MASSIVE Numbers Of Democrats Are Quitting The Democratic Party, Trump Now Polling Highest EVER
MASSIVE Numbers Of Democrats Are Quitting The Democratic Party, Trump Now Polling Highest EVER. A new poll from Gallup has Trump at +1 approval and Emerson has him at +4 giving him the highest aggregate polling numbers of his presidency.One of the reasons for the massive jump in approval is that Democrats are no longer identifying as Democrats and many are quitting the party.After Nancy Pelosi tore up Trump's speech we heard many angry callers into C-Span complaining of the Democrats and her behavior. They all said they would quit the party.Of course then we see pundits claiming Trump won last night's Democratic Debate in Nevada. The candidates are just too far left for the average American.This is in line with other trends we have seen and campaigns like the Walk Away campaign. Media is trying to claim its just Russians and that its fake news but the data doesn't lie. Not only are Democrats losing party members over far left policy but many are showing up to Trump rallies in huge numbers.If you don't believe it's happening just remember Jeff Van Drew, a Democratic congressman who switched parties and is now a republican.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Last night, we saw another Democratic presidential debate.
And just like all the other debates afterwards, political commentators and pundits took to the airwaves and social media to declare that Donald Trump was the real winner.
And they often do this because on the debate stage, you can see that Democrats are embracing fringe positions, far left positions that most Americans do not agree with.
They are trapped in an echo chamber.
The ramifications of this are pretty shocking.
Many people are quitting the Democratic Party, and it's reflected in Trump's approval rating.
Gallup has Trump at plus one.
It's one of the first times a poll that isn't Rasmussen has Trump at a positive approval rating.
But in the aggregate, Donald Trump's approval rating has reached an all-time high, tying with his highest ever at 46%, and that was just after he was inaugurated.
We're now several years into his presidency, and it is the highest it has ever been.
More shocking to me was Emerson, having Trump at plus four.
There's one big reason why this shift is happening.
People are quitting the Democratic Party, identifying as Republicans, and so are independent voters.
The echo chamber of the left is falling apart.
And people are starting to embrace Donald Trump because, look, the economy is just too good.
Many people believe it is better than ever.
But the other reality is there are no centrist Democrats.
And as I've explained many times, given the opportunity or given the only choice between far left fringe ideology and Donald Trump, the average voter in this country is closer to someone on their right like Trump to the Republican Party than they are to the far left.
Now it's all falling apart for Democrats.
We already saw the videos.
You may have seen the story.
When Nancy Pelosi tore up Donald Trump's State of the Union speech, Democrats were calling into C-SPAN, outraged, saying they were quitting the party.
The data is in.
Gallup has Trump plus one, partly because 4% over the past four surveys have switched to the Republican Party.
To me, that is insane.
Let's take a look at what's going on and try and figure out why people are quitting.
A lifelong Democrat of 20 years wrote an op-ed explaining why she was leaving and explaining how she feels the Democratic Party is so out of touch they are in for a major, massive failure come November.
The first story we have from Gallup, Trump job approval steady at 49%.
Before we read this, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's several ways you can give.
The best thing you can do, share this video.
You know, I like to crack some echo chambers and I'm going to show you an article from a former Democrat who says the Democrats are trapped in an echo chamber.
Hopefully by sharing this video, some people who might not normally see these ideas will get access to them and it may help them break out of that echo chamber.
But I also noticed many of you don't subscribe, so if you do like these videos and you want to see more, please consider subscribing to this channel, hit the notification bell, let's dive in.
Gallup says, President Donald Trump's approval remains elevated at 49% in the latest Gallup poll, the same as in the previous poll and up 5 points from an early January poll conducted before Trump was acquitted by the Senate in his impeachment trial.
As in the prior poll conducted January 16-29, the approval rating from the February 3-16 poll reflects record polarization for a single Gallup poll, with 87 percentage points separating ratings of Republicans and Democrats.
43% of independents approve of Trump, the highest rating for him among the group to date.
Now here's what's interesting.
You may see that among Democrats, his approval rating is actually down.
However, many people are no longer identifying as Democrats.
They've quit the party.
So this is one of the reasons we're seeing polarization, not because there are Democrats that don't like Trump, but because the people that used to be Democrats who do like Trump have completely quit and no longer call themselves Democrats.
Gallup points this out.
They say, one of the reasons why this is happening, possible explanations.
Trump's approval rating may be higher because of the Senate's acquitting him in the impeachment trial.
Bill Clinton's job approval ratings also were higher spanning the time between his impeachment in late 98 and his acquittal in early 99.
Americans' generally positive and improved perceptions of the state of the nation are also a likely contributing factor.
These factors may be driving Republicans' and independents' ratings of Trump higher, but not Democrats'.
However, they say Gallup has observed an increase in the percentage of Americans identifying
as Republicans, 32% in the past two surveys, up from 28% in the prior two surveys, along
with a decline in the percentage identifying as independents, 41% down from 43, and Democrats,
27% down from 28. People are quitting the Democratic Party, or they're no longer identifying
as Democrats, they are now identifying as Republicans.
That's the walk-away campaign.
I started thinking about this phenomenon.
You may be familiar with Brandon Strock and his walk-away campaign.
He was a New York hairstylist who pointed out that he was seeing all of this insanity on the left and he didn't want to be involved anymore, and now he's a big Trump supporter.
But he's got hundreds of thousands of followers.
They've been accused of all the worst things in the book, and we'll go over that.
But before we move on, I wanted to point this out.
Can you think of high-profile personalities of cultural merit who have quit the Republican Party?
There's a few.
There are some Republicans who are never Trumpers who now go on CNN all the time to rag on the Orange Man.
But is there a mass movement like WalkAway from the right?
There isn't.
Why is it that we see high-profile personalities like Dave Rubin say, I'm leaving the left?
Or a campaign called WalkAway where people leave the left?
And if you want to argue that it's actually Trump who's nuts, why is it that people are no longer identifying as independent or Democrat and more people identify as Republican?
It's because the movement is away from the left.
The way I explained it, politics only flows in one direction, at least today.
If you take a photograph with someone on the left, let's say you're a regular person.
You take a picture with someone who's a leftist, no one will say anything.
If you take a picture with someone who's conservative, they'll accuse you of being a conservative too.
There's no circumstance where a conservative takes a photo with someone on the left and they accuse the conservative of being on the left.
They're actively pushing all of us away.
Many people have openly embraced it.
Jack Murphy, for instance, wrote a book called Democrat to Deplorable.
9.4 million Obama voters switched to Trump and the phenomena continues to this day.
Now, I want to show you the aggregate of Donald Trump's approval rating before we jump into the op-ed from a woman who used to be a Democrat to explain why this is happening.
We can see that, as I mentioned, Gallup has Trump plus one, Emerson has him plus four, and this is the highest for Trump it's ever been.
But notably was a massive drop in Trump's disapproval rating, which I found really interesting.
There is not a one-for-one correlation between disapproval and approval.
Often people might disapprove of Trump more than people actually approve because there's a decent amount of people who say, I just don't know.
But with his disapproval dropping, that means you have a decent amount of people who have moved from hating Trump to either being ambivalent, not knowing or actually supporting him.
That's massive.
Now this story went viral.
It's a Medium post by a woman named Karlyn Borisenko.
I have no idea who that is, but it's got a ton of traction.
Tons of people have covered this, and it's a really good example.
I'm not going to read the whole thing, but she does make some interesting points.
She writes, After attending a Trump rally, I realized Democrats are not ready for 2020.
I've been a Democrat for 20 years, but this experience made me realize how out of touch my party is with the country at large.
I have been to dozens of Donald Trump rallies in the 2016 campaign cycle.
I was covering many of these rallies, just generally hanging out.
I did not see, for the most part, any hatred or vile behavior.
Now, there was some booing and people didn't like the media.
That's normal.
I'm not super concerned about that.
But the important thing that many people who are out of touch don't realize is that Donald Trump rallies are fun.
That's just a sad reality.
If you don't like the guy, I'm sorry to tell you this, but it's the truth.
People wait in long lines to see this man because he's funny.
He's offensive, he makes jokes, he's self-deprecating, and when you're standing there watching him, it's a good time.
People love going there.
I remember seeing one line that spanned presumably a mile or two.
It was a ridiculous line.
And I'm like, there's no way we're gonna wait in this line to get into the rally.
So we went to the front and we were like, we're press, can we cover this?
And yeah, press gets special access.
The biggest question of all, did I hate Trump so much that I wanted to see my country fail just to spite him and everyone who voted for him?
Of course not.
But this woman says that she basically had Trump derangement syndrome.
She hated the guy.
Now I think there's a fair middle ground where you can accept not liking Donald Trump, but you don't gotta be crazy.
And that's an important point.
And I've said it from the get-go.
You've got a pilot flying the plane.
You don't like him because he's got a bad attitude.
Why would you sabotage the flight?
Let him land the plane, and then figure out after that, you know, after that, uh, the fact.
But of course, the economy is doing really, really well.
And for the most part, people are absolutely going to choose the crass, boorish old man who makes the country work for them, as opposed to these weird far-left ideologues.
I think in the end, one of the most difficult positions for many Americans is that while many do not like the attitude of Trump, You're not being presented a fair alternative.
You're looking at kind of a traditional moderate Republican type person in Trump, who's got a bad attitude you don't like.
And then when you look to your left, you don't even see the Democratic Party anymore.
They're so far left, you can't even see where they're at.
At the end of this Medium post, Carlin says, I think the Democrats have an A kicking coming to them in November, and I think most of them will be utterly shocked when it happens, because they're existing in an echo chamber that is not reflective of the broader reality.
I hope it's a wake-up call that causes them to take a long look in the mirror and really ask themselves how they got here.
Maybe then they'll start listening.
I tend to doubt it, but I can hope.
Man, I have been right there for a long time.
I don't want to be super political in terms of who I think is the best.
You guys know that I was a big fan of Yang and Tulsi.
Trump is not that bad.
He's not my choice.
But I'm not crazy.
And she's right.
The Democrats are going to get trounced because they're stuck in the Trump derangement syndrome echo chamber.
The walk-away campaign has been smeared left and right.
Of course, it's the only thing they can do.
When you have massive amounts of people quitting the Democratic Party, as I've already shown you, the Gallup poll shows it, and we all know about the story from the C-SPAN callers after Pelosi ripped up the speech, it is happening.
This is a viral Medium post explaining why this woman quit.
However, if you go to the WalkAway campaign Wikipedia page, they say news sources have debated the extent to which WalkAway is an example of astroturfing rather than a genuine grassroots movement.
David A. Love of CNN condemned the campaign as pure propaganda, a psychological operation, and connected to Kremlin-linked Russian bots.
The Washington Post claimed there's little actual evidence to suggest that WalkAway represents a mass conversion of millions or even thousands of Democrats, and contrasted the broad appeal of true viral videos with the conservative internet viral nature of the WalkAway video.
ThinkProgress characterized the campaign as a grifting operation, noting efforts by the organizers to sell dinner packages priced in the hundreds of dollars to March attendees.
