Ocasio Cortez Close To LOSING Her Seat In Congress, Bail Reform BACKFIRED And Democrats Declare War
Ocasio Cortez Close To LOSING Her Seat In Congress, Bail Reform BACKFIRED And Democrats Declare War. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has been waging a massive battle against establishment Democrats for some time now and they have responded in kind.The far left candidate has seen her popularity collapse in national polls and swing state polls and her recent push for bail reform in new York has backfired tremendously with a massive 43 point swing from favorable to unfavorable.Now she is facing a major challenge in the upcoming primary which is in only 4 months and Democrats are poised to eliminate her district outright in the 2020 census.AOC has poked the bear and the bear is poking back and it seems likely she won't survive her reelection.But her victory was a fluke and now the american people have a chance to respond.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Every day we get closer to the removal of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from Congress.
In just four months from today, we will see a primary in her district, and she is facing several Democratic primary challengers.
This is the first pitfall.
She only got around 17,000 votes in the first primary, and she knows She could be removed, going as far as to say, I'm not going to come here every two years asking for your votes.
I want to invest in this community.
That quote alone says to me she knows she might not win this primary.
Outside of that, she's facing a ton of Republican challengers in the general election.
Now, I'm not super worried for her in that regard, because I'm not sure a Republican could win.
But hey, It's possible.
But more importantly, the Democratic establishment controls redistricting for her district, and it's very likely they are going to remove her district.
At least, that's what many people think.
From all of the data we can see, it looks like she's very unpopular, and one of the biggest pitfalls for AOC lately.
has been bail reform, which is not popular in New York, and even Governor Cuomo is taking a hit because of it.
She is now coming out saying, no, please wait.
We just passed this law.
We must give it time.
But already we're hearing of crime sprees, or a revolving door of crime, because bail reform, for those that aren't familiar, basically says that for certain low-level crimes, they can't charge a cash bond.
Which means someone accused of a crime can just get right out, and people in New York are not happy with this.
So AOC is launching an offensive to try and keep her seat.
But I think she knows the Democrats will redistrict and she will lose.
The district will be gone.
She won't have a seat to run for.
Now she can try and run in whatever district ends up becoming her district, but then she'll be up against an incumbent, which would be pretty difficult.
Already she's called for mass census participation in an effort to keep her district safe as well as mass voter turnout because she says she needs 60,000 votes if she's going to win in this primary.
A lot of people on the left try to claim that she's going to win because she got 78% of the vote.
No.
She got a tiny, tiny fraction, 17,000 approximately primary votes, got her this election.
And the real race is not the general.
It's June 23rd.
If she can't get anywhere near the amount of votes she needs to beat these other contenders, I think she's out and I think she knows, which is why she's launching a political action committee to prop up progressive voices.
Because as she goes out with a bang, she's got to do something.
Ocasio-Cortez, I think it's fair to say, is one of the most important members of Congress in this country.
She has over 6 million followers.
She's incredibly influential.
Even if you don't like her, this is true.
And that's why so many people talk about her all the time.
She is remarkably famous.
Look, like I said, whether you like her or not.
And that's why we cover stories pertaining to her.
But this is where it gets interesting.
Ocasio-Cortez doesn't seem to represent a district.
A congressperson is supposed to speak to their constituents, but AOC speaks to the nation.
Now, this could be great for her in more national-level politics, but for now, you've got to convince New York 14 you're the right choice, and you've only convinced pockets of far-left activists across the country to support you.
That's your follower count.
The advantage there is she's raising millions of dollars, which can really help her.
But in the end, she's driven away Amazon jobs.
She supported unpopular bail reform.
I think her district might actually turn on her.
And with so many Democratic options in this June 23rd primary available, I think she might actually lose her seat.
And I think she knows it.
But let's read about what's going on because we have an editorial.
This is from the editorial board of the New York Post.
Now, they are a little conservative, but they bring up an interesting point.
And I want to walk you through some of the data and show you why I think she's going to be out.
But more importantly...
The battle for the Democratic Party is on two fronts.
At the congressional level with AOC, and Bernie Sanders for the nomination.
Whether or not you like her, I think people need to realize that AOC represents one of the most important battles of ideas in this country.
And her primary in June will be one of the most important elections we will see this year.
I mean it!
Along with the presidential race, what she represents is the progressive insurgency in the Democratic Party.
If she loses, that will speak volumes for their ability to take the Democratic Party.
But again, Bernie Sanders is fighting on the other front, and he seems to be winning.
Let's read this story from the New York Post.
It's very short, but it brings up a good point.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are several ways you can give.
The best thing you can do is just share this video.
I often, I say this every time, I hope we can break some echo chambers, but we probably can't, so all I really say is we can hope for it.
But sharing the video really does help my channel.
And also, shocking statistic!
Around 35% of the people who watch my videos aren't subscribed, so I guess y'all hate me?
That's cool if you do and you watch and you leave and say, that dude was awful.
I respect that.
But if you do like my content and want to see more, please consider subscribing, hitting that notification bell, because YouTube is doing everything in its power to shut down political commentary.
It's one of the reasons why, you know, me and many others launch new channels and do things like that.
You get how the game works, so.
Subscribe!
But let's read this short editorial from the New York Post editorial board.
They say AOC is war on fellow Democrats likely to eliminate her house seat.
Repeat.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wasn't just supporting women and announcing a slate of seven House candidates who will get cash from her courage to change PAC.
The key fact is that two of them are challenging incumbents.
She is actually propping up people to go against the Democrats.
Now, we've known this for a long time, but you have to understand the Democrats will not stand for this.
Indeed, she and her allies are now targeting several longtime local lawmakers on the theory that they're every bit as much of a problem as Republicans.
It's time to elect a progressive majority in Congress accountable to strong grassroots
movements that push support for issues like Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, racial
justice, and more. She said, my ambition right now is to be a little less lonely in
Congress. Now, I don't buy that one bit because I think she'll be out. But she may not last in
Congress already in hot water for refusing to pay dues to her caucus's fundraising arm, the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
She's now devoting her resources instead to defeating Democrats.
Don't be surprised when the established Democrats, who will control redistricting after the 2020 Census, do their best to eliminate her seat.
But it's not just about the opinion of the editorial board.
It's something she said about not wanting to come back every couple years begging for your votes.
In this story from Newsweek titled, Ocasio-Cortez Launches Re-Election Bid Saying Give Bail Reform Time Calls for Turnout Machine to Secure Winners.
Now we got a lot here and I'm gonna break this down.
We'll move forward.
Bail reform is wildly unpopular.
It's creating a revolving door of crime and New Yorkers are not happy with it.
You also have the Amazon deal falling through.
AOC screwed that up.
But then she gloated later when they opened a marketing office with substantially less employees.
She is clueless about what's going on in her own district, in her own city.
Now, in this story from Newsweek is the most important quote I think I've seen.
During her re-election launch speech broadcast by News12, Ocasio-Cortez said, quote, I am not interested in just showing up every two years to ask our community for your vote.
I am interested in making deep investments in the Bronx and in Queens.
Addressing supporters at her new office in Queens, she also said her campaign had really ambitious goals for 2020, the Post reported.
Here's what I see with that quote.
Of course, you'll see that, you know, populist message of, I'm not just asking for your vote, you know, just a mouth to come here every two, you know, two years asking for your vote.
I'm actually here to do good work.
But it also says something interesting to me.
It seems like she might actually not get the vote.
She only won because of the primary.
And anyone who says otherwise is lying.
Even she has said as much.
I won with a primary.
Nancy Pelosi.
said that if you took a glass of water and put a D on it in her district or Pelosi's district, then it would win.
Which means the primary is the real race, and Joe Crowley, who was the Democrat before AOC, he was arrogant, and he lost because of it.
But now you've got so many other challengers going up against AOC who are serious, and will probably start sinking some real money.
They only need to get 18,000 votes in a district of 700,000 people, I think they can pull it off, and she knows it.
Which is why she said, that's our goal.
We want to secure 60,000 votes in the primary election.
We need to start creating a turnout machine right now.
Now it is entirely possible she pulls this off because she is a celebrity.
Whether anyone likes it or not, she's famous and that's why it's important and that's why we cover this stuff.
Listen.
You get the left-wing media all the time saying, oh, the right-wing is obsessed with Ocasio-Cortez, blah, blah, blah.
She's got 6 million followers, dude.
Partly because of the conservatives, I get it.
But she really is a very prominent, famous, and influential figure.
Perhaps she will run for Senate.
I believe Trump said something about this.
But don't be surprised when people talk about celebrities.
The other day, the New York Post ran like 12 stories about her in a single day, and they were really dumb.
There's some stories right now about her sequined dress, and I roll my eyes in Facebook.
I don't care about her dress.
I care about her influence on the political machine, and she's got it in spades.
Again, I know a lot of people don't like her, but you gotta accept it.
She is powerful, and she knows it.
But she might not be popular enough in a local district to win.
It's possible that because she's a celebrity, she can pull off this, you know, 9% turnout in her favor.
And based on, you know, the fact that she has grown wildly, people, more people probably know who she is, I think there's a good chance she does it.
Keep in mind, although there was lower turnout in the last election for her, and she only got 17,000, she only ended up getting 17,000 votes, looking at the current state of voter turnout right now, it's like kind of wishy-washy, so we don't know if voter turnout's gonna increase.
We also don't know if the other Democrats with less name recognition can actually pull this off.
But now I bring you to the actual data.
Here's the first challenge.
I'm going to show you older data and some of it's biased, so I can't tell you if it's accurate for the most part, but some of them kind of overlap with national favorability.
This is a chart you're seeing right here from a political action committee designed specifically to oppose Ocasio-Cortez.
But they do show you the questions they ask, and I think that's fair enough.
I don't know exactly how they were, you know, what their scientific method was for tracking down likely voters.
Take it for what it is.
In the first question, they just say, you know, Ocasio-Cortez was elected to represent us last year.
Are you familiar with her?
And they found 41.73% did not know who she was.
So then they were asked, do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion?
And this was shocking.
Favorable was 21.37%.
I don't think this is necessarily accurate.
It's probably a bit higher than that, but it's at least one poll from a biased source saying as such.
The reason why I find this interesting, that there's actually people saying they're going to oppose, that's a very loaded question, but people were pretty much upset.
36% supported Amazon and she chased them away, which shows me that outside of whether or not people just like her for a person, policy decisions will play a role in whether or not she will get the boot.
Take a look at this poll from Axios.
They say, Ocasio-Cortez was recognized by 74% of voters in the poll.
22% had a favorable view.
