Media Has Gone INSANE Trying To Smear Me Over Social Media Summit At The White House
Fake News Writes ABSURD Smears About Me Over Social Media Summit At The White House. A series of hit pieces have come out about me and many others and they are as absurd as absurd can be. Many simply claim I am 'right wing' and offer no real proof other than I am critical of the far left social justice regressive types. Some claim that I am the center of a massive network of far right youtubers, which is patently absurd.All of the stories are the same, offer no real insight, and just seek to smear Trump and those who were invited.Far left activists in media are working overtime to make us all look bad but in the end I can only assume they are jealous.The reality is that there really is a bias against conservatives, there is more than enough evidence to support it, and censorship will be bad for everyone.Why these far left activists in media seek to defend billionaire big tech is beyond me.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
As you are watching this video, I am probably still at the White House.
I have no idea how long the event is supposed to go on for, but today is the White House Social Media Summit.
There are a lot of people who are attending who I think are questionable individuals, and that's fine.
But I hope I can bring some rationality and facts to this discussion, whatever it may be.
I think there's a lot of people who immediately jump the gun and think there's a grand conspiracy against them, when in reality it's actually like human behavior.
Nuanced circumstances.
But yes, I do believe there is a bias, particularly against conservatives, mostly stemming from the fact that the people who build and moderate these systems are liberal.
Not that it's a grand conspiracy, it's just that things are slowly falling in one direction due to the structure of how social media works and how these media companies work.
But of course!
Because I will be there, I am being smeared quite heavily.
And it's all good fun, I gotta say.
You know, there was a point, I think, maybe like after Occupy Wall Street, when the smears started coming out.
Look, you get any kind of public attention and the haters start coming.
There was one guy who was now like, I don't know, he was arrested on felony charges for being like Antifa or something, for attacking some guys.
But he would like come to events and accuse me of stealing like 80 grand from Occupy, like this ridiculous nonsense.
But, as you grow in terms of public notability, the smears get more sophisticated.
Media Matters has now put out two... I mean, they're not really smears, they're kind of smears.
It's like false framing to try and make me look bad or something.
But I have to say, we're gonna go through a bunch of the smears so far.
And they're quite fun, so I think you'll enjoy this segment we have.
Media Matters.
This is a story from the 9th.
It's been updated.
At first, I was kind of upset.
No one was including me in the smears.
I was like, come on, man.
I'm coming to the event, too.
Why won't you tell people I'm gonna be there?
Well, first, there's a problem.
See, Tim Pool is pro-progressive tax.
I have made several videos going into great detail about why I believe that progressive tax is the right thing.
I am pro-choice.
I have also made several videos going into great detail about why I believe pro-choice is the right thing.
I'm actually pro-public healthcare and, in a sense, pro-UBI.
Now, I've spoken out against universal basic income quite a bit, so I thought it would make sense to actually kind of clarify how I really feel for a grand scheme vision of the future.
I think universal basic income, universal healthcare, and universal education are actually things we should fight to attain.
I don't believe we can attain them now, so as such I'm kind of a reformist, and I think we should slowly move in those directions.
So I'm pro-public healthcare, pro-social programs, and to an extent pro-UBI.
The problem with UBI, and why I say to an extent, is it's very hard to implement correctly, and I don't think we're at a technological level to attain that yet.
Maybe.
Maybe.
But I think a future that is a very Star Trek-like future with replicators and, like, You know, a very equal society.
Like, Star Trek's a great thing to strive for.
But it's not communist, like many people would argue.
So UBI, to me, is kind of like, can we get to that point?
Let's fight to do it, but if it's not possible, let's not hold our breath.
Universal healthcare, I think, is something we absolutely should get no matter what.
But...
It can't be done overnight, and it's certainly not going to be done in this administration.
But I don't want to rant about my politics.
We'll break them down as we go through the smear.
Media Matters called me an extremist.
Oh, wow.
Here are the extremist figures going to the White House Social Media Summit.
And they start with Bill Mitchell, who I don't know.
Carpe Donctum, I also don't know.
Charlie Kirk.
I love this.
Will Chamberlain.
Of all these people, I know of some of them, but Will, I would absolutely consider a friend, though it's not like we hang out or anything.
Because I've had him on my channel several times, and I talk to him fairly often.
who was removed. He makes cartoons. I love this. Will Chamberlain. I actually consider,
of all these people I know of some of them, but Will I would absolutely consider a friend,
though it's not like we hang out or anything. Because I've had him on my channel several
times and I talk to him fairly often. Not too much, but I consider him a friend. And
they said that Chamberlain pushed a likely hoax smearing protesters at a Cernovich speaking
And the next one is, he pushed a smear from far-right troll linking journalists to Antifa.
So, he wrote a story where he quoted Quillette and said he thinks they're trustworthy.
That's all they have on Will.
After years of producing... Congratulations, Media Matters!
That's sad.
That's all you could get?
Come on.
Will's way more politically active than I am.
And I'm not even right-wing, as much as they like to claim I am.
But here's the best part.
Keep this in mind.
They claim he pushed a smear from a far-right troll.
Okay, okay.
Check this out.
You guys are gonna love this.
Your good friend, Mr. Poole, Is, uh, quote, nearly the direct center of a network of far-right YouTube accounts.
They actually say a study found Poole was at the near center.
Doesn't mean anything.
This is fake.
The alternative influence network thing is fake.
But don't worry, it gets funny.
Now, first, they claimed that Will Chamberlain was pushing a smear from a troll linking journalists to Antifa.
It's quite literally identical to this.
It's the same kind of crime web with little dots pointing in different directions.
So they're mad that a conservative did the same thing, but then think it's justifiable to criticize me for what someone left.
It's literally the same thing.
Now here's the best part.
They say I'm near the center.
Literally doesn't mean anything.
I'm sure they know it doesn't mean anything.
The center just means I've interacted with people on how- It's literally, they draw it.
This was drawn.
None of it makes sense.
There's no data deciding who will be in what point of this.
And more importantly, the connections are fake.
I'm not exaggerating.
They're literally fake.
Some of them are real.
Excuse me.
But they're fake.
Like, they connected me to Stefan Molyneux.
Like, dude, I met the guy one time, like, six months after this came out, and it was, like, in passing, where he was like, oh, hey, Tim, and I was like, hey, nice to meet you, and that was it.
Literally, the extent of which I've ever interacted with the guy.
They've connected me with a bunch of other people, like Destiny.
Destiny is, like, a left-wing Twitch streamer.
I've never talked to the guy!
I'd never, I'd barely know who he is!
So here's, so it's funny that they claim that being their dissenter, so, I guess I'm your mastermind, that's the joke.
But here's the great thing.
They claim a study found me near the center, but then literally go on to say that I pushed a far-right troll linking journalists to Antifa, which is the same exact, like, kind of study.
But here's the best part.
The video I did actually was critical of the study, saying, take it with a grain of salt, because these crime web things are used to smear people like they've done to me, and, I said, just because someone may have interacted with Antifa on Twitter doesn't mean they support them.
But I can say some of these journalists absolutely are Antifa.
Which is why I said verified journalists are exposed working with Antifa.
So it's funny that they're going to use a discredited fake study.
It's literally fake.
I will say that as a statement of fact.
It is fake.
And then go on to claim that someone else's study was fake.
Talk about double standards.
But there's the first smear, which is fun.
But don't worry.
I got a lot here.
Check it out.
This one from Vox.
White House hosts social media summit without social media companies.
Now, this one's funny because it was updated today, in the morning.
And yesterday, I tweeted to the author, Bill Ottman of Mines, the CEO of a social media company, is in fact invited.
They're just not inviting big tech.
Why?
Perhaps it's because Jack Dorsey was just at the White House.
These people have lost it.
Okay, listen.
Trump literally had Jack Dorsey at the White House, what, like a few weeks ago?
Is he going to be like, hey, come on back?
Or is he going to say, maybe I should talk to other people in the space who have experience in this matter?
And thus, Bill Ottman, the CEO of a tech platform, has been invited.
But, uh, but, but wait, don't worry.
As much as Vox is trying to falsely frame the summit as not even having social media companies when they are, Vice takes it one better.
Check this out.
Ben McCooch says, So I just found out that fringe site Minds.com, once a choice place for neo-nazi Milton groups, will be at tomorrow's social media summit at the White House, but Twitter and Facebook weren't invited.
My story for Motherboard.
Wow.
You know what the story for Motherboard was?
This dude went on Minds and found like four accounts, and flagged them, and they got banned.
And that's it.
And look at what he says.
One's a choice place.
Is that a joke?
More fringe extremists use Facebook and Twitter.
Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are literally choice places, way more than Mines is.
And here's what they write.
Trump invites fringe social media company popular with Nazis to the White House.
It's just literally not true.
Mines actually isn't that popular with Nazis.
It's nonsense.
And so my response to this guy was, for those who aren't familiar with who this guy is, he's been in an ongoing legal battle because he's refused to turn over chat logs with ISIS to law enforcement.
What do you think I could say about him then?
That Ben McCooch, a known collaborator, he got- I tweeted this to make a point.
I don't literally think he's collaborating.
I get it, he's doing journalism.
This isn't journalism.
So why he thinks he can smear a small tech company in protection of massive billion dollars- Why are you defending Facebook of all people?
Mark Zuckerberg's creepy, invades our privacy.
But sure enough, all of these people rush to the defense of Facebook if it means owning the cons.
These people have lost it.
How have we come to a point where regular Americans, with no power, are protesting against massive corporations that suppress speech, and they rush to the defense of massive corporations?
These people claim to be on the left, but as far as I can tell, they're pro-corporate neolibertarians.
They love the Koch brothers.
Why do you protect this industry?
It's nonsensical to me.
So, there's actually another smear piece, because Media Matter is just, you know, here we go.
