Trump's "Dream Scenario" Unfolds With RECORD Approval Rating And Democrats In Complete Chaos
Trump's "Dream Scenario" Unfolds With RECORD Approval Rating And Democrats In Complete Chaos. With this past week being one of the best for Donald Trump in terms of victories it seems only rational that it was one of the worst for the Democrats.Amid a powerful State Of The Union, Astounding Economy Numbers, Acquittal in Impeachment, it seems like a no brainer that Trump's approval rating briefly reached an all time high for his presidency since he was inaugurated. Meanwhile chaos is unfolding within the Democratic Party as the Iowa Caucus results are being contested, Sanders supporters boo Pete Buttigieg, and Nancy Pelosi's tantrum backfired resulting in Democrats quitting the party.Republicans said in an interview that this is Donald Trump's dream scenario. Record high approval amid the collapse of the Democratic party. Once again it seems that when it matters most Trump jumps ahead and puts us on a path to see Democrats lose again
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Donald Trump and the Republicans are certainly gloating over what's been described as his best week ever.
Even liberal commentators like Bill Maher have to admit Trump had an amazing week.
He delivered a powerful State of the Union address, won the impeachment case, defeated Democrats in an emolument lawsuit, and now, in the aggregate, Donald Trump's approval rating very briefly broke its highest point in the past three years.
Technically, The highest point since he was inaugurated, it's since dropped down to about 45.6 in the aggregate, tying for the highest it's ever been, which was only a couple weeks ago.
At the same time, it's been, as some describe, the worst week for Democrats ever.
The Iowa caucus was a disaster.
Nancy Pelosi tore up Trump's State of the Union address, resulting in Democrats calling in a cease ban, saying they would quit the party.
Now Bernie Sanders supporters are accusing Pete Buttigieg of cheating.
And at a rally in New Hampshire, Pete Buttigieg called for unity and was actually booed.
And now we have this.
GOP official calls Democratic infighting a dream scenario for Trump's campaign.
The economy is booming.
The Democrats can do nothing but try and lie, and they look silly doing it.
They're now being called out for, you know, Elizabeth Warren called someone a dog.
Joe Biden called someone a dog-faced, a lying dog-faced pony soldier, which who knows what that is.
They're basically falling apart and accusing each other, fighting a battle on two fronts, while Donald Trump is skating to a certain 2020 landslide.
Now what I find funny about this story, about the GOP official, is that even when Politico tries writing a story in which it's going great for Trump, they still try framing it in a way that Trump is nervous, or that he's cheating, or that this is somehow the result of some kind of nefarious Republican action.
The reality is we have a bunch of stories to go through that just show a sad reality for the Democrats.
As much as people don't want to admit it, or they want to accuse me of being biased for even talking about it, I think it's fair to say everyone who's being honest with themselves recognizes Trump is doing great in terms of his political wins, but he's also got the economy behind him, and the Democrats are just in complete disarray.
Don't take my word for it.
Let's read the story from Politico.
Before I get started, however, 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 is just share this video.
I often hope that by doing so, you might break some echo chambers.
Some people who haven't been getting access to this information might realize something new.
I don't think that's entirely possible, though, for the most part, because so many people are just so entrenched in believing they're going to win no matter what, or that Trump is literally the devil.
They're not going to want to watch something like this, so, hey, it is what it is.
But I'll tell you this, if you do share the video, at least you do help support my channel.
But let's read this story.
Now, the first story I actually highlighted about the GOP official calling Democratic infighting a dream scenario comes from The Week.
But The Week was quoting Politico.
Which said Trump's quote dream scenario unfolds Democrat disarray ahead of 2020.
They go on to then make a strange framing.
They say the president's singular focus last year on Joe Biden as a 2020 threat contributed to his historic impeachment.
Now he's facing the prospect of an entirely different 2020 challenger.
The reason I find this funny is that the narrative about Donald Trump's obsession with Biden came from the Democrats, not from Trump himself.
I don't think it's fair to say he had a singular focus on anything.
In fact, if I was, I'd say it was probably the squad.
But they want to say Biden because that was the impeachment narrative.
Even when they have to admit Trump is doing well, they still try to misframe it, going so far as to call what Trump what Trump has done.
Let me just read this for you.
They say after months of meddling.
In the Democratic primary, with presidential tweets, campaign ads, and behind-the-scenes oppo dumps, the president and his team are taking a break to let the nominating contest play out naturally and taking bets on when, not whether, it will devolve into an epic intra-party conflict.
I gotta go back, but I wanted to highlight this because they're saying that general presidential campaign politicking is meddling in the primary.
I kid you not.
They can't help themselves.
They're losing so miserably that people in the media can't even accept Trump is doing well.
You know what I get for saying as much?
Because I did a bunch of videos about the Democrats freaking out all last week, and everybody knows it was a bad week for the Democrats, but they'll accuse me of supporting the president, which I have not done, or defending him simply because reality is such.
Trump is winning.
He's not meddling in your primary by buying campaign ads.
That's ridiculous.
But the story starts by saying inside Donald Trump's reelection campaign, Joe Biden is a shadow of the past.
Once his chief rival in the 2020 Democratic presidential field and the cause of so much presidential angst that Trump mounted a pressure campaign against Ukraine to damage him, that's never been established.
And Trump was acquitted of those charges.
The former vice president's name is now hardly mentioned in conversations with the president's aides, that is, unless they're mocking him.
Quote, Lately, he looks like he's competing against himself, a top Trump aide said last week, as delayed data from the Iowa caucuses appeared to confirm Biden's dismal fourth place finish.
Now, I've always maintained, me personally, that Joe Biden was never really running.
There was a story about how his Iowa director hadn't set foot in the state in like seven years.
Joe Biden wasn't actively fundraising.
He wasn't doing Sunday show interviews, apparently.
He just was doing the bare minimum, for whatever reason, to make it look like he was campaigning.
Perhaps he thought, on name recognition alone, he didn't have to do anything.
But not only that, Bernie Sanders was outclassing him every step of the way.
And as we're learning now, every poll in Iowa was wrong.
Joe Biden is not the frontrunner, and he probably never was.
He had name recognition, so when people did polls, they said, sure, Biden, I guess.
But when it came to people who actually come to vote, everyone was wrong.
Perhaps that means Trump is doing better or worse.
I don't know.
But I think it's absolutely disingenuous to push the Democrat talking point that Donald Trump was worried about Joe Biden.
You know why?
In a secret recording, Donald Trump said he was worried about Bernie Sanders.
Don't take my word for it.
Let's jump right over to Common Dreams, a leftist activist website, which says, quote, the only one I didn't want her to pick.
In secret recording, Trump admits fear of Clinton picking Sanders as VP in 2016, and this is why you just can't trust a lot of these news websites, can you?
The Democrats created the narrative that Trump was worried about losing to Biden.
They never once asked a question as to Trump's motivation.
They just kept saying it over and over.
And sure enough, here we are now with Politico trying to take that framing and assert it as fact when it is not.
It was never proven.
The media here just wants to take Trump's greatest week and try and reframe it in any way they can, but even they have to admit it's one of the best weeks ever for Trump.
Let me show you the RealClearPolitics average.
Now, of course, Gallup said Donald Trump's approval rating is 49%, beating out Barack Obama by 4% at the same time in his presidency, which is huge, but that's one poll.
I think it's important in the context of their same polling strategy going back to Obama.
We can compare it to relevant data from the same company.
But I prefer to use aggregate data.
Because if I was going to cherry pick polls, I'd just show Rez Muson all the time being like, Trump's record approval rating once again.
But that's not the case.
I could also do something similar with, say, a really, really bad poll and claim Trump's approval rating is bad.
But no.
In the aggregate, we can see over the past two years a steady climb.
Now, there's been some drops.
But right now, on February 9th, it reached 45.6, which ties him for the highest it's been since he was inaugurated.
Now, before they added the Monmouth poll, it was actually 45.7, the highest it has been, period, since his inauguration.
But it's around the same number, so I think it's fair to say the aggregate changes as new polls come in.
In the end, what can we see?
Impeachment has failed.
Donald Trump raised $117 million during impeachment.
The Republicans were bragging that they had a 10-day streak where they brought in over a million dollars per day.
And sure enough, Democrats still talk about impeaching Donald Trump.
It seems absolutely absurd.
We'll get to that.
But the point I'm trying to make with this Is that this is all their own doing.
Their ineptitude in Iowa, using the app, the changes, the rule changes, all of their failures were their own.
And now you've got people accusing other Democrats of cheating and booing each other.
They lie in the debate stage with the economy.
It's their own fault.
Nancy Pelosi didn't have to tear up Trump's speech.
We're going to break this down because I want to point out, you know, a lot of people say things like, you don't care about Trump's bad behavior, but you're so worried about Nancy Pelosi.
Oh, oh, we'll address that.
But let's walk one at a time.
Because here comes the next important news.
This from The Hill.
Republican-sense momentum after impeachment win from a couple days ago.
Stop lying to yourselves, okay?
Donald Trump is clearly winning on every front.
And it's not the only time, it's not the first time, but boy was last week bad.
Now we have a story from Reuters which reads, blue-collar boom?
College grads, baby boomers, big winners in Trump's economy.
U.S.
President Donald Trump rolled out an eye-catching statistic in his State of the Union Address Tuesday.
The wealth held by the poorest half of American households increased three times as fast as the wealth held by the 1% since he became president.
That's true, according to Federal Reserve data.
On average, Americans have seen a 17% jump in household wealth since Trump's election, while wealth at the bottom half has increased 54%.
These numbers are absolutely astounding.
And you can call Trump every name in the book.
But that's serious.
They talk about wealth inequality.
Well, Trump just showed you the data under his presidency.
He's actually closing that gap.
Which brings me to this op-ed by the New York Post.
Democrats just look ridiculous pretending the economy is falling apart.
Why do they do it?
I mean, the Gallup poll I highlighted the other day.
Only 10% of this country thinks the economy is the most important issue.
Why?
Everyone recognizes things are getting better and better.
I guess the only thing Democrats can do is pretend it's not.
Otherwise, they have nothing to campaign on.
But one op-ed in The Hill said, no, they need to try and brag too and take some credit for their involvement.
The problem is, they are in disarray.
They can't form a cohesive strategy, and they are absolutely obsessed with Donald Trump.
They can't help it.
The man knows how to control the narrative.
When Nancy Pelosi in her rage talked that speech, it was proof beyond a reasonable doubt They have lost their rational thought.
They have broken down into an emotional state where they can't even plan things properly.
The Iowa caucus was a disaster.
