Putin Mobilizes Nuclear Forces, NATO Warns Russian Tsunami Bomb Nuke Has Been Deployed
Putin Mobilizes Nuclear Forces, NATO Warns Russian Tsunami Bomb Nuke Has Been Deployed
----
Viral Clip Shows Democrats Vowing To VOTE DESANTIS, GOP Gain Among Black And Latinos Spark Dem PANIC. Democrats are losing in polls among latinos and Black voters signaling a coming red wave in the midterms.
Democrats are now evening beginning to point out Biden's cognitive decline and mental collapse. Some are starting to float Hillary Clinton 2024 in another absurd attempt to claim she will be running against Biden.
DeSantis is showing voters where the priorities lie and for this he even has the endorsement of a prominent FLorida Democrat
#democrats
#republicans
#biden
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today is October 3rd, 2022, and our first story, NATO Fears Russia's Preparing to Test the Poseidon Nuclear Torpedo, as videos apparently show the mobilization of nuclear support trains and materials.
Vladimir Putin is upping the ante on his threats, and many are worried nuclear war may follow.
In our next story, a viral clip shows a couple of Democrats vowing to vote DeSantis.
New polls show that among black and Latino voters, Democrats are slipping.
And in fact, the video of these Democratic voters saying vote DeSantis, these are a couple of older black gentlemen.
In our last story, Bros, a gay rom-com, bombs at the box office.
Billy Eichner, the star, decries homophobia, but the reality is, maybe it's just a small market share and people didn't want to see your movie.
If you like the show, give us a good review, leave us five stars, and share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
What would you call it when you have two powerful military factions currently involved in a
military conflict?
One side, facing potential defeat, maybe not immediately, but in the face of it, threatens they will use nuclear weapons, starting with tactical nukes, and then potentially more powerful weapons.
What do you call it then when that faction mobilizes Their entire nuclear arsenal is now preparing a nuclear torpedo test for the first time, and a maintenance train and logistics train for their nuclear arsenal is seen on the move.
I ask this because there are a lot of people who keep saying, it's not going to happen.
Russia will not use nukes.
It would be crazy.
It would be mutually assured destruction.
And then I'm just sitting here like, yeah, okay, man.
Maybe Putin doesn't care.
Maybe he's like, I'm not going to lose.
He has everything to lose.
He is facing NATO on his border.
So why wouldn't he say, you want to play games?
Nukes it is.
Because let me ask you this question.
What is the difference between nuclear annihilation and conventional annihilation?
And that's the question people need to be asking when they're wondering whether or not Vladimir Putin will use nuclear weapons.
If the United States or NATO was faced with an ICBM, an intercontinental ballistic missile, or better yet, a nuclear torpedo, Crashing into the shores of one of its coastal cities.
If it was facing that annihilation, yeah, maybe there would be retaliation.
Maybe the U.S.
would say, you want to wipe us out?
We're gonna wipe you out.
But hold on there a minute.
Who cares if it's a nuke?
Vladimir Putin is facing crushing defeat in Ukraine.
It's gonna be extremely bad for them.
The Nord Stream Pipeline's been disabled.
Their economy is in serious trouble.
They need access to the Black Sea, they need the Crimean warm water port, and they need their pipelines delivering fuel into Europe.
If they are facing that, in any way, annihilation, if it's going to be a nuclear bomb or it's going to be a bunch of troops blowing stuff up, what's the difference?
If Russia is facing annihilation, why would they not say, you started it, we nuke back?
This is my point.
People are saying, oh, Russia would engage in war, but they wouldn't use nukes because that would be mutually assured destruction.
And I'm just like, it's a weapon.
I don't care.
It's not a special class.
I'm not putting it on a pedestal.
Vladimir Putin, facing defeat, will use nuclear weapons.
The United States, facing defeat, likely would also use nuclear weapons.
That's what they are for.
Now, this is the big news today.
NATO fears Russia is preparing to test Poseidon nuclear torpedo for the first time.
Now, rumor has it that the Poseidon nuclear torpedo, autonomous nuclear torpedo, has a blast yield of 100 megatons.
If you're wondering what that would look like, let me just tell you.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I believe the blast yield for those bombs was 15 kilotons.
And for those that know your math, a megaton is 1024 kilotons.
I believe that translates, I don't know.
I know kilobytes and megabytes.
But it's about that.
So it's about a thousand.
If they really are preparing this torpedo, practicing, doing a test for it to make sure it works, it's not been deployed yet, Yeah, I think it's fair to say.
They're moving in that direction.
You can call it saber-rattling, but they don't have the weapons for no reason.
Now, according to more official reports, the blast shield is probably just two megatons.
Okay, two megatons.
Well, it would wipe out Midtown to Battery Park in New York City, if it were to make it straight through and slam into Battery Park.
It's a nuclear torpedo, so I'm assuming it's going to stay underwater before it hits its target on the coastal city.
In which case, two megatons is not going to have the same impact as an airburst ICBM.
But we'll talk the nitty-gritty on nuclear weapons.
Let me first give you the news, because not only do we have the test of Poseidon, we have this story.
Russian nuclear military train is seen on the move in possible warning to the West that Putin is prepared to escalate his Ukraine war.
From Yahoo, according to the newspaper, which newspaper?
What is this?
They say, uh, NATO newspaper?
It just says, according to the newspaper, the key commands of the NATO member countries have received reports over the past few days regarding the movement of the nuclear submarine Belgorod, which can carry Poseidon torpedoes.
It is considered the epitome of a new concept of warfare.
La Repubblica writes, I don't know.
I mean, maybe.
The Belgorod is often mentioned in the context of the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines,
as this is one of the activities for which it was designed.
However, Western intelligence is convinced the submarine did not go beyond the White
Sea in the north of Russia.
In fact, it should next appear in the waters of the Arctic for a series of secret tests.
I don't know.
I mean, maybe.
Why bother testing it?
I guess you want to make sure it works if you're about to use it, right?
Theoretically, the test could be the war.
The war could be the test.
But it makes me wonder about how they mentioned the Nord Stream Pipeline, because there's a funny meme where it's like, Vladimir Putin drives out, you know, secretly into Polish territorial waters, then blows up his own pipeline.
Yeah, it doesn't sound like it makes sense, does it?
Sounds like the West disabled Russia's energy access into Europe, a portion of it.
Now, with Ukraine, of course, falling, this is what people need to realize.
Russia transports gas into Europe, primarily through Ukraine, and now, and there's a bunch of others, but Ukraine is a big portion, and then you have the Nord Stream pipelines.
Nord Stream?
Disabled.
Ukraine, the gas prompt pipelines, under the control of NATO, especially if Russia loses this war.
Bad news for Russia.
An existential threat, as it were, because their economy can't be sustained unless they can ship in energy into Europe.
This has long been the plan.
If you've watched any of my videos talking about this, I've long talked about the U.S.
and NATO trying to get cheaper gas into Europe.
Surprise, surprise!
These are the targets.
The nuclear submarine BS-329 Belgorod was originally built as Project 949A, anti-submarine.
However, it was modified as it was being built.
The 184 meter submarine is now the longest submarine in existence today.
Belgorod was officially transferred to service with the Russian Navy on July 8th, 2022.
The main difference between the Belgorod and all other nuclear submarines in the world is its potential to carry Poseidon nuclear torpedoes capable of traveling hundreds of miles underwater and causing nuclear tsunamis by exploding near a coast.
They call it the Tsunami Bomb.
It's worse than that.
Apparently, the Poseidon torpedo has its own nuclear reactor, giving it unlimited range.
They say at the same time, the U.S.
created a network of satellites with infrared sensors precisely in order to record the launch of these Russian superweapons.
Hans Christensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said the torpedoes are still under development.
According to him, the combat deployment of Poseidons is possible no earlier than the second half of this decade.
In an April report by the Congressional Research Service, it was said that they would enter service with the Russian Navy no earlier than 2027, writes U.S.
cable news channel CNN.
But perhaps Perhaps they're wrong.
We don't know.
I think it's silly to assume that the current state of nuclear weapons is based upon our knowledge of 1970s ICBMs.
I assure you, the nuclear weapons held by the world powers today, you don't know about.
I don't even know if they're gonna use nukes.
This is the big thing.
We're all sitting here being like, nuclear weapons, what if they use nuclear weapons?
Bro, nuclear weapons were developed in like the late 30s, early 40s.
The initial research paper on nuclear fission in 1938, the potential for a fission bomb, a nuclear bomb, was only shortly after that and developed in the 40s.
