Far left Democrats Are Failing In Their Districts, Abysmal Polling And Almost No Top Donors
NOTE: Yes I noticed The Gaffe saying Beto was running for Congress and I do correct that in the video.Far left Democrats Are Failing In Their Districts, Abysmal Polling And Almost No Top Donors. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has raised an absurdly small amount of top donations from inside her district. According to the Daily Caller only 10 of her top donors, meaning over $200, came from inside her district.Her total in district top donations is only 1.4% of the national average. Similar results can be seen for the other far left democrats known as the squad who raised between 2-4% with Ayana Pressley standing out with 30% (though she is far less famous according to polls)The percentage is less relevant than the reality though. Far Left Democrats and even other high profile politicians are being propped up by people outside of their jurisdiction.Beto O'Rourke received tons of support from media and celebritiesand according to McClatchyDC Stacey Abrams received 62% of her top donors from outside of Georgia.Why does it make sense for people outside of Georgia to fund a democratic governor? The governor represents the state not people outside of it.I don't care if youre conservative, republican, liberal, or democrat to me it makes no sense for people in other localities interfering in elections that won't impact them for the most part.I understand a democratic governor can have an impact on other states but the point is that our representatives should be working for us not external donors.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I believe we have a serious problem in this country with outside influence on local elections.
If I am going to have someone represent me, in my opinion at least, it makes no sense that people from outside of my district would be funding that person.
Case in point, Beto O'Rourke and Stacey Abrams.
They both received a ton of money from outside of their constituency.
Now, I understand Beto O'Rourke was running for Congress, which means he would be in a federal position, which could have an impact on the whole country, but he's supposed to be representing one district in Texas.
Yet he received a ton of support from out of state.
Stacey Abrams, on the other hand, was going to be a governor.
She's literally just representing the state of Georgia and those who live within it.
Why then did she receive so much money, at least according to one report, 62% of her donations from outside of Georgia?
She was not being represented or empowered by the people in her own state.
I've got some data, and it's pretty alarming, at least from the way I see things.
Maybe I'm missing something.
But even if you're going to be a congressperson, why should you receive funding and support from people you will not impact?
I think that's very worrisome.
Now to our lead story.
Ocasio-Cortez's known donors from her own district are nearly non-existent, FEC records show.
According to the Daily Caller, only 10 people who live in Ocasio-Cortez's district have been recorded making donations to her re-election campaign in 2019.
That's 1.4% of the average for congressional re-election campaigns.
Let me stress that one more time.
According to this story from the Daily Caller, Ocasio-Cortez's constituent donors are 1.4% of average, meaning most people who are running for re-election in Congress are receiving 98.6% more from their own districts.
Yet here's the thing.
Ocasio-Cortez has still raised a substantial amount of money.
Who is funding her?
And this, to me, is actually rather nightmarish.
There are people in her district who don't like her, poll after poll showing.
Her favorability is really low.
Yet for some reason, outside her district, she has tons of support and is receiving tons of money, giving her a massive advantage in running for Congress in a district where they're not supporting her.
But that influence will give her an edge to win.
And I gotta say, all of this is rather terrifying.
Now I will stress, perhaps Beto lost, Abrams lost, and perhaps Ocasio-Cortez might actually lose with so many challengers popping up.
Because the money isn't real support from their voters.
Now you can donate to them.
That can give them power.
That can give them PR.
But in the end, it can't get them a real person.
It can't get them a real constituent.
Now it can influence them.
It can help get them votes.
But I'm not surprised we saw Beto and Abrams lose.
And I won't be surprised if Ocasio-Cortez loses next year.
So let's read this, and I'm gonna go through all of this, you know, and there's a media bias too, I gotta stress.
We're gonna go through the media bias as well.
And I want to show you, AOC is not popular, has very little support from her own district, and I want to show you the data from Abrams and Beto O'Rourke that I find just jarring.
But I'll stress, maybe I'm missing something.
Maybe there are people who believe people outside a district should be able to influence the representation from within that district.
Makes no sense to me.
But again, maybe I'm wrong, so comment, let me know.
Let's read the news.
But 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, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, the best thing you can do is share this video.
YouTube is deranking independent political commentary.
If I'm going to continue to exist, that means I rely on all of you to recommend the content if you think it's actually good.
If it's bad, I don't deserve to have a business like this at any rate.
But if you do think it's good, sharing it overcomes that hurdle YouTube is placing in front of me, and it's impacting everybody, so I would really appreciate it.
But let's read.
They say, Ocasio-Cortez has outraised all other freshman representatives so far in 2019, but nearly all of her reported contributions to her re-election campaign live outside her congressional district, a Daily Caller News Foundation analysis of FEC filings found.
Ocasio-Cortez's re-election campaign has reported receiving contributions from just 10 individuals living within her district in the first half of 2019, according to its FEC filings.
The FEC only requires that political campaigns disclose the names and addresses of individuals who contribute over $200 to their campaigns during an election.
Campaigns report their big-dollar donors to the FEC in what's called itemized contributions.
The $1,525.50 Ocasio-Cortez received from her New York constituents represents less than 1% of her campaign's itemized contributions reported to the FEC in the first half of 2019.
So, I want to make sure I stress, these are people who've donated over $200.
There may be a lot of people in her district who are supporting her.
The main thing I want to point out is that in terms of itemized contributions, contributions over 200 bucks, 99% of her donations are not from her district.
Her bigger donors are outside where she actually represents.
To me, that's jarring.
The known monetary support Ocasio-Cortez's re-election campaign has received from the people she represents is minuscule compared to the 88-member freshman class of the House of Representatives.
The average freshman representative's re-election campaign received $107,141.29
in itemized contributions from their constituents in the first half of 2019.
FEC filings the DCNF analyzed show. Ocasio-Cortez's reported
in-district fundraising haul was just $1.5 million.
And it makes sense.
Now I want to stress, she does have fame on her side, but the percentages are irrelevant when you look at the hard numbers.
Ocasio-Cortez has raised $1,525 from her district against an average of $107,000 from within
constituencies for other congresspeople.
So it's even if you want to claim that because she's so famous she's making way more money
outside her district, which just creates a disproportionate percentage effect.
No, no, no, no.
Let's just stop right here and say she raised about a thousand bucks from people over 200 in her own district for- for- for larger donations.
Whereas everyone else, over a hundred thousand.
Yeah, that to me is extremely alarming.
Let's read on.
The Ocasio-Cortez campaign didn't respond to multiple requests for comments seeking additional information regarding how many of her un-itemized contributions came from her constituents.
However, AOC holds a significant lead over the freshman class in the amount of small-dollar contributions she's received.
Just 17% of Ocasio-Cortez's individual contributions were from big-dollar donors, who gave over $200 to her campaign in the first half of 2019.
The median freshman representative received nearly 89% of their individual contributions from big-dollar donors.
So let's just stop now.
And I want to make sure there's no misleading information here.
It's possible the majority of the money she has raised did come from her district in small donations.
But they didn't reply, and when we're talking about the itemized donations, she's skewing hard for outsider district.
And, uh, that's what I want to highlight.
It's very possible there are people in her district who really do support her, and we don't know for sure, and this is a big problem across the board for all politicians, but I want to stress, she is receiving a significant amount of support from outside of her own district.
Let's read on.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
power and influence from people she will not be representing.
Let's read on.
Each representative is answerable to a congressional district comprised of between 530,000 and
995,000 people, according to the US Census.
The DCNF determined which of Ocasio-Cortez's donors came from her congressional district
by comparing the nine-digit zip codes her contributors reported to the FEC, which links
nine — yeah, yeah, yeah, they talk about a tool.
Only one freshman representative reported receiving less from their constituents than
Ocasio-Cortez, and that's Democratic Rep.
Sylvia Garcia of Texas.
Garcia's re-election campaign reported itemized contributions of $14,400, all of which came from individuals with addresses outside her district.
They say, Ocasio-Cortez's apparent lackluster fundraising performance from her constituents lends credibility to a poll conducted by a conservative PAC in May.
It found that only 20% of households in the representative district held a favorable opinion of her.
And now we're going to talk about the fake news bubble that protects these people who are being funded from outside their districts.
They do go on to say, That a similar effect is hitting Ilhan Omar and others.
