Democrat Cried For Days After Republicans Swept Special Elections, Democrats PANIC Over Red Wave
Democrat Cried For Days After Republicans Swept Special Elections, Democrats PANIC Over Red Wave. With the crushing defeat of Democrats in two special elections former Democratic rep Katie Hill said she cried for days.It seems we are facing a repeat of 2016 complete with crying Democrats and all. Media seems adamant on claiming the Democrats are going to win but when it comes to the practical elections Republicans dominate.This wasn't true in 2018 where Democrats saw a "blue wave" but according to the NYT Trump's base did not come out to vote for Republicans in the mid termsThat won't be the case in 2020 as we ramp up for a repeat of 2016
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
We all remember what happened after Donald Trump won the 2016 election.
Videos of crying Democrats went viral.
Trump supporters celebrated an unexpected victory, and the media was left wondering how they got it so wrong.
They had projected Hillary Clinton to win.
The polls favored her.
Everybody thought she was going to win.
Many Trump supporters thought she was going to win, and then she didn't.
Eventually, we got that now-famous video of the woman dropping to her knees and screaming, no!
How did Trump win?
It now seems like 2020 is on track to be a repeat of 2016, complete with crying Democrats.
You see, recently we had a special election, two special elections, California's 25th and Wisconsin's 7th district.
Articles emerged saying that this could be evidence of a coming blue wave, that Democrats may not just hold their majority in the House, they might actually strengthen it, or maybe even take the Senate majority outright.
FiveThirtyEight argued, we could finally see the Democrats' advantage on paper translate to a real victory.
But that didn't happen.
Republicans absolutely crushed the Democrats in both of these districts.
It was a 21-point swing in California's 25th from Democrat to Republican.
So devastating, in fact, that Katie Hill says she cried for days.
The question I have then, why are so many articles arguing the Democrats are on track to win in November?
They're arguing the fundraising proves it, the polls prove it, but when it comes to the actual elections, we see the Republicans crush.
When Donald Trump is on that ballot, I believe we are going to see Republicans absolutely sweep.
Now, of course, I could be wrong.
But new data from Gallup actually explains why this may be.
Democrats are more likely to approve of the job Congress is doing than Republicans are.
That says to me that when it comes to midterm elections, Democrats show up.
Republicans don't.
But when it comes to Donald Trump, they overwhelmingly approve of his job.
They do vote.
That shows us exactly why 2018 was different.
New York Times said it.
Trump supporters didn't come out and vote.
So the Democrats actually won in these districts.
Now, it's hard to know exactly what's going to happen.
But so far, we've had a slight glimpse into what may occur.
The Democrats got crushed.
Katie Hill's crying.
I think we're going to see a repeat of this in 2020.
And we're even seeing similar polling for Biden versus Trump.
We're seeing evidence of Trump's stealth voters, and Trump is even using similar tactics in terms of calling out scandals and the establishment elite.
If you liked 2016, I think you're gonna love 2020.
I mean, aside from all the insane shenanigans so far, all that aside, let's keep it political.
Let's read the story and see what's going on, and see why.
The data suggests, in my opinion, a red wave is a coming.
Now before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are many ways you can give, but the best thing you can do, share this video.
I'm up against big mainstream media.
Big mainstream media that likes to claim the Democrats have all the advantages and then turn out to be wrong.
Now, to be fair, I've been wrong, too.
But that's healthy.
If they're wrong, fine.
I'm here to counter their points.
When I'm wrong, they counter mine.
But I don't have the marketing advantage they do, and I'm not being propped up by YouTube like they are.
So if you really want to support the channel, sharing is the best way you can do it.
Just put it on Twitter, Facebook, whatever you want to do.
If you just want to watch, hit the subscribe button, the like button, the notification bell, and we'll leave it at that.
But let's read the news.
The Daily Caller says, devastating.
Katie Hill says she cried for days after Republicans flipped her old seat.
Now, this one is a bit of an emotional grab, I'll be completely honest.
I think many people will see this and feel some kind of emotional release that they're, you know, that Republicans are winning.
I'm sure Democrats are going to see this and be very angry and probably not want to watch, but It is what it is.
But I do think it shows us the sentiment the Democrats have right now, watching what's happening.
And to be honest, I do think we're going to see a lot of this come November, and that's why I think it is worth highlighting.
Former Democratic California Rep Katie Hill said Sunday that she cried for days when Republicans flipped her old congressional seat, calling the loss effing devastating.
Hill, who resigned in October amid allegations of an improper relationship, tweeted Sunday after Republican former Navy pilot Mike Garcia flipped her seat.
Now, here's what's crazy.
His competitor, or the woman he was running against, Christy Smith, establishment Democrat, he has no political experience, first-timer, and he won.
Check this out.
Garcia had no political experience, but beat out Democratic California Assemblywoman Christy Smith, who had Democratic Party support and an endorsement from former President Barack Obama, and that wasn't enough to muster support to get out and vote for the Democrats?
The Democrats are hoping that come November, Anti-Trump sentiment will drive voters out to support the Democrat.
That may be the case.
Democratic voter turnout in the special election was down a whole lot.
And that may be the advantage the Republicans needed.
The Republicans are actually shy, I think, around 40,000 votes if we're going by 2018 numbers.
That being said, though, it's a special election.
Republicans, according to Gallup data, have an unfavorable view of Congress.
They don't come out to support these people.
They didn't come out in 2018.
Why would they come out now?
The people who did, they must have learned their lesson.
You see, when the Democrats took the House, they didn't hold up their end of the bargain talking about kitchen table issues.
They went for impeachment.
And that should have been a cold wake up wake up call for the Trump supporters who were told by Trump.
That if they take the House, they will impeach him, and they did.
Now, Trump still won, and it was a big waste of time.
But I think now, with Trump on the ballot, you're gonna see his supporters come out in droves.
Here's what she said.
So yeah, it really hurt to have my old seat flip back to Republican for a ton of people and also for me.
In fact, it was pretty effing devastating.
I went offline and cried for a few days.
But as always, getting ready to stand back up and keep fighting.
Hope you are too.
Onward, the former congresswoman added with a heart emoji.
Now here's the question I have about the mainstream media and why I think we're on track for a repeat of 2016.
I highlighted this story now I think three times.
Two special elections on Tuesday could hint at another blue wave in 2020.
The logic made no sense.
Why would they expect?
The polls showed Garcia was beating Christy Smith.
The polls showed that in Wisconsin's 7th, it was going Republican.
What made them think the Democrats were going to win?
Now, of course, I pointed that out before.
But here's the next question I have.
It's now days later, nearly a week later, where is the follow-up saying, this predicts a red wave?
Nowhere to be seen.
You see, the mainstream media continuously says, good news for Democrats, good news for Democrats, Republicans are in trouble, Republicans are nervous.
There were a few stories.
NPR, for instance, said, Democrats are worried this one's a nail-biter.
Where are the articles now saying, amazing win for Republicans, predict, you know, potential victory for Trump and Republicans across the board?
FiveThirtyEight didn't write that up.
And this is an example of why I think it's mainstream media bias, like we saw in 2016, and it's going to leave so many Democrats just blindsided.
They probably should have learned a lesson by now.
But over at The Federalist, Molly Hemingway issued a breakdown.
Now, I guess the only way you're going to get a counter-narrative is from the conservatives.
Now, the conservatives didn't come out and say, you know, there was going to be a blue wave either.
But at least we're getting a counter-opinion.
So let's read the story.
Predicted blue wave crashes in Wisconsin, California special elections.
It was just two days ago that ABC News' election forecaster 538 suggested two special elections on Tuesday could hint at another blue wave in 2020.
The case made by Jeffrey Skelly and Nathaniel Rakich was simple.
Supposedly, Americans strongly prefer Biden and Democrats over Trump and Republicans, and they are particularly upset with Trump and other Republicans' attempts to reopen the country as the global coronavirus pandemic rages.
On Tuesday, we'll get a taste of whether Democrats' electoral advantage on paper will hold up in practice, as California and Wisconsin hold special elections for two vacant congressional seats.
The main event is in California's 25th congressional district, a bellwether seat in the North Los Angeles suburbs, where both parties see a chance to add to their ranks in the House.
But if the Democrats are also competitive in the quickly reddening rural Wisconsin 7th, it could signal another blue wave in the fall, they argued.
The contest in California's 25th congressional district was an open battle for a seat vacated by Katie Hill this week, we know.
The House had just passed rules forbidding such relationships.
We get this.
I don't want to read through, you know, all that stuff.
Here's a quote.
Still, pay attention to the final margin, both here and in California.
When a party consistently overperforms its usual partisan baseline in special elections, it bodes well for that party in the general election as well.
So even a narrow loss by Democrat Tricia Zunker, if paired with a comfortable Smith win, would add to the evidence that another Democratic wave is building.
The inverse would be true, correct?
538, you'll certainly follow this up saying, wow, Republicans on track to win, right?
Politico?
NPR?
Anyone?
No?
They really want Democrats to be blindsided this November, don't they?
Molly writes, well, the results are in, and Republicans won both seats, and not by small margins.
In Wisconsin, Republican Tom Tiffany beat Zunker by 14.4 points.
In California, with some precincts still reporting, now this is closed, Garcia won.
He was winning the election by 12 points.
According to Dave Wasserman, it's the first time the GOP has picked up a seat in the state since 1998.
As Alex Berenson, a skeptic of the government-mandated economic shutdown, asked, but Democrats are the party of lockdowns, and voters love lockdowns, am I right?
Senator Ted Cruz similarly tweeted something to that effect.
This is a question I asked. We just saw thousands of people flood to Virginia beaches in defiance
of lockdown. In New York, bargoers defying lockdown. My question was, why are all these
Democrats so adamant on maintaining lockdowns that even their own constituents don't want?
Wouldn't that suggest that people don't like what they're doing and won't support them?
Certainly these people might not even vote at all.
Certainly not for the Democrats.
Take a look at this other story from, or this projection I should say, from FiveThirtyEight.
It says, are Democrats winning the race for Congress?
Democrats then flips to Republicans.
The point of this article is to track the aggregate polling of Democrats and Republicans to project who will win come Election Day, November 3rd, 2020.
And right now, Democrats have a comfortable lead with 48.5% compared to Republicans 40.6%.
This is an aggregate of all polling.
I don't buy it.
I really, really don't.
The New York Times writes, California's warning signs for Democrats.
The party needs to figure out how to adapt to post-coronavirus politics to hold onto the seats that it flipped in 2018.
But this misses the point.
The upshot for New York Times wrote back in August, Trump supporters didn't show up.
Or I should say, what they really said was that non-college-educated whites came out in lower numbers.
You know why?
Trump inspired people to vote who never voted before.
A lot of independent voters, a lot of non-voters, a lot of non-college-educated whites.
They had no reason to come out in 2018.
They're not midterm voters.
They don't care about the Republican Party.
And I brought receipts.
Some Gallup polling, for instance.
Check this out.
