Democrats Face SHOCKING Defeat In California Spelling Possible Republican Red Wave In November
Democrats Face SHOCKING Defeat In California Spelling Possible Republican Red Wave In November. In CA-25 A Republican is currently favored to win.This means the GOP is set to reclaim a district they lost by 9 points to the Democrats in 2018. Democrats are trying to downplay the impending loss by saying they want to focus on winning in November where Anti-Trump sentiment may help them drive voter turnout.But according to NYT one of the reasons the GOP lost the House in 2018 was due to low turnout from Trump supporters.Trump's base are not Republican supporters and many did not show up at the polls.This could be indicative of Trump losing support but coupled with other data showing that Trump's base has only grown it stands to reason that Trump voters only want to vote Trump and will likely do so in November.These supporters may then just check R across the board giving a massive push for the GOP in the house.However current tracking data is bad news for Republicans showing Democrats are flush with cash and poised to win, their downfall may be Joe Biden a man for which almost no one is excited to show up for.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Democrats are on the verge of the unthinkable, losing a swing district in California.
Politico reports the party is downplaying expectations in next week's special election for a congressional seat in the LA suburbs.
And dare I say, this spells very bad news for Democrats come the general election in November.
Now, this is a special election.
The district was previously held by Democrat Katie Hill, who was forced to resign in disgrace amid a massive scandal.
Now, a Republican is favored to win the seat.
But Katie Hill was able to flip this from Republican to Democrat by nine points, which means they have lost a major advantage.
Now, of course, this could just be one district.
But according to Democrats' own assessment, I think we're looking at a potential red wave.
See, Democrats aren't too worried.
It's a special election.
Come November, they believe anti-Trump sentiment will drive more voter turnout, resulting in the district going back to Democrats.
But voter enthusiasm between Joe Biden and Donald Trump is, it's night and day.
I mean, people who come out for Trump, boy, do they come out for Trump.
You see, according to the New York Times, one of the reasons the Republicans lost the House in 2018 was because Trump supporters didn't turn out in large enough numbers.
And anti-Donald Trump sentiment fueled a Democratic push.
If they think they're going to win this district back, In a Trump election year, I think they're completely wrong.
So as they come out and say the general election is going to change things for us and help us out, I think they're missing the big picture.
In fact, data suggests it's going to go the other direction.
What's even more shocking is that the numbers we're getting so far are from mail-in voting.
And a lot of Republicans are concerned that mail-in voting will result in voter fraud.
In fact, it is true.
In some states, they saw massive voter turnout due to mail-in voting.
In Michigan, for instance, their May elections saw a major voter turnout when everything was done by absentee ballot.
But consider this, if there's a lot of older people who are scared to go out and vote, who often don't go out and vote, it may actually be an even bigger increase for Trump supporters.
That's maybe what we're seeing here.
Now a lot of people, I've said this in the past, that I think mail-in voting is dangerous for Republicans because it'll turn out the youth vote who normally don't vote.
Republicans are concerned about fraud.
But it looks like based on this one district which favored Clinton by seven points, voter turnout for the Republican is even higher.
Now I know, I know, this is a very specific district that may be very angry at their disgraced Democratic representative and that's why they're flipping to the Republicans.
But I think it's fair to say when Trump supporters turn out to vote for Trump, They're going to write R across the board, check every box for the Republicans, and give a massive red wave to the Republicans.
Now, I was wrong in 2018, but I was wrong because I discounted the Trump base.
I thought it was the Republicans when in reality, in 2016, Republicans did well because of Donald Trump.
Without Trump on the ticket in 2018, many of these voters didn't show up and the Democrats, they won.
It is fair to point, however, I have data showing that according to polling and fundraising, Republicans are actually in a very bad position.
So we've got two different kinds of speculation, hard polling and fundraising data suggesting
the Democrats are set to win even more in the House and maybe even threaten the Republican
Senate majority.
But if you look by Trump base, you know, the Trump favorability and approval rating, I
mean, it might go to the Republicans.
So it's really going to come down to your personal bias.
But let's read this, and then you can make up your mind.
The first story on Democrats' pending defeat, which is shocking to many.
Before we get started, head over to timcast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are several ways you can give, but the best thing you can do is share this video, because YouTube props up the mainstream media, and they actually restrict content like mine.
If you really do like my content and want to support it, sharing it in any way possible really does help.
It's substantially more powerful than any recommendation algorithm.
But if you just want to watch, make sure to hit the subscribe button, the like button, the notification bell, and then cross your fingers hoping YouTube will actually recommend my content to you.
Politico reports, California Republicans may be on the verge of something they haven't done in more than two decades, capturing a congressional seat from Democrats in the nation's most populous state.
Tuesday's special election runoff in the Los Angeles suburbs, which is taking place because of former Rep Katie Hill's resignation last year, has Democrats bracing for defeat in a district they've flipped by nine points in the 2018 midterms.
Armed with a highly-touted recruit and an older, less diverse electorate than in the general elections, Republicans feel they are on the verge of an upset.
But I actually think what we're seeing here will.
Have some kind of effect or does represent a potential change in the rest of these moderate districts.
You see, Democrats were able to flip many districts that Donald Trump won.
Why?
These Democrats were running on kitchen table issues.
We're not going to play politics.
We're not going to play partisanship.
We're going to focus on the economy, health care, improving your lives, immigration.
But what happened when they actually got elected?
They went straight for impeachment.
And that took up almost everyone's time.
Scandal after scandal.
Now these districts, in my opinion, might actually flip back because they feel betrayed.
It could be that's why this district is going for the Republican, or it could just be that Katie Hill really embarrassed this district.
I guess we can only wait and find out, but let's read more.
Private polls show the race in the state's 25th district is within just a few points, and Democrats are already downplaying expectations for their nominee, State Assemblywoman Christy Smith, citing depressed turnout in the midst of a pandemic and the negative impact of the scandal surrounding Hill, who resigned amid inappropriate behavior.
Their battle plan, hope for the best next week, then try again in six months in the rematch,
when Democrats expect their voters will show up with the presidential election on the ballot.
We don't underestimate how much of a Republican-leaning district this could be in May,
but that will be a different electorate in November.
Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., said, noting that the winner will serve only a limited time in Congress.
We don't get in this to lose a race.
But I do think that in November, Christie will be successful.
But I could make the same argument for Trump.
Yes, the electorate will be different.
But if you're already losing to the Republicans, don't you realize Trump supporters will be coming out as well?
And there is no enthusiasm for Joe Biden.
On that alone, if that's their argument, I actually think many more districts might actually flip back to the Republicans.
Of course, that's just speculation based on cultural behaviors or cultural issues and these particular attitudes.
It may be when we're looking at the private polling.
I mean, the data suggests good news for Democrats, but let's read on.
They say yet a victory by Republican Mike Garcia, a 44-year-old former naval aviator and defense contractor, would provide a jolt of energy to the GOP's efforts to reclaim some of its lost suburban territory, even as the party's chances of recapturing the House majority appear to be dwindling.
The close race is remarkable in part because voters in the district, which spans the northern part of Los Angeles suburbs, backed Hillary Clinton by seven points two years prior.
And President Donald Trump is still highly unpopular there.
One Democratic survey found his favorability ratings underwater by double digits.
Those same conditions could be present in several key seats that Republicans hope to flip back.
And that's actually bad news for Republicans because this was held by a Republican before Katie Hill and they did not like Donald Trump.
Quote, it is not a unique district. It is similar to many of the districts that we won in the fall,
said one Democratic consultant who works on House races.
This was an anti-Trump response district.
And if we are ebbing in those districts, we need to find out why. We can't just brush it off.
And that is the big picture. This district is not unique.
If Republicans are already winning, perhaps we're getting a glimpse of what's to come. A
Republican winning in this district that is not unique. And then Donald Trump's voter base
turning out in droves in November.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe I'm wrong.
I don't know for sure.
That's just my speculation.
They say because of the coronavirus, the election will be conducted almost entirely by mail, and ballot return tallies thus far—ballots must be postmarked by Tuesday and received by Friday in order to be counted—have only contributed to Democrats' fears.
The electorate so far is older, less diverse, and more likely to favor the GOP.
Of more than 118,000 returned ballots counted as of Friday, 44% are from registered Republicans, and just 36% are from Democrats, according to Paul Mitchell, the Vice President of Political Data Inc., a bipartisan company that analyzes voter data.
Now I'm going to stop right there, right?
Because I've said I believe that the mail-in ballots, which the Democrats are very, very much pushing for, would favor them because it will light up youth voters who can't be bothered to go out.
Your ballot arrives in the mail, your parents say, make sure you vote, and the kids, the young people go, oh, fine, I guess.
Normally, the young people wouldn't actually go out and vote, but they receive that ballot in the mail, they fill it out.
Perhaps I'm wrong, actually.
Perhaps even if young people receive mail-in ballots, and let's be real because the youth vote spans, you know, 18 to 29, which means many of these people are living on their own, They might get that mail-in ballot, throw it in a pile, and go back to playing video games, whereas the older voters, regardless, are still more likely to vote.
I think it's fair to say that if mail-in ballots are going to increase voter turnout, they'll likely increase voter turnout for everyone.
I think Democrats were hoping for an advantage.
They seem to want to change the rules every time because, well, they're losing.
They want to abolish the Electoral College, now they want mail-in voting.
I think it's fair to argue that they want mail-in voting because of the coronavirus outbreak.
But that still very much favors older voters who would be scared to not vote.
And now we're seeing, well, it looks like the Republicans are winning with mail-in ballots.
Here's what they say.
Look at the age breakdown, Mitchell said in an interview, pointing to turnout rates that showed that 15% of voters under 35 years old have returned their ballots thus far, compared to 49% of those 65 and older.
That's a big deal.
The Latino population is pretty significant here, but they're turning out at half the rate of white voters.
Privately, Democrats are pessimistic about their odds.
The DCCC has spent over $1 million on TV ads boosting Smith after the March 3rd primary, but the cavalry of outside groups that typically drop millions in special elections has largely sat out of the race.
Democrats maintain the GOP advantage will evaporate in November when turnout will return to normal levels.
Democrats have a voter registration advantage of nearly 30,000 in the district.
I think that's why a lot of groups are kind of pushing the pause button, said Aguilar, who co-chairs the DCCC's program for top offensive targets.
And I think it's a realization that the dynamics in this race in November are going to just be very different and lean our way significantly.
Well, you can argue a few things.
Perhaps no one is turning out, and we're seeing a real advantage for Republicans.
Or perhaps the Republicans are really turning out, which means come November they're going to be at a major disadvantage.
I don't see reason to believe the latter.
I think what we're seeing is a Republican advantage, probably due to the fact that Katie Hill disgraced the district, and probably due to the fact that, well, these people voted for kitchen table issues and got nothing but impeachment.
But take a look at this story from Politico as well.
Cash-rich Democrats tighten grip on House Majority.
House GOP recruiting misses and poor fundraising are hampering the party's chances to win back the chamber in November.
That may be true, Unfortunately, I don't think this is what matters come election time.
I do not believe that hard polling numbers necessarily are good news for, are a good indicator of what's going to happen.