Now, this is important because this is swing states.
Now, this is why I don't necessarily trust that other poll for the most part, because New York 14 is D plus 30, meaning Democrats gonna run and get 30 points above the other side.
I would be surprised if she had a lower favorability in a heavily, you know, Democratic district.
But it does line up with one poll, at least, you know, that far, right?
It also lines up with a national-level poll.
Quinnipiac, in March of last year, did a poll and found that she has a negative 23-36% favorability rating, with 38% who haven't heard enough about her to form an opinion.
33% said she was good for the Democrats.
36% say she has been bad for the party.
This is old data, and it's hard to know exactly if it translates to today.
But I think her favorability is probably really low in her district because of one big issue.
And that issue is bail reform.
In this story from CBS 6 Albany, Sienna Pohl, Cuomo ratings drop as does support for bail reform laws.
This is important data, and we're going to try and surmise what it means for AOC.
A new Siena Research Institute poll shows Governor Andrew Cuomo losing ground in the minds of Empire State voters.
Governor Andrew Cuomo has a negative 44-50% favorability rating, according to the most recent poll.
That's down from 49-45% in January.
His job performance rating also fell.
They say, quote, support for the new bail law, which took effect in January after passage as
part of the budget last year, continues to plummet. In April, New Yorkers thought the
new law would be good for the state by 17 points. Last month, voters said the new law is bad for the
state by a margin of 12 points. Today, that margin for thinking the law is bad for New York has
bulged to 26 points.
And Siena College pollster, uh, said, Siena College pollster Steven Greenberg, check this out.
AOC says we need to slow down on bail reform fixes.
Before the bail form was passed, a lot of people supported it, because it sounds like a really good idea for a lot of reasons.
Sounds like a principled decision to make, and I gotta admit, on principle, I agree with it.
For those that are not familiar with what the law does, I stated it earlier, but it's basically this.
If you commit a certain non-violent crime, They can't hold you demanding money from you.
So typically when you get arrested, they say, we're going to hold you on a thousand dollars bond, which means someone's got to come up with a hundred.
It's like, it's like 10%, a hundred bucks.
Otherwise you stay in jail.
Poor people can't afford this.
And it's kind of unfair that you can lock someone up under the presumption of when they're supposed to have the presumption of innocence.
I like the D the idea from a Liberty standpoint standpoint.
But what happened was, you immediately started seeing revolving doors of crime.
One guy in the news apparently laughing and bragging about how they keep letting him out and he just keeps doing it.
And now support from it has plummeted dramatically.
While people are saying we do not like bail reform, Ocasio-Cortez is defending it.
And I gotta admit, I absolutely respect her for defending it.
Because like I stated, you have a presumption of innocence in this country.
How we deal with high-level crime is extremely difficult.
Apparently this was not the way to deal with the problem, and it made things worse.
I will not pretend to be smart enough to know how we actually solve for this while protecting civil liberties.
But I still err on the side of civil liberties come first.
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer.
But the people feel differently.
And that's the big challenge.
So, I don't know how you solve this problem and AOC is on the side of keeping it.
What she said is, quote, What I would just say is that we should just give this time, it's been five minutes, AOC told the Post, when asked if the controversial new law needed to be amended, give it a shot.
We've had almost no time since these things have passed, so I would just say, in this environment with political pressure, to maybe just say let's slow down a bit.
I don't necessarily agree with that.
I think the answer might be you should have been slower about it in the first place.
Perhaps the law was too heavy-handed.
Before this, they would hold you on, you know, bond.
Maybe they should have taken select criminal offenses that they could have put in this program instead of doing a blanket sweep of many different crimes.
Maybe slowly roll it out to see if it works, and then stop if you've gone too far.
AOC is saying, we did this big blanket sweep, let's just sleep on it.
That doesn't mean anything to the victims of these crimes.
So I don't think it's fair to say you can just wait a minute as the crimes actually happen.
They say Ocasio-Cortez made the remarks during a ceremony to kick off her 2020 re-election effort in Parkchester, the Bronx, on Saturday.
She warned that powerful moneyed interests had assembled to thwart the law's success.
Now this is one of the weirdest things she's said, and it contributes to why I think she might not keep her seat.
What moneyed interests are interested in keeping people in public jails?
That's the question.
I get private prisons and all that stuff.
But we're talking about poor people being locked up.
Who's that benefiting?
That's a drag on society.
The moneyed interests aren't trying to bolster corporate profits.
They're just saying, hey, we shouldn't let out people that easily when they commit crimes.
They'll do it again.
And many have.
So it's a weird argument to make.
They say bail reform passed by the Democratic-controlled state legislator last year prevents judges from imposing bail for low-level offenses.
Critics have said it created a revolving door for criminals to re-offend while they await trial.
Both New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Governor Andrew Cuomo have urged the legislator to amend the law.
I kind of feel like the solution is just to have a speedy trial and prove your case against those you say are criminals, because whether or not someone may or may be a career criminal has no bearing, at least in my opinion, on whether or not you can hold them in lieu of cash.
It's a challenging conversation, but I for one think...
Perhaps this was too quick.
And I'll also say, look, you heard my opinion.
I'll be honest how I feel.
I don't know if I'm right.
And I do know there's a problem here.
So, I defer to smarter minds.
It's the only thing I can do.
Now, I'm not gonna slam AOC for having that position.
I'm just pointing out that in the state, they don't like it!
So when it comes to this primary, that will absolutely be used against her.
And already, New York Democrats are caving on bail reform.
They're walking it back because Cuomo is tanking.
The polls are tanking.
The people have spoken.
We do not like what you have done.
And with AOC standing steadfast, again, while I can respect her for saying I'm not going to back down, it's a fair point to make that people will say, then we will vote you out.
Now, there is a kind of a sad thing to this, in that sense.
I think she's a little bit further to the left on that one than I am, but it's kind of sad that you might be principled and be removed because of it.
But actually, maybe that's the way it should be.
If you are wrong and do not represent the people, then maybe you shouldn't be their representative.
If AOC wants to hold her position on principle, I can give her respect for that, but don't be surprised when she loses re-election because most people don't agree with her.
Now we see her on the next battlefront.
This one's funny.
Democrats are trying to just straight up remove her district.
So that's one of the reasons she's calling for a massive census participation at a town hall event.
She needs everyone to be like, look, look, I'm here, I'm here, so they can't redistrict her and just remove her even if she wins the primary.
She's facing fights on several fronts.
One of the bigger stories that makes me feel like she is preparing to actually lose is the story about this new political action committee that she's launching.
Seems kind of like a kamikaze.
This is exactly why they're trying to remove her.
So she sees it, and this is my opinion, I'm gonna speculate on what she's doing, Seems like she knows no matter what she does they're coming for her to get rid of her.
And she's got to do whatever she can as a last ditch effort to make sure the progressives, the far left, win.
Now let's look at her district.
I've pointed this out several times, but look, we have the primary.
She declared candidacy for the Democratic primary scheduled on June 23rd, 2020, and that's where things are going to get interesting.
So far in her primary, she's got Fernando Cabrera, Michelle Caruso Cabrera, interesting last names, James Dillon, Badrin Khan, and Jose Velasquez, who are all running against her.
They might split the vote, giving her the victory.
Or, because they're all gonna be targeting key areas and specific communities in that district, it may actually be hedging the bet on the Democratic establishment to get rid of her.
All they gotta do is get 17,001 votes.
We don't know what AOC is going to get.
She might get a lot, but primary races are particularly vulnerable because the average person does not care.
Even if AOC says she wants to get massive voter turnout of 60,000, just 60,000, that's remarkably low.
It doesn't mean people will actually do it.
With all of these people campaigning specifically on the primary, they will target those who don't like AOC specifically.
And you will probably get New York City Republicans who normally don't vote saying, I will vote in that primary, just to get rid of AOC.
They'll take anyone else.
I think that's a strong likelihood.
Because as I said many times, the exact number that she won was 16,898 votes.
I think AOC is on the verge of losing her seat.
This could be the end.
However, there have been some articles saying it's already the party of Ocasio-Cortez.
And if that's true, then maybe the American people, even in this district, are going to support her no matter what, because they don't want to vote for these moderates or center-left types.
Now, of course, people try to claim they're centrist Democrats, and I can't stand that phrase because it's just not true.
They use this excuse to call leftists, or, you know, more left-leaning individuals, centrists because they are super far left.
So, no.
Somebody who is in the middle of the left quadrant of the political compass is not a centrist just because you're a socialist.
Sorry, that's not how it works.
Centrists are actually balanced between the left and the right.
But AOC is facing challengers who are actually fairly progressive, like Latina immigrants or otherwise.
And you have some Republican challengers too, so there's a big fight ahead of her.
I think the Republicans might split the vote amongst themselves, but it could be that after the primary... I'll take that back, that made no sense.
What I mean is, coming in to the Republican general election, Republicans may just rally behind their candidate, and people who hate AOC, if she wins the primary, may just rally behind the Republican.
These are going to be New York City Republicans, which means they're going to be fairly liberal people.
They're probably going to be pro-choice and all that stuff.
Which means there's probably a lot of moderates who will vote for a candidate.
So let me go back.
What I mean is, if the Democrats split the vote among each other, giving AOC the primary win, all of their voters may go to the general and vote for the Republican.
It may be a washout.
I would be really surprised, though, if AOC ends up losing her district to a Republican, but hey.
We all saw what happened in the UK.
So, I'll leave it there.
I'll make one last point, that the party may already be hers.
It may already be the far left.
And that could be the case.
Every day I hear of leftists leaving the left, or former liberals leaving the left.
We also have Bernie Sanders.
And Jacobin Magazine is saying straight up, after the Nevada blowout, it's Bernie's party now.
That's the way they feel, and if that's the case, I don't see why AOC would lose.
I actually would expect all these progressives to start winning.
But there is one more important point, as we saw from The Economist.
Progressives did miserably in their primary races, and the districts, the Donald Trump districts that flipped Democrat voted for moderate candidates.
So we will see what happens.
I think what we're going to see come November is just like what happened in the UK, but we'll get a glimpse because we have a primary vote.
If AOC loses the primary, it will be a massive and major historical moment and upset.
Because as much as you might not like AOC, she is extremely influential and famous, and the sooner you realize that, the sooner you'll be better equipped to challenge her if that's what you wish to do.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes.
I'm sorry.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
Proving that Bernie Sanders is absolutely clueless and out of touch with what regular people think, he made comments praising communist Cuba, condemning some of it, but still praising some of it.
And I got to say, I think Bernie Sanders may have just lost 2020 before it even started.
