and give Trump a major landslide, these Antifa types and these paranoid, delusional individuals, like these Antifa people, who literally think the world is ending, they really do.
	Look, you look at what Greta Thunberg and AOC are saying.
	They actually think the world is ending.
	Do you think they're going to sit around And just say, well, the world is ending, Trump won, more and more people are joining the fascists, and I'll do nothing.
	They're already violent.
	What do you think comes next?
	The issue for me is that, you know, when I talk to a lot of people about this, and I have in the past, they say, Tim, civil war will never happen because what you're talking about is low-level skirmishes between, like, rival political factions or whatever.
	And the U.S.
	government is too strong and will never allow it.
	Is it?
	Is Donald Trump firing people?
	Is the U.S.
	government investigating itself?
	Yes, that's the scary thing.
	That there are people in the U.S.
	government who have been plotting, who have been committing crimes.
	And I'm not entirely confident the U.S.
	government can unify Now, as of right now, it mostly is.
	The political feuds within D.C.
	are troublesome.
	But Matt Taibbi, renowned journalist, pretty lefty guy, pretty lefty to say the least, wrote about how we're getting dangerously close to the counting heads phase of a civil war, and he's seen it.
	And I think he's right.
	Now, I don't have as much experience as he does with international conflict when it comes to civil war.
	The point he made was that it doesn't matter if the federal government is able to stop street violence like this.
	What matters is that when Donald Trump is being opposed by people working in the intelligence community, which he is.
	These are the people who filed the whistleblower complaint accusing him of wrongdoing.
	That was actually not true.
	We saw the partisan impeachment in which he was accused of no crimes.
	You see Nancy Pelosi shredding up his speech.
	There's no real attempt at reconciliation.
	So here's what the potential is.
	Someone within the executive branch defies the president, two cars zoom out from near the White House towards the D.C.
	local police, and both at the same time point to the officer or the sheriff or the captain or the chief and instruct them, arrest that man.
	That's what's scary.
	Who does local law enforcement side with?
	In most instances, it'll probably be the president.
	But it's really about who gets there first and who the target is.
	This is what Matt Taibbi was writing about.
	Counting heads.
	When Donald Trump starts looking to who is loyal to him, and he starts removing those who are disloyal, and the other side starts panicking, they're now accusing Donald Trump of committing a crime for reassigning the Vindman brothers and Gordon Sondland.
	And there's no real, simple way to talk about this.
	We've had people say, I've seen comments.
	Why was Alexander Vindman's brother also reassigned?
	And I think it's actually a really, really simple and obvious reason.
	But it doesn't really matter.
	What matters is that that perspective will be weaponized.
	Right now, many people on the left are saying Trump is retaliating against family.
	He is trying to show you that if you defy him, you will be removed.
	Oh, please.
	You serve at the pleasure of the president, right?
	They don't care.
	They don't see it that way.
	The entire impeachment process was, you know, at least in the beginning, arguing that Trump was supposed to operate as to what a low-level staffer on the NSC had to say.
	Not true at all.
	The president is the leader of the executive branch.
	He's the commander-in-chief.
	Just because some low-level NSC advisor says, here's what you should say, doesn't mean he has to.
	But they think the president does have to.
	Take a look at the impeachment.
	Congress said Trump obstructed Congress.
	Trump did not.
	Trump has executive privilege.
	It's called checks and balances.
	The Supreme Court should resolve the dispute.
	It's how the country was formed.
	But the Democrats don't care.
	They view themselves as having the right to supersede the executive branch.
	That's not how it works.
	There's no reconciliation.
	There's no resolution.
	Because right now the left is saying, Trump got away with it.
	And there's nothing that can stop him.
	The rhetoric is escalating.
	The panic is getting worse.
	And then we see more things like this.
	So, I'll tell you what.
	I'm not super concerned for what it means that a man in a van ran through a tent.
	I'm very worried about the people who are doing these things.
	You know, the voter registration people.
	I'm concerned for their health and safety.
	This is one moment.
	It scares people.
	We don't know when or what the catalyst will be.
	But I'll tell you this, it's not a fringe position to be concerned about the escalation towards a civil war.
	And I implore you, you really should read about what started the civil war here and in Spain.
	Because there are a lot of common themes and it really does feel like we're marching in that direction.
	Bill Maher, one of the most popular and mainstream personalities in politics, said the same thing on more than one occasion.
	We are getting dangerously close, and I really do think so.
	But I don't think it can be stopped.
	You know, Bill Maher called Steve Bannon evil the other night.
	I'm not kidding.
	Steve Bannon said, look what they're doing to Bernie, look what they're doing to Trump, look at the media.
	You need to learn from this.
	At the end of it, Bill Maher said, I wish we had someone as evil as you.
	And while there is some air of civility in that, like it's kind of joking, a lot of people really do view it as evil.
	I assure you, there is no convincing many Trump supporters that Adam Schiff was acting nobly to go after the president the way he did.
	And personally, I don't think he was.
	I think it was a partisan attempt at seizing power.
	But it doesn't matter what we think.
	What matters is that there are millions of people who think that the only person trying to stop the evil tyrant is Adam Schiff.
	They have this perspective on strategy that literally makes no sense.
	They think that Nancy Pelosi ripping up that speech was a good thing.
	It doesn't matter what actually happens.
	It matters they think it worked, even though it doesn't.
	From my perspective, policy-wise, I'm a bit of a moderate.
	More on the populist side, so like Trump or Bernie are preferable to the elites.
	But I look at, you know, Trump as being the president, as this is how elections go.
	The left doesn't see it that way, and they won't change their minds.
	Everything they hear is orange man bad.
	One of the most terrifying functions, or I should say escalations in whatever's happening, is how the media is making everything worse on purpose.
	Now they'll get mad at me for saying that, you know, Trump is the president.
	He's allowed to do these things.
	Calm down.
	It's not that bad.
	They'll say I'm right wing for the things that I say.
	But let me make one thing very, very clear.
	I am actually desperately trying to hold things together.
	And the reality is Trump is the president and he's not really doing anything that's worse than many other presidents.
	There's a lot of things the executive branch needs to be pulled back on.
	I can absolutely respect that.
	But what I'm seeing from the left, from Democrats, is it's chaotic, it's destructive.
	The party itself is being torn apart.
	You have the moderates at war with the progressives, accusing each other of cheating.
	At a certain point, it might not have anything to do with Donald Trump.
	As I stated a couple days ago, in 2021, When people are rioting in the streets, it's not necessarily going to be because Donald Trump was re-elected.
	It's going to be because Bernie Sanders was cheated for a second time.
	The Civil War is not so much about left and right, but a collapse of political cohesion.
	I think one of the things we might see after watching this video on the Civil War is that Donald Trump wins, and he wins by a lot.
	I could be wrong about this.
	I'm not trying to make a hard prediction.
	I'm just telling you based on what we have right now, here's what I think.
	Donald Trump wins.
	He wins by a lot.
	Moderate voters flock to Trump as the Democrats fall into chaos.
	Pete Buttigieg has been accused of hiring shadow ink to help him steal the election.
	Precinct captains across Iowa are reporting their results are wrong.
	What the IDP and the DNC are reporting, it's wrong.
	It doesn't reflect the actual votes.
	Dare I say it, it seems like, at least from their perspective, from the perspective of these individuals, The Democrats' establishment are cheating once again.
	So what do you think happens when, once again, Bernie Sanders doesn't get the nomination?
	I think a lot of people are going to see the chaos in Iowa.
	Fears of this repeating itself in Nevada, maybe even New Hampshire, are bubbling over right now.
	A lot of people are happy with the economy, and a lot of people are going to vote for Trump.
	And I've already heard some of the rhetoric bubbling up.
	You know what they're saying?
	I was told that I need to understand.
	Everything Trump is doing with the economy reflects perfectly World War II Germany.
	Trump is securing the borders.
	He's all about nationalism.
	He's building up the military.
	He's bolstering the economy, getting people really, really excited and rally behind him.
	And then those people flock to vote for him.
	As the Democratic Party collapses, you then see the Republican Party under Donald Trump become a super majority, maybe even getting 70 or 80 million votes because nobody wants either Biden or Bernie.
	Whatever happens, you'll end up with tens of millions of people who feel oppressed, like their voice doesn't matter.
	They're already blaming the Electoral College, saying the system is corrupt and it's rigged against them.
	What do you think these people do?
	I'll show you what they do.
	Because here's the next story.
	Andy Ngo tweeted out this video.
	Video recorded by Antifa writer Shane Burley shows the mob harassing, assaulting, and pepper-spraying local citizen journalist Brandon Brown.
	Brown was attacked and robbed by Antifa militants for recording them in Olympia in December.
	Right now, Antifa terrorists is a top trend on Twitter, because a lot of people are pointing out that these roving bands of black-clad individuals beat people and robbed them, and you can see it right here, like they're doing to this man, like they did to Andy Ngo.
	But a lot of people champion Antifa, especially in the media.
	They have repeatedly tried to run cover for them.
	Now, I don't know if that will bolster their ranks, but here's what I kind of feel like might happen.
	The media cheered for Antifa over and over again and lied.
	They claimed that Vashiva in Boston, an Indian man, okay, and his supporters holding up signs saying Black Lives Matter too.
	They claim that was a Nazi rally.
	I'm not exaggerating.
	That was in Boston.
	40,000 people showed up to protest.
	These kinds of media lies, championing Antifa and their extremist tactics, will result in a large group of young people absolutely believing that Antifa are the good guys fighting the fascistic system.
	They absolutely think there are Nazi rallies happening all around them.
	There aren't.
	But what happens when you completely marginalize a large portion of progressive voters, the ones who actually defend and root for Antifa and excuse their bad behavior?
	When Donald Trump wins over the moderates, and I believe he likely will, again, these are just my thoughts based on current events, okay?
	If you watch this a month from now, things could be very, very different based on what we're seeing with a van plowing through a Republican voter registration tent.
	It seems to me that many of these progressive voters and people on the left will view the system as corrupt.
	They already do.
	The Democratic establishment would rather give Trump a victory than allow Bernie Sanders ever the possibility of revolution.
	Bernie Sanders calls it the revolution.
	And how does the saying go?
	Those that make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
	And that's a mantra that many of these people actually live by.
	I'm not saying they're going to win.
	But I'm saying we will start seeing an escalation of political violence to a degree you are not prepared for.
	And you would be terrified by.
	I don't know if we'll actually see a real civil war.
	But watching these historical videos was kind of eye-opening.
	One of the key factors that I saw when I was learning about the Spanish Civil War and the American Civil War was this phenomenon where you had two distinct ideological factions that were constantly doing a tit-for-tat back and forth over what's fair.
	We're definitely seeing it.
	Absolutely.
	Especially with the Second Amendment.
	You've got, I mean, you look at Donald Trump right now and the impeachment and the scandals.
	What's happening in Washington has little to do with policy.
	What's happening right now has nothing to do with policy.
	And I'm probably a really great example of that.
	Which brings me to my greatest fear.
	We're in it.
	I said this several years ago.
	They might write in 50 to 100 years, because hindsight is 20-20.
	The Second American Civil War began, you know, September 17th, 2011.
	Occupy Wall Street.
	I don't know.
	We might not realize that we're in it, because history is condensed when we read about it.
	We see, you know, on this date, this thing happened.
	And then they say, on this date, this thing happened.
	And there could be a six-month gap in between.
