Bernie Sanders QUITS, Supporters Declare WAR On Democrats As Trump Calls On Them To Join Republicans
Bernie Sanders QUITS, Supporters Declare WAR On Democrats As Trump Calls On Them To Join Republicans. Bernie Sanders has officially ended his campaign for the President of the United States of America.He has conceded that he would not be able to defeat Joe Biden and would thus suspend his campaign. But many of his supporters, progressives and far leftists, are livid. They are furious that even though Joe Biden is not viable the DNC and Democratic establishment supported him to run against Trump.Trump will absolutely crush Biden and everyone knows it. For what reason did Democrats think he would be a good idea?Perhaps the Democrats just don't want an outsider like Bernie to take the reigns of the party.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Bernie Sanders has officially suspended his presidential campaign.
And many people saw this coming.
I think, to be fair, everybody knew it was coming sooner or later because the math was not on Bernie's side.
Now, Bernie's supporters wanted him to hang on to the very last moment in a desperate bid to try and win the Democratic nomination.
But the DNC and the establishment are all in for Joe Biden.
Which everyone basically recognizes as insane, except for a fringe small sect of weird pro-Biden establishment types who seem to think that even though Joe Biden is not all with it, he could stand up to Donald Trump in November.
With Bernie Sanders dropping out, Donald Trump is all but ensured a re-election victory.
We just saw it, man.
Did you see Donald Trump commenting on that Joe Biden tweet?
A journalist asked Trump, how do you feel about this Biden tweet?
And Trump said, Biden didn't write that.
And Biden's not even watching this press briefing.
And even if he is, he wouldn't understand it.
Bernie and Trump, both of their bases recognize Joe Biden is not a viable option.
Which brings me to the main subject of the story.
Will Joe Biden actually get support And the answer is obviously no.
Joe Rogan recently said on his podcast he would rather vote for Donald Trump than Joe Biden.
Because anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that Joe Biden isn't functioning anymore.
Look, you can be nice to the guy, you can respect the guy for his career, and a lot of the progressives do not.
But the guy's just not with it.
I've talked about Bernie Sanders' policies, I don't agree, but at least Bernie Sanders can form sentences.
I mean, look, you can have a real debate between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump on trade.
Even Donald Trump has expressed in the past, there was a leaked audio, where he said he was concerned about Bernie the most, because Bernie talks big on trade.
Well, Bernie Sanders made the mistake of trying to pander to many woke activists over the past year and a half or so, which I believe really hurt him.
But Joe Biden just is not viable in terms of actually being a president.
We'll see how things play out.
But the big concern right now is with the more mainstream Bernie Sanders progressives kind of declaring war on the DNC.
I mean, they are livid.
They're saying don't vote.
I kid you not.
Hashtag never Biden.
People on Twitter saying I encourage you not to vote, which is crazy.
I mean, vote for somebody, I guess.
But you don't have to.
But they're absolutely taking the war to the Democratic establishment.
Bernie or bust is alive and well.
And around 10% of, I believe it was around 10% of Democrats switched for Donald Trump.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
That's not the number.
It was around 9 to 10 million Democrats voted for Donald Trump in 2016.
And it was 12 to 18% of Bernie Sanders supporters who voted for Donald Trump.
Like I mentioned with Joe Rogan, I think it's very likely we're going to see some Bernie or bust individuals vote for Trump out of spite.
But there's even one small account called Bernie or else.
What does that mean?
Well, as we've seen in the past, there is a real fear that Bernie Sanders supporters get violent.
I mean, there's the DNC is being postponed.
We'll see how things play out.
But there was a very real fear of rioting.
And now you have people active, you know, Bernie Sanders himself had to condemn.
The violence that it erupted in 2016.
But we've already seen it from the Veritas video leak.
So we'll go through all of this.
Will we see widespread protest violence?
I think so.
Absolutely.
Because I was there at the DNC in 2016.
I saw how the left reacted to what Hillary Clinton and the DNC had done to Bernie Sanders.
And now here we are.
You think Joe Biden is a better bet?
I think it's clear to everybody the DNC would rather lose to Trump than let Bernie Sanders win.
And while many Trump supporters would probably agree that they would not want Bernie Sanders, how do you think that makes Bernie Sanders supporters feel that Bernie actually can think straight?
And even look, even if you think he has bad ideas, the dude could actually talk about stuff.
Joe Biden is a joke, an absolute joke.
It is a practical joke.
Being made upon all of the Bernie supporters.
Not only is the DNC saying, you can't win, we won't let you, but we're gonna choose the most absurd candidate to smack you down with to make sure you know that we will absolutely burn this to the ground before we let you win.
And that's what's happening.
Let's read the news.
Sanders drops out of the presidential race, and then I'm quickly going to show you all the tweets from the supporters.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash Donut if you'd like to support my work.
There are several ways you can give.
Physical address.
There's a PayPal location.
But the best thing you can do is just share this video.
I'm sure most people will have heard because it's a major national trend, but we're going to talk about Bernie supporters kind of going nuclear.
We'll just read a little bit about this from The Hill because I think we get it.
Bernie Sanders is out.
Hit that like button and hit the notification bell if you want to make sure to get videos
from me every day.
We'll just read a little bit about this from the Hill because I think we get it.
Bernie Sanders is out.
I'm more interested in what the aftermath is, but the Hill reports,
Senator Sanders suspended his presidential bid on Wednesday, ending a campaign that once
appeared on track to dominate the Democratic nominating contest, but that quickly lost
Sanders began reevaluating his campaign after a string of primary losses last month.
But he continued his push for the nomination for weeks before, ultimately telling his staff in a conference call on Wednesday morning that he had decided to drop out of the race.
His decision to suspend his campaign effectively paves the way for former Vice President Joe Biden to claim the Democratic presidential nomination.
I bring you now to Twitter.
Take a look at this.
Dem exit is trending.
Wow.
Democratic Party, the DNC, Biden, Bernie.
1.1 million tweets for Bernie, but Dem exit, only about 9,500.
Hey, people are actually talking about quitting the Democratic Party over this.
They're going to war.
Hey, good for them.
Like I said, man, insult to injury.
You want to smack Bernie Sanders down, DNC?
You want to make sure?
You know what they did?
They put up Joe Biden of all people.
Now that is insult to injury.
We can see here.
These are just random tweets.
This guy says, I am never voting for Biden.
Another person says, Trump on Biden.
Let's see here.
I don't vote for Biden.
I can't even read that.
I will never support Joe Biden.
I have no empathy for Joe Biden.
Hashtag never Biden.
Hashtag never Biden.
Pass it on.
These people are not going to vote for Joe Biden.
And you know why?
Because Joe Biden, first of all, has nothing in agreement with any of these people.
What don't the Democrats understand?
The progressive wing is not your traditional Democratic Party.
They agree on very, very little.
Now, Joe Biden has tried to court them with his, you know, open borders policy stances.
And I don't mean like complete.
I mean, like there are some aspects of his policies proposed that are decently in the open borders spectrum.
But it's not enough.
You can't win these people over this way.
It's all or nothing.
And I'll be honest with you, even Bernie Sanders wasn't enough for them.
Bernie's, what was he saying, not me us?
Many of these people don't necessarily even agree with Bernie on how he behaves.
Many are upset that he's continually endorsed or supported the mainstream establishment.
And Bernie is just the best that they could get.
Trump on Joe Biden.
I love this story.
It's when he said that Joe Biden couldn't understand what was even going on.
It's absolutely incredible.
Here's a question.
Let me just read what he said.
Donald Trump is not responsible for the virus, but he is responsible for failing to prepare.
How do you respond?
Trump said he didn't write that.
That was done by a Democrat operative.
He is probably not even watching right now.
And if he is, he doesn't understand what he is watching.
Yeah, Trump nuked Biden, but we all get it, man.
Even Bernie Sanders supporters understand just how ridiculous it is to try and make Biden the candidate.
Here we have this story from RealClearPolitics.
Trump wasn't the first to wonder about Biden's mental acuity.
Of course he wasn't.
So many people were saying the same thing.
Well Donald Trump has responded by calling on Bernie voters, supporters, to go Republican.
I'll tell you what, have you seen where Donald Trump entertained the possibility of Medicare for All?
I laughed so hard at this.
And the Bernie people, the Bernie populists were laughing too.
Not all of them.
But Trump said that it's not fair that there are 30 million people uninsured and he was, and there was potentially, there was some hinting at expanding Medicare or, you know, Medicare for all those who are uninsured.
Joe Biden, on the other hand, came out hard against it.
It's almost like Trump pulled a bait and switch.
Yeah, you know, I'm opposed to it.
Then Biden says, me too.
And Trump goes, actually, I'm for it.
So you get all these populists who are now looking at Trump confused, like, is he really going to do this?
Putting Trump just a little bit to the left of where Biden is on this.
Well, Donald Trump tweeted, Bernie Sanders is out.
Thank you to Elizabeth Warren.
If not for her, Bernie would have won almost every state on Super Tuesday.
This ended just like the Democrats and the DNC wanted.
Same as the crooked Hillary fiasco.
The Bernie people should come to the Republican Party.
Trade.
Brandon Strzok of the WalkAway campaign responding, Hey Bernie supporters, ready to walk away?
Yes, cuz we just saw hashtag DemExit trending nationally.
Blair White says they can come, but they need to leave the communism on the other side.
Hear, hear.
Jimmy Dore.
Jimmy Dore's awesome, by the way.
He's a progressive YouTuber, very critical to Democrats.
And he tweeted, Trump willing to tell a truth that MSNBC isn't, in response to what Trump said.
If not for Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders would have done substantially better.
So listen, man, you're bringing the Trump people and the Bernie people together.
Now, you're not going to get them on policy, you're not going to get them on a lot of cultural issues, but you will get them on their hatred for you.
So, thanks for providing that common enemy.
Scott Adams, Dilbert cartoonist and commentator personality, says, it's official, Trump is running unopposed.
Yeah.
Yeah, Scott, you nailed it.
Trump is running unopposed.
But I got more tweets for you.
This one was particularly interesting to me.
It's at Bernie or Else.
I don't know who this person is.
I don't know.
Some people are accusing them of being a plant or Russian propaganda.
No, I believe it.
I believe there are many people who believe Bernie or Else.
They responded to Andrew Yang, who said, Bernie Sanders is an effing hero.
Let's come together and beat this guy.
Yeah, a bunch of people said that this ain't it, Andrew.
You know, I think Yang's a cool guy.
Nah.
You know, Yang got a ton of progressive supporters because he had that UBI policy, the freedom dividend.
Coming out now and saying, get behind Biden.
You know what?
Look, Biden is a worse candidate than Donald Trump.
For one reason.
Policy does not matter.
I don't know how many times I need to say it, but Biden is just not a viable entity.
Of course, The Atlantic wrote that.
You remember when I talked about that Atlantic article that said, Joe Biden, just stay alive.
Well, Bernie or Else has a website.
It literally called Bernie or Else.
Not Bernie or Bust.
They said, we've graduated.
We're Bernie or Else.
Or else what?
I mean, they might come out and get a little raucous, if you know what I mean.
Here's what they write.
It was Bernie or Bust, now it's Bernie or Else.
Establishment Democrats can't defeat Trump without us.
1,992 have pledged their support to vote for the Democratic nominee, if it's Bernie Sanders.
And there are a bunch of comments from people who have signed this pledge.
I can't read them, because these people are very angry.
But yeah, they exist.
It's not a very, very large number, but...
The sentiment does exist.
Kyle Kalinske, famous progressive YouTube personality, responded to Andrew Yang saying, no.
When Yang said, let's get together and win, he just said straight up, no.
Greg Hausch, who is a moderately well-known activist associated with the anonymous movement, tweeted, In response to Andrew Yang.
If you want Trump out, you're going to have to find a way to reach us.
There is a percentage of the American population large enough to count as real numbers on a
national poll that will never be okay with Joe Biden. He is not a good man. If you want Trump
out, you're going to have to find a way to reach us. They're not going to be able to
cigar and jetty of the hills rising tweets. The Democrats under Joe Biden are now the party of
left cultural elites, suburbanites and Wall Street, while conning traditional voting bases
into sticking with them.
