EP.10 Theresa May Resigns, Right Wing Populists Score Major Victory AGAIN
Theresa May Resigns, Right Wing Populists Score Major Victory AGAIN with Brexit party expected to take 30 out of 73 seats for the UK in the European electionsFollowing SegmentsTwitter Bans the KrassensteinsFacebook Censorship Backfires, Major Brands FleeCNN ratings drop 30%Ocasio-Cortez Mocked Over Tornado TweetsNew Poll is Good news For Trump
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I know basically nothing about politics in the UK, but there are some really important stories today.
Theresa May tearfully resigned.
And this is a big deal because she apparently, again, I'm not an expert on British politics, but she couldn't deliver Brexit properly.
So she's out.
Now we've got the Brexit party, which is expected to win.
I've got a story pulled up that breaks down proportional representation and how the vote yesterday went.
For those that aren't familiar, European elections were held in the UK yesterday.
We've got Sargon of Akkad who's running for MEP under UKIP.
I don't understand necessarily the parliamentary system, so forgive me.
Tommy Robinson was also running.
But Nigel Farage was leading the Brexit party.
And it's a very new party, but they were still polling at around 31 to 34 percent.
So based on those projections, there's no exit polls yet.
We still have to wait until the rest of the European elections come out, I believe, in two more days, three more days maybe.
But Brexit is expected to win, and that's going to give a lot of power.
I believe 30 seats or something are projected to go to the Brexit party, but we'll break this down in the story I have pulled up.
But first...
Theresa May has resigned.
Actually, first, check out TimCast.com if you want to support my work.
There is a monthly donation option, a cryptocurrency option.
There is a physical address, of course.
You can just share this video, like this video, comment below.
The engagement tells YouTube it's good.
If you're listening on the podcast, leave a positive review.
It's always appreciated.
But let's figure out what's going on with Theresa May, they say, from Reuters.
Fighting back tears.
Theresa May said on Friday she would quit, setting up a contest that will install a new British Prime Minister who could pursue a cleaner break with the European Union.
May's departure deepens the Brexit crisis, as a new leader, who should be in place by the end of July, is likely to what?
A more decisive split, raising the chances of a confrontation with the EU and potentially a snap parliamentary election.
Her voice cracking with emotion, May, who endured crises and humiliation in her failed effort to find a compromise Brexit deal that Parliament could ratify, said she would resign on Friday, June 7th, with a leadership contest beginning the following week.
Now here's what I want to say.
I've talked about Brexit a little bit.
They did a referendum.
Brexit won.
Brexit needs to leave the European Union.
That's the will of, you know, the UK.
They didn't.
It's been, what, going on three years now, and they still have not left the EU.
In fact, they're in the EU elections, and the Brexit party is set to win big for the UK.
Why?
So a lot of people are saying, don't give Theresa May any sympathy.
She had every opportunity to just say, nope, no deal, we're done and we're out.
Apparently she didn't do that.
She kept trying to find a compromise and nobody, nobody wanted a bad deal.
So it just, it just didn't work out.
That's my understanding from seeing a bunch of tweets, but let's read a little bit more.
She said, I will shortly leave the job that has been the honor of my life to hold.
The second female Prime Minister, but certainly not the last.
I do so with no ill will, but with enormous and enduring gratitude to have had the opportunity to serve the country I love, said the usually reserved May as she fought back tears.
May, once a reluctant supporter of EU membership, who won the top job in the turmoil that followed the 2016 Brexit referendum, steps down with her central pledge to lead the UK out of the bloc and heal its divisions unfulfilled.
It is and will always remain a matter of deep regret to me that I have not been able to deliver Brexit, May said, adding that her successor would have to find a consensus to honour the 2016 referendum results.
A lot of people want a second referendum.
They want Brexit to stop.
And the interesting thing about Brexit, it's considered to be a very right-wing populist motion.
And it's in line with Trump's victory and now Australian right-wing party's victory, the Nationalists winning in India.
They had a referendum.
It's like a democratic vote.
The country says, okay, we're out.
A lot of people want a second vote because they believe this time they can win.
I don't believe that's true.
Maybe it's true, but I don't think so.
Especially when you see how Brexit is polling so high.
I don't, I just really don't see it.
When Australia's right-wing party won, defying all the polls, a second round of referendum would be a big waste of time.
But more importantly, If they did follow through with a second Brexit vote and then remain one, then the other side is going to demand a third vote.
It's just pointless.
You voted, it's done, you're out.
End of story.
You can't keep going back and forth.
Now, there have been some remain people saying, a democracy that can't change its mind is no democracy at all.
And it's like, great, you can spin around in circles, changing your mind all day and night, because if you vote to remain again in a second vote, then there'll be a third Brexit vote and back and forth with people playing tug-of-war.
But maybe that's what they want, because so long as that tug-of-war happens, they won't actually leave the European Union.
So, yesterday was the big European elections taking place in the UK.
This is from the Telegraph.
European elections 2019.
When do we find out the results of yesterday's vote?
So this is good for me because I have no idea how any of this stuff works.
Actually, I have like tiny, tiny morsels of information in the parliamentary system.
So here's what they say.
The polls took place in the UK on Thursday, May 23rd.
There will not be exit polls.
The Telegraph says it is a criminal offense for any country in the EU to publish exit polls or any information about how people have voted during the election before 2200 BST on Sunday, 26 May.
That's really interesting.
I don't think we do that in the US.
We just publish exit polls.
But I think they don't want to compromise elections by people just choosing to vote for the winners.
So.
They say, when do we find out the results?
Voters in Ireland turn out Friday.
Those in the Czech Republic, Latvia, Malta, and Slovakia vote on May 25th.
And the remaining 21 EU nations cast their ballots on May 26th.
On May 25th, sorry.
And the remaining ones are 26th.
The results from every nation will be released on the evening of May 26, after the last polling station in the continent is closed.
So here's how they break down the EU voting system.
And this is good news for me, because I have no idea.
The UK is split into 12 regions for the European elections.
Each has a set number of MEP seats, which are roughly distributed by population.
These seats are determined by the Dihant system of proportional representation.
It works for each region like so.
So, um, what we see here on the screen for those that are listening, it's, it's pointing to a bunch of different regions.
We can see we've got Southwest region down here with six seats.
And then, so, so here we do here.
They're showing us East Midlands, how seats will be allocated in the 2019 forecast.
We can see that Brexit is pulling around 36.8%, almost double the Labour Party.
Yeah, that's, that's ridiculous.
So what they say is the first round of Brexit gets a seat for being in the lead.
In the second round, Labour being 0.1% higher.
So here's what they do.
Brexit gets a seat, and then they cut Brexit's share in half.
Then it goes to the next highest, which is the Labour Party, who see their numbers cut in half.
Brexit then gets a second seat.
Then the Conservatives get one seat.
And then Brexit, being the next biggest party, will get a third seat.
So for East Midland, they're projecting three for the Brexit Party, one for Labour, and one for Conservative.
They're going to say, why is the UK taking part?
Because Brexit has now been delayed for six months with a new date set for October 31st, 2019, which means the UK must now participate in EU polls.
Isn't that insane?
So anyway, I don't want to go through like an educational, like, here's how they vote in the UK.
I read one story projecting I think 30 of 73 seats will go to the Brexit party, which is huge because many people expect the Brexit party is going to be rather obstructionist.
They don't want to be in the European Union, so by all means send the people who don't want to be there when they won't let you leave, or when other people in the UK aren't allowing you to leave.
But here's something interesting.
It's from The Economist.
They say the Brexit party wins the battle for Facebook clicks.
Despite spending no more than rival parties on ads, it has got more likes, shares, and comments than the rest combined.
What is this reminiscent of?
Donald Trump.
He spent way less, way, way less, but he got way more engagement, way more press, because, in my opinion, the media is so goddamn out of touch with people.
They have no idea what's going on.
That when these parties, you know, I can only contrast it with the US.
When the Democrats keep pushing this far-left, you know, regressive stuff, people don't engage with that.
And they think that's what's going to get them to win.
Donald Trump posts something, blows up.
Bunch of retweets, bunch of likes, Fox News, Daily Wire.
When they post content, it resonates with people.
When the Democrats try to push this progressive nonsense, it doesn't.
They're not going to win on this.
So why is Brexit projected to win?
And you know what?
Maybe Brexit didn't win.
I don't know.
But they're projected to win.
The polls aren't always right.
In fact, the polls have been wrong.
But typically, the polls have underestimated the right-wing populists, which means Brexit Party could actually win even bigger than projected.
So why is it that the Brexit Party is getting more likes, shares, and comments than the rest combined?
Well, it's probably because the alternative doesn't resonate with real people.
The wealthy elite progressives from their ivory towers do not speak for working class people.
The story reads, they lied to you, goads a video on Facebook as news footage shows Remainers first vowing to respect the Brexit referendum's results, then calling for a second vote.
The clip, set to a pulsing soundtrack, has been watched 250,000 times.
Teach the establishment a lesson this Thursday, concludes, vote for the Brexit party.
