Trump Approval SKYROCKETS After Crushing BLM Leftist Riots And Signing Historic Peace Agreements
After Trump took decisive action over the riots, sending in the FBI to arrest and prosecute Antifa and BLM leaders the riots just stopped.This likely resulted in a major boost in support from people who were tired of BLM leftists rioting across the country.But Trump also negotiated three historic peace agreements bringing about peace in the Middle East. For his work with Kosovo Trump was given the highest possible honor by Kosovo.People are fed up with Democrats, their support for the far left, and the ineptitutde.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Donald Trump's approval rating from Rasmussen has skyrocketed to plus seven with a net approval at 53% to 46% disapproval.
And these numbers have left many of the politicos and pundits flabbergasted.
How could Rasmussen have Donald Trump up seven points in his approval rating?
That makes no sense because all the other polls are so deeply underwater.
And I think it's important to point out, I mean, look, you got some polls saying in the past week or so, Donald Trump was minus 22.
And for the most part, I think nobody has any idea what's really going on.
The polls are wild and insane, but you cannot discount two important things.
First, Donald Trump has had a series of major victories, three historic peace agreements.
He's now being honored with an award.
You also have the fact that the riots have been crushed, and you have the, you know, the relativity of the failures of the Democrats.
You know what I mean?
Like, you look at the Democrats and they're so nuts, Trump looks better by comparison.
The other issue to consider is that Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster on election night 2016.
So it's maybe, maybe better to take Rasmussen at their word, but it is strange because they're the only ones that have Trump doing this well.
Some have pointed out that Rasmussen is showing right now Donald Trump's approval rating among black voters and Hispanic voters is ridiculously high.
And no one believes it.
But you know what?
The latest poll shows 33% of black voters support, or I should say approve of Donald Trump.
These are likely voters.
And that's been replicated by numerous pollsters.
Perhaps what's really going on is just like in 2016, The polls were tracking incorrectly.
They're unable to accurately track Donald Trump's real base.
And I'll tell you this, I know it may be a bit anecdotal, but I recently had a conversation with some locals who told me in my area where it's D plus eight, like very Democrat, They're tired of it, and everyone they know has decided to vote for Donald Trump.
Could it be that all the polls are wrong, and Rasmussen, who was the most accurate on election night, is still the most accurate today, showing us the real numbers?
Maybe that's all wishful thinking.
I don't think... I think we really just don't know.
I mean, look at all these polls, and you can be hopeful, but a lot of people on the left are actually going to accurately going to point out, saying things like, Tim is just feeding these people what they want to hear.
Maybe.
Or maybe they're just not accepting that there is something else going on.
The polls may be wildly incorrect, and they don't make sense that all of these polls are so negative when Trump just signed three historic peace agreements, and the riots are ending.
So the reason why I think this is coming after the riots ended is because at the same time as Trump's approval rating is skyrocketing, support for Black Lives Matter is tanking.
One poll showing they've dropped 12 points from their high at 67%.
But according to Civic's polls, support for Black Lives Matter has been cut in half.
They've lost all of their yearly gains.
Support is now net 9%.
Meaning, there's still a decent amount of people in this country who support Black Lives Matter, but it has fallen below 50%.
That I find truly incredible.
So if there's any reason to think Donald Trump's approval rating would be skyrocketing, I think it is, you know, multi-factored.
But I think the riots play the biggest role.
And now we can see from a segment I covered earlier this morning, The White House siege, the big protest planned in front of the White House, cancelled because they're scared of Donald Trump.
So let's do this.
Let me show you the polls, show you what Rasmussen is saying and why.
They may be the most accurate.
Well, keeping in mind, take it all with a grain of salt, this could all be wrong and Trump may be losing.
I don't know.
And the polls are wild and unpredictable.
But I think it's at least important that we have a conversation about what Trump has done that's working well, the riots ending, the Middle Eastern peace deals, and how the Democrats are kind of spiraling out of control, paving the way for a possible Trump victory, a very serious victory.
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.
There's a P.O.
box if you want to send me stuff, but the best thing you can do, share this video.
I do not have a big marketing department, and if you think what I'm saying is important, sharing it is seriously, seriously helpful and powerful.
Let other people know what's going on.
If you think I'm actually getting you good and rational information, then it's important.
Also, don't forget to hit the like button, the subscribe button, the notification bell.
Let's read this report from Rasmussen.
They say, Daily Presidential Tracking Poll The Rasmussen Report's Daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 53% of likely U.S.
voters approve of President Trump's job performance.
46% disapprove.
The last time the president's job approval reached a high of this number was in September 2019.
The latest figures include 44% who strongly approve of the job Trump is doing and 40% who strongly disapprove.
That gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of plus 4.
They go on to say Gallup, now that Gallup has quit the field, Rasmussen Reports is the only nationally recognized public opinion firm that still tracks President Trump's job approval ratings on a daily basis.
If your organization is interested, blah blah blah.
So they compare Donald Trump to Barack Obama.
We can see that as of right now, it appears Donald Trump's approval rating is 53%.
At the exact same time in Obama's term, it was 49%.
I think it's fair to say we may be looking at a Trump landslide.
Now, of course, you might be saying, Tim, why should I trust these polls?
They're all crazy and wrong.
Well, I show you this from December 5th, 2016.
Rasmussen Reports calls it right.
They straight up say our final poll was the closest among all pollsters who correctly picked Hillary Clinton to win the popular vote.
We had Clinton up by 1.7% in reality.
She won the popular vote by 2%.
And we can see Rasmussen reports was the most accurate.
The media created a false narrative about the 2016 presidential campaign and most polling reinforced it.
Now, listen, I gotta show you this because I want to be reasonable and fair.
I don't want to give you a false sense of security or fear, if you hate Trump, by insinuating that this is proof Trump's gonna win, the polls are all selective.
But I think Trump ending the riots and I think these peace agreements are amazing, and my opinion's flipped, very much so.
But while Donald Trump's approval rating is up in the aggregate to 44.8, which is pretty good for his presidency, his disapproval has gone up at the same time his approval rating has gone up.
We can see Rasmussen has Donald Trump at plus 7, The Economist just a couple days earlier, minus 9.
Now I can't tell you why Politico Morning Consult has Trump at minus 22.
And then we have back at the end of August into the first two weeks of September, Gallup has Trump at minus 14.
CNBC, which is a, and Change Research, a Democrat firm, minus 10.
I have no idea.
I really, really don't.
A lot of people are going to highlight the negative ones and they're going to say, aha, Trump's approval is the worst.
It's the worst.
This proves Trump is bad.
Conservatives and people on the right are going to say, whoa, look at this.
Trump's better than ever.
And of course, the framing of this video is Trump's approval is skyrocketing amid, you know, the ending of the riots.
That's just my opinion.
And so I want to make sure you see this, and we do a sort of a bias check.
Maybe we're all wrong about this.
But you know, I tweeted, I felt like Plus7 was hard to believe.
I said, even I find this hard to believe.
But a lot of people pointed out, I mean, he's done a lot of really great things.
Let me show you the first thing.
So here we have a bunch of quotes that James Wood has posted from Democrats pertaining to the riots.
You have Ayanna Pressley, there needs to be unrest.
You have Kamala Harris, protesters should not let up.
You have Maxine Waters saying, if you see anybody from that cabinet, you know, get in their face.
And Nancy Pelosi saying, I just don't know why there aren't uprisings all over the country.
This is probably Trump doing well relative to what the Democrats are doing.
When the riots are swimming across the country and people can see this, they start to realize, because everything is based on relativity and perspective in politics and, you know, in many circumstances, they see what the Democrats were saying, they see what's happening, and they see Trump ending it, and thus, many people then probably say, good job, Trump.
For instance, Shelby Talcott, for the Daily Caller, tweeted this out.
The White House siege has apparently been canceled.
The DC General Assembly said, It is with a heavy heart that we announce the cancellation of today's General Assembly.
We simply cannot justify risking anyone's safety.
The right to assemble and speak freely is under heavy direct attack.
Tagging Donald Trump and Adbusters.
Adbusters, of course, the magazine which launched Occupy Wall Street.
If the far left is saying they will not be engaging in more civil unrest, it was supposed to be this big White House siege.
Well, they said it was gonna be nonviolent, it was gonna be in front of the White House.
But because of Donald Trump.
Of course, they view it negatively.
But what about regular people who don't like this?
Well, they probably view it positively.
In that, while both sides will attribute the end of the riots to Donald Trump, one side is happy that it happened.
And so you probably have a lot of regular people who are now saying, I like what Trump is doing.
The riots are stopping.
The feds have gone in.
OSP deputized.
Boom.
Rioters gone.
That was Donald Trump.
Of course, there are many far leftists and social justice activists who are upset by it, but they hated Trump in the first place.
Regular people are the ones saying, well, you know what?
Trump did it.
And I think this correlates perfectly with the net support for Black Lives Matter.
This poll from Civics shows that before the George Floyd incident, Black Lives Matter was enjoying 18% net support in this country.
And after all of the riots, even after the Jacob Blake incident, net support tanked now to 9%, lower than it has been Since before 2020.
That's right.
In the beginning of the year, Black Lives Matter was enjoying 10% net support.
And then they peaked at 25%, but they could not stop.
And the riots hit, and now people are upset.
If Black Lives Matter support is tanking around the exact same time Donald Trump's approval rating is skyrocketing, according to Rasmussen, who was accurate in 2016, I believe it's fair to say that is directly correlated.
Now you can move on from there and also see the Harris poll showing.
38% of sport fans say NBA is too political as the reason they are watching less.
We've seen similar things with the NFL.
While not the most political of issues talking about sports, why would Donald Trump's approval rating be going up now?
Because he's been calling out critical race theory.
He's been calling out the riots and condemning this.
And I tell you what.
You probably had a lot of people who said, I don't care about the president.
I just want to watch the Lakers game.
But then all of a sudden, Black Lives Matter on the floor, all of a sudden the game didn't come on because the NBA, it was in Milwaukee, because of Jacob Blake, they went on strike and the game didn't happen.
They came back the next day.
But how many people were like, dude, I don't care about this.
So that's what I find fascinating about the Black Lives Matter support.
After the Jacob Blake incident, which triggered many more riots, support for Black Lives Matter didn't go up at all.
It stayed at 11% and then fell after the George Floyd incident.
Support for Black Lives Matter skyrocketed.
Then the riots happened.
I think regular people, maybe you call them sleeping giants or the silent majority, have been woken up by the absurdity of the riots and the politics being injected into their sports, and now they're unhappy with it.
And when they look around and they see the riots coming to an end, they're happy with that.
And Donald Trump did that.
But there are other issues.
I think it would be unfair to ignore the fact that Donald Trump has done a really good job with these peace agreements.
From the BBC, Trump hails dawn of new Middle East with UAE-Bahrain-Israel deals.
Also, there's the Kosovo deal.
And I think, you know, Donald Trump has, it's tremendous.
It really is.
In fact, the breaking news as of today, Kosovo awards Trump with Order of Freedom for peace efforts.
Kosovo's awarded U.S.
President Donald Trump on Friday with one of the country's highest honors for his government's
efforts on peace and reconciliation in the former war-torn region.
President Hashim Thaci awarded Trump with Kosovo's order of freedom for his exceptional
contribution for the freedom of Kosovo and the strengthening of peace and reconciliation
in the region.
The honor is given to local and foreign citizens for their high contribution in defending Kosovo's
freedom.
Trump's administration has been working to normalize relations between Serbia and Kosovo,
former Balkan War foes.
