Several Policy Violations Allowed Epstein's Death, When Does The Conspiracy Make more Sense?
Several Policy Violations Allowed Epstein's Death, When Does The Conspiracy Make more Sense? In the lead up to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged suicide several procedures and policies seem to have been broken creating the result we saw in the news, Epstein's demise.Epstein was supposed to be checked every 30 minutes, he wasn't.Epstein was supposed to keep a cellmate with him, the cellmate got removed just before he died.Aside from that why was he even taken off suicide watch considering how high profile he was?What's strange now is that the left, far left, and the right all seem to agree that the story is fishy and at some point Occam's razor would suggest foul play. Now it's possible all these factors came together to allow such a high profile person to end their own life but when you have mainstream democrats, journalists, and activists questioning this foul play seems likely.The bigger question then is why so many other journalists are refusing to accept the possibility. Why do so many poo poo the idea that something foul was afoot? Certainly its possible and considering all that had to happen to allow this it seems even slightly probable.Will Chamberlain of Human Events joins me to discuss ideas about this and other conspiracies that the media so often seems ready to ignore
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A lot of people seem to think the answer is no, and there's memes going around on the left and the right saying, no way, no chance in hell this guy actually did this.
Now, I'm not big on conspiracies, and joining me today to talk about this is Will Chamberlain, who I would also think is also not big on conspiracies, but there comes a certain point Where you hear the latest updates on what happened, and you just have to think there's some kind of foul play, whatever it is.
And I'll start by saying this.
Let me show you this tweet real quick.
When Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks is on board, you know, with multiple tweets pointing out that something is fishy here.
I think it's fair to say something doesn't make sense.
And then it's weird to me that you've got so many people in this mainstream journalism space refusing to acknowledge the possibility, but the latest update we have from the New York Times is that procedures weren't being followed, and they say this, in addition, the jail had transferred his cellmate and allowed Mr. Epstein to be housed alone in a cell just two weeks After he had been taken off suicide watch, a decision that also violated the jail's normal procedure, two officials said.
So I've just got to stress, right now, they weren't, they were supposed to be on guard duty, they weren't, and also in violation of MCC policy, was removing his cellmate two weeks after he had allegedly tried to end his own life, of which it was never confirmed, by the way.
And then Will brings up a really funny point in, well I shouldn't say funny point,
but in the article over on Human Events, that another, this is a CNN analyst
and former assistant US attorney in the same office, Ellie Honig, tweeting that in eight years
as a federal prosecutor in the Southern District, he couldn't recall any suicides at MCC during that time.
So this is what we're gonna do.
Will and I are gonna have a conversation about this.
I had to bring in the assistants because it's strange to me
that there are actually people in media saying, there's no conspiracy, oh no,
Trump is tweeting baseless conspiracy theories And I'll admit, going as far as to claim the Clintons did it definitely is a bit far.
But the reason I wanted to bring on Will is because of this article over at Human Events, I'll put the link in the description, where he wrote, And then it also says, And so I'll stress, when I saw this story in the New York Times, that not only were they not watching him, they were supposed to be there every 30 minutes, they weren't, and also, they transferred his cellmate out also in violation of policies, Yeah, at this point, what does Occam's Razor suggest?
For me, at the very least, something not right, I guess.
But we'll start the conversation.
Now, before we get started, 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.
The best thing you can do, however, share this video.
And let me tell you why.
For one, YouTube is deranking independent political commentary, which I tell you all the time.
But also, We're talking about the potential for a conspiracy, and just know that all of these mainstream media people are going to start pointing at me, they're going to start insulting me, they're going to be insulting me, they're going to be insulting Will, but we're not crazy people when you have left and right in agreement, something doesn't make sense.
Now I will stress too, You know, you've got a lot of people on the left blaming Bill Barr and saying Trump and his cronies did this, you've got, you know, Trump even tweeting out that video where it's like the Clintons may have done this, and you've got Clinton body count and then Trump body count, although I think it's fair to point out Trump body count is new and was never really a thing, and the Clinton thing was.
But the point is, there are absolutely extremes on both sides who are pointing the finger across the aisle.
More importantly, however, is sane and rational conservatives, moderates and liberals, and progressives saying, something doesn't make sense, we all agree, Let's figure out what happened.
So with that being said, I'll throw it to you, Will.
Thanks for joining in, Will, founder.
Well, I don't want to say founder, but you're running Human Events now.
Do you want to just give us the gist of your thought on the Epstein thing?
Yeah, I mean, I think, again, Occam's Razor suggests that it's more likely there was foul play than not.
That's the extent of the thesis.
I don't have any specific theory about who might have done anything to Epstein, what actually happened, but merely to say that the official explanation, that he simply committed suicide on his own accord with no prompting or outside assistance from anyone else, seems remarkably unlikely under the circumstances.
And I think, you know, we basically got that point.
But it's... I think we've all heard it enough that there was, you know, he was on suicide watch, he was taken off, then we have these procedures.
So I think the big thing that I want to tackle is the media.
Right.
How do we get to a point where journalists, who are supposed to have conspiracy theories and then investigate, are now poo-pooing things and saying like, no, no, you know, no, it's just, that's not true.
I don't know.
It's always been really dangerous to be a conspiracy theorist, but now we're at a point where even the Young Turks are willing to entertain this.
And I think there really are, I think they've taken the blue check and it's gone to their heads.
We joke about a blue check aristocracy of journalists, but I think they're really behaving like it, as though their job is not to discover truth, but rather to police online discussion to prevent discussions of things that might turn out to be false.
I can't tell you how many articles I read every day and they're just opinion pieces that make no sense.
But it's also...
You know, I'm confused as to why the government at the MCC says he died by suicide.
Well, actually, let me clarify.
There are a lot of people who are seemingly like the gatekeepers of the establishment in media who are acting like anyone questioning... I don't want to name names, but there's a guy from the Huffington Post who's saying that the conspiracy theorists just don't want to admit our prison systems are bad.
And it's like, no, I'll be the first to admit they're bad.
But this bad?
Now you're getting crazy.
But I will stress too, I don't think anything is definitive as to what actually happened to Epstein.
Bill Barr wants to investigate.
So I think the main criticism is these, like, media gatekeepers who, when the official government, you know, anything outside of Trump, right, says this happened, they go, yep, that's a fact.
Why is it that if Trump says it, it's a crazy conspiracy theory, but if some official in the DOJ says it, it's a fact, and if you dare question it, you're a conspiracy theorist?
Well, I mean, understand that Trump is really part of a separate government, right?
If you actually think of the bureaucracy of the United States as a kind of permanent government that is sort of intertwined with the media.
And I'm not, I'm not thinking in terms of deep state, but I'm thinking like how civil services generally keep running a country and the politicians, places like Britain, especially.
Or the fact that they're spying on us and whistleblowers have proven it.
Like, how do we get to this point where you have these gatekeeper journalists?
You know, let me say this.
Like, Cenk Uygur tweeting, progressives should run the investigation.
You know, I actually don't disagree with them because it's true.
They do hate the Clintons and they do hate Trump.
And I'm like, good, figure out what happened, you know?
Cause I really don't think Trump had anything to do with it.
I actually, you know, based on everything I've read, I mean, he's being prosecuted under a Trump government.
I really, you know, and not only that, but I think even there have even been conservatives who have said that the Clinton thing is, is just, it's, It's too much of a conspiracy.
There are other people with more power in the shadows who have more to lose from what the sky is going to be giving out.
So I like that idea.
But it's always so strange to me because recently NBC puts out a story.
I think it was CNBC.
Trump claims, without evidence, that Google is rigging things against him.
And it's crazy because Trump's tweet was citing a Google engineer who said they're biased and propping things up.
So that's actually wrong for the New York Times to say there's no evidence there.
It's editorializing, right?
It's an attempt to try and do within the bounds of what constitutes journalism, stating what they believe are facts, to editorialize and shift the reader in a particular direction.
Here's what I pulled up, Cenk Uygur's tweets, where he says, one of our hosts called this a couple of weeks ago, Hasan Piker on 725.
Hasan is far-left socialist, like pro-Antifa, and he tweeted, so we're all in agreement that we think someone's gonna kill Epstein before he gives up names, right?
On 725.
And then it was 730, Epstein was actually injured, found injured, And they thought it was either he was attacked by his cellmate, or he staged it to try and get transferred, or he legitimately tried to kill himself.
But five days before that, Young Turk's host was saying it, and then said again, any prison that doesn't put Epstein under 24-7 surveillance in solitary confinement right now is also responsible.
And then, let me actually pull up Hassan's Twitter, because he then made a joke yesterday directly calling out the Clintons.
It says, listen, I love the Clintons and everything negative I've ever said about them was just a joke.
I'm actually writing Hillary Clinton in this election cycle.
Please, thanks.
No, but it's hilarious.
I mean, what I think is profound here, and I was kind of laughing, there are memes going around where you've seen the white arm and the black arm together.
And it says, leftists, Trump supporters, Epstein was murdered.
So yesterday I made the video where I pointed out that You have mainstream personalities.
You have Trump officials.
You have Paul Krugman.
You have, like, there are a lot of high-profile individuals who are not Trump supporters saying, this is fishy, right?
So I kind of feel like there's a fear in the media to bring up anything that could potentially be a conspiracy.
And that was kind of like what I tweeted.
You tweeted about the Notre Dame fire and how we still don't have an official cause.
Like, to my knowledge, somebody thought they had dunked on me and found an article where they have some French fire investigators say, well, it could have been a cigarette.
I'm like, coulda, shoulda, woulda.
Like, you don't actually know.
we do not have like a clear coherent explanation for how the fire happened. We have guesses and
like we don't have evidence of you know people doing it and bringing it down. So yeah go ahead.
I mean, first off, one, suggesting that it might have been arson is not a conspiracy theory.
Definitionally, one person can burn down a building.
Definitionally, that is not necessarily a conspiracy theory.
Second, when investigators, police, investigate a burned down building, they do not begin with the assumption that it is accidental.
They begin with the assumption that there's arson, and then work backwards to try and prove it was accidental.
There's plenty of good reasons for that.
And moreover, the thing that a building is in fact is burned down is probable cause to investigate the scene and determine whether or not there's been arson.
