CNN Threatened Trump Supporter At The White House, Media Desperation Is Getting Ugly
CNN Threatened Trump Supporter At The White House, Media Desperation Is Getting Ugly. As predicted, the downward spiral of media is turning uglier and uglier with its latest incarnation resulting in a CNN Analyst threatening a Trump supporter to take it "outside." He later tried walking it back saying he just wanted to talk but went on to deride independent as not "real" journalists and that without a staff youre not a real reporter.With the decay comes fear and desperation. News outlets turned to people they didn't quite understand, the far left and faux social justice outrage mobs. These people, many of whom just want to watch the world burn, are a chaotic destructive force that only eroded their credibility further resulting in a quicker decay.Now we can see the true fear in their eyes. Outraged that The White House would invite people like us they spit furious rage and threats. They know their time has come and there is nothing they can do to stop it.They have become the fake news, and it is all they will ever be.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yesterday I attended a White House event called the White House Social Media Summit, and I gotta say, it was rather anticlimactic.
I would describe it as a VIP Trump rally, so I didn't feel satisfied by the ultimate outcome of what actually happened, and I thought there would actually be some real discussions.
But I wasn't convinced entirely.
I had a feeling it would be something like this, and in the end what happened was Trump came in, Trump talked like Trump does.
Gotta admit, kind of a funny guy, a lot of self-deprecating humor.
But I don't think there was anything that was actually solved other than Trump rallying to his base of supporters, trying to convince them that they're actually trying to work on this problem.
I believe a lot of the statements made... I shouldn't say a lot, but...
Some of the statements made at the summit were a bit hyperbolic in terms of what's happening in regards to censorship.
I think it is a problem with massive tech giants determining morality and setting rules only insofar as they've become the dominant platforms for public speech.
If you have a small platform that wants to talk specifically about Yu-Gi-Oh cards or Pokemon, I don't care that you ban people for not talking about that.
But when we're looking at Twitter, Facebook, Google, you know, etc., well now you've got a problem in that it's dominating the public space and your rules are arbitrary.
But yesterday in the Rose Garden, I actually left.
It was very swampy, very hot, pun intended.
And something interesting happened.
CNN analyst Brian Karam was taunting people in attendance.
And when Sebastian Gorka, I believe it was, Seb Gorka, yelled back, and you're a journalist, after he was taunting them, he said, why don't we take it outside and we'll have a long discussion, which we all know what that means.
When someone says, why don't we take it outside, it's a threat.
But of course, the media is plagued by weaselly individuals that don't want to admit when they're wrong and won't be held accountable.
So what we ended up having was a man claiming, I just said I would talk to him.
Dude, you said let's take it outside.
We know what you meant.
But of course, where do we go from here?
Jim Acosta!
And CNN, and of course they work with this guy Brian, so of course they're gonna defend him, but all these other outlets going on to say that it was Gorka who actually was verbally accosting the press, the sweet, protected class of journalists.
Oh, please.
And there were people saying things like, you shouldn't be yelling at journalists.
Oh, please.
You're a human being with a job, and you know what?
Your power is waning.
The ivory tower is collapsing, and we can see it here.
Before I go on to a rant about the collapse of media and their falling ivory tower, let's read the news and see what's actually going on with this particular story.
So the first story we have is media-ite, and there is some blame to go around for what happened.
Mediaite says video shows CNN's Karim taunting Summit guests with demonic possession jab, daring Gorka to take the dispute outside.
And that's basically it.
But there were people in the audience that were, you know, heckling to an extent the press.
You then had Brian saying, oh, these are people who are eager for demonic possession.
To which Gorka replies, oh, and you're a journalist.
He says, let's take it outside.
Gorka gets in his face.
You can watch the video online.
It's gone viral.
But there were people, you know, poking and prodding to an extent at the press.
I tried to avoid them for the most part.
Like, I don't really want to have anything to do with them and what they're going to do.
I knew what they were going to do.
Plain and simple.
You get Jim Acosta taking a selfie with the people behind him saying Trump's allies are behind us and we are the press.
He calls himself Real News.
He's a detestable, contestable figure.
So is Brian Karam.
Listen, if you're the press, don't holler at attendees.
Period.
It's not your job to start yelling at people.
But what we really see here is the snooty arrogance of this group of people.
And it's exemplified not in the first video, but in another video published by Fox News.
Joy Villa, as far as I can tell, is a bit of a sweetheart.
I've met her, I think, a couple times, but we talked for about 30 seconds or so, walking out to the Rose Garden.
She was very nice to me.
She filmed a little video with me.
She was very nice.
Even after the confrontation, she approached them in a very calm and reasonable manner, to which Brian Cairn responded, You are not journalists.
You are not doing journalism.
Hire a staff.
Get someone to check your facts.
That, then, you can call yourself a reporter.
And that's how these people view themselves.
It's the ivory tower.
I tweeted earlier.
I've been doing this since 2011.
And when I first started independently reporting the news through social media, it was a sideshow.
Granted, I was propped up by a lot in mainstream media.
Time Magazine, for instance, I was featured in the Time 100 nominations, so they considered me potentially to be a very influential person.
I was featured in Time's Person of the Year for The Protester, one of six video features.
But it was a sideshow.
It was a curiosity.
They said, look at this young activist and what he's doing.
I remember going to some big journalism conferences.
They said, Tim, will you speak?
And I said, sure.
And they put me in a little side room.
And on the main stage, what did they talk about?
They talked about how independent and citizen journalists will never have the air of credibility and authenticity and authority that they do.
They said, we're better, we're professional, and someone in the audience asked, what can you do that independent or citizen journalists can't?
So initially, they looked to people like me and many of these other pro-Trump personalities, or otherwise, people with influence on social media, and they mocked.
And they ridiculed and said, you're not a reporter, I'm a reporter.
I've got a press pass issued by a corporation, as if that gives you some kind of prestige.
Now they're angry.
Because a few days ago, I was invited to the White House.
Yes, that guy that they liked to drag and say was an interesting curiosity we'll put in the sideshow is now a guest of the president at his special event.
I'm not a big fan of Donald Trump's demeanor, personality, or how he runs his events.
I think he's done a lot of bad things in foreign policy.
Domestic policy, I'm kind of meh.
And he's done some good things in foreign policy.
Overall, my position on the president is I don't like him, but he's not that bad.
And that's a relative statement comparing him to how the press frames him.
Oh, come on.
As FleckasTalks said, if you're familiar with Fleckas, he's not that bad, okay?
I don't like him, but come on.
What ends up happening?
These people maintain the same rhetoric they did all those years ago.
Here we can see on the screen is Brian Karam telling Joy Villa she won't be a reporter.
She says, we're citizen journalists.
He says, no, you're not.
You don't have a staff.
You don't have a staff.
But let's talk about the weaselly behavior of these media personality types.
This man, I'm not familiar, walks up to him and says, you just threatened Seb Gorka.
You think you're a journalist?
You're threatening people who are attending this event.
And he says, I just told him I have a discussion with him.
And there it is.
It's kind of a light example of how the media operates, but you see it.
You see it all the time.
The sheer dishonesty.
We know exactly what he meant when he said, let's take it outside.
Oh, come on.
We've all seen movies.
We know what it means.
You go outside to fight.
And now he's saying, no, I just wanted to have a talk.
And that's how they'll frame it.
He will now go on and say, I said, why don't we have a conversation?
He gets in my face, starts yelling at me.
And we all know what really happened.
They're not the gatekeepers anymore.
They don't control information.
They're dying.
They've been sitting atop an ivory tower for decades, telling the poor little people below exactly what to believe and what to think and who to trust.
Them, up above, with access to information that we don't.
And then the internet happened.
And now what?
And now what do we see?
Fury.
Outrage.
Contempt.
They're angry.
Their jobs are being destroyed.
Their industry is collapsing.
Their revenue is gone.
And who's picking up the slack?
Individuals.
People who have the ability to just share information as they see fit, but also make money doing so.
Now I'll admit, there's a bit of a challenge in this.
There is something to be said for having a fact-checker, if you'd like to call yourself a reporter.
But I'd like to point out the Huffington Post, Vox, Vice, etc.
Many of these organizations, as far as I understand, don't have fact-checkers.
I mean, Vice didn't.
Fusion didn't.
And I know people who work at other organizations, and I'm pretty sure they don't either.
So by the logic of Brian Karam himself, these digital outlets, including CNN, They're not reporters.
They're not.
Because half the time they put out stories they don't actually fact-check.
I mean, we can see it all day and night.
Take a look at what NBC did to try and smear me.
NBC put out a story claiming that I pushed the Seth Rich conspiracy theory.
You know why?
They found it was something like an hour-long livestream in which someone snipped out a little teeny bit Taking an out-of-context statement where I said something to the effect of, I think there's a 55 to 65% chance that Seth Rich was the leaker in the Wikileaks case.
This was a greater contextual reference to Kim.com coming out saying he had evidence and Fox News having reported it was true.
So let's think about for a second.
For one, If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
We're wrong sometimes.
But Fox News reported, as far as I understand, it's been a while, that the story, that it was true, that there was information linking Seth Rich to leaking the documents to WikiLeaks.
There was also statements from former WikiLeaks individuals, statements from Assange, and even after all of that, a Fox News report, Julian Assange issuing a reward, Kim.com saying he had evidence, even after all of that, There was another individual who claimed that the mainstream media narrative was wrong.
Even after all of that, I said, I don't believe it.
55-65% chance that it's true.
Me being skeptical, saying I don't think it's true.
Just my opinion.
And they take that to try and smear me.