They say, Rashida Tlaib, for instance, received $470,000 in itemized contributions in the first half of 2019, but less than 2% came from people in her district.
Omar reported $717,000, just over 4% from her constituents.
They say Ayanna Pressley outperformed the others, received more than 30% of her 248,000 from her constituents.
And that's because Ayanna Pressley is not too well-known outside of her district.
So I think it's fair to say, percentage-wise, it may be that the reason a small percentage is coming from their districts is because their fame is creating a skewed perspective.
That if you got rid of the outside contributions, it would probably look more like Ayanna Pressley.
You know, so you've got Ilhan Omar raising $700,000, way more than double what Anna Presley received.
However, even Ayanna Pressley, who is much less famous, only around 30% of her itemized contributions came from within her district, regardless if it's just the squad or anyone else.
I think we have a serious problem with outside forces trying to influence elections that will be dealing with a small local jurisdiction.
I would not want Californians funding my district because I want that person to be represented by me, not by California.
But you know what's going to happen?
These politicians, AOC, the Squad, or whoever else, I don't care if they're left or right, they're gonna say, I hear what you say as my voter, but I need money.
And who's giving me the most?
California.
Well, I don't want California influencing my election where I live.
And I don't think any of you do either.
So this should be alarming to everybody.
Again, maybe I'm missing something here, but this, to me, is freakish.
Now let's do this.
I want to talk about the media bubble that's protecting these people and helping them raise money, and it's really, really annoying.
Check this out.
An Economist and YouGov survey in July found that Americans have a very unfavorable view of the squad.
Just 33% of Americans have a favorable view of Ocasio-Cortez, followed by Omar, with a 25% combined favorability rating, Tlaib 24, Ayanna Pressley 22.
Economist, YouGov.
Credible source, I might add.
Now we have a few more stories that I want to highlight.
In this one from July 17th, Daily Caller says, Ice is more popular than the squad.
Well, let's not play these games.
They're actually talking about an Axios survey.
The Axios survey talks about how AOC has a favorability in swing states of, I believe, 22%, and you have Elon Omar with 9%, and they actually put not a typo, it's so low.
How about this?
Back in March, Vox.com wrote, Conservatives' media war on AOC is hammering her poll numbers.
They say her national poll numbers are pretty bad, and conservative media attacks appear to be the key reason why.
Sure, Vox by all means editorialized, but even Vox recognizes a Quinnipiac poll found 23% of Americans have a favorable view of the member of Congress.
36% had an unfavorable view.
So let me stress, Quinnipiac is notable.
Economist and YouGov, very notable.
Axios published data from an internal Democratic Party poll showing extremely unfavorable ratings.
What do you think the media does?
First of all, you get Vox saying, it's the conservatives doing it, and maybe it's because she's a bad candidate with very little support from her own constituents.
Now here's the best part.
Let's hop over to this year's Snopes article.
And you know where this is going.
We'll zoom in a little bit.
Are U.S.
Reps Ilhan Omar and AOC polling at 8%, 21% respectively?
The figures cited by President Donald Trump supposedly were leaked to Axios by Democratic operatives, ironically.
They say, mostly false.
And here's the best part.
They say, what's true?
Poll results shared on the condition of anonymity with the political news site Axios showed a total of 1,003 likely general election voters who are white and have two years or college of less education had unfavorable views of Omar and Ocasio-Cortez.
What's false?
We know of no credible polls that show Ocasio-Cortez or Omar have such low approval ratings now in their respective districts or in their overall popularity in the country.
Mostly false, they say.
It's because Snopes is trash.
I just showed you The Economist and YouGov.
I just showed you Vox referencing Quinnipiac.
Snopes, maybe you should do your jobs.
They say, what's undetermined?
We don't know who conducted the survey, who sponsored it, how the questions were worded.
Now fine, listen.
Axios is a credible source.
They are certified by NewsGuard, and I trust Axios.
End of story.
Axios says they reviewed an internal poll from the Democrats, and this is what the Democrats found.
And just after this, we saw Nancy Pelosi try and bring them down, saying, hey, you guys gotta chill.
People don't like you.
Vox blames conservative media.
Maybe it's just that they're bad candidates, and they're snooty, and bad at what they do.
Economist and YouGov in July.
Yet Snopes is going to say, we know of no credible polls.
Maybe you know of none because you don't know how to do any research, but once again, we can see Vox and Snopes trying to defend this, when in reality they're just bad candidates, and they're being propped up by people from outside their district, and that to me is the most worrying.
But let's dive into this idea.
Let's dive into this idea, and we'll move a little further.
Check this out.
From November 6, 2018, these 13 celebs want Beto O'Rourke to win the 2018 Texas Senate election, and I don't care.
Beto O'Rourke was supposed to be representing Texas.
Not representing celebrities in California.
Yet when they come in and start sending money and support to Beto, it creates an outside influence on what is supposed to be just in Texas.
So, I do have to correct myself, because I just realized I pulled a horrible mistake in the beginning, assuming that Beto was running for Congress.
He was a former congressman.
He was running for the Senate and being funded by celebrities.
So, correcting my gaffe in the beginning.
And I have all these stories pulled up, so I have no excuse other than, hey, if you made it this far, you'll realize I made that mistake.
But yes, outside support.
And I have this right here.
Check it out.
Dollars raised by O'Rourke campaign in the U.S.
Democratic candidate Beto O'Rourke's campaign has raised $70 million leading up to the midterms.
This state-by-state breakdown looks at the $25 million in itemized contributions.
From what we know, big donors.
The first bracket is Texas.
Good.
The overwhelming majority, 13... No, it's not the overwhelming majority, but just about the majority.
13 million came from within Texas.
I can fully respect that.
But then you have California, 3 million, nearly 3,400,000 from California.
You have New York, 2 million from New York.
Then you have Washington, half a million.
Oregon, a couple hundred thousand.
But the most alarming thing to me is, why is Beto O'Rourke receiving millions of dollars from people outside of his state when he was running for the Senate?
Why should they have a say in who represents Texas in the Senate?
Let's move on, though.
Check this out.
Where does the money come from, comparing Ted Cruz to Beto O'Rourke?
Admittedly, outside of Texas, Ted Cruz raised a similar amount, $4.6 million.
But there's a larger unknown amount.
So I will stress, and the reason I highlight this story is that it is not unique to just Democrats.
While we are seeing this, it absolutely affects Cruz, too.
Many people on the left are concerned that outside money helped Cruz beat Beta O'Rourke, but I will stress this as well.
We don't know where this unknown source comes from.
But we do know that Ted Cruz's unknown amounts is much lower, and overall Ted Cruz raised way less and still won.
I think that shows something.
The people of Texas wanted Ted Cruz, not Beto O'Rourke, and Beto O'Rourke received an advantage from outside of Texas that, yes, Cruz did too.
But strangely—actually, let me stress this point.
Beto O'Rourke still received almost double what Cruz received in Texas, but Cruz still won.
I think that says something.
I think it says that You know, in the end, I think there are people in Texas, probably bunched up in urban areas, that wanted O'Rourke to win.
But, uh, I'm just trying to show this story to kind of make the point that both sides received money from outside of Texas, and I don't have a deeper analysis of that, so we'll just leave that there.
But I now want to move on to something else.
Stacey Abrams.
She was running for governor, okay?
So, again, I made that mistake in the beginning.
I'm sure there's gonna be a bunch of comments being like, Tim, you got it wrong.
Beto wasn't running for Congress.
The point, you know, I'll stress that I made that gaffe in the beginning because I was thinking that Beto, you know, Beto was in Congress and then he was running for Senate and I kind of confused it.
But check this out.
November 1st, 2018.
A bunch of celebrities are backing Stacey Abrams.
Oprah isn't the only celebrity lending her support to Democratic gubernatorial Stacey Abrams.
Why?
Why are they outside of Georgia trying to influence the governorship of Georgia?
So the point I was trying to make in the beginning is that Beto O'Rourke will be representing Texas federally, which will have an impact on the whole country, that I get.
Well, he lost.
But Stacey Abrams is only going to be affecting people in Georgia.
Check this out.
A McClatchy story.
62% of all Abrams itemized donations are from outside Georgia, according to a McClatchy analysis of campaign filings.
Again, those are bigger donors.
That, to me, is really weird.
Why people who aren't going to be living in Georgia would support her and try to get her to win.