So the idea that you would say under those circumstances as a reporter, That people are being irresponsible if they suggest, well, arson is a possibility, is just nonsense.
And that's actually very similar to this, the Epstein discussion, because there was a very good Fox News bit yesterday, I don't remember exactly the guy, but he dealt with, he was a lawyer, I think, and he made the point that when police are investigating a death in prison that might be suicide, you start with the assumption that it's murder and you investigate it as a homicide until you prove that it's accidental.
I'm curious, like, I suppose there should be some digging, but I guess the question is, do we normally report immediately after a death saying what the cause of the death was, right?
It was clearly sources off the, you know, on background, right?
Not giving their names, but sources saying, hey, it looks like a suicide.
That's, he looks like a suicide, right?
Now, why that should be the narrative that police report unquestioningly, as some did.
I mean, sorry, journalists report unquestioningly, as some did.
First New York Times report did not say, allegedly or according to sources, it said he died by suicide.
Like, whoa, no medical examiner report yet, no official statement from a government saying it's- And I'm pulling it up right now, but even right now, it just refers to his suicide as definitive.
And so there's also an interesting dynamic where at the same time, many of these journalists are calling the right and others irresponsible for saying, I think he was murdered.
They actually are putting forward a conclusion about what happened that is not borne out by the available facts.
I'm sad we got to that point at 16 minutes, but that's the best point.
Nobody knows what happened.
And this is what happens in journalism all the time, and it's funny, too.
I think, you know, for Alex Jones, I think he's too theatric and bombastic, and so people will... This is why I always tell people, start with the evidence first, don't go for the conspiracy, because even if you think the Clintons did it, when you get too bombastic and theatrical, people just throw you in the trash.
They ignore everything you're saying, and so the best thing you can do is just say, here's what we know.
Right.
had tried to hurt himself, two procedures were not followed, nobody was watching him,
and his cellmate was removed, and they just took him off suicide watch.
Why?
How did all of those things happen perfectly, even if it was suicide, to allow him to do
Again, I mean, and I'm not saying it's impossible that staggering incompetence is the answer
Government can be incompetent, but it's just so much that I don't think it's the likeliest outcome, right?
Like if somehow we were able to objectively verify this, and I'm a gambling man, I don't, and you forced me to choose between foul play or the government, you know, the government's, or sorry, the media's explanation.
I don't bet on the media's explanation at that point.
And that's not even a prediction about what the actual, whatever happened.
Now, it's not a conspiracy theory, because there's no conspiracy.
It's like, in the same way that arson is not a conspiracy theory, because only one person can do it, it's not a conspiracy theory to say he killed himself, because he could have done himself.
And there are a lot of people who would burn a church down.
And it's funny, because when it comes to the Notre Dame thing, it's all of a sudden this Islamophobic conspiracy theory, and it's like, I don't want to turn this from Islam to Satanists because I'm not going to assume ill intent from any group.
Yeah, no, well, I don't want to drag, I don't want to turn this from, you know, Islam to
Satanists because I'm not going to assume ill intent from any group.
I'm just going to point out.
Right.
It could be an atheist, liberal, anti-Trump being like, oh, I hate the church.
I'm not trying to accuse anybody.
I'm just pointing out, how is it that the media immediately says it's a far-right conspiracy theory when there's a lot of people who would burn a church down?
He said, a good journalist is a conspiracy theorist and then looks for the facts and figures out if it's true or not.
At a certain point, like, you know what happens over the years is, obviously the guy who's standing on the street corner holding up a sign saying, you know, Trump is a Russian asset, I'm making a point here, is crazy.
Someone saying that an uber-wealthy, you know, multi-millionaire who had evidence that was going to incriminate powerful people may have been killed That sounds... Yeah, I think so.
So actually, let's get to this point, too, because I can't believe we've been talking for 20 minutes and we didn't get to this point.
One of the main issues that I want to talk about is how, for years, they say Russiagate, Russiagate over and over again.
Rachel Maddow gets oddly specific in saying the Russians could shut off the power in Fargo in winter and people would have heat.
So if this one time, it's true, even if you're not counting all the other accusations against conspiracies, it all makes more sense than the president was secretly working for Russia because he peed on a hookers pin on a bed and they filmed it and we're
blackmailing him or like what did that Jonathan Chait guy say that he's been an asset since the 80s
like all of that is is is it's just it's crazy action movie and and the point is funny right
right but I will say I think all of it is silly however the the main point to me is how did we go
years of Russiagate conspiracy nonsense right and and my point is all the the journalists are
For years having the guests on, MSNBC staking their ratings on it, and now when you have this very suspicious policy failure numerous times in a row that led to the perfect circumstances He tries to kill himself, they put him on suicide watch, they take him off, the guards aren't watching, they take out his cellmate, and then he's dead.
Okay, that's... That all happened really quickly, in the span of a week.
And the Russia stuff was unsubstantiated from this nonsense report that was oppo-researched to smear Trump, and now here we are, and they're still trying to now impeach the president, and the media was fine with that, and now you've got people actually shocked that Trump would put this tweet out.
Let me ask you this, though.
Ocasio-Cortez tweeted that she was demanding answers.
I kind of think Cenk has a point when he says the progressives should lead the investigation.
Well, I mean, as a Trump supporter here, I'm perfectly comfortable with my man A.G.
Bill Barr handling this one.
I think he's a badass, and I think he's going to get to the bottom of it.
I also think that this is where I stop being conspiratorial, right?
There's three independent investigations going on.
There's an FBI investigation, there's an Inspector General investigation that Barr started immediately, and there's a SDNY is going to investigate.
So you've got three independent, quasi-independent departments doing it.
They're all ultimately controlled by the Department of Justice, but they have a lot of autonomy and Barr can't intervene very effectively.
So the odds that all three could be corrupted and controlled by some outside force and therefore you can't count on it, I don't think is right.
I think that the odds are that with this type of investigation, you're actually going to get to something resembling the truth as best we can find out.
Like, I understand where Cenk's coming from.
That said, I just, I can't say I, you know, I think they'll try and realize that the Clintons are involved and then they'll try and pin it on Trump because they really would like it.
I think Cenk, I could be wrong about this, but after Hillary won, Cenk, like, was livid.
He was so mad.
He's like, I'm pretty sure he really hates them both.
And I'm kind of like, well, at the very least, It's great to see this unity between the political factions, even the moderates, all coming together under the umbrella of how did this happen and was he killed?
And there was a guy, I don't know his name, but I saw his tweet.
He was a co-founder of Wikipedia, it looks like.
I could be getting this wrong, so you guys make sure you fact check me.
But he said something like, a lot of people might think this story, he kind of alluded to it, is Too dark and twisted to be reality, but when you actually start digging, you realize just how dark and twisted reality is.
And so it's like, the main takeaway, because we've been going for a little while, we'll wrap this up soon, is that there are mainstream personalities, there are rational people, there are skeptics, who are like, basically what you said in your article, that typically Occam's razor would suggest, nah, it's just a suicide, but not here.
Here it's, at the very least, my thing is, It's inconclusive.
Like, I cannot tell you it's the simple solution that he just killed himself when all of these policy failures... And so I'll say one more thing.
The way I always frame conspiracies to people is, how many coincidences until you've won the lottery?
Yes, it's astronomical that you'll get five numbers in the Powerball.
Perfect.
Eventually someone does.
So, you know, is it astronomical odds that Epstein was committed, like all these things came together
perfectly so that he could kill himself?
Yes. But that's the main point. When somebody says, we didn't land on the moon, my question
is how many coincidences until you've won the lottery? And the point I'm making is the odds
that your conspiracy is true is astronomical and not simple.
Right here, you would be winning the lottery to assume all of these really bad things happened
perfectly to allow him to, you know, Right.
However, what's the alternative?
Somebody who was paid off to kill him is also a leap of faith.
There's a group of people in the government, I don't know who, but no matter what happens, we're never going to know the truth because, believe it or not, there's a policy within the government to keep secrets.
And they actually rank the level at which- I'm just joking, but I always tell people, Even if something happened to him, don't expect to ever know the truth, because let's say it does turn out to be some, you know, government official or international bankster, the US government's gonna say, this is a huge embarrassment, and let's not leak this, like, this won't be public.
It's a security risk, and we just, we end up never knowing.
And so I also say that, too, to people who reject conspiracy theories outright, like, listen, You know, when it comes to stories like 9-11, for instance, do I think the official story is the correct one?
Of course not.
But it doesn't mean I think it's a conspiracy.
I can tell you this, though.
The government has top secret, confidential, classified, etc.
You know, documents they don't release to the public, so we probably got some fractured version of the truth.
I don't know, anything you want to add before we... My view on that one is that, you know, the theories are almost all preposterous on that one for, like, sort of internal collusion to let that happen.
But I'm sure there is some embarrassing thing, embarrassing failure, maybe, that was concealed or something like that.
unidentified
A security threat, you know, if somebody exploited the system.
Well, is there, is there anything else you want to add?
Cause I kind of, I feel like, you know, Admittedly, it's a slow news day, everybody, and the one thing that was really picking at my brain was how we're starting to see the emergence of the gatekeeper journalist saying, oh, poo-poo, no conspiracy, and I'm like, no, wait, what?
So, I feel like I'm in conversation.
Maybe, I don't know, I don't know what you think, but we did it.
So, Will, do you want to wrap anything before we wrap up, promote something?
So yeah, there's a little, little thing in the background.
Um, but yeah, so the article up, I'll put the link in the description.
It's, it's, it's essentially a short version of the half an hour conversation we just had, but, uh, for some reason, Will always ends up coming on the channel, having conversations with me.
I think it's because you're a very like rational down to earth person with insight on these issues.
And so, you know, basically you tweeted about the, the, the, um, I feel like everything's falling apart.
I have this story pulled up about an attack on a Norway mosque.
The next segment is going to be at youtube.com slash TimCastNews starting at 6 p.m.
Will, thanks for hanging out.
And I think we're all done.
I feel like everything's falling apart.
I have this story pulled up about an attack on a Norway mosque.
They say a body found at the home tied to the assailant.
This story is from yesterday.
And we had a similar story.