The right now definitively has the opportunity to embrace national populism and cement their power.
Imagine what will happen.
If Trump convinces his base to compromise on a few things with the progressive left, with a common enemy like the DNC establishment, you might actually see a bunch of people just get on board with Trump.
Many, many won't.
The overwhelming majority would not.
But you heard it from Joe Rogan.
Joe Rogan is the canary in the coal mine.
Joe Rogan put the final nail in Biden's coffin.
This is what CCN writes.
Joe Rogan said what many Bernie Sanders supporters are thinking.
He won't vote for Joe Biden.
He'll probably end up voting for Trump.
I love it.
This is the best timeline ever.
You know, part of me wants to believe in this grand conspiracy the Democrats secretly do want Trump.
That's right, they love the guy.
Because how could they make so many mistakes?
It's actually mind-blowing to me how terrible they are at what they do.
CCN writes, Joe Rogan, who previously backed Bernie Sanders, said Friday he'd vote for Trump over likely Democrat candidate Joe Biden.
Okay, Joe Rogan, recently backed Sanders, said Friday he'd vote for Trump over Biden.
While polls still show Biden as the favorite to win, Rogan's support has all but ended Joe Biden's bid for the White House.
They mention the Joe Rogan effect.
Millions of Americans tune into Rogan's podcast, giving the comedian a huge platform with which to dismantle Biden.
His guest during the episode was mathematician and economist Eric Weinstein, who also said he wouldn't vote for Biden, but stopped short of throwing his support behind Trump.
This is the important context here.
It's not just about Rogan.
It's about Eric as well.
Famed intellectual dark web name creator.
He won't vote for either.
This is what you're going to see.
The Bernie people are out.
They're not going to vote for this guy.
But some of them will.
Which means you're going to end up with two camps.
Trump gaining more support and Biden straight up losing massive support.
I disagree.
I think Ocasio-Cortez will get behind Biden.
I really do.
She's been trying to play mainstream.
Now this is what gets important.
will get behind Biden. I really do. She's been trying to play mainstream. Vox writes,
Joe Biden will have a very hard time winning over the Bernie sphere. The problem isn't
his platform. It's that he's not trusted over the Washington times. They say, quote, extreme
action project Veritas on earth's more radical Bernie Sanders staffers. Now this is what gets
important. It's the important context. Bernie supporters.
You're gonna have to bear with me on this one if you're watching, cause I know a bunch are
going to get mad. They're going to say we are not violent.
You know all these things.
I'll tell you what We heard it straight from the supporters.
You want to pretend like they're talking big.
That's fine.
But we've seen how some of these people, the Antifa people, go around and get violent.
I'm not here to talk about other groups.
I'm talking about Bernie Sanders dropping out.
And I'm talking about people threatening.
I mean, people were saying that they were going to go to Milwaukee and they were going to burn it down.
So the DNC is being postponed.
We'll see how things go.
Joe Biden is saying he wants a virtual DNC or whatever.
Fine.
We get it, Joe.
You're the nominee.
But I was there at the DNC in 2016, and I saw these people protest.
Did these people go and protest the RNC, the Republican National Convention?
Nope.
There was a tiny, tiny handful of protesters there, but not really anything interesting.
At the DNC, however, it was strange to see many of the American left, progressives, protesting the Democrats, because the Democrats had stolen their real opportunity.
For the longest time, many of these people are disenfranchised, and now Bernie Sanders comes along, and they feel like this is their opportunity to actually get a candidate who would support them.
What happens?
Hillary Clinton swoops in, steals the show, and people were trying to knock down barriers, jump fences.
There were thousands of people there, none of them.
Oh, I should say a very, very tiny, tiny few, a dozen, a couple dozen, at the Republican convention, just hanging out.
So will they get violent now?
I think it's an interesting question, it's a fair point.
Considering that we've seen, and not all of them, you know, obviously, I just showed you people like Jimmy Dore and Kyle Klinsky, of course they're not.
Of course they're, you know, regular people who have political opinions and do shows, but there are a lot of people who are far left who have now seen their last opportunity wash away.
Project Veritas did a series of exposés.
They interviewed Bernie Sanders staffers and some of them said, this might be our last resort.
That's exactly how they framed it.
Some of them said, even if Bernie wins, they may need to take more extreme action.
What do you think they're going to do now that Bernie is out?
And this is why I think that they're not necessarily here for Bernie.
They were willing to accept Bernie Sanders as good enough for now.
Because Bernie Sanders has absolutely played to the mainstream.
And now that Bernie is out, Well I think now we're going to see a real backlash.
ABC News says Democratic backlash after Sanders supporters' violence in Nevada.
Leaders of the party are speaking out about the violence.
This is 2016.
You wanna pretend like it's not real.
I'm sure there are a lot of Bernie supporters who are gonna say, no, no, no, it's not true, Tim, you're wrong, you're biased.
Look, man, I was there in San Jose when they were beating people up outside of the Trump rally.
These were Bernie Sanders supporters.
Nobody wanted to believe me.
They got mad when I said it, when I did.
But I tweeted, the people who were there fighting and chasing and hitting people, they were Bernie supporters.
And many people said, Tim, how do you know they're Bernie supporters?
Were they walking around saying they voted for Bernie?
And I was like, yes!
Yes, they were walking around saying they were supporting Bernie Sanders.
Some were wearing shirts saying Bernie Sanders.
Some had signs.
And then the crowd got violent, were spitting on people, hitting people, punching people in the face.
It got violent.
And since then, we've seen the escalation of Antifa.
Many more people joining up and getting violent.
And there's a real possibility we see more.
Secular Talk, Kyle Kulinski says, If Biden loses, the left will be blamed.
If he wins, the left will get zero credit.
Because it's an abusive game and you won't be taken seriously until you demand it in clear and inflexible terms.
I'm not, you know, Kyle Kulinski brings up a good point, but I feel like there's going to be some people who take this as, we must take a stand no matter what.
Kyle's basically making the point that no matter what they do, they're going to lose because the establishment doesn't want them to win.
If this is the case, maybe I'm misinterpreting what Kyle says, so forgive me if I'm getting it wrong, but what do you think progressives are going to do now that they think there's no hope?
Do you think they're just going to be like, okay, I'm done with politics?
Or do you think that they're going to now embrace what many others have embraced in the past?
Getting violent and fighting and demanding revolution.
I mean, Bernie called for revolution, right?
Do these people no longer want the revolution?
They do.
And it was just taken from them.
So now I can only imagine they're gonna be, you know, being backed into a corner.
They'll get more aggressive.
Let's get real, though.
Donald Trump just won.
It's over.
Don't even bother trying to argue with me about it.
Bernie supporters and Trump supporters probably both already acknowledge it is done.
It is a done deal.
Trump is going to landslide in November for so many different reasons.
The economy was doing really, really great up until the pandemic.
Even in the pandemic, most people seem to agree with the president and support his actions.
And Joe Biden just literally is not a candidate.
He's literally nobody.
I do mean it.
He didn't say anything.
He's late to the party.
He can't speak properly.
In fact, the Democrats would do better if they ran a mannequin.
Okay, I'm being a bit facetious, but if the Democrats ran somebody who didn't say a single word, that person would probably do better.
What's the saying?
It's better to remain quiet and appear stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Joe Biden removes all doubt all day, every day.
If Joe Biden just sat there smiling and said, I'm going to win, people would be like, I'll vote for that guy.
Instead, he starts talking about nonsense and it's just gibberish.
Some of these tweets are hilarious.
Many progressives now are tweeting about their perceived Trump debate with Biden.
And it's Trump saying, I'm going to do great for this country.
It's going to be huge.
You're going to love it.
And then Joe Biden says, mumble, sure, mumble, reelect Trump, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Just gibberish.
Just nonsensical gibberish.
Here we have a poll.
National Review.
Americans prefer Trump's leadership to Biden's during coronavirus response.
A plurality of Americans prefer the leadership of Trump to that of former Vice President Joe Biden amid the coronavirus pandemic, according to a Politico morning consult poll released Wednesday.
This just came out.
Of all of the days for Bernie Sanders to drop out, Bernie himself is getting a bit, he's getting a little bit of heat.
But it's not super, it's not really bad.
People are saying like, thank you for doing what you did, but you should not have dropped out.
I also think Bernie shouldn't have dropped out.
I'm not saying I like the guy's policies, but I think there's something very, very wrong with this country if we are going to be seeing Donald Trump up against Joe Biden.
For the past four years, more, six years, with Hillary Clinton and now Joe Biden, it's clear that there isn't a Democratic Party.
It's just the Republicans at this point.
I get it that you've got House Democrats having the majority, but I feel like that was a last-ditch effort by some people who are looking for an alternative.
But there's no cohesive alternative anymore.
There's no viable alternative.
You've got Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Schumer, just investigation, investigation, investigation.
They're not getting anything done.
They're not doing anything.
Joe Biden is just not a viable candidate.
Trump has done things, whether you like it or not, he has done things.
And now with the coronavirus, people agree with it.
What do the Democrats have to offer?
Absolutely nothing.
They could have had Bernie Sanders.
And I'm not saying Bernie Sanders is perfect.
I'm not saying Bernie Sanders' policies make sense.
I personally disagree with him.
But think about the options.
A Bernie candidate who came out and said, I would like to give Medicare for all.
Trump saying, you know, I think it's unfair, maybe, but it's probably too expensive.
Versus Joe Biden.
Blah, blah, yada, blah, mumble, mumble, mumble.
People might look at Bernie Sanders and say he's wrong.
People might look at him and say, I like the idea.
That would have been a real candidate.
Instead, you're going to get a losing Joe Biden.
So we'll see how things end up playing out, but it's clear.
I think Bernie Sanders supporters are not done.
I think it's not so much about violence or disruption.
I think it's about revenge, retribution, whatever you want to call it.
The Wall Street Journal says Bernie Sanders allies aim to keep shaking up the Democratic Party.
Supporters of Vermont Senator acknowledge he is unlikely to win the presidential nomination, but they say he's no longer just a lone voice.
I'm willing to bet that many of these Bernie people and far leftists and progressives, I don't think they're going to be mad at Trump about this.
Trump's minding his own business.
They don't have to like him.
But I think they're going to see the DNC as someone who's personally slighted them.
And I think you're going to see a lot of anger directed at them, and that's what we saw in 2016.
We'll see how it plays out.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6pm.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see you all then.
There is going to be some kind of reckoning in this country as it pertains to illegal immigrants following the coronavirus pandemic.
And the simplest reason is that we are all being told to sacrifice.
Our jobs have been destroyed.
Many people will never get their jobs back.
Our hospitals are overcrowded so much so that they're sending in naval hospital vessels,
big ships to the east and west coasts to help accommodate these hospitals that are being
overcrowded due to the massive influx of COVID patients.
Yet, at the same time, we are seeing these hospitals like in New York City guarantee
access to illegal immigrants.
First and foremost, I must stress is a moral imperative for us to save the lives of any
human being, including illegal immigrants.
It's a rock and a hard place for sure, and these hospitals need to help them.
If not just for the fact that they are human beings who deserve to have their lives saved, of course, we must protect all life.
It's also because we want to prevent the spread of disease, and that means everybody must be treated effectively.
But it doesn't mean people in this country are gonna be happy about it.
And there is a potential that if it gets really, really bad, and things are, we got good news, I mean, it looks like, at least in New York, the curve has been bent, the peak has been shifted, the infection rates are going down, and this is what we expected to see a couple weeks on.
If we didn't do the lockdown, it'd be getting worse and worse.
So, right now we're being told to sacrifice.
At the same time, there are people who have come into this country illegally who are getting access to these benefits, so there will be some kind of reckoning, I believe.
California.
California governor considers aid for immigrants amid virus.
California in the past granted access to their healthcare system to illegal immigrants under the age of 25, and there are other benefits involved.
In Chicago, Mayor, I believe Lori Lightfoot is her name, has used an executive decree, an executive order, guaranteeing that illegal immigrants will get access to relief packages.