Here we can see Congress's job approval rating by party identification 2020.
Democrats approve of Congress 39%, Republicans 24.
Gallup says Democrats rate Congress higher than Republicans, even though control of the legislative branch is divided between Democratic-led House and the Republican-led Senate.
Well, it should be obvious to everybody, right?
The establishment Republicans, they're out.
They were pushed out by Trump, and there's a new Republican base.
They don't like what they call RINOs, Republican In Name Only.
Many of these RINOs didn't do anything to protect Trump against what was going on with the Russiagate nonsense.
So sure, Republicans aren't supporting these people.
So what happens in 2018 then?
Why would they come out?
They didn't do anything for them.
These people didn't care about it.
Think about what then happens with Trump's secret voters.
Think about what happens with this data.
Well, not just this data.
Let me show you another piece of data I really, really do love.
Congressional parties' approval ratings.
For the first time in nearly two decades, we can see that Republicans now have a higher approval rating in Congress than Democrats do.
Certainly, that should say a lot.
Why would the House Democrats maintain this majority?
The New York Times says they need to think about what they did in 2018 to win again.
I don't buy it.
I think they spent the goodwill of the people already.
They said insurance, healthcare, economy, etc.
What did they do?
Scandal.
Scandal.
Impeachment.
Waste of time.
How many people now feel betrayed?
But let me show you.
Let's talk about these lockdowns, right?
Actually, the first thing I want to show you is this.
Cash-rich Democrats tighten grip on House majority.
We see these stories all the time.
That the Democrats are doing better.
That, you know, Republicans are worried.
Here's another story.
You know what, man?
It may be.
And I always say this.
Hubris will be your downfall.
I just don't buy it.
I'm sorry.
I think Trump's got a secret base.
We've seen it in the polls.
More people approve of Trump than say they would vote for him, which is odd.
And 55% of people, according to one poll, said they think Trump's gonna win anyway.
I think it's fair.
I think Trump's going to win.
I don't think he's on shaky ground, but we'll see.
Hubris will be the downfall of the Trump voter if they don't get out and vote.
But why is the media, the mainstream media, just so, just, just always saying, it's going to be the Democrats, it's going to be the Democrats.
I just don't buy it.
I really, really don't.
So they call me biased.
They call me conservative simply for pointing, pointing these things out.
No, I guess it's fair.
I thought the Republicans were going to win in 2018 because of cultural issues.
And I was wrong.
The Republicans didn't come out for Trump.
I say Trump supporters.
Many of them didn't turn out.
And thus, the Democrats took over.
Based on that data alone, you've got Donald Trump at the top of the ticket.
You're going to get Rs across the board.
Why vote for anything else?
But let's talk about what's going on in terms of modern politics with the lockdown.
Like I mentioned earlier, people flooding the beaches, right?
Take a look at this.
This is interesting.
In New Jersey, Atlas Gym in Belmar reopens despite shutdown order.
Members gather in support.
Belmar, New Jersey, is in a blue district.
Not just any blue district, it's in a D plus 13 district.
This is not a swing district!
I live here, actually, surprisingly.
Just south, we can see here, is New Jersey 2nd.
Which was held by a moderate Democrat, Jeff Van Drew, who flipped and joined the Republican Party.
You know why he did it?
Because he could see the data.
In his district, it was going to go Republican.
He was going to get booted out.
Now, I'm not saying it's the only reason.
The Democrats were demanding that he vote to impeach Trump.
Apparently, they went to his office and said, impeach Trump.
And he said, I don't want to do it.
I don't see the evidence.
It was it was career suicide.
So he didn't.
Instead, he decided to join the Republican Party.
Now, in this district, New Jersey's first, protesters have come out saying, re-open.
Business owners have said, re-open a D plus 13 district.
That doesn't mean all of these people are Democrats, but it means they certainly lean that way.
Their friends and family are likely to lean that way.
And they're coming out defying the Democratic governor and agreeing with Trump about re-opening the economy.
And get this.
A police lieutenant approached the crowd and said to them, you are formally in violation of the governor's executive order.
That being said, stay safe and have a nice day.
And everyone cheered.
Right now, the tribal battle is over lockdown.
If you go on Twitter, what are you going to see?
All of the left saying we must lock down, we must remain locked down.
When was that ever the case?
We were told over and over again, 15 days to slow the spread, flatten the curve.
It's all we got to do.
Instead, they've locked us down for months.
Some cities in New Mexico closed entirely.
Borders were set up between states.
It's just been one extension after another.
New York now saying they're extending to June.
Los Angeles saying potentially indefinitely.
You think left-leaning voters, liberal voters, are going to stand for that?
No.
If you offer up as a Democrat to the average person, we will not reopen.
They're going to say, I'm sorry.
I'm going to vote for the person who's going to give me exactly what I need when I need it.
Think about it.
We can argue all of the things in the world about health care and the economy.
But when people are locked in their homes and can't work, Do you think these people in New Jersey are demanding rent freezes?
No.
They want to go to the gym and exercise, and the business owner wants to open his business, and a lot of people support the opening of the business.
Many of the conservative activists we've seen have been holding signs saying, I want to work again, I need to make money.
The leftist activists are saying, cancel rent.
It's a dramatic difference in what people are actually looking for.
So I'll put it to you this way.
I believe all of these issues outside of the lockdown as of right now are irrelevant.
You want to go and say universal health care, fine.
But when someone is locked in their house, they're going to vote for whoever is going to open the door and that's that.
And we're seeing it in a blue district, a heavily blue district.
This says to me, more evidence that Democrats' policies and positions are unpopular.
I don't understand why they all want to keep these lockdowns going when people are defying them anyway.
It seems crazy.
Maybe they have no choice.
I honestly don't know.
But we are, well, we should expect to see more of the same, at least the AP thinks so.
2016 repeat.
Trump revives Clinton playbook to battle Biden.
Does he really though?
Or is it just who Trump is?
I guess you could argue that he's launching the same playbook, but I think the media is making the same mistakes as well.
We just saw an article from the Washington Post that said, we must prepare for the very real possibility that Donald Trump will reject the results of the November election.
Are you kidding me?
It's the Democrats who haven't accepted the results of the 2016 election.
It is happening all over.
Again, complete with crying Democrat.
We're just getting a glimpse of it early.
The AP says, accusations of a deep state conspiracy, allegations of personal and family corruption,
painting an opponent as a Washington insider not to be trusted.
It's 2016 again, or at least that's President Donald Trump's hope.
Trump and his allies are dusting off the playbook that helped defeat Hillary Clinton,
reviving it in recent days as they try to frame 2020 as an election between a dishonest
establishment politician and a political outsider being targeted for taking on the system.
This time, however, the so-called outsider is the sitting president of the United States.
Yes, and he still is the outsider.
You still have the establishment, Democrats, and media going after Donald Trump, walking in lockstep.
Sorry, it's just true.
And this is not new.
Donald Trump has been ranting about the establishment the entire time.
The deep state, the do-nothing Democrats.
He hasn't changed his opinion.
It's the same thing.
If we are getting a repeat of 2016, it's not Trump's fault.
It's the media's fault for refusing to open their eyes to what's happening around them.
Of course, of course.
I could be wrong.
And you see, what separates me from these other outlets, I did open my eyes to what happened around me.
I asked myself, how was I so wrong in 2018?
I made, I think, two videos like, no blue wave coming, the red wave is coming, the Republicans are going to sweep.
And the reason I thought so, Was because cultural issues were just up, you know, front and center.
People were tired of social justice, leftist kind of nonsense, and that stuff has really taken a back seat in the past, you know, couple months.
But I was wrong.
I thought Trump's voters were gonna come out in droves.
I was wrong.
They didn't.
Because of this, the anti-Trump voters came out in droves, and the Democrats won the House.
Now, after assessing all of that data, and looking at this data, I think I have a more accurate model of what's to come.
I could still be wrong.
But many people in media still refuse to accept it.
They write the same stories, they argue the same points, they show the same polls.
Where's the update?
Why would FiveThirtyEight argue a blue wave was coming?
I have no idea.
They're in a bubble.
That's the world they live in.
They say Democrats are surely going to take it this time.
But then they didn't.
Have you not been paying attention to what's been happening with Trump and his approval rating?
Currently, Gallup has Donald Trump's approval rating higher than both Barack Obama and George W. Bush for the same time period in office.
Higher than Obama's at 49%.
In the aggregate, Trump's approval rating is higher than when it was when he was first elected.
His highest approval rating aggregate ever was only a couple weeks ago.
Yet the media will still tell you it's a blue wave.
They told us this in 2016 and it was wrong.
And now they're telling us it again.
So you know what?
If they lose, they deserve to lose, I guess.
Because what else can you expect?
Eager to distract from the coronavirus pandemic, Trump and his advisors have started the fog machine again.
I just— I can't believe it, man.
Eager to distract?
What about Trump's opinion or rhetoric has changed in the past couple of months over this?
It hasn't!
He's been ragging on— You know what's crazy about this?
The AP, which I normally really like, is saying Trump is, in recent days, you know, he's dusting off the old playbook.
You tried to impeach Trump for accusing Biden of corruption.
What do you mean, dusting off the whole playbook?
You're arguing that back in 2018, he was trying to do this stuff.
Yet now, the media just can't figure out what they did wrong.
The Democrats and the media, unfortunately, have been walking in lockstep for too long, and they haven't been paying attention to what's happening in this country.
CNN, you know, they've done some stuff that's been pretty good.
CNN went to a liberal Democrat stronghold and found the people there were voting for Trump.
How could this be?
I don't know, man.
Maybe media, if you stopped and started paying attention.
The biggest problem I see with the mainstream media is that they have very short-term memories.
They can't remember what just happened last week.
You guys realize that it was only, what, like, three months ago we tried to impeach the president, right?
I mean, the Democrats.
I shouldn't say we.
I meant, like, in America, the Democrats tried to impeach the president.
Only three months ago.
And the reason for it was because Donald Trump was accusing Joe Biden of being dirty.
And his son, Hunter Biden.
And all the Republicans.
When has this ever stopped?
They've been accusing Trump of being a Russian since the election.
They accused Trump of working for Russia during his presidency.
It has never stopped.
So why should I believe the Democrats are going to win this time?
I don't.
Red Wave a coming.
And I think they're crying over it.
We saw the stories that they were worried.
Where's the follow-up mainstream media?
Why don't you follow up now that they're crying and nervous and talk about the coming Red Wave?
Based on FiveThirtyEight's logic, that a strong showing from Democrats would predict a Red Wave, you'd think they'd write incoming, I'm sorry, a Blue Wave.
You'd think they would now write about the Red Wave.
Of course they won't.
They write what their audience wants to hear.
It's unfortunate.
If they only ever hear what they want to hear, they'll never be able to correct their problems to win again.
Maybe that's what's going to happen.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
I am youtube.com slash TimCastNews and I will see you all then.
NBC News reports, unemployment rate soars to 14.7%, highest level since the Great Depression.