You see, there are a lot of people in America who fled from Cuba because of the communist regime.
Not everybody in Cuba was upset.
I'm not going to tell you how many people were or weren't.
A lot of dissidents put in prison.
But the people who come to America at least are the ones who are like, yo, Fidel Castro, bad.
Bernie Sanders was interviewed on 60 Minutes and he made a bunch of dumb comments.
I hate to say it, but it's true.
One of those was saying the education, the literacy programs in communist Cuba, hey, that wasn't bad, right?
Showing he has no idea what was actually going on in these communist countries because they don't do literacy programs the way we expect them to be.
They do indoctrination and cult-like ideology literacy programs.
It's unfortunate, but I think it's fair to say Bernie may have already lost Florida, at least.
And there are some other areas he's gonna lose tons of support.
I gotta tell you, man, when people actually experience Venezuela, and they flee to the United States, and people actually experience Cuba, and they flee to the United States, you can't go around praising them to the people who know just how bad it really was.
Many Americans maybe have forgotten because the younger generation has not experienced the horrors of much of what happened with these other communist countries.
But certainly you can look at Venezuela and see how awful everything is.
But hey, propaganda is strong.
And they'll tell you, oh, it's Venezuela's only bad because of the meddling or some other nonsense.
Let's read the story from the Daily Mail.
Bernie Sanders defends not all bad Fidel Castro as he stands by old remarks praising Communist Cuba and admits he's shocked to be Democratic frontrunner during 60 Minutes interview.
You know Bernie's winning urban centers and not rural areas.
And it's not just about him right now saying the literacy programs were good.
It's about the fact that in the past he praised Communist Cuba.
You're gonna have to go and explain to the second-generation immigrants or the older people who actually did flee Cuba why you thought Fidel Castro was good back then, and now you gotta justify why you're saying it wasn't all that bad now.
Sorry, man, I think you've lost it.
He could have come out and said, oh, you know, there's a lot I didn't know back then, and try and walked back those comments.
He defended them!
The Democratic frontrunner and socialist, 78, defended the communist regime as not all bad during a wide-ranging 60 Minutes interview, which aired Sunday.
During the interview, he told Anderson Cooper, But you know, it's unfair to simply say everything is bad, you know?
When Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did?
He had a massive literacy program.
Is that a bad thing, even though Fidel Castro did it?
Now, let me stop you right there.
I did not experience life in communist Cuba.
I only have, you know, secondhand accounts to go off of, to actually talk about this.
I did very, very briefly live in Miami.
And I know it's not entirely fair to use this, but I'll say that, you know, I talked to a lot of people when I lived in Miami and often Cuba would come up.
So one guy I knew used to actually, he was like, you can just take a boat.
I think it's like a couple hours from Florida straight to Cuba.
A lot of people do it.
It's a fun boat ride.
And a lot of people in Florida had fled there, and I had heard stories from the past.
And they say it was horrible.
Absolutely horrible.
So of course they fled to the U.S.
These people do not have a favorable view.
That's why they fled to the U.S.
And I heard it straight from their mouths.
Not the people who actually fled, but locals who tell me the stories about the people who fled.
So again, not entirely fair.
I get it.
But let's read more.
Sanders had said of dictator Castro in 85, he educated their kids, gave them healthcare, totally transformed the society, you know?
Is that what you want to do in the United States, Bernie?
Because it kind of sounds like it, and that's horrifying to a lot.
To everybody, it should be.
Castro ruled Cuba for nearly half a century.
A Cold War foe of the US, Castro's government imprisoned dissidents and imposed one-party rule on the island nation.
He died at the age of 90 in 2016.
When pushed further on the dissidents imprisoned in the country, Sanders replied, that's right, and we condemn that.
Unlike Donald Trump, let's be clear, I do not think that Kim Jong Un is a good friend.
I don't trade love letters with a murdering dictator.
Vladimir Putin, not a great friend of mine.
Bernie, you're not sounding good here defending comments about the great things done under these communist regimes.
You have 60 minutes here.
They actually show the clip.
The self-proclaimed democratic socialist won decisive victory Saturday in the Nevada caucuses.
That we all know.
I'm not going to read over, you know, the whatever.
We get the point.
I want to show you something surprisingly from, I believe, CNN.
This is Anna Navarro Cardenas.
She is CNN commentator and she tweeted I was in second grade when Sandinistas came to power in Nicaragua.
They adopted Cuban education model.
The book's curriculum taught ideological indoctrination.
Children had to recite communist revolutionary anti-American slogans.
That's how communists teach people to read and write.
And you know what?
I will take her word for it.
She's actually Nicaraguan.
If she's saying it, I'm gonna believe her.
Now listen, I know CNN and these other outlets want to smear Bernie to, you know, to just, they want to smear him.
I'll put it that way.
The Russia smear absurdity.
So I will take it all with a bit of salt, to say the least.
However, Come on, man.
We have more than enough historical accounts.
We have more than enough survivors and immigrants who have fled these horrifying countries to know what really went on, or at least to say, in all likelihood, it's the truth.
These places are absolutely horrifying.
I can't believe, you know, when people are pulling up these old comments from Bernie, I'm like, man, those are bad comments, but I can't believe he'd actually defend them.
How ignorant.
How ignorant and absolutely... You know what, man?
How you can be a 78-year-old man and have not learned?
I think while it's fair to say that Bernie Sanders has never been, for the most part in his life, the top 1%.
He certainly is now.
Actually, I don't even know if he is the 1% now, to be honest, because when you're calculating net worth, it's a $10 million net worth in America makes you the 1%, and an income of over $350,000 to $500,000.
Bernie may have made that much in one year, but I think he... It's probably fair to... Well, he's a millionaire.
We'll put it that way.
I'm not gonna play the stupid 1% game.
Bernie's a millionaire, but he just became rich in these past few years.
But, here's the thing.
He seems to have grown up in a privileged, educated, elite life.
I know that he wasn't the richest person in the world, but he was still a typically upper-class politician, living in, you know, comfy Vermont.
Not the biggest state, not the biggest cities.
But now he's a senator.
He is absolutely a privileged elite.
I know he was making a couple hundred thousand dollars up until his big movement in 2016.
So I'm not going to pretend like he's a super wealthy individual, but boy, is he a product of the American bubble of comfort.
And you know, I'm shocked at someone his age.
Would actually defend the things that went down in these places.
He honeymooned in Moscow in like 88 or whatever and he had good things to say about these countries.
That to me sounds like a bad faith attempt to justify horrifying ideologies.
They do not work and they always do the same thing.
If a communist or socialist ever says, oh we condemn the authoritarianism, blah.
They're lying.
Every single attempt at communism and socialism has resulted in a purge of dissidents and marginalized groups.
They are lying if they're telling you they're going to bring it about through democratic socialism.
And then they also lie to you, like Bernie has, by going on the debate stage saying, I think Denmark is a great way to live.
Denmark is a capitalist free market system with a welfare state.
That's a big difference between what you've talked about in terms of nationalizing the means of production.
Bernie Sanders had a plan.
I'm pretty sure he launched his plan several months ago to give 20% of corporate stock as like a holdover for the workers to receive bonuses and vote on and things like that.
Right.
That's democratic socialism.
They're not going to come in with guns and purge everybody.
They're going to slowly force you into this circumstance.
And then what do you think happens once they have one party rule and they eliminate the market economics?
Yet welcome to the horrors of socialism.
They start indoctrinating you.
They call it education programs.
Let me tell you something.
Capitalism is anti-racist.
They'll lie to you and say that it's not.
The left likes to say the only way to end bigotry is to end capitalism.
That's a lie.
You know why?
In capitalism, only one color matters, and that color is green.
You will see people sell their souls for whatever reason.
One of the greatest things, in terms of actually stopping racism, has been the free market.
You know, people would say something like, I would like to make the most money possible.
How do I do that?
I need to cater to these other groups we're not reaching.
And so they would change their product, sometimes to their own detriment.
You look at these ultra-woke feminist films.
Why are they doing it?
They've already got male viewers.
They want a bigger market share, which means they need women and minorities.
The motivation has been capitalism.
The businessman sitting there, the big fat capitalist pig smoking a cigar, he's saying, well, we're getting the white male demographic.
How do we get all the other minorities?
I want money.
They don't care.
Whether you are a good or bad person, they don't care if race plays a factor.
All they know is you've got money and they need to reach you somehow, so they prop up whatever they have to do.
It's actually breaking barriers between different cultures and, you know, cultures that emerged through different, like, nationalities.
There's a, you know, I think it's fair to say a long time ago, a lot longer, well, and actually in still many parts of the world, culture was very much tied to race, simply because you had different races pretty much dominating most of their countries.
Countries like China, for instance.
Now in the United States, hey man, we're a melting pot.
And people enjoy all different aspects of all different culture.
But here's what's mind-blowing to me.
Capitalism has been the driving force that has actually helped do away with racism.
So is it at all surprising to you that the people who want to eliminate capitalism are also the people who want to segregate cultures?
The people who say, you can't dress that way like another culture, they're trying to balkanize the United States.
You know what that means?
Reference to separating all the different races into little pockets.
We had that high school girl who wore a kimono.
Or, I'm sorry, not a kimono.
She wore the Chinese dress.
I forgot what it's called.
And all of a sudden these woke progressive leftists started attacking her for it.
Nobody in China cared!
They're like, hey, that's great.
We like that you are adopting our culture.
It's a cool thing.
And for me and my family, I'm like, it's really great that we all adopt our cultures.
That's multiculturalism.
Yet the people who claim to be for multiculturalism are the same ones who want to get rid of capitalism and institute a top-down one-party state which has no incentive to actually allow people to share cultures.
And become a melting pot and melt into that pot.
Instead, they're actively saying, you can't have dreads, you can't wear this dress.
These people are lunatics, and they're claiming to be the good guys.
Bernie Sanders praising what happened with Cuba is mind-bogglingly insane.
We have this story from the Washington Examiner, which basically says this, Bernie Sanders may have just lost Florida to President Trump.
I don't think he gets it.
He is so blind.
You cannot praise what happened in Cuba when those people who fled Cuba are in Florida.
They're going to tell their friends, say, please, no, you don't understand how bad it was.
During Occupy Wall Street.
There were a bunch of kids, communists.
Occupy Wall Street, go figure.
And there was an older cop, I don't want to say older, but like, you know, on the older edge of middle age, who was talking about how his family fled the Soviet Union when he was a little kid.
And he said, this is how it starts.
This is what starts.
And it gets bad.