And so this is a smear piece they put out a day later, and they say the White House Social Media Summit is just another stunt to game the refs.
So here's what I'll do in this one.
Let me break down what they try to claim against me as proof.
So first, they claim that I offer little more than speculation other than decontextualized anecdotes.
Okay.
I have never claimed, or if I did I apologize because it's hard to track literally everything I said, but I have been repeatedly of the opinion that there is no grand conspiracy, it is a series of anecdotes that prove a bias.
Now I understand the plural of anecdote is not data.
The issue is, Jack Dorsey said, perhaps we were too aggressive policing this meme, as right-wing activists.
Jack Dorsey said, our conservative employees are afraid to speak up.
Google documents have been leaked.
Those aren't anecdotes.
The leaked Google documents are evidence, in context, referring to right-wing individuals, conservatives, as fringe-fart extremists.
Statements from Google employees, as well as a breaking news story from Gizmodo, proving That Facebook employees routinely suppressed conservative news.
That is not an anecdote.
That is former staffers speaking to a left-wing media outlet saying, yes, we do this.
That is evidence, at least one bit, proving social media companies did or have at least, at some point, held a bias against conservatives.
So they're wrong.
They go on to say that like, you know, my video, Google email leaked proves conservative censorship.
It literally does.
It's an email from a staff member saying, we know these people are bad, can we suppress them?
So that's proof of censorship.
I'm not saying that there's a grand conspiracy of people going, no, I'm saying literally there's employees saying, we are biased, we want to censor people.
So they try to take it to the extremes.
They go on to then try and claim that this tweet I posted, check this out, I said, Uh, David Niewert was banned because of a book he wrote and the symbols on the book.
So I tweeted.
See, when you advocate for censorship, it will always backfire as the si- Nah, F it.
I've said it too many times.
LOL at dude getting suspended.
Okay, but for real.
Why can't these people ever learn?
I think most of you understand the context of the tweet.
I'm not actually celebrating him getting suspended.
In fact, the video I made about it was a call for him to be reinstated, and he should absolutely be allowed to have his speech, as is my consistent stance on speech.
Left, right, whatever.
People have a right to post their images and call these people out.
Of course, Media Matters is trying to claim that it's proof of inconsistency in my free speech crusade.
Oh, please.
It's called woosh.
The point went over your head.
They then go on to try and claim this very weird white nationalistic argument that the reason conservatives are banned more is because they break the rules more.
Sounds very familiar to what the racists try and claim about crime in the United States.
They don't seem to have a consistent understanding of logic.
Plain and simple.
No, the issue is the rules themselves are biased against conservatives.
Of which I do believe they go on to claim that they said, uh, Poole has pushed this one specific rule as an example of Twitter being biased against conservatives in reference to, uh, so actually let's read this.
Poole has asserted that Twitter by definition is a biased platform in favor of the left, period.
As proof, Poole points to the fact that Twitter's harassment policy bans misgendering of trans people.
Never mind that Twitter bans all sorts of things.
For instance, just this week, the site expanded its hateful conduct policy as it relates to dehumanizing language used against people on the basis of religion.
Full stop.
You're criticizing me for something I said before a rule was enacted?
That makes literally no sense.
And my point remains valid.
Misgendering is something that only exists among progressive ideology.
Even moderate liberals don't agree with this policy.
So yes, it is an ideological bias, predominantly targeting conservatives who are very outspoken in opposition to this.
So, I don't know what else I have pulled up.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
I have a couple more stories I'll go through.
The Daily Beast writes, Will Summer, who called me right-wing, like, dude, I don't care what you call me.
It's like, are you trying to smear me by saying I'm right-wing?
It's, like, absurd because I'm left to the left of Obama.
But they say, Trump's social media summit mortifies White House and rages far-right allies.
Okay.
He brings up a good point, in that there's a lot of people who are throwing a fit that some of us have been invited.
There's people saying, why haven't any of the people banned been invited?
Let me try and break something down, okay?
Was Trump playing it safe?
Apparently not, because no matter what, all of these smears are still coming out.
It is important that people like me and Bill Ottman, among others, go to this event and speak up about the problem of massive, unaccountable, billion-dollar corporations suppressing speech and injecting their morality.
I have argued.
I have no right to YouTube recommendations, and I believe that's still true to this day.
If YouTube wants to promote me, that's something different than hosting me.
My speech is not suppressed simply because YouTube won't recommend it.
Now, there's a good point that Bill brought up when I mentioned this to him, saying that if you sign up for a website and it tells you these are the terms, that terms should be applied evenly.
I can respect that, but I still don't believe recommendations are a right.
However, I recognize that if YouTube, the second biggest search engine in the world, weighs their search in favor of the left, we have a massive public crisis, and we shouldn't allow massive billion-dollar corporations to use this.
It could be essentially, you know, if it ends up favoring politicians who make videos, could that not be an in-kind donation?
Recommending someone like Andrew Yang, for instance.
What's the value of that recommendation, and is that illegal?
In-kind donation, or essentially illegal if they don't report it.
The bigger issue is, we need to get people who can come to the event, who probably are a little safe, although they've definitely brought people who are not safe, who can actually try and make some change happen.
Sticks, Hex, and Hammer called on me and many others to not go to the summit, and I think that's a terrible idea.
I have tremendous respect for Styx.
I think he does great work, and I think he's a pretty good dude who stands on principle.
But I disagree in this regard.
As much as I don't like the fact that Ben Garrison was disinvited because, once again, we're seeing the media play games with smears, I think it's important to actually go and try and get... Look, I'm a moderate.
I'm not a conservative.
As much as they want to smear me as an extremist or right-wing or whatever, none of it makes sense.
I'm going to be one of the few people, if not the only person, At this event, who has actually disparaged Donald Trump.
And I do it a lot.
Okay?
I have said crude and crass things about Trump and called him crude and crass.
Plain and simple.
I don't have Trump Derangement Syndrome.
So my political position is kind of like, I'm not a fan of him.
He's kind of bad.
But he's not that bad.
Right?
And I say not that bad in the sense that, like, they think he's literally the reincarnation of a certain leader of World War II Germany.
Yeah, I don't agree with that.
That's nonsense.
I think he's got character flaws, which I think are bad for a leader.
I think it results in division and divisiveness.
I think he speaks too often off the cuff, speaks without thinking.
These things ultimately are divisive, and I'm critical of them.
So it's important that someone who has been willing to openly criticize him will be there as well.
Personally, I think they should have done more to bring in more left-wing voices.
There are certainly people who could have come, but I guess it's an issue of do they know about them and do they trust them?
I think David Pakman would have been a great individual to be there, especially considering he's been covering this YouTube push towards pro-corporate content, which is another big problem we're seeing.
These outlets like Vice, like Vox, like Media Matters are acting in defense of massive corporations, be it the mainstream media or big tech giants.
I can't quite understand it.
Media Matters claims to hate Fox News, but they're acting in defense of massive corporate infrastructure.
Why?
I don't know.
David Pakman, love him or hate him, I like his work, I think it is a good job.
I disagree with some of the stuff he does, but that's normal.
Ultimately, I think he's professional and he's calm and he's willing to To talk to people, and that's one of the most important things we can see from progressives.
He's been covering how YouTube has been promoting corporate voices and suppressing my and his voice and other independent creators.
That's a really important, you know, perspective to bring to the White House.
The White House could have done more to bring liberal and progressive voices who are good-faith actors and want to speak up.
There are certainly anti-war left-wing activists, people like Jimmy Dore or Rania Kalik, who I think would have been good to bring as well, not saying they would have accepted the invite.
A lot of left-wing individuals might have said, absolutely not.
My stance, and probably why they smear me all the time, is probably due to the fact that when someone like Trump or a conservative says, let's have a conversation about a solution, my response is, okay, I'm willing to hear what you have to say.
Whereas many people on the left are saying, don't do it.
You can look at the soccer star.
I think it's Megan Rapinoe, I'm sorry if I'm pronouncing the name wrong, who said she wouldn't accept an invite.
No, I think it's very important to accept the invite and to meet them on their terms and say, here's what I think you're doing wrong, here's why I think you're wrong, but here's what we need to solve.
And I think a lot of the people who follow me, especially these people who will be at the event, who are excited to see me there, No, we disagree greatly, but it's interesting that you have so many conservatives who are saying, let's just have a conversation and figure out what the solution is, and then the left just screams, you know, Nazi over and over again.
Sorry, that's not going to solve anything.
It's going to make things worse.
So I will absolutely, so to the point about Styx, I'm going to be there.
And I'm gonna try and temper a lot of the more, like, I'm concerned there are gonna be a lot of more, like, right-wing conspiracy-minded individuals.
I think, even with, like, James O'Keefe, he's presented a bunch of evidence, and he has this opinion about why censorship is happening.
I actually think I'll disagree with him a bit.
Even with his evidence, that we can both agree on, I think one of the bigger issues is pro-corporate, pro-establishment, predominantly anti-conservative, because Trump supporters Our anti-establishment populists.
Trump was not supposed to win.
So it does primarily affect those Trump supporters, but it also does impact liberal individuals like David Pakman is getting suppressed and Rania Khalid has been silenced and there are other people who are smeared by the Southern Poverty Law Center like Ben Norton.
I believe.
And I'm forgetting the other names, so I apologize.
But I do think it's a pro-establishment, pro-elite, pro-corporate, pro-status quo that's targeting those who dare challenge the system.
For the most part, it does target conservatives, because at least the establishment does hold some liberal values.
So not only do they target the anti-establishment, they target conservatives.
If you're on the left and you agree with the progressive narrative, but challenge The oligarchy of big tech and corporate media, they shut you down.
Occupy Wall Street activists have been shut down.