I think sentiment, I think the Democrats were right.
Come November, you are going to see a different electorate.
But as we know, enthusiasm for Biden and Trump is absurd.
It's a 19-point advantage for Trump.
I don't think the cash really matters all that much.
Take a look at this tweet, which I find absolutely fascinating, from Ross Barkin.
Andrew Cuomo's approval rating has surged beyond 80%.
New York is the global epicenter for COVID-19, and there's little the government did well to contain the virus in its early stages.
20,000-plus people have died.
It is truly one of the most remarkable PR coups of all time.
Andrew Cuomo's polls are skyrocketing, even though he's failing.
Now there's another story I could highlight, the accusations against Joe Biden and the fact that in the polls, people still want to vote for Biden.
Democrats don't care about the accusations against Biden.
That says to me, That, for the most part, it doesn't matter policy-wise.
What matters is cultural issues and people's feelings.
People feel good watching Andrew Cuomo, so they support him, even though he is floundering.
And people don't like Donald Trump, so they're gonna vote for Biden, even though they don't like Biden either.
This says to me that what you really need to count on A lot of people really do not like Donald Trump.
But think about it.
Do you think people are going to show up because they're excited to vote for Joe Biden?
No, of course not.
Do you think people will show up to vote because they hate Donald Trump?
Yes.
But do you think more people will show up excited to vote for Donald Trump?
It's hard to predict for sure because these are just speculative cultural issues.
But I'm going to put my money on people wanting to vote for Donald Trump.
We just saw the GOP primaries where Donald Trump was shattering records even though no one had to go out and vote for him.
And according to the New York Times, Trump's base is bigger today than it was when he first got elected.
In fact, Donald Trump's favorability is substantially higher today than it was when he first got elected.
I think that says to me what really matters is for Trump against Trump.
Does anything else really matter?
Very, very little.
I think very few people are actually going to be bothered with paying attention to policy.
It's all about orange man good, orange man bad.
Well, this story from Click on Detroit shows us that absentee voting leads to record turnout, Michigan's May election, and that California, according to the Daily Mail, Governor Newsom says all registered voters in the state will be asked to vote by mail in the November election, putting him at odds with Trump.
They say.
That voter turnout, if it goes up, is good for Democrats.
But there has been another story by the New York Times that, no, not really.
Voter turnout may actually benefit Republicans, and that's what we might be seeing in Katie Hill's district.
Here we have a story from the New York Times.
Back in July of 2019, the Republicans lost their typical midterm turnout advantage in 2018, even though they didn't give up some of their traditional demographic advantages.
Young and non-white voter turnout was markedly higher than it had been in 2014, but still lower than that of older and white voters.
Registered Republicans were likelier to turn out than registered Democrats, according to data from L2, a nonpartisan political data firm.
These traditional Republican demographic advantages were cancelled out, and in some cases reversed, by two new democratic advantages.
The low turnout among whites without a college degree, bolstered by Democrats in much of the country, allowing college-educated whites to make up a larger share of the electorate.
As a result, the voters who turned out in 2016 but stayed home in 2018 were more likely to approve of the president.
He had around a 50% approval rating among these non-voters in the time-standard data.
The increase in turnout among the young in 2018 came overwhelmingly from anti-Trump voters, giving the Democrats a wide advantage among voters under age 45.
The advantage was largest among those 18 to 24.
Now, think about what I've just shown you with the New York Times data.
The story from Katie Hill.
They think a different electorate, the anti-Trump vote, will get them the victory.
No.
In 2018, according to the New York Times, Trump voters stayed home.
That's why they won.
Yes, the anti-Trump vote showed up, and they were able to win.
But also consider, Trump supporters didn't show up either.
Now, coming into 2020 with Donald Trump on the ballot, I think we may actually see a red wave.
Again, I don't know for sure.
That's why I want to be very, very clear.
I was very wrong in 2018.
I didn't predict this.
I thought Trump supporters were going to come out.
But they're not Republican supporters.
They're Trump supporters who come out.
The story from the New York Times says huge turnout is expected in 2020, so which party would it benefit?
Democrats typically gain from a broader electorate in presidential races, but that pattern is not assured in the Trump era.
That's what they really need to be considering.
If they push for mail-in voting, it may be it benefits Donald Trump.
If they think that this November election is going to help them, It's just going to help Donald Trump.
So I want to show you this here from Vox.
Now Vox is lefty and this is Matthew Iglesias.
He says, Donald Trump has never been popular.
Trump stands out so strongly in the political landscape that takes often emerge that neglect to mention the fact that he had an opponent.
But the central reality of the 2016 campaign is that both major parties' nominees were unusually unpopular.
The typical scenario in 21st century presidential campaigns has been for even the losing candidate to be viewed favorably by at least a narrow majority of the population.
But 2016 gave us a unique scenario in which both nominees were underwater, leaving voters who approved of neither candidate as a crucial swing constituency.
Here's what we saw in Michigan with Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden.
The Bernie supporters thought Bernie Sanders would crush Joe Biden because Bernie Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton.
Something else happened.
Joe Biden crushed Bernie Sanders.
Why?
Because Hillary Clinton was ridiculously unpopular.
So it may actually be that with Joe Biden, a more neutral candidate or someone who's seen as just not Trump, Biden has a major advantage.
And we may actually see people turn out and the Democrats may actually take everything back.
But I'm going to push back a little bit and say I'm not entirely convinced.
And it's because the New York Times upshot.
It's the same writer I just showed you, says that Donald Trump's favorability in his base is larger than it was in 2016.
Not only that, but over the past several years, Donald Trump has proven he really did make the economy work.
Considering the economy is now in shambles, who better to fix it than Donald Trump?
Now, of course, that's me actually being logical.
And like I said, people are going to be voting based on how they feel about Donald Trump.
We know that Donald Trump drives voter turnout both anti- and pro-Trump.
Democrats are counting on a larger anti-Trump sentiment.
Unfortunately for them, we see this from the Washington Examiner.
19-point enthusiasm gap.
Trump supporters jazzed to vote.
Biden's meh.
And this is from April 29th.
Now, it's not the same thing.
You know, saying whether you want to vote for Biden is not the same thing as saying you want to vote against Trump, so the numbers may not be perfect.
But I do believe that when the pollsters were asking people, who are you going to vote for?
Oh, I'm going to vote for Biden.
How excited are you?
Eh.
It could be that many of them are just excited to vote against Trump, or it could be they're not going to turn out at all because most people don't care.
Donald Trump's approval rating is higher than it's been for the bulk of his presidency.
He recently saw his highest approval rating ever in the aggregate.
And Gallup recently has him at an approval rating higher than he's been, for the most part, tied for the highest he's ever had it.
In which case...
We're seeing something interesting.
People don't blame him for the pandemic, but people did credit him for the economy, and they still do.
Although there's a lot to criticize the president for, it looks like even to this day, his polling as it pertains to the economy is still doing really, really well.
And Joe Biden just doesn't really have anything going for him.
He's failing to attract young voters despite pivot to the left.
The progressives aren't going to come out and vote for Joe Biden, so he's going to lose a massive part of his voter base.
And you know what that means?
That means the voters are going to the booth and they will either check D across the board or R across the board.
But while Trump has massive enthusiasm, Biden can't muster youth vote.
So it's not even about whether or not people don't like Trump.
Young voters won't go out at all.
And if they don't go out at all, which is kind of to be expected, that means a lot of Democrats aren't going to get support in turn.
I think it's fair to point out, man, look, I know a lot of people might want to argue that people go out to vote for their congressional candidate.
They really don't.
The turnout for the midterms, it's lower than for the presidential election.
It's one of the reasons why the Republicans lost.
So come 2020, because the Democrats could not muster an enthusiastic candidate, they're going to lose everything.
That's why they should have probably chosen Bernie, I guess.
You know why?
Moderate Democrats would hold their nose and vote for Bernie.
Young people would still not really come out, but more so likely would for Bernie.
They could have potentially held on to the House and maybe even made some gains in the Senate.
Not because, you know, they could have defeated Donald Trump.
Bernie, I don't think he would have.
But because they would have gotten more votes for their House and their Senate candidates.
They decided to put up Joe Biden, and we saw the argument, stay alive, Joe Biden.
If you think that's going to be enough, oh, you're wrong.
We're not just talking about the presidency.
We're talking about everything else.
And everything else is going to flip Republican.
Well, at least that's my speculation.
I can't really tell you for sure.
I honestly don't know.
But we have seen that in some places in the Democratic primary, voter turnout was really, really low.
If they're going to rely on in-person voting, voter turnout is not good news for Democrats.
Especially with the ongoing pandemic, things might get really bad.
But if they do switch to mail-in votes, they have seen record turnout.
And I'll wrap it up by reiterating the point from the beginning.
While Republicans are concerned there will be fraud, I think it's a fair concern.
How do you track all these ballots?
It looks like, based on Katie Hill's district, mail-in voting isn't going to be a major benefit to the Democrats.
In fact, it might actually still just help Republicans.
It's hard to know for sure.
You can make your assessment based on any of this data.
Is it that the Democrats are going to win because they have tons of cash?
Some Republicans actually think so, but The Republicans quoted in this Politico story that argue Republicans are in a bad position are looking at the traditional data, fundraising and polls.
They're not taking into consideration that many of Trump's voters don't care about these things, are left out of these things, and vote because they just love Trump.
What did we see more than anything else?
When it came to the primary for Donald Trump, he was shattering records even though there was no reason to vote for him.
Democrats were seeing some good turnout, some bad turnout.
Which is strange because they had a whole field of Democrats to choose from.
If Bernie supporters came out, Yangs, Tulsis, whoever else, Klobuchar, you'd think there would be substantially more voters for the Democrats.
And in some areas, it was only slightly in favor of Democrats.
Trump shattered records when no one had to show up.
So there's my prediction for now, which could change.
I think in six months, when all of Trump's voters come out, they're going to sweep the board.
We'll see, though.
Hubris will be the downfall of either side.
If Democrats think they got something in the bag, they will lose, and the same goes for Trump supporters.
The best thing you can do is make sure you go out and you vote for who you want to win.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
around. Next segment's coming up at youtube.com slash TimCastNews, 6 p.m., and I will see
you all then.
Why, you ask?
Well, recently, a bunch of transcripts were released, people testifying to Congress.
And what did we learn?
All of these Russiagate conspiracy theorists We're lying.
While publicly they were going on TV saying this is the biggest scandal ever.
Donald Trump did this.
Russia, Russia, Russia.
They were saying things like the beginning of the end for Donald Trump.
The walls are closing in on Donald Trump.
And then in these closed testimony, you know, meetings, they said there's no evidence of this.
I have no idea.
No.
Publicly, they were lying.
They were grifting.
They wanted to be a part of the message.
They wanted to get the views.
They wanted to get the spot on TV.
And they hated Donald Trump.
But when they actually had to testify under oath, what did they say?
Nothing.
No evidence.
Not that I know of.
No, I have no idea.
That's the game they play.
It's the game they still play.
And it's the most frustrating and annoying thing in the world to me.
When you go on these social media sites and you see people just completely ignoring this, it's like, The question I have for many of these resistance types is, how many times do you want to be wrong?