And that's what the media does.
They didn't fact-check.
Take a look at what Media Matters did.
Now, granted, they're an activist organization designed to smear people.
They simultaneously argued that me being in some report called the Alternative Influence Network was proof I'm at the center of a far-right network of YouTubers, and then literally in the next paragraph claimed that because I presented, critically, another report showing journalists at the center of an Antifa, you know, group, That I was pushing a hoax.
That's the game they play.
I wonder why they're so upset.
Why Brian Karam was shouting.
Well, it's actually very simple.
In this story from Fox News, CNN mired in a credibility crisis as ratings continue to collapse, experts say.
A smear piece came out about MINDS, M-I-N-D-S dot com.
You see the little name pop up above my head from time to time because it's a social network that I use and I want more people to use.
They smeared this as a haven for fringe extremists.
It's not true.
It's a complete lie.
More extremists use Twitter and Facebook than these smaller platforms.
Fox News wrote an accurate story.
How are we at an era?
What happened?
When it comes to honest reporting, me, a lifelong liberal, look to Fox News for honesty.
And even Donald Trump has been slamming Fox News for their bias in hiring Donna Brazile and having Shep Smith and being more moderate.
Something has shifted within Fox News.
Perhaps they've found a hole in the market for moderates who are disaffected, liberals who are disaffected by the push to the far left and the overt lies over and over again.
Nothing but lies.
You know, basically everything you see coming out of the media pertaining to the Social Media Summit was an overt lie.
Vox claimed that there was a Social Media Summit with no social media companies.
Complete lie.
The CEO of Minds.com was there.
They're a VC-backed, I believe VC-backed, social media network.
They're not small with millions of users.
They are a social media company.
Vox says they weren't there.
And even after I tweeted at them saying, here's a correction, and some other behind-the-scenes things, I believe there was an attempt to get them to correct the story.
They don't do it.
Vice keeps pushing the fake narrative that it's an extremist haven.
Why?
Why are they defending the massive corporations?
It's all lies.
And they're outraged.
CNN's ratings are in the trash.
Fox News knows it.
Everybody knows it.
And what do we get?
We get outrage, threats of violence, Jim Acosta selling everybody else out for himself.
Think about what happens in the Rose Garden.
Jim Acosta taking this selfie.
He says, the scene in the White House Rose Garden, all White House press in the back, Trump's social media allies in the front rows.
You won't see me because I actually walked off.
It was just, I'm not going to sit in the garden.
It was nice to see it.
It was nice to walk around.
It was beautiful.
And I left.
But Jim Acosta makes a spectacle of the press.
There are journalists there doing their jobs, saying nothing.
And kudos to them.
They still exist.
Jim Acosta should not be there.
Jim Acosta is the exact same thing as those sitting in those chairs.
He's the exact same kind of person.
I'm not saying a negative thing.
I'm saying he is a social media pundit personality who pushes his opinion.
Congratulations.
You're allowed to do this.
You're not a real journalist, okay?
Your argument about what they are versus you is a mirror It's the pot calling the kettle black.
Now, I will say, within the context, there isn't a such thing as a journalist, but there is acts of journalism.
So, yes, to Jim's credit, I will say he does commit acts of journalism, but he interjects, he injects himself way too much, and he's trying to make a spectacle to sell his silly books.
Brian Karem threatening, you know, Gorka is a step over the line.
You want to be a pundit and a personality and deride people and act like you're better?
Congratulations.
I look forward to watching the top of your tower collapse as you fall, you know, you plummet to the earth.
That's what he was saying.
That's what he was really saying.
In this story from Deadline, or it is from Fox News, the video from Fox News, as Brian Karam says, you're not a reporter, not without staff, he's not really angry with Joy Villa.
Joy's a very nice person, and she was speaking calmly.
What he's really mad about is his company's collapse, layoffs, the ratings plummeting, all of his industry dying, And here we are, invited to the White House to sit in front of the President to hear what he has to say.
Now, of course, Trump could have done a better job of inviting people on the left.
I would have much preferred if he did.
And the go-to person I often cite for this, whether you like him or not, is a couple people.
David Pakman is one of them, Kyle Kalinske, and Jimmy Dore.
I think they're wonderful individuals, and I believe they have honesty and integrity.
I just think they're wrong about some things sometimes, and so am I.
They might miss a story, they might have a different perspective, they might think some things are important than others, but they're individuals on social media too who have a right to be heard and have voiced their opinion in an event like this.
So of course, it felt like a VIP rally, a VIP Trump rally.
So I wasn't particularly enjoying it.
It was nice to see some people, meet some people, and ask some questions, but for the most part, It is what it is.
We end up with someone like Brian Karam venting what he's really doing.
I'm gonna psychoanalyze as his therapist.
I'm kidding, by the way.
But the point is, when I see this outburst, he's really screaming at a brick wall.
Not insulting Joy Villa.
What he's saying is the anger at the world.
He's yelling to the world, why is this happening to my job?
Everything I love is crumbling around me.
My business is failing.
My job is on the line.
And these people were invited to the White House I can't remember who it may have been him, but someone was saying, I am sick and tired of being smeared and derided, and these people are being propped up, well, too goddamn bad.
It's called market fluctuations.
It's called the change in industry.
It's called new technology has disrupted and displaced your job and get with the times or die like Blockbuster Video did.
We don't watch Blockbuster anymore.
But do you see Blockbuster executives standing out in front of Netflix ranting about how they're not real digital media, they're not real video rental services is wrong and what they're doing is wrong?
No.
Their industry died.
They're gone.
There's like one blockbuster left.
Congratulations.
This is who you are and what you've become.
I want to highlight one past example of what the media has become as they fizzle and collapse, sitting atop their ivory tower, wishing, WISHING they could retain some of this power.
From the post-millennial, how they ruin you, inside a smear campaign by activists and journalists.
Eowyn Lenihan is decently controversial, I suppose, insofar as so am I and any other person who dares challenge the ivory tower elites who try to maintain their grasp of the narrative.
But Eowyn is a researcher on extremism.
Apparently there's much evidence to show that he is.
He's worked with foundations going years back before he ran a troll account.
Eowyn Lenihan appeared on Al Jazeera, I believe in the past few, in May or so.
He was on a panel talking about extremism.
Well, several, I'm not going to call them journalists, activists, and, you know, individuals working with, well, Michael Edison Hayden works for the Southern Poverty Law Center, so he's not a journalist.
He is an activist.
I think that's actually the fair way to frame it.
Apparently sent some information to Al Jazeera smearing him.
First, it was Luke O'Brien.
Luke O'Brien is an activist who works for the Huffington Post.
He sent, uh, he contacted Al Jazeera apparently, sent them information claiming that EON was an extremist.
The Al Jazeera producer did due diligence and found it wasn't true.
Ewan Lennon apparently asked Michael Hayden of the SPLC to correct the record and let them know, to which he took the opportunity to smear them, saying, Ewan asked, I asked him if he'd contact you to let you know that I am not an extremist or anything like that and see if he can help get the video put back up.
He said he can help.
The exchange is from the night the video was taken down shortly after.
He did the complete opposite.
He discredited you.
Welcome to media.
This is what's happening.
There are people who have been infected.
There's a lot of reasons why journalism is dead.
This is one of them.
First, technology changes things, man.
Sometimes you become obsolete.
Well, I'm sorry.
One of the reasons I lean left is I believe there needs to be a way to make sure that people don't lose their access to resources based on the advancement of technology.
If somebody is an auto mechanic and their job is, or a truck driver is a better example, Andrew Yang, and their job is automated, we shouldn't simply say, congratulations, you don't get to eat anymore.
And this is why I have in the past leaned towards some kind of UBI, universal basic income.
I think at its current presentation, the current ideas around it, it won't work.
But I do think Andrew Yang is addressing this important issue because I've talked about it time and time again.
It's not fair that you would spend 30 plus years of your life becoming the best of the best at a job and then simply because we do what humanity does best, advanced technology, you are now a homeless individual.
The reason for this, you know, I, uh, there's a story I tell where I met a homeless man and he told me that his job was essentially had become obsolete.
And he was laid off.
It wasn't a bad firing.
It was like, listen, you know, we've automated these jobs.
And when he was an older guy, his friends had moved on.
He didn't have many friends.
His family was small and many had passed.
And then eventually he ran out of money and became homeless.
And I think that's detestable.
He did nothing wrong.
In fact, he did everything right.
And we toss him out to sleep in the streets.
So perhaps there's something we need to do.
We need to do.
It's not fair.
But what we end up seeing now are journalists who are losing their jobs, who are outraged and taking it out on the rest of us.
Trying to destroy lives and just outraged, furious.
It's not their fault, they claim.
But in their moment of weakness, they turn to people they didn't quite understand.
Fringe far-left activists who have no intention but watching the world burn, or instituting some kind of far-left utopia, which will never come to be.
In fact, there are some people I know who work for the New York Times, who I have talked to personally back at Occupy Wall Street, who told me their intention is to watch the world burn because it's fun, and sometimes someone's gotta stir things up because life is boring.
There are many people who feel that way who voted for Donald Trump.
They call it the chaos vote.
But what happens when these people get in media and they gain power?
Well, those that are scared to lose their jobs defend them because they circle the wagons around those they think are journalists.
But I assure you, there's a fox in the henhouse.
These people don't have your best interests at heart.
They actually enjoy watching everything collapse, and that's what's going to happen.
You can see it in stories like this about Ewan Lenihan getting smeared over his research because he dared challenge the fringe far-left activists who have infiltrated media.