But let's take a look at some of the hard numbers.
So this is a website called Vote Smart Facts Matters.
I can't say it's completely correct.
I'm not entirely sure.
But take it with a grain of salt.
I haven't run like a fact check on what Vote Smart is.
But they do have this data.
And here's what they say.
In-state contributions, 15 million, and out-of-state, just around 12 million.
So let's round up.
They've got 16 million in-state, 12 million out-of-state.
So a little bit less than half.
It's a different number than we saw from McClatchy.
I'm not entirely sure why.
But using the same source, out-of-state for Abrams is 11 million, and in-state is 15.
Take a look at this.
Brian Kemp Georgia Republican.
1,400,000 from out of state and 21,000,000 in state.
That, to me, is rather terrifying.
It's terrifying because what it says is that the only reason, in my opinion, Abrams became close at all is because outside operators were influencing the Georgia governorship.
I don't like that idea.
I will not be trying to get anyone from outside— First of all, I'm not going to endorse anybody.
You'll never see that happen.
Well, I should say never.
I'm not an absolutist, but very rarely will I ever, you know, get behind anybody.
Nationally, it's a different story.
We're talking about the president, and I have no problem talking about, you know, Tulsi R. Yang.
But I have no say in how Georgians live and what their rules and laws should be.
Why should I send money to any of these people?
They won't be representing me.
They won't be trying to make my life better.
They'll have nothing to do with me.
Yet out-of-state for Stacey Abrams was nearly ten times what Brian Kemp received and Kemp won.
That says to me one thing.
At least in this capacity, The people of Georgia wanted Brian Kemp and did not want Stacey Abrams.
She raised only about $16 million in-state, and a large portion of her money came from out-of-state.
Her total is $27 million, and Brian Kemp is $22 million.
He had less money than her because of that, and he still won.
That's worrisome to me.
And you know what they still do?
Stacey Abrams still goes around saying the election was stolen from her.
I know people who came from out of state to try and influence the Georgia election, and I find that, um, reprehensible.
If you do not live there, you should not be going and campaigning in a local election.
I know it's statewide, but local in the sense that it is for a small, it's not even, it's not regional.
It's just a state.
Don't go there and try and sway the election away from the people who actually live there.
Man, that creeps me out.
So back to the main point.
We can rope this back to Ocasio-Cortez.
And I want to stress, we don't know the un-itemized donations.
It's possible the people in her district didn't give her more than $200.
But I'll make one final point on that.
She's representing New York.
Even people in New York who are not particularly wealthy are making way more money than other people in the country.
Which means over $200, you'd expect to see at least a decent amount.
But she's only getting 1.4% of the average.
Because itemized contributions from the other freshman congresspeople was $100,000, and hers was about $1,500.
A ridiculously small percentage of the average.
That says to me, You know, she doesn't live... There are constituents who live in areas that are way poorer than New York City.
And while Ocasio-Cortez isn't representing necessarily the wealthiest portion of New York, she still represents a portion of New York.
I would assume she'd see at least average.
But I think what we can say is, look, the polls show people don't like her.
Even within her own district, people don't like her.
You can blame the conservatives, you can claim the polls don't exist, but people do not like her.
To me, I think we are seeing external influence trying to sway local elections, and that's a really, really bad thing.
We have Congress for a reason.
Your representative talks to you.
Senate represents your state.
The governorship only impacts your state, for the most part.
Outside influence?
To me?
That's freaky.
But I'll leave it there.
Let me know what you think.
I feel like I'm missing something.
You know?
That's ridiculous.
How could this be?
How could so much money be funneled into Georgia to try and swing the election?
Maybe I'm missing something.
I don't know.
Anyway, stick around.
The next segment will be youtube.com slash timcastnews, my second channel.
Check it out if you haven't.
Segments will be starting at 6pm, 615, 630, and I will see you all then.
So it may be a bit preliminary to talk about the issue.
And, look, I'm never a big fan of, like, dragging people and being involved in these silly drama fights.
Well, we've got some big news.
This was reported last night from the New York Post.
Carlos Maza reportedly leaving Vox after harassment on Twitter.
Now, based on the information they have and the way they're presenting it, sounds like maybe he's quitting.
In fact, I would actually argue he's being fired.
The last thing they mentioned is that a source said he's negotiating a severance package, and that he engaged in this Twitter fight on YouTube, and then the company wasn't supporting him.
They supported him at first, but now they're not.
It sounds like Carlos Maza is being fired.
Not confirmed, but enough.
So, I'll say this.
Here's what we can say is being reported definitively.
And this story has been updated as of last night, 11 p.m.
Carlos Maza reportedly leaving Vox after harassment on Twitter.
Let's just go through the story because I've got some other updates, too, and I want to point some things out about what happened with Carlos and why this is significant.
I think YouTube might actually be putting pressure on Vox, which is interesting, so let's read.
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 most important thing you can do is share this video if you think it's important.
Because YouTube has deranked my content in favor of corporate players like CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, so if we're going to counteract that decrease in recommendations, then I ask you to recommend it personally.
Or not.
Whatever.
Let's read.
Carlos Maza, the controversial host of the show, Strikethrough, appears to be on the way out at Vox Media.
Mazza was engaged in a running battle with right-wing provocateur Steven Crowder, whom the openly gay Latino Mazza says has been attacking him with rants he considers racist and homophobic.
Now, I don't think you need to call—I'm surprised to see New York Post call Steven Crowder a provocateur.
I think Steven Crowder isn't intentionally trying to rile anyone else up.
I think he's just trying to be funny.
I mean, there's a difference.
I would—you know, Crowder hosts a comedy show.
You don't gotta like his politics or his comedy, but I don't think he's intentionally trying to get a rise out of other people.
Anyway, Mazza pressured YouTube in June to take down Crowder's video channel as hate speech.
At first, YouTube refused to take down the channel, saying it did not violate YouTube guidelines, but then relented and agreed to demonetize the site but not to totally ban it.
Mazza has also had Tucker Carlson in his crosshairs.
Quote, Tucker Carlson is a white supremacist and YouTube profits from hate speech, he tweeted.
Mazza's Twitter handle reads, at gay won't.
Initially, sources said Vox executives had supported him in his battle with Crowder.
But as Maza wanted to escalate the all-out war, their support seemed to wane.
And this is where we're getting into, I think he's fired.
I think they fired this guy.
Check this out.
Attempts to reach Mazza via email were unsuccessful.
Although he posted on Twitter, hello from the shakiest few weeks of my life on the 11th.
That triggered this response from one of his fans, Shannon P Duffy.
Hear the voices of your legions of fans.
We value your voice.
You are our warrior.
We love and need you.
The shrapnel of haters cannot pierce the armor we give you.
Trust in this.
Now here's the hammer.
Vox Media did not return calls seeking comment, but one source said, Maza is negotiating a severance package.
So here's what we know.
New York Post has sources.
It looks like Carlos Maza is leaving and he's not being supported.
It's entirely possible he's quitting.
However, if this source, it may be one source from Vox, is saying he's negotiating severance, severance is given to you when you're terminated, when you leave a company unwillfully.
I wanted to make sure I was absolutely positive on this.
Is there any circumstance where you can quit and get a severance package?
Probably?
Like maybe, but I have to imagine there's like a, it would have to be even in that capacity, like, okay fine, we want you to leave, we'll give you a, you know, if we want you to end your contract, like...
I mean, I guess that would be a contract buyout.
If he's reportedly leaving and negotiating severance, that means they're cutting him off.
So there's two things here.
Perhaps this is part of wider layoffs at Vox.
We've seen layoffs hit everybody.
There's no reason to believe that Vox would be immune from this.
I have to imagine... Let me phrase it this way.
There was a story in Vox talking about how Disney wrote down their investment on Vice to zero.
Like, a $500 million loss.
And in the story, on Vox, they said even Vox's evaluation is probably way down from the investment they received from NBC of $200 million, giving them a really large valuation.
I don't know the full terms of that investment.
But it may be that Vox is starting to feel the pinch.
It also may be that what Carlos did caused serious damage to Vox, who relies on YouTube.
And I kind of think that might be the thing here.
So check this out.
They say that initially, sources said Vox executives had supported him in his battle with Crowder.
And we know this because the articles they put out saying, we defend Carlos.
But here's the thing, Carlos wouldn't stop.
