Warren's FAILURE Exposes Feminist Democrat Hypocrisy, Refuse To Accept Hillary And Warren Are Awful
Warren's FAILURE Exposes Feminist Democrat Hypocrisy, Refuse To Accept Hillary And Warren Are Awful. Rachel Maddow held a exit interview with Elizabeth Warren and said with her exit it was the end for a female president in their lifetimes completely ignoring Tulsi Gabbard who is still in the race.Warren did substantially better than Gabbard but it was the establishment and the progressives who smeared Tulsi and went after her in underhanded ways.Hillary Clinton actually claimed she lost because she was a woman, several high profile Democratic strategists said it was because Warren and Hillary are women but many of these people smeared Tulsi.When they go after Tulsi its principle but when they lose its gender.You can't have it both waysYou can't go after Republicans for being the party of old white men, complain that your candidate was treated unfairly but then target a female candidate with smears.If the new polling shows us anything its that for one Trump is going to win in November but more importantly it shows that the Democratic party and Democratic voters only care about winning and they will support whoever they think will win regardless of policy be it far left or moderate.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The other day, Elizabeth Warren officially ended her run to be President of the United States.
And immediately we saw mainstream and resistance feminists crying foul, saying women are held back, this is sexism and misogyny, bullying.
And even Bernie Sanders supporters, the Bernie bros, were targeting women.
Elizabeth Warren herself, in fact, just called out Bernie supporters for targeting women.
Rachel Maddow, in an interview with Elizabeth Warren, names all the candidates except Tulsi Gabbard and says it was crushing a death knell for a future female POTUS.
Yet perhaps the reason Elizabeth Warren didn't succeed is that she is a liar and a bad candidate.
Yet here's the big problem I see.
The complete hypocrisy of the Democratic Party in claiming that it's bullying that holds women back while they all simultaneously slam Tulsi Gabbard as though she doesn't matter.
While many of the Democrats claim they want a woman or a person of color, yet they all vote for old white men.
Let me remind you.
Of what we are seeing right now, a 78-year-old socialist who just had a heart attack and a 77-year-old man who is incoherent and often confused about where he is, are the frontrunners, the choice of the Democratic voters over Elizabeth Warren, who is actually almost a decade younger than the other two candidates.
So is the issue that Elizabeth Warren was being held back by sexism, as many of these people say, or is it possible she's just a bad candidate?
Democrats, you can't have it both ways.
When this was brought up, when it was brought up that the Democrats were nominating old white men and choosing people like Bernie Sanders, they actually said, aha!
Maybe it's because this proves we care more about policy than identity, and that those claiming Democrats care about identity are exaggerating the true problem.
But as soon as Warren loses, they say it is misogyny.
It is a death knell.
They say Hillary Clinton was held back while these same people slam or even outright ignore Tulsi Gabbard.
I'm tired of it.
You wanna know why I think Elizabeth Warren didn't make it?
I think she didn't make it because she was awful.
She actually had a period where she was number one, but she is awful.
So you know what?
Yes, people would rather have the 78-year-old socialist who just had a heart attack.
They would rather have incoherent Joe Biden than inconsistent and deceptive Elizabeth Warren.
But here's what I'm gonna do.
I want to walk you through some of the hypocrisy I see from these comments.
Notably, first, the first story.
Rachel Maddow tells Warren her 2020 exit is crushing a death knell for a future female POTUS.
In her question, in her statement, she doesn't even name Tulsi Gabbard.
Why?
Hillary Clinton went after Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard.
Why is the Democratic establishment allowed to go after female candidates that actually have support from activist bases?
Yet when they lose, they cry sexism.
I'll tell you why.
Because it's not true.
And they're hypocrites.
And I also, I'm going to say it before we get started, I actually have a Democrat feminist who claims Hillary Clinton was the best candidate who ever run, which just, for me, exclaims hypocrisy.
Because it's the Democratic voters who did not choose her.
The American people.
When we're looking at the primary, Democrat voters themselves are not choosing these candidates.
It's not sexism.
Or maybe it is, but we're not talking about conservatives holding you back.
We're talking about your own party.
Let's read the story, the first one from Fox News.
However, 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, but the best thing you can do, share this video.
Perhaps it won't break any echo chambers, but it does help the channel grow because YouTube is suppressing my channel and others in the algorithm.
Also, if you do like this content and want to see more, make sure you hit that subscribe button and the notification bell so that you can bypass YouTube's restrictions.
From Fox News, they report.
MSNBC host Rachel Maddow shared her dismay with Senator Elizabeth Warren, who dropped out of the 2020 race after a dismal showing on Super Tuesday, that there might not be a female president in her lifetime.
I honestly, I do think so.
I think it is a very steep uphill battle for female candidates for a lot of reasons.
But I don't necessarily think the issue is Americans don't want a female because there was a poll done.
I don't have the source pulled up, so fact check me on this one.
That said, Americans overwhelmingly would choose a female candidate so long as she is a good candidate.
Let's read.
Sitting in Warren's living room, Maddow told the progressive senator about the impact her withdrawal from the presidential campaign had on women, not acknowledging that Rep.
Tulsi Gabbard is still in the race.
Now, I think it's fair to point out Tulsi has two delegates and the DNC is now changing the rules to make sure she won't be on the debate stage.
I think it's fair to say she shouldn't be on the debate stage at this point, though I do think it's hilariously hypocritical that when you had Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, you had Cory Booker, they changed the rules, knocking them out of some of the debates at a time when there was no clear frontrunner.
So that, in my opinion, is also hypocrisy.
Where was the woke outrage at that point?
Apparently nonexistent.
Here's the quote.
I'd like to ask you about the elephant in the room, which is a conversation you've had a number of ways, and you talked about it eloquently today.
I think that a lot of women around the country right now feel differently about you dropping out.
You leaving the race feels different.
If Hillary Clinton can't win when she gets the nomination, and you can't get the nomination, and neither can Kamala Harris, and neither can Amy Klobuchar, and neither can Kirsten Gillibrand, I mean, I think part of what's going on today is women around the country are like, okay, honestly, if it's not going to be any of them, let's get real.
Is it just that it can't be any woman ever?
Are we just going to run, you know, white men in their late 70s against each other, both parties, and that's all we can agree to do?
Overlooking the election of Barack Obama.
She continued, I think there's a feeling that your campaign ending is very specific to you and it also feels a little bit like a death knell in terms of the prospects of having a woman president in our lifetimes.
Oh God, please no, Warren reacted.
That can't be right.
You know what I'm talking about, Maddow said.
I know exactly what you're talking about.
This cannot be the right answer.
Perhaps it's because you and your party did not vote for Warren.
The first bit of hypocrisy I might I might add is that they're acting like a woman can't be president, ignoring the fact that it was not conservatives who went in the Democratic primary.
It was the Democratic Party themselves who said no to a person of color and no to a female candidate.
Who did the Democrats actually choose?
Old white men.
So if you want to complain about social justice and sexism, start within your own party.
Clean up your own room.
The reality is, your own party isn't interested.
They chose old white men too.
Now we can see, there are some other elements to this.
Pelosi says, element of misogyny undermines women like Warren.
I think there is, to a fair degree, sexism.
I absolutely do.
I think there are going to be people who say that they don't want a female to be president.
But within your own party, you have to recognize that.
Because yeah, I think there are actually Democrats who are not going to choose someone like Warren.
But the biggest problem I have with many of these social justice activists and advocates is that when you blame your immutable characteristics on your defeat, you never seek to improve.
You are the people who tear down Tulsi Gabbard and then cry that a woman can't be president.
She's actually a woman of color.
You tear her down, then cry about it, when in reality what you need to do is focus on what you can do to be a better candidate.
I take you now to Democratic consultant, commentator, and feminist Jess McIntosh.
who tweeted a thread that I think is an absolute must-read following the loss, or I should say, Warren's campaign ending.
She said, Elizabeth Warren was the perfect test case, as smart or smarter than Hillary, just as prepared, just as qualified, and she didn't have her baggage, and she was a known progressive hero, and she turned out to be a fantastic, fantastic campaigner, and still, and still, and still.
I gave some thoughts a couple of days ago, which is good because I'm all out today.
For the record, and this is a quote, mind you, Jess McIntosh says that Hillary was the best candidate ever to run.
She said, she is perfection and I will defend her to the death.
And I mean that.
I will literally defend her until I am dead.
It's just part of my life now.
Warren was all the things everyone told us Hillary should have been, would have been, if only.
She was the literal woman they told us Hillary should be if she wanted to be the first woman president.
That is what makes this particularly stinging.
Once again, we followed everyone's advice.
We checked all the boxes, and it didn't matter.
We didn't get the job, and that's tough today.
But we keep getting close, and we keep breaking through.
Warren mattered.
Kamala mattered.
2020 mattered for electing a woman president.
It started with a field of women, and we watched each one of them face a different challenge because they were a woman.
They all ran campaigns that were arguably tighter than the men's.
They excelled in debates.
They gaffed less.
We are so much farther today than we were in 2016.
It took us months to even recognize the role sexism played in Hillary's loss.
And now it's such a given, it's a Hulu documentary.
We talked about likability and electability.
We didn't solve it, but we named it.
We named all the double standards, the purity tests.
We only hold women to the policy details we don't force men to provide.
The inability for a woman with Pete's age and resume or Bernie's age and demeanor to be taken seriously.
The yelling thing.
And a whole generation of girls are growing up only knowing presidential contests with smart, funny, wonderful women who look presidential as heck.
It will be easier next time.
I think it's funny that these are the same people that mock and belittle Tulsi Gabbard.
Take a look at this story.
Samantha Bee has an offer the 2020 Democratic candidates can't refuse.
Drop out.
One of the reasons?
Quote, I am Tulsi Gabbard.
And this is so annoying to me.
For no reason.
Let me ask you a question.
Okay, so first let me say, Samantha Bee has ragged on Tulsi Gabbard on several occasions.
At this point, I think it's fair to say, as much as I am a fan of Tulsi Gabbard, support her, and donated to her campaign, I think she's out.
She's still literally in the race.
She's literally in third place.
But with two delegates, she's not a contender at this point.
And I'll be fair too, I never really thought she was going to be the frontrunner or win, but I did support her campaign.
The problem I have is that you have to explain to me why is it that you felt it was okay to target Tulsi Gabbard and tear her down?
Is it because you were all misogynists?
Or was it because you disagreed with Tulsi Gabbard's principles, her positions, and her behavior?
Pick one.
I think it's fair to say that many people who didn't like Tulsi didn't like her for, well, reasons that literally made no sense.
The establishment smeared her, called her a Russian asset.
They didn't like the fact that she was trying to speak with Fox News.
In fact, Anderson Cooper claimed that she was trying to get a Fox News position.
And it was funny, because he said it to Andrew Yang, who literally got a CNN contributor position.
Hypocrisy there much?
But it's not misogyny when they do it to Tulsi Gabbard, it's principle.
But when Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren lose, that surely must be sexism.
Now, I think it's fair to point out.