People like Global Revolution, people I personally do not like and do not like me, I will absolutely mention, they have shut down Occupy Wall Street activists.
This is a serious problem, primarily that big tech should not be the arbiters of truth and morality, and I'm gonna go there, and let's talk about it.
The last thing I will say is this really great piece, strangely from Fox News, about Minds.com, M-I-N-D-S dot com, that is working really hard to bring about a human layer of moderation, the jury system.
How did we come to a point in my life, a lifelong, like, Democrat, left-leaning individual, where Vice is smearing and lying about Mines, who's trying to actually, you know, fight back against extremism, and Fox News does a great long-form piece breaking down the solution, the plan, the problem, and how the social media site works.
Well, I shouldn't say it's long-form, but it's a bit long.
How is Fox News becoming the real news?
It's mind-blowing to me.
Even Donald Trump is slamming Fox News as becoming too moderate.
What a weird world we live in.
I don't know when the event will let out, so maybe I'm out already.
I have no idea, but thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
I will have more segments coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews, and I will see you all then.
This may come as a shock to many of you, but Barack Obama actually deported 3 million people around.
I think that's the number.
They called him the deporter-in-chief, and Barack Obama actually operated detention centers where children had to sleep on mats under Mylar blankets.
Now, I'm being facetious.
Most of you probably know this because you pay attention to politics, but it's really bad when the Democrats are trying to smear Trump and they accidentally put out a photo from the Obama administration.
Now, that's bad, but it's actually worse because then they put out another photo From the Obama administration.
Because for some reason, today, Barack Obama is far right.
Now I know why this is, okay?
I have a general idea of how Barack Obama went from being a socialist to far right.
I think it has to do with the media just going insane and chasing this psychotic narrative.
There was a graph that I showed a while ago.
A researcher dug through a database called LexisNexis, and we can see that around the beginning of 2010, which is, you know, starting in Barack Obama's tenure, you see a massive spike, a hockey stick on the graph, for all of these identitarian terms.
It's not so much that people actually believe in this weird identitarianism, it's just that the media continually chases a fringe narrative to attract viewers as they decay and fall apart.
What they accuse us on YouTube of doing, they actually do themselves tenfold.
And thus you end up with this, from the Daily Caller.
House Democrats use photo from Obama administration to promote investigation into inhuman treatment at the border.
Now look, I'm fine with that.
If you want to show this photo and say we should definitely investigate this, I'll say spot on.
Investigate, sure.
We need accountability for the federal government.
Here's the thing though.
They deleted the image!
Wait, wait, wait, hold on.
I thought you were upset about inhuman treatment, and you were specifically referring to what Obama did.
Because I'll agree with you, we should investigate that.
No.
They're mad at Trump.
They want to excuse Obama.
The best part is that, according to the story, they actually put out another bad photo.
But let's read.
Daily Caller writes, House Democrats tweeted a photo from President Barack Obama's administration to promote their investigation into inhumane treatment at the border before deleting the tweet Thursday.
The Committee on Oversight and Reform announced a hearing advisory set for Wednesday titled, Kids in Cages, Inhumane Treatment at the Border, over Twitter.
The hearing will be examining this alleged inhumane treatment after members of the committee witnessed the grotesque treatment of children.
The announcement was meant to be for the inhumane treatment allegedly occurring under President Donald Trump.
The tweet included a photo, but there was just one problem.
The picture included in the tweet of children in cages was from the Obama administration.
According to President Donald Trump's 2020 presidential campaign, the photo was quickly deleted.
So check this out.
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Subcommittee hearing.
Kids in cages!
Inhumane treatment at the border!
And that was yesterday.
And so we have Trump war room.
House Democrats are promoting their civil rights hearing on kids in cages and inhumane treatment with a photo from 2014 when Joe Biden was vice president.
Oh, but wait, here's the best part.
The House Democrats were wrong to tweet this photo.
They tweeted another one, as I mentioned, but it's even better because they know!
Look at this story from the Daily Caller as well.
Immigrant activists storm Biden headquarters, demand he apologize for deportations.
Something really weird is happening on the left.
Period.
Immigration activists still well aware that Biden played a huge role in the detention of children and mass deportations.
And they're calling him out for it.
Yet the Democrats are blaming Trump for what Obama did.
This is what really bothers me when trying to talk politics.
I am to the left of where Obama was.
In fact, I think Obama screwed up the public health care and all that stuff.
I think we should have gone full public option.
A lot of people wanted universal health care.
But I usually fall into, look, I don't know what they disagreed on.
I don't know if Obama couldn't do it.
I don't know why he couldn't do it.
It's tied to the economy.
It's difficult.
I think more could have been done, and there should have been more leadership.
But the point is, on a lot of issues, I was to the left of Obama, and I didn't like him.
I didn't.
Especially on foreign policy.
I thought the dude's a lunatic.
You're blowing up kids and calling them enemy combatants.
You know, I'm sorry, the people he blew up that he called enemy combatants were military age males, right?
But I have no, I have no, I will give no respect for Obama in that regard.
He was charismatic for sure.
But how do we get to a point now where Trump is being blamed for what Obama started?
Now, don't get me wrong.
We've had an ongoing crisis on the border and the border facilities aren't getting better.
But again, It's this weird thing that we see among activists where they really believe the President is like the Supreme Chancellor, and it's kind of disconcerting.
The President can't do that much.
Okay, so most of you might know, later today I will be at the White House Social Media Summit.
I don't necessarily know why, it's going to be an interesting conversation, but the President can't do anything about this.
Look, there are laws in place.
Look, it is true that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.
They are private companies.
I think the conversation needs to be had and our lawmakers need to move forward with some kind of assessment of how these companies are kind of taking it both ways, acting as publishers and platforms, while getting, you know, immunities not granted to any other company.
So I think it's an important conversation, but what can the president really do?
Okay, I'm not saying he's powerless.
The president is, by all, you know, measurements, one of the most powerful people on the planet, if not, but that's in terms of executive authority.
Meaning when it comes to, you know, sending a drone to blow someone up, there's a lot of power behind that.
Trump has executive authority in that he can tell, he can tell within the confines of existing law, law enforcement, what to do.
That's basically it.
He can't even declare war without an act of Congress.
Congress declares war.
Not even the president can do that.
Although, we've seen it.
And that's one of the big problems I have with the executive branch.
But the point is...
It's... I feel like everything we're seeing... This was a huge mistake.
They screwed up bad, okay?
By posting these Obama photos.
But I think the reason they blame Trump for everything is just so they can win 2020.
And for me, as like a sane, rational, kind of centrist, center-left individual, I'm looking for a real reasoned debate.
I want you to like... I like Tulsi Gabbard, okay?
She recently put out this tweet talking about no war, no private prisons, no war on drugs, free speech online, and I'm like...
I really like Tulsi.
Look, I'll say it.
I'm gonna be at the White House today, but I have disparaged Trump based on his behavior.
The way he mocked body-slamming a reporter, and he did that thing with, you know, he mocked the reporter who had that disability.
Whatever your opinion is, I find him to be, like, I would prefer a president who was more collected and charismatic.
I understand a lot of people like him because he's willing to be crass and crude and say
no and give you the finger.
That's not the person that I feel should be representing my country.
Now there are other issues that Trump has done in reference to foreign policy that I've
been extremely critical of.
One of the first things that happened, and again check the source on this, it's been
a long time, it's been years.
A commando raid in Yemen shortly after Trump was inaugurated resulting in the death of
an eight-year-old American girl.
Weapons deals in Saudi Arabia.
Missile strikes in Syria.
And these are things I often go to because you can tell why I think Tulsi Gabbard is important.
Anti-war.
But I will say, for all the bad things I can say about Trump's personality, in my opinion, the Iran pullback?
Excellent, excellent decision.
Please.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Sparing human lives.
It's not worth it.
It was the right move and war is bad.
And what he did in North Korea deserves credit.
But anyway, I don't want to go on a tangent about this.
The point is, Obama did a bunch of really bad things, including this.
And I feel like it is a disingenuous, bad-faith effort to try and get Trump to lose re-election instead of actually solving these problems.
I look at what Trump has done in foreign policy and I say, I don't like it.
I don't like it.
The later things that are around North Korea, I do like it.
What do the Democrats have to offer?
Because I'm looking for someone like a Tulsi Gabbard.
But of course, they won't give it to her.
You know she will never get anywhere near, you know, what she needs.
In fact, it actually breaks my heart.
Andrew Yang, I like him too.
I like Tulsi a little bit more for a lot of reasons.
It's been a back and forth.
Admittedly, my opinion has changed.
At first, I was like, Yang is, I think, better.
Now, I'm kind of like, oh, Tulsi.
But the issue, like...
Yang actually blew Tulsi out of the water in terms of donations.
Tulsi is very presidential.
She's a major in the National Guard.
Man, I really, really hope she can advance forward.
I would be shocked if she actually won the primary, but that would be like a really powerful moment.
I think so.
And I want to stress too, as much as a lot of people don't agree with her on issues like gun rights and reparations and other things, and I'm not necessarily there with her either.
I don't agree with the minimum wage proposal of $15 nationally with her, but she covers
so many really important issues and the core issue being anti-war.
Here is the main point I'm trying to bring up with this.
What we have here is an attempt to smear Trump for what Obama did.
And when you actually have principled, common-sense politicians like Yang and Gabbard, they get
their mics cut.
They put a fake pimple on Tulsi's face or something.
Like, I can't even believe that's true, but TMZ reported it and started boing-boing.
Like, I kid you not, it was reported, and you can see the video, there's like a fake pimple on her face.
That's what they do to the real, principled, common-sense Democrats that try speaking up and saying, hey, let's do something here.
A real opportunity.
It's like they want Trump to win.
This gaffe, this huge mistake, look at this.
