Studies Prove Google Is Swinging 2020 AGAINST Trump, Biased Against Conservatives
Studies Prove Google Is Swinging 2020 AGAINST Trump, Biased Against Conservatives. A new study from Allsides, a non-partisan media bias checking organization, shows that nearly all of the top stories from Google on recent major news are from left wing sources, not even centrist.Dr. Robert Epstein has been warning for years that Google and big tech will swing elections and choose who wins, whether on purpose or not. In 2013 Washington Post reported on the study, in 2015 WIRED Reported on the results showing it can and will happen. Recently Dr. Epstein recently testified in front of Ted Cruz saying that at minimum Google generated 2.6 Million votes for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.There is now ample evidence that whether intentional or not Google and other big tech platforms are biased against conservatives and to a lesser extent moderates and that this will swing elections in the future. The search tends to generate left wing news outlets and news in favor of far left and social justice narratives while censoring those who speak out against establishment politics.Yet even after leaked emails, former employees blowing the whistle, and now studies backing this up the left and far left still insist that there is no evidence of the bias against conservatives.So let me say definitively, big tech and Google are biased against conservatives. Whether its an unintentional or intentional bias is irrelevant. The impact is obvious and the results are clear.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Are the executives at Google biased against conservatives?
Probably.
But does that translate into direct action against conservatives?
That is a different question.
However, if I were to ask, is Google's system, for one reason or another, biased against conservatives, the answer is a resounding yes.
And now we have absolute data, proof, to back up the claim outside of everything we've already heard from former employees, from leaked emails.
We know Google is biased.
We now have data to back that up.
And boy, is this going to be interesting.
Because the ramifications are quite serious.
It means that Google likely will swing elections in the future if they haven't already in the past.
Take a look at this story from CNBC.
Here's where we're going to start.
I've got this big, long track I've got to go through to walk you through the serious danger that is Google retaining its unchecked power and showing you just how it's able to manipulate votes in the United States.
CNBC writes Trump, without evidence, accuses Google of illegally swinging election against him in 2020.
Well, the good news is, we actually do have evidence that Google may be swinging the election, whether on purpose or an accident.
It's happening.
The funny thing about this article, and the reason I highlight this, is the without evidence provision.
Well, the interesting thing is Trump actually cited an employee, Kevin Cernicki, a Google engineer, who says they are biased and want to make sure Trump loses.
Certainly, a witness from the company coming out and saying this is what happened and why it's going to get worse is evidence, right?
So I would argue Trump did tweet evidence.
More importantly, as I've highlighted in the past, it's so absurd to say that somebody making a point requires them to pause at every step and provide evidence.
So if I said something like, hey, I'm moving to, you know, Cincinnati, someone would then report Tim Pool without evidence claims he's moving to Cincinnati.
No, that's insane.
Okay?
I'm not gonna sit here and present like a deed to a house in Cincinnati.
That's ridiculous.
However, Trump did provide evidence in the form of a former Google employee.
The reality is, though, this story has tremendous evidence, and any journalist worth their weight who went back in time and actually looked at what was happening could see.
Not only has there been evidence in the past, but we actually have testimony from a professor saying it's likely still happening and going to get worse.
So let's dive right in.
Now, I do have definitive data to show you, so stick around.
This is going to get crazy.
The first story I want to show you is from 2013.
Washington Post.
Could Google tilt a close election?
A close election?
A reference.
That is the question psychologist Robert Epstein has been asking in a series of experiments testing the impact of a fictitious search engine he called it Cadoodle.
That manipulated search rankings, giving an edge to a favored political candidate by pushing up flattering links and pushing down unflattering ones.
Not only could Kadoodle sway the outcome of close elections, he says, it could do so in a way most voters would never notice.
Never notice.
They say Epstein, who has had a public spat with Google last year, offers no evidence of actual evil acts by the company.
Yet his exploration of Cdoodle, think of it as an equivalent of Evil Spock, complete with goatee, not only illuminates how search engines shape individual choices, but asks whether the government should have a role in keeping this power in check.
They have a tool far more powerful than an endorsement or a donation to affect the outcome, Epstein said.
You have a tool for shaping government.
It's a huge effect that's basically undetectable.
They say, there is no reason to believe that Google would manipulate politically sensitive search results.
The company depends on its reputation for representing fair, useful links.
I'm going to stop there.
This story is from 2013.
But I want to highlight this to show you, the conversation about Google swaying an election has been going on for a very, very long time.
And it's only getting worse.
As it turns out, there absolutely is evidence that whether by accident or on purpose, Google is going to be swaying the 2020 election.
And let this be a warning to any moderate or conservative who thinks we should control our elections, or at least doesn't want the left to be handed a victory.
Now, this should be alarming to everyone, liberals included.
Unfortunately, as we've seen with many people associated with the left, not necessarily liberals, They're absolutely willing to deny all of the evidence.
Like we saw with this article from CNBC.
Trump without evidence accusing Google of swinging an election.
That to me is absolutely absurd.
But let's move on.
The next story I have is from Wired.
In 2015, Google's search algorithm could steal the presidency.
Once again, the conversation emerged.
And they say, imagine an election, a close one.
You're undecided, so you type the name of one of those candidates into your search engine of choice.
And they say, Google.
Google coughs up, in fractions of a second, articles and facts about the candidate.
Great.
Now you are an informed voter, right?
But a study published this week says that the order of those results, the ranking of positive or negative stories on the screen, can have an enormous influence on the way you vote.
And if the election is close enough, The effect could be profound enough to change the outcome.
In other words, Google's ranking algorithm for search results could accidentally steal the presidency.
We estimate, based on win margins in national elections around the world, says Robert Epstein, a psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and one of the study's authors, that Google could determine the outcome of upwards of 25% of all national elections.
Let me bring you to Dr. Epstein's website.
Recently, he testified in front of Ted Cruz, where he said he believes 2.6 million votes were swayed towards Hillary Clinton.
Now, Trump still won.
But Hillary won the popular vote by around that number, 3 million or so.
Does that mean that many people voted for Hillary because they were being pushed by Google?
I can't say definitively.
I can't tell you that Google is sitting behind the scenes twirling their mustache, saying they're going to do this.
I can show you the data that definitively proves the system is biased in favor of the left, and it's actually rather scary.
The first thing I want to show you.
Before we... We'll come back to this.
We have a sizzle reel from Dr. Epstein himself in which you can see throughout the past decade.
This video is from 2010.
Epstein is a progressive, it would seem.
He's on the left.
Here's a video from ABC where Bill Maher calls this guy... He praises Dr. Epstein as being legit.
Not a nutjob, but a legitimate researcher.
And that's where we are today.
Ted Cruz asked him if he was a conservative.
He said, no, absolutely not.
Well, I want you to take a look at something.
All of this is the media coverage for Dr. Epstein, who has been warning about Google swaying elections.
Here we can see who has reported on the fact that Google can sway elections.
Powerline, Times Free Press, Mercator Net, Epoch Times, American Thinker, Orange County Register, Next Big Future, Newsbusters, Press Enterprise, Columbia Daily Herald, Epoch Times again, Daily Caller.
You get the point.
The Christian Outlook, NOQ Report, Breitbart News.
LifeSite news.
The point I'm trying to make here is that when I saw this media coverage, I noticed most of the people reporting what's going on with the research from Epstein are on the right.
It is predominantly the right that is concerned about the growing power Of Google and how they're going to sway elections.
Unfortunately, we don't see very many left-wing sources reporting on all of this, if any.
BizPack Review, World News Daily, Daily Caller, America Greatness.
These are not left-wing sources.
Breitbart especially.
Now here's the big breaking update.
I'm sorry it took so long to get here, but trust me, it's important that I give you this context.
According to AllSides.com, they say, Google heavily favors CNN and left media in mass shooting coverage.
Here we can see that when it comes to a big breaking story, particularly about El Paso, AllSides' media bias rating of outlets featured in Google Top Stories following August 2019 mass shootings.
We can see, for the word Trump, About less than half, maybe about 30% of sources were right-wing.
But look at this.
El Paso, guns, Dayton, the names of the individuals, Texas, Ohio, Walmart, and the word shooting.
And we can see that there are no right-wing sources present in the top stories.
What you are looking right now is proof That the news being presented when you search Google does not have right-wing sources in it.
So how then do people find right-wing sources?
I guess you have to know what you're looking for.
You have to dig and investigate.
But for the layman, the average person who doesn't know, they are overwhelmingly being fed left-wing sources by Google's algorithm.
Now the thing is, there are a lot of people who question this.
How does Allsides judge what is left or right?
Maybe they're biased.
Well, Allsides is centrist.
I trust them.
But they actually present their methodology, their data, as well as what they define as left and right.
And that's what I'm going to show you next.
So here we can see it.
They talk about how it's not just favoring the left, but it's overwhelmingly favoring CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, which are sources that do lean left.
Now, many people will say, that's not true.
They don't lean left.
They do.
And AllSides quantifies this.
They show you exactly what defines them as the left, and they actually break down how they determine the bias of these sources.
It's actually a lot of work.
Now, here's the thing.
Here we can see media bias rating.
They show us that center is AP, BBC, Bloomberg, Christian Science Monitor, NPR, Reuters, etc.
However, they say that NPR opinion, for instance, is left-wing.
They say that BuzzFeed News is left-wing.
So it is important to differentiate between the Wall Street Journal's opinion, which is right-wing, and the Wall Street Journal's news coverage, which is centrist.
We can see on the right, we have Breitbart, The Blaze, Daily Caller, Daily Mail, Daily Wire, Fox News Opinion, Federalist, etc.
You get the point.
On the right, just leaning right, we have Fox News, Reason, The Wall Street Journal Opinion, The Examiner, and The Washington Times.
Now, on the left, you can see CNN, etc., Mother Jones.
Why is it that no right-wing outlets are emerging as the top search choices?
That doesn't seem to make sense.
All sides isn't telling us who is more correct than the other.
They're simply saying some lean right and some lean left.
And let me stress, the Wall Street Journal opinion is not fringe, wacko stuff.
It's mainstream, high-profile, one of the most prominent papers in the country.
Fox News is biased for sure, but they are a mainstream certified news source.
They're verified by NewsGuard.
Reason, for instance, also trustworthy.
And the Washington Examiner and the Washington Times are prominent media outlets.
Why aren't they appearing?
Perhaps people would say, well, NBC and these other outlets are more prominent, are more famous.
I don't think that's a good enough argument.
These are left-wing sources.
Certainly Google should do something about the bias of what you're seeing in search.
So let's bring this back.
We know for sure, according to this data, and again, it's all in here, I'll put a link to this article in the description below, so you can look for the data, you can fact check it yourself, and go through all of their methodology, it's there, the data is there.
How they determine what's left, what the numbers show, how they found it, it is all there.