Everybody was racing for it.
It's crazy.
The Nazis were working on rockets.
Imagine if they were able to pull that off.
But because they were anti-Semites, a good portion of the scientists who knew how to do it, fled.
We got them.
We got the nukes.
Isn't it funny how racism sabotage or anti-Semitism sabotage the Nazis?
Talk about being stupid.
But we talk about nuclear weapons, rockets, and all that, and I gotta say, why would they not have something more powerful?
I give you, albeit briefly, a mention of antimatter weaponry.
The CERN Large Hadron Collider.
Now, I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on any of this stuff, but our understanding is that they slam particles at high speeds, and they're doing research, they say, to try and see what it was like in the earliest stage of the universe.
The Big Bang.
What happens with these high levels of energy slamming into each other?
Well, theoretically, they can create antimatter.
Antimatter would be like an electron.
You know what an electron is.
But the inverse charge, a positron.
This is antimatter.
It's mirror imaged.
And when it comes into contact, they negate each other and release 100% of their energy.
A tremendous explosion.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
I can't talk about percentage blast deals, but I can just say this.
Antimatter weaponry.
If it was developed, a very, very tiny device could be as powerful as a massive nuclear bomb.
I think it was something like... I don't know.
I don't know any of the math, so I'm not gonna try and speculate on how big an antimatter bomb could be, but it would be like a small portion of the size of a nuclear warhead with substantially more blast yield.
Now, okay, we do have Russian nuclear military train on the move, and many people have said, what makes you think Russia's nuclear arsenal is capable?
It's from the 70s!
And I say, good point, good point.
Maybe it's in disarray.
The U.S.
nuclear arsenal is in disarray.
I remember it was maybe like eight years, the U.S.
announced a new gravity bomb.
Basically, I think it was a megaton bomb, and it was small.
Gravity bombs work by just, you drop them and then they, boom!
Warheads tend to be air bursts.
So air bursts go right over the target and then burst and that gives a bigger spread.
But this is all technology from the 70s and 80s, right?
So today the speculation is that this stuff's all in disrepair.
The reports are that the nuclear arsenal is just rusted nuts and bolts and probably wouldn't even work.
The fuel, how long has it been sitting around?
Are these ICBMs ready to go?
Don't know.
But if that is true, and it may be, why would they not have, I don't know, antimatter weaponry?
I guess, when the initial paper on nuclear fission was released in 1938, a lot of people said, hey, wait a minute, we could make bombs with that.
Antimatter's been well known about for some time.
Why have we not tried making bombs with that?
Maybe we did.
The Daily Mail reports a huge freight train moving specialist military equipment associated with a nuclear arms-wielding division of Russia's Defense Ministry has been spotted on the move, prompting fears of an escalation of Putin's war.
A series of BPM-97 armored personnel carriers and other military vehicles were seen traveling through central Russia in a clip posted on Telegram messaging app by pro-Russian channel Rybar on Saturday.
The APCs are thought to have been upgraded with more capable turrets, reinforced ambush and mine-proof armor, and an air purification system designed to allow its occupants to operate effectively in the face of sustained infantry attacks.
Such advanced military hardware, the likes of which have been scarcely deployed on the front lines in Ukraine, reportedly belong to the 12th Main Directorate of the Russian MOD.
The Specialist Division is dedicated to the storage, maintenance, and provision of weapons to the likes of the Strategic Rocket Forces, a Russian military branch that controls nuclear missiles and forms a key part of Putin's nuclear program.
Military Analyst Conrad Masyka Here we go, baby!
claimed the deployment of such units could signal a coming escalation in the conflict
from the warmongering Russian president or constitute a precursor to large-scale nuclear
drills. It comes as NATO warned member states that Russia's state-of-the-art Belgorod nuclear
submarine has left its White Sea base, while key Putin ally Ramzan Kadyrov said Russia's military
should use low-yield nuclear weapons to turn the tide in the war in Ukraine. Here we go, baby!
People don't get it. They don't get it It's just crazy to me.
I think Putin will use nuclear weapons if he has no choice.
And I think we're getting dangerously close to the possibility that he will feel that way.
I don't know if it will happen.
Maybe he'll just say, I don't want this.
I just don't see de-escalation.
But here's what you need to understand.
We are not talking about Vladimir Putin being like, they've taken the Eastern Front.
Okay, blow up New York.
That's ridiculous.
The Poseidon Missile?
Tsunami bomb crazy.
He'd only use it as a last resort.
But what about tactical nuclear weapons?
Forbes writes, here's what would happen if Putin ordered a nuclear strike.
They say, tactical nuclear weapons are much smaller than the strategic long-range warheads designed to destroy cities.
But power is relative.
The largest tactical weapons can be as big as 100 kilotons.
One kiloton is a thousand tons of TNT.
The bomb the U.S.
dropped in Hiroshima was 15 kilotons.
And Dr. Rod Thornton, a security expert at King's College London, told Forbes they can still be devastating.
I'm pretty sure a 100 kiloton bomb, which is like seven times more powerful, six, about seven times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, would be devastating.
And that's what I've said.
A hundred kiloton tactical artillery, nuclear artillery, fired on Kiev, would to shut them down.
And the reason I say Kiev, it's the capital.
It's where they're safe.
It's where they're filming their propo pieces.
So, He fires a 100 kiloton bomb, wiping out Kiev, hoping that shocks the entirety of Ukraine into backing down.
Because that would kill, like... I suppose in the city center, like 100,000 people would be dead instantly.
It's nightmarish to think about.
But it depends on what Putin thinks is going to happen.
Maybe he doesn't even use 100 kilotons.
Maybe he uses 10 kilotons.
Maybe he uses 15.
We saw what happened with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
They say Putin would be highly unlikely to target a Ukrainian city in an initial strike.
He would possibly avoid casualties altogether.
I agree with that.
He may go for military or strategic locations.
The nuclear attack would mostly be a symbolic signaling device.
Yeah, a shot across the bow.
Letting them know, before it's too late, you have an option to back down.
But let's talk about what happens.
And we will use our source over at Nukemap.
So, you can't really, uh... Well, you know what?
We can just enter a yield, and we're gonna enter a yield in kilotons of 2,000.
Let's talk Poseidon.
Oh, you know what?
No.
Let's talk 100 kilotons over New York.
Detonate.
100 kilotons, landing in the Financial District of New York.
That's the radius you would see.
It's hard to know exactly what the nuclear radiation radius is going to be of each individual weapon.
We don't know for sure.
Maybe they've got nuclear artillery in here somewhere.
Let's see, we've got... W76, common UK 100 kiloton bomb.
We'll use that one.
Detonate over New York.
Wow!
That's crazy.
We can see the light blast damage of a 100 kiloton bomb on New York would reach Past Hoboken?
The Light Blast Range would go all the way to- where is that?
I don't even know what area that is.
It's gonna just go past all of the Jersey to, uh, what river do we have here?
unidentified
I don't know, is that- is that- I don't know what river that is.
Because they want to send fear into the hearts of NATO.
Into the Ukrainians who are fighting the war.
Now look how big this country is.
That's a small bomb.
Alright?
Relatively.
You've got Crimea down here.
Look how tiny that looks when you zoom out.
Shock and awe.
Terrify people.
Make them think.
That they won't survive.
Just start slamming into all of the regions that he needs to.
It'll start with a symbolic strike, a shot across the bow, then military targets, and then a key city like Kiev.
Now this is a 100 kiloton bomb.
Let's talk about if they were to use something like Poseidon, which is estimated... Let's do this.
Poseidon is estimated to be two megatons.
That's the official report.
Although some people have... I think the Russian media were saying like a hundred megatons, but that sounds ridiculous.
But let's just say, okay.
Here's the crazy thing.
We'll detonate over New York City.
Let's see what happens.
Did it put me back in Kiev?
Okay, we got New York City.
Let's go.
Come on.
It's not working.
Alright, alright.
You're not gonna give us New York?
We'll go.
Anyway.
The issue with the Poseidon is that it's a tsunami bomb.
It's underwater.
The question is, will it actually be able to make it to New York?
You know what, honestly?
I don't actually know.
You take a look at a lot of the US's coastal cities.
It ain't gonna make it into Philadelphia.
Okay?
I guess maybe New Brunswick, but are we really gonna scream and cry about New Brunswick getting hit?
New York.
It could.
It would probably have to go down to Long Beach, or Coney Island or something.