And it becomes particularly dangerous for them when you have a moderate, liberal individual, left-wing individual like me, who routinely calls them out, but surprise, surprise, can't be fired, and can't be shut down.
Sorry, I don't break your silly rules, and thus I'm a problem for you.
So they try to smear me with out-of-context clips and things that make no sense.
They try to claim that simply doing an interview with someone who may be alt-right means I'm socializing with them.
And then when I call them out for the same, they say, How dare you challenge a journalist and insinuate us doing an interview is support?
Double standards.
They want to make sure they remain the most prominent, the most powerful, the special class of privileged elites who have the right to dictate reality.
Sorry, your time has come.
So you know what?
Let's end this video here.
I hope you all enjoy what you've become.
Angry, contemptible figures shouting threats at those you wish you were.
Because you don't have influence anymore.
You're not a real journalist.
Sorry.
Back in 2011, they said, I couldn't do the job they do.
Well, you know what?
I actually have people who work with me.
I do.
And we're doing great things with Subverse.
Admittedly, other people are running the bulk of all of the news gathering and fact-checking, but we are working towards setting up the institution that you long for.
Unfortunately, you've become irrelevant and obsolete.
And I can't help it.
I'm sorry if you're angry.
It's not my fault.
It's your fault.
These things happen.
Now, I wish there was something we could do to make sure those who lose their jobs due to becoming obsolete are protected.
But if you're gonna get angry and smear me, don't expect me to get your back.
I'm gonna point at you and say, you started it.
You find your way out.
You reap what you sow.
If you sit around and let the world change around you, you can't expect me to sit and take it when you get mad and throw a temper tantrum.
Sorry.
Stick around.
I got more segments coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews starting at 6 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you all there.
I've been going through a lot of the news following the White House summit with Donald Trump, the social media summit.
And it's all pretty insane.
Like, seriously insane.
They're saying it was a meeting of, like, far-right extremists and trolls, and it was a room full of 250 people, which included moderate conservatives, some individuals with left-wing views like myself, and many of these, like, basically all of these stories call me right-wing.
I started thinking about it, like, what about me makes me right-wing?
My criticism of the far left and the failures of the Democrats.
So if anyone dare call out their side, they must be the other side.
I don't necessarily care what you call me.
You can call me Susan if it makes you happy.
But it got me thinking about if someone like myself can't vote for someone who's pro-choice, pro-progressive tax, pro-public health care, pro-environmentalism, like, because these people don't exist, or because they're Identitarian.
And so I call this out.
That makes me right-wing.
Even though I've publicly supported Tulsi Gabbard and made... I kid you not, in the past couple weeks, especially following the debates, I've made a ton of videos talking about why Tulsi Gabbard is great.
And I made a video specifically dedicated to just that.
Why I like Tulsi Gabbard.
But I'm right-wing.
In fact, Vox called Tulsi Gabbard conservative on war.
And it got me thinking.
There's no left anymore.
Now think about it.
If you say you're right-wing, people will make an assumption about what you are.
If you say you're left-wing, no one has any idea what the hell you're talking about.
It's very simple, actually.
People on the left are- so actually, let's do this.
Let's go through these tweets and let me try and bring these thoughts together.
And I have a couple stories to show to explain why I think, you know, the way I do.
I say on Twitter, I think it's fair to say there is no left in the U.S.
anymore.
The views of progressives and Democrats are fractured and disparate.
While you can point to leftist pockets that exist, their views are so different they may as well be different parties.
Rampant Democrat infighting plagues the news.
Anti-woke dirtbag left is currently being dragged by the woke left, and moderate leftists are now right-wing.
People like me.
I'm to the left of Obama.
I don't think he did enough on the public healthcare debate, and he eventually just caved to massive corporations.
So I've never been his biggest fan, especially with his foreign policy.
I'm very anti-war.
But now Barack Obama is more right-wing than I am.
In fact, I'm probably to the left of Nancy Pelosi and frequently share her criticism of the far-left Democrats.
In fact, I've made numerous videos defending her doing just that.
But the media says Tim Pool is right-wing.
Again, you can call me whatever the hell you want, I don't care.
I'm gonna hold my opinions and I'm gonna do my things and I don't care about your tribe and I don't care what you think.
Interestingly, in the Vox, Vox was talking about the Andy Ngo incident where he was beaten by Antifa, and they actually frame it as left versus the center and the right in this framing.
The left being pro-violence?
Like, no, seriously.
Saying that it's wrong, that Antifa didn't do anything wrong, or that you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater, or that there was no concrete, or that it was a fringe hoax, and it's like, the police put that out.
So here I find myself, moderate leftist, right?
Being called right-wing for calling out the fringe elements of the far left because, as someone who would prefer a Democrat politician, in terms of everything I outlined in the beginning, actually, I think I'll go through it, we'll go through it again.
I don't have anyone to vote for.
I disagree with Tulsi Gabbard on a few issues, but for the most part I think she's spot on.
She recently put out a tweet talking about Ending war.
Ending mass government surveillance.
Pro-free speech.
Anti-big tech monopolies.
And I'm like, there we go.
There we go.
And she did an interview with Michael Tracy, journalist, where she said that identity politics is divisive.
It's dividing us.
And I'm like, well, here we are.
Here we are, someone with principle who stepped down from the DNC.
I can't vote.
But she's conservative.
I kid you not, they call her the alt-right Democrat.
I don't care.
Again, call me whatever you want, but the point is, if we are people who are looking for Democrats to vote for, if we are people who are looking at Tulsi saying, that's the person I would want to be president, and you look at both me and Tulsi and say conservative, they're excising us from the left and we are no longer a part of it.
So, here's what I've outlined.
Rampant Democrat infighting plagues the news.
Nancy Pelosi and AOC and the progressive Democrats do not agree on anything, for the most part.
AOC and her progressives may as well be a different political party.
They won't vote in line with Democrats.
They insult Democrats.
Ocasio-Cortez insinuated that Nancy Pelosi was racist and then said that she knows she's sending us death threats by doing this.
Ocasio-Cortez has voted closer to how Republicans vote when it comes to the track record, simply not for the same reasons.
When it came to voting in favor of funding the government, Ocasio-Cortez voted no when the Democrats voted yes.
She voted no because she wants to get rid of ICE.
She's called CBP a rogue agency and is even now entertained getting rid of the DHS entirely.
This is completely at odds with the Democratic Party.
Now, of course, there's a ton of people flooding my mentions saying, the Democrats were never the left.
But there's actually a really, really great tweet that I'm going to jump to real quick.
Christopher Forstner, excellent tweet by the way, said, And so I have some things, we'll move on and we'll show some more.
The European left on social media has completely thrown them into disarray.
I think that's the root cause of all of this.
I'm not sure what, if anything, will fix the divide now.
And so I have some things, we'll move on and we'll show some more.
That's a really good point.
They're saying the Democrats were never left.
Yeah, from a European standard, but seriously.
There was a left-wing party and a right-wing party, and they grabbed together the majority of their two sides.
The Republicans would take everyone from the right, the Democrats would take everyone from the left, and they were both rather moderate.
And we have the graphs to show this.
Today.
Actually, let's move on.
We'll jump to this graph right now to exemplify my point.
Take a look at this graph.
I've shown this many times.
The right wing is coalescing, while the left is dispersing.
So the point is, the right still takes in everyone from the right, and there is a centralized ideology, a centralized narrative.
I am not there.
Look at this graph.
I'd probably fall right here to the center left, but look how there's no one there anymore.
So when the bulk of the people are now closer to the far left, they look to me on the center left and say, right wing.
And the same with Tulsi Gabbard, even though she supports increasing the minimum wage, and I believe she's for reparations, and a lot of her supporters were upset about that.
But they view everyone like past this line as a conservative and the conservatives are doing everything in their power to recruit this and expand their base and I think it's gonna work.
Especially when the left is in a rush, it seems, to excise people like me from what you would consider to be left-wing politics.
If you're going to get rid of the people who would agree with you, On abortion?
On taxes?
On the environment?
what are you left with? Because I'll tell you this, for me, I looked at Tulsi Gabbard,
but I assure you there are going to be a lot of people who will never,
they will not support identitarian politics.
I mean, that's true for me, too.
They're not going to get in line behind Warren.
They're not going to get in line behind people who are banning the Pledge of Allegiance at committee meetings, people who are standing on the debate stage raising their hands saying, give government health care to illegal immigrants.
We can barely afford government health care for everybody as it is, and Social Security's in a crisis.
And they're talking about giving away U.S.
resources to other people.
That's not a right-wing position.
But check this out.
The conservative base right here in the center of the right is always going to support their conservative positions.
That's where most conservatives are.
The people who would once have supported a Democrat, who are now being excised, I will never be pro-life.
Look, I have strong moral and ethical and philosophical views on why I choose the things I do.
I'd absolutely love to discuss them, but it puts me at odds with conservatives.
Who do I vote for?
Well, I'm politically homeless like many other people who used to be moderate leftists, center-left.
But I assure you, many of these people who have been excised from the left will vote for Trump in spite.
Even though they might disagree with policy, there's a difference between the fractured and disparate failing left and a centralized pro-America conservative base.
The point I was making before about there not being a left is easily exemplified in this.
When you look to the conservative side, you see this big wave right in the middle, this bell curve, showing most conservatives agree.
You can point to someone and say, that's what a conservative believes.
Look at the left.
Can you tell me what the left believes?
Honestly, you can't.
The Chapo Trap House, one of the biggest podcasts in, I don't know about the world, but on Patreon.