And two weeks ago, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic and Kosovo Prime Minister Avdola Hoti signed an economic normalization deal at the White House.
I am inspired, I am grateful, and I am ecstatic and elated.
This is all just really, really great news.
These peace agreements, for me, Probably rivaling the riots with an issue I really care about.
Now, there's a challenge for me.
What do I care more about?
At a certain point, idealistically, I care more about Donald Trump's peace deals because this is history.
It's tremendous.
But admittedly, there's a bit of a selfish bit inside of me, and I'm concerned about my own safety.
I think it's fair to say that anybody would be.
So when I see the riots happening across the country, and I see the way the morality policing is going, I'm begging for law and order.
And of course, if you watch my earlier segments on my other channel, you know Joe Biden is not the law and order candidate.
Black Lives Matter marches around saying they defend criminals.
They're saying it verbatim.
Who do we support?
Black criminals.
Well, why criminals?
What about the other people, the officers who have lost their lives?
We can certainly call for justice and police reform, but why honor specifically criminals?
Joe Biden's not a law-and-order candidate.
So when I see the chaos sweeping through the streets, I want to know I'm safe first and foremost.
You know, as the saying goes, you've got to put your own oxygen mask on before helping your neighbor with their oxygen mask.
We get that advice every time we fly in an airplane.
We're not flying in planes every single day.
And that's why I lean more towards the riots being an important issue and being the most important in terms of Donald Trump's approval rating.
The riots are stopping.
Trump has consistently spoken out against this.
He's taken direct action.
The DHS has come after these people.
The feds are prosecuting.
I am happy.
Now that I feel safe, now that I feel more secure, not to mention I also went out and bought a bunch of guns to protect my home, and I feel like Joe Biden is not going to allow me the right to do that, But now that I feel secure, we can talk about other things.
Politics and sports.
Not a fan of that either.
But it doesn't rank that high on my list of complaints.
That's on the NFL and the NBA, which I don't watch anyway.
But the Middle Eastern peace deals.
Truly incredible.
And for that, I believe it makes sense Trump's approval rating would skyrocket.
It's strange to me that these other polls aren't reflecting these historic peace agreements.
Because you've got to have probably a lot of people in the Jewish and Arabic communities celebrating these things.
I mean, we see it.
Wouldn't that lead to all the polls showing a major uptick for Donald Trump?
No?
Just Rasmussen so far.
Well, Rasmussen was right in 2016.
I'll take their word for it now.
Again, to be fair, they could be wrong.
It's one poll versus dozens of other polls.
We'll see how things play out.
I don't think anyone really knows.
And I think the left is so arrogant to assume they're right this time.
It's shocking to me.
I did a video a couple days ago called There May Be a Red Wave Coming.
Here's why.
And in it, I say the same thing I'm saying now.
I'm being reasonable, like, hey, maybe this stuff is wrong, but we should at least entertain the possibilities, right?
You see, the left refuses to do that.
The Democrats refuse to do that.
So in 2016, they got blindsided.
They thought they were invincible, and they think they are now still.
You'd have to be nuts!
I don't think Trump is invincible.
I don't even know if these polls are right.
I just see Trump doing good things that I'm happy about.
The riots are over!
Peace agreements!
Dude!
Amazing!
Withdrawing our troops in the Middle East?
I'm stoked!
So should his approval rating go up?
Makes sense to see that it would.
Many of these polls in the aggregate are from several weeks ago, so we'll see how the next several polls come out, how Trump is doing.
It could be that Rasmussen's poll is static.
It's noise.
If you do enough polls, eventually you'll have blips and spikes, and that's why you average it out.
But even if you look at Trump's RCP average, the RealClearPolitics average polling, Trump is doing really well right now.
It's going up, up, up.
Okay, he's still averaging for around where he's been throughout his presidency, but he's recovering from his low point.
He's doing well.
Now, it must be said, another factor that I mentioned early on was the potential for approval by comparison.
You know, you take the Democrats and you put them right next to Donald Trump and you go, ah, that guy's doing better.
Because, you know, it's relative.
You see how bad the Democrats are doing?
I don't know if you saw this, but recently Chris Rock came out criticizing Donald Trump, saying he's like a five-year-old.
But the Democrats are at fault for COVID.
They let it come in.
We can we can blame Trump.
Sure.
But they're supposed to be the adults in the room.
What were they doing?
Trying to impeach him.
So by all means, criticize Trump.
But the Democrats should be criticized as well.
Now we're seeing a very, in my opinion, funny story from The New York Times.
David Brooks.
Ah, David, you try so hard to come out against Trump and defend the Democrats, but I think any reasonable person can see the Democrats have lost it.
And that is not a defense of the Republicans.
I don't like them either.
Donald Trump certainly has his faults as well.
Nobody's perfect, but stop acting like the Democrats are in a good place.
For the New York Times, Brooks writes, Of course you can name Ilhan Omar, AOC, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib.
Because they are the most famous and most prominent House members right now.
Come on, man. Can you name one moderate House member?
You probably can't.
Of course you can name Ilhan Omar, AOC, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib.
We know their names. Why?
Because they are the most famous and most prominent House members right now.
And of course, Nancy Pelosi.
You can call Nancy Pelosi moderate, I guess.
But come on, she's just like a stock establishment corporate dem.
I want to hear about your strong, vibrant center.
Name for me your strong, vibrant center.
Oh, he did.
And here's what David Brooks says.
You've probably heard of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but you may not have heard of Derek Kilmer.
Kilmer grew up in a timber region in Washington state that has seen many of its logging jobs disappear.
First at Princeton, then getting a PhD at Oxford, he studied how towns recover from deindustrialization.
He went back to home to help his community recover economically, and now represents that community in Congress.
Kilmer is the chairman of the largest ideological group among House Democrats, the New Democrat Coalition.
The New Democrat Coalition is a caucus of moderate and center-left House Democrats.
It has 103 House members, of whom 42 are the up-and-coming freshmen who brought the Democrats their majority.
It's self-declared priorities are pro-economic growth, pro-innovation, and fiscal responsibility.
You may not have heard of Kilmer or even the New Democrat Coalition.
The media wing of the Republican Party wants to pretend that AOC, the Squad, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren are the Democratic Party because it wants you to think Democrats are a bunch of socialists.
I'm gonna stop you right there, good friend.
This guy sounds great.
I'm glad to hear that there are 103 House members who are part of a coalition of moderates.
But did you ever hear of this guy?
Derek Kilmer?
No disrespect.
I didn't.
And he's in the House.
Why is that?
Is it really because the right-wing media apparatus is trying to convince you AOC is the center of the party?
No.
It's because AOC has grabbed the attention of the Democrats' allies in media, and they're not supporting moderate centrist policy.
With all due respect to Derek, he sounds like a rad dude.
I don't know a lot about him.
He's proudly representing Washington's 6th district in the House of Representatives, and he's got 28,000 followers.
Seems like a nice guy.
Seems like a smart fella.
And I can absolutely respect that.
But why is it then that the media won't highlight him?
Is Vox and BuzzFeed the New York Times?
Are they in cahoots with the right-wing media apparatus?
What did he actually call it?
The media wing of the Republican Party?
No.
Well, Fox News certainly highlights Ocasio-Cortez.
They did a Netflix documentary on AOC.
She gets propped up, and the Democrats are the ones saying she is the new face of the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party will not likely be, in my opinion, moderate or centrist.
Why?
Because the far left will attack them and rip them to shreds.
Now, yeah, I see a lot of these people in suburban areas.
They want moderates.
Trump ran as a moderate, according to Vox.
A bombastic one, to put it mildly.
But he did run as a moderate.
He's not far right, that's a lie.
The Democrats ran an ultra-progressive campaign, and Hillary Clinton, I don't know what she was doing.
I mean, Bernie Sanders was the ultra-progressive campaign.
Well, now the Democrats are negotiating between the corporate Democrat establishment and the progressive wing.
Where are these centrists?
Where are they in the negotiations?
Why isn't Derek getting propped up by the media?
Because that's not what the Democrats care about.
Sorry.
That's why we see hashtag walk away.
That's why where I'm at right now, it's like a D plus 8 district, I'm talking to locals and they're telling me they are fed up.
They can't stand the Democrats and they can't stand the media.
If the media just got off their high horse and did the right thing and was honest, then maybe these moderates would be front and center, but they're not.
So why is Donald Trump's approval rating going up?
Probably the things he's done.
But what will help Donald Trump win?
I'll tell you this, banning critical race theory, talking about the greatness of America.
Dude, I grew up in this country too and I was very critical of America and its foreign wars and the problems it's created.
But you know what?
This country is still amazing and I want to stay here and I want to see this country do better.
I want to help the people that I grew up around.
I want to help the people of this country live and succeed.
Yet you have people in the Democratic Party who don't, who criticize, who hate, and who belittle.
I'm not here to scream that they hate America, Ilhan Omar hates it.
No, no.
I think Ilhan Omar really does like America.
I think she loves living in a first world country and having all these luxuries.
Same is true for everybody.
I think we all do.
But I think they're more willing to dissolve our borders and walk us down a path that hurts this country.
I'm sure they think they have the best of intentions.
I'm sure they think they're the heroes helping the poor people of the world.
But you can't do that.
You have to secure your own face mask before securing the mask of the person sitting next to you.
So I disagree with them on policy, and I very much disagree with them on their identitarian ideology.
The far left, intersectionalism, critical race theory stuff.
So that means someone like me...
A moderate, left-leaning, independent type person would be like, well, you know what?
I'm gonna vote for Donald Trump.
Why?
By comparison.
You give me a moderate centrist standing up, being honest, being reasonable, being real, and saying, I will do my best to help this country and its people.
And not spewing, you know, bombastic rhetoric like Trump does?
I'd vote for this person in two seconds.
But you didn't do that.
You gave me Cop Kamala Harris, who locked up people and laughed about it, homeless parents because their kids were truant.
You gave me Sleepy Creepy Joe, who can't form a sentence.
And then I watched these town hall debates, not even a debate, the town hall with Joe Biden.
They did not once give him any pushback.
And I watched Donald Trump, and they criticize and criticize and criticize.
And Joe Biden lies, lies, lies.
Donald Trump lies too.
Yeah, I get it.
But the media targets Donald Trump.
When I see CNN and MSNBC and all these other outlets say, Donald Trump said this, it's not true.
I'm like, yeah, okay.
But where's the criticism of Biden?
Now, it's funny when people respond to me and they say that, duh, Tim, you're doing it.
I know I'm doing it.
That's the point.
That's the point.
So when I look at what happened, I'll throw it out to give one last example of what I see going on.
I think I laid out my point about Donald Trump's approval rating and what might happen coming up in November.
We'll see.
But there was a clip from The View.
Kimberly Klacik, a Republican running in Maryland.
She was asked by Joy Behar.
Or I should say Joy Behar made a statement that you have to accept some of the responsibility for what your president did.
He knew about the pandemic.
He downplayed it and then told people not to wear masks.
I was rather disappointed.
Kimberly said, you know, she called out Joy Behar for what people have criticized her as a donning blackface in the 70s or something.
And I felt like it was an ad hominem.
And it didn't get to the point.
And I felt it was a really great opportunity to tell the people of this country on The View why Trump is the better choice than Joe Biden when it comes to the coronavirus.
And I will lay it out very, very simply.
To Joy Behar's comment about Donald Trump and taking some blame.
First and foremost, yes.
Did Donald Trump do a perfect job?
Of course he did not.