Slate accused the founder of presenting royalty-free stock images from Shutterstock and claiming they were people who had left the Democratic Party.
Strzok has denied that any such material originated from the walk-away campaign.
You know why I think this controversy section is funny?
Like I mentioned earlier, we're hearing the stories from people who quit.
We're listening to the C-SPAN callers.
I mean, you really got to hear those callers.
It is crazy.
One guy's like, I have been a Democrat for 70 years, no more.
Pelosi has embarrassed us.
This is shocking behavior.
But how are you going to deny Gallup?
They say maybe it's not even thousands.
One percent.
If we try to look at what Gallup is claiming in these polls and say the sample size and the poll is representative of this country, we're talking about millions of people who have quit the Democratic Party.
1%.
I know, it's 1%.
It's not a big deal.
But we have 330 million people in this country.
We have around, I think, 180 or 200.
I don't know the exact number, how many, our voting age.
But 1% of people who are likely voters, that could be in the millions, at least hundreds of thousands.
So yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and believe the data from Gallup and not the silly opinions from a media that didn't see this coming in 2016.
They're trapped in an echo chamber they can't break out of.
And you're gonna love this next part, because of course I always come up with data, don't I?
Now, before I read Mr. Brad Parscale's tweets, I want you to know he's the campaign manager for Donald Trump.
Take his data with a grain of salt.
But the fact remains, you can deny everything that, you know, that walkaway is saying.
You can reject what you see right in front of your eyes.
And you can even say, I don't trust Brad Parscale's data.
OK.
Let me remind you of Jeff Van Drew.
Remember him?
Yeah, he was a Democratic congressman.
He's a Republican now.
They literally lost a congressman.
That's how crazy the shift has become.
Now, of course, Justin Amash, you know, he became an independent.
I want to be fair.
There are people who defect from the right.
Absolutely.
But the major movements seem to be from left to right, not right to left or right to center.
And I think the reason is most independents feel that the left has gone too far left.
More independents feel that way than independents who feel the right has gone too far right.
But again, you can take Mr. Parscale's data with a grain of salt simply because, well, of course he's biased.
He's working for the president.
He wants these numbers to look like they're winning.
And I think it's fair.
But I also don't think he's making this up, especially when Gallup shows us something similar.
Take a look at this.
Arizona, the rally that just happened.
Wow, Arizona.
Big Phoenix Rally.
67,516 tickets.
29,990 voters identified.
87% from AZ.
26% didn't vote in 2016.
18% were Democrats.
Just like what Carolyn— Carlin?
Am I pronouncing her name wrong?
The Medium Post.
from AZ. 26% didn't vote in 2016. 18% were Democrats. Just like what Carolyn, I, I, I,
but Carlin, am I, am I pronouncing your name wrong? The Medium Post from Carlin Borisenko.
That's what she said, that she was a Democrat.
She went to a Trump rally and realized how out of touch the Democrats are.
But come on, I got more tweets from Mr. Parscale.
In this one, he says, New Hampshire, 25.4% Democrats.
I mean, that makes sense.
New Hampshire's a blue state.
So yeah, you've got a big portion of Democrats who have showed up for a Trump rally.
And of course, there's still New Jersey.
This was Jeff Van Drew's district.
158,632 requested tickets.
92,841 distinct signups.
73,482 voters.
10.4 didn't vote.
And 26.3 were Democrats.
This is in a blue state, New Jersey.
tickets. 92,841 distinct signups. 73,482 voters. 10.4 didn't vote and 26.3 were Democrats.
This is in a blue state, New Jersey, heavy blue. Now they're in Jeff Vandrew's district,
which is supposed to be a Democrat district. And the dude flipped and 26.3% of the people
who came out were actually Democrats as well.
To me, it's absolutely mind-boggling that the Democrats haven't course-corrected after losing so much support.
And I'll tell you why.
The Hill writes it.
As of today, there is no centrist Democrat running for president in 2020.
There just isn't.
Even Pete Buttigieg, who's supposed to be the moderate, is still further left than Obama was.
There's no centrist candidate.
They're all leftist.
Now, some are absolutely far left, but they're all leftists.
They are.
And the way they're campaigning, it's like they're worried about Twitter and not actual Americans.
And that's why actual Americans are confused and leaving.
I'm going to remind you all, and most of you know this, labor in the UK, which is basically their Democrats, faced one of the worst defeats in nearly a hundred years.
I know it bears repeating, but we're headed in that direction.
And Carlin said the same thing.
Democrats have no idea what's ahead of them.
I want to be careful, because I always want to say, hey, hubris will be the downfall.
So maybe I'm wrong.
But this data from Gallup backs all of it up.
The U.S.
remained center-right ideologically in 2019.
So how is it the case That all of these Democrats are trying to embrace far-left politics when the country leans center-right.
Now, I think it's fair to criticize the Democrats as not typically being a leftist party, but today, according to the New York Times, the Democratic Party is further left than the average European political party.
And European political parties are pretty far left.
So if the U.S.
is center-right, what do you think is going to happen?
Well, you'll see stories like this.
Trump wins the debate as Democrats explain why not one of them can beat him.
You see, all of these Democratic candidates, not only do they embrace leftist and far left ideology, but they needed to convince everyone they were the right choice by saying, here's why Biden can't win.
Here's why Bernie can't win.
And then Bernie says, well, here's why Buttigieg can't win.
Here's why Warren can't win.
It was basically a none of us can win fest.
Now, Bloomberg himself—I find this absolutely hilarious considering—well, actually, let me show you this one first.
Brett Baier on DemVegas debate.
The biggest winner tonight?
Donald Trump.
I'm so just—I just can't.
I can't anymore, man.
I'm just so confused as to why the Democrats haven't course-corrected.
They know that what they're saying is unpopular.
They absolutely have to know.
Are they that inept?
And fortunately, the answer might be yes.
They're just insane.
They have no idea what's happening in this country.
They're saying crazy things.
And in response, I kid you not, we're seeing the data from Gallup.
People are quitting the Democratic Party.
But I'll tell you, hey, for all his faults, at least Michael Bloomberg was able to recognize this.
Quote, the real winner of the debate last night was Donald Trump, Mike Bloomberg told the crowd in Salt Lake City.
I gotta say, I am impressed.
Bloomberg, who spent over $400 million to try and stop Donald Trump to run, to buy a seat on the debate stage and buy his way into this campaign, is one of the only Democrats who's admitting the debate last night was a dumpster fire, and Trump is walking away the winner without batting an eye, without countering any of their positions.
He doesn't need to.
You know, I love using ice cream analogies, but listen.
If Donald Trump offered you chocolate ice cream, you'd be like, yeah, I like chocolate ice cream, okay.
It's not my favorite.
Maybe it's rum raisin, right?
Then the Democrats walk up with some weird spinach broccoli nonsense, and you're like, I'm not eating that!
The choice is clear!
If you're watching a bunch of people debate about which ice cream you get to eat, and it's all weird, nasty flavors, like asparagus chocolate, you're gonna be like, no thank you!
Trump doesn't need to say anything!
He simply needs to say, we got vanilla, and you're gonna be like, yep.
And that's what's happening on the debate stage.
You hear nonsense.
You hear people tearing each other apart.
Ideas that make no sense.
And Trump doesn't say a single word.
And hey.
How does the saying go?
It's better to remain silent and appear stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Simply by saying nothing to these people, he ends up the winner, because they're all nuts.
But as I mentioned before, and I'll mention again, hubris will be your downfall.
On the Squawk Box, famous pollster Frank Luntz said, it's going to be a real battle between Bernie and Trump.
Quote, this is going to be a brawl.
It's going to be the ugliest election ever.
I don't know if Frank Luntz is right, but I think it's fair to say Hillary Clinton had hubris in spades and boy did she fail and fail hard and she will never get over it.
Donald Trump, everyone thought he wasn't going to make it and he did.
So it may turn out that even though the Democrats are spiraling out of control and people are quitting the party, that Bernie Sanders does light up new voters.
He does inspire older voters and people who maybe have given up on the party to come out for progressive values and present Trump with a real challenge.
I think that's fair.
You know why?
Because Bernie is a populist for all his faults and everything I can criticize him for.
I think a populist has the best chance of beating Donald Trump.
Because Trump himself is a populist.
It's basically just left or right.
What's your pick?
The elites are unable to inspire the masses.
But Bernie Sanders has been.
That's why he's winning the popular vote.
In the end, however, I want you to consider the most important point.
That data I showed you is wrong.
Absolutely wrong.
I showed you Gallup saying people quitting the Democratic Party and all that stuff.
As the New York Times writer Bret Stephens says, quote, Trump's whisper network.
What happens when the left seeds the free speech high ground?
This is the New York Times finally acknowledging that by bashing and smearing and ragging on Trump supporters and Trump all day and night, you have pushed many of his supporters into hiding.
So when you look at this data, how many people have quit the Democratic Party?
One percent.
How many people have left, you know, are no longer identifying as independent, now identify as Republicans?
Two to three percent.
But how many of those Democrats were Democrat their whole lives and are now secretly Trump supporters and will never say because they'll lose their jobs?
You know, I know some high profile individuals who voted for Donald Trump who are hard lefties, famous, you know, individuals, activists.
And if I were to tell you, you'd be shocked.
But no, I have to respect their privacy because of this, because their careers will be destroyed if anyone finds out.
These are people who looked at the option in 2016 and said the choice between Trump and Hillary is a no brainer.
And today they're saying the same thing.
The left has gone insane.
Stick around for tonight.
I've got more videos coming up at 6pm at youtube.com slash TimCatsNews.
Those will be fun, as always.
But tonight I'll be doing a podcast, presumably, with another huge story that I think is really, really fascinating.
There are left-wing activists, longstanding diehard leftists, who are finally fed up with what the Democrats are doing, with what the left represents, and no longer want to be involved.
It's gonna get crazy.
This is going to be one of the ugliest elections we have ever seen.
Frank Luntz is certainly right about that.
But I'll leave with just a couple more things.
First, I really do mean it when I say I hope we can break some echo chambers.
I don't think I know everything.
There's probably some data that I missed that might offer up a counterpoint.
And that's why it's always important for you guys to watch people other than me.
Especially left-leaning individuals.
You can find that they're wrong or right or I'm wrong or I'm right, whatever.
The point is, expand your perspective.
But also, really, you know, share this if you do like it.
Because I think this one's particularly important.
I know there are a lot of people who still, to this day, are probably on Twitter, at work, claiming to be on the left, and they secretly are not.
Perhaps, as Trump's approval rating continues to climb and break records, you're going to see more Trump supporters completely willing to say that they support the president.
And then the floodgates open, and the Whisper Network becomes public.
But until then, the Whisper Network is real.
Who knows how many people secretly support the president and just won't say.
That's one of the reasons he won in 2016.
And now people are predicting a McGovern-type incident where Trump could even win 500, maybe 400 electoral votes, maybe 40 states.
I guess we'll see.
