Donald Trump Is WINNING His Fight With "The Swamp" And Putting DC Elites In Full On Panic Mode
Donald Trump Is WINNING His Fight With "The Swamp" And Putting DC Elites In Full On Panic Mode. Even before he was elected Trump was facing "swamp" opposition as dubious investigations jammed up his campaign.But somehow Trump was able to win and since then has faced intense opposition from DC elites and the Democratic establishment.Now with impeachment finally over and all the investigations done Trump and Bill Barr are moving to clean house and "drain the swamp." Whatever your view is on Trump it is clear that he is winning. None of the scandals have stuck, none of the investigations bore fruit, and now Bill Barr is making heavy moves at the DOJ for Mike Flynn and Roger Stone, Republicans are investigating the Biden's, and Trump has purged 70+ staff from the National Security Council.Trump is winning, "The Swamp" is being drained, and the Democrats are in the middle of a massive conflict with no clear winner in sight.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This is Donald Trump's smirking revenge, or as Chris Cuomo puts it, revenge rampage.
Others have called it retaliation or illegal retribution.
Since the end of the impeachment trial, Donald Trump has moved to clean house, removing over 70 people from the National Security Council, including the Vindman brothers.
He recalled Gordon Sondland.
And now Bill Barr over the DOJ is making some pretty heavy moves.
He recommended a lighter sentence for Roger Stone, which has Democrats furious.
Demanding an investigation and calling for the potential impeachment of Bill Barr himself or the second impeachment of Donald Trump.
Now Bill Barr is ordering an outside prosecutor to review the Flynn case because presumably, or as many people believe, there was some foul play involved.
See, Bill Barr was appointed for a few reasons.
According to the press, one of those reasons was that some of the prosecutors Mueller brought in had made political donations to Hillary Clinton.
Now, I can't tell you exactly what's going on right now with these major moves, but I do have some ideas as to why they're happening now.
I think Donald Trump's actually been planning this since he got elected, but there were a few roadblocks in his way.
The fake Russiagate investigation had to stop.
And as soon as it did, what did we then see?
Well, while there were some moves from Trump, eventually impeachment came up.
And now with the Ukrainegate scandal, Donald Trump was once again constrained.
In fact, before the impeachment, many people were calling on the intelligence community to constrain Donald Trump, to stop him from purging what he and his supporters call the swamp.
I want to walk you through some of the latest details.
You see, Chris Cuomo over at CNN lays it out as though it's a nefarious, mafioso-type deal.
I'm not so sure I think that's a bit of a biased approach.
Now, I'm not going to say that Donald Trump is right or that he's innocent, but I don't think what we're really seeing is some corrupt action by Donald Trump to dismantle government.
I think we're seeing political factions warring, and I think we're seeing the internal civil war within our own government.
Now, civil war may be heavy-handed.
I don't really know what else to call it.
But let's dive deep into what's going on with Donald Trump's purging of the swamp, or the deep state, whatever you want to call it.
And we'll take a look at some of the latest moves from Bill Barr and why Democrats are so angry with him.
And I want to show you why I think they're lying to you.
We'll start with a story from Mediaite.
But before we do, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are several ways you can give.
The best thing you can do is just share this video.
Hopefully break some echo chambers.
And I also notice a lot of people don't subscribe.
If you do watch my content and you want to see more like it, make sure to subscribe.
Hit that notification bell.
It really does help.
But let's now read the story.
Revenge Rampage!
Chris Cuomo Brutally Dissects Trump's Godfather-Style Week of Score-Settling After Acquittal.
They report CNN's Chris Cuomo offered up a brutal day-by-day dissection of President Donald Trump's week-long score-settling campaign since the impeachment acquittal.
After teasing a segment on Trump's revenge rampage, Cuomo began by ridiculing the credulous Republican senators who justified their acquittal vote by suggesting Trump had learned a lesson from his impeachment.
This notion has proved so wrong so fast that Senator Collins is pretending it never happened.
Just today, her quote, I don't understand why you keep linking how I voted to whether or not the president's learned to be more careful.
I want to point out something I'm doing right here.
I'm going to be using a lot of sources that frame everything as though Trump is doing something wrong for a reason.
Because I'm going to show you the contrasting evidence that suggests they're falsely framing the story.
But let's move on.
And again, I'll stress, I'm not here to say I know exactly what's happening within the government.
But I certainly think what we're seeing from CNN, from Vox, from Mediaite, from all these other outlets, is overt bias to protect their establishment.
They don't like Trump.
They don't like Bernie.
And while Bernie and Trump both don't like each other to a certain degree, and their supporters don't, there's a big difference between the elite establishment and the populist movement.
Now let's see what Chris Cuomo had to say.
He starts by saying on Wednesday, The day Trump was acquitted, his attorney general shut down any FBI or DOJ investigation of a presidential campaign unless he signs off, specifically declaring off-limits any cases involving illegal contributions, donations, or payments by foreign nationals.
Literally, Trump made himself investigation proof.
I don't know.
Did he?
Bill Barr says Trump has never asked him for anything.
And Bill Barr, it's my understanding, as the story was reported in the New York Times, was talking about what happened with Comey in 2016, when Hillary Clinton had the whole email investigation, and how many people believe that swung the election for Trump.
So perhaps it's actually to help them.
I don't know.
It's not being framed that way.
On Thursday, his Treasury armed Republican allies with sensitive financial records to target Hunter Biden, exactly what he was accused of engineering abroad.
Or perhaps, from the other side, Hunter Biden is corrupt, The media has claimed he's been corrupt for a very long time.
And many people have questions about why he was receiving $83,000 per month to work on the board of a Ukrainian energy company.
When he had no real experience in that country.
Perhaps they're doing a real investigation.
I wonder why, when all of these investigations started, Chris Cuomo didn't say the exact same thing about Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
And that's the point.
While I'm definitely, for the millionth time, not saying Trump is innocent, I'm saying, look, they did the same thing.
And I'm going to show you.
Let's read on.
On Friday, he fired Vindman and Gordon Sondland and his brother.
They said it was just awkward to keep them.
That would prove to be a lie.
Trump didn't just fire Vindman.
He fired like 70 people.
It was just a purge.
On Monday, the defense that Rudy Giuliani is doing his own thing has no real influence in the government.
Remember that?
It was revealed to be a sham.
Always was.
The Attorney General now confirming Giuliani is funneling them whatever dirt he digs up in Ukraine.
The Democrats like to accuse Trump of what they're doing.
So when Joe Biden did a quid pro quo to fire a prosecutor who did have an open investigation into Burisma, and that's a fact, they say it was dormant, but it was an open investigation, they accused Trump of trying to get a quid pro quo.
It's something we often see in the media as a defense.
Accuse your opponent before they accuse you, because as the saying goes, whoever calls the cops first wins.
On Tuesday, the DOJ bowed to Trump's desire to go easy on his pal Roger Stone, who was convicted of lying by a jury, and the Commander-in-Chief called for the military to pursue charges against Vindman for telling the truth.
Except, Bill Barr says Trump never intervened, and Bill Barr actually criticized Trump, saying, stop tweeting, it's making it hard for me to do my job.
We've got a few updates here.
First, Bill Barr is bringing in an outside prosecutor to review the FBI's investigation of Donald Trump adviser Mike Flynn after row over
intervention in Roger Stone case.
Why is Flynn being, why are the charges and the pursuit of Flynn so heavy handed? It's always
confused me because certainly there's been many people who have lied who are not being charged.
One of the reasons I don't think this is a mafioso godfather like move, and I think
there is some legitimacy to the claim Trump is cleaning up corruption, or at least partisan bias
in these, in these institutions is that the right now the DOJ is not going to be going after Andrew
McCabe and Trump supporters are angry about it.
But Mike Flynn is, they're going after him, even though they've released, his defense released documents showing that some of them may have been manipulated.
In which case, should he have even pled guilty in the first place, probably not.
Let's move on though.
For this, Sally Yates blasts Trump for using DOJ as personal grudge squad.
Trump always wanted to drain the swamp, and he's doing it now.
But I go back to what I said in the beginning.
I'm curious as to what was really going on with the Russiagate investigation, because as we now know, some of those FISA warrants were bad.
Meaning, Crossfire Hurricane, that famous operation that launched into investigating the Trump campaign, before he was even in office, before he was elected, it was a bunk investigation.
Well, for the most part.
Now, the Horowitz Report said that there was a legitimate reason to investigate, whatever.
The reason I'm bringing this up is, why didn't Trump drain the swamp as soon as he got into office?
I mean, honestly, he could not.
When he fired Comey, that's when everything went nuts.
That's when they decided to launch a special prosecutor, and they put us through years of Russiagate insanity, which was all fake news.
The whole thing was bunk.
And now Trump is finally getting what they're calling his revenge, with Bill Barr coming in.
They're now angry, saying it's his stooge, his lackey.
They want Barr impeached.
Unfortunately, Trump's the president, and it seems like he's going after these holdovers, these permanent employees.
And the media has been going after him for it.
Check out this story from Vox.
Trump's purge.
President Trump's interference with Roger Stone's sentencing shows the real lesson he took from impeachment, that he has impunity.
Trump can fire whoever he wants.
These people serve at the pleasure of the president.
I believe it was Obama who bolstered the National Security Council.
But Trump couldn't really fire a whole lot of people when they were investigating him in the Russiagate nonsense, and he couldn't do it during Ukrainegate either.
So finally we get an end to the Russiagate insanity.
Trump starts actually making some moves, as we can see here from a CNN story.
From August, Trump's purge of his own national security team is almost complete.
Now, I get it.
These people were Trump's people.
But Trump was trying to find people loyal to him, whether you like it or not, and he was firing people who contradicted him and who he didn't like.
Because like Obama said, you need unity and loyalty in the administration to make it function properly.
What did they say back in August?
That dynamic has flipped now.
People are seeing the intelligence community not as something that should be constrained, but something that should constrain the president.
That's kind of... weird.
Donald Trump is the duly elected president.
He's supposed to serve because he was elected to do so.
Why would the unelected intelligence agencies be seen as something that needs to constrain the president?
Clearly you can see the conflict between Trump and the intelligence community.
Unfortunately for Trump, someone in the intelligence community started the whole impeachment process and now Trump can't do anything about it.
At least while impeachment is going on.
That's why when impeachment ended, Trump makes his move.
I'll point out, I can't actually tell you the name of the individual who was reported to have been colluding with one of Adam Schiff's staff members.
This is reported by Real Clear Investigations, certified by my news guard as a legitimate news organization.
That said, multiple sources confirm a man I cannot name, years ago, working with another man named Sean Misko, were talking about how they would remove the president by any means necessary.
That man, Misko, then joined Adam Schiff's staff, then gave advice to this whistleblower,
who I can't name, and that was used as a pretext to launch the Ukrainegate investigation of
Donald Trump, once again putting his moves on hold.
Trump has been constrained every step of the way.
A lot of people might think that's a good thing, but Trump wanted to drain the swamp
and get rid of these holdovers, many of whom have resigned.