I have to imagine there's some kind of alert system or defense, but maybe there isn't.
Let's say that it comes up straight through here, and goes right past, you know, what is it, the Verrazano, and then turns and slams into Battery Park.
That's a lot of damage.
I don't know what a tsunami bomb there would do.
I imagine that it's gonna hit all of the surrounding areas and so detonating it right there actually would be devastating to New York, Staten Island, Bayonne.
Would cause massive damage to the Newark Airport.
Would probably cause residual damage to JFK.
And I have to wonder if they'd be better off detonating lower to try and cause damage to JFK.
Or more than one.
That's a question I have.
I don't know.
People say you gotta be worried about Poseidon because it's underwater.
Hard to attack, hard to stop.
ICBMs.
They go through the air.
We can see them.
We have satellites.
And we have systems.
I don't know if the Iron Dome or THAAD like systems.
I bet we have surface-to-air anti-missile missiles.
If Israel's got Iron Dome, I'm sure we have strategic defense.
We try and blow them up in midair.
What if it's underwater?
That's probably why they developed the underwater missiles in the first place.
Would they come for the U.S.
and go for New York?
Honestly, I don't know.
Maybe.
It's possible.
I mean, look, Vladimir Putin is looking at NATO on its doorstep.
And it might be thinking, this is the U.S.
coming to our border and threatening us with annihilation.
So they would say, then we bring it to your doorstep.
is probably well fortified with anti-nuke missile systems or something.
Who would they go for?
Wilkes-Barre?
Yeah.
Allentown?
No, I think Scranton would be a good target.
Because people in Scranton think they're safe.
That's why.
They talked about this after 9-11, saying that the prime targets for terrorists will be small towns, not big cities.
You'd think it's going to be the big cities because they want to cause economic damage.
But how do you cause economic damage?
Lancaster?
Wilkes-Barre, Scranton, Binghamton, Ithaca.
You go for cities that are big enough to cause serious damage, but are small enough that people in small-town America are terrified they won't be safe.
That will cause more economic damage.
If a new kid's D.C., you got economic damage nationwide.
But D.C.' 's the obvious target.
People move out to the middle of nowhere thinking they're safe.
You know, we're out in the Harper's Ferry area near Charlestown, and so if a bomb were to go off, we'd be mostly fine.
So maybe they hit Charlestown instead, causing massive damage to the surrounding areas, because guess what?
The wealthy lawyers and elites, they don't live in D.C.
They live outside of D.C.
Arlington, Silver Spring, Annapolis, and stretching out, they use the Charlestown area, the Harper's Ferry area, Jefferson County, as like a corporate getaway.
So if Putin was actually going to target the area, he'd probably hit, let's see, Germantown?
Maybe Leesburg?
You hit Leesburg and you get all of the areas surrounding where a lot of these wealthy D.C.
people will live.
Make them feel unsafe.
People don't realize this.
They don't think about the logic of what a nuclear strike would be like.
Hit Martinsburg.
Small West Virginian town.
And you're going to hit Jefferson County.
You're going to get parts of Frederick, where, again, a lot of these D.C.
people will live.
Shepherdstown, a college town.
You hit that, and you get this massive radius where you can say, as Vladimir Putin could say, no one is safe.
Now, what that would do, these small towns, all of a sudden they're fleeing, they're panicking, and no one feels like there's anywhere to go to be safe.
What do you do?
You hit a big city, people in small towns say, wow.
You hit a small town, people in every city say, hide in the basement.
That's the scary reality of nuclear war.
I hope it doesn't come to that.
Obviously.
I hope that this finds some resolution, but we're only seeing escalation.
Especially now with the deployment of the Poseidon for nuclear testing.
Maybe we're a few years away.
Man, I don't know.
But I think it's possible that Vladimir Putin is just going to say, I'm not going to lose.
I'll leave it there.
The next segment is coming up on this channel at 1pm.
Thanks for hanging out.
Become a member at TimCast.com.
Follow at TimCastNews on Twitter if you don't already.
And we'll see you all next time.
In a viral clip, two men are seen standing outside as a big tanker full of gasoline pulls up, and the man has a few choice words to say, some expletives.
A woman says, hey, there's children here.
He apologizes.
But he says, the gas here is in Arcadia.
I don't know about the rest of y'all, beep, but I'm voting for DeSantis, and I'm a Democrat.
Yeah, let this be a very serious warning to Democrats and Democrat voters about what's to come in November.
They're saying now in the media that Ron DeSantis is dropping the partisanship in the wake of Ian.
And the response is just like, as it should be.
OK, yeah, he should.
Right now, everybody needs to just lay down the political conflict and say, the people of Florida need help because it's really, really bad down there.
I mean, Hurricane Ian was basically a Category 5 as it slammed into the state.
So good.
But you see, the relief efforts are working.
You've got people who are Democrats seeing real action take place.
The media?
They got nothing.
So what are we hearing?
Well, Predictions that Democrats are in for a MAGA November, and there's nothing they can do about it.
Democrats are lagging with Latino voters.
They're lagging with Black voters.
And unsurprisingly, the video of this guy saying he's a Democrat, it's two Black men saying they're going to be voting for Ron DeSantis.
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating and affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
Not only that, but a couple of weeks ago, about a week and a half ago,
we got a top Democrat in Florida actually endorsing Ron DeSantis.
So it will be interesting to see what happens in 2022, but my friends, 2024 is probably gonna be the most fun.
In their desperation, once again, the media is floating.
Hillary Clinton, I kid you not, and everybody is begging, please, as they have been, yes, Hillary, run again.
Because if there's anybody who could do worse than Joe Biden, it has to be Hillary Clinton.
But of course, of course, this is just one former Clinton consultant saying she is playing, she is utilizing this playbook that I actually prepared for Bill.
The idea is Joe Biden fails so miserably that Hillary Clinton can come in as a moderate and pick up the pieces and win.
I doubt it, but hey, you never know what might actually happen.
He said to Joe Biden, Joe, you don't have to do this.
One of the ideas floated in 2020, 2021, was that the reason Joe Biden ran was to create a presidency so foul That when Hillary Clinton runs, she looks better by comparison.
Hey, look, I know people hate Donald Trump.
But the idea is, they can utilize and capitalize the hatred of Donald Trump.
But people just hated Hillary more, so how about this?
We make Joe Biden so bad, that when Hillary does run, people are gonna vote for her.
Now, I don't know about all that.
It's a fun idea.
But what I can tell you is that even the Daily Beast is running an article right now saying you cannot ignore Joe Biden's broken brain.
And what this means?
Predict It says, well, people on Predict It believe the Republicans are going to take control of the House and the Senate, which is, I believe both.
It may just be the Senate.
This is interesting.
Predicted also suggests... Well, I should say there's two different predicted markets.
These are not necessarily polls.
These are prediction betting pools.
They think that Ron DeSantis is more likely to win the GOP nomination, but that Donald Trump is more likely to win the presidency.
What does that mean?
How are these two ideas at odds?
I don't know.
But let's break through all of this, and we'll talk about why I think we're seeing this shift from Democrats towards Republicans, why so many are switching parties, why so many Democrats are saying they'll vote Republican.
I think it's wokeness, hypocrisy, and it's plainly visible to anyone, including and especially Normies, the layman.
I mean, how many times is the media going to lie about something until finally you just say, OK, I'm done with this.
I got to check for myself.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com to become a member and support our work directly.
As a member, you are keeping our journalists gainfully employed, and they're eternally grateful for your support.
As a member, you get access to our exclusive shows, like the TimCast Uncensored Members Only Show Monday through Thursday at 11pm, as well as the Cast Castle Vlog, and Tales from the Inverted World, and we're also working on a bunch of new shows which are coming soon.
Please consider supporting our work and smashing that like button, subscribing to this channel right now, and being the notifications that you want to see from YouTube.
YouTube hasn't been notifying a lot of people.
They've been complaining about it.
They subscribe to my channels and YouTube does not tell them when the videos go live.
If you want to counteract this overt censorship right before an election, share the videos.
Be that support.
Let's jump into this first story.
Now, I've shown you the quote.
That's it.
Dan Bongino has the video.
Over a million views so far, and just a humble 20 seconds of two guys laughing and pointing out that Ron DeSantis has brought the gasoline.
And you know what?
I know who I'm voting for, and I'm a Democrat.
Yeah, I would not be surprised if we hear that sentiment from many, many more Democrats.
But let's make it official.
You may have seen this story.