They are anti-woke, they claim.
They are dirtbags.
They believe in socialism, but not wokeness.
Okay, so if I point to someone on the left, are they going to be woke or anti-woke?
No idea.
Chapo's huge.
But on Twitter, everybody's woke.
What about the Democrats like Pelosi?
Is Pelosi right-wing?
She's certainly not woke, although they're now starting to embrace a lot of this stuff.
The point is, You look to Republicans, and you'll find differing opinions here and there, but for the most part, we can see people have rallied behind Trump.
Even though he kind of changed things, and changed the party, people eventually got in line.
And now they're mostly in agreement, and they're voting in line with each other.
On the left, they're not.
The Democrats are fighting like crazy.
They're insulting each other.
They're slamming each other.
Pelosi responds to AOC's slam, saying caucus has her back for condemning Chief of Staff's offensive tweet.
This is just part of the ongoing spat with the New York lawmaker, they say.
They've been fighting endlessly.
Look at this.
They call her segrest Democrats.
I'm sorry, segrest.
Centrist, it says.
Asked about her ongoing spat with the New York lawmaker, Pelosi acknowledged how she recently addressed, at the request of my members, an offensive tweet that came out of one of the members' offices that compared centrist Democrats to segregationists.
That tweet was authored and then deleted by Saiket Chakrabarty.
The point is...
More and more examples of Ocasio-Cortez's views being completely different from that from the rest of the Democrats.
The Democrats don't have a unifying message anymore, and it seems like everything is just broken on the left.
I'll tell you this.
I'd love for there to be a unified left.
Unified opposition to Trump.
But here's the thing.
Let's go back to this to this point earlier.
Back in the day, look at the 80s, with the overlap between liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican.
Even into the 2000s, there was an opportunity.
Today, it's just, it makes no sense anymore.
The left has been falling apart and just fracturing.
I don't know why, but I think it's really important to point out that the exposure to the European left, it's a really great point.
Conservatives hold their views.
But when all of these Europeans flood Twitter and Facebook with very left-wing political positions relative to Europe, American leftists just got in line and started parroting that.
Because they're collectivists.
And now they've fractured themselves.
So here's what I said.
For someone who is pro-choice, pro-progressive tax, pro-social programs, but agrees with Obama on border security, who do you vote for?
You are not the left anymore unless you embrace leftist identitarianism.
Even the anti-war left has been smeared by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Glenn Greenwald is routinely insulted as alt-right.
Even Bill Maher is called alt-right.
There is no left.
If Glenn Greenwald is being smeared and attacked by the Twitter-outty left, if Bill Maher is called alt-right, if Obama's policies are now right-wing, I'm gonna say there's no left.
It's not there.
Because Bill Maher is high-profile, he's famous.
Glenn Greenwald, high-profile, famous.
Yet they're not both the left?
They disagree completely on where they're at?
Look, there are people on the right who have crazy views.
There are fringe right-wing extremists.
There are moderates who don't agree with the conservative base.
But the conservatives don't entertain them.
And when it comes to major conservative personalities, Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Tucker Carlson, you can be sure they will mostly agree.
But take Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, and Glenn Greenwald.
Don Lemon, Anderson Cooper.
Let's remove Anderson Cooper, but Don Lemon.
What do they agree on?
Are they the left?
They're completely different from each other.
Add Chapo to the mix.
Add some high-profile left-wing personalities like the Young Turks.
The Young Turks, high-profile leftists, you compare them to Bill Maher and they're just completely different.
There's no left.
There are pockets of different leftist ideology, but they are fractured.
I don't see them winning.
I said, if you agreed with Obama or even to his left by a fair degree, there is no longer a tribe for you.
Even Vox described the Andy Ngo incident as left versus center slash right.
So what is that, the pro-violence versus everybody else?
So if you oppose Antifa and say they're violent, you are not left anymore.
You have to get behind their extremism.
It's insane.
All of these hit pieces that came out called me a right-wing commentator.
They didn't insult me.
They didn't denigrate me, disparage me.
They said, Tim Pool is a right-wing commentator.
Whatever.
Call me whatever you want.
I'm not.
My politics are literally left of center.
I'm in favor of social liberalism, social programs, and reform.
But call me whatever you want.
You're in a bubble, and the left is falling apart.
I end by saying, if you were the rare center leftists, you have almost nothing in common with the entirety of the left.
It's been so spread out that even the Democrats right now seem to be two different parties.
And there we are.
So I'm going to do a bigger update later talking about the media and the social media summit.
That'll be for 4pm on the main channel.
If it was on the podcast, it came first.
You know what?
Tell me I'm wrong.
Say what you want.
But we can look at what they're doing, and they're trying to, you know, manipulate moderate Democrats into embracing socialism.
That's what we're seeing now with the Green New Deal.
I'll do a video on this next, a segment on this story next.
For those on the podcast, it says, AOC's Chief of Staff admits Green New Deal about implementing socialism.
I'll give a little pushback on that, but it is an important point to be made, because that's been one of my positions.
So, you can be a social liberal and think overt socialism is bad.
You can agree with a mixed economy leaning towards socialism and still think socialism is bad.
I think a mixed economy is the way to go.
That puts me center-left.
Yet they'll call me right-wing.
Some people think it's a conspiracy.
They want me to be the right-wing so that everyone else looks crazy, and that's what they've done with the press.
In reality, I think they're going to end themselves.
Will Chamberlain.
They call him, Jeff Gessa on Twitter, a conservative, called him as extreme as vanilla yogurt.
Because Will is just kind of like, and I mean this with all due respect, a boring conservative.
I don't mean he's boring like, I'm not calling him boring, I mean just like, when you hear his opinions, you're like, oh, yep, that's like a moderate conservative guy.
He's got great insight on legal matters, I consider him a friend, but he's just kind of like a regular guy.
He's not got any radical views.
He doesn't want radical change.
He's kind of just like an American guy who leans right.
They called me and him extremists.
What do you think regular people will think when they watch my content or his?
This is, in my opinion, the left lighting itself on fire.
The smears won't work the way they will.
The way they think they will.
But I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 1 p.m.
and I will see you all there.
I made a video when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won her primary, praising her.
I made a video talking about the Green New Deal before it was released, saying it was a really good idea and most people actually supported it.
The general premise is, yes, it makes sense in some ways to have a massive overhaul to help protect the environment, in some ways.
I argue that in order to bring conservatives on board with a left-leaning position on the environment and climate change, you need to focus on what they care about, which is economics, right?
So let's say you don't believe in climate change or you don't think we should be, you know, implementing a Green New Deal.
Well, what if we could start a program that expanded the economy, made us more internationally competitive, right?
That argument makes sense.
I've said it many times.
You've probably heard me say it.
Why am I so critical of Ocasio-Cortez if I'm supposedly on the left?
It's very simple.
This story from the Daily Wire.
AOC's chief of staff admits Green New Deal about implementing socialism.
Let's do a quick little pushback.
That is a right perspective.
What he really said was it's about changing the economy.
Okay.
If that's your position, I ask.
Why?
The Green New Deal is about the environment.
What the hell does that have to do with you changing the economy?
And thus, I can see these individuals smearing, using what I care about to advance their political agenda to change the economy.
I don't care what your endgame is.
I care that I worked for three different environmental non-profits and actually do care about fixing the economy.
And I think we do that by bringing people together and coming up with legitimate solutions.
Yet when I criticize them, they say, how dare you criticize Ocasio-Cortez?
She's fighting for the environment.
She's not.
When the Green New Deal came out, I was very critical, saying, what is this?
I praised this.
I said it was going to be a good thing.
I was hoping it would be a good thing.
It turned out to be identitarian socialism.
Free college, health care for all, guaranteed jobs have nothing to do with the environment.
It's all about the economy.
So let's read this story.
And I've got another story we can dive into if we have time from the Daily Wire.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash Dunnit if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, as you know, the best thing you can do is just share this video because suggestions don't work the way they used to.
The only way... I'm going old school.
Word of mouth.
If you like my videos, tell your friends.
But let's read on.
Ryan Saavedra writes, Socialist Rep.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, far-left Chief of Staff Sycott Chakrabarty, admitted in a recent Washington Post interview that the Green New Deal was not created to protect the environment, but to implement socialism.
The Post notes that the admission came during an exchange between Chakrabarty and Sam Ricketts, Climate Change Director for Washington Gov.
Jay Inslee, Democrat, who was a long shot running for president, the Post reports.
Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure.
The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, he said, is it wasn't originally a climate thing at all.
Ricketts greeted the startling notion with an attentive poker face.
Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?
Chakrabarti continued.
Because we really think of it as a how do you change the entire economy thing.
Conservatives have long warned that Ocasio-Cortez's $93 trillion Green New Deal is a Trojan horse that is designed to implement socialism.
Tom J. Donahue, CEO of the United States Chamber of Congress, wrote earlier this year.
Climate change is real and deserves our attention, but not every policy to address it can be taken seriously.
Take, for example, the Green New Deal, a sweeping proposal to save our planet that reads more like a parody of the progressive agenda.
No laughing matter, however, is the proposal's ultimate objective, to give government unprecedented power over people's lives and our entire economy.
Other aspects of the Green New Deal seem wildly out of place for an environmental resolution.
Consider the promise of a massive new entitlement programs that could only be achieved through a radical redistribution of wealth.
Here, the proposal shows its true colors.
This is not some run-of-the-mill progressive policy.
It's a Trojan horse for socialism.
The Green New Deal aims to upend our entire economic system, wresting consumer choice from everyday Americans and putting personal decisions from the food we eat to the cars we drive into the hands of an unelected elite.
