All Episodes
Previous Next
July 27, 2019 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:26:25
Democrats Accused Of Exploiting Campaign Staff, Hypocrisy Over Low And Even NO Pay For Staff
Participants
Main voices
t
tim pool
01:25:44
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
The Democrats are the ones that claim to fight for the working class, for labor, for unions.
But now we have multiple scandals that are kind of highlighting hypocrisy within the ranks of the Democrats.
It's not just the story I have pulled up right now.
For those that are listening, it says, Warren Fellowship applicants campaign program was a quote, great scam.
Apparently two men who accepted the 2020 candidates volunteer fellowship program described the process for entry as deceptive And at times, exploitative.
We also have another story, and these are both from the Daily Beast, which is a fairly left-leaning outlet.
This one says, 2020 candidates delayed paying staff to look richer on paper.
There were several campaigns that used the accounting trick, but it was Amy Klobuchar's operation that stood out the most.
Then of course, you may be following the Bernie Sanders scandal, where he's accused of not only Did he not pay staffers $15 an hour, which he promises and campaigns for federally?
When people complained they weren't being paid enough, he said, just work less hours, which is effectively get the same job done in a shorter amount of time, which doesn't alleviate the problems that these people are facing.
They were struggling to pay rent and to buy food.
But here's the update there.
Bernie Sanders now, according to a redacted copy of a chart, a federal labor complaint, they're claiming his campaign fired at least three staffers for their involvement in organizing.
And then, just for the sake of, you know, talking about these issues, we also have this report from back in May.
Kamala Harris's campaign was paying women less than men, which is a bit hypocritical.
Now, I know that story's a little bit old, but I do want to rehash these stories, and we'll start with Elizabeth Warren, simply to point out You know, it brings me no pleasure to point out that these individuals who claim to champion workers' rights and labor unions are in fact being hypocritical.
It's just what it is.
This information is extremely important to voters as we're going into 2020.
Listen, Donald Trump is going to be the nominee.
We know what Trump is doing.
We know what he's about.
He's quite literally doing it.
Okay, so you don't need me to tell you what CNN and MSNBC will tell you 24-7.
But when it comes to what's happening with the Democrats, I think it's very important we see them.
Actions speak louder than words.
We should highlight what they do instead of what they claim.
For instance, Bernie Sanders campaigning federally for a $15 minimum wage, but he won't even pay his own staff that?
Actions speak louder than words.
So let's get started with the Elizabeth Warren story.
Now before we do, Head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, the best thing you can do, just share this video.
YouTube deranks independent political commentary, and we also get demonetized every so often, so if you like it, just share it.
That's the best thing you can do, or support through TimCast.com slash donate.
But let's read the news.
The Daily Beast reports, Elizabeth Warren has built much of her political career as a champion of workers and consumers against the deceptive and exploitative practices of corporations and employers.
But as she navigates the latest chapter of that career arc, a run for the Democratic nomination for the presidency, the Massachusetts Democrat faces criticism from several of her own supporters, who said the lowest tier of her campaign structure doesn't match the image she projects.
Two early converts to Warren described the process for entry into her campaign's volunteer fellowship program as deceptive and at times exploitative in interviews with
the Daily Beast.
They said they were pushed toward unpaid positions over paid ones,
misled over the availability of financial assistance, and asked to sign highly
restrictive non-disclosure agreements that worker advocacy groups concede are irregular.
Both applicants verified their accounts with emails and text messages from the Warren campaign.
The complaints from those offered unpaid fellowships could raise new questions for Warren as she seeks to put her lengthy history of advocating for consumer and worker rights at the center of her rising campaign.
What was sold to me was very different than it actually was, said Jonathan Nenzi, a rising senior at Seton Hall University who was offered a volunteer fellowship position on Warren's campaign.
It was kind of a great scam of getting people to show up and work in the capacity of volunteer, but to function as a paid intern in the amount of work that they're doing, he said.
Like other Democrats running for the White House, Warren's campaign offers paid internships.
But unlike many others, the campaign also offers volunteer fellowships.
Now what they go on to say in this story is that...
Essentially, the way they always communicated it was always fellow-slash-intern, like they were synonymous.
Their application kind of took advantage of people who were really eager to get the experience.
Now, I want to say this.
The story basically talks about how young people really wanted to get into political campaigning, and this was their opportunity.
It's something we've seen a lot.
Businesses exploiting the eagerness of people to get them to work for free.
Vice was notorious for having unpaid interns when they started.
Because here's what happens.
People come, they love what you're doing, and say, I just want to be involved.
They want to be there.
They want to be a part of it.
And they're willing to do it for free.
But here's the thing.
The point of capitalism is that when someone does something of value, no matter how they feel about it, you give them money.
The point is, when we do good for our community, we get an exchange of value for that.
Now, for sure, there are a lot of free market advocates who would say, people should be able to work for free if they want to.
And I can agree with that to an extent, but the issue is, When you offer two of the same job because you know you need to pay for it, and then just cross your finger someone so eager they'll work for free, that's taking advantage of those who don't know better.
I disagree with that.
I understand there are a lot of people who might agree with the free market aspect of that, but in the end, it's not about what I think or you think.
It's about the fact that Elizabeth Warren is supposed to be opposed to that.
It's about the fact that Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar are the Democrats who are supposed to be supporting the idea of a minimum wage.
The idea that you don't get someone to work for you for free.
Now I agree with that ideal.
I think people should get compensated for their work.
And you can exploit the goodwill of young people.
So I'm on the left on this issue looking at hypocrites who are not doing that.
Who are taking advantage of those who they could.
I gotta say, Elizabeth Warren Doing a great job of being a ruthless corporatist and exploiting the eagerness of these young people.
But look, let's wrap up this story because, look, the point is, I think what you end up seeing is, they'll draw this story out, they'll make their point, the point was made.
They end by saying, just under a week after the Daily Beast contacted Warren's campaign to detail multiple specific complaints from applicants offered volunteer fellowship positions, it appears someone decided the campaign's most junior members could use rallying.
On July 24th, Warren hosted a call featuring campaign manager Roger Lau to thank interns and fellows in her program.
After the call, an outpouring of praise surfaced on social media, with about a dozen people tweeting their gratitude for the candidate's outreach.
How convenient!
When the Daily Beast, not a conservative source, reaches out for comment saying you're exploiting the lowest, they hold a rallying to say, oh, you're doing so well, you know why?
Man, it is cult-y behavior.
You give everyone a big hug and say, we love you, and then you hope they don't speak out against you.
Well, now we can see the next update.
I'm not gonna get too much into the Bernie Sanders story because, look, I've gone through it a lot, but the update here is the first paragraph.
They say an anonymous unfair labor practice charge against Bernie Sanders, his campaign, alleges that at least three staffers were fired from the team for their involvement in organizing and labor activities according to a redacted copy of the charge obtained by Bloomberg Law.
The charge, which was filed with the NLRB by a former campaign employee on July 22nd, also alleges that the campaign violated a collective bargaining agreement with unionized workers by making staffers work additional days and failing to provide commensurate days off.
When the individual asked the campaign to abide by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, management retaliated, the charge alleges.
Campaign management retaliated against me when I organized the bargaining unit and sent an email requesting compliance with the agreement, the person wrote the charge.
The identity of the individual who filed the charge has not been made public, but the charge lists Sanders' campaign office in Iowa, Des Moines, as the employer's address.
The NLRB's Indianapolis office is investigating the allegations.
Sanders' campaign declined to comment on the specifics of the charge, but said that its leadership, from Senator Sanders on down, respects the rights of all its employees to speak collectively and bargain about their terms and conditions of employment.
And it supports the mission of the NLRB to enforce worker and union rights.
Now here's the thing.
No matter what really happened, perhaps this is just someone who got in the Bernie campaign, wants to take him down and smear him, and it's like a big conspiracy.
I don't think so, okay?
Clearly not.
But hey, let's just entertain the thought that someone's just trying to get Bernie Sanders.
It doesn't matter.
The PR backlash will be immense.
Bernie is supposed to be the union guy, and here he is being accused of retaliating.
His campaign, I'm using his name, you know, just as a turn of phrase.
What I mean is, his campaign, his employees, the buck stops with him.
So whether or not Bernie did anything wrong, he is gonna take flack for this.
But outside of, well actually, let me highlight one more issue.
Because I have to just reiterate this point from earlier.
Bernie Sanders' campaign announces it will cut hours to pay staffers $15 minimum wage.
Now, a prompting mockery.
This is from Fox News.
Now let me clarify what happened here.
Bernie was paying $36,000 a year, just for the context for those that might not know.
That's the equivalent of about $17 an hour for someone working 40 hours a week.
Unfortunately, the staff were working 60 hours a week.
They said, I'm struggling to feed myself.
People are quitting.
The real issue was not $15 an hour.
The real issue was they just weren't making enough money and they needed more, regardless of how many hours they worked.
Bernie responds by saying, you can only work 40 hours.
So they're still not making more money, they're still struggling to pay themselves, but I guess Bernie freed up an extra day so they can go work a side job at Walmart or McDonald's or something.
Is that the plan?
The point is, Bernie wanted it to look like, on paper, he was paying them $15 an hour, or a living wage, even though they were complaining $36k a year wasn't enough.
The $15 an hour equivalent is not the issue.
Which brings me to the next story, and why I wanted to highlight this issue.
2020 candidates delayed paying staff to look richer on payer.
I kid you not, the Daily Beast reports again that Democrats prioritized looking good instead of getting their money to the staffers who earned it.
That would set me off to no end if I worked for these campaigns.
I bow for no one.
If I work on your campaign because I believe in you, and you try and stiff me because you want to look good, No, I will be filing that complaint, same as that other guy.
But let's read this story.
Now they're singling out Amy Klobuchar.