This is the biggest and most acute shock that we've seen in post-war history, said one economist.
And the reason for this very high unemployment rate, while not exclusively the fault of the Democrats, to a great degree is the fault of the Democrats.
I know, I know, I'm biased, and you'll just point out I often rag on the Democrats, but I think I've got data to back this up, and I think I've got at least somewhat of a compelling argument.
You see, the other day, I did a bunch of stories about people flooding to beaches, defying lockdown orders.
I did a bunch of stories talking about people flooding to bars in New York City, not wearing masks, violating social distancing.
So much so that Bill de Blasio said, we're going to shut these businesses down.
So hold on a second.
How do we have record unemployment, businesses defying lockdown orders, people going out for drinks en masse, violating social distancing, people flooding to the beaches?
It seems like things are getting back to normal, yet we're still seeing a very high unemployment rate.
Well, first and foremost, The virus is not the fault of Democrats or Republicans.
For the most part, it's the fault of China.
I know the tribal left will still get mad at me for saying that, but that's the case.
I think, you know, even though Bill de Blasio, Andrew Cuomo, New York did a very poor job, To a certain degree.
99% of the responsibility lands on China, man.
I mean, we were all caught off guard.
Trump made some early moves.
A lot of people downplayed this.
The media did.
Trump certainly downplayed it.
Everybody was caught off guard.
And you know what?
I think as Americans, we can let bygones be bygones.
Focus on the real problem, which is China.
And as of right now, Australia has called for an investigation into the origin of the virus.
But I don't want to talk about that.
What I want to talk about is the unemployment rate.
Well, of course, right now there are lockdowns across the country.
So yes, of course, there'll be high unemployment, right?
Take a look at this tweet.
This is from David Caltabiano, quote, no one wants to come back to work.
Phoenix restaurant Times Square said they have more than 30 openings with few job applications.
The owner says the furloughed employees told her they make more money from unemployment plus cares act than they do working for her.
And we have heard the same story over and over again.
I mean, let me just show you a bunch of these stories.
As businesses prepare to reopen, workers weigh COVID-19 risk against the need for a paycheck.
This is... I'll start you off light.
But in this story, they basically... I'll read you this.
Because many of her workers are receiving unemployment payments that are more than a typical paycheck at the restaurant, Wes said she's worried that her employees won't want to come back.
Let's scale things up a little bit.
Restaurants bailout problem.
Unemployment pays more.
Restaurants represent less than 9% of paycheck protection loan recipients.
But as of March, accounted for the majority of layoffs nationwide.
Let's kick it up a notch.
Another small business headache.
Some employees are asking to be laid off thanks to higher unemployment benefits.
Whoa, whoa, whoa!
That's a pretty big leap we've gone so far.
I'm worried my employees won't come back.
Some employees, no, they'll make more not working, too.
I want to be laid off?
Look, man, the CARES Act tried to do a lot, and I was very much in favor of getting all of this stuff passed as quickly as possible.
I think it's fair to point out that in an emergency, we rushed things through, and I said we will face problems with this, no doubt.
Several Republicans tried to block the stimulus because they were worried about exactly this.
And we're seeing it.
Unemployment is extremely high.
Jobs are coming back, but people don't want to go to work.
So I contrast this with the hilarious people flooding to beaches, yet job openings going unfulfilled.
That says to me that people aren't concerned about the virus.
They're looking at more money.
Now, the first point I want to make, I do want to highlight that Democrats propose keeping the $600 unemployment checks rolling in until 2021.
That will exacerbate unemployment.
Look, you've got people in stories asking to be laid off.
Why are we going to just keep printing more money when people can be getting back to work?
Look, if people are not scared and they're willing to go to the beach, they can certainly work their jobs, right?
Or maybe they're willing to risk getting sick going to the beach, but they're not willing to risk getting sick by going to work.
The first thing I want to say before I read these stories, Right now, you have rent strike protestors, you have student debt protestors, you have mortgage and eviction protestors on the left.
In fact, the rent strike protestors on the left have been out much longer than the lockdown protests.
See, when all the lockdown first happened, a bunch of conservatives were like, you got it.
Then as things went on, and there was no end in sight, everything kept being re-upped.
Eventually people said, I can't sit around and do nothing anymore.
I have to get back to work.
They started reopening, started defying orders, started protesting.
We still see the rent strike protesters.
I tell you this, an individual holding a sign that says, I need a haircut, asking for one of the least important hygienic things you can do.
is still substantially better than someone saying the government should pay for my stuff.
Okay?
One is like a minor positive and the other is a massive net negative.
Now, I can understand, you know, putting a hold on certain debts.
I can understand putting a hold on rent or something.
I mean, these arguments are really hard to make because the economy needs to move.
The student debt thing, I think we absolutely could freeze that and they have, you know.
But you have protesters on the left that are demanding that the government print money, give them that money, so they can have access to goods.
But if no one is making the goods, then what are you talking about?
I understand we're in a very, very wealthy system, so we're rather insulated.
We could go quite some time printing money before we actually have no supplies left.
But what these people don't realize is that as soon as that money hits your bank account, everything, you know, becomes more expensive.
The purchasing power of that dollar goes down.
We've seen something interesting.
Necessities, food, dramatically going up in price, more so than we've seen since the 70s, while everything else is dramatically decreasing because there's no demand for it.
So anyway, what we see now, people want to be laid off.
They also want to go to the beach.
People are trying to find ways to not return to work because they're getting free money, yet they're going to defy the government orders and go to the bar and not wear a mask.
How does this make sense?
The government is printing money and giving you a check, producing value from nowhere.
It's extracting value from our children, borrowing money from ourselves in the future, devaluing the dollar, and straining resources, and you can't even social distance.
The point of the unemployment was because you couldn't work.
Now that people can, they don't want to come back.
Take a look at this story from CNBC.
Can you refuse to go back to work and still claim unemployment benefits?
Wait, what?
What?
Why is this even a question?
No!
The answer is no!
You have to... If you reject work, then you don't get paid.
Look, man.
I, look, I understand there are problems.
The $600 extra, the bonus.
I think, you know, we tried to be nice.
I question the Democrats' logic now in wanting to extend this into 2021 when jobs are already starting to reopen.
Now take a look at this.
CNBC, guess what they said?
Yes.
Yes, you can refuse to come back to work.
All you got to do is cite safety.
What your employer must provide in order to return to work.
As businesses reopen, they must follow guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention intended to protect employees.
Employers have the baseline responsibility of providing proper hand-washing stations, additional sanitation and personal protective equipment, such as masks or gloves, and following social distancing recommendations.
Certain states may also have more rigorous standards on top of federal guidelines.
Okay, okay.
To be fair, I get it.
They do.
That's true.
But it seems like they're now offering up this as an exploit.
Well, I just don't feel safe.
We're talking about a group of people.
Not all of them, but many of them.
Who don't feel safe when someone says naughty words.
If you're going to use safety as a basis for whether or not you can or can't go back to work, these people are going to claim it's unsafe because of COVID.
CNBC says, if someone believes their employer isn't putting in the effort to provide a safe working environment, workers could argue that the conditions are no longer safe and try to refuse work in the first place instead of going in.
She adds, the National Employment Law Project has submitted proposals to the Employment and Training Administration to clarify how suitable work applies during the pandemic.
So it's possible more guidance will roll out as businesses reopen and workers are called back in the coming weeks.
We anticipate they'll come out with more clarity that will help workers be able to return to work only when it's safe.
Recent studies showed 66% of those getting COVID right now are those staying home.
The people who are going out and are working, the essential workers, actually have a lower infection rate, likely due to the fact that they're not in the same place, in a small place, where people are touching everything and coughing in the same room, and they're getting more sunlight.
These are just some of the reasons why going out is actually better.
So, as I've noted, the studies seem to... Many times, the studies seem to suggest that social distancing, wearing a mask, hand sanitizer, these are ways we can slow the spread, but the lockdown ain't it.
I understand.
We're seeing problems from the CARES Act.
We're seeing problems from the lockdown.
Maybe we made a mistake.
That's okay.
Pencils have erasers, man.
Now that we see the problems coming from this $600 bonus, that people are actually trying to find a way to refuse to work.
Maybe we should walk that back and say, for now, you're not going to be getting more money if... Well, this is a serious conundrum, man, I'll tell you what.
We can't have the government shut down businesses, then have people go without money because the government forced them to.
They can't pay their bills because unemployment only pays around 67% in many jurisdictions.
I don't know how it works across the country.
Some places it pays less.
So that's why we have the $600.
So it makes sense.
But now they've created this conundrum, and the Democrats want to extend it.
Till 2021?
Man, I don't know.
This is rough.
A lot of businesses are still locked down, but I'll tell you this.
We're looking at a hodgepodge, mishmash, broken system.
That's the best I can put it.
There are some people who need the $600.
And there are many people exploiting this.
So what do you do?
I honestly have no idea.
Are we gonna tell the people who can't go back to work because of government mandate, you get nothing, we're taking it all away because some people exploited it?
I don't know.
But what do we do about all the people flocking to the beaches saying, I don't care about your rules, I'm going to the beach?
Should you then forfeit any bonus you get if you defy the government rule?
No, I don't like the government incentivizing people by giving out money like that.
Everything's broken.
I honestly have no idea.
I can tell you, I think at this point, we should have learned our lesson.
As people are now asking to be laid off, maybe we need to stop the bonus, and maybe we need to slowly start reopening.
That seems to be the solution.
Like I mentioned, the study's saying essential workers are less likely to get sick.
In which case, at this point, we should slowly start reopening, which we are, which we are to be fair.
We should reopen.
People should come back to work.
They should not get an extended bonus.
Okay, now it's time to start weaning off the teat of the government.
And we had the emergency.
It's the government's fault.
So the government paid.
And I'll be careful how I phrase this.
Let me walk that back.
What I mean is, the government is responsible, the various governments, the local jurisdictions, for shutting down businesses.
You can't tell someone they can't provide for their family and then, you know, offer them up nothing.
So, I'm not a big fan of government intervention in this way, but I recognize that this is kind of what government should do in emergencies.
I like the idea of social programs.
I don't like the idea of them just consistently extending it, refusing to recognize the problems they create.
This is my big problem with government.
I tend to be moderately left on many issues.
And the way I explain it to people is that I think social programs and government programs are really, really great things.
100% I believe it, till the day I die.
You know why?
Because I've benefited from government benefits.
I've lost my job.
I've gotten unemployment benefits.
It saved my life, kept me from being homeless.
And I didn't exploit it.
I used it as an opportunity to avoid falling in the gutter.
And then I worked and then I found my way out.
The safety net works.
The problem is one, exploitation.
How do you deal with that?
I honestly don't know because that's what we're seeing right now.
I can tell you this is the opposite of how you deal with exploitation.
They're taking advantage of our goodwill, violating what the government requests of them.
Hey, don't go to the beach.