Elizabeth Warren's defeat proves that there are many Democrats who do vote on policy.
When many progressives said they would vote for Bernie over Warren, I think it shows that those individuals care more about policy than identity.
And that's fair.
So I want to make sure you understand my criticism is directly pointed at these people who scream misogyny, but would speak ill of Tulsi Gabbard, and I speak mostly of Hillary Clinton herself.
I want to show you this, uh, well, we have this story from GQ.
I think it's important to point this one out.
Tulsi Gabbard is outlasting Buttigieg and Klobuchar.
I just want to show you that people acknowledge she is still in the race.
But take a look at this from Reuters.
Hillary Clinton blames election loss on sexism during UK book tour.
October 15th, 2017.
Former U.S.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton blamed her 2016 loss to Donald Trump on sexism and the double standards women are held to in public life during a promotional tour for her new memoir in Britain on Sunday.
The first question I have is, how come there have been no stories about the misogynism pointed at Tulsi Gabbard?
Has there been?
I haven't seen it.
As someone who's been paying close attention, I haven't seen Bernie bros harassing Tulsi Gabbard for being a woman.
I haven't seen the news media criticizing the targeting of Tulsi Gabbard for being a woman.
I have seen the stories about Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton's claim that she was the victim of sexism.
But when it comes to the harshest takedowns, Samantha Bee.
Establishment routinely ragging on Tulsi Gabbard.
And I don't know why!
Because the jokes she makes about her aren't about anything!
Tulsi Gabbard sues Clinton over Russian asset smear.
Did Hillary Clinton go after Joe Biden?
No, she went after Bernie and Tulsi, though.
Was it misogyny for her to go after Tulsi Gabbard?
Should we expect her to have solidarity with Tulsi for being a woman?
I don't think so.
And I think it's fine if you want to criticize someone.
But sure enough, Hillary Clinton goes after both Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein.
Look, Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard, I don't think we're ever in a position to be the frontrunners.
I think it's a realistic position as much as I would prefer, well, I probably prefer Jill Stein in a lot of ways to Joe Biden, but probably not either.
But I'll tell you this right now, too.
Tulsi Gabbard is a major in the National Guard, young and energetic, and she's a much better candidate than Bernie Sanders or Biden, at least in my opinion.
But even outside of policy, wouldn't you rather have a young service, you know, personnel, a major no less, over the 78-year-old or the 77-year-old?
Sure, fine.
Tulsi's not gonna win, and I can respect that.
But Hillary Clinton claimed it was sexism that held her back when she literally held back Tulsi.
So, look, the point I'm trying to make is...
You're absolutely allowed to criticize Tulsi Gabbard, Jill Stein, Hillary Clinton, Warren, Kamala, Klobuchar, or otherwise.
It has nothing to do with them being women.
Yet we hear the stories over and over again.
A woman can't be president.
Oh, Warren's dropping out.
But you're, you're part of the establishment that smeared Tulsi Gabbard as a Russian asset.
You played into these same lines.
You held women back too.
When it was about Tulsi, it was, we are just acting on principle.
But when it's about your nasty neoliberal ladies, all of a sudden you're like, it's just because they're women.
Mind you, that one feminist said Hillary Clinton was like the best candidate ever.
Clearly she wasn't.
She lost.
You think the only reason she lost is because she's a woman?
Then you're ignoring the scandals that people were upset about.
And this is what I can't stand.
I think it's fair to say.
Sexism can play a role.
say you only lost because of your identity, you will never figure out why you really lost.
You will blame the rest of the world instead of blaming yourself.
I think it's fair to say sexism can play a role.
Racism can play a role.
I absolutely think I have been held back in some capacity by these things, but I'll tell
you what, I ignore them.
I don't focus on them, and I don't write them down and keep a chip on my shoulder about it.
It doesn't matter to me, you know why?
I can't do anything about it.
If I meet someone who says something negative about me because I'm a man, or because I'm, you know, part Korean or part white, I just, I don't care!
Look, man, I'll tell you what.
Can't change it?
Not gonna worry about it.
You know what I can do?
I can run faster.
I can jump higher.
I can study harder.
I can improve myself in these areas, and I can figure out how to use the cards I've been dealt to solve my problems.
Elizabeth Warren lost because she was a bad candidate.
That's it.
Now for the most part, or I should say to a certain degree, you can say that these things can hold people back.
But we are also looking at a progressive faction of people in the Democratic Party who don't want to vote for men, who don't want to vote for white men, and who have stated as such.
I think it was Amber Tamblyn who said she was going for, I can't remember which candidate, but she said she wouldn't support Bernie because he was an old white man.
That's also gendered, identity-based, you know, voting.
And it's the exact same problem.
You should vote for someone because you like them as a candidate.
Now I've shown you the real clear politics average on the Democratic side because to me it shows there are no principles.
And along with calling out the hypocrisy of these particular Democrats, I'll be fair to say this too, it's often hard to figure out which Democrat you're calling out because they don't all completely agree.
Certainly it's fair to say the fact that Warren lost proves that there are many Democrats who are not hypocrites.
They're willing to vote on policy regardless of gender because they don't take it as a factor.
That's fair.
But these high-profile individuals, Rachel Maddow, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, they're prominent party members or figures.
They should be called out.
Take a look at this.
And I'll make this point I've made in several videos that I can't seem to understand.
Joe Biden was the frontrunner.
All of a sudden he started polling less than Bernie Sanders.
All of a sudden now Joe Biden is polling more than Bernie Sanders.
I'll tell you what.
There is no principle.
There is no integrity.
I don't know, I can't tell you exactly why people are going to be voting or supporting these candidates other than they're just hoping to win.
Maybe it's true many people didn't think a woman could win.
That's why none of the women in the race actually made it.
I don't know.
But I can tell you this.
The Democrats can argue all day and night.
It's about their principles and their integrity and their being held back.
But the Democratic voters themselves did not choose Elizabeth Warren.
Sorry.
If you've got a problem with sexism, look in your own party.
Look at the fact that people were more willing to support someone almost a decade older than Warren.
Someone who just had a heart attack.
Someone who can't speak.
You want to talk about sexism?
At the very least I can say it's your party's fault, at least for now.
And we can see that while Warren did crack the first place position briefly, this was on October 8th, she just fell below Bernie and Biden.
And the reality is, maybe she's just not good enough.
But I think the actual reality is people just want to vote for someone who they think will win, and they didn't think she would win.
Now that Biden won on Super Tuesday, all of a sudden we're seeing Democrats say he's their choice.
How does that make sense?
I'm so confused by this.
My position on who I wanted to win the Democratic nomination didn't change because of who I thought could win.
In fact, I thought Yang and Tulsi weren't going to win, and surprise, surprise, they didn't.
But those are the people I was getting behind because I supported what they were saying.
I disagree with a lot about what they were saying, too.
But I wanted to see Yang and Tulsi on the debate stage to talk about these ideas, to have them challenged, and to challenge others.
Instead, what do we get?
We get the flip-floppers.
Biden is now disagreeing with the Obama policy he supported.
You've got Bernie Sanders, who's completely flipped on 2A, and who's completely flipped on immigration.
It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter if their policies aren't consistent.
It doesn't matter what policies they're pushing.
It doesn't matter if they know how they can implement them.
It just matters if they can win, as exemplified by the polls themselves.
And I'll tell you what, I'm not going to give Republicans a free pass on this one either.
It's just the fact that Trump has been unifying the party, Trump is the incumbent, and we're not looking at who Trump is running against.
The fact is, people like the guy, the party's unified behind him.
Right now what we're looking at, and this may be true for all humans, period, when it comes to elections, is that if you tell people Bernie will win, all of a sudden everyone says they'll vote for him.
If you then tell them actually Biden's going to win, then everyone changes their position and now claims they're going to vote for Joe Biden.
To me, it shows it doesn't matter.
It literally does not matter.
There is no principle.
There is no policy idea.
Bernie can't tell you what he's going to do.
Biden can claim that he's coming off the Obama era, but that he's changing his opinion now.
He recently came out in favor of a moratorium on deportations.
So why are you voting for the guy?
Tell me why.
No.
You've seen the man on the street interviews, right?
When you walk up to someone, on average, and ask them, what is it about Biden?
What is it about Bernie?
What is it about Warren that makes you want to support them?
They don't give you an answer.
They tend not to know.
And these are the people that are driving elections in this country.
And the consultants who run these campaigns know it, and that's why they say the things they say.
So now I'll bring you to my final thought on why this all happens.
Why is Elizabeth Warren blaming sexism?
Most of you know this already.
It's the easy out.
It's the easy explanation.
Instead of saying you did a bad job, you can just claim it was everyone else, and it's not your fault.
We gotta do better next time.
You wanna try to pressure the electorate into saying that they must vote for you, or pressure them into voting for you simply because you're a woman, to make it easier on yourself.
Play the victim.
That's what they do.
Because they don't actually have any strong reasons.
The consultants know people will vote based on emotion and less on principle.
And that's why you will see people say whatever they need to say to whoever they need to say it to in order to get that vote.
It's why Bernie Sanders used to say that open borders was a Koch brothers proposal and now he's saying decriminalize moratorium on deportations, etc, etc.
It's why Joe Biden is saying the same thing.
They're desperate to convince you that just vote for them, not on the policies, but on the pandering.
And what is Warren doing right now?
What is Rachel Maddow doing?
They are pandering.
When it comes to Tulsi Gabbard, principals fly out the window.
They can smear her, they can slam her, they can insult her.
And at that point, it's just because we're principled and we're calling out Tulsi Gabbard for her slights and for her failures.
But then when someone calls out Warren for being a liar, it's, well, it's because people are misogynists.
When Hillary Clinton loses because she was an awful candidate that progressives hated, that conservatives and moderates hated, they say, it's sexism.
She cries sexism.
And I'll tell you one more.
Hillary Clinton recently said of Bernie Sanders, Bernie said on the debate stage, whoever gets the most delegates should win.
Hillary Clinton was being interviewed about how Bernie wanted a contested convention in 2016, and she said, ha ha ha, well there are rules, we should follow the rules.
We all knew what the rules were when we got into it.
That's interesting.
That's the Republican argument on the Electoral College.
That she knew the rules when she entered the 2016 race, and she lost those rules, but then later called for abolishing the Electoral College, along with many other Democrats.
Hypocrites.
Because now you'll say the same thing to Bernie?
Look, they're all hypocrites.
Bernie included.
There is no right way to address this.
There is no right way to figure out how to be a principled individual running in this race and supporting these people because, well, for one, I can't figure it out.
And this graph should be proof to you.
I'll wrap it up here.
This graph should be proof to you.
There is no real way to be principled, consistent, and a Democrat.
Now again, it may be true of Republicans, but we're not looking at a Republican primary.
What we're looking at right now is people claiming they'd vote for Biden up until the media said Biden is losing.
Then they said, I'll vote for Bernie then.
Then the media said Bernie's losing and they said, I'll vote for Biden again.
These are polls.