I'll see you all at 6pm on the next channel, youtube.com slash Tim Cameron.
Last night was one of the most important democratic debates took place in Nevada,
just before the upcoming Nevada caucus, which is considered very important.
But once again, the democratic debate was a massive dumpster fire.
But for all the flaming trash, we did get little morsels of sweet, sweet goodness.
Notably, when billionaire Michael Bloomberg called out Bernie Sanders
for being a millionaire with three homes.
And I gotta say, I think Bernie Sanders' response was kind of weak.
But this highlights something I find truly interesting.
You see, Bernie Sanders used to say, the millionaires and billionaires.
And now he just says, the billionaires.
Why?
Because Bernie Sanders is a millionaire, and I gotta be honest.
I got no problem with that.
Bernie, have as many homes as you'd like, make as much money as you like, and he's barely a millionaire.
But Bernie, you reap what you have sown.
You don't seem to differentiate between the ultra-wealthy and someone who just barely has a million dollars.
Because it may be surprising to a lot of people.
But in order to be the 1% in net worth, you need $10,000,000.
I know, it's a lot, it's crazy.
And there are a lot of retirees, about 6%, who have over $1,000,000 in net worth because they own homes that have accumulated in value over their lifetimes, over their lifetime, 30, 40 years or whatever.
So I know, $1,000,000 is still a lot of money.
But when you want to talk about influence in politics, shouldn't we be talking about someone who's got like $900,000,000 or a billion?
Well, Bernie didn't differentiate.
See, back in the campaign in 2016, he used to rag on the millionaires and billionaires, and now, lo and behold, he doesn't say millionaires anymore.
Don't take my word for it.
NBC has the anti-Bernie smear, which we all love to see.
Bernie Sanders is saying millionaires less often.
One way his 2020 message has changed.
Well, Mike Bloomberg called him out for it, and I gotta say, it was good to finally hear someone call him out, because as much as I have no problem with Bernie having extra homes or being a millionaire.
He is a democratic socialist who used to rag on millionaires all day and night and then dropped the millionaire smear as soon as he became one.
So what do you think's gonna happen when Bernie makes money?
I don't trust him.
I don't think he actually cares about what's going on.
I think he was just a naive guy who didn't understand anything about having wealth, sold a book, made a million bucks, and went, oh, I paid how much in taxes?
I'm gonna stop ragging on the millionaires.
Now, what I do find even more sweet and juicy about this is the Democratic Party is a dumpster fire.
It's just flaming trash everywhere.
The person who called out Bernie Sanders is billionaire Mike Bloomberg, who basically bought his way into the debate stage.
You all deserve each other, alright?
At least Bernie Sanders was the only one who said superdelegates shouldn't decide who the Democratic nominee is.
I'll give him that.
But they're all hypocrites.
Okay, Bloomberg bought his way in the debate stage and has the nerve to call out Bernie Sanders for being a millionaire with three houses.
It's a fair criticism, but you're all swimming in a pool of flaming trash.
So you know what?
Let's read the story, and I want to critique Bernie's response to this.
Daily Mail writes, Billionaire Mike Bloomberg mocks best-known socialist in the country, Bernie Sanders, for having three houses and being a millionaire after he called for an end to capitalism.
Their bickering over Bloomberg's billions in Sanders' millions descended into a fight over who owned more homes during a contentious debate where the entire stage of candidates ganged up on the former New York City mayor and the Vermont senator found himself a target after becoming the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination.
Bloomberg was defending his net worth, estimated to be around $64 billion.
Keeps going up, huh?
Pointing out he earned it through hard work and that he was giving his money away when Sanders argued the workers helped make that money.
Mr. Bloomberg, it wasn't you who made all that money.
Maybe your workers played some role in that as well.
And it is important those workers are able to share the benefits also.
When we have so many people who go to work every day and they feel not good about their jobs, they feel like cogs in a machine.
I want workers to be able to sit on corporate boards as well so they can have some say over what happens to their lives.
How about this?
How about you take responsibility for your life, and if you are unhappy being a cog in a machine, go do something else.
You know what I can't stand about Bernie Sanders' argument is he's basically saying we're addicted to wealth and we won't give it up.
I'll tell you this.
Go live on a farm.
Tell me how much you enjoy being a cog on a machine in a farm, waking up at 6 a.m.
and going to bed at midnight.
I'll tell you a funny story.
After Occupy Wall Street, someone gifted land to a bunch of activists.
And many of those activists went to go work on the farm.
And some of them, I knew, quit within two weeks.
The general idea was you get off the grid, you stop contributing to climate change and all that stuff, and you go do hard work on a farm and you live a more humble life.
And many of them just outright skipped within two weeks.
You know why?
They said it was too much work.
You wake up at the crack of dawn, you go to bed around midnight, it's non-stop work all day every day to be able to have food to survive.
Now, as a cog in the machine working in an office in a job you hate, You get a TV.
You get a smartphone.
You get a laptop.
You live in luxury.
And so it's crazy to me.
You might have a crappy job.
I get it.
But have you ever been to any other country on this planet?
You have so much wealth in America working these crappy jobs.
But I'll tell you what.
Life is about more than whether or not you have a flat screen TV and an iPad or something.
So if you're unhappy with your work, you need to pave that road in front of you.
You can't just be put on the board by a government mandate because Bernie Sanders doesn't like the system.
You have a choice not to work for these companies.
No one's forcing you to do it.
But let's get to the millionaire thing with Bernie Sanders.
The former New York City mayor then accused Sanders, a self-decried democratic socialist, of being a communist.
I can't think of a ways that would make it easier for Donald Trump to get re-elected than listening to this conversation.
This is ridiculous.
We're not going to throw out capitalism.
It was called communism and it just doesn't work, Bloomberg said.
Democratic Socialists believe the means of production should be collectively owned alongside a democratic political system of government.
Communism advocates the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and state.
Democratic Socialism doesn't make sense because someone has to enforce whatever that is.
So, in the end, Democratic Socialism is literally just the same thing as Socialism.
They just want you to vote for it before they come and seize everything you own.
Sanders, who is worth $2.5 million, according to Forbes, accused Bloomberg of taking a cheap shot.
I agree with Bernie on this one.
Communism is more of an authoritarian dictatorship.
Socialism tends to turn into those.
But communism is more of a callback to the Red Scare and stuff like that.
Call Bernie a socialist.
There's no reason to hide from it.
They're basically the same thing.
And when you do this, you give them the opportunity to back away.
Let's talk about democratic socialism, not communism, Mr. Bloomberg.
The two men represent the opposing ends of the Democratic Party.
Bloomberg for the moderates and Sanders for the liberals.
Are you kidding me?
Is this the best the Democrats have to offer?
A corrupt billionaire who bought his way into the debates and a socialist?
Trump is going to landslide in November.
Dude, it's going to be McGovern all over again.
It's going to be like the Labor Party crushing defeat.
These people have lost the plot.
Okay, okay, where's the line about the millionaires?
The millionaires and the billionaires.
Bloomberg, here we go.
This is where it got good.
Bloomberg didn't let up against Sanders.
Pointing out the senator owns three homes.
That's amazing.
What a wonderful country we have.
The best known socialist in the country happens to be a millionaire with three houses.
What did I miss here?
I gotta give it to Bloomberg.
I gotta do it!
Uh, I don't like Bloomberg.
I really don't.
I think he's a corrupt crony, you know, bad person.
But hey, someone finally said it.
Now, I wish it would have come from someone with a bit more integrity, but fine, sure.
People have been calling out Bernie for a long time.
Now, I'll be the first to say, Bernie, go ahead, be a millionaire.
He started a movement.
He sold a bunch of books.
He made a million bucks.
Congratulations, good sir, you're living the American dream.
You bought an extra house.
You bought a summer house.
Bravo, good sir.
America is great, isn't it?
The only problem is that Bernie rags on the millionaires and the billionaires all the time.
And as soon as he made that sweet, sweet green, what did he do?
He stopped saying millionaires.
Well, here's what his response was.
I work in Washington.
House 1.
Live in Burlington.
House 2.
Like thousands of other Vermonters, I have a summer camp.
Which tax haven is your home?
Not.
A. Answer.
Not an answer.
Not a good response.
Bloomberg then responded with, New York City, thank you very much and I pay all of my taxes and I'm happy to do it because I get something for it.
The first debate featuring Bloomberg found the former mayor defending his record on race and gender amid his defense of the billions he made as a businessman in New York.
You know, I never thought the Democrats would elect a billionaire because they view this, you know, they're typically people who are like, the billionaires shouldn't exist.
I mean, that's where they're at right now, especially with the far left.
Bernie's response was bad.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, Bernie.
Like, your answer says nothing to me.
Oh, what's that?
You work in Washington, so you bought a house there.
You live in Burlington, so you bought a house there.
And you bought a summer house, too?
Yeah, Bloomberg's criticism was apt, bro.
You own three houses.
There are people who work in Congress and the Senate.
Well, probably not the Senate, because those people are all millionaires anyway.
But there are people in Congress who can't afford rent in Washington, D.C.
I mean, at least AOC just renting an apartment.
But buying a house?
Well, I work in Washington.
I should buy a house.
Oh, come on, dude.
You own three houses.
How many houses do you need?
You can get a one-bedroom for when you're working in Washington, D.C.
You don't need to buy a house down there.
Houses in D.C.
are ridiculously expensive.
Congratulations, dude!
You're rich!
Bernie doesn't want to embrace it, but he dropped millionaires from his message.
NBC News talks about this.
They say that he used to knock on the millionaires and billionaires.
He's not saying that anymore.
Hypocrisy, man!
Dude, if you have 900 million dollars, you're still a millionaire.
And you can use that money to heavily influence politics.
This is what's crazy to me.
The moment Bernie entered the bottom rung of the millionaire class, he stopped saying millionaires.
So, Bernie, you can't compare yourself to, you know, you with a net worth of 2.5 million, to a dude who's got 999 million.
Wasn't there, like, didn't J.K.
Rowling, like, lose billionaire status because she gave away too much money?
She's still worth, like, hundreds of millions of dollars!
There's no comparison between someone with $900 million and you, Bernie.
But you still dropped the millionaire thing.
Why?
Because you are one.
Imagine what would happen if Bernie earned $1 billion.
Just one simple billion.
All of a sudden, he's gonna be like, Bloomberg's not so bad.
We gotta go after the ultra-wealthy, not the billionaires.
Yeah, we get it, man.
The moment you became a millionaire, you no longer wanted to criticize the group you became a part of.
And we see this all the time.
When people become rich, all of a sudden their views change on how taxes should be done.
People who make a certain amount of money become more fiscally conservative for a lot of reasons.
I noticed something interesting about global protests and revolution.
The people who protest wealth inequality are the people who typically make less than the median.
And the people who make more than the median reject all of these things.
There are outliers.
There are super wealthy Hollywood celebrities, you know, who go around protesting with the Occupy Wall Street types.
But it's very easy to predict whether or not someone's politics will be socialist or capitalist.
It depends on how much money they make.