Norway mosque shooter allegedly posted to 8chan before attack.
He reportedly attempted to livestream the attack on Facebook.
It feels like everything's falling apart.
The other day, Epstein was apparently dead by suicide.
A very powerful multi-millionaire who was going to bring down a ton of wealthy and powerful individuals.
A day after the documents come out.
A day after documents come out naming Democrats, governors, politicians, etc.
He's dead.
And almost nobody believes it, right?
It feels like everything's coming undone because This story from the New York Times, I highlight this first, because look at this right here.
The police said they were aware of online posts linked to the suspect whose name had not been released.
About two hours before the attack, a post appeared on 8chan, the message board that had hosted the anti-immigrant manifesto of the guy in El Paso.
Well, cobblers, it's my time, the post began in English, ending with the Norwegian phrase, Valhalla venter, or heaven awaits.
Do you know why I think everything's falling apart and why I'm highlighting this?
Perhaps some of you have gotten the point already.
I'm just trying to build up the suspense.
8chan has been down!
I tried going to 8chan.
It's not there.
I have a story.
From CBS News, 8chan said it was coming back online.
Now another internet company appears to have blocked it.
That was in the 5th.
As far as I know, HN is down.
And get this, the story from The Verge that actually said the Norway mosque shooter allegedly posted to HN?
They deleted it!
Because it was fake news!
The New York Times still has this up.
Did they bother fact-checking?
They didn't.
They didn't even fact-check.
We're at a point now where not only is fake news running rampant, but how do we even trust the New York Times?
And all you can then do is say, well, the New York Times is better than nothing, right?
I don't know!
Because now look what happens with Epstein.
You've got a bunch of people tweeting out Clinton body count and a bunch of people tweeting out Trump body count.
Obviously the Trump body count one is in response to the Clinton body count one.
The Clinton body count one has been a conspiracy theory for a really, really long time.
But here's the thing.
Cenk Uygur.
The Young Turks is tweeting about we need to hold everyone accountable.
He's tweeting as though we know it's not a suicide.
But more still, Hasan Piker of the Young Turks, a socialist, tweeted out a joke About the Clintons doing this!
And he tweeted, I believe it was July 25th, I retweeted all of these.
I agree with him.
I think this is what we're seeing is the populist versus elitist for sure.
But Hasan Piker tweeted out, this is a socialist guy, Epstein's gonna kill himself.
Like how long until it happens?
Everyone knew it was gonna happen.
I'm not, I don't want to keep rehashing, you know, I don't know.
For one, things seem wild and insane right now because of what happened in the past week.
It's been a crazy, crazy week.
But the thing about Epstein is that we knew it was going to happen.
So, Will Chamberlain wrote this article.
Jeffrey Epstein's death stinks, and he makes this point, of which I completely agree.
Usually, Occam's Razor suggests that the conspiratorial explanation for a shocking event is less likely won.
Not so here.
Assembling an innocent explanation of Epstein's death requires assuming a staggering amount of incompetence on the part of MCC Manhattan staff.
Despite a near-miss on July 30th, They would have had to innocently give their most infamous and high-profile criminal defendant the means and opportunity to kill himself, and in doing so, utterly fail at the most basic responsibilities.
He mentions that El Chapo stayed there.
With the motive to kill himself.
Did enough.
Didn't.
He says, Indeed, in an exchange on Twitter between James Gagliano, a former FBI agent, and Preet Bharara, the former U.S.
attorney for the Southern District of New York, the two described themselves as dumbfounded that Epstein could have been able to commit suicide.
Eli Honig, a CNN analyst and former assistant U.S.
attorney in the same office, tweeted that in his eight years as a federal prosecutor in the Southern District, he couldn't recall any suicides at MCC during that time.
You know, I was planning on doing, like, one segment about this story, maybe one segment about this story, and I'm reading these and I'm like, we've lost the ability to find reality, and that's the most important point.
The New York Times still has a post claiming that a guy made a post to 8chan When 8chan has been down for days, perhaps it came back, but then why would The Verge write the same story and then delete it?
And my understanding is that they took it down with a statement saying it didn't meet their editorial standards.
Yes, because 8chan has been down.
Think about what the New York Times just posted here and has still left up.
And think about the Gell-Man amnesia effect.
The Gell-Man amnesia effect typically refers to when you're an expert.
For those that aren't familiar, let me explain.
Let's say you're a plumber.
You know everything about plumbing.
You read in the New York Times one day on the front page, they say, you know, there was a plumbing accident where flames were erupting out of the water faucet, and you go, flames?
Well, I mean, was it a fracking-related thing?
We've seen those videos.
And then they mentioned that fire and water were coming out, and you're like, wait, wait, wait, hold on.
This seems like it doesn't make sense.
And then they make some, like, the point I'm trying to get to, because actually there have been videos of fire coming out, is there's like an absurd circumstance where journalists write something so obviously false to you as an expert, you say, this is fake news.
There's not fire shooting out of faucets in New York City.
That's ridiculous.
But you're an expert, so you know.
Then you turn the page, and there's a story about Syria.
And you go, wow, I didn't know that.
The Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect references how when you as an expert see a fake story, you forget the story was fake and assume the next story is true.
Now we have an ever-increasing problem.
The story is completely fake, and any layman who has been reading the news knows this makes no sense.
We saw the story from the New York Times days ago claiming 8chan was down.
And when they said it was down, I loaded it with no problem, like, I don't know what you're talking about.
But then, sure enough, yes, I checked just before 8chan was down.
Perhaps they popped back up, somebody posted, and then it went down again.
But that's absurd.
You also have the conflicting narrative with The Verge taking down the article.
It's an archive, and they've deleted the article.
What's real anymore?
I don't know.
You now have a lot of media, there's a story that's got like 23,000 shares from the Hill about Trump retweeting a conspiracy theory about Epstein.
And you've got a bunch of people, weird, I don't even know how we get to this point, saying, oh no, Trump's tweeting a conspiracy.
There's literally high profile verified leftists saying things, I kid you not, on Twitter, Bill Barr's murderous gang took out Epstein.
They really believe it.
They believe Trump was gonna be implicated, so Bill Barr had his goons go in and do something.
And then you have people who believe it was the Clintons who did something.
Well, then you have some people like Cernovich, who's, uh, I believe, I could be wrong, but I think he's saying something to the effect of...
There are way more powerful people at play than just the Clintons, and it's silly to stop there, especially when they're basically out of the game.
Sure, they have things to lose, but come on, they're so old.
There are other people who are still powerful, still at risk.
But the main point I'm trying to get to here with this story about, like, Epstein is that Will Chamberlain makes a good point about Occam's Razor.
That's what I wanted to mention in the beginning.
We're at a point now where we cannot say with certainty what is more likely to be true.
We're at a point now where the New York Times puts out a story that is completely conflicted by The Verge.
Okay, you say.
You'd rather trust the New York Times?
Okay, that's fine.
But...
8chan's down according to CBS News.
CBS News says they struggle to get back online.
And every source I find says they're not up, and I went and they're not up.
What's real anymore?
Over the past several years, there's been a talk about how it's becoming increasingly hard for people to know what's true and what isn't.
We have a fake news problem and people believe it.
We have talk about how Facebook needs to do something about it.
We have to talk about how Twitter needs to do something about it.
But then what happens yesterday?
Clinton body count and Trump body count were both trending.
All of a sudden, Clinton body count was gone.
Yep.
But Trump body count was still there.
That's not solving the problem of fake news.
That's exacerbating it.
But when we're at a point now, when the New York Times puts out what seems to be completely fake news, not the first time, they've done it before, but I trust the New York Times, but when they put this out, When The Verge does and then takes it down, I kinda don't know what to say anymore.
You know, a lot of people say that, they tell me that I do a good job of being an investigative journalist or finding the truth, and I think I do at least the bare minimum.
When I see a story like this, I say, oh wow, he posts something to 8chan, I try to look up if 8chan is up, if it ever did come up, and no, apparently the best I can find is that it's been down.
That's all I try to do.
What's their source, and is it true?
Do a quick fact check.
I'm just doing fact checking like any normal journalist is supposed to do, which the New York Times doesn't, which the Verge didn't, and then I had to retract, and the New York Times still hasn't retracted.
I don't think I'm doing anything special.
But here's the thing.
People say, oh, Tim is honest, he's doing a good job.
Yeah, but listen.
For the most part, I'm relying on the New York Times.
Like, when I report a story about Trump or about the Democrats, Pelosi, Schumer, AOC, I'm reading these same sources.
And now we're here.
Will Chamberlain argues that the simple solution in the Epstein case is that it's more simple to assume there was foul play.
But I agree.
At what point does it seem absurd that a guy who tried to kill himself then was able to do it again?
You know, I said the other day that it seems like The guy had reason to do it, right?
But Will counters my point.
I was saying it's probably, look, a guy who's gonna live in squalor, he hates his life, he's done, he's over, he wants to kill himself.
But Will brings up the point that he was fighting it.
That he was considered to be in good spirits?
I don't know that any of that's evidence.
But you know what?
Let me step back from that point and just clarify and make this point.
I do not think it is unreasonable to think Epstein was murdered.
Even the Young Turks agree.
Everyone's been joking about it.
How can it be something so obvious that everybody has been making a joke like we all knew it was going to happen?
And then it did.
And then the media tells us we're crazy.
And the media says it's a conspiracy.
And then Paul Krugman of the New York Times says, I don't know about that.
We then see the president tweeting out something, I don't know about that.
We then see high-profile individuals like Cenk Uygur and other Young Turks members saying, I don't know about that.
And at this point, how do we have this divide with mainstream and independent media personalities saying, nice try, and still the media saying conspiracy theories?
The media is so hell-bent on pretending like they're doing the right thing that they're not actually doing the right thing or asking the right questions.
And I guess I can just throw it back to this because the main point I wanted to make here... I don't know.
Look, let me say this.
I have these stories pulled up.
I have a bunch of other stories.
And I was going to do a story either about the absurdity of the Epstein case or about the New York Times and these shooters, because there's actually a bunch of other news here, but I just couldn't figure out what's real and what isn't.
And that's when I said to myself, If I have this story from the New York Times that I want to comment on that's been contradicted by The Verge, can I use it?
