Vox Host Tries Starting Adpocalypse Because Youtube Hasn't Banned Steven Crowder
Vox Host Tries Starting Adpocalypse Because Youtube Hasn't Banned Steven Crowder. Carlos Maza of VOX is upset that Steven Crowder has used mean words and mocked him in his Vox rebuttal videos. In response to his complaints Youtube said they would be investigating Steven Crowder.After several days the far left media Host continued the pressure by giving interviews and targeting youtube as a platform. In his latest interview he goes straight for the advertisers.He goes on to say that youtube has no control over its platform and advertisers will have their content appear on questionable videos. A tactic, it would seem, designed to trigger an Adpocalypse that will hurt every youtube creator not just Steven Crowder.But why now? Interestingly VOX has not been doing well, they recently reported that their evaluation as a company is likely down and switched to focusing on part time works and contractors. Considering digital media as a whole isn't doing too well this could be a sign that Vox is in trouble. It sure is convenient then that Vox host Carlos Maza decided to launch his campaign against Crowder and then shift to targeting advertisers, a move that will be very helpful to digital media outlets.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
YouTube has gone through a series of controversies over the past several years resulting in many different adpocalypses, a word that describes when advertisers pull off the YouTube platform and every creator gets hurt.
It doesn't matter what kind of content you make.
If Pepsi, for instance, says they don't want to advertise on YouTube, then people who make video game content will see less ads from Pepsi and they will lose money.
For the past week or so, or several days, Carlos Maza of Vox has been targeting Steven Crowder because Steven Crowder has said mean things about him.
Now, the left will call this harassment, but I don't think that's apt in that harassment requires certain... Well, look, it's semantics, right?
They're gonna say harassment because it benefits their argument that Carlos is somehow a victim instead of saying mean things, which is basically what Steven Crowder did.
Steven Crowder was mocking Carlos Maza as a comedian while he rebutted many of the ideas that Carlos Maza has put forth on his massive platform.
But something interesting has happened.
And the reason why I bring up the adpocalypse is that, interestingly, there's been a kind of shift in the rhetoric pushed by Carlos Maza as he appeared on BuzzFeed News, I believe this morning, just this morning, and now he's talking about advertisers.
He's not, he said Steven Crowder isn't necessarily the problem, it's that, you know, YouTube is going to be distracting advertisers by claiming to be for pride, so the advertisers don't realize their content appears on homophobic content, etc.
There's a big concern, a fear now, that Carlos Maza for some reason isn't worried about the harassment he's receiving.
He's worried about advertisers putting their sponsorship on certain content.
That could potentially trigger an adpocalypse and negatively impact all creators.
Now...
I don't want to play into any conspiracy theories that Carlos is doing this on purpose to benefit the corporation he works for, which is, you know, I believe it received $200 million from NBC.
But it is kind of odd that in the dire straits faced by Vox, you know, they're switching to part-time workers.
Their evaluation is down by their own reporting.
Digital media as a whole has been hurting all of a sudden.
They're targeting independent creators, but it's not so much about Crowder, it's they're now switching to the advertisers.
I don't think it's fair to say definitively they're doing this, but I do have a lot of articles to show you where it seems like they, at the very least, Vox knows they can cause massive economic damage to all YouTube creators.
Because they can survive through other monetary means, especially when they have massive investment from NBC.
So, maybe, this is Carlos Maza, who's angry with Steven Crowder, deciding that he wants to damage all YouTubers because who cares about other people?
It's about him getting what he wants.
So he's shifting from Crowder to targeting advertisers.
Very interesting.
Before we continue, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, crypto option, physical address.
Of course, you can just comment on the video, like, because the engagement really helps, subscribe, and share if you haven't already.
So let's go through a little bit of what Carlos Maza says, and it's hard to pinpoint the exact moment, but I'll start it with about 27 seconds left, and then we'll address his comments on BuzzFeed.
unidentified
ideal creator. He makes cheap, long content that tons of people walk and subscribe to.
He sells shirts on the platform that say socialism is for fags, if YouTube continues to allow.
We'll do a stop here. That's not true. The shirt that Steven Crowder sells says socialism is for
figs. There is literally a fig and a leaf here. Now, people on the left are going to point out
there's a joke being made.
Right.
The joke is quite literally that they're not saying what he said.
I can't say it on YouTube.
They're saying figs.
That's the point.
It's meant to make you angry without actually crossing the line.
Comedians often do offensive things.
George Carlin has a segment where he uses many racial slurs.
This is Steven Crowder making a joke, and they quite literally have a fig.
By all means, you could argue that Steven Crowder's shirt is dancing dangerously close to saying a certain word, but it quite literally does not say what he's saying it says.
Let's carry on.
unidentified
What an ideal YouTube creator looks like and YouTube's branding about caring about queer people is meant to distract advertisers from the fact that they have no handle on their platform and that people who run ads on YouTube are going to end up having their ads appear on videos with hate speech and bigoted harassment of queer people and marginalized communities.
So quite literally, for some reason, Carl Smaza is now going after advertisers.
He's trying to make the play not about Crowder.
He's trying to make it about YouTube not being able to handle their advertisers properly.
Well, naturally, this has made many, many people angry.
In this tweet from Keemstar, who is a big YouTuber who has a show called Drama Alert, talking about YouTube drama and things of the sort, This man, AtGayWonk, is trying to start another adpocalypse on YouTube again, because another YouTuber hurt his feelings.
Great job, you are now the enemy of all YouTubers.
Here's the thing.
Carlos Maza presumably gets a paycheck through Vox, which has massive investment from NBC.
You can argue that Steven Crowder is wrong.
Crowder says this is about a big corporation targeting an independent creator.
I don't think there's a conspiracy here.
I think it's an issue of risk.
I think Carlos Maza knows full well that he can target all YouTube creators as a sort of, uh, just, uh, scorched earth tactic.
Hurt everyone because who cares?
He gets his paycheck through other means.
He can cause harm to me.
He can cause harm to the Minecraft committee, whoever else.
Because he'll get what he wants.
This shows you another instance of Carlos Maza.
As an individual, he is very... I don't necessarily want to say he's evil, but man, does he not care about other people, and he's extremely narcissistic and authoritarian.
And don't take my word for it.
Well, actually, take my word for it.
I have a post from him.
Carlos Maza voxed has called for the physical assault of people in order to humiliate them.
He then is outraged that someone makes fun of him online, resulting in his humiliation.
Maza insinuates, then, that an authority or principle-like figure needs to enforce the rule.
So let's—we can take a look at this.
He said, milkshake them all.
Humiliate them at every turn.
He goes on to say it's YouTube's fault because they won't step in and he has to show his humiliation.
You can't simultaneously call for physical assault against someone and then complain about you being humiliated.
But it shows the nature of who this man is, right?
Not only has he called for physical violence against other people, albeit some of the lowest possible level of violence you can get, throwing food at somebody.
But now he's escalating and trying to hurt everyone on YouTube.
Here's the thing.
He is not a small, poor individual being targeted by the big trader.
In fact, Vox has over 6 million subscribers, which is many more subscribers than Steven Crowder, who has 3.8 million.
In fact, Carlos Maza hosts one of the highest viewed shows, segments, on the Vox channel.
We can look at the past week.
The video before his only got 375,000.
His got over a million.
Before that half a million, he got a million.
We do see, you know, periodically other videos breaking or getting higher than his, but he does have one of the more popular segments called Strike Through.
His video before this?
Another million views.
This is a creator for an NBC-funded platform that has no fear of risk, destroying the livelihood of every YouTuber because he's mad one guy has criticized him and said mean things about him.
That's where we're at.
It's really interesting though, right?
So again, I want to stress, I'm not going to push any kind of conspiracy theory or anything, but let's do this.
This is a story I've highlighted before from Vox.
Disney put more than $400 million into Vice Media.
Now it says the investment is worthless.
We don't care about Vice right now.
What we care about is the fact that Vice reported itself.
They believe, at least this reporter, that Comcast, which put in a collective $600 million into Vox and BuzzFeed over the past few years, now thinks those two publishers are worth.
The value is down, they're saying.
We don't know yet, but it is a reasonable bet that Comcast thinks they're worth less than it thought in 2015.
Someone writing for Vox, published on their platform through their editors, recognizes their evaluation is likely down.
I believe they had layoffs last year, but here's where we're at today.
Vox media hiring data reveal massive shift away from W4 workers post-unionization.
So this person wrote a post, and we can see.
That Vox for full-time, non-contract, non-part-time workers has actually ebbed and flowed but is in a downward trend.