Progressives are coming out saying it was rigged by the DNC to hard cheat.
Now, I don't know if I want to go that far saying they're actually manipulating numbers, but a lot of people certainly think so.
And whatever it is you believe, all that matters is they are in chaos.
The New York Post op-ed says, It isn't just a Beatles song.
It's America's reality.
It's getting better all the time.
So why are Democrats so wedded to the notion that America sucks and always has?
Sure, they have to poke holes in President Trump's accomplishments and pretend things aren't as rosy as they seem, but they take things far beyond that point.
Nancy Pelosi sat behind Trump during a State of the Union address looking like she was sorting through her mail.
She would look up every once in a while to shake her head as if the numbers she was touting were untrue.
Quote, nearly 5 million Americans have been lifted off of food stamps.
Unemployment has reached the lowest rate in over a half century.
More people are working now than at any time in the history of our country.
157 million people at work.
These aren't Trumpian boasts.
They are empirically verifiable facts.
In a response for the opposition, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer questioned the economic data.
American workers are hurting, she said.
In my own state, our neighbors in Wisconsin and Ohio and Pennsylvania, all over the country, wages have stagnated while CEO pay has skyrocketed.
But the numbers don't lie.
Gallup's Mood of the Nation poll last week recorded a 20-year high in Americans' confidence in the U.S.
economy.
Here's what I love.
They're lying to people's faces about the strength of an economy that they experience firsthand.
How does that make sense?
Imagine you're eating a delicious slice of New York pizza, pepperoni and mushroom, whatever it is you like, and you say, man, this pizza is the best!
And then someone looks you in the eye and says, actually, that pizza is not the best.
It's, in fact, awful.
You'd be like, what are you talking about?
I'm experiencing the pizza firsthand.
I'm the one saying it's going well.
What makes them think they're going to win by doing this?
No cohesive plan, no strategy, complete chaos.
Or as Trump operative, GOP operative said, it is his dream scenario.
They have no idea what they're doing.
It's gotten so bad, as I highlighted yesterday, that Nancy Pelosi is struggling To remove the video that Donald Trump put up of her tearing up his speech.
Oh boy, did that backfire.
Yeah.
Trump's dream scenario.
But now I want to talk about Trump's behavior.
Because after she talked that speech, many people said, well, you don't care about your Donald Trump's, you know, antics.
Why won't you criticize Trump when he says things?
And I'm like, yeah.
I do.
Like, how many times have I mentioned it?
You guys are probably tired of me saying it when I talk about Trump mimicking the body slam of that reporter, or when he called Stormy Daniels horseface.
Yeah, definitely talked about it.
And I've criticized everyone for their boorish behavior.
But guess what?
Seems Democrats, they seem to think Trump won because he says mean things.
No.
It's because Trump spoke in a way that many people resonated with and they felt like he was being honest.
I love that story from The Intercept.
Intercept is left-wing, where they called Trump simultaneously the most honest and dishonest president.
They talk about how he just blurts out crazy truths that sound like, I can't believe he would say that.
When he talks about our weapons deals and goes, oh yeah, we're gonna make billions of dollars off this deal, it's gonna be great.
People are like, what?
You're saying the loud part, the quiet part loud when you're supposed, and the loud part quiet.
That's Trump.
And he lies about silly things like his relationships or whatever.
Now, of course he does lie about policy stuff too.
All politicians do.
But he kind of blurts these things out.
It's one of the reasons he won.
And so, now we have this.
In response to what happened with impeachment, I want to point this out.
OK, I'm going to point this out before getting into the behavior of Democrats.
George T. Conway III says Trump is right.
We might have to impeach him again.
Yes, because Democrats don't learn their lesson.
Did they pay attention at all to what happened during impeachment with Trump's approval rating going up?
Support for impeachment is down below 50 percent.
Majority of Americans oppose the impeachment and removal of the president.
Yet here we go again.
Never-Trumpers to the rescue saying, let's just start all over.
Because in this story from McClatchy DC, we can see that Republicans boasted they brought in a total of $117 million of online fundraising efforts opposing the impeachment of President Donald Trump from late September through Wednesday, gaining 1 million new donors in the process.
Wow.
I guess if you want Trump to win, That's what you're going to do.
You're not going to learn from your mistakes.
So let me, let me, let me back back up.
I had a little bit out of order and get back to the point about the behavior of Trump and the Democrats.
You see, they don't learn.
They look at the surface and instead of saying, how can we address this?
They just, Hey, this seems like the obvious answer.
Trump's a mean person.
If we're mean people, maybe we'll win.
How does that make sense?
Maybe if you delivered something, and instead of focusing on how bad the orange man was, focused on, I don't know, healthcare and drug prices, and made that your key talking point, you might actually sway some voters.
It's probably why Andrew Yang has so many moderate supporters, because he said, we have to stop pretending that Donald Trump is the cause of all of our problems.
He's not!
Thank you, Mr. Yang.
Unfortunately, they're not going to support that guy for the nomination, and that, it's kind of a bummer.
But hey, what do you expect?
In this clip, audience member asks Elizabeth Warren, who is going to be your Mike Pence?
Who is going to look at you with adoring eyes to which she said, I already have a dog?
Do you think insulting Mike Pence, who has said nothing about you for the most part, is an appropriate way to win?
How are you going to criticize Trump's behavior when you're going to come out and refer to Pence as a dog?
But hey, by all means, I can criticize Trump for his insults of people and criticize you too.
How about this?
Joe Biden jokingly calls a student a lying dog-faced pony soldier.
And I know you might say, oh Tim, he was being silly and joking.
Okay, fine.
I can see that.
How about this story?
When he called someone a damn liar and Joe Biden blasts Iowa voter calls him fat after man repeats Ukraine smear from CNBC.
Everybody heard him say it.
Are you going to now say that Nancy Pelosi is justified because Trump is just as bad?
Are you going to accuse Trump of having bad behavior when all of you have the same bad behavior?
You know what, man?
Here's what I've said.
I said Donald Trump as a guy, and one of the biggest complaints I've had has been his behavior and his attitude and what he represents in office.
I think we need a president who acts in a more chivalrous manner, right?
Representing the honor and integrity of the office in our nation, and people aspire to be like that.
Certainly there are people who aspire to be like Donald Trump.
Certainly he's done good things in this country with the economy, and people praise him for the job he's done, but I don't think Trump is the kind of character that people aspire to be.
They're just someone that a lot of people say, hey man, as long as he makes the country work, right?
I mean, what's the alternative?
Warmonger Clinton?
unidentified
Or how about the fact that all of the Democrats are nasty people?
They mock and belittle Trump because of his behavior and his attitude.
And you know, for a while I was completely like, yup, I really don't like it.
Now policy-wise, I can criticize him on foreign policy issues, as I often do.
But what am I supposed to say when Joe Biden calls someone fat?
When Elizabeth Warren calls someone a dog?
When Nancy Pelosi shreds the speech and then storms off in a fit of... in a tantrum?
You think Trump is worse than that?
Okay, maybe Trump is more boastful and he's louder when he does these things and he's shameless, but you're all the same as far as I'm concerned.
It's completely, it's ridiculous.
Even Andrew Yang, who I literally just gave credit to, called Trump a fat slob and said he is so fat the only thing, the only thing Trump could beat him in is an eating contest.
Andrew Yang said, the only thing Trump could beat him in is an eating contest.
And I was very critical of that too.
If I wanted someone like Trump to be president, I would have voted for him.
If you're going to come out and present alternative ideas, alternate ideas, or just something different, why would you do the same thing most people criticize the guy for?
Because I think the reality is, they're all the same.
Okay, maybe they're not as bad when it comes to attitude, but spare me your faux outrage over Trump's demeanor when you do all of the same things.
It is complete chaos.
They are in disarray.
And now there are several reasons why I think it's going to get worse for them moving forward.
How about this?
For every new registered Democrat in Florida this year, Republicans have added two.
That's from December.
Florida, one of the most important states for Republicans to win.
It was neck and neck in this last Senate and Governor race.
And now we're learning that more Republicans are registering than Democrats.
Trump needs Florida if he's going to win.
And it looks like he's going to win.
Now here's one that really breaks my heart.
This story from The Guardian.
Maybe I'll do a longer segment on it later.
It's titled, I Helped Coin the Term Identity Politics.
I'm Endorsing Bernie Sanders.
As if letting people know you coined the term identity politics is going to help Bernie Sanders.
The reality is most Americans don't care for this PC nonsense.
I cite Bill Maher again, because he's like Trump Derangement Syndrome all the way.
Sitting down with Megyn Kelly said, they will take it from the mouth of a werewolf if it means pushing back against political correctness.
So this endorsement of Bernie Sanders is not a good thing.
And as we've already seen, identity politics has been a very bad play for Democrats.
In another story, this time from The Blaze, MSNBC pundit reveals the exact reason why Democratic pandering won't win the black vote in 2020, saying, quote, you're talking about us without us.
He made a good point, too.
They kept Cory Booker off the stage.
Kamala Harris.
How is that fair?
Well, I think it's fair to say that Kamala Harris bowed out fine, whatever.
I think she actually qualified for the debate, but she had cancelled her run anyway.
But Cory Booker and many others, Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang, wanted some changes to the rules in the Democratic debate, so the stage wouldn't be all white people, right?
They claim to campaign on these issues, but they really don't.
The only time the rules got changed was when billionaire Bloomberg stepped up, dumped hundreds of millions of dollars in ads, gave about a million bucks to different establishment Democratic outfits, including the DNC, and then all of a sudden the rules got changed, which would make it a lot easier for Michael Bloomberg to get on that stage.
So he's right.
When the Democrats want to campaign on identity politics, but they won't put their money where their mouth is, well then this is what you get.
You get called out for hypocrisy.
All in all, there's only one thing that matters.
Trump has consistently been winning the entire time.
We now know that the FISA warrants that started Russiagate were totally bunk, so the only thing they've ever actually had against Trump were these schemes.
Even Politico, right now, is pushing the Democrat narrative that Trump was trying to dig up dirt on Joe Biden.
Something they made up.
If you think I'm wrong or lying, I implore you.
Find me one single quote from Donald Trump where he says, I need help beating Joe Biden.
Or how about, I'm scared I will lose to Joe Biden.
Or how about, what can we do to give me an edge against Joe Biden?
They don't exist.
The Republicans, Trump, they were never even asked about any of it.
What's that you say?
Trump didn't let many of his staff testify?
Then tell me why the Democrats did not go to the courts to resolve this through checks and balances like they were supposed to.
They went straight to an impeachment without evidence.