Did he do a good job to the best of his abilities?
I would say yes.
Early on, Donald Trump knew about the threat, formed a task force in January, suspended travel to China and eventually to Europe, and he addressed the coronavirus in his State of the Union speech.
Meanwhile, Joe Biden was critical of what Trump was doing, saying it was essentially xenophobic.
Why would I then want Joe Biden to lead the charge when he was willing to to criticize one of the policies Trump did that's actually touted as saving many lives?
That's coming from Fauci and many other health experts.
Trump suspending travel to and from China helped save lives.
But Joe Biden criticized that.
So, of course, I think Donald Trump could have done better.
At the time, even Dr. Fauci was saying, don't wear masks.
Do I think it's fair to criticize Trump for the job he did on coronavirus?
Yes, and I have done that several times.
But if you think just because Trump isn't perfect or doing the best job, that means Joe Biden would do better, I'm sorry, you're going to have to prove that.
Because Joe Biden criticized the good things Trump did.
And if that means our best bet right now is a president who did okay versus another guy who was critical of the good things, why would I vote for that guy?
And when it comes to the riots, Joe Biden's campaign staff supported the rioters with bailout funds, and Kamala Harris solicited funds for them.
I'm sorry, Joe Biden is not the right choice.
Donald Trump is banning critical race theory, a divisive and racist ideology, and I like that.
We've got historic peace agreements, the riots are coming to a close, and when it comes to COVID, if you want to tell me that Trump did a bad job, I need you to tell me exactly what he did that was bad and what he should have done.
Because right now, there's no alternative.
So I don't care.
There's nothing for me to compare it to, and there's no reason why I should assume any of the Democrats would have done anything better.
Because Nancy Pelosi was marching around San Francisco saying, come on down!
So was the establishment in New York City coming down and saying, everybody come to Chinatown!
And did Cuomo want to lock down New York?
He said no.
So why is any of that Trump's fault?
If all of these people were in a room together right when COVID happened, the same thing would have played out.
In fact, if these people, the Democrats, vote out Wade Trump, we'd be worse off because they said the travel ban was bad.
Or, to be fair, Joe Biden didn't specifically say that.
He just said, we don't need Donald Trump, you know, his xenophobia and racism, and we're not going to solve this with a travel ban.
Turns out the travel ban worked.
So, on a scale of 1 to 10, I don't know where to put Donald Trump's job.
They're saying 200,000 dead is too much, that's Trump's fault.
But the New York Times said it was going to be a million to six million.
Could we then frame it as though the New York Times predicted a million deaths and we're only at 200, meaning Trump saved 800,000 lives?
You see how they play the framing game?
You've got to give me something tangible.
The Democrats didn't offer me anything tangible in terms of what they could have done to protect people's lives.
Instead, they locked down the economy, which caused more chaos and strife for the American people.
And there you go.
You want to ask me why I think his approval rating is much higher than they're saying it is?
All of that Thanks for hanging out.
I'll leave it there.
Of course, I'll have more segments every day.
I always do.
The next segments will be coming up at 6 p.m.
at youtube.com slash TimCastNews.
It is a different channel, and I will see you all then.
It's really nice to wake up in the morning, prepare a morning segment where I don't have to tell you about last night's riots.
For the most part, the riots in Portland are basically over.
They may come back, and we'll get into this, but I believe the reason it ended is because Donald Trump took decisive action.
I mean, Trump's administration, to be honest.
But the feds came in, federal prosecutors started charging the organizers and the extremists.
I'd imagine many of them fled out of fear they were going to get hit with federal charges.
I'd imagine some people started lying low and just avoiding the riots, and many are probably in jail.
So, bravo.
Now, you may have heard about the White House siege coming September 17th to Washington D.C.
for 50 days.
Far leftists, anti-fan protesters will lay siege to the White House.
I said it was a non-violent siege.
They cancelled it.
I kid you not, they cancelled the White House siege.
And why?
Because Donald Trump took action.
And now they're scared.
That's right.
They straight up said they cannot risk people's safety.
Now, I'm no fan of a militarized police state or anything like that, but come on, let's be real.
That's not what Trump was going to be doing.
Although we did see a story from NPR the other day about how, like, I guess military police wanted to use what's called an active denial system, which is effectively a microwave cannon for rioters.
So when people are rioting on Washington, they were like, blast them with microwaves!
But they did not have one, so it didn't happen.
Well, of course, now, the White House, he just canceled.
They're saying it's because they fear for their safety.
We are seeing some people say they want to prepare new riots, so I'll go through this, and there are, there is some, there's still some bad news.
So we saw what happened in Lancaster, PA, right?
These rioters come out, they act a fool, they smash everything up.
Judge gave him a million dollars bond and all of a sudden the rights are gone.
But many people asked whether or not that was a violation of constitutional rights because excessive bail shall not be applied or whatever.
I think it's the eighth amendment and giving someone a million dollars, you know, bond.
That's excessive.
You know they can't pay it.
But the riots did stop.
Well, there's news there, too.
Apparently, because of a backlash, the bail has been dropped significantly, but now they're gonna be put under house arrest instead.
So, many of these people were able to raise tens of thousands of dollars because the far left is very well-organized and bored.
Where'd they get that money?
I don't know!
Because a lot of them don't work, but hey, that's just the way it is.
I think the real issue is that it's not really a lot of money in the grand scheme of things, but they are well-organized.
But let's just start from the top.
We'll go through everything.
Take a look at this.
From Adbusters.
Now, Adbusters is the organization that started Occupy Wall Street.
They put out a call.
September 17th, we will occupy Wall Street!
People did!
People showed up.
Well, they put out a call.
The White House siege tactical briefing.
Let's take a look at tactical briefing number one.
Here it is.
The White House siege.
And you can see there's all these people raising their fist in front of the White House.
And it says, all right, you activists, blah, blah, blah.
We did occupy Wall Street.
They do say nonviolent.
Nonviolent.
Well, a big change has occurred.
Because tactical briefing number five says, 50 days of non-violent improv jazz.
Whoa!
What happened?
What happened to the White House siege?
I guess they decided not to do it.
And there is a tactical briefing number six.
They say, tactical briefing six, non-violent improvisational jazz in solidarity with reOccupy.
But nobody showed up.
I guess there's something less appealing about an improv jazz night in front of the White House.
Well, let me show you the tweet.
Here we go.
Shelby Talcott takes a quote from the D.C.
General Assembly.
The White House siege has apparently been cancelled.
Happy birthday, Occupy.
It is with a heavy heart that we announce the cancellation of today's General Assembly.
We simply cannot justify risking anyone's safety.
The right to assemble and speak freely is under heavy direct attack.
Occupy Trump.
Ad Busters.
Real Donald Trump.
September 17th at 11.13am.
Donald Trump has crushed the riots.
They're done.
They're gone.
And they're telling us.
Wow!
Now, is the right to free speech under attack?
No.
The problem for these people is that they believe in what's called a diversity of tactics.
That means they provide cover for the violent extremists.
And if they were to have a White House siege, or even improvisational jazz, they knew people would show up and act a fool.
And they desperately tried to downplay it.
Desperately.
Here's one of the tweets from AdBusters on September 5th.
The entire idea of the White House siege is to save democracy and avert a civil war.
If real Donald Trump throws a MAGA dog whistle tantrum.
It is a call for peaceful protest and an open invitation to anyone who supports free and fair elections.
They say.
Any media outlet saying otherwise is clickbait trash.
Too lazy to read the article, and more interested in escalating the situation.
Can you be critical?
Yes, of course.
Please, but do your effing homework.
Half of you don't even do a cursory Google search.
Yes!
Yes, bravo, adbusters, 100%.
Completely agree.
They did say nonviolent, and nobody Googles anything!
There's still a problem here, though.
They say, we vehemently reject violence in all forms.
They fear signs and slogans so much that they need to respond with guns or revolts and pepper spray.
Adbusters, I gotta say, the mistake they made was calling it the siege.
And that's why I think they changed it to improvisational jazz.
I'm actually totally down if they want to have 50 days of non-violent protest.
Do it to it, man.
That sounds great.
Don't call it a siege, you know.
And they're right.
People don't Google search anything and there are clickbait websites going like, the siege, the siege.
Well, that was your fault.
Because a siege is an attack.
So I'm not going to blame people for saying you called for a siege and then put a little tiny nonviolent up top.
So here's what I said.
Yes, AdBusters was calling for nonviolence.
And a peaceful protest is acceptable and, in fact, encouraged.
I think this is a country founded upon the right to peacefully assemble and protest and I think it's great.
But they did call it a siege.
So whether or not they intended for it to be non-violent, it was on track to be very, very violent.
And I think we all know this.
And thus, it's cancelled.
But I think it really is cancelled because they're scared.
They said it.
And it's a crazy thing.
The right to assemble and speak freely is under heavy direct attack.
Occupy Trump.
Adbusters.
The DC General Assembly included adbusters in the tag.
Because they were supposed to go down for the White House siege, or even improvisational jazz, whatever you wanted to call it.
I think adbusters realized they had put out a call for violence accidentally.
No matter how many times you say nonviolent, you can go, it's nonviolent, wink wink, but siege the White House?
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
They crossed the line.
And now they can't risk anyone's safety.
They made a mistake.
But they also underestimated Trump's willingness to go in and arrest people.
And I think a lot of these people realized in Portland, because we saw the Portland General Defense Committee, the activist group, telling everyone that feds were going door-to-door, like hunting down the organizers and giving them federal charges similar to their state charges.
That's it.
Whenever someone says to you now, but what has Trump done to stop the riots?
Tell them that.
Say, what do you mean?
The mass event, the White House siege thing that the leftists were planning got cancelled because they were worried about their safety.
Now, of course, they might kick back, say, Oh, so you're in favor of a militarized police state?
No!
No, not at all.
But these people were talking about 50 days of a White House siege.
Sure, they claimed it was going to be non-violent, but you know people would jump and act a fool.
Donald Trump arrested the people committing the crimes, and then the riots stopped in Portland.
That literally happened.
Now, correlation does not mean causation.
I don't know if that's exactly why.
And now, here's the bad news.
We may actually be seeing... We may actually see more riots emerge.
But there's another thing that needs to be tacked on to this story.
Andy No, quote, spread fire, Andy tweets.
Antifa have announced that they're resuming their gatherings after putting them on hold because of the wildfire smoke.
They are meeting at Elizabeth Carruthers Park on Friday.
It is nearby to local ICE government facility that they frequently attack.
Spread fire?
That can't be real.
Is Antifa saying spread fire?
Yes.
They are.
Take a look at this.
The Pacific Northwest Youth Liberation Front, which is an Antifa-aligned far-leftist, you know, group that organizes riots and for some reason is allowed to be on Twitter.
Wonder why that is.
Tweeted.
It's been a hot second, PDX, so y'all better show the F up.
Meet.
7pm.
Move.
8pm.
Be water.
Spread fire.
Melt ice.
What is that supposed to mean?
I don't know.
Maybe it's just, uh, you know, it's like Bruce Lee, right?
Remember Bruce Lee?
He's like, you gotta be fluid like water for Jeet Kune Do.
Be fluid in your motions and then ignite the passion within other people?
I'm not gonna make any assumptions about what that means.
They're just literally saying spread fire.
Okay, I'm sorry, man.
You can argue it's metaphorical, but when you are organizing events where people literally spread fire, I'm gonna go and say that's a call for arson.
And I'm wondering when Twitter will start banning these people, because, you know.
There's another big breaking story, though.