And you actually had these, like, 19 and 20 year old communist college kids arguing with this guy about how it's actually a good system.
And he was like, I was born in the Soviet Union.
You have no idea what you're talking about, how horrifying it was.
People disappearing.
No food.
It was terrible.
And they're like, no, you're wrong, man.
It's propaganda.
You know what you're talking about.
He was actually from there.
These kids have lost their minds.
It's propaganda on their side.
Just think about how insane it is that they simultaneously talk about multiculturalism, but their vision of multiculturalism is everyone segregated into neat little packs.
That's not multiculturalism.
In capitalist America, we've actually expanded civil rights and we have people mixing around and having a good time and people become less racist, more so than almost any other country on the planet.
And they're trying to do away with all of that because they are crazy, dangerous people.
But of course, Bernie Sanders, it's not just about Florida.
So let me read a little bit of this for you.
They say, Sanders has made winning Florida and its 29 electoral votes a whole lot more difficult for the Democratic Party.
Anyone who knows anything about Florida politics knows you never, ever defend the regime responsible for why there are so many Cubans in the Sunshine State in the first place.
Yet here is Bernie Sanders, the man with the clearest path to Democratic nomination, doing exactly that.
The most damaging moment from Sanders' appearance on 60 Minutes comes when Anderson Cooper brings up his past comments on Castro.
They then show his comments.
Fast forward to the present and Sanders is still saying the same things.
I read that stuff to you, so...
Sanders responded, that's right, we condemn that.
I don't have love letters, Kim Jong-un, etc.
First, quote, came into office is just a remarkable euphemism.
Castro did not come into office so much as he slaughtered his way to power, which he then held on to with a murderous tyrannical grip until his death in 2016.
Castro was an indisputably evil man whose long oppressive reign was bloody and terrible from the very start, which makes Sanders either ignorant or himself evil for defending it.
I think Sanders is a moron.
I think he's an absolute moron.
Check this one out.
In the same interview, Carol Roth on Twitter says, this is like every startup that says it is going to make hundreds of millions of dollars in a couple of years, but can't explain how or how much it will cost.
FFS, if you know what that acronym means.
This is a clip where Bernie Sanders basically says, we don't know how much it'll cost to do.
You know, he says, Anderson Cooper asks him, how are you going to pay for this?
Common question.
Sanders said, I think the cost is $30 trillion.
And Anderson, that's just Medicare for All.
You're talking about a bunch of other things.
And Sanders says, yes, free college, cancelling public debt, Medicare for All, etc.
He doesn't know what the cost is.
Bernie says, well, I don't know what the exact cost is going to be.
I can't give you every nickel and dime.
But we have a plan for this.
And then he goes on to say one of the most, one of the biggest lies.
And I got to say, I just think it's because he's a moron.
He says, we are going to tax, a modest tax on Wall Street speculation.
The dude clearly has no understanding of economics if he thinks that's the case.
You cannot predict how much you will make when you tax a market, and you cannot pay consistently for something on a market that goes up and down, and trade volume is a factor in how trade is calculated.
Let me explain.
Let's say you increase the tax on Wall Street speculation.
And I'm no fan of Wall Street speculation, mind you.
I don't like people extracting value and driving up prices just by trading.
But it's what we have.
I don't know how you get around it.
But Bernie is wrong.
I am no economist, but I can tell you as someone who has done trading a little bit, especially like back in the, you know, I was tracking the stuff in the big crypto eras when it was much more popular, and you can see how volume affects things.
If Bernie Sanders says, I'm going to add a 0.1% tax on all Wall Street speculation Nobody will notice.
Like Elizabeth Warren says, it's just two cents per dollar.
Lies.
Here's what happens.
First, people who are trading have to factor in that percentage in their trades.
And they're going to be concerned about whether or not they're taking a bigger risk because you have to overcome that percentage gain in order to make a profit and beat inflation or whatever it is you're trying to do.
We don't know exactly how it will play out.
Maybe economists know better than me, but you might actually decrease trade volume.
Do you know what happens if you decrease trade volume?
Your tax revenue goes down because people aren't trading anymore.
Let's put it this way.
If you go to buy a candy bar for $1, what you really, really want, as the government, is for people to buy tons of things between each other, because every time they do, they get taxed.
I have $1, I give it to you, you take $0.22, give it to the government.
You then take your remaining $0.78, give it back to someone else, and then they give, you know, $0.20 or so to the government.
And as that money trades back and forth, the volume of the trade, meaning each individual trade, increases the revenue the government receives.
In the end, if everyone trades that dollar down, the percentage being extracted will get smaller and smaller.
The percentage stays the same, but the amount of money to the government goes down.
But they will end up receiving basically around half of that dollar if it's traded fast enough.
Now, let's say the government increases the taxes to, you know, 40%, thinking, now we're going to get way more money.
Then the person who's offering up the trade money says, I only have a dollar.
A dollar's not enough.
I'm only going to get 60 cents out of that deal.
Okay, now trade volume drops, the one trade is made, and the government only ends up getting 40 cents instead of 50 cents.
I don't know if I was able to explain that as cleanly as I'd like to, but the point is, If people stop trading, the government gets nothing.
So when trade volume goes down, your tax revenues can go down with it.
It's also possible that due to the increase in taxes, some people might say, I need to invest more and make more trades to overcome that loss.
It's possible too.
The point is, Bernie Sanders acting like he can predict what he's going to pay for, while ignoring concepts like trade and the market, And not even knowing how much he needs to make shows that he is either dangerously ignorant or just outright lying.
Listen.
I talked about all this stuff, even in 2016, with people.
But my biggest concern, for the most part, is that it doesn't matter what Bernie thinks, the president doesn't do what these people think the president does.
It would be Congress that would pass these laws, and they probably wouldn't do it.
Now, the president can veto, for sure, so there is a lot of power held in the office, but they're the commander-in-chief.
I am not a fan of what Bernie Sanders has been saying or doing in the past several years, flip-flopping and now coming out basically against the American worker, with his immigration policy.
He flip-flopped on that hard.
Now we can see him actively praising communist dictatorships.
Hey, look, I get it.
He called out the authoritarianism, but then ignorantly went on to defend the reason that the authoritarian persists, indoctrination.
Oh, the literacy programs.
Oh, please, dude.
We know what they do in schools.
We know how they indoctrinate people.
I'm not talking about schools in America.
I'm talking about the communist regimes.
They want to indoctrinate everybody.
And you know what they do to those who resist?
I think you know what they do to people who resist.
They got a big ditch dug out back just for all y'all.
So if he wants to talk about this, he's already lost.
I mean, he said it.
It's done.
So it's no wonder the Democrats are freaking out.
Bernie's lost the plot.
Or maybe he never had it in the first place.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
A World Health Organization expert fears that the coronavirus can be the mysterious disease X or whatever they're calling it.
It's this hypothetical pathogen that can infect the whole world and potentially bring about 80 million deaths.
I want to read this for you and show you the latest update and the fears from the World Health Organization.
As I always say, China's been lying.
It's substantially worse than we can even know at this point.
Of the 25,000 cases that have been resolved, 10% of those have died.
have been resolved, 10% of those have died.
So take it for whatever it is.
But the bigger issue now at play is the shortage of medicines and the absolute collapse of
the globalist experiment.
I mean that in the literal sense.
Some people think globalist means something else.
I literally mean that over the past several decades, there's been an increase in an effort to create trade lines and supply chains through various countries.
And one of the arguments was that trade will stop war.
The problem is, as we dissolve borders, it becomes incredibly hard to control for Well, dangerous extremists and also a massive, you know, pandemic like we're seeing now with the coronavirus.
Or I don't know if they're officially calling it a pandemic yet, but I think it's fair to say we're basically there.
Many people think it's going to get much, much worse and will be considered at some point a pandemic.
It's funny to me, as I mentioned the other day, that you have people advocating for open borders entirely.
And it's not just the left.
You've got libertarians who argue the same thing.
And now we're seeing these globalist ideas being put to the test.
Because we didn't have a major or massive pandemic in the past several decades.
We've had some.
You know, we have flu and stuff like that.
But if this actually extends the entire world, and we can't control for it because we've created lax borders, and it shows us that It just doesn't work.
But more importantly, whether or not we actually think we should have strict borders, the problem is, as most of our medicines, or at least a large portion of our medicines, are being produced in China, along with many other goods, and China is completely locked down, we're gonna be in trouble.
So what's going to happen now is people are gonna become more self-reliant, they're gonna rely on local production, because they have to.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
You can try and argue for these trade lines, Trans-Pacific Partnership, NAFTA, whatever, but when you have a massive disease and have no choice but to make your own product, you will.
It's not just about saying, we don't want to bring in products from China because of the disease.
It's also that China is locking down its country and probably not sending stuff out to a certain degree, but more importantly, nobody is working.
If we rely on China for everything and they go into lockdown over a disease, we don't get products.
Let's read the stories. Daily Mail says, Is the killer coronavirus now disease X? World Health
Organization expert warns the infection is rapidly fitting category for the mysterious
pathogen scientists fear will kill 80 million. They say the name is given to a future
mysterious pathogen, which could break out among humans and wreak havoc across
the world.
SARS-CoV-2 has infected around 80,000 people in the two months since it emerged at an animal market in Wuhan, China in December.
That is wrong.
We don't know where it emerged and several studies have shown it actually wasn't the market.
It has killed more than 2,600 people and can cause severe lung damage and trigger multiple organ failure, mainly among old or weak patients.
Also keep in mind, there were some young people in their 30s and 40s who were in a hospital when they died.
Dr. Marion Koopmans, a virologist for the World Health Organization said, whether it will be contained or not, this outbreak is rapidly becoming the first true pandemic challenge that fits the disease X category, listed to the WHO's priority list of diseases for which we need to prepare in our current globalized society.
There's that word.
Her comments come less than six months after a report led by a former WHO official warned a flu-like illness could kill up to 80 million people if it broke out.
In other developments to the escalating outbreak today, they say the World Health Organization admitted the killer coronavirus outbreak sweeping the world won't be officially declared a pandemic.
Afghanistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Iraq become the latest countries to record cases of COVID-19.
Italy confirmed its seventh virus death in Europe, and 11 towns are now on lockdown.
South Korea now has the largest number of cases outside of mainland China, with 830 patients known to have caught the virus.
Iranian officials denied a cover-up after a lawmaker claimed 50 people have died from the infection in the city of Qom alone.
Qom, comma, alone.
But the UK's official position for Italy, South Korea, or Iran has not changed, with the coronavirus threat to the British public still being low.
I believe they then go on to just talk.