We can see it's a slight downward trend.
But their contract and part-time and freelance have skyrocketed.
There's two things we can get from this.
They've got money.
They've got big investment.
They may be hurting to a certain degree.
This could be the result of them not wanting to empower the union any further.
By hiring contract part-time and freelance workers, they can essentially skirt any unionization problems.
It also could be, like CNN, they're strapped for cash and have to make sure they can stay in the black and not go into debt.
So they're tasked now with, how can we get more people to work for less?
It is absolutely cheaper to hire part-time and freelance workers as it is to hire a full-time worker.
Especially when you bring on someone full-time and there's no guarantee they can produce something every single day.
They're going to be sitting around some days doing research.
But a freelancer you can pay per job.
So it's much, much cheaper.
Now...
Vox disputes the analysis, except this person who wrote this didn't essentially claim anything about what Vox was doing.
He didn't say Vox was doing it for any reason.
He said, this is what's happening.
Well, Vox was upset because they said, we're still hiring full-time workers.
Sure.
In a downward trend since 2017.
It's interesting, then, I guess in my view, That with all of the problems being faced by digital media, we now see Carlos Maza targeting Steven Crowder but escalating to going after all of YouTube to hurt everyone's income.
It's not the first time this has happened.
There was a guy, I believe, like several months ago...
Who made a video calling out YouTube but specifically targeting advertisers.
So listen, it's one thing if he came out and said, I do not like what Steven Crowder says.
It's another thing when he comes out and says advertisers, this is the real problem.
Advertisers are advertising on bad content because he doesn't care that he's going to actually cause massive damage to everyone so long as he gets his way.
Here's what happens when you follow the rhetoric of people like Carlos Maza who claims to be the victim.
This is a video that's going around today of a single old man by himself while people scream at him and guess what happens?
Someone throws a milkshake at him.
This old man gets hit in the face with a milkshake.
What do you think happens next?
Do you think it just ends with someone getting hit with a milkshake?
Somebody shoves, he shoves back, and then all of a sudden the police have to intervene.
And then he gets shoved down by somebody.
One guy, by himself, being shoved around by left-wing, unhinged individuals who hit him with a milkshake.
Carlos Maza, who tweeted out that this is what you should do, is now claiming to be the victim.
In fact, we can look at exactly what he's doing.
He's going to hurt all YouTubers.
He is encouraging physical assault against other people.
I've actually seen people say, oh, it's just humiliation to throw a milkshake at them.
Why aren't conservatives calling for throwing milkshakes back?
It's really interesting, isn't it?
We can also see many people have been arrested for doing this.
So, whether or not, you know, this results in anything massive, whether, you know, YouTube hasn't done anything yet, so I don't know exactly what will happen, but it's funny to me to see kind of the double standard, right?
In this tweet from yesterday, someone posts a photo of a seven-year-old selling hot chocolate, and the next photo is them running him over.
It's interesting how this works, isn't it?
And we can see that what's happening with Carlos Maza is just the same old tired activist tactic.
Now they're going after Tucker Carlson again.
So this is just what they do.
Instead of Carlos Maza standing up and pushing back on Steven Crowder, he does what you'd expect.
He decides to not only target Crowder based on being mean, using his identity as a cudgel, protecting himself, he actually wants to target everyone on YouTube.
So, the interesting thing here is, digital ads are going to take over the mainstream ads.
But these big digital companies aren't doing too well.
I'd imagine, I don't know if Vox is profitable, they're generating revenue, I would assume so, especially based on their YouTube.
With every other company shrinking and laying people off, I can't imagine Vox is doing too well, especially with their hiring patterns.
So it's really interesting then that they're targeting their competition.
Here's the thing that's really important to know about YouTube ads.
Sneeze coming.
Sorry.
The thing about YouTube ads is that there is a nearly infinite supply of advertising space.
With so many videos being uploaded every day, it drives the cost of ads down to a ridiculously low number.
Advertisers say, I don't care who I advertise to, just put my ad somewhere.
Well, guess what?
It costs you about one cent per view.
Lowest possible denomination.
If there were only 10 channels, they would all be fighting over access to that space.
So whether or not Carlos is doing it on purpose, I'm not going to imply that.
It's very, very convenient for NBC and for Vox that he is targeting a big creator who probably is a massive space for ads and trying to damage the ad revenue of YouTube as a whole Vox can survive.
They have corporate money.
They have a massive infusion of cash.
Small creators who are making only a few thousand dollars a month or even a year can't.
They can't survive if they get hit.
They could be made homeless.
But this is somebody who doesn't care about the community.
He doesn't care about the lives of other people.
He just wants to win.
He wants to burn it all down.
Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if Vox is completely okay with it, because it benefits Vox in the long run.
It benefits an NBC-backed company to make sure independent creators can't speak up.
So, as it pertains to, you know, Steven Crowder and his edgy humor and his jokes, by all means, you can criticize Crowder for mocking people.
The thing is, we've seen comedians make fun of people.
Jon Stewart, I mean, he makes fun of people.
You see Trevor Noah on The Daily Show, makes fun of people.
You've got, uh, I'm forgetting the guy's name on HBO.
John Oliver.
He makes fun of people.
And the thing is, they're not making fun of little, regular people, like we saw with the Daily Beast targeting some Bronx forklift operator.
They're targeting people at or around their level, or in politics, or who are public figures.
Carl Smaza is certainly one of those things, and he's being made fun of by an individual.
The only thing that Carlos Maza has is that his identity is considered protected.
And he's using that against Steven Crowder.
I do not believe for a second Carlos Maza cares at all about the names Crowder is calling him for a few reasons.
One, Steven Crowder is calling him names that he himself refers to himself as.
Like, Carlos Maza called himself many of these things.
Not 100%, but very, very much so.
Some people argue, well, he's taken it back.
He can do that, you can't.
Sure.
Except then he goes to target advertisers.
If that's the case, I really do not believe this is about someone harassing him or Pride.
It's about him saying, if you criticize me, I will take you down and I will burn everything down around you and everyone else.
So you want to know why I'm mad?
Because I'm sitting here working every day and I get demonetized every single day.
This guy shows up, employed by a massive corporation where his income is safe, and for sure I can be like, dude, you know, I was critical of Steven Crowder's mockery of him, recognizing Crowder's a comedian.
That's why I probably disagree.
I get it.
You can do comedy.
People make fun of each other.
But ultimately what ends up happening is this guy turns to target our revenue, our income, because he is mad at somebody for criticizing him.
We'll see what happens.
You know, Joey Salads responded to Keemstar saying, bury this guy.
I mean, that's probably dangerous language.
Be careful, because Twitter's not going to care about context or what you mean.
But the issue may escalate.
If YouTubers stand up and target, you know, and call him out, Carlos Maza is claiming he doesn't want to be harassed, but he's doing everything in his power to make sure everyone hates him.
So I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
This is a very YouTube-centric video, but I thought it was important.
And yeah, leave a comment, let me know what you think.
You can follow me on Mines at Timcast.
I'll have more videos coming up at 6 p.m.
And for those on the podcast, I will see you shortly.
Democrats have just lost a legal battle to stop Donald Trump's funding of the border wall.
Their argument?
Because they set the budgets or allocate funds, Trump doesn't have the right to do what he's doing and reallocating funds.
But apparently, a judge has ruled House Democrats cannot sue Trump over his plan to pay for the wall.
The court declines to take sides in this fight between the House and the President.
Why won't they fund the border wall?
I don't know if Trump's grandiose 30-foot high massive wall from sea to shining sea makes sense.
But you know what?
My understanding is Trump's walked pretty far back from that.
And a lot of his more ardent supporters were upset.
My understanding, now, he's just acting on the recommendation of ICE and CBP, which is select fencing in certain areas.
Why wouldn't the Democrats go for that?
And I find the whole thing frustrating, and you know my opinion on the matter, as we frequently cover this story.
I don't want to get the numbers wrong, so please, I'm not trying to exaggerate.
Democrats are more concerned about stopping Trump than actually solving the problem.
And it is a problem.
And we have more evidence that there's a problem today because this isn't the only story.
ICE is struggling to contain the spread of mumps in its detention centers.
I'm not going to blame ICE for that.
We have a massive migrant crisis right now.
There are, what, 100,000 families or some ridiculously high number, over 100,000 apprehended
in like a month or something.
I don't want to get the numbers wrong, so please, I'm not trying to exaggerate.
What I do know is there have been more apprehensions this year than all of last year.
were only what, six months in, and they actually broke the record by like March or April.
So, yes.