Apparently, Twitter's public policy director just quit and joined Joe Biden's campaign with this, like, apparently the same job title or something.
Or, no, I think it's the same job description.
I mean, that makes sense.
But so we get it.
We get it.
Joe Biden's campaign staff bailed these people out.
Kamala Harris solicited funds to bail people out.
Let me make something clear.
Kamala Harris solicited bail funds.
A lot of people were like, yeah, but wasn't that just for protesters?
Hold on.
Why were people being arrested, okay?
Why would they need bail?
Because they weren't protesting!
Because it was violent riots.
Now, at the time she did post that call for donations, it wasn't the peak and the worst of the rioting and looting, but it was still fighting with cops and, you know, running through the streets and fireworks and stuff like that.
And so, she had absolutely solicited donations for these people, and many people who were accused of very serious violent crimes were released.
So we have this, uh, flyer now.
Friday, September 18th.
Direct action mark.
March.
The riots may be back tonight.
And it seems really strange to think that the reason the rioters stopped is because there were wildfires?
I guess?
Maybe?
I mean, the sky was orange.
Some of these people probably live, you know, outside of Portland and were probably worried about friends and family members.
So I've often said that may be one of the big reasons.
But truly, when you look at what's going on with the White House siege being cancelled, I really do think that Trump's actions with the DHS and federal prosecutors played a huge role in stopping these things.
It's why we didn't see anything in Lancaster after the judge arrested these people and basically said, no bond.
It's weird, the story in Lancaster where these guys got, you know, a million dollars bond.
I think it's weird because couldn't he just remanded them for, you know, for the violent nature of the crime, I guess?
Well, they're under house arrest.
So, considering that Andino noted that they said spread fire, I absolutely have to pull this clip up, just as a, for a brief, we gotta talk about it.
So, look, I think we all get the point.
There may be riots coming up in Portland tonight.
We'll see how it plays out.
I guess the wildfires are dying down.
But here's something interesting.
Alex Patterson, who is a researcher for Media Matters for America, says Joe Rogan lies to his millions of listeners that left-wing activists are starting forest fires in Oregon.
This dangerous claim has been completely debunked.
So, first of all, Joe did make some mistakes.
It wasn't activists.
There was a left-wing activist, and I think Joe was just kind of speaking off the cuff when he said activists.
I don't think he literally meant... I don't think he specifically was referring to... I think he was just like, yeah, there were activists that got arrested, and he probably was just referring to the one guy, off the top of his head.
But this is hilarious, because there really is an arson problem happening in Portland, and my theory as to what's going on is...
Actually, let me show you this story from BuzzFeed.
People are being arrested for arson, but no, they're not Antifa.
From Julia Reinstein at BuzzFeed News.
As authorities on the West Coast battle ferocious wildfires, they're also having to contend with unfounded conspiracy theories tying the blazes not to climate change, but left-wing agitators.
Well, there absolutely was one guy, and I bring this up.
So where Joe was wrong is, he said forest fires, they're wildfires because they're in the brush as well as in the trees.
That's nitpicking, I guess.
We know what Joe meant.
But I'm just trying to be precise because we're talking about, is Antifa doing this?
Is there arson?
And did it impact the riots?
So Media Matters says Joe is spreading an unfounded lie.
And then all of the replies are people saying, no one's starting the fires.
That's actually not true.
Arsonists are starting the fires.
BuzzFeed News said so, okay?
BuzzFeed News is not the bastion of great journalism, but they're a left-biased source.
And if they're saying there's arson... I mean, we know there's arson.
There's a ton of arson.
So ultimately, what the point is... Just to quickly go through this...
When you have Antifa, far leftists, say, spread fire, and they say that they were not rioting because of the wildfires, I go, hmm.
Like, what were you doing then?
Were you spreading fire?
Now, I have no evidence to suggest these people actually went out and do it, and I truly believe Trump just crushed these, the riots, with federal prosecution and deputizing OSP, but right now there's like two extremes.
The left is saying it's all climate change, and there's a lot of people on the right that are saying it's Antifa.
Okay, it's probably not Antifa, but here's my theory.
When Trump went in and arrested all of these organizers, when the feds came in and started going door-to-door and arresting people for these very serious crimes, they cut the head off the snake.
But the snake's body was still writhing.
And who makes up a large portion of the violent extremists in a riot?
Unwell individuals, not ideologues.
Alright, so I did a big segment about this on the IRL podcast, but just to quickly recap, You had this dude wearing this fake vest, a tactical vest his grandma bought him.
He was shielding naked Athena at the riots.
This dude was not an Antifa ideologue, he was just an unwell dude.
Like, mentally unwell.
Some Antifa guy walked up to him and gave him an explosive and said, throw this, it's a smoke bomb or something, it's a whizzer, it spins.
And he was like, I don't know if I want it, well then give it back, and he's like, oh, okay, I guess I'll do it.
Turns out it was a bomb.
He got arrested for it.
He's facing very serious charges.
He is just a useful idiot, a patsy.
They don't know who gave him the bomb, but some Antifa guy did, and that guy got in trouble.
You see what they do?
They use unwell people as their patsy to commit these crimes, that way they personally don't get arrested and won't be found out.
The people who gave him the explosive presumably got away.
But what happens when they don't get away?
What happens when Trump then goes to their homes and arrests all of them?
You still have these unwell people who like throwing explosives and starting fires, nowhere to be seen.
And then, all of a sudden, arsonists are starting fires.
So, no.
They're not... I'm not saying it's definitive.
I'm just saying it's a hypothesis I have.
Maybe once you no longer have this exploitation from the far left, the insane people who are used as patsies and useful idiots wander around aimlessly, start fires.
There's a story from Fox News about a woman who stopped an accused... an accused arsonist.
I don't want to say arsonist, because I don't think he even started a fire.
But someone she accused of wanting to start a fire.
An attempted arsonist, perhaps.
An accused attempted... It's basically a guy comes out of the brush on this woman's property.
She's armed.
He says, get on the ground.
He does.
He's got matches in his hands, and he says it's because I smoke, and she's like, B.S.
Now there have been many people on the right who say, she did stop an arsonist!
We don't know that.
And this guy's not a confirmed leftist.
But there are, these people do still, like, you compare the clothes they wear, you compare the tattoos they have, with your regular Antifa person, and it does, there does seem to be some kind of similarity.
But they're not overtly political.
What I'm saying, I'm not saying they're Antifa.
I'm saying that these people are useful idiots that Antifa will exploit.
Antifa will tell them to go do it.
I am not saying Antifa told them to start new fires.
I'm saying Trump arrested the Antifa and the Black Lives Matter people.
So there's no one organizing now, and now you just have a bunch of crazy people setting fires.
I don't know if that's true.
It's just a thought I had.
It could just be the arsonists are a bunch of random lunatics who are arsonists.
But I wonder why it is then they don't go commit arson other times during the year.
There's tons of times when you could go out and burn things down, and they aren't doing it.
It's only now, after Trump stopped the riots, did all of a sudden we start seeing people get arrested for arson.
So, to wrap that up.
I think Trump cut the head off the chicken, and the chicken's still running around with its head cut off, spraying blood all over the place.
Yeah, kind of a gross thought.
But now the wildfires are stopping, and Antifa says they're coming back.
You know, that doesn't bode well for those that are trying to debunk the conspiracy theory, myself included.
I don't think it's Antifa.
You know, I think we had one leftist.
But all of a sudden you have... You mean to tell me?
You have rioting happening, then the riots stop and the fires start, and then the fires stop and then the riots start again?
Talk about awful timing.
No, I think maybe some of these people have been arraigned.
Maybe the riots were calm for about a week or so because they were awaiting arraignment.
And they sat in jail, they couldn't pay bond, and then they finally got cut loose.
I honestly have no idea.
But I will tell you, Over in Lancaster, I believe they've made a very serious mistake.
Well, no, no, no.
I walk that back.
I don't think they made a mistake.
I think the $1 million bail was a violation of their constitutional rights, and it presents a difficult situation for all of us.
Judges reduce $1 million bail for Lancaster BLM rioters and let some walk free after they tried to storm police precinct in the wake of fatal cop shooting of crazed black knife men.
Many of these people had a $1,000,000 bond being reduced to $50,000 unsecured, clearing the way for their release pending trial.
Three other defendants received a $50,000 unsecured bail, allowing them to leave jail without putting up cash.
But they were required to remain on house arrest until trial.
So some of these people just got cut loose.
Well, house arrest is probably the right move.
I don't think a $1,000,000 bail is appropriate, but hey, the riots stopped.
There's an interesting conundrum here.
If the true goal of the judge was to say, we want to hold them for several days to stop the riots and then we'll reduce their bail, it's still a violation of constitutional rights.
Dude, nobody's got the money required to put up a million dollar bond.
I think you need 10% so it's like a, you know, 100 grand?
Nobody's got that.
Although they did raise, last time I checked, like 50 grand in a day for this, uh, for this woman right here.
They call her, uh, or her name is Catherine Peterson.
They called her Alley Cat.
She, uh, she got 50 grand because she went out during riots.
Now, some of these people claim they didn't do anything wrong, and they are all innocent until proven guilty, which is another problem with excessive bail.
Even if the intent was to eventually reduce it after the riots had stopped, I think we're looking at an unconstitutional act for which it was reduced and they were released.
You know, we got serious issues to contend with, to deal with in this country.
We are substantially more free than I think we've ever been.
And I really do mean it.
I really do mean it.
I mean, first of all, Technology has eroded class barriers.
The fact that a homeless kid can get access to the summation of human knowledge on the internet at a library for free is incredible.
And there was even some dude who built a nuclear device in his garage and then, like, had lacerations, lesions all over his body from the radiation sickness because he got access to the internet.
Taught him how to do it.
That's crazy.
It used to be you had to go to university.
If you could afford it, you could do it.
If your parents were rich.
Now, you know, people can learn and do whatever they want.
But what this means is, or what I'm trying to say is, we used to be way more authoritarian.
Speech used to be illegal.
You know, people don't get it, man.
Free speech is a relatively new thing.
George Carlin got arrested for swearing during a comedy set.
And they were like, it's obscenity laws.
And now we have First Amendment ruling saying you can say these things.
But for some reason, even though we're freer than we've ever been, these people are insane thinking we're not.
And that's a damn shame.
They don't realize that they're standing on the shoulders of giants living in the wealthiest country in the world, or I believe it is, In first-world luxury, and they're complaining about everything.
And, you know, I had a conversation with a friend last night about all this stuff, and I said, listen, man, if you have 375 million police interactions per year, and you have 13 unarmed black men being shot and killed by police, you have 13 instances of potential homicide, manslaughter, or justified shooting.
It doesn't mean there's a widespread institutional problem.
375 million interactions, 13 unarmed black men shot and killed.
Should they have been shot and killed?
I don't think anyone ever should die, but sometimes you have no choice.
Like if a dude is about to slash you in the throat with a knife or shoot you.
And it was interesting when I asked my friend, I said, Imagine there's a guy who broke into a woman's home and physically assaulted her, and then later came back, so she called 911, should the cops stop this man.
And she said, of course.
I said, what if the guy tries fighting with him and the taser doesn't work?
Should they still try and stop him?
She said, yeah, of course they should.
I said, what if he then walks to a car and grabs a knife, and they're standing behind him screaming, drop the knife, what should they do?
And she goes, well, I guess at that point they gotta shoot him.
And I was like, congratulations, you agree with the police in the Jacob Blake shooting, because that's what happened.
As far as we know.