Polls suggested that more than 30% of voters would do so in Britain's elections to the European Parliament on May 23rd.
So they're announcing the results on the 27th.
That would put Nigel Farage's new outfit in first place, winning perhaps 30 of Britain's 73 seats in Strasbourg.
However the Brexit party fares at the ballot box, it has won the battle for clicks.
It has spent no more than most of its rivals on Facebook ads in the past month, but it has got dramatically better results.
The party's Facebook pages have attracted 2.2 million likes, shares, and comments, more than all other parties combined, and some 30 times more than Change UK, a pro-Remain upstart which outspent it.
Andrew Breitbart, he said there was something called the default liberal.
And what it basically means is many people just fall in line behind what's on the TV.
And that's, you know, a liberal position.
It's anti-Trump.
You know, it's not pro-national, not pro-populist.
And so they just say, OK, yeah, sure.
But most people aren't really political.
They just fall in line that way.
And so the general idea, you know, something else that he said was, and again, I don't know, this is just things that I heard from other people.
He said, you know, people are looking at this fire and they're terrified of it, but once you walk through it, you realize there's freedom on the other side.
And so there are a lot of people, I think, that are falling in line with this progressive narrative, particularly businesses.
This is why they're so quick to bow to the regressive activists, because they think they're staring at the fire.
But for most people who have walked through that fire and realized there's freedom on the other side and you don't gotta worry about this nonsense, those people have seen... I'm not gonna bow to any of these people.
Dave Rubin's a great example.
He walked through that fire and now he's like, screw you.
Don't bow.
For me, I don't think I've ever really been on any one side of the fire because I'm a kind of like anti,
I don't know, misanthropic a bit. Grew up punk rock, skateboarder, screw everybody,
that kind of mentality. But anyway, the reason I bring this up is,
how is it that the Brexit party gets 30 times more likes than a pro-Remain upstart which outspent it?
30 times.
It's because if you were to ask me, the Remainers are just few and far between.
Random people on social media, celebrities just pushing activism.
They don't actually know what working class people want.
They don't know what the people of Britain want.
It's just, it's the same thing in the US.
These activists claiming to represent people, but these people are passive.
They're called passive liberals.
That's how they've been classified by the Hidden Tribes Report.
Passive liberals.
Right, so there you go.
So when it comes to actually checking engagement, you can see Brexit spent less money and got 30 times more, what do they say, shares, comments, and likes.
Isn't that crazy?
That says something about the 2020 election in the US.
That says something about Brexit.
That says something about the rise of right-wing nationalism across Europe.
The regular people are being pushed away from this insanity.
I don't know where it's going to go, but I would be damned if I'm going to place a bet on any left-wing position or policy to win.
If I was going to go to Vegas and place a bet, Trump 2020, you better believe it.
The odds are going to be so good, it's not even going to be worth it.
It's going to be like, will Trump win 2020?
And you're going to win like 10 cents for every dollar.
That's because the odds are going to be like, yes, we all know he's going to win.
But the crazy thing is in 2016 the odds were heavily against him and so people won a ton of money by placing their bets.
I think at this point we can see something very important.
To those who want to remain, to those who support the far-left fringe groups, you are weird fringe, out of touch, not connected with the mainstream.
Isn't it fascinating that Brexit is repeatedly marginalized?
You have the media calling Sargon, Tommy, and other people far-right, insulting them, but this is what most people end up voting for?
Brexit?
I don't want to align Tommy with Brexit, but Sargon is very much heavily pro-Brexit.
Donald Trump wins.
Donald Trump has tons of support.
The polls were wrong.
The media tries to marginalize these people, claiming they are actually the majority.
The media is.
They're not.
The ivory towers of New York City do not represent the opinion of the working class people in this country, unfortunately.
For them.
But for me, I'm just sitting back watching.
We'll see what happens.
But there it is.
I don't know.
I had to do a segment on this because Theresa May's resignation is huge news.
I saw a video of a bar.
It was a bar in the UK.
And they've got a big screen.
And it's Theresa May announcing her resignation and everyone starts screaming and cheering.
I don't know if that was a joke or a meme.
But I think the idea is still funny.
It may have been a Game of Thrones watch party video or something.
But it's funny that, you know, Theresa May announces her resignation and, you know, you have people like... It's the top trend in the U.S.
at least.
And we're the U.S.
Like, why do we care?
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
More segments to come shortly.
You can support my work at TimCast.com slash donate.
And leave a positive review if you like the show or comment on YouTube.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
I will see you soon.
You may not know who the Krasensteins are.
There are a lot of Trump, pro-Trump personalities and pro-Trump supporters who absolutely know who these two guys are, because these guys are famous for responding to Donald Trump's tweets, and they're very, very anti-Trump, and admittedly, they're very annoying.
They come off as grifters who don't really believe what they say.
I don't believe these individuals are very principled.
I think they're just trying to game the system as trolls.
Twitter has permanently banned them and made some accusations against them.
If you don't know who they are, don't worry.
This is a video about censorship, and I firmly believe it was wrong of Twitter to ban the Krasenstein brothers, and we're going to get into that.
They were accused of operating fake accounts.
Twitter needs to prove it.
I think these guys are annoying grifters.
Whatever.
They have a right to respond to the president and be annoying anti-Trump personalities.
They're allowed their speech.
Twitter has made similar accusations against other people claiming they operate fake accounts.
Well, if you're going to make a statement of fact, I want to see proof.
Don't expect me to laugh and clap that you banned people simply because you made accusations against them.
Because this will be used against conservatives.
Let it be said, when conservatives get banned, the most important lesson for those on the left who cheer this is that they will come for you too.
Obviously, there's a bit of catharsis that many conservatives feel when they see this finally happening to some left-wing personalities.
It's still wrong.
I don't care what your politics are.
You have a right to free speech within reason.
Admittedly, there's a line.
We're trying to figure out what that line is.
But typically, most people who believe in free speech think it should be within the confines of the law.
If you do something illegal, if there are laws, then fine.
You'll get suspended.
We'll figure it out.
But banning the two brothers, claiming that they were, you know, purchasing fake interactions or whatever, okay, fine, if they were doing that, but I need to see proof.
They made similar claims with other people, and they haven't proven it.
And this is a smear and a statement of fact, so I want to see proof.
If this isn't true, and again, I have seen no proof, Christensen can sue Twitter for defamation.
Now before we get into all this, check out TimCast.com slash Donut if you want to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, a cryptocurrency option, a physical address, but of course you can just share this video, click the like button, comment below.
Let me know what you think about the Krasensteins getting banned.
And if you're not familiar with who they are, they're left-wing anti-Trump personalities who got banned.
Let me know your opinion.
We'll read through these stories and I'll go through my principle and philosophy on why I think it was wrong.
But the interaction really does help the channel, so let's hop over to the Daily Beast story.
They say, Ed and Brian Krasnostein are banned for life after operating multiple fake accounts and purchasing account interactions, a Twitter spokesman said.
But again, I want to see proof, because they've made accusations against conservatives for similar things.
The story reads from the Daily Beast.
Twitter has permanently banned prominent anti-Trump brothers Brian and Ed Krasenstein, alleging that two of the biggest stars of resistance Twitter had broken the site's rules about operating fake accounts and purchasing fake interactions with their accounts.
The Twitter rules apply to everyone, a Twitter spokesperson said in a statement.
Operating multiple fake accounts and purchasing account interactions are strictly prohibited.
Engaging in these behaviors will result in a permanent suspension from the service.
Let's take a look at this.
Did they say the Krasnistins did this?
It doesn't look like it.
It doesn't look like they actually are accusing them.
It looks like Twitter is using weasel words.
Look at this.
Twitter's rules apply to everyone.
Operating multiple fake accounts and purchasing.
That's a statement of fact about the Twitter rules.
They didn't say what the Krasensteins did.
At least in this quote, did they?
This is why I don't trust Twitter.
Okay?
Like, there are people I think who are absolutely abhorrent in their opinions, but they have a right to speak, and that's the point.
I don't care if you're pro or anti-Trump.
Okay?
Free speech is for everybody.
And if you don't respect the free speech of those you disagree with, you don't respect free speech.
The suspensions are a major loss for the Krasensteins, who had used their massive Twitter followers and ability to quickly respond to tweets from Donald Trump to make themselves internet celebrities.
Ed Krasenstein had roughly 925,000 followers before he was banned, while Brian had more than 697,000.
The brothers appeared to be unusually good at getting attention on Twitter.
While the Twitter statement doesn't explain what the Krasensteins allegedly did to illicitly promote their accounts, fake interactions could engage buying bots to retweet their posts or fake followers.
But again, Twitter didn't say, the Krasensteins did X, that's why they were banned.
They said, the rules apply to everybody.
Doing X will get you banned.
Yeah, great.
So imagine this.
If someone asked me, why did you remove someone from your group on Mines?
And I responded with, selling overpriced pizza with pineapples on it will get you banned from my group.
I never said that person did that.