Everyone at this point, at least honest people, are saying we have a serious crisis.
You're seeing the publications say it.
You see a lot of people talk about the spread of measles and chickenpox, and they blame anti-vaxxers.
By all means.
I think vaccinations are important.
But here's the thing.
The people who are coming through the border are not vaccinated.
That's just a fact.
And now mumps and other diseases are spreading through ICE detention centers.
You can't necessarily just blame ICE for that if ICE is just trying to apprehend and register and make sure that people coming in are being accounted for.
And then there's a lot of people who are going to be like, they shouldn't be doing that.
I'll stop.
The far left doesn't want, you know, whatever ICE is doing to- they don't want ICE to exist, okay?
Well, there are kids dying in the desert, and we need CBP and ICE to be dealing with this problem.
So here's what we're gonna do.
Let's read into what's exactly going on.
With the judge ruling over the House Democrats and their defeat, the victory for Donald Trump.
Before we get started, go to timcast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
But of course, the best thing you could do is just like, comment, share the video, subscribe, because the engagement does wonders.
The story from BuzzFeed says, House Democrats on Monday lost the first round in the court fight over the Trump administration's plan to reprogram billions of dollars in federal funds to pay for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
A federal judge in Washington denied the House's request for a preliminary injunction blocking the administration's plans.
Which involve moving around money from U.S.
Department of Defense sources and the U.S.
Treasury.
U.S.
District Judge Trevor McFadden wrote that the U.S.
Constitution didn't give the House the ability to sue over a funding fight and therefore the court couldn't get involved.
The complete independence of the judiciary is peculiarly essential under our constitutional structure.
And this independence requires that the courts take no active resolution whatsoever.
And while the Constitution bestows upon members of the House many powers, it does not grant them standing to hail the executive branch into court claiming a dilution of Congress's legislative authority.
McFadden didn't get into the substance of the fight over whether Trump could legally reprogram these funds to pay for border construction.
Instead, he wrote that the court declines to take sides in this fight between the House and the president.
Now, interestingly, I wonder, I mean, we have checks and balances, right?
If Trump does something, there should be the ability of someone to do something about it.
But I guess in this instance, the legislative challenges the executive and the judiciary stays out of it.
So I guess it's an impasse.
I guess Trump wins and he's going to carry on.
This is the first bout in the legal battle, they say.
I wonder where it will go next, but let's read on.
McFadden didn't get into the substance of the fight over whether Trump could legally reprogram these funds to pay for border construction.
Oh, did I read that already?
The judge wrote that he wasn't saying Congress could never sue the executive branch to protect its powers, but at least in this case, the House has failed to show it had standing to sue.
I think the issue here is that Trump, his ability to move money around from where he's moving it, it's actually within his discretion as the head of the executive branch.
I could be wrong.
McFadden found that the House had other institutional tools to combat the administration, even if they hadn't been successful so far, such as voting to reverse the president's actions.
Congress voted to void the National Emergency Declaration, but the House didn't have enough votes to undo Trump's veto.
Or passing a new funding bill that stops the administration from transferring the money to pay for the wall, the way that Trump is doing now.
Trump announced in February that he would declare a national emergency and redirect billions of dollars in federal funds to pay for construction at the border.
Congress designated $1.375 billion for border barrier construction earlier this year, but Trump's plan would involve reprogramming an additional $2.5 billion from Department of Defense counter-drug efforts, $600 million from the Treasury forfeiture fund, and $3.6 billion in military construction funds to build the wall.
Accessing the military construction money required the declaration of a national emergency, tapping the other sources of funds or not.
What constitutes a national emergency?
I know Obama declared a bunch.
Should everything be an emergency?
Is drug use an emergency?
Well, I'll tell you what.
Record migrant apprehensions at the border.
Everyone's calling it a crisis.
Is crisis synonymous with emergency?
I think it's a fair point to be made that there's a serious problem going on.
Something needs to be done.
And if all I see, okay, Look, if the Democrats, instead of just trying to stop Trump, said, here's our alternative, I think there'd be a story here.
But I'm looking at BuzzFeed, okay?
BuzzFeed is writing this story.
And that's what's really fascinating to me is, yes, I'm very critical of many of these outlets, but I use them on purpose when I can to prove a point.
I am not pulling this opinion or story from thin air, okay?
This is BuzzFeed saying straight up, please tell me Where the Democrats are trying to solve the problem of the crisis, when all it seems like they're doing is suing Trump, or trying to, because they don't want him to build a wall.
I don't care about what you think is moral or immoral.
I care about if you're proposing a solution to the problem.
We have mumps outbreaks in the detention centers.
Children are dying.
And the Democrats are so busy politicking with Trump.
Listen.
They use the children for politics.
They say, oh no, more kids died.
It's CBP, it's ICE's fault.
Okay, well let's solve the problem instead of you just saying abolish ICE or Trump's wall is immoral.
That literally means nothing to me.
So I'm sitting here confused, like I don't know what the Democrats are doing.
I think they're losing their minds.
Bill Maher, bless his soul, went on a tirade against Democrats who have no message and are chasing after woke Twitter.
Let's read on.
House Democrats filed one of several lawsuits challenging the administration's plan.
Last month, a federal judge in California temporarily blocked the Trump administration from beginning construction on several sections of border barriers that would be funded by $1 billion reprogrammed from the Department of Defense's Drug Interdiction Program.
The decision didn't address funds made available through Trump's declaration of a national emergency.
Democrats argue that because Congress explicitly chose not to give the administration the money to Trump, the money Trump wanted to pay for construction of barriers at the US-Mexico border, Trump's plan to use alternative sources violated the Constitution's Appropriations Clause, as well as other federal laws.
Actually, it's really, really interesting.
I think, look, I am by no means an expert in the way these judges are, but I kind of agree now, you know, reading through this.
Trump asked Congress for money from a specific source.
Congress said no.
So Trump is appropriating from the sources he has legal access to under the existing laws and following his declaration of emergency.
Congress is now trying to sue him to stop him from using something he's constitutionally allowed to do.
Which makes no sense.
It's interesting, I guess, in that Congress doesn't control all of the money of the government, period.
They don't.
They can appropriate funds in certain directions, yes, but if Trump is legally allowed to use money from the military under a national emergency, they can't stop him from doing what he's allowed to do.
I think the point they made is that they would have to pass some kind of law or a bill.
The Justice Department argued that the administration was securing funds using processes that Congress
had already approved that gave the executive branch flexibility in these sorts of situations.
Democrats did not challenge Trump's decision to declare a national emergency.
This blows my mind.
Okay, listen.
Congress allocates funds.
They say, we want the military to have X billion dollars in case of an emergency.
That money sits there waiting for an emergency.
We now have a massive humanitarian crisis on the border.
We had a migrant caravan from Africa coming in.
Yes, we need to do something to secure the border and stop incentivizing people because they're risking their lives, they're dying, they're getting sick, and they're not vaccinated.
They're bringing mumps and other diseases.
I'm not saying these are bad people.
We want to help them.
But, you know, what they say is, teach a man a fish, you know, feed him for the rest of his life.
We don't want to just be like, yeah, come on in, because that's bad for everybody, especially if they're bringing mumps, okay?
We have to contend with the fact that there are people in this country, citizens of the US, who do not want to vaccinate their kids.
Whatever your stance on the opposition is, I think we can all agree, we don't want to bring in people who do have mumps, if certain people in this country are not vaccinating their children.
Anyway, the point is, My sympathies, my empathy to those who want to be in America.
America is a fabulous country.
It's beautiful, it's wealthy, life is great here.
But...
Legally.
There's a reason for the legal process.
I understand it's difficult, but nothing in life worth having was easily obtained, as the saying goes.
And you can't just, you know, you can't just open the door to everybody because then you do get some bad people.
You do get people who exploit the system.
You do bring about problems.
You do hurt wages.
So there's a reason for a legal process.
Okay?
And more importantly, regardless of whether or not you think we can bring in everybody or can't, if we just say, coming through the desert, they're getting sick.
Kids are dying.
Okay, so something needs to be done.
Whatever your position on the wall is, on immigration, something does need to be done.
Congress allocates money to spend things in an emergency.
Is this not an emergency?
They called it a manufactured crisis over and over again until people started waking up to the fact that there's like 100 plus thousand people coming in, in like one month or some ridiculous number.
And now it's kind of like, oh, maybe this is an emergency.
Maybe we have a serious problem that needs to be dealt with.
Why are they now mad at Trump that he's using money for a crisis when every major newspaper has called it a crisis?