But then many of these people, I don't want to say it's one for one because I don't know who these people are, but then you have many of these people saying, can I like not go to work because I'm getting more money?
Or job openings going unfulfilled by people who will just say, but I can't find work because I'm getting more money.
So these people, I don't know what the percentage is, but you have this exploitation, okay?
That's a problem.
I don't know how we'll solve it.
I don't think that's a good enough reason to get rid of the program.
What I can say, though, is the government never dissolves the program once they're done.
They never stop.
They never fail.
They just keep dumping more money into it.
And the way I've explained it before is imagine you get a cut on your arm.
So you clean it, you put a bandaid on it.
Congratulations.
That's what the social government program is.
Now, eventually, you gotta take the bandage off and check to see if the problem has been healed, and you know what?
Peeling the bandaid off hurts!
A lot of people are like, do it fast, do it slow, no, and you do it and some hair gets pulled out and you're like, ah, that was uncomfortable, but hey, it's what you gotta do.
Instead, what we end up with government is they just say, it's starting to get green, just slap another band-aid on it.
Slap.
And then eventually you have a bunch of big festering bandage gangren- and it gets worse.
The cure eventually becomes bad.
So now we're talking about the cure becoming worse than the disease.
And it seems like Democrats are going to exacerbate the problem.
As businesses are reopening, we shouldn't be talking about extending these checks until 2021.
FiveThirtyEight notes, many Americans are getting more money from unemployment than they were from their jobs.
And hey, guess what?
That's okay within reason, if it's temporary.
If the jobs are forced closed, and it's temporary, I get it.
There was a viral post on Reddit, and it was really annoying.
It was someone saying something like, wanna know what I think about someone getting an extra $600
unemployment paycheck?
Nothing, I don't care because poor people, you know, are not my enemy or whatever.
And it's like, dude, there's also a meme going around saying as soon as you get the money,
spend it on gold or whatever because the buying power is gonna collapse.
I don't think that makes sense necessarily.
I don't know, gold may have taken a big hit recently.
I don't know, I'm not saying you should or shouldn't do anything with gold or whatever.
I'm making the point that you can't just print money.
Money has no value.
Like, the value of money is in the labor behind it, the energy.
One of the most expensive costs for any business, typically, is labor costs.
And I think that's universally true.
I'm sure there are some industries where it's like you're buying plutonium or some ridiculously rare element that can be really expensive.
So sure, fine, I get that.
Or maybe you have robots running your business.
But human energy is one of the base components of the value of money.
These people don't understand that.
As you devalue that, then, or you get rid of it by just giving money to people who normally would be doing these jobs, there's no one to do jobs, there's no value behind that money, and eventually the money becomes valueless.
At the same time, I get it, demand is drying up, so we're seeing really weird things happen to the economy.
But if Americans are getting paid more and you want to extend this, then eventually there's just no reason for anybody to come back to work.
I mean, why?
You can just say it's not safe.
Hey, the government says so.
And the economy just goes up in flames.
Here's the weird thing.
I don't know what the Democrats want.
Do they want people to become dependent on government so that come the election, the 2020 November elections, they're going to say, we're going to give you more money for free?
I guess?
Seems to be something people would like.
Hey, I don't gotta work, I get free stuff.
And it will only be years later that they realize that all things have a price.
Ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
I mean, technically there can be.
But there's always something given in exchange.
Some people get away with getting free stuff, stealing, but eventually you'll pay the price, whether you realize it or not.
Of course, they're hoping other people do.
By them getting money, it's either- it's through the taxpayer essentially, it's the devaluing of our currencies, it's hurting our savings, and it's causing economic damage, supply chain disruption.
There's going to be a ripple effect, and it's going to come back to haunt people.
They don't understand that all things have a price.
You don't just get given money.
You're being told, for now, we'll give you food.
But now we're seeing stores with supply chain disruption, now you can't buy a certain amount of meats, now Wendy's has no burgers, and eventually people are going to realize Hey, I can't get what I want.
The problem is I don't think people will put two and two together.
That the lockdowns they were supporting because they were getting this free money resulted in the loss of the things they really wanted.
Now, take a look at this story from Axios.
It just came out.
Job openings report shows record unemployment rates still under state's true number.
The difference in layoffs between US jolts and non-farm payroll reports.
They basically just point out that job openings and, you know, unemployment, these numbers suggest unemployment's actually a lot worse than it really is, and it's already incredibly, incredibly bad.
It's the worst we've seen since the depression.
And some people are suggesting it could get even worse still, maybe even as high as 25%.
So I'll tell you this.
Here's the point I wanted to make.
While it's true that China takes the most blame for lying, the World Health Organization disseminating false information, We still have to recognize we have a responsibility when it comes to the coronavirus.
If the Democrats are going to continually incentivize people not to work, then you can't blame the unemployment numbers on the president who's trying to get people back to work.
The Democrats will argue, in turn, the Republicans are callous and don't want to help Americans.
Well, now we have this HEROES Act or whatever, and the Democrats want to extend this money.
So I'll tell you what's going to happen.
A large portion of people will find ways not to come back to work.
This is the tweet.
A restaurant in Phoenix with 30 job openings can't find applicants.
Why would they?
Look, I gotta be honest, from an individual point of view, you'd be stupid to go and take a job and lose that sweet $600 a week.
Democrats are talking about pushing that into 2021.
Don't take the job now, you'll lose money.
And that's what's gonna happen.
I know some will argue that's the intent.
They want the unemployment to be bad, hoping that a superficial unemployment will still hurt Trump in November.
I'm not entirely convinced.
I think we're dealing with a culture war which supersedes anything we think we know about, you know, electoral politics.
Does the economy really even matter anymore?
I don't know, man.
It's more about sports team politics at this point.
But this might be a way to make sure that people don't come back to work so they can keep ragging on Trump over the unemployment numbers.
The one thing they don't understand.
I don't necessarily think that's the case.
I think they're just like, give people stuff, people like free stuff.
But in the end, Americans blame China.
They really do.
And whether or not the numbers are bad, the economy is bad, I don't think it really matters.
China is at fault for the most part, and that's what people are going to be looking at.
Not only that, Donald Trump gave us a beautiful economy, a big, beautiful, wonderful economy, for years.
And who are you going to put in charge?
Joe Biden?
That makes no sense.
Maybe they'll swap out Biden, but I don't think they're going to get anyone better because Trump's got a three-year-plus track record of giving us a beautiful economy, the best numbers of our lives.
So as this happens, I think people are going to start to look at this and look at the Democrats as potentially irresponsible.
Of course, think about all the people who go to the beach and the overlap with some of these people who refuse to go to work.
I don't know how many, I don't know, you know, but it stands to reason they exist.
Those people are going to vote for whatever they get for free.
They don't care about what the government asks.
They don't care about what they can do for the government.
They want to go to the beach and party.
They don't want to go to work.
We'll see how things play out.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Famed democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez apparently owes around $2,000 in unpaid taxes over a defunct business she had years and years ago.
Now that, in and of itself, is not news.
People often find they owe taxes, fees, things pop up.
I remember a couple years ago, I got a letter in the mail saying I owed taxes.
I was like, what is this for?
I don't even remember this.
But you know what?
Some things get reported, some things you miss.
Sometimes this happens.
I've been caught off guard.
I just pay my taxes.
I got no problem, okay?
We can complain about where taxes go and stuff, and there's an argument around there.
But what makes the story interesting is that it's Ocasio-Cortez specifically, and that she is a democratic socialist who is apparently trying to avoid paying these taxes.
Now, that's kind of weird.
First, according to the story, it seems she fundamentally misunderstands why she owes the money.
Apparently the state of New York, I believe, issued a warrant to the business over the unpaid taxes.
I don't know what ultimately will happen to AOC, but she is saying that the business has been defunct for years, so I shouldn't have to pay or something like that.
It's a funny argument, and I want to get into the misunderstanding people like her have about tax loopholes and about paying taxes, but I'll give you the gist of it.
I won't bury this.
A lot of people like her argue like Amazon's not paying any taxes and like technically fair, but you got to specify what taxes they're not paying.
What AOC misunderstands is, and many of these progressives, is that most of these businesses are paying the legal taxes they're supposed to be paying.
If you want Amazon to pay more in taxes, then argue they shouldn't be entitled, or they have to be charged more.
They're paying the taxes they legally have to pay.
Well, AOC, you legally have to pay these taxes.
Oh, but you're challenging it.
I could argue you're trying to use a tax loophole, arguing for this, that, and this reason, you're not responsible for the taxes, because you don't think you should have to pay it, just like any other business.
Well, I think that's really interesting.
What makes it even more interesting is how the Daily Mail unearthed this video from her in 2012 where she was complaining about new businesses being taxed.
Ah, yes.
Sing me the sad, sad song, AOC.
Well, let's read the story.
And then there's another bit of news in AOC-related news that I guess I'll get to, mostly because I think, look, her primary is coming up in about a month and a half.
She might actually lose her seat.
We'll see.
There's a lot of questions.
We don't know for sure.
But apparently, according to the New York Post, Fellow New York Democrats are avoiding Ocasio-Cortez as they plan coronavirus relief.
We'll come to the story, but let's get started talking about taxes and what's going on with AOC and her not wanting to pay.
She doesn't want to pay her fair share, apparently.
AOC owes $2,000 in unpaid taxes from failed business venture.
The New York Post reports, US Rep Ocasio-Cortez wants to raise taxes on the rich, but
not pay her own.
The Democratic Socialist Congresswoman from the Bronx still hasn't paid a
seven-year-old tax bill left over from a failed business venture.
Now, I'll stop here.
I'll be fair to AOC.
Make a couple points.
For one, she wants to tax the rich.
Billionaires.
You're not making a real argument when you're arguing that she should be paying more in taxes when she's specifically singling out billionaires.
Let's keep it honest.
We can poke holes in her ideology without trying to argue that she should be taxed more.
The better question is, when she points to businesses saying they're not paying their fair share, well, neither is she.
That's the bigger point.
So let's read a little bit more.
AOC had founded Brook Avenue Press, a publishing house that sought designers, artists, and writers from urban areas to help paint the Bronx in a positive way in children's stories in 2012.
As the Post previously reported, public records show, the state dissolved the company in October 2016.
The state can make such a move when a business fails to pay corporate taxes or file a return.
The state tax department then filed a warrant against her now-defunct business on July 6, 2017, over a $1,618.36 unpaid bill.
2017 over a $1,618.36 unpaid bill.
As of Friday, the tax warrant had still not been satisfied and the outstanding balance
had grown to $2,088.78, the department said.
Quote, she just thinks she's better than everyone else.
Clearly, she's worse.
Hank Sheinkopf, spokesman for AOC's chief June primary race component, Michelle Caruso Cabrera, told The Post.
But Ocasio-Cortez's camp says the rep is challenging the $2,088.78 bill because it was issued in error.
This is where it's funny, because she really doesn't get it.
The bill is seven years old, according to the Post.