In my opinion, Twitter is using assumptive language to try and make people believe that's what the Krasenstein said.
Maybe they did!
I don't know.
The point is, I don't care what reason they were banned for.
For one, I haven't seen them do anything.
They apparently have broken the rules.
A lot of people have reported them.
I've seen them, you know, get reported for breaking the rules.
Fine.
But the point is, look, I would be a hypocrite to not stand up for those on either side.
That's the point.
And if they're going to make these accusations or make assumptive language about what they're doing, then I want to see the proof.
In a statement to the Daily Beast, the Krasensteins denied breaking Twitter rules.
Twitter claims that we manipulated our interactions through the purchase of fake accounts and fake interactions.
We have never once acquired anything for the purpose of increasing our Twitter presence.
That's a statement of fact.
And if the Krasensteins are lying, Twitter could potentially sue them because they're... Well, maybe not.
Maybe not.
I'm not a lawyer.
They say they only operated secondary accounts on Twitter to monitor threats as well as accounts for their businesses.
None of those accounts were ever used for manipulative purposes, as Twitter claims.
As heroes of the anti-Trump resistance, the Krasensteins won admiration from liberals and anger from conservatives for their willingness to tweak Trump and his supporters online.
The Krasenstein brothers even turned their online fandom into a book featuring a shirtless, muscular special counsel Robert Mueller pursuing Trump.
They say, uh, before turning to politics in 2017, the brothers saw their homes raided by federal agents investigating an alleged investment scheme.
The Krasensteins were not charged.
So we have this story from Fox News, which talks about it, but does bring up some, uh, some issues from, uh, some responses from people on Twitter.
We can see, uh, Ashley Feinberg saying, praying for my Krasen boys.
God bless.
The Daily Wire's response, GG.
Good game.
Seth Mandel says the Griffdons loses its mascots.
They did, but I don't see why people are cheering for this.
You know, people are laughing.
Here's the thing, I get it.
Like I mentioned, there's a catharsis for conservatives.
For one, you're finally seeing, you know, anti-Trump people get banned.
There's a lot of people who claim that these guys did break the rules and were reported.
I've seen people report them and show that they were reported.
And there are a lot of people who point out that typically those on the left, like the Krasensteins, cheer for the censorship of those on the right.
So it is a bit of you reap what you sow.
I still don't care, right?
I'll be the first to point out, I usually quote Glenn Greenwald on this one, I think it was Glenn Greenwald, that if there's any group of people that are incapable of learning more than all others, it's liberals calling for censorship.
Because when you do, it backfires on you horribly.
This is presumably one of the situations.
I have not been a big follower of what the Krasensteins do, but I do know that they've posted ridiculous stories.
They, they... I think grifter is a fair, you know, point to make.
I don't like calling people grifters because you're assuming, you know, things about them.
But I have seen them post stories where I'm like, well, you've definitely decontextualized and falsely framed that story.
It is what it is.
I wouldn't call for the censorship of BuzzFeed or Fox or any of these other mean people because the reality is the First Amendment also protects your right to be dumb.
Okay?
If at the end of the day what we can really say about the Krasensteins is that they're just two dumb guys and they post things that are wrong because they're dumb, fine!
You're allowed to do that.
If it's true that they were manipulating accounts and trying to manipulate people, that I take issue with.
So again, before I throw these guys under the bus, or anyone for that matter, I want to see proof.
I want Twitter to back up the claims they make against individuals because it goes beyond just banning them.
Let's see what Yashir Ali had to say.
Yashir's great, by the way.
So he tweeted that they, alleging the two biggest stars of the resistance, Twitter, had broken the site's rules about operating fake accounts.
He says, reached by phone the other Krasenstein brother, Ken Klippenstein, who has been locked in a feud with the brothers for over a decade, told me he only had one thing to say, boom.
Yasher says, Ed Krasenstein sent me an email, that's all I can share for now.
Let's look at some of the responses because I want to show what people are kind of saying.
It's going to be so strange looking at Trump's tweets and not seeing the muted replies at the very top.
Admittedly, I did mute these guys too.
Randy Meyer Singer says, now who can I count on to steal my tweets?
Someone said, uh, so much for blood being thicker than water.
A lot of the responses I've seen are kind of people facetiously saying, you know, Donald Trump's tweets are nothing without the Kharazin scenes up top.
And I think there, I think you'll find there are going to be a lot of people who are pro free speech who are going to say similar things to me.
And one of the more frustrating things about the culture war is I don't care for the tribes.
I don't.
I care for the principal.
And there was an issue where Alabama Public Access TV wasn't going to air an episode of the show Arthur because it depicted a gay wedding between Mr. Ratburn.
I don't know if you know what that is.
Basically, it was a kid's show depicting a gay wedding.
So Alabama said, we're not going to air this.
And all of a sudden, you had these people saying, like, where's the free speech brigade now talking about censorship?
And it's like, What are you talking about?
Just, like, here's what they do.
The people on the left don't follow actual free speech advocates.
People, you know, like me and others, typically surrounding, you know, peripheral to, like, the intellectual dark web type characters, Dave Rubin type Sargon.
They don't follow us.
They don't watch my videos.
They're not going to watch this video where I say it was wrong for the Krasensteins to be banned.
They won't.
They're not going to look at the tweets of other moderate centrists and conservatives who are saying it's wrong that they were banned.
They're just going to follow each other and then say, huh, I don't see them, you know, talking about it now.
It's like, yeah, because you don't follow us.
I absolutely think it was wrong.
And I hope you, you know, you guys who watch this are going to stand on principle.
I don't blame you if you, if you feel, if you know, if you laugh, if you laugh, because I made a video.
Before where I absolutely I open the video by saying I have every right to laugh at these activist news websites.
I'm not going to but I have the right to because these are the organizations that stand toe to toe like they stand side by side with these people calling for censorship saying my private business and then Google changed their algorithm which knocked their viewership down like 60% so I made a video about that.
And I said, I do have the right to laugh.
I'm not going to, though.
But I get it.
I understand if you do laugh.
Because at a certain point, you see these people on the left reaping what they sow, and it's an I told you so moment.
But I won't do that.
You know what I'll say?
I will reach out my hand and say, welcome to the fight.
Let me tell you a quick story.
During Occupy Wall Street, There was a dude who came down very early on, he was a big black dude, and he was yelling at other black people saying, why are you standing with these people?
They never stood for you.
They don't believe in, you know, they don't understand your fight, your struggle.
Don't stand with them.
And this other dude, I can't remember, I think it was from a group he called Occupy the Hood, and he was like, no, no, no, no, no.
This guy came up as another black guy and he said, listen, man, these people, you know, these young white folk who are coming down to occupy Wall Street, you're right.
They never understood our fight, but now they're here.
Now they get it.
So I reach out my hand and I say, welcome to the fight, brother.
And that meant something to me.
I'm like, that's principle.
Don't you know, you're never going to win.
By laughing and being tribal and saying, haha, the Kresensians got banned.
Like, again, I get it, you know, when they get banned.
But think about actually winning the fight against censorship.
It's going to require a coalition.
It's going to require people on the left to be like, what?
That's not fair.
I agree.
I want to see proof as to what they did wrong.
I do not think it's okay that you ban these people.
They have every right to post their annoying nonsense at the president.
And I muted them because I find them very annoying.
I actually think they don't add to the conversation.
You know, when I look at Trump's tweets, I want to see some, you know, genuine points.
They don't.
They're just, you know, annoying reply guys.
And there's this whole, you know, like new generation of the woke reply guy who just, they've built followings responding to the president.
I find it very annoying.
But I think they should be allowed to do it.
I think you're allowed to be wrong.
I think you're allowed to be dumb.
And I think if you're crazy or mentally unwell, you still have a right to use social media and have your crazy, you know, a crazy opinion heard by people.
If Twitter wants to ban them, I think, as it pertains to anyone getting banned, show me why.
Prove it.
I'm not going to stand back and just watch prominent people get taken out, you know, and laugh about it.
Hell no.
People, we need, you know what?
You want the Krasensteins responding to Trump, because I'll say this, and to a lot of people, admit it, it's funny.
It's like, they can be annoying, I muted them because I'm more serious, but there were a lot of people who enjoyed getting into those Twitter arguments.
That's what makes the site worth using.
The debate, the conversation.
I don't think they're smart or good people.
It doesn't matter what my opinion is.
They get the same rights as everybody else.
I will defend... I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
So here's what I'm going to say now.
In the next segment, I am going to be talking about Facebook.
Facebook censorship is resulting in its own demise.
The censorship of these platforms is creating a death spiral, where when Twitter bans people, they're making the site less fun.
Right?
There's a reason why people on Twitter know who these guys are.
Because they were annoying, but they did get your attention, and it did bring some life to the platform.
I'm sure a lot of people are glad they're gone for sure, but they have a right to speech.
And the more Twitter bans people like them, people like Milo, the less fun the platform becomes.
But it gets worse for Facebook, because brands are leaving.
So stick around, the next segment I will be talking about Facebook has created its own death spiral that it's not gonna be able to pull out of, at least I don't think so.