Here's the thing.
Americans are all extremely wealthy.
Every.
Single.
One.
Every single one.
Homeless guy sleeping on the streets.
He's got a lot of problems.
But he is wealthy.
And I mean it.
Because Americans don't realize how spoiled they are.
Now of course I don't want someone to be homeless.
Of course I think that's below the standards of living for our country.
And of course I want to make sure we can solve these problems and get people a better standard of living.
Just because America is better than everyone else in the world doesn't mean, you know, of course I recognize that we should increase the standard of living for everybody and get some base level, you know, healthcare and you should have a place to live.
But let me tell you, man.
Why don't you go visit Egypt, Morocco?
Why don't you go visit Eritrea?
Why don't you go visit Libya?
And then you want to talk about wealth and poverty.
A homeless guy in this country can stand in a street corner muttering gibberish and every tenth word say cheeseburger and guess what'll happen?
In no time at all, maybe an hour or two, someone will walk by and hand a cheeseburger to that man.
I'm not even exaggerating.
I've worked with homeless non-profits, I've worked with non-profits, I've lived in big cities.
I have seen people sleep on the street with a sign that says, need money.
That's it!
Sleeping!
And in a few hours, they have a coffee can full of money.
I knew a dude was making hundreds of dollars per day sleeping on the street.
I'm not kidding.
They would go downtown Chicago, sit up against a light post with a coffee can and a sign saying, I need help.
And they would wake up several hours later with a coffee can full of money And dump all the change into one of those counting machines.
That's called being a wealthy American.
Now, I don't want these people sleeping on the street.
I want them to have a better life.
I want people to be taught how to fish so they can support themselves.
Just getting cash from people is no way to live.
But the point is, Americans are extremely wealthy.
We are.
We all are.
Bernie Sanders has shown us something very important with the way he describes the problem in this country.
The moment he entered their class, he no longer had criticisms for them.
And that to me shows that he probably, for one, didn't understand how wealth actually works.
And he still doesn't.
When he calls for the wealth tax, it doesn't make sense.
They say, we're going to use the wealth tax on the billionaires to pay for health care.
Okay, so after you've tacked Jeff Bezos, you know, in two or three years and now he's worthless, Where's the money coming from?
It doesn't make sense.
Sorry, your plan doesn't work.
And how are you gonna tax stocks?
You can't do it!
Because his net worth is high, he's gotta pay money he doesn't have?
These people are just not... They're not mentally sound.
They don't understand how this stuff works.
But of course, like I said, Bernie rags the millionaires.
Let's read the story from ABC News.
They say, as a Bernie Sanders bast and a New Hampshire primary win, he reeled off the familiar tenets of his political revolution.
The speech, after the Granite State helped make Sanders the early favorite in the 2020 Democratic race, sounded familiar to those who have tracked the senator since he stormed onto the national stage during the 2016 election.
The Vermont senator declared, healthcare is a human right, not a privilege.
Sanders called to cancel student debt, He promised to take on Wall Street, drug makers and fossil fuel companies.
But it lacked one of the signature phrases voters have associated with Sanders and his Brooklyn accent.
A knock on the millionaires and billionaires.
Corrupting the US political system.
Recently his rhetoric has focused more on the wealthier end of the US populace.
We're taking on billionaires and we're taking on candidates funded by billionaires.
As Sanders, himself a recently minted millionaire, brings his campaign to pivotal nominating contests in Nevada, South Carolina, and beyond, he continues to drill into what he calls the corrosive influence of the wealthy and corporations on U.S.
politics.
Even so, he has tweaked parts of his message since his 2016 campaign.
So they go on to point it out, basically.
We get it.
Quote, We are going to unite together and defeat the most dangerous president in modern history of this country, Sanders said, after his victory in Tuesday New Hampshire-ing.
Blah blah blah.
The Democratic debates show how his messaging on millionaires has changed.
While the Sanders campaign has thrived in grassroots organizing, the events offer candidates some of the best chances to reach a national audience.
In at least two of the debates against Hillary Clinton during the 2016 primary, Sanders targeted millionaires and billionaires, according to transcripts.
Millionaires and billionaires are pouring unbelievable sums of money into the political process in order to fund super PACs and to elect candidates who represent their interests, not the interests of working people.
Sanders has targeted billionaires as often as ever in the height of 2020 Democratic debates that began in June, but he has not said millionaires during events according to transcript searches.
Now, I'll say this.
I don't think it's necessarily because Bernie Sanders is himself a millionaire.
I think it's because Bernie Sanders probably started getting donations from millionaires, and all of a sudden he had to contend with the fact that people in his wealth bracket were supporting him.
What's he gonna do?
Is he gonna kick back and say, I don't want any of this money from millionaires?
Well, he can't really.
I don't know if Bernie Sanders is still accepting money from millionaires and billionaires, but he himself is a millionaire, so maybe that's why he has to drop it.
Of course he's gonna accept his own money, right?
And now you can see the problem with Bernie Sanders' rhetoric.
In my opinion, Bernie Sanders can still rag on millionaires while pointing out he is one.
His response to Michael Bloomberg should have been something like this when Bloomberg says, What a great country we live in, where the best known socialist in the country is a millionaire with three houses.
Bernie should have said, I made that money in the past couple of years after living decades making only just above a hundred or so thousand working in the U.S.
Congress and Senate.
In the past couple of years, Bernie started a movement which allowed him to sell a book and make that money.
He's only been a millionaire since 2016, in his 70s.
So I personally have no problem with that.
And if Bernie was honest about this, he might get some respect from me, but he's not.
Instead, he says, well, I work in these places, so I gotta own the house!
And of course, like thousands of others, thousands of others, dude, how many people live in Vermont?
A couple million?
Oh, and thousands have summer homes.
Great.
Because we all can relate to the millionaire senator who has a summer home.
That's your response?
I think we can see, we can see what's going on here.
I think if Bernie Sanders ever made a billion dollars, he would drop all of this.
He'd become a capitalist overnight.
Of course Michael Bloomberg's like, I give my money away.
I'm helping people.
I've made all it through hard work.
You know, we get it.
Rich people give money through philanthropy and all that stuff.
Apparently Bernie Sanders didn't.
I don't know.
Okay, maybe I don't have the data pulled up.
And Bernie just barely cracked a million dollars in income back in like 2017 or something.
But all of these people claim to be doing the right thing.
All of these people earn their money through some legal means, for the most part, and then try to give back a little bit.
Bernie is no special case.
He's just on the outside looking in.
And this is the funny thing about him and all of these socialist types, all of these far lefties.
They're typically privileged young people who support Bernie Sanders.
So they're making decent salaries.
They live in luxury.
I mean it.
Global luxury.
Maybe not the best in America, but they've got fancy apartments.
They've got access to top quality healthcare.
They do.
You know, people want to complain about whether or not they can get access to quality healthcare, but let me just remind you.
You today have better health care than Rockefeller did back in his time.
One of the biggest, you know, the most wealth ever amassed in the history of the planet.
And that dude couldn't get the health care you get today, and I'll tell you what else.
Poor people in this country have air conditioning and refrigerators.
I'm not saying we should be okay with extreme poverty.
Because poverty is relative.
We want to lift people up to a certain standard of living.
Totally respect that.
But I want to make sure you all remain humble and recognize the great things you have.
Bernie apparently doesn't.
He's always going to be on the outside looking in.
Always complaining about those who have more than he does.
Up until they let him in the room.
You see, he was looking through that window of the club of millionaires and billionaires complaining and yelling to everyone outside.
It reminds me of that episode of Family Guy, you may have seen it, where there are people who are striking at some store for low wages.
And Peter goes to the store and is offered a job and then immediately comes out and they're all like, what's he gonna say?
And then he says, you are trespassing and you are being instructed to leave.
That's how I see Bernie.
He's outside this big mansion looking at all the millionaires and billionaires, and he's rallying everyone outside saying, these people are corrupt, these people are corrupt, and then they let him on the first floor.
And they say, Bernie, you can come in the first floor.
And then what does he do?
He says, oh, oh, the billionaires!
Upstairs!
Yeah, I get it, man.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around, next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Well, last night's Democratic debate, like most other Democratic debates, was pretty much a dumpster fire.
I think Bernie Sanders did do decently well.
His supporters think he basically won.
He had some good answers.
However, he did say one of the stupidest things I've ever heard, trying to pass the buck on his violent supporters and the harassment coming from Bernie bros.
He actually tried suggesting that the online attacks from his supporters are, in fact, I don't want to be too paranoid here, but maybe Russia!
Yes, right.
The great enemy of America, Russia, is here to stop Bernie Sanders.
What I love about this story is the criticism isn't just coming from conservatives.
The Daily Caller, which is Tucker Carlson's outlet, certainly covered the story, but so did the establishment-left Daily Beast.
Look, a lot of people for a lot of reasons don't like Bernie Sanders.
Let me talk about the Bernie Bros smear and why this is really, really stupid.
For the longest time, going back to 2015, they have tried to smear Bernie Sanders as having an army of bros.
These are people online who harass anyone who dares say anything negative about the 78-year-old socialist who recently had a heart attack.
It's true.
But here's the thing.
At first, I'm gonna have to push back on these journalists, these crybabies, who are upset that someone said mean words to them on the internet.
You ever see that tweet, I think it was from Tyler the Creator, where he was like, how does cyberbullying exist?
Just like, move your head, close your eyes, don't look at it.
I just don't read my mentions.
Do you have any idea the amount of psychotic vitriol that pours, the amount that pours into my mentions every day?
I just don't click the button.
I ignore it.
And you know what?
Life is so much better because of it.
So these journalists that want to complain, they're actually just whiny babies, or for the most part, it's an excuse.
Here's the thing, though.
The Bernie Bros, yeah, they're real people.
It's just a matter of whether or not you can tolerate mean words on the internet, and I think you should.
So for the most part, I was very dismissive of this whole Bernie Bros smear.
There are people who are nasty in the Sanders campaign.
And we've seen it from Project Veritas.
Now, here's what I love about what Bernie Sanders is suggesting.
First, I will give him credit where credit is due.
He does denounce the awful people and the stuff.
You know, he basically says, they have no place in my movement.
I disown those people.
Much respect.
I'm not gonna play these stupid games the media does where they're like, Donald Trump didn't denounce these awful people.
He did, and Bernie just called these people out.
However, Bernie's campaign never called out his own staffers when Project Veritas exposed those videos where they're talking about putting conservatives in gulags.
Now here's where it gets really funny.
If Bernie wants to suggest that some of these online attacks are Russians, how do you explain all those little Antifa Bernie supporters you got running around bashing people's skulls in?
Are they Russian agents?
Deposited in the United States?
Sleeper agents?
Creating and joining the communist revolution?
Going around giving Bernie Sanders a bad name?
And why would they go after Bernie when Russia was actually trying to help Bernie?
Well, I shouldn't put it that way.
But if Russia was going after, you know, Clinton, why would they go after Bernie?
Are you trying to suggest that the Russians are trying to prop up Donald Trump?