Trump says, here in red is the portion of the 2014 photo used by the House Democrats today.
AP fact-check photo wrongly used to hit Trump policies.
This gaffe is good for Trump.
The far-left push they do on stage, it's like they want Trump to win.
It's mind-blowing to me.
Even the New York Times op-ed was saying they've learned nothing from 2016.
And then we have this.
So let me finish, read the story.
They say, after deleting the tweet, the Oversight Committee put up a second tweet with a different photo.
This one was also from the Obama administration, according to the Republican House Oversight Committee and the AP.
The tweet was also deleted.
The Hill also did this when they put a photo of children in cages from the Obama administration for an article about Trump's detention centers.
They keep doing it.
And you know what?
How hard is it to fact check?
Why is it the Daily Call was able to be like, yep, that's a photo from Obama?
Why is it that the Trump War Room was able to say, that's a photo from Obama, but the Democrats couldn't do this?
The Hill couldn't do this?
And so here's the other point I want to bring up.
Joe Biden was vice president while Obama did a whole bunch of really screwed up things.
And I think the track record of the Obama administration, for what it is, is substantially worse than where Trump is right now.
So let's make one thing clear.
Trump is only a couple of years into his first term.
We'll see if he gets re-election.
It's looking that way.
Obama, throughout his entire term, was using the kill list, the disposition matrix.
Where were these people to stand up next to me when I was calling this out, along with many other anti-war activists?
And that's what bothers me.
But I will say this.
Just because you weren't there then doesn't mean I'm mad that you're coming up now.
I get it.
Okay.
I agree.
Foreign policy, America-style, has always been bad.
Trump kind of did some good things recently.
What do they do?
They slam him for saying no war with Iran.
It's mind-blowing to me.
Trump pulls back, and what do they do?
We have all these hit pieces saying, Trump pulled back a strike he ordered, can't make up his mind, is that presidential?
And I'm like, yes!
Yes, it is.
Okay?
If you find out you're making a bad decision, and you have a crisis of morality, and you say, we can't do this, we can't kill these people, I will stand up and I will applause you saying, it was wrong of you to do the strike, but I respect you for canceling it.
The people who didn't call out Obama when he was president, it was wrong of you to not call him out then, but it's right of you to call out the bad behavior today.
Unfortunately, many of these people excused everything Obama did, and today, are slamming Trump for being anti-war?
Or for at least having one, like, you know, Iran was one moment, okay?
I'm gonna say, we don't trade lives, we don't, there is no making up for the attacks we've seen in Yemen, for the loss of life in Yemen, for the missile strikes in Syria.
There is nothing you can do that will make it reach zero, right?
I don't know if- I was watching- I don't know if you've seen Jessica Jones, but I was watching season one recently, because I think Kilgrave is an amazing Marvel villain.
If you're not familiar, he's like a sociopathic guy who can command people to do whatever they- whatever he wants.
He's killed a bunch of people in the show, right?
And so, trying to win over the main character, he says, how many people do I have to save to get back to zero?
And she's shocked, like, you can't.
There is nothing you can do.
And so that's the important point.
Obama's entire tenure, his eight years, is marred by foreign policy failures, by extrajudicial assassinations.
So far, Trump has done some things that have actually kind of been a positive with North Korea and with Iran, and those are good things, and I'll give him credit for it.
He's done bad things.
So it's still a negative.
But I feel like if Trump remains on a path where he avoids war with Iran, I'm going to have to agree with Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks.
Plain and simple.
Cenk said, if Trump keeps us out of war with Iran, he will have been a better president than George W. Bush.
People got mad.
Because for some reason they want to romanticize what Bush was.
No, Bush was awful.
He was the predecessor to what Obama started doing, right?
It's all bad.
But if Trump can walk back these policies, he will be better than George W. Bush.
And that's Cenk Uygur's opinion, and I'm gonna agree with him.
So anyway, you know, look...
It's weird to me that we're sitting in a position where immigrant activists here storm Biden headquarters demand he apologize for deportations.
The activists know.
They know Obama did this.
But for some reason, they keep trying to claim Trump's at fault for what Biden and Obama did.
And I kid you not, there was like an interview where Biden said the Russian interference wouldn't have happened on my or Barack's watch.
It's like, dude, what?
That's literally what happened.
It's just, politics is a disgusting game.
And if you're somebody who actually wants a solution to the problems facing our world, this is not how you go about it.
There is a chance that a high-level conversation can be had.
I'm extremely grateful and it's with great respect and honor that I accept this invitation.
I'm not trying to be, you know, a jerk or condescending or disrespectful in any way.
I just think when it comes to politicking, nothing ever happens.
We see all these people in the federal government commit crimes.
How often are they actually indicted?
It just feels like it's all a stupid game.
You know, there have been a lot of hit pieces coming out about the social media summit, and I'll get into this later, but seriously, they're saying it's politicking, it's Trump rallying a bunch of pro-Trump personalities.
Well, that's technically true.
I am certainly no pro-Trump personality.
So, I do have respect for them inviting me.
They've also invited Bill Ottman, the CEO of Mines, who I do not believe.
I'm not gonna put words in his mouth, but I'm pretty sure he's not a pro-Trump individual.
It's more about liberties, free expression, and things like that.
So, it's not one-sided.
But I do think a bit of this is about Trump recognizing he needs that social media power for re-election.
And I don't think, you know, any of these people at the White House will have the power to actually change anything.
I feel like all we really see is an influence war, and that means lying, cheating, and stealing.
And I don't know if there's anything to be done to stop it.
So anyway, instead of making this video three hours long, I'm trying to get all of my work done really, really quickly, because the summit is today, and I have to be done before, like, 1 p.m.
So I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
The next video will be at 1 p.m., and I will see you all there.
It's time for another tale of a Me Too backfire.
This story from the Huffington Post.
Mississippi GOP candidate denies journalist campaign trip interview since she's a woman.
It's actually more complicated than the headline would have you believe, but it is technically true, although I think they could do better if they actually told you what happened.
Because, look, most people will read the headline and move on.
And if you just read this headline, it sounds like he's just a sexist prick.
In reality, there's two things here.
For one, The journalist is claiming, essentially, he didn't want to be accused of an affair.
He's claiming, for his wife, they have an agreement not to be privately with people of the opposite sex.
It's a religious thing, and he doesn't want to be accused of an affair.
They say, State Rep.
Robert Foster's campaign director told journalist Larrison Campbell, they would only go forward with the interview if a male journalist was present.
Now see, you gotta read it to actually figure out what really happened, but I gotta say, it does feel like a backlash to the Me Too era, because we've seen many circumstances now where men are straight up saying, I'm not going to be alone with you.
We've heard stories that men are refusing to mentor women, that in office buildings, men have an open door policy now.
The door must always be open if a woman is gonna come and talk to them, because there is a concern about being falsely accused.
And it happens.
Like, Aziz Ansari was smeared over a bad date.
Chris Harbick, I think it was, the guy from, he has some show, was falsely accused of impropriety.
He lost his job.
They brought him back after an investigation.
So, yes, it does happen.
I'm not saying every single instance is false, every accusation is false.
I'm just saying, for one, Nobody wants to be accused of having an affair.
It'll be all over the press.
Two, what if someone does falsely accuse you?
This is what you get.
You get male, uh, you know, um, men who are in positions of power who say, it's not worth it.
I can't do it.
So let's read on.
Huffington Post writes, The campaign of Mississippi Republican gubernatorial candidate and state rep Robert Foster denied a journalist's request to shadow him on a campaign trip because she is a woman, the reporter wrote in an essay published in Mississippi Today on Tuesday evening.
And we'll see what we can get from there.
Journalist Larrison Campbell said the campaign director Colton Robison told her she could ride along with Foster for a day trip only if she brought a male colleague along.
According to Campbell, Robison said he was concerned about the public perception of them being together, that if trackers saw Foster and Campbell, they could use it to insinuate an extramarital affair.
After consulting with her editor, she said no, both on principle, telling Huffington Post it was a sexist request, and because newsrooms are stretched thin.
And she was shocked that even after offering other solutions, like making sure she's visibly wearing her press badge all day, They continued to deny her request.
This is why I think she's wrong on this one.
When you actually read on, you learn this guy's following what's called the Billy Graham rule, which we'll read.
The real issue that he says is that him and his wife have an agreement that he won't be alone with a woman, she won't be alone with men, as part of their marital bond.
Hey look, it's your religion, you do you.
It wouldn't make sense that if she said how, you know, if she's claiming he didn't want to look bad, like they could be having an affair.
And it is possible, even if she's in full view of the public, people could still assume there's an affair.
But it sounds more to me like he doesn't want to be alone with a woman for other reasons, because if he was visible with her, that would kind of offset a lot of any speculation, especially if she's wearing a press badge.
And she's recording him, people would be like, okay, we get it.
And he's never gonna see her again, right?
To me, it sounds like he actually does follow what they call the Billy Graham rule, but let's read on.
Quote, they put the onus on me as a woman to make Rhett Foster feel comfortable when it was his issue and his rule.
You are not entitled to anyone's time.
Period.
I can give you any reason for why I won't do an interview.
This is the most absurd part of the story.
That she's outraged that he wouldn't do an interview with her.
Dude, I deny interview requests like five times a day.
I ignore most of them and for some reason people get my phone number and I don't even answer my phone anymore.
I say no.
I say no to literally all of them.
The only interviews I've done recently has been one for the hill pertaining to the social media summit.
I don't trust interviewers.
I don't trust these outlets.
And no, you're not entitled to my time.
I can give you any reason I want, but she's saying the onus is on her as a woman to make him feel comfortable.
Well, yeah, you're the journalist trying to get him to grant you his time.
It's really crazy to me.
There was a point in my career where I was getting a ton of speaking offers.
They weren't paid.