He kept escalating this.
He wouldn't let go.
A month plus goes by and he won't stop.
I'm willing to bet something corporate happened.
Think about this.
These companies like Vox, Vice, you know, whatever.
They have deals with YouTube.
I don't know if they currently have deals with YouTube, but I can tell you this.
When I worked at Vice, they had a deal with YouTube, right?
I don't know the exact terms of the deal.
It may not have been money.
I think it was.
But I do know that YouTube gave us billboards.
Like, I actually had a couple billboards around the country.
It was amazing.
It was crazy.
And I had national commercials.
And I think that was the deal.
Like, YouTube paid for this big push that promoted our content.
Anyway, the point is, YouTube does have deals sometimes with these companies.
Whether or not they're actually having a deal, I think it's possible that Vox gets some kind of special treatment as a large corporate channel.
What do you think's going to happen then?
When one of your employees is repeatedly threatening YouTube, causing damage to advertisers, and negatively impacting all YouTubers?
You think we're mad when we get hit by the adpocalypse?
I'll tell you what.
All of my videos are demonetized out the gate because of people like Carlos.
But guess what?
He's biting the hand that feeds him.
And you know what?
I can respect, to an extent, him calling out YouTube.
I'd do the same thing.
I'll bite the hand that feeds me, too.
I think it's actually BS that YouTube would end up targeting Well, it's a complicated situation, right?
I get it.
Advertisers want to pull out.
YouTube's trying to salvage this.
But YouTube has a lot to answer for.
So I will absolutely respect anybody who wants to challenge big tech, 100%.
Carlos, on the other hand, was going after an independent creator and trying to use YouTube as leverage.
He was trying to use social justice to force YouTube to harm a creator he didn't like over mean things that Crowder said.
And YouTube was right.
If YouTube takes down Crowder, they've got to take down Trevor Noah.
They've got to take down John Oliver.
And they can't.
The jokes Crowder made are exactly in line with what Samantha Bee did, and what Trevor Noah does, and what John Oliver does.
Now, the Samantha Bee thing I think was serious.
It was when she referred to Ivanka with those horrible words I can't repeat because I'm on YouTube, but uh...
That was serious.
That wasn't, like, a slap on the wrist.
That was serious trouble for her.
But for, like, John Oliver and Trevor Noah, they make racial jokes all the time.
I don't want to say racist, because I don't want to play that stupid game.
But here's the thing.
What do you think happens when Carlos won't stop?
Eventually, someone from YouTube says to Vox, like, look, I don't think we're going to engage in a deal with you if you are hosting content that repeatedly tries to damage our business.
Now, this is actually kind of worrisome.
You know, a lot of people celebrated when Hulk Hogan won his lawsuit against Gawker, Peter Thiel, and then Gawker basically had to sell and was effectively shut down.
The way I described it was, after that victory, me and a bunch of people I know on the left, in journalism, were laughing, and like, everybody hated Gawker.
I kid you not.
My left-wing journalist friends, I've been talking to them, are saying, like, we all hated Gawker.
Like, Gawker was terrible.
They outed a gay man.
Like, that is not cool on the left.
The left was mad.
So when Gawker loses, everybody was laughing.
Everybody was laughing for a few minutes, and then after the laughing stop, everyone's like, haha, okay, now seriously, it's kind of scary that a billionaire just destroyed a media company, right?
Yeah, that's pretty scary.
So here's the thing.
I'm not saying YouTube is pressuring Vox at all.
I'm just saying, I have to imagine, if you work for this company and you go after one of the partners of your bosses, They're probably not going to support you for a long time.
Now, here's the thing, though.
Vox did support him initially, but he wouldn't stop.
He kept going.
He puts it in his Twitter handle, his Twitter bio, like, pushing this.
He won't stop.
At a certain point, I have to imagine the Vox guys are like, dude, you need to move on, okay?
You don't want to pigeonhole yourself as this guy.
And it's bad for Vox as a brand if that's all you're doing is waging this crusade because a guy called you names.
We get it.
At first, look man, I don't necessarily, I don't like the jokes made by Oliver, Noah, Samantha Bee, or Crowder in that right.
But I get it.
I'm not gonna have them shut down.
I just personally don't watch it.
I don't watch any of it, and I think it is problematic to an extent, but I also understand comedy exists, and comedy can be offensive, and yes, sometimes people poke fun at each other, so look, it is what it is.
It exists across the board.
It's a part of life.
If you can't recognize that, and you want to wage a war over it, don't be surprised when eventually you get cut off.
Now here's what I want to do something else.
On August 9th, Carlos Maza still wouldn't stop, and this is why I think he's on the way out.
He says, you know, he highlights this story from the Washington Post specifically about Crowder.
Look at this.
He won't stop.
He says, YouTube moderators admit the platform makes exceptions for high-profile rule breakers like Crowder.
They only talk about Crowder because of you.
They talked about everybody.
I actually wrote up, I gave a comment to a news outlet who reached out to comment for me, and I said, yes, there's three tiers.
I made a video about this.
There's the corporate tier, the high-profile tier, and the rest of us.
And even someone like me, with 500,000 subs on this channel and 600,000 on my main channel, it doesn't matter.
I do not have the pull that even someone like Crowder would have.
He's got millions.
But here's the thing.
It's August 9th, dude.
It's time to stop.
It's seriously, it's becoming a dangerous obsession.
So then he says, he has this tweet from just the other day.
There's a shirt selling a homophobic t-shirt targeting gay wonk and it says Carlos Maza is a fig.
It's a play on the shirt from Steven Crowder.
I completely disagree with the selling of this shirt.
I think it is causing us problems.
It is crossing the line and they probably shouldn't do it.
But they're gonna do it, so I don't know what to tell you.
Grow up.
People do this stuff to me all the time.
I get harassing phone calls.
I get harassing emails.
I've been getting, like, people calling my phone.
Like, getting my phone number, okay?
It happens.
And people post photoshopped images of me, and they insult me, and they sell things with my name on it.
Welcome to being a public figure, okay?
If you're not used to it by now, it's time to quit.
And maybe that's what's happening.
It's time to go.
You can't handle it.
Clearly the stress has gotten to you, man.
So here's the thing.
I want to make one more important point.
See this person, Waleed Shaheed.
This guy is a very senior Democratic strategist.
He tweeted out the other day this video from Carlos Maza called You're Watching Fox News, You Just Don't Know It.
The hack gap keeps right-wing BS front and center.
Here's the thing.
Carlos Maza is a conspiracy theorist, okay?
And I don't use that phrase lightly.
He genuinely believes in the segment where he shows his eyes bleeding, like it's supposed to be funny, this is tinfoil hat stuff, that journalists are hypnotized, essentially, by Fox News and forced to repeat their talking points.
It's just not true.
It's absolutely not true.
So Carlos Maza, he's putting out dubious conspiracy theories that are being shared by the left.
It is not factually accurate information.
It's weird.
And unfounded.
And I'll show you real data.
We know.
Look, I've got the all-sides analysis.
You've got to dig into the data.
Trust me on this one.
I have been critical of several reports put out that are pro-left, pro-right, because they don't show their data.
All-sides shows the raw data.
They even show how they analyze news outlets.
And they show the language they track to determine the bias of an outlet.
It's actually quite amazing.
And here we can see, after these incidents in In the past couple weeks.
It's almost entirely left-wing media, so no, I'm sorry.
Carlos Maza is putting out fake news, so I won't make this video super long, you get the point.
At a certain- you know, the way I explained it is...
One of the things I explained, I should put it this way, one of the things I explained about a week ago, there was a hit piece on Gizmodo, the new, you know, Gawker eventually became Gizmodo, it's being traded around, these companies are failing.
One of the staff members, I believe, wrote a hit piece on their own company, talking smack about their own company.
And they think that's appropriate.
By all means, you know, call out your workplace if it's bad.
But this writer also wrote a hit piece on Univision when Univision owned Gizmodo.
Then Univision sells it to this new company, and now they write a hit piece on that.
When you work for a company, and you start trashing and damaging that company, don't be surprised when they cut you off and kick you out the door.
So if Carlos Maza wants to tweet even yesterday, it's been over a month, man.
You gotta get over this, okay?
Yesterday, he's tweeting about Steven Crowder.
I'm pretty sure Crowder's moved on by now, for the most part.