I just don't understand.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, non-stop, all the time for the past several years.
Yet still, when you go to these subreddits, what do you see?
A bunch of fake posts.
Now, let me tell you something.
First, I don't want to bury the news here.
Tucker Carlson talks about Adam Schiff, calls for him to resign, but we also have Obama panicking.
A leaked phone call.
Obama says the rule of law is at risk in the Mike Flynn DOJ case.
An extraordinary leaked call.
After it emerged, he was aware of the general's wiretapped phone calls in 2016 before Trump took office.
This is not a leaked phone call.
I mean, it is, okay.
But in my opinion, do you think Obama would allow a real phone call to leak like this?
It's not a leaked phone call.
I mean, okay, it is.
The point I'm trying to say is, he wants people to hear this.
He doesn't care.
It's not a secret.
I'm not accusing him of, like, you know, doing a publicity stunt or anything like that.
I mean, it's possible.
I'm just saying, this is not a serious classified private matter.
He's on a phone call giving his opinion.
An opinion that benefits the Democrats because it puts out an Obama statement about how this is a nightmare and you gotta take action.
Yeah, I don't care.
I am sick of it!
You go on Reddit and what do you get?
Go to the subreddit, r slash watch reddit die.
And you will see a catalog of how the moderators... Listen.
I think you all know what Reddit is.
You post something, it gets upvoted.
The way they control what appears on Reddit is that they apply the rules more heavy-handedly to stories like this.
And they—well, no, this story is the one they put up on the front page.
But stories about, say, Adam Schiff lying for years, or all of these MSNBC and CNN personalities lying for years, those are the ones that get removed for being off-topic or whatever, and I'll tell you what.
A lot of this has to do with politics.
There are companies that go on social media that manipulate.
They exist, man.
I know because I've talked to people in the past and talked to agencies who have done this.
Now, in the past, they were mostly about trying to sell you, I don't know, like Tide detergent or something.
I don't mean that literally.
I mean that figuratively.
They were selling you products.
Now, it's like people have realized the power of this social media marketing and they use it for politics.
I don't know how we're supposed to continue functioning as a, I don't know, successful society if we have a dumbed down moronic population, but maybe we don't.
Maybe just because we're seeing this absurdity on social media where people won't call this out, that's just the shell.
And you can actually go to other websites.
Now we're seeing BitChute, for instance, an alternative to YouTube, rising in the ranks with unique viewers.
I think in like 24 hours, almost like two and a half million viewers, you can see the Donald.win.
They've basically made their own Reddit just for Donald Trump supporters.
It's kind of impressive, to be honest.
There is a problem for the average person, though, who's going on these social media sites.
Recently, I went over to Facebook to make a post about our friendly neighborhood Voldemort, the guy whose name I can't say on YouTube.
The posts now just, if you post the guy's name, they're just gone instantly.
So this is what we get.
Let's read the news and I'll rant on this after the fact.
Washington Examiner says Adam Schiff is a sociopath.
Tucker Carlson calls for House Intelligence Chairman to resign.
Carlson refused to mince words on the Friday edition of his show, blasting Schiff for his role in advancing conspiracy theories about a hidden back channel between Russia and the Trump administration.
Adam Schiff is a sociopath.
He will do or say anything to achieve power.
He is unfit to hold office.
He should resign.
Carlson showed a 30-second clip video montage of Schiff suggesting he had evidence of collusion between Russian officials and the Trump administration.
The Fox News host added that it was, quote, fairly obvious at the time if you were following closely because the Democrat never produced the evidence he promised Carlson argued.
I'm sorry, he promised.
Carlson argued.
He failed to show proof of collusion because there was none.
And now we know that's a fact.
Schiff knew there was nothing substantial at the core of the Russian collusion story.
At the very center, it was hollow.
It was a sham.
Schiff never even suggested this in public.
Instead, he did the opposite.
He spent years on television telling you it was totally real.
Shut up.
Schiff, who led the House Intelligence Committee's inquiry into President Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, attempted to slow the release of 53 pages of transcripts this week pertaining to his role in the Russia investigation.
Boy, I tell you what, Obama must be panicking.
Now, I know, I know many of you might say, Tim, what is, listen, a leaked phone call from Obama?
He's not particularly active politically.
I mean, he did his endorsement thing, whatever.
But to have this statement coming out about Obama saying the rule of law is at risk, I mean, this is a huge boon for the Democrats.
They must truly be worried to pull out Obama.
And listen, let's say Obama had nothing to do with this.
Who leaked the phone call and why?
Certainly there were other phone calls that could have been leaked.
Well, I'll tell you what, Obama knew about the Flynn spying.
He was called out.
I did a video yesterday and all of a sudden a leaked phone call comes out from Obama?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, I think it's very advantageous for the Democrats, for Obama to not really make a statement, but to get an opinion on the record.
Let's read the story from the Daily Mail.
Barack Obama's blasted Attorney General Bill Barr's decision to drop charges against Michael Flynn as one that puts the rule of law at risk just a day after it was learned that the former president knew details about the ex-general's wiretapped phone calls with Russia's ambassador.
The 44th president made the remarks during a conference call with the former members of administration, and audio of the call was obtained by Yahoo News.
Obama is facing scrutiny after it was learned from declassified documents that he knew details of an FBI counterintelligence investigation against Flynn and had discussed it with top administration officials just 15 days before Trump took office.
The news over the last 24 hours, I think, has been somewhat downplayed about the Justice Department dropping charges against Michael Flynn, the former president said during a web talk with members of the Obama Alumni Association.
And the fact that there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free, the former president said.
That's the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic, not just institutional norms, but our basic understanding of the rule of law is at risk.
Either Obama is a complete moron, which I don't think so.
No, he's lying.
First of all, it's my understanding that Michael Flynn wasn't charged with perjury.
He was charged with providing false statements to the FBI.
As we now know, anyone who's taking an honest look at this, while you can certainly argue you shouldn't plead guilty to something unless you really, really want to admit it, They were going after his son, and they were trying to pressure him into lying, and the FBI actually wanted to close the case against him.
So I'll tell you what.
Why were the charges against Michael Flynn dropped?
Hey, man.
This is not an argument about the character of Michael Flynn in any way.
And I always say stuff like this.
By all means, you can rag on the guy.
You can say he's got bad opinions.
You can say he shouldn't have been National Security Advisor.
I don't care.
The point is...
The FBI wanted to drop the case against him.
There was no Russian collusion.
We knew there was no Russian collusion.
They testified there was no Russian collusion.
Yet they still went after Michael Flynn.
As Glenn Greenwald said, how is it wrong for an incoming national security advisor to get on a call with a Russian ambassador and say, Here's what we want to do.
Now apparently that's not wrong at all.
It's that Michael Flynn lied about it.
Did he though?
I honestly don't know.
Because the FBI's goal was to either get him to lie, to prosecute him, or get him fired.
So, uh, why would they want to get him fired?
I know you've probably heard me say it several times, but for those in the back, or for those who haven't heard it, the FBI note said, what's our goal here?
Get him to lie so he can prosecute or get him fired?
Getting someone fired is not law enforcement.
So what is Barack Obama talking about?
This guy wasn't charged with perjury.
Obama just doesn't really know what's going on.
It makes sense.
Maybe Obama's just, you know, kind of retired.
Like semi-retired, you know?
He's like, he's out of this.
He's just sitting around.
He's like, whatever.
And they get on this phone call and he just talks about things he doesn't know.
But you know what?
That's very, very typical of Democrats, isn't it?
You know, there's a meme going around about why the left can't meme.
It's not really a meme, it's like a post.
And it says that they have a very carefully crafted reality.
I kind of get that.
The general idea is that when the right, and I don't necessarily mean the political right, but the culture war right, posts a meme, the memes are simple.
It's an idea that you can generally understand because you have a shared understanding of what's going on.
Typically, you know the truth.
But on the left, none of them really know what's going on, so the memes don't work.
Case in point, Barack Obama.
If you made a meme where it said, like, lying to the FBI, blah blah blah, Obama would be like, I don't understand, I thought it was perjury.
This meme makes no sense to me.
If you're not paying attention and not reading the news, memes won't mean anything to you.
So then, you end up with a left with their leadership, still technically Obama, the most popular Democrat, who has no idea what's going on.
So how can he actually advise people?
And I think this is true of all of the Democrats and the people who vote for them.
They're not paying attention.
They have no idea what's going on.
And you can just go to these subreddits, man.
These people are just blindly walking around, clueless.
It is seriously so frustrating every day to see this stuff.
Jimmy Kimmel the other day put up a fake video of Mike Pence.
And the New York Times, NBC, you know, a bunch of other reporters just repost it.
Without doing any fact-checking.
You know one of the things I've said before?
Well, let me read this, and then we'll rag on the current state.
He says, and when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly, as we've seen in other places.
Obama weighed in on the Flynn case a day after declassified documents showed that he raised the issue of the FBI's investigation into Flynn with then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.
The documents that have been used as exhibits in the government's motion to dismiss the case against Flynn.
Where the time was due to become the National Security Advisor under the incoming Trump administration, show that Obama's knowledge of the call surprised Yates.
According to Fox News, on January 5th, 2017, 15 days before Trump assumed office, Yates attended a meeting in the Oval Office with Obama alongside other notable national security figures, according to the newly declassified documents, which include a FD 302 FBI report.
The other attendees were Biden, James Comey, John Brennan, and James Clapper.
The meeting was held to discuss Russian election.
So we did go over this.
Basically, Obama had very specific knowledge about Michael Flynn that surprised Yates.
Obama's knowledge of the phone call, which at the time the FBI said were not criminal in nature, is notable due to his own history with Flynn.
In 2014, President Obama had fired Flynn as the head of his Defense Intelligence Agency and had warned the incoming Trump administration against hiring him.
Obama didn't like the guy.
Obama fired the guy.
Whether or not he should be hired is not up to Obama.
Obama had left.
Donald Trump hired the guy.
So what did they do?
They railroaded the guy.
And Obama knew about what was going on.
And now he has the nerve to come out and say, oh, but he wasn't in charge of perjury?
You know what, man?
Maybe it's his ability.
It's his attempt at plausible deniability, I suppose.
In December 2017, Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.
This we understand.
The Justice Department on Thursday abruptly asked a judge to drop these criminal cases.
So we get all this stuff.
Let's talk about the current state of politics, right?
As I was stating just a moment ago, It's not so much the conservatives versus the liberals, to be completely honest.
I mean, most of you know my politics are decently liberal.
Center-left.
I'm fairly moderate because there's a lot of issues I agree with conservatives on.
A lot.
And I'm definitely at odds with the progressives.
But the progressives versus the moderates is actually kind of a normal thing.
The problem is the establishment Democrats don't represent moderates or centrists.
They're just liars, manipulators who want power.
Like Tucker Carlson said, they're sociopaths who will do whatever they want.
But think about Obama's statement here.
Obama calling it perjury says something truly amazing about the highest profile individuals of the Democratic establishment.
They have no idea what they're talking about.
This is really amazing.
I'm surprised to see Obama, as intelligent and articulate as he is, saying something so ignorant.