But let me show you something.
First, they're now saying that Trump installs loyalists to top jobs after impeachment purge.
Well, obviously.
I don't think that really matters.
You get the point.
But let's talk about Bill Barr and why they don't like him, adding to that previous point about the holdovers and why Trump wanted them purged.
The Nation is now going after Bill Barr, saying Bill Barr is even worse than you realize.
The Attorney General is on a tear, shredding the rule of law just as he threatened he would.
Or this story.
Roger Stone's prosecutors quit, so did American democracy.
These are people who are demanding that Bill Barr be removed or Trump be impeached again.
Why was Bill Barr brought on?
According to some sources, which have been aggregated on Wikipedia, they say the first was that Bill Barr supported Trump's firing of Comey on May 9, 2017.
Second, he questioned the appointments of some of Mueller's prosecutors due to political donations they had made to the Clinton campaign.
Third, he alleged there were conflicts of interest of two appointees to the special counsel team, Jenny Rhee and Bruce Ohr.
Whether you agree or disagree, it doesn't matter.
That's why he was brought on.
Trump wants to get rid of conflicts of interest.
That's the only perceivable fact, I think, that I can actually make.
Now, in my opinion, I can say Trump is annoyed by these people who are coming after him and obstructing him.
That's fine, but that's an opinion.
The fact is, these are the things Bill Barr has actually said.
I shouldn't say they're facts, but the most likely reasons that people have claimed.
I do think there's an important point to be made.
Mueller's prosecutors made political donations to the Clinton campaign.
That's right.
I agree with Bill Barr.
They should not have been appointed.
In which case it seems like Bill Barr is actually, he is trying to seek out and remove partisan political bias within these various organizations and government.
Makes sense.
For this, they want him removed.
The battle that's going on, you know, I've talked about the political street clashes and things like that, but I'll tell you, it really does feel like there's an active civil war in government.
And I don't necessarily know why or how it's going to play out, but most people don't know one important thing.
And this was surprising to me.
Did you know that Bill Barr... What's surprising me is people didn't know this.
Bill Barr is the 77th And 85th Attorney General.
He was the Attorney General in 1991 to 1993.
Now, I knew that, and I was surprised to find out most people don't.
This is not some guy who was randomly chosen to be a stooge for Trump.
This is somebody who served, and left, and there were no problem- Well, there were some criticisms and some, you know, of course, it's always politics, but he didn't leave in a disgraced manner.
He wasn't impeached.
He left.
Trump brought him back.
So why all of the insanity now?
Why the claims, the accusations against him?
Why do they want him removed?
From Fox News, Barr under fire as Dems vow to investigate Attorney General and call for his impeachment.
Why?
It's because they don't like that he doesn't want Roger Stone to serve nine years for lying?
Let me tell you why I do not believe the media.
I do not believe the Democrats.
And I'll say it for the fourth time.
I'm not claiming Trump is innocent.
But boy, do I not trust the other side.
Take a look at this.
First, as I mentioned earlier, Andrew McCabe, ex-FBI, will not be charged in lying case.
They said the decision to decline charges appears to be a move to distance the Justice Department from President Trump, who has long attacked Mr. McCabe.
Trump supporters demanded this guy be charged, and they were shocked when the news came out he wasn't.
If the DOJ was simply trying to appease Trump, wouldn't they go for it?
Oh, but the argument now is, but they're trying to make it seem like they're not appeasing Trump.
No, this is literally not appeasing Trump.
Trump does not like this guy.
I think it's fair to say that Bill Barr is acting independently to weed out what he sees as corruption.
He's a guy who was the Attorney General before.
He's the Attorney General again.
I don't see what their claim is that he's doing anything wrong.
But now we're going to get to the point about the corruption that needs to be weeded out.
PolitiFact reports on a quote from Donald Trump that Hillary Clinton received a subpoena and then deleted 33,000 emails.
I do not believe PolitiFact when they call it mostly true, but they do give us some important facts when they say, on March 4th, 2015, The Benghazi committee issues a subpoena requiring Clinton to turn over all emails from her private server related to the incident in Libya.
Between March 25th and 31st, the Platte River Network's employee has what he calls an OS moment, realizing he did not delete Clinton's email archive.
Per Mills' December 2014 request, the employee deletes the email archive using a software called BleachBit, and BleachBit is to make sure it can never be recovered.
On March 27th, Clinton's lawyers sent a letter to the Benghazi committee, saying the State Department already has the relevant emails, as they were included in the December 5th, 2014 turnover.
They say Trump's timeline is correct, the congressional subpoena came on March 4th, and the employee deleted the emails on March 25th.
However, the implication that Clinton deleted emails relevant to the subpoena in order to avoid scrutiny is unprovable, if not flat out wrong.
That's not true at all.
It is provable, if we can get the emails.
Now, I don't know if we can.
They're probably gone, and where's the server?
We'll probably never find out.
But it doesn't matter.
Hillary Clinton had 33,000 emails, and this individual, whether it was her or not, deleted them after a subpoena.
I don't care what you say after that.
The deed was done.
But oh boy, does it get better.
Well first, the PolitiFact tries claiming, you know, there's no way to prove it, and Hillary says they had nothing to do with anything.
I don't care what she says.
She deleted emails.
I'd like to know what happened to them and why they were deleted.
But of course, it gets worse, like I said.
Watch CNN anchor's disbelief that Clinton aides destroyed phones with hammer.
So were public records, state records destroyed?
Yes.
And some of them in very crude and shocking ways, like smashing them with a hammer.
Here's the point I'm making.
You have a faction of people that actively defend Hillary Clinton, the people that were appointed under her in the administration of Obama, in which she served, people that are accused of political bias, who gave Hillary Clinton money, and you have Hillary Clinton who deleted emails, regardless of whatever they were for, after a subpoena was received, regardless of why they were deleted, they were.
Not a thing.
Not a peep.
CNN.
Disbelief that these phones were destroyed with a hammer.
Yeah.
Now, I can't tell you, again, why all this is going on, but now we have the next hero of the left.
Another reason why I absolutely do not believe what they say about Trump and his campaign.
What choice do I have?
They propped up Michael Avenatti like some hero, and it turned out he was crooked, and he's been convicted of extortion.
Meanwhile, they claim Trump is the bad guy.
While you now have Michael Bloomberg propping up Democratic politicians and buying his way into the presidency.
I'm sorry.
I do not believe what they are saying.
We have a record economy.
Unemployment is down.
Trump has all of these awful character defects.
But it doesn't matter if I think he's right or wrong.
It matters.
They've never proven their case.
In fact, to the contrary, they've proven they get away with it every single time.
Russiagate was fake news, and all it did was jam us up for years.
Ukrainegate, also fake news.
And when the Republicans try to go after Hunter Biden, and there is reason to suggest there's corruption there, they claim it's retaliation.
They'll keep doing it.
Meanwhile, their heroes are crooks.
Going back to the start of Russiagate and what I was saying about how it feels like this was just jamming Trump up.
I don't know why.
Maybe they really thought Russia was doing these crazy things, but it seems bunk considering the FBI lied several times and a court has ruled two of four FISA warrants against Carter Page were declared invalid.
But I want to show you why now the media is full of it.
Take a look at this story from The Blaze.
Katie Couric says she is shocked by Fox News after watching it makes her crazy.
Did you know the media lies?
You probably do, and it's probably why my channel's on a Google search blacklist, and why they prevent my videos from coming up in autoplay search and try to funnel you over to Fox News.
Fox News is safe for them, I suppose.
I don't exactly know what their plan is or why they do it.
It's probably just an overreaction due to bad press, but I often wonder why the press is targeting us so much.
Well, the press lies.
In this story, Katie Couric is shocked because she claims Fox News is an alternate universe.
I gotta admit, it is.
Did Fox News prop up Michael Avenatti and claim that he was going to be the Democratic primary contender?
No.
Did Fox News claim that Russiagate was true and that Trump was crooked?
No.
Was Fox News right?
Yes.
And Katie Couric now is saying it's an alternate reality that makes her crazy.
Meanwhile, The Blaze points out, Couric was caught deceptively editing an interview for a documentary advocating for gun control in 2016 and faced aggressive criticism from gun rights defenders.
She was forced to apologize later, but attempted to shift the blame to the movie's director.
They did a deceptive editing technique where she asks a question and then they used B-roll footage, meaning just like room shots, so no one's talking or saying anything, to make it look like these people had no answer to the question that was being posed.
In short, the media lied.
They used a manipulation to make you think one thing when it wasn't really happening.
I'll throw it back to Vox when they say President Trump's interference with Roger Stone's sentencing shows the real lesson he took from impeachment that he has impunity.
I'll remind you that Matthew Iglesias of Vox once said that Middle America does not believe they received a tax cut when they objectively had.
This proves progressive messaging has worked.
He was actually cheering the idea that progressives were lying about what was going on.
Later on, he actually stated, the economy is doing great, and the Democrats' only choice is to lie.
That's from Vox, the left-wing VOX.com.
So when I hear that Bill Barr is having a review of these cases, when I hear that these prosecutors are resigning, the first thing I think is not, oh no, Trump is destroying the rule of law like they would try to, you know, claim.
The first thing I think is, these people have been lying to us for years!
Why should I believe that what they're saying now is true?
They're just trying to get away with their partisan BS.
And now they're getting caught.
They will do anything to stop Trump.
Because they are running on a campaign of morality.
Not economics.
Not American issues.
Not national issues.
It's simple morality.
Trump is immoral.
We think so.
He must be stopped.
And they say they'll do anything to get rid of him.
Which is why second impeachment is on the horizon from McClatchy.
McClatchy, by the way, also just filed for bankruptcy.
Trump critics say another impeachment is not off the table.
Could it really happen?
It was Swalwell.
It was Conway.
Yep.
Because of what Bill Barr is doing in getting rid of some of these people, because of the sentence recommendation for Roger Stone, because of now the review for Flynn, they're saying it's time to impeach Barr or impeach Trump.
They'll never stop.
Rest assured, there will be another investigation, as Pelosi has already called for one.
I believe Schiff has as well.
Once they launch that investigation, they'll claim any move made by Trump is simply an attempt to obstruct their investigation.
Which, of course, is nonsense.
They've been trying that strategy non-stop.
They've been doing it over and over again.
As soon as impeachment was over, we saw the moves being made.
The removal of 70-plus people.
The anonymous writer, the guy who wrote that book, A Warning, anonymous, apparently got fired.
And we saw the request for documents from Republican senators.
It seems like whatever is happening in government is a fight between two factions.
Both will tell you they're noble and justified, and I gotta say, I don't know or care who is telling the truth.
What I do know, or I'm sorry, I shouldn't put it that way.
I don't know or care who is the noble hero.
What I do know is one side's been lying the whole time.
The media establishment, the Democrats, have been misleading everybody.
Rachel Maddow, for instance, for years, making the most insane Nonsensical claims about Russia and Trump.