When I believe it was the New York Times saying, Congress, give Trump his money!
They're trying to... Listen.
The New York Times said, Congress, give Trump his money.
Seriously.
The New York Times said that in their editorial board, and they called it a humanitarian crisis.
What does Congress do?
They're trying to sue Trump to stop it.
They're going in the opposite direction.
Look, when you've got major publications agreeing, it sounds like most people in America are kind of like, yeah, that's an emergency.
Trump is using his emergency powers to deal with it.
Congress, why are you trying to stop that?
That's literally what it's for.
I could be wrong.
I don't think I'm the smartest person in the world by no means.
We'll wrap up.
We have a statement from the Justice Department.
A Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement that the court rightly ruled that the House of Representatives cannot ask the judiciary to take its side in political disputes and cannot use federal courts to accomplish through litigation what it cannot achieve using the tools the Constitution gives to Congress.
The department looks forward to continuing to defend the administration's lawful actions to address the crisis at the southern border.
A representative for Nancy Pelosi did not immediately return a request for comment.
So all I can really say, I don't want to go on too long, but we do have another story here, is that big win for Trump so far.
There's been a big back and forth over Trump's policies and everything.
Here's the thing.
I'm not an ardent Trump fan.
I'm not a sycophant.
I have a rather distasteful disposition towards Trump over his attitude, his foreign policy.
I am prepared, as I've explained before, for any good reason to say, like, okay, I'm not going to go with Trump on this one.
But the Democrats have to present something.
If the New York Times tells me, okay, This is an emergency.
Trump needs the money.
Congress gave it to him.
I go, wow, that's huge.
I mean, the New York Times, they're like left-leaning and they're a major publication that they don't speak for middle America, but they are a prominent and they reach a lot of people.
Okay.
That's an interesting position for me to be in.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is it would be very easy for Democrats to convince me to reject Trump's proposals on what he wants to do with the border.
But they have to actually give me something, you know what I mean?
So I'm biased against the president over his foreign policy and his personality and things like this, and I understand that.
And I also recognize that just because you don't like someone doesn't mean their policies are wrong.
So all I can see right now is Trump's the only one who's got a proposition for fixing what's going on at the southern border, and the economy's doing really well.
I'm not stupid enough to ignore those things.
But the Democrats don't seem to be bringing anything up.
Maybe I won't get into the story because I'm ranting now, but ICE is struggling to contain the spread of mumps in its detention centers.
And I see this, and these stories about this and the children who have died and gotten sick, it's like they're being used against ICE.
I'm like, how is it ICE's fault that their detention centers are being filled to the brim because the Democrats are trying to stop Trump from securing the border?
How does this ISIS fault?
When a family brings their child through the desert and their child dies of sepsis and dehydration, that is not CBP's fault.
Okay?
I can fully understand why the family would want to risk everything to come to America.
But I've, I've, I've, well, I certainly don't want to make it seem like this represents every migrant, every illegal immigrant, every asylum seeker.
I have spoken to people like when I was in Greece, in Europe, A decent amount of the migrants that I met, many of them refugees because they're coming from Iraq and Afghanistan, told me it was better where they came from, and the grass is always greener for some people.
Now, for sure, they're absolutely asylum seekers who need our help, and I'm 100% in support of them, and I believe that protecting their lives comes first and foremost.
Because of that goodwill, though, there are people who exploit the system.
It's true.
I saw someone tweet this story and the reason I wanted to talk about it is because they tweeted it in a sentence that was anti-Trump.
They tweeted the story out and used it in a political way to oppose the president.
And I said, first of all, Trump isn't bringing mumps here.
Second of all, the fact that people have mumps and are coming, you know, and are being detained and then other people get mumps is not the fault of our detention centers.
What do you think we should do?
Set up a quarantine zone for everybody?
Maybe.
The issue is that people are coming in in record numbers, and many of them are not vaccinated.
And so they're bringing these illnesses with them.
So I'll stop there.
I'll stop there.
I'll have more segments coming up shortly.
You can let me know what you think in the comments below.
For those that are listening on the podcast, leave a review, it really helps.
For everyone else, share the video, like, comment, because the engagement is great.
Subscribe if you haven't already, and I will see you at 1pm on this channel for the next video.
The rest of you on the podcast, it will begin shortly.
Remember how some random dude who lives in the Bronx posted a simple meme video about Nancy Pelosi that went viral, and then the Daily Beast doxed him, revealing his name, his history, his criminal record, and the neighborhood he lives in?
I remember that.
Remember then, basically like a day later, Bette Midler shared a fake quote from Donald Trump that has been going around forever that Trump never said in order to smear him, and then instead of apologizing, she kind of apologized, but then She misquotes Trump again, and the media didn't care?
I wonder.
I wonder why.
It's a really, really fun story, in fact.
Bette Midler shares fake Trump meme, gets roasted, her non-apology apology includes more fake news.
But where's the Daily Beast?
Where's CNN?
Anderson Cooper called on a senior vice president, I believe, at Facebook asking why they wouldn't take action to remove this fake video because it made Nancy Pelosi look bad.
How many videos of Trump have been circulating that make him look bad, that are edited, that are misleading?
What about Bette Midler?
No one seems to care.
She's actually a celebrity, too.
She has way more reach than some forklift operator in the Bronx.
I kid you not.
The guy who... He's even denying making the video.
Apparently, it's a complicated story.
But the dude who got doxxed said he just shared it.
He's not even the one who made it.
But it went viral, so they blame him.
I'd love to see them publish everything about Bette Midler.
Now look, I get it.
We know who Bette Midler is.
She put her name on it when she posted it.
They're not going to dig up her history or anything.
And she's a public figure.
We know a lot about her.
But where's the outrage?
Why does the media care that she did this?
So let's read the story.
I don't want to ramble before we get started.
But go to TimCast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
There's a bunch of ways to donate, but the most important thing you can do to help the channel is like the video and comment, share and subscribe because engagement tells YouTube this is a good video.
So let's read.
Actress and vocal Trump hater Bette Midler offered a quasi-apology after she was ripped online for sharing a widely debunked meme of President Donald Trump with her 1.6 million Twitter followers.
Offering her non-apology apology, the actress suggested it was Trump's fault that she shared the fake meme because he lies so much.
She also spread another lie about Trump in the process of her quote apology.
Midler posted a fabricated quote from Trump allegedly calling Republicans the dumbest group of voters in the country.
This tweet is propaganda from Bette Midler.
It was made to make Trump look bad.
It was designed, to the best of my understanding, to hurt Donald Trump in the election so that people would feel like they're being taken advantage of.
This is what Bette Midler said.
He certainly knew his crowd.
And many of you, you're probably familiar with this fake quote that reads,
If I were to run, I'd run as a Republican.
They're the dumbest group of voters in the country.
They believe anything on Fox News.
I could lie and they'd still eat it up.
I bet my numbers would be terrific.
Donald Trump, People Magazine, 1998.
Very clearly fake.
The first time I saw this, I laughed and said, that's fake.
Trump has been a master of the media for a long time.
Now look, he gets slammed in the media left and right, for sure.
But before Trump started running, he played the media like a fiddle, and he used the media to his advantage to win.
In what world would Trump say something so dumb and so brazen?
I really doubt it.
You don't have to imagine that Trump is a 4D chess-playing genius to think that he has some understanding of how the media operates.
And so I'm going to do this.
I'm pulling up Snopes on purpose.
Did Donald Trump say Republicans are the dumbest group of voters?
False!
Of course he didn't!
They say, and here's the image.
What they do is, it's really, really clever.
And it's not unique to just the left.
You make a fake image, you print it out, take a photo of it, and that way it looks like it comes from some kind of publication.
The above reproduced image and quote attributed to Donald Trump began appearing in our inbox in mid-October 2015.
The format is easily recognizable as one wherein questionable or offensive words are attributed to the individual pictured.
And in this case, image claims that Donald Trump made the following statement.
Now, so they say it came up around 2015.
But the reason, in my opinion, I don't know exactly where it originated from, maybe they talk about it, was specifically to hurt him because he's running for president for 2016.
So that was the plan.
Amanda Preste Giacomo, I hope I pronounced your name right, tweeted out, here's Bette Midler's now-deleted tweet featuring a debunked meme about Trump.
I'd love to see the media write a story about the danger to discourse when celebrities do this.
Because Bette Midler, she kind of apologizes, saying, oop, I fact-checked it, it's not real, but then lies about Trump again.
How many fake quotes about Trump have been floating around?
There's a lot of hoaxes about things Trump has said.