So for those that are watching on YouTube, that'll be at youtube.com slash TimCast.
For everyone else, get ready, it's starting now.
And I'll see you in a few seconds.
Or hours if you're on YouTube.
CrossFit has shut down its Facebook and Instagram accounts.
This is huge.
They had millions of followers over censorship and data privacy concerns.
Now I've covered Facebook censorship, privacy issues, and the demise of Facebook fairly extensively.
I've covered all the big breaking stories.
So here What I think we're seeing with CrossFit's departure, they're not the only ones who pulled out, other big brands have as well, we're seeing Facebook's censorious nature is resulting in a downward death spiral.
Facebook is losing users.
Millions, 15 to 17 million young people, they're desperate.
They need good PR.
Data privacy issues are bad news for them.
When the press comes after them over fringe figures, you know, people they feel is dangerous, Facebook needs to stem the bleed.
What do they do?
They ban more people.
They go overboard.
And in trying to save themselves, they've made it worse.
This is what I refer to as the Chinese finger trap problem.
If you've seen my videos before, you've seen me talk about this.
Basically, Facebook is caught in a bind.
And I think the solution is to keep pulling to get their fingers out.
But the reality is, you need to act in a counter-intuitive manner.
Banning people made things worse.
You've now lost CrossFit.
CrossFit's huge!
It's like a multi-billion dollar enterprise.
Or industry, you know, the people who buy and practice this.
There's independent groups that do this.
Now, before we get into all this news, I do want to say it's not just about CrossFit.
We've also got news about Raheem Kassam, a conservative who was banned on UK Election Day, suspended for an 11-year-old post.
The more Facebook does this, the worse things get.
And boy, do I have stories for you to back up at least what my opinion is, that Facebook is certainly ending itself.
Because it's going overboard.
Now before we get started, check out TimCast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, cryptocurrency address, there's a physical address, but of course, just share the video, like, and comment, because that engagement tells Facebook the video is good, and then, you know, I'm sorry, tells YouTube the video is good, and then YouTube recommends the video more often.
Or if you hate me, don't do any of those things, and you can just listen.
So we have this story from Morning Chalk Up.
I'm not familiar with the source, but they do kind of break things down very simply.
They say CrossFit shutters Facebook Instagram accounts amid data privacy concerns, but that title is actually somewhat incorrect.
The real issue was that CrossFit had one of its associated brands banned.
It was called Banting 7-Day Meal Plan User Group.
1.65 million users.
They post about essentially low-carb diets, low-carb, high-fat.
And they had this account shut down.
So here's what CrossFit says.
CrossFit is a contrarian physiology and nutrition prescription for improving fitness and health.
It is contrarian because prevailing views of fitness, health, and nutrition are wrong and have unleashed a tsunami of chronic disease upon our friends, family, and communities.
The voluntary cross-community of 15,000 affiliates and millions of individual adherents stand steadfastly and often alone against an unholy alliance of academia, government, and multinational food, beverage, and pharmaceutical companies.
They say, recently, Facebook deleted, without warning or explanation, the banting 7-day meal plan user group.
1.6 million users.
They talk about low-carb, high-fat diet.
They say, while the site subsequently has been reinstated, without warning or explanation, Facebook's action should give any serious person reason to pause, especially those of us engaged in activities contrary to prevailing opinion.
Here's the thing.
There is something called the Sugar Conspiracy.
I actually believe I have it pulled up.
The Sugar Conspiracy, I don't know if it's true, I'm not well-versed on this issue, but the general idea is that back in the 50s, 60s, 70s, The sugar industry was concerned that people would find out sugar is bad for you and fat is good for you.
What happened was decades of brands saying low-fat diets, low-fat, this is low-fat cottage cheese, this is low-fat X, Y, and Z, when in reality it was the sugar that was bad.
Now, I am one who absolutely avoids high refined sugars because my general understanding is that, you know, if you're gonna eat like lean and healthy, if you're gonna have like spinach and broccoli and like, you know, some fish, there's not a ton of sugar in that.
So I said, you know what, I'm gonna avoid the sugary refined treats and things like that.
Not perfectly, I'm not super, you know, I'm not keto, I'm not any of that stuff.
But the reality is, there are things in our society that eventually turn out to be very dangerous.
For a long time we had asbestos in buildings and now we learn it's very dangerous.
Science can change.
I'm not saying CrossFit is right or wrong.
I'm saying the issue is, people should be allowed to express themselves and believe what they want to believe and do their own research.
Within reason, I understand those lines.
It's hard to navigate this stuff.
I tend to fall on the side of mainstream science.
Even though I recognize they are wrong often, we see stories like this.
But the reality is, I'm not an expert on a lot of issues.
Now, when it comes to issues of dieting, I've done a decent amount of research.
I'm an athlete.
I skateboard almost every day.
So I try to be fit and eat healthy.
I'm not a big fan of CrossFit.
I'm not saying they're bad.
I'm just saying I don't know much about them.
But if they want to advocate for people to exercise, sure.
If people don't like that, I don't know, man.
You've got to take it up with people who are trying to get fit.
But here's the thing.
The concern here is that there has been an attack on unorthodox opinion regardless of what it is.
I think Joe Rogan's a good barometer for, like, normies, regular people.
He's a guy who just talks about things that interest him, he talks to anybody.
And you look at something like CrossFit, and I think there's another really good barometer for, like, normies.
The people I know who are into CrossFit are not political.
They have no idea what's going on.
But now you have a massive industry, CrossFit's huge, saying, you know what?
We're out.
Because you banned us for no reason.
And they're concerned The trends Facebook is taking towards banning fake news and heterodox opinion, things that aren't of the mainstream prevailing opinion, which they express.
They do go on to talk about, though, these publicly sourced complaints include but are not limited to the following.
Facebook collects and aggregates user information and shares it with state and federal authorities, as well as security organizations.
Facebook collaborates with government security agencies on massive citizen surveillance programs, such as PRISM.
They say they censor and remove user accounts based on unknown criteria at the request of third parties, including government and foreign government agencies.
They go on to list a series, but finally, they say, a series of complaints, but lastly, Facebook is acting in the service of food and beverage industry interests by deleting the accounts of communities that have identified the corrupt nutritional science responsible for unchecked global chronic disease.
In this, it follows that the practices of Wikipedia and other private platforms that host public content but retain the ability to remove or silence without the opportunity for real debate or appeal, information and perspectives outside a narrow scope of belief or thought.
In this case, the approved perspective has resulted in the deaths of millions through preventable diseases.
Facebook is thus complicit in the global chronic disease crisis.
This is not political.
CrossFit here is expressing the same ideas many of us in the political space has.
That Facebook is trying to restrict access to your opinion.
Don't believe me?
Check this out.
Rahim Kassam banned over an 11-year-old post.
This is from Human Events.
Seven-day suspension.
How about this?
Facebook's hate agents list includes candidates for the European election, and one of the slights, they said, was the neutral representation of a member of the Proud Boys.
Facebook, quite literally, puts you on a list, preparing to ban you for being neutral.
That is insanity.
It was recently reported that you can be banned if you post things about Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, apologizing for Watson.
Unless the opinion is negative, you are only allowed to condemn them.
This has brought us to Facebook's psychotic and insane dystopian policing of opinion.
Candace Owens, for instance, is included on this list.
Now, ultimately, this results in more than just CrossFit.
Here we see this story.
What brands have quit Facebook?
All the companies binning Mark Zuckerberg's app after the data scandal.
This story's from a year ago, March of 2018.
SpaceX and Tesla, Elon Musk said, what's Facebook?
And apparently, they pulled out.
It, um, he said, Musk said he called the Facebook page for Tesla, uh, and to really rub it in,
he said they'd literally never seen the SpaceX page before the Twitter exchange.
Playboy. Apparently Playboy pulled out early on March 28th, the son of late Playboy founder
Hugh Hefner, that the magazine would be ditching Facebook.
Cooper Hefner tweeted that Playboy would no longer have a page on the site and swiftly proceeded to kill the Saucy Mag's Facebook profile.
This is huge.
Pep Boys, Commerce Bank, Sonos, Mozilla, a ton of major companies have pulled off Facebook because Facebook is acting unethically.
But CrossFit is just the latest.
Here we have a story from NBC from just March.
Advertisers are quitting Facebook, changing the company's despicable business model.
Facebook has banned and censored and stolen data into destroying itself.
In terms of advertisers and big brands, it's their despicable business model.
I'm quoting the story here from CNBC.
But it's that they're taking data and selling it, and it's caused huge problems for everybody.
But when you see CrossFit, it's because they're banning people's ideas.
Here we have a story from Forbes, right?
Check this out.
Just today, Facebook deleted more than 2 billion fake accounts in the first quarter of the year.
2 billion accounts were fake.
It sounds like a lot of Facebook's growth is bad, and it sounds like Facebook is on the way out.
Here's a story from in March.
Why did Facebook lose an estimated 15 million users in the past two years?