The same people, sort of, they're polling in the same way, asking similar questions with updated news.
People don't care what you stand for.
They don't care who you are.
They just care if you're the winner.
So now it's Biden, which says to me, complete and total hypocrisy.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews, and I will see you all then.
In what may be one of the most embarrassing things ever put on TV, okay, one of, MSNBC anchor Brian Williams, along with an editorial board member for the New York Times, did math so incredibly wrong that they actually stated Michael Bloomberg could have given everyone in America a million dollars because they don't understand how simple division works.
This tweet that they're reading, like morons, comes from another writer, someone who has bylines for the Washington Post, and actually, as much as this is kind of funny to see the sheer stupidity of these people, it's actually really, really scary when you realize how many millions of people tune into MSNBC.
The reason why this segment is important is not because it shows that journalists are really stupid.
I'm sure many of you clicked this because you're excited.
Maybe it's a little bit of schadenfreude or confirmation bias.
But I've got scarier implications.
There are scarier implications here.
When it comes to segments like this, we can see how stupid they are.
But when it comes to information they're supposed to be vetting, that we can only confirm through them.
They're equally as stupid, and you just don't realize it.
There is something called the Gelman Amnesia Effect.
I've talked about it many, many times.
If you're not familiar...
It basically states, you as an individual may be an expert on something.
Let's say you're a carpenter, or a memesmith.
Let's say you're someone who makes memes on the internet for fun.
You know where the memes come from, you understand the jokes, you and your friends play games and make these things, and it's funny.
Along comes a news reporter who writes an article about memes, and you're sitting there reading it laughing how stupid they are because it's completely wrong.
You then go to the next link, a story about, say, Syria, and you're like, wow, I didn't know that.
The general idea is that when we are experts on something, we can see just how awful news media really is and how stupid these people really are.
But then we completely forget once we read a story in which we are not experts because we can only assume what they're saying is true.
This is the terrifying reality of news media.
Now, I do think they tend to get a lot of things right.
They're regular people.
They're telling us what they think they know.
But we've had a serious problem in the past several years, maybe decade, where the quality of journalism has completely run off a cliff.
And now we get segments like this.
I want to show you this clip.
And I need you to listen to this because this is the perfect example, the most egregious example of the Gell-Man amnesia effect.
Basic math.
Something you would learn in first grade, maybe even kindergarten.
When did you learn how to do 2 plus 2?
When did you learn division?
Because I think I was in first grade and we were already doing long division.
Maybe that's just me, I don't know.
I don't know what these people were doing, but let me show you this clip.
And you will laugh!
And you will laugh, and you will smile, and you will say, I knew it, these people are morons.
But I assure you, the implications are actually terrifying, and I'll show you why.
Here's the clip, and I hope you're ready for this.
unidentified
But you see it as a possibility if he wants to spend a billion bucks beating this guy, he could do it.
Absolutely.
Somebody tweeted recently that actually with the money he spent, he could have given every American a million dollars.
I've got it.
Let's put it up on the screen.
When I read it tonight on social media, it kind of all became clear.
Bloomberg spent $500 million on ads.
U.S.
population $327 million.
Don't tell us if you're ahead of us on the math.
He could have given each American $1 million and have had lunch money left over.
It's an incredible way of putting it.
It's an incredible way of putting it.
It's true.
It's disturbing.
It does suggest what we're talking about here, which is there's too much money in politics.
And it makes it difficult because what we want... She actually says it's true.
She writes stories about how Joe Biden is doing well and about how Democrats are doing this, that, or otherwise.
In reality, these people don't understand something very simple.
If you have $500 million and 300 million people, each of them gets just over a dollar.
I think the actual math comes out to like $1.56 per person.
For some reason, It went through the entire process of this news program.
Someone pitched this.
Hey, look at this tweet.
This is hilarious.
Bloomberg could have given everyone a million dollars.
No, that would be, I think, like $327 trillion to actually give everyone a million, something like that.
It goes to the producers, it gets vetted by everyone involved in the process, makes its way to Brian Williams and an editorial board member for the New York Times, and they go, wow.
Now, it's funny, right?
You're laughing.
Think about all the other news stories.
Think about Russiagate, Ukrainegate.
Think about the things Rachel Maddow has said on her show.
And now realize, everything they have said is as stupid as this.
The only difference, we all know basic math.
We all know 2 plus 2 is 4, right?
But what we're not experts on is the nuances of the U.S.
Department of Justice, the criminal legal system, what happened with Russia and these documents and the Steele dossier.
I want you to consider for a moment, That everything they put out, maybe not everything, but much of it, is equally as stupid.
But if you don't see the documents, if you have not talked to the prosecutors, you don't know the basic math.
The point is, if all of us go to school and we all know how simple this is supposed to work, and they're too stupid to actually understand this, that it makes it through all of their vetting processes, that it makes it on the air, So much so that the person who wrote the tweet actually locked their account down.
That's how viral this thing has gone.
Think about the things you can't correct them on.
If one of their reporters or journalists says, I have proof that Donald Trump, you know, sold cheesecake to Russia, Well, you can't fact-check that.
It's not basic arithmetic.
You assume it's true.
Now, I assume most people who watch content like mine are gonna assume it's not true, but then you end up with millions of people who just assume it's true because they trust this network.
Now, there is good news here, so that you don't gotta be completely scared.
And that's, this segment was so insanely moronic and dumb, perhaps some people might now realize how stupid these people really are.
Let me read a little bit, I don't need to read you exactly what happened, but I can show you some of the tweets.
This person actually did the math, $1.56, that's what it comes out to, you round down, you get $1.56.
This person said, MSNBC, really?
You put this on the air with only Brian Williams' weak caveat about being ahead of you on the math?
Shameful and embarrassing.
Poor Makita Rivas.
We'll never live this down.
Bloomberg isn't a trillionaire.
You know what, man?
And the woman who tweeted this, I feel bad for.
She's not a high-profile person.
She's just shy of 2,000 followers.
But she is a writer with bylines at Refinery29, GlamourMag, Washington Post, and Wine Enthusiast.
And she changed her profile to say, I know, I'm bad at math.
These are the people who are writing the news, the people who think they're smarter than you, who sit atop their ivory tower in New York City and tell you what is and what isn't.
And it's bad.
Now, I don't know if there's any more.
OK, so that's they then show the anchorman joke.
But we can see how bad it really is.
Now, I want you to consider this.
In a tweet from Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, she says, quote, Judge calls Barr's handling of Mueller report distorted and misleading.
She links to the New York Times.
You know what you can do with this tweet?
You can click the X button and close it.
You know why?
Rachel Maddow, at this network, has said such insanely stupid things that Russia, my favorite go-to, Russia might actually shut down the electricity in Fargo in the winter!
It's coming!
Yet she is still on the air.
They go after Alex Jones and they ban him because they say he's dangerous.
Conspiracy theories.
What do you think MSNBC is?
They don't even know math.
You know what's really funny?
I can't wrap my head around how people get this wrong, but I've seen it before.
Someone spent $500 million.
You can give every American a million dollars.
What?
Let's say you have $300 and there are 300 people in front of you.
Can you give everyone $100?
How does this happen?
How are these people that stupid?
How are they in these positions to where they can start telling Americans what to think about what's going on in the world?
This scares me.
So I showed you the Rachel Maddow tweet for a reason.
Because many people might say, look, you can criticize MSNBC and Maddow for the stupid things they've said, but she's just linking to a story and quoting it.
And it's fair, to an extent, because I also use the New York Times as a source.
But I think you gotta take it with a grain of salt, even the New York Times.
That woman who said, it's true, oh, it's shocking, it shows there's too much money in politics, is what she said.
She's an editorial board member for the New York Times.
These people are, look, I'm gonna say something, it might get me in trouble, but I mean this sincerely, I am not disparaging them based on any characteristics, but I want you to know, I'll keep the language light.
These people are, to an extent, challenged.
Okay?
I'm gonna be light on how I say this, but I mean it.
I'm not trying to be mean.
I'm not trying to just insult these people or get a dig at them.
I'm literally telling you that I sincerely think When you have these people working for these jobs that can't do basic division, like, dude, dividing 500, you know, by 327, it's not a complicated problem.
We learned how to do this in first, second grade.
I don't know what you learned.
I think we learned this in first grade.
Six, seven years old, you're learning how to do these things, and they can't do it.
And it makes it through all of these vetting processes.
If they can't handle something as basic as long division, I mean, I don't even want to call it long division, basic division.
If they can't handle that, how can they handle complex ideas like legal matters, like Russia conspiracy theories?
They can't!
It would be like a seven-year-old kid screaming that, you know, Trump is a secret agent.
You would dismiss it.
You would say, I get it.
That's cute.
You're a little kid.
You're too stupid to understand how the world's working.
But these people hire others like them.
They live in a world where they're just so incredibly ignorant.
Look, I'm trying to be nice, okay?
A lot of people I know would make videos and they would insult them, they would swear, and they would mock and belittle because they're looking for confirmation bias or schadenfreude.
Think about the stories that Rachel Maddow pushes, that she links from the New York Times, and that this woman is an editorial board member for the New York Times.
Think about the people they've hired and the things they've written, and it's fake news.
If they can't handle 2 plus 2, how can they handle the nuances of a criminal justice investigation involving numerous parties, 17 errors, FISA courts?
They can't do it!
And this is what we're basing our policy decisions on?
I'll tell you what, man, we are facing a complete downward spiral, particularly at MSNBC.
Now over on Fox News, you get Trump angry that they're bringing on people like Donna Brazile.
But hey, as much as you can criticize Fox News, at least they're trying to expand their perspective.
They're going after moderates who feel disaffected by people like MSNBC.
I'll tell you what, man, If after seeing that, you're still convinced Brian Williams or MSNBC can bring you factual information, there is something wrong with you two.
Because how glaringly obvious does it need to be?
Now, some might say, but Tim, it was one simple mistake.
No.
It was the one mistake you were able to point out because you're not a moron.
But if you're still willing to accept that what they say is true, then I'm sorry, you are a moron.
Just not as stupid as they are.
Now we have a story from the New York Post from a couple days ago.
Because as many of you know, Chris Matthews of MSNBC, he was fired.
I'll do air quotes.
He quit.
To be fair, he announced on the air that he was resigning.
Now, I'm not a big, big fan of Chris Matthews, never really cared for him or watched him.
He was let go because, in my opinion, he came after Bernie Sanders.
MSNBC, the people who watch this, you know why?
Not all of them, but many of them are for, say, Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders?
They don't understand math.
I hope this scares you as much as it scares me.
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are proposing a wealth tax.
I've talked about this quite a bit.
The idea is that if you're a billionaire... Oh, I cannot stand Warren!
I am so happy she is out!
Because hearing a moron say moronic things is mind-numbing to me.
Okay?
Again, I'm not trying to call her... I'm not calling her a moron because I'm trying to insult her and be mean.
I'm saying it because it is a fact.
She says, I just want to take two cents per dollar from these billionaires.
Well, she's either lying to you or she's stupid.