The story goes that in 1998, interviewing People Magazine, Donald Trump said he was considering running.
He then, you know, the quote in question.
Midler published the fake meme with the caption, he certainly knew his crowd.
The tweet went viral, racking up more than 27,000 likes and duping allegedly legitimate journalists before the actress deleted it.
So here's the thing.
Nancy Pelosi video surfaces.
All the journalists run around waving their arms in the air, hooting and hollering.
Anderson Cooper, prime time CNN, talking to a Facebook VP saying, Why?
He too has since deleted his tweet.
So here's the thing.
Nancy Pelosi video surfaces.
All the journalists run around waving their arms and they are hooting and hollering.
Anderson Cooper, prime time CNN, talking to a Facebook VP saying, why, how dare you allow
this?
Then they dox the guy who allegedly posted it.
Publishing his picture, his job, his past history, his criminal history.
Effectively causing this guy some real trauma and stress.
I mean, man, being thrusted.
I'm sure he's getting tons of flack now from people he's known.
It's putting his life at risk.
Because they're crazy people out there.
There's no reason to make this guy a public figure for sharing a meme.
But then we see stories like this.
Bette Midler posts fake news, easily debunked, really old, and a Columbia journalism professor isn't outraged.
In fact, he shares it and piles on.
What did we see like a week and a half ago, two weeks ago?
Ian Bremmer, a columnist from Time, published an overtly fake quote from Trump, and all of these journalists piled on sharing it without fact-checking.
Where's the outrage?
This is why journalism is dead.
When Anderson Cooper is playing the BS game, just total nonsense news, we're done.
I've liked Edison Cooper.
I think he does a good job for a long time, but now he's fallen into the pit.
So there you go.
I'm not saying Edison Cooper is the greatest of all or anything kind of special, but he is like a longstanding news figure.
And to his credit, when the Mueller report came out, Cooper was reasonable.
He said, shouldn't Democrats be happy that we now know Trump isn't an asset of the Russian government?
So that was good.
And we see all these other journalists and Democrats angry.
That the Mueller report exonerated Trump in terms of collusion, for the most part.
I don't want to, you know, play some stupid semantic game.
But what do we see here?
Well, nobody cares when they do it.
It's just, it's literally how it is.
Rules for thee, but not for me.
Double standards galore.
I apologize, this quote turns out to be a fake from way back 1516.
Think about that.
It sounds so much like him that you believed it was true.
Maybe other things you've heard about him are untrue as well.
like him that you believed it was true, maybe other things you've heard about him are untrue
as well.
One of the most like frustrating things for me is that, believe it or not, I believe there's
people on the left and the right who don't understand this.
They're actually liberal type individuals who aren't stupid and don't parrot trash.
There are certainly people on the left and the right who are stupid and parrot trash.
But people who like Trump, follow him, and for the most part, know what he's talking about.
I talk to these people and say, okay, explain to me your point of view.
I understand it.
Let's talk about the nasty Meghan Markle quote.
Trump supporters saying Trump didn't call her nasty.
Liberals are saying, look at the video.
He literally says, I didn't know she was nasty.
That's him calling her nasty.
One screen, two movies.
I think what Scott Adams says, like one movie, but two different, one screen, but two different movies.
So the Republicans and the Trump supporters are like, he's referring to her comments.
She was being nasty with those comments, not her personally, because he goes on to say some good things about her.
I try to understand the perspective on both and explain it.
But I tell you what, when I try to explain it to some of these people on the left, They're just not having it because they know.
They've heard the quotes from Trump.
They know for a fact this fake news is real news.
Well, one of the problems is when someone publishes fake news about Nancy Pelosi, the media rushes to her defense.
When someone publishes fake news about Trump, nobody bats an eye.
And what does Bette Midler do when she doubles down?
An hour later, the actress captioned a tweet regarding Trump's low approval rating in the UK.
This, however, is real.
Suck it up, Trumpsters, she wrote ever so contrite.
And it's a projection someone blasted on, I believe it looks like Parliament in the UK, I'm not entirely sure.
UK approval ratings, Obama 72, Trump 21.
I will add, I don't know if Americans care what, you know, UK citizens don't like Trump, whatever.
Yes.
One must always check quotes, she followed up.
That should take up, oh, maybe 23 to 24 hours a day because there are so many lies, most of them generated by Trump himself.
But the task of separating the truth from the lies is impossible, which is just how he likes it.
So, so I will stress a lot of the times they claim Trump is lying.
It's misinformation.
I will not sit here and defend Trump when he says things that aren't true, but they're assuming intent.
If we're going to actually do journalism, which is basically like non-existent today, we could say this.
Trump's statement was incorrect.
That's it.
A lie is intent.
Misinformation is being wrong.
There are certain instances where Trump has absolutely lied.
Remember that video clip where it zoomed in, it was cropped from ABC, where Trump poured fish food into the pond?
And the media ran wild saying, oh my god, can you, Trump just throwing the food in, oh geez.
Turns out, the video was edited, and what actually happened was that, I believe it was Shinzo Abe, the president or prime minister of Japan, dumped the food in, so Trump went, okay, and followed suit.
He was doing what, you know, seemed to be culturally or traditionally correct.
But the media edited it to make it seem like Trump was just throwing food in.
Where was the rampage?
Where was the media shrieking about fake news?
You got a partisan press in this country.
So no, Jim Acosta, I'm not going to defend your, you know, you guys, when you grandstand and publish lies, and attack, you know, go after Facebook over a meme.
But Bette Miller double down.
I have to say it sounded so much like all Mexicans are You know where this one's going.
And I'm the greatest, uh, predident that I bought it.
Things Trump never said.
She's implying that Trump called all Mexicans rapists.
He never said that.
He was referring specifically to some criminals and some criminals who were coming at the southern border.
But basically, you know what?
Um, I I'll just wrap it up there.
I don't want to prattle on too much.
You get the point.
The media will run and bend over backwards to protect Democrats.
Isn't that funny and weird?
I got to say, man, it's, it's, it's, it's really impressive then.
That the Republicans have been able to be as successful as they have with such a hostile press.
But we'll leave it there.
Stick around.
More segments to come.
Next one will be at 4 p.m.
on my main channel, youtube.com slash timcast.
Stick around.
For those listening on the podcast, it will begin shortly.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
This is bad, okay?
Don't go around destroying people's property because you have a political disagreement with them.
For those that are curious, the Trump baby blimp was stabbed with a sharp object, I think it was a pen, by pro-Trump activists in London.
The story reads, one of the Trump baby blimps flown at today's protest in London against the US president's visit was attacked by a pro-Trump supporter carrying a sharp object.
A woman approached a group of anti-Trump activists outside the House of Commons and stabbed the mini blimp in the back, according to the team of babysitters looking after the balloon.
We have this image.
We can see the Trump baby blimp is no more.
We have video of this.
Let's show it.
But I want to stress Their response was, it's not surprising that the far right would want to meet freedom of expression with violence.
You know, in my experience, conservatives tend not to do that.
But there is no exception to anybody for damaging someone else's property because you don't like what it represents.
These people protesting Trump have every right.
I believe that the right to free expression and free speech exists universally within us because we can do it.
And if you try and stop me, I will stop you.
That means, in a civil society, do not do this.
I will also add, I'm very, I guess, honored in that when I tweeted about this, many people said, while we recognize it's funny and cathartic, it was wrong.
The reason it's cathartic is that they're advocating for throwing milkshakes at people, and they advocate for violence.
They absolutely do.
Not every single one of them, but this is what happens.
I also, but I really don't like the idea That the people who bought this blimp are taking the responsibility because of the left does in general, right?
So there's a bit of catharsis in like, haha, your blimp got popped.
However, you know, I'm not going to play the silly game where people cheer on causing harm to other people because the sins of the other people associated with their tribe.
That is not okay.
So I have absolute sympathy for the people.
I think it was absolutely wrong to do this, but let's, let's get into it.
I'll start by, uh, we got a video of it happening.
Let's play.
It's very grainy.
This is from the sun taken from the periscope of the woman who did it.
unidentified
I'm going in.
I'm going.
Did it.
That's a disgrace!
It's a national disgrace!
The President of the United States is the best president ever!
And now, like clockwork, you're seeing these statements that the far right is violent, etc., etc.
Well, you know what?
No free passes to anybody.
There was a video recently where a woman stole a sign from a pro-life protester, and she ran off with it.
She walked off with it.
The cops came up.
She got arrested for it.
And we can all agree, don't do that.
Debate.
Bring your own sign.
Counter their ideas with yours.
We have rules, okay?