Okay, so here's what she says.
Dr. Koopmans wrote, initial resemblances with the SARS outbreak in terms of its origin, the disease associated with infection, and the ability to spread are clear.
But since 2003, global air travel has increased more than tenfold, and the efforts needed to try to contain the epidemic are daunting.
Disease X represents the knowledge that a serious international epidemic could be caused by a pathogen currently unknown to cause human disease, according to The Who.
It was listed on the global organization's list of top priorities for research and development two years ago.
It remains on the list despite not yet existing.
So this... Listen, disease... Let me read.
They give you a breakdown.
Disease X is a term used by the World Health Organization to refer to a disease which has not yet been discovered, but is expected to have a global impact when it emerges.
They say disease X represents the knowledge.
We read that already.
And so, yeah, we read that.
The name disease X is essentially a placeholder for an illness which global experts are certain Will appear at some point in the future, but do not yet know what it is or where it will happen.
Simulations have predicted that a pandemic outbreak of a flu-like virus could kill tens of millions of people around the world and seriously injure the global economy.
Other illnesses which have comparable levels of concern include Ebola, Lassa fever, Zika, and Congo hemorrhagic fever.
So, we now have an updated map.
I gotta say, it really does look kind of like Plague Inc.
And it's not to downplay the severity of this, but it's to show that we're tracking very much so like people have predicted or simulated, you know, what happened.
The disease is spreading.
South Korea has eight deaths.
Japan has one.
There's the Diamond Princess Cruise, which has three deaths, 691 people infected on that cruise.
So Hong Kong, Philippines, and Iran, as well as France, have had deaths.
But my understanding is that the first European deaths, because the other deaths were Chinese tourists, is in Italy.
So it seems like it's fair to say, and say for the 50 billionth time, things are getting worse, they're going to get worse.
But when you talk about globalization, the first thing I'm going to tell you about Because this is serious and you need to take care of yourself.
Coronavirus threatens shortages of about 150 drugs.
We rely too heavily on other countries for specific products.
This has been the result of globalization.
Outsourcing of jobs and manufacturing to foreign countries makes us dependent.
It's bad for everyone.
Everyone should be able to sustain themselves.
You can't just hope that someone else is going to have their house in order and have something available for you to eat.
Now, I don't think we have to worry all that much in terms of an economic collapse, because we can just pick up production in the United States, open some plants.
I think, in the end, this might actually be really good for the U.S.
economy, taking the severity into account of the potential for death.
The reality is, I think Americans might wake up to the need to have these facilities in our own country, and that will bring about more factories, more jobs, and make us more independent.
Axios reports about 150 prescription drugs including antibiotics, generics, and some branded drugs without alternatives are at risk of shortage if the coronavirus outbreak in China worsens, according to two sources familiar with a list of at-risk drugs compiled by the FDA.
China is a huge supplier of the ingredients used to make drugs that are sold in the U.S.
If the virus decreases China's production capability, Americans who rely on the drugs made from these ingredients could be in trouble.
The FDA declined to comment on that list, but said in a statement that it's keenly aware that the outbreak could impact the medical product supply chain, and has devoted additional resources towards identifying potential vulnerabilities to U.S.
medical products stemming specifically from the outbreak.
They say that the agency has been in contact with hundreds of drug and medical device manufacturers, and is also coordinating with global regulators like European Medicines Agency.
It pointed out there aren't any vaccines, gene therapies, or blood derivatives licensed by the FDA that are manufactured in China, although raw materials from any products do come from China and other Southeast Asian countries.
The agency is in contact with biologics manufacturers to monitor supply chains.
If a potential shortage or disruption of medical products is identified by the FDA, we will use all available tools to react swiftly and mitigate the impact to U.S.
patients and healthcare professionals, said an FDA spokesperson.
They say that the Commissioner, Stephen Hahn, is not a member of the task force that the administration has assembled to handle the coronavirus.
Only two of the dozens of members of the task force are physician scientists, BioCentury noted on Friday.
Politico reported Friday night that the White House is worried about how the coronavirus outbreak could shape President Trump's re-election prospects, and some administration officials are concerned the virus is already spreading within the U.S.
undetected.
Yes, that is very, very likely, so I hope you have all listened to every single time I've said, take it seriously, go buy some supplies.
Whether or not the coronavirus spreads in the U.S., any potential drug shortages would be felt acutely by the American patients that rely on them.
We're now seeing the market drop, so it's around 1,000 or so.
Let me actually refresh this, see if they've got an updated number on this one, because I believe they would.
Dow drops more than 800 points and is on track for its single biggest one-day loss since August.
As fears mount, the coronavirus outbreak in China will become a worldwide pandemic.
Look, when people panic, they do things that are irrational.
We're going to pull through this.
We're going to be okay.
And afterwards, the market's going to recover.
If for some reason you're selling because you're scared, do not panic sell.
We're going to pull through this, and the market will recover, and you're going to be left out.
Now, there's probably a lot of people that are liquidating assets for cash so they can go and buy stuff.
That makes sense, and that may be a big driving factor.
What's interesting is talk about how this will end globalization.
Like I've already mentioned a couple times in this video, we have this article from National
Interest saying coronavirus is killing China's factories and creating economic chaos.
Walmart, which essentially forces suppliers to manufacture in China,
told consumers to save money and live better.
Yet, how can they live better if store shelves are bare?
I mean, how many products do you see worth as made in China on the bottom?
So, this was bound to happen.
For decades, we have just thought... Actually, let me stop.
Let me tell you some absolute insanity.
You know how skateboards are made?
Maybe not all of them, but a lot of them.
They'll cut down trees in Canada, or America, rock maple.
They will ship the wood to China, and then send it back here.
That, to me, is absolutely insane.
If we're gonna cut down trees here, we can hire American labor to make the skateboard.
That always blew my mind, but that is true for so many products.
We outsource some materials to China, sending it on massive cargo ships so they can then turn to something else because the labor is cheaper and send it back here.
America should be able to take care of itself.
So we definitely need our manufacturing base back.
This idea from so many politicians that we can just have China do the cheap labor or Mexico do the cheap labor was a huge mistake.
They got by because we didn't have a pandemic.
So up until the disaster actually occurred, They were fine.
The plan was churning along.
They were making, you know, cold hard cash, talking about how these trade routes were expanding.
It was a good thing.
And now we get this.
This is going to increase nationalism, but it's going to increase, outside of the political nature of nationalism, this will do good things for many, many countries.
You need to be independent.
You don't need to rely 100% on your own country for producing literally everything.
Certain raw materials are better sourced in other countries, and we can have things made in other countries as well, so long as we are equipped and able, and to a certain degree, producing products in our own country.
National Interest says, This looks like the end of China's central role in global supply chains.
A microbe in China and the response of a totalitarian government is killing it.
Americans are angry.
I was on the phone with leaders from several hospitals in New York and they told me that they had contracts with Chinese companies where they were waiting on things like plastic gloves, masks, all of this stuff, where they were on the ships on their way to the US.
And the Chinese government said, no, no, no, turn around, we need this stuff.
Said Maria Bartiromo on her Fox Business Network show, Mornings with Maria.
How is anybody going to trust China in terms of keeping up their end of the bargain again in this business?
You can't blame China for turning these ships around.
They're going to do whatever it takes to protect themselves, not you.
You're the beneficiary of their cheap labor.
When it comes to their survival, they'll say, thanks for the money, but we need this stuff to live.
You need to make sure you have this in your own country.
Makes sense, right?
The influential television anchor is voicing a concern heard throughout America these days.
Peter Navarro, who appeared on her Fox News Channel show on the 23rd, provided more reasons for cutting links to Chinese suppliers.
China put export restrictions on those masks and then nationalized an American factory that produces them.
Said President Donald Trump's Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, referring to N95 masks used for protection against COVID-19.
I have no sympathy whatsoever for an American company who sets up a factory in a foreign country and then it gets nationalized and you get booted out.
Remember what happened in Venezuela?
Come on.
When these regimes take over, you know what they're gonna do when the disaster hits.
You will get no, you know, special favors from them.
They're gonna say, you built the factory, congratulations, you spent the money, now it's ours.
Because when it actually comes to survival, we know where the chips will fall.
The coronavirus has exposed a critical vulnerability.
Americans at the moment are short of N95s.
These are the special masks you need to wear.
And that is not the only type of mask they need.
Factories in China cannot open for, among other reasons, lack of industrial masks.
So Beijing has taken steps to keep these Chinese-produced items in the country.
Industrial safety masks have been banned from export from China.
Jonathan Bass, the owner of Los Angeles-based PTM Images, told me last week.
China has shown us that they will ban the export of masks for the protection of their own people over the protection of all people.
What do you think?
You think nationalism is unique to Donald Trump?
China's not going to give up supplies they need.
This shows us that America is extremely vulnerable to China's whim of cutting exports for health and safety-related products.
What's next?
Pharmaceuticals to save lives?
Rare earth metals?
Shoes?
Man, I've been saying this for a long time.
You want to talk about the real threat of World War III and what's happening with China?
Because so much of our goods are manufactured there, if they declared war for any reasons overtly and cut us off, we would be in serious trouble.
All of a sudden, you know, they could stockpile, you know, fossil fuels or whatever resources they need, and then say, now that you're dependent upon us, done.
You get nothing, and then we panic and struggle to try and come up with the resources we need in a real conflict.
Whatever the goods, the disruption in supply will last longer than most analysts think.
Giant container ships are skipping Chinese ports or are leaving only 10% full.
At the port of Long Beach, Bass tells me container traffic is down 40%.
That's the result of closed Chinese factories.
Chinese factories were scheduled to reopen February 9th, 10 days after the end of a lunar year holiday.
Yet as Samina Mistranou, who writes for Forbes on the Chinese manufacturing sector, notes, many plants remain closed.
She cites a situation around Chengdu, where authorities require factories to provide two masks daily for each worker.
In order to start production, a plant must show it has a two-week inventory of masks.
Masks are unavailable.
So in one cluster outside the city, only five of about 50 companies have gone back to work.
It appears the one general exception to the slow start are state defense industries.
Who would have seen that coming, huh?
Even if factories could operate at full blast, logistics businesses are not.
Warehouses are shut, making shipments extremely difficult.
Moreover, as Bass points out, containers are now left sitting on the dock at the Tianjin and Ningbo ports for extended periods.
Containers bound for the US are being loaded as much as four weeks late.
Some believe shortages will become noticeable at American retailers in mid-April.
But the big box stores are especially vulnerable because they generally keep inventories to a minimum.