Once again, Amy Klobuchar is the centrist moderate Democrat.
She gets no special favors here from me.
She looks terrible in this.
And then you have the more left-leaning, the further left, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Come on, man.
You know, you'd think... Actually, let me say this.
These stories may be blown out of proportion.
I want to make sure that's clear.
It may be, you know, it's one person complaining about Bernie out of how many staff members, it's two people complaining about Kamala out of how many staff members, but this is what you get.
You are the Labor Democrats.
You are campaigning for them.
You will look bad.
It's just bad news for them.
unidentified
Let's read a little bit about this next story, and I still have one more story to go through.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
For months, Amy Klobuchar's campaign made regular payments to its staff and vendors, with varying daily expenditures that never exceeded $335,000.
But on April 1st, the campaign spending exploded.
They say the campaign spent an average of $55,000 per day, but on April 1st it hit $624,000 in one
day, including a $300,000 payment to the campaign's digital vendor. They say,
that massive uptick in expenses was likely due to the fact that April 1
marked the beginning of the new fundraising quarter.
By putting off payments until then, Klobuchar was able to put the best possible spin on her presidential campaign's financial position during the previous three months.
If those expenses had come a day earlier, Klobuchar's cash-on-hand figure would have been roughly $6.35 million.
Instead, the campaign was able to claim roughly $7 million in reserves, a sum that placed her among the better-positioned Democrats in the presidential race.
The RNC has raised more than double the Democrats in the past two months.
They have $43 million cash on hand.
The Democrats have $9 million.
The Republicans have no debt.
The Democrats have $5 million in debt.
They're playing tricks to look good on paper.
And that means they'd rather appear to be doing the right thing than actually doing it.
That's quite literally what Bernie Sanders did when he cut hours.
He just wants it to look like, on paper, the people are getting what they want, instead of saying, I will pay you more money.
Look, I'm not saying Bernie has to pay them more money.
I'm just saying, if you're going to campaign about a living wage, and your staff comes to you and says, we're not getting one, well then pay them more money.
Bernie, welcome to business.
The same is true for, actually, I'd say welcome to business to Amy Klobuchar, but she seems to know what she's doing, with a clever trick.
They say.
A Daily Beast review of campaign finance records indicates that the delayed expenses strategy has continued through the just-completed cycle and has involved payments to campaign staffers as well.
Klobuchar, whose campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment, is one of at least four Democratic presidential candidates who appear to have skipped a staff payday at the end of June Putting off that pay period until the beginning of the following month, and hence, transferring the expense to the next quarter's balance sheets.
I gotta say, isn't that illegal?
That sounds illegal!
You can't withhold people's pay in this way for this reason!
I don't know if it's against the law, but man, does this stuff frustrate me.
Can I explain to you my frustrations with the Democrats?
Let me just say it for the millionth time.
I don't care about Republicans because they've always been Republicans.
They have always done this.
I look to them and I say, I get it.
You're Republicans.
You believe in cutting taxes for big corporations.
Many of them don't think The government solution, cap and trade, is going to solve climate change.
They push back on a lot of more left-leaning policies, and that's fine.
I disagree, but we can get along, okay?
That's not my fight, because I'm not trying to convince anybody not to, like, well, I should say, I'm not trying to convince Republicans to not be Republicans because they're Republicans.
The point is, when I look at the Democrats and I think, how do we get sound policy?
How do we get some kind of, I don't know, tax incentive program for environmentalism?
Incentives and grants into renewable energy?
Barack Obama screwed up Solyndra, it's a complicated story.
I get disappointed in that.
I didn't like Obama because of his foreign policy, but I gotta tell you what, man.
All of these stories make me really, really miss that man.
He was strong.
And he actually tried to do things, though he had a hard time doing it.
He wasn't very successful.
But hey, I can appreciate at least the effort.
Now what do we get?
AOC's insane Green New Deal, which is God knows what.
According to Chief of Staff, an attempt to change the economy.
It was several pages of socialism and identitarianism.
No real solution to the climate crisis.
I'm looking for real environmentalist policy.
Then you have the people claiming to represent labor and talking about solutions to raise the standard of living, which I absolutely want, and I believe the government can play a role in that, being complete hypocrites.
Bernie Sanders has let me down in many ways.
Elizabeth Warren, I've never been a big fan of hers.
I will praise her endlessly on her calling out big tech.
100%.
Praise where it's due.
But now what is this?
Unpaid positions?
Why do you have those at all?
Look, I get it.
Being for labor, being for cooperative markets, and taking care of people to make sure they live comfortably, it is extremely difficult.
Okay?
I understand that a business wants to maximize its revenue, its reserves, and its profits.
When it comes to a campaign, Bernie wants to win.
He needs to win.
But what are you willing to sacrifice to do it?
That's the problem.
And this is why cheaters win.
Now, they'll tell you cheaters never win.
That's not true.
Cheaters only lose when they get caught.
Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, they're cheating.
Let me just jump to the next story, because we get the point, okay?
Kamala Harris.
This story doesn't necessarily fit, so I don't want to necessarily say she's cheating, but to an extent she is.
She's talking about some kind of a new plan to eliminate the gender pay gap, but it's in your own campaign, okay?
Now, I understand the gender pay gap is widely a myth.
It's very, very tiny.
It's like three to five percent, maybe seven, but it's not this huge number, and many people believe it's due to the fact that women don't negotiate.
That's not the point.
I want to highlight how you have Kamala Harris saying, we got to end the gender pay gap.
We'll start with clean your own room.
I'm going to do Jordan Peterson.
unidentified
Clean your room before changing the world, bucko.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
But then you've got outside of this, that's less hypocritical and more just, I don't know, ignorant.
What Amy Klobuchar is doing, what Bernie Sanders is doing, and what Elizabeth Warren is doing, to me, are people who are willing to cheat to get ahead.
That's it.
You cannot advocate for defending labor rights and then just, I don't know, eschew those values when it comes to your own campaign for personal benefit.
Here's what I'm trying to say.
Bernie needs as much money as possible to win.
Amy does.
Warren does.
So, they're going to flub the numbers, in Klobuchar's case and several other campaigns it looks like.
Bernie is going to also flub the numbers to make it seem like he's doing the right thing so his ideology is consistent.
It's not.
And Elizabeth Warren is going to offer unpaid positions to manipulate those who are the most excited about her campaign.
How awful is that?
And that's the most offensive thing to me.
Elizabeth Warren telling those who truly believe in her that, oh, but you know, you're going to be unpaid.
That is dirty.
Pay them the money.
And you know what?
You may be at a disadvantage, but the ends don't justify the means.
And that, to me, is the worst part about the Democrats right now.
I believed in Bernie in 2016.
And then he went up on stage and said a bunch of nonsense about why people don't like to be poor.
He endorsed Hillary.
That was bad.
Nobody liked Hillary.
I mean, I guess some people do, obviously, but a lot of people didn't.
And Bernie let me down in a lot of ways.
He's now embracing fake politics.
He's towing the party line.
This is the most egregious thing I've ever seen him do.
This manipulation to make it look like he's paying his people $15 on paper was disgusting.
So who do we have?
Who do we have on the Democratic side?
Who is actually principled?
Who I believe is genuine?
There's only two people.
And you know who I think those two people are.
Tulsi Gabbard is suing Google for interfering in meddling in the election.
Meddling in the election, mind you.
She was the most searched for candidate.
After the first debates, they shut down her ad account.
Why is that?
You know what it is?
I hate to say it, but cheaters do win.
Tulsi seems to be principled.
She stepped down from the DNC to support Bernie in 2016.
She's defended free speech and big tech.
She's anti-war.
And what does she get for it?
Destroyed in the media.
Suspended by Google.
Andrew Yang had his mic cut off, according to numerous clips.
Those who are playing fair are getting destroyed by the corrupt establishment.
And Bernie, to me, is just another part of that.
So is Warren.
So is Klobuchar.
So is Harris.
And that's what I see when I look at the Democrats.
So let me reiterate my point about Republicans.
What am I going to do?
Am I going to go to a Republican and be like, you should actually consider, you know, universal basic income or some kind of solution to automation like Andrew Yang is having a conversation about how we solve this problem.
We should consider forward-thinking proposals to make sure that, you know, people don't lose access to resources simply because their job has become obsolete, whatever form that takes.
Okay, those conversations can happen.
But what about the basic stuff on the left side?
Progressive taxes, environmentalism.
I'm not gonna get what I want out of a Republican.
They're on a different side of the spectrum from my politics.
So there's literally no one for me.
I'm politically homeless.
That's what many people have said.
And that's why the Democrats frustrate me to no end.
Because they're supposed to be the ones who are on this side.
But instead, they're chasing after woke Twitter, being manipulated by Donald Trump, and then pulling this insanity Where they don't put their own money where their mouth is, or at the very least are lying.
So I can rant on this one for a long time.
But that's just how I feel.
I feel like most of my life I have been used, betrayed, and manipulated by Democrats.
Look, I voted for Barack Obama the first time.
He seemed like something new and something different.
I was very young.
I didn't vote for him the second time because I felt like I was taken advantage of.
Many people then say, Tim, walk away.
No, you don't understand.
My policy views don't change because the Democrats are overrun with sycophantic liars and manipulators.
There's no Republican for me.
I don't agree with Republican policies for the most part.
Of course we believe on most things.
Here's what I want to say.
Of course I agree with most things.
Dan Crenshaw is a great example.
Dan Crenshaw and I would probably agree on a lot of things.
But on the key issues that divide the liberals and the conservatives, I don't.
The point I'm trying to make is that in America we mostly agree on these issues.
The Democrats have gone so far off the rails, I've actually said this, as someone who is slightly to the left, center-left, I'm closer now to Republicans on many issues because the left doesn't even believe in free speech anymore.