And of course, in the media, they're saying like, oh, but what about the undocumented workers?
There was a story last week about a couple trucks disguised as construction crews carrying illegal immigrants into this country.
And when Customs and Border Protection started, you know, tried to flag them down, they opened fire on law enforcement.
These are the people that are coming in now.
They're not all, like Trump mentioned, you know, he was heavily criticized for saying, you know, Mexico is not sending their best.
Well, I can't tell you who's being sent and who's coming, and it's not even Mexico.
Many of these people are coming from Guatemala and Honduras.
But I will tell you this.
You do need to consider, some of the people who come are really bad people, and they're opening fire on CBP, which we need.
And I'll also remind you that Bernie Sanders himself has stated, even this, I think it was just last year, maybe even this year, That an influx of illegal immigrant workers will depress wages for the working class and low-skilled labor.
Perhaps one of the reasons why unemployment was going down so much and wages were increasing is because Trump took a very hard stance against illegal immigration.
Yet in certain places like California and Illinois and New York, they will keep expanding benefits to non-citizens.
The problem is, resources are finite.
We are not necessarily overpopulated in this world.
As many people would argue, we are.
Perhaps we are.
We've got plastic islands, you know, the gyres in the oceans.
We've got plastic bits washing up on shores, a lot of trash.
And I'm not saying it's from the U.S., but we do have pollution problems.
So there are things to consider in ocean acidification and carbon emissions and all these things that humans contribute to.
However, humans could disperse and live in more rural areas, but many don't want to.
What we're doing is we're concentrating in these big cities, and people just want to live there.
So New York's population density is like 28,000 people per square mile.
That's absolutely ridiculous.
So whether or not on Earth we are overpopulated, some would argue we are, some would argue we aren't, or we're close to, in cities. Seems like we definitely are. And one of the
results of that is disease. Look up any scientific research on the effects of overpopulation on
animal populations, and they'll say that as more and more deer or whatever animal start inhabiting
closer quarters, the likelihood of disease spread starts increasing, which is why it's no
surprise to see New York being so hard hit.
I'm not trying to equate humans to animals, but humans are a life form on this planet in very similar ways.
The reason I'm not is because we have medical technology.
I get it.
Deers can't go to the hospital and they don't have quarantine measures.
But humans are not completely removed from the ecosystem.
We're very much a part of it.
So yes, when we start jamming people into these cities, don't be surprised when diseases emerge.
But then when you start saying, anyone can come, and you start, you know, the cities are already filled to the brim with people, you're now offering up aid to people, you're incentivizing this behavior.
And yes, I will remind you that some of these people come in trucks and open fire on our law enforcement.
They're not all bad.
Okay, but the issue is that we can't allow criminals to come in, that's for sure.
I'm not saying most of them are criminals or anything like that.
You know, I understand people screech, but I think you have this very naive, pie-in-the-sky, rainbow-world view of immigration, and that's why you'll look at some of these news outlets and politicians where they conflate immigrant and illegal immigrant.
There's a big difference between a dude who comes in a construction truck opening fire, or runs across the border and wanders through the desert and gets their kids killed, and somebody who fills out the paperwork, waits in line, smiles and gives a handshake to CBP or whoever's at the border, and then when they're able to come in, they can come in.
Immigrants wait in line because we are a nation of immigrants.
We do allow immigration much more than any other country.
But some people want to jump the line.
And those people come here relatively recently and then say, can we get access to these benefits?
So what do you think is going to happen?
When you have somebody who lives in Guatemala or Honduras with a low GDP, they don't make a lot of money, and you're seeing now California says, we're going to give aid to non-citizens.
They could just come right now and be like, oh yeah, I'm here, give me money.
And they likely will.
Or they can come here and get access to our hospitals.
Now again, I think we should actually save as many lives as possible.
But you also need to realize that resources are finite.
I say it all the time, but it's true.
So when you do this and you incentivize this behavior, it's on you.
Let's read, otherwise I'll just keep ranting, but I got a bunch of stories for you.
And before we go on, I will also say, Dreamers, in my opinion, DACA recipients, I think, should absolutely be receiving benefits.
There's a big difference between someone who came here, you know, in the past six months, you know, and somebody who came here as a kid, doesn't remember anything.
But there's nuance to the argument.
Let's read the story from the Daily Herald.
Governor Gavin Newsom said Tuesday he is working with the legislature on an economic stimulus package for immigrants in the country illegally, and others not covered by the federal stimulus package approved by Congress.
The federal government is dividing up about $30 billion to roughly 14 million Californian households this month, part of the Federal CARES Act.
But the checks, $1,200 per adult earning less than $75,000, and $2,400 per couple, only go to those who file their taxes using a social security number.
Which makes sense.
Because this is going to drive up, it's going to devalue the dollar.
The easiest way to explain this is we're borrowing from ourselves in the future.
If you have a savings, this is bad news for you.
We're just dumping and printing money.
It's not going to make anything.
It's just going to give people access to buying things, but it will cause serious problems.
We're doing it because it's an emergency.
For the people, you know, we want to keep our economy going, but for the people who are just coming here in recent history and then getting our benefits, they are adding drag to our system and it's already under, you know, duress.
Those who use an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, or ITIN, including most living in the country illegally are excluded.
The $2.2 trillion federal aid package also includes money to boost unemployment benefits by an extra $600 per week, money also available to people living in the country illegally who have lost their jobs because of the COVID-19 outbreak.
Money is also unavailable.
About 2 million people in California are suspected of living in the country illegally, according to the California Latino Legislative Caucus.
The group has asked Newsom to create a disaster relief fund for cash payments to those immigrants until the state's emergency proclamation is lifted or they're able to return to work.
Newsom said, All of that is being considered, adding it is part of a broader package he plans to unveil in May that will include some economic stimulus strategies at a state level, not just waiting for the federal government to do that for us.
I'm gonna stop right now.
Let's talk climate change.
Let's talk the environment.
One of the biggest problems that... Let me give you an argument.
Many people on the right will say something like, Would you let someone come into your house?
Would you leave your door unlocked?
And the response from the left is typically, A country is not a house.
That argument makes no sense.
The argument does make sense.
They're making a point about finite space and resources, which many people on the left don't seem to understand or don't care about.
But, let's play with the argument.
Let's say you have a house, and you invite everybody to come in.
Eventually, there's no food left, the electrical bill is ridiculously high, not everyone's gonna pay it, some people are gonna come in, use stuff, and leave.
Your floor is gonna get destroyed, your carpeting will be destroyed, yeah, it's not gonna be pretty, and someone's gotta pay for that.
I mean, put it simply, anybody who's ever had a carpet in their house knows what happens when you have a ton of people come over, and they don't take off their shoes.
The carpet gets tattered, and you gotta pay for it.
They're not gonna pay for it.
But let's say, you know what, you're right.
A country is not a house.
Many of these people have said, there's tons of rural open space in this country and we could use the economic expansion.
So this is where things get really strange to me as someone who very much so cares about the environment.
If your argument is that we should expand by bringing in immigrants, illegal or otherwise, and have them spread out into the countryside, they're going to start cutting down trees, building roads, and damaging the environment.
I'm not entirely sure we want more population density in our cities, or we want to actually destroy more forests and more wildlands, but sure, if that's your argument.
Let's also consider That people who live in Honduras or Guatemala have a much smaller carbon footprint.
If you open the door to all of these people to just come in, and then you say, we're going to pass a bill which is going to give you cash, they're now more likely to start buying things and increasing their carbon footprint, which is devastating to the environment.
So if you're someone who cares about climate change, the last thing we need in this country is more fat and wealthy Americans dumping money on things they don't need that make climate change worse, right?
Many people have brought this argument up.
I don't understand how many of these pro-illegal immigration activists reconcile this.
They must not care about the environment.
There are many people who claim to care about both, but it seems quite contradictory.
Maybe you want to see everybody stop, I don't know, driving cars or something?
But then you're bringing people in, telling them they can drive cars, and then giving them money to do it.
Something similar is happening in Chicago, although this is weird, stranger, because Mayor Lightfoot just signed an executive order.
Chicago Mayor signs executive order to ensure illegal immigrants can access coronavirus relief funds.
I don't want to, I wouldn't want to live there.
You know, I lived in Chicago.
Chicago is super corrupt.
I wouldn't want to live there.
I've heard good things about Lori Lightfoot from some of more conservative-leaning people who live in Chicago.
But I couldn't imagine my tax money going to people who have only recently arrived and have done so, you know, surreptitiously or illicitly.
I'm not, you know, look, I respect life, all life, human life.
I don't care if you're an illegal immigrant, legal immigrant, American citizen.
I think our medical system should be there to save you.
But asking our government, our tax dollars, to be given out to help people in these trying times, I think it almost feels like Look, I know there are some illegal immigrants who have been here for a long time.
So, personally, I do think DACA recipients, for instance, should be receiving aid.
There's a very complicated problem with DACA stuff.
We can talk about it, I've got an article I'll pull up.
But there are a lot of people who just showed up, and it's like, imagine you had all your roommates get together and said, okay, we've got the Rainy Day Fund, we're gonna divide everything up.
And then all of a sudden some dude walks in the front door and he goes, oh, I want some of that money.
You're like, whoa, dude.
We've all pitched in over the past year for our rainy day fund, we got like a hundred bucks in here, and there's like five of us, we're each gonna get twenty bucks, you come in, now everyone's gonna get less money?
That's literally how it will work.
For a lot of these people who don't pay attention and don't care, they don't realize what's happening.
So they're just like, I don't know, whatever.
Hey, twelve hundred bucks, that's cool, imagine how much it could have been if we didn't have a large illegal immigrant population.
Many people on the left would like to point out that illegal immigrants do pay taxes.
That's fine if you want to argue that people who have been here for some time and who are working are paying taxes using an ITIN number.
I understand they do.
But what about the people who got here a few months ago who aren't working?
Because they have.
This is a problem.
We can't track these people.
And it's also a problem because we do not want to increase population density, especially during a pandemic.
It has nothing to do with the individuals.
It has to do with responsible household management.
So what I've said repeatedly is I think there's going to be a wake up for a lot of people when they see there's going to be negative consequences to stimulus.
You can't just give out money.
There will be consequences.
And if it does get bad, you're going to see a lot of people wondering why there was no room at the hospital, and you're going to have a lot of questions from people saying, why are non-citizens getting hospital beds and citizens not?
Citizens pay taxes, they vote, they've been here, you live here, or you're a legal immigrant, a resident, or a legal citizen, and you have people who just jump the line and sort of like break in.
Imagine it's someone, you know, breaking into your house and then taking your food.
Sure, you can be like, they need food, we must always protect the food, but to a certain degree, you can give someone food, but you have to recognize, you can't keep doing this.
Well, Chicago is going to do it, same as many other jurisdictions.
Yes, that's true.
in Post writes undocumented workers among those hit first and worst by coronavirus shutdown.
Yes, that's true. But what's going on to where all of a sudden we're just like,
we don't care that people are breaking the laws to enter this country?
Some people, are we all open borders activists?
Let me ask a question.
Because I know there's going to be a bunch of lefty naysayers and they're going to be like, see Tim is far right, bleh.
Wait, when have we ever been an open borders nation?
We haven't.
Bernie Sanders isn't.
This is one of the things they've tried to smear me with or something.
That Tim's views align with conservatives on immigration.
That's a lie.
That was some journalist lying.
Because my views align, or they used to, with Bernie Sanders.
So okay, fine, I guess you want to say that.
But how insane has it gotten that Bernie Sanders, who's been a socialist most of his life, or his entire life as far as I can tell, said only in the past few months, or last year or whatever, that illegal immigration depresses wages, Someone who has said in the last year, while he's campaigning for president in this cycle, he said, we cannot open the borders.
My God, there are too many poor people.
They can't all come.
Bernie Sanders.
Now, of course, Bernie Sanders flip-flopped to pander to the woke left, I guess.
So we'll see how he does.
But it's insane.
Laborers in this country know you can't do that.