And I think when people realize the circumstances of why many of these shootings occur, they go, oh, I didn't realize that.
Does that mean that every one of these 13 men who were unarmed and shot were innocent victims?
They could have been still trying to swing at the cops or attack them or something may have happened, we don't know.
But 13 out of 375 million, that means there's not a widespread systemic institutional problem nationwide.
There may be individual officers that are bad, that's very likely.
But to see all of this writing from First World, you know, whatever, to me is just... It's kind of heartbreaking that they don't realize the gift they've been given.
They live in the capital city during Hunger Games and they're complaining about it.
Okay, well, actually, no, that's a really bad example because we aren't, we aren't, uh, what is it called?
Pan-Am?
That country with an oppressive government?
We're not.
But these people are the- Actually, no, no, no.
If we were gonna base it off the planet, they definitely live in Capital City.
So if they wanna complain about the plight of other countries, I hear ya.
Especially, especially Afghanistan and Iraq, and that's why I don't like that we're over there.
But I think these are just bored, uh, angry, uneducated, ignorant individuals, and...
They may show back up.
Many of them are under house arrest, so I think Lancaster is probably done with their riots.
Portland may come back.
We'll see how it plays out.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Donald Trump says he is the law and order candidate, and Joe Biden disputes this, saying, no, Donald Trump wants to defund the police, and he's inciting the violence.
Is he?
Like this story, where a 33-year-old man punches an elderly Trump supporter, 84?
According to the actual witness statement, the woman was slapped across the face, open palm, so not really a punch.
But yeah, a 33-year-old anti-Trump guy walked up to a bunch of peaceful Trump supporters and struck an 84-year-old woman.
What did she do to incite that?
When, at any point ever, is an 84-year-old going to incite a 33-year-old to strike them across the face?
Now, I guess if the 84-year-old was a violent, evil criminal and was armed or something.
But when you have an 84-year-old woman holding a little Trump sign, there's... No, I'm sorry, that literally makes no sense.
So I'll tell you what.
You know who the Law and Order candidate is?
It's Donald Trump.
Why?
Well, because Joe Biden and Kamala Harris overtly support Black Lives Matter.
Of course they do!
And what does Black Lives Matter stand for?
Defending criminals.
And I am not making this up.
Take their word for it.
From Andy Ngo on Twitter, August 13.
Quote, who do we protect?
Black criminals.
There's a video of them yelling this.
They say, when I say who do we protect, you say black criminals.
What?
Why would, why, why, why, why?
It's true though.
Recently in D.C.
there was a small protest.
They blocked Wisconsin Avenue.
They were out in front of CVS.
You know why?
Because two black men were shoplifting.
And so the store called the police.
The cops showed up and they said, we don't want to press charges.
We just want the stuff back and they can't come back to the store.
And they said, you got it.
The two men carried on their merry way.
Nobody got arrested.
And a woman confronted the manager saying something like, you risked their lives over this merchandise.
How could you?
So they went to protest the CVS.
How insane is Black Lives Matter at this point?
I was thinking about this, you know, because Joe Biden just had a town hall, and we're going to read the story about the 33-year-old punching the elderly woman, but I got to mention this real quickly.
Why can't anyone ask Joe Biden a simple question?
President, uh, Vice President Biden.
Sorry, not President.
Vice President Biden.
Black Lives Matter says that they wish, one of their goals, is to disrupt the nuclear family.
Do you support their calls to disrupt the nuclear family?
Thank you.
Simple question.
How about many protesters out in the streets have been calling for the defense of criminals?
And they literally said in one march, who do we support?
Black criminals.
Will you support their effort?
Yes or no?
You see, that second one, Biden might be like, well, we're talking about people who have been accused, blah, blah, blah.
I'll give you a political answer.
Answer the disrupt the nuclear family one.
And I want to hear what you have to say to all the people in the suburbs, notably the moms in the suburbs, about how Black Lives Matter wants to disrupt the nuclear family and defend criminals.
Yeah.
He'll never answer that question, nor will he ever be asked.
I'd love to see a debate, and I want Trump to bring it up.
But let's read the news, if you can call it that.
California man 33 punches elderly Trump supporter 84 and two others at MAGA rally before being brought down by retired cop after blowing smoke in their faces and burning a sign.
And he also pulled a knife.
And then when the retired cop saw the knife and drew his gun, the dude chucked the knife in the bushes, got detained.
The cops came, found it.
Dude's been arrested, they say.
A California man has been arrested after he allegedly attacked several people during a rally held in support of President Trump on Wednesday night.
Alvin Gary Shaw, 33, confronted a small group of people during the gathering in Aliso Viejo, 50 miles south of Los Angeles around 6.30pm.
Shaw allegedly blew smoke in some of the supporters' faces and used his cigar to burn one person's Trump sign, according to local reports.
He also reportedly knocked three people to the ground, including an 84-year-old woman, before he was taken away in handcuffs.
This woman right here, Donna Snow, was allegedly punched by a man.
No, no.
She said he had open hand, and he just raised it and whacked her across the face, breaking her earring.
That's what she said.
I don't really see anything on her face, but I'll take her word for it.
This guy's been arrested.
Now, the guy's, look, innocent until proven guilty.
You can see video of him being belligerent.
I didn't see a video of him hit the woman, but that's what he's been arrested for.
They say, the rally held in the corner of Aliso Creek Road and Pacific Park Drive saw between 20 and 30 people gathered.
Supporters of the commander-in-chief war make America great again hats and carried signs that read, Trump Pence and Trump Keep America Great 2020.
One woman carried a black sign that read, Jesus is King.
Video shows supporters laughing and cheering as cars drive by, some honking their horns in support.
Witnesses told KTLA that their two-hour event was coming to a close when Shah began walking over to them.
Cynthia Cantrell-Westman told the local station that when she first saw him approaching, she thought he was coming to join the group.
Instead, he was pretty upset and started using profanity from the minute he arrived.
He kept coming over to me and getting in my face, and all I could say was the F-word.
Witnesses say he blew smoke in their faces and used his cigar to burn one of their signs.
That's when the altercation turned violent, with Shaw accused of striking three people aged 55, 74, and 84-year-old Donna Snow.
So you can see images of her.
He took his hand way back like he was going to punch me, and he hit me right across the face, Snow told CBS Los Angeles.
Broke my earring off.
One of the other two victims was taken to a local hospital with a neck injury, but it's unclear how old he or she is.
Shaw then pulled out a small pocket knife, which is when a retired police officer arrived on the scene and drew his gun.
The assailant tried to run, but was eventually forced to the ground according to Orange County Sheriff's Office.
Shaw was arrested on suspicion of elder abuse, assault with a deadly weapon, and assault and battery.
Records show he was released from jail on Thursday after posting bail.
According to the Orange County Sheriff's Department, Shaw works for the U.S.
Postal Service.
Wow.
This could have been a very serious incident, Sergeant Dennis Brecker told CBS Los Angeles.
In this case, this was just two groups that disagreed.
And while we support people and they're using their First Amendment rights to put out their message, we prefer that remain peaceful.
Well, let me tell you.
What was the event?
Was it a bunch of evil, snarling white supremacists lurking around the corner, targeting people and beating them?
No.
It was a bunch of people standing on a street corner, just holding up Trump signs and flags.
So you know what you do when you see it?
Here's my advice to every single leftist.
When you see this going on, there's one thing you have to do.
Just keep walking and mind your own business.
That's it.
Or if you'd like, you can engage them in calm and rational conversation and debate.
I'm sure they would pretty much enjoy it.
And maybe it might change some minds.
You want to know how you... Okay.
If you want to make sure more people vote for Trump, there's one thing you can do as a leftist.
You can strike an old woman across the face.
I guarantee you that a lot of people are going to be like, jeez!
What, a postal worker did this?
Is that what this guy, where he works?
A retired police officer stops him, and this guy works for the U.S.
Postal Service?
Wow, that's confidence building for the USPS.
You want us to support that?
No, okay, I get it, I get it.
It's not a reflection on the U.S.
Postal Service, but it is one of their employees, and they did endorse Joe Biden, who does support Black Lives Matter, who goes out defending criminals, like they did in Georgetown.
So here's the first tweet.
Andy no tweets.
Video recorded by Charity Sade, a BLM activist in DC, shows her confronting and recording a CVS pharmacy staff person who called police on thieves.
She accuses the employee of endangering the lives of black people.
You want to know what's the craziest thing about this story?
The police reportedly were told to stand down.
After this group started blocking the CVS and harassing people, Local cops when asked.
A woman, a complaint saying they're harassing me says, well, you know, we were told to stand down.
So, there you go.
Always in Democrat cities, huh?
Muriel Bowser of DC, Democrat.
Now, maybe, because this is federal jurisdiction, Trump should actually send out, I don't know, FPS or something, to protect people from these insane protests.
We'll come back to this, but I do want to wrap up the first story about the guy, the postal worker attacking these Trump supporters, because there's only a little bit left.
They say.
In a Facebook post, Cantrell Westman said she was interviewed by the investigation team at the police station in Aliso Viejo.
She says she wants to speak openly about the mayhem because she considers the gathering a beautiful event that went south because of one individual.
Fear and faith cannot live in the same house, she wrote.
We will go on with God at the helm in the face of adversity.
Thank you, law enforcement, for keeping us safe.
We know what you face each day and will pray for our enemies.
And there's her big Jesus is King flag.
It's just people waving flags.
You ignore them.
It's that simple.
He couldn't do it.
He couldn't help himself.
You know, he was thinking, he was thinking to himself, I'm so angry.
I just want more people to vote for Trump.
I know I'll hit an old woman.
Apparently he hit three old people, but I guess 55 isn't that old.
74 is.
So here's a story from the Georgetowner.
I didn't know what the Georgetowner was.
It's not NewsGuard verified, but I looked it up.
It is a legitimate local bi-weekly magazine in the area, and they reported on this.
It's been around since 1954, so I'll take their word for it, they say.
For over five hours on Wednesday, September 16th, starting at about 3 p.m., the CVS at 2226 Wisconsin Avenue Northwest was closed while some 20 young people blocked the street in front of the store.
Dozens of customers coming to get prescriptions and medications were turned away.
Police closed Wisconsin Avenue to all cars from Calvert Street South to Whitehaven Parkway.
Traffic was jammed for hours on 37th Street, the only street parallel to Wisconsin Avenue that offered a way in and out of Georgetown.
Most of the demonstrators lounged in chairs in the middle of the street, ordered Domino's pizza, skateboarded, and popped wheelies on bicycles.
A few walked around with signs and bullhorns, protesting what they referred to as the racially profiled detention for shoplifting of two black customers at the CVS store the day before.
The F-bomb word was dropped profusely.
When the Georgetowner interviewed demonstrators at 7.30 p.m., there were no plans to march or to move away from the area.
Now, first and foremost, By all means, engage in non-violent civil disobedience, which is exactly what they've done.
So I applaud them for that.
We're a country of protesters, we have a First Amendment right to peaceably assemble, and thus people can block roads.
Now when you block the road, you are committing a crime.
And you do get arrested for this.
So there's a difference between obstructing traffic and peaceably assembling.
We have compromises, we do.
What this means is, if you want to engage peacefully in the middle of the street, you'll get your point across, but typically you do get arrested after a certain amount of time.
This is how it goes, especially in D.C.
Unfortunately for the people of this neighborhood, the Georgetown neighborhood in D.C., the police were ordered to stand down.
And thus, the peaceful protesters were allowed to just obstructing traffic and doing whatever they want.