But as we can see, we've been warned over and over again by Dr. Epstein throughout the years that Google search will sway elections with the latest statement he made saying about 2.6 million at minimum may have been swayed in favor of Hillary Clinton.
Perhaps more, he argues.
And he's been arguing this for years.
And now we have the data showing that Google is absolutely doing this.
It would seem the initial report that Trump, without evidence, accuses Google of illegally swinging election against him.
Well, let's stop for a second.
Let's remove without evidence because it makes no sense.
Let's remove the word illegally and say this.
I will absolutely accuse Google of swinging the election against Trump.
Not that I think they're doing it intentionally.
I can't tell you that.
We do know they are biased because I've got even more evidence to back this up.
And we know that according to this doctor's research, this is happening.
They published the results in 2015 showing about 25% of all national elections could be swung in this way.
He then testified recently it is happening.
Now here's the thing.
It's one study.
It's one researcher.
Is it enough?
I would say no.
Let's not be definitive here.
Let's temper our blades and say maybe, maybe it's not happening.
And that's fine.
This should be enough evidence to get anyone to say it's time for an investigation and it's time to dedicate more research into how Google is manipulating the public.
Of course that won't happen.
Because as we've seen over and over and over again, every media outlet just says there's no evidence.
It's not true.
That's what they claim all day and night.
There's no evidence that Google manipulates information to stifle conservative voices.
Well, the important thing is to stifle conservative voices.
That is an opinion.
We don't know why Google is doing what it's doing, but it does have the effect of stifling Google's voices.
So let's break down the bias from the media once again.
There is evidence that Google manipulates information that has the impact of stifling conservative voices.
And this is proven by leaked emails presented by Project Veritas, where we saw an employee at Google say, we need to restrict certain features of these specific personalities on YouTube.
YouTube is owned by Google.
It is a part of the network.
As it pertains to search, I can't tell you definitively.
What I can say is, autocomplete results on Google are manipulated, and there have been stories in the past claiming that Google absolutely did manipulate search results.
One of these stories comes from a left-wing reporter who says they reached out to Google specifically about certain content that was appearing on YouTube, and YouTube changed it.
Now, that's different from Google's search engine, I understand, but YouTube is part of Google, and it is the second largest search engine in the world, and video content is certainly a main source for many people on how they get their news.
I'm not going to go through every single thing here, but I do have some evidence to suggest employees at Google are actually considering doing something about, I don't know, altering search results.
Now, I'm going to stop here.
I normally don't do the plug this far in, but if you made it this far, make sure you go to TimCast.com slash doneit 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?
Share this video.
Why?
Google is de-ranking my content, okay?
And that's why I'm bringing up it here.
Google deranks my videos.
They derank progressives like David Pakman.
They prop up corporate players.
Just like we saw with the all-sides research, they do heavily favor CNN and the New York Times.
Why?
Why CNN?
They're one outlet, but they do.
And we've seen it in the data from our own channels.
David Pakman published data going over this.
CNN is being boosted.
MSNBC and Fox News.
But there are more left-leaning channels than there are moderate or conservative.
In the end, even David Pakman is deranked.
It is a pro-corporate move.
Period.
For whatever reason.
YouTube, I guess, believes it's safer to do that.
But many of these bigger outlets that are right-leaning or moderate or even left-leaning are also powerful and large corporations, but CNN is the big dog.
So I'm being deranked.
That means the likelihood you see this video has been diminishing.
And that's why I say so often, if you do think this is important, you have to share this.
If YouTube says I shouldn't be recommended, then you all can say, you know what?
We don't need YouTube to recommend you.
All of you can choose to recommend me yourselves, and that's way more powerful than anything YouTube could ever do.
Unfortunately, I will say it is...
In the long run, probably a fleeting effort.
There's only so much the individuals can do if YouTube is actively suppressing our content.
But they are.
And independent commentary that pushes back on the mainstream, that's what's getting shot down.
Because let me just stress, there's a reason why I cite David Pakman.
I think he makes great content.
I respect his opinions.
I disagree with a lot of his opinions, but we've had these conversations.
But the important point is, It doesn't matter if you're on the left or the right.
It matters that you're not a part of the establishment and you challenge a narrative one way or the other and they'll push both of us down.
They'll push down the right and they'll push down the left because we aren't major corporate players and that's when things get worrisome.
A lot of the independent commentary is what's pushing back on the establishment, not CNN.
And CNN's being favored by Google and by YouTube.
Now we've seen this story.
Google search results can be manipulated for propaganda.
A Dutch researcher argues that Google should remove search support for knowledge panels.
This knowledge panels can be manipulated by third parties, my understanding.
But the reason I bring this up, not to go through this whole issue here, but to show you it's not just Epstein.
Other researchers are saying Google can be manipulated.
We've also seen, back to this story, which I want to make sure I highlight, Google staff has discussed tweaking search results to counter the travel ban proposed by Trump.
Check this out.
Reuters reported Google employs brainstormed ways to alter search functions to counter the Trump administration's controversial travel ban, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday, citing internal emails.
Are we now to assume they don't do that?
Go to Google.
Type in… you know, you can do this.
I don't have the specific examples pulled up, but typically when you type in something like Hillary Clinton's emails doesn't autocomplete.
Go to other search engines, and it does.
The fact that autocomplete stops working for certain phrases would imply that Google has something in place to restrict something based on politics.
We've seen this at other outlets.
It's not just Google.
We know the suppression happens.
We know Google is offended by Donald Trump.
Here's a story from The Verge.
The Verge is very left-leaning.
Breitbart posted a leaked video of Google's first all-hands meeting after the 2016 election.
Conservatives rally around claims of bias at Alphabet.
Most people are pretty upset and pretty sad, Google co-founder Sergey Brin says as the meeting begins.
I find this election deeply offensive.
And I know many of you do too.
It's a stressful time, and it conflicts with many of our values.
I think it's a good time to reflect on that.
So many people apparently don't share the values that we have.
I highlight this to show you the company is biased.
In no way does this provide definitive proof that Sergey Brin, the co-founders of Google, and the high-ups are actively trying to swing the election.
And that's the important point.
I assure you, I will be slammed and smeared all day and night for what I'm about to say and what the title of this video is.
Google is swinging the election, at least according to the research of Dr. Epstein, past stories, and the evidence presented by all sides.
Google is going to be swinging.
They're actively swinging the election today.
So let me just make sure I stress before I show you the results of what happens when you go up against the machine.
Here we can see CNBC has claimed there's no evidence it's happening, even though in 2013 they've written about Epstein's work, even though in 2015 WIRED published data showing it absolutely could happen from Epstein's work, even though he's been praised by Bill Maher and others as being a progressive and someone of sound mind, and we can see that he recently testified in front of Ted Cruz, the Senate.
That this has happened.
2.6 million votes were swung for Hillary.
What he's saying is that if Google does this, votes will be swung for the left.
And now we have all sides report showing, look at this, over 50% of every search term is towards the left.
Now I'll stress, This is not definitive proof of anything.
It's just circumstantial evidence to suggest it's currently happening.
I am of the opinion this is more than enough to suggest it is.
And we need some kind of investigation to track down beyond what we already have.
But it's here.
In this story about what happened in these past couple of weeks, they're absolutely anti-Trump and anti-Gun.
That is very much so in favor of the left, and they're coming from left-wing sources.
In fact, the only time right-wing sources emerged is when talking about Trump specifically.
We can see how all sides rates the bias of this organization.
They show us.
What does it mean?
They have data saying this is how we actually break down their bias.
It is not like one guy just deciding arbitrarily.
They use data, and they use science, and they actually have community input.
It is multi-faceted.
It is multi-varied in how they determine the bias.
They determine what does right-wing media bias mean.
Decreasing government involvement in economic issues.
Decreasing federal regulations in general.
Belief that government should be as small as non-intrusive as possible.
Freedom of speech.
Decreasing taxes, etc.
Preserving the rights of gun owners.
And they show a left-wing bias.
Keeping abortion legal, decreasing military spending, etc.
etc.
Taxes on the wealthy.
All of these, excuse me, are typically positions held by the left and the right.
And these are what they track in these outlets to determine left or right bias.
Now look at all these left-wing positions and realize these are the kind of positions you will see when in these stories pushed by Google.
Whether or not it's intentional is besides the point.
What is important is that Google do something about it.
Because this will swing elections, and no one elected Google to determine who should be representing us when it comes to political decisions.
And this, in my opinion, is causing major problems and serious destruction in our government and our society.
It's one of the factors that's causing the culture war.
I've got some more.
I want to bring us back to Kevin Cernecki.
Google engineer claims he was bullied and fired for being a conservative.
Don't take his word for it.
It's fine.
It's just one more witness and some more circumstantial evidence.
You don't have to trust him or James Damore or others.
But how much evidence is enough for anyone?
I will say this.
Whatever your conclusion is, here's a guy who came out and said that, you know, something has to be done about this.
They are biased.
And in the end, what do we see?
He gets smeared as alt-right.
He's issued a long statement refuting the allegations presented against him, where he said he just defends free speech for everybody, he denounces violence against everybody, he strongly disagrees with extremists but believes, I disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.
I don't know who this guy is.
I don't know a lot about him.
Maybe he is a bad person.
That's fine.
But his statement denounces the extremists and defends the right for free expression, which is fairly liberal, but he views himself as a conservative.
But in the end, he was fired, and now he is being smeared as alt-right.
So, the last thing I will just mention is this more terrifying story.
A leaked internal Google video shows a creepy vision of how data could be used to direct human decision making.
This is something that's, that's, that's, uh, everybody knows about.
Or, I, I'm sorry, I shouldn't say everybody knows about, but is, is publicly available
knowledge.
There are companies that you can hire to manipulate the behavior of the users of your technology.
Google knows about it.
They've reported on it.
You can hire these companies.
It's twisted, and it's terrifying.
For all you know, it's already been happening, and society is being manipulated by major tech giants to get the results they want.
For the time being, my ability to speak this means we can still salvage what we have.
But I fear there's too much political opposition, there are too many lies coming from media, you will be smeared, you will be defamed if you come out and point out the bias.
They will call you every name in the book, as they do me and others.
If we don't stop this, we will live in a robot society with a guiding AI manipulating our behaviors.
But here's the big problem.
See, people seem to think that you can make an AI that will do things right.
You can't.
Humans will build an AI thinking it will give them a desired outcome.
But it doesn't do that, because you don't know what the ultimate end will be.
The best example I can give...
is that YouTube created an algorithm that they hoped would guide people towards meaningful content.
Instead, what happened is babies started getting fed horrifying videos where certain World War II individuals were doing Tai Chi with female bodies with lollipops and other psychotic nonsense while someone from India sang a nursery rhyme.
That's what the algorithm produced.
Now humans have a filter.
We ignore the more insane things.
We have a frame of reference.
Babies didn't, so babies were being fed this nightmarish content.