Even other Democrats have called out Ocasio-Cortez's far-left socialist agenda, including Rep.
Max Rose of New York, who referred to Ocasio-Cortez's plan as a massive socialist economic policy platform.
A senior Democratic aide told the Washington Post that in internal conversations, top Democratic officials have said they want Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff out.
And this brings me to the next story from, I believe it's just from today.
AOC's Green New Deal would boost gas tax, $10 to $13 destroy economy.
The entire Green New Deal is socialism.
Healthcare, college, etc.
Guaranteed jobs, economic security for those unwilling to work.
I was talking to some progressives.
Some high-profile progressives.
Who have big shows.
And they asked me if I supported the Green New Deal.
I said, absolutely not.
And they said, but why not?
Don't you think climate change is a problem?
And I was like, of course.
And they're like, but then why wouldn't you support the Green New Deal?
And I said, what in the Green New Deal is gonna solve the problem of climate change?
Nothing!
The only argument you could bring up when looking at the Green New Deal is that it would completely destroy the American economy, resulting in a massive depression in which, sure, the loss of life from starvation and the collapse of industry would heal the world a little bit.
It's not going to do anything about the rest of the countries that are pumping out carbon emissions and causing problems for our planet.
That doesn't mean to say that I'm arguing we shouldn't do anything because other countries will keep doing it.
No, I think we can do great things.
I think there is an argument to be made that the United States can engage in some kind of massive overhaul Massive overhaul, okay?
I'm not saying government overhaul.
I'm saying there can be a major shift in our markets supported by government and private investment.
There's a lot that can be done if we had real leadership talking about real solutions.
And again, I know a lot of people on the right are skeptical of the Anthropogenic.
Man-made climate change.
I think I got the word right, I could be wrong, but man-made climate change.
Many people argue it's natural.
They argue that as ice melts, less heat is reflected, the planet warms.
Or that, you know, it's volcanoes.
Whatever your point is, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't.
We're not gonna sit here and say, you know, I'm a progressive who thinks climate change is bad, and then someone else says I'm a conservative and you're making it up, and then we just fight.
That's pointless.
It's completely pointless.
And that's all that happens.
Ocasio-Cortez putting out the Green New Deal, what did it guarantee?
It guaranteed we wouldn't move forward on this conversation.
Seriously.
You know what will move us forward?
A conversation like this.
Me saying, okay, here's my concern.
Climate change.
Carbon emissions.
Carbon emissions really, really high.
What can I do?
What can I offer you where we could get on board with something that would help alleviate some of this stress and help you out?
That's normal.
Looking at Saikat Chakrabarti's statements, however, I don't think they actually care about the environment at all.
And I think they're using people like me, they're using the goodwill of the left that cares about climate change to push a political agenda, an economic agenda.
Now, here's the thing.
In this story, which I'll read a little bit, They say the Green New Deal would boost gas, the gas tax, $10 to $13 and destroy the economy.
Yes.
I have talked to many left-wing activists.
I'm not saying this is representative of all of them.
But I have been told by some, many of these people, it's the chaos vote.
They want to destroy everything so they can rebuild something new.
Destroying the economy very well may be some of these people's intention.
Because then from the rubble, they can build what they think is better.
Socialism.
In fact, if there is a massive depression, I'm sure a lot of people would cross... Look, I'll put it this way.
In the Great Depression, we saw the Green New Deal.
And many people said, ha, that was a massive government overhaul of government jobs and social programs, entitlements, and guarantees.
And to get more of that, you need essentially a false flag.
Purposefully damage the economy and then call on the government to come and fix it for you.
I'm not saying that's exactly what they're doing, but I can tell you that I've talked to a few activists who absolutely endorse this view.
There's also several people who voted for Trump because they were hoping the world would burn, right?
It's not representative of everybody, but I will say based on Saiket Chakrabarty's statements and what we know about the Green New Deal, yeah, they're trying to massively overhaul the economy.
They don't care about the environment.
Let's read a little bit of this.
This is from the Washington Examiner.
they write the socialistic Green New Deal pushed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and winning broad support from
Democratic presidential candidates Could lead to a $10 increase on a single gallon of gas
According to a new study of the so-called carbon tax and the liberal bid to rid vehicles that burn fossil fuels
The co2 coalition study mostly focused on the government's efforts to assign an environmental price on the future
social cost of carbon Also looked at the ultimate goal of liberals to get rid of
gas-powered autos key to the Green New Deal Perhaps a solution to getting rid of gas-powered vehicles is to cause the price of gas to be so high, a punitive tax, it would force people to embrace different technology.
We don't need this.
If you pay attention at all, we can see right now the auto industry is undergoing a massive shift.
Electric vehicles are popular.
Everybody wants a Tesla.
Dude, I want a Tesla!
I can't afford a Tesla!
They're expensive!
Okay?
So there's the Volt, and, uh, you know, honestly, I don't know what the other cars are, but there's like the Volt, there's the, um...
I can't remember the name.
But there are electric cars that are coming out, and they're increasingly popular.
And with the technology moving towards self-driving cars, we're going to see a very different shift in the economy through market forces.
So it's unfortunate.
It really is.
Because I think there is a place for government to help incentivize and expand these programs.
There is a tax credit.
I believe there's a tax credit for getting an electric vehicle.
And that's part of a government solution.
This is not it.
The Green New Deal... So, I'll put it this way.
When I look at the left right now, when we look at what AOC is trying to accomplish with the Green New Deal, what she's claiming to want to accomplish, it is a massive leftward lurch that has jolted so fast to the left, the tether between the center and the right has snapped.
Right, so I imagine it this way.
The left, right, and center, there's a rope between them.
And the left can pull the right a little bit, the right can pull the left, but typically the left has been pulling both the center and the right, gradually left.
We are being led by young, progressive individuals who are pushing these ideas.
However, recently, and I mean in the past decade recently, the left has shut so quickly, the rope snapped.
And now they're no longer pulling the center and the right to the left.
The center and the right are now moving slightly to the right, and the left is gone.
Completely gone.
Market forces are moving forward.
Getting rid of cars and reducing carbon emissions is... You've got people who passively think they can do something.
You've got people who don't care and do nothing.
And you've got people who are actively fighting for change.
What's really making the most positive impact today... Someone like Elon Musk.
Shooting a Tesla into outer space.
Making Tesla cool and everybody want one.
That's gonna do great.
Now, keep in mind...
Electric cars require electricity.
Duh.
And where does electricity come from?
Power plants that are predominantly powered by coal.
Most people don't seem to understand how electricity works, okay?
So I ask people.
Do you know how a power plant works?
Most of them will say, uh, we burn coal or oil or something.
And I'm like, right, and then what?
Like, does the fire turn into electricity?
No, it really happens for the most part.
Is that when we burn something, it's used to heat a vat of steam, which creates pressure causing a turbine to spin.
Then I ask people, do you know how solar power works?
Most people immediately think of photovoltaic cells, like solar panels, when in reality there are many photovoltaic power plants.
Many of them, as well, actually just point mirrors at a giant vat of water, which causes to heat up and pressurize to spin a turbine.
The point is, We can make a move towards electric cars, and it's a gradual market progression through things that are cool and that people like, and it's a good thing.
However, we still do burn fossil fuels for electricity, and if we swapped out every car for an electric car, there would be a massive increase in electrical demand.
But, while this still will result in a short-term increase of carbon emissions through power plants, there has been massive and major strides in renewable energies, which are great.
And are going to reduce carbon emissions across the board.
So what we're looking at right now is fake environmentalism meant to push forward socialistic policies.
I don't want to say overt socialism, but yes, to change the economy, they say.
It's not actually helping the environment.
Elon Musk is probably doing more for the environment than most people.
Now, obviously, I think there's a lot of non-profits doing great work for environmentalism that are doing more than him, because they do direct action.
But I mean, like, from, like, looking at Ocasio-Cortez versus Elon Musk, what has she gotten done?
Her nonsense bill was ridiculed, okay?
They had a bunch of ridiculous things about, you know, people unwilling to work getting paid, which is essentially universal basic income.
And everybody mocked it.
She pulled it down and said it was a mistake.
Oh, no.
What has Elon Musk done?
Made some cool cars.
Shipped them out.
And now people really want them.
I don't know if you guys know who Boogie is, but he did this whole stream talking about how he really wanted to get a Tesla.
I don't know what happened with it, but I heard him talking about it.
Tesla's cool, man.
I've driven a hybrid since 2008.
We are conscious to the problems of constantly burning fossil fuels, whether you agree with climate change or not, and market forces are pushing us in the right direction.
I think we need to move faster.
I really do.
I look at some of the concerns from the international scientific community, I take them to heart, and I think, what can we do better?
I'll tell you what we shouldn't be doing.
Ocasio-Cortez.
The Green New Deal.
It's made everything worse and harder to actually advance.
But I'm not going to beat a dead horse on this one.
You get it.
In the end, I think their agenda is economics and not environmentalism.
It offends me.
I've worked for environmental organizations.
Three of them.
And it means a lot to me.
And so here we are, facing a greater crisis because we don't have a left that can actually advocate for policy and change that will be good and positive and beneficial to everybody.
So stick around, next segment will be coming up at 4pm, youtube.com slash timcast, and I will see you all there.
As an addendum to the video I did for my main channel, I actually want to go through this Fox News report about CNN's credibility.
For those that didn't catch the video on my main channel, I basically talked about how media is increasingly becoming desperate, scared, angry, violent, etc.
They're smearing people.