Maybe they're wrong, but that's what they've reported, okay?
If we're gonna operate off of that as fact, then AOC, no, it was not issued in error, you just don't wanna pay your fair share.
Really, really bad look for somebody not wanting to pay taxes to the state where she lives when she's running in re-election, trying to challenge this.
This is going to be used against her, and it already is, because they've already got her primary race opponent calling her out.
You know what, man?
She really does think she's better than everyone.
That's how I see it, in my opinion.
She's making 100 plus K a year.
We're like 174 a year in Congress.
She's got a luxury DC apartment.
She's been accused of all this, that, and whatnot.
I know it's politics, so it can get really annoying when people will lie about her, and they do.
I really do think Ocasio-Cortez derangement syndrome is real, but it doesn't mean that all criticism of her is wrong.
No, she absolutely needs to be criticized.
She's done some good things.
I've praised her over her stance on, you know, big tech spying and stuff like that.
But what we can see here is that in her mind, when other businesses challenge the taxes they owe, they're refusing to pay their fair share.
When wealthy individuals say, I shouldn't have to pay this tax for this reason, they're not paying their fair share.
But when AOC has a warrant issued against her company because she didn't pay her taxes seven years ago, she says, no, no, this clearly must be an error, and then moves to use the same legal process every other business and individual uses to not pay the taxes they don't believe they owe.
So why not just pay your fair share, AOC?
Well, here's why.
Quote, The Congresswoman is still in the process of contesting the tax warrant.
The business has been closed for several years now, and so we believe that the State Tax Department has continued to collect the franchise tax in error, said Lauren Hitt, an AOC spokesman.
As anyone who's tried to contest a tax bill in error knows, it takes time.
Yes, using the legal process to challenge what you don't believe you owe.
You don't believe it's fair that the government will tax you this amount of money because your business has been closed for years.
Except the bill is seven years old.
So I understand there may be some complexities to the story that I am not aware of.
Maybe this bill was smaller seven years ago.
It sounds to me like she's on the hook for this bill because she hasn't paid it in years, so it's going up.
You gotta pay a penalty when you don't pay your taxes.
So if they're arguing the business has been defunct for years, so we don't have this money, they're wrong.
At least according to the records published by the New York Post.
They're going to say that AOC, a first-term incumbent, will face Democratic voters in the June 23rd primary in the 14th congressional district, covering portions of the Bronx and Queens.
She shocked the political world when she toppled ex-Congressman and former Queens Democratic Party Chairman Joe Crowley in the 2018 Democratic primary.
In one of her first moves as a congresswoman in 2019, AOC said taxes on the country's wealthiest should be increased to as much as 70%.
Meanwhile, the financial statement of Caruso Cabrera, a former CNBC anchor, has yet to be publicly disclosed.
Her campaign spokesman said it was filed Friday, the May 15th deadline.
Full disclosure, I donated to her political rival.
Mostly this was born out of, I was in a conversation with a friend, you know, I mentioned her on Rogan, I've done several videos about her, and she seems to be like a moderate, like a centrist Democrat, but not a corporate one.
Maybe there's some things that I don't agree with her on, and I don't even know how I feel about...
Look, I really don't want to support the Democrats at all for the most part at this point, but this is different because AOC is so outside the party, hypocritical, and my friend kind of said, put up or shut up, and I was like, all right, I'll put up.
So, full disclosure, I threw a donation at Caruso Cabrera because she wrote a book about being a sane, rational moderate.
And that, to me, said a lot, because that's what we're missing in politics.
So I said, okay, maybe this will be my last foray into, like, this is the kind of person.
But also, it's a deeply blue district.
It's like D plus 28 or whatever, so the Democrats are gonna win.
The best thing, I think, for the district would be, you know, a moderate.
And I will fully accept welcome criticism.
I don't like the idea of giving people money when you don't live in the area, but... So I probably shouldn't do that moving forward, but hey.
I don't know.
I'm just letting you know I did it.
Criticize me all you want.
Comment.
Insult me.
Maybe I shouldn't have.
But I do.
I really do like Michelle Caruso Cabrera, and I like the fact that someone's gonna stand up to AOC and her hypocrisy.
Let me give the gist of it, and then I'll show you this quote from her.
I just think...
When it comes to businesses like Amazon saying, you know, our profit is this, here's the employment taxes we've paid, here's the, you know, state, security, whatever, social security taxes we've paid, and then when it comes to corporate taxes they don't because they pay out profits or something, and there's no corporate, you know, money left over, people don't understand why Amazon pays no corporate taxes.
They ignore all the other taxes paid by the company.
If a company says, we made a hundred bucks this year, we are going to pay it out to our staff, then they don't, they will have zero in their bank and they won't pay taxes because they paid out to their staff.
Then you get progressives like this saying they're not paying their fair share because they paid zero in taxes because they don't understand.
Then when AOC gets a tax bill, she says, I don't want to pay it.
Oh, come on, man.
There is no situation for the most part.
We're like, businesses aren't paying the taxes they owe.
That's the important takeaway.
If the IRS goes to Amazon and says, you owe a billion dollars, guess what Amazon's gonna do?
They're gonna argue why they do or they don't, and then ultimately pay what the determination is.
But when Amazon doesn't pay, it's because they don't owe it!
It's how the law works.
Now, AOC says she wants to increase, you know, taxes on the wealthy.
Maybe 70%.
She said she wasn't sure.
It's fine for her to speculate.
And if you want to argue a change to tax law, I don't care.
That's fine.
That's fair.
I don't believe she should be criticized for saying she wants to increase it.
I think she should be criticized for not understanding how this works.
If Bezos isn't paying taxes, it's because he doesn't owe them.
You want to call it not paying the fair share?
Fine.
But you have to pay what you owe, too.
Check this out, this is funny.
They say, at the time, AOC, who was known for supporting higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans, supported doubling tax deductions for small businesses like hers.
Ah, and there it is.
And there it is.
Quote, you don't really make a profit in your first year, she said in 2012.
We need to incentivize and empower new businesses.
The state issued a warrant to the company in July of 2017, just two months after Ocasio-Cortez declared her candidacy in the Democratic Party.
Now she owes $2,000.
She doesn't want to pay it.
Man, it's so funny that when it's her business, she says taxes should be lower for us.
When it's the money she owes, she says, I don't actually owe it.
I shouldn't have to pay it.
I'm going to challenge it.
Just pay your fair share, dude, like everybody else.
Isn't that the message you espouse?
So I can't tell you that I'm surprised to hear that other Democrats are avoiding AOC as they plan coronavirus relief.
Now we're going to segue into another story about AOC.
So if you're interested in taxes, we're going to move on from that.
But I'm going to make this point.
She is bombastic.
She is hypocritical.
So it's no surprise to me that people want to avoid her.
She is extremely divisive.
She goes on Twitter.
She rags on people.
She spits and yowls.
She is arrogant and narcissistic.
Dare I say she takes after Trump so well.
I've called her Mini Lady Trump.
They have a lot in common with their attitudes.
And you know what's funny is that people like to rag on Trump for his character and all that.
I was just watching the Family Guy episode the other day with Trump in it, where Trump and Peter are arguing.
And I actually respect Seth MacFarlane for including this in the episode, where Peter says, you know, you're a potty-mouthed president and all this stuff.
And Trump responds to Peter Griffin saying that, so are you.
You're Peter Griffin, a family guy.
All of these kids who have said all of these jokes, all these offensive jokes, they got it from you.
Now, of course, they try to deflect and say, yeah, well, you know, we can, you can turn the TV off, the president, blah, blah, blah.
That's a really good point though.
The bombastic attitude was not created by Trump.
The attitude of AOC, these are symptoms of something else in our society.
AOC goes on Twitter and she complains and she's wrong.
She's ignorant and hypocritical.
You can criticize Trump for his tweets as well.
And he tweets memes and boy, do they spit and yowl.
They do not like it.
Trump did the meme with Bill Pullman and people were losing their minds.
And I say, like, imagine inviting these people to a party.
Now, AOC does more elitist gloating than Trump does.
Trump memes are silly and ridiculous.
I gotta be honest.
Sometimes I'm, like, facepalming, like, I can't believe this man is tweeting these things.
And it's funny because Zone supporters call him the madman.
It's like, yes!
In mostly a positive way, but also kind of a negative way.
Come on.
AOC did this tweet after Amazon, you know, Amazon pulls out of New York.
The city loses almost 40,000 jobs, low-end 25, high-end 40.
It's the estimate given by local Democrats, I believe Cuomo himself.
So the state loses all these jobs, and AOC, you know, led the charge, and then she goes, oh no, not me, not me.
I had nothing to do with it.
Like, you were headlining a protest in the financial district trying to get Amazon booed from the city.
Then when Amazon announces a small marketing department with like a thousand jobs, which would have come anyway, she takes a picture of herself gloating in DC in her lobby on her chair like... It's like, wow.
Ignorant, narcissistic, and hypocritical.
Man, trifecta.
Hat trick, huh?
So it's no surprise when you hear other Democrats don't want to be associated with that.
Other Democrats probably trying to have legitimate elections and win and really inspire their constituencies.
Not all of them.
Nah, not all of them.
AOC, not so much.
Let's read the story from the New York Post.
They say, New York's elected officials are avoiding spotlight-loving firebrand AOC like, well, the plague, opting to craft their coronavirus response efforts around the lefty lawmaker, insiders tell the Post.
Sources gave multiple explanations for why the Queen's Bronx Democrat has been largely relegated to the sidelines and her Animal Crossing island rather than in the fray.
Now, I'm going to stop here and point out the Animal Crossing thing.
Apparently she was popping into people's islands or whatever, like, in the game.
Like, basically visiting people in the game.
And she got criticized for it by a lot of people, and that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
If AOC wants to play a video game, I honestly do not care.
Trump goes golfing, AOC plays video games, they're both allowed to do it.
Can we talk about something legitimate?
Complaining about AOC playing Animal Crossing isn't an argument against her ideas.
I'm sorry.
I just don't care.
I really don't.
They are not looking to work with her, and they want nothing to do with her, said one source plugged into Empire State Politics, explaining that other polls feared she would outshine them or try to take credit for their work.
But another insider said the often outspoken AOC simply rubs many of her fellow New York Democrats the wrong way.
She hasn't made many friends in the delegation, said the source, a staffer in another Empire State Rep's office.
Despite being a nationally known name, AOC was conspicuously absent from the names of New York Democrats highlighted when Governor Cuomo and Brooklyn Queens Rep Hakeem Jeffries teamed up to bring COVID testing to churches.
Or when Cuomo called on lawmakers to support legislation protecting laid-off workers.
Yes, because she doesn't represent the district.
She represents Twitter.
And that's what people need to realize.
She could potentially win in the primary and defeat Caruso-Cabrera because she has 6 plus million followers and she is Twitter famous.
She might light up just enough people to win.
The only reason she's in office is because 17,000 people came out in her district of 750,000 and voted for her.