And I had a speaking agent.
And the speaking agent said to me, listen, You are the product.
They need to sell you to make money.
If they're not offering you anything, they're wasting your time.
The same is true for this.
Why?
The journalist needs the quote from the politician.
She needs the interview from the politician.
There's no obligation for him to give her anything.
And if he has special terms because of his marriage or because of public perception, that's on you, period.
So, ultimately, I was told, listen, Tim, You're the entertainment for these events.
You should get paid for it no matter what.
And I said, yeah, but like, you know, some of these events don't have a lot of money.
He said, so what?
They want to put on an event and they need something from you.
They have to, there has to be some kind of consideration, some exchange of value.
Maybe the value you get, it's a high profile event and you're willing to do it.
But at the end of the day, they're putting on an event and you are their entertainment.
And I'm like, that's a good point.
And I, for the most part, haven't turned down most speaking gigs since.
A lot of gigs want you to come and accommodate them.
Not gonna happen.
But I do have an event coming up August 31st in the Philadelphia area.
IRL.minds.com, check it out.
I gotta throw the plug in while I'm talking about it.
Let's read on.
In an email, Foster told HuffPost that the decision was based on a commitment he and his wife made to follow the quote, Billy Graham rule.
A practice named after evangelical pastor who did not spend time alone with women who are not his wife, which is to avoid any situation that may evoke suspicion or compromise of our marriage.
I am sorry Ms.
Campbell doesn't share these same views, but my decision was out of a respect for my wife, character, and our Christian faith, Foster said.
He tweeted a similar response Tuesday night.
Foster told HuffPost he wouldn't mind granting Campbell an interview.
We just wanted to be in an appropriate and professional setting that wouldn't provide opportunities for us to be alone.
I... I... Look.
Listen.
If you... If you are... This is normal.
It's absolutely normal that when I reach out to someone for an interview, they say, here's what I can do, and here's when I can do it, and I have to accommodate them.
Period.
So, Campbell said the Billy Graham rule rationale was never presented to her.
Instead, the campaign spoke to her about the concern that, quote, trackers would try to
make him look bad.
He never mentioned anything about his wife or having that agreement with his wife beforehand,
she said.
That's not his problem.
That's not his issue to explain.
Perhaps he was kind of embarrassed, and you forced him to come out and talk about his personal commitments with his wife.
Maybe he said explicitly they didn't want there to be insinuations of an extramarital affair that literally falls in line with the idea of the Billy Graham rule.
Maybe you are now forcing him to step up and reveal details about his personal life.
The sheer gall of so many journalists to think they're a special class of people that are just so elitist and entitled to you and your time.
Let's read on.
They say the professional barriers women face as a result of optics is not unique to the journalism industry.
A study last May from leanin.org and SurveyMonkey found that 60% of male managers said they're not comfortable engaging in work activities with women, including mentoring.
A 33% increase from the year before.
And yes, it's literally the Me Too era.
Men don't want to be accused.
I am not going to risk anything having to do with my life to accommodate you when I don't have to.
I owe you nothing.
You deserve nothing from me.
And if you want something from me, then let's work out how to make it, you know, best available to you.
But if I decide for any reason you can't talk to me, well then so be it.
Campbell spoke to Foster first on Saturday.
He appeared noncommittal, but seemed somewhat enthusiastic, Campbell told HuffPost.
Robison called her back Sunday afternoon, and they talked about the details of the trip she had.
They would go down to the Gulf Coast on Thursday, a couple of hours from Jackson.
Then they'd come up through a few towns in the southern part of Mississippi.
It'd be around a 15-hour day in total.
It's not a small time commitment, Campbell said, but a great opportunity for a window into the campaign.
She wanted 15 hours of his time?
Man, it is sheer audacity of the journalist class to think.
Fifteen hours is someone's entire day.
You get eight hours of sleep, you got sixteen hours.
So you sleep for seven to eight hours, you wake up, you spend an hour or two, you know, you have an hour of, like, getting ready for work, having breakfast, taking a shower, then you've got about fifteen hours.
She quite literally wanted his entire day.
And he said, okay, bring a dude.
And she said, no.
And now she's angry about it.
Campbell received the request.
Robison reportedly asked if she could have a male colleague accompany her.
HuffPost attempted to reach out to Robison through the campaign, but did not receive a response.
Campbell told HuffPost it would have been different if the campaign suggested a male staffer accompany her.
Instead, they were telling her since she was a woman, she should provide the additional resources.
No, it's because you... Oh my God.
You know what, man?
We have a real problem with entitlement in this generation.
I kid you not.
People who think they're owed things.
Yeah, you want to come?
You take care of the resources.
Could you imagine if someone was like, I want to do an interview with you and I want you to pay the bill for the restaurant and rent the space so I can... No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Here are my terms.
Take it or leave it.
They go on to explain who Foster is.
I'm not super concerned.
They say Campbell has been covering Foster's campaign.
She broke his bid for the governor's mansion in November and later wrote a story about him being offered a large amount of money by a Republican operative not to run for governor.
But this isn't just a Mississippi or GOP issue, Campbell said.
Campbell has had friends and others reaching out and telling her they've faced situations.
These things feel familiar.
The conversation this ordeal raises is an important one.
Campbell later explained, politics has been, up until the last couple of decades, almost an entirely male space.
I think this is an echo of that.
No, this is an echo of the Me Too era and men being concerned that they will be smeared, maligned, accused, and they don't want that to happen.
They mentioned the Lean In survey, a direct result of the Me Too era, and they even say that.
I'm pretty sure, I don't want to pull it up, but my understanding is they say straight up, That in the wake of Me Too, many men are concerned about being accused or other people spreading rumors and it causing problems for both men and women.
So they're like, no.
Men don't want to mentor women anymore and I don't blame them.
Could you imagine what it's like for a, you know, 35, 40-year-old guy with a 25-year-old woman?
People are going to say all sorts of things.
Sorry!
That's the culture that's being fomented by the left, by the feminists.
Plain and simple.
I'm not saying they shouldn't call it bad behavior.
They should call it out.
But this is the result of that, and it should be obvious.
And I don't know what the solution is.
You know, there's an ongoing debate about air conditioning in the workplace.
Taylor Lorenz, a journalist, tweeted that AC is sexist, and we've heard it time and time again.
It was originally an Onion article, I kid you not.
And she got ratioed the biggest ratio I've ever seen.
That means on Twitter, she had like 100 retweets, but like 10,000 replies from people telling her she's wrong.
A lot of insults, which I think are unfair, because Taylor's actually a really, really nice person.
And so, it's one thing when someone makes a bad-faith, nonsensical statement.
It's another thing when you have someone like Taylor, who actually is really, really nice, and I tremendously respect her, even though I disagree with some of her stories and writing.
She's very nice and cordial, and she's deserving of respect.
So I will not be, you know... I try not to disrespect people based on their opinions.
I think her opinion's wrong.
That's fine.
What she said was, I should be allowed to wear a dress in the summer.
Her solution is that men should be allowed to wear shorts and polos as well.
Sure, but that's not necessarily the issue.
The argument that men are hotter because they wear suits is not necessarily the only issue.
Men feel about 10 degrees warmer, period.
So now we're facing this like... So here's the point I'm trying to make.
Why should a woman be allowed to wear a flowery sundress in summer?
Why shouldn't she wear the same proper attire as everybody else?
Why should the argument be that men should be able to dress down?
The issue is, as Jordan Peterson brings up, why do women want to appear sexually attractive in the workplace?
That shouldn't be appropriate.
The workplace is for business.
And perhaps, as Jordan Peterson suggests, women shouldn't wear makeup and low-cut tops and dresses.
They should wear business attire and they shouldn't be wearing makeup.
Now, it's an interesting question.
I think people should wear what they want to wear to feel confident and powerful.
But there is something to be said about a woman who wants to wear a dress in the summer.
It's interesting to me.
It's interesting because men have very few attire choices.
You know, women have a ton of different things they can wear, and they can wear suits.
So they're upset that because they want to wear a dress in the summer, they're too cold.
But then you have the whole issue of me too.
Should we get rid of air conditioners in the workplace so that women can wear dresses?
Or should we say women should have to be held to the same standard as men?
Should men be held to the same standard as women or women to the same standard of men?
That's the question.
So perhaps there is a solution in saying men don't have to wear suits.
But one of the issues is men don't wear suits because they're forced to.
They do it because it's considered proper business attire and a dress isn't.
Right?
So, ultimately, the issue comes down to this.
If women want to dress down and appear sexy in the workplace, it creates a Me Too problem.
So, there's an argument to be made, and it's silly to me that a lot of the feminists on the issue say, you know, it's not the woman's fault if she wants to appear sexy.
It's like, no, but I'm not talking about assault or harassment.
I'm talking about unwanted romantic, you know, inclinations.
So, in every capacity, it is wrong for a guy to harass or assault a woman, period.
What I'm trying to refer to specifically is if a woman wears a low-cut top and she looks very sexy and attractive and she's wearing a flowery dress, and then a man starts making advances to her and she gets angry about it, well, you're looking attractive and that's the result you get.
Should we say to men, you are not allowed to ask women on dates or, you know, make advances on them?
I'm not talking about assault or harassment.
Again, I'm talking about a guy saying, like, you look stunning.
Would you like to go on, you know, on a date with me?
I think you're beautiful.
A lot of women will find that inappropriate and say it's not fair that women get treated this way, but at the same time, that's part of normal human interaction.
Anyway, I'm not going to go super long on this one.
I've got to record a ton back-to-back.
So, but here you go.
First of all, final thought.
Journalist, you're not entitled to anyone's time.
Okay?
If that's his conditions, so be it.
And secondly, this is what happens in the MeToo era.
Good or bad, whatever your opinion, this is what could be expected.