I'm not really surprised.
I mean, you know, I should rephrase that.
He's out of public life, for the most part, right?
He's retired, he's not the president anymore.
He's probably still working and doing some stuff, but he clearly has no idea what's going on.
So he steps up with, you know, a cursory glance, a cursory knowledge.
He read a couple articles, he went, huh!
And then someone asked him, and he was like, well, you know, people when they're charged with perjury, and you're like, that's not what happened.
You don't know, do you?
And that's okay.
He doesn't have to know.
I'm not blaming the guy for being out of the loop on this, but I am going to blame him for, you know... Well, actually, I'm not even going to blame him for this.
The dude made an ignorant statement where he knew nothing about what was going on, and someone leaked the call.
Now you're going to see that statement made in ignorance spread around, and you're going to see other Democrats, also in ignorance, repeat it as though it's the truth.
Michael Flynn was charged with perjury and let go.
I don't think he was charged with perjury.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe I'm the stupid one.
That's fine.
I'll read up on this and I'll make sure I get my facts straight.
But think about things like Nancy Pelosi says during impeachment.
All roads lead to Putin.
All roads lead to Russia.
These people have no idea what they're talking about.
And it's really scary.
So when I was on the Rogan podcast just this past week, I said, I think one of the things that's driving the left insane is that they're inundated with internet content.
And I've done a lot of thinking on this because Joe said, no, that can't be, you know, you're wrong because the conservatives have cell phones and they're very active and they do well online.
And that's true.
And I think I've thought about this.
I can refine this idea a little bit better because that was a really good point that Joe made.
I wasn't considering.
What I think we see is a couple things.
First, why did Joe Biden's campaign fumble and fizzle and fail to do a live stream?
Because they have no youthful exuberance.
You know what I mean?
I'm being somewhat facetious.
But what I mean is all of the young people on the left, they're mostly progressives, like Bernie progressives.
So that means the people who would help Joe Biden do his thing Are mostly old people.
And so I'm imagining a bunch of like, you know, silent generation boomer and boomer types being like, how does the app work?
I'm pressing the button, but the thing isn't happening.
Like, they have no idea what they're doing.
Thus, the stream fumbles, fizzles, and fails.
The young people who are really excited are for Bernie.
Why?
It's because they are active online, and they are inundated with these memes that drive them insane.
So I think about conservatives.
Yes, it's true, they dominate online.
And it's probably because they have limited proximity to other people, relative to Democrats.
So here's what I think we're seeing.
It's a very complex view of what's happening that's shaping politics.
You have conservatives that go to the same place that rally around trusting Donald Trump, for the most part, not everybody.
And then you have some people who just think the left has gone off the rails.
The youthful left is busy pushing things in ignorance as well.
They're surrounded by memes, sort of.
It's like, you know, progressive stuff is not the same as conservative memes.
Like I was saying earlier, the left is getting a different worldview from different people, so their memes don't make sense.
But I'll put it this way.
You have the older Democrats that don't use the internet and have no idea what's going on.
And then you have the younger progressive Democrats who are online being inundated with constant content about socialism and UBI and universal health care.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the perfect example of this.
Nancy Pelosi is the perfect, or actually, no, Obama, I think, is the perfect example of the establishment Democrats, while AOC is the perfect example of the youthful leftists.
AOC represents people who are loud, obnoxious.
They're politically active, but very, very politically ignorant.
And people just follow what she says, and it's not so much about her, but it's about the ideas and the memes that they're getting.
So they say things that seem to make no sense.
But they're being driven further and further left by a constant one-upsmanship kind of game.
That's why Bernie Sanders tried pandering, and there's a huge disconnect.
But over on the right, you have young Trump supporters who are making memes and laughing, and they're in agreement with older Trump supporters, and perhaps it's because conservatives don't have a strong control over cultural media, right?
So what happens is, you have very few conservative sites relative to the mainstream media.
I'm talking about of prominence, right?
Most of the views.
So when you look to what the media is pushing, there is kind of a cohesive narrative from establishment press, but most people on the left aren't focused or paying attention on this.
The establishment ones are.
The progressive left is on the internet, and there's a fracture here.
But if you look at conservative memes and conservative media, they actually agree, right?
So let me try and rephrase this very simply.
Barack Obama comes out and says something that makes no sense.
It's like a half-baked idea.
The dude clearly has no idea what's going on.
Now, he probably knew about what was happening back in 2016 or whatever, but right now, it sounds like someone mentioned it to him in passing, and he was like, oh, that's really bad, you know, the perjury.
It's like, dude, you have no idea what you're talking about.
And again, it was a leaked call, so I won't blame him.
I'll just say it's unfortunate.
The young left is following memes and websites that the democratic establishment is not, so they are disconnected.
Meanwhile, conservative websites are basically in agreement with conservative memes and conservative personalities, thus creating a cohesive narrative between the older and younger generations.
But I also think, you know, to walk back what I said on Rogan, I actually think it's the internet that is unifying conservatives to a certain extent.
People who live in big cities are constantly talking to each other, and they're watching establishment press, and they're out working.
Young kids who are in college are hyper-online.
Because the other conservatives live in rural areas and are less likely to interact in person, they're interacting online, thus, in my opinion, creating a more cohesive narrative.
So anyway, I don't want to ramble on that too much longer.
I was just thinking about it, right?
And here's what we see.
You know, while I don't want to be mean to Obama, I think, bro, you're out of it at this point.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
To come out and do this, and for these calls to leak, the Democrats are clearly panicked about what's going on.
They wanted to get something out from Obama, but now it just makes you look really dumb because you have no idea what you're talking about.
Meanwhile, Tucker Carlson calls Adam Schiff a sociopath.
Now, I wanted to lead with that because I agree.
These people are nuts, man.
I gotta be honest, man.
I hate most of the politicians.
I don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat.
Y'all are nuts.
There's a small handful of politicians that I think are actually trustworthy.
Strangely, none of them are Democrats.
I think Tulsi Gabbard is, because she stuck her neck out, for sure.
But who else is left on the Democrat side?
They're so desperate to pander to get that vote.
Instead of being honest, what do they get?
Nothing.
Tulsi, on the other hand, had no problem saying it like it was, and then they ripped her to shreds for it.
She ended up going on Fox News, and then they accused her of trying to get a job on Fox.
Oh, shut up, man.
They couldn't handle honesty, right?
And I'm not saying Tulsi's perfect or anything like that.
I think there's a lot of stuff I disagree with her on.
You've got a handful of Republicans that do a much, much better job.
You've also got a majority of Republicans that are doing trash.
But I think there's a decent amount.
I don't know what's going on or why.
I think the Democrats are in a state of civil war.
And I think the Democratic establishment is desperate to cling to power.
That's all they've ever cared about.
But with Donald Trump, you saw a new wave of populism.
A ton of Republicans have been retiring, and you're getting a new wave of younger Republicans who actually are idealistic and want to do good.
Whereas the Democratic side, for the most part, the establishment has maintained their position and kept out the young idealists.
The only problem?
If you were to compare someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to, say, I don't know, who's a good example?
Matt Gaetz.
I think Matt Gaetz is, for the most part, honest.
I think he has good intentions, and I think he's addressing things fairly, to the best of his ability and how he sees the world.
I can respect that, even though I probably disagree with him on a lot of things.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez often backtracks flip-flops, has no idea what she's talking about, but she's really bombastic and that plays well for Twitter.
But I think one of the reasons she's become so prominent with millions of followers is that when Donald Trump took over the Republican Party, a wave of populists had an opportunity with no opposition.
Ocasio-Cortez is the insurgent going up against a democratic establishment and they're holding her at bay.
Dare I say, she might actually lose her seat.
Now, you know what?
I'm kind of okay with that.
What I'm really hoping for is can't we get some kind of equivalent on the left of like a moderate left-wing populist who opposes the crony establishment and doesn't want to seize the means of production or whatever?
Apparently not.
I guess we'll see how things play out.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 PM on this channel, and I will see you all then.
By now, most of you are probably aware that a bunch of transcripts got released, and that
many of these Russiagate conspiracy theorists were going on TV even though they knew there
was no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia.
You've also probably heard a bit about the Michael Flynn case, and how the FBI was going to close the case, finding no reason to continue.
And then some rogue FBI agents were like, no, no, no, don't do that.
We want to get him to lie so we can get him fired or prosecute him.
And then they went after his kid, ultimately pressuring him.
Well, yes, now you're probably aware that that case was dropped because of improper activities due to the FBI.
But I gotta tell you, man, after all this, after all of the debunking, after years, Robert Mueller and now this, you'd think The media would chill.
Or at least MSNBC would.
No, no, no.
There's got to be an award for something like this.
You know what the Pulitzer Prize is?
You do this great journalism, this great written piece, and we'll give you this shiny award and a fat stack of cash to go along with it.
What's the opposite of that?
MSNBC claims Putin was behind dropping the Michael Flynn case.
I knew it!
After all the evidence we've seen!
I'm sorry, after none of the evidence we've seen.
After concluding the Mueller case, and there's no collusion.
They're still trying to claim it's Vladimir Putin!
Man, I absolutely love it.
Nothing you say or do will change these people's minds.
They live in a paranoid, delusional state.
And I've said this before.
Now, I have to wonder, if Alex Jones is going to get banned, right?
And they're going to ban this documentary that's going around with this doctor talking about Fauci or whatever.
When are they going to ban MSNBC?
Come on, man!
MSNBC claims Putin was behind dropping the Michael Flynn case.
It's so absurd.
Come on.
Is YouTube going to do anything about this conspiracy nonsense?
Nope, because it's not about whether or not you're pushing conspiracy.
It's about whether or not you are a corporate media player.
If you're not, we're going to wipe you out.
But if you're MSNBC, we'll prop you up.
Great.
I look forward to seeing them on the front page as they screech about Vladimir Putin lurking behind every corner.
Coming to get you.
After weeks of Andrea Mitchell reports repeating Chinese Communist Party talking points, Andrea Mitchell and former FBI Assistant Director of Counterintelligence and current MSNBC contributor Frank Figliuzzi declared on Friday without any evidence That Russian President Vladimir Putin had something to do with the Justice Department's decision to drop the case against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
You know, I really want to laugh, but I also really want to cry.
Are we ever going to get out of this nightmare?
What can be done when they keep doing this?
When they tell me they will ban me for saying a name?
That if my content flies in the face of the World Health Organization, we will remove you, you conspiracy theorist!
Yet MSNBC for years has been ranting and raving.
The only difference between MSNBC and Alex Jones is that Rachel Maddow isn't standing up screaming and ripping her shirt off like Alex Jones does.
But if she wants to get up, and this story's not necessarily about her, but if the MSNBC hosts want to stand up and screech and spit and yowl about nonsense they've made up, Certainly, at some point, YouTube's gonna be like, hey guys, you can't put conspiracy content anymore.
No, no!
It's the approved conspiracy theory, I guess.
After Mitchell breathlessly summarized the stunning and unprecedented decision of Flynn, Mitchell saw something sinister in the Thursday phone call between President Trump and Putin.
Quote, Frank, first of all, the implications here and the fact that he called Vladimir Putin yesterday.