They're now physically threatening people.
They're outraged.
And they're taking their fear and desperation out on us, the people who are replacing them in their jobs.
One of the stories I highlighted but didn't go through is this one.
Fox News reports, CNN mired in a credibility crisis as ratings continue to collapse, experts say.
I can only imagine how someone would feel when their industry is failing.
Now here's the thing.
If you manufacture cars, right, and we automate out your jobs, what do you do?
I mean, you go home, you watch sports, you sit on a severance package or unemployment, and that's it.
But what about someone in media?
Someone who's loud?
I'd imagine that some people who lose their jobs due to automation or due to disruption would scream as loud as possible.
You might walk out in the middle of nowhere and just, you know, punch the ground and yell, you know, it's so bad, I'm so miserable.
But what about when you're a media individual?
No, you take out your frustration and anger the only way you know how, by lying, cheating, smearing, and threatening people.
Well, before I prattle on that subject, which I already did to great length on my main channel, check out TimCast.com slash Donut if you'd like to support my work, because as they're dying, we're growing.
And with your support, we will grow more.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but I'll tell you what.
There's one thing.
See, YouTube is propping up CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and other mainstream outlets, and deranking independent channels like mine.
This was revealed by Project Veritas.
If you like what I do, we gotta do this old school, which means share the content if you think people should hear it, because that's the only way it's gonna happen.
There are still some recommendations, but for the most part, they're trying to take us down.
See, in their desperation and their fear, they lie, they cheat, and they steal.
But sometimes that pressure works.
Advertisers pull out.
YouTube gets scared and says, OK, please stop attacking us and we'll promote you, CNN.
And now CNN is one of the most promoted, most suggested channels on YouTube, although it would appear that Fox News gets substantially more suggestions.
That's not necessarily a good thing.
Independent voices make up the ecosystem of YouTube in terms of political commentary for the most part, and we have very different voices and opinions, so it's all bad.
Let's get to the news!
They say, CNN is suffering a credibility crisis as viewership for the once-proud network continues to crater with no apparent plan in place to fix things anytime soon, according to media watchdogs and insiders.
CNN's audience shriveled in the second quarter of 2019, averaging only 541,000 total viewers, less than half of Fox News' 1.3 million average.
Now, I want to stop here and say, Especially since they started propping them up.
I can point to the numbers from CNN and laugh and say, haha, I get around 1.3 million views per day.
Way better than CNN's, but on par with Fox News's.
But on YouTube, CNN's getting a massive amount of viewership.
Massive.
Because YouTube props them up.
It's kind of sad, really.
CNN has gone the way of the old guard.
Many of their staff are panicking and freaking out.
And they appropriate this old content, this old format for YouTube, and YouTube promotes it.
All that's going to do is encourage these dying companies to keep doing what they're doing, and it'll only get worse.
How about YouTube?
You promote people who use your platform the way you intended it, or the way it's designed, directly for the YouTube audience.
But let's read on.
They say, But CNN struggled even more during the primetime hours, finishing as the 15th most-watched network on basic cable behind networks such as TLC, Investigation Discovery, and the Hallmark Channel.
CNN averaged a dismal 761,000 primetime viewers, while Fox News hit 2.4 million.
I want to say, Fox News seems to be gloating here.
Okay, guys?
The Hill media guru Joe Concha told Fox News that CNN's freefall may not be slowing.
The numbers warrant concern, yes.
Quarter two was particularly news-rich, highlighted by the release of the Mueller report and all the aftermath and controversy following it, plus the launch of several high-profile Democratic candidacies, including Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg, to propel 2020 coverage into high gear.
It may only get worse in quarter three, given the numbers we're already seeing.
I'll stress, what I'm trying to do for my main and second channels is actually have my main channel be the big, important contextual stories to the best of my abilities.
Sometimes I get roped in the news, like with the White House summit, and because that was the big news, I just talked about it.
This channel is more likely to focus on individual stories.
I fully recognize the power of 2020 and the desire for people to learn more about it.
So I've decided for my main channel, I want to make sure I can focus on stories that are very pertinent to the 2020 race.
Everyone does this.
The reason I bring this up is, not only is it the right thing to do in terms of providing accurate information to your audience, if they're looking for news about these issues, it's lucrative.
Everybody knows it.
Ad dollars in 2020 are skyrocketing, so covering these issues is going to be big.
The fact that CNN's ratings are this bad as we're entering these huge candidacies of this massive field, it's alarming.
My viewership has spiked recently, and many others.
I'm not the only one.
And there's a combination of factors, but we all know that any decent political commentary channel, radio, YouTube, TV, or otherwise, is going to see a ratings increase.
CNN's ratings are down!
Yikes!
That's bad news for CNN.
Let's read on.
CNN started off the third quarter with the network's lowest average since 2015 when it comes to primetime viewers among the key demo of adults aged 25 to 54, according to TV Newser.
But the network has extended various contributors through the election, indicating that its apparent anti-Trump programming strategy will remain in place for at least the duration of the president's first term.
You know the answer, a long-time CNN employee said, when asked if staffers are panicked about the ratings decay before declining further comment.
Another current CNN employee told Fox News that there is widespread concern about the network's rating problem, but high-profile hosts such as Anderson Cooper remain unfazed.
The people that are concerned.
It's certainly not the anchors who have lucrative contracts.
It's the people among the lower levels, such as producers and showbookers, the employee said.
A third current staffer told Fox News that CNN is clearly doing something wrong if the ratings are like this before asking.
So why don't we try something different?
Cable news viewership has declined in general as more and more consumers cut the cord in favor of OTT streaming services.
But CNN's losses are overwhelming.
The network lost 18% of its audience compared to the second quarter of last year.
CNN also dropped a whopping 38% of primetime viewers among the key demo.
Something interesting I heard recently, and I haven't looked into this so I could be wrong, is that CNN is actually tracking Fox News stories to try and figure out why their ratings are so bad, and maybe if they cover the stories Fox talks about, they might do better.
Something really interesting is happening, and I hope it continues.
Assuming that story with CNN is true, CNN is realizing they need to do something different.
Their ratings are failing.
What are they doing wrong?
They're telling this to Fox News.
Perhaps they're realizing they're not America anymore.
Think about it.
If there are a bunch of people who have a core culture, and I say Game of Thrones, most of them perk their ears up and go, ooh, ooh, I like Game of Thrones.
Hey, Game of Thrones is really popular.
But what if I say something like, you know, the Where's Waldo special 1980s, you know, kids hour?
Who's gonna respond?
Was that a real thing?
No, I made it up.
But you know what I mean?
It's like, if I'm like, who wants to go watch old reruns of the late 80s, early 90s Super Mario Bros.
TV show?
Very few people will say yes.
Maybe your content isn't attractive to most people in this country, CNN.
Maybe Fox News is.
So maybe if CNN stopped pandering to the ridiculous Russia conspiracy and far-left nonsense and get Don Lemon off there.
Man, Don Lemon's terrible talking about black holes, swollen airplanes.
What are you doing?
Maybe they'd do better.
Maybe if they stopped praising Antifa.
Maybe if Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy stopped smearing independent media and actually got on board with where most Americans are, they would find that people would be willing to watch their show.
If Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy actually addressed important issues that we cared about, they'd get some of the same viewers.
I mean, think about it.
My politics are squarely center-left, even by, like, European standards, okay?
I don't mean where Europe is relative.
I mean, like, the literal political compass, okay?
When you're on the left, or the far left of the compass, is socialist, the far right, is capitalist, cooperative versus competitive.
And I'm leaning on the left, buddy.
Who do I talk to and who do I watch?
I tell you what, I look to Vice and they're smearing everybody as Nazis and I'm like, okay, that's fake.
So what am I gonna do?
And then Fox News has Bernie Sanders on?
Well, of course I'm gonna watch that!
Look, you've chased the far left so far, you're lighting yourself on fire.
Maybe we should listen to what the staffer said.
Why don't we try something different?
Losing nearly 40% of an already third-place audience must be a primary topic in internal meetings with immediate remedies not readily apparent, Concha said.
CNN's most popular show, Cuomo Primetime, averaged only 910,000 viewers.
14 Fox News programs and 10 MSNBC programs attracted larger audiences, as does my hour-and-a-half show every day.
Maybe a rounder there, actually, in terms of unique viewership, because I have some repeat viewers.
Reporter-turned-banker Porter Bibb is surprised parent company AT&T hasn't made any changes.
My guess is that senior management is more concerned about the launch of HBO than CNN, at least for the moment.
You know what else is really interesting?
Let me tell you something.
I am repped by full screen.
I'm pretty sure full screen is owned by AT&T, too.
It's a really interesting ecosystem, how everything works, right?
AT&T owns CNN.
AT&T owns full screen.
Fullscreen really wants me to stay on board with them.
My contract is basically expired at this point, but we're negotiating.
So I wonder.
I wonder if there's a way to pull CNN out of this weird fringe bubble they've been in and get them back on board with where regular Americans are at.
They're catering to woke Twitter like everybody else.
And you know what?
I think CNN can be salvaged.
I don't think anybody is beyond rescuing.
CNN has embraced Antifa.
Why?
They saw woke Twitter doing it, and they went after it.
And guess what?
Most Americans don't think black-clad individuals beating people in the streets is a good thing.
They think it's a bad thing.
Maybe you should have been on board this a long time ago, CNN.
I'll end with this.
Look, we get it.
CNN's failing.
I'm not going to read through, you know, basically everything, because they kind of drill into a lot of them.
We get it.
Their ratings are down.
But let me say something.