Expect to see more.
Stick around, more videos coming up.
The next one will be at youtube.com slash timcast, a different channel, and I will see you there.
Our story begins the end of February of this year when a former Trump campaign staffer sued alleging that Trump kissed her without consent.
The latest update is that a video has been released showing the video of the kiss behind the lawsuit.
As it turns out, it looks like Trump did a rather informal cheek kiss.
So let's read a little bit of the first story and then we'll break down exactly what's going on in this latest update.
Here was the initial allegation from CNN.
A former Trump campaign staffer is suing Donald Trump and his campaign, alleging that the then-Republican presidential candidate kissed her without her consent during the 2016 race.
She's also suing over equal pay, claiming that she was paid less for her work based on race and gender.
Alva Johnson, a former Trump campaign staffer who lives in Alabama, alleges in a lawsuit filed Monday that Trump grabbed her hand and forcibly kissed her without her consent inside an RV in Florida in August 2016.
While Trump was meeting with volunteers and signing autographs inside the RV, Ms.
Johnson noticed that Defendant Trump was watching her and appeared to be trying to make eye contact with her.
After Trump was alerted by Secret Service that he was due for his next rally, she urged him to go in there and kick ass.
Trump then allegedly grasped her hand and praised her efforts.
As Defendant Trump spoke, he tightened his grip on Ms.
Johnson's hand and leaned towards her.
He moved close enough that she could feel his breath on her skin, the lawsuit states.
Johnson suddenly realized that Defendant Trump was trying to kiss her on the mouth, and attempted to avoid this by turning her head to the right.
Defendant Trump kissed her anyway, and the kiss landed on the corner of her mouth.
The lawsuit alleges that several witnesses saw the incident, including then-Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, then-State Director Karen Giorno, and Regional Directors Earl Tony Ledbetter, Mitch Tyner, and Nick Corvino.
The lawsuit alleges that Bondi smiled when the incident occurred, and Giorno grabbed Mrs. Johnson's elbow and gave it an approving tug.
After the incident, on her way to the campaign state headquarters in Sarasota, Florida, the suit claims that Johnson called her partner and then her parents to tell them what had happened.
Crying, as she recalled the incident.
This is all really important context.
Because when you hear this story, it sounds like you have this lecherous... Actually, it reminds me of this episode of Family Guy.
I'm sure many of you have seen the episode of Family Guy, where Peter has to go to a proctologist.
Forgive me for the crude reference, but it makes sense.
Trust me.
Peter goes, and it's a routine exam.
When he initially goes, the colors are all normal, and he has to get a prostate exam.
Later on, when he remembers how it happened, it's a horror scene where it's all black and white, the doctor is evil and laughing, and ha ha ha, and putting on a glove, and Peter's like, no!
And this is what it sounds like.
We have video of the event.
The way she describes it, it sounds like, you know, Trump is looking at her like, eugh, and then he grabs her and she's like, no, stop, and he kisses her.
When in reality, he walks up and says, hi, thank you, gives her a kiss on the cheek and just moves on.
Now, this video has come out, and they're trying to claim it's actually proof of her claims.
And I gotta say, we are now going to enter this realm of one screen, two movies.
I assure you, the anti-Trump crowd are gonna claim, aha, he kissed her, he shouldn't have done it.
But to me it looked like a European style, you know, like kiss on the... Have you ever seen that?
People will meet and they turn their heads and they kiss on the side?
So, let's look at the latest update from Mediaite this morning.
Trump lawyers release video of kiss behind lawsuit filed by former campaign staffer Alva Johnson.
Now, I will make one point.
One of the criticisms is that in the video, which I'll just play right now.
Okay, it's not working.
I think I might have the actual tweet here from, yes.
So here's the actual video.
For those that are listening on the podcast, you're not going to be able to see, but I'm going to play it now.
Okay, it's not playing.
whenever I need to play it, that's when it gives me the business. But I'll reload it and here we go.
So let me start this over, and I'm going to give you a quick play-by-play.
Trump is walking.
He sees her.
He looks to his right.
And then you can see, when he moves his head in, his head is turned to the left.
And he gives her a kiss, not on the side of her mouth.
Look at the image you're seeing.
Okay, first of all, one of the points being made is that the right is saying she was happy, she said, I was doing this for you, and she's not at all upset that he gives her this European-style side cheek kiss, right?
What you're seeing right now on the screen, for those that are listening on the podcast, Trump, his lips do not appear to be making any contact with her face at all.
It looks like the bottom of his chin is on her right cheek and his lips are in the air
like a European style to the side. It's not a real kiss.
And that's it. And then, but he does have his hands on her shoulders
and she says, eight months for you and then he shakes some hands
he shakes her hand, he pats her on the shoulder and he walks away.
And that's it.
From the original story, it was made to sound like Trump was assaulting women on the campaign trail in 2016.
But now we see the video, and I think any reasonable person is going to look at this and say, what is happening in this country?
Of course, they are using that as evidence.
So in the story, let's read, they say, Lawyers for President Donald Trump released video of what appears to be a very innocent kiss between Trump and a campaign staffer, Alva Johnson, who was suing the president for an alleged non-consensual kiss that took place during her work on the 2016 campaign.
In a February lawsuit filed in Florida, 43-year-old Johnson said Trump had grabbed her hand and kissed her on the lips.
As we can see from the video, that did not happen.
That's a lie.
They say that Johnson told the Washington Post he had leaned in for a kiss when she accidentally turned her head, and the kiss landed on the side of her mouth, which was super creepy and inappropriate.
Again.
We looked at the video.
Trump's head is turned to the left, and hers to the right, and it looks like his chin is on her chin.
I just... It's not there.
We've seen the video.
And he kisses into the air.
I immediately felt violated because I wasn't expecting it or wanting it, she told the Post.
I can still see his lips coming straight for my face.
In a court filing, lawyer Charles Harder writes, the video shows that plaintiff's allegations in the complaint that Mr. Trump forcibly kissed her and kissed her on the mouth are entirely false.
He calls the suit unmeritorious and frivolous.
The kiss revealed in the video appears to be an innocent and rather pedestrian peck on the cheek greeting in what appears to be a crowded room where Trump and Johnson are surrounded by others.
The video was captured by campaign volunteer Brian Hayes, who claimed in legal filings that he was present in the RV at the time of the interaction.
and recorded the video on his phone. Johnson has claimed that she was on the receiving end of an
unwanted and forcible kiss from Trump. During an interview with MSNBC's Chris Hayes specifically
described the alleged advance. Now that we've seen the video, let's see how she frames it.
I wasn't close to him and I was wearing the baseball cap, but he had to pass me on his way exiting the RV.
As he passed, I said, you go and do a good job.
You kick ass, because I've been away from my family for a long time.
And he stopped, and he grabs my hand, I'm assuming, and he starts looking at me.
He said, I'm going to do a good job.
I'm not going to let you down.
I know you've been away from your family.
And he's holding my hand, holding my hand, and then he starts coming towards me, and so he's still holding my hand, and I just had a lot of internal dialogue, like, is he going to hug me?
And then he keeps coming closer, and I'm like, okay, is he going to hug?
And then I'm like, oh my god, I think he's gonna kiss me.
Because he was coming directly for my face.
I mean, this is with the bill of my baseball cap.
And when I realized he was going to kiss my lips, I turned my mouth.
He caught me right on the corner of my mouth and I was just kind of frozen.
I didn't know how to process it.
I knew it was inappropriate because I worked in human resources.
So I knew it was completely inappropriate.
It was gross and creepy.
Like I can sometimes still see those lips.
And so he walked out.
Now let's go over this.
She says he was holding her hand.
In the video, he's not holding her hand.
Look at this.
He walks up, his hands are at his side, both of his hands go up immediately, and then we can see his hands go on her shoulder.
His hands are on his shoulder, and he turns his head to dodge the brim, and he goes for her cheek.
It's absurd to me the way she's framing it.
First, he's not holding her hand.
He didn't say anything to her.
Take a look here.
She says that he said to her, I'm going to do a good job, I'm not going to let you down, I know you've been away from your family.
That's a lot to say in the split second and he says nothing.
It sounds like he's saying, thank you, thank you, appreciate it, that's it.
So the way she's framing it, claiming what he said to her, it's just seemingly not true.
However, here's how they responded.
Johnson's attorney, Hassan Zavari, sees the video in a positive light for Johnson.
According to reporting by Politico, he said, we are gratified and pleased that we finally have proof of what Ms.
Johnson has been alleging in this lawsuit.
It is basically exactly what Ms.
Johnson has been saying.
It's not The interaction presented in the video embedded above, which includes a second cut slowed down to 25% speed, also released by the Trump legal team, is the same interaction Johnson described above.
It is difficult to imagine this case proceeding with merit.
Media-ite is saying this.
What Trump did is a standard greeting we see in the US rarely, but in Europe a lot.
Grabbing the shoulders and turning to the side and giving a kiss.
If you're going to present that to a judge or jury and claim it was an inappropriate action, they're going to be confused.
And you can make the argument, we shouldn't be doing these informal greetings anymore, or formal greetings, whatever you want to call it.
Sure, we can argue society has changed and men and women should no longer do faux kisses to the side, but if that's the case, then this is innocent and moving on, we will no longer do this.
But how insane is it?
I really wonder why a woman who was willing to spend 8 months on the campaign trail away from her family in support of Trump would turn her back in this way and smear him like this.
But I'll end with this.
Don't be surprised when the left starts saying, we have video of him kissing this woman, it's proof.
Sure.
Context matters, but not to these people.
Stick around, I got two more stories coming for you in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
It's possible.
As you're watching this video, I'm still at the White House.
I have no idea.
I don't know when the event is supposed to start.
I just know when I'm supposed to be there.