Because they're pushing racist policies.
They have been for a while.
More importantly, I'm all about labor.
I've petitioned the NLRB on more than one occasion, and I believe in collective bargaining rights.
I think unions are corrupted right now and we need some kind of overhaul, but I do believe in the people rising up to challenge the power.
I am anti-authoritarian, and the Democrats seem to be just in complete disarray.
And you know what I'd be willing to bet?
Progressives and many on the far left completely agree.
But I think they're willing to cheat to do it, and I'm not.
So I don't know what you get.
I get a cordial conversation with Glenn Beck.
I was on his show recently.
Great conversation.
We disagree on fundamental issues, but we're normal people talking.
Where is that now?
Who do I talk to on the left in the Democratic Party?
Look, that's why I'm going to support Tulsi Gabbard and or Andrew Yang.
That's why those are my candidates, because I believe that they're actually real people who really do care and want to have that conversation.
Tulsi's gone on Joe Rogan a couple times.
She's gone on Fox News.
They're willing to cross the line and say, we can work together, and that is the most important thing.
And look, I'm not exaggerating when I say go to Tulsi's policy page, and it's like 80% I'm on board with.
Andrew Yang, it's huge.
But this makes me so angry, man.
The top-tier Democrats, the ones that are being called the frontrunners, being exposed for hypocrisy.
Rant over.
I could make this video five hours long, but I'll leave it there because you get the point.
Meanwhile, I have a whole bunch of other stuff pulled up about how Trump is just manipulating everybody.
Trump, look.
The way I grew up, it's like a sane, rational person.
It's like, I get it.
People voted for Trump.
It's not the end of the world.
South Park made a joke about it where, you know, Obama wins and then everyone's running around, like, rioting happy, and the other side is hiding in a cave terrified.
Yeah, great.
This stuff happens all the time.
So when Trump wins, I'm like, I get it.
Here we go.
Orange man bad.
I didn't vote for the guy.
I'm not gonna vote for the guy.
But I understand that people did.
I'm not crazy, you know?
And so, long story short is, Trump is winning.
He's absolutely winning.
Every single day he's winning.
And then people get mad at me for constantly being annoyed by the Democrats for being losers.
Okay, I'll give credit to Warren for her big tech policies.
I gave credit to AOC when she called out big tech.
If they're doing things that are important, I will give them credit.
I'm not going to go on Twitter and be like, Dan Crenshaw doesn't understand the minimum wage.
Well, I actually kind of agree with him on a lot of that.
But I disagree on, is it civic policy or is it technological advancement?
And that's why I lean towards Yang's solution.
Not necessarily a big fan of UBI.
I think it's complicated.
But Yang is asking the right questions.
We can't just say, you know, close the borders.
Raise the tariffs.
It's worked.
It has.
But I'm thinking more forward-facing.
So not that Trump has been wrong to do what he's done.
The economy's great.
But I'm concerned about what happens when these truck drivers get automated and we get more of the same.
What can Trump do then?
Andrew Yang is having that conversation.
Again, Yang's got a bunch of other policy positions I think are very rational.
It's not just the one.
I'm not going to go through the list and make a three-hour video.
But he really does have a lot.
The point is, Trump is winning, and it's because of this.
It's because the Democrats have no charisma, no strength behind their voice, and they keep doing this.
The media is going to rip them to shreds.
Completely rip them to shreds.
You know, you see the bad press about Trump.
Trump doesn't care, and neither does his base.
You can call Trump all the names in the book, and his base is like, we get it, you hate Trump.
Bernie, Warren, they can't survive that.
And the media is going to tear them apart because they want the salacious, they want the juicy, they want the clicks.
Rant over, I'm going to stop now.
Next segment will be at 6pm on youtube.com slash TimCastNews, my other channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see you all then.
Okay, I'm kidding.
But you get the point.
You would think it must be the most depressing issue ever for them to never stop talking about Donald Trump.
I went to a skate park recently and I was talking to some kids and they said they don't care anymore.
These are like regular liberals, right?
Not like crazy far left, woke, whatever.
It's like regular people voted for Obama or Bernie or whatever.
Granted, they were younger, so probably didn't vote for Obama, but they're like Bernie supporters.
And they were saying that they just tune it out.
It's just the same thing every single day.
And now we actually have CNN to prove it and some other sources.
Check this out.
TV viewership for Mueller hearings falls flat.
That's right.
Even though they brought in around 13 million viewers across six major networks, ratings were down.
Why?
This was the Mueller hearing.
The Cohen hearing did better.
You'd think this one would do better than that.
No, it's been gradually declining for one simple reason.
Orange Man Bad is boring nonsense.
There was a report, apparently, that Brian Stelter, who wrote this article, his ratings are down 50% since the start of this year.
While you will hear a lot of people say, haha, that's proof, I'll also point out there could be ratings fluctuations into the summer.
I mean, in the winter, everyone's stuck inside so that, you know, it's cold out.
No, it's really nice out.
People might wanna go to the beach.
So consider that.
But I will say, my ratings are up.
I don't know, that could just be due to doing work and like, growing my business.
CNN is not growing.
So their ratings are down.
And I'm gonna just say, listen.
Talk about something else.
Please.
There was also a story recently that apparently people at Fox When they share a story, they'll put a fox emoji next to it because they're trying to figure out what fox is covering that they're not so they can get ratings.
Let me explain something.
On my main channel, people look at it and immediately say, aha, Tim Pool is right wing.
unidentified
Why?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Because Tim Pool talks about things that conservatives also talk about.
Well, because I'm a moderate.
And moderates, according to the data I showed in a video a couple days ago, moderates and conservatives have a balanced news diet.
Conservatives lean towards reading conservative news, moderates lean towards reading liberal news, but still have a healthy balance between the two different biases.
Liberals just read only the left, like predominantly.
So what ends up happening is I'll be like, whoa, this Ilhan Omar story is huge.
It's on Politico.
It's on Hill.
It's on CNN.
It's on all these networks.
And so I will make a video about that.
Then you'll see people on the left say, aha, only conservatives talk about this.
The other issue is as a moderate, my perspective is probably moderate, and therefore the left never seeing a moderate or a conservative or assuming all conservatives are far right, that must be the reason.
But I will add, I think, you know, CNN is recognizing they're not speaking to Americans anymore.
Let's actually look at the ratings here.
Before we jump into the ratings, head over to TimCast.com slash doneit if you want to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
You get it.
YouTube is deranking us.
They're propping up CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, the big corporate players.
So I rely on word of mouth.
If you guys think this video is good, please share it.
Here's what I want to do.
The Mueller hearings were undeniably important and worthy of televising.
Mueller's affirmations about Trump's possible obstruction of justice and Russia's ongoing meddling led to the nightly news and Thursday's newspapers.
So, the testimony had the effect of amplifying the probe's findings to a national audience.
But it may be that viewers could tell it was a rerun of sorts.
During the day Wednesday, cable news ratings were roughly double their usual levels, showing that Mueller was definitely a draw.
But ratings have been higher for other major events in the past year, like the tense hearing about Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court.
Yes, something new.
I mean, even Brett Kavanaugh is in a sense an Orange Man Bad story.
So check this out.
Hollywood Reporter actually breaks down The 13 million viewers fall short of some other recent televised hearings.
Former Donald Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, for instance, drew about 16 million viewers when he testified before Congress.
James Comey's 2017 appearance before Congress—19.5 million.
CNN did.
But they do kind of point it out.
Check it out.
They say, The 13 million viewers fall short of some other recent televised
hearings.
Former Donald Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, for instance, drew about 16 million viewers
when he testified before Congress.
James Comey's 2017 appearance before Congress, 19.5 million.
And Brett Kavanaugh averaged 20 million.
Fox News led the field for Wednesday's coverage with an average of just over 3 million viewers
for the hearings.
MSNBC 2.41, ABC 2.12, NBC about 2, CBS about 2, and CNN 1.5.
2.12, NBC about 2, CBS about 2, and CNN 1.5.
CNN, of course, in last place.
Why am I not surprised?
You know, I do feel bad for CNN because it seems like they're trying not to be, you know, super far left, but they are anyway because they, you know, it's an addiction, okay?
Orange bad man media is an addiction.
Here's what happens.
Let me use an ice cream analogy because I love doing this.
There's an ice cream shop with 31 sweet and delicious flavors.
And you've got just whatever.
We'll call them A, B, C, D, whatever.
unidentified
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
People come in and the shop owner notices Super Special Flavor 17 sells more than the other flavors.
So he says, you know what?
Let's get rid of four of the flavors and add in more of Super Flavor 17.
Now the ratings, now his sales for ice cream are going up even more.
He's excited.
One by one, he eventually starts getting rid of all the other flavors until eventually the ice cream shop has one flavor.
But all of a sudden now, people aren't coming in anymore.
The ratings are going down, his sales are going down.
The reason is, while yes, there were a lot of people that really liked that flavor, you've become a one-trick pony.
People are now saying, you know, I do like that special flavor, but they don't even have chocolate.
You know, I'm not even going to go there.
You turn on CNN and you're hoping to find out something about some big story, and they're not covering it.
They're just sitting there with a panel going like, Orange Man bad?
unidentified
Hmm.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Well, Orange Man indeed bad, but how bad?
On a scale of 1 to 10, how bad is Orange Man?
Oh, wow.
Past ten.
Clearly, Orange Man is that bad.
I agree.
Well, the problem with Orange Man is... Let's turn now to our conservative panelist.
And they bring in a conservative panelist who goes, I have been a lifelong conservative, but Orange Man is indeed bad.
And that's all it is.
It's all it is.
Check it out.
Don't take my word for it.
How about this story from Fox Business?
CNN's anti-Trump stance is hurting ratings.
Varney.
They write.
It's getting really bad at CNN.