Maybe not, I don't know, but my understanding is he did, and he's doing other things, he's doing Change My Mind.
You gotta move on.
So I can only imagine that if he's still tweeting about Steven Crowder, even yesterday, or, no, no, was it the 9th that he tweeted about it?
It was on the 9th he tweeted about it.
And then he's tweeting about, okay, so he did kind of tweet about it the other day, because they were selling this shirt, you know, that was really offensive.
Um, so yeah.
Yeah.
Look, man.
I don't check my notifications anymore.
Why?
It's the same thing.
You're not special, dude.
I get the same thing all day, every day.
I ignore it.
Could you imagine if every day I made a video I was like, people were mean to me on Twitter again.
People are sending me emails.
It would not be very interesting to anybody.
You've got to get over yourself and stick to the ideas.
So you want to make a video talking about how Fox News is hypnotizing journalism and pushing right-wing propaganda and everyone's falling for it?
Go for it.
It's fake news conspiracy in my opinion, but you're allowed to say it.
And I think that's infinitely more interesting than you constantly complaining on Twitter about how people are mean to you.
And eventually, I can only imagine your employers are gonna be like, dude, enough!
I am tired of hearing this, okay?
You need to go on vacation or something!
I can only imagine that when you target YouTube over and over and over again, and your company relies on YouTube for a portion of its revenue and distribution, they're gonna say like, dude, dude, dude, we supported you on this one, but it's been over a month, man, and you won!
You won, it's over!
What do you want?
YouTube's stripped monetization from Crowder?
You won!
You took his money!
Congratulations!
What do you think's gonna happen?
It's like he wants complete scorched earth.
He wants to wipe out everything for everyone.
Walk away, dude.
You got this one.
Steven Crowder lost his access to the partner program.
End of story.
Did you think YouTube would delete a very popular channel with millions of subs?
Of course not.
But they still gave in to you, and you still won't stop talking about it.
So there you go.
You know what, man?
Maybe he's not even leaving.
I'll say this.
When they say he's reportedly leaving Twitter, I want to make sure I stress, we don't know exactly what's happening.
You know, maybe he's not leaving, but they said they got sources.
The New York Post is a credible outlet.
Let's see what their rating is with NewsGuard.
They're credible across the board, according to NewsGuard, they just don't know who's in charge.
But if they have sources saying he's negotiating severance and he's on the way out, and they're not supporting him anymore, my assumption, final thought, is that Crowder won't stop.
He's addicted, he's become obsessed, and now it looks to me like they're basically saying, you need to go, okay?
You've lost it.
Maybe not.
I don't know for sure.
Just reportedly out for now.
But again, I think it was being fired.
So anyway, next segment will be coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
If you like this content, again, share it.
And I will see you all in the next segment.
Don Lemon is being sued for alleged assault, and I'm just gonna come out and say it.
It is sexual in nature.
Now, it's dancing on the line of whether I would actually call it sexual assault.
Let me just give you the details, so plug your children's ears, because we're about to get pretty adult in this story.
According to the lawsuit, a guy was at a bar when Don Lemon reached his hands down his pants and then pulled his hand out, shoved it into the guy's, like, nose, and asked him, essentially, about his orientation, to which the guy got humiliated, and then, according to the suit, the guy says that people kept mocking him later over what Don Lemon... They were mocking him later over what Don Lemon had done, and now he's filing a suit.
I'm not saying Don Lemon did it.
I think we need evidence and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and we don't have anything yet other than an accusation.
However...
I always find these stories interesting because I have to question Don Lemon's principles.
Is Don Lemon someone who's willing to give the benefit of the doubt?
He doesn't seem to be.
I'm not going to drudge up the past stories he's done, where he's been criticized recently for not supporting due process for others, but I'll point that out.
My main takeaway here is, let's read the story and see what happened, and then I've got another update on another high-profile story.
Double standards, I might say.
They're claiming it's a lie.
It's fake news.
But let's read this and we'll figure it out for ourselves.
We'll form our own opinions, huh?
Now 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, a crypto option, a physical address.
And let me stress, Yes, this is one of those stories that YouTube is absolutely going to punish.
Heaven forbid I talk about something affecting a national news anchor on one of the top news cable TV channels.
But of course, this is breaking news.
It's in the press.
YouTube doesn't want me talking about it.
Yeah, so if you think I should be talking about it, you share this video and I would greatly appreciate it.
Let's read.
He's soured on lemon!
Haha, very funny.
A former Hamptons bartender says in a new lawsuit that Don Lemon assaulted him after the CNN host disgustingly fondled himself at a local watering hole.
Dustin Heiss says in his Suffolk County Supreme Court suit that he was slinging drinks in July 2018 for the Old Stove Pub in Sagaponeck when he and his co-workers decided to go out for drinks after work one night.
The group headed to Murph's Backstreet Tavern in Sag Harbor, where Heiss told the Post, I see out of the corner of my eye it's Don Lemon there too.
I had two beers, maybe three at most, Heiss recalled.
I said, hey Don, let me buy you a drink.
I turned to Nick the bartender and said, hey Nick, let me get two vodka lemon drops, and put two fingers in the air.
Don was sitting with two or three other people, and he looks at me and goes, I'm just trying to have a good time, man.
I said, oh, okay, sorry, and that was it.
I absolutely wasn't hitting on him whatsoever, Heiss said of Lemon53, who is gay and married.
I'm a heterosexual male, that's Heiss saying.
As alleged in his complaint, Heist38 told The Post, about 5 or 10 minutes later, Don gets up.
Okay, it's about to get pretty gross, so I'm warning you now.
I know some people say that they have like, this, this, my segments are on while they're driving the kids and stuff.
Let this be the warning.
It's about to get adult.
So, about five or ten minutes later, Don gets up, walks around the bar, comes right up to me, puts his hands down his board shorts, rubs himself aggressively, his penis and whatever else down there, then shoved his index and middle fingers in plaintiff's mustache and under his nose, according to the lawsuit.
Which was filed over the weekend.
And he goes, do you like... I'm gonna, I'm gonna claim the language a little bit.
He says, do you like female parts or male parts?
And he kept saying P or D, P or D, he said three or four times.
I'm like, whoa man, what the hell?
Heist claimed.
The accuser said he was so traumatized that he fled the bar and came back a couple minutes later to find Lemon gone.
I had to go into work the next day, and by then people all across town knew it, Heist told the Post.
It spread like wildfire.
And I had people coming in that week and ordering lemon drops and being like, give me two, infuriating and humiliating him, he said.
Heist says in his suit that he suffered severe emotional stress and loss of future earnings and opportunities, and is suing for unspecified damages.
CNN responded in a statement.
The plaintiff in this lawsuit has previously displayed a pattern of contempt for CNN on his social media accounts.
This claim follows his unsuccessful threats and demands for an exorbitant amount of money from Don Lemon.
Don categorically denies these claims, and this matter does not merit any further comment at this time.
So let me stop here, make a point.
Possible the dude's lying.
If he was going on social media and ragging on CNN, then maybe he doesn't like Don Lemon.
However, it's also possible that he was ragging on CNN because Don Lemon jammed his fingers in his face and started asking him lewd questions.
It's also possible this guy now really doesn't like CNN because he was having what he thought was an innocent exchange and a creepy dude walked up to him, rubbed his junk, and then jammed his fingers in his face.
So, that makes sense too.
Well, Don Lemon denies it.
And I'm gonna say it.
Hey, man, you need evidence.
Otherwise, I don't move from here.
By all means, make the claim.
I'm not gonna move on this at all unless you can prove it.
Unless there's some witnesses.
Hey, there were people there, right?
There were a lot of people.
Your friends.
I thought your friends were with you.
Let's see.
Let's bring your friends out.
Let's see what they have to say.
And if you can prove it, I'm all ears.
I absolutely think if he's making the accusation, then we should listen.
But without evidence, I'm not going to throw Don Lemon under the bus.
And you guys know I really, really don't like Don Lemon.
I think he is one of the worst people on TV.
He got like a fake award for being like the worst journalist on TV.
He's entertained the idea of a black hole swallowing a missing airplane.
Yeah, Don Lemon, I am the last person to want to defend this guy.
But you know what?
You know, what do they say?
Pixar didn't happen, okay?