The point is, we think we make an algorithm that will get us the result we want.
We don't.
I fear that if we don't stop this now, we will all be driven insane, and I think it's already happening.
There are so many stories of absolutely insane things happening that I can't mention that I'll save for other videos, but you probably know, you've probably seen it.
There are certain laws being put on the books that are insane, that won't help anybody, and I have no idea why anyone's advocating for them.
There are certain individuals who are criminal and have been called out, and those who call them out get banned for it, for violating hate speech rules.
Things are going insane, and we can watch it happen.
And if something doesn't change now, I don't know what we do.
I don't know what should be done.
I just know that we're seeing it lined up in front of us.
Years ago, we were warned it's going to happen.
A couple years after that, we were warned it's going to happen.
We're warned today it is happening, and now we have the data from a non-partisan outlet showing us it is literally in our faces.
Take that for what you will, but we know the company's biased.
We don't know why they do what they do, but I will end by saying this.
Well, I can't prove any of it's intentional, nor do I think it may be.
I don't know.
What I can say is, if Google's co-founder is offended by the election of Donald Trump, whether or not they're conscious of their bias, the bias will come out in their algorithms, their bias will come out in the products they produce, and it will manipulate everyone else.
Whether they understand it or not, they have a bias in favor of left-wing sources.
Period.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at youtube.com slash TimCastNews at 6 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see you all next time.
As many of you know, there are two Democrats that I really like, Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang.
And I'm just gonna come out right and say it.
Andrew Yang is on, for me, two hard strikes.
Now listen.
Don't take my word for it.
Don't care about my opinion.
Okay?
I'm just letting you know, Andrew Yang has recently done a couple things that have me questioning my support for him.
I'll try and keep that simple, like why I like Yang, but he's got a huge comprehensive list of all these different policy ideas, and I feel like he's somebody who's actually thinking about solutions and not just trying to be president for the sake of being president.
A lot of these people running just want to be president, you know?
I look at Tulsi Gabbard, and I see somebody who really wants to end these regime change wars, which I completely agree with, And I see someone who actually has the leadership and, in my opinion, the skills and experience to be the Commander-in-Chief.
Andrew Yang looks like he's really thought about policy, and I think he's actually planning on how to solve problems.
He's also framing problems in a way that many people, you know, they don't.
It seems like he's communicating to people in a way that's sincere.
Now, here's the thing.
What does that guy weigh?
280 or something?
Andrew Yang calls Donald Trump fat and a slob, challenges him to a push-up contest, and says America would love to see you pass out.
And that, when I saw this, I saw a screenshot of this story.
I thought it was fake.
Look, if you like Yang, you don't gotta get mad that I'm saying this, but I'm gonna tell you straight up right now.
The other day, Yang called Trump a white supremacist.
That's ridiculous.
I don't care for the stupid garbled talking points.
Trump is not a white supremacist.
That's insane.
There's so much lies and trash floating around that I just can't deal with it.
Yang said this, like he was kind of goaded into it by CNN.
They were like, will you say it?
Will you say it?
And then he was like, well, I guess you have no choice.
So he didn't directly say it, but he still agreed.
Right.
And for me, that's just the ridiculous trash talking points that we see from
the media for whatever reason.
And it is not why I wanted someone like Yang on the debate stage.
However, look, pencils have erasers.
Everybody gets a second chance.
I usually say, you know, three strikes and you're out.
Well, here we go.
This blew my mind.
You know, it's one thing to go up on CNN and be asked if the president's a white supremacist and say yes, and it is another thing they're both on par with, like, they're both as bad, in a sense, saying Donald Trump is fat and a slob.
Let me tell you something, okay?
We'll read the story, but I'm gonna, I'm just gonna, I want to get straight to the point.
My criticisms, one of the biggest criticisms of Trump, is that he is boorish.
That's what I say all the time.
He's bad-mannered, and the President needs to set an example for the American people.
I am not a fan of that rhetoric.
Now, I understand.
Trump supporters like that Trump is, how they'll view it, as strong and demanding, and he won't take any BS from anybody.
Totally get it.
You know, I'm not saying he's not strong, for sure.
I just don't like that particular attitude.
Now, that's not the only reason.
It's actually kind of a small reason.
I think, you know, policy is always more important.
But you have to admit, personality, leadership, and setting an example is important for a president.
So, I'm not saying, you know, I withdraw my support for Yang over this, but I'll tell you this, you know, to Yang and his supporters, if I wanted someone who's going to stand up and call his opponents fat slobs, And say he's better?
Trump already does that!
So right now, if you're talking about Trump doing this and Yang doing it, okay, why would I bother supporting somebody who's gonna set a different example?
It doesn't make sense to me, okay?
Let's read the story, though, and then I'll give some harder critiques.
But 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.
But of course, share this video if you like it, because YouTube has deranked this channel to oblivion, meaning like it barely gets recommended anymore.
So if you think it should, you can recommend it and tell YouTube to screw off.
Anyway, let's read.
They say, Andrew Yang on Saturday tore into Donald Trump, calling him fat and a slob who cheats at golf, challenged him to a pushup contest, and said America would love to see the president pass out trying to run a mile.
The Democratic presidential contender started his presidential rift when chatting about all the fried food he was enjoying at the Iowa State Fair.
I can't be eating crap on the trail too often because I need to stay in presidential form.
Does that include saying a bunch of trash about the current president?
That's not presidential form.
And look, you guys watch my videos?
unidentified
I criticize Trump all the time for doing exactly this.
No one wants a president who doesn't seem he can run a mile, I think.
I don't know.
Yeah, and you know what?
Maybe there are people who don't mind having a president who calls his opponents fat pigs and slobs.
I'm not one of them.
And that's why I've repeatedly said I don't like Trump's attitude.
He then turned to rip on the president.
He said, I don't think Trump can run a mile.
Trump is—how is Trump 71?
Come on, man.
Trump doesn't drink.
He doesn't smoke.
He's—my understanding is he's rather—he's a bit of a germaphobe, and he mocks him for this.
I don't think the reason Trump can't run a mile is because he's out of shape.
I think it's because he's 71, and many 71-year-olds can't run a mile.
Would you guys enjoy watching Donald Trump run a mile?
That would be hysterical.
What does that guy weigh?
280 or something?
I say he passes out at the quarter mile mark.
Trump, at his last presidential physical in February 2019, tipped the scale at 243 pounds, according to his doctor.
At 6 foot 3 inches tall, Trump had the body mass index of 30.4.
Anything over 30 is considered obese.
Yeah, but admittedly, too, I don't think the Body Mass Index accounts for him being 6'3".
The Body Mass Index is a terrible standard.
Now, don't get me wrong, like, Trump's fat, for sure.
I guess that's obese?
But he's also 71, okay?
Old people aren't particularly running around all the time, and I'm surprised Trump isn't retired.
Yang said he'd love to challenge Trump, who is known for his love of fast food and disdain for exercise.
Oh, here we go.
Yeah, Daily Mail, it's not de-stain, it's dis-dain.
Alright, get a copy editor.
Oh yeah, I challenge Donald Trump to any physical or mental feat under the sun.
Oh god, what can that guy beat me at, being a slob?
Man, I saw this and I thought somebody photoshopped it.
I was like, no way Yang is saying all this.
This is nuts.
Like, I don't know.
Let's just keep reading, man.
His campaign staff tried to pull Yang from his question and answer session with reporters, but Yang stayed before the microphone and kept going.
I can do approximately infinity more pushups to Donald Trump, he said.
When reporters asked him to demonstrate, the campaign staff stepped in, and Yang declined to do so, and said, I take pride in my ability to do pushups on a dime.
This is weird.
I mean, this is really out of character for Yang, and I gotta say, it is a huge put-off.
I am not somebody who wants to vote for a candidate who's speaking in this way, okay?
And that's why, I mean, a lot of liberals feel that way about Trump.
Now, here's the thing.
I understand there are a lot of conservatives that like that Trump speaks the way he does, because it's a sign of strength.
And I've explained this to my liberal friends.
Listen, man, when you see someone like Trump tell someone off and insult them, think about what that person's gonna be like negotiating with a foreign country.
He's not gonna take any BS from them, okay?
So you have to understand why people like that.
They say, hey man, better to have a bully than the bullied, right?
Better to have Trump go in and push people around than for us to get pushed around.
Totally get it.
I think it can be done in a way that's not as boorish.
I think Obama was incredibly strong.
I think he had a lot of really, really bad policies.
And on foreign policy, he was terrifying.
But I think Obama had a strength none of the other Democrats have right now.
And perhaps Yang is trying to... You know, I think maybe this has to do with him crying recently, and now he's worried he looks weak.
So he comes out like... You know, everybody tries to appear strong, but I'll tell you this.
When you're not a strong man, and you try to pretend to be, boy do you look silly.
I'll just put it that way. Yang coming out and saying all this stuff is really bad. Really, really bad.
But I'll say this, you know, three strikes and you're out, and right now he's got two hard strikes, so...
If he keeps up this trash behavior, I'm not willing to vote for somebody for the sake of winning, right?
If I wanted to beat Trump, I'd vote for Biden, or I'd be saying, hey, everybody go vote— No.
No.
It's principle for me, okay?
I think the crony corporate Democrats are trash.
They're espousing garbled talking points that make no sense.
Joe Biden doesn't even read the news, apparently.
But Tulsi Gabbard clearly stands on principle.
She is a major with experience, and I do believe she's wrong on many things.
But she has the character, the demeanor, and the experience to be Commander-in-Chief, and she speaks about some of the really important issues to me.
Like, I think private prisons are horrifying.
She's very anti-war.
Yang's website has a huge list of policy positions.
For one, he's pro-nuclear energy.
I thought that was, excuse me, common sense and the right thing to do.
I don't completely agree with his gun policy or his news ombudsman policy.
I don't know how that would even work.
He has a policy for like a government agent who would track fake news, which doesn't seem
to make sense because we have the First Amendment.
So look, there's a lot of things to criticize Yang for, but for the most part, so long as
they're entertaining, you know, they have policy positions that are sound and they're
coming off as real Americans, real individuals who are trying to do the right thing and,
I'm going to say it, bring the country together, I'm all for it.
I think Tulsi does a great job.
Yang and Tulsi have both reached across the aisle and appeared on conservative shows in an effort to bridge that gap.
But now it seems like as Yang goes up in the polls, he's becoming more and more of your typical talking point, crony-type Democrat.
Because the last thing he said the other day was that Trump is a white supremacist.
Now, the quote, he's not quoted as saying the president is, but he starts by saying the president's actions and words have conveyed a very strong sense to many, many Americans, that he is a white supremacist.
Oh, come on, man.
Yeah, the Orange Man Bad Network audience of two million people, the average person in this country does not care or think that.
That's insane.
That is nuts.