And we're going to be talking about big tech, fake news, media smears.
I honestly have no idea.
The president tweeted this morning, and it is what it is.
So it is possible I'm out by now.
But I saw this story today from BuzzFeed News.
And I gotta admit, I'm just so damn confused.
One of the big issues I have, as an individual who is left-leaning, believes in government regulation, I can go through my lists of my political positions all day and night.
One of the big problems I have is unaccountable corporations.
I've always been concerned with unaccountable corporations, as has the left.
Why today, When conservatives challenge big tech oligopolies, are the left rushing to their defense to smear all of these people, including me, as extremists?
It makes no sense.
Take a look at this story.
BuzzFeed News.
These tech companies are giving millions to politicians who vote against LGBTQ people.
A group of 30 advocates sent a letter Wednesday to dozens of companies, including Amazon and Google, calling on them to stop giving money to politicians who discriminate.
Okay, I don't disagree with that activist action.
If you find that there are high-profile people who are making donations in ways you don't like, petition them.
I agree.
Why is it that when I challenge the tech companies on their egregious violations of civil liberties or their encroachment in the public sector, the taking over of the commons, the left smears me and insults me and then turns around and then tries to smear and target Google?
These big corporations, they make a lot of money.
These big tech giants, okay?
And they're unaccountable.
And they can use that power to sway politics.
That's disconcerting.
I don't think Facebook, Google, Twitter, or otherwise should have the right to determine what our politics are going to be.
There should be some kind of limit.
Now listen, I understand that back in the day the media companies essentially decided this as well, by choosing what to put on TV and what not to.
But there were some rules about how much time they had to give to politicians.
We're now seeing overt political bias.
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy.
I'm saying it's in our faces.
There was a congressional hearing where I believe it was with Twitter.
Where someone asked, why is it that in DC, when you sign up for Twitter, it only recommends Democratic politicians?
Is that not an in-kind donation to those politicians?
Maybe, maybe not.
The point is, I don't want Twitter to determine who should be president.
Apparently, neither does BuzzFeed and this activist organization who are concerned that many of these people are donating to anti-LGBTQ people.
So why are we fighting?
Why is it that when I say Facebook should not be the arbiter of truth, they smear me and they lie about me?
Well, I'll tell you what.
All that's really been happening in the culture war is the empowerment of the elites, the corporations, and the status quo to shut down independent voices.
Occupy Wall Street, I feel like, was a big wake-up call.
You had left-wing, right-wing, libertarian there in those first few days.
I kid you not.
And they all agreed the 1% was the problem.
Race, creed, color, etc., national origin, sex, none of that mattered.
What mattered was banksters and corporations and revolving door policies led to the collapse of the economy In the United States and around the world.
And it negatively impacted the working class.
But something started to happen that immediately disrupted calls for class justice.
Racial identitarianism started to emerge.
And people started claiming you were a racist or bigot if you didn't bend the knee.
Sure enough, slowly but surely, within a few days, the older Republican types were gone.
And within the first week, it was just a bunch of college students pushing racial identitarianism.
And I think this is a big problem.
And I think it's one of the big problems we face.
It is, like, identitarianism splits the left.
But look at it this way.
When you look at a wealthy, multi-millionaire, billionaire even, who happens to be black, well, back in the day, you could say, I don't care if you're white, black, Asian, whatever.
If you're one of these banksters who crashed the economy with your, you know, ill-thought-out policies, then we need some accountability.
But the narrative changed after Occupy Wall Street.
Instead of challenging the 1%, what are we doing now?
Blaming people based on arbitrary skin color?
So here's what happens.
You end up with Serena Williams, okay?
I'm not trying to be a dick, um, but she is one of the most powerful individuals in the world, period.
Period.
There are very few people who have more power than she does.
Very few.
Maybe in the thousands.
She is a multi-millionaire, extremely famous, strong, and talented individual.
But she's complaining about marginalized groups and depression.
How does that make sense?
How do we come to a point now where the argument has flipped from challenge the big corporations who are suppressing individuals and shutting down the poor to, see that white homeless guy over there?
He has privilege.
How do we get to a point where you could actually argue that a homeless guy laying in his own waste in San Francisco is somehow more privileged than someone like Serena Williams?
How do we get to the point where the ACLU is actually defending overt racism at Harvard?
Where the school actually says if you look a certain way, they will make it harder for you to get in.
The left used to be about class.
But something happened, and now we have a corporate elite, big business tech oligopoly, Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin, Sundar Pichai's, even Jack Dorsey to an extent, although I think he's kind of a figurehead.
Super wealthy tech elites pointing the finger at poor white people and saying they're the problem.
What do we see in DC for the free speech rally?
A bunch of American citizens of limited power and authority, some more powerful than others, speaking out against massive corporations.
And what happened?
Antifa is convinced their enemy is not the elites, the millionaires, those who control the banks, those who run these big massive companies.
They're convinced it's the Americans.
They're being told, the problem isn't the rich people, the problem isn't the elites who are unaccountable, it's your fellow working class and lower class individuals.
And there we see Antifa becomes a tool for Facebook and Google and massive international tech oligopolies.
These Antifa activists show up and threaten and intimidate those who would challenge the big corporations.
Take a look at all the smears that are coming out right now against me and everyone else.
Why are they defending Facebook?
It makes no sense.
If we're going to have a summit and talk about these issues, isn't it a good thing that we challenge Facebook?
Aren't you on the left upset that Facebook empowered Trump to win?
With Cambridge Analytica and giving out private data they shouldn't have?
Shouldn't you be in agreement?
Whatever your political ideology is, we should challenge unaccountable massive corporations?
No.
These people have been convinced it's not the unaccountable billionaire elites.
It's not the multi-millionaire politicians who for some reason on a salary of $174,000 are now worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
It's not them.
It's not.
It's that poor white guy who doesn't know why his factory was shut down so he voted for Trump.
It's that middle-aged woman who's wearing a Trump hat.
They're the enemy.
It's long been said on the left that the rich people will point to the poor and blame immigrants.
Or other poor people to convince you it's not them?
Why then does Antifa show up and threaten poor American citizens?
Andrew Yang brings up good and interesting points.
And of course, he gets smeared for it.
He says that he's campaigning to address all of the issues that got Donald Trump elected, one of which is automation.
People were losing their jobs.
I have tremendous respect for that.
He's not, you know, he's been critical of Trump for sure, but he's saying, listen, you know, people lost their jobs in middle America and they didn't know why.
And Trump came and said, I'll bring your jobs back.
Andrew Yang is saying we need a more forward-thinking solution.
Because of this, they smear Yang and Gabbard as the alt-right Democrats.
And I'm not exaggerating, they literally, they call them this.
So when I come out and say those are the people I support as a left-leaning individual, they say, ha, go figure, supporting the alt-right Democrats.
It's absurd.
Tulsi Gabbard, anti-war alt-right Democrat.
Vox called her position on war conservative.
So here we are.
This is the current state of our politics.
It's very convenient for the status quo elites.
Whatever you want to call it.
The ivory tower billionaires.
Those who control industry.
Is it any wonder we're seeing the Koch brothers and George Soros agree on censorship of hate speech on social media?
No, they're both in agreement.
Make the poor people fight each other.
Get the middle class people of color to point their finger at the poor white people and blame them for their ills.
And then none of the problems actually get solved.
These big companies with unaccountable billionaires running media, running tech, telling you what to think and feel, it's no wonder!
They're supporting policy that exacerbates the culture war and racial identitarianism.
It suits their needs.
But I think it might actually cause a rapid destabilization and make things worse.
I'm not saying there's a grand conspiracy.
I'm not saying it's intentional.
I'm saying that's what's happening.
Whether or not someone wanted it to happen, what we're seeing now is left-wing activists blaming the working class.
There was a protest in Seattle at an Amazon building.
A bunch of young socialists came out saying that Amazon wasn't paying their workers fairly.
So a bunch of actual laborers came out yelling Trump, shouting them down.
These people on the left claim to represent the working class.
They don't.
The working class are middle-aged, you know, dudes who voted for Trump, who want their jobs back, who want to work in a factory, who are union guys.
And what happens?
How did Trump break the blue wall?
Right?
Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, I can't remember exactly which states.
Trump wasn't supposed to win there.
Hillary Clinton thought she would win, but she wasn't.
She was a politician for the elites, and Trump won because of it.
And now we can see the conversation.
It's going to make things worse.
The working class people, those who are challenging big corporations, they're probably going to vote for Trump.
So anyway, to wrap this up, because this is an issue I could rant on for a long time, but I wanted to make sure I don't miss the point here.
Buzzfeed is writing about activists challenging Google.
Well, good for them.
Challenge Google.
Google should not be using their unaccountable power to suppress the speech of individuals or oppose LGBTQ rights.
Why, then, would you smear me when I agree with you and think tech oligopolies should be stopped from controlling public discourse and influencing our elections?
I don't think people think it through.
I don't think they're doing it on purpose.
I think they've just been convinced this is the right thing to do.
Defend the big corporations.
Well, congratulations!
You've become stooges and foot soldiers for massive, unaccountable, multinational, billion-dollar corporations that don't care about you and will suppress your rights at a moment's notice.
Google told their employees they weren't allowed to protest.
Now you've got Google staff, Amazon staff, donating to anti-LGBTQ groups.
Why is this not surprising to me?
And when will they wake up?
Perhaps they won't.
Stick around, I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes.
I will see you then.
I've gotten a lot of criticism for constantly talking about Ocasio-Cortez and trying to act like anything she does is, you know, making a mountain out of a molehill.
Here's the thing.
She has like 4 million followers.
She is very influential, and she's a representation of the identitarian left in the Democrats.