Top Florida Democrat endorses DeSantis for governor.
This is from thecentersquare.com.
A top Democrat in Palm Beach County, Florida has endorsed Governor Ron DeSantis for governor less than two months from election day.
Palm Beach County Commissioner David Kerner announced in a news conference he was not only endorsing DeSantis for re-election, but was also campaigning for him every day until November 8th.
I'm gonna pause real quick.
To these two men standing in that field being like, I know who I'm voting for.
To this guy, David Kerner.
Vote principle, not party.
Mad respect.
2020 was the first time that I went down-ticket Republican.
It was the first time that I voted for a Republican president.
I didn't vote for him in 2016.
It was the first time I actually spoke out and said that I was going to be backing Republicans.
Why?
Because the principle.
Because of the issues.
It has nothing to do with party.
Look, in 2016, I didn't vote for anybody.
In 2012, I voted for... I think in 2012, I voted for nobody.
In 2008, I voted for Obama and a bunch of Democrats.
And I think in 2006, I may have... I don't remember.
But this is a time where I was like, you know what?
I'm actually going to vote for Republicans.
I don't like the Republican Party.
But Donald Trump came out with a second-term agenda.
He had school choice on the list.
I was seeing what he was doing with the war in the Middle East.
Something worth voting for, I said.
Every day until November 8th, I will campaign for Governor DeSantis, Kerner said.
And on November 8th, I will vote for Governor DeSantis.
He said he proudly endorsed the governor for re-election.
And as an aside, I'm very proud the governor felt my endorsement was worthy of acceptance.
This was not a difficult choice for me.
This was not the proverbial lesser of two evils.
Governor DeSantis has demonstrated himself to be beyond worthy of the humble duties of this office.
And he has done so with a level of dignity, purpose, and respect that is lost in the public sphere today.
The county commissioner added that despite being a Democrat, he could not remain silent about endorsing the Republican governor.
There is too much on the line in this election.
The governor's Democratic opponent has already started talking about reallocation, which to me, by the way, is a code word for taking resources away from the men and women that protect us.
It's a code word for defunding the police.
It is literally defunding the police.
The Palm Beach County Democratic Party didn't immediately respond to a request for comment to Kerner's endorsement.
They also didn't issue a statement after he made the endorsement.
Palm Beach County is the third most populated county in Florida.
In 2020, President Joe Biden won the county by 56%, and now the commissioner is endorsing the Republican!
The former Republican governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, is running against DeSantis as a Democrat.
Say what?
It's so weird.
Crist's platform includes an extensive plan to ban the sale of assault weapons in Florida, implement a range of gun laws, and create a neighborhood policing initiative.
Crist supports universal background checks for all gun sales, banning the sale of so-called ghost guns, cracking down on straw purchases, corrupt gun dealers, gun thefts, and bulk gun purchases.
Bulk gun purchases?
That's ridiculous.
Implementing a law to require gun owners to report the theft or loss of their firearms and creating a focused deterrence community policing program.
He also wants to strengthen red flag laws, firearm safe storage laws, deny the sale of firearms to domestic abusers, repeal Tallahassee's community safety preemption law, lengthen the waiting period to purchase firearms, create an office of gun violence prevention, among other initiatives.
None of his stated proposals include increasing funding for the police departments, expanding police services, or prioritizing hiring more law enforcement.
Full stop!
If you take funding away from the police, and then you take away people's right to defend themselves, where does this lead to?
I went to Morgantown, West Virginia, and I met a fella.
He noticed me and he waved.
He started telling me what was going on.
And in the conversation I got this feeling.
They are destroying small-town America on purpose.
They are taking away your right to defend yourself.
Fortunately, West Virginia is a constitutional carry state.
They are taking away the police's ability to deal with crime, releasing criminals.
And then I noticed the buildings.
They were exorbitantly expensive.
I said, why are all these businesses out of business?
Well, rent's a couple grand.
How do you open a business if the rent is a couple grand and you can't even establish the business?
You need a place to sell, right?
Two things are happening.
Well, more than two things are happening, mind you.
I get it.
Let's not play semantics.
But a couple things are happening that are destroying our cities.
One, big investment firms are buying up properties.
They're buying them for investments and not using them.
How is a small business in a small town supposed to get access to a storefront when the rent is a couple grand and the building's a million dollars?
You're like, look, I need a storefront.
Well, the building's a million bucks.
Good luck.
Can't afford it.
Will you rent to me?
Nope.
We're gonna sit on it, and there will be no business.
And no business means no economic activity, meaning no taxes, meaning no community investment at all, and then just rot.
That's one of the things happening.
Because of this, people are homeless.
They can't afford rent.
Rent is too high.
It's $2,500 for an apartment in downtown.
So I was told.
So you end up with a lot of homeless people.
Homeless people are desperate, disillusioned.
You get drug addicts.
Drug addicts make it so just nobody wants to be there.
It's amazing.
And the other thing that's happening is they're releasing criminals and taking away your right to defend yourself.
All of this seems to be orchestrated to simply destroy small towns.
It's a nightmare scenario, I guess.
But hey, no surprise that Democrats are losing out.
More and more Republicans, more and more individuals who were Democrat are registering as Republicans.
Take a look at this.
Ryan James Gerduski says, New Jersey Republicans continue registering more voters than their Democratic counterparts.
The New Jersey GOP is on track to register more than 15,000 new Republicans in the Garden State, while Democrats have lost over 45,000.
Take a look at that.
2021 to 2022, you can see the Republicans are up 67,000.
Democrats are down 7,000.
In 2022 alone, they're down 45,000.
Republicans are up 14,840.
Now, I don't know exactly how these charts break down.
Independent voters seem way down, 71,000.
So, it looks like people are registering for political parties.
Last month, Dems lost 1,000.
Independents gained 12,000.
Republicans gained 828.
Democrats 0% growth, beginning and to change, just nothing.
That's amazing.
But that's, right up top, that's 12-31-2020 to today, 2022.
Interesting.
So we'll see.
It looks like in 2021 there may be something offsetting what's happening in 2022, but suffice it to say, People are switching parties, baby.
They don't want to vote Democrat, but I don't know what this means in the midterms.
I really don't.
CNN says Ron DeSantis pivots from political battles and aftermath of Hurricane.
As he should.
Good job.
Why?
Okay.
And water is wet.
I guess some people have said, water's not wet, water is water.
Water's touching water, so you get the point.
Of course he's doing this.
What is he supposed to do?
The AP reports DeSantis drops provocations, for now, in response to Ian.
Is this news?
It's remarkable that they're like, Governor does right thing.
Okay?
That's just ridiculous to me.
But of course, him doing the right thing is exactly why people want to vote for him.
But let's talk about where we go in the midterms.
Seeing a handful of guys be like, I'm a Democrat and I'm gonna vote for DeSantis, my response is, okay, not surprising the least bit.
From NBC News, GOP cuts into Democrats' lead among Latino voters, new poll shows.
Here we go, baby.
51% approve of Biden's job performance, but a majority disapprove of his handling in the economy in a new NBC News Telemundo survey ahead of the midterm elections.
Less than six weeks.
Oh, man.
It's coming, baby.
Before November's midterm elections, Democrats lead Republicans by more than 20 points among Latino voters.
But that Democratic advantage has declined from previous election cycles, according to a new national NBC News Telemundo poll of the Latino electorate.
The poll also finds Latino voters are essentially divided on President Joe Biden with 51% approving his job and 45% disapproving.
These are the main results of a survey conducted nationwide.
Quote, While Latinos continue to lead toward the Democratic Party and prefer Democratic control of Congress, Republicans have a higher share of the vote than we've measured previously, said Democratic pollster Aileen Cardona Arroyo of Hart Research Associates, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff and his team at Public Opinion Strategies.
McInturff added, Being down by 20 points is a lot better for Republicans than being down by 40 points.
What also stands out from this new poll are the differences between Latino men and Latino women.
Between Latino Democrats and Latino Republicans, between Catholic and non-Catholic Latinos, and between Latinos in California and those in Florida and Texas.
Latinos are incredibly diverse, yes.
That's obvious.
In the NBC News poll, 54% of Latinos say they prefer Democrats to control Congress as a result of the upcoming midterm elections.
As a result.
Versus 33% who want Republicans in charge.
Now the important point...
Is the number is increasing.
Republican-controlled Congress is going up 23 in 2012.
of 2014 it was 28, went down in 2018 it was 26, in 2020 it was 28, and in 2022 it is the
highest we've seen in the past decade at 33%.