Let's read this story, because I believe she may have been arrested.
A woman approached a group of anti-Trump looking for the balloon.
A woman punctured the mini Trump baby replica with a sharp object, said a spokesman for the Trump Baby UK group.
The Donald Trump supporter was led away from the crowd by police officers.
A spokesperson for Scotland Yard told The Independent that one female has been arrested for being in possession of a pointed or bladed article.
I don't know what she had.
I thought it was a pen.
I could be wrong.
Elsewhere in Parliament Square, one of the president's supporters was hit on the head by a milkshake.
Video footage showed a crowd of demonstrators chanting, uh, Nazi scum, at the man, of course, before he was struck by a drink container and was left with milkshake dripping from his forehead.
And this is the big problem of everything, okay?
People, they want catharsis.
They want to feel good.
They attack each other.
Okay?
I understand there's going to be a lot of Trump supporters laughing at the fact that Trump's baby balloon was popped.
And yes, I have heard some people say, hey man, they only lost a balloon.
They're physically attacking people.
They're different things.
They're both wrong.
What happens when you pop the balloon?
They then come out and say, oh, they came and they got violent.
This is what they do.
I think it's fair to point out that conservatives are under a substantial amount of scrutiny relative to liberals.
Like, you get one conservative to, like, you know, punch someone in the face, and it's front page everywhere.
Big breaking news.
Antifa goes around bashing skulls with bike locks and crowbars and bringing knives and stabbing people.
Yes, all this has happened.
And it's not.
It's not.
A Bernie supporter got clubbed in the head?
Was it national news?
Of course not.
Proud Boys get into a fight in New York City?
Of course it's national news.
So the point I'm trying to make is, is life fair?
Of course life isn't fair.
Too damn bad.
Don't engage in this kind of behavior.
I recognize you can't control what one person does, but I tell you what, this is absolutely just bad, bad news for everybody.
Somebody got hit with a milkshake.
Milkshaking is wrong.
Plain and simple.
They say activists had flown the giant 20-foot-high blimp depicting Mr. Trump as an angry orange infant in Parliament Square around 9 a.m.
on Tuesday morning before inflating a smaller, lighter replica to carry among the crowds this afternoon.
We had a fantastic day with baby Trump in front of the world's media and the president himself.
The actual Trump baby is on his way to Dublin as we speak to be ready to troll Trump on his next destination.
So you know what?
Good.
I think the Trump baby thing is a pointless waste of time.
It does absolutely nothing to advance political discourse.
I actually just did... Actually, I'm not gonna say anything about... I just did an interview with somebody, but I'm gonna leave it to them to publish and everything.
But I basically said, listen...
Even if you're a comedian, I still disagree to a certain extent with mocking people in the political debate, but I do understand it's what comedians do.
I'm not gonna tell Jon Stewart not to do it, I'm not gonna tell Trevor Noah, John Oliver, or Stephen Crowder, you know, I think he's the only conservative person who does, like, more political comedy.
But regardless of your politics, I get it, you mock people.
I'm not a big fan, right?
I might find your jokes funny, but in the end, I'm like, man, we seriously have to figure out how to do things that will advance and solve problems, like advance, you know, us as a people.
The Trump baby blimp is just meant to make people angry.
It in no way serves the conversation.
It's literally just meant to screw with, to troll as they explain it.
Why would you do that?
Why?
Seriously.
If you want to have a real conversation, I guess that's the point.
They think it's impossible to have a conversation.
They think there is no actually solving these problems.
So what do they do?
Let me see if I have this story pulled up.
Trump supporter is viciously attacked, doused in milkshake by America-hating activists outside of Parliament.
I love very, very well-framed Daily Mail.
The point I want to make is, I will absolutely, absolutely make sure that anybody who watches the video about the Trump baby balloon being popped and my defense of their right to free speech will also see the fact that this poor guy, and I will absolutely call him a poor guy, he's one guy surrounded by people shrieking at him, was hit in the face with a milkshake, okay?
Yes, I try my best to kind of rope people from both sides and like bring them back.
This will not be a simple video of me defending the right of the Trump blimp.
This will also be me defending the right of an individual to come down and express himself without being attacked by people.
The story reads, Listen.
Viciously attacked with a milkshake?
Come on.
Come on.
Milkshakes should not be thrown at people.
That is assault and battery.
I don't know what they call it in the UK.
You shouldn't do it.
But I'm still not going to act like it was vicious.
What was vicious was them surrounding him and shrieking at him.
That was vicious.
So I will say, an anti-Trump protester was viciously... I don't know.
I don't know if you can say attacked, but...
Harassed and intimidated before someone threw a milkshake at him, but then they did push him around it wasn't super
brutal or anything But still listen, I'm gonna put it this way
What what would be better if we had to pick one of these scenarios?
It is better that someone's property is harmed than an individual is physically attacked.
People come first.
They're still both wrong.
They're still both different.
But man, I just... This is the kind of thing that really, really depresses me.
You know, I've had some really great conversations recently where I feel like things are getting better.
And then I see this.
Why did the woman go and stab the Trump balloon?
I understand the Trump balloon does nothing for political discourse.
It harms discourse.
But stabbing it made everything ten times worse.
Why do these people surround people by themselves and throw milkshakes at them?
No.
I see these things and it's like, look, I'll say this.
I've tracked a lot of these stories, and the low-level harassment is undoubtedly coming from the left.
There are instances where whack-a-loon, lone-wolf, conservative types, far-right, whatever you want to call them, have committed atrocities.
But they're lone-wolf weirdos, and they're few and far between.
But they get all the news.
They always get the news.
What about this woman, who has become a new meme?
I'm seeing her face pop up everywhere.
She's screaming Nazi scum at this guy, who's not even doing anything!
And they attack him.
Okay?
It's fair to point this out.
But I still don't like seeing an escalation.
I mean, look at this.
They're pushing this guy around.
This is crazy.
This is disgusting.
Absolutely disgusting.
So this is the challenge.
There's an emotional release when people see this and then think about the balloon getting stabbed.
And they say, yeah, well, you did this to a Trump supporter, so you lose your balloon.
There you go.
You reap what you sow.
But I want to stress that people who own the balloon are not the same people in this group taunting and harassing this guy.
They certainly do provide some cover and protection, and they share certain goals.
I understand all this.
The point is, how do we end the cycle of hate, right?
I'm a big fan of anime and manga.
If you're not familiar with this, don't worry about it.
There's a graphic novel, we'll call it a graphic novel, called Naruto, that talks about how revenge begets revenge.
One of the big themes of the story.
Revenge begets revenge.
These people attack this guy, people see this video get angry, they show up and they stab a balloon.
Right?
That other people see the balloon get popped and say, we didn't attack you!
Why did you pop our balloon?
And then they retaliate too.
So how we stop it, I don't know, but there's your news, I guess.
I played the video.
You know, I don't know.
It's depressing.
It's bad enough you get the left-wing activists shrieking and throwing milkshake at people.
The last thing you need is Trump supporters now pop, you know, destroying property of other people.
I'll leave it there.
It is what it is.
I don't want to rant on this.
I've got some more videos coming up in just a moment, and I will see you shortly.
There needs to be a new saying for media companies that pretend to be woke.
Like, get woke in media and they're lying to their staff.
They don't actually care about your politics and they will do anything in their power to maintain their power and not pay you what you're owed.
Maybe that was a little too wordy.
I'm sorry.
It doesn't work.
But here's the funny thing.
Bernie Sanders is calling out BuzzFeed because they're not essentially giving in to the union.
Uh-oh, BuzzFeed!
BuzzFeed, I thought you were very woke, but you're running afoul of Mr. Sanders.
We have a tweet from Bernie that reads, Let's not forget the middle class was built by organized
I am very concerned to see that BuzzFeed still hasn't recognized the union formed by its newsroom
employees. Our Workplace Democracy Act will put an end to the corporations getting away
with these stalling tactics. And he links to a thread by BuzzFeed, which we're going to go into
before we do. Head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There are many different ways you can support PayPal, cryptocurrency, physical address, but of course, as always, liking and commenting on the video is the best thing you can do.
The engagement helps.
Subscribe to the channel if you have not already and share the link because that's the best thing you can do.
BuzzFeed News tweeted this just the other day, and this is what Bernie Sanders was responding to.
About a month ago, we shared news about progress towards recognition of our union,
but since then the company has dragged its feet and failed to address some of our most
pressing concerns. It's now been 112 days since we went public. You know, let me say this.
I am not the biggest fan of BuzzFeed news.