	But I think, based on the fact that the fight in Washington and in politics has almost nothing to do with policy.
	We have opened the door.
	We are going, the roller coaster has already apexed and we are heading down.
	Or perhaps I should say, we are climbing to the top.
	The roller coaster is moving and there's no getting off this ride.
	But let me break that down.
	Let me explain this.
	If the issue were policy-based, to an extent it is, but for the most part was, if they said, I do not like that you want to tax cut these things, you know, you want to put tax cuts in these areas, we need more public funding, we'd have a discussion about it.
	See, I tend to be in favor of social programs.
	I do think it's fair to concede in some areas to those I disagree with, because I believe in compromise, you know, to live peacefully.
	And I also think that government programs can become bloated and corrupt and need to be cleaned out every so often, but I actually do like these ideas.
	I actually am concerned about some of the policies of Donald Trump pertaining to foreign policy, as well as, you know, the ever-increasing debt, plus the things we're seeing from the Fed can be a little worrying.
	No one's talking about those things for the most part.
	The conversations being had are whether or not Trump is an evil dictator, or he's not an evil dictator, he's the God Emperor of the United States.
	That says to me, the battle has nothing, nothing to do with the way the country is being run.
	It has to do with how much each side hates each other.
	That's why someone will plow a car through a tent.
	They don't care what you believe.
	They don't care what your policy ideas are.
	They care.
	About their tribe winning.
	And that's when we get to a point we can't come back from.
	My policy positions lean left in many ways.
	In fact, I begrudgingly am for the Second Amendment.
	Begrudgingly!
	And I've talked about this.
	I used to actually talk about how I think there's compromise in gun control and that we should have certain, you know, regulations and rules.
	And then people pointed out the Constitution is for everybody.
	And it was a good argument.
	It really, really was.
	And so I said, okay, I agree.
	The first step is amending the Constitution.
	Likely not going to happen, especially on 2A, but I can accept that I don't rule the world.
	So I can be certainly upset, and I, you know, I shrug and I say, I'm not the most powerful man, nobody is, and the government was created to keep a balance.
	I like my First Amendment, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and I respect the 2nd in many ways.
	So, that's where my position fell.
	We have to have some kind of guiding principles to keep us unified.
	And if that means I lose some battles and win some others, I'm actually happy.
	I respect that.
	We're not having these conversations anymore.
	Now, certainly, you know, Virginia could be a catalyst, and that is policy-based.
	But for the most part, the anger that will rile up people to find themselves in the street has nothing to do with policy.
	It has to do with whether or not the other side is virtuous or evil.
	On one side, they say Antifa are the great defenders of freedom.
	They run articles about it.
	Now, you see many people on Twitter and social media saying Antifa are just terrorists who beat and oppress people.
	Donald Trump is the evil orange man, or he's the god emperor.
	He's either a criminal who's committing crimes over and over and over and over again, or he's the savior of America fighting the deep state.
	I know those are extreme positions, but that's the point.
	Certainly there are some people who grumble and say, oh, you know, I don't like how Trump did this thing.
	And certainly there are, you know, conservatives who say, hey, you know, Trump's policy on here has really worked out well.
	There are still many Americans talking about policy arguments But many people are becoming disillusioned with the system as a whole, believing that there is no chance to succeed.
	There is no way for their ideas to be heard.
	And that's where it starts to get dangerous.
	And I think this is why you can see the perspective of Bill Maher in believing a civil war is possible.
	Nay, likely.
	When he told Steve Bannon, one, you're evil, and two, the game is rigged against us.
	And then says civil war is possible.
	He's right.
	Not because it's gonna be started by one side or the other.
	Not that he's predicting that.
	But that many people on the progressive left see the Democrats sort of cheating them.
	Taking away their possibility of having their voice heard.
	And seeing no alternative to the evil of Donald Trump.
	What do they do?
	They plow a car through a registration tent.
	They scream violent threats.
	They attack people in the street.
	And that's just the beginning.
	When this starts to reach the level of the federal government is when the roller coaster hit that apex and we start going downhill faster and faster with no end in sight.
	Like I said, Matt Taibbi mentioned the counting heads phase.
	But the better depiction is this.
	Let me just wrap this up.
	Right now, you have low-tier violence over the past few years and an escalation towards street combat.
	I warned there could be a civil war.
	Don't know if it's going to be absolutely likely.
	Maybe something happens.
	There's always new variables.
	And I had people say to me over and over and over again, Tim, it'll never happen because the federal government won't allow it.
	Donald Trump is firing people.
	We've seen the text between Page and Strzok.
	We've seen the fake Pfizer reports.
	The phony Pfizer warrants.
	You think this government is unified in the executive branch to actually go after these people.
	They are not.
	Now Bill Barr has changed some rules.
	Durham is doing his investigation.
	But what do you think happens when the left says those people are Trump cronies who are evil?
	And they are corrupt just the same as Trump.
	And they view every action as the encroachment of fascism.
	There are people in the government who agree with them.
	Perhaps why Donald Trump fired some of them.
	I don't know what's going to happen.
	I don't know the answer.
	But when it comes down to this, we've seen the street violence.
	Many shrugged it off.
	I wasn't looking at an escalation of street violence.
	People were so, I don't know, small-minded when it came to these issues.
	They're thinking the Proud Boys versus Antifa is meaningless.
	They're just fringe factions fighting each other.
	I wasn't concerned that we would see a million Proud Boys fighting a million Antifa.
	Not at all.
	I was concerned about this ideological split infecting our institutions.
	Now we have Vindman.
	We have the impeachment.
	It was totally political.
	No crimes committed.
	They just want to get rid of Trump by any means necessary.
	And Trump resisted.
	Who's right?
	Depends on where you're standing.
	For me, I think the president has a right to do a lot of things.
	And I don't think he's been necessarily worse than many other presidents, aside from his behavior, because when it comes to foreign policy, I'll be as critical as I am of him as of Obama in a lot of ways.
	Drone strikes, for instance.
	But I'm not surprised the president does this, and I don't think the solution is to burn it to the ground.
	But when you have, what, maybe 10 million progressives who demand their voice be heard, but also believe insane things that we would never agree with, There's no solution.
	There's no negotiating with Antifa.
	There's no telling them why they're wrong.
	And they will say the same to you.
	And when that point comes to government, that's when we start counting heads.
	That's when people make that demand.
	Arrest this man.
	The firing of Vindman should be very, very terrifying for all of you.
	Not because he should or should not have been fired, but the fact that we're at this point.
	He testified against Trump.
	They're now accusing Trump of retaliating against a witness.
	I think there's a big difference between An insubordinate employee and retaliation against a witness.
	They say that his brother should not have been fired, but the simple reason is they're family members who share secrets and talk and there's a potential conflict of interest there.
	So maybe reassigning them was appropriate.
	Doesn't matter though.
	Literally doesn't matter.
	There will be no end to the claims that Trump is evil or has broken the law.
	It will never stop.
	On social media, we can't even say a certain name of the person involved.
	But the Republicans are investigating.
	They're going to call these people as witnesses most likely.
	And now the Democrats are claiming Trump has won because of the cronies in the Senate elected by 18% of the population and is now using this power to seek political dirt on all of his Democratic rivals.
	That Mitch McConnell, Lindsey and Lindsey Graham are digging up in papers Do you think this ends with them sitting on their hands saying, it's fine we give up?
	branches to dig up dirt on political rivals and damage their campaigns so that the Republicans
	can guarantee their victory when only 18% elected them in the first place, as Bill Maher
	said.
	The game is rigged, and now the Republicans are cheating, they say.
	Do you think this ends with them sitting on their hands saying, it's fine, we give up?
	It's fine, we'll wait again?
	Or do you think when we hear what Project Veritas released with Bernie Sanders' campaign
	staffer saying nightmarish things about putting Republicans in camps, do you think we finally
	reach that point soon.
	We can't tell.
	Hindsight is 20-20.
	I wish I could predict the future.
	Sometimes I look back and think, just, it was so obvious this would happen.
	Why couldn't we see it?
	Because there are just too many branching forks in front of us.
	We don't know which path we'll end up going down.
	But I think the recipe is here.
	I think the ingredients are here.
	And I think we've opened the door, we've gotten on this ride, and we've gone up.
	My final thought.
	The fight in Washington has nothing to do with policy.
	One side says Trump is evil, one side says he's the savior.
	That should be enough for the rest of you to understand what I'm trying to say.
	There is no arguing whether someone is not evil or is.
	You can't argue it because there's nothing to literally argue.
	It's a subjective moral question based on either 10 years of lies or 10 years of truth.
	So if the media told you all of this insane nonsense, and we know a lot of it was fake news, The Intercept, for instance, has an article about 30 different times the media put out information accusing Trump and then had to retract it a day later.
	No matter how many times these stories come out, the lie travels halfway around the world before the truth straps on his boots.
	That could be true for any faction, but all that matters is the paranoid fracturing in reality exists.
	Trump is either an evil mafioso who can't be removed.
	You've got people saying Trump might not leave office.
	They're warning it.
	Bette Midler thinks a joke is real.
	Donald Trump is saying he'll never leave.
	What do you think they're going to do when Trump wins again?
	Maybe it all just blows over.
	Maybe we've faced more trying times in the past.
	Maybe I'm overreacting.
	I don't know.
	Check out some of these Civil War videos.
	You'll see the parallels.
	And if history has taught us anything, it's that those who forget it are doomed to repeat it.
	And those... Yes, we have to learn from the past in order to avoid these things.
	So I'll leave it there.
	But I'll leave you with one final thought.
	A man just drove a van through a voter registration tent, jumped out filming, flipped him off, and fled.
	I think it's common.
	I don't know in what form.
	We're in the digital era.
	It could be very different.
	We have an international community that could be more involved.
	We have major corporations.
	But it seems like Facebook might be taking the side of Trump.
	So what happens then when Trump wins and unifies most of America against an ever-increasingly radical faction?
	I gotta do one more.
	I know I keep saying one more, but think about this.
	If Antifa is just a fringe group of wackos, and Trump does landslide heavily and win a bunch of moderates, and starts using law enforcement to go after these violent terrorists, some people have said that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
	If you've watched Star Trek, for instance, Data asks Picard about it.
	I know maybe many of you don't care about Star Trek, but he brings up a point about how many rebellious factions have used these tactics to great victory.
	What happens when Trump's law enforcement goes out, we start seeing heavy-handed videos and propaganda, people become convinced that Trump is doing wrong, and Antifa uses that to recruit and expand and destabilize everything?
	I'll leave it there.
	Stick around.
	Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
	I'll see you all then.
	At this point, I can only assume that Nancy Pelosi absolutely regrets her decision to tear up Donald Trump's State of the Union speech because it has backfired miserably against the Democrats.
	Right now, there's a huge fight going on because Donald Trump posted a video of the various highlights in his speech and Nancy Pelosi then tearing up the speech.
	Pelosi herself tried to force Facebook and Twitter to take down the video.
	And so did many allies in the media for the Democrats.
	They failed.
	Twitter and Facebook said, absolutely not.
	You did this.
	The story is actually kind of sad for the Democrats, but there's a lot of other things that have happened.
	And I know I mentioned these, but I think it bears repeating.
	Democrats calling in a cease ban, saying they're quitting the party.
	Two Democrats in Congress confronting Pelosi, saying it was the wrong thing to do.
	But the big story is the fact that they have lost the fight with media.
	But I want to highlight something here.