I'm happy they did.
And you know what?
I gotta say, in this instance, I'm kinda happy the police stood down.
You know why?
I am glad this story is coming out.
That Black Lives Matter activists defended two men who were quite literally caught shoplifting and let go without charge.
That's what you're protesting!
CVS said we just want the stuff back.
Well, it's their stuff.
They can have it, right?
You're literally protesting shoplifters who got caught in the act and were not charged with the... What, the police didn't charge them?
That the CVS said, just please give us our stuff back?
You're protesting that!
So what, people should be allowed to steal whatever they want?
Black Lives Matter is literally defending criminals caught in the act.
Okay, maybe they're accused, they weren't proven guilty, I don't know.
And that's what you can expect from a Biden administration.
D.C.
is allowing this.
Okay, maybe they shouldn't have allowed the protest.
The point is, when you do a peaceful protest, a real peaceful, I'm not talking about riots, an actual peaceful protest, You generate press attention.
Hey, like me talking about you!
People who take interest and want to talk about it will.
And thus I am.
And this is why I don't like what they do.
They're defending overt criminals.
We just had this story in California.
Dude struck an old lady in the face.
Apparently two old ladies.
And then pulled a knife?
He's a postal worker?
That's insane!
But you know what?
You want to come out and make sure everyone knows what you stand for?
I thank you for doing it.
Free speech!
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Because now I know!
They do support criminals.
Good.
So when I'm talking to people about who's the real law and order candidate, I can say this.
Donald Trump scared the rioters away from D.C.
They said, we're not going to do it because Trump is stifling free speech.
Well, apparently not, because they're still protesting in D.C.
So why would you then run away and not have your White House siege?
Ah, because the violence you were planning would result in violent arrest, perhaps.
Donald Trump deputized OSP in Oregon.
Feds came in and arrested a bunch of these people.
And then, boom, riots gone.
What Trump did worked.
Now, should Trump come in to D.C.
because it is federal jurisdiction?
For a small protest like this, maybe not.
But if they want to highlight that they support crime, OK, well, then Joe Biden supporting Black Lives Matter and never addressing any of the actual issues they talk about and their mission statement and their desires is not the law and order candidate.
And if he got elected, he wouldn't do anything that Trump did.
He would let this happen.
I've talked to many of these progressives and people who want to vote for Biden.
I'm shocked by what they're saying.
But don't you think we need equity and need to, like, maybe let some of these people go and... What?
No, we need to arrest criminals.
Yeah, but doesn't the system disproportionately affect... Dude.
We can have a conversation about looking at the stats and figuring out how to make sure our justice system is fair, but you still have to arrest criminals.
We're not going to be like, well, that murderer happens to be Latino, so that's okay.
What?
No, no, no, no, no.
Do you really want to create a world where you give harsher sentences to people based on race?
That's insane.
And no, just releasing people doesn't make sense either.
But CVS let these people go, now what?
You know why I think CVS was wrong to do that?
Because I'll tell you what, these guys are gonna go shoplift somewhere else.
They're gonna go shoplift somewhere else, and they're going to cause more harm to the community because CVS didn't want to have them charged.
Okay, fine.
Maybe it was easier for them to just say, we want our stuff back.
It's just easier, I don't deal with the paperwork, I can understand that.
But now protesters are coming for you anyway, and demanding you be fired, and blocking the road, and causing problems.
Maybe you just should have had the dudes arrested for shoplifting.
Here's a quote.
When I went to enter the store about 4 p.m., a protester with a megaphone harassed me.
A resident who did not want to be identified told the Georgetowner.
I was taunted.
You can't come in.
You can't come in.
Ha ha ha, they said.
A woman with a megaphone, an African American, mocked me for having white privilege.
When I told the police standing near their cars up the block that had been harassed, they said there was nothing they could do.
They said they had been ordered to stand down.
To not take any action if demonstrators were exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech.
Your First Amendment right to free speech does not give you the right to block streets.
So typically you get arrested.
Now you can march through streets, yes.
And many people often won't get arrested if it's a march through a street because you're moving and the obstruction is limited.
But sitting down in the street typically results in a rest and a slap on the wrist and they release you.
It's just to get you out of the street.
But apparently now the cops in D.C.
are being ordered to stand down.
Here's a quote.
I happened to be in the store at about 3 p.m.
yesterday, probably the last customer.
Georgetown-Burleith Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner Kishan Puda told the Georgetowner.
Loud, vocal protesters had entered the store, and that may be why they decided to close it.
When I left in the elevator, the pharmacist, an African-American woman, seemed frustrated.
She was worried about customers who were scheduled to pick up medications and get flu and other shots.
Police officers who were interviewed also expressed frustration.
We don't want to be here just sitting in our cars blocking people here from going to their homes and stores, said one.
The D.C.
police force is the best in the country for peacefully handling protest marches and demonstrations, said another, a 25-year veteran of the force who grew up as a neighbor of Mayor Muriel Bowser.
That is true.
D.C.
has so many protests.
They handle them very, very well.
Well, here you go, men.
Welcome to Mob Rule.
The mobs can form, they can do whatever they want, and the cops will do nothing.
Scott Adams tweeted, If your city responds to mass rioting and looting by defunding or taking funds away from their police, get out now.
And he's right.
And I added to that, Additional tip.
If your police arrest you for defending your home, you should have listened to tip number one.
At that point, maybe it's too late because you've already been arrested.
But that's where we're headed.
Who are the cops more likely to arrest in this circumstance?
When the protesters show up to the CVS.
Probably the store manager.
Now you may be saying, come on Tim, that's ridiculous.
What does store manager have done to warrant this?
Maybe right now it seems absurd, but it can happen here.
The police have to keep the peace, and they won't intervene when there's a crowd of people because, well, they don't want to make the mob get worse.
We're under mob rule right now.
So what'll happen?
Well, nobody at the CVS got arrested, but the store was forced to shut down, to close, for the day.
And maybe they'll reopen or whatever.
Apparently, the protesters all started leaving at some point later in the night.
They say both the, uh, but both told the Georgetown, these are both police, that the police's proven ability to allow protests without widespread community disruption had been taken away by the council, which banned any interventions in protests.
The officers said that even though they are called, they are called names and have bricks thrown at them, they are not allowed to wear helmets.
I've had it with these protesters, said Vincent Natale, a software sales rep who lives near Trader Joe's on Wisconsin Avenue.
We get the message, but the police should be able to move protesters to where they won't block traffic or business.
I'm going to complain to my ANC commissioners and the city council.
Good luck.
I hope each and every one of you votes for Donald Trump.
You want to support Joe Biden?
You're not going to have any support.
The only person trying to stop this stuff is Trump.
Don't ask me why.
The Democrats seem to have lost their minds.
I totally support protesting inequity, even making people feel uncomfortable to send a message.
But it's not right to harass people who are inculpable and just trying to do essential business.
Picking up their kids from school, shopping, getting essential drugs and medications, just getting back to their homes, blocking a main thoroughfare for a short while for a moving march would be better than impeding people from doing essential business for hours.
Quote, the point is to make people uncomfortable, so they will pay attention to our message exposing racial profiling and inequity.
One of the protesters told the Georgetowner, good, I'm glad.
Now we know you're pro-crime and pro-criminal.
There we go.
Thank you for letting us know.
I do this segment to make sure you all know they're straight up telling you they favor the criminals.
They favor the crime.
Here's the tweet from Andy Ngo.
Who do we protect?
Black criminals.
BLM and Antifa hold another street protest in Seattle.
Meanwhile, Chicago Black Lives Matter is organizing protests in support of looters arrested last weekend calling it reparations.
So, this is from August 13th.
But do you remember, in Chicago, when widespread looting erupted last month?
And then Black Lives Matter came out, the official Chicago chapter, saying, we don't care they looted.
Good.
It's good.
It's reparations.
There you go.
They're pro-crime.
Look, at what point do you start recognizing they're pro-crime?
I think we all do.
And I think Highlander, this is important.
Share the video.
I should say that early on in the video, because I don't know how many people made it this far, but subscribe and share the video.
Let people know.
Not only do they strike old women, but they chant that they're in favor of the criminals.
They publicly defend them on TV.
So I ask you this.
Who is supporting Black Lives Matter as a presidential candidate?
Why, it was Kamala Harris, soliciting donations, and Joe Biden's staff.
So who's the law and order candidate?
Donald Trump.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p- I'm sorry, at 4 p.m.
It's already past 1.
4 p.m.
at youtube.com slash timcast.
It is my main channel.
It is separate from this one.
Go check it out, and I will see you all then.
Over on my main channel, I did a segment about Donald Trump skyrocketing approval rating from Rasmussen.
And many people said the poll was in no way possible because it was just such a ridiculous outlier.
In fact, one person accused Rasmussen of making the poll up, choosing random numbers.
One tweet I saw said the reason they're wrong is because they have a disproportionate amount of Latinos supporting Trump.
Thus, their numbers are skewing.
You see, when they polled Hispanic voters, they got a false positive, and that led the whole thing to skew in favor of Trump.
The only problem?
A bunch of other polls are backing this up.
My favorite story, by the way, though.
It's from the Washington Post.
Biden's weakness among Hispanics is not his fault.
It's Trump's fault.
And why is it Trump's fault?
Because Hispanic voters like Trump more.
So how is that not Biden's fault?
It's literally Biden's fault.
Man, even no matter what they do, it's got to be bad for Trump.
Trump does well among Hispanic voters.
Well, that's Trump's fault.
It's not Biden's fault he's doing bad.
Yes, it is.
Joe Biden needs to do better.
It's that simple.
Well, let me show you a little bit of the story, and then I'll show you how Rasmussen is pushing back, because they're saying, hey men, they got the polls right.
This story's hilarious.
From the Washington Post, they say.
Democrats have started to worry about polls that show former Vice President Joe Biden doing worse among Hispanic voters than Hillary Clinton did in 2016.
Most punditry ascribes that to Biden's presumed weakness.
The data, though, suggest President Trump's own appeal is the cause.
Was that so hard to say?
Joe Biden is doing bad among Hispanics.
Analysts and partisan strategists have long assumed Trump's inflammatory rhetoric and hardline immigration policies would alienate Hispanic voters.
There's some evidence that it did in 2016.
Trump fared worse among Hispanic voters than did 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney in Florida and California, which together make up more than a third of the U.S.
Hispanic population.
Trump did better than Romney, however, in many other states, and the national exit poll found that he lost among Hispanics by only 38 points, compared with Romney's 44-point deficit.
Data from 2018 also provided evidence that the reigning narrative is flawed.
Florida's Hispanic voters moved sharply towards Republicans, with Republican gubernatorial candidate Ron DeSantis losing Hispanics by only 10 points, and Republican Senate candidate Rick Scott losing them by only 9 points.
Their improvement on Trump's 27-point deficit among Florida Hispanics is why both men narrowly defeated their Democratic rivals.
Trump's job approval ratings this year among Hispanics have also been much better than the traditional narrative would suggest, as polling data for Hispanics on the RealClearPolitics average demonstrate.
Trump's net job approval this year was at a high point nationally in February, save for a brief blip caused by the rally-around-the-flag phenomenon right after the novel coronavirus hit.
His net job approval rating among Hispanics then was negative 26 points.
That's much lower than the 38 points Trump lost Hispanics by in 2016.
I think I want to talk about this quite a bit, but I want to show you.
If you didn't see my main channel segment, go and check it out.
Because basically, Rasmussen has Donald Trump plus 7 in his approval rating.