And it was pronounced among kids and young adults.
There's been a shift.
Gen Z is the first in a series of generations, going back like a hundred years, to move more conservative.
They're by no means conservative.
Gen Z is not.
They're actually very similar to Millennials.
But what's interesting is when you look at Pew data, we see that from the silent generation,
boomer, you have the silent greatest, boomer, Gen X, millennial Gen Z,
Gen Z was the first time it shifted back in the other direction.
Many people believe this may be because the internet has allowed people to learn for themselves and explore.
If that's true, that they're exploring more, it could be that Facebook's censorious nature
makes it unappealing to young people.
You know, the way Facebook works with spying on you, and admittedly, if you're a young person,
you don't want your parents seeing what you're posting, but people are moving to Instagram,
which is owned by Facebook, which presents another serious issue.
Now Facebook, as a parent company, is in trouble.
Not only have they purged 2 billion fake accounts, They've lost 15 million users in one of the most important demographics.
They're losing advertisers.
They're losing big brands.
They're being fined billions of dollars, right?
Here's a story from a month ago.
Facebook reserves $3 billion for FTC fine, but keeps growing with 2.38 billion users in quarter one.
Sure, they're growing, but they're not growing in the right places.
They're losing young people, and they've just purged a bunch of fake accounts.
In this story, we can see that Facebook is well aware that they're in dire straits.
Okay?
So let me slow down.
I'm moving through these stories really quick, but here's what I want to say.
Facebook is banning people.
They've caught the attention of politicians.
They're now being questioned about their bias against conservatives.
A report from Gizmodo, a former staffer at Facebook, said they routinely suppressed conservative news.
We've seen James O'Keefe and Project Veritas, former Facebook staff, talk about the throttling And the censorious nature of Facebook targeting conservatives.
They believe internet culture is conservative.
It's very strange.
We've then seen the reporting from Breitbart.
Hate agents targeting, not necessarily even conservatives, because Sargon is like a center-right personality.
Center-right at this point, I don't know.
He is left on a lot of issues.
It's hard to know exactly where he is.
But he's an anti-feminist, anti-fascist, anti-communist, liberal-type personality.
He's on this list.
Candace Owens is on this list.
We know what's happening, and politicians are taking notice.
Big brands are pulling out.
We know about the data scandals.
And now what's happening?
I wonder why, six months ago, Facebook poached the Department of Justice's Silicon Valley antitrust chief.
I wonder why Facebook is building a team of antitrust experts as one of its co-founders calls for it to be broken up.
I wonder why I wonder why.
And we see another story from Washington Post about banning nearly 3 billion fake accounts.
Facebook knows that it's in trouble.
Antitrust is coming for Facebook.
Facebook is bleeding their most important user base, young people.
Facebook is losing big brands with the removal of CrossFit and the denouncing of censorship and data privacy scandals.
I think Facebook's days are numbered.
I don't even really use Facebook anymore.
I don't.
I post to my page when I make, like this video will probably be on the page, sure.
I just don't really care.
I don't interact for the most part.
I rarely post.
And admittedly, you'll notice the little thing appearing above my head.
I'm active on Mines.
Minds.com slash TimCast.
And that is a shameless plug because Minds is not part of the big tech oligopoly.
It doesn't mean that they won't grow and become, you know, like the same thing as Facebook.
I don't think they will.
I think Minds is a small team aiming to try and decentralize as much as possible.
And they've launched a jury system where when it comes to moderation, you can appeal to a jury of users, not staff.
I think it's a move in the right direction.
It's not perfect.
But what I can say is, what do you think happens when you start banning people for not holding orthodox opinion?
It's very simple.
Dominoes are falling over.
Facebook had a bunch of outraged activists in the media say, ban these people!
So Facebook said, okay, we'll ban them.
But then all of a sudden, the other people said, Facebook, why won't you ban them?
If you're gonna ban this group, why won't you ban that group?
So Facebook says, okay, okay, okay.
CrossFit gets a page taken down.
Was it a mistake?
Who cares?
CrossFit's pissed.
Low-carb, high-fat diet, Facebook takes them down, and CrossFit snaps.
And then CrossFit goes to highlight a ton of issues pertaining to Facebook's impropriety and unethical behavior.
And there you have it.
Back at the morning chalk-up story, they said, CrossFit isn't wrong.
Facebook's mishandling of user data has been well-documented.
There's a lot of reasons people want to pull off, a lot of reasons businesses want to pull off of Facebook.
Censorship is just one of them.
But the last thing I will stress, I suppose, to sort of wrap everything up, CrossFit is not political, as I explained earlier.
But they're facing the same thing.
The policing of opinion goes well beyond politics, and this should scare everybody.
Facebook is dangerous.
Extremely dangerous.
It's not just Facebook.
Twitter, Google, everybody.
Fortunately, I can use Google right now to still talk to you, but Facebook has been purging people like crazy.
2020 is coming.
The election is coming.
And we are seeing Facebook take action against anyone who holds unorthodox or heterodox opinion.
And it's partly because they have activists saying ban them.
And when they do, other people say ban them.
And it's an endless spiral.
As predicted.
And as warned by people like me.
When you ban one group, you've got to ban the other.
And then when you ban the other, then you've got to ban another group.
And it never ends.
It is a downward spiral of banning everybody until there's nobody left.
Or, you break that point, and everyone says, we are done with Facebook, and we're leaving.
And it seems like that's where we're at.
Final, final thought.
CrossFit is typical normie stuff.
The people I know who are into CrossFit are not super political.
They're just, I don't know, they're my normie friends.
They watch sports, they go to the gym, they work out, they know very little about Brett Kavanaugh or the Supreme Court.
Or Trump?
Or what's going on with Pelosi and the wall?
They don't.
They're not super interested.
They're interested in fitness.
And I don't expect them to know about politics.
If you're into politics, good for you.
A lot of people should have a cursory understanding, but most people have something they're passionate about and want to follow.
When censorship hits them in the same way it hits the political sphere, you know it's bad.
I predict this is precipitating the demise of Facebook.
They're at the back end of the bell curve.
And that's why they're desperate.
That's why Facebook is desperate to fight the antitrust.
Because without Instagram, Facebook is done.
Facebook is done.
Facebook buys WhatsApp and Instagram because they know it's the end of the line for them.
They're going to go the way of AOL.
Sure, AOL still exists.
They own some companies.
I think they own Huffington Post.
And that's what Facebook is going to become.
Especially with these scandals.
I'll end it there.
Let me know what you think in the comments below.
How do you feel?
This was huge.
When I saw CrossFit was pulling out, I was like, whoa, that's big.
We've seen Playboy and SpaceX and Tesla.
It's happening.
More and more companies saying, no, let me know what you think.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll have more segments coming up shortly.
For those that are watching on YouTube, it'll be at youtube.com slash TimCast starting at 6 p.m.
And again, let me know what you think in the comments below, and I will see you all in the next segment.
It was a bad week for the old guard.
CNN's ratings dropped 30% after hosting Beto O'Rourke.
I kid you not, I saw this headline and I couldn't help but laugh.
I know it's mean, I try not to be mean, but from Forbes, Beto O'Rourke town hall dragged CNN ratings down 30%.
Jimmy Fallon's Tonight Show reportedly in trouble as ratings plummet.
Now I do feel kind of bad based on the framing of this, because they say that he's never recovered since his softball interview with Donald Trump.
And that's absurd.
But it shows you the power of the Trump bump.
And his ratings are going to be probably relative to other networks.
But here's what we're going to do.
First, let's talk about CNN and Beto O'Rourke being poison to the network, dropping their ratings.
But first, Go to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, a cryptocurrency option, a physical address, but of course you can just share this video, click the like button, comment below, subscribe.
Engaging with the video tells YouTube it's good, then YouTube shares it with more people, and it is greatly appreciated.
In the summer months, you know, viewership goes down, CPMs are kind of weak, and so I do rely on your support.
But let's see exactly what happened to CNN.
The story says, all in all CNN viewers would rather watch Don Lemon than Beto O'Rourke.
The network's hour-long town hall with Texas congressman and Democratic presidential candidate drifted to a distant third place finish in Tuesday night's cable news ratings and was down significantly from the network's average Tuesday night ratings delivery.
According to ratings data compiled by Nielsen, the O'Rourke Town Hall delivered total audience of 714,000 viewers, while MSNBC and Fox News Channel both exceeded 2 million viewers in the same period.
About 2.2 for MSNBC, 2.26 for Fox News.
CNN's ratings delivery was down nearly 30% compared to its average Tuesday night, which over the last few months has typically reached more than 1 million viewers.
That's not true.
That is not true.
I've been tracking the ratings.
That is wrong.
O'Rourke even failed to exceed the audience that watched a CNN town hall featuring third-tier candidate John Hickenlooper, which drew 745,000 viewers in March.
The lowest-rated town hall so far this cycle was CNN's event with Julian Castro, which reached just 654,000 viewers in April.
Sweet, sweet catharsis.
CNN is complete trash.
I think CNN is awful.