If Michelle Caruso-Cabrera actually speaks to the district and not to Twitter, which it seems like she's trying to do, she might wipe the floor with AOC.
You know what, man?
I don't live in the district.
AOC is just high profile, so I really don't like the idea of outsiders meddling.
And I'll be honest, again, criticize me for the donation I made.
I get it.
You know, I was thinking about it.
It was kind of an impulse.
But AOC doesn't represent that district.
She doesn't speak to the people.
She's not often there.
She's been criticized for filming videos in her D.C.
apartment when people in her district are suffering.
I believe she deserves respect for the things she's done.
She's tried.
There's photos of her.
She's out working with people in her community trying to do what's right, but I don't believe she actually cares about her district.
I think she's doing it because she likes being famous.
Think about it this way.
AOC recently abandoned, for the most part, the cause of upsetting the Democratic Party.
The Justice Democrats are over.
She's now endorsing more mainstream Democrats.
She's promoting progressives who are targeting Republicans.
She's really fallen in line behind Pelosi, and I'll tell you why.
It's because she knows she's on track to lose.
She knows the mainstream Democrats will wipe out her district.
They will primary her.
They are doing it.
She is poised to be removed because she is the Twitter candidate.
The support she gets, the donations she gets, do not come from her district for the most part.
We've seen the numbers.
Or I should clarify that.
Many of her large contributions, the ones she has to report, come from outside her district.
She represents the vocal minority of Twitter.
They've put her in federal office for making decisions for the country, but she got elected for a district in New York, which she is supposed to represent, speak on their behalf.
She likely does not.
She speaks towards progressives, and we've seen what happened to most of these progressives across the board.
She won, I think, because Joe Crowley underestimated her.
That was the guy who was running as an incumbent.
He should have taken it seriously.
He should have rallied support.
And she got just enough.
Just enough to squeak by.
And because it's a D plus 27 or 28 district, she was guaranteed the win.
Let's see how she does going up against a real contender.
Michelle Caruso Cabrera actually challenged AOC to debate.
Apparently AOC hasn't answered.
And she even said we can do, I think she wants to do two of them in Spanish.
Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, another three-named individual, very similar, Latina, professional, CNBC.
I think AOC knows that she's facing a regular Democrat.
I think that AOC knows the people of her district do not want a radical.
They want someone to work on their behalf.
But what does she do all day?
She complains.
She costs them jobs.
She may not even be able to win.
Some speculate she's preparing a primary run against Cuomo.
I'm sorry, against Chuck Schumer, not Cuomo.
He's the governor.
A primary run against Schumer, but I believe she would absolutely lose in that regard as well.
She is the Twitter candidate.
I'm sorry.
She does not represent the state, the district.
The way I've explained it before is imagine this.
Let's say you have 10 cities of 100 people, and you need, let's say you need 20 votes to win, because most people don't vote, right?
So AOC is in her district, and she gets a bunch of support from all of the other cities, which gives her funding in her city, as opposed to the other candidate, who is actually trying to raise money from the people in their city, you see?
AOC has ignited the progressives across the country.
The people who follow her on Twitter are people around the country.
Probably in New York City, a lot of them.
Probably in Los Angeles, Chicago, Austin, Seattle, Portland.
These other big cities.
Does she really have 6 million people in New York following her?
No, of course not.
That would be like, more than half of the city.
In Manhattan, or the Bronx and Harlem, there's not, there's only, her district has 750,000 people.
I'd be willing to bet she has a tiny, tiny fraction.
Tiny, tiny fraction.
750,000.
2% of this country are active Twitter users.
And I don't even think she has that many.
Like, that would be like every active Twitter user in the Bronx following her.
No.
I think she's gonna, she has, there's strong potential for her to be removed in June.
We'll see though.
I'm not convinced she'll run against Schumer.
Maybe she'll come back and do it.
Maybe she'll try something in 2024.
She could theoretically run for president.
I don't think she'll try that either.
Her career may be over.
And I think she's trying to pony up to Pelosi because she knows what happens if she doesn't win this primary.
She might.
It might be a landslide.
But what happens if she doesn't win?
What does she become?
What is her legacy?
A one-hit wonder who came in that one time, got nothing done, sided with Trump, believe it or not, more often than most of the Democrats, inadvertently, for different reasons.
Sitting there with her big glasses, going like, excuse me, you know, yelling at people in these congressional hearings.
That's what she wants.
She's about to lose that.
Unless she plays ball.
We'll see how things play out.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
over at TimCast.net.
Check it out.
TimCast.net.
It's my main YouTube channel.
If you haven't subscribed, subscribe.
And I will see you all there.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you truthoverfacts.com, perhaps one of the most genius political marketing campaigns I have ever seen.
It mocks Joe Biden, points out his ridiculous gaffes, and it is hilarious.
But more importantly, This campaign has tricked mainstream political reporters into mocking Joe Biden.
I'm sorry, man.
This is one of the most brilliant, brilliant political campaigns.
I mean this.
I'm going to show you a list of all the journalists who have been completely destroyed by Donald Trump.
Not only did they not even know about this.
Shocking enough, right?
I knew about this gaffe.
If you're a political reporter, you know about the things Joe Biden has said, the weird gaffes he's made.
Like, you know, one example, he almost fell asleep on TV.
They thought he did.
Maybe he didn't.
He said, you know the thing.
He talks about the kids rubbing his legs.
I know about Biden's gaffes because I do reporting on politics.
But how is it that senior correspondents for ABC, the New York, ABC News, the New York Times, these people had no idea.
Okay, fine.
Maybe they just don't know anything about Biden, but they didn't even bother to do a Google search.
This is, wow.
Not only did he expose the reporters as being totally inept, he's got them now tweeting, mocking Joe Biden.
That's just, wow.
I gotta show you this.
Trump is a madman, but he's got good people.
I mean that both in the positive and negative sense, but he's got people around him that are just absolutely brilliant.
His social media marketing.
Think about this.
This campaign is hilarious.
You may have already seen it.
It is hilarious.
Basically, it's a fake.
It's a satirical investigation where they're trying to figure out what Joe Biden means with his gaffe, where he says, you know, we're all created by, you know, the thing.
And then someone whispers, because they've seen all of the national treasure movies, it must be a second Declaration of Independence, of which they don't find one.
The whole thing's hilarious.
It's a gag.
It's a joke.
And the mainstream press fell for it.
Check this out.
The first tweet from Emily Larson.
Joe Biden said truth over facts in an Iowa State Fair speech stumble.
This became a meme on the right.
But when the Trump campaign spun this into an obvious parody investigative website.
That referenced the gaffe.
I don't think a lot of people got it.
Charlie Worzel, Ezra Klein, Molly Jongfast, Isaac Stonefish.
This is just insane.
Not just because they didn't know the gaffe.
Okay, all right, fine.
I would assume political reporters would have known the gaffes Biden has made.
This is a high-profile gaffe.
But also that it was very clearly a fake website.
It's not real!
What's wrong with these people?
The website's not real.
It's not Trump actually launching a website.
Even if Trump and his campaign made up the phrase, truth over facts, it's clearly a joke!
Oh, help us.
If we don't have a press that actually knows what's going on, how are we supposed to navigate the political waters?
How are we supposed to know who to vote for when they know less than we do?
This is gonna be great.
Here we go.
Who do we have here?
Terry Moran.
Terry, buddy.
Senior national correspondent for ABC News.
From the Trump campaign, the launch of a new website, quote, truth over facts.
I genuinely do not understand what they mean here.
Facts are bad?
Don't believe facts?
Trump's truth is more powerful than any facts one may learn?
When did they hire Eric Blair?
This is ABC News Senior National Correspondent.
I got more.
They all fall for this.
There's one dude.
I feel so bad.
He's at ABC and he's like, guys, please, I'm trying to talk sense into these reporters.
Dude, this guy got an email from the Trump campaign.
Very obviously a joke.
And instead of doing any legwork, what does he do?
Trump's crazy.
Truth over facts.
Did you even look at the website?
It's clearly fake.
I love this.
Here's the Mali Jong Fast one.
How very Orwellian.
Yes.
Orwellian.
Garrett M. Graff.
Truth over facts, huh?
This guy's a journalist with... I don't know, he's got his... I can't even see where he's a journalist from, but a reporter from somewhere.
What's this?
Sahil Kapoor of NBC News.
Quote, truth over facts.
Now, he gets the benefit of the doubt a little bit.
I mean, not really, but maybe he's just quoting the name of the campaign.
Okay, fine.
Maybe he thought it was funny.
I'll give him that one.
Josh Jordan.
This one surprised me.
This dude usually has some... I don't know who this guy is.
He's not a journalist.
Maybe he is.
He doesn't have a description.
It's a verified Twitter user.
user. Truth over facts is how high demand organizations get people to ignore the tangible
evidence around them to keep them committed to a false belief and above all else the organization
itself. Oof. Here's the Trump war room.
room.
LOLOLOL at Christina Wilke, check out Truth Over Facts.
She tweeted, Trump campaign announces launch of Truth Over Facts investigative website,
Seeing people on the timeline getting duped by this troll from the Trump campaign.
They are mocking Biden's gaffes with an American Vandal-style mockumentary.
The name of it is referencing Biden's saying at the Iowa State Fair, we choose truth over facts.
Good job, sir.
Good job, sir.
He's the one who gets the gold star next to his name.
The rest of them didn't bother doing any legwork, didn't know anything about this.
It is amazing.
There's more.
Check this out.
The rap.
Aw, the rap.
I thought you guys were okay.
You could have done a better job than this.
Trump campaign's new investigative website promotes truth over facts.
No!
It's fake!
The website's not real!
They don't really think there's two declarations of independence!
What is wrong with these people?
I can only assume one of two things.
They know they're jokes, but they're trying to spin it negatively anyway, or they're so stupid they don't know.
I'd bring you back in time to my favorite example of the stupidity of some of these people.
Donald Trump said Hillary Clinton had acid washed her server.
And NBC News issued a fact check on Twitter that said, false!
Hillary Clinton did not use a corrosive substance on her server.
What?
The NPC meme is real?
Oh, the reason I show you this story, you gotta see this final quote.
The rap, come on guys.
Google.
Google is your friend!
Okay, maybe not as a corporation, but I mean the search engine itself.
You can fact check this stuff.
How hard is it?
They say President Donald Trump's re-election campaign announced truth over facts.
The goal of the site, according to a release, is to uncover the truth behind Joe Biden's never-ending, seemingly incomprehensible statements during his third plodding campaign for president.
The release says the site will utilize experts, but puts the word in quotation marks.
Help me, dude.
A representative for former Vice President Joe Biden's presidential campaign did not immediately return a request for comment.
Here's a quote.
The American people deserve to know the truth behind Joe Biden's delirious and nonsensical claims on the campaign trail, said Tim Murtaugh, the Trump campaign communications director.
When he's mangling the text of the Declaration of Independence or calling someone a lying dog-faced pony soldier, is he really speaking a language that only he and a select group of others understand?