I don't like Nancy Pelosi all that much because I think she's an elite multi-millionaire who doesn't really represent American interests, and I'm curious how somebody on a salary of $174,000 a year Sure, I'm not going to disparage her simply because she's wealthy, but it's kind of weird, isn't it?
We then get Ocasio-Cortez, who, look, at first, I praised.
And I actually do agree with some of her positions.
I made a video strictly praising her when she said she was going to team up with Ted Cruz to end the lobbying pipeline.
Spot on.
Sounds great.
I praised her for calling for the end of private prisons.
And I agree with her 100%.
Illegal immigrants in this country are still protected under the Fourth Amendment and have constitutional rights.
It's a fact.
It's true.
But she says nonsense things.
She is the worst advocate for environmentalism.
She makes us all look bad.
Look at this story.
The Daily Wire.
Ocasio-Cortez suggests Pelosi is targeting her because Pelosi is racist.
Now, they're inferring that from something Ocasio-Cortez says, but I think it's a fair point to be made.
Because Ocasio-Cortez makes the claim that Pelosi is targeting her, And singling out women of color, specifically.
I do not believe that Nancy Pelosi is targeting Ocasio-Cortez because of her race.
She's doing it because Ocasio-Cortez is ignorant, bombastic, divisive, and I'll say dangerous.
Ocasio-Cortez repeatedly escalates her rhetoric and is encouraging division in this country.
It's very dangerous.
It's also divisive for the Democrats who want to win.
So when Nancy Pelosi says we need to be united we're a family, don't tweet.
Ocasio-Cortez's response?
Basically, you're a bigot.
Let's read a bit about the story and then we'll carry on with the point I'm making.
From the Daily Wire, they say Socialist Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez attacked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during multiple recent interviews, going as far as to say that she believes that Pelosi is targeting her because Pelosi is racist.
I think sometimes people think that we have a relationship, Ocasio-Cortez told the New Yorker Radio Hour.
Not particularly.
The last time I kind of spoke to her one-on-one was when she asked me to join the Select Committee on Climate Change.
I was assigned to some of the busiest committees and four subcommittees, so my hands are full.
And sometimes I wonder if they're trying to keep me busy.
Ocasio-Cortez suggested to the Washington Post on Wednesday that Pelosi was racist, saying, When these comments first started, I kind of thought she was keeping the progressive flank at more of an arm's distance in order to protect more moderate members, which I understood.
But the persistent singling out, it got to a point where it was just outright disrespectful.
The explicit singling out of newly elected women of color.
And there we can see the other shoe drop.
Ocasio-Cortez actually implying that Nancy Pelosi is racist for calling her out.
It's absurd to me that we have these arguments.
The left claims that if you criticize anybody, you're a racist.
And the Democrats and the Republicans do this too with Israel.
You can absolutely criticize Israel without being an anti-Semite.
There's an important distinction in what you're criticizing.
So, yes.
Nancy Pelosi can tell Ocasio-Cortez, who has 4 million followers and tweets ridiculously bombastic things, and routinely generates bad press like this, to chill out.
It is not because of her race.
Ocasio-Cortez, in my opinion, uses this as a cudgel.
It's her way of saying, I'm gonna strike back at Pelosi, knock her down with more progressives by accusing her of racism.
Because, it's, look, it's victim of Olympics.
Of course.
Ocasio-Cortez has never done anything wrong, she says.
And this is one of the worst things about her, and one of the things I think is so dangerous.
Ocasio-Cortez refuses to ever acknowledge her faults.
She is a dangerous egotist who purposefully makes divisive tweets to piss people off, to gain followers, to pass the buck, and when she's called out for saying her nonsensical things, what does she do?
She doubles down or provides an excuse.
For once in your life, Ocasio-Cortez, admit that you were wrong.
Admit this is not why she's coming after you.
Cortez said concentration camps and sparked a major national news story.
It resulted in Holocaust Museum speaking up, denouncing her Holocaust survivors.
That is not the kind of press the Democrats need if they're going to beat Trump and the Republicans in the next year and following.
But Ocasio-Cortez doesn't care.
She's bombastic.
Egotistical.
Narcissistic.
She's said as much.
She has tweets where she says things like, I'm the boss.
I'm in charge.
You're just yelling from the cheap seats.
She is disruptive and destructive to the Democrats.
And thus, Nancy Pelosi criticizes her.
So what does Ocasio-Cortez do?
She pulls the card straight out of the regressive, identitarian left playbook.
You must be a racist.
That's the only reason you'd really criticize me.
Plain and simple.
Let's read on.
Pelosi has repeatedly mocked Ocasio-Cortez and the other three far-left freshman House Democrats, recently telling the New York Times, And that's a cold wake-up call from Nancy Pelosi.
Twitter is not real life.
I'd be willing to bet a lot of people on the left, you know, even some moderate Democrats, follow or know who Ocasio-Cortez is.
from Nancy Pelosi.
Twitter is not real life.
I'd be willing to bet a lot of people on the left, you know, even some moderate Democrats,
follow or know who Ocasio-Cortez is.
But I'll tell you this.
I was at a skate park recently, and while we were arguing some progressive issues, some
people were further left than I was and some were further right, we all agreed Ocasio-Cortez
kind of jumped the shark.
But I was thinking about this the other day, with all the smear pieces coming out, and I want to say something too.
I grew up skateboarding.
Skateboarders hate cops.
I used to have a hat that said, arrest me, I'm a skateboarder.
Making the point that cops often, you know, would arrest, detain, and fine skateboarders.
Skateboarders and cops don't get along.
Now, I get it.
Skateboarders want to do tricks that can result in gradual property damage.
And so the cops have to remove you.
But skateboarders are anti-establishment.
They don't like cops.
They're urban, they tend to be urban, and left-leaning.
Something interesting happens.
I'm getting hit up by pro skateboarders sending me messages cheering me on from rock stars cheering me on.
I have a poster at my house autographed by a very famous rock star who cheers me on.
And I started thinking about this.
When you get skateboarders, and I know it might sound silly, but seriously, when skateboarders disagree with you, you've done something wrong left, okay?
The skateboarders used to be the left.
They were progressive, hippie, anarcho-punk, and now I've got pro skateboarders hitting me up being like, what's happening?
Why are these people going crazy?
You do good work.
Come out and skate with us.
I've been invited to different cities and countries, and it's crazy for me to see some of my childhood heroes reaching out saying, I love what you do, man.
And I'm like, it's crazy.
I remember being 14 watching that video.
But these are people who used to oppose the system.
Who are on the left now saying the left has gone nuts.
And here we are.
Ocasio-Cortez is an example of how they've gone nuts.
Skateboarders at the park saying to my face, what is wrong with her?
Nancy Pelosi trying to reel her in and what does she do?
You must be racist.
Twitter is not real life.
Nancy Pelosi is correct.
They have a large number of Twitter followers.
What's important is that we have a large number of votes on the floor of the House, Pelosi said in April.
She said, while there are people who have a large number of Twitter followers.
She's right.
On Twitter, you have a fake narrative that no one cares about.
And sure, this trickles into the mainstream media and fake news, but I think about this.
All of these smears come out about me in the social media summit.
Lying about me, misframing what I'm saying, and trying to make me look bad.
And I think, at the end of the day, you know what?
When regular people out on the street, at the skate park, at clubs and bars, Disagree with these fringe wackos on Twitter?
I think we're doing good.
I think we're doing alright.
Unfortunately, this results in a lot of people now believing they're really conservative when they're actually liberals.
The problem is, what's called liberal today is representative of these weird Twitter mobs and people like Ocasio-Cortez.
It's not.
So they'll try to call me right-wing because they want to shift the Overton window.
I have to be right-wing, so that way anyone to the right of me is far-right.
But that's absurd.
63 million people in this country voted for Donald Trump, and I would not even be right-wing enough to ever do that.
And a lot of people say, when will Tim finally— I'm not gonna vote for the guy.
I'm pro-choice.
It's a very important position for me.
I am anti-death penalty, anti-war.
I think private prisons should be ended, but I believe in liberty and free speech, and there is no political home for me.
So there you have it.
I don't know how we got onto a political rant again, you know, this story about AOC, but there it is.
They say, Pelosi also mocked Ocasio-Cortez in an interview with CBS 60 Minutes in April while dismissing the far left wing of the party.
So, you know, I want to make sure I want to keep this one short.
I love how there are some media critics claiming that people like me try as hard as we can to get to 10 minutes.
But I hope you all realize all of my videos are a desperate attempt to stop talking.
It's really funny when there was one tweet about a video I made and some left-wing person said, how could Tim Pool talk about himself for half an hour?
And I'm like, oh man, that's me restraining myself.
Okay?
I got too much going on.
And so I'm going to try and stop this around 10 minutes because I have to get to the White House.
But, you know, the last thing I'll mention, Pelosi has, they showed several examples of Pelosi slamming Ocasio-Cortez.
I'm not going to read through all of them.
Again, I'm going to keep this one short.
And I think, as much as I have a disdain for these corporate millionaire Democrats, there is something to be said for what Nancy Pelosi is doing in regards to AOC.
But lastly, what do I see?
Multi-millionaire elite corporatist Democrats and far-left fringe identitarian weirdos?
And who do I vote for?
Republican, who's pro-choice?
Nah.
That's not- I'm sorry, that's pro-life.
And a lot of other issues, economic issues, you know.
That's not really where I'm at, politically.
So I vote for no one.
That's the truth.
Nobody.
We'll see what happens.
I like Tulsi and I like Yang.
But we'll see what happens.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
More videos to come, and I should have an update after the summit.
I don't know when.
This is filmed way early, by the way.
Like, I filmed everything super quick, and it's actually pretty hard for me to do, but I've been working really hard.
I will see you all tomorrow at 10 30 a.m.
I'm sorry 10 a.m.
On this channel unless of course some big news happens at the summit.