I thought they were trying to sow discord.
Let's read this story from the Daily Wire and we'll talk a little bit about the results
of this Bernie bro stuff.
Bernie Sanders suggests online attacks from Bernie supporters might be the Russians.
Oh, I love it.
Independent Vermont Senator suggested Wednesday that attacks attributed to his supporters known as Bernie Bros might be the Russians trying to divide America.
Sanders made the argument during the Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas after taking criticism for not doing more to prevent his supporters from attacking others online.
No, no, no, stop!
Drop the online stuff, dude!
How come no one's calling out Bernie supporters for literally attacking people physically?
I'm serious!
In San Jose!
In, I think this was 2015 or 16, I can't remember.
I think it was 2015.
Because it was before the nomination.
Bernie Sanders supporters were going around beating the crap out of Trump supporters.
I watched an old couple, had to be in their late 60s, get pushed to the ground.
Someone took the MAGA hat off their head, set it on fire.
Yeah, that stuff was going on.
Those were Bernie supporters.
And the Bernie supporters got mad saying, you don't know that tip.
They were wearing Bernie shirts!
Some of them were holding up Bernie signs.
And Bernie actually did call them out back then.
Why won't he do it now?
Well, certainly, He will answer for the online harassment, but this is not the focus.
It's so fascinating to me that you have these establishment Democrat journalist types who are like, Bernie bros online are mean to me.
So what?
Grow up.
Press the mute button.
Press the block button, you infantile... Whatever, okay.
But it's crazy to me that you actually have Antifa, far-left, Bernie Sanders types, in his campaign, saying like, once Bernie's in, that's when the crazy stuff starts.
We gotta keep the secret from the public.
Did no one think to actually question him on that?
It's just because of the mean words on the internet?
I find these people pathetic and insufferable.
Let's read this quote.
We have over 10.6 million people on Twitter and 99% of them are decent human beings.
That's true.
Are working people and people who believe in justice, compassion, and love.
Sanders began adding, the vast number of attacks and ugly remarks could really be attributed to a very small percentage of people.
And that's absolutely fair.
But I have to ask the question of where the Buddha bros are.
The Buddha judge bros going around saying the same.
They don't exist!
You've got creepy weirdos who support the establishment Democrats.
It's weird.
They go after Bernie and accuse him of all these, like, nasty things.
But they're just annoying.
Like, the Bernie bros are actually, like, saying things.
Like, I had someone send a message to me saying, don't forget, Tim, you're first against the wall.
Like, okay, dude.
Like, that's kind of stuff Bernie Sanders should tell him to knock off.
But what about when the Veritas, you know, videos came out and we saw them saying basically that?
I disown those people that are not part of our movement, Sanders continued.
Let me also say, what I hope my friends up here will agree with, is that if you look at the wild west of the internet, talk to some of the African American women on my campaign, and find the vicious racist sexist attacks that are coming their way as well, so I would hope that all of us understand that we should do everything we possibly can to end the viciousness and ugliness on the internet.
Our campaign is about issues.
It's about fighting for the working families and the middle class.
It is not about vicious attacks on people.
You know why the Bernie Bros thing is really a stupid smear against Sanders?
Most people don't use Twitter.
78% of Americans are not on Twitter.
Of the 22 that are, only 10% actually make, 10% make 80% of the tweets, which means about 1.2% of those, a little bit of the majority, are liberal.
And then of the liberals, a smaller percentage are the ultra-woke far-leftists.
It is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction that the average American doesn't know or care about.
And if you went up to a random person on the street wearing a Bernie shirt and said, do you know what a Bernie bro is?
They would assume you're saying, like, a friend of Bernie.
They'd be like, I don't know, it's like someone's a fan of Bernie.
This is stupid internet world bleeding out into the real world and nobody cares.
So, to that extent, I'll give Bernie Sanders that when he says, I don't want to be paranoid, but, you know, maybe it's Russia.
Okay, okay.
Yeah, nobody cares, right?
Former South Bend Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg interrupted then, saying that while he believed Sanders did not direct any of the attacks, he also felt that the campaign should probably be doing some soul-searching in light of the number of attacks coming from people who claim to be Sanders supporters.
But at a certain point, you've got to ask yourself, why did this pattern arise?
That's a good question.
Why is it especially the case among your supporters?
Buttigieg asked.
I don't think it's especially the case, by the way, Sanders replied.
That's just not true, Buttigieg.
Buttigieg is right!
There's no Biden bros!
Where are the Biden bros coming out and being like, stop complaining about our candidates' teeth or something?
We'll come for you!
They don't exist.
Where's the Klobuchar sisters or whatever?
There's none.
There's no Bloomberg bros either.
It's just Bernie supporters.
As I stated the last time I talked about this, Bernie is weaponizing the gutter scraps of the left.
He knows who is supporting him and he's willing to accept it because it helps his campaign.
He doesn't want to call it out for what it is, for the most part.
I gotta give him credit for saying, you know, the people online are not part of my movement, but what about the physical violence?
Sanders turned the topic to Russia, adding, Let me say something else.
Not being too paranoid, all of us remember 2016.
And what we meant, what we remember, is efforts by Russians and others to try and interfere in our election and divide us up.
I'm not saying that's happening, but it would not shock me.
Okay, okay, dude.
I could tell that Bernie didn't want to go down that route by the way he's saying it, but, like, he tried.
Dude, if you're gonna commit, commit.
If you want to say Russia, just say Russia.
Don't say, well, you know, maybe, because you sound weak when you're doing it.
At least have some conviction behind your conspiracy theory.
Buttigieg pushed back again arguing that acts of the followers could potentially be traced to inspiration in the campaign.
Leadership isn't just about policy.
I think at least about broad terms.
We're largely pulling in the same direction on policy, he concluded, but leadership is also about how you motivate people to treat other people.
I think you have to accept some responsibility and ask yourself what it is about your campaign in particular that seems to be motivating this behavior more than others.
And I gotta tell ya, it's not Russians.
Sorry, you can knock it off.
That was a pathetic attempt.
The reality is Bernie Sanders supporters are the loony far left, and he knows it.
So, good.
Condemn the people on the internet.
But even the Daily Beast.
I always find it hilarious.
On the Daily Caller, on the Daily Beast, you got establishment, left, and conservative being like, hey, look at this thing.
This is stupid, right?
Bloomberg has weaponized the Bernie Bros phenomenon, I guess, with a scorching video, they say.
Fox News says, the former New York City mayor tweeted a video Monday, Monday morning, featuring aggressive and sometimes threatening tweets, text, and memes, supposedly from Sanders supporters.
Vote Bernie or bad things will happen.
We know where you live, where you work, where you eat.
That sounds like a Fight Club reference.
Libs who are flirting with Bloomberg now should be aware that they're going on lists, said one tweet.
Several targeted other Democrats in the race calling Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts a snake and former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg a demonic rat.
Do you guys remember Covington?
I think a bunch of Covington students actually launched another lawsuit.
I don't have anything pulled up.
But remember all of the lefty woke journalists who probably support Bernie Sanders?
Some of them probably do.
We're talking about maiming and harming children?
The Bernie Bros thing, it's real.
We've seen the violent rhetoric on Twitter.
Go ignored.
Twitter won't ban these people.
They let it happen.
Now, it's true that only a tiny fraction of Americans are on Twitter, but Bernie's base is particularly young and active online.
There are a ton of people that take the digital world to the real world, and you can see these videos.
I tell you this right now, if you went to every... I guarantee you, I would make this bet.
99.9% of anti-fascists walking around black clad with crowbars bashing skulls are going to tell you they're voting for Bernie Sanders.
Recently at a Democratic primary, at the primary in New Hampshire, a guy walked out having just voted in the primary and smacked a 15-year-old kid across the face.
And then when two adults tried to stop, you know, to intervene, he attacked them as well.
He got arrested.
Who do you think that guy voted for?
You don't even... Dude, it's so obvious.
You'd be insane not to place the chips on the Bernie Sanders tile at that roulette table.
Of course it's Bernie Sanders.
I don't think Bernie himself likes this.
I think he doesn't.
You guys saw the video the other day where the woman went up on stage and took the mic from him.
But this is the perfect example of why this problem is bad and will only get worse.
And when the nomination is taken from Bernie eventually at the DNC, presumably, these people are going to come out in droves and they're going to go nuts.
Bernie Sanders, I don't think he likes this.
I think that's fair to say.
He's a democratic socialist, he says.
Not that it makes much of a difference, because once you get democratic socialism, eventually democratic falls off, and you get socialism.
But I think Bernie's face, when that woman stole the microphone, explained everything.
He said, no, he tried, but he couldn't stop that little 20-year-old woman from taking that microphone from him.
And therein lies the big problem.
Man, I do not understand why people think Bernie is going to be the winner.
A lot of the people on the left right now are not paying attention.
And I'll tell you this.
I know a bunch of high profile lefties.
Moderately high profile, but not super political type people.
And they're telling me behind closed doors they're either voting for Trump, becoming Republican, or they're shocked by what's happening, or they're leaving the left.
Stay tuned for tonight for the Tim Cast IRL podcast.
You're going to love this one.
This phenomenon is real, and people are shocked by this, and they don't want to have anything to do with it.
Yet there are so many people who think Bernie Sanders is the frontrunner because he's winning the popular vote.
Bernie Sanders is winning the urban vote, and that's why Buttigieg is rivaling him right now with the caucus in the primary so far, because Buttigieg caters to a more rural Democrat, and Bernie is getting urban youth.
Well, these young people are raucous, rambunctious, violent, and angry.
And Bernie knows it.
I think Bernie doesn't like that they're doing this, but I think Bernie is desperate and he needs everything he can get.
He wants his revolution.
That's what's interesting about the way he describes it as a revolution.
Because then I have to truly wonder if he really is upset these people are doing these things.
When that woman tried to snatch the microphone away, he looked sad.
So do you think when the average American gets wind of who Bernie Sanders is in terms of strength, they're going to stand behind him over Trump?
I just can't see it.
When it comes to who the president is, strength is so important.
And that's one of the reasons Trump wins.
I think it's really funny when you look at the arguments on the stage between Bernie Sanders and Bloomberg as it pertains to wealth.
Bloomberg turns to Bernie, and he says, you know, what a great thing in this country that the most well-known, you know, whatever he said, most well-known socialist is a millionaire who owns three houses.
And Bernie turns to Bloomberg, and he's like, well, you're a billionaire, and where is your house?
You know, tax haven, and they're fighting.
They all go after Bloomberg for being a billionaire.
And I'll tell you, I'll be the first to say that Bloomberg is buying the process, and the DNC let him in, and that's nasty.
Think about what Trump said, though.
When Trump was challenged on being rich, he didn't deny it.
He straight up said, you bet!
I bought all these politicians.
I know how it works.
It's gross.
And I used to do it all the time.
He straight up told the people.
When Trump, Trump is just, he literally comes on stage and imitates body slamming a journalist.
Not a fan.
Not, not, I don't think, I don't like the idea of a billionaire president body slamming, but you know what?