I'll tell you what, I think she's a liar.
The wealth tax mathematically makes no sense.
These people can't get past one plus one.
In order to strategize, to make a plan, you have to think about the plan you're going... So, what's your problem?
What's your proposed solution?
And what are the predicted outcomes for that solution?
When they say, We've got to pay for healthcare and we can do it with a wealth tax.
Then people say, your wealth tax would make it so that no more billionaires exist.
And they say, and what's the problem with that?
Because you're using the billionaires to fund your programs.
If there are no billionaires, you can't fund your programs.
Did you think about what comes after what you've done?
They can't get past 1 plus 1 equals 2.
And it's apparent when they do this ridiculous math crap.
The wealth tax, these plans, Bernie Sanders doing an interview on 60 Minutes with Anderson Cooper saying, oh, I don't know how much everything's gonna cost, but we're gonna tax Wall Street.
There's not even any real plan there.
You literally can't just do that.
But this is why people support him.
The people who watch MSNBC, who didn't catch this, that scares me.
Because these are the people who are like, I'm gonna go vote, and I'm gonna vote for Bernie Sanders, because it makes sense to me.
I know.
It does make sense to them.
But it doesn't make sense at all.
You can't just tax Wall Street speculation.
It doesn't actually make sense.
And who are you taxing?
Retirement accounts?
There's so much complexity to how the market works.
Trade volume.
Have you considered that?
Will increasing a tax decrease trade volume and decrease revenue?
I can't predict it.
I don't know for sure.
But if you think you can come out and definitively say, we're going to institute a small tax on Wall Street speculation and that'll pay for things, you haven't taken into consideration any of the factors, social dynamics, into how markets actually work.
Over the past several days, I think the Dow Jones general stocks have been bouncing up and down like crazy.
So how are you going to tell me you can predict how this thing will work?
You can't.
But these people go on TV, they rile up the crazy base about Russiagate, screeching all day and night, Rachel Maddow still tweeting about it!
So I bring up Chris Matthews because they say he got fired for doing his job.
You know, they say that he basically was saying things that, you know, women don't want to hear or that he shouldn't say in the workplace and that's fair.
Here they said, Chris Matthews didn't get fired for being a sex monster.
He got fired for doing his job.
And what was that job?
To represent the non-crazy.
No Kool-Aid for me thanks left on television.
While being entertaining and pointed and wacky.
Read the GQ piece published Friday that apparently got Matthews fired and you'll note the writer Laura Bassett had two completely unrelated categories of complaint that she artfully weaved together to create an indictment of Matthews as a sexist.
He brings up another interesting point, and we can segue from there.
MSNBC is bending the knee to these morons.
So think about it this way.
You've got to be a special kind of stupid to do the segment they just did.
Will they issue a retraction or an apology, or are they too embarrassed to bring it up?
I don't know.
But you've got to be a special kind of stupid to get that all the way through your vetting process, through the entire company, to make it to air, without doing a simple calculation.
Pull up your phone, you've got a calculator on it, right?
They didn't do it.
They then regurgitate that word vomit into the ears of people who are mindlessly watching their idiot box and just believing what's being said to them.
And then those people complain to MSNBC and get their hosts fired.
It is a toilet swirl into oblivion.
They are feeding their audience vomit, who is then vomiting it back into their ears, spinning downward into the drain.
And they have the nerve to criticize Fox News?
Look, you can say that Fox News is only right about Russiagate because it's partisan, but at least they were right about Russiagate.
It was trash nonsense.
And here we are.
They still believe it.
They won't let it go.
And it's simple.
It's because they can't put two and two together.
Think about what the basic concept of math really is.
The ability to take two different objects and recognize what you will get when those things come together.
It can be anything.
It can be an action.
It can be an action plus an object.
You need to say, if I have a rock and I throw it at a window The outcome will be a broken window.
Or typically.
There's probabilities involved.
Maybe you'll miss.
Maybe the window's strong.
But the point is, you understand that rock plus window equals broken glass.
Tends to.
These people can't do that.
So they start pushing fringe conspiracy theory ideas.
It generates an audience of conspiracy-minded lunatics who are woke, you know, identitarian, dogmatic zealots because they've been fed the trash and they feed it right back.
It's a race to the bottom to produce the lowest common denominator of shock content that's going to get you traffic.
I'm not saying I'm perfect.
I think I get things wrong too.
But what you need to understand about what's happening in media These people are controlling that what they say is establishment weight.
I'll give you an example.
David Pakman.
You may not like the guy.
I know a lot of people who watch me aren't fans of his.
I'm not saying you have to be.
I'm saying it's important to listen to him.
But I will tell you this.
While I think David is wrong on many things, he certainly thinks I'm wrong on many things, he's infinitely better than what they've just done.
But he's been wrong, and I think he has.
But what YouTube has started doing to his channel, to my channel, and others, is funneling anybody who watches him towards MSNBC.
That's what's scary to me.
When you get someone on YouTube who you like, who represents your values, who speaks to you and, you know, to an extent confirms your bias, that's why I think it's important to break your echo chamber bubble, even if you think they're wrong, you're better off with a diversity of opinions on YouTube than you are with one top-down network spewing vomit into your ears.
But YouTube, reacting to these people, changes the algorithm so that if you watch my channel, you get funneled to Fox News.
That's a fact.
If you watch David, you get funneled to MSNBC.
I think we're in serious danger if that's the case, with that being the case.
I can't believe that you have this psychotic fringe, MSNBC conspiracy stuff, and we are now in a world where if you watch an independent commentator, you'll get pushed to that.
I don't think it's a grand conspiracy.
I think it's morons being morons.
And people in advertising are also morons.
We have a general degradation of critical thought in a lot of these companies, and we're spiraling down the toilet.
But if you, if you, when you realize that YouTube is reacting to these people, You know, I kind of lose hope.
You know, some days I wake up, and I see a news story, and I'm like, this has restored my hope and humanity.
And then I wake up and see stories like this, and I'm like, dear Lord, help us.
Because these are the people who are complaining about Russia.
These are the people who are complaining about Alex Jones, getting people banned from the internet, propping up politicians, pushing policy ideas, and they can't do 500 divided by 327.
They can't do it.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
In what may be one of the most shocking developments, breaking news from the New York Times, Bernie Sanders, an agent of the Soviet Union, that's right, not just Russia, but the actual Soviet Union, apparently still has influence.
I am being a bit facetious, but I gotta tell you, this is a real story.
As Bernie Sanders pushed for closer ties, the Soviet Union spotted opportunity.
Previously unseen documents from a Soviet archive show how hard Mr. Sanders worked to find a sister city in Russia.
When he was a mayor in the 1980s, Moscow saw a chance for propaganda.
Ladies and gentlemen, we now have definitive proof from the gray lady herself, the paper of record, the New York Times.
Bernie Sanders was being courted not just by Russia, but the Soviet Union, dare I say.
The red scare is on, ladies and gentlemen.
Okay, let's calm down for a minute.
This is some of the most absurd garbage I've ever seen.
They do the same thing to Trump.
I am no fan of Bernie's policies.
And I can certainly question Bernie's judgment in talking about Cuba and Venezuela.
Yes, and yes, the Soviet Union But on the surface, am I supposed to be really angry that Bernie was trying to generate better ties with a country that we were potentially on the brink of nuclear war with?
We were facing fears of total nuclear annihilation, and I'm not going to blame Bernie for trying to create diplomatic ties the same as I can respect Trump for trying to do the same.
I'm not going to assume Bernie Sanders was trying to start a war or subvert the American government to the Soviets.
Calm down, everybody.
I can question his judgment, but on this, I don't have a lot to say.
In terms of what the goal was in finding a sister city in Russia, definitely questioning his judgment considering the height of the Cold War, but they say similar things about Trump when he walked in the DMC and when he works with Kim Jong-un or whatever.
All I can really say is, you need to analyze sort of the nuances of what's going on, but I can't say I'm surprised that the New York Times is actually trying to drag Bernie Sanders as though he has ties to the Soviet Union, but here we go.
It's also funny because you're kind of one-upping Russia.
The Soviet Union hasn't existed for a long time, and you're seriously trying to play this game?
No, I do think it's fair to point out that Bernie has praised authoritarian regimes, and so insofar as it goes with Bernie and Trump, I think Trump hasn't done these things, but he has tried, you know, playing to the egos of many dictators around the world.
I can only assume for good reasons.
Hopefully other people, you know, many other people who hate Trump assume it's for negative
reasons, but I think Trump is trying to, you know, kind of de-escalate tensions and try
and work towards peace.
I would have to be fair and say similar things towards Bernie, but the problem with Bernie
is that he has praised authoritarian dictatorships to a certain degree.
Now, of course, Bernie condemned authoritarianism.
That's fair too.
But he basically said, you know, Cuba made the trains run on time.
What he actually said was they had good literacy programs.
But those were indoctrination, authoritarian programs.
He's sort of falsely framing these things.
But I'll tell you this, man.
You know what I see?
As much as I can be critical of Bernie on policy and flip-flopping and all that stuff, I see another populist who faces a lot of the same problems that Trump does when it comes to the media.
A manipulative, deceitful media that will stop at nothing to drag and smear anyone who doesn't pony up to the establishment.
So I can respect Bernie for that.
However, I can't respect Bernie for his constant backpedaling and knee-bending.
But let's actually read the story and see what they have to say.
The New York Times reports today, the mayor of Burlington, Vermont wrote to a Soviet counterpart in a provincial city that he wanted the United States and the Soviet Union to live together as friends.
I'm sorry.
I respect that.
I do.
I don't like the Soviet Union.
Glad they're gone.
But anybody who's trying to work towards peace and prevent nuclear annihilation is probably doing something good.
Granted, There's a lot I don't know about the Cold War and experience it.
I mean, I was born... When I was born, we were still in it, kind of, but... I think I was like three or four when it finally ended, so...
Unbeknown to him, his desire for friendship meshed with the efforts of Soviet officials in Moscow to, quote, reveal American imperialism as the main source of the danger of war.
That mayor was Bernie Sanders, and the story of his 1988 trip to the Soviet Union has been told before, but many of the details of Mr. Sanders' Cold War diplomacy before and after that visit And the Soviet efforts to exploit Mr. Sanders' anti-war agenda for their own propaganda purposes have largely remained out of sight.
The New York Times examined 89 pages of letters, telegrams, and internal Soviet government documents revealing in far greater detail the extent of Mr. Sanders' personal effort to establish ties between his city and a country many Americans then still considered an enemy, despite the reforms being initiated at the time Under Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet General Secretary.
They also show how the Kremlin viewed these sister city relationships as vehicles to sway American public opinion about the Soviet Union.
One of the most useful channels in practice for actively carrying out information propaganda efforts has proved to be Sister City Contact, a Soviet foreign ministry document provided to Yaroslavl, officials said.
The documents are part of a government archive in Yaroslavl, Russia, which became the sister city of Burlington.
These files are open to the public, though archivists there said that until now, no one had asked to see them.