I've actually defended them on many, many occasions, and I feel like they've let me down in many, many ways.
But their union has a right to be recognized.
I am fully in support of that.
I am not a big fan of being in unions myself, personally.
But I do believe that if BuzzFeed workers are coming together and asking for a seat at the table, then BuzzFeed should be listening.
But the real criticism here is not for the staffers who want to get paid with their owed, pay with their deserve or better perks.
I certainly do think it's a bit misguided considering BuzzFeed just laid a bunch of people off and they're probably gonna lay people off again regardless of what you do.
But I will add, I love how BuzzFeed as a company is so woke and progressive and then they, for 112 days, are not going to deal with this union or recognize them.
That's not very woke of you, is it?
They say, what's the holdup?
Let me see if I can make this a little bigger, actually.
Maybe not.
There we go.
BuzzFeed's management is proposing a bargaining unit that unfairly disenfranchises many of our colleagues and weakens our union.
We won't stop fighting to create a strong union that reflects our newsroom.
We were encouraged when BuzzFeed said they were open to a compromise that would include some of our colleagues on AM2DM and other shows produced by the news team.
But weeks later, they still haven't provided any details on that proposal.
They go on to say, another outstanding issue, BuzzFeed is trying to exclude reporters who have non-standard contracts.
A position with no legal basis that unfairly denies union protections to a small number of colleagues.
Well, well, well.
It's not just BuzzFeed here.
Vox is allegedly doing the same thing.
Why is it that all these media companies want to claim that they're the wokest of woke, but they will do this in a heartbeat?
The Vox Union.
comes around and now Vox all of a sudden is very interested in hiring part-time freelancers
and contractors.
Let's see what BuzzFeed goes on to say.
When some reporters were asked to sign these contracts, the company's lawyer claimed they
wouldn't affect anyone's ability to unionize.
But now BuzzFeed wants to exclude these workers from the bargaining unit.
This position is unacceptable.
We're also concerned by BuzzFeed's attempts to exclude some editors with no direct reports
or true managerial responsibilities.
Their extremely conservative definition of who classifies as a manager does not reflect
the realities of our newsroom.
Never in my years would I have expected to hear someone from BuzzFeed refer to their company as conservative!
Excuse me.
Actually, you know what?
I think we finally figured out what they think conservative means.
Because clearly an actual conservative of these people is far right.
So I guess their manager's not giving them the money they want makes them conservative?
The company's lawyers have also insisted on a bargaining unit description that would define our union by a small number of titles, which we refuse to accept.
Despite the company telling us they want to resolve the issue, we have made little progress.
We need the company's representatives to fully engage in a good-faith, detailed conversation and commit to solutions so that we can finish this recognition process and get to the real work, negotiating a collective bargaining agreement.
Well, here's what I'll say.
I want to be fair, okay?
I always do.
There are legitimate reasons why a company is going to, you know, be in this position with a union.
BuzzFeed doesn't have a lot of money.
Like, they have a lot of money, but what I mean to say is they just laid a bunch of people off.
So BuzzFeed's trying to make sure they're in the profitable, you know, generating revenue, and profitable, so they can maintain themselves.
Businesses are not always evil, they just want to survive.
It would be better that everyone doesn't get the perk they want, if it means they keep their jobs.
So this is the inherent problem.
But BuzzFeed, you gotta go to the table and have that conversation.
Of course, what we're seeing now is posturing and politicking, excluding some people, including others, yadda yadda yadda, and now both are gonna go back and forth, but it is what it is.
I will say, though, moving on from this story, there is a lot going on in media.
So I have a little sprinkle on top for this story that I didn't mention in the beginning, but Vice.com editors exit, as ShakeUp continues.
Vice just got rid of someone who was at the company for over a decade.
So things are pretty bad for media.
I went over this story from Vox, how they're shifting to part-time and freelance contracts.
Contractors, part-time and freelance, because, look, there's a lot of bad things that are happening.
BuzzFeed's hurting.
Bernie Sanders is calling them out.
But we have this story from Vice, where they say the editor-in-chief and managing editor of Vice Media's website have both been let go.
These people are fired.
The new executive overseeing the media outlet's digital offerings said in an email to the staff
on Tuesday, in making changes to the organizational structure of the digital editorial group,
we had to make difficult decisions. That means Jonathan Smith and Rachel Schlamann,
Schlamann, sorry, are no longer with the company. Katie Drummond, who was named senior vice president
for digital in March, wrote in an email obtained by the New York Times, I believe Vice is going to
slowly move away from where they are now and focus more on, there was an article I read about
Vice is moving towards programmatic revenue, which I believe means we're going to see less
web-based rage-bait content and more programs for TV and things like that,
because they have a cable contract and this content makes money for them.
But I guess they got rid of their editor-in-chief.
So across the board, we are seeing strikeouts.
Mr. Smith had been at Vice for a decade and was editor-in-chief for three years according to his LinkedIn page.
Mish Shkalam had been managing editor for less than a year.
The departures followed the company's decision to shelve several websites under the vice.com umbrella in a bid to streamline in a sea of red ink.
Vice laid off 10% of its staff this year, and the Walt Disney Company, which owns a little more than a quarter of Vice, has said in securities filings over the past year that it has written down more than $500 million of its investment in the company.
I will say, please bear with me, my god, I have been talking nonstop for like 7 hours, because I did an interview and it went really long, and so I'm really trying, my throat is on fire.
Last year, Nancy Dubik, Vice's chief executive, said Vice would be profitable by the next fiscal year despite a more challenging climate for digital media outlets as Facebook and Google increasingly dominate the online advertising market.
Vice has lately focused on its studios division, which produces video content for its streaming sites, Vice News Tonight, a daily show on HBO, and its own cable channel, Viceland.
Vice has also tried to reform its internal culture, since a Times investigation in December
2017 revealed mistreatment of women at the company, with more than two dozen women saying
they experienced or witnessed misconduct there.
A Vice spokeswoman did not reply to a request for comment.
So here's what I'm trying to do, as my throat melts and my vocal cords are on fire.
I've brought together a series of stories.
We've got Bernie Sanders slamming BuzzFeed because BuzzFeed's playing politics.
And let's see what some of the responses are.
Looks like even Bill de Blasio is coming out.
He said, Memo to BuzzFeed News, New York City is a union town.
You didn't just snub the union yesterday.
You insulted all working New Yorkers.
Get woke.
Go broke.
Okay, BuzzFeed, you want to play this game?
This is what you get.
And I think it may be unfair.
You know, BuzzFeed's hurting, Vice is hurting, Vox is hurting, and they need to survive.
But now they all have these unions popping up.
Even Vox's union, um...
Did a walkout just the other day.
Let's see the latest tweet.
They say, this is from Vox Union.
I work for Vox Media Inc.
and SB Nation.
I'm a part of a movement to have a union contract to protect, provide for the workers.
Vox Union has been doing an outstanding job of representing us.
I want to thank them for looking out for remote employees like me.
What we're seeing is, it's like entropy, right?
BuzzFeed, Vicevox, other companies, they're not doing so well.
Some of them are selling off, many layoffs, and what happens then is when they lay people off, the staffers want contracts, they want protections, that's what they're saying.
But you have to understand, the layoffs aren't because they hate you.
It's because they're hurting and they may go out of business, and so they need to cut costs.
In response to cost-cutting measures, the unions pop up demanding more.
Well, all that's gonna do is result in more and more layoffs.
And then what do you have?
No job?
So, when Mayor Bill de Blasio and Bernie Sanders start dragging BuzzFeed, I'm sure the managers at BuzzFeed are sweating bullets.
Because they're getting intense pressure from their own side, and what can you do?
If they do it wrong, Everyone loses their jobs.
If they do it right, they're the bad guys.
This is why it's so silly for the left to think everyone is evil, especially conservatives.
I'm not going to call this union busting or anything like that, but listen, this is your side, and the left eats its own.
So, it's a you reap what you sow situation.
I'll leave it there, because I am struggling to talk, and I have to do one more video for you guys coming up very soon, and I will see you shortly.
Shout out to everyone's favorite shoe on head for bringing up this story where she tweeted, I'm losing it.
Apparently, Joe Biden didn't realize that he was lying about marching in the civil rights movements.
And I guess we'll talk about Joe Biden a little bit.
Hsu tweeted this excerpt that says, When I marched in the civil rights movement,
I did not march with a 12-point program Mr. Biden thundered, testing his presidential message in February 1987 before a
New Hampshire audience.
I marched with tens of thousands of others to change attitudes, and we changed attitudes.