	I definitely want to go through the sequence of events and the backfiring of Pelosi.
	I want to mention something else.
	Did you know that Pelosi actually pre-ripped the pages?
	She didn't plan it well in advance like a week before, but she did prepare to rip the pages before she even knew what was in Trump's speech.
	Naturally, many people are now calling her out saying, she's lying when she said she tore it up because it was full of lies.
	She didn't even know what was in it.
	Presumably.
	But I want to show you something.
	Right now, all of these people on the left are calling for Facebook and Twitter to ban what they call misleading content.
	Yet they do the exact same thing.
	It shows us something very important.
	All of these calls for banning hate speech and changing the rules had literally nothing to do with principle It had to do with their political power, and I believe I can show you a perfect example.
	You may have seen that tweet, that photo of Donald Trump going viral with his orange face.
	I'm going to show you exactly how the media is trying to manipulate you and your perception of Trump while simultaneously claiming that Trump is doing it to Pelosi, when in fact, Trump posted a campaign ad.
	It was a highlight reel.
	They were making an example of what she was tearing up.
	They call that fake.
	Meanwhile, the media literally manipulates you, and I got the proof right here.
	But first, let's get started with what's going on between Pelosi That is not true.
	Anybody who saw the video knows that they showed Pelosi ripping up the speech over and over and over again.
	That's just called a campaign ad.
	as if Speaker Nancy Pelosi were ripping a copy of President Trump's State of the Union
	address while he honored a Tuskegee airman and military families.
	That is not true.
	Anybody who saw the video knows that they showed Pelosi ripping up the speech over and
	over and over again.
	That's just called a campaign ad.
	They're making a point, but they're trying to make it seem like this was only done to
	show the one instance.
	No.
	The way the video worked was Trump would say something, then it would show Pelosi rip the speech.
	Trump would say something again, Pelosi would rip the speech.
	Obviously people don't think she was ripping up the speech over and over again as if she was given multiple copies of it.
	But that's the first thing the New York Times is doing to manipulate the narrative.
	But let's read the story.
	Before we dive in, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
	There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, the best thing you can do, share this video.
	Not that I think we could probably succeed in breaking echo chambers at this point, but at the very least, sharing this video does help my channel grow.
	So outside of donations, you know, That's the best thing you can do, I suppose.
	Otherwise, you know, just feel free not to.
	I don't think it matters that much.
	But there is a part of me that hopes some people who have not heard or seen this will actually entertain the idea of watching it.
	Though it might not change their mind, at least they'll know what some of us think about what happened and what's currently going on.
	Let's read the story from the New York Times.
	They report, Facebook and Twitter have rejected a request by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to remove a video posted by President Trump that was edited to make it appear as though she were ripping a copy of his State of the Union address as he honored a Tuskegee airman and other guests.
	Full stop, and I'll say it again.
	No, it wasn't.
	They say it was edited to make it appear.
	No, it was edited to accent, to show what it was she was tearing up because the White House made that point.
	After Pelosi torped the speech, The White House tweeted she tore up the airmen, she tore up the service members' families, etc.
	They made a video showing that.
	Not definitively, like, not trying to trick anybody into thinking the timeline was out of order.
	But this New York Times story is pretty nuts.
	Let's read.
	The decision highlighted the tension between critics who want social media platforms to crack down on the spread of misinformation, and others who argue that political speech should be given wide latitude, even if it's deceptive or false.
	Except this wasn't deceptive or false.
	The debate has accelerated during the 2020 presidential campaign, as Democrats in Congress have demanded that Facebook and other tech companies take tougher action, while figures on the right have fought back, arguing that such policing could muzzle conservative viewpoints.
	Into that highly politicized environment came the video posted by Mr. Trump to his Twitter account on Thursday.
	Notice how they say Mr. Trump instead of like President Trump or something?
	The roughly five-minute clip shows Pelosi repeatedly ripping his speech between snippets of him paying tribute to the airman Charles McGee, as well as other guests he had invited to the State of the Union, including military families.
	In fact, Ms.
	Pelosi ripped a copy of Mr. Trump's speech immediately after his address to Congress on Tuesday.
	Repeatedly ripping it up.
	Are you trying to imply that Trump thought he was going to pull the wool over someone's eyes into making them believe she had a stack of copies of his speech that she was just going through one at a time?
	Nobody thinks that's what happened.
	Everybody knows what happened.
	Even Democrats, even the congressmen who confronted her and told her it was wrong.
	It's called a campaign ad.
	Calm down.
	So here's the State of the Union timeline.
	They show various clips.
	Then they show when she actually made the tear.
	You know what?
	I'm gonna say it.
	Perhaps the reality is that readers of the New York Times aren't smart enough to know what the video was supposed to be or what it is.
	I guess for me, as somebody who grew up on the internet, I understand what an edit is.
	I've also seen many campaign ads that do things like this.
	I think perhaps the New York Times really does feel that the people who read the New York Times aren't smart enough to recognize that, so they have to actually draw out the timeline to explain it to you.
	Drew Hamill, Mrs. Pelosi's deputy chief of staff on Friday, demanded the video be removed.
	The American people know that the president has no qualms about lying to them, but it is a shame to see Twitter and Facebook sources of news for millions do the same.
	The latest fake video of Speaker Pelosi is deliberately designed to mislead and lie to the American people.
	And every day that these platforms refuse to take it down is another reminder that they care more about the shareholders' interests than the public's interests, he wrote.
	Both companies rejected the request.
	I want to point this out.
	The Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, are directly lobbying a social media company to remove protected political speech.
	Now protected as in First Amendment, not necessarily as in on those corporate platforms.
	But as we're learning now, these companies are saying, no, it's a real video.
	Welcome to politics.
	Excuse me.
	Andy Stone, a Facebook spokesman, responded to Mr. Hamill on Twitter, writing,
	Sorry, are you suggesting the president didn't make those remarks and the speaker didn't rip the speech?
	Mr. Hamill shot back at Mr. Stone, writing, What planet are you living on?
	This is deceptively altered. Take it down.
	You see, the standard of what is deceptively altered keeps getting wider and wider.
	We're now in the territory where the Washington Post took a campaign ad from Elise Stefanik.
	I believe it was Elise Stefanik.
	I'm not sure.
	And it showed... No, no, no.
	I'm sorry.
	I think it may have been Donald Trump.
	It showed a graphic.
	It showed an image of Pelosi or some other Democrat.
	And it was texturized, like an artistic rendering.
	And they said it was a manipulated photo.
	Uh, yeah, we've all seen these commercials before.
	The standard is getting crazy.
	They never cared about protecting elections.
	They just want to win.
	And now we're at a point where a regular old campaign ad showing you what Pelosi did is considered to be misleading or deceptive.
	On Saturday, Mr. Stone said that the video did not violate Facebook's policy on manipulated media.
	The policy states in part that Facebook will remove videos that have been edited or synthesized in ways that aren't apparent to an average person and would likely mislead someone into thinking that a subject of the video said words that they did not actually say.
	In the case of the video posted by Mr. Trump, the reason I was making the point about the fact that the things featured in this video actually happened is because that's a key element of our policy on content like this, Mr. Stone wrote.
	A Twitter spokeswoman, Lindsey McCallum, wrote on Saturday that beginning on March 5th, the company would start applying labels that read manipulated media on heavily edited videos like Mr. Trump's.
	I gotta stop right here.
	This is the most annoying thing in the world.
	Twitter keeps bending over backwards whenever these people— I'm sorry, social media companies— bend over backwards for this bad-faith, insane argument.
	How crazy is it that in order to try and win a fight Pelosi shouldn't have started in the first place, they're demanding these videos be taken down?
	Sorry, that's just not how things work.
	But it has worked that way in the past.
	YouTube has put my channel and many other channels on a blacklist.
	You ever try googling my channel?
	Guess what?
	It doesn't come up.
	And the same is true for many other people, and we don't really know why.
	We also learned that the algorithm funnels people who watch my videos to Fox News, which seems to make no sense, considering my opinions are actually to the left of many people on Fox News.
	Why would YouTube do this?
	Because whenever the media establishment and the Democrats demand they jump, they say, how high?
	Why would Twitter put manipulated media on a tweet from the president is completely insane.
	And that's not even the right phrasing.
	Manipulated?
	You mean it's just an ad?
	Well, here's the thing.
	I want to show you a few things.
	I want to talk about the backfiring.
	And I do have an example of how the media is lying to you.
	First, as I explained, already the framing of the story is that Trump was trying to deceive people and make it appear like she was ripping this at the wrong time.
	Oh, please stop.
	But check this out.
	The New York Post.
	Nancy Pelosi pre-ripped pages of Trump's State of the Union speech video shows.
	Not just that.
	Take a look at this.
	For those that are listening, the New York Post has posted this photo where they zoom in and they circled marks on the page before Trump even spoke.
	She had already pre-ripped the pages.
	So is it fair to say she pre-planned the whole thing?
	Not necessarily.
	But it is fair to say that before Trump finished, she was planning on standing up and tearing those pages apart.
	In fact, in the video, which the New York Post has, you can actually see Nancy Pelosi grab the pages, Bring them to her lap and actually tear them and you can see the tear when she puts them back.
	So I'll stop this when she puts it back.
	You can actually see she did tear the pages before Trump finished his speech.
	It was a horrible idea.
	And she's reaping what she has sown.
	But let me show you some of the backfire.
	This is a story from the New American.
	I actually covered this.
	I actually first found out about this from the actual C-SPAN clip.
	Pelosi's stunt backfires.
	Angry Dems call C-SPAN.
	Trump's Gallup rating rise.
	In the phone calls with C-SPAN, many callers straight up said that they will never vote Democrat.
	Again, you may have seen my video on it.
	Surprisingly got a ton of views.
	So I don't want to necessarily rehash everything, but for those that may have missed it, I'll just give you a quick quote.
	One caller said, I watched my president give a speech on everything great that's happening in our country, but yet Nancy Pelosi and the others, who were dressed in white, I might add, just sitting over there, never standing, never clapping for anything that might be good for the country.
	I don't understand it.
	I used to be a Democrat, and I am no longer a Democrat.
	Another man said he was a Democrat for 77 years.
	Another person, I'm sorry, former White House advisor Sebastian Gorka tweeted a few highlights.
	One outraged woman said her whole family has abandoned the party.
	I am a Democrat as well, but no longer will I vote Democrat.
	I think it's 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.
	And Pelosi, the whole time, she's sitting up there with a disgusting look on her face.
	It's outrageous.
	I will never vote Democrat again.
	And I'm sick of it.
	And my whole family feels the same way.
	The next thing that happened, two Democrats confronted Nancy Pelosi over her ripping of Donald Trump's speech, telling Speaker it was disrespectful and inappropriate.
	Congratulations, Nancy.
	You have gotten exactly what you asked for.
	It was a horrible, horrible plan, and I think it was a fit of rage.
	I don't think she planned it long in advance, I think she was just angry and said, aha, I'm gonna make Trump look bad.
	Tried to see if she could rip it, she could, and then tore it up, and now everyone's mad about it.
	The fact that they're desperately going to social media companies demanding the video be removed, to me is proof that they absolutely regret the decision.
	And the backfire here, at least aside from the fact Democrats are mad about quitting the party, is that Donald Trump has been able to weaponize the disrespect and the lack of decorum to his advantage.
	So I want to show you how the media manipulates you.