Bringing on people who claimed Trump was a Russian asset since the 80s.
So they're lying.
So all I can really say is maybe Trump's lying.
I don't know.
But they are lying.
So who am I supposed to believe?
Honestly, it's tough.
But I don't believe them.
So I'm more than happy to sit back and let Bill Barr do his thing.
We'll see what happens, though.
They're gonna launch another investigation.
They're saying they're gonna.
And they're gonna try and jam Trump up all over again.
And it might work.
And they're gonna hold out.
That's the plan.
That's what I'm seeing.
Hold out until 2020 to try and beat Trump.
Try and get in Michael Bloomberg, who's going to spend $400 million to subvert our democratic institutions.
That way they can preserve their swamp, or whatever you want to call it.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews, and I will see you all there.
The ultra-woke Scandinavian Airlines ad that argued Scandinavia has no culture has been restored.
In their righteous battle against the far-right and 4chan, Scandinavian Airlines says we will not back down in the face of a coordinated harassment campaign.
So they brought the video back, and as you can see, it's another one of these woke commercial circumstances like Gillette or whatever.
It's got 83,000 dislikes and only 8,000 likes, and they've disabled the comments.
But let me bring you in on the great secret as to what's really going on.
In this commercial, for those that haven't seen it, they basically ask, what is truly Scandinavian?
And then it shows a series of people saying nothing.
And it's supposed to be shocking, they go on to show a bunch of people explaining that these traditional things made in Scandinavia are actually brought from other places.
The commercial is stupid.
Firstly, because regular people appreciate that other cultures have their own things.
The people who are met at this commercial are not far right, like the media would tell you.
So this is where things get interesting.
The commercial was originally pulled.
You may have seen the other segments I've talked about this.
And Mother Jones, for instance, said 4chan trolls target Scandinavian airlines with racist harassment campaign.
That is fake news.
It's not fake news in the sense that, like, obviously 4chan's talking about it, but so are tons of other subreddits.
This is what they do to try and shut down any legitimate criticism of a terrible fake woke ad.
The Guardian writes, what is truly Scandinavian?
Nothing.
Airline clarifies ad after far-right criticism.
Far right!
Far right, you say?
Let me tell you something.
Historians were mad about this.
It is just not true.
Scandinavia has invented and created many things.
This commercial claims nothing is Scandinavian, they have no culture, and then goes on to talk about how everything they have actually was pulled from other cultures.
First of all, if it were the case that they've never created anything, then the argument that different cultures take little bits from other cultures to make their own unique culture, that's literally how the world has always worked.
I mean, granted, going back a thousand years, people were really isolated, so they had very, very unique cultures.
But everything is inspired by something else.
Especially when you're looking at Europe, and how people moved around and borders changed relatively frequently.
You could argue nothing belongs to literally anybody.
And in their stupid commercial, they're like, what about, you know, the Danish pastry?
Actually, it's Austrian.
That's not true.
It's actually not true.
I'll just show you.
I can't believe I'm talking about Danish pastries, but I've got to debunk this in terms of their stupid argument before I prove the media is lying to you.
And that's the big point.
The media is absolutely lying to you about what's going on.
I want you to know.
Most regular people think this ad is complete BS.
And I'm glad to see that people are standing up and saying F off with this insane nonsense.
So you can just read the Wikipedia about the Danish.
I said, that's interesting.
Is it really Austrian?
It turns out it was derived from an Austrian recipe.
Let's make this clear.
Austrian bakers had a certain recipe.
They came to Denmark.
Danish bakers saw that recipe and changed it and made something new that was unique to Denmark.
Now they want to argue that the Danish pastry itself came from Austria.
That's not true.
This iteration of what it is did not exist in Austria.
So if you want to argue that the Danish pastry was created in Austria, then who invented baking?
Because you can keep going back into a million years and say, did you know that the Danish pastry was actually Austrian, but it's not even Austrian?
Because it's actually Arabic?
That makes no sense.
The point is, different cultures adapt and change things and make things unique to that, you know, on their own.
So if you want to talk about what's uniquely Scandinavian, we can talk about the things they've literally created.
Now, I think it's dumb to talk about this, but I want to go after why the media is lying, and I've got an oh-so-grand debunking of this trash commercial.
It has nothing to do with far-right criticism.
It has to do with historical accuracy and respecting other people's cultures.
Now, look.
If these Scandinavian cultures want to be walked all over and pretend like they have nothing, then by all means self-flagellate.
I don't care.
I'm not Scandinavian.
But I think in terms of historical context, in terms of what we talk about existing and where things come from, I'm going to stay true to history and talk about, yes, Scandinavia has invented things.
Are you familiar with the man they call the Merchant of Death?
He was in fact Swedish, and he was responsible for the Nobel Prize.
That's right, good old Alfred Nobel invented dynamite, and he was called the Merchant of Death.
Apparently, what happened was, someone thought he had died, and then published an obituary saying the merchant of death is dead, and he freaked out when he saw it, so using his fortune, he created the Nobel Prize.
Guess what?
This dude was Swedish.
Dynamite is uniquely Scandinavian.
But of course, everyone's taken it.
Are you then gonna claim that every explosive in the world isn't actually unique?
Did you know that the United States didn't actually invent military ordnance?
You know, of a specific kind.
You're gonna argue that the people who are developing weapons for like Northrop Grumman They didn't actually create the explosive because dynamite was made by Alfred Nobel in Sweden.
It's stupid.
It's stupid We all stand on the shoulders of Giants.
It is not far-right criticism, and now I want to drive this well actually Let me read this for you, and then I'm going to provide you with the ultimate evidence of how the media manipulates you.
I don't actually care about the commercial.
What I care about is whenever there's some stupid, ideological, woke, fake news, you end up with the media publishing this trash.
Okay, I say the media, but I mean various left-wing outlets lie.
Mother Jones claims it's 4chan.
They say, Much of the online harassment directed at a major European airline in recent days appears to have come from users of a controversial 4chan message board, according to a review by Mother Jones.
This is how they lie to you.
You see, of course 4chan's talking about it.
But one thing that's really important is that it's just a message board.
I would be willing to bet that these people who work there probably made some of these posts on 4chan.
I wouldn't be surprised.
So they could then screenshot it and say, oh, look, look at this.
It's 4chan.
It's the boogeyman.
Now, of course, I'd be willing to bet.
I'd bet a decent amount of money 4chan is making threads about this.
But guess what?
Other forums are also making posts about this.
It's not just 4chan.
It's like the entire internet.
And on YouTube, no one's being directed to this video.
Like, you've got 90% thumbs down.
To argue that the only reason anyone has found out about this comes from 4chan is absurd.
But they want to do that because 4chan is their boogeyman.
Now admittedly 4chan is pretty powerful in manipulating the media so it's almost like a symbiotic thing where the media loves being played like for morons because of 4chan.
They say, earlier this week, the Sweden-based Scandinavian Airlines released a commercial as part of its What is Truly Scandinavian marketing campaign.
According to the airline, also referred to as SAS, absolutely nothing is truly Scandinavian.
The ad explains our democracy.
Credit goes to Greece.
Parental leave?
Thank you, Switzerland.
The iconic Scandinavian windmills were actually invented in Persia.
What about licorice?
It's Chinese.
The point, the ad explains, is that in a way, Scandinavia was brought here piece by piece by people who traveled abroad.
We can't wait to see what wonderful things you bring home.
Next, it concludes.
The only problem is that that's literally everything.
So I guess the issue here is they do have a point.
But there are many things that are absolutely unique to Scandinavia that, you know, probably grows there, the certain kind of fishing, all of that stuff.
I mean, there are huge whalers, for instance.
I'm proud that's not part of our culture.
But the problem is they say nothing.
They could have said, what is truly Scandinavian?
A lot.
But did you know?
And then they could make their point about various things aren't actually from Scandinavia.
One of the stupidest things, though.
Is that there was a Twitter account that posted a tweet saying, Swedish meatballs aren't actually Swedish, they're Turkish.
That's ridiculous.
Like, it's meat, dude.
You took meat and you mashed it up.
I haven't found any other culture, well maybe I'm wrong, but I've not heard of any other culture that puts jelly on their meatballs and potatoes.
Perhaps there are, okay?
I thought that was pretty Scandinavian.
Maybe other people do it too?
Whatever.
Lingonberry, you can buy it, you go to Ikea, and they have all of this unique stuff you can buy.
Saying Swedish meatballs aren't Swedish, they're Turkish is ridiculous, because literally every culture mashed meat into a ball and put stuff in it.
So we get it.
It's a Swedish meatball.
You can argue the meatball isn't Swedish, but the Swedish part of it is.
Anyway, that's so dumb.
The response has been ferocious.
The airline's social media channels have been bombarded with thousands of angry comments from people who disagree with the ad's message.
SAS told the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet that it believed the outcry was the result of a coordinated attack on the campaign.
Oh, really?
It's not coordinated.
I'm sorry.
It's called, I don't know, a viral moment where regular people push back.
And I've got all of the evidence to show you.
It's going to make you laugh.
Let's read.
SAS's suspicions appear to be correct.
They don't.
While the backlash likely has multiple points of origin, it does, the ad campaign has particularly incensed 4chan's poll message board, the politics-focused portion of the website that's a known hub for fringe alt-righters and white nationalists.
The commercial directly contradicts bigoted notions of white European and Nordic supremacy, which are core beliefs of the internet far right.
No, that's not what they're doing.
Dude, If I told you that Alfred Nobel was Swedish and he invented dynamite, that has nothing to do with supremacy of white Europeans at all.
It's a historical fact.
If I told you that if you want, if you go to IKEA, which is Swedish, they sell Swedish meatballs and lingonberry jam.
And when you go to Sweden, guess what?
They eat that too.
Also, they got this really great fast food restaurant.
I think it's called Max Burger.
I haven't been there in a few years, but it's awesome because they have this fried cheese burger.
It's really, really good.
Haven't found that anywhere else.
So, yes.
They've taken cheeseburgers from us, I guess?
I don't care.
The point is, it is not far right, it is not alt-right, to claim that Alfred Nobel invented dynamite!
It's a historical fact!
Now, he doesn't want to be called the Merchant of Death?
Fine, I think it's kind of a cool name, but I can understand why he didn't like it.
They say, as is often the case on the poll board, the rage is unequivocally racist.
While 4chan is small compared to some other social platforms, the site still brings in 27 million monthly users, blah blah blah.
Here's the point.
They're going to say, oh, we saw all of these people on 4chan talking about it.
What if I were to tell you that one of the biggest social media websites, most popular boards with millions of followers also found the ad to be ridiculous and stupid?
Would you then claim it was the far right that got it shut down?
Here's what's going on.
SAS made a huge blunder.
They pissed everyone off.
They don't want to eat the loss.
They're a business.
I get it.
So they go to the media and they say, it's the far right, because only racists would believe that someone like Alfred Nobel could invent anything.
In fact, did you know he didn't invent dynamite?
Because, uh, what was it, nitro?