Well, actually, no, I can't.
I can't comment on this article and do research and point out what happened when I know they've published even one section of it that appears to be fake news.
Well, The Verge is saying, you know, they're taking their stuff down.
CBS says HN was down the whole time, so is this story real or fake?
Sorry, can't tell you.
And then it brought me to this point where I'm thinking about what happened with Epstein, and it is not unreasonable to think he was murdered.
It is not unreasonable to think he did kill himself.
We're at a point now where there is no simple solution, and the media has become insane fake news, and I'm going to say this.
I can only see complete collapse.
Like, this is the breakdown of social cohesion.
If people on the left, diehard resistance, think Trump did it.
If people on the right, diehard Trump supporters, think the Clintons did it.
If people in the middle are just saying, look, I don't know, man, but it doesn't seem right, this seems like a conspiracy.
And then you see critiques from the establishment saying, there's no conspiracy, nothing to see here, move along.
I'm kind of like, Nah, on this one, you've lost the entirety of the American public.
No one knows for sure what happened, but we don't trust you.
And then, I'm trying to do this story about the shooting in Norway, and the New York Times publishes fake news.
I can't tell you what's real.
But I do my best!
Look, I'm not saying every story ever is fake, I'm just saying in this instance, we've just got a breakdown.
And it's hard to know for sure who to trust.
And I can only rely on these sources, too.
So... You know what, man?
I don't know.
This video seems like all over the place, but I have to say... I pushed this one to the last minute.
I'm trying to figure out what's true and what isn't, and what I really just see in the end is... Everything seems to be falling apart.
You know, there's a tweet going around from Stefan Molyneux.
I'm not a huge fan of the guy.
I don't listen to his content.
I'm not trying to be a dick or anything.
Don't know much about him.
But he said something like, imagine how desperate they had to be to do something so obvious.
Well, you know, when I saw that tweet going around, My first thought was like, oh come on.
My second thought was like, well, even Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker are calling this out.
Am I in the wrong to assume that that's a bad point?
It was obvious.
Everybody knows it's obvious.
The joke has been going around since he was arrested that this was going to happen.
When Hasan Piker tweeted about Epstein, you know, going to kill himself, I think that was before the first incident where Epstein was found injured.
And then apparently, They never ruled that a suicide attempt.
They never said it was or wasn't.
No one knows for sure.
It could have been an assault by his inmate who denies it.
It could have been a fake attempt.
We don't know.
We don't.
But the jokes were happening because everybody knows what no one will say.
And I think that actually the best way to put it is, it's a secret to everyone.
Like, everybody knows the truth.
Everybody knows this doesn't make sense.
Everyone expected this to happen.
And in many of these circumstances, people pretend.
They pretend, oh, it must be a conspiracy.
It mustn't be a conspiracy.
It's just another day old, you know, it's just another same old, same old.
But deep down, everybody knows what happened.
In the case of Epstein, it is, no, not a secret.
It's just what everyone thinks really happened.
Now, of course, I think it's silly that people are pointing the finger across the table at each other.
I think it's fair to point out follow play.
But I don't know.
The main point I'm trying to make is... I don't... I guess I did.
I guess I'm spinning in circles.
It's just... I couldn't get my finger on any one of these stories because it just seems like trust is gone.
Pockets are forming which absolutely believe or deny something being true.
And then when I go to the New York Times, the New York Times can't even tell me what's real anymore.
I'm not saying they always could, but that's what we trusted, right?
The paper of record.
There's other sources.
But now...
I'll leave it there.
I don't know, whatever.
Next segment will be at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you there.
Of course, posting the names of Trump donors was an attempt to shame them.
Many people view it as a dox.
They were saying that Joaquin Castro posting these names was going to get them hurt, harassed, or otherwise, and many of the people have been harassed.
They get phone calls.
According to the story, there are people emailing saying, you're a racist and all these things.
However, I think the left and the right often misunderstand each other.
Now, according to at least one study that I've reported on before, conservatives typically understand the left much better than the left understands the right.
And this is going back to Jonathan Haidt's research, Jonathan Haidt, however you pronounce his name, on moral foundations.
Liberals operate on two.
My understanding, I think, it's like care and fairness, whereas moderates and conservatives tend to operate on all five.
Which is it's care, fairness, sanctity, authority, and loyalty, I think.
So what ends up happening is conservatives understanding that liberals are behaving based on typically emotion can predict their behavior and understand why they're doing it, and liberals can't.
But it's not always true, or at least They might be able to predict how a liberal would react, or how they would behave, but maybe not how they would react to specific political actions.
I'll get into this.
I brought this up for a reason.
The main point in the story here is...
The left gets really, really outraged because they think something is harmful or unfair.
And it's increasingly getting worse.
Now, what's defined as harm is, like, nonsensical.
Like, look, somebody donated to Trump.
Yeah, sure, he's got millions of donors.
But they want to then shame these people.
That's more of a tactic, I'd imagine.
But we're seeing this thing with college campuses where they're saying speech is harmful and we need a safe space.
So, yeah, it's really getting nuts.
Anyway, the main point here that I want to highlight The left doesn't seem to understand the right, resulting in a Streisand effect.
So I did talk about this the other day, where Trump was expected to earn $10 million and ended up earning $12 million because people were shaming his donors.
We have this story.
Castro's Trump donor list leads to booming business for Texas barbecue chain.
Basically what happened?
One of the businesses that was named by Joaquin Castro was Bill Miller's Barbecue.
And because of that, they've been packed.
And something similar happens with Chick-fil-A.
I mean, Chick-fil-A is now America's favorite restaurant, I guess.
And the left gets angry, targets them, not understanding why conservatives do what they do, resulting in a huge backlash and tons of support for the business.
The amount of liberal activists who are actually going to do anything that would benefit the left, it's slim.
They don't really care.
And besides, they hate these places anyway.
Well, all you've done is advertise for this place.
And look, let me put it this way.
I've shown the data over and over again.
The Economist data is probably one of the best.
It shows how the left has been spreading out.
The right has been kind of, you know, coalesced.
The right is kind of unified under Trump.
That means when you attack Trump, people are going to get behind him, especially when you realize the moral foundation of authority and loyalty.
People are going to say they trust the president and they are loyal to him, and they're not going to back away from that.
The left, however, doesn't have that, so they're spreading out, kind of falling apart.
In response, we can see this attack on a restaurant because a dude, like seriously, it's like one guy who worked there donated the maximum campaign contribution for Trump's re-election.
Let me read a little bit.
They say, pictures published on social media showed a long line of cars waiting to pick
up food from some of the locations.
One of the companies he fixed is Bill Miller's Barbecue.
The lines were out the door and the drive up lanes were several times longer than usual.
So thank you, Joaquin.
We show you don't matter, one Twitter user said.
Apparently there's a list of 44 San Antonio residents who donated to Trump and apparently
some of them actually donated to him.
But he highlighted to his supporters that it includes Bayless Miller, the owner of Bill Miller BBQ.
And we can then see people are, look at Greg Abbott.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott was among those posting their support for Bill Miller's BBQ, saying he visited the chain after Castro published the list.
Perfect night for BBQ, he wrote.
Every Bill Miller BBQ in SA, San Antonio I'm assuming, Well, it was Joaquin Castro, but you know.
Now, here's the thing.
In the aftermath of this list, we're now seeing GOP lawmakers call for ethics investigation of Rep.
Joaquin Castro's tweet on Trump donors.
And one of the things that was highlighted that I've seen, I think it was from Will Chamberlain of Human Events, that the list published by Joaquin Castro omitted Hispanic people who donated Trump in the same district.
And so Will was saying, that's essentially a violation of federal law, targeting people based on race.
Well, I can't speak to that necessarily.
But I do, I will highlight, it's a very prominent criticism coming from conservatives.
But we can see this.
Several Republican lawmakers on Friday called on the House Ethics Committee to open an investigation into Rep.
Joaquin Castor after he tweeted the names and businesses of 44 Texans that donated to President Donald Trump's campaign.
One of which was a homemaker, right?
Like a stay-at-home mom, that's my understanding.
In a letter to House Ethics Committee Chairman Ted Deutch and Ranking Member Kenny Marchant, the lawmakers accused Castro of violating Rule 23 of the Code of Official Conduct for publicly posting the names and workplaces of individual donors to Trump.
Posting a target list of private citizens simply for supporting his political opponent is antithetical to our principles and serves to suppress the free speech and free association rights of Americans.
Now I want to go back to the first story because I want to highlight some of the results of what he did, and then I want to talk a bit about what I'm seeing conservatives kind of get wrong in another story.
But the main issue here, donors are public information.
When you donate to a candidate, everybody can just Google that.
However, Joaquin Castro was shining a negative light on individuals for having supported Trump, and that is intimidating.
Whether or not your names are already public, he grabbed specific names, said they were funding Trump's, you know, racism or whatever, put their names out, and it did result in harassment.
So check this out.
They say, one of the people on the list, Justin Harris, who owns an oil and gas company, said the company has been called with threats.
I've had people say, hey, we were going to use you for business, but we found out you're a racist.
We hope that you burn in hell and your business will go with you.
Another man said that he was wrongly named as a donor to Trump when it was actually his father who made the donations.
Another problem with Joaquin Castro publishing names in this way.
Harper Huddleston said that he supports Trump but has contributed before to Julian Castro when he was running in the San Antonio mayoral race.
The situation forced him to sit his family down and go over what would happen if they were attacked.
We convened together as a family and talked about situational awareness, exit strategy, avoiding and exiting conflict, talk about staying low and close to home, and just being at our very highest senses.
Now, I think every family should do that, but Yeah, it shows you the ultimate problem, so here's the first thing I'll say.
In my opinion, absolutely backfires.
Look, these people who are willing to harass, you know, Trump supporters, they're not going to vote for Trump in the first place.
Joaquin Castro did literally nothing.
All it did was embolden these people.
Sure, they might be scared.
Sure, they're getting harassed.
This guy's business is booming.
And now you've got people calling for a potential ethics investigation because he did it.
So, in the end, we can see it's going to backfire because these people don't seem to realize that the right is unifying behind Trump.