Now, look, there are a lot of people who think that, probably a lot of Democrats, maybe in the tens of millions.
But I can only blame the media for that.
The average person is like, I don't know, I don't know.
You know, it's really annoying to me because Trump criticizes Baltimore.
And?
And they're like, oh, it was racist for him to do that.
Oh, please, dude.
It's like, who hasn't criticized Baltimore?
You know how much smack talk I've said about Chicago?
No one's ever called me racist for saying Chicago is called Chirac.
It's a slang term because there's more gun deaths in Chicago than Iraq.
I grew up there.
I know about the racial borders that divide the neighborhoods and I've called all of this out and pointing to the problem that Chicago is not racist and Trump saying rat infested is also not racist.
But of course they come out and they push all this garbled talking point trash and then Yang picks it up.
So you know what?
Let me tell you something.
A lot of people ask me, Yang right now is the perfect example of why I absolutely detest supporting politicians, period.
This is a great example.
Now, he's not completely lost me.
I'm willing to, you know, like I said, three strikes and you're out.
But this is what happens.
Yang steps up into the fray and he says a bunch of things that are, UBI's a bit out there.
But he says, no, hear me out.
Look, we can tax these major corporations.
That are using innovation to dominate the market that are automating out these jobs.
And I'm like, okay, that's actually different.
I thought, you know, the big problem with UBI is that it's typically like a tax on every citizen to subsidize those who are working less.
And so you're taking from the producers and shifting it to those who just don't work.
That's not what the freedom dividend is.
What Yang is talking about is Amazon, Google, Facebook, et cetera, making all of this money, paying very little in taxes, making money from other countries, and then paying a tax.
either a VAT or some kind of tax that they can't escape from on their goods and services
that will then trickle down into the U.S. economy. So to put it simply, when Amazon makes money from
a foreign country, we don't get any of that. That stays in their economy. The freedom dividend will
pull some of that money into the American people. Makes sense.
I don't know if I completely agree with it.
I think it's got a lot of hurdles.
But it makes sense.
So then what happens is, Yang starts going up in the polls, and there it is.
He starts playing the same talking point trash game, Trump is a white supremacist, now he's saying he's a fat slob who can't do push-ups, and it's like, ah, here we go.
You know, here's the thing.
I always tell people, you can believe in a politician, like Trump, like Bernie, like Obama, but I tell you what, man, I learned my lesson with Obama.
Hope and change, yes we can, he said.
Universal healthcare in the first term, I will sign that bill.
All this great stuff.
We're gonna pull our troops out of the Middle East.
And then what did he do?
No, he increased the amount of troops.
These are blown up kids.
And that's when I was like, wow, then what else?
He authorized the National Defense Authorization Act, indefinite detention provision, giving the U.S.
the right To indefinitely detain someone without charge or trial.
To essentially rendition people.
He re-upped the AUMF for Middle Eastern conflict.
Yeah, he didn't do anything that I wanted to happen.
Okay?
I was a teenager when the Iraq war was starting.
And that was the world that was in my head.
All my friends were shocked.
The US was entering a war in the Middle East.
It was a bad idea.
And Obama came around and said no.
And so I said, yes we can.
I said it.
And I voted for him.
And then...
No, no, we can't apparently, so, uh, nah.
Look, I recognize Obama's got strength in his voice, but I didn't vote for him the second time.
I just didn't care.
I'm like, yep, I get it.
You know, it was really, it was really, uh, kind of a wake-up call for me in a lot of ways.
When I was gung-ho, I'm like, wow, Obama's a different kind of guy.
I had famous musicians that, you know, saying, this is the guy, we gotta do it, and people I looked up to.
And then it was really embarrassing when, you know, uh, comes around to a second term, and I'm hearing from more libertarian and conservatives being like, what about X, Y, and Z?
And I'm like, wow.
I do not support those things.
They're like, you voted for him, that's a good point.
There's no excuse.
At least the way I see it.
So as soon as people get into office, they change.
And apparently when people go up in the polls, they change too.
Look, I think Yang is trying to play a game to win that primary.
So maybe he thinks coming out as another Orange Man bad candidate is going to set him apart.
Look, saying Orange Man bad is not going to set you apart from Joe Biden.
And in fact, Joe Biden is polling at the top, and Joe Biden refused to call Trump a white supremacist in the same story.
He said, I'm not going to say what you want me to say.
You know, his words, his actions speak for himself or something like that.
And I'm like, why is Joe Biden taking?
Aw, man, are you kidding me?
You know, Joe Biden is a generic, I don't even think Joe Biden has any policies.
Not only that, Joe Biden's mind is, I'm not trying to be mean, but he's just, he's too old for this.
You know, he is repeatedly slurring and gaffing and it's just, he's out of his game.
Look, Yang is pulling a Trump, you can call it whatever you want, saying he's a fat slob and he wants to see him pass out.
That's insane.
I'm not for that.
I'm not going to support someone who's for that either.
If I say I don't like the attitude of Donald Trump and then someone else wants to come out and do the same thing, I'm going to call you out just the same.
And I'll end by saying this, exactly why I hate supporting politicians.
I hate supporting groups.
It's why I hate every single tribe.
You know what, man?
You could join a Pokemon card game club, and then you get a binder, and you've got all these little stickers on your laptop, and then one day, all of a sudden, that Pokemon club becomes a fringe, far-right group of evil gamers or something, and then everyone starts smearing you, and you're like, dude, I don't even know what you're talking about.
Man, this was a long time ago.
So now what?
I put my weight, to an extent, behind Yang, supported him, and now I have to justify this as why I supported somebody who would come out and call the president a fat, slob, white supremacist, I
don't want to play that game.
I don't. I thought Yang was going to come out and be presidential. I guess is the right word.
Charismatic, calm, collected, poised. Nah, he's gonna play the same game as everybody
else and he deserves criticism for it.
So, hopefully Tulsi doesn't go down that same path, but I think she's done a
pretty good job.
Actually, you know, and I have criticized Tulsi because she said Trump supported Al-Qaeda, and I was like, no, no, what are you talking about?
Okay, she wanted to clarify her points, but saying that is leaps and bounds different from what Yang just did with these two comments.
Saying Trump is a white supremacist and he's a fat slob who everyone wants to see pass out?
Wow!
Wow, that's jumping the shark.
Tulsi saying Trump supported Al Qaeda is like, hold on, I think there's a point buried in there somewhere, but that was horribly misstated.
So, the difference I would say is, while they're both ridiculous, I think Tulsi was trying to make an actual cogent point, and I respect her and trust her enough, To follow through with that point later on.
Saying, I think she said something to the effect that, you know, the things he's been doing with ISIS and other countries has resulted in a surge of Al Qaeda or something.
Either way, I think it was wrong for her to say.
Criticizing Trump's foreign policy and making a hyperbolic statement is leaps and bounds different from accusing the president of being a fat, slob, lazy, white supremacist who you want to see pass out.
You know what, man?
Whatever.
I'll stop now.
Stick around.
Next segment will be at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
I will see you then.
Sarah Silverman's politics have come home to roost.
See, this is a story about how Sarah Silverman was fired from a film after a photo of her in blackface surfaced.
It was a sketch she did.
It was comedy.
It was meant to be offensive to poke fun at racism itself.
Now, here's the thing.
Some might look at this and say, oh, you know, that offensive joke is coming home to roost.
No.
This is her politics.
Okay?
Now, for those who don't understand what that means, just in the off chance, come home to roost means your past actions are coming back to cause damage to you.
The joke was fine.
Especially at the time, it helped her career.
What's not fine is cancel culture, of which she participates.
Sort of.
She gets it.
She's not particularly politically correct, but she still plays this left-wing game and this outrage culture just the same.
And no, she has learned nothing from any of this.
And I'm going to show you why.
We're going to read through what she has to say about getting fired over this sketch from 2007, and then I'm going to show you that she actually hasn't learned a damn thing.
So, before we get started, make sure you head over to timcast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, there's a crypto option, a physical address you can send stuff to.
But the most important thing you can do, share this video.
I'll also mention that a lot of people don't know I have two channels.
I have another channel, youtube.com slash timcast.
That's the main channel.
That's the big one.
And apparently a lot of people don't know it exists.
So, subscribe there if you haven't.
But let's read the news.
The comedian says she was let go from a movie project after producers became aware of a 2007 comedy sketch in which she wore blackface.
Isn't it so funny that these people, these celebrities who feign this left-wing activism, have this sordid past, and then they're... Look.
There are certainly people on the right who have sorted pasts as well, but the point is, how come they're gonna point the finger at me?
It's like, I've never done anything like this, and I still recognize why she did the joke.
Right?
Let's read.
They say...
Sarah Silverman has said she was recently fired from a film after producers unearthed a still of her in 2007 wearing blackface for a comedy sketch.
Guesting on the Bill Simmons podcast, Silverman said that she was let go the day before shooting on her scenes was due to start because of the photo.
Taken on the set of the Sarah Silverman show quote I recently was going to do a movie a sweet part
She said then at 11 p.m. The night before they fired me because they saw a picture of me in blackface from that
episode I didn't fight it. They hired someone else who is wonderful,
but who has never stuck their neck out It was so disheartening it made me real real sad because I
really kind of devoted my life to making it right No, you didn't. No you didn't and
And no, you didn't.
And I'm going to show you, for those watching, these are empty platitudes.
This is her going, oh no, now I'm getting cancelled?
Oh, jeez.
Silverman did not name the film, but discussed cancel culture, with Simmons saying that the current climate had left her feeling fearful.
I think it's really scary, and it's a very odd thing that's invaded the left primarily, and the right will mimic it.
No, the right won't mimic it.
The right is taking advantage of it.
And that's what happened with James Gunn.
The right's going, you want to play this game?
We'll play it too.
But not even necessarily for the most part.
Because you still have people on the right saying, you know what?
I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
And that used to be an American universal standard.
It was a joke, even, that on Futurama, they have a guy who is all of the worst things, a polygamist and whatever, and everyone's like, ugh, gross, and booing him, but he defends free speech.
The point was, in America, no matter how awful you are, everyone agreed, well, at least you can say what you say.
Not anymore!
Now the left is playing this weird game, and they're eating their own, because I assure you this, when you get rid of someone like Sarah Silverman over these old jokes, I assure you, Like, you know her politics are gonna hurt her.
But, actually, Sarah Silverman's a bad example, but let's say somebody, Louis C.K.
Louis C.K.?
People on the right will absolutely still go see his show, and so will moderates.
The left is just hurting themselves, and they're telling people to stop supporting them by doing this.
Let's read on.
Adding that she dubs it righteousness porn.
It's called virtue signaling, dude.
It's like, if you're not on board, if you say the wrong thing, if you had a tweet once, everyone is throwing the first stone, she continued.
It's so odd.
It's a perversion.
It's really, look how righteous I am, and now I'm going to press refresh all day long to see how many likes I get in my righteousness.