If you can't prove it, I'm not... I will criticize Don Lemon for being an idiot all day and night, for sure, but I'm not going to, you know, play any of these games about potential assault unless you can really prove it, you know?
Let's read.
I'll give you my honest opinion, right?
said Heiss's camp contacted Lemon's lawyer and demanded $1.5 million in exchange for
not filing the suit, the source said.
Lemon refused the demand because he did nothing wrong, the source said.
A Heiss source said there were talks about a financial settlement and that Lemon's side
offered six figures, but in the end, the potential deal never materialized.
CNN didn't comment on the six-figure claim.
So let me, let me, here's, I'll give you my honest opinion, right?
I gotta say, they offered him six figures?
I kinda lean towards Don Lemon probably did something.
But I also lean towards, dude, if they offered you six figures, you shoulda taken it.
I mean, come on, let's be real.
Don Lemon, if it's true, you're saying he walked up and shoved his fingers in your face, he deserved a good, you know, bop on the face for doing that.
You know, defend yourself if someone's gonna jam their hands in your face, especially after something like that.
Somebody who wants to sexually assault you, I mean, I'm gonna say it's what it was, rubbing your junk and then shoving it in someone's face.
Hey man, you have a right to defend yourself.
Shove them back.
Don Lemon deserves a good, you know, uh... I don't want to advocate for any kind of even retaliatory violence.
That's not what I'm trying to say.
I'm trying to say, like, if someone did it to me, defend yourself.
In this instance, Lemon deserved to get pushed back for attacking this guy.
1.5 million dollars, however?
I'm not... I'm not seeing that.
So I kind of feel like if this dude's reaching for 1.5 million, I'm less inclined to trust him.
Look, if somebody offered six figures, let me make one point very clear.
I've been involved in lawsuits dealing with businesses and unfair practices.
You don't win money like this.
A lot of people seem to think that lawsuits are worth gold.
You know, you trip in a Walmart and you get a six-figure settlement?
You don't!
They pay you a couple hundred bucks and cover your medical bills and you're on your way and it sucks.
It's a waste of everyone's time.
It's really hard to get money in the six-figure category.
So, for whatever reason, it didn't materialize.
Let's read on.
As for social media attacks on CNN, Heist said, Heist's suit claims Lemon, an Emmy Award-winning news anchor who, among other things, purports to be a staunch advocate for the MeToo movement, but when the cameras are turned off, Lemon's actions are in stark and disturbing contrast to the public persona he attempts to portray.
Heis' lawyer, Andrew Meltenberg, said, Just because my client is a straight man doesn't make this
assault any more acceptable than if you were a woman.
This lawsuit is sending a message loud and clear.
If you are in a position of power, you cannot get away with sexual assault, no matter what the circumstances are.
I have another story, but I do want to make one point.
I really, you know, the, like...
People lying about this, it really is rare.
Let's be real, man.
I lean towards, if he's filing a suit at all, and CNN's offering a settlement, I lean towards Don Lemon probably did something.
But I'll say this, I will stress, I am not going to move beyond an accusation was made Interesting, until you can provide evidence.
You got somebody at the bar who was a witness who was like a third party?
Bring him out, let's hear it.
Because here's the other story.
A model said Katy Perry sexually assaulted him at a party in 2012, but her friends say it's untrue.
Excellent work, BuzzFeed!
Because friends, those are excellent third party witnesses, right?
I think this is BS from BuzzFeed.
To be on the side of the political debate they are, to push the kind of stories they do about Me Too, Brett Kavanaugh, etc., and then to come out with a defense piece, but her friends say it's untrue.
We don't need that framing.
That's totally irrelevant.
An accusation was made against Katy Perry.
Guess what?
She has a history of doing this.
She was accused once of grabbing Shawn Mendes's butt, and she kissed a guy without his consent on TV, and they thought it was a joke.
So here's the game the media loves playing.
Did Don Lemon do anything?
Let's be real.
I don't know.
A guy made an accusation.
Prove it.
I'm not gonna be critical of Don Lemon until you can prove it.
It's even possible they offered a settlement just because sometimes it's easier to settle than deal with the courts and to deal with the press.
So it doesn't even mean that Don Lemon actually did anything wrong.
And if you can't prove it, I'm sorry.
You know, I definitely lean towards, if someone makes the claim, I doubt they're liars.
I lean more towards, you know, people who come out and make these claims typically are telling the truth.
Typically.
There absolutely are a lot of false accusers.
Here's a story about a guy who claims she yanked his pants down.
That doesn't sound out of the ordinary.
It sounds like a thing that would happen.
It sounds like something Katy Perry might do.
I mean, I watched her on TV kiss a kid on the lips.
I shouldn't say kid, but a young man who said to her he does not consent.
He said to her he was saving his kiss for a relationship.
That is a clear indicator that he does not consent.
BuzzFeed creates the story, but her friends say it's untrue.
Oh, thank you, BuzzFeed, for including that in the title, because that's not relevant at all.
I don't care what her friends say.
Of course her friends are gonna say it's not true.
And more importantly, and I'll make this point for this guy, Dustin Heiss, he claims he was at the bar with his friends.
Even if his friends came out and said, yep, we saw Don Lemon do it, I'd be like, not good enough for me, sorry.
I want to hear from the bartender, I want to see from the security cameras, I want real proof.
Alright?
Now that's true for the thing about Katy Perry, but I will stress, Katy Perry has displayed this kind of behavior in the past.
I lean towards believing the guy, and I also think it's just, regardless, I will also stress, I'm not going to throw Katy Perry under the bus either, let's see some evidence.
You know, that's my position, you know.
Claims require evidence, period.
Katy Perry is innocent until proven guilty.
BuzzFeed, you're playing a double standard here.
You want to run a story but her friends are denying it?
Thank you.
That's completely irrelevant.
And what's really gross is they actually include this paragraph where one of her friends is claiming the guy was obsessed with her and it's like, oh, here we go.
BuzzFeed, which side are you on?
Pick one.
Are you going to believe the victims?
Or are you going to believe the famous celebrities?
I don't see BuzzFeed coming to the defense of Harvey Weinstein saying things like, Harvey Weinstein's friends say he's a great man.
No, but you will for Katy Perry.
I get it.
No principles.
Look, as far as I'm concerned, Lemon and Perry are innocent until proven otherwise.
And if they can't provide any evidence their claims are true, I'm over it.
But why the double standard, right?
Well, we get it.
Principles are held by few and are seen far between.
I'll put it that way.
Anyway, stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 4 p.m.
on my main channel, youtube.com slash timcast.
It is a different channel, and I will see you there.
It now seems that the LGBTQ community is feeling the heat from YouTube, and they're filing a lawsuit this story from The Verge.
LGBTQ YouTubers are suing YouTube over alleged discrimination, including suppressing video recommendations and demonetization.
And I, for one, Completely agree.
I don't know about suing, because as we've heard over and over again from the left, quote, but my private platform, but I will stress, LGBTQ content is not exclusively left-wing or social justice-y, like, regressive, right?
There are a few LGBTQ creators that I think do a fantastic job.
I'm only really gonna name two, so forgive me anybody else, but there's Ariel Scarcella, And there's Blaire White, for instance.
Most of you probably know Blaire, but Ariel does great content, too, and she is another one of these LGBTQ creators.
I don't know if she has anything to do with this suit.
I don't think so.
But I want to stress...
When I come out and say, hey, don't ban this person, because, you know, first they come for this person, then they come for this, the cliff erodes and censorship gets worse, and now we are seeing it.
I mean, this has been going on for a while.
So, perhaps a lawsuit is something that needs to happen, but I gotta stress, YouTube is within their right currently to do whatever they want.
I happen to disagree with that.
I don't know if I support a lawsuit, but something needs to change.
People should have the right to make content and express themselves, and if YouTube is the only game in town, they shouldn't be deranking people for talking about who they are and how they feel.
But let's read this story and get a better understanding of what's happening with this lawsuit.
Now, before we do, make sure you head over to TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, the best thing you can do is share my video Because YouTube is, as we're learning now, they're deranking everybody.
They're not just deranking me, they're deranking LGBTQ creators.
So, I will say, if you like my commentary and think, you know, people should hear it, we have to combat that deranking.
So, you have to recommend me because YouTube is less likely to do so.
And then I'll also give a shout-out, because we're talking about LGBTQ creators, to Ariel Scarcella and Blair White.