But this brings me to the next story I'm seeing.
It is not in line necessarily with what we're seeing with Joaquin Castro, but I want to highlight this because when I was thinking about how liberals don't seem to understand conservatives, I saw this story going around and I think many, many conservatives don't understand liberals.
Now again, as I mentioned in the beginning, we've seen the research, I think it came from Jonathan Haidt, That conservatives are more likely to understand liberals than liberals are to understand conservatives, but this story still to me represents a lot of conservatives not understanding it.
When you look at the data, as I mentioned, You've got Trump supporters rallying behind Trump, and I think the main reason for this is the moral foundations of authority and loyalty.
Take a look at this story.
Andrew Yang breaks down in tears while addressing gun violence at town hall.
And he did.
A woman mentioned that her four-year-old was killed while her other was shot.
Well, I'll just read it.
The woman asking the question, Stephanie, noted that her four-year-old daughter was fatally shot by a stray bullet in 2011, and that her son witnessed the incident.
In response to this, Andrew Yang started crying, saying that he has two kids, I believe, three and six years old, a six-year-old and a three-year-old boy.
Here, I'll read his quote.
He said, I have a six and three-year-old boy, and I was imagining, Yang said, stopping to place his hand over his face as he broke down in tears, I was imagining it was one of them that got shot and the other saw it.
Yang began crying again before looking in the direction of Stephanie and saying, I'm so sorry.
The biggest downside of running for president for me has been that I don't get to see my family very much, so I get pictures.
That scene you described, I'm sorry, it's very affecting.
They say, Yang went on to note that when there's a gun in the household, you're more likely to have a child get shot or the owner get shot than to kill, let's say, an intruder in the house.
Those are just the numbers, those are the facts.
If we can convince Americans that personalized guns are a good idea, then again, If the child gets a hold of the gun, they can't do anything with it.
It just becomes a very heavy, expensive prop.
Yang is a smart guy, okay?
I like the idea of personalized weapons.
Like, they can only function if it's biometrically, you know, you can use it.
I'm not an expert, so I'm not going to get into here and say we should or shouldn't do it.
I think it's an interesting idea using tech to address the issue.
Kids can't fire accidentally.
That shuts down a lot of the arguments from the left.
In fact, just saying technological advancements in firearm could actually be a solution to the problem.
However, I want to get to the main point here.
Andrew Yang crying.
I've seen a lot of conservatives say, oh no, Andrew Yang's too weak.
Oh, he's crying.
Oh, you know, Yang Gang is cancelled.
Things like that.
Sorry.
If you think that's true, you don't understand liberals.
I'll ask you this.
Now first, I'm sure to the people who are liberal and are watching, not obviously at the far left who are probably shrieking and don't care anyway, but the actual liberals who watch totally get it.
Centrists probably get it too, and I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of conservatives who totally understand.
So for those that don't understand, I ask you this.
Why do you think the media shows a little girl crying saying, please give me back my daddy?
Why do you think the media shows dead kids, you know, in Europe and in the US?
Why do you think that is?
It's because liberals are motivated by care and fairness.
I would dare say it, in my opinion, this basically trends towards being motivated by emotion and not logic.
What Andrew Yang did here is going to greatly benefit him in the primary.
And it's not that negative even among conservatives.
You're going to find there are a lot, there are going to be a lot of people on the right who have families too and might roll their eyes but be like, you know, I get it.
You're going to find a lot of people who are moderates are going to be like, I get it.
Imagining your kid being killed.
Yeah, I get it.
And I'm seeing there's a decent amount of conservatives.
I don't want to say everybody, but they're saying things like, you know, he's too weak, he's a beta, things like this.
And I'm like, it doesn't matter if you right now don't think he's strong enough.
This one moment of him crying over the loss, it is extremely powerful and it's going to help Yang go up in the polls.
And that's what he needs.
And Yang's been tearing through.
Things have been going pretty well for him.
So to sort of wrap this up with the two, the main, like the reason I'm bringing up Yang in this video, the initial thing I wanted to talk about is how, you know, when they target conservatives this way, they don't understand the motivations of conservatives.
They seem to think that they're going to be people who go, ooh, I better not donate to Trump.
No, they're going to be defiant.
They're going to, they're going to pledge their loyalty and they're going to, they're unified behind the president they support.
This just—and you can see it.
It's predictable.
There you go.
People are lining up in mass to go to Bill Miller's barbecue.
It was an advertising campaign.
Trump made $2 million more than expected as fundraiser because of the donor shaming.
And all you earned is an ethics investigation.
Potentially.
And I'll say this too, because this is all about, look, the better you can do to understand the other side, the better you will have for debating, for arguing, for explaining your opinions.
Andrew Yang breaking down in tears is exactly what the left wanted to see.
They don't want to see Andrew Yang say, a comprehensive gun plan will solve these problems.
No.
They want to see Andrew Yang crying and saying, no, enough!
And they're going to go, oh, that's who I'm going to vote for.
Think about Obama.
Hope and change, you know?
What does that even mean?
Think about Trump.
Build the wall.
Build the wall is a tangible thing that can be done.
Build the wall is saying, do something specific.
Building a wall is a very straightforward thing that can be visualized being done.
Obama saying, yes we can, hope and change, that doesn't explain anything!
At all!
So you see how people differ in how they view politics and how it leads them to certain political leaders.
When you get someone showing you a little girl crying, don't be surprised when liberals go, we must have open borders, we must release their parents and decriminalize border crossings.
All they needed was a little girl crying.
They didn't need an effective argument.
For the conservatives, they need an effective argument.
And if you don't have one, you're not going to win.
So this presents a lot of problems, I suppose, but I think it's... You know what?
I'll say this.
I bet a lot of people watching totally get it.
They're like, yep, liberals by emotion, conservatives by facts.
And that's not necessarily good and bad on either side.
Certainly, we do need to make sure we retain our humanity, respect for the arts, and we are empathizing with this, like, little girl who's crying.
We don't want to be cold, callous monsters who become Borg-like robots Otherwise, imagine a completely cold and callous, fact-based everything, and you're like the Borg in Star Trek.
Just doing things for the sake of doing things.
There's no humanity there.
However, when you're leading everything by emotion, you end up doing things that make no sense and actually cause destruction.
So you need, you need a balance.
And this is one of the big problems in the political debate.
At least when you're looking at Jonathan Haidt's research, the fact that moderates and conservatives tend towards all five moral foundations means you're likely going to find a better balance not with the far left.
Now, again, it's not about — I think the point to be made here is a lot of people on the left criticize Democrats for being centrists.
And I think that's a good point.
Democrats are centrists.
They're more likely to lean towards emotion, but they still represent the other moral foundations.
When you look at the far left, the Ocasio-Cortezes, the Rashida Tlaibs, the Young Turks, they're all emotion.
And so they're shocked that no one's on their side.
The left and the right in a tribal sense, I think, fall onto these, you know, moral foundations.
But it used to be that we had liberals and conservatives that still understood the point of authority, loyalty, and sanctity and things like this.
But now we actually really are seeing an actual left.
up against an actual right and the Democrats have always been fairly moderate.
They have been and conservatives have been too.
When you look at the data, Republicans haven't gone that far to the right.
But now we're embracing a real left that cares more about emotion, that is going to play
really, really well for Andrew Yang, crying over guns.
But you know, and to Yang's credit, he still does talk about personalized weapons.
So he's, I think, I think it's as good all around for Yang.
Anyway, this video is not going to be half an hour long.
I'll end it here.
You guys get the point, right?
I think what we're seeing now, one of the big transformations, is that with media, with social media, it's much easier to rope people in who are driven by emotion, meaning centrist Democrats who are very corporate.
I've never been a big fan of the corporate machine, the Hillary Clinton types.
Of course not.
But they understand that you need to have a broad view, and that's why we have center-left and conservative.
And now the new left is rising up and gaining power because it's easy to manipulate emotions online.
And now they're becoming a more powerful base, and they're moving into the Democrats, and that is a weakness of the left.
I will end by saying, though, the weakness of the right in this regard is disregarding the emotion.
You gotta make sure you retain that humanity, man.
When you see that little girl crying, and I see a bunch of people posting the meme where it's like, oh no, she's crying, quick burn the constitution.
It's funny.
I get it.
But you have to make sure you are not going to become the monster that would just say to those kids, I don't care who you are, it's your parents' fault.
Too bad.
No, no, no, no.
Listen, these people broke the law.
We still have to have standards.
Yes, they're going to be detained.
Yes, their kids will be separated.
But we cannot ever celebrate any of these things.
And I'm saying this to the conservatives because, look, I'm a moderate.
That's probably why my position has always been this way.
Protect the kids, stop the crying, care for those, and empathize But do what needs to be done.
Hard decisions require sometimes hurting people because the alternative is worse.
And that means we're going to see these situations where a little girl will cry, where a little kid will die, and it's tragic.
And we need to make sure we retain that humanity and we say we must not let this happen, but we have to make sure we're doing everything to minimize harm across the board.
And that's a difficult position.
Sometimes we know when the right goes too far, when they no longer care and empathize with other people.
That line's been drawn even among conservatives.
The left is going too far in a lot of ways, and one of those ways is being led by emotion down a path that will lead to dangerous problems.
Look, I get it.
You don't like what happened with the guy in El Paso, but going online, or I'm sorry, I'll put it this way, you don't like what happened with the border and people being in the squalor, Going on Twitter and calling for terror Sean King is not the right way to do it.
That's going too far.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Otherwise, it's gonna go on forever.
Stick around.
Next segment will be at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
It is a different channel, and I will see you there.
YouTube plays favorites.
I can't say I'm surprised.
I don't know what else they would do, really, when you think about it, but it's true, and it's kind of a bad thing.
If you're a big corporate YouTube channel, you're being promoted and celebrated.
You can talk about crazy things in the news that I'm not allowed to talk about, and I bring this up kind of often.
So, when you have a story like this from Ars Technica, YouTube lets biggest stars off the hook for breaking rules, moderators say.
Moderators say YouTube overrode them when high-profile creators went too far.
Of course, I want to talk about this.
Now, you may have noticed, in many of my videos recently, audio segments, whatever, I mention, YouTube deranks independent political commentary.