They are manipulative, they are deceitful, they are liars, or they're just really, really, really bad at their jobs.
But I just, I really love rubbing it in that my ratings per hour are way higher than CNN's, especially in the key demo.
Can I just point something out?
We're building an investor deck for Subverse, which is, if you're not familiar, Subverse is the news brand that I and a few others are launching.
It's doing pretty well.
We've got 121,000 subs in only like three or four months.
So we're building an investor deck out, and we've gone through the ratings, and here's the good news.
You guys watching, 76% in the key demographic, which means around 800,000 or so people per day.
It's in one hour of content.
800,000 people.
I'm sorry, viewers, because there is some overlap.
Trounces by a full order of magnitude what CNN is pulling in.
I'm not saying this to gloat, right?
I recognize that if it weren't for you guys watching this, I wouldn't be able to, you know, say anything.
So it's really about... It's really just about how CNN is done.
They're done.
Their day has come.
The same is true for the other networks.
Now look, Fox broke, you know, 2.2 million, 2.26, MSNBC 2.2.
Their key demo viewership per hour average is lower than mine.
And so I'm not saying this to drag them, because they certainly have a higher viewership than me, but this shows you something about the future.
I can't wait.
I'm really, really excited for the day when some 20, you know, 25-year-old dude is doing some kind of, like, virtual braincast.
I'm, like, 55, or, you know, older, and I'm doing YouTube videos like, eh, but, you know, these young kids doing that weird braincasting stuff, what are they, I don't know, they don't know what real news is.
You know what I'm trying to say?
Like, there will come a time when we are the old fogies using YouTube and the young kids are doing something crazy for their news.
And right now, it is our time.
Right now, we have officially taken over, and the next coming years, there's going to be a major swing in how news is delivered.
These companies, CNN's ratings dropped dramatically to trash in the key demo.
It's like less than 100,000.
It was like 80 or 90,000 on average.
Ridiculously low.
Yet they still command mainstream pressure.
Why?
Why?
Nobody watches it.
It's just culturally relevant, I guess?
Well, guess what?
We are headed towards a world where we are going to be more culturally relevant.
And I think that'll be fun.
But you know what?
I'm not a crazy person.
So when the time comes to pass on the torch to the next generation, by all means, bring it on.
I look forward to that day.
But for the time being, these networks are the old guard.
Whether you love them or hate them, CNN is in the gutter.
And they're trying desperately to stay afloat, but they're done.
Their time has come.
Among viewers, 25 to 54, the demographic group most valued by national advertisers, CNN's O'Rourke Town Hall had 194,000 viewers, down 38% from its average Tuesday night delivery of 313,000 in the demo.
Fox News finished first with 362,000 viewers.
I gotta say, man, that's shocking.
My numbers are way higher than that.
For even Fox News.
Followed by MSNBC with 315.
The poor ratings will raise questions about O'Rourke's ability to generate buzz in a crowded field, but also about the debate among Democrats over the wisdom of going where the viewers are and appearing on Fox News.
Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren recently announced she would not accept an offer to appear in a Fox Town Hall.
Huge mistake!
While candidates like Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, and Pete Buttigieg have reached large audiences on Fox News Channel, Sanders Fox Town Hall remains the highest-rated town hall this cycle, with an audience of 2.554 million viewers.
Fox News is more centered than these other networks.
Isn't it mind-blowing that you can turn on Fox News and see a Bernie Sanders Town Hall?
Trump got mad.
Trump was like, what's happening to my beloved Fox?
They're bringing on the Socialists.
Yeah, good for Fox.
Seriously.
And CNN's ratings in the key demo down nearly 40%!
Oh god, catharsis.
Absolute catharsis.
They say, for CNN, the highest rated town hall to date was Kamala Harris, which broke 1.954, about 2 million views.
So good for CNN with Kamala Harris.
Unfortunately, you still can't get close to Fox News.
But wait, there's more!
Jimmy Fallon, what's going on?
Why is your show in the gutter?
You know what really, really bothers me?
YouTube makes these people trend, and they are not relevant.
Okay?
If CNN and these big news outlets like BuzzFeed or whatever are consistently being put in the trending tab because YouTube is biased towards them, WTF, mate?
We're the ones on the platform making the real content using YouTube, but for some reason they keep propping up people like Jimmy Fallon who are not relevant.
His ratings are down.
The show is in trouble.
Let's read on.
They say, Jimmy Fallon, once one of the funniest men on late night TV.
When?
When, that's an opinion, is no longer laughing.
Page Six reports that NBC's late night host is scrambling to keep his show afloat after his ratings have been plummeting and he struggled to recover from the infamous 2016 softball interview with Donald Trump.
Fallon was shepherded to stardom by NBC executive Lorne Michaels, who handpicked him from the Saturday Night Live cast to first host late night before taking over at the network's most coveted tonight show time slot.
But his trajectory has taken a recent dive, calling into question whether he will stay in the late-night spot much longer, according to industry sources speaking anonymously to Page Six.
Despite bringing in NBC Today show guru Jim Bell seven months ago to try and turn the show around, ratings have not improved.
Fallon fell behind Colbert's late show for the first time ever this week, marking a worrying trend for the man who was once king of late-night comedy.
Let me tell you what happens as their ratings plummet.
Don't be shocked.
If Fallon comes out hardcore anti-Trump to a ridiculous degree.
Stephen Colbert has done it.
And now he's fallen behind Colbert.
Listen.
They know the majority of Americans do not hate Trump.
But it's not about whether or not they want to attract the middle, you know, middle America.
It's about whether or not they can get a big enough viewership.
Look at Rachel Maddow.
She chases Russiagate on purpose knowing that she's going to grab a fringe bucket.
It's not about getting all Americans.
It's about getting just enough Americans to get your ratings over that bump so you can make money.
And that's what they're doing.
They say, Page Six also reports that Fallon's longtime executive producer, Katie Hockmeyer, is no longer on the team, but remains employed by the network, signaling a potential shakeup to try to turn things around.
They say that his ratings first started to fall after his famous hair-tussling interview with Trump during the 2016 election campaign.
And that's kind of unfortunate.
He gave Trump an interview that wasn't super angry.
And apparently, you know, it doesn't work.
People want to be angry.
They do.
There's this comic I love, and it's a guy, and he's like, I'm angry.
And then the next panel is a guy going like, here's a solution.
And then he lights the solution, like the folder on fire, saying, I don't want a solution, I want to be angry.
And that's it.
People want to be angry.
They want to be upset.
Life is boring, okay?
And I know this is true for so many people.
Life is boring.
You have to give yourself meaning.
And people have found meaning in hating Donald Trump.
A lot of other people find no meaning there, but life is still boring.
Go snowboarding, go skiing.
Hey, I skateboard.
That makes life fun, because every day I've got a new goal I have to accomplish.
But in the end, I feel like Anti-Trump and regressive politics, it's filling that purpose hole in people's chest.
What are you alive for?
For a while, religion carried people.
But now, you've got anti-Trump resistance, and you've got woke politics.
Fortunately, in response to the insanity, you get people who are opposed to that, and that's giving people purpose.
But without purpose, I don't know.
They say, some say Fallon has never fully recovered and has failed to be taken seriously, even when he tries to interject Colbert-style political satire.
After he apologized for the infamous Trump debacle, he apologized for it, oh please, the president even came down hard on him.
Jimmy's now whimpering to all that he did the famous hair show with me, where he seriously messed up my hair.
And that he would have now done it differently, because it is said to have humanized me, and that he is taking heat.
Trump tweeted after Fallon apologized for not being tougher on him.
He called and said, There's your problem, Jimmy.
You're not anti-Trump and you're not pro-Trump, so you're just a weakling.
You did an interview with Trump.
I don't care.
I didn't want to watch your show anyway.
Now you're backpedaling and desperately begging the resistance, please watch my show.
But they don't care anyway.
So you're in the gutter.
We'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
More segments to come.
I will see you very shortly.
Now believe it or not, I don't like recording segments about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez because I don't much care for playing the game of the Ocasio-Cortez bump.
That's why the video I did the other day was fairly neutral to positive in response to the media attacks against her.
But I gotta say, she has so many gaffes, and she is extremely prominent with now over 4 million followers.
You've gotta call this stuff out.
In this story for The Daily Caller, it's just the weather.
Meteorologist fact-checks Ocasio-Cortez on climate change because there was a tornado warning in D.C.
Cortez tried claiming that weather is climate change.
Can I, I just want to stress something.
We routinely, you know, every so often see a conservative say, oh my god it's so cold, where's this climate change?
And then scientists come out and say, cold weather is not what we're talking about.
We're talking about changes in climate, climate patterns.
And now you have Cortez quite literally doing the same thing!
Oh my god, a tornado warning?
This must be climate change!
You can't... No, you can't do this.
You can't criticize conservatives for pointing to snow, and then turn around and point to a thunderstorm.
I get it, it was a tornado warning, I'm being hyperbolic, bear with me.
Here's the thing.
This isn't partisan bickering.