Yes!
And you contribute to this every day, okay?
You know, I've never been a big fan of Sarah Silverman, because I think her form of comedy is just shocking.
She goes up, she says offensive things, and then gets a rise out of people.
I don't find it funny.
I didn't find the blackface thing funny, and I'm gonna show you the next thing she's done, which I also don't find funny.
But that's the point.
She's allowed to do it.
There are comedians who do this.
I get it.
People like it.
Hey man, you know, I get it.
Let's read on.
Silverman has previously expressed mixed feelings concerning the sketch, telling GQ last month that at the time she was praised for the sketch which enormously increased her profile.
It was like, I'm playing a character and I know this is wrong so I can say it.
I'm clearly liberal.
That was such liberal bubble stuff where I actually thought it was dealing with racism by using racism.
Yes, making fun of people who are racist does deal with it.
It does diminish the power.
Mockery diminishes the power of an idea because people poke fun.
They feel like it's weak and it's bad.
That's the point of a lot of comedy.
To weaken the concept.
Let's read on.
In 2015, she called it her most regrettable joke.
Oh, and in 2015 she did, you're gonna love this next part.
Yet said criticism of the image was based on a lack of information.
Quote, there's a still of me on Twitter and blackface and it's totally out of context
and I tweeted it when Twitter was new and the people who followed me watched that show
and it was from that show.
Now it's forever there and it looks, it's totally racist, out of context and I regret
that.
In 2015, she called it her most regrettable joke.
And then in 2016, Sarah Silverman, dressed as Hitler on Conan, jokes Donald Trump comparisons.
You learned nothing.
You are full of it.
It is lies.
It is empty rhetoric.
It means nothing.
In 2015, she said, Oh, I didn't mean to be so offensive.
I know.
What made her think that was a good idea?
Now, let me say this.
More power to her!
By all means, make the joke.
I get it.
You're making fun of Trump.
Good!
America is founded with the First Amendment.
The first!
Free speech, free press, free religion, rid us of grievances.
You get the point.
That free speech thing means what makes America great is the fact that you can shout from the high heavens, orange man is bad!
Awesome.
I would not want to live in a country where you weren't allowed to do that.
Now, I'm free to express my opinion that Sarah Silverman has no principles, and she's merely saying these things, in my opinion, because now her career is being damaged by it.
But if you really cared about avoiding things that are potentially offensive, maybe you wouldn't go on Conan's show in 2016 dressed like Adolf Hitler.
Now I'm going to get deranked and demonetized because I'm showing what Sarah Silverman did.
I kid you not.
What a ridiculous world we live in.
I can't even talk about what Sarah Silverman did because now YouTube's going to flag and derank and demote this video.
I guarantee it.
So I'll say it one more time for those in the back.
If you like this stuff, you got to share it.
YouTube allows CNN.
They allow Conan.
They allow Sarah Silverman to do exactly this.
The Hollywood Reporter talks about it just like this.
And this is one of the problems I have with what she propagates.
It's her ideology.
She goes on Twitter all day screaming non-stop about Trump and children and all this far-left rhetoric about what Trump is doing based on a lot of fake news.
Look, I get it.
You're allowed to criticize all of this stuff.
But then she goes on Twitter and she's upset that a guy in Florida is going to get her killed.
It's like, dude, welcome to the party that you helped create.
You know, there are people on the right, for sure, who help perpetuate this.
She's not entirely wrong the right is going to mimic it.
But it's not so much the right is mimicking it, this cancel culture, it's that they're exploiting it.
They know what you're doing, and they're laughing about it.
You reap what you sow.
Your politics have come home to roost.
You could have pushed back on all of this.
You could have said in 2015, I'm not going to apologize.
Screw off.
It was a joke.
You could have done what so many do.
I mean, Family Guy and South Park are still in the air, somehow.
But instead, you give in to the mob.
And you say, oh, it wasn't me, it was a silly joke.
Oh, like, I'm gonna believe you, dude.
Like, come on, man.
Are you kidding?
And then there was this photo that went viral of these kids who were doing a Nazi salute.
And then she repeated it.
Here's the thing.
Okay.
This photo went viral of these kids in high school doing the Roman salute.
And she issued a statement saying, you know, you think it's a joke, you think it's funny, you can't do this.
And in that, she made another Holocaust joke.
Now here's the thing.
I get it.
It's comedy.
She was making a point by using humor to bring some levity to a serious situation.
That's the point of the joke.
I'm not a big fan of this kind of humor, but I get it, and I'm not gonna call for her to be banned or anything.
In fact, I think it's ridiculous she was fired from a movie over that photo.
However, how many times do we have to point out the hypocrisy of these left-wing activist celebrities who have created this culture?
And let me tell you something else.
I have recently spoken to some people who are fairly woke, right?
Woke in the sense that they're intersectional feminists.
And they privately expressed shock to me about how crazy things are getting.
And I just got to say, look, I know you're going to have the far left saying, Toombs lying, it's not true.
No, no, you know, you know what?
I don't care.
You're wrong.
It is true.
There absolutely are people in private on the progressive left who are getting scared.
And you can see it in Sarah Silverman's, in her own words.
She says she is feeling fearful.
She lost her job.
She knows what's coming.
And this photo is coming next.
You thought the blackface was bad?
Well, how about you dressing up like Hitler and going on national television thinking that's funny to some people?
You know a guy in the UK?
Got arrested for making a gag video where he made his dog do a Roman salute.
And I gotta tell you, this is several orders of magnitude worse.
Quite literally you dressing up like Hitler.
But you know what?
I get Dankula's joke.
He shouldn't have been charged and arrested, and that's in the UK, I get it.
But here's the thing.
The politics are bleeding over, and you will reap what you have sown.
You're fearful now?
Well, I'd be willing to bet a substantial sum of money that Sarah Silverman is sweating bullets all day and night about this photo.
And perhaps that's why, Sarah, you should get off your high horse and start calling this out all day and every day like the rest of us in the rational space on the internet.
Now, sure, there are crazy, you know, wingnut individuals on the right who are on Twitter, and I see them from time to time, of course.
But think about the high-profile individuals.
Now, I will say this.
I think one of the greatest things benefiting the right as of now is, in a sense, the censorship.
Now, hear me out.
Well, Google—I've got a big segment coming up for the main channel, Proof of Google Bias and Censorship.
It's official.
I can prove it.
You're gonna see it.
It's crazy.
Okay, that's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast, my other channel.
But here's the thing.
When Twitter bans, you know, fringe right-wing activists and personalities, that forces conservatives to clean up their act and try and look prim and proper, allowing their ideas to propagate and look more presentable.
What do you think happens when you ban, say, Gavin McInnes, who many people think, you know, has crossed the line.
He did some, like, he shoved a dildo up his ass on camera, like, really weird stuff.
He gets banned.
Reza Aslan calls for the eradication of Trump supporters.
He doesn't.
What do you think a regular person thinks when they see that?
Okay, well, the crazy guy on the right got banned.
The crazy guy on the left isn't.
They're gonna look at the right, and they're gonna see these, like, suit-wearing conservatives who are saying, well, I, I, harumph, I say, I disagree with your politics!
And they're gonna be like, that seems pretty normal.
And then they're gonna see, they're gonna see people like Reza Aslan and Sean King calling for the complete destruction of society and violence.
And then they're gonna notice it's people like Sarah Silverman who encourage this behavior, this fake news, and this rhetoric.
But then she's scared of it.
Well, maybe you should put up or shut up.
You know what?
I'm gonna say this.
You shouldn't have been fired from your movie.
I think Sarah Silverman does a great job in voice acting.
I watched Wreck-It Ralph 2 recently.
I thought she was great as Vanellope or whatever.
I can't.
I think that's the name of the character.
And in the first one.
And I don't care.
You can separate the art from the artist.
I really don't care about Chris Evans and Mark Ruffalo being insufferable on Twitter.
I like Avengers.
Okay?
I actually don't care too much about Brie Larson being insufferable.
They all deserve criticism for it, and I've criticized Chris Evans.
But I pointed out, you know, at least the difference for Captain Marvel was the marketing play was the big issue for me.
So, you know what?
I'll say this.
I'm not perfect.
I try to be consistent as much as possible.
I know I'm not perfect, but I can say this.
I will absolutely defend Sarah Silverman's right to do whatever she wants if it's in the course of telling a joke, even if it's offensive.
And if people come out and get mad about it, then all that should really happen is the comedian should say, Hey guys, I won't do it again.
End of story.
In fact, I don't even think that if they want to do it again, they can.
It's up to people to choose if they want to buy their product or not.
But in the end, You have movie producers who say, I don't want to deal with this.
Far-left activists are a nightmare.
It is an endless harassment campaign from these people.
There is so much I've had to do to change my life because of the constant stream of harassment and threats I get from the far left.
Now admittedly, I've gotten some threats and some problems from the far right too, but it's, it's... So, let me say this though.
The only times I've ever had videos taken down, it was from the far right.
But the incessant day-to-day harassment is the far left.
So I'll say this.
Maybe, if people like Sarah Silverman stood up with the rest of us, who are the moderate, rational, center-left, center-right, you know, run-of-the-mill liberals and conservatives, who are saying, we don't want this, We want sane, rational conversation, and we get humor.
Maybe if you stood up and stopped playing this ridiculous Orange Man bad game and shrieking at the top of your lungs, you wouldn't have lost your job.
So you know what?
She shouldn't have been fired.
We shouldn't hold jokes against comedians.
George Carlin today, man, I'd be surprised if... He overtly uses racial slurs in his bits back in the 90s.
He used them.
And he made a point.
And liberals laughed for it.
And now there's this thing where they've changed.
I had someone ask me recently.
Somebody I've known for a while say that I've changed and it happened to like, you know,
they're like, something happened to you and they named a few other people like high profile
individuals. And I said, I got to say, man, you're wrong. I'll tell you this. You can Google search
interviews from me in 2011 talking about how the far left, the black block violence was bad and we
must resist it.
And I'll tell you what's changed.
It wasn't me.
It was those activists down on the ground at Occupy Wall Street who supported me, who praised my work, and agreed with me.
And something changed.
I don't know when, I don't know why, or how.
But at some point, even though I've repeatedly condemned the far-left, black bloc violence, they're now shocked.
Oh, what happened to Tim?
No, I'm sorry.
There's an interview from me!
In January, like January 1st of 2012, where I straight out call out all of this, the same as I always have.
I have always been an anti-racist, anti-authoritarian, left-wing individual who has opposed racism across the board.
It is now the left endorsing Censorship?
Violence?
And yes, racism.
Shocked.
I was shocked to see the ACLU supporting an overtly racist policy against Asians at Harvard.
Mind blown.
But what can I say?
I didn't change.
I still believe we should be judging people based on the content of their character and not the color of their skin.