Viewers are fleeing in droves.
I'm a founder of that network and not happy.
This spring, CNN's ratings fell off a cliff.
They're getting fewer than half the viewers who tune into Fox News, and in primetime, that's 8 to 11, they get less than a third.
During this rating period, the Mueller report came out.
Former Vice President Joe Biden geared up his presidential campaign.
A dozen Democrats announced their candidacy.
That's CNN's Democratic turf, so why the ratings plunge?
This is old.
Oh, no, this is a news story.
unidentified
Wow.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
CNN is hate President Trump 24-7.
Let me correct you, Mr. Varney, was it?
Stuart Varney.
CNN is the Orange Man Bad Network.
You called it hate President Trump 24-7.
They say, America's not buying it.
I have TV monitors in my studio and I check out what they're covering.
It's so predictable.
Every news event is skewed to show contempt for the president.
We get it.
The Orange Man is bad.
Put on something else.
No, no, no.
unidentified
No.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Actually, I'll put on something else.
And that's exactly what's happening.
And even this guy Stuart Varney, who says he's the founder of the network, is not happy.
You look at what Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy cover and it's just such predictable,
snooty, ivory tower.
We're so much smarter than you.
Dude, you are so out of touch with the American people.
I can't even begin to explain.
You are chasing the drug.
You are replacing your ice cream with one flavor, and we've had enough.
We know exactly what you're gonna sell every single day, and we're over it.
Dude.
If CNN just one day randomly was like, we're going to do a special on exploring the galaxy, I'm sure their ratings would do better.
Like if they had a breaking news thing about like CERN or some scientist stuff, people might be like, oh, that's really interesting.
And they might bring back regular people who are looking for information, but also entertainment.
Okay?
I recognize that's a component, and it's unfortunate.
But it's that component they're chasing after that results in the Orange Man Bad incessant commentary.
It's an addiction.
Okay?
The first few shots of that sweet Orange Man Bad drug felt good.
And now it's killing you, and you need to stop.
You need to start weaning yourself off of Orange Man Bad.
Stuart Varney says the same thing.
We can all see it.
But you are locked, shivering, going through withdrawals.
But you are slowly dying off because of it.
It's time to get off the orange man bad drug.
He says, Varney says, In primetime, it's downright insulting.
At 10 o'clock, Don Lemon goes out of his way to be personally nasty about our president.
His ratings have fallen off a cliff.
It wasn't always like this.
CNN went on the air June 1, 1980.
I was there, and so was my colleague Lou Dobbs.
Back then, we played it straight.
We covered the news.
But in the mid-90s, the network changed direction.
CNN became the Clinton News Network.
Bill Clinton could do no wrong.
By the time of the 2016 presidential election rolled around, the entire network was gung-ho for Hillary.
Time Warner was one of her biggest contributors.
She could do no wrong, and when she lost, it was almost comical.
Check it out on YouTube.
Their election night anchors went into mourning, apoplectic with grief.
The hate Trump coverage began in earnest.
Don't expect anything to change.
CNN has signed most of its hate Trump people to contracts extending beyond the 2020 election.
And in the debates at the end of this month, guess who is one of the moderators?
Don Lemon, the man who has questioned the president's sanity and called him a racist.
The guy who also asked whether or not a black hole could swallow an airplane.
I am not making that up.
I mean this.
Don Lemon once asked, could a black hole have swallowed the missing Malaysian airline?
Okay, CNN.
Okay.
He said, gee, I thought journalists asked the question.
Well, Don Lemon isn't.
He's an identitarian.
He said it as much himself.
There's a bottom line here, and it's this.
CNN, along with establishment media and much of the Democratic Party, has been overwhelmed with pure hatred of President Trump.
It's a self-inflicted wound.
And no matter how many times I say it, they don't seem to care.
Not at all.
We can see it.
It's predictable.
I will stress I don't like making hard predictions.
Personally, I think Trump's going to win 2020, but he might lose.
He really might.
You know, it would be silly to be arrogant and assume you know what's going to happen.
I'm sure there are a lot of Trump supporters who are so confident he's going to win, but don't ever forget what Hillary Clinton thought.
Everyone thought the same thing, and it could be that her voters just didn't turn out because they thought they couldn't lose.
Those people are definitely going to turn out in 2020, so Trump's got a real battle ahead of him, even with all of the advantages he's holding.
It's going to be interesting.
I would be surprised if Trump becomes a one-term president.
I will also say this, though.
In the many economic forecast models for Trump, he's on track to win.
We've got, uh, RNC donations double the Democrats with no debt.
We've got, uh, just the incumbent advantage.
And you've got the insanity coming from the Democratic debates that really does make a lot of people think Trump will win.
Now, the people I've talked to who aren't in the know, who don't pay attention to politics, don't think he can.
But they don't really know about all of these things that are happening.
You know, I just talked to some random people when I'm out at the park, and they'll say, like, I don't think he'll win, and I'm like, What about this?
The economy's at record highs, unemployment at record lows.
I go, oh, I didn't know that.
Because they're not watching the news, they don't care, they're not paying attention.
And I'm like, right, these things are going to play a role in getting Trump re-elected.
But I want to point to just one more article as a highlight.
I might do a bigger story on this, but CNN recently had to, well, I don't wanna say fired, but a CNN photo editor who praised the murder of some Israelis saying awful and horrifying things, this is just being reported yesterday, was resigned in disgrace.
I can't show you what he said.
But the reason I highlight this story, and we'll pull away from it, I might do a bigger video on it, but it is some harsh language.
Is that not only is CNN becoming the Orange Man Bad Network, like, well, they are.
They're the Orange Man Bad Network.
Even Stuart Varney is saying as much.
But they're even hiring people who are overt anti-Semites.
It's kind of shocking to me.
Why didn't they vet this guy?
Or maybe they did.
Maybe they're so blind with hatred for what this president is.
You know, Trump has praised Israel.
He's talked about moving the embassy.
He's very much in favor of Israel.
Maybe CNN just thought they could get away with it.
Maybe that's the attitude they're cultivating.
Maybe that's the attitude they want.
But the public pressure was too much, the guy had to resign.
So, you know what?
Listen.
I tuned out the Mueller testimony, too.
I turned it on periodically, and I just turned it off.
I just turned it off.
It was just bad.
It was bad, bad, bad across the board.
I am sick and tired of hearing this, and I'm sure most of you are as well.
It's every day, on every cable network, the front, you know, the opening monologue for every late night show.
We get it!
The Orange Man is bad!
Can we move on?
I'm so tired of it.
I would much rather watch CNN doing a documentary on the making of, I don't know, glass.
That sounds interesting.
How is glass made?
Maybe I'll watch How It's Made instead of watching CNN.
CNN could quite literally cover.
They could do a news story about a special new grass being laid out in a small town in Iowa, and I'd be more interested in that than watching Orange Man Bet.
I kid you not.
Watching grass grow.
Because think about it.
They could say, well, this particular, you know, strain, or whatever you call it, breed of grass, I don't know what it's called.
I don't know what people, what the phrase is, the terminology, species, has a bluish
tint to it and it's quite larger than you'll notice or it's a finer grain.
I'm like, oh, that's interesting.
I didn't know any of that, right?
You could quite literally just film grass and talk to me and tell me what the grass
is and I'd be interested.
I'd be like, you know, that's something I didn't know.
While it's not the most interesting thing in the world watching grass grow, in fact,
I kid you not, I mean this sincerely, CNN could run a special showing paint dry and
explain to me how they layered the paint and the primer and doing the basics of how you
paint a wall and that would be more interesting than hearing once again that the orange man
is bad.
Watching paint dry.
I mean that sincerely, though.
I know very little about how paint is made and how it's done, and if they just showed that and talked about it, I'd be like, ah, I'm learning something new.
As opposed to them telling me for the millionth time that the orange man is bad.
I'll leave it there.
You get the point.
Stick around.
Next segment will be at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Ah, the saga of the anti-manspreading chair.
No other issue, really.
It's my favorite issue in the nonsense of the culture wars.
Manspreading.
A completely made-up problem.
It's a real example of the fake outrage.
Does anyone really care that dudes spread their legs when they sit?
In extremely, extremely rare circumstances.
I'm sure that people care as much about that as they do when women put their bags on chairs.
It's quite simple, actually.
When I walk on a train and see a woman with a bag on a chair, I say, is it okay?
Can I sit here?
Or if a guy has his legs spread, I'll just be like, would you mind?
That's it.
It's not an issue.
Yet, for some reason, taxpayer money is going to advertisements in New York City and other places to tell men not to manspread.
There's a very simple reason why men spread their legs when they sit.
The most obvious one is Biology.
It's the physical form of the man downstairs.
But there's actually some lesser known stuff having to do with the Q angle, the hip ratio, and the natural way in which legs rest for men has somewhat less to do with man's junk and the muscle structure.
So the tightness of the muscles.
I was reading something about it a while ago.
I don't want to get into that because I want to point this out right here.
Here you see I don't think this woman who made this ever actually spent two seconds to think about what was actually going on.
his balls crushed.
Nearly.
Seems like he did.
I don't think this woman who made this ever actually spent 2 seconds to think about what
was actually going on.
Because the video is actually quite funny.
The Sky News host sits down in the anti-manspreading chair and then actually says he's like trying to adjust himself and he's in pain.
He's in visible pain when you watch this video, okay?
You can watch it.
I've got another story I want to follow up on because the outrage is getting hilarious.
But anyway, the woman then says something to the effect of, I don't want you to be in pain.
Then why did you make a crappy chair meant to cause men to be in pain?
It's like, Well, the extreme lack of empathy and the extreme narcissism required to make a phenomenon like manspriting truly, truly blows my mind.
And it says something about, I guess, millennials, to an extent.