This campaign for president cannot be allowed to continue for one more minute until we try to unlock the secrets behind Joe Biden's incomprehensible babbling.
This is what The Wrap writes.
The quote, truth over facts branding is in line with messaging from Trump and his administration.
Early on in his presidency, presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway invented the term alternative facts.
Critics of the president have long held that he's behind a years-long misinformation campaign and is conducting a war on truth.
The Washington Post's latest tally of the president's false or misleading claims puts the number around 18,000 for his 1,170 days in office.
Bravo!
The Rep, you get the frowny face sticker next to your name for doing the worst possible job.
Some dumb reporter on Twitter saying, oh, what does truth over facts mean?
That's one thing, okay?
You get a frowny face too.
But man, you get the big frowny face when you actually add in a deep dive into Trump being a liar and the phrase alternative facts as if that is in line with a fake website from a Joe Biden quote.
What you've done here.
All of these journalists.
They are mocking Joe Biden for having said this, in all of the worst ways.
And I kid you not, The Wrap has now accidentally argued that Joe Biden's phrase is in line with Trump's branding.
Journalism is completely done in this country, I tell you what.
How hard is it?
To when you get a press release, request a comment.
If I got a comment, if I got an email from one of these campaigns and it said, you know, some phrase or whatever like, who let the dogs out?
I'd be like, what is that about?
Send him a comment.
You couldn't request a comment from the Trump campaign if you didn't know what Truth Over Facts was?
You didn't even do a search to see if it was a reference to anything or where it came from?
That's incredible, man.
This is what I do all day.
I have to fact check the mainstream media.
Now do you understand what this is like?
Now for us, we know how insane and psychotic these people are.
Where's that Terry guy?
Terry Moran.
This is what I have to deal with.
This guy.
Imagine him, senior national correspondent for ABC News, writing a story about truth over facts.
It would be wrong.
I have to read that, and then I have to do some digging to fact-check all of these people.
It's what I do all day.
What's really amazing about the modern era of journalism... So, for those unfamiliar, we have Scanner right now.
scnr.com.
Check it out.
It's on-the-ground reporting, interviews, and mostly just video production.
I'm now working on launching a written fact-checking aggregator.
And I was thinking to myself, like, how do you do news right in this day and age?
And I kid you not, it is the craziest thing.
Back in the day, you would go on the ground, talk to some witnesses, get some interviews, and then write your story, get some confirmations on that story.
Today, news reporting is so bad, and these journalists are so dumb, I actually have a really great idea for a news website.
I fact-checked the news.
Isn't that crazy?
Like, you would come to me and be like, we saw all these stories which are true, and I'd be like, well, this guy wrote about truth over facts and didn't Google search it, so I did, and here's where it really comes from.
Why does that need to exist?
It's amazing, isn't it?
When ABC News and NBC News and the New York Times and Washington Post, and they can't do a simple Google search, how are we supposed to trust them for anything?
Bravo, Trump!
This is a triple whammy, I tell you what.
It mocks Joe Biden, it exposes the press, and it gets the press to mock Joe Biden.
Wow!
Talk about brilliant!
I'm gonna leave it there.
Stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
You may have heard the story in Oregon of a salon owner who refused to remain close, opened up her business, and then was fined $14,000.
She's now also claiming that the state sent Child Protective Services to her home to interview a child without her present and talk to her husband.
That, to me, sounds like a very veiled threat.
Do as you are told, or we will come for your children.
The lockdown, for the most part, is failing.
New York is desperate, telling people that if they go in the water on Memorial Day or at the beach, they'll pull them out.
Yeah, right, never gonna happen.
I'm not saying anyone should.
I'm saying the state will not be able to enforce this.
Right now, people are flocking to bars, and Bill de Blasio's threatening to send cops out.
It's never gonna work.
The people have spoken.
The government doesn't have the control over this.
What they can do in areas where people have kids is threaten your children.
But we also have another big story.
Thousands of people were partying in Florida, apparently throwing cups at the police.
The lockdown has been on for a long time, and in many places, it's going away, things are slowly reopening.
But I'll tell you what, this is one of the scariest stories I've ever seen, because when you look around the country and you can see the failures of the lockdown, particularly in New York, but then see that a woman, you know, I'm operating under the assumption she's telling the truth, CPS came to her home.
I mean, that's truly terrifying.
Let me tell you something.
They like to say that, you know, people wonder what they would have been doing in World War II Germany, You're doing it.
Snitching on your neighbor.
Sitting back as the government comes to take someone's children away for not bending the knee to their safety protocols.
You're doing it.
Certain things are illegal.
And certain things that are legal aren't just.
More importantly, what the police are doing in various jurisdictions, what the governors are doing, is unconstitutional.
It is a violation of the supreme law of our country.
And it must be called out that these political officials are breaking the law.
In New Jersey, something interesting happened.
A gym not too far away from me, actually.
Reopened.
And the police showed up, and there was a big group of protesters, and the cops went up and said, you are formally in violation of the governor's executive order.
That being said, stay safe and have a nice day.
And everyone cheered.
Because that cop was following the law.
The governor can't just snap their fingers and say, do as I say.
Don't work that way.
You need real laws, and they can't violate the Constitution.
Bless the souls of the Founding Fathers for foreseeing this.
Unfortunately, it still seems like the Constitution is constantly under attack, and particularly in places like New York, where the cops don't care, and they'll just blindly follow orders, even if they're breaking the law.
Let's read about the salon owner, because this story is possibly the scariest.
Daily Mail reports.
An Oregon salon owner who reopened her business in defiance of state stay-at-home orders has been fined $14,000 and claims Child Protective Services investigated her home after she opened her workplace's doors.
Lindsey Graham, the owner of Glamour Salon in Salem, reopened on May 5th in violation of Governor Kate Brown's executive order, as Marion County has not been approved for reopening yet.
Sorry, governors can't just do that.
Graham said she had to open up her salon to pay her bills and provide for her family, including her three young children, but was hit with the massive fine she announced Friday.
Quote, At this point, I'm deciding that it's more important for me to feed my family and pay the bills that are going to keep our home and our family alive than take the risk to remain being shut down for an undisclosed amount of time, Graham said to KPTV.
She claims that two days later, on May 7th, the state retaliated against her by dispatching Child Protective Services, a subsidiary of the state's Department of Human Services, to her home to see if she was a fit mother.
That, to me...
That sounds like a veiled threat.
I'll tell you what, man.
People will do a lot for their kids.
The biggest problem I've seen in terms of people keeping their freedoms and standing up for themselves is always the threat to their children.
Look at Michael Flynn.
He didn't do anything wrong.
They came to him and basically said, if you plead guilty, we won't investigate your son.
And he flipped in two seconds.
Maybe it was a mistake.
I don't know.
You know, people who have kids, they're going to do whatever they have to.
On May 7th, Child Protective Services showed up at my home.
They questioned my husband and I, questioned my child without me present.
They searched our home, she said as tears welled up in her eyes during a press conference Friday.
And I never expected such a violent, aggressive, vindictive thing could ever be done to me or my family because I'm trying to earn a living, because I'm trying to work.
Graham is a mother to three kids, a six-year-old son, a three-year-old girl, and an eight-week-old son.
A spokesman for Oregon Department of Child Protective Services tells DailyMail.com they cannot comment I want to stress, however, that not following Governor Brown's Stay Home, Save Lives Executive Order or not following physical distancing guidelines would never be a reason to assign a CPS assessment, Press Secretary for Oregon's Department of Human Services Jake Sunderland said.
A CPS safety assessment is conducted after child welfare receives a report of suspected abuse or neglect, and that tip is screened before caseworkers are sent out.
Graham said that on Thursday, OSHA decided to give her a $14,000 fine for operating a hazardous facility for my employees.
Think about all the people who snitched.
Think about all the people in St.
Louis.
Do you remember that story?
That was hilarious.
St.
Louis offered up this snitch on your neighbor hotline.
The information is publicly available because as much as there are many people who would love to live in an authoritarian state, we don't.
And that means when they all snitched on their neighbor, the information they provided was publicly available, somebody got it, and published it.
And now all the snitches get to be known.
Hopefully that kind of cancel culture will be a deterrent for these awful authoritarian people.
I'll leave it there.
But think about who they would have been back in World War II.
So we see a bunch of pictures of the salon.
The story goes on.
Graham claims that's untrue because she hires independent contractors who choose to work at her salon.
Upon issuing that citation, which will come next week I am told, I will have three days to shut my doors or they will shut my doors or they will cite me yet again for another issue that is once again not legal.
This is common for salons.
They don't have employees.
They rent out seats in the store to contractors who have their own clients.
It's not the same as a regular business where you hire someone to stock shelves.
The past 10 days, when all I've wanted to do was support my family, I'm being threatened and intimidated and bullied daily by the government.
Everyone's job is essential, not because what we do or how we do it, but because it's how we make our living.
Oregon's OSHA confirmed the fine, saying the penalty reflects both the nature of the violation and the employer's willful decision to violate the law.
It's not a law!
It was decreed by a governor!
These people are insane!
She is unquestionably operating in violation of the Governor Executive Order designed to protect workers and the public.
That is not how things are supposed to work, at least.
The executive orders aren't laws.
They determine how the executive branch operates.
You can't fabricate the law.
You can only act within the confines of what is past.
Maybe I'm wrong, but at least I hope for a civilization, a society, where we don't have a monarchy or a despotism.
In Oregon, a willful violation, which is Graham's case, has a minimum penalty of $8,900 ranging up towards $126,000 based on the size of the employer and level of risk they generate.
On May 15th, more than 30 counties in Oregon were approved to start reopening, but not Marion County, which covers Salem.
Under phase one of reopening, restaurants and bars will allow dine-in services until 10 p.m.
Personal service businesses and retailers would be reopened.
Still, Graham is defiant that she will stay open.
I'm vowing to stay open as long as I can, basically, until the governor tries to take my entire career, something I've worked 15 years for, out from underneath me, she said Friday.
Graham also claimed that municipal authorities in Salem threatened to terminate her salon's lease because the property is leased from the city.
Anybody who supports this stuff, we know exactly what they'd be doing if it was a hundred years ago.
It's amazing that these things are starting to happen again.
Now, I don't want to draw a parallel in the sense that, you know, what happened a hundred years ago was substantially worse.
Like, several orders of magnitude, thousand times.
People who want power, who don't care about what people need.
And I'll tell you what, it's not gonna work.
You can come at these people, but they're standing defiant.
Bill de Blasio threatened to send cops to stop New Yorkers drinking on the sidewalk after huge crowds flocked to bars to drink beers through straws and sip on frozen margaritas in the sun.
They haven't been listening to you from the beginning, man.
They've been going to the park.
They've been going to the beach.
Remember that story early on where the boat came in, the big medical vessel, and everybody ran to the edge of the river, you know, to the water to see it?
And they're like, stop, stop, you're not social distancing.