You can follow them, too, because they're probably getting... I mean, Blair, especially, considering Blair is political and, you know, LGBTQ, probably getting deranked a lot worse than I am.
But let's read.
The Verge writes, a group of YouTube creators is suing YouTube for allegedly discriminating against their LGBTQ-focused videos by suppressing recommendations and making it difficult to earn ad revenue.
The lawsuit alleges that YouTube uses unlawful content regulation, distribution, and monetization practices that stigmatize, restrict, block, demonetize, and financially harm the LGBT plaintiffs and the greater LGBT community.
The lawsuit also alleges that both YouTube's machine learning moderation tools and human reviewers unfairly target channels that have the words such as gay, bisexual, transgender in the title.
YouTube is engaged in discriminatory, anti-competitive, and unlawful conduct that harms a protected class of persons under California law, the lawsuit states.
It alleges that YouTube's actions have violated federal and California laws around speech discrimination and false advertising.
Gotta stop here.
That's not true, okay?
I gotta say, I don't know what they're alleging or what's in their document, but I gotta say, there was an interesting conversation I had with David Pakman a while ago, where he said, I was wrong, I said, why should Twitter and Facebook be allowed to discriminate based on protected class?
And he says, they're not.
Twitter isn't banning you because you're gay, they're banning you for your speech, which might support being gay.
And that's actually a really good point.
And I said, you know, you're right.
That's how they're getting around this restriction.
Civil rights law says you can't ban someone for being gay.
It says nothing about banning or you can't discriminate, but it doesn't say anything about discriminating against someone for talking about gay stuff, right?
So it's interesting because let's say somebody goes into your bakery and they happen to start telling everyone that they're gay.
If you kick them out, they could argue you kicked them out for being gay.
You could actually just say, no, they were bothering customers.
Now, whether or not you win is up to the judge.
In this instance, though, YouTube is using a First Amendment defense that they don't have to support speech they don't like.
That's a constitutional guarantee.
Has nothing to do with discrimination laws.
But let's read on.
The Complaintants, Brett Summers, Lindsey Amer, Chris Knight, Celso Dulé, Cameron Steele, Chrissy Chambers, and Chase Ross have spoken out about YouTube's alleged treatment of the LGBTQ creator community in the past.
In June 2018, Ross accused YouTube of age-gating and demonetizing his videos simply because he used the term transgender in his video titles.
Fighting a sneeze, by the way.
And metadata.
YouTube's alleged discrimination pushed Ross to publish a lengthy video on the subject.
Quote, I don't feel like people take us seriously and it needs a change.
Ross told the Verge at the time.
YouTube really needs to start paying attention to this community.
I don't feel like I belong on a platform that I and other LGBTQ plus individuals helped build.
YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, I don't know how to pronounce her name.
Everybody always gets mad at me when I pronounce her name wrong, said just last week that YouTube does not automatically demonetize LGBTQ content.
Right.
You see, that's content.
But what do they automatically demonetize?
Maybe there are certain words that are peripheral.
You see, how they can get away with this stuff is like, let's say they found a correlation between the words, you know, LGBT and trans.
Well, they can argue trans is just a word that has various meanings, and we demonetize that, it's nothing to do with LGBTQ, and oh, there you go!
They're gonna be able to take you down, and then lie about it, because they're not technically lying.
And this is how these companies can pull it off.
There's no policies that say if you put certain words in a title that will be demonetized.
What Wojcicki told vlogger Alfie Deyes.
We work incredibly hard to make sure that when our machine learns something, because a lot of our decisions are made algorithmically, that our machines are fair.
There shouldn't be any automatic demonetization.
Yeah, there shouldn't be, but every single video I make is automatically demonetized, so please stop with the lying, Google.
We know it's true.
And then a day later, every one of my videos, like 95%, are approved, because I don't swear, I barely quote offensive people, and I'm doing commentary on mainstream news stories.
I am like the most tepid milquetoast fetsitter on this platform, and even I'm getting demonetized.
Let's read on.
Wojcicki also said that two of YouTube's biggest moderation tools, one that focuses on recommending videos, and the other that determines whether a video is appropriate for ads, operate independently.
The systems, she added, are set up separately to ensure the systems are fair.
Well, they're not.
Still, her comments come after years of frustration from the LGBTQ community.
Many creators first voiced their concerns at the company in 2017, arguing that their content was seemingly hidden and demonetized.
Hey, kind of like political commentary in general, huh?
Just a couple of months later, YouTube found itself in another controversy after anti-LGBTQ ads started appearing on videos from LGBTQ creators.
That's because people were choosing to do it.
YouTube recently embroiled in a controversy after the company allowed conservative pundit Steven Crowder to continue uploading videos despite using his channel to make homophobic remarks against Vox journalist Carlos Maza in June.
I'll stop and say I don't see them as homophobic.
I see them meant as just personally insulting and weren't meant to be a derisive based on, you know, Karl Smozek being gay.
He was doing what comedians do and picking on somebody.
So I think, you know, how you want to define it, fine, it's up to you, but it's really annoying how they act like YouTube should have special rules for Crowder and not for Jimmy Kimmel.
Sorry, Jimmy Kimmel once appeared in Blackface.
Okay, we gonna ban him for that?
Let's move on.
Despite finding language that was clearly hurtful, the videos as posted don't violate our policies, because they recognize they'd have to get rid of Jimmy Kimmel and everybody in comedy, basically.
They say the company tweeted a couple of days after Maza made his case public on Twitter, and they do mention that Verge is a Vox publication and Carlos Maza works for them for the time being.
It may not be true for much longer.
As an open platform, it's crucial for us to allow everyone from creators to journalists to late-night TV hosts to express their opinions within the scope of our policies.
And there's the point.
Opinions can be deeply offensive, but if they don't violate our policies, they'll remain on our site.
YouTube revoked ad privileges, which in my opinion was wrong, because they basically said, he didn't break any rules, but you know, we're gonna cave to you and take away his ads anyway.
They say, uh, but the LGBTQ community, both on YouTube and within Google, felt like executives didn't do enough.
Oh, they wanted more!
Stripping the money away from his business wasn't enough because he said naughty words?
They wanted more!
They want suffering!
They want pain!
You won!
Get over it!
Let's move on.
They say that Wojcicki later apologized in an interview with Recode's Peter Kafka at the Code Conference.
As if it matters.
I'm really personally very sorry.
YouTube has always been a home of so many LGBTQ creators.
That's why it was so emotional.
We've always wanted to openly support the community.
The creators who launched the lawsuit believe YouTube hasn't lived up to its words of support.
The lawsuit states that YouTube's control and regulation of speech on YouTube has resulted in a chaotic cesspool where popular, compliant, top-quality, and protected LGBTQ plus content is restricted, stigmatized, and demonetized as shocking, inappropriate, offensive, and sexually explicit, while homophobic and racist hate mongers run wild and are free to post vile and obscene content.
Can I just add, my content doesn't run afoul of any of their rules.
They do the same thing to me, too.
The issue is, the left attacked YouTube, and the media, it's not just the left, but it was like the media with the left are attacking YouTube relentlessly, and YouTube said, enough!
Everyone go to your room.
See, that's how the game is played.
You ever hear that?
The kids are fighting, one kid started it, and the parent says, both of you go to your room, and the one says, that's not fair, they started it.
No, they started it.
They say, I don't care.
I don't know who started it, I don't care.
They just care about advertisers.
So when the left went to YouTube and bashed them over the head repeatedly with a club saying, fix it, fix it, fix it, they're the bad ones, they went, enough!
Both of you, to your rooms and close the doors.
And here we are.
My content being negatively impacted and yours because media actors and mostly on the left Did this.
They did this.
And even now, you have these people saying, the homophobic racist- I'll tell you what, man.
You wanna get YouTube to stop?
YOU need to stop, too.
Okay?
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Couple more segments coming up in a few moments, and I will see you all shortly.
I got a couple stories here with some conflicting information, that's why I'm showing you both.
But the main story is that someone has been firing bullets into ICE offices.
I believe this story is about San Antonio.
I'm not sure if there were any other places that were shot up.
I think so.
This story from KSAT12 says, FBI investigating shooting into ICE offices in San Antonio as targeted attack against feds.
No injuries.