	Because I think I made my point with the article itself, how they're trying to frame it.
	Let's read their conclusion here.
	They end the article by saying, Facebook's decision not to remove the video came after it
	honored a request by Mrs. Pelosi's office and took down a video on Thursday that was doctored to make
	it appear as though she were swallowing Tide Pods.
	Jokes aren't allowed now either.
	The video, which was still posted on Twitter on Saturday, was apparently made by manipulating a 2018 video of Ms.
	Pelosi.
	Pelosi sampling chocolates on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.
	Facebook said the video violated a policy against showing people eating Tide Pods, which it created in 2018 after videos spread on social media encouraging people to bite down on the brightly colored laundry detergent packets.
	Did anyone really believe that Nancy Pelosi was eating Tide Pods?
	I'd have to say probably not.
	A couple maybe, but those people are probably unwell.
	You now can't even make jokes.
	I remember going back to the early 2010s when we saw auto-tune the news and they would show politicians singing and often mishmash quotes.
	Sorry, that's all now not allowed because it's manipulated media for politics or an election.
	That's nuts.
	Here's the best example of the lack of principle when it comes to the demands made on social media companies.
	The controversy over journalist Sarah Jeong joining the New York Times explained, says Vox.
	Let me just explain to you what it was.
	For years, the left and the Democrats demanded that social media companies take down or ban certain content.
	Well, they did.
	But what happened when Sarah Jong made the same violations, when she posted racist content for years?
	They did nothing.
	They gave her a job at the New York Times.
	There was no principle.
	Nancy Pelosi doesn't care that Trump is, you know, that Trump... She doesn't care about the manipulation.
	She cares that it makes her look bad.
	That's it.
	They do the exact same thing.
	They all do it.
	But it brings me now to the great manipulation I saw the other day, and it's one of the easiest examples to show you how the media is tricking you into making you think false things about the president.
	And this, in my opinion, is manipulation of the political system.
	But, guess what?
	The media can do it, and it's hard to actually fight against.
	I bring you now to this hilarious story from BuzzFeed News.
	The photographer who took that unflattering photo of Trump said it wasn't photoshopped.
	I want to go back in time.
	It's a 2016 debate.
	I bring this up a lot because it's important.
	Donald Trump said Hillary Clinton acid-washed her server.
	And I believe it was NBC who fact-checked him and made a little graphic that said, false.
	Hillary Clinton did not use a corrosive chemical on her server.
	Now that is insane.
	As if anyone thought that's what Trump actually meant.
	But take a look at this.
	The funny thing about this story is that apparently Donald Trump claimed the photo was photoshopped.
	That's the story going around.
	The story says, this was photoshopped, obviously.
	Donald Trump blasts photographer for edited image, showing him with an unflattering fake tan line, but still boasts, the hair looks good.
	You see, the media is now pushing a narrative that Trump is lying because he's embarrassed about how silly he looked.
	I talked about this the other day on my second channel, and the point I made then was that Democrats seem to be obsessed with the most trivial nonsense.
	Instead of focusing on, like, healthcare or something, they created a number one U.S.
	trend dealing with the fact that Trump's got an orange face.
	Here's the point.
	The first thing that happened was that Donald Trump, or I'm sorry, this photo went viral.
	The photo is clearly manipulated through what's called saturation.
	In fact, the photographer admitted it.
	When Trump said photoshopped, he didn't literally mean that someone booted up Adobe Photoshop and entered this, you know, image into it and started editing it.
	Photoshop is a colloquial verb meaning manipulated.
	And the photographer admitted to it.
	But what they do now is take the president completely out of context so that you can't tell what he's actually talking about.
	So you think he's just a sensitive liar.
	And I'll tell you what I think the president was actually doing.
	Here's the actual tweet.
	Donald Trump said more fake news.
	This was photoshopped, obviously.
	But the wind was strong and the hair looks good.
	Anything to demean.
	The photo he was showing is black and white.
	I clearly manipulated.
	The contrast between the tan lines and the rest of his skin is clearly accentuated by the manipulation.
	First, Trump was talking about a black and white photo.
	That's what he quoted.
	We then see BuzzFeed show a different photo, one he didn't mention.
	We then see BuzzFeed say, the photographer who took that unflattering photo said it wasn't photoshopped.
	And then later on, they say that it was actually edited with some software.
	So let's read.
	The story says, a photo of Donald Trump walking across the South Lawn of the White House is being shared widely and cheekily after a tweet from the account photo White House went viral.
	The photo in the tweet shows the President's hair blowing in the wind with, um, questionable color lines on his face.
	It's unclear if the stark contrast of the coloring is a tan line or a result of poor makeup blending.
	Regardless, the photo caused immediate reactions on Twitter.
	Some even wondered if the photo is real and or is doctored in any way.
	The president responded on Saturday at around lunchtime, declaring the picture was photoshopped and the hair looks good.
	But the photographer William Moon, whose social media presence indicates he's a Trump supporter, told BuzzFeed News the photo was not photoshopped, but that he, quote, used the Apple smartphone's photo app to adjust the color of the picture.
	And there it is.
	Photoshopped, as we all know, basically just refers to the manipulation of an image.
	But now they're going to run a story, and many others do as well, saying that, no, no, you know, Trump is claiming it's photoshopped, but it's not.
	And then later on admitting, but it was color manipulated.
	So the photo was manipulated.
	When you look at the actual photos, like this one, BuzzFeed actually did a decent job of showing you the real context, and so I think it's, to a certain extent, fair that the title... I don't like that the title doesn't give you the better context of what's going on.
	Sometimes it's hard to do, so I can concede that point.
	Sometimes I'm guilty of that too, so I'll try not to be overly harsh.
	BuzzFeed then does show you, in the real photo, you can see the tan line on Trump's face, but it's not bright orange.
	The photo was clearly manipulated.
	Yet when you look at most media on the left, they make it seem like Trump is freaking out or that he's lying.
	That was the narrative I saw.
	That basically Trump highlighted the clearly manipulated image and many, many websites then showed this image instead, which isn't manipulated.
	You can see his tan lines.
	They even say, depending on natural lighting angles and camera, the orangey pigmentation on Trump's face appears more subtle and then more dramatic in some photos, which brings me back to this photo.
	The photos that were clearly saturated, meaning they wanted to highlight colors so it made Trump look worse, and they do this a lot.
	These are subtle manipulations.
	They're not necessarily designed to deceive you in the sense that they're tricking you into believing something about a policy.
	They're designed to undermine any kind of value or prestige or, I don't know, charisma the president might have.
	They want you to think he's lying to you when he says it was photoshopped.
	It clearly was based on the colloquial understanding of the word means he edited and manipulated the image so that it made Trump look bad.
	But what we get is a media that will twist what Trump is actually saying to make him look bad.
	We get a media that will on TV.
	Increase an orange hue so the president looks even more orange so that he looks silly to undermine him.
	Maybe it gets more clicks.
	I don't know.
	Maybe they just hate the guy.
	But that brings me back to what's going on with the New York Times.
	In their story about manipulated media, they misframe what Trump was trying to do.
	We know what Trump, and I believe it was Turning Point that made that video, they were trying to highlight what was being torn up in that speech.
	They then try making it seem like Trump is trying to trick you.
	The media did that.
	On an article talking about how Trump—like, it's entirely paradoxical.
	They say, Trump is tricking you, but they're tricking you, and Trump wasn't.
	That's how the game is played.
	So, all in all, I thought this was a good wrap-up of how tearing up the speech was a huge mistake for Pelosi, and that's why I thought it was the bigger issue to confront outside of just the media.
	But clearly, in their attempt to get the video pulled down, they must be panicking about how bad they all look when their own party is confronting the speaker.
	And these reports say it's extremely rare for freshman congressmen to do this.
	But yeah, Pelosi got confronted.
	People were saying this was wrong.
	But we know they don't really care.
	We know.
	That's the point.
	That's the point in highlighting the media, so I'll leave it there.
	We'll see how things turn out, but with Buttigieg being booed at a rally in New Hampshire, and the party in shambles, and huge mess-ups like this from Pelosi's end with Democrats quitting the party, I don't know what you want me to say.
	So, we'll see what happens.
	The next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
	at youtube.com slash timcastnews.
	It is a different channel and I will see you all there.
	About a week ago, AOC said Democrats must rally behind the nominee no matter who it is.
	The saying goes, Vote blue, no matter who.
	Never gonna happen.
	The factions are split to an absurd degree.
	Socialists won't vote for capitalists, and capitalists won't vote for socialists.
	These people are not the same party, they're Democrat in name only.
	But AOC is at least trying to say, just stop Trump, right?
	Here's the problem.
	At a recent event, Pete Buttigieg actually called for unity, saying we need to come together and defeat Trump.
	And you know what the response from the crowd was?
	Booing and chanting Wall Street Pete.
	These people are not Democrats in the traditional sense.
	They are progressives who have wildly different politics from Pete Buttigieg.
	They do not like, look, if you look at Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, the moderate Democrat types,
	the old crony establishment types, they share almost nothing with Bernie Sanders
	who wants free college.
	Well, I'm sorry, not free.
	Taxpayer-funded college.
	Taxpayer-funded healthcare.
	The problem with these systems is that you're essentially monopolizing all the power at once.
	But I digress.
	Do you think any of these people will turn on their core ideology?
	Of course they won't.
	We saw the data, I talked about it.
	Andrew Yang, 42% of his supporters will not support the Democrat.
	And then you can see from Bernie to other candidates, it's like 10, maybe even 30% when you include the people who say maybe they won't.
	Bernie Sanders' base is not democratic, okay?
	He's an independent.
	He's a socialist.
	Now, he has attracted a lot of progressive Democrats.
	But in the end, I don't think his people are going to want to vote for these corporate types, because they're looking for a revolution.
	And if they can't get it through the system, they'll get it through somewhere else.
	In the end, Vote Blue No Matter Who is just, it's just sad, it's tired, and it's not, it has no meaning.
	But let's read this story from the Washington Examiner about what exactly went down with Buttigieg getting booed.
	They report.
	Supporters of Bernie Sanders booed and shouted over Pete Buttigieg after the 2020 Democratic White House hopeful took a swing at their candidate.
	Buttigieg, 38, during his address at the storied New Hampshire Democratic Party McIntyre-Shaheen 100 Club event, ventured into a revised section of his stump speech debuted last week in Iowa, in which he dug at the Vermont Senator, 78, for his call for revolution.
	But the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana's rhetoric earned jeers of Wall Street Pete from those in the Socialist section of Manchester's Southern New Hampshire University arena, who gave the more center-left contender a frosty reception from the start.
	Supporters of the mayor countered with, we need Pete.
	New poll came out.
	Apparently they're saying that Buttigieg is surging.
	I find the whole thing preposterous.
	I seriously, I seriously have to admit.
	How are you going to go to New Hampshire, which is Bernie Sanders territory?
	I mean, he's a senator from Vermont, right?
	He's got a ton of support from New Hampshire.
	But Buttigieg is surging?
	So I'm hearing this now from some Twitter accounts, and I haven't been able to independently verify, so take it with a grain of salt.
	But apparently, in the Iowa caucus, they are acknowledging now hundreds of errors in math, thus proving the election is not sound, but saying, for the sake of the election's integrity, we must not change the results.
	Wait, wait, wait.
	I get what you're saying, kind of.
	But if they've proven the election was bunk, how are you defending the integrity of an election when you're claiming Buttigieg won through bad math?