I still believe comedians can be offensive.
I still recognize the importance of free speech and I still recognize the danger of massive multinational corporations that are imposing their will on the American people.
Where did the left go?
Remember that?
Remember when liberals were like, corporations are bad and we should make sure we restrict their power?
Now they're like, corporations are good and should censor everybody.
Remember when liberals had George Carlin saying, the president is a, is a, is a, is a, I'm not gonna, I gotta avoid swearing.
He would say a nasty thing about the president and then go on to make an offensive joke and say a racial slur and we understood the point.
Now the left has gone nuts.
The left is no longer liberal, and we all know it.
And as long as people like you, Sarah, stay with the left instead of holding liberal positions, of course you'll keep getting fired.
And I'll tell you this right now, one last time, this photo is coming home to roost.
You think you were fired just for that one photo?
Wait until this one comes out.
Wait until the next time you get a job someone says, I don't know dude, you dressed up like Hitler.
Yeah.
It's not going to work.
And it's about time we bring back liberalism to the left.
But if you don't want to, that's fine by me.
The left has gone nuts.
And most of us in the middle, we know it.
My friends, who have always been moderates, who have always been Democrats, are now sitting there scratching their head.
Why was Sarah Silverman fired?
It was a joke.
Yup.
Too bad.
Okay, here's what I'm gonna do.
Next segment coming up, YouTube.com slash TimCast at 4 p.m.
I am going to give you evidence that Google is extremely biased in favor of the left and it is skewing everything that's happening.
We're gonna do a deep dive on what is making the left go nuts.
Stick around, I will see you in that segment.
And yes, YouTube.com slash TimCast, different channel.
The Trump administration has released a new public charge rule making it easier to reject immigrants.
So I don't bear the lead.
Trump's new rule basically says if someone who wants to come here or who wants to apply for a green card seems likely to become a public charge, meaning they will be supported by the state, they can be denied for that reason.
So for the longest time public charge wasn't really defined well, that's my understanding.
Legally, and so now they're essentially the executive branch is defining what that means and they're saying if you're going to come to the US and you're going to then receive public benefits, like we're not going to let you stay if we think that will be the case.
There's a really good argument for this.
We cannot be a country that continually brings in people who then drain the welfare system we have in place.
I for one am on the left on this issue.
I believe that we need welfare programs, we need unemployment, we need Medicaid, Medicare, etc.
I do think we have a problem with putting band-aids over festering bandages.
That's kind of the way I describe it, so let me give you the quick analogy.
The problem with our system in government is that we have a wound on our country.
Homelessness, unemployment.
So we put a band-aid on that.
That's the right thing to do, in my opinion.
But eventually, you gotta pull the band-aid off and clean the wound and then put a new band-aid on.
Instead, what we do is we just keep slapping new band-aids over the festering bandage, and it's just becoming a filthy, disgusting mess.
Okay?
Government programs can work, but they have to be... they have to have a circumstance to where they can be ended and fixed.
Instead, what we keep doing is we keep building and building upon bad systems, resulting in bad futures.
So here's the thing.
I don't believe—you know, let me just stress, I did consult my milquetoast fence-sitter handbook to determine whether or not I was going to be too far left or too far right on the issue.
I'm kidding, by the way, but no, I'm going to be a centrist on the issue.
I think Trump makes a good point.
Obviously, the left is now claiming Trump wants to get rid of immigrants in general, I think there's a consideration here about the US budget.
And if you're someone like me who has always been rather socially liberal and thinks we need unemployment programs, we need food stamps, you certainly can't maintain that by bringing in people who are likely to end up on those systems and not being paying into them.
So it is a big challenge.
However, I have to admit, this definitely seems like Trump is making a play to restrict immigration in general.
Of which, you know, you're gonna hear- I'm gonna give you my straight opinion.
The left is screaming it's white nationalism.
I'm seeing the posts where people say Trump is just trying to make this country white.
No, listen.
Trump, this country is between 61 and 67% white.
There's already a lot of not-white people here.
It's obvious Trump is a hardcore nationalist.
He is trying to secure our borders.
I think he's trying to get us off this global police stage.
Trying.
I don't know if he's actually going to do it or if I trust him to actually do it.
But it definitely seems like Trump is trying to batten down the hatches and secure America.
When I look at this, I don't see a president who hates immigrants.
I see a president who is more just Republican.
Balance the budget.
Make sure we have more money going in than going out.
Secure our borders.
Kind of lock things down.
It doesn't mean he's racist.
It means he's American-cist.
He's a nationalist.
You know, a lot of people have been pushing in the media that Trump just wants to bring white people here.
And I certainly think it's fair to point out a merit-based, you know, at least you can have the perception that merit-based immigration or Trump's statements about S-hole countries, you know, then referencing Norway, is going to result in more white people.
But as there was a doctor at a conservative, national conservative event who said, unfortunately, the first world is predominantly white.
So you do see that.
It doesn't mean Trump is racist.
I have no problem if you want to criticize Trump for this.
You know, I look at this, I give it the side eye.
Like, hmm, that's kind of, you know, Trump's faced a lot of criticism to make this move.
But I gotta say, based on Trump's rhetoric, based on the things he said, I really don't see this as a white nationalist thing.
I see it as a general nationalist thing.
I don't think Trump cares what color of your skin is.
I think he's biased in favor of people who are hard workers, personal responsibility, and I think that's what this is about.
Republicans have always been about personal responsibility.
So this rule, in my opinion, is them following suit on balancing the budget and being about personal responsibility.
I don't see how this is very different.
But again, like I said, I'm rather centrist.
I'll still give it a side eye, and I keep an eye on the story.
But in the end, Trump is a nationalist.
He's an avowed nationalist.
He wants the border secure.
He wants less migration.
I think that's fair to say, especially after this.
Let's read the story.
Now, before we dive in, Head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
It's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But you know, the best thing you can do is share this video because people don't like milquetoast fence-sitters who say, well, Trump's a nationalist, so this makes sense, but I don't think he's being racist.
I think it's more about him just protecting America.
And of course, I'm going to get flack from everybody because of it.
With that being said, YouTube is still deranking political commentary from people like me, even from people on the left, so if you share this video, it's the best way to counteract that deranking problem we're facing.
Well, let's read the news.
They say, the new public charge rule would link a subject's immigration status to their income and their use of certain public programs.
Published in the Federal Register, the rule will officially be released Wednesday and go into effect 60 days later.
Ken Cuccinelli, the acting director of the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, announced the rule at a press briefing at the White House on Monday morning.
He said, We certainly expect people of any income to be able to
stand on their own two feet.
A poor person can prepare to be self-sufficient.
So let's not look at this as the be-all, end-all.
But immigration advocacy groups have expressed concerns that it could discourage immigrants
from seeking necessary assistance and lead to a chilling effect in minority communities.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
What does that mean?
You're saying not white people are poor?
Joe Biden made that mistake recently.
Let's not play this game.
I don't know who they're quoting here, but the idea that simply because you're a minority means you're poor, or, let me just stress this, that's triggering to me.
I am triggered.
The idea that you're gonna say, Minority communities are somehow more likely to seek public assistance?
Excuse me?
I'm from a minority community, from a mixed-race family with mixed-race friends.
I don't take kindly to have it being implied that marginalized groups are more likely to go on public assistance.
I will add, in my life, I have been on public assistance.
I'm being somewhat facetious.
I'm just trying to point out...
They're the ones accusing Trump of being racist, yet the National Immigration Law Center is saying that minority communities will be impacted by this?
I mean, sure, but what are you implying?
Minority communities are dependent on public services?
What's... You know what, man?
That's why I hate the identitarian game, okay?
I don't care what color your skin is, you know?
Or why you would insinuate this.
Joe Biden recently said that poor people are just as good as white people or something, and he got slammed for it and had to apologize.
What do you think this is saying?
Why do you think Joe Biden would say something like that?
And they call Trump the racist?
I think Trump is a... a merit-cist.
Right, okay.
Merit-cist.
Meaning, I think Trump's the kind of person that will toss you out into the weeds if you're not producing.
That's the kind of person he comes off as.
And that's the stories I heard about him.
I've heard stories from former employees that if you work hard, he hooks you up.
I've heard stories from people at Trump Tower that he walked down one day and handed $100 bills to his staff like, thanks for everything you're doing, here's a bunch of money.
And I've heard stories that if you don't produce and you're lazy, he says GTFO.
And this sounds like exactly what Trump's personality is.
Let's read.
They say, uh, quote, it will have a dire humanitarian impact, forcing some families to forego critical life-saving health care and nutrition.
The damage will be felt for decades to come.
The rule defines the term public charge in the Immigration and Nationality Act, which gives the Department of Homeland Security authority to deny applicants green cards, visas, or entry into the U.S.
If there is a risk, they will become public charges.
I want to push back on the racist thing, too, okay?
I have a friend who is in Europe, And is white, but from a poor country, and it's very difficult for them to get a visa to the United States.
It has nothing to do with race.
There are poor white countries, and there are white people in other countries that aren't predominantly white that will also have trouble getting here.
These people need to separate race from reality, okay?
Because it's going to hurt non-minority communities too.
What's the point you're trying to make?
That non-white people are more likely to be on welfare?
That's an insult.
Okay?
It's an insult to me.
And it's like, these people who live in this race reality existence, whether they're the racist, the far-right white nationalist types, or the far-left identitarian types, they all seem to have the same image in their head of not-white people being poor and helpless.
And that's just, there's just so much wrong with that.
I grew up in a neighborhood on the south side of Chicago that was mixed, you had white people who were poor, and I'll tell you what, when the police kicked our door and came into my apartment screaming, it wasn't just white people who were there, okay?
I'm sorry, it wasn't just non-white people, it was mixed, you know?
I watched white people be brutalized by police too.
That's what bothers me about this, and I think that's why I have this view, because I grew up in an area where I watched the police hassle poor white people.
It was about being poor.
We were poor, and we got that short end of the stick.
That's just the way things happen.
And I have friends in countries who are white and are now struggling to come here, and this is not going to help.
It's going to hurt them, because there are certain countries that don't make a lot of money, that are very poor, and they're still white.
And that's why it's really annoying when they're like, oh, this is racist.
Okay, great.
Let me tell my poor white friend in Europe that their white privilege seems to be broken and they should be able to snap their fingers and come here.
That's not the way things work.
Trump's policy is impacting people who produce or people who can't.
You know, and look, I can be critical of it in that regard, but in the end, Trump is doing what Trump has always done.
He's a Republican, he's pushing personal responsibility, and it's focusing on, you know, securing American borders.
It's Republican nationalism, man!
It's exactly what you'd expect.
Let's read on.
They say.
And that's not even that strict!
definition to include anyone who receives food stamps, Medicaid, and housing subsidies.