I mean, obviously there are going to be boomers and Gen Xers who also are all like, manspriting is bad, but here's the thing.
Have any of these people ever actually stopped to think about why a man would sit that way?
No.
They immediately just say, it's the patriarchy.
One of the funniest things I read on Twitter recently was, when that frat guy at the club is aggressively trying to pressure you into hooking up, he's not trying to reinforce the patriarchy.
It's so insane, isn't it?
How you have feminists saying, men are clearly only sitting that way because they want power.
What guy thinks that way?
Guy sits down, he just spreads his legs, he's got junk, and he's like, oh man, that's a comfortable way to sit.
So what do you think happens when this guy sits in the chair, he's in visible pain crushing his junk, and she actually says, I don't want you to be in pain.
Oh my!
Did you just now realize men can't comfortably sit that way?
For the most part.
I want to add too, before moving on to the next story about the outrage.
I've seen guys, because I tweeted, I posted something about this on Facebook years ago, and a bunch of guys immediately started saying, I have no problem sitting that way.
And I'm like, great, you got tiny, tiny balls, dude.
Like, okay, I get it.
You're telling us that you have tiny junk.
I mean, maybe that makes sense when you look at all of these frail effeminate male feminists.
Sure, you're small and frail and you have no confidence and you have tiny junk.
That says something, maybe.
Right?
I'm not trying to be a dick.
I'm trying to say maybe these guys have really low testosterone.
Did you ever see there was a thing from BuzzFeed about the tri guys?
And they all got their testosterone levels checked and it was ridiculously low.
I wouldn't be surprised if these effeminate men, again I mean that in a literal sense,
not a disrespectful sense, they are effeminate, had low testosterone and tiny junk.
And thus they have no problem sitting there like dainty females.
I can't, it's not comfortable, I can't do it.
I mean if I had to, I could, you know.
But this guy's clearly in pain.
Now, here's the funny thing.
Man, I love the manspriting thing because of the sheer absurdity of it.
But we have this story from the Daily Dot, which is talking about sexist memes.
Okay, first of all, take a look at this one.
Has she ever seen a real chair before?
Apart from the sexism, can we talk about how Essie, these chairs are in their design itself?
Way too small backrest, sharp corners, non-ergonomic seat.
And this is dank memes.
Okay, this is just like a big subreddit.
It's funny. Here's one.
A Crowder meme.
Women using an entire chair for their purse is worse than manspreading change my mind.
How about this one?
unidentified
What the cinnamon toast F is this?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
That's an angry bit of cereal, but I do want to point something out that I pointed out in the last video.
When the guy in this in the segment sits in the woman's chair where she put a wood block where junk is supposed to go, the guy goes, oh, it's actually quite comfy.
Oh, no, no, this other guy says it's cozy.
This guy says it's comfy because this one naturally makes the guy manspread.
It's like she's, you know, I wish...
This is a really good thing.
Listen.
This is a really good example of modern day intersectionality.
This woman clearly put no thought into what she was doing.
She didn't investigate the reason why men and women sit the way they do.
And then she designed chairs not with any real expertise or understanding how chairs are made.
She literally just put wood legs on a thing and bevels on it so it's hard to move your legs.
She didn't think at all about what she was doing.
Now look.
Let me explain why this is a really, really great thing for you to see.
When you look at these chairs, any sane and normal human can go, that's ridiculous.
We can see the absurdity in the chair.
What about something less obvious, like passing a law on some complicated issue?
Most people wouldn't be able to see the tangible results, okay?
When they pass laws saying that, you know, like right now you've got some crazy thing going on where a trans woman has filed like 15 or 16 human rights complaints against female waxing salons for not wanting to wax the male privates of this individual.
That is where things are getting into sheer absurdity.
It's hard to see the impact of that law.
Because let me stress, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 1964, protects on the basis of sex.
Which means, at any point in that period, someone could be doing the same thing.
It's not new laws that are giving this trans woman the ability to file these complaints, whether you support or oppose.
The point is, the law has been in the books for decades.
It's only now people are seeing the true, tangible results of decades-long policy.
The thing about these ridiculous chairs is that she created them based on this intersectional idea that makes no sense and has no basis in reality, part of a delusional state people are living in, and then you see the results.
Something that makes no sense at all.
And any sane person's gonna say, that's a bad chair.
For one, the backrest isn't even a backrest.
You can't lean on the backrest.
The chairs are too long.
Sharp corners.
Yeah, that's gonna hurt somebody.
And a non-ergonomic seat.
She literally just took a plank of wood.
It's like the worst chair we could have ever seen.
It shows us that these people believe fake things that aren't real.
Like, remember the Tide Pod thing?
Nobody was eating Tide Pods until the media started lying.
The media, through social media, is creating a persistent delusional state.
I might make a longer video about it.
I'm actually working on a report, but maybe I'll do a primer into what's happening over the past decade to create this.
But this is such an excellent example of the sheer insanity that is today's modern culture war.
No thought went into this.
She didn't plan.
She didn't research.
She literally, look, she's all smug, like, I took pieces of wood and shaped them in a way that doesn't work.
Congratulations, you've done it.
But the best part is how it actually turns into an outrage article.
The Daily Lies says, of course a chair designed to solve manspreading became the subject of sexist memes.
Yes, because it's, it's, it, we're not, I'm not criticizing her for trying to stop, well, actually I am.
I'm not, look, there's so much wrong with what she did.
Manspreading is a fake problem.
Look at this, they have a guy, there's no one sitting here, there's no one sitting behind him, and they're upset that he's spreading his legs and putting his bag down.
It's clearly fake.
Here they say, anyone who has ever shared seated public space with men has probably encountered manspreading, the act in which men ignore—it was written by a woman, of course—who ignore unspoken courtesies and exceed their allotted space by rudely spreading their legs, thereby taking up more than one seat or invading the personal space of those seated next to them.
It has become so common that it became a word in the Oxford Dictionary.
No, not common.
It's just ridiculous psychopaths like yourself keep writing about something that doesn't exist and no one really cares about.
I can't believe that New York City actually put up ads for this.
Could the answer to manspreading be not to teach men better behavior, but to fashion a chair that makes the spreading of men's legs more difficult?
Okay, how about we make chairs so women can't put their bags on chairs?
Because that happens more in my opinion.
They go on to say, in addition, she also created a female version of the chair, which encourages women to take up more space.
So she's not really solving the problem.
She's just making the problem worse.
Because I don't know what people are going to do.
I guess everybody would just sit in the woman's chair.
The idea behind the project was to challenge the way both men and women think, opening a dialogue in the process.
Sure.
I'm gonna just say one thing.
Actually, let's see if there's a little bit more memes, because there probably are.
Here's to change my mind.
Everywhere I go, I see this useless thing.
It's Spider-Man.
Guys.
Girl who made a chair to stop manspreading.
Reddit.
Okay.
It's funny because it's all dank memes making fun of her, but it's not like Trump supporters.
Here's one.
Someone just shows the guy sitting in the other way with his legs through the back.
So for those that are listening, the back of the chairs don't go up at all.
It's like, I don't even get what she was trying to accomplish with this.
Modern problems require modern solutions.
And guess what?
They're upset that she's being made fun of.
Welcome to the internet!
Have a good day.
Next video will be at 4pm on the main channel.
I will see you then.
Ex-MSNBC host shreds MSNBC over feverish Russian conspiracy theories.
And I just want to point out before we get started, her name is Crystal Ball.
I'm sorry.
Like, her name is Crystal Ball.
That's gotta mean something, right?
And I'm not gonna go the low route, I'm gonna go the high route.
She is speaking prophecy.
Okay?
It's still kind of the low road, I get it.
Anyway, the point is, we'll read the story, but... Russians?
Americans don't care about Russians.
Okay, a little bit.
But for the most part, it's not considered a pressing issue, it's kind of like a side thought.
What we're really seeing here is the inability of the media to survive in the Trump era.
They're desperate for attention.
Trump knows it.
He plays them like a fiddle.
And Russia is the last thing Americans care about.
Okay, it's not the last thing, but it's almost the last thing they care about.
I've got poll data.
So, let's criticize the media, let's see what Crystal Ball has to say, and before we get started, make sure you head over to TimCast.com slash Donut if you would like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, just share this video if you like it because YouTube has deranked independent commentary.
What this means, non-subscriber views are, like, basically gone.
Everybody, even David Pakman's been complaining about this, and, I mean, look, David and I do political commentary.
Kind of disagree on a lot of issues.
Kind of not really, but framing is different.
Very much so on our channels.
He's more of oppressive.
I'm more of a moderate.
The point is, both, like, across the spectrum, YouTube is trying to stop our channels from growing.
That's what it means when they're not suggesting us anymore.
The views we get from people who aren't subscribed is way down.
So you can do two things.
You can subscribe or share the video if you really want to help.
And the only reason I go into the extended plug here is because we're criticizing the media in this video.
Let's see what she has to say.
Crystal ball.
The Daily Wire reports ex-MSNBC host Crystal Ball slammed her former network on Thursday for promoting feverish Russian conspiracy theories, comparing the far-left network to InfoWars, and saying they are not journalism, comparing them to InfoWars.
Listen.
A lot of people like InfoWars.
A lot of people like MSNBC.
I'm not here to pass- well, actually, I'll pass a little judgment.
InfoWars, Alex Jones has said some crazy stuff, plain and simple.
But here's the difficult thing.
I, as kind of like a moderate, not big into InfoWars, can criticize Alex Jones for talking about cell phone towers, controlling people's minds, and interdimensional aliens, but here's the thing.
Those conversations are fun to have when you're like, like, I don't smoke, but like, you know, you're sitting around with your friends, you're bored, and you're just like, man, what if, like, aliens?
It's a fun conversation.
It can do no harm.