	We saw all of these precinct captains for the DNC come out and say, the numbers are wrong.
	So of course, the polls will come out saying Buttigieg is in the lead, and then the crowds will actually boo him.
	Now, I get it.
	They were still chanting, we need Pete, the people supporting Buttigieg.
	The bigger picture here is that Bernie Sanders' own base is refusing, okay?
	They're jeering Buttigieg.
	At the same time, AOC, who is campaigning for Sanders, is saying we need to get behind whoever we can.
	Y'all should've learned your lesson in 2016.
	I know I did.
	I was furious when Bernie Sanders took all that sweet, juicy, green moolah, turned around, and said, VOTE HILLARY!
	Wow.
	Talk about a punch in the gut.
	Everything he's campaigning on has fallen apart.
	You know, I used to think Bernie Sanders was an honest guy.
	To a certain extent, I kind of feel like he still is, but I've lost faith in that for the most part.
	You look at his immigration policy.
	It's a 180 to where it was back when he was running in 2015 and 16.
	He's now talking about what amounts to various open borders type policies.
	The reason I say open borders type policies is that he's not calling for legislation that literally says dissolve the border.
	They're doing it one step at a time.
	They're saying decriminalize border crossings.
	They're saying moratorium on deportations, and now you have that New Way Forward Act that basically says you report people.
	I'm not kidding.
	That if someone's deported, you have to pay to bring them back to the United States, even if they came illegally in the first place.
	Literally makes no sense.
	But Bernie Sanders used to be openly opposed, heavily opposed to open borders.
	What happened?
	Bernie, like any other politician, is a politician.
	Surprise, surprise, he's lying like the rest of them.
	And I give no free pass to anybody, Trump or otherwise.
	It's what they do.
	I think Donald Trump doesn't have to lie, though.
	When it comes to Trump talking about the economy and immigration, he just says, that's what I'm gonna do because people polled and they cared about it, so he goes for it.
	Bernie Sanders is dealing with a fractured party that's booing one side, that's not going to rally, like, neither side's gonna defend each other come election time.
	So what does he do?
	He reaches for the lowest common denominator.
	When it came to Bernie Sanders' platform of government-funded college and government-funded healthcare, he knew the moderate base would never get behind it.
	So in order to rally as many activist voices as possible, he engaged with the woke intersectionality base.
	Thus, Bernie Sanders says, well, the people who are more interested in socialism are the open borders types.
	Sure enough, Bernie Sanders' position flip-flopped.
	Just like that.
	Pathetic.
	The worst thing of all, I must say though, was the endorsement of Hillary Clinton.
	If you thought this guy was bringing about the revolution, and you still do, I got a bridge to sell you, man.
	Bernie Sanders, you might praise him, you might like the guy, but come on.
	You know, spare me.
	The dude endorsed Hillary Clinton.
	He had no reason to do that.
	He got all this money.
	He said, the revolution is here.
	And then what happened?
	Well, as predicted, he didn't win.
	The DNC cheated, I get it.
	Then why would he turn around and endorse Hillary Clinton?
	It's mind-blowing to me that this guy has routinely been beaten down and insulted and smeared every step of the way, and he never puts up a fight.
	He's got some ad running on Reddit, I see it all the time, where he's like, the corporate media and the establishment are coming for us, stop Bernie.
	Just call out Hillary Clinton.
	She's now smeared you three times and you can't say anything back?
	Rashida Tlaib, for instance, who I believe supports Bernie, I'm not sure, booed Hillary Clinton and later apologized for it.
	Now that's bending the knee.
	As much as anyone doesn't, you know, may or may not want to admit it, the Democratic Party is absolutely controlled by Hillary Clinton.
	Well, she has tremendous influence within it.
	The fact that Bernie endorsed her Should show you that he's not standing on principle and integrity.
	He's standing on politics.
	That's it.
	But we gotta defeat Donald Trump.
	What?
	You and Trump agreed on a ton of stuff pertaining to immigration policy and trade policy.
	Even Donald Trump, apparently in this leaked audio tape, said he was worried if Clinton chose Bernie as her VP because Bernie's message was trade.
	And Donald Trump, his message was trade as well.
	If they could get something, you know, guaranteed, or felt a little safer with Bernie and Hillary, maybe people would have done it.
	Now, Trump did have a tremendous victory in 2016, but he did win some states by very thin margins.
	Trump knew it.
	And if you think Trump is playing the game right, then you must agree he was right to be concerned about Bernie's trade platform.
	Where's Bernie Sanders now?
	Embracing woke leftist ideology because that's his best path to the primary.
	Oh, you know what, dude?
	Tulsi Gabbard has taken smear after smear, hit after hit, for standing on principle.
	And no, she's not perfect.
	And no, she's not always right.
	But you gotta admit, at least she does what she actually thinks is right, regardless of what I or anyone else would think.
	I thought she should have voted no on impeachment.
	Instead, she voted present, rejecting both.
	I absolutely respect that.
	She doesn't agree with my position that impeachment should have been shot down, but she also doesn't agree with their position and says, I'm not going to play a game with either of you.
	And I say, you know what?
	I think that's fair.
	I don't, I don't, I think, you know, at least she's trying, but it's not so much about Tulsi as a viable candidate.
	It's about principle and integrity of which Bernie Sanders has none.
	Like every other politician, they will say what they need to say to get elected.
	And you know what?
	So is Pete Buttigieg.
	And so, so like it's, it's, it's all politicians.
	Let's read a little bit more from this story.
	They say Buttigieg also took a jab at former Vice President Joe Biden after the pair spent the day exchanging blows on the campaign trail.
	Delaware's former senator for 36 years delivered the first direct hit Saturday morning by releasing a digital ad painting Buttigieg as a small-town mayor.
	I mean, he is a small-town mayor.
	Some are asking what business does the mayor of South Bend have seeking the highest office of the land?
	Buttigieg indirectly responded.
	He added, Americans in small rural towns, in industrial communities, and yes, in pockets of our country's biggest cities, are tired of being reduced to a punchline by Washington politicians and ready for someone to take their voice to the American capital.
	Buttigieg, fresh off a better-than-expected finish in Iowa's Monday caucuses, after essentially tying with Sanders, is now a frontrunner for the New Hampshire's primary this Tuesday.
unidentified		I don't believe it, but sure.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Let's hit on this ad.
		Do you guys see it?
		It's actually kind of hilarious.
		It plays this like very serious and somber music where it's like Joe Biden worked with Obama on the restoring America and you know just like things I don't know the exact policies are talking about but they're like working to improve the lives of 55 million manufacturing you know workers in this country and then it changes to some like hokey music where it's like derp derp derp derp and it's like Pete Buttigieg revitalized the roads by layering them with bricks.
		And then it, like, says something great about Biden, like, working to end, you know, uh, Middle Eastern wars or whatever.
		And then it cuts to Buttigieg and it goes, Here's the thing.
		I saw a bunch of people saying that the ad was smart, almost Trumpian.
		I think Scott Adams said it, and like Will Chamberlain was saying it.
		I disagree.
		I humbly disagree, good sirs.
		I believe it was a serious miscalculation, and it was exactly in line with the crony nonsense establishment.
		Look, we know the President and the Vice President have very serious jobs.
		We know that the things they implement, the policies, the plans, will affect all of America.
		And it's fair to say that Pete Buttigieg doesn't necessarily have that national or international experience.
		But think about how they trivialize the problems of small-town America.
		These regions of the country where Buttigieg lives, he's winning the rural vote.
		He won the rural vote in Iowa.
		That's how he beat Sanders.
		Sanders won the urban vote.
		Buttigieg won more rural precincts.
		That's how he ended up squeaking past with 0.1%.
		Joe Biden thinks he's going to mock small-town America, and they're going to be happy with it?
		I humbly disagree.
		You know, I think it was Scott Adams, if I'm wrong.
		I apologize for roping you into this, and Will.
		But this is what Trump did right in 2016.
		He approached these people.
		He spoke to them and said, I'm here for you.
		These small towns are in decay.
		They're losing their jobs.
		The urban centers are growing and becoming, you know, it's becoming harder to live in these places.
		One of the reasons I left.
		But Trump went to small-town America.
		He talked to these people and said, I'm here for you, and these people have voices too.
		That's why it's important we have a republic and not a democracy.
		Now, of course, the Democrats complain it's a rigged system, but, heaven forbid, the overwhelming majority of the land in this country is not represented properly, and the resources they represent isn't represented properly.
		So, for me personally, What I saw from Biden when he attacked Buttigieg as a small town mayor was a grave miscalculation.
		How many people live in a small town?
		And how many of those people's greatest problem was their crumbling infrastructure?
		How many people live in a town of, you know, 10, 20,000 people?
		And some of those people joined the city council, showed up to meetings and said, we must fix our sidewalks.
		That's important to people.
		Not everyone is concerned about the war in the Middle East.
		Not everyone is concerned about these national level policies because they can't see them.
		But I'll tell you this.
		Most people are dealing with problems in their local communities.
		Now Bernie Sanders represents the urban elite.
		He really does.
		He represents the 8% of Americans in what we call the progressive activist base.
		They're overwhelmingly white.
		They tend to make more than $100,000 a year.
		They're college-educated.
		That is how Hillary Clinton lost.
		Buttigieg is playing it smart.
		I think he is.
		I gotta say, I think...
		I think there's a lot of cheating going on.
		I don't necessarily believe that he is or should be the nominee, but I think he's playing it smarter than the rest of them.
		Going back to what I just said, he won those rural areas, right?
		I want you to think about and reflect upon your daily life and the issues that affect you.
		I know most of us are very online people, so the problems we see tend to be very national level.
		But if you talk to your parents, if you talk to your neighbors, there's probably a concern about some local policy and how it affects you.
		And Pete Buttigieg dealt with those policies, which means he's more relatable to small-town America.
		He's gonna keep winning these places.
	And now we'll throw it all the way back.
	I was surprised and almost refused to believe that Bernie could fall back in terms of support in New Hampshire.
	That's Bernie territory, right?
	I still don't believe it necessarily, but I think a good argument is that New Hampshire and Vermont—I'd be surprised if Buttigieg pulls forward in Vermont, to be honest, but New Hampshire at least—these are not overwhelmingly urban areas.
	These are small-town states.
	The populations are small.
	They're very spread out.
	Their cities aren't very big.
	And so these people probably, Buttigieg's experience resonates with them.
	Biden did this campaign ad, which in my opinion was actually good for Buttigieg.
	Mocking the small town experience of so many Americans is what Hillary Clinton did to lose.
	She said, we're going to get rid of certain jobs, coal jobs.
	That sent shockwaves through the energy sector.
	People who work in small towns that are already in decay.
	There are some small towns I've been looking at, you know, exploring, you know, trying to find a place where you could potentially open up a property for really cheap for studio production stuff that doesn't need to be in a big city.
	I really like the idea of revitalizing small towns.
	And I've done a lot of research in some of these towns, and guess what?
	In many of these small towns, and I say small as in like a few thousand people in rural areas, it was the collapse of the energy industry that caused them harm.
	So when people like Hillary Clinton say, we're going to get rid of coal mining jobs, thinking it didn't matter, because there's very few as it is.
	But when you say that, and you talk about climate change the way Tom Steyer does and many other people, the small town working class, and yes, Democrats, are scared.
	We're already losing jobs.
	If these energy sector jobs go away, we lose our town, our economy dries up.