And according to the White House announcement of this and the description of it, there was no mention of the Russia probe and the election probe.
But the president himself discussed that with Vladimir Putin and the facts that in his view now.
That the Russia hoax was dispelled, they could get back to business.
What do you mean?
You just perfectly explained why Donald Trump, the President of the United States, contacted the leader of a foreign country.
For the longest time, they've been screeching that Russia, Russia, Russia.
And it makes it very difficult for Trump to actually negotiate and deal with Russia.
And now that it's all coming undone and falling apart...
He calls up Putin and says, just want to let you know, now that this weird scandal thing's all over, we can start negotiating.
Remember when Barack Obama leaned in and said, you know, wait till my re-election and I can be more flexible for Putin.
We all saw that.
Where's the screeching about that?
Yes, yes, yes, of course.
It's all about Russia apparently.
She then asked Figliuzzi to talk to me about your counterintelligence concerns here.
Figliuzzi was certain that the phone call and the decision to drop the case were connected, saying, yeah, I think they're actually linked.
The dismissal of the charges against Flynn and conversation by the president with Vladimir Putin, stone cold adversary of the United States on the very same day.
That's not a coincidence.
It's not a coincidence!
Donald Trump is calling Russia to Dude, diplomacy!
Like, what should we do?
Should we just, like, should we ghost Russia?
And Trump's, like, sitting there, and Russia's texting, like, yo, what's up with these sanctions?
We got, you know, budding conflict.
How are we gonna deal with this?
And then what?
These MSNBC people are like, no, no, no, no, Trump, don't respond, don't respond, just leave him on read.
See what he says.
No, Donald Trump's gonna be like, hey, I just wanna let you know, we're clearing up this stuff, we can get back to normalizing diplomatic relations or whatever.
What do you think is going on?
Do these people... This is the same network that had this dude on, Jonathan... I think his Jonathan Chait was his name.
Arguing that Trump may have been an asset of the Russians since the 80s.
Why can't they stop?
You know what it is?
It's just good ratings, man.
It's good, good ratings.
Whether Trump is allegedly a puppet or merely trying to appease Putin was left unsaid.
But Figaluzzi maintained the Flynn investigation was an urgent matter of national security.
The Flynn interview that is at issue here by the FBI was all about resolving the question of whether Mike Flynn was a counterintelligence threat to the nation as he entered into the National Security Advisor role.
And as we know from recent reporting, The FBI was going to drop that investigation until certain rogue FBI agents stepped in.
It was about figuring out how to neutralize, resolve, and counter that threat.
There wasn't one.
What threat?
So when the president gets on the phone with Vladimir Putin and the topic comes up in the same conversation, the concerns have not yet been resolved.
A retired three-star general is a national security threat?
That's a bit of a stretch.
Mitchell and Figliuzzi are simply wrong.
The Trump-Putin phone call was on Thursday, the same day that the DOJ made the decision public.
But the recommendation to drop the plan was made last week by U.S.
Attorney Jeff Jensen.
So, not only are they pushing fringe conspiracy theories, they're straight up wrong on their timeline.
Come on, YouTube.
Are you gonna do something about this?
Look, I'll be honest, man.
YouTube, they do some favors for me.
They really, really do.
I've got a partner manager.
I can get certain mistakes resolved.
But why is my content on the back end of the recommendations, right?
If you go to my channel, you're probably gonna see tons of Fox News on the autoplay suggestion.
If you go to other progressives, you're gonna get MSNBC.
Hey man, at least Fox News wasn't wrong about everything.
But why are you directing people away from my channel when I'm correcting the conspiracy that you keep propping up, YouTube?
It's because none of these journalists, none of these news organizations, are going to smear or slam YouTube for propping up this kind of conspiracy, because they all believe it.
No amount of evidence, no amount of release transcripts, will do anything to convince these people that they are screeching nonsense.
They are paranoid, and they are delusional, and the only reason it's not going to go away is because YouTube loves that sweet, sweet Skrilla.
They're not going to ban these videos.
Maybe if they did, these people would stop believing this fake Garbage!
Case in point, they didn't even get the timeline of the phone call right!
No, YouTube's not going to do anything about it.
But it's no surprise to me, then, that Americans' perception of journalists is slightly lower since 2018.
Perceptions of ethical standards on par with last year.
So this is actually kind of interesting.
Check this out.
Let me see if I can zoom in on this.
Pew says, Percentage of U.S.
adults who have each level of confidence that journalists will act in the best interests of the public.
48% is the net, meaning the majority of Americans believe journalists are not acting in the best interests of the public.
We can see that 39% believe they'll act a fair amount in the interest of the public, and only 9% think they act a great deal.
Take a look at this one.
Percentage of U.S.
adults who say journalists have blank ethical standards.
High is at 37 and very high is at 6.
43% net.
I kid you not, 57% of Americans as of this year do not believe that journalists have ethical standards to varying degrees.
Either low or very low.
And it is down quite a bit.
It's down two percentage points.
Should anyone be surprised when you then see stories like this from BuzzFeed?
Oh, BuzzFeed, you gotta love it.
Look, it's not just about the Russia conspiracy stuff or the social media censorship.
That plays a big role.
But it's about the fact that there's a whole industry built upon this.
YouTube is bending over backwards to avoid losing advertisers.
So if MSNBC comes out, YouTube panics.
And you can see the bias, right?
You can see the bias in how things are framed, in which group someone thinks they might be more associated with.
Personally, I don't view myself as having very much to do with the left.
That's why many of my videos are talking about leftists and not talking about conservatives.
You can see the inverse for other progressive commentators.
The way they address their audience and the way they talk about things shows who they think their audience is.
So I often do address the progressives, because I've actually done a survey on this, and I know there are very few progressives, but a decent amount of liberals who do watch my content.
You're probably one of them.
And then there are many, mostly libertarians, surprisingly.
Many people just identify as, like, moderate libertarian types.
But you look to some of this content, and you'll see exactly how they Ignore certain violations of ethics if it favors who they think their audience is, right?
That's why MSNBC will keep spouting this nonsense.
They don't think conservatives are going to watch, so they're going to make content that's favorable, that confirms the biases of the resistance.
You know, we know, and they could say, the Russia stuff is fake.
They don't want to.
Why stop now, man?
There's money to be made at Sweet Sweet Green.
Come on.
Check out this story from BuzzFeed.
Kind of exemplifies a bit of what I'm saying.
See if I can zoom out a little bit.
The viral Costco clapback isn't real, and the comedian who made it thinks that this is all very funny.
If you've been anywhere on social media, you've probably seen this post supposedly showing Costco clapping back at a customer complaining about the chain's mask policy.
No.
If you're a leftist, you've seen the fake meme that's being pushed around convincing people that Costco is insulting its customers.
It's not real.
So why isn't BuzzFeed writing a story that says something like, you know, man publishes fake news memes to manipulate people?
The reason is because the meme is anti-conservative, and BuzzFeed's audience tends to be leftists, so so long as this makes leftists laugh, they're gonna celebrate the guy and show happy pictures of him instead of calling it out for what it is, a guy who's spreading disinformation.
I love how these left-wing news outlets, they try to complain about the right-wing smear machines.
You know, CNN is screeching and freaking out over OAN giving them free publicity.
Yet BuzzFeed, when they actually talk to a guy who's making fake news to manipulate people, they're just like, it's funny.
Take a look at this post, whatever you want to call it.
Here's a Facebook post that says, I will not shop at Costco until you remove the mandatory mask rule.
Costco says, thank you for taking such a brave stand, Sharon.
We look forward to the documentary they will make about you someday.
Jack responds, wow, not a very professional response, Costco.
Looks like I'll be getting a membership refund myself.
It should be a choice.
We've chosen not to refund you.
It's fake.
A guy made it.
He's trying to make it seem like Costco is going like, you know, snapping back.
It's just not real.
In fact, there's actually a viral post right now.
Where someone says, I won't shop at Costco so long as they require masks.
Someone responds, glad you won't be coming because those of us that are smart are trying to take precautions and don't want you here.
And the guy responds, no, I really do mean it.
I respect that.
I don't want to infringe on you.
So I won't go to the store.
And then the response is remarkable saying, wow, I really respect it.
Thank you very much.
That's what it's all about.
Thank you.
Have a great weekend.
And it's like, it was actually a nice conversation.
They want a claim right now, because you go on these meme sites, you go on Facebook, you go on Reddit, they're feeding you fake stuff like this.
The people who are boycotting Costco are saying straight up, Costco, you told us we can't come in without a mask.
They say, then we won't.
If you'd like us back, you can change the rule.
So both are in agreement.
There's no controversy.
Now, of course, Costco wants the customers.
The really funny thing about this right here is that Costco isn't doing the mask rule to try and gain customers.
They're doing it out of a general fear.
They're doing it out of what they're hearing.
There's no, like, inverse boycott where people are like, everybody!
They instituted a mask rule!
Let's all run to Costco!
That's not happening.
So, yes, a boycott makes sense.
But anyway, more to the point.
BuzzFeed shows this article that's very obviously fake.
Here's the guy who's making the fake news, and they love it!
It's funny!
But Costco never posted the comments.
It's all the work of a 33-year-old comedian in Los Angeles named Ben Palmer.
How about a far-left conspiracy theorist who's making fake news?
Oh, they're not gonna go that far, right?
Why?
Because the guy is a comedian making silly joke posts.
And fine, more power to him.
But look, in this regard, is he gonna get flagged on Facebook?
This is apparently going viral.
Apparently not.
I mean, maybe he will.
I don't know.
It happens.
One of Palmer's bits parodying customer service responses— Oh, parody!
Not, you know, far-left fake news.
He has a page on Facebook called Hope This Helps, which is where the screenshot of the fake Costco comments originated.
Well, let's pop it open and see if Facebook's flagging him for putting up fake news.
Someone on my TikTok account said you should go respond to people who are complaining about the mask policy that Costco made, so I went over there and responded, Palmer told BuzzFeed News.
Ah, a 33-year-old man with a TikTok account.
This isn't the first time his work has gone viral.
In 2018, he made a City of Atlanta parody Facebook page, which got shut down after he posted the city would implode Stone Mountain.
It's not like he's keeping his trolling a secret.
He posts about his work on YouTube as well as TikTok.
I get it.
It's not necessarily a puff piece.
But BuzzFeed is one of these outlets, like many of these other far-left outlets, that have insulted and lied and denigrated conservatives or right-wing memes who have fear-mongered and shrieked.
Yet when a guy is doing this in the other direction, it's just he's trolling and he knows it.
He still thinks it's very funny when people think his work is real.
This time, the Costco post has really taken on a life of its own, even receiving its own Snopes debunk.
Usually there's a decent amount of people who know it's not real, but this time it seems like it's a larger amount of people who think it is real.
The post has been shared all over social media, and customers are even posting it to Costco's real Facebook page, thanking them for their candor.
And apparently, Costco isn't responding.
He says, I have all these people that support me and follow my stuff who know what's going on.
They always get a kick out of it because they see their friends share it and they know that it's me, said Palmer.
It's kind of just like a fun little joke that we share.