There it is!
Bernie Sanders exposed as a puppet of the Soviet Union.
You know what?
I gotta be honest, I don't care.
You know why?
If you're somebody who's critical of Bernie, thinks he's, you know, a commie, whatever you want to say, by all means, you take this, you form your own opinion on this one.
But I'll tell you my opinion.
I am sick and tired of the media playing these games.
I am sick and tired of Russiagate.
I am sick and tired of MSNBC.
You have screeched wolf so loudly, I could literally hear your vocal cords being torn to shreds, and I'm done with it.
Now you're gonna try and go back in time and drag Bernie because of his contacts with the Soviet Union?
You thought Russia gate was bad?
You thought Ukraine gate was bad?
They're literally trying to dig up the Soviet Union.
Go back to the old Red Scare to drag Bernie Sanders.
You know what, man?
I'm gonna keep this to Bernie Sanders' current policy, his current immigration plans.
I don't need to go back in time and target someone based on what someone in Russia thought.
I'm sorry, someone in the Soviet Union.
But this is exactly the game they play.
These people live in a paranoid, delusional state.
The Soviet Union.
Oh, please.
I'm sorry, man.
You want to criticize Bernie for something that happened, what, like 30-some-odd years ago?
You can do it!
But come on.
Does that reflect where Bernie is today?
He's made a ton of mistakes?
No.
I'll tell you what I'll criticize.
His recent comments on Cuba.
I'm so done.
Russia Scandals.
It's the same playbook they're using against Bernie, and this says nothing about Bernie's policy positions.
But that's it.
They want to win by any means necessary.
You know what?
Here's what I think.
If the people like Bernie Sanders, then vote for him.
If you like his policies, then vote for him.
I can respect, to a certain degree, journalists unveiling information and giving more information to the public.
What I don't like is digging up old garbage and playing this game of Russiagate.
What you need to know about how the media operates is they use framing devices, they remove context so they can make you make, uh, they will make you assume things that may or may not be true.
This is why I don't care for this.
Now it may be that Bernie Sanders is a secret agent of the Russians or the Soviet Union going back decades, but I really, really do not want to play that game.
Because you had that guy from the New Yorker saying this, or I think it was New York Mag, Literally say on MSNBC, Trump may have been an asset of the Russians since the 1980s.
And now they're literally doing the same thing to Bernie.
You know what the problem is?
Donald Trump had no problem tearing them apart.
He had no problem yelling and calling them fake news, and Bernie has bent the knee at every opportunity.
So Bernie, all I can really say is, I am not a fan of the media dredging up, you know, old news and framing it however they want, or whatever this might be.
I want to hear what you have to say about your policies, and I'll tell you that.
I'll tell you this.
Your policy a year ago on immigration is different to where it is a year later while you've been campaigning.
I'll criticize that.
You want to praise Cuban literacy programs?
I will criticize that.
I am not going to sit here and listen to a media that's trying to dredge up complete BS.
They did the same thing to Trump and it's irrelevant to the current argument over ideas that's happening in our country.
I want to know this.
Do Americans want socialism?
Do you think that we can actually afford Medicare for All?
Do you want taxpayer-funded colleges?
There's a lot of problems with the economic policies pushed forward by Bernie Sanders.
And yes, we can call out that he went to the Soviet Union and did these things.
That's fine.
You can call out Donald Trump for potential business deals or maybe concerns about the Emoluments Clause.
That's fine too.
But what we need to do in our politics for a healthy dialogue is talk about the ideas.
Now what do they do in the media with Trump?
Instead of saying the wall is too expensive, now I know a lot of people do say that, you get Democrats coming out saying it's immoral, it's bigoted, it's racist.
You get the media establishment saying Trump is lying when instead they actually just falsely frame what he has said.
This is the same thing.
Well actually I'll tell you what, I don't know if it's the same thing.
I'd have to do an investigation into this.
But when a guy comes out on MSNBC and says Trump may have been an asset of the Russians since the 80s, I'm gonna throw this in the trash along with that.
Now this morning, there was a very, very viral moment on MSNBC.
And this is the best part about all of this.
Okay, let me just stop.
Maybe Bernie Sanders was being courted for Soviet propaganda efforts.
Don't care.
You wanna know why?
You wanna know why?
Because a New York Times editorial board member said on MSNBC last night, and Brian Williams, the anchor, and a Washington Post writer, They all contribute to this disaster.
Here's what happened.
You probably saw this, but there's an op-ed from the National Review, which I think is fantastic.
And I'm going to highlight why the Soviet nonsense is just that.
So this woman, for those that missed it, claims that Bloomberg, spending $500 million, could have given every American a million dollars and had money left over because there's 327 million Americans.
Never mind that they don't know how to do basic math.
This went from a WAPO writer, a Washington Post writer, made it through producers at MSNBC, and a New York Times editorial board member, and an anchor of their primetime news program, and they all just parroted it like morons.
These are the people that want to convince you that Trump is a Russian agent, that he was trying to manipulate Ukraine to win an election against the guy who can't talk straight.
And now they're doing the same thing to Bernie Sanders.
I hope you can all see it.
Bernie, in my opinion, has terrible policies.
He's flip-flopped.
But you know what?
Here's the thing.
There are a lot of people who think Trump has terrible policies.
Now I'll tell you what, when it comes to foreign policy, very critical of Trump, especially with weapons deals in Saudi Arabia, proxy wars with Yemen.
That's the stuff I don't like.
If we can get a peace deal with Afghanistan, I'm very, very happy about that.
Economic policy-wise, I'm fairly ambivalent and questioning of Trump's policies, but not completely opposed to them.
I think Trump's character plays an issue.
Bernie Sanders has character defects and that he's pathetic, okay?
I'm not trying to be mean.
I know you might be a Bernie supporter, fine, but I'll tell you what, man.
If he can't stop a young woman from taking his microphone, I'm gonna call him out for it.
There's a lot of things to criticize everybody for.
What I won't stand for is manipulative BS from morons in the press who want to act like they know what's better than, you know, they're smarter than you.
They're the arbiters of truth.
We're going to unveil the sinister plot behind Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, apparently.
These two people are both secretly working for Russia.
So what does Russia really want?
Now, here's what you see.
Then we get some of these people coming out and saying, well, the reality is it's not that they want to prop up Bernie or Trump.
It's that they want to sow chaos.
Are two popular candidates chaos?
The American people like what Trump has to say.
Well, I should say Trump supporters and many moderates like what Trump has to say.
There's also many moderates and Democrats who like what Bernie has to say.
However, unfortunately for Bernie, I do think there are many more moderates and conservatives supporting Trump.
Trump has unity in the Republican Party.
The Democrats are not unified.
They're fighting.
But there are a lot of people who like what Bernie has to say, and that's why they vote for him.
I think a lot of these people lack information, and I think it's fair to say that's true to an extent of Trump supporters.
However, to give you my personal view, based on how the media works, when you have... So this is a story from the National Review, The Million Dollar Per Person Affair Is Telling.
I want to read you a little bit of this, because it's very interesting.
But when you have people who watch MSNBC believing that Bloomberg could have given everyone a million dollars, I think it's showing you that these people Well, these people believe insane nonsense that's just so obviously false, a first grader could have figured it out.
And that's what leads me to believe, look, this is the reason why they stand behind, you know, Bernie Sanders or even Joe Biden, to be honest.
Now, I think there are real reasons to support Bernie.
Maybe you're a socialist.
You want a revolution, a dramatic transformation of the economy.
You don't care if it's fiscally responsible or even financially possible.
If you want a revolution, you're gonna vote for the guy.
That I get.
Now, if you're somebody who thinks you're gonna get free healthcare and free college, I got a bridge to sell you.
It's not gonna happen.
Even Bernie couldn't tell you how much it cost.
Now, you can make criticisms of Trump for his domestic policy, and I think that's fair too.
The point is, we can have those debates over ideas.
But the media doesn't do that.
They don't even know what they're talking about.
So when you get a left in this country, a resistance, that listens to this, what do you think they're going to believe?
They're gonna come away from the New York Times literally believing that Bernie is an agent of the Russian government, and it was a prank.
Like, there were these, I think it was Russian pranksters, did a prank where they called Bernie and said, we believe it to be Bernie, I gotta give that caveat, and they said, when you went to Moscow, you were programmed to serve, you know, the efforts of communism, whatever.
It's like, dude, I don't care if Bernie went to Russia.
I don't care if Bernie went to the Soviet Union.
I don't care if Trump did.
If Bernie comes here and we have reason to believe he's trying to subvert democracy or do these things, call him out for it.
But more importantly, you don't win arguments by screaming commie at them.
Apparently it does work for some people, but I think, at least for me, the way we win is by challenging Bernie's ideas because I think they're bad ideas that make no sense.
Trump has ideas I kind of disagree with but can understand, and that's the big challenge between the left and the right.
The moderates, individuals like me, I'm not a particularly conservative person, but I look at Trump and I'm like, that's more understandable for somebody who's just like a regular American, right?
There's a reason why I bring up the million-dollar thing, and I want to read this back for you.
And it's that a New York Times editorial board member didn't understand basic division.
And now you want me to take the New York Times as fact when they're trying to argue that in 1988 Bernie was trying to do a... Nah, I'm not doing that.
You know, look, you might not like Bernie, but I gotta defend him on this one.
Donald Trump has talked nicely about people like Kim Jong-un and Putin, and he gets dragged all the time for it.
And while I'm not sure if it's the right thing to do, I don't assume malintent, I think Trump is trying to broker, you know, peace deals, and that's just, I'd be more inclined to assume that.
I do not look at Trump and see a guy twirling his mustache, and I don't look at Bernie thinking the same thing.
I think if we had the height of the Cold War and someone said, we want to do a Sister City program, look, they might want to take advantage of that, but I think peace is an option, and that's something to be respected.
So I can certainly slam Bernie over his ideas, but I can always respect efforts at bringing peace.
So this is just another, in my opinion, a late-in-the-game smear campaign, because we're coming into now the height of the nomination process, and I am absolutely disgusted with the media.
This is how they play games to get what they want.
They're ideologically driven.
So look, if you're gonna smear Trump over Russiagate, you wanna smear Bernie over, I guess, the Soviet Union, don't be surprised if I come out and tell you to go F off.
But I want to show you this.
This is a really, really great op-ed that I think is really interesting because I gotta throw shade at the Bernie and the Warren camp people.
Because this is part of the problem.
I think you can absolutely call out media smear campaigns over Russia, Russia, Russia and the Soviet Union because it's stupid.
But what this shows us, it shows us that this is the world they really live in.
The op-ed's great.
They say, let me read this.
It's extremely telling.
This right here is why so many left-leaning Americans think the billionaires can pay for everything.
It's why Elizabeth Warren was enthusiastically boosted by the media despite her ridiculous pretense that she could pay for a series of gargantuan initiatives without raising taxes on anyone but the extremely rich.
It's why Democrat after Democrat promises not to raise middle-class taxes while promising programs that require the raising of middle-class taxes.