Nitro was derived first in Germany, or some other nonsense.
I don't know where it was actually produced.
The point is, the dude invented it.
We get it.
It's how inventions work.
It's not like some dude invented the toaster by literally making a toaster from the earth.
Okay, the first electric toaster was put together and cobbled together from a bunch of existing pieces of technology already.
We still say that person invented the toaster.
But here's my favorite part.
I can go to Reddit and look at all of the posts that have been made about this commercial.
And sure enough, r slash videos with 22 million viewers.
22 million.
Now this post isn't the biggest.
But the post says, Scandinavian Airlines decides to S all over their customers in an attempt to do worse than Gillette.
What is truly Scandinavian?
Now I know this wasn't the biggest upvoted video, but r slash videos.
It's a community on Reddit.
Reddit is very, very left leaning.
22 million subscribers to this particular subreddit, and it's got 73% upvotes.
And then the top comment is literally, Media, quote, why are Nazi groups getting more members than ever?
And then one day for no reason at all, Media, let's just vilify the entire native culture and see what happens.
That's a great point.
Now, there's a ton of comments like this, and it's not the only one.
There are other posts, too.
Corporate face palm.
In fact, over at r slash Norway, I don't know what it's necessarily about, but one guy says, I'm surprised my face is still intact after face palming like a jackhammer.
That's how stupid this is.
That's how regular people are responding to this trashy ad.
So let's talk about what's really going on with the media in these commercials.
Corporate facepalm.
Bravo, good sir, I completely agree.
It was a failed attempt by a media outlet, by a commercial production company, that thinks Twitter is real life, not realizing there are people who love Scandinavian culture.
I'm gonna let y'all in on a secret.
Did you know there are Americans who have no ties whatsoever to Scandinavia but want to go there to have lingonberry jam on their Swedish meatballs because they want to experience a different culture?
There are people who want to try Belgian Speculoos Biscoff Spread straight from the source on a Belgian waffle in Belgium.
Because people like the idea that there are things in this world to explore and try that are different from where we are.
Now, admittedly, the world is homogenizing.
It's kind of a bummer, but at the same time, you know, it is what it is.
I'm not super bent about it.
I remember I went to the Bahamas on a cruise, and I was all excited, like, ooh, this is gonna be cool.
I wonder what they have when you dock in Nassau.
And what did I find?
Hard Rock Cafe, Starbucks.
It was same old, same old.
Felt like I was in Times Square.
So we're creating a homogenized, global, you know, Earth tourism industry.
And that's boring.
It's like, been there, done that.
We want unique things.
So what you really do is you get away from the touristy areas, and you go find local culture that is very similar, but still fairly different enough to try a new spice, a new way of preparing something.
Brings me back to that stupid Danish comment about, you know, it was actually from Austria.
It wasn't.
According to the sources, it was a recipe they changed and made it fattier and put more eggs in it.
Congratulations, they made something new.
But let's get to the point about what's happening with the media and these corporations.
First, the corporations don't want to lose money.
So they'll absolutely say, how do we respond to this?
Because they're slimy degenerates, they're going to be like, just call it a coordinated harassment campaign.
Who are you trying to trick?
Regular people think you're insane.
You're not going to trick us.
We're the ones complaining about it, and we're not far right.
It's regular people on Reddit saying, gee, I wonder why, you know, people are... It's basically Nazi propaganda.
And I really do mean it.
It's black propaganda.
Do you know what black propaganda is?
I've explained it before, but what you do is you pretend to be your enemy and say something ridiculous so people get scared of it.
So it would be like a men's rights activist putting on a shirt with feminist slogans and then saying ridiculous things so regular people think that's what feminists actually believe.
In this instance, SAS has produced an ad that is, like, so stupid, regular people are angered by it, providing fuel for the far-right.
And then, to make sure everyone thinks the far-right is truly the most powerful, you know, faction of people on the planet, the media comes out and claims, you bet it, you bet, everything has to do with the far-right.
Everything that you're seeing was the far-right's power and strength.
And so I've often wondered this.
Why do they try so hard to make these groups sound like the most powerful entities on the planet?
SAS, a major multi, probably multi-billion dollar airline.
One of the biggest airlines, you know, in the world.
I don't know, there's not that many.
So now you do this.
You've created a circumstance where the far right is, you know, you've got regular people who are watching this commercial saying, hey man, why are you ragging on my country and my culture?
This is ridiculous.
It's like self-flagellation.
You're saying there's nothing here?
That's not true.
I mean, I was talking about with my buddy on my IRL podcast, and I was like, what about Midsommar?
That's like uniquely Scandinavian, isn't it?
I don't even know what it is.
It's like they did that movie that was really bad.
I don't know, they dance around the sun or something like that.
Anyway, they have their own unique culture.
Why pretend like they don't?
It's such a corporate facepalm moment where you're slapping your face over and over again like that guy said.
You get a lot of people who actually get offended.
That's like, you know, people love their countries and where they've come from.
That's regular people.
You then have the media coming out and saying the far-right is extremely powerful.
And what do you think is going to happen?
You're gonna have people saying, I'm mad at this ad.
These people are powerful.
These people must, you know, have strength to fight back against this insanity.
So you are effectively recruiting for them.
Which brings me to my final point.
The ad was dumb.
They brought it back.
Fine.
But these media outlets WANT the far-right to grow.
They WANT the far-right to seem powerful.
And I say, I'm doing far-right with air quotes because that's their language.
It doesn't necessarily even make sense.
Ultra-traditionalists or whatever, or like ethno-nationalists aren't necessarily right-wing.
It's kind of a weird... I don't even know if anyone knows what right or left-wing means for the most part, but it's typically what they're saying.
So, the point is, they want these people to seem so powerful They want them to actually recruit.
They love it.
Vox.com once ran a story that claimed that there was like 11 million people in the United States who were alt-right.
Which is just not true.
But they want you to believe it.
For two reasons.
They want clicks.
They need conflict.
Journalists are called vultures for a reason.
And they say things like, what's bad for everyone else is good for us.
Because they're just nasty people.
I don't know what to tell you, man.
Because, you know, I can throw criticism in my own direction, and I often do.
Typically, everything you hear is always some kind of negative or opposition.
And for whatever reason, that's the way things are.
I don't know.
I guess there's just not a desire from people to learn about what they already know they like, and they're more concerned about being warned of threats or things that could damage, you know, their lives.
For whatever reason.
But when it comes to the media, they manipulate this fact, they exploit it, by creating shock content to trick you into believing the world is scarier than it is, so you click it, they sell ad revenue, and they sell subscriptions.
Antifa is not as bad as a lot of people would claim, nor is the far right, I'm doing air quotes, extremists.
But there's a reason why I often talk about Antifa, for instance.
When it comes to these ultra-nationalist types, ethno-nationalist types, and ultra-traditionalists, extremists, of a certain persuasion, The governments are going after them.
They're labeling them, they're targeting them, and they've been doing it.
When it comes to the far left, they do monitor them to a certain degree, but we're seeing these people roam the streets, smashing stuff, attacking people, and there's almost never anything done about it.
And that's basically why I talk about it.
Right now, there's like a group of people in Germany that got arrested, and I'm like, yeah, but come on, that happens all the time, they arrest people who are nuts.
Not Antifa.
These people go around bashing skulls, and that's it, mum's the word, and it happens again.
So, whatever, look, we all have our bias.
But I'll wrap this up.
These advertisements, these people live in a fake world of Twitter where a tiny fraction of people tell them these things are true.
When they fail, they refuse to accept responsibility and blame it on the fringe far right or whatever.
And it's just fake nonsense.
I'll leave it there, stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
I love how the media establishment and the Democratic establishment likes to pretend that Donald Trump is the end of democracy.
Oh, heavens.
All of the things he's doing with Bill Barr.
But we'll get to that later today in a different segment.
You want to know what the real threat to democracy is?
Someone like Mike Bloomberg or even Tom Steyer who are dumping obscene amounts of money in an attempt to buy the presidency.
And guess what?
It's working.
Mike Bloomberg is now polling in the RCP average in third place, above Elizabeth Warren.
I don't know how it'll play out.
We'll see what happens on Super Tuesday.
But he has spent $401 million.
401 million dollars. 100% of his campaign spending comes from him. Donald Trump spent
70 million dollars of his own money, but that was only 20% of his total campaign spend.
Bloomberg is literally lighting his own money on fire to take whatever he can.
But that's not what you came here for.
We'll come back to this and we'll talk about it.
What you came here for is the rumor abound, thanks to Drudge Report, that Mike Bloomberg is going to be bringing on Hillary Clinton, or at least considering bringing on Hillary Clinton as his running mate.
I would like you to consider this scenario.
Mike Bloomberg, now in third place in polling averages, polling in, I think in Florida he's in number one.
He's like polling above everyone else.
Let's say he buys his way to the nomination.
Let's say he does choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate.
And then she gets in the White House and Bloomberg leaves.
Bloomberg could put Hillary Clinton in the White House.
Okay, he wouldn't leave.
That's a ridiculous scenario.
But think about it this way.
Hillary Clinton might get in the White House, if this is true, by him literally paying his way in.
You probably saw a Bloomberg ad on this video.
Many of you probably did.
Comment below if you did because I get a lot of people telling me that they're seeing tons of Bloomberg ads.
He is dumping money like crazy.
This is one of the most corrupt and disgusting things I have ever seen.
Let's read the story and see what's going on with Hillary Clinton.
Now, I gotta say, so far this is drudge report claiming sources have said Bloomberg is considering Hillary Clinton.
But after this, I do want to talk about Bloomberg's stealing of a nomination process.
Look, man, the DNC are cheaters as far as I'm concerned.
That's why I've been so sick and tired of it.
I gave him a shot this cycle.
I'm done.
They cheat.
They cheat and cheat.
Bloomberg's apparently going to be in the next debate.
They change the rules.
The candidates you want don't matter.
They lie, cheat, and steal.
Hillary Clinton has been smearing other Democrats.
She is a nasty... What did Donald Trump say?
You're a nasty woman?
Let's read.
Oh man, the old bait-and-switch.
I'm just... Bloomberg pulling the old bait-and-switch.
It's coming.
Mike Bloomberg is considering making Hillary Clinton his running mate, a source close to his campaign has told Drudge Report.
Polling found the Bloomberg-Clinton combination would be a formidable force to take on Trump in the race for the White House, the source said.
Former New York City Mayor and Democratic candidate Bloomberg is said to be considering even changing his official residence from New York to Colorado or Florida.
So, look, if he really is considering changing his state, none of this is confirmed fact for the most part.
and vice president to reside in the same state.
Under the 12th amendment to the US Constitution, which provides the procedure for electing
the president and vice president, it states that the two people could not both inhabit
the same state as the elector.
So look, if he really is considering changing his state, none of this is confirmed fact
for the most part.
If you trust Drudge, by all means, they're saying they have sources.
I'll see it when I believe it.
I'll see when I believe it, okay?
But, but listen.