This could be apocalyptic for Democrats, but it's not just the Latino voter.
It's Black voters.
The Wall Street Journal reported this a while back, saying that if Democrats cannot guarantee at least 80% of the Black vote, they will lose.
Right now, GOP support among the Black community is over 20%.
I don't know about this specific poll, but let's see where it's currently at today.
CNN reports.
Oh, here we go.
The 2022 midterm elections have already begun, blah blah blah.
In other words, they say, it's not only about who wins, what blocks of voters, but it's about the margins by which they win.
That's why I was struck by a recent finding about black voters in an ABC poll.
And that's why we begin to look at this.
Black voters tend to be forgotten as part of the discussion about general elections.
Yada, yada, yada.
Looking at the national polling, it seems possible that Democrats might not be able to count on nearly as much support from Black voters as they have in previous elections.
An average of the final five live interview polls of the 2020 election showed Biden with 84% to a 9% lead over Trump among Black voters, a big 75-point advantage.
But this year, an average of the last five interview polls I could find gives Democrats a 74% to 12% advantage among black voters.
A 62 point edge on the generic congressional ballot.
Let me just slow it down right there.
They're saying Republicans could have 26% or potentially even more.
I want to rewind back to that opening video and tell you why it's so important.
Okay, they say on the generic ballot, which usually asks respondents some form of the following question.
If the elections for Congress were held today, would you vote for the Democratic or Republican Party?
I want to rewind back to that opening video and tell you why it's so important.
They're talking about Ron DeSantis.
But do you think they're going to go to the polls and then be like, I'm a Democrat?
I'm voting for Ron DeSantis for Republican.
The Republican.
But I'll vote Democrat for everyone else.
Or are they likely to be like, I don't know.
DeSantis and the Republican Party seem to got it and go down ballot.
I don't know for sure, but I can tell you a lot of them are probably going down ballot.
They say this represents a larger swing towards Republicans by Black voters than the swing we have seen among all voters in the 2020 baseline.
Notably, the final five live interview polls I could get from the 2018 midterms showed Democrats with 85-9% lead.
The shift among black voters isn't something new.
In April, I pointed out that Democrats had a 73-11% advantage.
That's amazing.
The simplest explanation is the same one I had back in April.
Biden's standing.
His average approval among black adults in these polls is 64%.
Yikes.
In a compilation of the Gallup polls I looked at earlier this year, it was 67%.
Biden had an approval rating among Black Americans in the high 80s at the beginning of his term.
Biden's positive standing with Black voters is still significantly higher than his average approval rating with all adults in the low 40s.
But it's also lower than the lowest rating of the last Democratic president, Barack Obama, with his group.
That's it.
That right there is apocalyptic.
And then we'll add in this to the mix.
Democrats say they expect a pro-Republican MAGA surge in the fall elections.
This is another reason why they've so desperately attacked MAGA.
Quote, the MAGA surge is real.
Said a presentation for donors by America Votes, a Democratic group that coordinates Get Out the Vote efforts.
Democrats, no.
They are competitive in many races that might have been blowouts a few months ago, for a few reasons.
The Supreme Court's decision in eliminating the constitutional right to an abortion, as well as ebbing gas prices, and a string of legislative accomplishments by Democrats.
But, warned the presentation, what we're up against, GOP turnout will be very high.
Oh, you better believe it.
Democrats expect this MAGA surge largely because turnout in Republican primary so far this year has been sky-high, just as it was in 2021.
In Pennsylvania, for example, 1.3 million people cast ballots in the May 17th GOP primary, nearly double the total in 2018.
That's an 85% increase.
In Georgia on May 24th, Republicans saw an even bigger surge.
A 98% increase from the 2018 GOP.
Turnout was 1.2 million out from 607,000 in four years prior.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think we know where this is going.
Overpredict it!
Who will win the 2024 Republican presidential nomination?
Why, they say, Ron DeSantis is the favorite.
I certainly think so.
You got Tucker Carlson in the mix, but not quite.
Donald Trump in close second.
35 to 31.
But here's the funny thing.
Who will win the 2024 presidential election?
Donald Trump leads by one cent.
But then you got Joe Biden, even Gavin Newsom.
Kamala Harris.
I don't think it's going to be Joe Biden.
I'm not sure.
I don't know.
But who may it be, who may it be, as Democrats start to realize they're doing poorly with Joe Biden at the helm.
As they pointed out in the article about Latinos and black voters, Joe Biden's bad approval rating is hurting Democrats across the board.
Pay attention to that.
Because now we get this from TimCast.com.
Hillary Clinton reportedly preparing to launch moderate 2024 presidential run.
She's just dusting off Bill's playbook that I wrote for him and applying it to herself this year, said Dick Morris.
Ah yes, Dick Morris, former consultant for Bill Clinton.
These are the signals that she is going to be the moderate candidate for president, Morris told John Katzenman-Titus in a Sunday interview per the New York Post.
She's going to say after the election, see, the left cost us the House and the Senate.
If we stay with a left-wing candidate in 2024, we're going to lose the White House.
I'm the only one who will tack to the center and give us a chance at victory.
Morris claimed the former Secretary of State was planning on using the same campaign strategy he designed for Clinton to secure the Democratic nomination in 1992.
Hillary is just dusting off Bill's playbook that I wrote for him and applying it to herself this year.
Clinton appeared to criticize the Biden administration's open borders policy last month during an appearance on MSNBC.
Now, now, now!
No, no, no, my friends.
Hillary said she's not running, so this could just be more media bluster.
So when we see reports that Hillary Clinton is dusting off the old presidential playbook, Oof.
I suppose a lot of people are just laughing, being like, if there's anyone who could do worse, yo, people will accept the corporeal form that is Joe Biden without his brain.
That's what they wrote in 2020, but they despise Hillary Clinton.
What are we gonna do, man?
Democrats, what do you got for us?
The Examiner writes, Democrats eye younger candidates over dinosaurs to run in 2024.
They make note.
Some members of the party began drafting plans to elevate Sanders, who is 81 years old.
Yo, if we're putting Bernie in the mix, can I just shout out Ron Paul and be like, hey Ron, what is Ron, 83?
Man, they say Sanders is a possible alternative in the case Biden doesn't run according to a leaked memo.
Wow.
However, some Democrats have expressed hesitancy to back a man who is older than Biden, who is already the oldest president to hold office at 79.
We should be finding ways to elevate some rising stars in the party who have been crowded out by people like Bernie.
What do you got?
What are you gonna get?
Are you gonna get AOC?
Yeah.
Good luck.
I want to point this out.
Obama reportedly warned Biden about 2020.
You don't have to do this, Joe.
You don't have to do what?
That's the question.
What don't you have to do, Joe?
You know, when this was first reported, the idea was that you don't gotta run for office, because they needed somebody with name recognition.
I wonder now, so say these conspiracy theories, if what he was really saying is that Joe Biden would be a sacrificial lamb to absorb all of the failures of the Democratic Party amid the COVID lockdowns and everything, and then be one of the worst presidents ever, so that some other Democrat would look good by comparison.
Maybe.
Hillary Clinton.
Maybe that's what he meant when he said, you don't have to do this, Joe.
And Joe was like, I'm gonna do it.
I'm gonna lay on the proverbial grenade to save the Democratic Party.
No, no, I think what really happened was Barack Obama was like, you don't have to do this, dude.
Because Obama had insulted Joe several times before.
I'll tell you where we're at right now.
And I'll tell you why people just don't have faith in what's going on.
Scary as hell.
Frank Luntz sounds alarm on nearly half of Americans saying losing candidates should not accept election results.
And let me show you the end of this.
I saw this tweet from Michael Malice.
The apparent trend of not accepting election results follows nearly two year campaign of former President Trump.
I'm gonna give a special shout out to Colby Hall, who apparently wasn't alive in 2016.
Colby Hall must have been born yesterday.
Because the Democrats wouldn't accept the results of the 2016 election, going so far as to have a special investigation into Donald Trump.
It was insane.
Russia.
Russia, Russia, Russia.
Thanks.
They didn't accept it then, and now many Trump supporters don't accept it now, and they blame Trump for it.
It was Donald Trump undermining faith.
No, it was you.
It was all of you.
Democrats did it, and now they're mad Republicans are doing it too.
Whatever.
That's why I say, just do the investigations.
I entertain the Russiagate stuff.
I entertain the Trump stuff in terms of, fine, have your investigations.