Working class people, union Democrats know you can't do this.
But it brings me to the final bit I want to get to.
While I can absolutely criticize California for just giving this money away, I guess fine, so long as California doesn't have the power to print money, they can spend their money as they see fit.
And if you're someone who lives in California and you're okay with it, well then, there you go.
If you like living in San Francisco and seeing the poop all over the streets, congratulations.
I don't know why somebody would want to live in California at this point.
I lived there briefly.
You know, when I was younger, I was like, man, California, that's the place to be, right?
And then I moved there in my early 20s, And then I left.
And I was like, wow, that was a lie.
California is awful.
It's not nice.
Yeah, there are some parts of it that are nice.
There are beautiful parts of it.
But there are a lot of places... I mean, the way the government is run... Nah, I'm surprised people want to live there.
But we do have a more complicated problem, and that's DACA recipients.
Vox.com says this nurse is treating the sickest coronavirus patients. Trump still wants to
deport him. He's one of thousands of DACA recipients who could imminently lose their status.
When I talk about resources being strained, I'm talking about, for the most part,
how do we put a stop on people rushing in at the last minute, taking our resources?
People who have been here for a very, very long time, I think, you know, honestly, I would love nothing more than a path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants, and many Democrats have said so.
Here's the problem.
Well, if we do that, we incentivize the behavior.
And there have been many people who said, okay, how about we do amnesty, and then from now on we go more strict.
It wouldn't work.
If right now the U.S.
government said we're going to give everyone amnesty, you would dramatically incentivize the behavior, and you would have people literally rush here full speed to try and say they've been here for a lot longer than they really did, because everybody wants to come to America.
America is awesome!
And that's why everybody wants to come here.
So as much as it, you know, in our emotional part of our brain, we're like, I'd love to give people access to the American dream.
It's just not possible for many, many reasons.
And it's also, you got to consider how the stimulus package, we have to be upped, how much money we have to spend.
If we were like, okay, anybody just gets money.
It wouldn't work.
It's not sustainable.
Everyone's got to pitch in.
Then we can, we can give people benefits.
Which brings me to the DACA recipients.
These are people who have been in this country since they were kids.
And I think the oldest age is something like maybe 14 or 16 years old.
That, to me, is kind of pushing it.
But I understand if you were a minor, and your parents brought you here, I think your parents would be held accountable, because they put you in this position.
But what are we supposed to do, man?
I mean, you gotta think about this logically.
There are people who have been in this country since they were little kids, and they don't know any other country.
And many of them have been deported.
So what are we supposed to do?
You take someone who's like 20.
They've never lived anywhere else.
They like American football.
They grew up in this country.
You send them back to Guatemala or Mexico or Honduras and they're like, I don't know anything about this country.
I've never... I don't remember living here.
That's a serious problem.
But more importantly, people who grew up here and were brought here by their parents, for me, this is the begrudging acceptance of like... It's not begrudging.
I want to help everybody.
I want to help every single undocumented immigrant.
The begrudging... But we have to talk about adequate household management.
And so for the people who are DACA recipients, who are working here, who are in school, who are nurses, for instance, I think we have to accept that our leadership failed this country a long time ago in many ways.
And there were a lot of politicians, both left and right, that were seeking to exploit illegal immigrant labor to their benefit and let it happen.
Now we're dealing with young people who didn't choose to be here and it would be inhumane and, in my opinion, frankly absurd to just send them to a country they don't know anything about.
There's going to be a lot of people who say things like, that's too bad.
Because when I talked about how it's a moral imperative to save the lives of illegal immigrants with our hospital systems, even though it overwhelms us, there were a lot of people who said to me, harsh as it may seem, I don't care, they'd have to be turned away.
I disagree, for the time being.
But trust me when I say, DACA will also contribute to a serious reckoning.
People are gonna wonder why.
I mean, in urban centers, people don't seem to pay attention to much of anything, so this is why these bills get passed in the first place.
But, If people could accurately see how our tax money was being spent, how it was causing inflation, then you will see a reckoning.
A reckoning in the sense that people are going to wake up and start talking about what they want to change.
For me, the line is the DACA recipients, young people, we've got to do our best to help them because we have problems.
Sometimes there's no good answer to how you deal with these things.
I'm sure there are many people who would want to say just deport literally every docker recipient, but in my opinion, that's just immoral.
It's a step way too far.
Their parents could be held accountable.
But, uh...
Moving forward, you're going to see a lot of people say DACA is the line.
After this, we must get a handle on illegal immigration.
That's why Trump, one of the reasons why he won, because he was yelling build the wall.
Now people in big cities don't care and don't pay attention to it.
They don't even know who their neighbors are.
Think about this, there's such a dramatic divide in these big cities where you have massive, just ridiculous population density and no one knows who the other person is.
I lived in New York, I didn't know anybody who lived above me, below me, didn't know who they were.
You go on to the country, and even out to the suburbs, and people start to learn who their neighbors are.
Perhaps when there's too many people surrounding you, you don't know or care.
So you end up with places like New York, they don't know or care.
They're just like, I don't know, I just want me.
And so they don't consider how their community is being impacted by a massive influx of people.
But I'll tell you what...
People in New York complain all day and night about this, the tiny apartments, the increasing cost of rent.
That's because of overpopulation.
People need houses, right?
So what they do is, used to have an apartment.
They cut the apartment in half, make it two apartments.
Now you've got these economy bachelor apartments where it's just one room and you have a shared shower and kitchen.
That's gonna keep happening in New York as long as people keep coming and keep moving in and people need to be housed.
Certainly at some point people will recognize that we have limits on how many people could actually fit in a space.
Nah, I don't know what's going to happen.
But I'll wrap this up, because I don't want to make this rant too long.
For me, my line is DACA.
We've got to help the Dreamers, and you don't have to agree.
I understand it's difficult.
But my position is basically, if there are people who came here in the past year or so, yeah, they can go home.
I'm sorry.
They shouldn't have come here illegally.
But if there are people who came here with their little kids, they have nowhere to go, what do we do?
Are we going to just kick them out into the ocean and exile?
I just don't think it makes sense.
There is begrudging acceptance that this could incentivize people to try and rush their kids into the country and know that they will get deported, but they don't care.
Their kids will get a better life.
Serious problems with how immigration runs in this country.
It's not sustainable.
People will start to wake up to this when your city, when your state starts giving your taxpayer dollars to people who just got here, and you start wondering why.
Maybe some people won't care.
Maybe it's just me.
But I'll leave it there.
Next segment will be coming up at 1pm on this channel.
After years of investigations, we finally got him.
Donald Trump, he's going to be impeached because Alyssa Milano said, throw in the towel if Trump can't be impeached for pushing hydroxychloroquine for personal gain.
That's right, everybody.
Donald Trump owns the company that makes the Wait, what was that?
He doesn't actually own the company that makes hydroxychloroquine?
Well, certainly he's got a bunch of stock in the company.
He's a principal shi- He doesn't even own any stock in the company?
I thought they said he had a fin- Oh, he's got a mutual fund!
Oh, Donald Trump invested in a mutual fund?
And the mutual fund owns a tiny fraction of a company That at one point was a principal producer of hydroxychloroquine?
So, oh.
So we don't got him.
But Alyssa Milano still wants to have the president impeached?
I'm just so tired of everything, you know?
I'm sitting here thinking like, what's the segment for 1pm?
Let's talk about news.
You know Bernie Sanders dropped out?
I've got something coming up for that later.
Well, they want to impeach Donald Trump again.
This time because he mentioned that other countries were using an antiviral drug to treat a viral infection.
Welcome to 2020.
You know, there's a funny tweet I want to show you, and then we'll read about Alyssa Milano's stupid tweet and the media's reaction.
But take a look at this.
I love this.
This is a fantastic tweet.
David Sutcliffe.
Sir, I do not know you, but it's an excellent tweet.
He said, Remember when everyone knew pro wrestling was fake, and they finally admitted it, and the fans didn't care and continued to watch anyway?
This is certainly going to bring down the president.
It never does, because it's always fake.
I feel like the media whips up people like Alyssa Milano into a frenzy over things they know are fake.
It's kind of like watching someone dangle keys over a child, you know?
And the kid's going like, yay!
You know, dancing at the keys.
You're not going to get the keys.
And even if you did, you wouldn't know what to do with them.
You have no idea how the keys work.
That's what the media does.
They dangle keys in front of people like Alyssa Milano.
Now, to be fair, I think Alyssa Milano is one of the people who's dangling keys as well.
She knows what she's doing.
She knows it's not gonna happen.
But there is some light at the end of the tunnel in that she's telling everyone to give up.
Thank you.
Please, tell them to give up.
Throw in the towel if Trump can't be impeached.
Well, he can't be because the story's fake.
You made it up.
And hopefully after this, it's when you do throw in the towel.
Man, I'll show you some of the responses to these tweets.
And you know, there's some people that I like I'm going to criticize.
But let's read the story.
It's from Breitbart.
Actress and left-wing activist Alyssa Milano floated a New York Times report that suggests the president is promoting hydroxychloroquine as a potential treatment for the coronavirus for financial gain as grounds for impeachment.
There was another tweet from somebody.
I don't know who it was, so forgive me for not crediting you.
But they said, Trump stands to gain in the area of four figures over his investment in a mutual fund which holds a stake in, what is it called, like Sanofi or something.
He stands to make millions, potentially tens of millions, if the stock market recovers, if people get better.
You see how this works?
What's Trump's true incentive here?
The fact that one of his mutual funds has got like maybe $99 to maybe $1,500 invested indirectly in a company that doesn't even list hydroxychloroquine as one of its principal products, as one of its medicines.
He could make a couple grand if the company does well.
Or how about all of his stocks and all of his mutual funds skyrocketing if people survive?
I think I know where the president's financial incentive is.
Look, I think the president's trying to deal with this to the best of his ability.
I'm not saying he's the best at it, but I think what these people are saying is absolutely psychotic.
But I think it's fair to say, even if you thought Trump's motivation was purely cash, the cash incentive is in fixing the economy and getting us through this storm.
Then Trump's going to make way more money.
Here we go, here's Alyssa Milano.
Everybody loves Alyssa Milano.
Trump can make history as the first president to be impeached twice.
I mean, if putting lives in danger by pushing a drug for personal gain during a pandemic
isn't impeachable, we should just throw in the towel. Thank you!
You know, she thinks she's saying, certainly we got him this time.
Everybody come out.
This is the, this is it at every, every turn, every week, every month.
You ever see that video compilation where it's like bombshell report, bombshell report.
Trump, the walls are closing in.
This is the beginning of the end for Trump.
Oh, it's, it's, it's, it's frustrating, but also kind of cathartic to watch that.
Cause they just say it every single time.
But Alyssa Milano doesn't realize what she's just said.
She said, if you can't impeach Trump for this, we should throw in the towel.
Okay, excellent.
So when this fizzles out, and you can't impeach him over it, take her advice, please, and throw in the towel and stop.
You know, Bernie Sanders dropped out.
So now I'll throw it to Scott Adams who said Trump is officially running unopposed, which I think is hilarious.
But I'll do the Bernie Sanders.
I've got a bunch of stuff for the Bernie Sanders segment coming up later.
Let's read about this.
Milano's declaration follows a Times report on the general divide over the effectiveness of the anti-malaria medicine, hydroxychloroquine, in treating coronavirus patients.
President Trump has touted the treatment, which the Times admitted had not been totally unwarranted.
Mr. Trump may ultimately be right, and physicians report anecdotal evidence that has provided hope, the Times wrote, before subtly suggesting the president may have ulterior motives.
If hydroxychloroquine becomes an accepted treatment, several pharmaceutical companies stand to profit, including shareholders and senior executives with connections to the president.
The Times piece states, adding that Trump has a small personal financial interest in Sanofi, the French drugmaker that makes Plaquenil, the brand name version of hydroxychloroquine.
However, an analysis from Market Watch found that Trump's state could be as little as $99, which we read the other day.
And why didn't the New York Times say this?
The New York Times knew the information they were omitting.