More than once, advisors had gently reminded Mr. Biden of the problem with his formulation.
He had not actually marched during the Civil Rights Movement, and more than once, Mr. Biden assured them he understood and kept telling the story anyway.
Oh my god, what is wrong with Joe Biden?
You know what, man?
I heard that Pennsylvania might be swinging in his favor, and that's a serious problem for Trump because he definitely needs, you know, the Rust Belt to win.
But Joe Biden has been accused of everything up and down at this point.
Of lying about marching in the civil rights movement.
He's now being accused of plagiarizing his climate policy.
It's a story I saw.
I'm pretty sure.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's the case.
And there's also him groping and sniffing that 10-year-old girl recently.
Okay, grope was a little strong.
But seriously, Joe, we told you to stop.
Stop doing it.
Okay, let's take a look at this, and I'm mostly just gonna rant about Democrats off the cuff.
I am so tired right now, you guys.
I'm so sorry.
But check out TimCast.com slash donate if you want to support my work and help me get some nice, I don't know, chamomile tea with honey in it to help my throat, because I kid you not, I've been talking for about seven hours straight.
There are numerous ways to donate.
My throat is swollen.
I'm sorry.
But like the video, comment below, and that's the best way to help.
We have this story from the New York Times.
Biden's first run for president was a calamity.
Some missteps still resonate.
In 1988, Joe Biden was prone to embellishment.
Hints of that linger today, but unlike then, his message to voters is clear.
He's a stabilizing statement, statesman in a tumultuous time.
Okay, I have this little great photo here.
I love this, though.
They say, uh, here's the snippet that Xiun had brought up more than once.
His advisors had gently reminded Biden of the problem with his formulation.
He had not actually marched during the civil rights movement.
And more than once, Biden assured them he understood and kept telling the story anyway.
By that September, his recklessness as a candidate had caught up with him.
He was accused of plagiarizing in campaign speeches.
He had inflated his academic record.
Reporters began calling out his exaggerated youth activism.
I've done some dumb things, Mr. Biden conceded at a Stop the Bleeding news conference at the Capitol, and I'll do dumb things again.
He vowed that day to fight on.
He quit the race within a week.
Surprise, surprise.
Do you guys remember when Joe Biden was going around touching little girls in weird and creepy ways that pissed everybody off?
And how he did it to a bunch of women who even complained about it?
And then Joe Biden made a video where he said, I'm going to stop doing this.
And people on the left were like, but Joe Biden's just being affectionate.
It's like, dude.
Joe Biden should not be touching women if they don't want him to.
Okay?
Joe Biden should not be walking up behind women and sniffing their hair and giving them massages.
That's creepy.
And then, for the love of God, for some reason, after Joe Biden said he wasn't going to do it anymore, he told a 10-year-old girl she was attractive, and he did the shoulders thing and went in for a sniff.
Okay, that's my interpretation.
I don't want to get sued by Joe Biden.
That's my understanding of what he did.
And here's the big problem.
The people who are going, look, Joe Biden's just being affectionate when he does this.
Yeah, fine.
Make that argument.
I don't care.
We told him not to do it.
Okay.
And by we, I mean the American people.
The American people collectively said, Joe, you're creepy.
Please don't touch little girls anymore.
And Joe apologized and then went about touching little girls again.
Please.
This story is funny.
Joe Biden, apparently a liar.
But let's read some things.
Let's read on.
32 years later, as Mr. Biden seeks the presidency for a third time, his disastrous campaign
for the 1988 Democratic nomination offers a revealing look at the personal tics and
political flaws of the frontrunner in the 2020 race, traits that in many ways continue
to color Mr. Biden's public life.
The Biden Express, 1987.
Mr. Biden was and remains a gut politician, as he has long told associates, swaggering
ad-libbing, liable to get carried away in front of a crowd.
Already this past year, he has boasted of his purportedly peerless foreign policy knowledge,
comparing himself favorably to Henry Kissinger.
Wow, I don't know if that's a comparison you want to make because a lot of people on the
left don't like that man.
Actually, a lot of libertarians really don't like Kissinger, the former Secretary of State.
He has suggested, implausibly, that he has the most progressive record in the 2020 field.
Sorry, sorry.
Kirsten Gillibrand is probably, well, at least when it comes to rhetoric, she's embracing the regressive left like nobody's business.
No, they won't.
has muddled through explanations of his treatment of Anita Hill when she accused Justice Clarence
Thomas of harassment, at times stopping himself mid-sentence to abandon a line of defense.
Biden allies insist this run will succeed, whereas others feel, no, they won't. Biden
can't beat Trump. His discipline has improved, they say.
He is now widely known and admired in the Democratic Party, affording him more latitude for slip-ups.
For the first time, he enters the race as a genuine favorite, requiring no introduction.
I'm sorry.
Let me explain to you all how the media works.
Actually, no, no, no, hold on.
If you're a conservative, you know full well how the media works.
They are vultures who will latch on and never let go.
Joe Biden is in for a rude wake-up call when the media, wanting a juicy story that will generate rage, will take anything they can get.
How much you want to bet?
How much you want to bet there's going to be a story from some left-wing outlet talking about this particular instance that Shu brought up.
This is going to surface from like The Root or BuzzFeed or Vox.
Joe Biden is a fake ally who's trying to steal the thunder of the civil rights movement from Bernie Sanders.
That's right.
Because Bernie Sanders actually did march in the civil rights movement.
I believe he got arrested.
So yes, it's going to come up.
The media is going to rip the Democrats to shreds.
And here's the craziest thing.
The Democrats are going to help him out.
23 Democrats are running.
That's my understanding.
And they're all trying to differentiate themselves, right?
They're also going to start targeting each other and attacking each other to win that nomination.
The media is going to sit back and wait as these hit pieces are handed to them on a silver platter.
Yes, the Trump bump is lucrative.
But rest assured, when they see some rage content, they're gonna go for it.
Joe Biden grew up a little girl?
Ooh, you better believe that story's gonna go front and center.
Joe Biden sniff a little girl?
Once again, let's get it on the news.
Because it makes them money.
It attracts viewers.
And also, I mean, good, we should really call out Joe Biden for doing the creepy things he does.
Interviews with top advisors and confidants from then and now help explain how Mr. Biden came to see himself as a presidential material in the first place, and suggest that the central tensions and vulnerabilities laid bare during Biden 88 remain the most urgent questions at the core of Biden 2020.
Can he credibly present himself as a man in step with the times without sounding off-key or stretching the truth, as he did while gliding, gilding his 1960s-era biography?
Can he win while mounting another campaign premised as much on personal characteristics, his decency, his integrity, his presumed electability, as any other particular policy platform?
What are Joe Biden's policies?
No, for real, can you tell me?
I can't tell you.
I saw a story where it said he wants to make LGBTQ rights his top legislative priority, and I find it weird because healthcare is probably a bigger priority, but sure, Joe Biden, you do you.
Take Bill Maher's advice and stand up to the woke left.
In both the 88 race and today, Biden has seemed to see the nation as a turning point in need of a particular kind of leader.
During his first run, he liked to say that presidential history ran in cycles, bursts of progress and upheaval followed by periods of correction in which voters choose a candidate who can let America catch its breath.
His implication then, as a 44-year-old senator from Delaware, was that he belonged to the first group of political figures, the Sprightly Agitators.
His pitch this time, as a septuagenarian two-term vice president, places him firmly in the second camp.
Biden!
You're too old.
Bernie, you're too old.
You're all too old.
You can't do it.
I mean, Trump's too old, but Trump's already president, so sure, I guess.
Man, I guess, you know, Obama was young.
That worked.
But it worked out well for Obama and Biden because Biden was in, you know, 70s.
But he did provide that experience.
The story goes on to say, these days Mr. Biden, whose campaign declined to make him available for an interview, keeps an understated schedule, holding far fewer events than most rivals, because he's old.
But in his first race, his candidacy could feel like an exercise in performative stamina, sustained by an uncommon talent for talk-until-they-leave speechifying, and an oversized bottle of Tylenol that helped ease foreboding headaches on the road.
Storming across Iowa in a maroon and gray campaign van, Mr. Biden asked his team to blast the Les Miserables cassette because it helped him think.
At events, he would smile almost mockingly at staff members, signaling for him to wrap up.
Long after they have handed reporters pre-written text with a semi-wry warning in capital letters atop the page, Senator May strayed from prepared remarks.
Because he's a bumbling old, he's a doting old man.
Joe Biden had his time back in the 80s, but he's an old dude who likes touching girls in weird and creepy ways and apparently lies about his career.