Their only evidence was conjecture, and they lost.
The whole thing was a political game.
But please, find those quotes from Donald Trump, and I will absolutely put a correction on this video and say I was wrong.
There it is.
But the reality is Trump barely talked about Joe Biden and progressives acknowledge he was scared more of Bernie Sanders, the one guy he didn't want Hillary to pick, Bernie, because he was big on trade and that was Trump's strong point.
The Democrats are in chaos.
They're making things up.
Their allies in media push these fake narratives which keep them wrapped up in nonsense.
If Politico was just honest and said the reality is Trump is doing well because people aren't super worried about his behavior.
They want a president who can make things work and Trump is doing it.
Perhaps they could form a cohesive strategy to fight back against Trump and maybe win.
But they can't.
I'll wrap it up with one more important detail though.
This all sounds great for Trump, doesn't it?
Voter turnout in Iowa was bad.
James Carville, Democratic strategist, is worried.
But maybe this is just because people don't caucus.
People don't go to primaries.
If Trump supporters, if they get overconfident, yeah, Trump really could lose.
I honestly would never make that bet that Trump would.
But hey, I was wrong in 2018, and I was wrong bad.
So we'll see what happens.
Stick around, next segment's coming up at 6pm, youtube.com slash timcastnews, and I will see you all there.
Here I am, finding myself using Slate.com uncritically over this completely insane story about Joe Biden.
And I'm going to say this with the utmost sincerity, we really do need to talk about the age of the candidates running.
I think there's one big reason Buttigieg is surging.
He's, what, 38?
So he's a little on the young side for a president, but What's the alternative?
A 77-year-old guy who doesn't know where he is?
A 70-year-old socialist who just had a heart attack?
Look, I think the game is all messed up.
We're seeing now Bernie Sanders is essentially calling for a recount in Iowa.
They call it a re-canvas.
But Joe Biden apparently just called a young woman a lying, dog-faced pony soldier.
And Slate.com has the same question I do.
What?
What does that mean?
Look, it comes from, it's like a derivative mashup of some John Wayne movie.
I actually have it pulled up with another post from Town Hall going way back.
So it is based in something.
But as if anyone would understand this reference or the tagline, no malarkey, I am not convinced Joe Biden is actually running.
And that brings me to where we're going with this.
Donald Trump must be laughing harder than he has ever laughed looking at this lineup.
We have a story from the Washington Examiner.
Trump is licking his chops over a second rate Democratic field, dare I say.
Trump has a great economy.
He's got record support.
He's won approval, I should say.
He won an impeachment.
He won an emoluments.
He's got everything lining up for a landslide victory.
You've got the complete and total collapse of the Democratic Party and the infighting between the Socialists, the Progressives, and the Moderates.
And then, even if that wasn't all bad for Democrats, you have the fact that none of their candidates are top-tier.
They're all second-rate.
Okay, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but they are the B-team.
There's no Obama among them.
Now I think... You know, after looking at some of the speeches and looking at, you know...
Presentability and charisma?
Pete Buttigieg probably is the best.
So, maybe, as much as a lot of people want to believe it's a grand conspiracy, and we can certainly look at Iowa and say, this is not correct.
Buttigieg should not be winning.
They function in a very similar, it's kind of like an electoral college system, how the delegates work.
So, Buttigieg won 60 counties, I think, 60 districts or something, or precincts.
And Bernie won 18.
And that's why Buttigieg got two more.
I think he got two more delegates.
He got 14 and Bernie got 12.
No, I do think the DNC cheats.
I think they cheated last time and I think they're cheating now.
But I don't necessarily believe that, you know, Buttigieg is failing and that they're rigging the number of votes.
I think they're cheating in ways like smearing Bernie.
They're cheating in ways like the media is working against him in a lot of ways.
And I think, you know, them allowing Bloomberg into the debates, which they have not done yet, But changing the threshold so that he can get in debates.
That's the kind of cheating we're seeing.
I know a lot of people want to go towards their changing votes area, but Buttigieg didn't win the popular vote.
I think it really comes down to this.
I think, in all fairness, when you look at the field, the best they can do is a youngish small-town mayor.
Because what else do they have?
Incoherent ramblings of senile Joe Biden?
And I'm not saying that to be mean.
I'm saying the dude literally forgets where he is all the time.
And people can't understand what he's saying in many cases.
He just mutters and mumbles.
Like the other day at the debate, there was one scene where people were saying Joe Biden forgot where he was because he was turned around facing the other direction.
I think maybe he was fixing his teeth or something.
I mean that seriously.
I'm not trying to be mean.
But a lot of people saw that as him like, you know, kind of drifting because there was literally a moment in a rally where Joe Biden turned around away from the crowd And started walking towards the monitors while talking.
You couldn't hear him.
And people were like, what is he doing?
Where is he going?
He's looking in the wrong direction.
Look, I know Trump is old too.
But Trump has this economy behind him.
What I mean is, it's working.
So when people are given a choice, what happens?
I think a lot of people are going to go to Trump just because, hey, you know, whatever, four more years and then he's out, right?
And things are going pretty well.
But when you look at the actual democratic field, I'm not surprised Bernie couldn't beat Buttigieg.
Look, it may be rigged, it may be a conspiracy, whatever you want to think, but I think Occam's Razor, man, Pete Buttigieg is fast-talking, okay?
He's got quick answers, not always the best, but he's a younger guy.
And I'm not saying he'd be a good president or even a good candidate.
He's just literally the best they could muster, small-town mayor from Indiana.
Bernie Sanders is a 78-year-old socialist who just had a heart attack.
Let's read about why Joe Biden decided to call a woman dog-faced.
So this is one of the reasons why I pulled up Slate.
I am confused as to why he thought it would be appropriate to call a young woman dog-faced.
I get it.
He's talking about a movie.
Some Native Americans called Redcoats dog-faced or something.
Bernie- I'm sorry, Biden.
He's just so out of touch.
Slate reports, Joe Biden just called a woman at one of his events a lying dog-faced pony soldier.
What?
At a campaign event in Hampton, New Jersey on Sunday, presidential candidate Joe Biden jokingly referred to a young woman who asked him a question as a lying dog-faced pony soldier, according to the Washington Post.
There's video of the incident, which began when 21-year-old student Madison Moore asked Biden to explain his poor showing in the Iowa caucuses.
So Biden basically says, he was like, it wasn't a primary, it was a caucus.
You ever been to a caucus?
And then apparently she says yes, and he goes, no you haven't, you lying dog-faced pony soldier.
And people laugh.
First of all, you ever watch Rick and Morty?
When Rick says, you know, Jerry is like the red grin grumble to not knowing what's going on, and then, you know, Summer and Morty laugh.
Maybe you don't know the reference.
The point is, Rick then says, I just made that up, stop being sheep.
He told a joke that had no contextual basis.
It was fabricated and they laugh.
And that's what happened here.
The people laughing at what Joe Biden said have no idea what he said or what it means.
And they were laughing.
I don't know.
Just like bleeding sheep.
Ha ha ha ha.
It was a joke.
Was it?
I don't know what lying dog-faced pony soldier means.
For me, not having any reference to a John Wayne movie because I'm 33, I took that as a serious insult.
Pony soldier?
Like dog-faced horse body of some sort?
What does that even mean?
They say, Biden's spokespeople said the line was taken from a scene in a John Wayne movie in which a Native American chief refers to Wayne as a lying dog-faced pony soldier.
No, he doesn't.
That's not true.
But it is derivative of, so it's like clearly he watched the movie and Biden can't remember what actually happened.
Biden has used the phrase and attributed it to a John Wayne movie in the past.
At a 2018 campaign event for Heidi Heitkamp, Biden said the following about Heitkamp's opponent Kevin Cramer.
He basically said, that's all they really say, as my brother who loves to use lines from movies, from John Wayne movies, there's a line in a movie, a John Wayne movie, where an Indian chief turns to John Wayne and says, this is a lying dog-faced pony soldier.
That's never happened.
It's not in the movie.
So look, I think, you know, Joe Biden in 1952 must have seen this movie and is not remembering correctly.
Because they do say dog-faced.
They do say pony soldier.
I don't think they say lying.
So he kind of just mashed these things together.
It's not a reference.
By far the most common question raised by Biden's use of the phrase in New Hampshire has been, what the hell is Joe Biden thinking, calling a young woman dog-faced?
But running a close second is, is there really a movie in which someone calls John Wayne a lying dog-faced pony soldier?
The answer is a resounding, maybe.
Wayne appeared in 180 movies over 50 years, and who knows what they called him in all of them.
But it seems at least as likely that Biden is thinking of a different film.
Pony Soldier, a 1952 Western from director Joseph M. Newman, starring Tyrone Power, as a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Pony Soldier, in the context of the film, is a Native American nickname for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
And although no one calls Powers a lying, dog-faced pony soldier, Achieve does say, So it wasn't John Wayne, I guess?
Oh, here we go.
Oh, did they actually find it?
the snake that rattles, which isn't far off. So it wasn't John Wayne, I guess? Oh, here we go.
Did they actually find it? Here's an update. Twitter users and Slate commenter Lee Bertram
point to a source for the dog-faced part of Biden's quote, this time in an actual John Wayne movie.
19-4.
1949's She Wore a Yellow Ribbon.
There are no Native American chiefs calling John Wayne a liar or a pony soldier, but over the final shot of Cavalry, the narrator uses the phrase dog-faced soldiers.
So there you have it.
Joe Biden, referencing movies from 70 years ago, Wow, how old is Biden?
I do not believe Joe Biden is actually running for president.
I really don't.
I think the Democrats were like, you know we're not gonna win this one, right?
Right, what can we do?
I don't know, just throw spaghetti at the wall, see what sticks.
That's about what they're doing.
I think they're probably like, line up the B team because we're not gonna win anyway and we don't want to taint any of our A-list players.
Save them for 2024.
But I don't think they have any A-list players come 2024 either.
Like seriously, is there anybody you can name in the Democratic Party who might actually go up against Trump?
I gotta be honest, I don't think so.
I mean, well, come 2024, the better question is, will they go up against, say, Pence or Donald Trump Jr.?
And maybe that's the big issue.
There's no Republican that could go up against Trump, and there's no Democrat.
He won, he's just, they can't beat him.
So maybe they're thinking, we'll hold out until we get a weaker Republican challenger in 2024, and we're gonna throw up, I don't know, Biden, I guess?
Because Biden at least kind of could be an A-list political candidate for president.
Even though nobody wants to vote for the guy because he's apparently... Okay, I'm trying to be... I don't want to be overly disrespectful by literally calling him senile or even doing it disrespectfully, but come on, man.