It's a lie by omission.
So what the New York Times has done, shame on them, by the way, is whipped everyone up into a frenzy, like I said, dangling keys over the little resistance people going, yeah, the keys.
And then now you've got one of the little toddlers telling all the other ones, once we get those keys, then we're gonna, you know, drive the truck to the moon.
And you're like, that's not a thing that's possible.
You cannot impeach the president for this.
You have no idea what those keys are for, what they do.
And not only that, they could be house keys.
They probably are.
Here's the quote.
They say the report doesn't say how small, but it notes that it's three family trusts have investments in Dodge and Cox mutual funds.
They mention that the holdings of Sanofi is 3.3%.
They say it's the largest.
That's what the New York Times is like.
It's their largest holding.
It's like 3%, dude.
Yeah, you make it seem like they've got 90%.
Market Watch also noted Trump has a small stake in basically every big company you can think of.
Breitbart's John Carney also rated the Huffington Post headline, Donald Trump has stake in hydroxychloroquine drugmaker report, as false in a fact check published on Tuesday.
Carney explains, The report cited by the Huffington Post is from a New York Times story that said Trump himself has a small personal financial interest in Sanofi.
Trump's personal financial interest, however, does not include a stake in Sanofi, and the New York Times did not claim it did.
Instead, Trump's financial disclosures show that his three family trusts each had investments in a $10.3 billion Dodge & Cox mutual fund that owns shares in Sanofi, the world's fifth largest drugmaker by prescription sales.
As of its latest disclosures, those holdings amount to just 3.3%.
Trump's most recent financial disclosure forms list holdings from the Dodge & Cox International Fund valued between $1,000 and $15,000.
So we know all this stuff.
Another analysis conducted by documentary filmmaker and journalist Mike Cernovich also points to the Times' flawed and misleading reporting.
According to Trump's financial disclosure, he owns between $1,000 and $15,000 of Dodgen-Cox Fund and has 2.9% of its money in Sanofi.
So these are different numbers coming from Trump.
But Cernovich says that he owns between $29 and $435.
Cernovich has been right about many big breaking stories, so we'll see how these things play out.
Here's a quote.
I'm trying to save lives, Trump told CNN's Jeremy Dimon on Sunday when grilled on hydroxychloroquine.
If it doesn't work, it's nothing lost by doing it.
Nothing, he added.
While doctors stress that long-term studies are needed, we know all this stuff.
We will move on from here.
Let me show you this tweet.
Lee, I love you buddy, but you are wrong about this.
Lee Camp is a progressive personality comedian, and I think he's generally a good dude.
And I'm just gonna say, I think he got duped by fake news.
He tweeted, Remember when Trump told the country hydroxychloroquine might be able to treat coronavirus?
Turns out Trump is invested in the company that makes it.
That is 100% not true.
Trump is not invested in the company that makes it.
He holds no stock of this company.
A mutual fund is different from holding stock in the company.
You can argue technicalities, but Trump personally has no stock as far as these stories are concerned.
He is using his position to boost his stocks, which is supposedly illegal.
He has holdings and mutual funds that hold stocks in companies that, you know, produces the brand name version, between $99 and $1,500.
Here's someone who responded, Ah, math is so hard for some folks.
The money he will make off that stock is so small, most of our multi-millionaire Congress wouldn't stop their cars to get out and pick it up if they saw it lying in the street.
Some people then point out Rudy Giuliani bought shares in Novartis.
These are major, major companies, okay?
Someone buying stock in one of the biggest pharmaceuticals in the world is not evidence of wrongdoing.
Many people who hold stock and who buy stock have stock in large companies.
Now, what would be really damning is if the president personally instructed his staff or whatever to buy some fringe small company.
Let's just make up a company.
We'll call it a Florbo Med.
Let's say Trump was like, here's a brand new company that's manufacturing a drug called, you know, Florbitin.
And then he started touting the benefits of this drug that no one's ever heard of from a company he just bought.
Yeah, that would be damning.
This is not that.
These are major corporations like Donald Trump bought... You know, Donald Trump owns a stake in Microsoft.
So now, Bill Gates leading the effort of the vaccine, it's because Donald Trump owns a stake in Microsoft!
How come they don't report that?
Same thing.
The New York Times could have said, Bill Gates has been pledging money to help find a vaccine, and we're wondering why he's fighting so hard, and why Trump would be so adamant about saving lives with a vaccine.
It turns out, Donald Trump owns a small stake of Microsoft himself, and if Bill Gates succeeds, it stands to reason the press attention will be very beneficial to Microsoft, and Donald Trump stands to make a substantial sum of money.
That's ridiculous.
You can make a circuitous, nonsensical statement any direction you want.
But you want to see how the media loves going after this stuff?
First, I bring you the Grand Politico article.
Trump is an authoritarian weak man.
That's right.
Trump certainly is an authoritarian, but he's weak.
He can't get the job, Don Politico says.
Coronavirus would be the perfect opportunity for an autocrat.
Trump isn't taking it.
Wouldn't that mean he's not an authoritarian?
Maybe I should calm down, Politico.
Here's the right.
Let's take inventory of what new insights we have learned from the pandemic about President
Donald Trump and his leadership character.
One could hardly miss how this crisis has fortified one of the two primary pillars of
the anti-Trump argument as advanced by his most ardent detractors.
It has been insufficiently noted, however, the degree to which the coronavirus response
has weakened the other pillar.
The first pillar is that Trump, in the near-unanimous view of the opposition, is a terrible person whose terribleness finds expression in terrible policies.
He is narcissistic, dismissive of unwelcoming facts, willing to traffic in falsehoods, lacking empathy, erratic in personal matter, and above all, impulsive in judgment.
I mean, I actually agree with those to varying degrees.
I mean, I think Trump has some terrible policies, but they don't want to give him credit for the policies that have worked out.
I mean, the economy was doing really well up until the coronavirus.
He's definitely narcissistic.
He's definitely dismissive of unwelcome facts.
But I think the real issue is the degree to which people are willing to accept how severe these issues are.
I think when I was watching a clip that was taken out of context, Trump was talking about mail-in voting, and then the reporter's like, you voted by mail, and he's like, right, because I was out of state.
So I did the certification process and got everything sealed, and we voted because I was out of state.
There's a difference between that and doing all mail-in voting where people can be sitting in the living room and just rubber stamping, you know, and filling out these ballots.
Well, the media cuts that out of context.
That's the issue.
So when they say he's dismissive of unwelcoming facts, I'm not sure I trust, for the most part, how the media frames things.
Trafficking and falsehoods?
Yeah, to a certain degree, absolutely.
But come on.
Obama did.
Bush did.
This is the thing for me.
They're like, Tim, why don't you complain about Trump lying all the time?
Oh, Trump certainly lies.
He's also unbearably honest about weird things.
It's like, he says the quiet part loud and the loud part quiet.
But is he worse than any other politician who's lied nonstop?
Not that I can tell, and not that I can care.
You want me to come out and be all shocked that a politician lied?
Oh, spare me.
Here we go.
Impulsive in judgement.
Yeah, okay.
Are you following so far?
Even a Trump defender could comprehend how Trump's critics would season the performance of the past two months.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
The second pillar of the anti-Trump case that has wobbled curiously in recent weeks, this president allegedly is not just a near-term menace, but a long-term one, a leader bent on amassing personal power and undermining constitutional democracy in ways that would last beyond his presidency, which under the worst scenarios, he might even try, Vladimir Putin style, to extend illegally if he loses in November.
You may have heard me talk about this story before.
It's not the story I actually care about.
It's the next story I want to show you.
I think it's funny that they're actually writing an article saying Trump is too weak to be the autocrat people want him to be.
And now we have this from the Huffington Post.
It's time to say it.
Trump is handling COVID-19 like a dictator.
What?
They complained he wouldn't use the Defense Production Act.
Now the Huffington Post published an article calling Trump a dictator.
You know what, man?
There's no cohesive plan.
None of these people have any idea what's going on.
And I'll tell you what's really happening.
I and my friends are not staunch Trump supporters.
We don't go around with mog hats.
In fact, we would very much like to not wear them.
We don't wave flags.
And most of us, we're not interested in even voting for the guy.
We'll see how things play out.
But we're not insane.
So that means when we're looking at reality, we're like, Trump is not that bad.
That's about it.
I mean, you got to compare him to all these other presidents.
You can talk about the individual, you know, the individual policies that he's put in place, the job he's done.
We had a great economy.
And for a lot of people, that's the most, you know, important part.
You got domestic policy, which tended to work out fairly well.
When it comes to environmental policy, Trump has been pretty bad.
So if you're an environmentalist and you care about this stuff, Trump has pulled back a bunch of regulations and things like that.
I haven't pulled up, so forgive me if I'm flubbing some details.
But he's not been very good, and I know a lot of people who are upset about that, and I think that's fair.
You can disagree with the guy on policy, but calling him a dictator You know, his foreign policy stuff I think is bad, but Obama's was nightmarishly bad.
So I'm looking at a guy and I'm like, eh, you know, whatever.
Here's the point I'm trying to make.
When you live in reality, and you actually know what's happening around you, then you're gonna look at the president and be like, I'd like to vote for somebody else.
Maybe I won't vote.
Or maybe you like the president.
Maybe you agree.
But we have to agree on objective reality.
These people don't believe in objective reality.
Case in point, two articles.
One saying Trump isn't an autocrat.
He's too weak.
And one saying he is a dictator.
And every other instance where a Democrat has demanded Trump invoke federal wartime authority to force companies to mass produce products he wants.
So they say, you should go tell these companies they must produce masks.
And Trump is like, well, I don't need to force them to do it, they're doing it.
Many are volunteering.
And they're like, no, you must force them!
And Trump says no.
So now they're saying he's a dictator.
Here we go, look at this.
President Donald Trump is handling the coronavirus more like the world's authoritarian rulers than its democratically elected leaders.
Which is it, media?
I get it, they're not the same people.
Politico and Huffington Post are not the same outlet.
But the reason I'm showing you this is because if you're skeptical of media, you'll be dismissive of both of these articles.
But if you're someone who just blindly trusts the media, which the left tends to do, then you're gonna be like, Trump is simultaneously a weak, pathetic, you know, non-authoritarian and a dictator at the exact same time, which I can only imagine makes your brain go, because it can't compute both.
Not only that, there are going to be people who only see one or the other story.
And you're going to get a bunch of people saying, Trump is not strong enough to do this.
He's a weak man.
And then they're going to come across somebody being like, no, he's not.
He's a dictator.
No, no, no, he's a weak man.
You're a Trump supporter.
No, you're a Trump supporter.
And they're both going to accuse each other of being Trump supporters and then whatever, they'll get into a fight.
But this is what the media has been doing for the longest time.
Nothing is cohesive.
And so, as I mentioned, you've got people, typically on the left, who blindly trust mainstream news.
How can you live in a world where everything contradicts itself?
It makes no sense, right?
In February, the Washington Post and USA Today and BuzzFeed all said that COVID was not a big deal, the flu was worse.
Then two or three weeks later, they're all saying, Trump is wrong, it's not the flu, it's, you know, coronavirus is way worse.
How do you live in that reality, where you read the news one day, read the news the next day, and they contradict each other, and you're like, this makes sense to me!
At a certain point, you have to be like, this is nonsensical garbage that I can't read!
How do you read, like, you got two articles, one says 1 plus 1 is 3, the other says 1 plus 1 is 4, and you're like, both must be true!
Well, neither are true!
So then you end up with people who are conservative.
And I think there's an interesting correlation-causation thing going on with these polls.
Why is it that conservatives are less likely to trust the media?
Could it be that if somebody is trusting of the media, they tend to hold liberal views because they just believe whatever the media says?
Could it be that someone who is liberal, who starts distrusting the media because they see the holes, then looks for alternative sources, and it turns out those alternative sources tend to be conservative?
You'll end up with then people... I know a ton of people who used to be very lefty, who are now conservative, and they read mostly conservative news because they just don't trust mainstream press.
Look, I just showed you two articles that contradict each other.
They don't make any sense.