And, you know, Rasmussen actually has, among black voters as well, 33%.
And from their Thursday, September 17th approval polls, among non-white likely voters, 60%.
They put a little exclamation point near that.
Could it be?
Donald Trump is just doing remarkably well right now.
Yes.
Could it also be the polls are wrong?
Sure.
I mean, many of the polls were wrong in 2016.
Except for Rasmussen.
Rasmussen actually was correct.
So the first thing you need to understand is the context in the first story.
They're just giving us the numbers explaining.
Joe Biden is doing bad.
Donald Trump is doing good among Hispanic voters.
And they say it's not Biden's fault that Trump is doing so well?
Sure, I guess.
But if Biden was doing well, wouldn't it be inverted?
It's likely that Joe Biden has nothing to offer.
But here's what I really, really love.
Rasmussen Reports tweeted out three clown emojis.
Why?
David Rothschild tweeted, Why I assume Rasmussen poll is fake, not just random.
Random would give polls that bounces around the collective average.
But Rasmussen is always 5-10 PP to Republican side.
Could be driven by methodological choices, but either way, not legit.
Really.
Greg Scott says, I don't know for sure either, but wouldn't casually throw out accusations.
David Rothschild says, not casually throwing out anything.
I am an expert in polling methods and data.
And what I am saying is regardless of how they get there, by corrupted data collection, analytical methods, or just making the data up, Rasmussen poll is not a legit poll with valid information.
Alright, well Rasmussen gives us a few other screenshots and it's hilarious.
We can go back to July 17, 2016, when David Rothschild says Rasmussen's polls are startling different from other companies' polls.
At this point, Rasmussen reports had Donald Trump, uh, plus 2 on July 17th, 2016.
Everyone else had Clinton up 4, 5, 6, 9.
Some other polls ha- uh, no, no, no, it's all Rasmussen.
Rasmussen, Trump plus 7.
Rasmussen, Trump plus 2.
Rasmussen, Trump plus 4.
Rasmussen was repeatedly telling everybody, the race was a lot closer than anyone realized.
Now, of course, Trump up two and four in, you know, July of 2017.
I'm sorry, July of 2016 may be true.
Ultimately, that's not what the results came out to be.
Everyone else said Clinton.
Then we see this from David Rothschild.
He says, posted election eve predictions, Clinton 89%.
Predictions will update every two to three minutes, day slash night.
The media and the Democrats are doubling down on everything.
They think... You know, it's like that gag sign.
I don't know if you've ever seen it.
It says, the beatings will continue until morale improves.
That's what it feels like.
Like your boss comes in and says, why are you so upset?
That's whacking you.
Cheer up!
And you're like, you're being beaten, and you're like, I can't cheer up!
You're beating me!
That's what Democrats are doing.
The more the media spits in our faces with lies, the more the Democrats do nothing but complain, the more it feels like they're beating us over the head saying, comply!
Even when Joe Biden can't get Hispanic support, they blame it on Trump.
It's Trump's fault.
Okay, I get what they're trying to say.
That Joe Biden would be doing better if Trump wasn't doing so well, sure, but isn't that just a point that if people had the choice, they'd choose Trump?
How ridiculous has the media cycle been?
I think Rasmussen's right.
Eh, I could be wrong.
I don't know.
I can't see the future, but I'll leave it there.
We'll see how it plays out.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around and I will see you all shortly.
A Joe Biden staffer, or expert, or I don't know what to what position, this is a person who works on his campaign, is being outed for participating in early Internet racist troll groups.
This one's a wild story.
How did they not vet this individual who apparently was working with some of the most notorious racist trolls for which I can't even say the name of the organization because it would be deemed too offensive.
I'd get banned from YouTube.
But yeah, a Biden staffer is now being outed as being one of these nefarious trolls.
This one's a crazy story.
Let's read it.
A cybersecurity, a senior cybersecurity advisor to Joe Biden's presidential campaign spent years affiliating with a hacking organization and boasted on a personal blog about breaking into her neighbor's computers.
Jackie Singh, who joined the Biden campaign in July as a senior cyber incident responder and threat analyst.
I can't say the name.
I'll just say that because I can't say what it is.
and known as the... I can't say the name.
The GNAA. I'll just say that because I can't say what it is.
Once headed by white nationalist Andrew Arnheimer, also known as Weave.
Now, full disclosure, I actually know Weave.
For those that aren't familiar, Weave is...
Look, I'm not going to assign any kind of political label because I don't know what Weave actually believes.
I do know that he does have a giant swastika tattooed on his chest.
That should be enough for you to figure out what kind of person he is.
He's probably the most notorious and famous internet troll who coined many of the key internet troll phrases.
Now, what's really funny about Weave, also known as Andrew Onheimer, Is that many leftists were friends with him and defended him when he was facing a trial in the US.
They later tried acting like they never actually were defending him.
They always knew who he really was.
They call him a white nationalist.
What's really funny is these feminists and these far leftists who were outed as being supporters and friends with Weave immediately tried denying it saying it was about government overreach.
That's not true.
They always knew who he was.
It was just fine back then to be an edgy outsider defending free speech.
The hacker community and many on the left in the early 2010s 100% defended free speech.
And that meant they knew exactly who Weave was.
But they turned on him for political reasons.
It was expedient.
They could make money, and they could sell.
And as soon as the tides changed on the left, they abandoned the cause of free speech and said, I never really liked the guy anyway.
Well, apparently, we're seeing another person like this.
A Joe Biden advisor, working on his campaign.
Now known to have associated with a dude with a giant swastika on his chest.
To be fair, I don't care about this guilt by association thing.
I'm in documentaries with Weave as well.
I've said, there's a documentary called, um, Hacker Wars, where I said, you meet Weave in person, he's a really nice guy, he'll hold the door open for you and everything, but online he's like one of the most vile, nasty internet trolls there is.
Everybody knew exactly who he was.
These people are pretending like they didn't now because, well, they've sold their souls.
So, what do we see from this story?
Do I really, really care about what this individual working on the Biden campaign did?
No, I honestly don't.
I think it's really stupid to use someone's past against them.
This senior advisor working for Biden should have been vetted.
There's a quote at the bottom.
They say, As the CEO of Spyglass Security, Singh was often quoted in articles about cybersecurity by outlets including the Wall Street Journal or NBC.
On the firm's website, Singh bills herself as having 15 years of global technical experience and offers guidance on an organization's ability to more quickly and effectively detect, respond, and contain targeted attacks.
Spafford of Purdue University said Singh's racially charged post should have made her untouchable for a presidential campaign.
Normally, or traditionally hired into a sensitive area, they're going to have to pass a background check.
They have to very possibly get a security clearance with a polygraph.
The FBI is going to do an extensive background check, says Baffert.
Somebody who shows up with red flags would not be allowed to occupy a position of sensitivity.
Cyber security expert Hari Herzi agreed.
To me.
The first question is that if this person is working in a security role, they should have had a background check of sorts, she said.
I think the campaigns, generally speaking, are very relaxed.
It's shocking to me.
The campaigns have many lapses in security.
OK, we get it.
This individual working for the Biden campaign probably should not have been brought on.
If they were really serious about their appearance and vetting, then they would have caught this.
But again, the reason I bring that up is, I don't care if someone turns a new leaf.
I don't care if you were a hardcore leftist and then one day you were convinced and your opinions changed.
I think there's a handful of conservatives who went through that transformation and now are like staunch conservatives and very anti-left.
I'll say this for myself.
First, to the people who would now denounce Weave and the things he did in the past, but supported him and the things he did in the past as well, in terms of, like, his legal case, hypocrites.
To this individual working on the Biden campaign, they're now trying to claim it never happened, issuing a statement saying, it's not true, I had nothing to do with this, even though the examiner has corroborated, the Washington examiner, the source, has corroborated this information.
I think that's disgusting.
Admit it!
Just be real about it.
Ah, but you want to join the cancelers.
That's the issue I take with this.
I remember going to a party.
It was in Newark, and it was the night before Weave was supposed to stand trial for this hacking case against AT&T.
And I showed up, and I assisted in Weave doing an— and asking me anything.
Just, like, general, like, here's how you do it, here's Reddit, you know, whatever.
And many other leftists were there, prominent feminists, and people who now oppose free speech were all there, knowing exactly who he was, listening to him do a livestream where he talked about all of this stuff, and everybody knew.
But now, because they want to join the tribe and keep up appearances, they will pretend that's not the case.
That's the real problem I see.
I'm not going to cancel you over this, but how is it that this transformation has occurred?
That the political left has abandoned what they once supported?
I said I wasn't gonna buy guns before, but no, I was down there, knew who Weave was and talked about it, and was critical of the things I think he should be criticized over, and just kinda, you know, whatever, did my journalistic-type thing.
Here's what he says, here's why he says it, here's what's going on.
I wouldn't come back out and be like, I never knew!
Oh, jeez, I can't believe it!
Wait, that's so dumb.
They try dragging me, because there's like a photo they always post, and it's like the stupidest thing ever.
There's a couple of photos they post of me, it's the stupidest thing ever.
One of them is where I'm sitting at a table with a bunch of people who are like alt-right, or far-right, or whatever they want to call themselves.
And I'm like, yes.
There's also pictures of me with like a Soviet general and Brazilian gang leaders, because I sit down with people.
It's what journalists are supposed to do if you want to learn what's going on.
They criticize me for it.
I don't care.
I don't have anything to do with you, if you're that insane.
Joe Biden hired this person.
Well, you know what?
If you're the type of person that wants to disavow your past and lie about what you did, then we should be criticizing Joe Biden for hiring you, because that's your standard, not ours.
I was talking to a friend the other day, who told me that they're on the left, but they're kind of pro-life.
And I said, so tweet it.
Oh no, are you nuts?
I'll get destroyed.
I could lose my job.
Yeah, who would want to live that way?
That's insane.
How many people on the left have things they want to say or do and they're scared to because they live under the boot of the collective?
That is a nightmarish reality to live in.
So no, my policies are not hard left.
I just don't care about your authoritarianism and living under your dogma.
If I have an opinion, I'm gonna say it.
And that's how it's always been.
Which is why it's really funny when I think, when these people come out and they say like, Tim changed, you've become so right-wing.
What are you talking about?
I was criticizing the black bloc far left.
The entire time I was at Occupy Wall Street, I had criticized violence the entire time.
No, it's you who have changed, Left.
The people who are cyber security experts who would pretend like they didn't participate in an extremely racist internet troll group because they want to work for Joe Biden.
Is your tribal identity that important that you would just walk away?
You know what?
I get it.
You never cared about those groups either.
These people, these feminists, who claimed to be, you know, acting in defense of Weave, who immediately went, Oh heavens, if only we knew!
Oh yeah, if only you knew.
You knew, I know you knew!
We were all there!
It's so pathetic, right?
They want to change the past, and they want to act like they're all saints.
And they're so pure in their dogma.
I was talking to some people about some former... I gotta keep this one a little bit vague, but I'll wrap it up with this.
There are some people I know who are friends with an individual that they call far-right.
And I told them, I was like, have you ever stopped to consider that this person you're criticizing isn't far-right, but it's you who have changed?
And they were like, you know, we were thinking about that.
Maybe we've changed.
And I said, remember the kind of posts you used to make on the internet and the videos you used to make?
Do you think you could make those today?
Like the posts you made in 2011, would you?
Oh no, no way, I couldn't do that now.
And do you think the person you're calling far right has changed then?
And they're like, yeah.
Maybe that person's posting the exact same thing they've always posted, and it's us that have changed.