Yeah, they weren't in the first place, dude.
They're not gonna listen to you now.
How did we go from 15 days to two months?
How did it go from flatten the curve to find a cure?
I'm not the only one who's pointing this out.
David Portnoy, I believe I'm getting his name right, of Barstool Sports, has this viral rant where he's like, what are you talking about a cure?
It was 15 days!
Now it's two months, you're saying we're gonna stay, where did that come from?
Excellent, excellent rant.
He's right!
Where did it come from?
We were supposed to flatten the curve of social distance, and the data supports all of this, but these governments, they don't give up power.
No matter what happens, you'll never be safe!
That's the thing.
When they say it's for your safety, it's temporary until you're safe.
You'll never be safe.
You're never safe.
You could slip and fall in the bathtub and crack your skull.
Not safe.
You could walk outside, get hit by a car.
Not safe.
You could get the flu and die.
Not safe.
Now, the novel virus is substantially worse.
We get it.
We've seen, you know, there's still an increase in cases in certain areas.
We're doing our best.
But shutting down the entire economy and just letting the country fall into disarray and chaos makes literally no sense.
I don't know what they're aiming for.
I don't know why they're doing this because people are defying this.
So why maintain a law, not even a law, why maintain this decree that nobody wants?
Don't ask me, man.
Ask the people, I guess, who are snitching on their neighbors.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I will see you all shortly.
It certainly seems based on the evidence that Obama was involved and so was Biden.
In the Obamagate scandal.
That's why it's called Obamagate.
But to a lot of people, I know they all say, I know, I believe, I've seen the evidence.
It takes a lot of really, really hard proof to get a conviction.
And while I think there is a preponderance of evidence, I don't think we have anything beyond a reasonable doubt right now.
So this story is not surprising.
Barr says he does not expect criminal investigation of Obama or Biden as results of Durham probe.
Nobody thought it was gonna happen.
I mean, a lot of people hoped it would happen.
A lot of people really hate Obama.
But as many pundits predicted, of course, it will be a couple low-level people thrown under the bus.
And then Obama will say, you know, I knew they were doing something, and I just warned him, do it by the book.
That's what we heard in that email, right?
So it won't be Biden, it won't be Obama.
But I still think we're gonna hear important questions.
And I gotta be honest, I really, I think Bill Barr is a good dude, for the most part.
I do not like the expansion of spying powers that are falling to the DOJ, and I question, you know, the judgment of those involved.
Mostly, it's just bipartisan efforts.
It's everybody.
But I do like Bill Barr because I think he is trying.
He said, under him, there won't be investigations of presidential candidates, you know, without clearance and things like that.
It's not the first time he said it.
And I think he really is trying to clean things up.
He said the Constitution is not suspended.
And here, It might be the right move.
Now, perhaps Obama was directly involved, perhaps Biden was directly involved as well.
The challenge is, and it's gonna give me a lot of hate, but I gotta say it, it's real.
We don't like the fact they investigated Donald Trump.
The precedent should be set that it stops.
And maybe that means, you know, Obama's involvement gets covered up, which would be really, really bad.
There's a potential tit-for-tat that results in the destabilization of the country.
To argue in the inverse as well, this is terrifying.
If real evidence does come out that Obama was involved and nothing happens, then it's even worse.
So this is the big challenge faced by someone like Bill Barr.
I'm a milquetoast fencehander, man, so I can't tell you necessarily what we should or shouldn't do.
I lean towards it's probably the right move to simmer down to lower tensions, but I do fear if evidence comes out about Biden and Obama and nothing is done about it, then someone else is going to come in and be like, y'all can't touch me.
And that's why it gets really scary.
But think about what they did to Trump with no evidence.
It's like, man, they're rocking a hard place.
I'll tell you that.
Let's read the story.
Fox says Attorney General Bill Barr said Monday he does not expect U.S.
Attorney John Durham's review into the origins of the Russia probe will lead to a criminal investigation of either Barack Obama or Joe Biden, while noting that their concern of potential criminality in the conduct of that probe is focused on others.
Barr, during a press conference otherwise focused on the December 2019 shooting at Naval Air Station Pensacola, spoke at length about the Durham investigation.
He said he has a general idea of how the investigation is going and confirmed that some aspects are being investigated as potential crimes.
Barr did say, however, that not every abuse of power, no matter how outrageous, is necessarily a federal crime.
As for President Obama and Vice President Biden, whatever their level of involvement, based on what I know, I don't expect Durham's work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man.
Our concern of potential criminality is focused on others.
This comes after both Obama and Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, have faced heightened criticism from Republicans for any potential role in the early stages of the probe.
Trump last week even called for Obama to be summoned to testify before Congress.
The politically explosive environment, bringing the country into uncharted territory with a former president accused by critics of involvement in a political probe related to his eventual successor, and the sitting president now essentially calling for retribution against his predecessor, Oh, it's been a long time coming, man.
since the day the DOJ moved to dismiss its case against Michael Flynn.
Oh, it's been a long time coming, man.
It's ever since Mueller proved the Russia gate investigation was bunk.
The whole thing was nonsense.
I think we'll end up seeing some FBI agents thrown under the bus.
I'm surprised that the people who lied under oath have not already been charged.
I am surprised the FBI agents who were texting each other about insurance policies have not already been indicted.
It's really surprising.
But I will also point out what you've got to understand about this.
I don't believe it's a guarantee, what he's saying.
I think if hard evidence comes out, Bill Barr would have no choice but to make moves, especially with public pressure.
But I also think he's playing a very dangerous game of chess.
He's got to move very, very carefully and be very, very precise.
And I think he is.
Of course, things he's said have been taken out of context, he's been smeared, and the left has called for his impeachment.
Remove him!
Yeah, because he's coming after him.
So, keep in mind.
There are many people who are screaming, arrest someone already.
I'm surprised it hasn't happened.
But it's probably because if he does make any moves, it better be airtight.
And if you rush this and make one mistake, then you get nothing.
And these people get away with whatever it is they did.
They say both Biden and Obama's chiefs of staff were among the officials involved in those requests.
So this is the... Well, actually, let me go back.
Barr and the DOJ cited problems with the FBI's interview with Michael Flynn, you know, National Security Advisor, way back.
New documents, meanwhile, indicated Obama was at least aware of the details of Flynn's intercepted December 2016 phone calls with Ambassador Kislyak that were a subject of that fateful interview.
Then a list was released of Obama-era officials involved in seeking to unmask what turned out to be Flynn's name in intelligence reports.
Both Biden and Obama's chiefs of staff were among that.
Trump last week insisted Obama was involved in an unspecified crime and continued to rail against the Obama administration in interviews.
I mean, Obama was involved.
Period.
Somebody unmasked Flynn's name and leaked it to the press.
That was illegal.
That was Obama's administration.
He was in these meetings.
So, yeah, very likely.
Not culpable, perhaps, but involved nonetheless.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham was later reluctant to go along with Trump's demand that Obama be called to testify.
As to the Judiciary Committee, both presidents are welcome to come before the committee and share their concerns about each other.
If nothing else, it would make for great television.
However, I have great doubts about whether it would be wise for the country, he said in a statement last week.
Barr expressed similar reservations on Monday, making clear he's concerned about potential wrongdoing during the Russia probe, while also stressing that this process should not be a vehicle for retribution, saying, I completely agree with that.
Noting, the only way to break away from a dual system of justice is to ensure we scrupulously apply the same system to both sides of the aisle.
Barr maintained that in the past few decades, there have been increasing attempts to use the criminal justice system as a political weapon.
Using the flimsiest of legal theories, Barr said that is not a good development.
It is not good for our political life.
It is not good for our criminal justice system.
Barr said that so long as he is Attorney General, the criminal justice system will not be used for partisan political ends.
Dare I say, he may be the only good one left.
Everybody else is slinging mud.
Bars of the Nation is divided, and it's critical that we have an election where the American people are allowed to make a decision, a choice between President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, based on a robust debate of policy issues.
Adding, we cannot allow this process to be hijacked by efforts to drum up criminal investigations of either candidate.
Going on to say, any effort to pursue an investigation of either candidate has to be approved by me.
Bill Barr's right, man.
It's unfortunate, it is.
I know a lot of people want to see retribution, comeuppance.
The Russiagate thing was totally fake news.
Who was involved?
Who did it?
Hopefully some people are held to account.
But think about what happens if you keep playing this game.
Both sides will swing back and forth, and every election will result in an investigation.
Every election, every investigation, we'll see accusations, we'll see special counsel investigations.
The challenge I see here is that, as I've said before, If we don't get to the bottom of this, if we don't know to what level Obama was involved, it's wholly unfair and lopsided.
I said this before, that we have potential criminal wrongdoing.
I'm glad that Durham is investigating it.
If Biden or Obama is involved, then you can't ignore it.
Now, Bill Barr is saying, based on what he knows, it may not occur.
Maybe what he's really saying is that they're really not involved, that the evidence doesn't point to them, and many people want to think so, but it's not there.
I don't know for sure.
But think about how dangerous it is, and how you will push for a real civil war.
By telling Republicans and Trump supporters that for four or five years you endured lies and smears from the intelligence agencies, from the tippy-top, who sought to destroy what you were voting for and fighting for, and we will not give you justice, then confidence is shattered.
So I respect Bill Barr.
I think he's trying to do the right thing.
But I'm worried that if people feel there is no alternative, what's it saying?
When peaceful revolution becomes impossible, violent revolution becomes inevitable.
Now this isn't necessarily a revolution, but you'll end up with a large group of people feeling like second-class citizens.
That what they ask for, what they need, is smeared and tarred and feathered.
And when they prove it's false, and they demand justice, they are told, no.
That we did it.
We failed.
We got away with it.
What do you think people do in that regard?
Do you think they'll have confidence in this system?
There's a reason why I tend to be middle of the road and not particularly strong on a lot of issues.
The alternative could also result in the same thing in the other direction.
Think about what happens if Bill Barr does an investigation of Obama and Biden.
I almost said O-Biden-Bama.
That's a gaffe from Biden, by the way, for those who aren't familiar.
You get it, you get it.
Think about what would happen.
You get a bunch of lefty resistance types and people go around smashing windows screeching, thinking that Trump has weaponized the DOJ against them.
So how do you solve this problem?
Man, I do not know.
Perhaps there needs to be an investigation.
Perhaps there needs to be a slap on the wrist.
If they do an investigation, it will just be chaos for years to come.
I don't like the idea of these hearings, man, I really don't.
They were boring and awful in the first place, and now we're gonna get more of them?
I don't want to tell you.
I see dark paths ahead of us no matter what happens.
You don't do the investigation, you don't prove it, the Trump supporters are going to be furious.
You do it, the Democrats, the anti-Trump people are going to be furious.
The question then is, when has seeking justice, like whenever we ever take into account the perpetrators or supporters of the perpetrator when trying to figure out justice, Maybe Bill Barr really should do the investigation if it leads him there.