So what are you going to read?
You've got to read something that's cohesive and makes sense.
Something with an editorial statement or position.
So when you look at conservative media, they're certainly conservative, many of them are very biased for conservative causes, but they tend to be correcting the press all the time.
You know, they would call me conservative for the same reason.
But it's just that I live in reality.
You know, I've been saying for months, Trump is winning, Trump is winning, Trump's polls are up, and guess what?
When I did a video saying Donald Trump's approval rating is higher than it's ever been, what happens next?
A month later, it's even higher.
His fundraising is going up.
He's making more money.
His approval rating, it's going up.
So when I say I see this, it's significant.
I was right.
It's not because I like him or want to vote for him, it's because I'm telling you what's literally happening.
When the coronavirus pandemic breaks out, what does Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff want to do?
Oversight committees.
Investigations.
Chuck Schumer, and I gave him credit for this, said we need a czar to handle overseas distribution.
And that's at least something related to coronavirus.
And like I said, I respect him for trying to do something.
Just don't think we need it.
Because we have Rear Admiral Palowczyk who's in charge of everything.
But you gotta give him credit for at least trying something, I suppose.
You still have a bunch of Democrats who are pushing nonsense.
So if you come to my content, for one, yes, I'm biased.
I think these people are insane, the media's insane.
So definitely I'm gonna miss things, not trust things, and I will be biased.
But can you blame me?
Just because I don't trust Politico or the Huffington Post, to certain degrees, doesn't mean I support conservative political positions.
I'm saying that you lie so much, I have no idea who to believe.
But let's throw it back, right to the beginning.
To good old Alyssa Milano, who has no idea what's really happening in this world.
And she thinks Trump literally did this.
And so does Lee.
Now, Alyssa Milano is a hypocrite.
She says, oh, we have to believe women.
Except Joe Biden, he's innocent.
He's a nice guy.
She preaches all day and night, you know, with Brett Kavanaugh.
It's like, oh, it's not about due process because Brett Kavanaugh is just being job interviewed.
He's not going to prison.
Now with Joe Biden, he's being job interviewed and they don't want to actually hold him accountable for the accusations against him.
It's just complete BS.
To Lee's credit, I think Lee is a good dude.
I've known him for a while.
He's a good dude.
He just got roped in by the fake news, and that bums me out.
So I sent him a message.
I think he's well-intentioned, and I don't believe him to be a hypocrite like Alyssa Milano is.
He's a legit dude.
It bums me out to see them being tricked by the press into believing this fake trash.
You know, I go through this stuff every day.
It's funny when people say... Yeah, they accuse me of not doing journalism.
It's like, okay, I'll tell you what, buddy.
If you read the New York Times and believe everything they say because they're journalists, you've just bought into fake news.
When I take that story, look up other information and verify and fact-check, Still not perfect.
I still miss a ton of things.
But it's another layer upon me doing research and trying to fact check these sources.
Sorry.
I'm doing journalism.
But you don't like it because I just discredited your stupid fake news that you're trying to use to impeach the president.
I'm talking about Alyssa Milano.
She's a hypocrite and I will say there's one thing that does make me feel good.
Aside from the fact she's telling everyone to throw in the towel.
I like that.
Please do.
Every side of the culture war hates her guts right now because of the Joe Biden thing.
You got the progressive left and the right all telling her to STFU.
Bernie Sanders has dropped out, and his press secretary has dropped the Democratic from Democratic Socialist.
I don't know if she understands what that means, but let me try.
Well, first let me read you the tweet from her.
But it seems like, I don't know how to interpret this other than, the mask has slipped.
The authoritarian lunatics who want to lock you in a gulag are now admitting it.
Okay, that's a bit hyperbolic, but still.
Brianna Joy Gray says, on the plus side, I can drop the democratic from my tweets about why socialism is good.
Okay, hold on.
Does she actually think that Democratic Socialism meant, like, Democratic Party Socialism?
Because if so, then she never actually understood what a Democratic Socialist was, and she probably always was an authoritarian.
And the alternative is she does know what it's supposed to qualify, and she's dropping it to admit that she's an authoritarian lunatic.
I don't know what she meant by this other than maybe a stupid joke.
But let me just explain to you what the socialists often say, and then I've got an op-ed for you.
It says, unfortunately, you know, Bernie Sanders may be dropping out, but the socialist takeover of the Democratic Party is only postponed.
The democratic socialists like to say, we are not like these other socialist countries that mass-execute people and dissenters and have terrible track records on LGBTQ rights.
We are very different.
They say we are democratic socialists, which means you vote for these things.
Yes, it means that we'll have a socialist system, no more private property, but it's because you're going to vote for it.
And to be fair, there's a difference between someone kicking your door at gunpoint and telling you, do it like this or else, and people choosing to have the government take their stuff and not allow them to freely trade their labor.
Fine, I guess.
The principle argument from democratic socialists is they do not believe in authoritarianism.
That they're more liberty-minded individuals who want people to embrace this system through their own choice, their own volition.
But now she's saying she's dropping that.
So I think if I was going to take it at face value and not make assumptions about what she's talking about, she's quite literally saying, I'm going to remove the qualifier which says I'm not an authoritarian and totally embrace socialism, which as most people know historically has been horrifying Horrifyingly authoritarian.
And they've killed many, many innocent people.
And many, many is probably an understatement because we're talking like, what, like a hundred plus million or some ridiculous number.
So maybe she just meant to make a stupid joke about, you know, losing to the Democrats, I guess.
I guess the best case scenario is it's a really dumb joke.
I think that's probably the fairest simple solution.
I can't make assumptions about her frame of mind.
Or she's just not smart and doesn't understand what it means.
Fine.
But now that Bernie Sanders is out, many people are wondering what's going to happen.
We have this opinion piece from Commentary magazine.
They say, the Democratic Party's socialist makeover is only delayed.
That's right.
And I agree.
You see, I look at a trend, and the reason why I think Democrats have become increasingly more socialist is because it seems like a major portion of their party platform is, I'll give you stuff.
And that can only go on for so long until you eventually cross over into socialist territory.
So initially you had simple social programs.
Welfare, things like that, you know, unemployment insurance.
And so you have a bunch of people who are working, they lose their jobs, and the Democratic politician comes along and says, I'll tell you what, With me.
You vote for me.
I will create a program where if you lose your job through no fault of your own, then we will guarantee you unemployment benefits for a certain time period so you can get back on your feet.
A bunch of people who lose their jobs, or might lose their jobs, think, hey, it's a great idea.
Someone's going to give me money.
Now that money comes from somewhere.
It comes to taxpayers.
So they vote for this politician.
What's the one up from there?
What can you give someone?
You know, you can't give someone unemployment insurance if they already have it.
So they create more programs, food stamps, etc, etc.
And over a long period of time, with the Democrats increasingly pushing, I'll give you stuff, I'll give you stuff, you get to a point where it no longer represents liberalism or social liberalism, but it represents leftism and socialism.
That line has now been crossed.
We will give people free citizenship.
We will give people free health care.
Free college education.
All of these things.
Free, free, free, free, free.
What they really mean is we're going to take it from someone else.
You can't freely trade your labor.
We're going to control everything.
Now, the democratic socialists say, vote for this.
And I roll my eyes and say, please, we get it.
You want to trick people into giving up their rights instead of just pointing a gun at their face?
Fine.
They're still giving up their rights.
Eventually, you'll have dissenters who will say no, and then your system won't work.
Let's read a little bit of this article to see what they mean that it's only delayed.
Commentary says, Though it was long ago overtaken by events, the trajectory of the Democratic presidential primary and what it spells for the future deserves more reflection than this rapidly evolving news cycle will likely permit.
The stunning collapse of Bernie Sanders' presidential prospects is almost without precedent in the modern age.
The senator from Vermont owes his defeat to many factors, foremost among them the rapid consolidation of Democratic elites around Joe Biden, who took utmost advantage of the political cover the former vice president's commanding victory in South Carolina provided for them, though that's a sign of the party's institutional health.
What may be more indicative of the Democratic Party's political evolution is how its most influential members responded when it looked like Sanders was certain to win.
As Bernie Sanders inched closer to his party's presidential nomination in February, the progressive commentariat underwent a crisis of conscience.
Some resisted this hostile takeover, but many others went about making their peace with the prospect of a self-described democratic socialist as the Democratic Party's standard-bearer.
New York Times economist Paul Krugman sought comfort in the notion that Sanders was no true socialist.
Quote, Bernie Sanders isn't actually a socialist in any normal sense of the term he wrote.
That label, Krugman argued, wasn't self-applied but affixed to him by Republicans as part of a smarmy, dishonest political strategy.
After all, Sanders doesn't want to nationalize our major industries and replace markets with central planning.
He actually does!
But he's getting started, right?
So Bernie Sanders proposed a 20% worker ownership.
Great.
He's not coming out and saying, give it to me or else.
He's saying, we'll start here.
And where do you go from there?
It's like I was saying.
The Democrats will come out and say, I will give you stuff from 20% to 50% to 75% to 100%.
Vox.com's Ezra Klein followed suit, arguing that Sanders has only adopted a socialist ethic.
In practical terms, he claimed, Sanders advocates milquetoast center-left policy prescriptions, alien only to American ears, but familiar to much of the rest of the free world.
Sanders' brand of socialism isn't about economic planning, Vox declared.
It's about an ethic of solidarity with those the system is failing, not those for whom it's working.
Let me just tell you something.
When you look at the political spectrum, there's a bunch of different ways people interpret it.
I'll just tell you how I see it.
The far left is a cooperative market, meaning socialism, outright.
No private trade of labor, no private property.
The far right, on the economic scale, Very, very slightly.
It is a center-right economy.
That's the fairest way to put it.
In the center, you have a mixed economy.
The United States leans slightly to the right in this regard.
Very very slightly.
It is a center-right economy.
We are mostly a mixed economy.
That's the fairest way to put it.
For someone like me, I lean a little bit on the left, but for the most part, I'm pretty
much in line with where we are.
Many people will say it's center-left of Bernie Sanders because they're using a relative scale.
Take all of the people in this country and what they believe, plot that on the line, and then where's Bernie Sanders?
Slightly to the left of center relative to all Americans and their opinions.
And that's not necessarily fair either.
It's an assumption based on like political polling and things like that.
So what they've actually done at the New York Times is they've taken all political parties
and plotted them on a line and then said, aha, here's the center because you averaged
them out.
It's not even necessarily about the population of the US, it's about the average political
party or the average person engaged in political discourse.
In which case, if most of the parties are far-left, then the median is far-left, making Bernie Sanders center-left.
It's not quite fair, if you ask me.
Because Bernie Sanders believes in public ownership of utilities, public ownership of corporations, nationalization.
He does!
They try to argue it's not the case.
It is.
Bernie Sanders wanted to implement some worker ownership program.
Where a corporation would set aside 20% of its equity or stock to the workers.
I know it's not outright nationalization, but you're getting close.
They say, Those Democrats who didn't downplay Sanders' oft-stated commitment to socialism opted instead to emotionally blackmail their fellow Democrats into keeping their concerns to themselves.
I will argue against him as long as there is a chance of defeating him, argued Lawfare's Benjamin Witts.
But in the fight against authoritarianism, it would be a historic error one's centrists have made before to decline to make common cause with socialists.
Are you insane?
Socialism is authoritarian, dude.
Let me just break it down for you.
You're gonna get a bunch of socialists who say, Tim Pool doesn't know what socialism is.
Yes, right, sure.
Socialism is when people's labor is not controlled by them, but by the collective.
Now, they'll argue they lie.
Socialism is when you freely trade your labor and get its full worth.
No, it isn't.
Capitalism is.
The problem with capitalism, as we have it now, is corruption.
But just because corruption exists in capitalism doesn't mean it won't exist in socialism.
They are lying to you, just like they lied about being democratic socialists.
Well, now that we lost, let's be honest with everybody.
We want to take it by force.
That's what we learned from Project Veritas when they interviewed Bernie Sanders supporters undercover.