How many events has he been at where he didn't know where he was?
How many times has he spoken, and said something nonsensical, and then immediately tried turning it into something that could at least somewhat make sense?
He does it all the time.
How many times has he turned around on the stage, looking away from the audience, doing who-knows-what?
Perhaps when he's doing that, he's fixing his teeth?
Look, I'm not saying that to be mean and disrespect him for being old, I'm saying that it's the...
Simple solution?
Otherwise, what's the answer?
He's out of his mind?
I mean, maybe he is.
Maybe he's just old and doesn't know what's going on anymore.
Or he would turn around so you can't see him as he kind of, you know.
Because there have been moments where his teeth have slipped.
I think the same thing is true for Nancy Pelosi.
Again, not being disrespectful.
It happens to people when they get old.
They get dentures.
Their teeth fall out.
So, either way, I think we should be worried that these candidates are just second-rate.
That's what the Washington Examiner says.
Trump is licking his chops over a second-rate Democratic field.
Bernie Sanders has a lot behind him in terms of support.
But he doesn't have A-list support.
He doesn't have a coalition of Democratic voters.
Neither does Buttigieg.
None of these people do.
And a lot of these people have a bust faction that won't vote for anybody else.
Even Buttigieg has a small faction of people who will not support other candidates if Buttigieg does not get the nomination.
How can they possibly hope to win?
Especially with Bernie's 10%, Yang's 42.
The Washington Examiner says, All those pundits saying the Iowa caucus fiasco suddenly makes the Democrats weak for the fall election against President Trump are wrong.
There was nothing sudden about their weakness at all.
Let me tell you this.
Bernie Sanders initially said he would not call for a re-canvas.
I was heavily critical of that.
I mean, look, all these people are accusing the IDP and the DNC of cheating you, and you say, whatever.
Okay, see how that plays out when you actually go to the convention and you lose because you don't have enough delegates.
Well, now Bernie does want the re-canvas, so thank you.
At least he's somewhat now standing up for himself.
That I can respect.
But I think all of that shows, yeah, it has nothing to do with Iowa in reality.
Hillary Clinton's been stomping all over Bernie, didn't do anything about it.
Joe Biden's own supporters are calling out Biden's corruption, and Bernie apologizes to him.
Joe Biden doesn't know where he is.
Klobuchar is awkward and, you know, forgettable.
You do have some people I like.
I think Yang has improved tremendously.
I think Tulsi's great, but the media is ripping them to shreds.
At least for the most part, they've fought back.
Yang's, you know, boycotted MSNBC for a while because they kept calling him the wrong name or omitting him.
And Tulsi Gabbard, well, most of you are aware, she has pulled no punch.
She's actually suing Google.
And now Hillary Clinton, so that I can respect.
But of course, for some reason, the media and the establishment don't want to prop up the actual contenders who have stood up for themselves.
They want to prop up the weird, unelectable B-team candidates.
Fine.
Examiner says, Even before Iowa, this Democratic field was embarrassingly weak.
It is woefully lacking in stature, accomplishments, competence, and salable political philosophy.
Most of its major contenders are either too old or too young.
And now the National Party infrastructure's obvious disarray only exacerbates these problems.
Right.
They were already weak to begin with.
Did anyone seriously think these people could go up against Trump?
I mean, you have all these head-to-head polls claiming that in a head-to-head matchup between basically every Democrat, I think except Buttigieg, Trump loses.
I don't buy it.
Especially considering Buttigieg is the one who's surging, unless the Democrat machine is just manipulating the election.
Some people think so.
Consider frontrunner Bernie Sanders.
His popularity with historically illiterate, willfully ignorant millennials aside, he would be a joke as a general election candidate in any other year.
He's not just a social democrat, he spent decades as an open sympathizer for communist causes.
One small improvement for veterans aside.
His legislative achievements in 30 years are nearly nil.
By election day, he'll be 79 years old and a recent heart attack survivor.
Yup, I do not believe he's going to successfully go up against Trump and a lot of what people don't seem to understand.
Right now, we are seeing Republicans defend Bernie Sanders because the DNC seems to be cheating him in certain ways.
You know why that is?
I do not believe, for the most part, it is out of their good nature and goodwill towards respecting the established tradition of safe and secure voting.
I think the obvious thing is, you put Buttigieg up as your nominee, there's very little to smear him over.
You can call him inexperienced, but he does have military experience.
And small-town issues are very important to Americans.
I think Buttigieg makes sense at this point.
Bernie Sanders has offensive, you know, essays he's written.
He's praised the Soviet Union.
He honeymooned there, apparently.
These videos all exist.
And what do you think's going to happen if he wins the general?
I'm sorry, if he wins the nomination?
You're going to see Republicans plastering his photo all over the Internet, all over TV.
Clips of Bernie Sanders praising the Soviet Union.
Then you're going to have those Veritas clips, where Bernie supporters talk about violent insurrection and putting Trump voters in camps.
Yeah, Bernie's got bad things coming his way if he wins.
So sure, when all the Republicans come out and actually defend him, they're looking forward to it.
Hey, great, this guy's going to win the nomination.
Then we can plaster this pro-Commie stuff all over the web and all over TV.
It's good for Republicans.
Regardless of whether or not Republicans do that, though, if you're a Bernie supporter, you probably should take whatever support you can get, even if it comes from, you know, Trump Jr.
If they're pointing out that Iowa is rigged against you and the system is being rigged, don't you want to try to win?
It's certainly not the Bernie Sanders supporters who think he's going to lose for these reasons, in which case you'd think they'd take whatever they can get and say, yep, it's rigged, we're fighting back.
And they're kind of doing that.
Bernie wants a recanvass now.
We'll see what happens.
Then they get into, uh, Well, here you go. They say, really, no one older than 75
should be elected to a first term as president. The chances for destabilizing health problems
are just too great. Joe Biden, now 77, and Bloomberg, 78 next week, are too old. Biden has had
intermittent health problems and once nearly died for more than 30 years.
years.
Oh, okay, that was a parenthesis.
He's had health problems for more than 30 years.
He also is fated never to escape ethics questions about his failure to recuse himself from policy
involving Ukraine.
Bloomberg has had heart irregularities.
Trump's old, but he ran before he was 70.
And a lot of people have said online that 70 is the cutoff, not just because it makes sense in terms of health, but because typically no one, I think this could be true, I could be wrong about this, no one has ever won if they've been older than 70.
There is a minimum age requirement.
Perhaps there should be a maximum?
I don't know.
The problem I find with the maximum requirement is that health, you know, is improving.
I understand the 35 thing, right?
You have a certain amount of experience and you lived in the country for a certain amount of time.
All of that makes sense.
But, I mean, what?
In a hundred years, are we gonna treat 70 the same as we did a hundred years, you know, before now?
I don't think so.
What I can say is...
The people will decide.
That's all that matters.
The people will decide.
We don't need any hard rules about being too old.
The fact is, if Trump is too old today, but still wins, then so be it.
He won.
That's what people wanted.
If Bernie Sanders is too old, but he pulls out a win, then, well, then congratulations.
He deserved it.
The people voted for it.
There you go.
Is it a risk?
Yes.
The voters take all of that into consideration.
With Biden's gaffes and nonsensical statements and Bernie's heart attack, I do not see them standing a chance.
Elizabeth Warren is also... How old is she?
She's 70 or 72?
I don't know.
But do they mention that she's 70?
Here they say Buttigieg is 38 going on 19.
He is the failed mayor of Indiana's fourth largest city, having been elected to that position with fewer votes than many student government officers at state universities.
Radically left on issues, yadda yadda yadda.
They basically just say, oh here we go, the field in 1972 was similarly accomplished, including Hubert Humphrey, McGovern, Edmund Muskie, Eugene McCarthy, and Scoop Jackson.
In 1988, Hart Jackson, Biden, Al Gore, Bruce Babbitt, Dick Gephardt, and Paul Simon all had reputations significantly outstripping anyone in today's field except Biden.
Michael Dukakis, the eventual nominee, had already been elected three times as governor of Massachusetts.
In comparison, nearly all of this year's candidates are pygmies, and Biden, if he stays in much longer, is really too old to serve.
If Democrats want victory, they need a galvanizing new entrant in the race.
Some people have made the speculation.
Failed candidates, brokered convention, chaos in the electoral process, and down comes the savior from on above.
Hillary Clinton steps into the race for a rematch.
I doubt it.
I really doubt it.
I think, you know, look, John Kerry was a B-lister.
I think when the Democrats know they're not going to win, they save their A-listers for later.
That really does make the most sense.
But I don't know who the Democrats have right now who really could be an A-list candidate.
Buttigieg was pulled out of, you know, the middle of nowhere, and he's got chops in terms of, like, his personality and his charisma, but certainly not in terms of his name recognition or experience.
So I think the Democrats are actually planning on losing this one, I do.
Bernie Sanders supporters aren't.
They're the upstart insurgents.
We'll see what happens.
But at any rate, let me just give one bit of advice as we wrap up.
Joe, nobody understands your 70-year-old references.
All it sounded like was a strange insult to a young woman.
But do what you want.
You do you.
I will see you all at 1 p.m.
on this channel for the next video.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see you then.
Everything about the coronavirus is getting from bad to worse, and from worse to absolutely horrifying.
And I gotta say this, I'm only half-joking when I say I hope you're prepared for the apocalypse.
No, I don't really think we're gonna end up in a nightmarish dystopian reality.
Where all of humanity is wiped out, I'm being a bit silly, but I think this is going to get substantially worse than we can even realize.
There's a lot of news coming out explaining exactly why things are worse than we actually know.
Let me point out a few very important things.
First, one of the first things I said, and as always, remain calm, but one of the first things I said was, we only have reason to be worried if, say, it's got a long incubation period and it's airborne.
We're now learning that both of those are true.
I then went on to say, if you're older than 50 or younger than 15, you probably have something to worry about, but most of us people in between those ages are probably fine.
No, not the case.
One of the first doctors was 34, and he died.
So now we know it actually can, it can kill people who are any age range, really.
We're now learning two very important and terrifying details.
First, the incubation period might be 24 days, meaning these quarantines that have been implemented are going to be ineffective.
A report from Johns Hopkins University suggests the infection rate might be more than 10 to 40 times higher than we actually knew.
And that means that one of the first whistleblower nurses who said the infection rate was over 90,000 might be telling the truth.
The hospitals being built in China, these last-minute emergency hospitals they put up in 10 days, they look kind of like prisons.