A lot of Trump supporters are laughing, saying that would be a great gift.
You don't, you gotta understand man, money talks.
Now Donald Trump won, I believe with like one of the lowest ad spends Ever.
I think Barack Obama spent like a billion dollars, and Trump spent a total of, I believe, according to the New York Times, if 70 million was 20%, then what, like 350 million?
So it was a really, really small amount of money relative to past elections.
But I'll tell you what, Bloomberg's net worth is around $62 billion.
Not only is he lighting everything up with insane ad buys, everyone on YouTube is probably laughing, not wondering why their ad revenue is way, way up.
It's Bloomberg and Steyer.
Now, Steyer, I believe, is out.
Let's read a little bit more.
It's worse than you can imagine, because Bloomberg has been buying more than just the presidency.
He is pouring money.
He is just dumping it out into congressional races, into DA races.
He's propping up non-profits.
He is imposing his will through his wealth.
That is something we as Americans should oppose.
I've opposed that for a long time.
It's one of the things I'll agree with the Young Turks about.
Get money out of politics.
Now how you do it, I don't entirely know for sure.
Some people have pointed out, at least Bloomberg is spending his own money, sure.
But I don't want to live in a country ruled by an oligarch who can buy fake influence because he has that much wealth.
I want to see real ideas that strike at the heart of what this country needs to solve its problems, not a rich dude who thinks he's smarter than you.
We're talking about Bloomberg who said you shouldn't be allowed to drink large soda and put a tax on it to discourage it.
Somebody who said we should literally tax the poor because they're too stupid to know what's good for them.
And he's gonna be paired up with warmonger Hillary Clinton?
I hope you realize.
Now, many of you may be laughing, saying, haha, you know, Bloomberg could never beat Trump.
Oh, man.
I would say Trump could beat almost all of these Democrats.
I'd say all of them, honestly.
But can Trump beat someone dumping $10 billion into ads plastered literally everywhere?
I honestly don't know.
Because it's not just that.
Bloomberg is paying like double the field organizer's salary these other campaigns are.
They can't compete.
When he buys up all this ad space, the other campaigns can't compete because ads are sold on an auction system.
So he goes to these big networks and says, how much do you normally charge, say, you know, a Democratic candidate for a commercial?
Then all of a sudden, you get someone like Bernie Sanders, Tulsi, Andrew Yang, whoever your candidate might be, and they're going to say, how much for me to buy an ad spot?
And they'll say, 40 grand.
Whoa, that's double the rate.
I can't afford that.
Yeah, well, Bloomberg bought them all up.
And if you want to outbid him, you can outbid him.
And that's how the market works.
So we have a serious problem if someone like Bloomberg can be doing all of the things he's doing around the country, essentially buying politicians because they're all for sale.
I've never been a fan of that.
I'm certainly not a fan of it now.
And if you underestimate the power of cold, hard cash, you got another thing coming, man.
Look, Trump supporters, hubris will be your downfall, just like Hillary Clinton's.
You better be prepared for someone who's willing to liquidate that much money.
I mean, he spent $400 million in the past, like, what, four months?
That's insane.
Daily Mail says, this comes as two new Democratic primary polls show Bloomberg in the lead in Florida.
While Senator Bernie Sanders tops the field in Texas, both Bloomberg and Sanders have teeny tiny leads over former Vice President Joe Biden, who took a beating in both Iowa and New Hampshire.
The Florida poll shows Bloomberg with a one-point lead over Biden, with the ex-mayor receiving 27% support from Florida Democrats compared to Biden's 26% support.
This is how democracy dies.
Bloomberg is not a Democrat.
He was a Republican mayor of New York, and then he ran as an independent, and he got the rules changed so he could run for a third term.
Yet they want to complain about Donald Trump.
They claim Trump won't leave.
They claim Trump will change the rules.
Bloomberg's already done it.
He's a guy with no real political ideology.
He said overt racist things, and they are rallying behind him.
This is an oligarch manipulating the press and marketing to gain power, and he now might bring on Clinton?
Congratulations, America.
Democracy dies when he does this, and he's doing it now.
He cannot be allowed to win.
I would honestly say I would rather see Bernie Sanders win with a real grassroots movement and the opposition all the same than someone like Bloomberg manipulating the game to win and bring on someone like Hillary Clinton along with him.
They say Bloomberg's edge comes from having about a 10-point lead over Biden among white survey respondents.
The former mayor gets the support of 28% of white Floridians versus the 18.5% who selected Biden as their first choice for the Democratic nominee.
Former first lady Clinton previously said she faced calls to run for president in 2020 after she lost out to Trump in the 2016 election.
But she has repeatedly said she won't join the race.
However, she stopped short of denying she was considering running for vice president alongside one of the Democratic candidates earlier this month.
I never say never, because I do believe in serving my country, but it's not going to happen.
In January, Donald Trump made the strange claim that Clinton had promised Bloomberg the job of Secretary of State should she be elected president in 2016, to keep him from running four years ago.
He had a deal with Hillary Clinton that he was going to become Secretary of State.
It was very simple.
People knew that.
Trump said during an interview on CNBC filmed on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
The president then suggested Bloomberg would have been double-crossed.
Wasn't going to happen.
It was going to go to Terry McAuliffe, Trump said, name-dropping the former governor of Virginia, who has been a close Clinton friend.
I mean, so they were playing with Michael, Trump alleged.
And it's too bad, but he's spending a fortune.
Now, Trump's got a lot of power behind him.
He's got a very powerful base Bloomberg does not have.
But what Bloomberg does have is a media apparatus that will lie, cheat and steal and do whatever they need to get those sweet money bucks.
Now, think about it.
The media pushes the Orange Man bad narrative.
Why?
It gets traffic.
It makes them money.
And you know why they're also going to love Michael Bloomberg?
For one, the establishment hates Bernie Sanders, and they're terrified of him.
I mean, James Carville literally going on TV over and over again, freaking out.
I kid you not, he said, it's the end of days.
That's how insane they're going over Sanders.
But Michael Bloomberg is also dumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the media machine.
Now I know it, and I've joked about it before, saying, haha, give me some of that sweet Steyr and Bloomberg Skrilla, pour it straight into my Google ad revenue.
Nah, I will gladly push that all aside and say no to this absurdity.
But you know what?
The sad reality is that Americans have always elected millionaire... millionaires.
It's always been about the rich people who can afford it.
To an extent, it's actually fine.
I'll say this, listen.
We have a system where, for the most part, you've got to earn the ability to get attention, to spread your ideas, and if you're some dumb Joe Schmo, you can't do it.
I mean, Ocasio-Cortez is a bartender.
I can respect humble beginnings.
But she's also kind of dumb.
And I'm not saying that in a pejorative, emotionally, you know, targeted sense.
I'm saying, literally, she doesn't understand what she's talking about in many circumstances.
So, dumb.
She's ignorant.
I'll put it that way.
Like when she thought a $3 billion tax break was literally giving someone $3 billion in cash.
No, you have to make the money first and then give them a discount.
It's a lot different from giving someone a dollar.
Like, imagine if you had a restaurant and you were like, this product is one dollar off.
Here's a dollar.
Like, no, you don't give them money.
It's just cheaper to buy.
You end up with people like that.
So there is a happy medium where it's kind of a good thing in some ways that you have to have some clout and some resources or access to resources or a strong enough support base to actually become president.
Otherwise, if your ideas aren't good enough then you shouldn't be president.
Now Bernie Sanders has amassed a massive coalition of grassroots donors and he deserves tremendous respect for that.
I can certainly disagree with him but I prefer the will of the people over the will of an oligarch Bloomberg got wealthy off the Bloomberg terminal stuff and financial investments, but he is the 12th richest person in the world.
And he's using the power of the media to gain a position in the U.S.
government, to try and get the highest position, potentially, arguably, in the whole world.
Now, here's the thing.
The media has prepped the Orange Man bad narrative because they like the money it brings in.
Priming someone like Bloomberg who has no real political allegiance to step in with his authoritarian program, start buying up politicians around the country, imposing his will through cash, and now that the media and the country has been primed with the Orange Man bad narrative, he steps in and says, I'm going to finalize this.
Instead of just playing the influence game, Bloomberg says, I'll straight up just give you the cash.
He's giving Instagram accounts cash to make memes about him.
That's pathetic.
But they'll do it!
Because money talks.
I gotta say, man, if you're one of these Instagram accounts and Bloomberg came to you with cash, I don't care how much cash that is.
I seriously don't.
If he offered you a million dollars, I seriously don't care.
There is a line.
Your business should have some ethics.
And this is one of the reasons why I am not a laissez-faire capitalist.
I think we should have certain restrictions on how much you can spend in advertisements.
One of the theories as to why Bloomberg is really running is so that he can pour unlimited amounts of money into ads against Donald Trump.
I don't think that's the case, necessarily.
Partly.
But I think it also has to do with the fact that Wall Street interests are being threatened.
Now, I know Wall Street's kind of a nebulous term, but I mean massive corporate and financial interests are threatened by Bernie Sanders.
Mike Bloomberg, I don't think really wants to win.
I think he wants to step in to shut Bernie Sanders down, and he will spend any amount of money to do so.
And that's horrifying.
You might not like Bernie Sanders, but I think when you see, like, Tucker Carlson, when you see other Republicans, even Donald Trump, call out the establishment, cheating to push out Bernie, first and foremost, they ask, Why would Trump defend Bernie Sanders?
Because he's right.
Because the DNC, the establishment, the media are trying to keep out Bernie Sanders.
And I think there's at least some principle among many people who might disagree with Sanders to recognize he has a right to run, to share his message, and be treated fairly.
Now, I can call him out and criticize him all day and night.
And that's fair too.
But in no way am I cheating or dumping hard cash to stop him or changing the rules to stop him.
Or whatever this weird shenanigans in Iowa was.
But it's gonna get bad.
Did you see what happened in Nevada in the last cycle?
Like a bunch of police apparently came up and like blocked the stage.
They kept out Bernie's delegates so that Hillary would win the majority.
We know they cheat.
We know they're cheating.
That's the game they play and everyone should call it out.
What I think we're seeing is massive financial interests resisting a populist movement.
It's populist left or populist right.
Donald Trump is not here to satisfy the whims of global elites.
Donald Trump is just making America great again by his definition and by the definition of all of his supporters.
The reason I say that is because a lot of people disagree on what would make something great.
I think that's fine.
But I also think it's important to point out how well the economy is doing.
Which brings us to the big battle in our country.
The Democrats are running on morality.
And Trump is running on standard of living.
On tangible goods.
This is dangerous.
I think one of the reasons we're seeing that big switch from, you know, around 9.4 million Obama voters to Trump, were people who were not interested in moral authoritarianism.
That's what the Republicans used to be.
Moral authoritarians, saying, this is about the morality, the sanctity of marriage, the family, etc., and all these things.
And while they still have many of those values, They've started taking a more liberty-minded approach to these things, opening the door for the first president in U.S.
history to support gay marriage before becoming elected.