How did this bad tweet make it onto TV to be endorsed?
And it was a woman who had less than 2,000 followers, but somehow, somebody found it, put it on TV.
Why did Margay agree with it?
Why didn't Brian Williams notice?
Because the people involved in this clip thought it was true.
This is how they see the world, but it's not true, not even close.
Forget the million for a moment, and make it Andrew Yang's thousand instead.
Would that be possible?
Nope.
If Michael Bloomberg were to try to achieve what Andrew Yang promised, $1,000 per American per month, he would be able to give every American about $183 in the first month before he'd have $0 left.
To make it through a single month, he would have to be five times richer than he is, and after that single month, even at five times his current wealth, his fortune would be completely and permanently depleted.
Elizabeth Warren's unconstitutional wealth tax topped out at six percent.
Filter Bloomberg's money through that tax, and you get $11 per American per year.
There is still no such thing as a free lunch.
If Americans want expanded services or a monthly stipend, they are going to have to pay for it themselves.
There is no billionaire out there who can do it for them.
That's the issue I have with the far left.
I've never been a big fan of universal basic income, but I did like Andrew Yang for a variety of reasons.
Notably that he was talking about automation as a serious problem, and he was proposing, essentially, a VAT tax on massive corporations, which would then be used to pay for some benefits.
It didn't sound perfect, and I have been fairly decently critical of the proposal, but I thought it was worth talking about.
These are ideas we need to address for a few reasons.
Notably with Yang, let's have a conversation to talk about why this doesn't work.
I personally don't think UBI could work because of rapid inflation, and you'd have a bunch of people.
If everyone has a thousand dollars, how do you actually provide resources in exchange for labor?
So if you have that value already, then how do you actually convince someone to do work for you in exchange for that value?
It would diminish the value of that money.
Let alone the idea that it would cost trillions of dollars.
But the point is, I'll wrap this one up.
Look, man, maybe there's something to this Bernie story, and if you think so, you're free to criticize me and say I'm wrong about this one Bernie is a commie and all that stuff.
That's absolutely fine.
I'm not paying attention anymore.
I'm sick of it.
I will criticize the media all day and night when they do this instead of talk about real issues.
I will criticize the Democrats for the exact same thing.
Don't come to me screeching about Bernie Sanders being a propaganda tool for the Soviets.
You want to complain that in 1988 Bernie was trying to broker some kind of diplomatic deal between his city and something in the Soviet Union?
I can say fine, you know, for a lot of reasons it was a bad idea, sure, whatever.
I'm not old enough to really know the context to actually be that critical of it if Bernie was just trying to be diplomatic.
What I can say is, the media digging this stuff up at the very last minute, I know why they do it.
You know why they do it.
It's the same thing they do to Trump, and it is not how I want to see this country move forward.
Because I want to see a country where we say straight up, In no uncertain terms, I personally, I, Tim Pool, think Bernie Sanders has bad ideas.
I think he's flip-flopped on immigration and the Second Amendment, and I don't necessarily trust that he's going to do right by Americans.
I'm not convinced Trump would either.
But at least we can talk about the ideas they're presenting and what they will offer the American people.
You want to try and impeach Trump over Russia, I'm going to roll my eyes and tell you to shut up.
You want to dredge up old nonsense about Bernie Sanders, I'm going to say the exact same thing to you.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast, a different channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see you all then.
Donald Trump has won most of his fights as it pertains to the border with the U.S.
and Mexico.
The Migrant Protection Protocols, also known as Remain in Mexico, stood for quite a while until recently a court shot it down.
And in response, Donald Trump is sending 160 troops to the southern border over fears that migrants may try to rush inside.
And if they do, they can stay while their asylum is being processed.
Let's read the story from BuzzFeed News.
They report the Trump administration is sending 160 active duty personnel to the southern border in light of a recent court ruling preventing the government from making immigrants wait in Mexico.
Senior Customs and Border Protection officials said they are sending 80 soldiers to El Paso, Texas and another 80 to San Diego to support officers at official border crossings there.
Officials also said they were sending soldiers there due to increasing coronavirus concerns.
And as you know, simply by saying that word, we're demonetized.
But let's read on.
On Friday of last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked the Trump administration's Remain in Mexico policy, which has sent back nearly 60,000 immigrants from the U.S.
border and forced them to wait in Mexico while their cases are being completed, though later the same day it suspended its order.
Okay, so this is weird, so it's not being blocked, I guess?
But it is also important to note, since the implementation of the Remain in Mexico policy, many of these migrants have not in fact remained in Mexico, they've actually gone back home to Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, etc., because they didn't want to wait in Mexico.
I also think it's fair to note that when given the opportunity to seek asylum in Mexico, many of them went back home to their countries or just outright said no and tried to come to the United States.
BuzzFeed reports, in between the two court actions, immigrants presented themselves at official border crossings, sometimes in large groups, to ask the border officials to take them out of the policy, officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, following the initial ruling.
In the Mexican city of Ciudad Juarez, CBP responded by shutting down a port of entry, and officers temporarily shut down a bridge in Brownsville, Texas.
Immediately upon the decision from the 9th Circuit Court in joining MPP, we had large groups of mass that causes instant port closures and disruption of port operations, and therefore, we have had a prepared response in the event that the decision comes down again or any clarifying court decision that could disrupt port entry operations, a senior CBP official said.
CBP ports of entry are not designed or equipped to handle extremely large groups of travelers arriving at the same time.
Now, in the past, in San Diego, and I believe also in El Paso, where they are now, there have been groups of migrants rushing the border, throwing rocks, and trying to shove border guards out of the way.
We've seen, I think it was in El Paso, I could be wrong, they had plastic shields holding off the migrants trying to rush into the United States.
Over in Europe, We have seen these viral videos.
So this problem has been affecting many different countries, where many people form massive groups and storm the ports of entry and rush into the U.S., breaking through the barriers.
So let's read on.
They say, earlier this week, the Ninth Circuit Court said it would block the Trump administration's Remain in Mexico policy, saying it would cause extreme and irreversible harm.
The policy is in place across the entire border.
However, the 9th Circuit set its injunction against the policy, allowing it to continue until March 11th, pending a possible review by the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court doesn't take up the administration's appeal, the 9th Circuit court injunction will take effect March 12th, but only in California and Arizona, where the court has jurisdiction.
CBP officials said they were sending soldiers to Texas despite the ruling not affecting the state, because they were worried large groups of immigrants would try to force their way into the U.S.
On Friday, when the same appeals court said MPP wasn't legal, a group of roughly 150 asylum seekers gathered on the Ciudad Juarez side of the El Paso del Norte bridge, which connects to El Paso, which connects to El Paso.
CBP shut down the bridge in response.
Officials said they are also sending active duty personnel to San Diego because of their history there.
Quote, I say quote history.
They were referring to the time a caravan of immigrants tried to enter the U.S.
in 2018 and were repelled by tear gas fired by Border Patrol into Mexico to stop them.
They say the group of 160 will be made up of military, police, engineers, and personnel providing aviation support.
They will not be enforcing immigration laws, officials said.
The soldiers are expected to be in place no later than Saturday.
So we actually have the story here.
Federal judges have stopped their own ruling that blocked the Trump administration from forcing immigrants to wait in Mexico.
This is all very confusing, I must say.
The official Order and then reversal was about a week ago.
I actually missed this one.
I didn't realize they had reversed the order.
Now, a lot of people are questioning the Remain in Mexico policy, but I do not believe, at least in my opinion, the left has presented a cogent, cohesive argument as to why it makes sense that anyone can come to America, claim to be an asylum seeker, and then actually just stay here.
The problem being, of course, as many of you know, once they claim asylum and we tell them to wait, they just disappear.
I don't know what the endgame is for many of these Democrats.
And it feels to me, well actually I'll do this as an addendum to the segment I did earlier today.
Maybe you saw my video talking about the hypocrisy of Elizabeth Warren and the feminist Democrats who are claiming that they're being held back by sexism.
We can see that There is no principle behind what they're advocating in terms of open borders.
And I say open borders, what I mean is the various policies that lead to an open borders circumstance.
They claim they want benefits for everyone, but because they also simultaneously argue that people shouldn't be allowed to cross the border, and it should be legal, this to me is mind-numbing and makes literally no sense.
They've effectively created a policy where you can enter the U.S., Completely legally from anywhere, even if it means wandering through the desert for 90 plus miles or more, and then seek free healthcare, government benefits, school, none of that makes sense.
There used to be principals on the left, and I know, shocking to a lot of people, but it's true.
Bernie Sanders, for instance, flip-flopped recently.
Joe Biden, for instance, flip-flopped recently.
To me it doesn't seem to make sense.
I don't know whose vote they're trying to court when they're advocating for people who aren't citizens, who can't vote, who have no access to benefits, and in many circumstances aren't actually paying taxes.
Now I know many people argue that they do in fact pay taxes.
Many do.
Many are essentially operating within our economy, because I think the number, depending on who you ask, it could be like, you know, 10 to 20 million or whatever, whichever institution is tracking these numbers.
We do have people working and doing these things.
But when you add the summation, when you take the sum of all of the things advocated for by the Democrats, they're essentially saying they want a serf class of people.
I know I've brought this up many times, but it does bear repeating.
I don't understand what their argument is against the migrant protection protocols.
How is it causing harm?
When we have people, most of which, as we know statistically, will not qualify for asylum.
Why aren't we taking that into account when we're talking about the policies we have for people seeking refugee, people seeking refuge, or people who are seeking asylum or refuge?
If we know that the overwhelming majority of people who come to this country don't in fact qualify, shouldn't we then err on the side of, they aren't going to qualify?
Why would it make sense for us, as taxpayers, to put all of our money into this pool of cash knowing it's a waste?
It wouldn't make sense in any other circumstance.
If, like, imagine if someone asked you to set aside a volcano insurance fund.
Like, you know, I'm obviously making a Family Guy reference.
Well, the likelihood that a volcano erupts in your area is astronomically low.
Why would you set aside money for that and actually spend it?
Or actually, the joke is from The Simpsons, where they created bear patrol.
I don't know if you remember this episode, but one day a bear wanders into Springfield, so they spend all of this money on bear patrol.
This was the left, basically, in the 90s and 2000s, mocking the ideas of wasted money because people were too stupid.
Volcano insurance and family guy circumstance bear patrol.
Well, the likelihood of bear wanders in your neighborhood actually exists.
But does it make sense to spend money on a bear service system simply because once every five years something like this happens?
Imagine if Chicago created, like, I don't know, deer patrol because sometimes deer wanders downtown.
It wouldn't make sense.
So if we know that for the most part, the people seeking asylum don't actually qualify, should we actually be allocating resources towards the problem of accommodating asylum seekers in this country en masse?
I don't know.
I think the answer is overwhelmingly no.
So now we're seeing the response Donald Trump is sending troops down.
I don't like that either, man.
This is what really bothers me.
I talked about this in the video I did the other day on Trump's nuclear option on immigration.