And China's been mass-arresting people who they suspect might be sick.
And it could be because we have a month-long incubation period.
That's at least one report now.
I'm going to go through all of this.
And now possibly one of the most frightening things we've seen.
Yes, airborne matters.
That's scary.
You can breathe it in and get sick.
But apparently, according to the Lancet, they say 2019 NCOV transmission through the ocular surface must not be ignored.
They believe it could be transmitted by coming into contact with your eyes.
I don't know if that means all mucous membranes, but you could even put on a mask.
All these people wearing masks to protect themselves from breathing in the virus and it's going in their eyes.
It was ignored.
This... This makes the coronavirus much, much more terrifying.
Let me go back once.
We'll look at these articles and I'll just point these things out.
This first story I have from just a few days ago.
China to investigate after whistleblower doctor dies from coronavirus.
This is substantive because Li was 34 years old, which means even I'm not safe.
This could affect anybody.
We know that it's traveling as fast as the flu and it's substantially more deadly.
We just saw around 90 people die in a single day in China.
This might be getting substantially worse.
It is getting substantially worse.
It just keeps getting worse.
Let me show you how things get really scary.
The Daily Mail reported just today the incubation period of new coronavirus can be as long as 24 days instead of previously thought two weeks, study reveals.
That means these cruise ships, that means these other quarantines that have been implemented in the U.S.
and other countries of 14 days is effectively meaningless if even one of those people is in an incubation period beyond 12 days, even doubling it, and they think everybody's safe and healthy and let you go.
You could still be infected and be infecting everyone around you.
To make things worse, you could take that one infected person, put them in a room with a bunch of healthy people for 14 days, no symptoms, they say, everyone leave, but that one person infected everyone.
This is where things get scary.
The Daily Mail reports, The incubation period of a new strain of coronavirus currently ravaging China can be as long as 24 days, a new study has revealed.
At present, scientists believe the novel coronavirus has an incubation period, the time between it entering the body, and the last point at which it could cause symptoms of around 14 days.
And anyone suspected to be infected with a deadly disease is advised to be put under quarantine for two weeks right now in China and beyond.
They go on.
Let's go down.
They say the fast-spreading disease has killed at least 910 people and infected more than 40,640 globally.
People can be infected by being exposed to the virus carrying saliva or touching contaminated surfaces.
Beijing officials previously claimed that the disease could be contagious even before symptoms show.
show.
The new revelation emerged in a study published yesterday by a group of Chinese researchers on MedRxiv, a preprint site for scientific medical papers.
The report was written by 37 specialists, including Dr. Zong Nanshan, who is the leader of a team of medical experts appointed by China's National Health Commission to deal with the novel coronavirus.
Let's stop back up a second.
Incubation.
Possibly 24 days.
Transmission through touch of contaminated surfaces.
Airborne transmission through your eyes, even if you don't breathe it in.
And it can kill people of any age.
It's traveling as fast as the flu, and it's killed more people than SARS.
It's not killed more people than flu yet, but it seems to be a substantial... I guess a worst-case scenario is approaching.
Let's read more.
The team collected data from 1,099 confirmed coronavirus patients at 552 hospitals in 31 Chinese provinces and municipalities, the report said.
Analysis found the average incubation period was three days, shorter than the 5.2 days suggested in a previous paper.
But the range of a patient's incubation period could extend from zero to 24 days.
However, very few sufferers are believed to have shown symptoms after more than three weeks, because the median figure is much closer to the lower end.
One UK-based expert considered the findings worrying, but suggested that only a very small number of patients were likely to have really long incubation periods.
But what does that mean?
Look, I get it.
They might say, oh, no big deal.
But if one person has a really long incubation period, you let them out, they can infect everybody else.
Professor Paul Hunter, A professor in medicine, University of East Anglia, said,
The suggestion that the incubation period may extend up to 24 days is definitely worrying,
especially for people currently in quarantine who may therefore expect to spend longer in isolation.
To make things worse, what if you have somebody who's on day 10 of the incubation period,
and you put them in quarantine on, say, a cruise ship with a thousand or so people who aren't
infected.
Now the infection starts, it could last up to 24 days, meaning some people might be on the very high end, or not even that.
Let's say a person is put into this cruise ship.
One person is sick, everyone else isn't.
But someone doesn't actually get the infection until two weeks, until 13 days into the quarantine.
They've just become infected, and now they're sitting on a 24-day long-end incubation period.
That means the quarantine would have to extend to a month and a half to be safe.
I don't think it's gonna happen.
I don't think there's anything they can do, and I don't think they can actually stop this if it does get bad.
He added, However, the median incubation period remains very short at three days.
This means that a half of people who get it, who get ill, will develop their illness within three days of initial contact, and the proportion of people with the really long incubation periods will be very small.
But enough to break quarantine, right?
He also raised the possibility of patients getting infected on more than one occasion.
He said, One of the issues with particularly long incubation periods
is that it is often very difficult to exclude the possibility
that the person had not had a second unrelated contact.
Nevertheless, this new information illustrates a- is concerning.
And this new information illu- The- wait.
Nevertheless, this new information is concerning and illustrates the need to be continually re-evaluating
our risk assessments and advice.
The new study was funded by four Chinese authorities, Ministry of Science and Technology, National Health Commission, National Mural Science Foundation, and Department of Science and Technology of Guangdong Province.
It has not been evaluated by other scientists, and its findings should not be used to guide clinical practice, according to the website.
Take it all with a grain of salt.
We've also seen numerous reports stemming from one study that there were specific HIV-like proteins that aren't typical of coronaviruses that have a lot of people freaking out, and they're spawning a lot of theories that this could have been a man-made bioweapon or vaccine attempt or something like that.
We don't know.
I don't like to speculate on those things.
I just want to tell you, take care of yourself, because I've got a lot more bad news.
I really, really do.
Now we're hearing.
The incubation period can be a long time.
You see this photo.
Check this out.
China's vice premier last week ordered Wuhan officials to put all confirmed and suspected coronavirus patients as well as their close contacts and those with fever in hospitals and quarantine camps.
Pictured, people wearing protective face masks covers themselves with large plastic bags to prevent the virus outside the Shanghai railway station on Sunday.
But if it's in the air, they're wearing goggles.
Notice they're wearing goggles.
That's right.
Because people are concerned you can contract it when it makes contact with your eye in the air or touching a surface.
I don't know how they're breathing, however, because it's airborne.
So I'm not sure.
I mean, it's better than nothing.
I don't blame them.
Especially considering how bad it's gotten.
But let's get scary.
Let's make it worse for you guys.
This is a story from the other day, The Washington Times.
Where did they go?
Millions left Wuhan before quarantine.
If they're saying that there is a 24-day incubation period, even on the low end, it's rare, it could happen.
What about the people who left Wuhan before the quarantine and could have potentially spread this and we just don't know?
I want to read this.
Before I do, I need to show you this chart.
This is from January 31st.
John Hopkins University published a paper that said, We believe the actual number of coronavirus cases in mainland China are much likely higher than that reported to date.
Specifically, we estimate there to be around 58,000 cumulative cases of 2019-nCoV in mainland China by the end of January.
As of January 31st, the reported cases is close to 12,000.
This estimate is in line with our previous analysis on January 25th, which estimated the proportion of reported to estimated cases to be close to 10%.
It is likely that part of this discrepancy is due to reporting delays, however, A substantially larger number of estimated cases suggest a majority of the cases may be mild or asymptomatic, do not require seeking medical care, and thus are not reported.
Furthermore, based on this analysis, we believe the outbreak began in November, and there were already hundreds of human cases of 2019-nCoV in Wuhan in early December.
The estimated versus confirmed cases during January are presented in Figure 1.
Take a look at this.
Their modeled cases in mainland China starts on December 1st and skyrockets up to 58,000, while what we heard was only around 1,000 or so by the 25th.
By the end of the month, they said it was close to 12,000.
Consider this.
Here's what I think is worth consideration, regardless of the exact point they're making.
Many people might have mild symptoms and not really say anything, because they have a sore throat, a cough, and it's not that big of a deal.
They have the coronavirus, but don't go to the hospital and think it's nothing.
Maybe some food poisoning, maybe just a simple cold.
Many people probably get very, very sick and still don't report it, and just think it's the flu, and maybe they survive because of it.
But it still means it can spread.
More importantly, there are a lot of people who probably don't know, they're asymptomatic, they're spreading this around, and they're traveling.
And that's why it gets worse.
Back to the story before.
Millions left Wuhan before quarantine.
And they quarantined what, like 50 million people?
It's too late.
Washington Times says, For weeks after the first reports of a mysterious new virus in Wuhan, millions of people poured out of the central Chinese city, cramming onto buses, trains, and planes, as the first wave of China's Great Lunar New Year migration broke across the nation.
Some cared with them the new virus that has since claimed over 800 lives and sickened more than 37,000 people.
We know those numbers are actually higher now.
Officials finally began to seal the borders on January 23rd, but it was too late.
Speaking to reporters a few days after the city was put under quarantine, the mayor estimated that 5 million people had already left.
Where did they go?
An Associated Press analysis of domestic travel patterns using map location data from Chinese tech giant Baidu shows that in the two weeks before Wuhan's lockdown, nearly 70% of trips out of the central Chinese city were within Hubei province.
Baidu has a map app that is similar to Google Maps, which is blocked in China.
Another 14% of the trips went to the neighboring provinces of Henan, Hunan, Anhui, and Jiangxi.
Nearly 2% slipped down to Guangdong province, the coastal manufacturing powerhouse across from Hong Kong, and the rest fanned out across China.
The cities outside Hubei province that were top destinations for trips from Wuhan between January 10th and 24th were Chongqing, a municipality next to Hubei province, Beijing, and Shanghai.
Let's stop for a second.
They say millions of people were—five million people had already left, and they locked the city down, I believe, on the 23rd, right?
Is that where they said?
So let's do this.
The city was locked down, but going back into December, this Johns Hopkins analysis says by the end of December there was potentially 8,000 to 9,000 or more people who were infected.
That means a full month later.
Look, there could have been 40,000 infected people traveling before the lockdown occurred.
And they flew all over China.
And that means everyone they came in contact with It may be too late.
This may be all... It's global.
I read a story from Fox News.
Experts said it was a pandemic.
I don't know if this really means we're facing a serious, serious epidemic or plague or pandemic.
Whatever you want to call it.
It could just be as bad as the flu.
It seems to be worse for now.
And the infection rate may be very, very high.
Ultimately, I don't think the world is going to end.
I think people are going to have to take precautions and recognize.
99% of these cases are in China.