The Democrats voted for somebody, Barack Obama, who actually opposed gay marriage.
And in fact, according to email leaks, it's my understanding, I could be wrong, Hillary Clinton apparently still opposes gay marriage.
So you have now the Democrats, which Vox has said is becoming the party of the wealthy as of 2016.
Bloomberg, who was a Republican mayor, has switched!
He went independent, he made that transition, now he's a Democrat.
Now he's gonna dump $400 million.
Even Tom Steyer, I think, is ridiculous.
So, okay, I guess the New York Times saying Steyer's still running, so I was wrong about that.
But they have put in an obscene amount of money.
Now, Ross Perot did as well, but he was independent.
And I still have concerns about that.
Granted, I think I was like four years old, so I don't have much commentary to say on that.
But, like, you know, Will I give Trump criticism for the amount of money he spent?
Absolutely.
Trump is also a very wealthy individual who spent millions of dollars, but let's be real.
Although he's one of the top, it was only 20% of his campaign.
He had a lot of donors, and he had a lot of grassroots, he had a large grassroots support, and so I can criticize the big spend he's done from his personal cash, but come on.
Does it compare to Bloomberg not taking donations?
And it's not even about how much she's spending in the election.
It's that Bloomberg is overpaying staff.
Bloomberg is... It's more than just the cash she spends on ads.
It's literally everything else.
Now, that is included in the $400 million.
I'll show you one more tweet, and I'll wrap this up.
John Levine of the New York Post, or Levin, I don't know how to pronounce your name, buddy.
He says, Well, it would hardly make sense to buy the White House and not Congress, too.
This is a tweet from Alex Burns of the New York Times, who said, Top Democrats say Bloomberg is already their most important donor.
His campaign makes plain the financial incentive it is presenting for 2020.
Quote, If Mike Bloomberg is the nominee, he will ensure that the Democratic Party has the greatest funding in history.
That's right, John.
It wouldn't make sense to buy the White House if you don't have the Congress and the House and the Senate.
Buy them all up.
That's what he's doing.
I don't know what the progressives are going to say about it.
I do know that Bernie has called out Bloomberg and I respect that tremendously.
I think we can set aside our differences and say Bloomberg is not the person who should be president.
He has earned nothing with his canned messages and fake memes and basically shutting out all of the competition by overspending on ads.
He does not deserve the position he has.
I'll wrap this up by saying one thing.
As I mentioned earlier, I can recognize he's spending his own money that he earned and all of those things.
But we do put limits on some things.
We do have laws.
It does make sense to say, yes, you can spend your own money to buy ads, but there are laws limiting how much money you can spend on a lot of things.
There's laws that say you literally can't buy certain things.
So what's wrong with having a law saying you cannot do what Bloomberg is doing?
Unless you guys want to live in oligarchy.
But let me remind you, if you want to look at what oligarchy is going to be like, look no further than San Francisco.
I'm not joking.
That's what you will get when people like Bloomberg take over.
He is an authoritarian racist who has said they should tax the poor.
Why Democrats would get behind that?
Perhaps they just don't know.
But this dude is the scariest thing I've seen coming in this election.
If you bring Hillary Clinton with them... Wow.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It is a different channel.
I will see you all there.
In what appears to be an effort to prove Project Veritas right, a Democratic U.S.
Senate candidate unveils her new campaign logo!
A guillotine!
That's right, the symbol of the French Reign of Terror when Robespierre started executing random people because of his paranoid delusions.
But you can always count on weird far-lefties to adopt a symbol of violent insurrection and the murder of the innocent as something to represent hope, I guess.
This story from The Blaze, well, let's read it.
The donkey has long been a symbol of the Democratic Party since President Andrew Jackson embraced his detractors labeling him a... well, I can't repeat it because this is YouTube... in 1828.
But a Democratic Senate candidate in Maine may have a rebrand in mind.
Brie Kidman unveiled a new campaign logo last week, a guillotine, the execution apparatus commonly associated with the French Revolution, that was used for the beheadings of King Louis XVI and his wife, Queen Mary Antoinette.
But fear not!
Kidman, who hopes to challenge Republican Senator Susan Collins in November, says using an image of the deadly device in campaign materials is not meant to be taken literally.
We're not going to start a guillotine in Monument Square and start beheading people, Kidman clarified to the Portland Press-Herald.
It's a symbol of the work we have to do to overcome the flaws in our system.
Flaws that have become deeply evident in the last few weeks.
They literally, in the French Revolution, became paranoid that moderates were seeking to subvert the revolution, and Robespierre literally started grabbing random people, and I could be wrong, because I learned this from a YouTube video, but he ended up getting himself beheaded by presenting a list of enemies to his actual, you know, allies, who are then like, okay, before he accuses us, let's just put him in the guillotine.
No.
The symbol of the guillotine does not represent to anyone doing hard work.
The sickle and hammer, I can understand, right?
That's a symbol of doing labor.
You know, harvesting the crops and building stuff.
Yeah, that I get.
The guillotine is you saying you want to kill people.
That's not hard work.
That's actually... I would say it's technically, like, the easy way out.
Hey, why argue with people and try and live in harmony when all you have to do is use force against them and cut their heads off?
Apparently, that's what her strategy is.
So, when Bernie Sanders' staff said they wanted to, you know, put people in camps and that they didn't have to go the route of the Russian Revolution, once again, killing lots of people, I don't really believe them.
Especially when they're like, trust me, and then they show you a picture of a guillotine.
No, I'm not going to trust you.
Sorry.
Let's read more.
Reign of Terror.
The self-described democratic socialist, who identifies as non-binary, added that printing the French Reign of Terror execution device on campaign t-shirts is meant to symbolize ongoing class struggles that many inevitably lead to a violent overthrow of the federal government.
A guillotine t-shirt reminds others about it in hopes that we'll all be motivated to address the very serious problems with our government before a similarly violent uprising becomes inevitable.
Yeah, that sounds like threatening someone with extra steps.
She recently endorsed Bernie Sanders.
You know, Bernie's got a serious problem with people like this.
She's posted an image of an execution device and says, well, we better do what we can to avoid it!
It's like, you're the only one talking about killing other people.
You're basically saying, do what I want, or this is the result you get.
I think we all know what a threat is.
Please, Maine, vote against this woman.
The Maine Democrat unveiled the campaign merchandise shortly after the Senate acquitted President Donald Trump in his impeachment trial.
More details on how to get your gill-o-tea tomorrow.
In the meantime, remember, there is not going to be a more convenient revolution, Kidman added.
In a separate tweet, Kidman clarified the intent is only to symbolically behead Republicans and money in politics.
Yes, it's the Democratic Party that Michael Bloomberg is taking by storm.
So you've got a problem with money in politics, it's not Trump, who financed his own campaign with a lot of his own money, but only 20% of his campaign spending.
If you've got a problem with money in politics, it's Bloomberg, and he's currently in third place in the aggregate in your party.
No, okay, okay, that's not fair.
Democratic Socialists are only technically the Democratic Party now, because they're more of an insurgency invading the Democrats.
I think it's fair to say they also don't like the Democratic establishment, so we can all agree on that.
I just don't agree on killing the people you don't like.
No, please, let's not do that.
The guillotine is for the plutocratic and kleptocratic norms that have undermined our democratic process.
We have to develop ways to subvert the stranglehold of wealth on our government.
Bernie Bros, guillotines, and gulags.
As The Blaze's Aaron Coleman reported last month, Kidman's use of the guillotine as a campaign symbol is not the first time that the democratic socialists invoke violent imagery.
In an undercover video taken by Project Veritas, a campaign staffer named Kyle Jurek argued that if Sanders were to win in November, Trump voters will be subject to re-education in Soviet-style gulags.
In Nazi Germany, after the fall of the Nazi party, there was an S-ton of the populace that was effing Nazified.
Germany had to spend billions of dollars to re-educate their people to not be Nazis.
We're going to have to do the same effing thing here, Jurek said.
That's kind of what Bernie's whole free education for everybody.
Because we're going to have to teach you not to be a effing Nazi, he added.
There's a reason Joseph Stalin had gulags.
And actually, gulags were a lot better than what the CIA has told us they were.
Like, people were actually paid a living wage in gulags.
They had conjugal visits in gulags.
Gulags were actually meant for, like, re-education.
I'd like to tell you an interesting little fact.
This woman thinks she's leading the revolution by using a guillotine as the symbol.
And somebody responded with a very poignant point.
Adolf Hitler made the guillotine a state method of execution and ordered that 20 of the machines be placed in cities across Germany.
The guillotine was eventually used to execute some 16,500 people between 1933 and 1945, many of them resistance fighters and political dissidents.
1933 and 1945, many of them resistance fighters and political dissidents.
So no, it is not a symbol of anything in particular, honestly, because you could simultaneously
claim it is a symbol of the reign of terror where innocent people were killed, or you
can claim it was a symbol of the Nazis where, yeah, a lot more innocent people were killed.
That's apparently the symbol she wants to display.
Now, I have a question in all of this.
Why is it always the left?
Look, I know there are extremists on the right, but conservatives, republicans, and even center-right moderate types know where they draw the line.
The left doesn't seem to.
Like, Bernie Sanders hasn't come out and said, I condemn all of this.
And when it came to the union in Nevada getting harassed and doxxed by his supporters, he said, I want every supporter of all campaigns to refrain.
Oh, all campaigns?
Bernie, it's only you!
There's no, there's no Buttigieg... Okay, so they're calling him Bernie Bros.
There's no Buttigieg booty bros going around with crowbars, bashing skulls, and doxing unions for questioning his policy.
That's you!
And it's not the Buttigieg, booty bros, going around... I'm talking about his name, Buttigieg, by the way.
Buttigieg bros.
Like Bernie bro?
Buttigieg bros.
I'll say that because the other one's gonna get me in trouble.
There's no Buttigieg bros going around with guillotine symbols talking about, symbolically or otherwise, beheading anybody.
That's Bernie Sanders.
And of course, it's not conservatives showing up to GOP headquarters trying to burn them to the ground like that one guy did in California or this story.
State employee, heavily involved with the Democratic Party, arrested for allegedly vandalizing GOP headquarters in New Mexico.
We'll say allegedly, as they say.
Suspect also intended for Democratic Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, also interned when she was a U.S.
congresswoman.
They say a New Mexico State employee, who once interned for Democratic Governor Michelle Grisham, was arrested for allegedly vandalizing Republican Party headquarters in Albuquerque.
Detectives said Cameron Chase McCall was identified on surveillance video, spray-painting the words, still traitors, on the building last week, the station noted.
The criminal complaint says McCall is heavily involved with the Democratic Party.
McCall is an employee with Expo New Mexico and is now on leave, the station said, adding that an Expo spokesman noted that if McCall is the individual in the video, he could be terminated.
A spokesman for the governor confirmed McCall interned for her when she was a U.S.
congresswoman and noted that Grisham condemned vandalism as unacceptable behavior.
Well, I appreciate that.