	So these elites have made a grave tactical mistake.
	So maybe I'm misunderstanding what Scott or Will were saying about this ad.
	But you talk about a populist versus elitist message and Joe Biden hit the nail on the head with being the snooty elitist mean person.
	I'll keep my language tempered.
	Buttigieg comes from a small town working with regular Americans on issues they feel that affect them every single day.
	Revitalizing a Midwestern Rust Belt town is going to win over people in the Rust Belt.
	And they don't get it.
	I think back to Michael Moore in 2016 when he said that, you know, these jobs were extracted and a vote for Donald Trump will be the biggest F.U.
	ever given because they legislated away all these jobs and these plants.
	Now you get small-town Rust Belt mayor who revitalized his town and says, I know you in the Midwest, I'm here for you and I'm going to give you that.
	Trump won some of these Rust Belt states barely by a small fraction.
	So Buttigieg represents something truly powerful.
	The rural working class Democrats who don't like Trump's attitude.
	So I'll tell you this.
	In the end, it doesn't matter.
	I think there's something powerful that could be a huge threat to Republicans in Buttigieg, especially as he rises in the ranks, be it through cheating or otherwise.
	But unfortunately for him, it won't matter when the Sanders sect refuses to get behind him, and they boo him.
	They're literally booing him.
	We'll see what happens.
	Stick around.
	Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
	at youtube.com slash timcast, and I will see you all there.
	Earlier today, I did a segment talking about the potential for civil war.
	One of the things I talked about was that when it comes to Donald Trump's reelection, you will see moderate voters jump to the Republican side out of fear of the woke far left and the frailty of the Democratic Party.
	They can't run their own elections properly.
	They're booing each other.
	Bernie won't stand up for himself.
	But now we're seeing another rather interesting story, which suggests this alliance might actually be bolstered by Well, actual far leftists.
	The issue then becomes, when you have a massive coalition behind Trump and a small faction of radicals and extremists, those radicals and extremists can foment full-on conflict and actually use propaganda and the response from the government to rally more people to their side.
	It's hard to know exactly how it will play out, but you don't need necessarily a 50-50 split for there to be a certain kind of civil war.
	There can be mass civil unrest.
	The story now from the Washington Post, conservatives find unlikely ally in fighting transgender rights?
	Radical feminists, first of all.
	I love how they're framing this.
	Fighting transgender rights.
	As if that's what most conservatives are actually looking for.
	That's certainly not how conservatives would frame what they're doing, nor would the radical feminists.
	But if you add moderates, radical feminists, and conservatives, guess what?
	You have the overwhelming majority of the American public against you on this issue.
	So naturally, they have to frame it this way.
	But I don't want to focus necessarily on the potential for civil war.
	I was just highlighting this because we are seeing unlikely allies.
	Certainly the woke, intersectional, far-left types are upset about it, but it's bad news for them.
	Now, some might say this spells their doom because the majority of Americans are uniting against whatever fringe ideology this is, but it actually suggests to me that these extremists who go around committing extreme acts We'll actually just get emboldened by the fact that the radfems are joining the conservatives and they're going to draw parallels to World War II just like I was saying.
	It's actually one of the best examples of unlikely allies teaming up with conservatives to win on whatever ground they can.
	Let's read the story.
	The Washington Post, well, I don't want to say reports.
	Purports.
	She introduced herself to a room full of conservative lawmakers as a bisexual woman, a longtime political progressive, and the leader of a radical feminist organization.
	Listening to Natasha chart through a Skype call, well more than a dozen South Dakota state representatives, most of them Republican, considering a bill to criminalize medical treatments for transgender children.
	Quote, Doctors shouldn't help kids take out their sadness and anger on the only bodies we could ever had, she said in her testimony to South Dakota's House State Affairs Committee on January 22nd.
	Please vote yes to forbid the sterilization of these young people.
	The Women's Liberation Front is part of a long-running strain of feminism that rejects the existence of transgender identity.
	These fringe activists argue that advancement in transgender rights will come at the expense of women's rights and threaten the safety and sanctity of women-only spaces.
	They say women are defined not by their gender identity, but by their biology and by having survived girlhood.
	The truth is always closer to the middle.
	In this sentence, leaning a little bit more towards these radical feminists.
	I understand the argument about why your identity is rooted in your biology.
	Here's what you gotta do.
	Go to a room in an office, tell everyone to line up from tallest to shortest, and guess what you see?
	Women are mostly on the short side, men are mostly on the tall side, because men tend to be taller.
	It's just averages.
	Now it's not universal, it's not always going to be that way, it's not absolute.
	It's a tendency.
	And that means there are going to be many women who grew up in a world, biological women, who are smaller and weaker than more than, well, than around half of the country, around half of the population.
	And that's going to grant them a very different perspective.
	So I understand that argument.
	Well, but let's read on.
	Mainstream progressives have long shunned the organization, calling it a discriminatory right-wing group disguised as feminist.
	But the Women's Liberation Front, also known as WOLF, has found an increasingly influential platform by teaming up with conservatives who disagree with their support of abortion rights and the reproductive sovereignty of women.
	Wolf's leaders have become frequent guests on Tucker Carlson Tonight and at Heritage Foundation events.
	The group received a $15,000 grant from the Alliance Defending Freedom to help fund a legal fight against the Obama administration over transgender bathroom policies.
	It also filed an amicus brief in one of the most consequential Supreme Court cases of the year, arguing that sex-based discrimination protections in the workplace should not apply to transgender people.
	Now, WOLF is even helping shape legislation in places like South Dakota, which last month became the first state to advance a wave of state bills nationwide banning medical interventions for transgender youth.
	Kara Dansky, a WOLF board member from the district, plans to travel to South Dakota on Monday to testify in favor of the bill in a Senate committee hearing.
	Now, my personal opinion, as someone who leans slightly left, even on social issues, is that some of these bills are a bit, in my opinion, too sweeping.
	The ones I commented on before were, they said that anyone under the age of 18.
	I think there's a big difference between someone telling a pre-pubescent child they're trans, trying to convince them they are, or not letting these kids develop past puberty.
	And the reason why this is so important is that desistance rates can be from anywhere from 65% to 94%, depending on which studies you read.
	And that happens after puberty, which means if you've got a 7 or 8 year old, I understand the legislation.
	It actually kind of makes sense based on the studies.
	If you have a 16 or 17 year old, it kind of doesn't because these are people who are not desisting.
	And the studies also show that people who do transition overwhelmingly accept the new identity.
	They maintain that identity.
	They do not desist.
	It's the youth we're concerned about.
	My opinion on all of this is you live the way you want to live, you do what you want to do, so long as you're an informed, consenting adult.
	Now, I understand that someone who is potentially 14 to 17 is not legally an adult, but that's where I think it's important to have certain leeway in the law, for instance.
	We have these laws that say, you know, like, an 18-year-old can't—anybody above the age of 18 can't be in an adult relationship with someone under 18.
	Well, that makes sense to a certain degree, but what about a 17 and an 18-year-old?
	What about a 19 and a 17-year-old?
	What about an 18-year-old and a 16-year-old?
	I mean, I get it.
	Like, when I was that age, You really don't relate a lot to people who are like, if you're 18 with a 16-year-old.
	But there's a big difference, right?
	Like, if you're 18 and you have a 17-year-old girlfriend, we call the leeway in these laws and these special provisions, Romeo and Juliet provisions.
	Meaning, we're not going to accuse you of being a predator because you and your girlfriend, literally in the same grade in high school, are several months apart so you turned 18 before she did, right?
	And that's where I think it makes sense when we talk about these issues.
	If someone is 17 years old and they're adamant they want this treatment, it makes sense.
	If someone is 7 years old, I think that is where things start to get muddy.
	One thing I mentioned in the last segment I did on this, What's got a lot of people angry is that not every medical procedure we deemed to be medically necessary at the time has persisted into today.
	We've actually banned many medical procedures as being, well, just inhumane.
	Even though some of them may have been marginally effective and maybe helped some people, we still get rid of a lot of these things.
	It's about the risk.
	And the Wolf Organization makes an interesting point, that it's the only body we have, and sometimes, I think very often, these kids are sterilized.
	The bigger issue at play, though, that I want to get to as we wrap this segment up, is more about the alliance between feminists and conservatives, which I find absolutely fascinating, because these are the old-school feminists, not the intersectional types.
	Emboldened by the Trump administration and a conservative majority in the Supreme Court, Republican politicians across the country have made transgender issues, particularly those affecting trans children, a key target for 2020.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	It's not about being emboldened.
	It's about knowing that the majority of Americans do not agree with what most of these people are doing.
	When you have radical feminists, many of them socialists, joining with the likes of Ben Shapiro, I'm not kidding, to do a segment on why they oppose these things, I gotta tell you, you got a big coalition in opposition.
	And that means Republicans know they're going to broaden their base by tackling important issues.
	You better pay attention.
	They say, and Chart and other radical feminists are helping to bolster their message, creating the perception of bipartisan support in a polarizing social debate.
	Creating the perception?
	I mean, that's literal bipartisan support.
	Sorry.
	Rhea Tabak Omar, Director of the Women's Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, called the partnership a false alliance that seeks to divide the LGBTQ community as well as progressives.
	Well, I'm sorry to say, the radical feminists have chosen to do this of their own volition.
	They have a legitimate point of view that you could argue.
	I'm not saying their view makes anyone else's illegitimate.
	I'm saying they have an argument.
	You've got to address that argument.
	They have found allies who will help them push forward And we see it all the time in politics.
	It's funny because in Europe, where many of these progressives say the multi-party parliamentary systems are better, you often see groups forming coalitions to pass certain legislation.
	It makes sense.
	In this instance, there's a feminist group, a conservative group, they align on certain issues, they're advancing it.
	They disagree on a lot of other things.
	More importantly, I'll wrap this segment up.
	I try to keep these short.
	What I want to highlight with this is what, I mean, it's, you get it, okay?
	When feminists and conservatives unite, this should be a warning.
	Red flashing lights to these radical, not radical, but to the intersectional left and to the Democratic Party.
	You are losing large portions of your own base to conservatives because the issues you're adopting are fringe.
	Yet Warren soldiers on.
	Elizabeth Warren pushes these insane issues.
	I want to highlight this because I think it's an example of what's going to happen after the election in November.
	I'm willing to bet you will absolutely see radical feminists waving Trump flags and that is something to behold.
	Trump flags.
	I'm not kidding.
	Okay, okay, maybe I'm exaggerating a little bit, right?
	Because Trump's made his statement about women, and feminists don't like him, but I think they're willing to, as Bill Maher said, take it from the mouth of a werewolf, I think that's what he said, if it means getting what they need done, done.
	And the Republicans and Trump are fighting for what they're fighting for, too.
	If they want to protect what they perceive as threats to their rights, the only person offering that up is Donald Trump.
	We'll see what happens.
	Stick around, next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
	Jordan Peterson is not doing so well, and I gotta admit, I'm pretty worried for the guy.
	I think he's a cool dude.
	I wish him the best.
	I wish his family the best.
	I hope he recovers.
	The latest update is that he's in Russia trying to undergo a rapid detox.
	It's a certain procedure they wouldn't do here.
	It's my understanding.
	I could be wrong.
	But he's trying to get off benzos, which I know very little about.
	Apparently, it had to do with a food allergy.
	He got prescribed this.
	He then went on, you know, some all-beef diet.