These people were saying straight up that they would get violent and do what they had to do, take more extreme actions, because they're dangerous psychopaths.
In the real world, in liberty, in freedom, we say this.
If you work, you get to keep what you make.
Now, in the United States we have a mixed economy, which means you pay income tax.
A portion of what you make does go to the government.
In fact, I think this is probably one of the best systems we have.
Maybe we could do a little better.
Maybe we're taxed too much.
The war machine kind of gets me down, if you know what I mean.
We send a lot of our resources to producing stuff that I think is kind of bad.
But admittedly, we are in this complicated war, international conflict, geopolitical landscape, so I get it.
I can accept it within reason.
But here's how it works.
If I go and build, you know, take a piece of wood and I whittle it into a little statue, I then own that statue and I can go and trade it as I see fit.
Now, when you talk to socialists, they argue that the means of production must be seized.
Okay, does that mean if I whittle a little statue with a little knife, that product is owned by someone else?
There's actually no definitive answer, and I've asked many different socialists this.
Therein lies the problem.
At the core, there is no private property.
They try to argue there will be personal property, but you can't draw a distinction between the two.
At what point does a carpenter become the means of production?
If the carpenter has a hammer and he hammers a nail, is that the means of production?
What if he has two hammers and two nails?
What if he builds a little workshop in the middle of the woods so that he can work more quickly?
What happens if he then asks a friend to help him out, and he'll share with him the profits from his business?
Is that now the means of production?
At what point do you lose control of something you built?
Of course they'll say, well you didn't really build it, you paid someone else to do it.
Right.
If I said to you, hey man, can you bring that bag of rocks over here?
I want to lay them out in my garden.
And they said, I'm not interested, sorry man, can't help you.
So you said, how about I give you a can of soda?
That's fair.
That's free trade.
Someone then says, oh, all I gotta do is move the rocks, I get a can of soda, I'll take it.
Now, in socialism, they don't know where that line is.
The idea is the soda should be free regardless of the work done, and you should move the rocks, I guess, regardless of the work done.
What do you think's going to happen?
If the soda is guaranteed, the person's going to say, I'm not going to move your rocks.
I already have the soda.
There's no incentive for trade.
It doesn't make sense or work.
So we have a mixed economy.
Kind of makes sense.
Anyway, I'm not going to rant too much about capitalism versus socialism.
Suffice it to say, You can see in this article the argument they're making.
Many people don't actually care about politics or policy.
They bent the knee as soon as it became apparent this was going to be a majority, or they thought it would be.
Bernie Sanders was winning early on, so they said, sure, whatever you say, I guess we're all socialists now.
And they spewed word vomit to try and justify why they would be socialists, but spare me.
You're full of it.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
And as we now know, the mask has slipped.
Bernie Sanders staffers are not democratic socialists.
They're authoritarian lunatics who would no sooner steal from you and throw you into a gulag if they were given the opportunity.
I know that's a little extreme.
I'll walk it back a bit.
These people think they're the heroes, but they're the villains.
They want to subjugate you.
Don't allow them to.
If I do work, I get to control, for the most part, my work.
We've compromised with the system we have.
I actually don't mind it.
I'm not that opposed to taxes, for the most part.
Maybe we can lower them.
Maybe there's more efficient ways to do it.
That's fair.
But I'm not a laissez-faire capitalist kind of person, nor am I a socialist person.
But at least you can see, in a capitalist free market system, you will have the freedom of choice.
Up until a giant monopoly comes and crushes you, yeah, I get it.
But with these people, they want to monopolize that power overnight.
Nah, I'm not interested in that.
Stick around, I got one more segment, I got two more segments coming up for you, and I will see you shortly.
Sometimes the fake news is so insane that they actually end up tearing each other apart.
The New York Times ran a story that tried to passively squeeze in an argument that Donald Trump was promoting hydroxychloroquine because he was going to financially benefit from it.
Now, they didn't explain to you how much Trump's stake was worth.
They just said, we're trying to, you know, in wondering why Trump would promote this, we must recognize he owns a small financial stake in a company that produces the drug.
Sure enough, you then see Alyssa Milano saying impeach the president over this.
You then see Huffington Post saying Trump is doing this and the raw story and the Daily Beast going boom.
There it is.
That's right.
The Daily Beast actually sub-headed their article with, there it is.
As if they got him.
They got the orange man.
But as it turns out, the story is ridiculous fake news.
So much so, that Snopes had no choice but to conclude, mostly false.
Now, they could say false.
I actually think mostly false is kind of fair.
I rag on Snopes all the time.
You know the example I give?
for the New York Times. The worst of the worst. The Washington Post, Vox, and Snopes were like,
yeah, that's a pretty ridiculous fake news narrative. I cannot believe it. Snopes of all
outlets tear it into the New York Times for their fake news.
I rag on Snopes all the time. You know, the example I give is that, you know, let's say Donald
Trump does a backflip. Then everyone will say, wow, look at all that. Look at all these videos of
Trump doing a backflip.
Snopes will then write, did Donald Trump do a backflip...on Wednesday?
False.
Donald Trump did not do a backflip on Wednesday.
And then at the bottom of the article it'll say, while Trump did do a backflip, it wasn't on a Wednesday.
They add that little qualifier to make it false.
Now this, they said, is mostly false.
I think that's actually fair.
Because the reality is Trump does own a very small stake in this.
But the framing is that Trump is trying to benefit from this.
But it's not just Snopes.
I got the Washington Post.
I got Vox.com.
Absolutely incredible.
Check this out.
Mostly false.
Check that out.
financially by promoting hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment. The US president is invested
in several mutual funds, some of which include very minor stakes in pharmaceutical companies.
Mostly false. Check that out, man. You got it. I got to give it to him. But while normally I'd
like to say something like good on them for doing the right thing and fact checking this as false.
I think that in this instance, it's not because they wanted to.
It's because the story is so insanely bad, like they're so desperate to smear Trump that people are like, yikes, this one no one's gonna buy.
President Donald Trump earns some income from three family trusts that are administered independently by J.P.
Morgan, an investment bank and wealth management firm.
These trusts are in part invested in mutual funds that themselves are partially invested in companies that produce hydroxychloroquine.
What's false?
Trump's financial stake in these companies is virtually negligible, contained indirectly via mutual funds, and administered through three family trusts he does not control.
Boom!
There it is.
drug. Hydroxychloroquine is unlikely to provide any one company with significant profits compared
to other proprietary drugs. Boom, there it is. A lie so stupid, even Snopes had no choice
but to say it is false. Check this out.
out.
President Donald Trump's enthusiastic promotion of the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine as a treatment, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
They go on to mention that the New York Times reported Trump has a, quote, small personal financial interest in Sanofi, or Sanofi, a French company that makes the brand name version of hydroxychloroquine.
If hydroxychloroquine becomes an accepted treatment, the Times reported, several pharmaceutical companies stand to profit, including shareholders and senior executives with connections to the president.
First of all, New York Times.
Come on, man.
Trump's a billionaire.
Of course a bunch of people who own stocks are connected to him.
That's so stupid.
Trump stands to make substantially more money if the economy just does better and the markets rebound.
They say, strictly speaking, Trump does have a small personal financial interest in Sanofi, as well as other relevant pharmaceutical companies.
According to his most recent financial disclosure report, Trump earns income from three family trusts, each of which are, in part, invested in mutual funds whose earnings come from a shared pool of investments.
In some cases, these funds include minor holdings in pharmaceutical companies, including Sanofi.
These family trusts are, in accordance, according to his disclosure form, administered without Trump's input by JP Morgan.
I get it.
Okay, there you go.
They say to highlight the limited financial investment in these companies, we can look at the example provided by The Times.
The Times' reporting was based on three Trump family trusts that are each invested in the Dodge & Cox International Stock Fund.
At the time of our reporting, this fund was 3.3% invested in Sanofi.
As reported by Market Watch's Steve Goldstein, it represents at most $1,485.
Or how about Vox?
Trump's promotion of unproven drugs is cause for alarm, but not because he's making money off of it.
How stupid is... You know, this is how bad it's gotten.
The New York Times is getting torn up.
They're supposed to be the Grey Lady, the paper of record, and they're being annihilated by Vox, of all outlets?
Wow.
You know, the New York Times lies all the time.
They're not the worst, they're actually pretty good, but they do lie all the time.
And here's what I mean by that when I talk about the fake news.
I've been talking about doing a fact-checking system, and it's on a back burner, admittedly.
The idea is to randomly sample various news articles from an outlet, and then fact-check them.
Rate them based on standard SPJ or Thomson Reuters Code of Ethics for journalists, and then give them a check or a plus based on violating of any ethics.
If an article is written and it violates standard ethics in any capacity, we give it an X. We then give a score out of 100 based on how many articles we found in a random sampling that violated standard ethics.
What we see from Vox and many of these companies is that they often violate ethics, but for the most part, will make a bunch of articles that are kind of okay.
So the New York Times will have, say, 60 out of 100, which are completely fine articles, but those 40 are the ones that do really, really well and spread the fake news.
That's the goal I wanted to get to.
Here's what Vox writes.
Trump indirectly owns a minute stake in a company that makes hydroxychloroquine, but that doesn't seem to be why he's promoting it.
Or how about the Washington Post?
Trump's promotion of hydroxychloroquine is almost certainly about politics, not profits.
It's not even about that.
Even when they're fact-checking him, they have to inject some political BS.
They said at least not his profits.
Philip Bump, for WAPO, writes, For weeks, President Trump has actively hyped the possibility that hydroxychloroquine would work.
We get it.
I want them to try it, he said.
And it may work, it may not work, but if it doesn't work, it's nothing lost by doing it.
That's not entirely true, given both the possibility of negative side effects and that Trump's promotion of the drugs has led to some shortages in their availability for those hoping to use the drugs as prescribed.
Full stop.
That's not true.
Fact check.
I've actually read several stories.
I don't have them pulled up, so take it with a grain of salt on me.
You can fact check me as well.
That there has been no instance of somebody suffering from lupus or rheumatoid arthritis that have gone without the drug because of what Trump has said.
There have been fears of this.
But so far I haven't seen any story.
I could be wrong about that.
So if I am, then I apologize.
But let's read more.
They say, given Trump's background and his touting of his own businesses as president, a number of his critics have speculated he might be motivated by personal financial gain.
Then the Washington Post goes on to show all these other things.
We get it.
Now, let's move on and say past the stuff we already know about Sanofi.
The idea that Trump is hyping this to boost Sanofi assumes that he knew that his trust included this.
We also know that he's not making much money off it.
They go on to say, We go back to the key bono question.
What's the value to Trump in hyping these drugs?
If nothing else, we can all agree that there is almost certainly something in it for the president, given how much focus he's put on it.
The most logical answer is what it was Monday.
By now, the use of the drug has become a benchmark in the political culture wars, with Trump allies echoing his calls for the drug as a sign of their confidence in his instincts and a way of promoting what they see as an optimistic view of this pandemic.
The president is probably also promoting the drug because it offers a big political upside.
Getting to say he was right and the experts were wrong, with small downside.
If the drugs continue to prove not to be particularly useful, precedent suggests he will simply ignore the time he spent promoting them.
That's a BS argument.
You could argue that anyone could just ignore Trump's successes as much as they could ignore his failures.
The reality is that if Donald Trump sees other countries using this drug, and he says, let's use it, and it doesn't work, it's a net positive for the president.
Because it'll show that he saw something hopeful and said, I'm here to help, here's my best idea.
It shows that he's doing the best he can.
If it does work, it shows that he was right, and he did do a good job.
He goes on to say Trump focuses a lot on the bottom line, but the bottom line is often his own political value and not just his literal net worth.
In this case, the former remains the more likely motivator.
Why can't the most likely motivator be that Donald Trump is trying to save as many lives as possible?
Why can't the most likely motivator be that Trump knows the more lives he saves, then the more likely he will win re-election?
Why must it always be about some nefarious angle or some mal-intent?
They look at everything the guy does through a lens of pure evil.
It's like they're wearing some kind of vomit green colored goggles.
You know, the rose colored glasses thing.