He's honest about it.
He embraces who he is.
Think about Elizabeth Warren getting off that private jet and then, like, ducking by.
Do you see this video?
She gets off the private jet and then she, like, ducks behind one of her, you know, her employees or aides or campaign staffers and, like, they're filming and she's like, oh no, they get slammed for flying first class.
They eat themselves alive.
You know what Trump did?
Trump literally has his jumbo jet pull up behind him and he stands in front of it.
That's strength, okay?
I don't want to devolve into, like, you know, Democrat versus Trump on this, but I at least will say Bernie Sanders can't even accept that his supporters do this stuff.
He has to say they're Russians, or suggest a little bit.
He couldn't even commit to calling them the Russians.
Come on, man, show some backbone.
Say it's Russia, and I know it!
And what are they gonna do, lie?
Hillary Clinton said the same thing.
They're gonna roll their eyes and be like, yeah, yeah, yeah, okay.
He couldn't even stop a young woman from taking his mic, and you want him to go up against North Korea?
I'm sorry, man.
Trump is unashamed.
He laughs and boasts about everything he does.
He loves it.
But whether or not you think he's a good person because of it, people see that, and they say, hey man, if I had to pick between the guy who could- You know what, man?
I gotta say it again.
If I have to pick, you know, this is the average person, I can only imagine, if they had to pick between a 78-year-old socialist who just had a heart attack, who couldn't stop a young woman from taking a mic from him, and Donald Trump who laughs at a journalist getting body slammed, and has his jumbo jet pulled behind him while he raises his hands and laughs, who do you think they're gonna pick?
The economy is better than ever, Americans feel like they're better off now than ever before, and you got A boastful braggart of bad character, but he's got a backbone so big, it's basically popping out the back of his head.
He doesn't care.
He'll say what he wants to say.
He tweets what he wants to tweet.
People quit on him.
That's who he is.
I'm not a big fan, in a lot of ways.
Absolutely not.
I can absolutely respect that he won't back down.
Alright.
One thing I really can't stand is weakness.
And that's where Bernie loses me.
You know, I was talking about this on one of the podcasts we were doing the other day.
I hate more than anything watching TV shows where the protagonist is just a loser who always fails.
It's boring.
I can't stand it.
I don't like seeing these people just become whiny baby losers who can't do anything or get the job done.
So when I watched, you know, all of the times Bernie has been pushed around, when he endorsed Hillary Clinton, man, that was a punch in the gut.
Grow a spine, dude.
Call out the violence.
Tell these people to GTFO.
He did it before.
I don't know why he can't do it now.
Otherwise, you're going to be confronted with a quivering, short, hunched-over man who just had a heart attack on a debate stage with Trump's smirk, smug face laughing with a jumbo jet behind him.
Look, Barack Obama, I think he said this sometime in the 90s, the American dream was to be Donald Trump.
You, let's say you're on the left, you might not like this man.
You might think Trump is bad in a lot of ways.
But Americans are staunch individualists who have this dream of being, you know, of rising up, of crossing the class barrier, and being like Trump.
Being able to do whatever you want, say whatever you want, fly around in a massive jet, and then become the president.
People look at that and they're like, that's America!
And unfortunately, to an extent it is.
Trump represents the worst of our culture, at least in my opinion.
That was the big saying in 2016.
Hillary was the worst of the government.
Trump was the worst of our culture.
But at least Trump did represent American culture.
The desire to be better and the best.
To tell, you know, to call no man mister.
I think that's what Fry and Futurama said.
He can say whatever he wants to anybody and no one can stop him.
And now after these failed attempts from Democrats trying to bring him down, he just laughs all the way to the White House.
Gets Bill Barr to do what he wants to do or whatever.
And you gotta contend with Sanders, who can't even call out the violence in his own campaign.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all there.
Roger Stone has been sentenced to three years and four months, but will not go straight to prison while he asks for a retrial.
This federal judge rejects prosecutors' demand for nine years, but savages Donald Trump for interfering.
And says Stone covered up for the president.
So right now, many Trump supporters, conservatives are calling for the immediate pardoning of Roger Stone.
And the reason for it is that the lead juror, as many are claiming, may have lied on the initial questionnaire.
Turns out the lead juror was sending out tweets.
She knew who Roger Stone was.
She didn't like Trump.
Very, very partisan.
And this was the jury foreman, I believe.
No, I don't have all that pulled up.
So we'll just say allegedly for now.
I know it's probably true or whatever, but fine.
But many people are now demanding that Trump just go in right away and pardon Roger Stone because he deserves a new trial.
And based on what I've seen, it seems fair to say.
I don't know if Trump should pardon him or whatever.
But what's really, really funny about this story, first of all, Roger Stone's not getting seven to nine years.
But we had those four prosecutors resign.
Do you remember what happened?
Apparently, Trump tweeted saying it's unfair.
Then the DOJ, you know, stepped in and said, that's not the recommendation we want.
But then, here's the funny part.
The new prosecutors who came in after four resigned, demanded nine years!
And the judge agreed with Bill Barr!
So, I'm confused as to what's really going on and why anyone's mad, because nothing seems to make sense.
Now, the left and everybody started screaming that Bill Barr should resign or be impeached because he was interfering in the criminal justice process, when Trump could literally pardon whoever he wants.
But the judge apparently agreed with Barr, so I can't— You know what, man?
I don't know what they wanted Bill Barr to resign for, because the new prosecutor wanted nine years, but sure, fine, whatever, let's read the story.
The Daily Mail reports Roger Stone swerved a federal prison cell Thursday despite a judge slapping the longtime Trump ally with a 40-month sentence for lying to Congress and savaging not just him but the president.
Stone was convicted last fall of lying to lawmakers over his efforts to procure stolen Democratic Party emails from WikiLeaks in 2016 to boost Donald Trump's chances of becoming president.
The self-declared political dirty trickster was spared immediate incarceration Thursday while U.S.
District Judge Amy Berman Jackson decides whether or not to grant his request for a retrial.
The sentence was far below the nine years demanded by the prosecution before that was overruled in a political tumult and furious tweets by Trump.
Trump will be able to paint that as a win, but Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, went out of her way to say that she was not affected by the president.
Stone himself had asked for probation.
So okay, I guess it wasn't the new prosecutor.
That's what I had heard.
That the new prosecutors were also, you know, basically taking a hard line.
But regardless, the judge still agreed with Barr anyway.
Instead, she turned his sentencing hearing into a stunning rebuke, not just of Stone, but of the president himself, saying the prosecution was not brought by political enemies and that there was no anti-Trump cabal at the hear of the case.
Yeah, but who was the lead juror?
Are we going to talk about that?
He was not prosecuted, as some have complained, for standing up for the president.
He was prosecuted for covering up for the president.
Uh, covering up what?
What did he cover up?
Uh, Russiagate was nonsense.
There was no definitive proof of anything.
Nothing happened.
So what did he, uh, cover up?
That's kinda weird, innit?
There was nothing unfair, phony, or disgraceful about the investigation or the prosecution.
So what's crazy here is...
Let's say there's a political prosecution of you or your friends, and you're not trying to cover things up.
You're trying to legitimately protect yourselves from false, incriminating information.
This is why we have a Fifth Amendment.
It's why we say don't talk to the police.
Because even if you're innocent, you can get in trouble for saying something dumb.
So, Roger Stone apparently crossed the line saying a bunch of really dumb things.
I think that's fair to say.
But, not covering anything up.
Like, if I told someone, plead the fifth, Don't tell them anything.
Is that a cover-up?
Or is that me saying, use your constitutional right?
Well, you could probably get in trouble for that, I guess.
They say Trump tweeted in rage.
All right, well, actually, let's do this.
Here's what Stone was found guilty of.
Obstruction of justice, lying to Congress that he did not have emails or texts about Assange, lying when he claimed his references or being in touch with Assange were actually about a go-between, Randy Credico, lying that he didn't ask his go-between to communicate, lying that he didn't text or email the go-between, lying that he had never discussed a conversation with his go-between.
So basically, He messaged Randy Credico saying, do a bunch of things, you know, don't say this, don't do that, or I'll take your dog or something stupid.
Stands to reason it wasn't a cover-up, but he was interfering.
It seems like there was some obstruction.
They say Roger Stone lied to Congress.
Oh, I see.
What is this?
Trump tweeted.
Oh, I see, but so did Comey.
And he also leaked classified information for which almost everyone, other than crooked Hillary Clinton, goes to jail for a long time.
And so did Andy McCabe, who also lied to the FBI.
Fairness, the president tweeted.
Yeah, hey, look, I'll tell you what.
Lock them all up.
I don't care.
If they lied to Congress, there shouldn't be a double standard.
There should be something done about this.
But typically, we don't see it.
Matt Gaetz was recently on The View, and this video is going viral.
I think it's kind of funny.
Because, you know, he definitely said Roger Stone should be pardoned.
And I'll deviate for a second because of the view.
He mentions that there were some things that the American colonists liked about the monarchy and basically the pardon power.
And he goes on to reference, I believe, the Federalist Papers, where the general idea of the pardon power is to prevent an unchecked judicial system, which can start making crazy laws and locking people up for crazy reasons.
The president can then go in and, you know, pardon people.
But he basically said there's a double standard.
And he went off to list a ton of people who have lied or obstructed and have no punishment.
So come on, man.
You can't expect us as Americans to have faith in this system or to reasonably expect Roger Stone to serve prison time when so many people who did much, much worse won't go to prison.
Hillary Clinton.
You know, her aides actually smashed phones with hammers.
She did have staff delete emails after a subpoena was received.
Nobody got in trouble for that?
Look, I get it.
If you want to say, like, the argument put forward by the establishment.
is that Hillary Clinton didn't actually delete the emails.
She had instructed emails to be purged a long time before the subpoena ever came in.
But after the subpoena came in, someone who worked for the company that had the server went and purged the emails.
Shouldn't that guy go to prison or something?
Or get in trouble?
Indicted?
I don't know.
Maybe not prison.
But something, right?
Because we all watched it happen and there was zero accountability.
So what are we supposed to expect when Roger Stone gets the book thrown at him because he says stupid things, and maybe he should, but the other people don't?
It's a clear double standard.
And you know, a lot of people seem to think Bill Barr is this lackey for Trump.
Oh, spare me, dude.
How many people has Bill Barr arrested?
How many?
There's been some arrests, some campaign weird stuff going on.
But has he gone after any of these people for similar things?
No, he lets them off.
Let's read more.
It was unknown whether Berman Jackson was aware of his latest intervention, but it came amid a case roiled by politics and mounting speculation Stone will be pardoned.
Even before she spoke, prosecutors staged their own revolt against the president, calling the case righteous and demanding a lengthy prison sentence despite their initial call for nine years being overruled by Bill Barr in one of the main acts of an unfolding constitutional crisis.
Stone, 67, stood in silence as Jackson told a federal courtroom in Washington, D.C.
that he should spend 40 months, three years and four months, behind bars.