But many people have traveled, as we're noting now.
This means that we have a month to find out if someone in New York, Philadelphia, D.C., Los Angeles, Seattle could be infected.
And if so, they could have already infected many other people.
The big concerns, I suppose, is that it seems like the infection rate of this is going to be higher than we ever predicted, when you consider in the factors of the incubation period being longer than people realized.
Ocular contact.
Does that mean a potential for mucous membrane contact?
I mean, for the most part, it's just gonna be, you know, your eyes.
But if your mouth or nose are covered, people think they're safe, and it may not be the case.
You can get it from touching.
So I don't know.
I don't know what to expect and I don't want to, uh, I never want to tell people to freak out.
I think the opposite.
Just always remain calm and make sure you, you know, look, at this point I think it's safe to say you should have gone to the store last week, you should go now, and just pick up some, some, you know, canned food that lasts for a while and be prepared.
Not even because of this, because I'll say it again and I will always say it when I do segments about natural disasters and keeping yourself safe.
Sometimes power goes out.
Sometimes there's hurricanes.
Sometimes there's earthquakes.
You should be prepared for minor emergencies.
There was a crazy thing that happened in, I think it was Ohio, back in I think 2013 or 14, an algal bloom that toxified much of the water coming from the lake.
People couldn't drink it.
Within 40 miles of the coast, there was no bottled water because everyone went and bought it up.
Don't wait until the last minute.
You can put the stuff in your basement and just leave it there.
It's not perfect, it's not ideal, but it's better than nothing.
I think we're gonna keep hearing bad news about this.
I think the numbers are way worse.
And let me remind you, one of the first doctors, the whistleblower, who came out and told everyone what was going on was 34 years old and he lost his life.
Don't panic, and be careful about fearmonger media.
At a certain point, though, as things get worse and worse, maybe you should overreact just a little bit.
In terms of, you know, the opposite, which would be underreacting, which can be way worse.
Do a little bit more than you think you need to, so you're prepared in the event this gets really, really bad.
Based on the transmission rate we've seen in China, and the long incubation period, and the fact that many in the US already have it, Not as many as in China, for sure.
But it could spread very, very fast.
And we may be looking at a global pandemic.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
at youtube.com slash timcast.
And I will see you all there.
Shortly after Donald Trump was actually impeached, a conversation emerged around impeaching Donald Trump again.
Because as the meme goes, we've had first impeachment, but what about second impeachment?
During the impeachment trial, Democrats warned they will, quote, do it again, like the Goofy meme, because they certainly love their memes.
And here we are, sure enough, with multiple op-eds coming out saying Donald Trump should be impeached again.
For what?
Why?
Has he done anything?
You wasted your first impeachment.
Perhaps you shouldn't have because now Trump's gonna do other stuff and then claim it's a witch hunt and guess what?
People gonna believe him.
You see, this is why you don't cry wolf.
It's all they've been doing.
Let's say Trump actually does something questionable.
If they do another impeachment, America will collectively roll its eyes saying this again.
Please spare us.
The election is coming up soon.
But of course, if Donald Trump wins, I'd be willing to bet The Democrats' only play will be a second impeachment unless Republicans take back the House, in which case they will expunge the impeachment entirely.
Trump will claim it never happened.
But here we have this story, which I briefly highlighted in my main segment.
Trump is right.
We might have to impeach him again.
Why, yes.
A story from just today from George T. Conway III.
Let me read.
And of course, he's showing a picture of Lieutenant Colonel Vindman.
But let's read.
So we'll probably have to do it again, like the goofy meme says.
I'm adding the goofy meme part.
So said the already once impeached President Trump on Thursday in the East Room, musing about the possibility he could become the first president to be impeached more than once.
And on the very next day, as though he were competing for it, Trump showed precisely why he could be destined to achieve the ignominious fate.
Ignominious.
Okay.
Okay, Donald Trump and the Republicans raised $117 million.
Of course he wants you to do it again!
Don't be stupid!
Trump has kept the Democrats off-message and off-base non-stop, and they keep walking into it because they're just not smart enough to compete against Donald Trump.
And it's funny, because I certainly don't think Trump is the smartest person in the world.
I think he's clever.
I think he's smart.
A lot of people think he's a 4D chess-playing genius.
Nah, I think he knows what he's doing for the most part.
But all that really matters is not that he's smart, just that he's smarter than Democrats.
As the joke goes, when you're... Actually, no.
I'm gonna do the joke terribly, but it's basically, you ask someone, you know, if a bear is chasing me, I don't have to escape.
I only have to run faster than you.
It's all relative, right?
Trump doesn't need to be the smartest guy, so long as Democrats are just stupider than he is, and they keep walking into these traps.
So yeah, they'll probably do it again.
Trump will do a big campaign.
Something will happen.
But I'll tell you what.
When it comes to 2020, Donald Trump wins.
He can't run for election a third time.
So here's what'll happen.
They'll try to impeach him in a second term, and they'll launch a big impeachment defense, which will raise tons of money for the GOP, who will line Donald Trump Jr.' 's pockets with campaign finance gold to run in 2024.
Maybe it'll be Ivanka, maybe it'll be Pence, I don't know.
But Donald Trump Jr.
is number two in terms of polled favorites to run.
I'm not saying he will.
I don't know.
I just think there's a likelihood.
Trump Jr.
knows the culture war.
He's very culturally savvy.
I think Trump Sr.
is better with trade, just because he's a lot older and more experienced.
I'm not saying Trump Jr.
is bad, but I think Trump Jr.
is savvy in the culture war.
He's going to lend great power when it comes to an election.
And if they try to impeach Trump a second time, it's just going to be another 120 mil right in the pocket of the GOP.
Why don't you stop doing that?
Why don't you just campaign on issues America cares about?
They're not smart enough, I guess.
So let's see what he has to say, Mr. Conway.
With essentially no pretense about why he was doing it, the president brazenly retaliated Friday against two witnesses.
Oh, please.
who gave truthful testimony in the House's impeachment inquiry.
He fired Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a U.S.
ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland.
First of all, Sondland was recalled.
You can call it firing.
Vindman was just reassigned to his, like, basically permanent government job.
If he was unhappy in the White House, he shouldn't be there.
Don't call it retaliation.
Because, in fact, the next story I'll talk about is Trump's just purging the whole thing.
He's getting rid of everybody, so calm down.
And he also fired a third man, Lieutenant Colonel Yevgeny Vindman, merely for being the brother of the first.
Trump essentially admitted his retaliatory motive on Saturday, when he tweeted that he sacked Vindman in part for having reported contents of My Perfect Calls incorrectly.
You know that Barack Obama did this too, right?
Like he purged a bunch of people.
It's absolutely ridiculous.
But, you know, we'll get to that.
Conway says, if this were a criminal investigation, and Alexander Vindman and Sondland had given their testimony to a grand jury, this Friday night massacre could have been a crime.
I love it!
Not only is what Trump did not a crime, if it was a criminal investigation, what he's doing now might have been a crime.
There's no definitive statement there at all, dude!
You're gonna try and launch another impeachment against the president?
Do it!
Because you don't learn!
It's like I'm watching a bunch of kids set their head in the fire and they're screaming, ouch!
And then they do it again!
You'd think it'd stop at a certain point.
Nah, they're obsessed, man.
At the very least, it ought to be impeachable.
If Richard M. Nixon was to be impeached for authorizing hush money for witnesses, and Trump himself was actually impeached for directing defiance of House subpoenas, except they never went to the courts, that is a dangerous precedent.
The House is not more powerful than the executive branch.
Then there should be no doubt that punishing witnesses for complying with subpoenas and giving truthful testimony about presidential misconduct should make for a high crime and misdemeanor or misdemeanor as well.
But it's really not about this one day, or this one egregious act.
It's about who Trump is, who he always was, and who he always will be.
It's about the complete mismatch between the man in the office he holds.
No, I think it's mostly about your obsession, your obsession with losing in 2016, and Trump makes you so angry he strikes right at the heart of your ego.
It's like Jon Stewart said about journalists.
They take it so personally.
That Trump insults the press, that they stop reporting facts and just say, Harumph!
Oh, well, I never!
Oh!
Oh, how uncouth!
Instead of actually reporting things that might benefit, you know, their side.
I know it's funny saying journalists have a side, but they do for the most part.
Democrats could talk about issues Americans like.
They could talk about what got Trump elected in the first place.
Instead, they can't stop talking about him, man.
You know, I'll say it.
The media loves Donald Trump.
They truly, truly love the man.
I mean, their ratings are through the roof.
They love it every day.
They don't want him to go away.
The Democrats also love it.
It's like...
You know the saying goes, the opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference?
Yeah.
The Democrats both simultaneously love and hate Donald Trump.
They love that feeling they get when they pretend to fight the boogeyman.
They personally don't like the guy, but what would they do without him?
It's like the Joker, right?
That's how I kind of look at it.
When it comes to the media and the Democrats, they're the Joker sitting in that room in the dark night, looking at Donald Trump saying, I don't want you to lose re-election!
What would I do without you?
At least for the media, you know, for the most part.
But how many Democrats loved this?
Okay, look, at a presidential level, I think a ton of Democrats really do want to beat Trump.
But I think there's so many people in Congress and the Senate who love that Trump is there.
He's their Batman, and they're the Joker, just trying to win to get the keys to the castle.
Obviously not every Democrat.
Obviously not every Republican.
Calm down.
I can already hear the collective shrieks from people saying, Tim, stop generalizing my party.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it.
I'm talking about the establishment.
I'm talking about the establishment that has used the orange man bad as their main talking point non-stop for almost four years.
I understand there's a lot of voters who are frustrated with the Democrats as well.
And they're calling in saying they're going to quit the party.
Well, you can blame people like Conway for writing this nonsense.
He goes on.
It's about the fact that the presidency is a fiduciary position, the ultimate public trust, and that Trump's narcissism won't allow him to put anyone else's interest above his own.
Didn't the Fed just release data saying that the bottom 1% has increased their wealth by 54%, while the wealthy has done by 17%, so it's like triple wage growth.
Thus, Trump is kind of closing the wealth gap.
Sounds like Trump cares about someone other than himself.
Listen.
I don't think Trump's motivation is altruism.
I don't think Trump's motivation is that he sees a crying child in the street and says, I must do all I can to help that child.
I think Trump is an arrogant narcissist, probably, you know, in some overlap to what Conway is saying.
The difference is, I think Trump looks at the problem as though he's the only one who can solve it.
That's the kind of arrogant narcissist he is.
I think he cares about people, but I don't think he's sitting there saying, we must save all the children.