That's true.
What that means, you'll still see me in Recommended, you'll still see my videos suggested, but it's deranked.
YouTube is propping up big corporate players and their preferred creators and they're knocking down other YouTube channels including mine.
Now my main channel is different from this channel.
My main channel hasn't been hit as hard because it's more big news and like politics and stuff.
This channel is absolutely wiped off the map in terms of video suggestions.
Now I get a ton of people constantly emailing me when I bring this up saying, no Tim you are getting recommended.
No, Tim, there are ads on your content.
What you don't realize is that you are seeing the 2% of the time that my videos are actually getting recommended still.
They've massively deranked me, Dave Rubin, a bunch of other... David Pakman, for instance, other creators have been deranked.
So let me talk about how this works.
I've got this story from Ars Technica, which we'll read it to.
But let me say this.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work for obvious reasons.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, as I just said, I ask people to share these videos if they think they're important, because YouTube has deranked my content.
Let's take a look at the news over the past few days.
Nothing I can do about it.
The big story?
Epstein.
And everything that happened around him.
A few days before that, we had tragic events take place in a couple cities in this country.
Can't do anything about that.
I just talk about the big, major issues.
So what happens?
I'm deranked.
I'm demonetized.
Meanwhile, Jimmy Kimmel can go up on stage and say whatever he wants, and they have a special program that allows—this is my understanding—they have a special program that allows them to sell ads as they see fit.
Now, I get it.
They're big corporate channels, so of course they already have an ad sales department and want to control what they're selling on their platforms.
But then you have bigger creators, high-profile people like, you know, I don't know, the Pauls, Jake and Logan Paul or whatever, clearly breaking rules and getting a slap on the wrist.
Now, if Jimmy Kimmel makes a segment talking about a tragic incident, nobody cares.
If I do it, I get deranked, I get smeared.
If Family Guy produces a segment with offensive jokes, nobody cares.
Because activists, for some reason, love corporations.
At least in this instance, it's the weirdest thing, isn't it?
For the longest time, The Left was supposed to be about challenging the corporations.
Instead, what do we get?
We get activists targeting small channels and getting them purged, targeting medium channels and getting them restricted or punished, targeting independent commentary, meanwhile ignoring major corporations.
It almost feels like it's on purpose.
So let's read this story from Ars Technica to learn a bit about what the moderators had to say.
They're right.
If it feels like certain high-profile YouTubers get way more lenience when it comes to content moderation than everyone else does, that's apparently because they really do, according to a new report.
The Washington Post spoke with almost a dozen former and current YouTube content moderators, who told the paper that the gargantuan video platform made exceptions for popular creators who push content boundaries.
Quote, Our responsibility was never to the creators or to the users.
One former moderator told the Post it was to the advertisers.
Of course it was!
Now let me explain something.
A lot of people point out there's a bias on social media.
What they don't realize is that, sure, for every high-profile conservative who gets banned, you have a dozen plus low-profile conservatives getting banned that no one ever knows or talks about.
Check this out.
I have nearly 500,000 subscribers on this channel, my main channel has nearly 600,000, and my subverse channel, which admittedly is editorially independent and run by other people, of which I still host content for though, has about 150,000 subscribers.
None of these channels are large enough to have any kind of real protection when it comes to this nonsense.
There have been instances where, on Subverse, we have said, we cannot show you what this person said in news because it is against YouTube's rules.
I kid you not.
Journalism.
Filming an event in DC.
And so we said, find the full video on Mines for, and there's nothing we can do about it.
You know, as much as I'd love to say we're gonna put all of the hard news, news that's fit to print, in this video, We can't.
Because even with as many subs as I have, it's not enough to get any real protections.
Now, I can run the risk and cross my fingers because I do know people at YouTube, but it's not worth it.
But you can look at the bigger channels.
Notably, I'm not as concerned about Jake and Logan Paul.
They still get some flack.
There's an issue with being so high profile that makes them targets, for sure.
But think about all of the small channels that are taken down, that don't break the rules, that are punished.
We are seeing an epidemic of channels that are getting their ads removed, they're getting kicked out of the partner program, they're getting videos taken down, because YouTube doesn't care about small creators because they can't do anything about it.
And that's happening on every social media platform.
Let's read more.
The employees told the Post in interviews that YouTube's internal guidelines for how to rate videos are confusing and hard to follow.
Workers are also typically given unrealistic quotas by the outsourcing companies of reviewing 120 videos a day, the Post reports, which makes it difficult to scrutinize longer videos without skipping over content that may turn out to be problematic.
A YouTube spokesperson told the Post it does not give moderators quotas.
The Flashpoint.
The difference status makes becomes clear in the first days of 2018, moderator said, when Logan Paul drew criticism for posing with and apparently mocking the body of a dead man in a video.
Two weeks passed before Google took any public action and removed Paul from the Google Preferred advertising program.
And see, there it is.
The Preferred Advertising Program.
Why is it that I can't talk about breaking news but Jimmy Kimmel can?
Now, I want a real answer for this.
Simply saying they're corporate and they're big isn't an answer.
I have a lot of subs.
A decent amount.
Not one of the biggest channels, but I think I rank like 20-something thousand out of millions.
It's not bad, right?
My main channel is verified.
YouTube has verified me, okay?
I have contacts.
Certainly, they can say Tim Pool, Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, and other personalities are okay, right?
Certainly, we're allowed to talk about the same things as Jimmy Kimmel.
Oh, I'm sorry.
The Google Preferred Advertising Program for major corporations and high-profile individuals only.
Not even mid-tier channels.
A few weeks later, Paul tasered a dead rat in another video, again, a violation of YouTube's guidelines against violent and graphic content.
That video earned him a two-week suspension from monetizing his content, during which ads were disabled entirely on his videos, a move criticized as both insufficient and inconsistent.
Many employees inside the company—actually, let me say this.
The answer isn't to punish Logan or Jake.
The answer—well, it's Logan Paul, not Jake Paul, but the answer isn't to punish him.
And the answer isn't to punish CNN or Jimmy Kimmel or whoever else.
The point is to stop the arbitrary policy against smaller channels.
Now, look, I don't know how they solve the problem.
That's why I said in the beginning, I don't know what else they would do.
You've got too many channels.
There are tens of millions.
What's the answer?
I don't know.
But perhaps there's a certification program people can go through so that, look, almost all of my videos are demonetized.
On this channel, every video gets demonetized for the first 24 hours.
That's basically a guarantee.
When I see that green icon, I'm like, whoa!
Wow, that was lucky.
And sometimes I talk about Star Wars.
You know, fortunately, that video is actually monetized.
But a lot of times, my videos are just deemed, you know what, can't allow it.
Don't allow the monetization, and then a day later they say, okay, and that's 90 plus percent of all videos I make will be demonetized for the first 24 hours and then approved.
How come there isn't a program where, or actually it sounds like there is.
Why can't, you know, other mid-tier creators be allowed in this program?
Well, I don't know.
But I will say, the things I publish on this channel are actually a bit more tepid than CNN.
Now could you not?
Look, people don't like CNN for being partisan and being wrong.
That's about it.
My opinions?
Not that far off from mainstream news.
In fact, almost 99.9% of all articles I comment on or news I produce is mainstream and milquetoast fence-sitting.
I guess the point of this video is, it's a bigger look at the fact that we now have an employee saying, of course they do this.
Of course they're giving preferential treatment to bigger creators.
We know that's what they do.
And in the end, you know what?
It's just a longer video addressing the thing I often bring up in every video.
That if you really want to support my work, it's all about sharing.
We are up against... YouTube is the only game in town.
Okay?
They're not the worst in terms of free speech.
They're actually decent.
But we know it's a two-tiered system.
In fact, I would argue it's a three-tiered system.
Corporate players, high-profile YouTubers, and then the rest of us.
Actually, it's probably a four-tiered system because I'm admittedly not, you know, A small channel.
And I have the ability to tweet and reach out to people and get answers.
But admittedly, there are people who are around the same size as my channels who have been permanently deleted.
Without breaking any rules.
Who get their monetizations completely removed without breaking any rules.
And what are you supposed to do?
YouTube has rules for thee, but not for me.
And rules for them, but not for us.
So anyway, I guess you get the point.
Longer video of me complaining about YouTube being a multi-tiered system.
I'll end by saying this.
Look, YouTube isn't the worst.
I want to stress that.
I make money on YouTube.
I wish they had a better...
I was talking to people the other day, and I told them that almost all of my videos are demonetized, and they were shocked because they found me boring.
And these were, like, liberals.
They're like, what?
Your content's stupid and boring.
Like, you don't even have strong opinions for the most part.
And I'm like, yeah, I know, right?
You think.
I guess people like watching it for whatever reason.
Thanks for watching, I guess.
But even some liberal friends of mine were shocked to find that, yeah, I'm in the doghouse too.
Isn't that weird?
So what do you do?
I don't know.
What I can say is, to all the people who say, like, oh, Toonpool's a grifter, yeah, right.
If I wanted to make money, I'd be making Minecraft videos, like PewDiePie started doing.
I think he's making Minecraft videos.
Or I'd go out and film a vlog about skateboarding, which would make, get way more traffic, and be completely family-friendly.
No, this is the game.
YouTube just does whatever the advertisers want, and the advertisers are more likely to support major corporations.
Because they are.
Stick around, I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes.
I will see you shortly.
There's something I like to refer to as the scaling problem.
You may have heard me talk about it in the past.
For those that aren't familiar, let me explain.
If I have 100 iPhones, if Apple gives out 100 iPhones and 1% break, that's one phone.
Nobody cares.
You hear a story, oh, did you hear so-and-so's phone broke?
Huh, I wonder what happened.
Let's say they give out A hundred million phones and 1% break.
All of a sudden you have a million stories of broken phones and all anyone sees are stories about broken phones.
And they go, what is going on?
Why are all of these phones breaking?
It's the same margin of error.
Now take that principle and apply it to anything.
What you see on the screen right here, the crux of the story, At least eight Walmart stores were the subject of threats over the past week.
I highlight this because it's really, really weird that people keep calling Walmarts now and threatening them.
But I also want to stress the problem as it pertains to these mass tragedies, the scaling problem.