She had savaged him in his sentencing remarks and rebuked the president himself, possibly for his tweet this morning, which was during the first part of her hearing.
The case did not arise because Roger Stone was being prosecuted by his political enemies.
I don't... I actually think that's not true.
I think that is actually what happened.
I'm not saying Roger Stone's innocent.
I'm saying a lot of people commit crimes and nothing ever happens to them.
So yeah, it does seem like it was politically motivated what they were doing.
She said Stone told flat-out lies and that his conviction had nothing to do with whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election.
Right.
But why was there a crossfire hurricane in the first place?
Why did the Barack Obama administration have an investigation into the political rival of the Democratic Party and his cabinet member Hillary Clinton?
Isn't that an abuse of power?
All right, I'll tell you what.
You're completely right, Judge.
Let's have Stone go to prison, and then we'll launch an impeachment inquiry into Barack Obama and Joe Biden and all of his other people for everything they did, and then we'll get some accountability.
Oh, that's not gonna happen?
Right, I didn't think it would.
Well, we'll see what happens with the Durham report, because as much as Horwitz came out and said there was no wrongdoing in Crossfire Hurricane, Durham and Barr disagreed.
Maybe.
But I'll make this prediction.
Donald Trump has a re-election coming up.
I can't believe he pardoned Blagojevich.
That, to me, was shocking.
Who knows what was going on behind the scenes in that one.
He shouldn't have done it.
I don't like that.
But, for one, I think prison sentences are too long anyway, man.
I'm not kidding, you know.
Three years is a really, really long time.
I don't think it takes three years to teach someone a lesson.
In fact, beyond a certain amount of time, I don't think anyone's going to benefit from extended incarceration.
It depends.
You know, if someone's gonna commit a crime, and you don't want them to do it again, and you're concerned about recidivism, say it's like a violent crime, they're like, I can't remember which country does this, Norway or something, they put them on an island.
And in that regard, prison is because you don't want them doing it again, they need to be put somewhere else.
Roger Stone lied.
Is this going to teach him a lesson?
Three years?
I really don't think so.
That's what I have a problem with when it comes to our justice system.
It's retribution, not rehabilitation.
It's not going to change anything and it's a stupid waste of time.
But I'll make this prediction.
I think that as soon as Donald Trump wins re-election, Bill Barr is going to start dropping hammers.
He's going to be chucking out hammers left and right.
I think the main reason you're not seeing direct action from Barr right now is he's taking it easy.
If Trump gets re-elected and Barr's got a safe four years, then we're going to see some heavy-handed prosecutions.
Because here's the thing.
Right now, if Bill Barr does arrest a bunch of people, you know the media and the left will go after him.
They'll claim it's Trump.
Trump might lose re-election.
Those people get off.
If Trump wins and Barr starts prosecution just the beginning of the next term, he'll have a year or two for investigations, indictments, criminal trials, and then those people can be arrested.
And then a couple years later, maybe the next Democrat who gets in will pardon them.
We'll see.
Doing it now would be a bad move.
So I think as soon as Trump wins re-election, you're going to see Bill Barr basically go Super Saiyan.
His hair is going to spike up and he's going to start throwing out subpoenas like crazy.
We'll see.
We'll see.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
In a story from NBC News, they claim that Twitter is testing new ways to fight misinformation,
including a community-based points system. A leaked demo features bright red and orange badges
for tweets that have been deemed harmfully misleading. That story's interesting, and a
lot of people are tweeting about it, especially people on the left.
Some Bernie Sanders supporters are concerned this will be weaponized by the establishment to discredit anyone who dare challenge the system.
We can see here in this image, there's a... Let me zoom in on this because it's really, really small.
There's a tweet from Bernie Sanders that says, 40% of the guns in this country are sold without any background checks.
We have to end the absurdity of the gun show loophole.
There is then this orange box that says, harmfully misleading.
Twitter community reports have identified this tweet as violating the community policy on harmfully misleading information.
Excuse me.
This tweet's viability, visibility, will be reduced.
Well, a lot of people on the left are concerned.
But what I find absolutely delightful about this whole article is that it's actually written by the same journalist who claimed the 2A rally in Virginia was a white nationalist rally.
The same journalist who has published tons of false information and failed to disclose his connection to some of the subjects of his stories when he tried claiming 4chan was threatening journalists.
Turns out it was his friends and then a day later he went, oh no, now they're coming for me!
So you want to talk about misinformation, I think it's kind of funny that I can't trust this story because this guy lies all the time.
So how can I believe that Twitter's actually going to be implementing this when the guy... It's a story about Twitter fighting misinformation from a guy who literally posts misinformation on Twitter.
So I don't know what you want to believe, but I'm not going to believe it.
I'm going to wait for some legit confirmation, but we'll read it anyway.
What I find fascinating about it First and foremost, is that the first person getting smeared is none other than Bernie Sanders.
He's in the demo.
Coming from a guy who's publicly, you know, posted misinformation and lies before, from NBC, which is, you know, mainstream establishment news, we know they're not big fans of Bernie.
We know MSNBC was keeping Yang, you know, out of the network coverage of the presidential debates, and then Yang dropped out.
I'm not going to trust them.
So when I see Kyle Kalinske, progressive Bernie Sanders supporter, saying this is an abuse of power, like this is going to be abused like crazy, and the story's being pushed by somebody who does lie, that stands to reason it's not trustworthy, to say the least.
But we'll read it anyway.
I'm letting you know for that reason, and we'll talk about Twitter.
NBC News reports Twitter confirmed the leaked demo, which was accessible on a publicly available site, is one possible iteration of a new policy to target misinformation it plans to roll out on March 5th.
In this version, disinformation or misleading information posted by public figures will be corrected directly beneath the tweet by fact-checkers and journalists who are verified on the platform and possibly other users who will participate in a new community reports feature, which the demo claims is like Wikipedia.
We're exploring a number of ways to address misinformation and provide more context for tweets on Twitter.
A Twitter spokesperson said, You know what this really means, right?
It means that Twitter is going to start labeling conservative posts, or anyone who's not a leftist, your post is going to get labeled as misinformation.
We saw this happen with PragerU.
You probably know who they are.
They took an article, a fact-based article, They took the data out of it, and they made a post.
It was about Bernie Sanders voting for border fencing.
And they said something like, did Bernie Sanders support border fencing?
Did Democrats support it?
Yes.
PragerU posted this image on Facebook, and Facebook blocked it with an image saying it's fake news, and then linked literally to the story that Prager had quoted in the tweet.
And that's what you can expect with this Twitter rollout.
They're going to be giving fringe leftist weirdos the ability to block your information, even if it's factually correct.
I will stress.
PragerU found a story from like the AP and said, look at this data.
Facebook blocked their posting.
It was a lie.
And at the bottom said, here's the truth.
And it was the exact same story.
So you know what I did?
I screen grabbed PragerU's post and I posted it myself with the link to the actual story saying, here's the source of what is being claimed by PragerU.
And Facebook blocked my post as well.
So assuming this guy who works for NBC News and lies all the time is actually telling the truth in this instance, maybe he is, this means that we're going to see left-wing activists who work in media have disproportionate power once again to silence critics or people who could post legitimate information.
You ever wonder why people on the left don't debate?
Well, this is why.
This is a good example of the same thing.
But the reason why is that they will be proven wrong.
So when you counter their lies with legitimate information, like you can prove that what Bernie's saying is based, you know, what Bernie's saying I think here actually is misleading, but anyway, the point is, If you say something truthful or at least cited to a legitimate news source, they can block your content instead of having to actually debate the idea.
That's the power that Twitter will wield.
And if you don't believe me, let me show you this story from the other day from Reclaim the Net.
Twitter accused of helping Vox Media take over Twitter account.
Do you want to know how I got verified on Twitter?
Do you think it's because Twitter finds high-profile people and says, you deserve that blue checkmark because you're famous?
That's not how it happens, at least for the most part.
There are a lot of people who have been verified for being high-profile, and Twitter will contact you and say, we're going to verify you.
I got verified because Vice Media made a phone call or an email or whatever and said, verify him.
And they said, you got it, buddy.
And they did.
Twitter will absolutely do what these major mainstream leftist digital platforms want them to do.
In this instance, Vox wanted access to a private Twitter account that posted sports clips.
It was created by somebody.
They later got a job at Vox.
They promoted Vox content through their account and then left.
Due to that California law, Vox ended up letting them go.
But Vox wanted to get access to that Twitter account because, you know, it's prominent.
So they reached out to Twitter and Twitter said, you got it, and handed over someone's private account to a major leftist corporation.
So when it comes to these policy positions on misinformation, do you think they're going to go hunt down some conservatives and be like, we want to make sure you have this ability as well?
No.
What's going to happen is fringe lefty weirdo activists are going to start brigading and flagging things and it's going to be an all-out flame war.
Twitter will likely empower journalists, I'm doing air quotes because they're going to end up being Vox personalities, and they're going to be like, you go ahead and decide what is or isn't fake news.
And then, what's really funny about how this all works is, on Facebook, you actually have a website called CheckYourFact.com, which is part of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
So the left routinely attacks Facebook, even though it was the Poynter Institute, this journalism university, that approved Daily Caller's CheckYourFact.com as an approved fact checker.
They're not the same company.
Daily Caller is, it's, you know, there's similarities.
There's, I shouldn't say similarities, there's an overlap in the corporate structure.
But CheckYourFact is its own, you know, branch.
If we were gonna criticize, basically what the left does, is instead of saying CheckYourFact, they just say Daily Caller to make it seem like it is literally the Daily Caller that's doing the fact-checking, which it isn't.
That's the point.
So the left will smear and they will provide misinformation themselves, misrepresenting who's doing the fact-checking.
Well, that brings me to the main point of this video.
The interesting paradox of fake news journalists who routinely make fake news now asking for the power to label other people fake news.
Congratulations!
It's the world we live in.
It's, you know, the left often accuses Donald Trump of doing what they do.
They claim that investigating a political rival is abuse of power, and the Obama administration literally did just that before Trump was even in office.
So there you go.
You can very much expect the left to produce misinformation, especially about this, be given the reins to control that power, and then they're going to use it to smear and shut down their political opponents.
So I'll read a little bit of this.
I'll read the conclusion here.
Because I don't want to read through the whole bit about how Twitter is basically catering to Vox, but the end should be sufficient.
They say, after receiving an email from Twitter saying that his account's two-factor authentication was disabled and he could no longer access the account, Han strongly believes that Twitter might have lent a helping hand to Vox in the vicious takedown of his account.
Considering the whole narrative, it's hard not to question whether Twitter actually helped Vox Media in wrongfully claiming an account that doesn't originally belong to them.
Twitter quickly apologized and acknowledged... after acknowledging it was a... Oh, okay, I'm sorry, sorry.
It said, recently, Twitter shockingly gave SUNY Geneseo college access to a parody account.
So here's how it works.
If you're a certified digital media organization, you make a phone call to Twitter, you say, give me this, give me that, and they're going to say, you got it, buddy.
Because this is not the first time they've given access to a private account to one of these companies.