Fun little joke that we share.
I am now going to bestow upon you a horrifying truth.
I believe this data was 2018.
They found that the top shared, the most frequently engaged with, I believe it was, conservative source was Fox News.
Yikes, man, right?
Am I right, Fox News?
Oh, geez.
Conservative opinion.
I don't know, man.
It's feeding people all these misleading claims because they're supporting Donald Trump and all that stuff.
Well, I'll tell you what.
Fox News is a news organization, and you can call them biased.
This is where it gets really, really bad.
Do you know what the most engaged source for the left was?
Occupy Democrats.
All right.
Now, look, we can all have our criticisms of Fox News.
They're not perfect.
I mean, at least they were right in the whole Russia nonsense.
But Occupy Democrats is quite literally a conspiracy theory fake news meme page that just posts fake things all day.
Think about what this guy does.
Think about that fact for a second.
The left is just making fake things in hopes that it goes viral.
This guy made a fake thing.
It went viral and he's laughing and loving it.
Fox News doesn't write fake news.
Yeah, they write biased news.
Sometimes they write false stories.
Sometimes they have to correct.
But foxnews.com is not the same as Fox News' cable channel.
The same is true for CNN, right?
So, Fox will put out real information, often framed in a way, or often highlighting issues conservatives mostly care about, but they really do write about everything, and they actually do have some liberal commentators and op-eds, and conservatives engage with that.
All right, you know, I'd prefer it if we had a better news source than all of what we get, but this is what we have.
All right, the most I can say is, when I do see things from Fox News that are questionable, I do call them out, and you'll notice it, because I do use Fox News as a source.
But Occupy Democrats?
I'm pretty sure like nothing they put out is is fair and accurate.
They'll put out things that are falsely framed or misleading and that's where people on the left get their information.
So it's no surprise we're seeing Channels like MSNBC still pushing the Putin stuff because I don't think they're actually capable of understanding reality.
I don't think evidence works on these people.
I know it's a weird inversion from where it was when I grew up.
You had the religious right that didn't care for evidence, and then you had the left where you had people like Jon Stewart.
Jon Stewart actually called out Joe Biden.
Jon Stewart actually uncritically showed Project Veritas and criticized the left saying, what are you doing?
Criticized journalists, even!
Yeah, that was when it was fair.
But I'll tell you what, man.
The group of people that were, like, leaders on the left that were watching Jon Stewart, they've moved over to the right.
Now, not everyone calls themselves right-wing.
Many of them call themselves politically homeless.
But I was a big fan of Jon Stewart, and I still, you know, hold similar views to basically where I was back when he was hosting The Daily Show.
You look at Trevor Noah now, and it's unrecognizable.
It's just garbage, gutter trash.
You look at all the people who used to work on Jon Stewart's show and where they've gone, and now it's formulaic left-wing trash.
The thought leaders have left the left because the left got taken over by lunatics.
And now you have conservative thought leaders and a libertarian push emerging.
Someone told me that the new conservative movement is a very live and let live libertarian, very liberal kind of thing, with a traditional social bent.
Something to that effect.
So where does that leave liberals, who agree on almost all of that, except for a little bit of the social issue stuff?
Considering how far left the left has gone, people like me have certainly walked away, whatever that means.
Now, a lot of people use walk away to reference, like, going to the right.
Now, that's not necessarily the case in how I view it, but it may be the case in terms of how the branded walk away movement views it.
What I can tell you is there are a lot of people that see this stuff and they want nothing to do with it anymore.
It's just insane fringe conspiracy stuff.
And I'll tell you what, man, there are insane fringe conspiracy people on the right, 100%.
I mean, look, he's an adversary of the U.S., but this is just insane at this point.
So, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It is a different channel.
In the description below, click that link.
TimCast.net.
And you'll be taken to a wonderful new YouTube channel you've probably never seen before.
Because apparently people don't understand, I have three different channels.
So, click the link in the description to TimCast.net, and you will see the other channel if you're not familiar with it.
And I'll see you all there at 4 p.m.
No, say it isn't so, Bill Maher.
He is being credibly accused by Rose McGowan.
I love saying credibly accused because it means absolutely nothing, but Rose McGowan accuses Bill Maher of whispering crude comment to her about his body in the 1990s.
And yes, I know it's a family-friendly show I do here, but I'm going to read you what she said.
It's kind of bad.
It'll get me demonetized.
So I'll do my best to keep it family-friendly.
But this comes after Bill Maher said that the left should basically just ignore Tara Reid.
Oh yes, like you ignored Brett Kavanaugh's accusers and propped them up.
Nah, sorry Bill.
No double standards here.
These are the rules you asked for.
You don't get to demand these things and then backpedal when it negatively impacts you.
I think Bill Maher tends to be an alright guy.
He gets some things right, but boy, does he get some things wrong.
And when he does, he gets them very wrong.
Well, let's get started.
First, with the story about Rose McGowan.
Parents, cover your children's ears.
Rose McGowan is calling out creepy Bill Maher.
Fox News says, Actress and Me Too leader Rose McGowan has accused comedian Bill Maher of whispering a crude comment about his body when she appeared in a show, Politically Incorrect, in the late 1990s.
On Twitter, McGowan addressed Marr directly, telling the host she remembered him allegedly talking about how big his manliness is, if you know what I mean.
Quote, I was on your show Politically Incorrect in the late 90s.
As the show returned from a commercial break, you leaned over to me and whispered in my ear, quote, my parents didn't give me a good face, but they did give me a huge... Oh yeah.
McGowan tweeted on Saturday, I could feel your hot breath on my ear,
as an image of both your hideous face and alleged big...
manhood flashed in my mind.
Both turned my stomach.
I've always wondered what you say and do to the girls that aren't famous.
She added, Bill, you got the face you deserved.
HBO did not immediately respond to Fox News' request for comment.
Maher hasn't responded via Twitter either.
Maher hosted the talk show Politically Incorrect on Comedy Central before it moved to ABC, airing between 1993 and 2002.
He now hosts Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO.
McGowan's accusation came after an episode of Mar's show in which he discussed Tara Reid, the former US Senate staffer who has accused Joe Biden.
What the F, Mar said on Friday's Real Time, we're letting this person change the subject from Donald Trump lethal incompetent to Joe Biden sex monster.
I am sorry, Mr. Bill Maher.
Donald Trump is bad, but he is not that bad.
But I will give you this one.
But I will also take it back a little bit.
Okay, here's what I'll say, right?
Look, it's true.
The narrative is being pushed onto Joe Biden over this accusation, and away from Trump, who has also been accused several times.
The point?
It's because it's what you all wanted.
I know I've said it a lot, but no, listen.
Trump supporters could care less.
I mean, naturally, you'll see a lot of conservatives taking advantage of the accusations against Joe Biden, but they could really care less.
Much like they could really care less about the accusations against Donald Trump.
The issue is, progressives pushed this story out.
Don't you understand?
It was progressives.
Yes, it's your fault.
Maybe you should wake up and stop aligning yourself with these weirdos on the left who eat their own.
No, I think it's fair to point out, Joe Biden is not their own.
But still, you reap what you've sown, right?
Well, Rose McGowan says Bill Maher is a creepy dude, so I'm not surprised he's saying we shouldn't.
You know, we shouldn't pay attention to this.
Let's read the story from the New York Post.
John Levine writes, Bill Maher is not interested in Tara Reade.
The comedian and HBO host criticized the media for focusing on her and said the Democratic Party should not allow itself to be sucked into letting Reade's allegations that Biden assaulted her in 93 hurt his presidential campaign.
Now, where were you during the Kavanaugh situation, Mr. Maher?
Believing everything doesn't make you noble.
It makes you gullible.
Yes!
Thank you!
And it leaves us with a world where Republicans don't care about this stuff.
Yes!
So it's just a unilateral weapon that is used only against Democrats.
Trump rides the bus with Billy Bush.
We throw Al Franken under it.
Yes.
Thank you.
I completely agree.
So perhaps if you had said this during the Brett Kavanaugh stuff, like, stop, stop, you don't realize what you're doing, the Republicans don't care.
And if, well, look.
I think, you know what?
A lot of Democrats used this and took advantage of this because it was a political weapon, but progressives do care.
And so, they used it.
And it's your own fault.
You see, I know Bill Maher doesn't care for the social justice wackos who screech, but those people, while I don't think they necessarily care a whole lot, they do use this stuff and it is part of their weird ideology.
If you had just said no to them, and I'm talking to the Democrats now, because Bill Maher basically did.
This wouldn't have happened.
But as I've often stated, whatever you think you're going to use, whatever power or weapon, it will be used against you.
And now it is.
All it takes is one woman.
And that's the standard you wanted.
I mean, look what happened to Aziz Ansari.
He had a bad date and they tried to destroy his career.
So yes, if one person decides they can say it, knowing there will be no repercussions, they can say it.
Now, I gotta be... I'll tell you what.
I don't...
I don't really trust this Tara Reade story.
I guess there's a story going around where she's quoted as saying that she was traumatized by this, and it's like, you know what, man?
I don't believe it.
I really, really don't.
You know, my personal opinion is, I think he was harassing her because Joe Biden harasses women, for sure.
We've seen it on camera.
But I don't think he did what she's claiming now.
And in the past, she didn't go this far.
Although, ultimately, I guess, there's not much I can say beyond that, because the Democrats are now benefiting from a standard they asked for.
Here's what he says.
Mark questioned why Reid had decided to come forward only at this very moment and not earlier during the primary process and also brought up her now-deleted blog post offering effusive praise to Russian autocrat Vladimir Putin.
Full stop!
Don't care about the Russia stuff.
Drop it.
Nice try.
Bill, you have lost all credibility by going Russia!
Okay, Rachel, go back to MSNBC.
And I can answer this question about why she didn't come forward sooner.
There's a bunch of speculation.
Perhaps it's because she was a Bernie supporter, and she's only coming out now because she knows it's gonna hurt Joe Biden.
But that doesn't make sense, because that would make her a Trump supporter, right?
If she was actually doing this to help Bernie Sanders, she would have come out a while ago.
Now she's coming out when Bernie's already dropped out.
That could only help Donald Trump.
She's certainly not a Trump supporter.
And this story was brought up by progressives.
Perhaps the other reason is that it is now becoming more acceptable and she feels safe to do so.
Hey, isn't that what all you guys were saying?
That the MeToo movement was made possible now because society is accepting of women and willing to listen?
Perhaps that's the reason.
I don't know.
I don't think she's a Trump supporter.
I don't think she's a Putin supporter.
Just drop it.
She's a woman who came out, and now it's because you on the left, Bill, these are the standards that you guys use, so even though you don't like the fact that it's being used against you, meanwhile Republicans just don't care about Trump, you gotta talk to, I guess, look, okay, you know what?
Bill is talking to the left.
He's telling them straight up exactly what's happening.
You know what?
He's right.
He's right.
I'm not saying they should ignore it, because that just makes them look like hypocrites.
But it brings up a really great point.
Perhaps, Bill, you should have spoken up a long time ago, and this wouldn't be happening to you right now.