And I said, there you go.
Because I'm saying the same stuff I've been saying the whole time.
During Occupy Wall Street, I supported free speech, and I was critical of police brutality.
But I was critical of the protesters who were starting violence, too.
And they didn't like it, and they attacked me, but there weren't very many of them.
As their ideology expanded, and these, you know, people were desperate to cling to their leftist tribe, they just said, tell me whatever you want me to say and I will say it.
And I said, I'm gonna keep saying whatever I want to say.
You can go F yourself.
And so here I am.
They call me a conservative now.
Nah, sorry.
You're just authoritarian wingnuts who sold your souls for a tribal collective because you were scared of being ostracized.
Perhaps if you kept a spine, you could have something to stand on.
Or you'd be able to stand without flopping over.
What do they say?
If you don't stand for anything, you'll fall for everything.
So here you go, Joe Biden.
That's your campaign staffer, now desperate to disavow.
Nah, that's on you.
The rest of us will maintain our principles.
And that's not necessarily true for every Trump supporter.
But the Trump side, the anti-SJW side, whatever you want to call it, the free speech side, is grabbing a ton of former Occupy Wall Street people and walkaway liberals because they won't sell out their values and they do believe in principle.
And these people don't.
Own it, Jackie.
Admit what you did.
I got no problem with it.
I just say, yeah, well, you know what?
We were all young once, right?
I'm glad to see you turn over a new leaf.
Instead, what do they do?
They lie.
And then they go help Joe Biden.
That's gross.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around and I will see you all shortly.
You know, I got to give credit where credit is due.
And so this segment is an absolute must.
The Washington Post actually calls out Joe Biden for lying.
During his town hall the other day, when he said it's Trump's fault all of these people died, and if only he did the right thing, they'd all be alive!
It's not true.
And I was really annoyed watching that town hall because I was like, can anyone please just push back on him a little bit?
Nope.
It was just a platform for him to say whatever he wanted.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump did his ABC town hall, and he got some pretty harsh questions.
Joe Biden, softball, t-ball.
They were lobbing softballs at him, saying, Mr. Vice President, Donald Trump is very bad.
He's so bad.
Can you comment?
You're right.
He's bad.
Thank you very much.
And they'd walk away.
So when asked, Joe Biden claimed that Trump is responsible for everything.
And I'm surprised to see the Washington Post has actually correctly pointed out Trump probably did the best he could.
And even if he did come up with a national plan, he wouldn't be able to get 50 governors on board.
Thank you.
I am sick and tired of the left saying, it's Trump's fault coronavirus happened.
Donald Trump doesn't control what states do.
That's not how this country works.
Trump can't just mandate a lockdown across the country.
It doesn't work that way.
He would have to call up each governor and say, here's the plan.
And guess what?
They would likely say, screw you, Trump.
Because when he called them offering assistance for the riots, they said the same thing.
No, they would rather watch their cities or states burn to the ground than accept help from Donald Trump.
Alright, I'm being hyperbolic because of course when it came to the actual wildfires, they did accept the help from Donald Trump, but not the riots.
Here's the story from the Washington Post.
Joe Biden's CNN town hall, an occasional whopper.
A Joe Biden town hall does not hit the Pinocchio meter as much as a Donald Trump town hall.
Biden tends to stick close to the facts, but occasionally gets carried away with some overt exuberance.
Here are five claims that caught our attention during his CNN town hall in Moosic, PA, moderated by Anderson Cooper.
I'd like to point out there's a period where they go to commercial and then Joe Biden and Anderson Cooper violate social distancing so he can whisper in his ear and people are mocking them over that.
But that's not a fact check.
That's just criticism.
Here's the quote.
If the president had done his job, had done his job from the beginning, all the people would still be alive.
All the people.
I'm not making this up.
Just look at the data.
Look at the data.
Actually, Biden is making this up.
There is no data to support this, say the Washington Post, even if the president had moved rapidly in January to deal with the coronavirus and had been able to persuade the Chinese leadership to be more forthcoming about the situation.
Even nations that have been praised for their handling of the pandemic, such as South Korea, New Zealand, and Iceland, have suffered some deaths.
377 in South Korea, 25 in New Zealand and 10 in Iceland.
In the US, with 50 states run by governors, policies have varied greatly.
Trump has been faulted for not articulating a national plan, but he would have had trouble
persuading every governor to follow the exact same path.
On the flip side, Trump routinely claims he saved millions of lives, a claim also not
supported by evidence.
No Washington Post.
It is.
Because the New York Times put out a chart.
I remember it was a little slider bar.
I got a video and I'm like sliding it back and forth and it said the best case scenario was looking like a million dead.
The worst case scenario was looking at like six million dead.
And now we have 200,000, so Trump is saying he saved millions.
It's just framing.
It's an opinion.
We don't know.
There were projections.
We beat the projections.
Trump is giving himself a pat on the back.
Fine, I guess.
I wouldn't say it's not backed up by evidence.
I would just say, of course, Trump is taking the most beneficial view he possibly can, and Joe Biden is taking the worst.
Both are a little over the top, but Joe Biden is the least fair.
Because you can at least say there is a possibility Donald Trump did save millions of lives.
It is not a possibility that if Trump did something different, there would be absolutely no deaths.
That's insane.
Well, I'm glad to see that Joe Biden is getting some pushback.
There's another quote.
When back in January, I wrote an article for USA Today saying, we've got a pandemic, we've got a real problem.
The Washington Post says Biden overstates what he said in January.
He did not flatly say it was a pandemic.
Biden's op-ed was published on January 27th titled, Trump is worst possible leader to deal with coronavirus outbreak.
The op-ed appeared only days after the Chinese government shut down the city of Wuhan in an effort to stem the crisis.
So Biden should be commended for focusing early on an issue that for most Americans was still a distant threat.
However, that was around the time that Donald Trump formed the COVID task force, brought on Dr. Fauci.
He almost immediately banned travel to and from China.
So words, Joe, you criticize Trump's actions.
They say the USA Today piece is more of an attack on Trump and a recollection of Obama administration steps taken against the 2014 Ebola outbreak than a detailed plan for action against a possible pandemic.
But at the same time, Biden indicated that he took the threat seriously, even if he did not explicitly say a pandemic was on the way.
Biden referred to the possibility of a pandemic and noted, the outbreak of a new coronavirus, which has already infected more than 2,700 people and killed over 80 in China, will still get worse before it gets better.
Cases have been confirmed in a dozen countries.
With at least five in the U.S., there will likely be more.
A few days later, on January 31st, Biden asserted, We have, right now, a crisis with the coronavirus.
That certainly stands in contrast to Trump, who repeatedly played down the possibility of a pandemic in the U.S.
And you know what?
It's a fair point.
However, as I stated in my main channel segment, Donald Trump took action, which is credited with saving many lives, banning travel to and from China.
Joe Biden criticized this as xenophobic.
Donald Trump banned travel to Europe as well.
We can argue who was thinking of taking it seriously earlier or not, but I'll tell you this, it doesn't matter.
If Joe Biden thought that it was a threat, so did Trump.
Trump downplayed it.
Yeah, to prevent a panic, he even said that.
I think it's a good thing.
You know why?
Because the UN said if the economy shut down, we were looking at 250 million starvation deaths.
Maybe Trump made the wrong call, but I don't think it's an issue of Intent.
I don't think it's an issue that Trump was trying to kill people or didn't care.
He downplayed it because he thought he was doing the right thing to save lives.
And I can respect that.
Joe Biden took no action.
He wasn't the president.
I'm not going to fault him for not being the president.
But if you want to claim that Donald Trump did a bad job, tell me what Joe Biden would have done differently.
And then, I have to believe you, he actually would have when he was criticizing the president.
So I'm sorry.
I think it's ridiculous to use COVID against Trump or for Biden Or even vice versa.
Look, I'll be critical of... I think Trump could have done some things better.
Maybe should have played it up a little bit more.
Sent out some masks.
They made mistakes early on.
I can't fault them.
We all knew the same things.
It was a rapidly moving story.
So it's hard to criticize Trump.
Joe Biden criticized Trump, and I can criticize him for criticizing Trump.
But that's really not that big a deal.
Nobody knows.
There was nobody else.
And I'm sure Biden would have done just as bad.
That's why I think it's a moot point.
I think it's silly.
Here we have another quote, we should expect another 215,000 dead by January.
But if we but if we wore a mask, we'd have 100,000 of those lives doing nothing but that.
These numbers are on target.
Deaths from the novel coronavirus are near 200,000 in the U.S., and one influential group of researchers predicts the total will reach 415,000 by 2021.
The projection comes from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.
I don't think this one really matters, because Dr. Fauci himself said we shouldn't wear masks.
So, is it Trump's fault we didn't wear masks when Fauci himself was saying not to?
No.
Now we know to wear masks, okay.
Everyone's been asked to wear masks, and Trump wore a mask too.
Did Trump downplay it?
Sure.
I don't know what else you want to do.
You want to argue that he can do better?
Sure.
It's not the biggest deal in the world to me.
I'm sad people are losing their lives, for sure.
Sometimes these like natural disasters occur and we try our best to solve these problems.
Sometimes we don't act fast enough.
If you think that's grounds for me to say I'm not going to vote for him, you are wrong because Joe Biden is a bigger risk.
I know what Trump is doing.
I know he's learned from his mistakes.
And now we've moved past this.
Thank you for pointing out Joe Biden.
I'm sure Trump will accommodate accordingly.
But if you want to talk about switching out the president during a crisis, just because you've criticized him, I'm gonna say no!
That's insane!
Trump can steer the ship, and steer us through this crisis, and just because he did something wrong in the past, doesn't mean he's gonna do the same thing again in the future.
Maybe after four years, you know, we'll give someone else a chance, and that's the way it is.
But I don't see this as an easy issue.
If Donald Trump came out and literally, like, took a vial of COVID and shat it on the ground and started laughing maniacally, I'd be like, get this guy out of there!
He didn't do that.
I think Trump had good intentions.
I think he made some mistakes, and I don't see any evidence Biden would have done better, period.
They have another quote.
He's in federal court.
Federal court trying to do away with the Affordable Care Act.
100 million people with pre-existing conditions, like your mom, would not have to pay more for their insurance under now.
What, Joe?
Get your words together.
Washington Post says there's an estimated 102 million people with pre-existing health conditions, according to a report by the group Avalere.
But depending on where people get their insurance, such as the half of Americans who get it from their employer, premiums would not necessarily go up for all if Trump succeeds in nullifying the ACA.
So Biden is wrong.
Another quote.
Nope.
No reporter said that.
Ronald Reagan, elected in 1980, was the last president who did not go to an Ivy League university.
He went to Eureka College in Illinois.
Neither Biden nor his running mate Kamala Harris went to an Ivy League university.
The first such Democratic ticket since 84.
Biden attended the University of Delaware and the Syracuse University College of Law, while Harris attended Howard University and the University of California Hastings College of Law.
They say, update.
Related to this comment, we missed one major blooper.
Quote, guys like me who are the first in my family to go to college.
As the Washington Post has reported, while Biden was the first on his father's side of the family to go to college, he was not the first in his whole family.
Thank you for pushing back on Joe Biden.
It's that simple.
It doesn't mean he's wrong about everything.
It doesn't mean Trump is right about everything.
But I highlight this just to say a couple things.
Biden has been wrong.
Trump has been wrong.
But if the media doesn't get their act together and play it straight, criticizing Biden when he does wrong, people will not believe him or you.