	I don't know a whole lot.
	But I'm not here to criticize the decisions of individuals when they have... Look, I think the all-beef diet is strange.
	I wouldn't do it.
	In fact, I only... I typically don't eat beef.
	Uh, for a lot of reasons, but the real reason, mainly, I just, it kind of makes me sick.
	But I do have these really cool, like, exotic jerky things that have beef in them.
	That tends to be fine for me.
	But I typically try to just do fish, and everybody has their preferences.
	But Jordan Peterson is being ridiculed and insulted by the woke left.
	They're insulting him, and it is, it's downright terrifying what these people think and what they want.
	And heaven forbid they ever get any power.
	I have no problem criticizing Peterson for certain things that I don't agree with.
	But he's been nothing but civil and cordial for the most part, literally to everybody.
	They just hate him so much.
	I want to read you this story from the post-millennial.
	Social justice lunatics celebrate Jordan Peterson's struggles.
	That to me is terrifying.
	Look, I just did a segment talking about Rush Limbaugh and his lung cancer, and how I've never been a big fan of the guy.
	Not really followed him, to be honest, but there's certain things I've seen from him I'm not a fan of, but I would never wish ill or harm on people.
	Especially someone like Jordan Peterson, who's such a tepid, like, lukewarm kind of dude.
	And I mean that respectfully!
	He's not a bombastic guy.
	He doesn't come out and shriek and yell and wave, he's very calm.
	So I've actually been fascinated by what makes Peterson so prominent.
	I mean this, he does these YouTube seminars, he speaks, and people really seem to love this guy.
	One thing I've said in the past is that I feel like he gives young men this mission, he gives them a sense of promise, responsibility, purpose, right?
	I can understand that.
	But one thing I find truly fascinating is that I have several pretty lefty friends who are fans of Jordan Peterson.
	I'm not exaggerating.
	And that was surprising to me.
	I think what we're about to read with these people ragging on Peterson represent a fringe, psychotic faction of people that tend to dominate the narrative.
	One thing I've also been surprised by is that I've had progressives and moderate Democrats actually reach out to me praising me.
	And I'm not exaggerating about this.
	What I mean to say is, often I get messages from supportive moderates.
	It's fairly typical, actually.
	But I've actually spoken with some socialists, democratic socialist types, who have actually told me that they respect my opinions and my approach to everything, and I was profoundly grateful.
	I was surprised.
	I think there's one really important reality happening, and it's that, or one really, there's something important happening.
	When you see things like this, people wishing harm and hate and pain on someone like Jordan Peterson, You'll notice that even progressives, some people even saying, I don't want to be a part of this anymore.
	What is this?
	Look, I've known many people who are very, you know, hardcore activists, and I've seen them give it all up because they realize the hate, the fire that burns around them and how awful it really is.
	You don't have to change what you want to be.
	Like, let's say you really do believe in, you know, woke intersectional feminism.
	I got no problem, so long as you're not an authoritarian who wishes harm and pain and suffering on others.
	We're trying to make the world a better place.
	And I found those people actually exist across the board.
	One of the most profound things that ever happened to me was when I interviewed a full-on communist wearing, like, you know, communist garb and everything, mask and all that, telling me that Antifa was making them look bad and said they shouldn't be gone hitting people.
	That's like authoritarianism.
	And I was like, wow!
	Shake your hand, man.
	I don't care what you believe, as long as you're not violent and oppressing others.
	But these people are terrifying.
	Let's read.
	The Millennial writes, Jordan B. Peterson's personal troubles are celebrated by his detractors.
	After his daughter, Michaela Peterson, opened up about the difficulties her father faced during this past year, a torrent of ill wishes were released to social media.
	A data scientist, engineer, and social justice activist had this to say.
	Do I think he deserves sympathy, despite him not extending it to others?
	No.
	She said, Do I think Jordan Peterson deserves a pass on his bigotry because he's suffering?
	No.
	But do I think he deserves dignity despite the situation being a product of his views that he profits from?
	No.
	But do I think he deserves sympathy despite him not extending it to others?
	Also no.
	That's just not real.
	It's not reality.
	These are nasty, vile people.
	And if you find yourself aligned with them, I want you to look in the mirror and ask yourself why you want to be so nasty.
	So just evil.
	I think about what it means to be truly evil.
	And for me, you know, and I think to an extent looking at kind of D&D, it's almost just like hurting others for no real reason.
	Did Jordan Peterson really suffer from the product of his own views?
	No.
	He was prescribed benzos and developed a physical dependency.
	It happens to many people, many good people, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with asking for help.
	We are social beings.
	We create rehab and detox for a reason.
	Just because you were prescribed a medication and became addicted to, it's not about your character.
	In fact, The willingness to do the right thing to save yourself and improve yourself shows more character than not.
	Admitting you are wrong, asking for help shows that you have confidence in yourself.
	This person truly terrifies me.
	Because even if someone was a nasty person, I would still try to extend sympathy for one simple reason.
	I've stated it before, that if someone does wrong, I will offer up to them an opportunity to do right.
	Otherwise, their only option is to drift in the wrong direction continually.
	People got mad at me that I said, you know what?
	Joey Salads, famous YouTuber, did that really horrible thing with that video.
	He got caught, and at first I was angry, but I decided, you know what?
	I'm going to give the guy a second chance.
	Otherwise, what's the alternative?
	If people don't give him the opportunity to join back in with the rest of society, then the only option he has is to drift into the shadows.
	And the same is true with someone like Carlos Maza.
	And boy do people get mad about that too.
	I'm not a fan of the guy.
	I think he's wrong.
	I think he's kinda nasty.
unidentified		But, hey.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We'll see what happens.
		I'd like him to do the right thing.
		I'd like him to have a chance to see what it's really like to be independent and struggle when the media is targeting you.
		And maybe he won't experience that.
		But, what can I say?
		Pencils have erasers, and you at least give a second chance.
		Maybe not more than that.
		Of course, already, I'm sure people are, you know, already angry about me either bringing up Joey Salads or bringing up Carlos Maza.
		And then they point to me and call me the stupid milk-toast fence-eater who needs to pick a side and point the finger and scream at someone.
		I'll tell you this.
		These people, absolutely I would give them an opportunity to apologize, and if they did, I would appreciate it.
		I would say thank you.
		But these are the people who never back down.
		These people tweet these things all the time.
		It's not just this one moment, they do this all the time.
		And still, if they decided to change, I'd say okay.
		So that's what I would ask for right now.
		Jordan Peterson spoke his views to try and help people.
		And he did.
		It's why his book sold so well.
		It's why his message resonates with people.
		They're doing better because of it.
		They wouldn't come back if it was making their lives worse.
		So why wish pain and suffering?
		I mean, on anyone, really.
		When it comes to, like, the worst of society, criminals, and, like, the worst ones, I still wouldn't wish pain and suffering on them because it doesn't solve anything.
		You know what's interesting?
		I remember seeing this viral clip.
		There was a man who I think he was, like, a serial killer or something.
		And he ended up killing a young woman.
		Everyone who came to speak about the pain he caused insulted him, and called him the worst things in the world, and said, you're a disgusting, vile monster, and he sat there stone-faced.
		Until finally a man came up, and I'll tell you this.
		Google search the story, because I'm probably butchering it, but this is the general idea.
		A man came up and he said, I forgive you.
		And that was the gist of it.
		He says, I can't hold this hatred in me.
		And all of a sudden, this evil, this evil man broke down in tears, crying.
		It's crazy.
		I don't know why.
		I don't know if it matters.
		I don't know if you care.
		But to me, it says... There's so much of this world that people don't seem to realize is counterintuitive.
		Solving the problem of... You don't like Jordan Peterson, okay, right?
		Let's say you don't like him.
		The answer isn't to wish pain and suffering on his family.
		Well, that'll make him double down.
		The answer is to invite them over for a drink, to have a conversation and figure out where you break from, you know, like where you disagree.
		But too often we see people who would rather have that cathartic release, that symbol of taking down something they don't like.
		They never stop to think about who Jordan is as a person, what he's trying to do, and how he could be mischaracterized by his enemies, or how he could maybe just be wrong.
		And he's said he's wrong in the past.
		It's one of the reasons I have tremendous respect for the guy.
		When he was asked a question by Jim Jefferies about civil rights, Peterson just simply said, maybe I was wrong about that.
		Respectable, absolutely.
		But too many people don't want to extend the opportunity to, you know, an olive branch.
		If there's someone you don't like, you don't win by insulting and smearing them and wishing them harm.
		This person says, but wait a second, I thought an all-meat diet and toxic masculinity was a key to a happy life.
		See, he never said that.
		He never... Look, I think the all-meat diet, the carnivore diet, not for me.
		I think it's kind of... I think it's bad.
		And based on what I've read, I've seen some people have tremendous successes with it in certain areas, but if he wants to eat whatever he wants to eat, man, you go do it.
		But when did he ever say anything about toxic masculinity?
		And I'll wrap up with this, because, you know, this was going to be a five-hour long video if I just don't... just stop.
		What they're saying right there shows exactly what's wrong with this fringe element of the left.
		I think this is going to drive people away from them.
	I thought toxic masculinity was a very specific subset and that feminists weren't criticizing masculinity.
	Huh.
	Then why is it that Jordan Peterson, who is trying to stop toxic masculinity, is accused of promoting it?
	Because these people have no principles.
	They're simply tribalists who want to jump on the bandwagon.
	They hate So there are many people that I've found who are progressive or even socialist.
	Dare I say one, that communist, that was nuts.
	We all agree, freedom, individual liberties, you know, to an extent.
	I'd imagine seeing this, seeing the paradox and seeing the rage and the hatred is gonna drive many people away.
	And it's probably why they're breaking up a little bit.
	If you find yourself being surrounded by these people, you know, again, like I said, look in the mirror.
	Maybe you found yourself marching with Antifa.
	I get it.
	That's fine.
	In many circumstances, I really do get it.
	Because as much as it's not often highlighted, and I've tried to bring it up periodically, Antifa has actually gone out and targeted, you know, fringe, far-right, or like, you know, neo-Nazi groups.
	You want to protest that?
	I get it.
	And actually, my friends and I have actually covered some of these protests against legitimate fascists.
	The problem is when you see these hate-filled people just screaming at the top of their lungs like an old lady in Berkeley.
	And that's when you've got to stop and realize, maybe you're on the side of the baddies, the hate, the vile, vitriolic behavior that just brings pain and suffering.
	You might not like Jordan Peterson, but you'll never win by doing this.
	And to everybody on the right, that goes the same for the people on the left.
	When you, you know, the things people have said about many progressive commentators, I'm like, hey man, I'll say the same about someone on the left as I will on the right.
	If you approach them as an enemy and insult them, you are never going to actually win an argument.
	You know, there's got to be some space.
	Maybe I'm just a stupid milquetoast offensive or whatever.
	I don't know.
	Look, I wish Jordan Peterson the best.
	I'm sad to hear this.
	I really was moved when I saw that video from his daughter, concerned for his health and safety, and I hope he has a recovery.
	But more importantly, whatever happens, I hope he can find peace, relaxation, recovery, with the ones he cares about.
	Whether he can come back to the public life is less important.
	So perhaps instead of just trying to kick a man when he's down, they could say nothing, and just hope maybe Jordan Peterson retires.
	Instead, they want to make sure they make everyone feel pain.
	I don't get it.
	I'll leave it there.