This is an actual meteorologist being like, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Hold your horses.
Now, before we get into this story, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, a cryptocurrency option, a physical address.
But more importantly, you can just share this video on social media, click the like button, comment below, and subscribe because the interactions with the content tell YouTube it's worth watching and then they recommend it more.
That really helps, it does.
Or you can hate me and by all means do none of those things, but let's just actually read the story.
Democratic New York Rep.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez suggested the tornado warning that hit the D.C.
area Thursday was part of the climate crisis.
She has previously said, humanity only has 12 years left to solve.
The climate crisis is real, y'all, Ocasio-Cortez said on Instagram Thursday.
Guess we're at casual tornadoes in growing regions of the country.
Oh my god.
Uh, you know, here's the thing.
I am very pro-science.
I recognize scientists aren't always right.
I recognize that orthodox thought isn't always right.
But I do have to defer to the experts, which is why I... Look, if the IPCC and these other scientists overwhelmingly say this is an issue, I lean towards that.
I understand their descending voices.
Here's the issue.
Ocasio-Cortez is playing into the same exact fallacy that they criticize conservatives for, okay?
Can we please calm down a little bit and actually just develop cool technologies that are more efficient for energy production that could also simultaneously reduce carbon emissions?
However, she was quickly fact-checked by meteorologist Ryan Moe, who pointed out that far from proof of a climate crisis, D.C.' 's tornado warning was, quote, just the weather.
So this is actually hilarious.
I got this tweet pulled up.
I kid you not.
He says, I thought this was fake, but it's from AOC's Instagram story.
No idea what she means with casual tornadoes and how this line of severe thunderstorms is proof of any climate crisis.
It's just the weather in DC. So let's read.
I thought this was fake too.
I was like, nah, this is a meme, right?
Somebody made a fake post from Cortez.
Because there's no way the Queen of Cow Farts is going to be this wrong about climate change when she's proposing a massive government overhaul that would cost like $30 trillion.
There's no way she could propose that and then be this wrong.
She said, well, that was something.
Alarms went off in the building advising people to seek shelter.
Apparently.
The tornado moved-slash-missed the city so quickly that they ended the warning shortly.
And also apparently, this is a thing that happens in the summer here, with increasing intensity?
The climate crisis is real, y'all.
Tornado emoji.
Guess we're at casual tornadoes in growing regions of the country, are- What?! !
So Ryan Fact Checkser, he says, the Congresswoman does not know the difference between weather and climate.
Let's try an easy analogy.
Weather is what outfit you wear heading out the door.
Climate is your closet wardrobe.
So let me try and address this.
And let me say, firstly, why am I talking about this?
I do believe that climate change is an issue.
I defer to the scientists.
And I understand majority and consensus is not fact, but it's the best we can do.
And I do believe there are reasonable solutions that can work for conservatives and liberals.
Renewable energy that stimulates the economy and reduces greenhouse gases?
And that works for everybody, right?
Here's the problem.
Cortez is a doomsayer, waving her 12-years-till-the-end-of-the-world sign, talking about tornadoes wiping out D.C., and it makes it impossible for rational, reasonable people to sit down and say, I understand, conservatives, you don't think this is as big an issue as the Democrats and the progressives have made it out to be.
How about we just come to a solution that works for everybody?
How about we invest in technology that's going to stimulate the economy, create jobs?
And whether or not there's a climate crisis, it's going to benefit the economy and make us more internationally competitive.
To the Democrats, there's your solution.
Something that makes sense.
Innovate, stimulate the economy, and also solve these problems.
That's the right way to do it.
But then Ocasio pops up behind me, going, no!
The end is nigh!
Green New Deal!
Eliminate cow farts and shut the planes down!
And I'm like, stop!
We were so close to making ground on this.
We were so close to sitting down and shaking hands across the aisle and saying, maybe there's something that works for everybody.
And then Ocasio-Cortez repeatedly has these gaffes that just make everything seem nightmarishly stupid.
Recently there was a story, it was the other day, that Democrats, two-thirds, believe that we do have 12 years before there's irreparable damage to the planet.
That's fine.
You want to believe that?
Whatever.
Some people don't believe it.
The argument should not be whether or not one side is pro or anti-science.
The argument should be, okay, great.
If that's where your head is at, what can we do?
Seriously, just ask that question.
But coming out with this nonsense, look at this.
She posts this on Instagram.
Different parts of the country deal with different climate issues.
In NYC, we deal with hurricanes, blizzards, floods, and heatwaves.
Heatwaves hit us differently because a lot of most NYC buildings don't have central air, so they are life-threatening to the elderly, health risk, and disabled.
Other regions deal with wildfires, tornadoes, droughts, etc., but all of these threats will be increasing in intensity as climate crisis grows and we fail to act appropriately.
The point that Ryan is making, we'll go back to the Daily Caller, The climate!
is how different weather patterns affect different areas.
Is there a drought?
Is there a tornado?
Is there a hurricane?
Weather is, did it rain?
Sometimes it rains.
Was there a tornado?
Sometimes there are tornadoes.
Please stop with the doom saying.
So, uh, it goes on.
The story's actually quite long.
The Washington, D.C.
area was hit with a tornado warning Thursday afternoon.
An intense but short-lived storm brought heavy rainfall and high winds.
No tornado hit D.C., however, but the whole event was enough to inspire Cortez to post on Instagram.
And then she reads the other, they read the other tweet.
The Green New Deal is Ocasio-Cortez's signature bill calling for net zero greenhouse gas emissions within 10
years and vastly expanding the federal welfare state.
Ocasio-Cortez does not know the difference between weather and climate.
So here's the issue.
This is what blows my mind.
Okay, we have 12 years, right?
Is your solution then all or nothing?
Why is it that they proposed the Green New Deal?
Okay, it goes up for a vote.
Republicans said, let's put it up for a vote.
They voted no!
They voted present.
There was not one, I believe not one person voted aye on that bill.
If we've got 10 years left, you'd think someone would be like, no, no, no, no, I'll just push it through.
So here's their mentality.
We've only got 12 years left before the end comes.
But let's not work a deal with Republicans.
How does that make sense?
You'd think if they really believed it, they'd say, hey, we'll take whatever we can get.
Right?
Anything is better than nothing.
In fact, if they take some action, you might buy yourself some time.
But for some reason, that's not the game they're playing.
The game they're playing is, nope, not one person will vote yes on our own bill.
How does that make sense?
Maybe it's because Ocasio-Cortez doesn't know what she's talking about and thinks tornadoes are casual and meteorologists have to come out and criticize her.
I like how they post a bunch of these photos.
They go on to say Ocasio-Cortez did somewhat walk back her initial claims by apparently googling around for information on tornadoes and global warming.
She noted that tornadoes are challenging to tie to global warming.
Oh, heavens.
The freshman lawmaker, however, went on to note that we do know for sure that tornadoes have been changing.
She cited a PBS article claiming that tornadoes are sliding into the Midwest and Southeast.
But what does that actually mean?
You can't just say something is changing in the climate, therefore global warming or climate change.
That's not how it works.
And this is what makes it so difficult.
And this is why I think you can be a rational, reasonable centrist and say, we've got information and data.
We don't know necessarily what it means, but let's mitigate some of this in a way that's good for everybody.
Like, do something instead of... If you think the world is ending, you've got to do something, right?
Well, then ask the Republicans what they're willing to do.
And we can do it right.
We can make ourselves... Look, we've got to compete with China, and they're expanding rapidly, so let's get on the energy game, man.
How about some fusion power?
Nuclear energy is good.
The claim is based on a 2018 study, though it did not attribute eastward-shifting tornadoes to global warming.
That's the point!
But researchers have long noted there are complications in trying to study long-term tornado trends.
The reporting has been susceptible to changes in population density, modifications to reporting procedures and training.
The introduction of video and social media and so on reads the 2017 National Climate Assessment NCA.
These have led to systematic non-meteorological biases in the long-term data record the NCA reads.
So please, I think that we can- this is a big issue, right?
It's one of her core issues.
Great!
We can do it together.
We can sit down and figure something out.
As long as you're not coming out wiggling your arms in the air and shrieking about the end of the world, please?
I'm gonna end this segment here.
I've got one more, uh, one more segment coming up just in a few minutes.
Thanks for hanging around and I will see you shortly.
A new poll is out from CBS News and man is it good news for Trump and Trump supporters.
Americans feel good about the economy and give Trump credit according to a CBS News poll.
This is really interesting and I think what we're going to read through here is going to be once again another story predicting that Trump potentially could win.
I think Trump's going to win in 2020.
I'll put it that way.
Just throw out my opinion there.
No, I am not going to be supporting Trump.
I don't care.
Just because I don't personally like him doesn't mean I'm going to be blind to the fact that he's going to win unless the Democrats can actually do something that makes sense.
They're not, so let's be rational.
Partisanship aside, Trump's gonna win.
Plain and simple.
And there's more than just this.
We have this story from the New York Times from a few days ago.
Trump is outspending every 2020 Democrat on Facebook.