So if we look back at history, we can see that violent crime is down.
Shootings are actually down.
But we have something called the scaling problem.
That's what I call it.
So if you have a hundred people and one commits a mass shooting, well then people are like, well, you know, some people are crazy.
If you have a hundred million people and a million people commit some kind of mass tragedy, well then all of a sudden it's like, ah, people are screaming.
Granted, our problem with shootings is nowhere near one percent.
It is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percentage.
But everyone is losing their minds.
And then it all comes back to the problem of white supremacy.
And I'm making this point, and I'll read the story, but I'll make the point now before we go further, in talking about what Tucker Carlson was trying to say when he called white supremacy a hoax.
I think it was wrong for him to say that.
There is a problem.
I do believe it will get worse, and it's serious.
We better make sure we're tracking these lunatics, because look at what we're seeing.
Eight instances of people calling Walmarts and threatening them.
Yeah, people are nuts.
But the point I'm making with this is, eight threats.
But it sounds like a lot because there's so many people in this world and in our country.
Is 8th Threats really groundbreaking news?
Honestly, I don't know.
But the point I'm trying to make is, as the population increases, there is less tolerance for any deviation.
So if you can tolerate one person committing a crime and say, eh, it's one person, it's the same percentage as if you have 100 million people and a million people commit a crime.
That will not be tolerated.
Which means the more people we have, the more crimes we have, and the faster news is sharing this, the more people are going to freak out and claim the problem is worse than it's ever been.
Let's read the story.
But before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work as a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
You get the drill.
YouTube is deranked independent political commentary, so if you like my videos, share them on whatever social platform to help spread the word because we are combating YouTube propping up corporate players.
But let's read.
CNN reports.
At least eight Walmart locations have received threats over the past week after deadly shootings at two stores in recent weeks, law enforcement agencies said.
Two stores?
Really?
Oh wow, that's true.
I didn't even know that.
The threats follow a horrific massacre at a Walmart in Texas and a deadly shooting at a store in Mississippi last month.
In Florida, Richard D. Clayton, 26, was arrested after he allegedly posted a threat on Facebook that he was about to have his gun returned and people should stay away from Walmart.
He was detained Friday after an investigation by various agencies, including the FBI, the Winter Park Police Department, and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
He allegedly made a threat Tuesday on a Facebook post, stating, three more days of probation left, then I get my AR-15 back.
Don't go to Walmart next week, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement says.
He remains in custody on $15,000 bond.
According to online records, it is unclear whether he has an attorney.
In Texas, officers responded to a threat posted Saturday on social media.
from the Tampa area called a Walmart and told an employee he was going to shoot up the store.
The Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office said in a statement.
In Texas, officers responded to a threat posted Saturday on social media.
The Harlingen Police Department said in a statement, during the course of this investigation,
officers learned that a male subject had used social media to post an imminent threat that
was to occur at the Walmart in Harlingen on a specific date.
Also in Texas, police in West Laco arrested a 13-year-old boy after the boy's mother brought him to the station Saturday.
The boy will face a charge of terroristic threat for making a social media post Wednesday that prompted a Walmart to be evacuated.
Springfield, Missouri.
A man was arrested Thursday after panic ensued when he walked into a Walmart equipped with body armor, a handgun, and a rifle.
He faces charges of making a terroristic threat.
He said that he wanted to know if Walmart honored the Second Amendment.
That is a Second Amendment audit.
I called it.
I said that's what it was going to be, and I was right.
A lot of people were claiming that was a potential mass shooter.
No.
He walked in, walked out.
It was one of these Second Amendment audits.
There's another story about Missouri, Kansas.
Police tweeted Friday and Saturday that they were looking into An anonymous source reported a person with a gun at a New York Walmart on Saturday.
According to Cortland Sheriff's Office, officers responded but did not find anyone armed.
That could be nonsense.
Multiple 911 calls reported a man with a gun in a Walmart in North Carolina, an open carry state.
Jason Delbert told CNN a man was detained and is being questioned.
It is unclear if the man was menacing anyone with the gun.
Now here's the interesting thing.
The other guy in Springfield who walked in wasn't menacing anyone either but people still panic.
So there's a big problem here in that If you're going to have people call the police over a legal open carry, you know, circumstance, well then we've got serious problems.
But what I want to point out here, and the main reason I went through this, is for one, I do think it's interesting we're seeing all these weird threats.
But I had a question when I saw it.
I first saw this story and I thought, man, things are getting crazy in this country, right?
I mean, wouldn't you think things are getting crazy when you hear a story about eight Walmart stores being the subject of threats?
But then I asked myself, how often does any store receive a threat?
And is the real issue that CNN is just putting them all together?
How often do we hear about mass shootings?
And so I actually went to a website that tracks mass shootings, and I found something interesting.
First, nobody defines them the same way.
Or, I shouldn't say nobody, but they're defined differently by different organizations.
Some say it's four people who are killed.
Some say it's four people who are at least injured.
Some say it's just an instance where someone fires at a group of people.
How do you know what someone means when they say mass shooting?
So I'll break it down.
Mass, implying multiple shots fired, or multiple people, and shooting.
A gun.
In which case, it makes sense that what makes the most sense is when someone is injured by a gun.
In which case, there are over 300 for this year alone and 26 in Chicago.
Because when we talk about mass shootings, the media focuses on specific weapons and specific kinds of people.
So they talk about what happened in, you know, El Paso or Dayton, because those are particularly egregious, right?
Those were powerful or modified weapons.
They were either ideological or by an ideological actor.
But my question then is, what's the real reason for ignoring Chicago, Baltimore, Atlanta, etc.?
Chicago had 26 mass shootings, several of which resulted in multiple people dead, and some at least four people were dead, and they don't include it.
There's a viral post going around right now where someone, it's like, I think in the Washington Post, somebody took out an ad or something, or it's editorial, I have no idea, where they're showing everyone who's ever died in a mass shooting by what standard and by who.
So there's a reason why I highlight the definition and the issue.
This story got me thinking.
How often do stores regularly receive threats?
Is this unique?
I honestly don't know and I can't tell you.
Are we actually seeing an increase?
Are things actually getting worse?
Or is it just that the media is riling everybody up?
And the last question, the most important one is, does any of that, excuse me, does any of that matter?
If people see a story like this and then believe it's happening more than it used to, they will take action, they will buy guns, and it will push people to the edge.
I ask this because there's been a lot of conversation and a lot of opinion for me about a potential for civil conflict.
And Stixx Hexenammer made a video where he said he disagreed with me.
I humbly disagree, something to that effect.
I didn't get a chance to watch the video, Stixx, I apologize, but I did get the Cliff Notes, and I watched it just a little bit.
Been busy.
But ultimately, the reason I bring this up is not to highlight any of his points, but to highlight the question of whether or not we are in a bubble, or Something really is happening.
So I bring up the scaling problem in the beginning because I would ask this.
Are we seeing more street fights today?
Or is it because they're per capita?
Or is it because there are more people, there are going to be more street fights?
Are people fighting less for political issues today than they were relative to the population size 20 or 30 years ago?
I can't say for sure.
What I can say is that last question I asked, I think the answer is it doesn't matter.
It could be that stores used to receive 10 threats per week across the United States, and it's actually down.
But the perception is up, and perception is reality.
I mean, perception isn't really reality, but to people.
So what's going to happen then is, as stories like this spread around, people on the left will react.
They'll show up to protests and claim the right is bad, and the right will react, and it will result in, in my opinion, something real.
It may just be a scaling problem.
We are less resilient to deviation because there's more and more people.
We see too many of the same story, we think it's getting worse, and that drives people to the edge.
So, let me just, I guess, wrap up.
Eight Walmart stores.
I mean, it sounds like a lot.
I actually had all of the stories pulled up individually, and then I found the CNN story bringing them all together, and I was like, wow.
Maybe this is unique.
Or maybe it's just that journalists have written about it.
Or maybe it's just that there are a bunch of different outlets today, and it seems like there's more because more people are writing about more stories, and it's making us think things are getting worse.
Anyway, stick around.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
Now I am of the opinion Kamala Harris will be the Democratic nominee.
Why?
Intersectionality.
She checks all of the boxes.
I don't mean for intersectionally, I mean just for the Democrats.
She is a crony, high-profile DNC, you know, kind of person, like Democrat.
She is the perfect, she's like Hillary, you know what I mean?
Like she's that perfect corporate crony Democrat.
She's also a woman of color.
So that's perfect for the Democrats.
And look, I'm not normally one to use gender or race, but I'm bringing that up because that was the question posed by the Democrats.
Should a white man be the nominee?
And because of that, I think people are going to lean towards Kamala.
Now, here we can see chicks out.
Who will win the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination?
What you are seeing here is predicted political betting.
Joe Biden has dropped by one cent.
Elizabeth Warren is up one cent at 29 cents.
So people are really betting on Elizabeth Warren taking this.
Here's what I want to stress, however.
While I am still of the opinion Kamala Harris will be the Democratic nominee, my confidence in that has faltered greatly.
Why?
Because Tulsi Gabbard completely and Utterly destroyed Kamala Harris in the last debate, and it was one of the most glorious moments in politics I'd ever seen.
I just, when Tulsi Gabbard was going after Kamala, I imagined that, you know that Elmo gif where he's like this and there's fire behind him?
I'm like, yes!
Burn it down!
I mean metaphorically, of course.
You have to make those distinctions.
But anyway, seeing someone actually tear down these crony corporate Democrat types who are authoritarian, she lockin' people up, you know, to keep them as cheap labor, all of that, all those accusations, it was just so glorious.
And then even better still, check out this graph.
Here we can see that in May, Kamala Harris was around 11 cents.
And then after the first debate, she skyrocketed to 29 cents at her peak, rivaling actually higher than where Biden and Warren are today.
Here's the thing, though.
And the cents are kind of percentages, right?
Because it's about—I think it technically is, but—oh, no, no, it's not really.
But it's kind of this idea.
So this happened because she targeted Joe Biden.
She stole some of that thunder and everyone cheered for her.
But then look where the drop happens.
On the 30th, she falls hard and keeps falling down to 13.
And that was because Tulsi Gabbard delivered a legitimate hit.