They're like, everything they see about him is just nastiness and awful and evil.
You need to grow up.
You need to stop, break your biases, and actually try to assess what's going on.
Do I think the present is motivated by good, wholesome, lovey-dovey skittles and rainbows and bunny rabbits?
No!
Of course not.
I think Trump's an arrogant narcissist, but I think he is trying to do good.
And there's a philosophical question about whether or not someone's motivations truly matter if they're going to do good.
I think Trump views this world through a lens of, I'm smarter, and I can do it better than you.
He doesn't want to hear what anyone else has to say, because he knows better, because what he does works, and he's going to do it no matter what.
I see Trump as motivated, yes, to help people, not necessarily because he's got this warm, fuzzy feeling in his heart where he's like, I must save all of, you know, God's children, but more so him being like, I know why this isn't working.
I'm going to make it work.
These people don't know what they're doing.
His motivations are not evil.
They're him just being arrogant.
He thinks he's smarter.
He thinks he's better.
And guess what?
In many areas, he's proven that to be the case.
So if you want to look at the guy like he's pure evil incarnate, I'm sorry.
The same is true for many other politicians.
Now, It's probably a scale, but I think most of us agree Hillary Clinton's at the bottom of that.
I kind of look at her through the lens of pretty nasty, evil, so we'll leave it where it is.
Trump is not as bad as Hillary Clinton.
That's why he won, because people really did not like her.
So, for the most part, look, you got a nasty dude, you got a bro president who's arrogant, who thinks he's smarter than you.
Yeah, well, you know what?
Sometimes that happens.
Is he evil?
Not... No, come on, calm down.
The reason he's trying to say this drug might work is because he's got hope that this might actually solve the problem and, yeah, save some lives.
And he thinks he's smarter than you, and he's gonna go for it.
I'll leave it there.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes.
I will see you all shortly.
The Bundys are back.
You may remember these guys.
They're the militia people out west.
They were fighting against the Bureau of Land Management.
And it's a long story I can't entirely get into, but suffice it to say, they describe him as an Idaho militia leader.
They say he is vowing to use physical force to hold a service for 1,000 people on Easter Sunday, as state's residents rebel over stay-at-home orders, despite a huge surge in cases.
Quote, the virus is killing our Constitution.
Now I am conflicted, I must say.
I absolutely love the Constitution of the United States because I know many people who have grown up without a constitution in foreign countries, and they've told me many stories.
I know a story about a guy who almost went to jail for telling a joke.
Oh wait, I know a guy who did get arrested for telling a joke!
Count Dankula!
Wow, how crazy!
Yeah, well, we got a constitution, so bring it.
We got a Supreme Court, you can't do it.
Right now we've got a serious challenge.
Pandemic.
Should we shut down everything, lock everyone in their homes, and take away their constitutional rights to worship how they see fit and to gather because we're worried about the spread of disease?
The answer?
No.
But should people be responsible and avoid large crowds because it's getting bad?
Yes.
Herein lies the great philosophical conundrum that we're all facing right now.
And we can see where M.N.
Bundy has decided to lay, you know, which hill he's decided to stand on.
To a certain degree, I can respect the defense of the Constitution.
And I absolutely believe we must defend our constitutional rights.
It is not okay that across the country people are being arrested for going outside.
There was a guy who was at the park playing t-ball with his daughter and his wife, gets cuffed and arrested.
They had to apologize to him.
There's a guy paddleboarding by himself in the ocean.
And so now I think, yes, the Constitution is paramount.
But I gotta ask everybody, as much as all this stuff is annoying, We gotta be responsible.
And this is something someone brought up on the Timcast IRL podcast.
Make sure to check it out tonight at 8 p.m., by the way.
YouTube.com slash Timcast IRL.
And they said, rights come with responsibility.
And that's true.
We are not being told to stay inside because an arbitrary government is just mad at us and thinks we're bad people.
We're being told to stay inside, and for the most part, we were kinda given an option, and people just didn't care, and it forced the hand of many in government.
We're being told to stay inside because there's a pandemic hurting people.
And to protect our community, which we have responsibility to, we must abide by this.
But there are serious challenges now that we're seeing overzealous law enforcement push the boundary.
We're going to see boundary pushing back.
Let's read the story.
A militia leader is rallying people to attend a mass gathering in Idaho on Easter Sunday in defiance of the governor's orders to stay home amid the coronavirus pandemic.
According to a report in the New York Times Tuesday, Amin Bundy says he and his allies are willing to physically defend the event, which is scheduled to take place in the city of Boise and could attract upwards of 1,000 people.
Quote, I will be there, and I will bring as many people as I can, Bundy reportedly told a group of supporters on March 26th, the day after the state's stay-at-home order was issued.
We will form a legal defense for you.
We will perform an active political defense for you.
And we will also, if necessary, provide a physical defense for you, so that you can continue in your rights.
Idaho has recently experienced an explosion of COVID cases, and now has more confirmed cases per capita than California.
Thirteen people across the state have died from the highly contagious virus.
Perhaps the answer for the government is not to stop the boot on people, but to work with them in a way to minimize the risk of transmission while protecting their right to worship and gather.
I think people, you know, the Bundys especially, would be willing to compromise on some sanitary health measures like social distancing.
You can come out.
Just, you know, don't have any areas where everyone's, you know, standing side by side or anything like that.
Would you be willing to compromise?
I think they're reasonable people.
They probably would.
But you know what?
Maybe they wouldn't.
And therein lies the big challenge.
The Constitution doesn't say that you get these rights when the weather is nice.
They say you always have these rights.
And the joke I made the other day was Patrick Henry at the second convention in Virginia did not say, give me liberty or give me death, unless of course there's a pandemic.
He said, give me liberty or give me death.
That means if there is a pandemic, Now, there's responsibilities here because you could kill other people, and that's where the line is drawn between your rights and your responsibilities.
You have a right to freely assemble and to worship.
You don't have a right to hurt other people.
Now, this is an interesting problem because people aren't intentionally hurting other people.
But if you know you can transmit this, and you know it might hurt someone else, then I think you do have a responsibility to at least chill out for a little while.
It's tough.
Knowing where the line is is very, very tough.
My bigger concern is will the government be honest with us when this finally ends?
I think they will.
As we're already seeing, we're nearing the peak in New York.
They're straight up telling us, hey, it's gonna be over soon, sooner than we thought.
The numbers were too high.
Yeah, they're straight up saying it.
Everyone thought that it was gonna be way worse.
So that says to me that they're acting in good faith, so I'm not super worried about it.
I'm not one to typically trust the government and everything they say, but, you know, it's people working in a system.
They say, the alarming statistics prompted Governor Brad Little to issue the stay-at-home order for 21 days, stating that he was following the guidance of public health experts.
However, Bundy, who was best known for his armed takeover of an Oregon wildlife refuge in 2016, believes that such an order violates the constitutional rights of U.S.
citizens.
He says, if it gets bad enough and our rights are infringed upon enough, we can physically stand in defense in whatever way we need to do.
Bundy is quoted as telling followers at a recent meeting.
The militia leader also stated that he has no concerns about contracting COVID-19, claiming it's not dissimilar to the flu.
That's a mistake, a serious mistake.
Meanwhile, other public figures in Idaho have also expressed skepticism about the virus and disdain for the new the new stay-at-home orders, which they believe is drastic government overreach.
It is, yes.
So, I guess the problem is when you see the paddle boarding guy, that's the improper use of what these provisions are supposed to be.
You know what you do when the guy won't get off the paddle board?
I mean, first of all, who cares?
He's in the ocean.
We were told by everyone, we could go, you know, they said, you're not being forced to stay home, just don't go into big groups.
I was told in New Jersey, the governor said, go out, go exercise, go for a walk, walk your dog, just avoid large gatherings.
Now we're seeing individuals get arrested because of overzealous law enforcement.
The appropriate response would be to walk up to the guy in the park and say, just you and your family?
If more people come, you know, please keep a social distance.
We're getting some calls.
Stay safe out there.
Instead, they argue with the guy, cough the guy, take his ID.
What are they doing?
What are you doing?
When you do that, you get this.
It's funny, because someone on Twitter said, do you want a boogaloo?
This is how you get a boogaloo, in reference to the guy on the paddleboard.
Well, congratulations!
Now you got armed militias saying, we're doing Easter worship.
Y'all can't stop us.
Bonner County Sheriff Daryl Wheeler recently posted an open letter urging people to continue with business as normal if they feel healthy enough.
Quote, I do not believe that suspending the Constitution was wise because COVID-19 is nothing like the plague, he wrote.
It is really bad, though.
You don't want to get it.
Republican Rep Heather Scott has allegedly encouraged locals to push back against the government order.
Scott reportedly sent a newsletter to constituents which called COVID-19 the virus that tried to kill the Constitution, before claiming that they had a God-given, constitutionally protected right to peacefully assemble.
The vocal defiance has alarmed many health care workers in a largely rural state who say that most hospitals are unprepared for the rise in cases.
The virus did try to kill the Constitution.
Sort of.
It was actually people who were panicked about this, mostly in bigger cities with a higher population density, who decided to suspend the rights of people because of the cities.
But the truth is, if everybody gets sick and dies, there won't be a Constitution to uphold anyway.
It's an idea that we hold dear.
Of course, it's in its physical form.
But it's our community, it's the American citizenry, and other people around the world who happen to agree with the Constitution, who believe in it, who give it its power.
That's why you can't have these police do certain things.
They try, sometimes they do it.
You can sue them and you typically win.
Right now.
I think we should recognize the severity of this illness.
The people who are losing their lives.
I know it's not the, you know, the black plague or whatever.
But people will get hurt by this.
And if we break confidence in our system, if our culture loses its support, then there won't be a constitution either.
It's not the fault of the virus.
The virus is a problem.
The virus causes problems.
It's human beings who would try and strip your rights away for arbitrary reasons.
They say, as of—oh, here we go.
quote, if we stop what we're doing, it could deteriorate so quickly and our resources could
be overwhelmed so quickly, one doctor told the times. As of Monday, Idaho had 1170 cases of COVID.
There are nearly 400,000 confirmed cases across the US with a majority of states locked down in
a bid to slow the virus. So that's the gist of the story.
We'll see how things play out.
Easter Sunday is very important.
I understand why people would want to come out and worship on Easter Sunday, especially when the Constitution literally states that the government shall not infringe upon the rights to worship and to peaceably assemble, which is both of these things right now.
You gotta stop giving up your rights, man.
Because this is what we're seeing here in my home state of New Jersey.
Well, it's home.
I live here now.
And maybe I won't live here for much longer because I'm not happy with what they're doing.
Police enforcing stay-at-home orders in South Jersey, very close to where I live.
They arrested some people, apparently, for, like, walking down the street.
And the cops megaphoned, you know, like, you should social distance and then go home.
And they just flicked them off and said, I don't gotta do nothing.
So the cops were, like, arrested.
Why?
It's just people walking down the street.
Let them walk down the street.
Look, if there's hundreds of people at the beach, you just tell them to leave and you close the beach.
If there's one person there.
If there's three people there.
You carry on your merry way and ask them to stay safe.
And if the numbers increase, you intervene.
But we can't let our rights just get ripped away.
So, I'll tell you what.
I'm fairly confident this channel at some point is going to get purged from YouTube because...
They don't like that I'm saying this.
They'd prefer I just lie to you.
You watch the media, you know what they say, you know what they like.
They like it when the media lies to trick the people into believing stupid things.
They don't like when people tell the truth.
And YouTube accidentally gave people the power to tell the truth.
It also gave people the power to say a bunch of really stupid things about, like, flat earth and lizard people, but that's not me.
I'm just telling you you have a constitutional right to, you know, assemble.
And to, uh, worship.
And that you should always protect that right.
But you gotta recognize your responsibilities, too.
That's a very, very fair point.
Right now is not the time.
But, if in the coming months, they keep- they refuse to let up, well then we got a constitutional problem.
We- we- we must defend our rights.
I don't know if the Bundys are doing about- going about it the right way, but I'll tell you what.