Let's just get confidence back in this system.
Apparently it's not going to happen, and everything's just falling apart.
Here you go, ladies and gentlemen.
You wonder why it is that Democrats are doing so poorly?
We have a shortage of workers in our country, and you see even in Florida, some of the farmers and the growers saying, why are you shipping these immigrants up north?
We need them to pick the crops down here.
unidentified
Why are they just sending our immigrants up north?
I wonder how many Latinos heard that and they were just like, excuse me?
You're not talking about immigrants.
They're illegal immigrants.
These are people who entered the country illegally and you're saying they should be picking crops.
Wow.
K-Man, comment, I don't know, this is Keith K-Man on Twitter, follows me.
He says, who is going to pick our cotton?
Democrats never change.
Bravo, good sir!
Yo, this is why Democrats are doing so poorly.
Nancy Pelosi, retire, please!
Dude, you want to convince a 30-year-old to vote, and this is what we have to look forward to?
Old people.
I'll vote for Ron DeSantis.
What is he?
He's like late 40s?
I don't know how old DeSantis is.
He's a Zennial or a Gen Xer?
I'll take it, dude.
The guy's got military experience.
He's doing a great job.
He's getting endorsements of Democrats.
That's bipartisanship right there.
I will take it.
If Ron DeSantis runs for president, I'd probably end up voting for him.
I don't know if Trump's got it right now.
A lot of diehard Trump supporters really want me to back Trump, but...
If Ron DeSantis is bringing what Trump brought in terms of policy positions, I gotta say, man, he just seems more with it.
That's why I see these young, not these young guys, but these older guys, talking about Ron DeSantis, saying they're Democrats, they're gonna vote for him.
I'm like, dude, I think you gotta give it to him.
Like, in terms of his abilities, he's got Democrats right now saying it.
Look at what Nancy Pelosi offers.
It is just, oh, it's so cringe!
Ah, here we go.
V.B.
Kamala Harris says hurricane recovery should take equity into account.
Oh, equity!
Oh, wonderful!
So, rest assured, based on race, we'll make sure you suffer?
What?
That's insane.
Ron DeSantis isn't doing that.
So, I gotta say, the Democrats aren't doing themselves any favors by playing all of these games.
And the end result of all of this insane racist equity garbage is going to be Latinos and Black voters saying, yeah, maybe we're just going to vote for the Republicans because this one is kind of nuts.
That's a sad reality of what we've got going on here with the Democratic Party.
Nancy Pelosi, just an absolutely brilliant statement.
The farmers are saying, is she accusing the farmers of being racist?
Or is she herself making a rhetorical point and just espousing garbage?
So what do you think?
You think Democrats are going to be able to pull it off with stuff like this?
Ron DeSantis, the gasoline, pulls up and the guy says, DeSantis brought the gas, he gets my vote, that's all that matters.
It's an interesting phenomenon that's happening right now.
I put a series of somewhat satirical tweets out, like, Have you considered spaying or neutering your children to help prevent overpopulation?
I'm making a point about what Democrats offer.
I think there are challenges with population density in big cities.
I think it pollutes, it destroys, and I think we see very serious problems because of it.
Also, governance is extremely difficult.
A tiny fraction of woke extremists can take over a whole city.
It's nuts!
So I think we got population density problems.
So what do you get?
Democrats coming out with policies that are completely unpopular.
More fuel means more people means more climate change, right?
I mean, they say that.
Ron DeSantis says, don't know, don't care, here's the gas, have fun.
And this means people's lives will be better.
So how do you beat that?
No, for real, how do you beat that?
If you get a politician who says, we're going to make sure you have cheap fuel so you can live comfortably, and the other party says, we're going to ban the fuel so it's expensive and hard for you, who's going to win?
The Democrats have a pretty strong anti-population agenda.
I'm not saying they're coming out and asserting it.
I'm saying they're pro-abortion, they're pro-sterilization of kids, and they're anti-fossil fuels.
All of this will result in people having a harder time surviving.
It will result in population reduction.
The charts are showing all of it.
What person wants to struggle?
So they won't.
I think they're going to come out and vote for Republicans, they're going to come out and vote against Democrats, and they're going to say, get me the policy that makes my life easier.
My recommendation?
Make your life a little bit harder.
No, I mean it.
Move out of the cities, get away from the population density problems, get some chickens and some goats or whatever, learn how to take care of these animals, learn how they can help take care of you, grow some plants, learn how farming works, have yourselves a little garden, homestead.
You will produce less pollution, better for the planet.
You will live better, in the long run, by investing in these skills.
Your goats will make funny sounds, and your chickens will as well, and you will enjoy it.
I read a survey that found most people find chickens' behavior to be entertaining.
I don't think, you know, if you think over population and population density is a problem, and you come out and you're like, make everyone's life harder, that's the wrong answer.
I think we got density problems.
I tell you this, guys, you're gonna love it.
Get out of the cities, get away from the authoritarianism, raise some chickens, and have a gold time.
You'll wake up with fresh eggs every morning, the chickens eat the bugs off the ground, or you can give them feed.
It's just better.
It's just all around better.
The fresh air is better for you.
You'll live longer.
You'll have better skin.
You'll have more space.
Cities are just so awful.
But you know what?
I guess Republicans are like, no!
Don't have the city come into the country.
No, I'll tell you this.
If you took all the people out of New York and spread them out randomly and evenly, it would dilute everything.
But the Republicans would still win.
And these cities would have substantially less power.
They would have less congressional seats.
So I don't know what the end result is going to be ultimately, but I can tell you Democrats, their policies are just apocalyptic, and people aren't going to go for it.
These guys want the gas.
They're voting DeSantis.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Today, my friends, we have a get-woke-go-broke of the garden variety.
Bros Box Office.
Star Billy Eichner decries homophobia after dismal opening.
Ah.
Why is this a get-woke-go-broke?
Because, I'll put it simply for you, if you make mint ice cream, you will not sell it to people who don't like mint.
That's the simplest way I can put it.
This isn't necessarily the story of taking a product, making it woke, and then realizing nobody wants to watch it.
For example, if you took, like, Star Trek, has a big fanbase, then you add in weird feminist issues, and it doesn't do as well, that's getting woke and going broke.
This is more of a modern market garden variety of creating a product that people don't want, and then getting mad that people don't want it.
I'll give you, you know, the example I like to use is if I were to sell broccoli flavored ice cream and then came out and said, people just hate vegetables.
That's the real issue.
You should be healthy and eat my broccoli ice cream.
It's like, well, dude, maybe people just don't like broccoli ice cream.
That's it.
He made a movie that is a romantic comedy focused on gay men.
I am not surprised that it opened to half what they expected it to because who watches romantic comedies?
Women.
And why would a man go see a romantic comedy?
A woman would bring him.
Now sometimes, yeah, I'm sure there's a lot of guys who will go watch a rom-com, but this is not centered around women or romantic issues that are relatable to the average person.
So I just don't think that People would want to see it.
Now, I guess you could argue that it's a Judd Apatow comedy, but here's where we are now.
Billy Eichner is saying it's basically homophobia, and that if you're not a homophobic weirdo, you should go see it.
Okay.
The actor said that one theater chain threatened to pull the trailer because of its gay content.
Technically, that's true.
I don't know exactly why the theater threatened to pull the trailer, but I'm willing to make a bet.
He says, because of its gay content, Uh, define gay content.
Do you mean like there are two guys and they're in a relationship on screen and it's... they talk about it?
Or was it the gay orgy scene you put in there as a joke?
Oh, maybe because in the trailer there is a gag that shows four men engaged in activities.
They were kind of like, dude, this is not appropriate in our theaters.
And he went, well then you're homophobic unless you show it.
Maybe not.
If I was a movie theater, and I saw that trailer, I'd be like, we're not running that.
No, for real, it's like, it's not hardcore or anything, but there's a scene where, in the trailer, he's making a joke where he's like, I don't want to make a movie where it's like it's a gay guy's about to kiss and then it pans away.
And then it shows it, and then it zooms out, and it's four dudes In an orgy.
And they don't show anything explicit.
It's like a gag.
But who is this joke supposed to be relatable to?
Why would I laugh at that?
Dude, I don't care if you and your bros want to go do whatever.
I don't care.
But I'm not going to find it entertaining or funny because I don't understand it.
Let me read this for you because what they're basically saying is you're a bigot and a homophobe.
But here's the main point in all this.
In the trailer, they mock straight people.
Immediately mock straight people.