Receipt of one or more of those designated public benefits for an aggregate 12 months
within any three-year period by any non-citizen will be considered a negative factor in determining
whether or not they become a public charge."
And that's not even that strict.
Seriously?
You for- an aggregate 12 months within three-year period?
That means you can, within three years, be on some kind of welfare program for 11 months
and they won't hold it against you.
This is such absurd nonsense.
It is such a minor... I can't tell you if it's minor or not.
But you get 11 months?
Okay man, if you're receiving 11 months of public benefits and you're still struggling, you need something else.
I don't know if sending you, deporting you, or kicking you out of the country is the right response, I gotta admit.
But there's a certain problem if we're bringing people into the country who can't sustain themselves after a year.
So maybe the rule makes sense.
And I'll stress this too.
There was criticism about the Statue of Liberty, bring us your tired, your poor, etc.
Well, come on, man.
If you're poor and you come here and we're still willing to give you 12 months of government benefits, I think we're still taking the poor.
This doesn't even sound that strict.
I can't imagine what the policy was before this.
So, you know, I'll leave it there.
Obviously, they come out and they criticize Trump.
They say Trump is trying to bring in white people.
It's just not true.
And it's really offensive to me when you see the rhetoric imply minorities are the ones who need government benefits, and that Trump is doing this for white people, when I can't even get my white friend a visa to this country because they don't make enough money.
And I mean that literally.
That's literally something I've been dealing with for a while.
Trying to get a friend of mine from Europe a visa to visit the United States is very difficult, and they are white.
So please, drop the racism.
Everybody.
Okay?
This is only going to make it harder for my friend, so I can criticize Trump for that, but this is just what Republicans do.
I am not surprised by any of this.
They act like this is a new thing, that Trump is racist for doing this.
Oh, please.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I've got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
They call Trump a liar.
They say he's a conspiracy theorist.
They say he pushes fake news.
Jay Rosen, a journalism professor, a very prominent one, said something to the effect that Trump was the biggest purveyor of misinformation, and it's coming from the president, something like that.
And I'm just like, you know what, man?
The bias is palpable.
I'm sick of it.
Yes, Trump lies.
I get it.
Everybody lies.
You know, I'll tell you what, you want Trump to stop lying?
Just tell him to stop tweeting.
Like, here's the thing.
If Trump didn't tweet as often as he did, he wouldn't be accused of being a liar.
No, I mean that seriously.
The difference between Trump and Obama is that Obama didn't talk all that much relative to Trump, and Trump can't keep his mouth shut.
And a side note, too, I love the Joe Rogan-Bernie Sanders thing, where Bernie says if he becomes president, he'll tell us about aliens.
Please, if aliens were real and we knew, you'd think Trump could keep his mouth shut about it.
But here's the thing.
First, there's a difference between being wrong and lying, and the media jumps to call Trump a liar when a lot of times, he's wrong.
A lot of times, he's not wrong, and they accuse him of being wrong anyway, regardless of whatever your bias is.
I don't care if you're pro-Trump, anti-Trump, you think Trump's telling the truth, you think he's a liar, I think Trump does put out misinformation, it happens, I'm not gonna tell you if he's doing it more often than not, or otherwise, look, everybody lies.
The point is, so are they!
So are they!
How are you going to call Trump a liar?
Meanwhile, five years later, media and politicians should retire the false Ferguson narrative.
They go through all of the- Look at this.
You've got Booker, Gillibrand, Ryan, de Blasio, O'Rourke, Sanders, Harris, Warren, all putting out the fake news about Ferguson.
So I'll tell you what.
You wanna say Trump puts out fake news?
I gotta roll my eyes.
Like, okay, sure.
As if the other presidents were doing better or were different.
I often rag on Obama in this regard, but I just view the executive branch as the same thing it's always been.
Thus, Tim Pool, the milquetoast fence-sitter, once again deflecting off of Trump and pointing to the left.
But yes, it needs to be said.
I don't care if you want to call Trump a liar.
Fine.
Do it.
But how could you ignore what they're doing?
This is what frustrates me about everything.
It's why I'm not a Trump supporter.
It's why I'm not a supporter of all of these Democrats.
Because they just play the stupid game.
And it's absolutely why I called out Yang for calling Trump a slob.
And then for calling him a white supremacist.
I don't care for the posturing, I don't care for the lies, and I don't care who you are, okay?
If you're gonna put out nonsense, then you know what?
I will stress though, it's kind of ironic, The Intercept called Trump the, you know, most honest and dishonest president at the same time, because the thing is, I think the media often will assume Trump is lying when he's just wrong, but Trump also just blurts things out that are unbelievably honest randomly.
So, take it for whatever that means, I don't know, that's from The Intercept.
I also think, it's not black and white.
Do I think everything out of Booker's mouth is a lie?
No, of course not.
But they're lying too.
So what are you supposed to do when you go to a Trump supporter, and they're sitting here being told over and over again Trump's a liar, and they're looking at the lies from these people too?
I feel like no one in politics actually has any interest in trying to communicate effectively across the aisle.
And that's why it has to be said.
Criticize Trump.
Go for it.
But can you at least point out the lie about Ferguson being pushed over and over again?
And this isn't the only lie they push.
They push lies all the time.
And that's why I just can't stand it.
Elizabeth Warren.
Come on, man.
The Native American stuff.
We get it.
Let's read this story from the hill.
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.
But the best thing you can do is share this video.
And I'll say this, if you want to hear someone rag on everybody, including Trump from time to time, then share this video to help support my channel.
I don't pull punches, okay?
I'll criticize everybody.
I try to do my best.
There have been times I've been wrong about Trump and given him the benefit of the doubt when I shouldn't have, and there have been times I've been wrong about Trump when I should have given him the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not a fan of the guy.
You guys get that.
But, you know, I stress that point because I want to make one thing clear, too.
Whatever the space is that I occupy and others, intellectual dark web types, it's not to downplay any of the bad things Trump's doing, but to highlight the fact that the media won't call out the other side.
OK?
I want balance.
So I'm not going to be sitting here making videos talking about all of the things I don't like about Trump.
They already do that.
You get it.
Nobody needs to be beaten over the head with 50 million more videos about Orange Man Bad.
Although I still somehow manage to bring it up in my videos.
The point is, when I turn on the news, I don't see this.
I don't see CNN saying, well, Booker, Gillibrand, Ryan de Blasio, O'Rourke, Sanders, Harris, and Warren lied.
They don't.
They say, Orange Man Bad.
And then I'm like, can you mention maybe a little bit about how the Democrats are lying too?
The Hill reports, hands up, don't shoot, never happened.
Somebody tell the Democrats running for president.
Even amid the heated political rhetoric that dominates the news media and social media, resurrected false claims about the shooting of Michael Brown and Ferguson stand out as egregious.
On Friday and Saturday, Elizabeth Warren, Tim Ryan, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bernie Sanders, and Bill de Blasio, all running for their party's nomination, tweeted out statements containing disproven claims or false implications about the incident.
Booker tweeted, five years ago, Michael Brown was killed, yada yada.
Gillibrand, five years ago, a Ferguson police officer killed Michael Brown.
You know what?
I've got a newspaper right there, you can't see it.
You can see it in my older videos.
It says, no charges for Wilson.
You know why?
It was Obama's Justice Department that proved, or that corroborated, Darren Wilson's, that's his name, Darren, yes, Darren Wilson, I think his name was.
Proved, or I should say, corroborated his version of the events.
I will stress, Michael Brown wasn't around to give his testimony, to say what actually happened.
And perhaps, even with witness testimony, there may be other sides of the story we will never hear because Michael Brown was killed.
That's a problem.
One of the biggest problems with these shootings is that the police get to testify and give their side of events, and the person who died doesn't.
But I gotta say, Obama's DOJ concluded that his story was corroborated with witness testimony and forensics.
All we can do is say, you know what, I'm not gonna be a conspiracy theorist and I'm gonna go with the official report on this one.
But no, I'll tell you what, all of these presidential candidates get to continue to lie and push a cons- I can only say, I'm being a bit facetious, it's a conspiracy theory.
The idea that Obama was lying, I guess.
Or they're just wrong.
Or they're lying.
Should I give them the benefit of the doubt this time, or just call them liars?
Joe Biden was challenged on the Charlottesville lie, and he seems to genuinely believe it.
I think these people don't actually read the news.
Someone hands a piece of paper and says, oh hey, Michael Brown died today.
He was killed.
Did you research it?
You didn't?
Great.
Therein lies the big problem.
Google is biased in favor of the left, as my main segment shows.
When news comes up, it's almost exclusively left-wing sources, and these people don't investigate.
Now, props to The Hill for actually reporting this, they say.
To back up for a moment, the shooting happened on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson.
An officer named Darren Wilson shot and killed an 18-year-old unarmed suspect named Michael Brown.
Brown was black, Wilson is white.
Witnesses claimed that Officer Wilson had shot Brown in cold blood, while Brown's hands were raised in surrender.
Though without evidence, those accounts were afforded wide credence in the media.
They sparked riots.
They ignited a movement called Hands Up, Don't Shoot.
The problem is, all of the racially-tinged accusations against Officer Wilson were likely false, according to the final analysis by President Obama's Department of Justice.
The report, issued in 2015, found that Officer Wilson's accounts were corroborated.
He'd acted in self-defense.
Brown, the report said, had reached into the police vehicle and grabbed Officer Wilson by the neck, and Brown appeared to be lunging toward Officer Wilson when Wilson shot in self-defense.
The Obama Department of Justice investigators concluded that original witness accounts claiming that Brown's hands were up when he was shot and other key claims were unreliable, and in many instances directly contradicted by the forensic evidence.
Well, Officer Wilson's story was supported by forensics.
Hands up, don't shoot.
The Obamacare Department found was contrary to reliable accounts and likely fabricated.
End of story.
Not only that, but Michael Brown was seen on camera stealing cigarillos from a store and pushing the guy there and leaving, and then the police got reports of this and went out, saw him, and a scuffle ensued.
Look, it happened.
The problem here, in the end, The cop had a gun.
Brown didn't.
Brown fought.
You bring fists to a gunfight.
This is what tends to happen.
I was on the ground after this.
I was in the riots.
I filmed this.
I interviewed people.
I understand why the riots happened.
I produced an hour-long documentary explaining the strife this community feels and why they didn't believe the police and why it turned into riots.
And I understand it.
I empathize.
And I know why these people were angry.
I also know that the DOJ concluded It was likely Officer Wilson telling the truth.
You know, and I'll stress again, we don't have Michael Brown to tell his side of things, but what can we do here?
Is it responsible then to put out this false narrative?
No, it's a conspiracy theory.
Let's read. They said the findings of this important report got nowhere near the news
coverage of the original false claims. There were no apologies to Officer Wilson. His career and
life were ruined by the false claims. Now the very candidates regularly accusing President Trump of
being a liar and divisive are making claims without evidence and have made their own divisive false
claims. Isn't it? Oh, I'm sorry. They're saying they're accusing Trump of making claims about
evidence, and now they're doing the exact same thing.