And it's not just the prediction markets.
Her polls are actually down.
So I have this story.
Senator Kamala Harris continues to dip in the polls.
Just from the other day, News 1.
The last debate appeared to hit the California senator hard and don't forg- Oh, and they got the Tulsi Gabbard there in bold!
Look, Even if Tulsi Gabbard doesn't get the nomination, which I really don't think she will, she hasn't qualified for the next debate because of the polls.
And that's unfortunate.
Andrew Yang has.
So I'm happy about that, but I think I'm kind of liking Tulsi Gabbard better.
And we'll get into this too, because I want to mention, you know, Yang said that he had no choice but to call Trump a white supremacist.
And that was like, oh, Yang, no, no, don't play this game, man.
Don't, don't, don't.
But we'll get to that.
But Tulsi, if anything, if the only thing she's accomplished is standing up there and delivering that campaign-ending debate slam, then it was all worth it.
Absolutely.
So let's read this about Kamala Harris getting knocked down hard.
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, you know why I ask.
You gotta share this video if you support my work because YouTube is deranking me.
And I'll tell you this, you look at the charts that have been published, this channel went from getting like a tiny portion of political suggestions to flatlining straight zero.
I don't even know how this channel even still exists, but apparently y'all like hearing me talk so much, you come back and watch my videos, I appreciate it.
If you really do like hearing me talk and think other people might, share the video, because I think that's actually the only thing keeping this going.
I'll be completely honest.
I did a day or two where I didn't ask people to share, and views tanked, so I really do think it's you guys sharing that's driving the traffic, for the most part.
But let's read.
They write, Kamala Harris has now been able to recover after the second debate where she was hit hard on record by Tulsi Gabbard.
The California senator is continuing to slip in the polls, went viral for holding Joe Biden accountable for comments about segregationists and his policy on busing.
Now the tables have turned and Harris took a blow in the polls.
And let's actually let's do this.
I don't think I can actually pull up Gabbard in the stats here, but I can show you that Tulsi Gabbard is at 4 cents above Cory Booker.
So, they don't give you the option to put Gabbard on the graph.
We can see that Kamala Harris is taking a huge hit.
I'd be willing to bet that Tulsi... Actually, maybe we can pull this up.
I want to see if Tulsi Gabbard has done better recently.
Alright, I'm not gonna try and dig into this and figure out, but I'd be willing to bet Tulsi Gabbard has gone up a bit because of that takedown of Kamala Harris.
Unfortunately, she doesn't have enough polls to qualify for the next debate.
We'll see what happens.
They say News 1 reported shortly after the debate, according to the morning consult poll, Harris went from 13 to 10 percentage points, the only top eight candidate to drop.
Woo!
Now she has dropped even further.
FiveThirty reports, after weighting the average of five post-debate polls, Harris is currently at 7.9%, the largest dip for any of the presidential candidates.
The only other closest drop in Biden at 28.4% and Warren at second place at 17.1.
4.4% and Warren at second place at 17.1. Harris's drop is clearly due to the attack by Tulsi Gabbard.
And that, and that, it was all worth it.
Every video I made praising Tulsi, the donations I sent her, I am glad she was able to stand up there and stick it to a crony corporate Democrat.
I'm still kind of thinking Kamala will be the nominee, but Elizabeth Warren is skyrocketing now.
So maybe it's gonna be Warren, I don't know.
But she is not a person of color, and that is a net negative for the Democratic Party right now, though she is a woman.
We'll see what happens.
Andrew Yang has been killing it.
His predicted now has him at nine cents, and it's up.
And that's really interesting.
Earlier, I made a comment about Yang crying over gun issues, and I've seen a lot of conservatives dragging him for it.
That's fine.
He's not trying to get your vote for the primary.
In Mayherm and the General with moderates, I don't think so.
Liberals act on emotion.
When they see Yang crying over gun issues and children dying, That, to them, is—they're going to go, oh, and they're going to be like, that's my guy.
He cares.
You can see it.
It's real.
And I can understand that.
The reason—so I'll just go over this quickly, but liberals tend to operate on an emotional spectrum, care and fairness, while conservatives operate on five moral foundations, this coming from Jonathan Haidt's research.
But, a couple quick updates as we're talking about these politicians, and I wanna drag Yang a little bit for his Trump comments.
First, Tesla CEO said he supports Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, calling universal basic income obviously needed.
Yes, but we gotta make sure we have secure borders and we deal with illegal immigration.
Because if we're having hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants coming to this country every month, And we're not even deporting that many people.
We have an inverse relationship between taxes being paid, benefits going out, and people coming in.
Some have argued these illegal immigrants are paying taxes and not receiving benefits, so it's a net positive, but universal basic income won't necessarily work.
Actually, maybe that's the play from the Democrats.
Bring in a bunch of underclass, bring in a permanent underclass that's paying taxes but can't receive benefits, and then the American citizens reap the benefits.
I don't know.
I'm not going to get into the whole UBI thing because I've been pretty bearish on it.
I am not a fan for the most part.
But I think it's important that Yang is talking about it because it will be a serious factor.
And look, it's going to happen.
Automation is displacing low-skill work.
Combine that with illegal immigrants.
Yang says immigrants are being scapegoated.
I think he's playing it to the left.
The issue is they both play a factor.
If we're automating low-skill jobs and displacing other low-skill jobs with illegal non-citizen labor, well then we've got a serious problem in this country.
Those low-skill jobs could be filled by Americans who would want a higher wage.
I wanna highlight the Musk thing, but let's get into this story.
Yang says no choice but to call Trump a white supremacist, and this, to me, was a huge disappointment.
I have donated to Yang.
I believe in him for one reason, okay?
It's a bunch of reasons, but the main point is, when he was on the debate stage, he was asked about healthcare, and he says, we've gotta get healthcare off the backs of small businesses.
And he was right.
100% right.
Whatever your position is on healthcare, be it private, public, whatever, we gotta get it off the backs of businesses.
We want to encourage people to start companies, and they shouldn't be worrying about whether or not they are going to be a healthcare provider for their employees.
Now, I don't know what the solution is, but that was an excellent framing of the problem.
The left is saying people deserve healthcare.
The right is saying, well, then pay for it yourself.
And Yang was like, fine, sure, but...
Why are private businesses footing the bill for this?
Why do they have to be the ones to offer this up?
It's kind of weird.
The reason it's a good thing, whether you agree with him or not, is that he's looking at issues in a way that's not just this talking point line of garbage from the Democrats about care or fairness.
That was very pragmatic of Andrew Yang to talk about how it's affecting businesses, and that made me want to listen.
But more importantly, I'm not saying he's right.
His website has a huge list of proposals for all of these different issues, and he was the first person that I saw who actually had a comprehensive list trying to tackle and present solutions.
And I said, get him on the debate stage.
This right here, this story calling Trump a white supremacist is Yang falling into the talking point trap.
Now, I will say, it seems like CNN pushed him until he finally gave in and said, oh, you apparently have no choice.
He didn't say, quote, Donald Trump is.
What happened was they asked him, do you think he is?
Do you think he is?
And finally Yang said, well, you have, you know, I guess no choice.
No excuses.
This is a stupid game being played for political- for talk- you know, I get it.
But I'll say this, man.
If you're gonna play that game to try and win, I'm not gonna vote for you.
You know, to anybody.
If Yang actually believes that, I'm- I don't know if I'll vote for you either, in that capacity.
It's, you know, they push this nonsense over and over and over again and demand you speak up.
Look, man, I can criticize the president because I'm sane and I think he's worth criticizing.
I think his attitude is bad.
I think his tweets are bad.
I think there's a lot of things he's done that are very, very crude and crass.
But this is nuts!
They go on MSNBC and say that Trump is trying to exterminate Latinos.
Give me a break, dude!
The guy is just a kind of a dick.
That's the worst thing!
Like, you can criticize his policies, you can say he's doing things that are bad, but that's a question of competence.
And if you want to say you don't think he's competent, I'm—okay, great.
You want to call him a white supremacist, not—aw, dude, you know what, man?
You're not arguing anymore.
You're not talking about the problem.
Come to me and say, I think Trump is problematic because his off-the-cuff way of speaking It's very crude and it presents a negative image that we need in greater negotiations for the American people.
His tariffs on China are being sent back to the American people and not to China.
That, you know, his border wall is not going to stop the problem because people will overstay their visas.
Those are all things you can bring up I will argue against, right?
For instance, the China thing.
Easy.
The issue isn't whether or not Americans will pay more for goods in China.
The fact is companies will lose profits by operating in China.
Therefore, they're going to bring back American labor.
A lot of people on the left seem to miss that argument.
You can still argue.
I'm not saying Trump's right to do it.
I'm just saying that's the bad argument.
Talking about people flying and overstaying their visas is a fine argument, but it ignores the 100,000 plus people who are coming on foot.
The point is, I'm not here to argue for or against anything Trump is doing, or to say he's right or wrong.
The point is, when you come out and say this, you're not arguing anymore.
You've literally... This is Andrew Yang coming out and saying, orange man bad.
I don't care.
I know the orange man is bad.
Please, tell me about his policies, and tell me about what your solution is.
And Yang has done that often, saying Trump's policies for bringing back jobs is kind of in the past, that these jobs have moved because of transportation technology, communications technology, and automation, and we need to think about the future.
I think Yang is right about a lot of that, but I also think Trump has a lot of understanding of these, or at least he's right about a lot of the free trade agreement stuff.
That's why I think it would be great if Trump brought in Yang and Tulsi in some capacity.
Wow, that'd be powerful.
Because I think Trump's gonna win.
But, you know...
I'm not gonna- I'm not- I'm- I'm gonna wrap this one up.
I'm not saying I'm- I- I hate Yang and this is the end and Yang is cancelled.
No.
I'm gonna- You know, Yang put out a tweet saying something like, I'd be surprised if everyone agreed with me.
Yeah, but this is something else, dude.
This is Yang saying nothing but garbled garbage talking points based on lies and nonsense because the orange man is bad, I get.
But this kind of ta- This is nuts.
You've lost me, okay?
I'm still rooting for Yang for the debates.
I don't think he's gonna get the nomination anyway, but just, this is strike one.