Combine the fact the economy is great, people are giving Trump credit, and he's outspending them by a massive, massive amount.
I don't see him losing.
You look at what happened with Australia, the right-wing one.
Brexit party projected to win huge.
The nationalists in India win.
How is Trump going to lose this?
Hey, maybe, right?
I'm not Nostradamus, okay?
I don't know the future, but I think the signs are clear.
And I don't understand how you can keep slapping people in the face with, look at what's happening, and the Democrats can't get their act together.
Before we get started, check out TimCast.com.
If you'd like to support my work, there's a monthly donation option, cryptocurrency addresses, a physical address, but of course, you can just share this video, like the video, comment below, because the interactions help tell YouTube the video's good, and also you can just, if you're on the podcast, review it with a positive review, or if you hate me, feel free to do nothing, but let's get back to the story and take a look at this data.
They say, Most Americans remain confident about the U.S.
economy and in their own financial situation.
And more now give President Trump's policies credit for a strong economy than did so last year.
7 in 10 Americans say the economy is in good shape, including a quarter who say it is very good.
That's huge.
Nearly all Republicans and most Democrats and independents share this view.
If you've got 60% of Democrats saying things are going great, how do you expect to win 2020?
I just do not see it happening.
Americans increasingly give the president credit for the economy.
41% of those who say the economy is good say Mr. Trump's policies are mostly responsible, up from 32% at the beginning of 2018.
Republicans give the president relatively more credit for the economy than Democrats do.
Well, of course they would.
But check this out.
32% say mostly Trump.
39% say partially Trump.
Only 27% say not Trump at all.
I'm talking about the Democrats.
That's bad news for Democrats, I'll tell you why.
Like the politicians.
If your own base recognizes that Trump has done good, even only a little bit, why would they vote for you?
Why would they want things to change if they're going really well?
They go on to say, 41% of Americans approve of how Mr. Trump is handling his job as president.
That is closer to where his rating was last summer than it was in this poll more recently in January.
Approval ratings have remained within a fairly narrow range throughout his presidency so far.
So, among all Americans, now it's 41%.
Across particular measures, the economy is the president's strongest.
50% of Americans approve of how he's handling the economy.
In contrast, more Americans disapprove of his handling of immigration, foreign policy, and trade with other countries.
But here's the thing.
Immigration is at 38%, foreign policy 39%, and trade is 41%.
Amid congressional Democrats' attempts to investigate the president's finances, 40% of Americans think Mr. Trump has financially profited from his time in the presidency.
Now, will that translate into people caring about, you know, the president?
Are people going to say, I refuse to vote for Trump because I believe this?
I don't think it will.
I think people are going to be more concerned with themselves.
And while they may say, I disagree with Trump over these issues, very much so, I don't know, man, the economy's going really well.
My kids are going to go to college.
They say more than 24% who think he has made financial sacrifices in order to serve as president.
Another 33% don't think his finances have changed much either way from his being president, but partisans see this differently.
Republicans are more apt to feel he has made sacrifices, and Democrats more prone to think he has gained financially.
Except the numbers are clear.
Trump's net worth has dropped significantly.
So where Democrats get that idea from, I don't know.
You can argue Trump's tried to profit and argue emoluments clauses, but the facts are clear.
Trump's net worth has gone down.
Looking ahead, Americans are more positive about the market than they were a few months ago.
Despite recent fluctuations, 56% now say they are optimistic about the stock market over the next 12 months, up from 49%.
There is a partisan division about where the economy goes from here.
37% of Americans think the economy is getting better, including 71% of Republicans, but just 11% of Democrats.
So that's potentially bad news.
Trump's going to have to win over some Independents and Democrats on that front.
Looking at their own pocketbooks, most Americans are very or somewhat confident in their own financial situation, but their confidence is related to income.
Those earning more express a lot more confidence than those earning less.
Despite the optimism, Americans are wary of a possible trade war with China and its potential impact on the economy.
Few think the U.S.
will emerge the clear-cut winner in any such conflict.
You think the tariffs on Chinese imports will be good for the US?
And that's basically the gist of the poll.
But again, let's stress the most important parts are that most people think the economy is good.
71%, the majority of all groups, Democrats included, 60% of Democrats think the economy is good.
And 32% think Trump is mostly responsible.
39% partially responsible, meaning The overwhelming majority of Democrats think, at least somewhat, Trump has done a good job with the economy.
Pair this up with Trump spending on Facebook.
And I know Facebook isn't the only place to buy ads.
But take a look at this.
We've got around $1 million spent by Elizabeth Warren.
She's the top spender on Facebook ads for Democrats.
Trump, over $4 million, nearly $5 million.
He is dominating ad spends.
And yet they say those who spend the most, they typically win.
Look, there's a lot of money being spent on Facebook ads.
And I'll say this, too.
It's great news for us on YouTube.
Seriously, a lot of people might not know this, but if you do news, election season is money in the bank.
And that's why there's so much election coverage, because everybody wants to know who's going to win, what's going to happen.
And all of these candidates are spending money to sway your vote, and that money goes into the pockets of YouTubers like me.
Admittedly, it doesn't matter what I talk about, but everyone knows this.
It's an open secret.
If you didn't know this, I'll tell you right now.
Going into 2020, political content is going to be worth gold.
For YouTube videos like this, you're going to have all the Democrats trying to buy ads on these videos for two reasons.
For one, they want to get the message out.
But more importantly, if I make a video saying Democrats are screwing up and are going to lose, they want to put an ad in front, in the middle, at the end, disagreeing with the commentary.
They want to push back on the narrative.
So that means they love running ads on the other side's platforms or something like that.
Now, admittedly, a lot of my videos are going to be very critical of the Democrats for one simple reason.
Trump is the incumbent.
There's no other Republicans.
It's Trump.
We know who Trump is.
We get it.
Right now, the battle is between Democrats.
You're going to get mad at me for criticizing Democrats.
I'll tell you to go away.
The issue is, if Biden comes out and criticizes Kamala Harris or whatever, I'm going to talk about that.
If the Democrats can't get a clear message, I'm going to talk about that.
We know what Trump's message is.
It was the wall.
It's the same thing.
Okay?
I'm not going to make a million videos talking about what we already know.
We've got a battle raging between... Look at this ridiculous number of Democrats.
That's absurd.
Let's read a little bit, though.
They say Mr. Trump spent particularly heavily on Facebook ads at the beginning of the year, when the number of Democratic candidates was smaller, but the playing field has shifted.
Since entering the race last month, former Vice President Joe Biden has pumped more than a million dollars into Facebook ads, outspending Trump's campaign for three of the past four weeks.
So far this year, Mr. Trump has spent about $5 million on advertising on Facebook.
Earlier in the year, Trump's Facebook spending exceeded that of all the Democratic candidates put together, though Democrats' collective spending eventually surpassed Trump's total.
So it'll be interesting.
That collective advertising is going to be good for Democrats across the board.
But they're pitted against each other.
Eventually, they're going to start going for each other's throats, and it's going to tear them down.
For a long time, Trump was running an intensive campaign that no one was paying attention to, said Mike Schneider, a partner at Bully Pulpit Interactive.
And while Democrats have picked up their efforts, they're fighting over the same group of supporters while he's broadly expanding his base.
Much of Mr. Trump's spending on Facebook advertising in recent weeks has gone toward ads that have been seen by older Americans, particularly women 55 and older, according to an analysis by Bully Pulpit.
We can see that estimated Facebook ad spending by the Trump campaign is targeting mostly women 65 and older.
Now, I think the reason for this is Republicans are losing women for sure.
And Trump's got to do a lot.
Now, here's the other thing.
The Democrats, I think it's like 68% of millennial women are Democrat.
That's huge.
And that's bad for Republicans.
So definitely they're going to be targeting women, but they're mostly targeting older women.
They definitely do.
Still put money towards the millennial generation for females, but not so much.
They're putting way more money towards millennial men than they are millennial women, and I think it may be that they can't compete with Occupy Democrats.
They can't compete with propaganda machines, but they're definitely still going to allocate some money towards this.
They say older voters are an important constituency for Mr. Trump, having favored him over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, according to exit polls.
Trump also has reason to want to shore up his standing with women, as white women shifted leftward in the midterm election.
So that's bad news for Trump.
But I do think, ultimately, in the end... Well, look at it this way.
I don't think it matters, necessarily, the minutiae of how he's targeting.
The fact is, he's spending, like, five times what the other individuals are spending, and the polls show people are pretty damn happy.
Once again, the polls and the data, in my opinion and an expert opinion, show Trump is doing a lot to secure 2020.
He's got the incumbent advantage and the economy is doing really, really well.
So what are you going to do about it?
I don't see the Democrats winning, but let me know what you think in the comments below.
You can follow me on Mines.
I don't know.
I'm done.
I'm going to wrap this up.
More segments starting tomorrow at 10 a.m.
TimCast.com.
If you want to support my work, you can comment.
Let me know what you think about Trump and his chances of winning, but the data is here.