If they want it, they got it.
YouTube does the same thing.
Preferential access to large mainstream corporations.
It's how the game is being played.
Why?
Well, I think there's some political bias in there.
But for the most part, the political bias comes from the users of the site who are on the left.
They're going to manipulate that power.
But it's also corporate interest.
Certain big companies to Twitter generate revenue and produce tons of content.
And Twitter and Facebook want that, so they'll give them whatever they want.
When Facebook finally relents and allows CheckYourFact.com in, which is part of the Daily Caller News Foundation, the leftists start producing fake news to try and get them removed and go after Facebook for it.
So there's no winning.
They want you to bend the knee, and they want the power, and guess what?
They're gaining it.
I'll wrap it up.
I don't believe this story is true because this dude's a liar, so take it for what it is, but it might end up happening.
You know, this may be one of the, you know, instances of where he actually published some real information.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Earlier today, I did a segment on Roger Stone getting three years and four months in prison.
And one of the big concerns in the Roger Stone sentencing is that there seems to be a double standard.
So many people on the right are calling for Trump to pardon Roger Stone because of the tainted jury pool or because these other people who were involved in this false investigation, Crossfire Hurricane, have never been held accountable for all of the lies, deception and failures that occurred in that investigation.
Well, now we have another example from the Daily Mail, exclusive.
Ilhan Omar did marry her brother, reveals Somali community leader, who says both she and her husband told him Ahmed Elmi was her sibling and she would do what she had to do to get him papers to keep him in the U.S.
When this story first dropped, a bunch of people started investigating.
They were quickly smeared as conspiracy theorists and purveyors of fake news and far-right bloggers and whatever other smear the media could think of.
But eventually some mainstream papers were forced to acknowledge that there was much, there was a lot of circumstantial evidence showing Ilhan Omar very well may have married her brother.
In fact, the Star Tribune in Minnesota said this man may be her brother.
I'm not saying it's true.
everything was immediately smeared and dismissed. I was accused of being a conspiracy theorist for
literally reading a Star Tribune article and having the source on the screen like I do.
Media Matters tried smearing me for it. I'm not saying it's true, but I bring up the double
standard issue because why is there no investigation into this level, to these types of accusations?
I mean a preliminary investigation.
It may be right now we've heard the FBI and ICE are looking into this, but we don't know, and apparently they've said there is no criminal inquiry.
They may just be following up on tip.
I have no idea.
For now.
It appears the Daily Mail has procured a witness who is claiming to know them and know that, yes, this guy was her brother.
And there's actually some other documents they've provided as evidence.
Let's read.
Daily Mail says, Squad Congresswoman Ilhan Omar told friends years ago that the man who went on to become her second husband was in fact her brother.
And now for the first time, one of those friends has come forward to reveal exactly how Omar and Ahmed Elmi scandalized the Somali community in Minneapolis.
Abdehakim Osman is the first person to go on record to speak of how Omar said she wanted to get her brother papers so he could stay in the United States, at a time when she was married to her first husband, Ahmed Hirsi.
But hardly anyone realized that meant marrying him.
No one knew there had been a wedding until the media turned up the marriage certificate years later, Osman, 40, exclusively told the Daily Mail.
Osman's revelations are sure to renew calls for an investigation into the Minnesota freshman representative, who has repeatedly refused to answer questions on her marriage to Elmi.
She originally said the idea that the spouses were also siblings were baseless, absurd rumors, accusing journalists of Islamophobia, but has since stayed quiet.
One of the reasons she stayed quiet is that social media posts emerged showing that a man she identified as her father had the same name as the guy she later married, which sounds like their brother and sister.
So one of the big issues is that Ilhan Omar is a Somali refugee, and so there's no real paperwork here.
It's hard to know.
It's hard to prove.
And one of the ideas in this theory is that when she moved here and found a new family, they changed her name to be with her new family.
And thus, this guy, Ahmed, this other guy she ended up marrying, Elmi is actually her brother, and their names are different because she ended up moving, but she did on social media identify some guy with the same name as her dad.
And I think maybe her father-in-law?
I don't know.
That's not what she tried claiming, though.
She tried... It's really, really weird.
The naming system, as it works, is like, son of, I guess?
So that's why it wasn't something as, like, it could have been her father-in-law?
I don't know.
I'll just read, because I gotta admit, I don't know a lot about how naming conventions work for, you know, Muslims.
Her spokesman told the Daily Mail that she will not comment on her personal life.
Omar married her first husband, Hirsi, in 2002 in a Muslim ceremony that, like many in the immigrant community, was not registered with the state.
Their first child, Israel, was born the following year, and a second followed.
But in the late 2000s, Elmi appeared in Minneapolis, said Osman, who referred to Hirsi by his nickname, Southside, throughout the interview.
People began noticing that Ilhan and Southside, Hersey, were often with a very effeminate young guy who spoke in Somali through an interpreter.
He was very feminine in the way he dressed.
He would wear light lipstick and pink clothes and very, very short shorts in the summer.
People started whispering about him.
Hersey and Ilhan both told me it was Ilhan's brother, and he had been living in London, but he was mixing with what were seen as bad influences that the family didn't like.
So they sent him to Minneapolis as rehab.
Osman, who runs a popular Facebook blog called Zerdashek, which comments on Somali issues, said that Omar kept her marriage to Almi quiet, with no one from the Somali community invited to the wedding.
He explained, When Hirsi and Ilhan got married, a lot of people were invited.
It was a big Islamic wedding, uniting two large clans in the Minneapolis community.
I would say there were 100 to 150 people there.
But he said when she married Elmi, no one even knew about it.
Osman said at the time, Hersi was better known than Omar among Somalis.
He was a footballer.
He promoted a lot of Somali shows.
He was very popular.
So the scandal was about Hersi's brother-in-law more than Ilhan's brother.
It has long been rumored that Omar and Elmi are brother and sister.
But because of a lack of paperwork in war-torn Somalia, where they were born, positive proof of their relationship has never been uncovered.
To a certain degree, though, there are photos that she purged from the Internet.
The first report came from a blog, right?
I'm not going to read that.
They say, as soon as Ilhan Omar married him, he started university at her alma mater, North Dakota State University, where he graduated in 2012.
Shortly thereafter, he moved to Minneapolis, where he was living in a public housing complex and was later evicted.
He then returned to the United Kingdom.
The New York Post reported last month that the FBI was investigating the marriage and had met with a source in Minneapolis who handed over a trove of documents related to the marriage.
Any findings were to be shared with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the U.S.
Department of Education, the paper reported.
Anyone found guilty of committing marriage fraud faces up to five years in jail and a fine of up to $250,000.
They say, Elmi and Omar married on February 12, 2009, at Hennepin County office in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, southwest of Minneapolis.
Their marriage license shows.
Omar said she and Hersey had separated in 08, and because their faith-based union was never recognized by law, neither is their separation.
Elmi and Omar said they lived together at an address in Columbia Heights, a suburb on the north side of the city.
Now, what's interesting is that all three of them shared an address.
The marriage was conducted by Christian minister Walicia Harris.
When DailyMail.com approached her last year, she would not discuss the ceremony or why a Muslim couple would have asked her to marry them.
She and her husband Marcus run the Great and Mighty Works Ministries in Richfield, Minnesota, which is described on its Facebook page as a non-denominational, Bible-believing, Bible-teaching, and Bible-living ministry that believes in being a living example of Jesus, the Anointed One.
We can then see these photos of Omar's husband acting effeminately.
Here's the marriage application.
They say, in a Facebook message, Marcus Harris told the Daily Mail, My wife doesn't want to be involved or interviewed about Congresswoman Omar.
It's not going to happen, not now, and not ever.
After their marriage, Omar and Elmi moved to Fargo, where they both attended North Dakota State University.
She said she needed to get papers for her brother to go to school.
We all thought she was just getting papers together to allow him to stay in this country.
Once she had the papers, they could apply for student loans.
They both moved to North Dakota to go to school, but she was still married to her si in the Somali way.
The only marriage that mattered was the one in the mosque.
Ilhan came back to Minneapolis at the time to see her family, but her brother didn't come with her.
Osman believes Elmi and Omar sought out someone outside the Somali community to conduct the ceremony because an imam would have known they were related and would have refused to marry them.
Osman, who was confined to a wheelchair after contracting polio before he moved to the U.S.
in 2004, said he got to know Hirsi well in his first few years in Minneapolis.
They are the same age, both having been born in January 1980.
They originally met when Hersey was working in a barbershop, and when they both regularly ate at a now-defunct Indian Ocean restaurant, when Hersey opened his own business, Urban Hookah, which is also now closed, Osman occasionally helped out at the till.
So, okay, okay, I think we get the point.
Basically, you have a guy in the community saying they knew that Omar and this guy were brother and sister, and they didn't realize she was actually going to marry the dude.
So one of the theories that has been brought up is that she married him so he could go to school.
People on the left have tried dismissing this, saying, as a brother and sister, you can petition to have your brother come to the country.
However, petitioning for a sibling can take much, much longer than for a spouse.
So the argument is the reason she married him was so that he could get quick access to school, to get loans, essentially exploit the system.
And yes, she could have done it as a brother and sister, but that could take up to 10 years.
So this was expediting the process.
Basically, immigration fraud.
I'm not saying any of this is true.
I have no idea why this guy, Abdi Hakim Osman, would be saying these things, why the news would be reporting it.
But it stands to reason, based on much of the social media evidence and a lot of what she had, uh, Ilhan Omar had purged and deleted and tried to cover up, that there's at least something fishy going on.
Whatever it might be, I don't know!
But I'll throw it back to the double standard idea.
You'd think all of this, especially the statement, would be enough for there to be a public inquiry, at least a preliminary investigation.
Maybe that's happening now.
The FBI has collected some documents, so that's fair.
But I kind of feel like nothing will happen with this, even if it is or isn't true.
No one will hear anything.
It's going to slowly fizzle away.
There's not going to be any grand investigations.
They're not going to try and figure out whether or not she actually did these things.
Maybe they are, but I really, really doubt it.
Because as we often see with Hillary Clinton, with Roger Stone, with McCabe, with all of these people in the federal government, in the FBI, in the intelligence agencies, it's never going to happen.
There's no real justice.
It's justice for me, but not for thee.
The lowly people in, you know, the peasants, yeah, you'll get locked up and throw away the key.
But if you're nobility, then you can buy your way out, nothing bad's gonna happen to you.
Now, they say the same thing about Trump making these pardons, and to an extent, I'll agree with it.
Rob LeGault should not have been pardoned.
But come on, man.
We know how the double standard works, and we've all seen it.
You get some dude who steals billions of dollars through big schemes, and he gets a slap on the wrist and probation, and some dude walks into a grocery store and snatches a couple hundred bucks out of a register, and he goes to prison for years.
Neither of those are good things, but I certainly don't believe anything will come from this.
Anyway, I'll see you all in the next segment tomorrow at 10 a.m., but I think I'm gonna have a great podcast for you all tonight.