I'll tell you what.
Well, as far as I know right now, Grisham isn't the one walking around with a guillotine symbol.
I always want to say guillotine, but I guess it's the French one.
Guillotine symbols.
But it's, you know, look.
They like to claim that these extremists, these like ultra-nationalists or like ethno-nationalist extremists are Republicans or something like that.
They're not.
Trump's condemned them and he says go away.
Can you point to me where we have a presidential candidate standing up on stage saying Antifa is bad or saying you shouldn't use a guillotine symbol?
We don't.
When Bernie Sanders' staff was exposed by Veritas, they just sent out an email saying, don't tell anyone.
So then why should I believe you don't actually think these things?
I'm gonna go ahead and think you do think these things.
And the problem we're seeing is widespread.
It's this story, it's Maine, it's New Mexico, it's California, it's Florida.
These things keep happening.
Let me tell you something funny, alright?
Did you know that in D.C., like a week or so ago, 170 white nationalists marched through the streets of Washington, D.C.?
Unopposed!
There was a handful of Antifa people there, but for the most part, unopposed.
And they walked around wearing masks, you know, chanting whatever.
Where was the big Antifa hordes to stop it?
Nowhere.
But you know what happened at the New Hampshire primary?
Some Antifa guy walked out of the polling station after voting in the Democratic primary and slapped a 15-year-old kid across the face.
So you want to come to me and tell me Antifa was fighting fascism?
And the two big stories we have, unopposed white nationalists march through DC, okay.
And then Antifa dude smacks a 15-year-old kid across the face.
I'm gonna have to ask you where your priorities really are, and whether or not you actually care about fighting fascism, or if you're just a lunatic 34-year-old man who smacked a kid in the face.
Or if you're a woman running for the Senate who wants your symbol to be the guillotine.
Stick around, next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
It seems that many people in the media and democratic establishment have learned the lesson about treating Trump supporters like trash, and they regret it.
Especially now as we're seeing the rise of Bernie Sanders.
You get all these never-Trumpers, right?
And they were like, Trump is the worst, Hillary Clinton is better, they claimed.
And then they started to realize that the Democratic Party was being overtaken by Bernie Sanders, and now they're running back the other direction with their tails between their legs, panicking.
That the Never Bernie movement is stronger than the Never Trump movement.
I assure you, a conservative who doesn't like the moral degeneracy of the Trump administration will vote for the moral degeneracy of the Trump administration when it comes to the economic degeneration of the United States.
I'm saying if that's your opinion about the Trump administration.
Now I certainly think Trump has got some moral issues for sure.
And it seems the Democrats are running on a moral platform, but Trump is running on an economic platform.
So here's my first question before we talk about Trump's secret whisper network.
Let me ask you.
In a battle of morality and money, who wins?
The guy telling you he's gonna do the right thing, or the other guy telling you he's gonna stuff a hundred bucks in your pocket?
It's actually a good question, because I'd say, for the most part, people are gonna choose the money.
Especially when the morality is questionable.
I think when it comes to a clear dividing line of, like, hard morality versus cash, It would depend, for the most part, on the cash.
But I would say, typically, morality can win out.
In this instance, I do not believe it can.
Because the morality being pushed by, say, Bernie Sanders and the Democrats, it's not that big of a deal.
Trump's a potty mouth who's mean.
That's about it.
He's a bully.
He's arrogant.
He's a narcissist.
Yeah, those are bad character traits, but they're not, you know, they don't end the, you know, they're not deal breakers.
When it comes to people voting, they're like, yeah, you got a really awful guy, but I'll take that sweet loot.
Then you got to consider the moral questions around Trump's behavior and the, you know, the things he does versus the economic damage of a far left campaign or otherwise.
And in the end, I think economics is going to win out.
But here's a story from the New York Times that I find funny.
What happens when the left cedes the free speech high ground?
As soon as the Iowa, the caucus, and the New Hampshire primary ended, Joe Biden sank like a bag of cement in the middle of the sea.
He's gone.
He was never the frontrunner, and tons of us called it out.
People on independent media knew for sure that wasn't the case.
So why were the polls wrong and why are they wrong again today?
I honestly don't know.
But the New York Times writes an interesting op-ed, or Bret Stephens of the New York Times.
Because the left has taken free speech, not just in the sense that they'll censor you on social media, or they want hate speech laws, but in the sense that if you say the wrong thing, they will try to destroy your life.
Trump supporters are in hiding.
They are, many of them.
Not so much anymore.
We've heard stories, or I'm sorry, the data from the upshot of the New York Times says that Trump's base today is bigger than ever.
Maybe it isn't.
Maybe what you're really seeing is people crawling out from behind that, you know, rock because they're not scared anymore.
Maybe all of these walk-away campaign individuals that, you know, who are quitting the Democratic Party, maybe they quit a long time ago and now they're just finally admitting it.
This article basically states, The Whisper Network is people who are Trump supporters keeping their mouths shut, not wanting anyone to know that they're going to vote for Trump because they're scared of the social ramifications, but they're enjoying too much of the benefits.
And that brings me back to the question of morality versus money.
These people think Trump is not that bad.
And that's the worst thing in the world for Democrats.
Because if it is true that Trump is not that bad, That means that it's okay to sacrifice a little bit of morals in exchange for a booming economy that helps the rest of the country.
Now, if Trump literally did go onto Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, he probably would drop in the polls, because that's a hard line for a lot of people, as much as he might not think so.
So let's read a little bit about this.
He says, In recent years, these whisper networks have only proliferated from one subject, one institution, one domain, and another.
Is sex, biologically speaking, binary?
A columnist for the Denver Post thought so and last month lost his job.
He claims the direct result.
Should writers of one race or culture be able to create characters and inhabit cultures not their own?
One such writer recently had her book tour canceled over safety concerns following criticism of her novel about the plight of Mexican immigrants.
You needn't take one position or another on any of these questions to notice or object to the overall trend.
Speech is free, except where and when it isn't.
Widely held religious views entail potentially ruinous professional hazards.
Broad areas of intellectual inquiry are treated as off-limits.
Having a bad opinion means being a bad person.
People who freely share the most intimate details of their sex lives with near strangers think twice about sharing some of their political views with old friends.
And a new version of the Miranda warning seems to apply across all media, social and traditional.
Anything you say or have ever said in context or out deliberately or by misspeaking can and will be held against you.
But here's the point I want to make about all this.
What we're seeing from stories like this is that, in fact, while Trump may be an arrogant, narcissistic potty mouth and a bully, his morality and principles are actually favorable to many of these people.
And that is free speech.
The idea that Trump can say these things and do what he wants is freeing to many people.
And they feel like by backing him, they can tell you to go F off.
They can say what they want and you can't do anything about it.
And that's one of the reasons they rally around Trump.
Still, there are many people who are scared to say they actually support the president.
This leads them to what's called the Whisper Network.
But when you look at the hard data, the facts are the facts.
Gallup released a poll only a couple days ago.
More in the U.S.
say they are better off than in past elections.
Do you think the questions of morality are strong enough to stop people from voting for Trump when the economy is good and you are oppressing people, their creativity?
Let's talk about oppression.
Is oppression you writing a book about Mexican immigrants?
No.
Is oppression threatening someone with death for writing a book about Mexican immigrants?
Yes.
Is it oppression when there are too many Asians at Harvard?
No.
Is it oppression when you tell someone who is Asian they're not allowed to go to a school because they look too much like other people?
Yes.
And if that's the case, who's doing the oppression today?
It's the moral authoritarians on the left, not the right.
It used to be in the past that it was the right, not so much anymore.
Some things started to change, don't know why.
An insurgent group of moderates and libertarian types, along with Donald Trump, were activated and pushed themselves into the Republican Party, knocking out many of the never-Trumper moral authoritarian types, the overt religious authoritarian moral, you know, morality police.
And what was left was a group of people who are more interested in making memes, having a good time, and they don't care that Donald Trump is of questionable moral ethics in many circumstances.
They care that the country is working, and they care that they're free.
That's it.
I think a lot of the people who supported Trump were overtly libertarian.
Or more so libertarian.
I don't mean Big L, I mean anti-authoritarian, anti-establishment.
I'm not saying Trump's perfect.
Trump's definitely done things with regards to foreign policy.
Especially the other day, big story about an air raid in Afghanistan that killed like 8 or 11 civilians, depending on who you ask.
So there's questions of it.
But at least inside this country, domestically, a lot of people are happy.
They're saying they're better off now than they've been before.
So what does that leave us with?
It leaves us with an election based on moral values.
And boy oh boy does Bernie Sanders take the cake.
According to a USA Today Ipsos poll, assuming it's correct, because it's probably not, for voters, Bernie Sanders outranks other Democrats and Trump on values and empathy.
Oh, I definitely believe that.
Listen, I think it is a very empathetic thing to say that you want someone to have health care or be able to go to college and make their lives better.
But is it practical?
The answer to that question is not really.
Not based on what's going on today.
So when Donald Trump doesn't say those things, and he's kind of a dick, but the economy is great, people aren't going to really care about what he's saying to them.
They're going to care about whether or not he's making things work and things are literally improving.
Because otherwise you're talking about, you know, candy canes and rainbows, pie-in-the-sky hopes and dreams that never get implemented.
One of the strangest things to me out of all of this is that many people on the left want a four-day work week.
They want increased wages.
They want better benefits.
Guess what?
Under Trump, all of those things have started to emerge in the economy.
As businesses do better, there was a shake shack, I think, that said we're doing a four-day work week now, and everyone's still getting a pay raise.
They're still making the same amount of money, so they're getting an extra day off.
I could be getting the shops mixed up and then there was like Starbucks doing, you know, a paid leave.
Wages are on the rise.
Unemployment is down across the board.
All of these things the left claims they wanted are being implemented under a more free market approach as opposed to an iron fist approach you would see from the government forcing it to happen.
Now Bernie Sanders, as far as I'm concerned, is probably too far left.
But more importantly, I think character matters.
I really, really think it does.
Morality will play a huge role in this upcoming election.
And if Trump supporters think they're going to skate by on a good economy, you will be mistaken.
Donald Trump really does lose a lot of people because you need to understand just how much people truly do not like this man.
It may not be most or all, but enough.
And that's bad news for Trump.
However, I think the economy wins out for most average people.
Ben Shapiro recently said that women will hold their nose to vote for Trump, and a bunch of people got mad, but I think he's right.
Yeah, 68% of millennial women are Democrats, and the number's probably going up.
But at a certain point, These people who are millennials and probably, as I think Breitbart called it, default liberal, they're going to start prioritizing their needs and the changes they want to make to their lives over questions of morality.
But I'll throw this back and make one more important point.
Because of the questions of morals and social acceptance.
This is why so many Trump supporters keep their mouth shut.
But I think what we're seeing with the idea of this whisper network shows that morality isn't as important or more importantly, there is a certain morality in being free.
And being oppressed by far-left lunatics who will destroy your life for saying the wrong thing on accident or through ignorance is no way to live.