Here's what he says, quote, I don't know if you've noticed, but America has turned into a failed state that does a worse job keeping its citizen alive during a pandemic than Cambodia.
No, it doesn't.
Shut up.
That's not true.
And to me, that's a little more important than Tara Reid achieving closure.
Right now in the US, we have tested more people than any other country.
Per capita, we haven't.
We're also a very large country.
So we now know that a lot of people who have died have died from this.
Yet because other countries who are poor don't do testing, you're pretending that less people have died of this?
Oh, come on!
You know what happens.
These other countries, like Cambodia, just sweep it under the rug.
They're not going to do the testing.
And so, because we have a higher standard, we are now being, you know, they're pointing to us like we're doing wrong.
Bill, just drop it.
Try getting with the program and being honest and rational.
But you know what the problem with Bill Maher is?
He doesn't read the news.
I'm willing to bet someone prepares all this for him.
You know why?
He got Covington wrong.
Yeah, if you actually just read the news and look at the videos, you'd know you were spewing nonsense.
But Bill doesn't care.
I think he's too old.
He's out of touch.
He just trusts the media as it decays into irrelevance.
Maher added that the election was too important to allow the re-delegation to matter.
Democrats are the party of choice.
We can choose not to completely F ourselves over this.
No, you can't.
Because regular Americans and moderates are now asking the question, did you really mean it?
Everything you threw at Trump and everything you threw at Kavanaugh, now's your chance to put up and prove you really meant it.
It's an opportunity, man.
We all know Biden can't win.
The dude can barely speak straight.
He couldn't even do a live stream the other day.
This is your opportunity to get rid of the guy.
But of course, it's also convenient for Bill Maher to come out and say this when he himself is being credibly accused by Rose McGowan.
I'll tell you what, man.
I believe Rose McGowan.
I really do.
I mean, it's not an outrageous story.
Bill Maher whispering something crude and thinking he's funny or sly or whatever.
And this was, like, what, 20-some-odd years ago?
So he probably thought he could do it.
Young, strapping TV show host, political comedian.
And he said some nasty stuff to another young, you know, television star.
And now he looks bad for it.
You know, do I care that Bill Maher said this?
No.
Not at all.
I think it's stupid and silly, and a lot of people have said dumb things.
Just like Donald Trump, with, you know, Billy Bush saying, women let you do, you know, whatever.
I don't care, man.
I really, really don't.
And therein lies the big problem.
He says the Republicans don't care.
Yeah, well, moderates don't care either, dude.
All right, I'm tired of the lockdowns.
We got to figure out what we're doing.
I'm willing to sit around till everyone figures it out, but I am tired of it.
We need to get back to work.
We need to make sure the food's churning.
Trump is doing what Trump is doing.
And you know what I see?
I see you complaining about Joe Biden and your own faction eating itself.
And I see Donald Trump saying that we're going to do a major purchasing of dairy products to get food to the people, and he's doing the Defense Production Act to keep the meat factories open.
That sounds like something to me.
This sounds like nothing.
But I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
California is collapsing.
A $54 billion budget deficit.
Will it really matter?
Honestly, I don't know.
But what we're seeing now with all these lockdown orders and these governors ignoring the will of the people is, it's an impending collapse.
This is not the story I want to focus on.
I just want to show you that California is facing this big budget deficit, but you've clicked the link, which means you've seen something that interests you, and that story is Elon Musk says Tesla headquarters will move to Texas or Nevada immediately and plans lawsuit after California county health official says factory can't reopen days after Governor Gavin Newsom gave the green light.
California is destroying itself.
They can't take care of their own people.
I think they're desperate to maintain congressional power and electoral power.
So they're opening up their borders.
They're saying free healthcare and all this other nonsense.
It's bringing in a ton of people.
It's causing serious problems.
Homelessness.
Wealth disparities.
San Francisco is like... It is the perfect example.
Just add some floating cars and some neon, you know, clothing.
And you've got a perfect nightmare future dystopia cyberpunk world, where the rich run these big companies and do whatever they want, while poor people roam around the streets taking dumps in the sidewalk, and just across the bay, you've got a fringe faction of far leftists throwing bricks through windows and setting fires.
Sounds like a really, really awful place.
Now, not all of California is bad.
California's a very big place.
A lot of beautiful places, a lot of good farming, but now you can see just how bad it's getting.
They've had these problems in their government for a long time.
And now Elon Musk is going to move Tesla out of California.
You know what, Elon?
Maybe it shouldn't have been there in the first place, but I get it.
Everybody wanted to be there.
It made sense.
Silicon Valley, all that good stuff.
Well, California just did this to itself.
So take all of its problems and its budget deficit, and now take away a very prominent and successful company.
And we'll see what you get.
Let's read the story.
Elon Musk has announced that he plans to move the Tesla HQ to Texas and Nevada immediately after a California county health official said the plant could not reopen.
The disgruntled CEO took a comment thread on Twitter to share that he was also planning to file a lawsuit against Alameda County.
Frankly, this is the final straw.
Tesla will now move its headquarters and future programs to Texas slash Nevada immediately.
He said in the Saturday tweet, If we even retain Fremont manufacturing activity at all,
it will be dependent on how Tesla is treated in the future.
Tesla is the last carmaker left in California.
Wow.
Musk's fury was directed towards Alameda County Health Officer Erica Penn,
who on Friday announced the Fremont company would not be able to reopen.
Tesla is filing a lawsuit against Alameda County immediately, said in an earlier tweet.
The unelected and ignorant interim health officer of Alameda, is acting contrary to the governor, the president, our constitutional freedoms, and just plain common sense.
On Friday, Pan said of Tesla, Earlier on Friday afternoon, CEO Elon Musk told employees that the multi-billion dollar car manufacturer would restart production at its plant in Fremont, CNBC reports.
It's a cool plant by the way.
We can see the picture here.
We've been working with them.
All right, so there's Erica Penn.
Musk48 cited California Governor Gavin Newsom's announcement that manufacturers can reopen this week as a reason to move forward.
In light of Governor Gavin Newsom's statement earlier today approving manufacturing in California, we will aim to restart production in Fremont tomorrow afternoon.
Quote, I will be on the line personally helping wherever I can.
However, if you feel uncomfortable coming to work at this time, please do not feel obligated to do so.
I mean, that's a great statement from Elon Musk.
He recently went on Rogan.
He's, you know, been in the news quite a bit.
He's been very angry about the lockdowns.
And here he is saying, you don't gotta come if you don't want to.
All right, what's the problem?
But Newsom's orders don't override those of Alameda County, which has stay-at-home guidelines in place through May 31st.
This may cause friction between local and state officials as they try to reopen California in phases.
A separate email was sent to staffers from Valeria Capers Workman, Tesla's HR head in the U.S.
on Thursday night with additional details.
Workman said the Fremont plant would go ahead with restricted operations and bring back 30% of employees normally working a shift.
Limited operations will resume at the Fremont factory starting at 30% our normal headcount per shift.
It's unclear if Tesla will be able to properly manufacture vehicles with the reduced headcount.
Employees who are asked to come back must watch a training video on the new safety protocols Tesla will implement amid the coronavirus pandemic.
The reopening will likely bring back some staffers who were sent home to work or furloughed after the Fremont plant shuttered on March 23rd.
All right, I'm gonna stop you right here.
I'm gonna stop right here.
These states are all asking for money.
Bailouts saying, we need money because of our deficits, but your deficits are caused by your decision to shut everything down.
If there is a way to properly reopen, and it appears that Gavin Newsom said there is, but Alameda County is going to block Elon Musk, then don't be surprised if you run out of money because you're obstructing your own productivity.
I feel bad for Gavin Newsom, sort of.
We'll see if he can step in on this one.
Because it's Alameda County that's interfering now, and this could be bad for California as a whole.
I mean, this is Tesla we're talking about.
And here we can see that California is facing a major budget deficit.
This state is awful.
Now, it is true that typically, according to the data I've read, California tends to give more money than it receives.
It's actually typically red states that receive more federal benefits than they give.
But I'm sure that has a lot to do with things that are quite nuanced, notably like defense and policing and things like that.
If California produces, you know, I'm just gonna give you a random number, $100 per day, and Arkansas produces $20 a day, but it costs $50 a day to maintain some kind of national defense budgeting, then yes, Arkansas is receiving more than it gives, and California is giving more than it receives.
But California is facing a major shortfall.
They say it's almost 37% of the current $147.8 billion general fund budget and foretells widespread program cuts absent a federal bailout.
K-12 schools and community colleges stand to lose $18 billion alone and are clamoring for more money to adapt campuses to a new social distancing reality.
The Department of Finance released its projections in a rare fiscal update a week before Governor Gavin Newsom is expected to roll out his May budget revision, his first post-coronavirus spending plan.
The deficit projection extends to the remainder of this fiscal year and through the 2020-2021 period that starts July 1st.
Newsom said Wednesday that he expects a prolonged economic downturn.
The finance documents suggest that income losses will be far deeper than during the Great Recession more than a decade ago.
It's going to take longer than I think a lot of people think.
We've never experienced anything like this in our lifetimes.
He said, adding that national employment rate will soar to depression-era numbers.
Well, California, in my opinion, is bad for a lot of reasons.
I don't want to overly exaggerate.
It's got a lot of good stuff going for it.
I just went there.
It's not all bad.
It's got great weather, by the way.
And not every part of California is awful.
But because of the way California is run, this is what you can expect.
California is horribly mismanaged, in my opinion.
Now, this isn't to say that their other states are all better.
California might not be the worst, but it is pretty bad.
You've got San Francisco, Sacramento, LA with massive homelessness and drug problems.
And now they're going to be cutting more programs.
They certainly have no idea what they're doing.
They started putting homeless people in hotels.
But I will tell you what, apparently they've done a really, really great job of stopping homeless people from getting COVID.
Why didn't you do this before?
Whatever it is they're doing now that seems to be working, isn't there something they could have done to prevent these problems and clean up the streets in the past that they weren't doing?
I think it's fair to say that California doesn't really care.
It's run by a bunch of people who say whatever they need to say to get elected, and therein lies the big problem when it comes to voting.
If someone comes to you and whispers sweet nothings into your ears, it probably is too good to be true.
And if someone comes to you and offers you some decently good stuff, but warns you that responsibility comes along the way, I know it sounds hard, but that's probably reality.
Reality isn't candy canes and rainbows.
You can't just vote to give money to fix problems.
Money isn't a thing.
You need labor.
You need humans who are willing and able to do work.
California seems to run on good intentions, though.
They say, we have a homeless problem.
I know, let's just put all the homeless people in the hotels.
Let's just build buildings to put homeless in.
In Los Angeles, even with a Democratic supermajority, they couldn't actually vote to build housing.
You know why?
Not in my backyard.
Nobody wanted the homeless housing near where they lived.
It was bad for everybody.
So even though they pretend, they claim to fight the good fight, This is what you get.
Now, I kind of think Elon Musk isn't going to move.
I think it's a, for now, kind of a threat.
Hey, I'm going to move.
We're doing it.
It's the final straw.
Gavin Newsom or somebody is going to call Elon and be like, please, please don't move.
What do you need from us?
And they'll intervene because obviously Gavin Newsom wants the tax revenue.