While I understand why Trump is sending out ICE, sending out Border Patrol, it seems like a problem that's just going... I look at it this way.
You ever see a van fishtail, like a car pulling a tractor, or pulling a trailer that's fishtailing?
The wobble is a little bit, the wobble gets worse and worse and worse, and then it flips over and spins out of control.
I think that's where we're heading.
If the Democrats keep advocating for weaker and weaker border security, and then the response from Donald Trump is to increase border immigration enforcement, you know where it's going.
You've got the Democrats saying decriminalize moratorium.
They're just getting more and more extreme for seemingly no reason.
And then the response from the federal government, ICE, DHS, CBP, whatever, is elite border agents, mass surveillance.
Neither of these things are good things.
Now, I got to admit, We have to hold them each individually responsible to various degrees, but the book has to stop with what they're ruling in terms of just spending taxpayer money and not caring that you have children walking through the desert.
It's all paradoxical, man.
It's hypocritical.
That's what it is.
It's a hypocritical position.
They show these photos of drowned migrants and say, oh no, heaven's me!
And what do they do?
Advocate for these people to keep doing it.
It literally makes no sense.
And I'll end with this point I made the other day.
How does it make sense that you're going to have sanctuary cities not deporting repeat criminals?
How does it make sense that America is going to pay to imprison an illegal immigrant instead of just deporting them?
Wouldn't they prefer that?
I don't know, man.
I guess American prison is better from where they came from, I guess.
But why are we paying?
This doesn't make sense.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Panic buying is off the rails, man.
This is what I warned about for the past several weeks.
I had several people mocking me, saying, Tim is selling freeze-dried food packets, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Yeah, you better believe I was promoting a company that sells emergency food.
I got no problem, and you can't shame me?
If you could, I probably wouldn't be doing the job I'd be doing right now, and I'd probably be crying because of all the horrible things said to me on Twitter.
I don't care, man.
I was right.
Okay?
I'm not telling you to go stockpile for the end of the world.
I'm telling you to get a week's worth of food in a little bucket.
Because now we got Home Depot, Kroger's, and Kohl's limiting purchases to slow down panic buying over the coronavirus.
Look at these photos!
They keep coming.
I don't want to call it panic buying, though.
I think that's kind of unfair, because a lot of the photos we've seen, it's actually just regular buying.
It's just that everyone's doing it at the same time.
So is it fair to say people are panicking?
Because they're like, we should go to the grocery store.
And then they go and buy, like, a little bit more than they normally do.
No, that's kind of what you should do.
You should have done it earlier, though.
I don't think there's any real way to stop problems like this.
But I do want to point out one very important fact.
People love to grab them some toilet paper.
Seriously.
A lot of what we've seen has been people buying tons of toilet paper.
Hey man, I get it.
Americans, we eat like, we eat like feral beasts.
Americans are overweight, so I understand why you want the toilet paper.
No, but in all seriousness, I don't know how you actually solve for this problem.
What I can say to all of you who've been watching my content, and calmly and rationally went to Costco, Sam's Club, Walmart, whatever, bought some supplies, congratulations on getting in earlier than everyone else, because now limits are being put in place.
The Hill reports.
What goes first in a coronavirus outbreak?
In stores across the world, it's toilet paper, sanitizer, and face masks.
I also learned recently, I want to be, fact check me on this one, but I saw something posted, it was just on Reddit, that hand sanitizer actually can help with the coronavirus, so keep that in mind.
As shelves empty out faster than they can be restocked, grocery stores are starting to limit individual purchases.
Due to high demand and to support all customers, we will be limiting the number of sanitation, cold, and flu-related products to five each per order.
Your order may be modified at time of pick-up or delivery.
Home Depot is limiting online purchases of face masks to 10 per customer.
The U.S.
chains are joining a flood of international companies in the U.K., Australia, and elsewhere.
Kohl's Supermarkets is no stranger to panic buying after Australia battled devastating fires in 2019.
Check this out, I love how they're hyper-focused on toilet paper.
Matt Wade says, Demand for toilet paper at Mount Druitt Coals is so high
today, there's a security guard s-
Oh no way, stationed permanently in the toilet pipe- toilet paper aisle.
To monitor the situation.
We are going through a pallet every ten minutes or so.
This is not America.
I was wrong.
That's Australia.
We know what people need.
When the world ends, rest assured you will be able to wipe your butt without question.
Responding on Twitter, the company said they have increased deliveries of popular products, including pantry staples, toilet paper, and healthcare items.
The company is also limiting toilet paper to four packs per customer.
How much toilet paper are y'all buying, man?
Calm down!
I will admit, we went out and stocked up on supplies, but we didn't react like that.
Come on.
I will admit, I ordered some emergency food, but man, people loving them toilet paper.
One Australian newspaper came up with a creative solution.
Printing eight blank pages in a recent edition.
This can't be real.
Is this real?
Oh, no way.
For readers to use when they ran out of toilet paper as the outbreak continues to spread, both people and companies are going to have to get more creative.
This is real.
Australian Paper prints blank pages to help tackle toilet paper shortage.
I love it.
Welcome to the priorities of humanity.
Let it go down in history that in a thousand, two thousand, three thousand years when aliens find the devastation, the ancient remains of American civilization, they will understand how important we thought it was to stock up on toilet paper.
The alien archaeologists will dig up old New York apartments and Australian apartment buildings.
They'll excavate the room and find pallets of toilet paper and say, Strange creatures these human beings were.
But there's this article I have from Vox.
They call it, The Macabre Comfort of Coronavirus Stockpiling Videos.
People are panicking!
And when we panic, we sped.
You betcha!
Man, I love how people were saying I was stupid for advocating ordering supplies, because now, sure enough, a week and a half, two weeks later, what do we get?
Newspapers printing blank pages because of a toilet paper shortage.
Well, I'll admit, I wasn't selling freeze-dried packs of toilet paper, I was advocating for a company that sells emergency food, but hey, you get the point, right?
We can make fun of toilet paper, but the reality is people are rushing to stores and they're buying up medicine, sanitizer, masks, etc.
I hope y'all went to the store early.
And I hope you don't overreact and panic buy like these people are.
Just get your normal supplies, you know what I mean?
Vox writes, It happens every time something terrible seems to be imminent.
People panic and buy stuff that will hopefully help ward off the bad thing, or at least allow them to survive while the bad thing takes place around them.
It's happening now all over the world.
In the face of COVID-19, Target employees in Richmond, Virginia, said crowds have gotten crazier by the day.
Costco, Home Depots, and Whole Foods have sold out of items like bottled water.
Chlorox wipes and hand sanitizer.
Shoppers are stocking up on canned goods, surgical gloves, masks, toilet paper, and long-lasting food staples, like peanut butter and soup, in preparation for the threat of quarantine, as more businesses and schools encourage people who feel sick or have recently traveled to high-risk countries to stay at home.
To be clear, none of these people should be hoarding food and supplies, experts say.
It's a practice that's at best misguided, and at worst, harmful to people like healthcare workers and sick people who actually need them, and yet, when we panic, we spend.
Because every man for themself.
That's what it's all about.
Now, I don't think there's actually a way to solve this problem.
What I can say is I don't think coronavirus is the apocalypse, but I do think it's going to be worse than we will expect.
In which case, when we recover from this, and we will, we are going to have a ton of people with extra supplies.
And good!
To everybody who bought that food supply stuff that I was promoting, I'll say two things.
Thank you, because it really did help support my work and my channel.
And secondly, I'm glad that you will be taking care of yourselves, because the best thing is, you put this stuff away, you never have to worry about it.
I'm not gonna be doing a promo for this company, because, I gotta be honest, I'm not a big fan of doing it in the first place, but I was sincere when I said, I think it's a good idea.
So, in that regard, I'm glad you all were able to take care of yourselves and your family.
I mean that with the utmost sincerity.
They say, I've been, well, the writer says, I've been watching all of it on my phone.
The empty shelves where the tissues were supposed to be.
The pallets of water bottle cases being wheeled away by a single man.
The lines snaking outside stores.
And I sort of can't stop.
On TikTok, the coronavirus hashtag is full of people in the U.S.
and abroad filling grocery carts with applesauce and dried pasta, and two per-person signs in the hand sanitizer aisle.
One guy ended up scoring the last bottle adorned with a sparkly Cinderella.
People are showing off their quarantine stockpiles with the same fervor as they would their Forever 21 clothing hauls.
On YouTube, there are even several coronavirus songs that serve as theme music.
Yikes, man.
This is what I don't get.
I can't get over it.
I'm sorry.
I did not go out and fill up a cart with toilet paper and tons of ridiculous products.
I went to the store as soon as we saw that people were worried, and we did our regular grocery shopping a couple days early.
That was about it.
I do have free, you know, like, it's not freeze-dried, it's like vacuum-sealed dried food.
But I've always had that.
Because I've seen what happens in hurricanes.
I've seen, what, what are they, a tornado in Nashville?
Come on, man!
These people, you, you, you, seriously, I will never understand this.
A couple weeks ago, I said, please have emergency food, because you got your first aid kit and your water.
And people on Twitter started mocking me.
Ha ha ha, Tim is so dumb.
I don't care, you can call me stupid.
I'll be sitting here eating my oatmeal, my mac and cheese, while you're eating bark off the tree.
But what happened?
A massive tornado ripped through Nashville, people lost their lives, businesses were destroyed, and it's a disaster economy.
These things happen.
They happen unexpectedly.
No, it's not funny to watch people stripping shelves of products, because what happens when the disaster does hit?
And when you then allocate supplies, but people got them locked up in their basement, things they're not going to need.
I'm not going to rag on you if you went and bought a year's supply of food.
If you want to be prepared.
That's all you, man.
I understand why.
Because I think there's no shame in ever being prepared for the worst of the worst of the worst.
If I told you you could buy a lottery ticket, and if you win, your life would be destroyed, you wouldn't want it.
But these are real probabilities that affect us every single day.
The possibility that your house burns down, that a storm comes and destroys your property, these things are real.
The odds are astronomical, but it's not odds you want.
So preparing, I get it, it makes sense.
I think there is a rational middle ground where everyone should take care of themselves.
My heart goes out to the people in Nashville.
And hopefully, I'll tell you this, hopefully there were people in Nashville Who saw this story, bought some supplies, and now that they're facing a disaster economy, won't have to go out and rush for supplies.
And that gives slack to the system.
So I'll end by saying this.
Laugh about it all you want.
Mock these people all you want.
We're now seeing limits in stores.
But the people in these areas that have been affected by disasters outside the coronavirus who bought supplies have alleviated the strain on their own system and this will improve and speed up recovery of these places like in Nashville.
Never forget, what happened in Nashville happens often enough.
I wish it didn't, and my heart goes out to the people whose lives were damaged, destroyed, or lost in these storms, but it's a reality, man.
Disasters happen.
I hope you all recognize that the coronavirus is not the most pressing threat.
There are natural disasters that affect us every single day, and we should take the coronavirus seriously.
Wash our hands, take precautions, stack up on supplies.