I don't understand why you think that's supposed to be funny to people who don't know anything about your community.
Here's the story.
Actor Billy Eichner didn't hold back when taking to Twitter on Sunday to comment on the dismal box office opening of his new comedy, Bros.
The universal film, which marks the first gay romantic comedy released by a major Hollywood studio, debuted at a dismal $4.8 million after doing little business in much middle America and the South.
Really?
You think?
Quote, everyone who isn't a homophobe weirdo should go see Bros tonight.
You will have a blast.
And it's special and uniquely powerful to see this particular story on a big screen, especially for queer folks who don't get this opportunity often.
I love this movie so much.
Go Bros!
I love it!
Here he is coming out and saying you should see his movie because it's important.
This movie's on a big screen.
It's for queer folks who don't get the opportunity.
That's why you should give us your money.
Yeah, it's funny because I released a song last month.
Maybe you heard it.
And the leftist outlets all came out and said the only reason people are listening to this music is to own the libs.
That's what Salon wrote.
Funny.
So then, when Billy Eichner comes out with a movie that's a gay romantic comedy, shouldn't they be watching it to own the cons?
Oh, they didn't watch it at all.
It's funny.
You wanna argue that it's a good movie and it's so highly rated?
My question to you is, then why are not people watching it?
You then, these people, not Hollywood Reporter or anything, but these leftists come out, and they argue the only reason that the song we released reached number two on Billboard sales was because it was to own the libs.
And I'm like, maybe.
I guess that says a lot about the ability to organize of the anti-woke.
Surprising.
You're saying a song that's really bad everyone went to go see, but your movie that's really good no one will bother to watch?
You see how this works?
You see, wokeness Inherently has a problem in that they pander to smaller audiences.
We put out a song, and I'm not saying the song should be Billboard Hot 100.
I was like, I don't expect this to rival, you know, I don't know, The Weeknd, or like Post Malone.
It's like, we made a song, dude, and it reached what it reached, and people listened to it, and they're still listening to it.
That's cool.
And they're freaking out because of it, saying, this is a bad song, nobody should be watching it, but it's political.
But you made a good movie?
You made a good movie that people should watch because it's political, but they won't?
It's funny how that works.
They go to mention that the studio was lauded for taking the project, and Bros was embraced by critics following the world premiere at the 2022 Toronto Film Festival.
It presently boasts a glowing 95% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes.
Oh, really?
The studio was lauded?
Alright, first, Yeah, it was panned and so they claimed it was being review bombed.
It's just people claiming they don't like it because they're homophobic.
Maybe after the Toronto Film Festival, your panderers claimed they liked it, and the average person who saw it did not.
It's amazing how that works, right?
Here we go.
Let's see what Billy has to say.
He tweeted, Last night I snuck in and sat in the back of a sold out theater playing Bros in LA.
The audience howled with laughter start to finish, burst into applause at the end, and some were wiping away tears as they walked out.
It was truly magical.
Really, I am very proud of this movie.
Serious, dude?
And then everyone clapped?
Okay, look, maybe it's LA.
I don't know what theater you're at.
Sometimes people clap at theaters.
For me, I've been to a lot of movies.
I haven't recalled the last time people applauded, but you know what?
I mean, maybe they did.
And laughing?
Probably.
I mean, it's a Judd Apatow film.
It's probably funny.
Wiping away tears.
Okay, I just gotta say, if you're saying the audience burst into applause and wiping away tears, I'm not going to believe you.
If people saw the movie and laughed and had a good time, I'd believe you, but this is a little bit much.
He says, that's just the world we live in, unfortunately.
Even with glowing reviews, great Rotten Tomatoes scores, and an A CinemaScore, etc., straight people, especially in certain parts of the country, just didn't show up for Bros.
And that's disappointing, but it is what it is.
Okay.
So let me tell you something, my friend, Billy.
I think, I haven't seen the movie.
It looks really well made.
And it probably, you know, I watched the trailer.
The gay orgy scene to me was kind of like, I don't get it.
I don't, I mean, I guess it's extremely common for gay orgies is that, like I'm not trying to be a dick, I just don't get it.
So I don't know how to laugh at something.
I'm like, is this normal or is it not normal?
Was the joke being made that he wanted the two, like in the trailer he's like, the two guys will kiss, the camera pans away.
Was the joke that it was gratuitous, is why it was supposed to be funny?
Or was it the joke that that was normal in your life?
I just genuinely don't know.
So like, when someone makes a joke, imagine if I told a joke...
And I said something about, like, the demarcation of ancient Madagascar.
You'd be like, I don't know what that is.
How do you laugh at it?
This is why movies often target lowest common denominator.
Something that everybody can relate to.
In fact, I'll give you an example on YouTube.
There's a channel called Just For Laugh Gags.
You may have seen it.
There's one viral video where a little girl has four buckets full of change.
And she walks over and she, like, waves to someone and asks for help.
Her buckets are, like, it's a fake top.
And so she lifts it up very, very easily and puts it down.
And then the other person can't lift it and then she's like, ah, switches them and then lifts it so they think she's lifting something heavy.
There's no speaking in these videos.
It is just laugh track.
The reason they do that is so that people who don't speak English understand the gag and it hits the widest audience possible.
I mean, I'm assuming that's why they do it.
Bro, you made a movie that ragged on straight people and was extremely esoteric and then you're surprised nobody wanted to watch it.
This is the problem with garden variety get what go broke.
It's too esoteric for the average person to get.
Why would I go see that movie?
I'm looking up movies to watch over the weekend and I'm not like, oh, I know.
I'll totally understand the plight of the gay community.
No beef, dude.
I'm glad you got to make a big budget movie.
That's really cool.
And to the people who liked it, awesome.
It looks like they really like it.
But this idea that you think just because the critics who have to go see the movie liked it, everyone else will too, is nonsense.
I'm not gonna go see Fifty Shades of Grey.
It's not gonna happen.
Not because I think the movie's bad.
Not because I think women should be allowed to have the movie.
Not because I have any problem with that Dakota woman or whatever.
It's because I don't care to watch it!
He says, everyone who isn't a homophobic weirdo should go see Bros tonight.
You will have a blast and it is special and uniquely powerful to see this particular story on a big screen.
Okay, we read that one.
Yeah, I'm sorry dude.
It is completely unrelatable.
Completely unrelatable.
I don't know anything about the community.
I have no beef.
I don't care.
I just have no reason as a straight person to go and see a movie that I don't understand.
Am I supposed to go see it as kind of like a, you should have my money anyway kind of thing?
Am I supposed to understand the jokes in the trailer?
I don't.
The trailer didn't do anything for me.
I'm like, okay, he's making fun of straight people.
Okay?
Like, I don't think we would do that to gay people, you know?
Maybe a while ago that was common, but I kind of think we're past that.
We don't like just kind of ragging on people.
The trailer starts with him being like, they wanted me to make a movie that even straight people would like.
And then he makes a gratuitous, overt comment.
It's an R-rated comedy, don't get me wrong.
And he's like, he talks about, you know, just, let's just say, adult stuff.
And then he was like, but with like an action sequence or something?
And I was like, oh, like, I get it.
Yeah, he flat out says in the beginning of the trailer, I would, like, as a straight dude, would not want to see this movie because he's not incorporating things that straight dudes like.
He actually says it in the trailer.
So, bro, if you put a trailer for a movie out that says, we don't want you to watch it and are not making it for you, surprise, surprise, we won't go see it.
It's remarkable.
Let me just stress this again.
He says straight people, especially in certain parts of the country, just didn't go up to see it.
Yeah, bro, I'm sorry.
When the trailer starts explicitly by saying, let me see if I can play it, you can hear it.
unidentified
Hi everyone, it's Bobby Lieber and welcome to your favorite podcast where I talk about whatever I feel like talking about.
Okay.
So these big movie producers came to me and said, we want you to write a rom-com about a gay couple.
Something a straight guy might even like and watch with his girlfriend!
Gay guys are my jam.
Awesome!
Something a straight guy might like?
Am I gonna be in the middle of some high-speed chase, then all of a sudden fall in love with Ice Cube?
Okay, so I'm not gonna go to the next part because it gets a little gratuitous, but you can see clearly, within 20 seconds, he's outright saying like, they wanted me to make a movie for straight people!
Like, what am I gonna do?
Am I gonna fall in love with Ice Cube?
Why would I do that?
I watched that, the guy's laughing, and I'm like, okay, you have just explicitly stated I shouldn't want to go see this.