I was told by many prominent journalists a long time ago, 2011, 2012, I have the unfortunate privilege of being ahead of the market.
I always am.
I was one of the first to use Google Glass.
I was using it before it was cool, and I stopped using it before it wasn't cool.
I've used mobile technology, live streaming the internet.
I've always been tracking the better way to tell the story and get the news out.
It's not just about technology.
It's about understanding America.
I certainly do it better.
My politics are on the left, but I have no problem sitting down and breaking bread with conservatives and calling out the fringe wackos on the left and the nonsense of CNN.
But CNN is now finally realizing they were behind the times.
They're embracing this fringe ridiculousness and it's time to stop.
Russiagate was nonsense.
By all means, criticize the president, but can we get some sound criticism here?
Donald Trump at one point fired 59 Tomahawk missiles at Syria.
He was derided by even his own base.
Where was the mainstream media?
Actually praising him!
Calling him presidential!
So you know what?
You've lost the plot.
Plain and simple.
Maybe if you turn around, things will get better.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around, I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
I've got a critical look at a Vice article for you in this segment, talking about Gab and something called the Fediverse.
This might actually blow your mind, what I'm about to tell you.
Some pretty big news on what Gab has been up to lately.
Now, there's a There's a lot of people on the left who absolutely despise Gab, and there are even some people on the right who despise Gab.
But for the most part, Gab has been a fairly active Twitter alternative for a while.
I don't necessarily want to call it a Twitter alternative because, look, anybody can launch a microblogging platform, and Gab does that with the aim of free speech.
Vice publishes this story by Ben McCooch.
Now, I'm assuming that's how his name's pronounced.
I'm not trying to, you know, some people have made fun of him for that, but that's not what I'm trying to do.
Ben McCooch is notable right now because he refused to turn over ISIS chat logs.
The RCMP, I believe, wanted them.
He refused to turn them over and lost a court case and will now turn them over.
It's a very interesting position to be in where you're defending evidence that could implicate ISIS as a journalist.
Journalists should never give up information to federal authorities and they should protect their sources so that in the future we can have this information released to the public, which may at some point help law enforcement.
However, Ben is now being slammed because Vice has agreed to give up the logs after a lawsuit.
So, what can I say?
You know, I don't know where this guy's at, but what I can tell you is he's a fake news writer anyway.
So, don't expect too much defense of this guy when he's smeared mines, M-I-N-D-S dot com, and overtly lied.
Like, listen, this is the kind of guy that in private will tell you, like, one thing, and then publicly lie and smear you, and that's what he does.
He does this.
So here's what he's doing now.
He's smearing Gab because Gab federated.
So let me explain the Fediverse to you if you don't know what it is.
A long time ago, several years I believe, something called the Fediverse was created which is essentially a way for various social networks to interact with each other.
To put it simply, There is a very large network, a node, called Mastodon.
It's where Will Wheaton went after he got fed up with Twitter.
They banned him, however.
Mastodon is far left.
However, they're operating on open source code in a federated, decentralized network.
These principles of open source and decentralization are libertarian, be it left or right, it is about liberty.
Something interesting has happened.
Years ago, I was very active in many of these hacker communities and I'm still friends with a lot of these people and routinely talk to them and they send me messages all the time.
The hacker community is very libertarian, libertarian left and right, open source and decentralized.
What this means is open source is you make code, anybody can see that and take it and change it.
I believe open source allows for people to create their own version, fork off of your code to create something else.
And there are other iterations where everyone adds to the code and builds it collaboratively.
The decentralization means there is no one authority.
With Twitter, you have Jack Dorsey, and you have Twitter itself.
They can ban whoever they want.
Within the Fediverse, if you have your own server like Gab does, the only people who can ban someone from Gab is the administration of Gab, the people who run it.
When you federate, that means a different network can access the tweets, or whatever you want to call it, the posts from Gab users.
It's kind of complicated, but let me break it down.
You log into Gab, you post, you know, hey, I love, you know, cheese pizza, and then someone from a different network can see that post appear, saying, and then respond with like, wow, well, I'm actually a fan of Supreme.
I'm, you know, maybe we can come over, have some beers, and watch the game.
You know what I mean?
So basically, it's almost like email, with messages being sent out to everybody, as opposed to singularly.
This means if you're on Mastodon and someone from Gab posts, you can't ban—Mastodon can't ban what Gab says.
There is no Jack Dorsey.
There's no censorship.
But what Mastodon did was block the access to Gab.
So if you are on Mastodon, you will not see Gab posts.
Unfortunately, it's a decentralized network doing exactly what it was meant to do.
Open, free, and no one can be censored.
Think about it.
In this new network that Gab has now joined, federating, Mastodon, which is far left, a far left bubble, got angry.
Did they ban Gab?
Nope.
Did they shut them down?
Nope.
They just told their users, we won't let you see Gab.
Okay, fine.
Great.
Gab is still in the Fediverse.
Other people can still access them.
Isn't that how it should be?
If you're on Twitter and someone says a naughty word, can't you just click block?
Well, now you can.
In the Fediverse, there is no central authority to take you down.
It's complicated.
It's not perfect.
But let's read a little bit about what he says.
He writes, Macedon was launched as a decentralized, social justice-friendly Twitter alternative that was free of Nazis and harassment.
But two years later, the biggest Mastodon instance is now GAB, a far-right social media network known widely as a gathering space for white supremacists, only because you repeatedly lie about what it is.
In a study done that's public and mainstream, Gab is only a small percentage more of Gab's posts are hate speech.
Overt hate speech.
You know what that means?
Compared to Twitter.
Twitter, with its hundreds of millions of users, produces hundreds of thousands of hate speech posts per day, and Gab doesn't.
So, look, you can slam Gab all day and night for being mean and abrasive or whatever, you don't like the guys who run it.
Calling them far-right simply because certain people use it is not necessarily fair.
Gab is a free speech social media network, but of course, framing the- framing!
Alternative media to destroy them is what these people do.
Why Ben McCooch is catering to the billionaires, I don't know.
It's some kind of new neolibertarian... It's weird, because neolibertarian isn't necessarily the right word.
I say that because there's a lot of pro-corporate libertarian types who are like, let the big businesses grow, but they're acting in defense of corporate oligarchy.
I can't quite figure it out.
Let's read on.
Despite getting attention as a healthier Twitter alternative, most Mastodon federations have remained small.
It's almost like the market didn't support it.
Mastodon, which functions much like an open source Twitter, is decentralized in that anyone can set up their own federation or server.
Okay, he's wrong.
What he's talking about is the Fediverse, of which Mastodon is one node, and they created a bunch of code that works with the Fediverse.
Gab took Mastodon's code, because it's open source, and created their own version and linked.
Mastodon got mad and banned them, but there's still many other nodes that can access Gab.
What Gab did is actually one of the most powerful things for the Fediverse and could dramatically change the future of social media, by the way.
They go on to smear Gab as some other silly nonsense I'm not going to read, but they say they announced on July 4th that it had switched its backend to run on Mastodon software, instantly making it the largest Mastodon user, with more than double the number of users as the next largest federation.
Because Gab is simply implementing Mastodon's open source code, there's no functional way for Mastodon to shut down Gab.
This, of course, was part of the appeal for Gab in the first place.
They say that in the past, Gab had lost its web host, GoDaddy, and had been banned from accepting donations via PayPal.
Gab is now unstoppable and can never again be taken down as a whole ever again.
And can now...
Wait, it says, and can never be taken down as a whole ever again.
Gab sets a motherboard in a series of email exchanges.
He's right.
Gab was banned as an app from the app stores.
Dissenter was banned.
It was another Gab property.
They try to shut down their domain.
Well, now what Gab has done is joined the Fediverse.
You can't ban Federation apps.
It would be like Google banning a browser because the browser can go to a naughty website.
That would be absurd.
Gab is just one node in a bigger network of decentralized social networks now, and has actually provided powerful legitimacy for open-source decentralized internet.
But however, Mastodon released a statement denouncing Gab.
It had also said some servers in its Fediverse were blocking Gab domains, meaning Gab can't interact with them.
Mastodon is completely opposed to Gab's project and philosophy, which seeks to monetize and platform racist content while hiding behind the banner of free speech.
I don't believe they've monetized it.
I think that's just not true.
It's said in a statement posted on its website, the Mastodon community does not approve of their attempt to hijack our infrastructure and has already taken steps to isolate Gab and keep hate speech off the Fediverse.
Therein lies the conundrum of the former Freedom-loving hacker community.
It's really funny.
My god, my mind is blown by this.
I knew hackers back in the day who said, we need decentralization so that no one can ban you and shut down your speech.
We need open source so anyone can contribute and get involved.
You got your wish.
But something happened.
These communities are being taken over by authoritarians who are now shocked to discover the tool is doing exactly as intended.
Congratulations!
We won.
The hackers.
Data love.
Freedom of information, etc.
There are entire hacker communities dedicated to the right to share information and to prevent anyone from shutting that down.
Unfortunately, these communities have been taken over by authoritarians.
Too bad.
We planted the seeds years ago, and not me.
People before me, who have been working on this for a long time.
People who champion cryptocurrency and otherwise knew that when the seeds of decentralization and free information were planted, there's nothing you can do to stop it.
And you can take it over with your fringe ideology and your cult-like behavior, but guess what?
The Federation works exactly as it was intended.
These people would seek to shut down open source and decentralization.
They would seek to centralize power and authority to silence those who would dare oppose them.
But you can't.
Because the seeds have been planted, and the trees are growing.
And it's only a matter of time before more networks join the Fediverse.
Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and otherwise start falling apart.
And you can then simply follow anyone you see fit when they run their own servers.
So, to the smear artists, the dirty, dirty smear merchants like Ben McCooch, who's outraged that someone would dare create a small business like mines, he would try and destroy them before they had any chance of taking down the centralized hub that is Facebook or Twitter, you can do nothing.
Nothing but scream into the wind.
Unfortunately, it's people like you who have lost.
Massive corporate centralization will fail, and decentralization will win, and it's happening.
And you can't take them down.
Stick around, I got one more segment coming up for you in just a moment.
I will see you shortly.
The Daily Caller writes, We asked Democrats what the punishment should be for those who cross the border illegally.
Here's what they said.
And it seems like it's at least some of the response from some Democrats is like, what?
What do you mean they cross the border illegally?
They get arrested and punished.
Because when we saw the Democratic debates, what was their actual response?
Decriminalize border crossings.
When Ocasio-Cortez is in an interview, what did she say?
We shouldn't be detaining people who have done no harm anyway.
Well, harm isn't always about physically hitting somebody.
Harm comes in various forms.
In fact, words can be harmful.
Again, they say the pen is mightier than the sword.
I'm just saying there's a difference between violence and words.
Something truly amazing happened.
I've mentioned it many times.
The Democrats raised their hands saying they would give healthcare to illegal immigrants.
But really think about this.
You know, I stood on it for a little bit and I was like, wow, you know what?
I thought back to 2008 and I dug up some old videos from Barack Obama, you know, 10 years ago, talking about the healthcare debate, how he was going to sign universal healthcare at the end of his first term.
He never did.
And there was a huge debate over the cost.
And that was a very contentious issue for Americans.
Even Democrats were concerned.
How do we pay for it?
Let's figure it out.
The Democrats today haven't even solved that problem.
And they're talking about giving health care to illegal immigrants now?
Listen, Obama didn't get even a public option on the table.
What did he do?
The individual mandate.
So, it's profoundly insane that we're coming off of Obama only a couple years into Trump.
Before Trump's even run for re-election, the Democrats have gone so insane, they've forgotten, that Obama promised universal health care and didn't deliver.
We're not that far left yet.
I'm sorry.
You didn't win.
You can't just skip over one fight and say, well, we didn't implement universal health care, but let's just give it to illegal immigrants.
So let's see what happened when the Daily Caller actually asked Democrats about illegal border crossings.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly PayPal option, a crypto option, and a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do, share this video.
We're going old school.
The only way for anyone to find out about my content today, for the most part, is if you recommend it yourselves by sharing it online.
No matter what happens, so long as we all share the content we like, they can never shut us down.
Well, they technically can.
But you know what I mean.
Like, they're gonna try and shadowban us, but just share it if you like it.
Let's read.
They're right.
Democrats in the Senate had mixed responses when asked what the punishment should be for those who are trying to cross the border illegally, as the crisis on the border continues.
The Daily Caller spoke to several Democratic members of the Senate about the border crisis, who gave a variety of responses, saying they have not thought about it, or that we should continue to enforce current laws, while others would not respond to the question as to what the punishment should be for those who enter the U.S.
illegally, despite the increased apprehensions There have also been more than 100,000 encounters with illegal immigrants at the southern border in both March and April, setting the border crisis on track to be the worst it has been in a decade.
When asked what the proper punishment should be for migrants who cross the border illegally, Delaware Democratic Senator Chris Coons continued to ask what the question was while trying to make his way to the elevators in the Capitol Reserve for Senators.
which reporters are not allowed on.
What do you think the punishment should be for people who enter this country illegally?
What should the punishment be?
What's the question? Koons asked.
So if people enter the country illegally, what should the punishment be?
What? Koons asked.
If someone were to enter this country illegally, what would the punishment be that they would re-
What should they receive?
I'm not sure I understand your question.
They have broken the law.
They have committed a misdemeanor.
They got to face legal consequences.
You see, most Democrats aren't insane.
It's just the pandering to woke Twitter is showing, like, it's warping the minds of the media and the 2020 candidates.
Because I tell you what, When they actually asked a senator, you didn't know what the hell they were talking about.
I don't understand the question.
What do you mean?
They broke the law.
You're on the debate stage.
Did you watch the Democratic debate scoons?
Come on, man.
Let's read on.
Meanwhile, California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein said she has no idea what the punishment should be for those who enter the U.S.
illegally.
Well, candidly, I do not know.
I have not thought about it.
Before I give you an answer, I would like to be able to think about it.
Democratic Senator from Virginia, Tim Kaine, responded to the same question by saying, you know what?
Talk to my staff and we will chat about that.
Oh.
The caller followed up asking, you have no idea?
To which Kaine responded, I don't think we need to change in that.
So even Tim Kaine is saying, arrest them, detain them?
Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia responded, saying, I know there are folks who are raising the debate recently, reviewing some of the existing law, but I have not had the chance to go back and re-examine that section.
Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden would not answer the question saying, that is a longer answer than you can give.
What publication are you at?
And there it is.
Listen, as soon as they ask you what publication you're at, that's when you know they're full of it.
I don't care what publication you're at.
Ask away.
I have no problem debating anybody left or right.
I'm not a debater.
I'm a discusser, okay?
I'm not trying to win any kind of argument with you.
I have ideas.
My ideas can be changed, okay?
I did a conversation with David Pakman.
He brought up a point.
I'm not going to try and argue it for the sake of arguing.
I said, hey, that's a pretty good point.
That's interesting and it changes my view on the matter.
That's how it should be.
So when they say, what's your publication?
Oh, please.
You know he's, uh-oh, I'm gonna get bad press, better not talk to him.
Yeah, just give our office a call.
I'm gonna leave it at that.
Great.
They say Amy Klobuchar, presidential candidate, completely refused to answer the question after both were asked numerous times.
Hirono's staff was also trying to block the caller off from her, using their bodies as shields to guide her to the elevator.
That's so typical of politicians.
They say Chris Murphy, Democrat from Connecticut, responded by saying, well, it depends on what you're talking about.
People who are applying for asylum or people who come here on a visa and stay.
I mean, we have an existing system, right?
If you come here and you stay here illegally, you are subject to deportation.
I support the prioritization decisions that President Obama made so that we are not using resources on individuals who pose no threat to American citizens.
Rhode Island Democratic Senator Jack Reed said, There is a law that prescribes that right now.
Hinting that the U.S.
But I look to all the Democrats who said, yeah, let me answer your question.
I'll do my best.
Respect, much respect.
Rhode Island Democratic Senator Jack Reed said, there is a law that prescribes that right now.
Hinting that the US should make no adjustments to the immigration system
despite the crisis at the border.
I think that's a respectable answer as well.
I mean, look, we are arresting and detaining people.
The bigger problem is are we incentivizing people who come with the far-left rhetoric and not in funding border security?
Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal was the only Democratic senator who said there needs to be clear criteria and enforcement through the immigration courts and then deportation if they fail to meet the criteria.
Absolutely respectable.
Meanwhile, Republicans say Democrats continue to push open border agendas, which would greatly hurt the U.S., saying Democrats object to laws which would help crack down on illegal border crossings.
I believe the Democrats on TV are lying to you.
There was a great story, and let this be, look, if this is differing from my opinion of the past, yes, my opinions change.
I have said the Democrats favor open borders, but what I mean by that, to get into the nuance of it, it's not like every single Democrat, I have respect for many Democrats, it's the narrative they're pushing on TV by raising their hand.
Listen.
I tweeted earlier.
The Daily Beast ran a story where it was like a Democrat saying, we are absolutely not for open borders.
unidentified
That's ridiculous and we got to shut down Donald Trump's... Listen.
If you go on stage, okay, and you say we're not going to criminalize border crossings, you say we're not going to deport people who are doing no wrong, you say we're going to give you a driver's license, you can vote in local elections, and we're going to give you health care, fine.
Don't call it open borders.
But I'll say this, if that's the world you want, you're saying you want a permanent underclass of people without papers, Who are in this country living under the sword of Damocles, terrified that at any moment they will be deported.
That's a nightmare.
That is terrifying.
And that's what they're proposing.
But no, come on, let's be honest.
All of those things are grains of sand in a bucket called open borders.
We're not saying, I'm not saying at least, You wanna just get rid of the wall and all border security, and have it be like when you cross from Indiana to Illinois, you just drive over a bridge?
No, I'm saying you're eroding border norms, regulations, and laws, and creating tacit open borders, where people will rush through the desert to try and get here, and then they'll do nothing about it!
Okay?
That is not legal open borders, it's implied open borders.
It's functional open borders, and you get your underclass who can work in your factories for less than minimum wage.
There you go.
Plain and simple.
I've been saying plain and simple too much.
Let's read it.
They say, Jessica Vaughn, the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, told the Daily Caller that law enforcement should have the option as to how to enforce the law depending on the circumstances, adding that Democrats' policies would reduce security and control of the border.
It should be illegal to come into this country illegally.
It's that simple.
Well, there's a circuitous argument.
That is not enough.
I'm sorry.
It should be illegal to come into this country illegally is not a sound statement or argument.
I'm sorry.
Let me clarify it and fix that statement.
It should be illegal to enter this country without going through a proper port of entry or without having the proper paperwork to be residing in the US for a specific amount of time.
It should be illegal to enter this country without arranging your arrival beforehand.
You can't just say it should be illegal to come here illegally.
That's a circuitous argument.
It makes no sense.
And that's what the left targets.
What we're saying is have your affairs in order before coming so we can check security And the economy.