So Walmart shelves, a friend tells me, might show empty spots next month.
And try to buy an iPhone this spring.
On the 17th of this month, Apple announced it expected to miss its revenue forecast for the current quarter in part due to shortages of that iconic product.
The Chinese slowdown is far more serious than many believe.
Analysts looking back to the SARS epidemic in 2002 and 2003 are predicting a V-quick recovery.
This time, at that point, they were looking at it.
This time, the recovery could resemble an L, in part because the disruption is so much greater than it was back then.
Even the best-run companies this time are being taken by surprise.
Apple, given its dependence on the Chinese market, Crimea River, has its pulse on China, but the company issued its over-optimistic guidance on January 28th, less than three weeks before the revenue miss announcement on the 17th.
That's an indication of the fast erosion in China's economy.
How many companies outsourced to China are dependent on Apple?
You owe all that sweet and juicy profit for jacking up the price on crappy products, and you make them in China with cheap labor, you sell something that costs a hundred bucks to make for a thousand bucks, you have a massive markup, and now because you've left the United States, your business is being hurt?
I'm not going to cry for you at all.
Companies should absolutely have contingency plans and shouldn't put all their eggs in one basket.
That's the most important point to be made.
We're going to see these trade lines break down, not intentionally, but they're breaking down because of the virus.
And it will happen again, showing us the real vulnerability of mass dependent sectorized
globalism.
The idea that China could manufacture everything for the world, medicines, phones, technology
or otherwise, was insane.
They have all the capabilities.
And when the virus emerges, not only does it shut their production down, so we're in
trouble, but they take it all back for themselves.
And then what are we left with?
All the better to explain why America needs to open more factories, why Apple should absolutely
be producing more in the United States.
I believe they recently announced this.
The light at the end of the tunnel for this horrifying circumstance, the coronavirus, is that we might actually get manufacturing more localized, which can boost our economies and keep us safe.
Not just the United States.
Every other country should be thinking about this.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
at youtube.com slash TimCast.
It's a different channel.
And I will see you all then.
Last week on my podcast show, Timcast IRL, I had on YouTuber Ariel Scarcella, who is a lesbian, who was announcing she was leaving the left because they're completely insane.
For those of you that didn't see the show or want the simplified version, I'm gonna read through this article, but the reason I'm doing this update is for a couple reasons.
We can now see the responses to Ariel's video where she announced she was leaving the left.
But more importantly, the video so far has 1.4 million views.
So congratulations, Ariel.
People heard what you had to say, and they agree with it, and they're sharing it.
This is how Americans feel.
And I'm going to follow this up with proof by showing you some new data, as well as something Donald Trump said several years ago, which makes people laugh but is greatly offensive, to prove my point about what people want and why they want it.
In this story from BizPacReview, they say, Video for both parties, quote, I'm a lesbian woman and I'm leaving the insane progressive left.
Welcome to the wonderful world of sanity.
Ariel Scarcella, a self-professed lesbian feminist who's been labeled a trans-exclusionary radical feminist, which is essentially a slur for feminists who oppose transgender radicalism, announced in a video last week that she's leaving the so-called progressive left over its growing insanity, saying, quote, Hi.
I'm Ariel, I'm a lesbian, and I don't think gender is a social construct.
I don't think cis straight white men are evil, I don't believe that genital preferences are transphobic, or that there are 97 genders.
She goes on to say a bunch of other things about why she's leaving, but what's fascinating in the video, if you haven't seen it, is that she actually shows Crazy people!
Like, for those that are watching, you can see this woman, she's got a shaved head, she shut up some event, and she just screams at the top of her lungs like some kind of developmentally disabled person.
And I mean that sincerely.
I'm not insulting her by calling her that.
I'm saying these people have some kind of learning disability or developmental disability, making it impossible for them to actually function properly.
And instead of trying to seek help for them, the progressive left empowers them to continue to be crazy.
Listen, when someone comes to you and tells you the moon is made of cheese because the moon men told you so and they visit you every night, you don't say, you're right, and start an organization based on the moon men and moon cheese.
You're trying to figure out what's going on with them because they need help.
And that's what we're seeing, but because it's overlapping with some things based in reality, people are allowing it to run wild.
The article says, Scarcella is among a growing army of otherwise left-wing feminists and lesbians who've grown exasperated by the radical left's attempts to erase women's hard-earned gains.
They're particularly concerned about a loud subset of the LGBT community that's been trying to argue that biological men who purport to be transgender women have the right to compete in women's sports and be incarcerated in women's prisons, which is probably the craziest thing.
But this subset isn't just arguing for these nonexistent rights.
It's also demonizing anyone who opposes these rights.
She said, quote, Never in my life have I been more cancelled, tortured, tormented, harassed than by members of my own community.
Never have I seen such disrespect from younger LGBT people to the older lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender advocates who have been paving the way for us for longer than we've all been alive.
Never have I seen the use of the word bigot used so frequently and not see the hypocrisy and irony in themselves saying it.
Even the video seen above was enough to provoke an untold number of far-left activists into rushing onto Twitter so they could accuse her of being part of the alt-right and disparage her as a bigot, grifter, transphobe, and TERF.
We got a perfect, you know, it's like a fruit punch.
It is a far-left punch bowl of all the insanity you'd expect to see.
First, This person said, please.
You've been alt-right for years.
What?
Yes, because a lesbian feminist is concerned about your authoritarianism, that makes her a white ethno-nationalist?
What are you ta- These people are nuts.
Here's another one.
Translation.
I'm a transphobe and I'm joining the right wing.
She actually never said she was going to join the right wing.
She's politically homeless.
This one just calls her a TERF.
I love how they do this.
They don't pay attention.
from a community as an excuse to be a bigot.
It's classic conditioning for her own gain.
I wish older queers would just admit the community was changing.
I love how they do this.
They don't pay attention.
They don't call out the worst of their own ranks and they say, you're cherry picking.
Aww.
Is that what it is?
Or is it that you've got a bunch of lunatics running around screeching?
Literally, this woman's screeching for no reason.
I'm not kidding.
It's a video of a woman with a shaved head screeching as loud as possible.
And you're doing nothing about it, so don't be surprised when people say I'm out.
This one says, how does it feel to be like three years behind Lacey Green on the inevitable grift train?
Pathetic.
This is my favorite response to Ariel's, you know, coming out, leaving the left video, is that they recognize famous feminist Lacey Green left, and now other feminists are leaving.
High-profile people are leaving the left.
Dave Rubin.
And the only thing they can say is, well, you're just grifting.
So, you mean to tell me that you have a large portion of your own community who are secretly just grifters the whole time?
What does that say about your community?
No, the reality is they're leaving because YOU'RE INSANE!
It's that simple.
The grifter arc begins.
That's right.
Cause literally when everyone, when anyone at any point ever says, Hey, I think what you're doing is wrong.
You just want money.
Spare me.
CEO of grifting.
I love it.
She said, some of you notice this change coming.
I'm not going to read through it.
She then cited a litany of examples that highlight the left's insanity.
I actually did a podcast interview with her several hours long.
You can see that over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL, but the full podcast is for members only.
So check out the community tab if you want to see the full two-hour... I don't know, it's like... I think it's longer than two hours.
No, it's like two-hour conversation.
Check this out.
Here's the tweet.
12,152 retweets, nearly 40,000 likes, 1.39 million views.
152 retweets nearly 40,000 likes 1.39 million views dare. I say I am I am glad to see this
Now it's probably still a big bubble of an echo chamber, but this is proof
people care People agree with this.
People recognize the same problems, and they're not all conservatives.
Ariel is not a conservative, not by any stretch of the imagination.
She actually complained in the podcast with me that Trump says too much misogynistic things about women.
And I'm like, you sound like a feminist.
And she said that a lot of men grow up being told and taught to take spaces.
And I'm like, that sounds like a feminist too.
And sure enough, she's leaving the left now.
When you're losing feminists, like overt feminists who say orange man bad, I'm like, at a certain point, you need to look in a mirror!
Check this out.
From the Daily Mail, 8 out of 10 people working in arts or culture say they stay silent about supporting conservative ideologies because they risk being bullied and ostracized, new study revealed.
Yes, there are a bunch of lunatics telling us what we can or can't say, and unfortunately, too many of you stay quiet.
Now, I've gotten some pushback for this, and I don't care.
Because I've said, just say it.
Just say it.
If everyone, literally everyone, stood up and said, here's my controversial opinion, they can't cancel you all.
The economy needs to work.
If they want to eat a chicken sandwich, they need you to make it.
I'm talking about Chick-fil-A.
Just stick to your guns.
Say what you believe.
If they want a product, the economy needs to flow.
It's not going to just stop one day.
So long as you act on an... you only care about you getting by today, this will never end.
There's a video from the Daily Caller, where one of their hosts is asking people about trans women in sports.
And I kid you not, this was fascinating.
One woman said, I don't want to answer that, I don't want to be cancelled.
They know what will happen if they speak out, so they bend the knee.
Reminds me of the Skinner meme.
Pathetic.
Speak up.
Yeah, you'll risk it all.
But you know what, man?
I get it.
I'm not gonna tell- I'll be fair.
I understand people just can't do it.
They don't wanna take the risk.
But you know what?
I absolutely do and will take that risk.
Now look, I gotta be honest, my opinions aren't the most controversial, but I have no problem calling out this insanity and saying trans women should not be competing against biological females.
Neither do people like Joe Rogan.
There are a lot of people who have pretty moderate, liberal opinions who will call this out.
If you wanna have an extreme, you know, crazy opinion on whatever issue, I was talking to Ariel and she was like, if one of my friends had a bad opinion, we'd talk about it and I'd tell them they were wrong or they were stupid.
And I'm like, that's a great point.
If someone I knew started saying this ridiculous nonsense, I'd say, you're wrong.
I wouldn't cancel them, get them fired.
But let me show you why Donald Trump won.
I absolutely love this video from the debates with Donald Trump.
It's an article from 2015.
Donald Trump jokes about calling women fat pigs, dogs, and only Rosie O'Donnell.
And if you don't understand why Trump won, and I think it's fair to point out that he won by slim margins in some states, People are craving freedom.
They crave freedom.
They don't want to live in a stressful, fearful environment.
The last thing any person wants is to be shivering in the corner, terrified that no matter what they do, someone will come for them.
And so whether or not they actually speak up, they vote for Trump.
You get what you deserve.
You absolutely deserve President Trump.
I mean it.
The people who voted for him, you deserve them because you went out and voted.
And the people who didn't vote for him, you deserve them because too many of you are fringe lunatics and the rest of you won't call them out.