	I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
	The results are in.
	Birds of Prey is bombing at the box office.
	Bad.
	But it is a comic book movie.
	The budget wasn't super huge.
	I don't know how much they paid for marketing, so they'll probably end up making some money after the international release.
	Spoiler alert though, okay?
	If for some reason you're a masochist and you want to see a terrible movie that will cause you nothing but pain and you cringe so hard your face will contort, it will hurt, then by all means turn off this video now because there's gonna be a lot of spoilers in this.
	This movie was a dumpster fire of complete trash.
	And now it holds the title of the worst opening in the DC Universe.
	And it's actually, it's really simple why.
	Now you've been warned on the spoilers.
	But Ewan McGregor did everything in his power to make sure nobody would go see this movie come release time by saying but two words.
	That's all it took.
	Ewan McGregor said Birds of Prey was a feminist film.
	And there it was.
	The hammer had dropped and many people said, no thank you.
	Before the movie came out, pre-sale tickets were released.
	And I checked my local theater and sure enough, none had been sold.
	I got the idea because I saw an article saying that pre-sale tickets just weren't selling at any theaters.
	Cosmic Book News, I think it was, went and looked at a bunch of different theaters in a bunch of different metropolitan areas and found pre-sale tickets just weren't going.
	I don't know why.
	Because based off the marketing, it's hard to know whether it's gonna be good or bad.
	I will admit, my buddy said that Birds of Prey looked like a straight-to-DVD film.
	And it really did feel like it.
	I have no idea how their budget was 90 million dollars.
	So the movie was complete trash.
	And I think the feminist film thing kind of gets at exactly what the problem was.
	You can make a feminist film.
	I think a real feminist film would be like Wonder Woman.
	And what does that mean?
	Well, you have a woman as a character, very powerful, wanting to end war, standard motivation for any regular human that's generalist.
	You want to attract a wide audience with a fanciful tale.
	You must stop the war.
	Simple!
	Save the world, right?
	It's a very simple motivation.
	However, in the film, they had some of these moments where it was World War I, and, you know, Wonder Woman is like, she's a woman, so they're like, you know, why is a woman in here?
	Things like that.
	And those are real things that happened, and we totally get it.
	And it turns out she's powerful, so it's really, really funny when they, like, criticize her, and she's actually, like, I don't know, basically a demigod.
	Movie was great.
	She fights the evil god, and she wins, and the war doesn't end, and she comes to a realization.
	There you go.
	Birds of Prey.
	DC film.
	The worst so far.
	It was an awful movie, I do not recommend it.
	The motivation of these characters is basically about how men are bad.
	I'm not kidding.
	Harley Quinn's motivation.
	The Joker broke up with her, and so now she's upset and needs to, like, find herself.
	Basically some, like, chick flick, like, I don't know, eat prey love, but with violence.
	Then you have the female cop.
	Her motivation.
	She was up for a promotion, but it went to a man who didn't deserve it.
	Eye roll.
	Like, how many people actually experience that?
	I'm sure there's many, but not even most women experience that.
	Not even like a strong majority, or a slight majority.
	It's gonna be like a slim minority of women who actually experience this.
	And then make it worse, the cop who's now in charge, who shouldn't have gotten the promotion, gives away her case to a man.
	Eye roll again.
	There was a fight scene where Black Canary is getting her hair in her face, so Harley Quinn offers her a hair tie.
	It's hard to know who this movie was made for, because it's like, made for children, but rated R. Like, I have no idea what their plan was.
	The way I described it on my TeamCastEyeRoll podcast was basically like, if somebody dressed up like Harley Quinn, and then filmed a bunch of TikTok clips, and then edited them all together, you'd be like, is this a movie somehow?
	But now we get to the best part.
	Why did the movie fail?
	Well, it really was the marketing, and I do think it was because Ewan McGregor called it a feminist film.
	Because how could someone... Like, how could the movie... How could people just know the movie was bad?
	This is a big problem with movies in general.
	They say... I remember Pirates of the Caribbean, right?
	Remember that film?
	Long time ago.
	Great movie, I love it.
	They then did the next film, Dead Man's Chest, and it got a massive opening, you know, weekend or whatever, and made a ton of money.
	They then said, this proves the movie is good.
	No.
	It proves the other movie is good.
	It proves the original Pirates was a good movie.
	Dead Man's Chest was pretty bad, in my opinion.
	I hated it.
	But now I think about why this movie did bad.
	First, Suicide Squad did bad.
	So people already had a rather negative view about what this was gonna be.
	The commercials looked bad.
	And then they called it a feminist film, and that immediately turned off any hardcore comic
	book fan.
	Because as you know, the culture war involves a tiny fraction of feminists trying to change
	comic books, I guess to attract a wider audience, but pissing off the core fanbase who actually
	wants to buy the product.
	But now we get to the good ol' fun.
	I would like to take some personal credit for why this movie did bad.
	Because after, on Friday, my buddy and I did like a 35 minute breakdown of everything we
	just absolutely found miserable in this film, and I think that video we did has like 100,000
	views.
	So obviously I'm being a bit facetious, I don't think everyone in the world watched
	my video, but I think a lot of people probably watched it and said, yeah, I'm definitely
	not going to see this.
	Spoiler alert, it's about to get fun.
	Cosmic Book News reports Trump fans should avoid birds of prey.
	Now, not really.
	It's kind of a joke.
	But yeah.
	Let me read.
	As if one more reason was needed to not see birds of prey, which is currently tanking at the box office, the movie takes a jab at President Donald Trump, of course.
	Spoilers follow.
	For whatever reason, Aussie actress Margot Robbie, who stars and is a producer on the flick, along with Chinese-American director Cathy Yan and Warner Brothers, explained the reason the villain of the movie, the gay black mask, played by Scottish actor Ewan McGregor, hates and wants to kill Harley Quinn is, get this, Because she voted for Bernie Sanders.
	Now, to be fair, it was one of the motivations.
	I kid you not.
	She says the bad guy because every man in the film is evil.
	Like, literally every single man.
	There's one guy who I guess you could argue isn't evil, but he's like a whiny, pathetic dude who gets like 10 seconds of screen time.
	The movie goes over a list of reasons why various bad guys don't like Harley, who are all after her now that she broke up with the Joker and isn't under his protection.
	So when Black Mask finds out Harley is no longer under the protection of the Joker, he orders his men to bring Harley to him.
	When Black Mask confronts Harley, she goes over a list of reasons why the Black Mask hates her and wants to kill her, with one reason being that Black Mask hates the fact that Harley voted for Bernie Sanders.
	I didn't think you could make a more cringey part of a film.
	I mean, first of all, the film makes no sense.
	Like, straight up.
	There's nothing that they're doing has, like, makes any sense at all.
	And I was shocked to see many reviews saying the film had a coherent plot, because it doesn't.
	Literally makes no sense.
	Like, the movie starts with her trying to get a sandwich, and then it ends with her getting the sandwich.
	I guess it was supposed to be a joke.
	But it really does feel, like I'm not exaggerating when I say this, someone strung together a bunch of random clips that have nothing to do with each other.
	Like, there's one scene where a bomb goes through a window, and her hyena runs to the bomb.
	I have no idea why the hyena would do that, and then it blows up.
	And then she's like, oh no, my hyena, Brucie.
	And at the end of the film, the hyena's back and she goes, oh, there he is.
	It's like, wait.
	I kid you not.
	She's like, oh, there he is.
	He was outside.
	What?
	What was the point of the bomb scene?
	Like, I don't even understand what this movie is.
	Okay, let's read.
	The footage doesn't name-drop Trump specifically, but obviously it insinuates that Black Mask gets so enraged about Harley voting for Bernie Sanders that he gets to the point of wanting to kill her, so Black Mask must be a Trump supporter.
	Well, I don't know about that.
	I think Cosmic Book News is stretching it a little bit.
	Apparently, they gave a statement to The Wrap where they said it was just like an inside joke, kind of, when they were trying to go over reasons why Black Mask hated her.
	The first was that she had a vagina.
	Not kidding.
	I'm dead serious.
	So, I guess they also made Victor Zaz gay?
	I don't know if he was.
	But apparently, like, a bunch of LGBTQ community, like, websites are outraged that they got representation, but as, like, psychopathic serial killer murderers?
	They're not happy about it?
	They ended up not getting, like, a real heroic character for whatever?
	I don't know.
	Look, man.
	You gotta reckon.
	Oh, you know what?
	I'm just gonna read this.
	What's odd is that the previous Suicide Squad movie showed Harley Quinn in jail, so I suppose we have to guess that Harley wasn't in jail yet when she voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential primary.
	Harley Quinn isn't known for being political in the comics, as far as I know, so this all comes off a bit forced and odd.
	Worth a mention is that while promoting the movie in the interviews, Ewan McGregor, who has been accused of cheating on his wife with Birds of Prey co-star Mary Elizabeth Winston, said, whoa, really?
	That's crazy.
	Has said Black Mask and the movie is all about misogyny and being a feminist film.
	Ugh, cringe.
	There's like a scene where for no reason he tells a woman like he forces her to get on a table and like forces a guy to rip her dress off with a knife.
	It's just so cartoon like it's it's not even fair to call it cartoon villain-esque because cartoon villains are silly and chaotic.
	This guy was just... motivationless.
	And then they do this really annoying thing where Harley's like,
	You're not really that complex, I know your motivation.
	And then she basically just outlines it, and I'm like, Are you really playing it that way?
	Like, instead of giving the character a real motivation, explaining Black Mask in any capacity,
	they literally just have Harley Quinn go, Here's what you're really doing, and then he goes,
	Arr, you figured me out. And I'm like, You can't just tell the audience.
	Could you imagine if like all movies were like that?
	Where it's like Batman shows up and the villain goes, so you're seeking revenge against crime.
	An intangible concept because a man took out your parents and you went on a training mission and became very strong to fight the injustice and fight for the weak.
	Ha!
	You're so predictable, Batman.
	It's kind of like, okay.
	You literally just tell the audience with dialogue instead of just showing and showing the story?
	That's the reason we go to movies.
	To watch a thing.
	Right?
	To watch.
	Could you imagine if you went to the movies and it was this?
	Like you're watching now?
	Like imagine if Birds of Prey was... They show the screen and there's a face in the corner going... So basically Harley Quinn is like, you know, one, two, and it's just like explaining everything.
	I kid you not.
	They actually do that in the beginning of the movie.
	Not with the face in the corner, but it opens with her just telling her life story.
	And explaining where she is.
	And it's the weirdest, cringiest thing.
	Because, I mean what, I don't know what their problem is.
	They really wanted to do like a female, or like a DC's Deadpool.
	If they didn't make it feminist, they could have had their Deadpool.
	Was Deadpool a film?
	I gotta admit, it really is trying to be Deadpool.
	Because it starts with Deadpool doing his thing.
	Then he goes back and explains how he became Deadpool.
	They literally do the same thing in this movie.
	The problem is the weird, cringey motivations that make no sense.
	Including, I voted for Bernie.
	So I'll wrap this up.
	The movie flopped.
	You hate to see it, right?
	Whatever.
	I'm not surprised it flopped.
	I'm not surprised it'll flop again.
	And the next movie that comes out trying to do this will flop.
	Why don't you make more Shazam, DC?
	Okay?
	Anyway, stick around.
	Next segment's coming up tomorrow at 10 a.m.
	Podcast every day at 6.30 p.m.

▲