They're facing a major deficit and they think it's going to get bad.
The last thing they need is to lose tons of jobs and corporate tax revenue.
So I think they're going to come back with their tails between their legs.
But hey man, welcome to California.
None of this should surprise anyone.
It's how they roll, right?
You end up with a state that is more interested in voting for people who just tell you good things than in actually doing the hard work you have to do.
Why would that surprise anybody?
Think about what California is.
Now I know there's a lot of farmers who do a lot of hard work.
I've been there.
I've been to Tulare County.
But you look at the big cities that have all the voting power, and it's chillin' on the beach, it's, I wanna be rich and famous, it's influencers, it's fakers, it's fake until you make it, it's Hollywood plastic nonsense.
Then you go to Silicon Valley, and it's the tech bros, sitting atop their ivory tower with homeless people crapping in the streets.
How do you think that'll reflect on the rest of the state?
I can't believe people still live there, I gotta be honest.
I know, it's not all bad, but there's a reason I left.
I briefly lived there, I realized how awful it was, and I said, the narrative, it's hype, don't believe it.
I remember seeing a sticker when I was in Los Angeles, it said, welcome to Los Angeles, when you leave, take someone with you.
Yeah, because it's fake news.
It's not all that it's cracked up to be, they tell you it's fame, it's amazing, it's fun, it's exciting.
It's a bunch of opportunists who only come, they parachute in because they think they're gonna get something for it.
It's the gold rush, kind of.
They don't care about the community, some people probably do, but it's people rushing in thinking they're gonna get rich quick.
You build a culture around that, and you get trash in the streets, and human waste.
But you know, I know, it's not all bad, I'll leave it there.
Stick around, next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
We have a major update in the Project Veritas CBS expose.
We actually have a couple updates.
CEO and board president are now admitting to staging staffers in the medical center's testing line for CBS News.
For those that aren't familiar with the story, Project Veritas undercover footage and an insider revealed that someone staged a coronavirus testing line.
And the reason for it was because they wanted, apparently, according to these individuals, the news crew wanted it to appear busier.
Now, at first, CBS claimed, we have no idea what this is about.
It's not true.
And the hospital also denied anything.
Oh, no, no.
We think, you know, maybe it was one person.
CBS claims.
We talked to them.
They said there was one person.
But then Veritas got access to an email that proved they were lying.
And now they have come out and straight up admitted it.
In response to these developments, we are seeing a Michigan state rep demanding Gretchen Whitmer investigate the faked coronavirus testing line.
We've even seen the Washington Post cover this.
It seems like as much as these media people love to hate Project Veritas, you can't deny it when James O'Keefe and the Veritas crew hit one out of the park, and they did.
This is just one small hospital in Michigan.
We don't know why they were chosen.
We don't necessarily know why they were trying to fake this.
Maybe they needed to make money.
Maybe it was just a stupid decision because they wanted something to look like news.
But they did stage it, and they've admitted it.
Even the Washington Post referred to their initial statement as a non-denial denial.
Wemple acknowledged the impact Project Veritas has on the media's behavior, saying,
By virtue of its audience reach, CBS News has the power to incentivize others to alter the
scenes greeted by its news crews. Journalists aware of this rink-tilting dynamic can ask
interviewees, Hey, is it usually this busy around here?
Or how long was the line yesterday?
Anything to keep O'Keefe out of the proceedings.
Oh, I can tell you all about the tricks they use to get what they want.
In this post, we can see that local news, this is from James O'Keefe, local news contacted the CBS and the Cherry Health, who admits more than one staffer was placed in line.
Why?
I don't know, but I'll tell you what, the funny thing about this is that apparently the board president tried smearing Veritas in their typical fashion.
What did they say?
Well, many of the staffers said that the quotes that were published were taken out of context.
That's what they always say about Veritas, because it's their only defense when he catches people doing wrong.
Now I always say this, I think first Veritas does a really great job, I also think they have their biases, but that's fine, that's normal for any person producing news media.
They have a story, they've found, they've got an insider, they've got an expose, they've recorded something, and they publish it, and then based on the information they receive, they say, here's what we think happened.
You can call that bias, that's fine, but it's still people saying these things, and if you want to refute what they're saying, come up with an analysis, come up with your explanation, talk about it.
Instead, what they do is they try and argue that Veritas is lying.
Sorry.
It's gone well above and beyond that.
This is one hospital.
And let me tell you something.
To all the other people who are filming hospitals, this is how you do it right.
Drop the conspiracy stuff.
Drop the conspiracy hashtags.
That's helping no one.
Veritas knows what they're doing.
What do they do?
They got the evidence, they got the witness, the insider, they got statements, and they caught them in a lie, and they proved this was fake.
A bunch of people have been going out filming hospitals, finding that some of these hospitals may have been faking some of their lines as well.
But often we see these people post these videos and then pushing conspiracy stuff behind it, and you lose all credibility.
This is why they're really concerned about James O'Keefe.
He's got an airtight operation.
Okay, not necessarily airtight in every capacity.
It's not always perfect.
There's been a few hiccups.
But he tends to do a good job.
And when he catches these people, when he sees the narrative being broken, they start to panic.
Let me tell you some tricks of the trade, and then we'll read this story about the Michigan Rep demanding an investigation.
What they mentioned over at the Washington Post article, how you can frame things to make things happen.
Oh, we know it.
You'll see a protester and the journalist will be taking pictures and they could say something to insinuate or to explain what they're looking for without directing it.
Like, oh, it's too bad, you know, the flags aren't open, and then someone will run up and open the flag to get that photo shoot.
Or they can say, like what he said, is it always this calm?
There aren't a lot of people here.
That's too bad.
We wanted to get a shot.
It would be great if there were more people in line.
And then they rush to their cars, and they say, the CBS crew wants more people, and they'll do it.
And then what do they have?
Plausible deniability.
We never told them to do it.
I can't believe they would do that.
We were just pointing out.
We were asking them, like journalists, that the line was small and then they took it upon themselves.
That's how you frame a narrative.
Let's read what's going on with this Michigan rep.
Breitbart reports Michigan State Rep Steve Johnson is calling on Governor Gretchen Whitmer to investigate a fake line of patients waiting to be tested for coronavirus in a CBS News report.
They say, writing May 8th, Johnson said, I am calling on you today to instruct the necessary agencies in the state of Michigan to open a formal investigation into the incident that took place at Cherry Health.
Right move.
Because we need to figure out who did this, why they did this, what they were hoping to gain from it.
Now another shout out, just before we read on, apparently Donald Trump called this out.
In an interview, he mentioned that this was happening.
That's amazing.
On Wednesday, Project Veritas published a report claiming CBS News and Cherry Health had staged a fake line of cars to appear as though there were demand for coronavirus testing.
So this we all know.
And now we know, in this tweet put out by James O'Keefe, that I believe Cherry Health has now come and totally revised all of their statements, basically admitting it, saying, yes, we did put multiple staffers in this.
So that's the gist of it.
You can take that away.
That's the news.
But I do want to show you this from the Washington Post, because it does seem like Project Veritas has had some serious wins recently, and it can't be ignored, even by people in the mainstream media.
This is a story from Project Veritas' website.
The Washington Post covers Veritas' video exposing CBS News, saying, on Wednesday, Project Veritas released a video.
It gained millions of views and reached number six on Twitter's US Trending Topics.
The story was so powerful that even the Washington Post had to cover it.
In an article by Washington Post's Eric Wemple, he recognizes Project Veritas' investigation forced CBS News to delete content from their Cherry Health report on their website.
Saying large national broadcasters stand by their on-air work, if at all possible.
So the fact that CBS News is removing the Cherry Health portion of the Diaz story amounts to a significant concession that something went awry in Grand Rapids.
The video, recorded by a clinic insider, includes a comment from a health worker complaining about having to do fake patients.
He goes on to say, Cherry Health President and Chief Executive Tasha Blackman issued a baffling statement.
Though the Project Veritas report claims the CBS video showing a line of cars was staged, to my knowledge, CBS this morning did not stage any part of their visit, and I did not instruct any of our staff to get in their cars as part of the line of vehicles.
That's what they call in the business a non-denial denial, because what they'll do Someone else will instruct it.
And instead of saying, it didn't happen, they'll say, I didn't instruct it, leaving open the possibility it did, hoping you make the assumption that it never happened.
Of course it did.
Eric Wemple knows that his colleagues want to keep O'Keefe out of the proceedings, but we aren't going to let that happen.
It's up to all of us to hold the media accountable when they don't report the truth.
Veritas then goes on to say, if you or anyone you know work at a media corporation and are aware of any fraud or corruption taking place, please reach out to us.
I think this is one of the reasons that I get along with Project Veritas.
Because when I worked for Fusion, I quit basically saying they told me straight up to side with the audience.
And so it's not necessarily the same thing as being a whistleblower and providing documents.
I think I actually do have some communications, but it's been four or five years, so I'm not getting into that game.
But I think our vision of how the media operates is fairly aligned.
Regular liberals, the default liberals, they believe the media.
And this is why what Veritas does is...
So important.
Local news tends to do the best, but this was a CBS national segment, and that's where it all falls apart.
And the scary thing is that as the internet becomes more and more prominent in news dissemination, people are paying attention more to national stories than local reporting.
Now, of course, it was produced, I believe, with a local CBS crew, but it was aired on CBS National, it's a major network, and it was a lie.
Why lie?
I just don't understand.
What were they hoping to achieve by doing this?
And what you got to understand, if this was a nothing burger, I mean, like, there's no reason to show this line at all.
They could have just shown the tents and said tests were taking place.
Why stage something so unimportant?
Now realize, if they're willing to stage something as unimportant as this, what else are they staging?
Probably more serious things.
Now personally, I've seen unethical acts in media.
I don't believe I've seen overt fabrication of major news stories, except There's a fine line.
I'll try and break this down.
I've never seen someone say, for the most part, fake this.
I have seen them try to massage things, like I stated earlier.
Like, you know it's too bad we don't have a shot of this.
Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
I've been asked to go do things, and it's really funny.
I don't want to get into too many details because I know people will get mad because people are going to know the story in the media industry.
But I've had people be like, hey Tim, I heard this crazy thing, you know?
Isn't there someone doing, you know, I'm taking out the specifics, but he was like, isn't there someone doing this thing, you know, over on like, in Harlem in New York?
And I was like...
Nope, that's not happening.
No, no, no, I'm pretty sure, you know, there's someone up in Harlem doing this thing.
You should film it.
And I would go, nope, that's not true, there's no one doing that.
You sure?
Because I'm pretty sure there's someone, and I'm like...
No, it's not happening.
It's not gonna happen, and I'm not gonna go film it.
But that's what they do.
No one could come up to me and be like, hey, go fake this.
We want you to pretend like a guy just did this thing.
They were like, you know, why don't you go check it out?
Nah, sorry, not gonna happen.
And I'm leaving out the specifics, but this is a big story.
They wanted, you know, wink wink, nudge nudge.
I'm not playing these games, man.
So I respect what Veritas does.
You know, look, I don't want to pretend that just because they uncovered this one line at one hospital means everything is fake.