Don't overreact, though.
Outside of the coronavirus, disasters happen.
Don't let anyone ever shame you into not taking care of yourself.
Because like I said, you'll be kicking back with a bowl of mac and cheese with a smile on your face, a nice two liter of Pepsi or whatever you like to drink.
Water, for me.
And they'll be knocking on your door asking for help.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
For the longest time, Donald Trump has ragged on the fake news.
He had a big feud with fake news journalist Jim Acosta, and I agree with Trump on this one.
Jim Acosta is a grandstander who just wants attention so he can sell a stupid book, but he works for CNN.
So Donald Trump can rag on CNN all day and night, but I gotta admit, At a certain point, I just roll my eyes.
I do.
I get it.
It's fake news.
I agree.
I rag on the media all the time.
They're really dumb people.
Just this morning, we had that viral set.
It was from last night, but this morning, this video's going viral of MSNBC doing math wrong.
Like, basic arithmetic.
So I have disdain and contempt for the media.
But at a certain point, just ragging on them, I just say, yeah, I get it, man.
I get it.
And now, Donald Trump has one-upped the complaints.
He's actually filing a lawsuit.
He's suing CNN over false and defamatory statements seeking millions in damages.
When I first read this, I was kind of rolling my eyes.
I was like, oh, here we go.
Because they always lose these things, right?
Now, Nicholas Sandman, one of the kids from the Lincoln Memorial thing, that whole Covington incident, he recently got a settlement from CNN.
I'm glad that happened.
It's time to stop the fake news.
But a lot of these suits don't really go anywhere.
I read something interesting in the story, though.
Donald Trump just asked for a retraction.
That is completely reasonable.
And guess what CNN said?
No!
They weren't going to do it.
Leaving Trump no choice but to file a lawsuit demanding it.
Well, CNN is now going to have to pony up.
But here's the problem.
CNN, they strive on this stuff.
They love it.
They're not going to come out and say, Donald Trump is attacking the free press.
Oh no, he's suing us.
Well, if he stopped lying, he wouldn't have to.
Let's read the story.
Exclusive from Fox News.
President Trump's re-election campaign filed a libel lawsuit against CNN on Friday for publishing false and defamatory statements about seeking Russia's help in the 2020 election.
The complaint alleges CNN was aware of the falsity at the time it published them, but did so for the intentional purpose of hurting the campaign while misleading its own readers in the process.
The campaign filed a lawsuit against CNN and the preceding suits against the New York Times and the Washington Post to hold the publishers accountable for their reckless false reporting and also to establish the truth.
Senior legal advisor to Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., Jenna Ellis, told Fox News.
Fox News obtained the complaint, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, where CNN is located.
It states in part that CNN claimed Trump's campaign assessed the potential risks and benefits of again, seeking Russia's help in 2020, and has decided to leave that option on the table.
CNN has been incessantly pushing Russiagate, as have many of these other fake news journalists.
Now they want to claim, I've seen the activists say, that Donald Trump is only doing this for his re-election campaign to generate press and attention, to show that he's fighting back against the smears, or to discredit the honest reporting of the noble journalist.
But I think it's fair to say something else.
It really does hurt Trump's campaign, and he needs to fight back.
Now I'm gonna stop here and do something I don't normally do, but I have to give a shout-out to Virtual Shield, because they help support my channel.
They're one of the first sponsors I've ever had, and they've always been there for me.
As many of you know, demonetization is a legit problem, so I'm extremely grateful.
Virtual Shield is a VPN.
It's a virtual private network service.
The easiest way to explain what they do is they provide a basic level of security for you while you're on the internet.
You can go to the website, hidewithtim.com, link is in the description below, and get 30% off, just $3.49 per month.
I'm not a big sponsorship guy.
I produce, you know, six or so videos every single day.
I rarely do this, but I really do owe a bit of gratitude to Virtual Shield.
I think it's a good service.
VPNs can be great.
The easiest way to explain it is, You lock your door every day.
You don't really expect someone to break in, but it is basic security.
It can stop hackers who are trying to steal your data, people snooping to an extent, nefarious government actors.
I don't want to be too, you know, over the top with it.
The simple thing is, there's a variety of things you can get by having simple security.
Do you really expect someone to try and sneak in through your window?
No, but you do lock it, right?
Go to hidewithtim.com, check out VirtualShield.
Again, my eternal gratitude for them.
When I first started my YouTube channel, you know, a couple years ago, I wasn't getting a lot of traffic and they were there and helped me, you know, continue to grow through, you know, being a sponsor for the channel.
So again, hidewithtim.com if you're interested in a VPN service.
Let's get back to the story.
Fox News says, The complaint said that CNN was well aware the statements were false because there was an extensive record of statements from the campaign and the administration expressly disavowing any intention to seek Russian assistance, but promoted the claim anyway.
The complaint said that Trump's legal team sent CNN a request to retract and apologize last month, but CNN executives refused.
The Trump campaign now seeks millions of dollars through litigation.
They can argue that Trump is just trying to bolster his chances with this, you know, symbolic attack.
They say, I saw one guy post on Twitter, it's gonna fail, it's a waste of time, all that stuff.
But what's the alternative?
Just let the media lie about you all the time?
Russiagate was three years of complete and utter bunk nonsense, and we are still Reaping the rewards of that smear campaign.
Democrats are still saying Russia, Russia, Russia.
They're even smearing Bernie Sanders over it.
So I'll tell you what, if you find that you're a Bernie Sanders supporter, where you at?
Get on board with this, man.
I did a segment earlier today.
The New York Times tried claiming that Bernie was an asset of the Soviet Union.
They were using him as propaganda.
I am sick of this ridiculous BS.
So good, good on you, Donald Trump.
Sue them.
I don't know if he'll win.
I hope he does.
I'm tired of it, man.
We know it's fake.
We know it's a lie.
The investigation showed nothing.
Look, I know Trump's not a saint.
No one thinks he's—well, some people think he's perfect, but he's not.
I wouldn't call him squeaky clean.
I wouldn't call him clean.
But I would say he's not an asset of Russia, nor is Bernie Sanders, nor is Tulsi Gabbard.
I'm just really, really sick of this.
But you've got people who eat this stuff up, it gets ratings for these networks, and they play this game.
The only thing that really bothers me about this lawsuit is that CNN's gonna love it.
They're gonna revel in it.
They're gonna say the president is coming after good, honest, hard-working journalism.
No, he's going after liars, deceivers, people who are desperate to sell ads and will squeeze every last drop of Russia fake news to manipulate the stupid pink hat resistance people into watching cable TV because their ratings are crashing.
They know the Trump bump.
They love it.
The ratings were going down.
And since Donald Trump, their ratings have bumped up.
Everyone's has, to a certain degree, because they love it.
They can't get enough of it.
The network used to cover stuff.
They used to go on the ground.
Now what is it?
Panel after panel.
In fact, I think they actually cited Project Veritas in this.
Let me read a little bit more.
The campaign, therefore, was left with no alternative but to file this lawsuit to publicly establish the truth, properly inform CNN readers and audience, and the rest of the world, of the true facts, and seek appropriate remedies for the harm caused by CNN's false reporting and failure to retract and apologize for it.
CNN did not immediately respond to our request for comment.
They say that Trump has long feuded with CNN and regularly refers to the network as fake news.
Ironically, CNN president Jeff Zucker helped increase Trump's fame when he greenlit The Apprentice while overseeing NBC years before Trump entered the world of politics.
But the two have since had a public falling out.
The article referenced by the complaint was published on CNN June 13, 2019.
Larry Noble's CNN story headlined, Soliciting dirt on your opponents from a foreign government is a crime.
Mueller should have charged Trump campaign officials with it, was labeled as an opinion piece, and featured a disclaimer that Nobel is a CNN contributor, but the commentary is solely his own view.
However, the piece states that Trump's campaign assessed the potential risks and benefits of again seeking Russia's help in 2020, and has decided to leave that option on the table as a fact, and was still on CNN's website as of Friday afternoon.
The defamatory article claims, among other things, that the campaign assessed the potential risks.
We read that.
The defamatory article does not cite to any facts or reasoning in support of this claim.
The defamatory article is false.
The complaint notes that the Trump campaign has repeatedly and openly disclaimed any intention to seek Russian involvement in the 2020 election, and examples of this are too numerous to fully enumerate.
Trump recently filed similar lawsuits against the New York Times and the Washington Post, and good.
The New York Times today, I believe it was this morning, claimed that in documents Bernie Sanders was being used as a Russian asset for propaganda.
I'm sorry, Soviet Union, literally the Soviet Union.
Are we really doing this?
You know what really frustrates me?
That the Bernie Sanders supporters are only now getting on the fake news train when Trump has been screaming it nonstop for years.
They love to say that Trump was attacking the press and to play this game and join the resistance up until the establishment came for Bernie Sanders.
And I warned them.
I did.
I said, you realize they stopped Bernie in 2016?
They will stop him again.
They will smear him.
They will lie about him.
They will defame him.
It will be lies, lies, lies.
And what happened?
Here we go.
New York Times.
Bernie Sanders in 1988.
Soviets were claiming he was their asset.
Blah blah blah.
Why didn't you come out?
in 2016 and call out the nonsense.
I'll tell you who did.
Glenn Greenwald.
Seems to be pro-Bernie.
I don't want to say he is, but he is a leftist.
Aaron Maté.
People like Michael Tracy.
There have absolutely been progressive voices calling out the insane Russian nonsense and the fake news.
And to them, you have my respect.
But there are many resistance types who are, you know, on board for Bernie, who said nothing, or who agreed with the fake news narrative.
And now they have turned that cannon on you.
You should get behind Trump in this measure.
Trump is calling them out over the Russia smears, the same smears they're using against Tulsi and Bernie.
See, here's the thing.
Before they smeared Tulsi, I called it out.
You know why?
I'm not a moron.
I knew what they were going to do, and yes, they did it.
Jill Stein, Tulsi Gabbard, Bernie Sanders.
This is why you don't let them play games.
When you let them cheat, rest assured they will cheat against you.
These people don't like you.
They are the elites.
They are the candidates of the massive corporations, the credit card companies, the oil industry, etc.
I'm not saying Republicans are innocent.
I'm saying the establishment Democrats, the people who represent Goldman Sachs, big banks and financial interests, do not care about you.
They never will.
But of course, so long as they scream Orange Man bad enough, you will sit by while the media lies to your face.
And then you are in for a rude awakening, when they finally come with a bucket of cold water, throw it in your face, and call your candidate a Russian asset.
So I look forward to seeing how this plays out.
They say, uh, the complaint story ends.
The complaint said CNN never reached out for comment or verification before publishing the defamatory article.
Trump's legal team is seeking a trial by jury and punitive damages in the millions of dollars as a result.
CNN's actions show willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, and that entire want of care, which raises a presumption of conscious indifference to the consequences.
And accordingly, the campaign is entitled to an award of punitive damages against CNN.
We'll see what happens.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up tomorrow at 10 a.m.