Let me tell you, my friends.
Oh, it's our good friend Elizabeth Banks.
You know what's really funny about Elizabeth Banks is that she actually played a capital city citizen in The Hunger Games, and here she is perfectly exemplifying such a character.
Elizabeth Banks regrets Charlie's Angels marketing.
It wasn't a feminist manifesto.
Just an action movie.
A Charlie's Angel, made by Elizabeth Banks, was a feminist manifesto, and it bombed.
Let me tell you, my friends, I love it!
Here's the Charlie's Angels wiki.
The Rotten Tomatoes for it are abysmal.
At least Bros can tout that it has good Rotten Tomatoes scores.
It got a 91!
Okay, maybe it's got a 91 because nobody went to go see it and the only people who saw it like it.
On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has a 52%.
This is Charlie's Angels.
And they say, let me, let me, um, here we go.
They say it went on to debut at just $8.4 million, finishing in third place.
Hey, did better than, uh, Bros.
Following the film's poor opening weekend, Deadline Hollywood cited the film's mixed critical response as a lack of public interest in the franchise as reasons for the underperformance.
The Hollywood Reporter also observed the film, Specifically, quote, failed to attract moviegoers over the age of 35, as well as younger females its target audience.
You regret that you made a movie targeting young women, meant to be some big feminist?
Charlie's Angels was like foxy boxing, like the original one.
It was silly, over-the-top, like Drew Barrymore and Cameron Diaz and I think, was it Lucy Liu?
And it was like, it was foxy boxing, okay?
It was attractive women going, hi-ya, with like silly, over-the-top jokes.
People thought it was funny.
This was presented as overly serious.
Let me just put it this way.
If I came out right now and said, I'm gonna make a pepperoni and chocolate fudge pizza.
And people might be like, you know, it might taste good because chocolate ain't all that bad.
In fact, chicken mole, you know, that's like basically chocolate pizza.
It's pretty good.
But don't be surprised if nobody buys it.
Okay, how about this?
Spinach and vinegar ice cream.
Come on, just give it a shot!
And people are going to say, no, but some people might buy it.
Now here's the issue.
You want to make a romantic comedy mocking straight people.
I think, what is it, like a single digits of percent identify as LGBTQ?
I'm wondering, how many people are gay men?
Because if you take LGBTQ together, you get something like 6%.
But if you isolate just from that the gay community, men who like men, it's substantially smaller.
I'm surprised they even got 4.8 million dollars.
There's probably a lot of people in LA who went and saw it with their friends.
So I get it, but that sounds about right.
Maybe the controversy will spark some woke people to go watch it.
Partly, I kind of doubt it.
And now they're shocked.
They're shocked, woe is me.
Here's my favorite part of this.
I want to show you this first.
Bros does have a 92% audience score and a 91% tomato meter.
I'm sure, for the people who like it, it was good.
For people who are not straight men or straight women, it was probably fantastic.
Would a lesbian couple understand jokes about what gay men go through?
I don't know.
I'm not a lesbian woman.
Would queer people or trans people?
I don't know.
I can tell you this.
Guys probably won't.
A man's interaction With women, in terms of romantic comedy, they could probably more relate to.
A woman, and a romantic comedy featuring a woman and a man where the woman is playfully gallivanting about and trying to get the man to fall in love with her or something.
The woman can relate with the woman, and the jokes can be, you know, part of the female experience.
And with a dude, they can do that for the man.
If it's two guys, straight women aren't gonna understand this because they're gonna be like, this guy's at a gym working out.
That's like, I don't know.
And then for other guys, they're gonna be like, I've never tried to woo someone who's at a gym working out, super ripped and muscular.
Like, women, I guess.
But like...
It's just, it's completely unrelatable.
I suppose because if you're a straight guy, you don't understand trying to woo a guy and you're not interested in it.
And if you're a straight woman, you don't understand the perspective of the guy who's trying to woo the other guy.
So in the end, you made a movie that was just for a microscopic audience.
Here you go.
In the Bros Film Wiki, they say this.
Let me get it.
Prior to its release, here we go, the film was allegedly, allegedly, subjected to homophobic review bombing from users on IMDB.
Okay.
Well, that's what they want to claim.
And I'd imagine, to an extent, it's probably true.
I don't know.
If I don't have evidence, then I don't want to assert that it is.
But it was released at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 9th, 2022.
Okay?
On September 24th, they wrote that it was being review-bombed.
So you mean, several weeks after its premiere, but prior to its release?
No!
Tons of people could have seen it at the Toronto Film Festival, and then gone and been like, the movie is bad.
Not for sure.
I don't know exactly how many people reviewed it, and I'm willing to bet there were people who did review Vomit.
But this is weeks later.
Look at this.
They say it was 312 one-star reviews.
So you think that the Toronto Film Festival premieres this, and 300 people couldn't have been like, thought it was bad.
Maybe.
I don't know how many times they showed at the film festival, I don't know how many people are in the audience, but maybe people saw it.
It's only 300.
If you're talking about a review bomb and someone went on say like 4chan or something and posted and said, hey everybody review bomb this, I'm pretty sure they'd muster up more than 300 bad reviews.
No, I think the reality is, when their movies do bad, they fall back on, it's the racists.
Why didn't people see the movie?
They're homophobic weirdos.
In a certain part of the country.
Why was it reviewed poorly?
Well, because it must have been homophobic review bombing.
Let's delete all those.
Since then, all reviews have been completely scrubbed from the movie's page.
Along with all professional reviews, due to IMDB's review system not separating critic and audience submissions.
Bravo.
So when it gets bad reviews, 5.5 out of 10, they just say, remove it.
I'll tell you why I think it probably got a bunch of legitimately bad reviews.
At the film festival, where many people may have actually seen it, I mean, they probably had multiple showings, and I'd imagine the Toronto Film Festival, a lot of people probably saw it, and many of them probably saw it because they're film reviewers, and they watched it and said, I don't get this, and I don't like it.
That's it.
Now right now, why are the reviews so high?
Who is the kind of person who's going to care to go and see this movie?
Someone who cares to go and see the movie, right?
Somebody who is interested in, supporting of, or a gay man.
And so they go see it, and then the jokes resonate with them, the storyline resonates with them, and they say, I dig it, and they give it a good review.
At a film festival, you're gonna have some random woman, and she's gonna be like, next on the list to go watch is Bros, let's go see it.
I don't get it.
I don't like it.
Bad review.
It was extremely esoteric.
It's amazing to me that every single time these people make content for a microscopic audience, they're shocked to find their audience is microscopic.
Let me wrap it up.
With saying this, first and foremost as I've stressed to a great deal, yo Billy, congratulations on your movie.
I hope people go see it.
I hope they enjoy it.
It seems like it was really well produced and I'm glad you got to make it.
I understand what you're saying about representation.
That's awesome.
No disrespect, I just don't understand the jokes in the trailer.
Some of them were kind of off-putting and Just not for me.
I got no beef.
Congratulations on your movie.
Just don't be surprised if I don't want to go see it.
So I want to make sure that's clear.
But here's the main point with all of this.
This is the wake-up call of the woke.
Okay?
They put 22 million dollars into this movie and people don't want to go see it.
Maybe the culture war will reignite that and next week they'll see a bump.
It's possible.
We put a few thousand dollars into producing a song.
It did really, really well.
Yeah, we got like a million hits, you know, in a couple days.
We were number two on iTunes, topped Billboard number two, hit a bunch of the rock charts, the alternative charts, rocking alternative emerging artists.
It did so well that even one of our, my first release song actually charted alternative sales.
Amazing!
And the media comes out and says, the song is bad, everyone hates it, and it's only doing well for political reasons.
Okay.
If that were the case, this movie should have been a blockbuster grand slam.
So tell me this.
Why is it that my song did well for political reasons, but it was bad, and your movie did bad for political reasons, but it was good?
Simply put, we can see who actually has the majority when it comes to political ideology.
It is not the woke.
It's the anti-woke.
That's their argument.
I'll stress it again.
If people listened to my song simply for political reasons, and they all thought the song was bad, that shows the power of anti-woke politics, doesn't it?
And if your movie is so good, everyone loves it.
But nobody would see it?
That shows how woke politics is driving people away.
So wake up.
I think the reality is probably not that complicated.
The song I put out was good enough.
I don't think it was the greatest song ever written.
And so people listened to it.
We got a million hits.
We didn't get a billion.
And I think this movie was probably good for the audience it was intended for.