He's sitting there saying, we got a big system, I can fix it, I'm smarter and better than everyone else.
The problem for Democrats is that, as much as, you know, in my opinion, Trump isn't motivated by altruism, he is right about being better at it than they are, in a lot of different ways.
But I will tell you this as I wrap up and we move to the next segment.
Trump is not the smartest man on the planet.
Trump might know trade.
He might have fixed the economy, but you know what the biggest mistake he made was?
He didn't do what Obama did when Obama got in office.
Obama got in and said, y'all holdovers, you're fired.
And nobody thought twice.
Nobody said anything.
They said, yep, it happens.
Donald Trump gets in and he ignored all of these holdovers who are pounding their feet going, Democrats!
Obama!
And he should have.
He should have done what Obama did.
He didn't.
And now they come after him.
Well, guess what?
That brings me to the next segment.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes.
Donald Trump is purging the holdovers in a massive move.
So no, he's not retaliating against witnesses.
He's basically saying, if you're a holdover, you're out.
Took him long enough, right?
Stick around.
I'll see you all in a few minutes in the next segment.
This was the reasoning for why they need a second impeachment of Donald Trump.
If you didn't catch that segment, it's on my channel, youtube.com slash timcastnews.
But now we're moving into the full girth of Donald Trump's retribution, as they call it.
You see, after the impeachment trial ended with Donald Trump's acquittal, he immediately started removing key figures like Vindman and Sondland, but also Vindman's brother.
Now, I think it's a bit heavy-handed, for sure, but I do get it.
These people serve at the pleasure of the president.
If he's not confident in their abilities, then, yeah, he's gonna get rid of them.
And to be honest, Barack Obama did way more when he first got elected.
He went after tons of people.
We're now learning that in the wake of the impeachment trial, Trump scrubs 70 Obama holdovers from the National Security Council.
Cue the collective screeching from the Democrats, even though Obama did the same thing.
So they can't stand the double standards, right?
I mean, Trump needs to make sure he has a group of people who are going to be working in such a way that everyone is in it together.
If you have people who are unhappy, then it makes sense to get rid of them.
The only thing that surprises me is that Trump didn't do this in the first place.
Obama did.
Obama went after tons of people and he straight up said, if I can't trust the loyalty of these individuals, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I get it.
Now they're saying Trump should be impeached a second time.
Let's read the news from the Washington Examiner.
They report, President Trump is making good on his promise to drain the swamp and cut Obama-era holdovers from his staffs, especially the critical and recently controversial National Security Council.
Officials confirmed that Trump and National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien have cut 70 positions inherited from former President Barack Obama, who had fattened the staff to 200.
Many were loaners from other agencies and have been sent back.
Others left government work.
The NSC, which is the president's personal staff, was rocked when a whistleblower leveled charges that led to Trump's impeachment.
Last week, one key official who testified against Trump at a House hearing on the Ukraine affair that led to the impeachment was sent packing.
Now, let me stop right there and just tell you, the whistleblower complaint was wrong.
It alleged that Trump said no more than, you know, no less than seven times quid pro quo over and over again.
Sondland himself testified Trump said, I want no quid pro quo.
Do I trust any of these people?
No.
I don't trust Vindman, Sondland, or Trump.
I don't trust any of the other witnesses either.
I don't care.
Give me evidence.
Give me proof.
If one of your star witnesses, Sondland, claimed Trump said no quid pro quo, what do you want me to say about it?
You want me to call him a liar?
I don't know.
I just don't.
Maybe it makes sense for Trump to then fire a guy who flip-flopped and then said no quid pro quo.
How is it retaliation if Gordon Sondland actually said Trump said no quid pro quo?
I get it, he said there was an implied one, so it was a bit wishy-washy, but hey look, at the end of the day, these people serve at the pleasure of the president, there's no criminal proceedings here, and the whistleblower complaint was wrong.
I'll tell you what I think happened.
Based on the trial, we know it was likely Vindman who leaked information, and I mean that in the colloquial sense, not the literal legal sense, like, he basically went to this whistleblower dude, Complained about it.
Whistleblower dude thought it was worse because we're playing a game of telephone.
Filed a complaint against the president, which led to his impeachment, and it was just not true.
One of the smartest things Trump could have done was release the transcript, which he did.
Yeah, and the whole thing was complete BS.
Let's read on.
They say, Lt.
Col.
Alexander Vindman was returned to the Pentagon.
His twin brother, Lt.
Col.
Yevgeny Vindman, was also given the boot.
Trump had expressed displeasure that Alexander Vindman had testified against him when the Ukraine specialist said he did not like the phone conversation between the president and newly elected president of Ukraine.
Yes, but Trump also said, and maybe they get this, they pointed out, Trump also said the dude had terrible marks.
The people who worked with him said that he was not a good dude.
He had bad judgment.
And so Trump's getting rid of a guy with bad judgment just because he complained about the president doesn't make him immune from being fired.
He wasn't even fired.
He was just relocated.
He was reassigned.
He's still getting paid.
Since entering the White House, Trump has relied on staffs smaller than previous administrations and has noted how prior presidents had a much smaller NSC team.
O'Brien recently said that former President George W. Bush handled the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with 100 NSC aides, a model he is instituting.
This month, we will complete the right-sizing goal Ambassador O'Brien outlined in October, and in fact, may exceed that target by drawing down even more positions.
John Oliot, the NSC's Senior Director for Strategic Communications, told... told secrets?
Is that the person's name?
Anyway, that's basically the story.
We have this.
It's not just about, uh, well, getting rid of the NSC staff.
There's a lot going on.
White House has identified and will cut ties with, quote, anonymous amid sweeping Security Council layoffs.
Remember that book, A Warning?
And it was like, Trump is evil.
We got to stop him and all that stuff.
Apparently the Trump administration found the guy and they are going to be letting him, them, they, go.
Let's read the story.
And then I've got another, uh, another story about Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, if we get to it.
The Daily Caller reports the White House has identified and will soon part ways with the anonymous official behind a recently released book and a resistance-focused editorial published in the New York Times.
Former U.S.
Attorney Joe DiGenova claimed Monday morning.
DiGenova made his claim on WMAL's Mornings on the Mall, but senior White House officials declined to comment on the topic when asked by the Daily Caller.
In the book, a warning.
Released in November, the anonymous official states, there is a group of White House staffers actively hoping for President Donald Trump's downfall.
That should be a red flag to literally everyone.
The president is never going to have all of your personal ideals.
There will never be a candidate who represents you 100%.
And that means we have to respect, as a republic, sometimes you get a guy you don't like.
Sometimes you gotta accept that because people voted for the guy.
If they're actively trying to stop the pilot of our plane, we're in serious danger.
They talk about the threats of Russia and China.
Yes, please stop rocking the boat.
So what do they do?
Ah, but Trump is the threat because he's working for Putin, they claim, for four years without evidence.
Even after it's debunked, they just won't shut up about it.
These people are nuts, and they probably need to go.
White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham previously called the anonymous official a coward, and the claims within the book nothing but lies.
Quote, Real authors reach out to their subjects to get things fact-checked, but this person is in hiding, making that very basic part of being a real writer impossible, she said in response to the news of the book's release.
Just prior to the book's release, the Justice Department took steps towards possibly unmasking the official.
Joseph Hunt, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, sent a letter to the anonymous official's publisher and literary agent asking about the official's access to classified information.
Quote, If the author is, in fact, a current or former senior official in the Trump administration, publication of the book may violate that official's legal obligations under one or more nondisclosure agreements.
The letter reads, not only that, John Bolton wrote a book and he had to get it cleared because there is information that may be confidential.
This person seemingly bypasses that by just being anonymous and the publisher just publishes it.
There may be some criminal acts in there, depending, but probably not.
I don't want to exaggerate or pretend like it's worse than it really is.
The dude came out, apparently Trump found him, he's gone, it's kind of over.
Trump and National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien are cutting 70 Obama-era holdovers from the National Security Council, the Examiner reported Monday morning.
The most public of these firings was that of Lt.
Col.
Vindman on Friday.
Vindman testified during the impeachment inquiry, and everyone knows what happened next.
Which brings me to the next story.
Medal of Honor recipient says Lt.
Col.
Vindman was a spotlighter whose own peers wanted him out.
Remember, at the trial, you may have missed this, I think it was Nunes, who said something like, maybe not, someone said Mr. Vindman, and he goes, that's Lieutenant Colonel.
And everyone immediately was like, whoa, dude, chill out.
I saw some people on Twitter, some veterans, and some active, you know, I think they were veterans, you know, former, you know, in the armed forces saying things like, How, like, to an average person in the army or, you know, any military branch, like, correcting a civilian for getting your rank wrong is one of the pettiest things you can do.
And it was a complete sign of disrespect.
This dude did not come off like an honorable soldier.
He came off like a whiny brat who was mad that he wasn't in charge and that the president wouldn't listen to his opinions.
I'm not saying this because I know anything about the guy and want to disrespect him.
I'm saying he came off as somebody who claimed he was the advisor to the president and then got mad because the president didn't care about his opinions.
And sure enough, other people are pointing out similar things.
The Caller reports, Medal of Honor recipient MSG Leroy Petrie defended President Donald Trump's decision to fire Lt.
Col.
Alexander Vindman, saying that Vindman had shown he couldn't be trusted.
Petrie made an appearance on Sunday morning's Fox & Friends and responded to the news that Vindman had been fired from his post on the National Security Council and escorted from the White House.
I respect Donald Trump's actions on escorting him out of the White House because he, as a team player, he should have brought it up through the chain of command and then blown the whistle if it didn't get approved.
Petra began.
So exactly my insight is, I would fire him too.
I can't trust you on my team if you can't bring me things you don't agree with.
That's a really, really good point.
Whoever Vindman's direct boss was, he should have expressed all of this and raised an official complaint himself if he took issue with what was going on.
Instead, he went to a third or fourth party.
He wasn't even speaking on the phone call.
He just got really angry that his opinion was being neglected, exaggerated through a game of telephone, and it escalated to an impeachment, and that's on him.
They say that Petrie went on to address the fact that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and numerous others, including Joe Biden, on the New Hampshire debate stage, had lauded Vindman as a hero, saying, I think this.
I respect his service.
I understand he is Purple Heart recipient.
Being a Purple Heart recipient doesn't make somebody a hero.
I'm sorry.
Really?
It's interesting.
I appreciate your candor.
Host Pete Hegseth, also a veteran, jumped in.
Wearing the uniform doesn't make you immune from criticism, especially on the National
Security Council.