Now, Alex Jones has done things worth criticizing, but MSNBC is a full order of magnitude worse, or more.
Okay?
For years, they're pushing Russiagate insanity conspiracy.
That stuff is based in reality and can literally drive people insane.
I'll tell you what.
What am I concerned with?
A handful of people who watch Alex Jones who think interdimensional aliens are controlling our minds?
Not really, because they're going off to Area 51 to put on freaky little hats.
But you know what is scary?
When Rachel Maddow whips everyone into a frenzy claiming that Trump works for Russia.
Then they go nuts, and that actually affects policy.
That is crazy.
More importantly...
I just want to point out, we'll continue on with our criticisms, but the most important problem to American voters?
Well, non-economic problems are the majority, around 85%.
But guess what?
Situation with Russia is a little asterisk, a little star symbol.
You know what the star symbol means?
Less than point...
0.5% of people said it was the most pressing issue, so no.
Can we drop it?
You're catering to the fringe wackos, MSNBC.
Make it stop.
They won't.
But you know what?
Crystal Ball is right.
Ball, who made the remarks while co-hosting The Hills Rising, launched the attacks against her former network after special counsel Robert Mueller's disastrous testimony on Wednesday in front of Congress.
I can no longer avoid pondering a question which honestly gives me no joy to ponder.
Just how much damage has MSNBC in particular done to the left?
Crystal, you are incredible.
Thank you so much.
Thank you so much.
Now this critique is not meant to be personal to the anchors and commentators there, many of whom I know, some of whom are actually close friends having worked at the network for five years, but nearly all of whom got swept up in the ratings bubble that was feverish Russian conspiracy theories!
I dare to say, some talent did drink more deeply of the Russian conspiracy waters than others.
Rachel Maddow, you've got some explaining to do!
Rachel Maddow, you've got some explaining to do.
Crystal Ball, I am not your biggest fan.
Okay?
That was amazing, and I respect it.
We gotta call out the insanity, please.
Ball noted that MSNBC ruined any potentially damaging information that came out of the
hearing because, quote, for months MSNBC built segments after segments, show after show on
building anticipation for a big reveal when we would learn the true depths of the Trump's fealty
and direct conspiracy with Putin, of which there was none.
In some of the most fevered speculation, primetime shows actually invited Jonathan Shate onto lay
out his wild theory that Trump had actually been a Russian asset since 1987.
Ball continued.
Chait starts out his analysis by acknowledging that Trump, a multi-decade long Russian asset, is probably not true, but it might be.
Characters like conspiracy gadfly Louise Mensch were invited on.
Mensch, through her Twitter account, often reported things like the notion that Steve Bannon was getting the death penalty for espionage.
They had this person on MSNBC.
Seriously, this is not journalism.
unidentified
It is InfoWars Conspiracy Theory.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
You know what?
You can like Rachel Maddow, fine.
But I hope you can see through the fervent insanity.
And I say the same thing about Alex Jones, but here's the difference.
I was in Sweden a couple years ago, eating at a Thai food restaurant.
We were in Uppsala.
unidentified
No, no, no, no, no.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
We were in Södertälje.
Södertälje, I think, okay.
We were gonna interview, I think we were, yeah, we were in Södertälje, I think.
I heard Alex Jones ranting in the background as I'm eating Thai food, and I was confused.
Why, in this strange restaurant in the middle of, in a small town in Sweden, am I hearing Alex Jones ranting?
And then I heard it.
Some young men started laughing.
I heard three distinct laughs.
Wait a minute.
I get up and I turn around and I look.
They were watching Alex Jones videos where he like rips his shirt off and rants, Oh, they're killing babies!
unidentified
Oh, the Satanists!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
And they were laughing about it.
The important thing here, I bring this up, is that a lot of people found Jones to be like WWE.
They knew a lot of what he was saying was crazy, but it's funny to watch.
Do some people believe it?
They do.
But Rachel Maddow's viewers believe this stuff, and they're sitting in their rooms, terrified, going, oh, oh, the Russians!
They've come for us!
Listen, it is not funny what Rachel Maddow did.
What Alex Jones did, a lot of times, kind of was funny.
Now, InfoWars as a whole is different, right?
You can criticize them for their bias, for their politics.
And what a lot of people don't seem to understand, and the left loves this, is you can take the craziest rants of Alex Jones and then try and paint all of InfoWars the exact same way.
But here's the thing.
Paul Joseph Watson is so dramatically different from what Alex Jones is, okay?
They don't care.
And I can say the same thing for MSNBC.
MSNBC is dramatically different from what Rachel Maddow is.
But, look, the point I'm trying to make, a lot of people watched Rachel Maddow and she made them genuinely crazy.
And that's dangerous.
I think they might have... Okay, so that's the end of that.
But I want to make a point.
Crystal Ball, that was amazing.
I'm so pleased to hear this analysis.
Just someone finally being honest.
I appreciate it.
But while I mentioned no one cares about Russia, there's one more important bit that needs to be brought up.
From CNN, Trump is a dangerous media mastermind.
That is not my opinion.
That is CNN's political analyst, Julian Zelizer.
Let me just say that again.
CNN reporting Trump is a dangerous media mastermind.
Do you get it?
Everything Trump has ever done has been about playing up to public relations press.
He knows how to make himself famous.
He knows what people want to hear.
He got elected president.
He had a hit TV show for how many seasons?
He's got his name on buildings around the world.
He's cameoed in movies.
It's really funny.
Someone said, before Trump ran for president, people wanted to be Trump.
He was a symbol of the American dream, even though he came from a wealthy family.
We could argue all day and night about how—look, I think Trump knows how to run a business.
You get a lot of criticism saying, oh, but Trump had all these bankruptcies.
How many businesses did he run?
Hundreds?
He had a handful of bankruptcies?
Don't care.
Bankruptcy is a tactic used by business people to protect their assets.
Trump took a million bucks, hey, he got an investment, and he turned it into a billion.
Some people argue he could have done better just putting in the S&P 500.
I don't care.
The point is, the guy clearly knows what he's doing.
He's not the most articulate guy in the world, or maybe he is and he's doing it on purpose.
Maybe he has steak with ketchup on purpose.
Let me tell you about media manipulation.
Trump went to some You know why?
When the media came out and started slamming the president saying, I can't believe you would eat this fancy, expensive steak with ketchup.
Well done!
I'm going to say it, he knew it.
He knew it.
You know why?
When the media came out and started slamming the president saying, I can't believe you
would eat this fancy, expensive steak with ketchup.
Well done.
He was trying to get the media to advertise for him.
Here's the simple truth.
People in middle America who are poor and trying to find a better future are not having fancy, well-done filet mignon.
They're having T-bones or ribeyes from the grocery store for a buck, and it's a crappy piece of meat, so you cook it well-done and slap ketchup on it.
Trump wanted the media to make themselves the enemy.
And what has Trump said over and over again?
Enemy of the people?
The fake news is enemy of the people?
And then when they make fun of him for eating a well-done steak with ketchup, middle Americans go, I eat steak with ketchup, well done.
What do you mean?
He wanted them to say, ha ha, Trump is a man of the people and we're the enemies, we're the bad guys.
And he got them to do it.
Trump knows what he's doing.
I love that example.
Trust me.
When I was growing up on the south side of Chicago, you know what we had?
We got steaks from Jewel, Jewel Osco, if you guys are familiar with that Chicagoland area.
They were not fancy steaks, they were cheap because we were not wealthy, we were poor-ish.
And we'd cook them through.
Now, of course, my dad would always cook them through.
My dad liked to cook the steaks, right.
But for the most part, I, as a young person on the south side of Chicago, would slap ketchup on my steak.
And my dad would say, you know, at a fancy restaurant, you'd offend the chef if you did that.
Trump knows that people of humble means are not having fancy steaks at fancy restaurants.
And he plays the media for a fool.
For fools.
And then I guess what I was going to do like a bigger, bigger segment on all this.
I decided not to.
In the end, what do we have?
MSNBC went insane.
They thought they were playing the media.
They weren't.
I got to fly.
Trump, on the other hand, gets bad press, but it works in the end.
Stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
Even BuzzFeed has to admit you must criticize Ilhan Omar.
Even BuzzFeed acknowledges it.
Now, they're trying to play it safe, saying, defend her, but don't look away from the things she's said.
Okay, that's fair.
Although, I don't know why you would defend her when she's said and done such awful things.
And I gotta say, man, now the story about immigration and all that, it's getting crazy.
It's getting crazy.
I think at the very least, avoiding, like, was the guy her brother?
I don't know, man, we can get into all that stuff about her brother.
One thing seems to be easily provable though.
She claimed, it's been reported widely, under penalty of perjury she didn't have contact with Ahmed Elmi, the guy accused of being her brother, since like 2011 or something.
I don't know the exact dates.
But there's a social media post where they're together.
That was deleted.
That seems to be easily provable.
Did she commit perjury?
But let's see what Buzzfeed has to say, because I'm interested.
Ariel Sobel writes, I believe Ilhan Omar didn't know that the things she said could be deeply offensive.
I also believe her misguided rhetoric can normalize violent anti-Semitism.
Well, I think it's... Do I think Ilhan Omar didn't know she was being offensive?
I think she knew she was being offensive.
I just think she didn't realize it was going to come back to bite her in the ass, which it did.
Well, let's read.
Now, I want to point this out, too.
The bigger picture that I want to get to is Trump propping up Ilhan Omar, right?
So BuzzFeed simultaneously has these two stories.
Trump says Minnesota can't stand Omar.
His attacks have made her more popular than ever back home, but they don't seem to get it.
You know, it's really funny, like...
Reverse psychology works really well on kids.
You know what I mean?
There are strategies and tactics that the adults use to get the kids to do what they want.
Trump?
He knows how to do it.
Unquestionably.