So morals will actually be, to a certain degree, a bad thing for Bernie Sanders.
Look, we all get it.
It's poor morals to call someone horse-face.
But sometimes people just want to express themselves even if it's morally wrong.
Amoral.
So they look to someone like Donald Trump, they see him pushing back, and there's this idea that if Trump is the line, if that's where he is saying these things, then you can be just up against it without crossing it like he does, and not have to worry about having your life destroyed.
The far left made this bed themselves, and they will, well, they're gonna sleep in it.
Stick around, I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
The last segment I just recorded was about morality versus money, and one of the big factors in this upcoming election, in my opinion, is going to be whether or not the left can actually win the moral argument, and I think the answer is they can't.
While most people will look to Bernie Sanders and say he's certainly got better morals than Donald Trump, I think too many people are either going to prioritize economics over morality and say Trump has done a great job making this country function, but more importantly, will anyone truly believe that the far left is acting morally and ethically?
While some people who aren't really paying attention might think so, because they hear wonderful things about love, respect, and empathy, In practice, it doesn't really work that way.
In which case, I think the morality question is out the window.
And people are going to look to Nancy Pelosi shredding the speech of Donald Trump.
They're going to look to protesters shutting down Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg.
And they're going to say there are no discernible morals, ethics, or principles on this side.
In which case, you can have a bunch of crazies on one side, a bunch of crazies on the other, but at least the crazies on the right are making the economy work right.
Take a look at this story.
You're homophobes.
Buttigieg supporter yells at queer protesters at Buttigieg fundraiser.
This immediately reminded me of a very famous and powerful image.
Think for a second.
You have a Buttigieg event.
Pete Buttigieg.
He is a gay married man.
He's actually doing really, really well in this election cycle, in the primary so far.
And queer protesters got up to protest.
So Buttigieg supporters called them homophobes.
Can you think of any powerful image that might remind you of?
How about the great two Spider-Mans pointing at each other?
Yeah, that's exactly what I think of when I see this.
And that's the problem the left has.
How were you supposed to know what morality is when they're protesting each other for literally the same things?
Doesn't make sense, does it?
No, I think at a certain point people get tired and say, I just don't care anymore.
I don't know what is or isn't defensive.
Morality doesn't exist.
Therefore, vote for the crazy orange guy who put money in my pocket, right?
Let's read the story.
Daily Caller reports, a supporter at a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, uh, Pete Buttigieg's private fundraiser yelled at queer protesters Friday and told them they were homophobes.
Two queer activists stood up at the Buttigieg fundraiser in San Francisco and shouted, "'Boot-edge-edge, boot-edge-edge.'"
I mean, that's like a pro-Buttigieg thing, right?
After the former South Bend, Indiana mayor was asked a question about his husband, Chasten Buttigieg, The Guardian reported.
Protesters carrying Queers Against Pete signs gathered outside the event.
They are part of a growing coalition of queer voters who say Pete Buttigieg is not representative of their stances, the publication reported.
And let me just tell you what goes down when these protesters stand up at a Democrat event, one of the first front-running gay married men ever to run for politics in this country.
And everyone groans when they start protesting.
And I gotta be honest, I'm not saying this to be mean, but I did laugh.
A hearty laugh when I watched this video.
Because, like, now you know what it's like.
All of these people at this event for Pete Buttigieg, who stood up and clapped when protesters did the same thing to moderates and conservatives, now get to reap what they have sown as one of the leading candidates.
Pete Buttigieg is literally the frontrunner right now.
I mean, I guess for a lot of reasons saying Bernie Sanders is, because he's winning the popular vote.
But Buttigieg is leading the delegate count, so you can argue he is a front-running candidate, and he happens to be gay married, and people literally protested him.
Congratulations.
You have fostered this culture for too long, and now it's come back to bite you in return.
So there is a cathartic release, I would say, in watching these people have to deal with these protesters that they've supported.
There's no morality.
Nothing makes sense.
It's literally queers against Pete being called homophobes.
Look.
Quote, I respect your activism, but this is a gathering for supporters of our campaign, and I just got a question about my husband, and I'm really excited to answer it, Pete Buttigieg said from the stage, according to The Guardian.
After the activists were escorted from the building, a Buttigieg supporter yelled at the protesters, you're homophobes, that's what you all are, you're homophobes, and that's all anyone saw, because none of it made sense, his words are meaningless, and so were theirs.
It's just like watching two dogs behind a- on the other side of a fence, barking and snarling at each other.
You're like, you're both so dumb.
I know that if I open this fence, you're gonna both run away.
No one's gonna know who's the good guy or the bad guy, because there isn't one.
It's just Pot calling the kettle black.
Actually, it's two black Pots looking at each other saying, you're both the- you know.
Actually, so a lot of people don't know this.
The point of Pot calling the kettle black is the kettle is chrome, and the Pot is black seeing his own reflection.
Anyway.
After the activists, oh he yelled at him, we're all gay, one of the protesters responded.
You interrupted that question, the Buttigieg supporter answered, walking toward protester Sally Tamayo Lee.
You're deplorable.
Oh, now they're Trump supporters.
Okay, I'm kidding, but don't walk up on us, a different protester said, who shielded Tamayo Lee.
This is, this is the definition of, I don't know, psychotic, chaotic, insanity, whatever you want to call it.
There is nothing here that makes sense.
I'm sorry.
Donald Trump at least makes sense for all of his faults and all the things I disagree with.
I've had discussions with Trump supporters, and they love to rattle off all the really good things about Trump.
And I'll be the first to admit, it gets harder and harder every day to argue why he is actually bad.
I will concede the things he has done that are really, really good.
I often do.
But I will point out foreign policy.
And we literally just had a story about an air raid in Afghanistan killing civilians.
So spare me.
My biggest gripe is typically foreign policy.
And that's why I don't have Trump derangement syndrome.
Because I can look at what he's doing domestically and say, good job.
Economy's great.
Can't deny it.
Working class people, the blue collar boom, all of these great things.
But I have serious reservations about the foreign policy which results in direct loss of life and can make war and conflict worse over time.
I can concede that Trump has done some good foreign policy things as well.
I'm just kind of over it.
I'm just over everybody.
But the point is, at least I can look to the Trump side and say, look, guys, I get it.
I really do.
You got a good point about the economy.
You got a good point about meeting with Kim Jong Un.
I get it.
I really, really do.
I will concede all of that.
I'm not mad about it.
Props to Donald Trump for those successes, 100%.
But I look over here and I see just garbled nonsense and static that literally doesn't mean anything.
You're a homophobe.
No, we're not because we're gay.
You're the homophobe.
No, I'm not.
I'm a Pete Buttigieg supporter.
What?
No one's arguing anything.
These people aren't actually saying anything.
They showed up at an event to yell and did nothing.
You're walking up on us, going up on us because we're gay men, the supporters said.
You're horrible.
They're both saying the same thing to each other!
Democrats have literally started... They're literally the two Spider-Mans pointed at each other.
That's it.
Let me just break this down.
Queer protesters...
Confronted by gay supporters, both pointing the finger at each other saying, don't walk up on us because we're gay and you're a homophobe.
I don't know what it is you're trying to accomplish.
You must just hate each other.
Tamayo Lee told The Guardian before the event, it's hard to enjoy or appreciate when his stances are so middle-of-the-road and speak to a predominantly white upper-class audience.
ADL Polidor, a 26-year-old black queer program director with Student Action, also told The Guardian, That queer people are allowed to want a candidate to do better and be better.
The people who disrupted that fundraiser were all queer people of color, Palidor said.
We're allowed to want the gay candidate who is running to do better and be better for queer communities of color.
There's nothing homophobic about that.
Palidor added that Pete Buttigieg only represents a small percentage of queer and trans experiences throughout the U.S.
since the former mayor is a white cisgender man and highly educated.
Sorry, Pete.
You're making great strides for the gay community that I tremendously respect.
You are currently leading the delegate count and you are a gay married man showing that in this country we have made tremendous strides towards respecting people's private lives and personal choices and who they love.
That's great.
Unfortunately, something's gone nuts, and there's a group of activists who are activists for the sake of being activists.
They're not really asking for anything.
Pete Buttigieg is doing the best that he possibly can, trying to fight for Kennedy in a divided party with a divided left.
All you're doing is disrupting it.
I'm not a Buttigieg fan.
I've called him a grey blob.
And that's, you know what?
There you go.
You get equal condemnation for your weird, middle-of-the-road nonsensical plans.
Okay, I shouldn't say nonsensical.
That's not fair.
Pete Buttigieg just doesn't really have any kind of X factor, you know?
I call him a grey blob because he's entirely generic in his policies and in his character.
And that's probably why he's doing so well, because he's the closest thing to a normal, like, mainstream kind of politician.
Bernie Sanders is particularly unique.
Joe Biden is out there.
Warren is just a liar.
And I don't know who else you really have.
They're all kind of, you know, they're very unique in certain ways.
So I guess what I should probably say is not that Pete Buttigieg represents a mainstream politician, but that him being generic is safe.
There's no big questions about it.
He comes off like he's familiar.
And it's true.
You could point out that he is a white cisgender man, sure, fine.
But it was the Democratic establishment, the DNC, who said they wouldn't change the rules or even accept new polls to allow Yang or Gabbard or Booker to attend their, you know, the event.
Hence, you end up with queer protesters of color trying to shut the event down.
You fostered this.
You embraced it.
I don't know what to tell you.
You reap what you sow.
The Democratic establishment had every opportunity to cater to people like me with sensible policy, with charismatic leaders who embraced free speech and rejected this woke insanity.
And I've said it before and I'll say it again.
If the Democrats had somebody who agreed with Trump on most of his issues that have worked for us domestically, disagreed on foreign policy, And didn't have a potty mouth, they'd probably win.
That's what they need to win.
But they won't do that.
So in the end, they protest themselves.
Trump can say whatever he wants because he's the only one offering up a real solution to making the economy better and improving the lives of Americans.
In the end, Trump is as good as the American people are probably going to get, and it's unfortunate.
I understand, you know, look, I'm a big fan of Tulsi, big fan of Yang.
I'm completely out.
I don't want to deal with this.
I'm not going to vote in the primary.
I understand that my choices do not represent most of America.
It's unfortunate.
I wish they did.
Donald Trump, unfortunately for me, represents substantially more of America than my candidates did.
And you know what the thing is?
As a mature adult, I shrug and say, All I can really hope for is a good candidate.
But we can't get one.
So, I'll shrug.
Concede to the Trump supporters.
You're gonna win this one.
And what's wrong with that?
We're gonna move on.
The world's not gonna end.
Everyone needs to calm down.
Trump is not pure evil incarnate destroying the country.
People like him.
He's doing a better job than Hillary did.
And that's how it's gonna end up.
But as always, it's hubris that will be the downfall for Trump and his supporters.
So if you ignore the rise of Bernie Sanders and questions of morality, you will lose.
But I think for the most part, Trump's got it in the bag.