That's why I laugh when Trump wins.
So in this video clip, Megyn Kelly says, you've called women fat pigs and dogs and Trump goes, only Rosie O'Donnell.
And the crowd erupts in laughter and clapping and cheering.
You know why?
Trump made a joke.
Jokes are funny.
People like to be entertained.
Of course Trump hasn't only called Rosie O'Donnell names, but he's making a joke.
He's a funny guy.
Whether you like it or not, he is offensive and funny.
And then Megyn Kelly says it extended beyond Rosie O'Donnell, and he goes, oh, I'm sure it has.
And everyone's just laughing.
And then she says, how do you respond? Is that temperament good for the White House? And I'll
tell you right now, I think the answer is no, but I still know and recognize Trump is a funny guy,
but I do think personally, we shouldn't have that temperament.
Here's the reality. Trump then goes on to say this country is too politically correct and I don't
have time. I have to respond to too many things to be politically correct.
And people said, yes, because they're tired of living under the fear of a boot of the far-left psychosis.
So they said, I don't care who does it.
Trump, you do it.
And Megyn Kelly and Bill Maher talked about this a couple of weeks ago, and that's exactly what happened.
And boy, will it happen again.
So you get the point.
Ariel is leaving the left because she is now experiencing a lot of the same stuff that drove liberals to vote for Trump in the first place.
Trump supporters are probably sitting back laughing, smoking cigars, knowing that the left will never learn their lesson.
Or, at the very least, they'll keep pushing out liberals who will then turn to Trump.
So be it.
You get what you deserve, all of you.
The Trump supporters, you get the president you vote for, and the left refuses to acknowledge why they lose, so you get Trump in the end.
Stick around, I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Donald Trump's ongoing crackdown on immigration continues, this time winning a Supreme Court ruling that says his public charge rule can go nationwide.
That's my understanding about it.
We have this story from the Washington Examiner.
But of course, Sotomayor of the Supreme Court is outraged that the Supreme Court sided with Donald Trump. And she
goes on to say that they're basically just doing whatever he wants. This to me is a really bad
sign for our country.
Accusations of partisan bias in our courts and our politics, scandal after scandal.
People want to tell you that civil war isn't possible or isn't real,
but I'm telling you we're witnessing it right now.
When you have conflicting administrations, when even the Supreme Court is split, and now one side is accusing the other of serving the president or the established, you know, the government's emergency orders, I think we're getting dangerously close to internal conflict in our own government, and I don't think that's going to end well.
We're talking about, you know, established administration, like institutions, outside of elected representatives, fighting each other.
But before we talk about this, we got a couple things to bring up.
Legal immigration is down 11%.
Trump's wall isn't the reason.
President Trump's border wall is beginning to rise, but a thick curtain of policy changes is more responsible for suppressing the flow of immigrants into the country.
That's the fact from the New York Times, but let's read this op-ed from the Washington Examiner.
They write, the Trump administration today is reinstating a Clinton-era welfare reform rule
once widely embraced by top Democrats in Congress, requiring immigrants to be self-sufficient,
a move that could end up to $3 billion in federal and state welfare payments to them.
I'm sorry, this is always confusing to me. Why are we paying illegal immigrants welfare benefits?
That seems to not make sense at all.
Or people who are here legally who want legal status, like extended status, they're on welfare?
Why?
Why is our community paying for people who aren't in our community?
That seems weird.
It's like having somebody stay at your house and they're, like, eating all your food and not paying rent.
You know, you'd be like, hey, yo, dude, who is this guy?
Why is he on my couch and why is he eating my pizza?
After receiving a blessing from the Supreme Court Friday, the public charge grounds final rule kicked in nationally, essentially forcing immigrants to prove that they won't become a burden on taxpayers.
Under the rule, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services will look at the factors required under the law by Congress like an alien's age, health, income, education, and skills, among others, in order to determine whether the alien is likely at any time to become a public charge, said an official.
Now, to the left, who is outraged by this, including Sotomayor, I'd like you to go and apply for, like, a visa to Canada, and you can see how they do a scoring system.
At least the last time I checked, maybe they don't do it today, but this is a common thing for most countries.
They ask you, like, what language do you speak, what's your education, and they assign a point system where if you don't get enough, you can't come.
For the exact same reason.
They want you to be a benefit to the country, not a burden.
They say the rule is expected to affect millions and force many immigrants to shift off public welfare programs so that they are not deported.
Some of the programs covered include supplemental security income, cash assistance from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and state or local general assistance programs.
The use of Medicare can also be included.
And I think, to a certain degree, he's correct.
value and has been part of immigration law for centuries,"
said Ken Cuccinelli, acting acting Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security and
acting director of USCIS. By requiring those seeking to come or stay in the
United States to rely on their own resources, families, and communities, we will
encourage self-sufficiency, promote immigrant success, and protect
American taxpayers, he said. And I think to a certain degree he's correct. You
know, the issue is, if you give someone fish, you feed them for a day, and if
you teach them to fish, you feed them for the rest of your life.
But if every day you say, come back, we've got more fish for you, they would never learn.
They'll never try to learn.
And you will increase... Look, I don't want to compare humans to animals.
But we have signs in parks that say, don't feed the bears, they'll become dependent, and then they'll keep scavenging human settlements for food.
They have to rely on their own.
I get it, bears aren't humans.
We take care of humans because, you know, we're human.
But I think it's fair to point out similar things happen.
If you start giving people things, they won't ever figure out how to get them on their own, and you'll just make everything worse.
Within reason, I might add, because I'm in favor of a lot of these social programs, mind you.
But there's a certain point where the band-aid has to come off, and we have to check to make sure that the wound is healed.
Here's the example I give.
These government programs, they put a band-aid on the wound, and then instead of taking it off, cleaning the wound, and putting a new band-aid on, they just slap another band-aid on top, and they keep doing it, and it never heals, and it festers, and it gets worse.
That's not what we should be doing.
The programs themselves can work if we just have a process for reform.
They say the rule recently published in the Federal Register said there will be some costs associated with the change, but that there will also be a substantial reduction in the use of welfare programs.
In one section, it was estimated that there will be a reduction of $2.74 billion a year due to disenrollment or foregone enrollment in public benefits programs by foreign-born non-citizens who may be receiving public benefits.
Another reduction of $1 billion will come from federal medical spending tapped by immigrants.
A Department of Homeland Security official told Secrets that the President's goal was not budget savings, but enforcing laws on the books.
The intent behind implementing the inadmissibility on public charge grounds final rule is not to save money, but rather to faithfully execute the nation's long-standing public charge inadmissibility law.
And better ensure that aliens seeking to come to and remain in the U.S.
temporarily or permanently are able to support themselves as they seek opportunity here, relying on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, sponsors, and private organizations rather than public resources.
Several states have challenged the rule and lost in the Supreme Court.
Several Democrats backed the rule when it was okayed in 1996, but have since turned on it.
They include Senate Minority Leader Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Steny Hoyer.
Which brings me now...
To the response from Sotomayor, issues scathing dissent in Supreme Court order that could reshape legal immigration.
CNN reports, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a scathing dissent late Friday night, castigating the government for repeatedly asking the Supreme Court on an emergency basis to allow controversial policies to go into effect and charging her conservative colleagues on the court with being too eager to side with the Trump administration on such requests.
The justice wrote that granting emergency applications often upends the normal appellate process while putting a thumb on the scale in favor of the party that won.
Targeting her conservative colleagues, she said, most troublingly, the court's recent behavior has benefited one litigant over all others.
I think that's silly.
Just because they voted against you, you want to act like it's an abuse of power?
I mean, maybe that's a bit hyperbolic.
But actually write a scathing dissent as though they're doing anything but asking the court for an answer.
When Trump says we're going to enact some kind of executive policy, he wants it to be known whether he can or can't immediately.
So maybe it's a fair argument to say he should go through the normal process.
But if the courts are agreeing to see these, and the courts are agreeing, you can't just turn and say, well, ho-rumph, I say!
The judges that have worked for the federal government for decades, who were recently appointed to the Supreme Court, are now siding with one litigant over all others.
Maybe it's just that you're wrong!
That's what's crazy to me.
So I'll respect the opinion, that's for sure, 100%.
Because it's important we get dissenting opinions that challenge this, because we don't want sycophants just, you know, kissing up to Donald Trump.
But I think it's fair to point out, with all due respect, you're probably just wrong.
This ruling on the welfare charge was okayed by Democrats in 1996 to act like now they're kissing up to Trump when there's precedent for this on the books already.
In my opinion, it's frankly absurd.
We don't want people coming to this country and then taking our public benefits away.
You have to pay in before you get it.
I mean, look, I get it.
Netflix offers you a 7-day free trial trying to coax you into becoming a customer, but we're not talking about that.
So it wouldn't make sense for someone to come here, get free stuff, and then be asked later to contribute.
They'll just leave.
This was on the books before.
It was supported by Democrats before.
It in no way makes sense that you could accuse these people of supporting Trump when they're actually supporting a Democrat policy from way back when.
They say her dissent was a response to the court's 5-4 order, granting the government's request to allow its controversial public charge rule to go into effect in every state.
Controversial!
Controversial, and brought in during Bill Clinton's administration.
This is what's mind-numbing to me.
The Democrats have changed and flip-flopped so much that when Trump comes out and says, hey Democrats, I'm gonna go with your idea, they're like, oh, harumph, I say!
It's controversial!
Although the three other liberal justices on the bench also dissented, they remained silent and did not join Sotomayor's decision.
Claiming one emergency after another, the government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases.
It is hard to say what is more troubling, she pointed out, that the government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or the court would grant it.
She noted that in the case at hand, the lower court order that the Supreme Court lifted was narrow and only impacted one state.
Then don't take the case.
Listen, there are many judges on the Supreme Court.
You are but one.
There are nine.
And you're the one who's upset they're taking these, but everyone else is agreeing to take the requests.
You are the odd person out.
You lose.
It's not a new rule.
It's an old rule being reinstated.
It has precedent on the books.
To act like this is absurd just shows I think you're a partisan who's mad that you're losing.
And that's what we've seen.
And that's why I said early on what the fight we're seeing in the government is troublesome to me.
The fact that you would be in a court and everyone else is like, yeah, we'll take the emergency, you know, we'll look into it.
Okay, you know, we agree five to four.
It was close.
And you're like, oh, this is not fair.
Oh, we shouldn't be doing this.
Yeah, yeah, sore loser.
Trump won.
He got to a point, Supreme Court Justice says, I do not like what Mitch McConnell did with, who was it, Merrick?