They're sitting here going, haha Trump, you think everybody hates Omar, but we secretly love her.
Or we openly do.
That's the point.
That's what Trump really wanted.
He wants her to win.
Trump does not want Ilhan Omar to lose.
He wants her to win!
He is the greatest gift he could have ever asked for.
He knows that 27% of this country are moderates, and he's gonna get every single one of them votes.
I'm being hyperbolic.
He's gonna get a good amount of them.
The point is, he needs her to be front and center because she's rife with controversy.
Look, set aside the weird brother stuff about her, And she's said a bunch of antisemitic things.
Now, here's what I'll say.
Because the left gets really mad, and I want to make sure I'm being fair, I call it crop-dusting antisemitism.
Because she didn't come out and just overtly say nasty things about Jewish people like those CNN hosts did.
Oh, I'm gonna laugh.
Yeah, you may not know this, but two CNN employees right now have been called out for, like, I can't even repeat the things they said, but it was about Jewish people, and it was about World War II Germany, and it was not the opinion you'd expect a CNN employee to have.
One of them resigned.
We'll see what happens in the next one.
The point is, that's overt.
CNN employees?
Overtly anti-Semitic.
I'm gonna say it because it's true.
Ilhan Omar was crop-dusting, and you may have heard me say it before, but it's like when a plane gets really close to the ground but doesn't touch it.
She didn't quite say things specifically.
She criticized Israel.
Look, by all means, Israel is ripe for criticism, okay?
The West Bank settlements, the horrifying conditions in Palestine, it is a complicated scenario.
It is.
And I'm not gonna wait, because I'll tell you what, every single time I and everyone else talks about it, it's just, I'm gonna get 7,000 emails from people telling me I'm wrong, no matter what I say.
But to be real, like honestly, I don't know a whole lot about Israel and Palestine, to be honest.
I'm not someone who is qualified to comment on what the hell is really going on, so don't take my opinion for it.
I recognize that.
What I can say, however, is that you have bipartisan support for criticizing Ilhan Omar's statements.
You want a defender?
Fine.
But the thing is, You don't get to decide what's offensive, Left.
You don't.
If the Left wants to come out and say, like, you've got progressives like Cenk and others saying, what she said wasn't offensive.
No, you don't get to pick.
You can't go around saying you gotta ban offensive speech on Twitter and then you get to decide what's offensive.
Oh, but we get it.
It's the authoritarian play, right?
So I do want to point out, I think it's funny, that BuzzFeed runs a pro piece simultaneously with a negative piece, but let's see what they say.
Buzzfeed writes, starting with a quote, I don't know how my comments would be offensive to Jewish Americans, Ilhan Omar said in January when asked about an old tweet of hers that said Israel had hypnotized the world.
I believed her then, and I still do today.
You're nuts, okay?
I'm sorry, dude.
I appreciate you trying to be critical, but come on, man.
Jewish people and hypnosis is an old anti-Semitic trope.
It's like not, you can Google it, there's pictures.
Old propaganda, okay?
Fine.
Criticize Israel.
But, like, how many times does Ilhan Omar have to get as close as possible to being anti-Semitic until someone says, I think we know what you're doing, okay?
I don't want to say dog whistle.
It's stupid.
But she's trying to... Look, Rashida Tlaib was following some account on Instagram that was posting images of the Israeli flag or the Star of David on rats.
Rashida Tlaib is part of the squad.
They're friends.
Linda Sarsour.
Tablet Magazine New York Times exposed NSMI.
I think they're friends.
They're associated.
Ocasio-Cortez spoke at the event.
You know what, BuzzFeed?
This is what really annoys me is the double standard in all of this.
BuzzFeed is not the worst.
I'm talking about BuzzFeed News.
They're pretty bad, but they're not the worst.
They do good sometimes.
They didn't publish the name of Carpe Donctum.
They respond to inquiries, so I get it.
But here's the thing, man.
How can you be on the side of criticizing someone like Sargon of Akkad for making a joke?
I kid you not.
You've got a guy for BuzzFeed who wrote a critical piece about Carl Benjamin saying an offensive joke, and it's warranted as a huge hit piece.
And they just love doing it.
They love insulting and smearing him.
What they do now to get their emotional rage out, to get their rage out, is they'll say something like, Carl Benjamin, a loser and failed politician.
Like, why did you add that?
We don't need that context.
They're doing it because they want to feel good.
They want to be like, ooh, I gotcha.
When Ilhan Omar says like, what, how many times now, like five tweets or whatever, that are just close enough to almost being anti-semitic.
And even though the Democrats, many people in the Jewish community, conservatives, everybody's kind of like, yeah, dude, chill, that's offensive.
You still get people saying, I believe she was being honest.
Oh, okay, sure.
I'm sure when she's hanging out with Rashida Tlaib, who friends of hers, okay, because somebody looked at her Facebook page, I believe, and found that some of her friends were posting these images depicting just horrible things about Israel, and I kid you not, in line with what these CNN employees had said, okay?
CNN had a guy saying good things about World War II Germany.
So anyway, the point is, why should I believe Ilhan Omar?
I think you'd have to be willfully ignorant to defend her at this point.
BuzzFeed writes, But that's the thing about antisemitic tropes.
When you're not familiar with them, talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is like walking into Chernobyl with no protective gear.
Aw man, it's just so gross.
You mean to tell me they believe Ilhan Omar, who is a Muslim, who is friends with Rashida, Doesn't know anything about the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
Are you kidding?
Look at this.
She says, not being fami... It's like talking about the, uh, what did she say?
When you're not familiar with them, talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
I'd be willing to bet Ilhan Omar knows more about what's going on than the average person.
How could you assume she doesn't?
She's talking about it on purpose.
How many people do you know criticize Israel?
Okay?
The people who do tend to know what's going on and they've chosen a side.
Me?
I'm not really one of those people.
Don't know a whole lot about it.
So it'd be silly for me to comment.
But how could you have someone like Omar, who at the very least pretends, okay?
At the very least, she's putting on an air like she knows what's going on.
And you're gonna be like, well, because she didn't know about what was happening.
Oh, are you joking, dude?
Come on.
She writes, It's not just that I believe that Omar didn't know these things she said could be so deeply offensive.
I also believe that her misguided rhetoric can normalize violent anti-Semitism.
Intent to the side, when a progressive leader uses the same tropes as an anti-Jewish bigot,
it makes the ground fertile for ideas for the extreme right to sew themselves into other movements.
I agree to a certain, to an extent, yes.
White supremacists, former Klansmen, like people, they have praised Ilhan Omar.
They have praised her for these statements, okay?
That's why it's absurd to think she doesn't know what she's doing.
She is repeating rhetoric that we have seen from white supremacists.
It was an accident?
Okay, fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
How many times does Ilhan Omar have to say these things where people actually stop and just be like, we know what she's doing, man!
Let me tell you something, okay?
My main channel video today was very critical of Democrats, but can this please be a good example?
They're defending her.
The Republicans threw Steve King under the bus!
Good!
Good!
He wants to say stupid things?
Fine!
Criticize him, condemn him for it.
I look over there and I say, hey, there's some people who are doing the right thing.
I disagree with them on politics, but we can have a conversation about it, because I can see they're willing to get rid of these bigots.
The people who are actually, you know, look.
I believe our Constitution is clear.
I believe all people are worthy of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And anybody in government who thinks otherwise based on arbitrary characteristics should not be given positions of power.
Did the Democrats condemn Omar?
No, they didn't.
Did BuzzFeed?
BuzzFeed is running a defense of her at the same time that they're somewhat criticizing her while she's being praised by white supremacists and repeating their rhetoric.
So, sure.
Here we are, looking at the Democrats, having these people in their ranks that I will criticize openly.
And I feel like people are pretending.
They're absolutely pretending.
You know, you see people like, I'm not going to name some of these people because I do not want to start drama, but there are certain right-wing personalities who jokingly say offensive things.
And I'm like, nah.
No, no, no.
I'm talking about really offensive things.
Like, you know, extremely offensive memes.
And I'm like, dude.
I know you're trying to be funny, but the point I'm making is... Let me back up.
You post a meme, and BuzzFeed's gonna claim you are secretly dog whistling.
Ilhan Omar can straight up say it, and they're like, oh, but let's give her the benefit of the doubt!
Oh, okay, uh-huh.
And so I'm just sick and tired of the double standard.
Look, I know what my politics are.
I know what policies I want to see enacted.
But it's plain to anybody who's honest that this, this is the problem.
I just get so pissed off from this stuff, man.
You're gonna rag on someone for making a joke, and when they say it was a joke, you're gonna be like, oh, but was it?
It was a dog whistle, and then Ilhan Omar can say it, like, what, five times, and get praised by these people, and they're like, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt.
Oh, please, spare me.
I got another segment coming up for you in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I'll see you then.
From the American Conservative, how Democrats are shorting white voters for 2020.
A race-based strategy will fail hard because what progressives call privilege is mostly about status wealth, which most of us don't have.
This is what really bothers me.
Bernie Sanders used to know this, you know?
And then he went up on stage and said white people don't know what it's like to be poor.
Are you joking?
There's more white poor people than any other race.
Why?
Because there's more white people in this country.
It's like, what, 66%?
So here's what bothers me.
Can we talk about the real problems that need to be solved?
Class issues?
Can we solve wealth inequality?
Let me clarify.
Wealth inequality is not... I do not approach this as some, like, stupid, just, people shouldn't be allowed to be rich.
No, by all means, be a billionaire.
I have more power to you.
But recognize one important point.
When wealth inequality grows to extreme ends, you get angry, outraged poor people who lose... like, it's just jealousy.
Runs rampant.
Now, that's not a good enough reason to seize the wealth from billionaires like we hear from these far leftists.
That's ridiculous.