Not only are these claims without evidence, they contradict the evidence, according to the Obama DOJ.
There are undeniably instances of racism and bad policing in our society.
Most everyone can get behind the idea of addressing them in a productive way.
But to incorrectly ford the notion of the Ferguson shooting as an example of those problems shrouds the search for progress.
Ferguson, based on the findings of the Obama DOJ, isn't an example of bad policing run amok or racism.
It's a tragic case of media malpractice ruining the life of a police officer who is found to have done nothing other than defend himself, and it's also showing how Democratic presidential candidates are lying or at least pushing fake news, while they simultaneously accuse the president of doing the same thing.
This is why nobody gets sympathy from me.
Okay?
You want to criticize the president?
Don't be surprised when I turn around and throw this in your face.
It's not because I want to defend Trump.
It's because you're a liar.
It's because they're lying.
It's that simple.
By all means, call the president whenever you want.
Okay, great.
I'm gonna call you out for playing the same game.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes, so stick around and I will see you shortly.
The New York Times published this story, how the El Paso killer echoed the incendiary words of conservative media stars.
Yes, I saw many people in journalism tweeting about this, saying, here's the proof, this guy was radicalized by Fox News, yadda yadda yadda.
And you know what's really annoying about it?
Yeah, he also echoed the words of liberal stars.
I mean, he echoed the words of, like, Andrew Yang, for instance, which is interesting because Yang has seen a lot of support in places like 4chan, whether or not you think it's real or not.
Some people have said it's fabricated.
I'm not going to make that accusation, but we've seen people across the aisle support Yang for addressing a lot of these issues.
Here's the thing.
What does the New York Times do?
And we'll read this.
They show invasion, invasion, invade, invade in the manifesto.
All... Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
These are quotes from conservatives.
Invasion, over and over and over again.
Oh my, stars and garters.
But did any of these people actually read the manifesto?
Because I'll tell you what I did when I first saw this.
I searched for universal basic income.
Did it come up?
Nope.
Joe Rogan talks about it all the time.
He's not on the right, although they like to accuse him.
Andrew Yang is running for a Democrat.
He talked about automation.
Again, Yang.
He talked about healthcare.
He was talking about universal healthcare, not a conservative talking point.
And he's talking about the environment.
Again, not much of a conservative talking point.
I could write an article saying how the El Paso killer echoed the incendiary words of liberal media stars and show all the debate about healthcare and government programs.
Now, let's be real.
This dude, assuming the manifesto is real, which has not been confirmed yet, but we believe it to be the case, he was driven by a white identity nationalist mindset.
I think it's fair to point out and heavily criticize.
I think the only reason he went and did what he did was because of white identitarian extremist ideology.
And there you have it.
But it's just unfair to act like identitarianism is exclusive to the right.
They highlight only the right-wing portions of it, and they ignore the left.
Let me stress, he talked in his manifesto about Democrats giving healthcare to immigrants.
Right, so I have this one from the Watch and Examiner.
Has anyone actually read the El Paso Manifesto?
Which goes over a lot of the stuff he talked about.
Environment, for instance.
Let's pull up... Let's see healthcare.
Recycling, healthcare, sustainability, and more.
Large portions of the manifesto simply could not be more untrumpian.
The issue was, what made this guy go nuts was not right-wing talking points, it was identitarian ideology.
What we saw was a mix of the right, for sure, call them right-wing, whatever, I don't even know what that means anymore.
It was white identitarianism.
But identitarianism is being propped up in the mainstream by the left.
So let me stress something to you.
When you have young, disenfranchised, angry young men who can't find work, who are dropping out of school, they're being berated in the media all day for being men, and then you start adding white to that?
Don't be surprised when young white men become identitarians because of your rhetoric.
And Bret Weinstein talks about this, and Jordan Peterson talks about this.
When you push this anti-white rhetoric, don't be surprised when you inflame and incense people who feel like they have no choice, and they go nuts.
I'm not blaming those who are calling out white supremacy.
Quite the opposite.
I'm blaming those who are targeting regular Americans for simply the color of their skin.
By all means, call out these wackos.
But I want to stress, man, And, you know, I'll probably get flack for it.
This is what the media does.
Once again, pointing the finger in only one direction, refusing to reflect on their own contribution.
The New York Times, for instance, hired Sarah Jong, an avowed anti-white identitarian.
Now, sure, you can claim that it was just, you know, all of her racist tweets was just her trying to use the words of her oppressors.
Whatever, man, I don't care.
Sarah Jong, for years, put out anti-white racist posts on Twitter.
Racism.
Judging people based on the color of their skin.
A bad thing.
And then they say, that's not really racist because privilege plus power.
I don't care about that definition.
You can take your wacko definition and, you know, I don't care what you do with it.
That's not the definition of racism.
This woman, Sarah Jong, was hired by the New York Times and white identitarians celebrated, saying that it was a good thing because it was going to result in white racial awakening, which is a bad thing.
You know, what we need in this country is recognition that we are Americans.
And as Americans, we are afforded the same rights as everybody else.
In fact, even non-Americans, regardless of the color of your skin, you're afforded rights under the Constitution.
When you are here, you are protected by the Constitution, the people.
For whatever it's worth, right?
You're not a citizen.
There's a lot of things you can't have.
You can be deported, but you have free speech.
You have certain rights.
And I think this mostly is in reference to, like, tourists.
When you come here as a tourist, you are protected under the Constitution.
Period.
We are Americans.
It doesn't matter what you look like.
It doesn't matter where you come from.
It doesn't matter if you're rich, poor, white, black, Mexican, Latino, immigrant, non-immigrant, born here, Muslim, Christian.
Americans are afforded these rights.
And it is the racists pushing the racial divide that's the problem.
And when you see the, when the left refuses to call out the, you know, they're crossing the line, this is what we see.
This is the perfect evidence of it.
Incendiary words of conservative media stars.
OK, let me say this.
It's true.
You know, we saw a lot of conservatives say invasion.
The president did too.
And this was the rhetoric used in the manifesto.
And I think it does play a role.
I think it absolutely does.
I think everyone deserves some of that blame.
I even think I do.
We're in a really tough spot right here.
And I thought about this a lot.
Listen.
You know, people accuse me, they say, Tim, you know, I've been told I'm producing right-wing clickbait.
And my response to that is, first of all, I put the summation of the video in the title.
Like, clickbait is a reference to leaving out information to force people to click, to trick them into doing it.
I'm not doing that.
I'm just covering stories I find personally interesting.
And they say, yeah, but it's like targeting the right.
I'll be like, no, I disagree.
It's just my opinion.
In fact, most, like, I would say a decent amount of the people who watch me are actually moderates who are either to the center left or center right, going back and forth.
Just right there in the middle.
And yes, some Trump supporters and yes, some liberals, but mostly not the far left.
And as Vox recognized, there is a left versus center and right thing going on.
But I recognize how people see my content.
And I recognize they get angry by it, and they'll accuse me of these things.
But I, of course, think I'm doing the right thing, challenging these lies and these narratives.
But, of course, no matter what you do, it's going to contribute, and I have no idea to stop that.
I will call it out, though, thinking I'm doing my best.
I'm sure a lot of people on the left think they're doing the same thing.
But here's reality as I see it.
The left is equally culpable for pushing identitarianism.
You can't have the New York Times hiring someone who for years made violent, disgusting, anti-white comments and then be shocked that all of a sudden there's white people forming identitarian groups or joining white nationalists who are actually using their identity as their first and foremost policy position.
You did that.
You encouraged that.
It's people like me, the anti-identitarian types, who are saying, dude, I get it, okay?
Identity politics can be okay.
Civil rights, good thing.
LGBTQ rights, absolutely.
But you are taking it to the extreme.
You are defending Antifa.
You are defending avowed racists and hiring them and giving them these jobs, and it is making everything worse.
You have people like Reza Aslan calling for the eradication of Trump's base.
You have people like Sean King calling for overt acts of terror.
You have the left presidential candidates saying Trump is a white supremacist.
You are making this worse.
And what can we expect to see?
Nothing.
They'll keep doing it.
Listen.
I don't know how you define what left and right is anymore.
I really don't understand.
And I mean that.
The Anti-Defamation League claims that black identity extremism is left-wing.
How does that make sense?
They hold nearly identical views to the alt-right.
They just replace white for black.
So what makes it left?
I have no idea.
I guess, you know, when it comes to the idea of what left and right is, the media typically just says white racism is right-wing, which I don't seem to understand because this guy, who was a white identitarian, was talking about universal basic income, socialist, universal healthcare, socialist, and environmentalism, typically not associated with the right in terms of their policies.
Trump's actually been attacked for, you know, his policies on the environment.
You know, EPA, I don't want to get into all that stuff.
But as they mentioned, certainly not Trumpian.
Now look, I'm not going to sit here and play a game because I know people on the left are going to be like, Tim's trying to placate and downplay this guy.
No, no, no, this guy was a whack job.
He's responsible for everything he did.
Nobody else.
He went nuts.
You know, and now I know I'm getting in trouble because it's not even about guns.
It's about a dude driven to insanity by hearing all of this rhetoric and politics going nuts.
And yes, conservatives contributed to that.
They absolutely did.
But does that mean it's any of their fault?
It doesn't.
It is not Trump's fault for saying invasion, nor is it the left's fault for saying automation and universal health care.
But the New York Times is absolutely going to point it in one direction.
So you know what, man?
Expect to see more.
Look, they say language like invasion and the replacement of Americans has increasingly become a regular part of Fox News broadcasts, Rush Limbaugh shows, and other prominent conservative media.
And it was the Democratic debates where they said they were going to give away government resources to non-citizens.
So it takes two to tango, man.
If there wasn't, and I mean this, look, when you look at these street battles, and we're going to see some insanity on August 17th, it's conservatives and right-wing groups showing up, and then Antifa shows up, and then a fight breaks out.
I'm not going to point a finger and say who started and who doesn't.
That's irrelevant.
The point is, if Antifa didn't show up, Nothing would happen.
I tell you this now, if the Proud Boys say they're going to do a rally, and they show up with their little American flags waving them in the air, and no one else shows up, they'll stand around in the park, sipping on bottles of water, then go to the bar and get drunk and go home.
End of story.
Nothing happens.
There's no recruiting.
There's no violence.
It's when the left shows up to engage and start the fight.
It takes two to tango.
And the New York Times, I can't say I'm surprised.
They hired Sarah Jung and other avowed identitarians.
So don't be surprised when the paper of record embraces this anti-white rhetoric, that it inflames people who are white and disenfranchised, and they become terrified, angry, and violent.
I'm not letting conservatives off the hook.
Everybody is playing the same culture war game, myself included.