Was it Merrick Garland or, you know, Obama's appointee?
I don't like what he did with that.
Or was it, yeah, Garland, I think, right?
I don't know.
Maybe I'm confusing him with Gorsuch.
Anyway, the point is, Sometimes you lose.
If the rest of the court wants to accept this, if this rule has been in the books before, I am just, I'm confused as to how implementing policies that have existed in my lifetime, that have, you know, implemented, taken back, implemented, it's all of a sudden like the world is ending.
Orange man is not that bad.
Yeah, he's not the greatest person for a lot of reasons, but calm down, seriously.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes.
I will see you all shortly.
As I've covered in several segments, one of the biggest threats to the woke ideology is that men don't want to date feminists.
It's actually really simple, and I'll give you a quick rundown before we get into the story, but here's the lead.
Lawrence Fox takes extended break from social media after cancel culture leaves him fearing for his future.
Fox said some of the comments he's received since appearing on Question Time have left him shocked and caused him to become depressed.
Apparently, he's even receiving death threats.
Basically what he said was he broke up with his girlfriend.
Here's the story actually.
Because she was supporting Gillette's toxic masculinity ad.
He said he didn't want to date someone who was woke.
Before we read this, I want to tell you exactly why men not dating feminists is the biggest threat to intersectional feminism.
Right now, or I should say last year's Pew data shows 68% of millennial Democrats are women.
Or I'm sorry, 68% of millennial women are Democrats.
That's the right way.
That means, on the other side of that, you have 32% who are male, I'm mixing them up.
It's like 40 or so percent, because the number is per female to male.
Anyway, the point is, the Millennial Democratic women have a much smaller dating pool.
So it's like, you know, for every two men, there's three women.
Those women who are Millennial Democrats say they will never date a conservative man.
But, because of the way population works, if they want to find someone their age, and all of the other millennial male Democrats are taken, they have no choice but to choose a conservative man or just be single.
So we have actually seen some high-profile feminists actually flip and become more moderate because they had no choice.
They met an attractive man, they wanted to go on a date, and nobody else would date them, and so they ended up saying, you know what, I gotta walk back these opinions, they're unpopular.
It's actually not even so much about dating.
It's more so about social acceptance.
Woke ideology is scary and unpopular and nobody wants to be cancelled.
So these women have to change or They have to fall in line, remain single, I don't know, maybe buy some cats.
Which is why I'm not surprised to see Lawrence Fox is getting death threats because he doesn't want to date woke women.
What he said is explosively, it was explosive, it was dangerous, and boy were they outraged.
Let's read the story from Reclaim the Net.
They say, Ever since his appearance on Question Time, where he called out woke culture, many social media users have attempted to get actor Lawrence Fox cancelled, with some even sending him death threats.
Now, around a month after making that Question Time appearance, Fox has admitted the constant attempts to cancel him have left him feeling depressed, and tweeted that he will be taking an extended break from social media.
He tweeted, A thread.
I'm going to take an extended break from social media.
I'd like to say a couple of things.
First of all, a huge thank you to all of you who have followed me throughout my career and traveled vast distances to come and see me on stage, be in acting or singing.
They're going to say that Fox wrote that he still believes passionately in free speech and stands wholeheartedly by people's right to express themselves.
Fox also thanked those who had shown him support and added, I've had nothing but support on the street from people of
all backgrounds and political viewpoints.
That's right, because it's a 0.4% of Twitter users of the population on Twitter who are
making these ridiculous posts. It's an even tinier fraction than that who are actually
insulting people like him. Most people agree. Fox also thanked those who showed him support.
However, he wrote that some of the things people said to him on social media have left him shocked
and feeling more and more depressed.
He said, so actually they have the first one, but I don't think they show the second one.
They say, Fox goes on on Twitter, privately I have been becoming more and more depressed.
I have also been shocked by some of the things said to me on these platforms, and I have found some of it very hard to process.
I think it's important to stand up to bullies, and that is why I have continued to do so.
But I find that I wake up in dread of what's to come.
I'm a fairly private, if opinionated person, and it's been very painful and difficult to cope with.
However, I also believe in passionately in free speech.
I stand wholeheartedly by people's right to express themselves.
He goes on to say, But I am fearing for my future and my ability to provide financially for my children, a thought that keeps and has kept me awake most nights.
People tell me it will blow over, but when you are in it, it doesn't feel like it will.
I express an opinion, which I stand by and don't believe is controversial.
As a result, Equity UK called, amongst other things, for actors to denounce me.
This has been very hard to deal with, given that members weren't polled before these tweets were sent out.
I love my job.
I am so blessed to have been fortunate enough to make a career out of it, and have met some of the best people and made such great friends whilst working as an actor.
The thought of that being taken away saddens me more than I can say.
I think that we need to learn to listen to each other better.
I am learning this all the time.
I believe that pushing people to the edge of their ability to remain emotionally okay through cancel culture can and does have deadly consequences.
For me, I am going to go back to reading more books.
There is so much I will miss about Twitter, but on balance, I don't think I need it half as much as I enjoy it.
I'll probably be back on in 10 minutes, taking the piss out of Lily Allen.
Thanks for reading, lol.
They say Fox's announcement comes after several other high-profile incidents have highlighted the dangers of cancel culture.
The book tour for American Dirt, Oprah Winfrey's pick for her Apple TV book club, was called off last month after it faced a storm of backlash including threats of violence.
YouTuber TrueGeordie also admitted earlier this year that he had suicidal thoughts after an online mob tried to end his career.
So this is pretty crazy.
This all stems from outrage over dating.
Well, look, I can't fault you, Mr. Lawrence Fox, for not wanting to deal with the insanity on Twitter.
But let me all tell you how much I love basking in the glory that is the outraged female incels, whatever they're called, femcels or whatever, Female, incelibate individuals who can't get a date, who are absolutely outraged that I would dare challenge their woke ideology and tell them, you're gonna have a hard time because the sexual marketplace is kind of a thing and men have certain preferences on average, so aw, boohoo.
I am, uh, apparently... I say this jokingly.
I'm a glutton for punishment.
I've made numerous videos about, you know, the problems of feminist dating, and they tend to do pretty well, probably because most of my audience are dudes, but they always take clips and try and claim I'm an incel, insult me, and say all these things, and I can't help but kick back.
I don't smoke, so I eat Sour Patch Kids and watch cartoons because I'm apparently not adult enough.
No, I'm kidding.
But I actually stopped eating Sour Patch Kids.
It's a bummer, because I usually make jokes about it.
But anyway, the point is...
They get so bent out of shape.
It's like, why are you watching my videos if you don't like what I have to say?
But my favorite thing about this whole, all of this, I'll tell you what.
You notice I cover a lot of these dating videos.
We're going to do podcasts on dating because I love it.
Please, screech in my mentions on Twitter and say all of the worst things in the world to me.
I don't care.
I'm going to say what I want to say.
Now, for Mr. Lawrence Fox, I'm a bit upset because I need you to stand up for yourself and tell these people to go shove off.
Otherwise, it will only get worse for other people.
While I can respect you defending free speech and expressing yourself, and I can respect your right to bow out and remain private because of the problems, I wish you would not do that.
These people are lunatics.
Who cares?
But let me just revel in the glory that is feminist dating for a little bit and wrap up by reiterating some very important points, which triggers all of these Twitter feminists who are very likely now going to pull sections of this video.
My favorite part is when they passive-aggressively tweet about me.
Like, I know who they're talking about, but they don't tweet it at me.
So I was talking about in one story, one video I did, where Thirty-year-old women were complaining that they couldn't find men their ages who they could date who made as much money as they did.
And it's not because men aren't making money, although a lot aren't going to college and they're making less.
The reality is just that a 30-year-old dude who makes money is trying to hook up with 22-year-olds, man.
That's just been the way it is forever.
And I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying that's the way things are.
So don't be surprised if you're a woman who prioritized your career, make good money, more power to you, much respect.
Seriously, I mean it sincerely.
But don't be surprised then, when dudes your age are like, I'm not interested in you, you're a 30 year old, I want someone who's younger.
I don't necessarily hold those views, but a lot of dudes tend to do so, and that's what the data shows.
Because of this, I saw all these feminists tweeting passive-aggressively about it, and I just thought it was absolutely hilarious, because I'm like, You're watching my videos, I know you are.
And I never said that was my preference.
But sure enough, my Twitter is inundated very much so, probably like Lawrence's, with, like, thousands of crazy, like, left-wing feminist incels screeching about how they chose to live with their cats.
I want to be single.
I find value in being self-partnered.
And then they buy a bunch of cats and post videos about their cats, and hey, cats are great!
I got a cat!
Cats are awesome!
But I think there's value in having a family, and I think there's some important reasons why people should have families.
I think it's gluttonous and hedonistic to be like, I'm just gonna live for myself so I can be happy and have no responsibilities to my community and, you know, to other people.
That, to me, is odd.
Look, you don't gotta have a family if you don't want to.
But don't be surprised when guys your age who make good money say, it's time for me to start figuring out how to have a family.
There's some unfortunate realities that feminists need to cope with.
And I'm not trying to be mean when I say this, but dudes basically have all the time in the world to figure out when they want to have a family.
That's why it's not so big a deal when a dude's like, I don't know, almost, maybe 34 in a few weeks, and essentially a bachelor.
Because I have time.
I'm not in a rush.
I can build, I can do what I need to do, I can figure things out, have a family when I decide to.
And that's typically, that's one of the reasons why you'll find a lot of guys in their 30s who are successful are looking at 22-year-olds.
Now I think that's a bit too young, but that does tend to be the age that people, you know, on dating apps go for, which I think is silly.
26?
28 maybe?
That makes more sense for a guy in his 30s.
But that means a woman in her 30s is not what that guy is looking for.
So you'll probably find a guy in his 40s.
So they're upset they're not finding someone their age?
Well, that's just what's happening.
And the problem that these feminists need to realize is that they do have a time limit.
And again, I mean this with utmost respect, but women have a time limit.
Guys don't.
Which means men have this marketing advantage.
You know, a sexual marketplace advantage.
You can get mad at me all you want.
You can screech in my mentions.
I'm not saying these are my personal choices and preferences.
I'm telling you the data shows all of this.
And if you want to reject it, you're free to do so.
But it's reality.
And while it's not absolute, you'll certainly find guys who like older women and all that stuff.
It's true.
Those are the exceptions.
This is the rule.
It's the tendency.
So don't get angry when that's what reality is.
Don't send death threats to a dude because he doesn't want to date you because you're woke.