What we can do is try and figure out how to improve the cracks in the system and reduce poverty in sane, rational ways.
Now, laissez-faire capitalists will tell you the free market can solve for this if we stop interfering.
I believe it can to an extent, but there are some pitfalls in environmental destruction and, I don't know, self-pleasure.
You know, the wanton consumerism will result in people just buying things they don't need and actually at their own detriment.
Granted, I don't believe authoritarianism is the right approach, but I do believe to a certain extent a mixed economy works because government programs can make a difference.
You know, look, I'm not an economist.
I don't think I have all the answers, but I do think there has to be some kind of check towards just wealth inequality for a few reasons.
We want to make sure that the standard of living is increasing for all people.
We want equality of opportunity.
When you have a bunch of people who live in an area that's being underserved with no school and no hospital, you're only as strong as the weakest link.
A strong America with strong borders requires us to make sure the weakest aspect of society is protected.
To me, that's what wealth inequality is about.
Like, I don't care if you've got, you know, $20 billion.
If you started a company and it worked, if you're not breaking the law, fine.
But what I'm trying to say is it's less about the gap and more about the bottom tier and increasing the standard of living, which has been done greatly over time.
But if we don't get it under control and build a culture around common goals, it can be a problem.
So anyway, here's what I'm getting at.
The Democrats are saying that race guarantees you privilege.
It doesn't.
And I can assure you this by going to any poor rural white area.
It's just an absurd notion.
And that kind of rhetoric is going to result in white people en masse voting Republican.
Now what's disconcerting is, you have the left constantly talking about the rise of the alt-right.
I believe the alt-right will be gaining power, and I find it worrisome.
Because I believe what truly makes us American are common ideas, common ideology.
Respect for the flag, respect for the Constitution, and we have a lot of people on the left who don't respect the flag.
Now I personally, in respecting the Constitution, think you should be allowed to burn the flag.
I do.
Because burning the flag is a symbol of the freedom the flag itself represents.
So I can point out as much as personally, I never do it.
In fact, I would never let a flag touch the ground.
I would make sure it's folded properly because I believe there is historical value in understanding our past.
Otherwise, you're doomed to repeat it.
Looking at old symbols and carrying on the good is very, very important.
And it's funny because I guess based on the moral foundations, liberals don't feel that way for the most part.
A lot of them do.
But I guess we should probably read the story before I just keep ranting about this.
But the point I'm trying to make is As the left keeps claiming the alt-right is a problem, while simultaneously bashing white people and claiming they're privileged, well, what do you think white people are going to end up doing?
It's going to create race-based tribalism, which I find worrisome, because I believe that America is a great nation that has made great strides in civil rights, where people of all backgrounds and national origins can live here peacefully.
Is it perfect?
It's not, but it's damn good compared to the rest of the world.
But if they keep, you know, the left is making this about race, they're going to cause people to align themselves on racial lines.
Even Asian people.
Look at Harvard.
Affirmative action.
Discriminating against Asians, assuming that someone from Vietnam is the same as someone from China?
That's insanely racist, and it's coming from the left.
Of course they're a right-wing racist.
The problem is, they have very little power and authority at all.
The left is game, is playing on this.
They're betting on this.
unidentified
Let's read.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
This is written by Peter Van Buren, who writes, Yep, but they're just saying, ban the Electoral College!
privilege has become a cornerstone of progressivism.
It's also one of the ways Democrats risk losing the 2020 presidential race, as it leads inexorably
to the devaluation of voters who need to clinch the electoral college.
The problem with a race-based, victim-washed version of 2019 America is that being white
is not enough, and never has been.
Peter writes that he was a diplomat for 24 years.
About as privileged a job on paper as you can get.
But inside the State Department, being white was only a start.
The real criteria was pale, male, and Yale.
Being white, the pale part, was great, but only if you were also a man.
Women were stuck in less desirable jobs.
Girls are nurses, boys are doctors.
No surprise, then, that the State Department has been sued over the years by its women and black diplomats.
But white and male got you to the door.
The good jobs required the right background, preferably via an Ivy.
A sort of proud graduate of The Ohio State University, my privilege only went so far.
I couldn't fake it.
They knew each other.
Their fathers knew each other.
They had money.
Well, parents with money.
We Big Ten alums never got our class action together, and so muddled mostly at the middle levels.
Now, it's interesting because he brings up that there was a privilege, and then he got to the door, and that women and black diplomats were suing.
So, this is a very, very astute and fair point.
I understand the concept of racial privilege.
The problem is, it's majority privilege, not white privilege.
When you single out white people and assume every single white person is wealthy, you are creating the problem you're claiming to fight.
You are forcing people to align themselves based on race, and you're also hurting the working class who you're supposed to be supporting.
And I'm gonna give it the Chapo Trap House on this one.
As much as I think they're mean people, they're allowed to be.
In an interview, one of the CHOPPO people said, most people aren't woke.
Why would we throw the working class under the bus because they're white?
That makes no sense.
And I'm like, spot on.
I'll ask Bernie that question.
He went on the debate stage and said white people don't always like to be poor and live in ghettos.
Come on, Bernie, what are you talking about?
That's nonsense.
Bernie got woke and I was gonna go broke.
They go on, The idea that white was enough was always laughable.
America did not welcome our immigrant grandpas.
It shunted them into slums and paid them as little as possible to work for male pale and
Yale owners.
Check how many Irish died digging the canals around New Orleans.
Read how immigrant children were overworked in factories for decades.
The 1924 Johnson-Reed Act used phrenology to exclude Italians.
It was so horrendously racist that Hitler praised it.
Wow.
Wow.
unidentified
Man, yes.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Man, yes.
Okay.
And this is actually fairly fair, I guess.
Because the left has pointed out that white—they call white a state of mind, because white has always been different.
And I think they're kind of getting to a different idea, but it's a similar vein.
He points out that they want to talk about whiteness.
Italians weren't considered white.
Irish weren't considered white.
And the left uses that, but he's making a point that it's not about being white.
Because clearly Irish and Italian people are white.
It's about something else.
It's about access.
It's about old money.
It's about charisma and intelligence.
A con man could easily get what they want.
You know what I think the only privilege in this?
There's two privileges.
There's two privileges that dwarf all privileges.
The first, intelligence privilege.
Number one, if there's anything in this world that will get you what you want, it is intelligence.
The second is, I guess you can call it perseverance or gumption.
The second privilege is those who are willing to work hard.
Someone who works hard will always have more than someone who doesn't.
Granted, it's relative, right?
Somebody who works hard in the Philippines won't have the same as somebody who doesn't work hard in America because Americans are privileged.
There's wealth here, okay?
So that's true.
But the reality is, no matter where you're from, if you're intelligent, you can solve any problem and get what you want.
A con man, someone who under- And you know what?
Not even that.
You don't even have to be that smart to understand how people function and how to manipulate them.
So they talk about all this racial privilege, but I'll say this.
I always tell people this because I've experienced this.
If I walk into a store and I talk like my friends on the South Side of Chicago.
How do you do, sir?
My name is Tim.
I'm here for the job.
So, culture plays a huge issue.
Assumption.
Expectation.
gonna hire this guy. Let's say I'm wearing a wife beater and some Chicago shorts and
I'm like, sup brah. Yeah man, I work good and stuff. Hey man, hook it up. They're gonna
be like, I don't think this job is right for you. Show up in a suit. How do you do sir?
My name is Tim, I'm here for the job. So culture plays a huge issue. Assumption, expectation,
but the point is, you can argue that culture, it's culturism and culturism is racism or
I don't care about that.
The point is, if you're smart enough to figure out what people want, you can get whatever you want from people.
But anyway...
The point is, I agree with them.
I don't want to read this whole thing because I try to keep these segments short.
They say, Democrats are trying to play on race, but how do you think people feel when they're belittled based on race?
There's another story I'm not going to get into, but I want to make this point.
From the Washington Post, just yesterday.
Democrats struggle to figure out next move against Trump after Mueller hearing falls flat.
Dude, we don't care anymore.
We don't care about Mueller.
We don't care about Russia.
Okay?
Only the weirdos do.
We want substance.
And what are the Democrats doing outside of Russia on Mueller?
Ragging on people based on race.
Talking about giving healthcare to illegal immigrants.
I don't know what they're doing.
I know they're not talking to me.
I know they're telling me to buzz off.
I don't want to swear.
But yeah, I'm told relentlessly to just basically get away because I'm upset with what they're doing and they don't want my vote.
They don't.
Well, you're not going to get it.
Okay?
I'll tell you who will get it.
I say it all the time.
Tulsi and Yang.
But I know they're not going to be the nominee.
I'm not delusional.
I know the game is rigged.
It's always been rigged.
And that's why I'm just sick of it.
It's why many liberals are sick of it and are gone.
Because the game was rigged in 2016.
The Democrats rigged it.
Fortunately for the Republicans, they played fair.
Isn't that funny?
Trump wasn't supposed to win.
The Republicans hated him.
They all ragged on him.
And Trump won.
unidentified
Why?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Because the Republicans didn't cheat.
They let the best man win.
And he trounced Hillary Clinton in 2016.
But guess what?
The Democrats cheated.
I do believe Bernie would have won in 2016.
I do.
Because around 12-18% of his voters went to Trump.
His voters, not Hillary's voters, which probably would have translated to a little bit less than that.
Maybe only a few percentage points.
But those percentage points could have swung the national for Bernie Sanders.
I believe his time has come.
You know, he's too old now.
He's not gonna win.
But the Republicans played fair and they won because of it.
And you know what they're doing now?
They're playing it straight again, for the most part.
And they're gonna win again because of it.
Because the Democrats are pulling this Mueller crap.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Next segment tomorrow at 10am.
Podcast at 6.30.
Thanks for hanging out.
▲
Export Selection