It has now been identified you're probably a part of leaking, certainly a part of a concerted
effort to hurt the president.
Well, I'll stop there.
I respect the point Hegseth made.
The uniform doesn't guarantee you that, you know, immunity from criticism.
Absolutely.
I don't think it's fair to call Vim in a leaker, though.
I think he was just a disgruntled employee who didn't want to, you know, actually go through the chain because maybe he didn't really have that much confidence in what he was saying.
Maybe the real issue was that he was just angry and he went to somebody he shouldn't have and started talking smack And that person triggered the impeachment inquiry because that person, Voldemort, as I call him, because I'm not allowed to say his name, decided they would use this to their advantage because they had been planning this for a while.
I don't think this necessarily means Vindman did anything on purpose.
He might be just a cog in the machine.
But he's certainly irresponsible.
And if Trump's going to get rid of him, well, too bad.
It's not retaliation.
Trump should have done it a long time ago.
I will leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in just a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
I've done a series of videos talking about dating, politics, age, feminism, etc., and they always end up with feminists getting really, really, really mad at me.
So, just warning y'all, I don't care.
You know, you're allowed to be mad.
But I'm gonna say something that's going to make, uh, this video will make a lot of feminists upset.
I did a segment a couple weeks ago, or a week or so ago, talking about how feminists are abandoning feminism because they can't get dates.
And I think I have data to show exactly why this is outside of politics.
You see, one of these big stories that came out recently, in October, was about a woman named Emma Sulkowicz.
She used to be considered one of the wokest of the woke, but now she's hanging out with Jordan Peterson fans, conservatives, and libertarians.
And in the story, she writes that it started with Tinder.
She met a guy.
That guy didn't want to date a woke person or something like that, and she did.
And that's kind of how things play out.
That's the assumption, at least.
It was a big story when some British celebrity said he doesn't date woke women, and feminists got outraged.
An article was then written, which included the Emma Silkowitz bit, explaining the reason they are outraged is because if women can't get dates, they are socially unappealing, they will abandon those views.
Most people hold views, it's unfortunate, they hold views because they think it's going to get them social acceptance.
There are a lot of things many people believe they wouldn't publicly say because they know they will be ostracized.
It would be bad for them.
So long as pop culture, mainstream media, and, you know, our general culture, tells these women, believe this, it's what everyone thinks, then they're going to adhere to it.
Which brings me to the first bit of data which I find fascinating.
James Pithokoukis.
Pithokoukis?
Sorry, I can't pronounce names.
You guys know this, right?
Nearly 8 in 10 Democratic women say they would be unwilling to date someone whose view of Trump contrasted with their own.
For Republican men, Trump is much less of an issue.
Now this is interesting and I think I know why.
If someone has been inundated with information on Twitter saying that the orange man is bad, the worldview they've crafted is that most people hate the president.
So when confronted with a man who says Trump's not that bad or that they like Trump, they're going to view them as the odd people.
They're not mainstream culture.
If they want to fit in, they will try their hardest to maintain that view of the president.
But what happens when everyone around them keeps saying, you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong, their views change?
Like we saw with that story talking about Emma Sulkowicz.
When she went to date a guy, that guy turned out to be a conservative, and she didn't go running and screaming.
She said, tell me more, I'm interested.
Now, I'm not questioning her integrity.
I'm saying people, human beings, they do this.
Which brings me to the main story.
Partisan Attachment, How Politics is Changing Dating and Relationships in the Trump Era.
Findings from the January 2020 American Perspective Survey.
Now, this is the survey that actually brings up this data point.
They talk more, not just about Trump, but also about government spending, affirmative action, immigration, climate change, gun rights and control, LGBT rights, religious freedoms, and abortion.
Here's what they say.
No issue.
is a bigger deal-breaker in dating than abortion.
And this makes total sense.
Abortion isn't something intangible like whether or not the orange man is truly bad.
Like whether or not Trump is bad or not is like a personal opinion based on a ton of factors.
Abortion, however, is basically the woman saying, I'd like to be able to do a thing.
And people choose their individual liberties and freedoms.
And this is where we get a big deal-breaker.
How difficult would it be to date someone who does not share your own views of the following?
And it would be impossible, say 24%, when it comes, this is US adults, when it comes to abortion.
Probably because when it comes to men or women who are pro-life, they say absolutely not, and pro-choice men or women will say absolutely not.
44% said very or somewhat difficult, and 32% said not to or not difficult at all.
So it's the minority that finds no difficulty.
We then go down and say religious freedoms, LGBT rights, gun control.
I'm gonna now tell you what the biggest threat to woke feminism is.
Assuming this thesis around women wanting to date as a big factor in what they believe, I think it makes a lot of sense.
Let me say a few things before I show you the next chart.
I think on average, people want to feel wanted.
They want to know that they are the best of the best.
So when it comes to dating, when you have a ton of people coming up and telling you how awesome you are, it feels really, really good.
I mean, when it comes to anything, you know, sports, whatever, you accomplish something, people come up and say, you're the best, it feels really good.
How do you think someone would feel if they never get complimented?
If people never say, I like you or I want to be with you, and they feel like they're unwanted or unattractive?
I think they're gonna become pretty unhappy.
I mean, there's whole message boards dedicated to people who are incels.
Many of these people feel unwanted or like they can't win.
But the issue is, some of these men are actually average-looking dudes.
They're not ugly, but they just feel that way.
What do you think happens when someone adopts an ideology, and all of a sudden now, nobody wants to be around them?
Check this out.
This is old data, but it lines up with a lot of what I've been talking about in these segments going back the past, you know, several months, actually.
Republicans have a millennial woman problem, reports Vox.
Nearly 70% of young women say they are leaning toward Democratic candidates in the midterms, which makes for an interesting conundrum when it comes to matchmaking.
Check this out.
Let me read a little bit first.
They say, so this story is very old.
It's very old.
It's from June 2018.
But the data from Pew is enlightening.
And I'm going to take this data and then extrapolate it as to how it pertains to dating.
A new survey from the Pew Research Center finds young women between the ages of 18 and 34 far and away prefer the Democratic congressional candidate in their districts.
Their preference for Democrats is significantly higher than that of women of other age groups.
Women overall are likely to lean blue, with 54% supporting or leaning the Democratic candidate in their district this fall versus 38% who favor the Republican candidate.
But 68% of young women are choosing Democrats, compared to 24% who prefer Republicans.
Now this is where the bad news comes in for conservative men and Democrat women.
First, let me actually zoom in on this image.
It's kind of small for those that are watching.
We can see that there are more Democratic women than Democratic men.
As we just learned from the previous article from the American Enterprise Institute, women find some things untenable in dating.
If you support Donald Trump, they ain't gonna date you.
So what happens when there are more women than Democratic men?
That means Men are in demand and women are the supply.
There are more women available.
So if you were to take 43 men And 54 women, and put them in a room.
The 43 men will find a partner, and the remaining women will not.
Those women will have no choice but to cross the aisle to seek out Republican men, or the best they can do, because it's general dating marketplace, supply and demand.
If those 11 women don't want to be alone, they have no choice.
But what if their views conflict?
Well, they either be alone and lonely, like many women actually do, or they change their views.
And that brings me to... The bigger conundrum, in my opinion, pertains to millennials and to women.
I'll tell you why.
Republican men make up the supply, and Republican women are in demand.
There's only, out of the hundred, you have 38 women and 49 men, which means those 38 women, you're gonna have dudes fighting over them, you know, like tooth and nail to get that woman, right?
That's going to leave around 11 Republican men.
What is this?
Well, that's actually really interesting, those numbers, right?
Because they will both end up crossing over and finding each other, creating a more moderate middle, or a couple that really hates each other for some reason.
But no, I think they're going to have to respect, you know, each other.
This brings me to the first tweet and why the problem is for Democrats and the left.
It's why the right isn't having the problem for the most part.
Or at least, I shouldn't say that, I should say it's why we don't hear about that in media as much as we do about the feminists.
They say, when it comes to Republican men, they don't really care about your view.
Would date someone with a different view of Trump, 52.
48 would not.
Compared to Democratic women, 79%.
The dudes don't care.
So technically I would say it's good news for the women, but...
Dude's gonna date anybody.
Dude's gonna date, you know, Republican, Democrat, it's like, whatever, you know, they're less likely to date a Democrat woman.
If the Democrat wants to date the guy, she's gonna have to change her views because the guy is less likely to.
The guy is gonna say, I don't care, I'll date whoever, but for her, if she's gonna choose a mate and there's no men available, the only remaining, you know, people left are 11% of Trump supporters, she'll have to get rid of this.
Now it's possible they say, you know, 21% would have no problem.
But what happens when some of these women who hate Trump end up finding a bunch of men who absolutely hate Trump?
Those or the women who are slightly ambivalent find someone who hates Trump.
You're going to end up with a small fraction of women who have no choice but to date a man they said they would never date.
Their views will likely be changing.
The Republican men ultimately don't care.
They're ambivalent.
It gets even worse when you look at millennial women, because the supply of millennial men is much lower, with around 21%.
So if we were to break it down to 100 men and 100 women, that means 21 women will be without a date unless they cross over and try and date a Republican man.
But as we saw, they wouldn't do that.
So they can choose to fight, be angry, complain.
Not to mention a lot of these Democratic guys turn out to be abusers.
It's fair to say.
That Republican men face a similar problem.
That you've got 26% on the Republican side, more men than women.
The issue is, the guys don't care.
They'll date whoever!
And come on, let's be real.
I'd be willing to bet you take any guy, and he'd, you know, guys are less picky in a lot of ways than women are.
So for guys, it's not that big of a deal.
For women, it's a much bigger deal when their only option is to say, you know what, I guess I have no choice but to date a Trump supporter.
Guess what they'll do?
They will change their views.
And that's what we've been seeing.
And that's why we've seen several articles come out saying, no, don't do it.
Don't date these people.
They're evil.
I kid you not.
There's been more than one.
I did it.
I did it.
I covered one of these vice articles.
We talked about it.
Now this data is about women being Democrat or Republican, or men being Democrat or Republican.
But when you combine it with this other data and these other concepts, it starts to make sense.
Women seemingly will have to break down their views a bit more than men would.
If the men don't care about what you think about Trump, they're not that extreme in their opinions.
The women who say straight up, I won't date a Republican man or a Trump supporter, have a much more extreme opinion.
So this 68% of millennial women will become more moderate, it would seem.
I could be wrong about all of this.
I'm just interpreting the data in that way.
So if you think I'm wrong, just tell me I'm wrong in the comments, but I will leave it there.