But officials said bullets were within two inches of employee.
Now, here's the thing.
They say no injuries, and they show these photos.
I pull this up on purpose because there were.
Now, first, we have this story from Anna Giarratelli, July 12th in Aurora, on the 14th in Tacoma, which we know about, on the 16th in Washington, D.C., and August 13th in San Antonio.
Here's the photo of the bullet going through the window.
USCIS acting director Kevin Cuccinelli says, here's the photo of one of the bullet holes from this morning.
USCIS stands with ICE as they work to enforce our laws and keep Americans safe.
Now here's the update, and I show this for a reason, because according to this story by News 4 SA, NBC, There was an injury, and they believe—they say ICE blames overnight shootings on politicians, media, and activists as suspects on the loose.
If Ocasio-Cortez is going to say concentration camp, this is what you get, OK?
Where is CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times?
Where's the outrage?
I don't see it.
Because they don't care.
They don't care unless somebody dies.
That's the media.
They want ratings.
They want traffic.
They don't care about what they're actually doing.
I think the media is gross.
Anyway, let's read the story, but before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, the best thing you can do, share this video.
I assure you, it will be deranked and demonetized because we're talking about extremism.
We're talking about an attack with guns and, you know, politics.
But let's read.
They say FBI agents are searching for suspects in connection with shots fired at two ICE buildings early Tuesday morning.
The shooting first reported took place around 3 a.m.
Tuesday on the 1700 block of Northeast Loop 410 near Brookhaven Drive.
We're told another shooting happened at a separate ICE facility around the same time.
Investigators say that multiple shots were fired on two floors targeting ICE officials.
No one was hit, but windows were broken in the building.
One person was injured.
It's not clear how they were.
Perhaps they were running and fell or got hit with glass.
I don't think there's a question that they knew which floors the ICE officers were.
FBI Special Agent in Charge Chris Combs said Tuesday.
The building shot at has multiple tenants with the ICE facility located on the upper floors.
All of the shots that we have found are on the floors where ICE had offices.
This is no question a very targeted attack.
It's not a secret facility, you can go online, it's out there.
So they did some research, they knew what floors ICE was on, they knew what building they were, and they hit those.
Combs wouldn't confirm whether the FBI believes this was an act of protest or not.
I'm gonna say, if you want to call it a protest and they're shooting into a building, I'll call that terror.
But says it's concerning someone would fire off shots at a building regardless if people were inside or not.
To be honest with you, I'm not sure they thought anyone was in the building, which concerns me, Combs said.
If this was an act of protest or a political statement, maybe they thought the building was empty.
But you never know when a building is empty, right?
The FBI Evidence Response Team is currently reviewing surveillance video and more evidence, which could take a while.
And you may have noticed, man, my allergies are really bad right now.
ICE says the building is primarily used as an executive and administrative office building.
ICE ERO, San Antonio Field Office Director Daniel Bible says the national discourse surrounding
ICE and the topic of immigration is reckless, blaming today's shooters on politicians, media,
and activists. So I'll read their quote, but I want to make a point that, first of all,
like I said in the beginning, when it comes to the discussion about extremism and radicalization,
where's the condemnation of Sean King?
Where's the condemnation of Reza Aslan?
When people talk about enforcement, where's the condemnation of the Democrats who are not providing the funding?
Okay, so they did, but like the far-left Democrats refusing to provide funding.
And why are you blaming ICE?
Okay?
If there are problems, point the finger at whoever, okay?
But ICE are just like low-tier dudes, and men and women, who are making relatively low amounts of money to do their job.
Now, I'm not one to ever say that just following orders defense is a good one, by no means.
But we do have to do something, and I don't know what the solution is.
The Democrats, for the longest time, dragged their feet, the problem got worse, the rhetoric escalated, and you've got Democrats like AOC refusing to acknowledge the role they played.
And it's something we see across the board.
After what happened in El Paso, The New York Times blames conservatives refusing to recognize that there are people on the left who contributed to some of the rhetoric he used.
It's not just the right.
The left is playing the game too, and Sean King comes out calling for things like this, and he praised the guy who did something similar in Tacoma, and now someone is hurt.
You see where this goes, and they won't do anything about it.
Is Sean King gonna get banned from Twitter?
Of course not.
They're gonna let him keep playing this silly game.
Let's read the statement.
This attack at the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Removal Operations field office in San Antonio is completely without justification, said Bible.
Political rhetoric and misinformation that various politicians, media outlets, and activist groups recklessly disseminate to the American people regarding the ICE mission only serve to further encourage these violent acts.
Okay, okay, I gotta stop.
Sure, I agree.
But it's not serving.
It's literally encouraging it.
Sean King said do it and do more, and when the guy did it, he praised him for it.
Let's read on.
He says it only serves to further encourage these violent acts.
ICE officers put their lives on the line each and every day to keep our communities safe.
This disturbing public discourse shrouds our critical law enforcement function and unnecessarily puts our officers' safety at risk.
A person was detained shortly after the shooting, but was released after it was found out they were not connected to the shooting.
So the original story that I had pulled up before the update was that they had a suspect in custody.
It's now been determined that the suspects are on the loose.
So there it is.
Congratulations to the left.
Congratulations to the New York Times and everyone else who's refusing to step up and say the rhetoric is getting out of hand.
They blame Trump all day and night, and they take no responsibility for their own actions.
And now here we are with one person injured, and I'll tell you now, it's gonna get worse.
The guy in Tacoma is dead, okay?
He was the perpetrator, so a lot of people said, well, thank God no one else got hurt.
Well, now someone got hurt.
And it's about time people like Sean King should... Look, I never liked the idea of banning people.
But Sean King, what he did, in my opinion, is crossing the line.
It is illegal.
Okay?
If you want to go on Twitter and encourage acts of terror, yes, take them down.
That's why I don't agree with Jordan Peterson's platform where he said, only a court order.
Okay, maybe fine, but the point is, they banned people on the right for being mean.
They leave Sean King up when he praises and calls for terrorism.
They say, this disturbing public discourse shrouds our critical law enforcement function and unnecessarily puts our officers' safety at risk.
Oh, I'm sorry, I read that already.
If you know anything about the attack, the FBI is asking you to contact their San Antonio field office.
The FBI says it is worried of another possible shooting.
I have to agree.
I think there will be more.
I think it's going to escalate, and I've talked about this.
The rhetoric is not simmering down.
It's only getting worse.
People on the left refuse to back down and refuse to call out their crazies, while the right has mostly called out a lot of their crazies.
But is calling, is condemning the violence, for the most part.
Now I'm rather moderate.
The moderates full stop are saying stop the violence, stop the violence, and we get called fringe far right because of it.
Meanwhile, Reza Aslan says Trump supporters should be eradicated.
Trump and his supporters.
Referring to them, at least it seems, as a scourge that should be eradicated.
They go on to say, we are concerned that there could be additional attacks.
We have to stop that, Combs said.
We cannot allow political discourse to lead us to the point of violence where federal employees, innocent people doing their jobs, are put in harm's way.
And you know what they're going to say on the left?
They're going to say just following orders is not an excuse.
Well, here's the thing.
That's true.
Just following orders isn't an excuse.
But we're not talking about people going around to the homes of private citizens, rounding them up, and loading them on trains, now are we?
We're talking about people choosing to come to the U.S., being detained, because they chose to come here.
Even though they know the conditions are bad, even though they know they likely won't make it, they're choosing to come anyway.
ICE agents are then taking people and deporting them.
People who are entering the country illegally or overstaying their visas.
That's what our law is set up to do.
I believe first and foremost, we should change our laws if you think what they're doing is wrong, not fire guns into their offices.
Now admit, Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's just.
But we're not talking about people being loaded.
Like, the ICE, the agents, are not going to homes to deport people and then putting them in concentration camps.
They're deporting them.
That's what's happening.
Okay?
You want to condemn the conditions?
Okay.
All right.
Let's get the Democrats to fund better conditions.
Instead, what do we get?
We get people like Sean King coming from someone like Ocasio-Cortez saying concentration camps, and now here we are.
Someone's hurt.
You know what, man?
It's gonna get worse.
I can say it all day and night.
You can disagree with me or not.
It's going to get worse.
Anyway, stick around.
I have one more segment coming up for you in just a few moments on this channel.
For those that aren't familiar, I do have a main channel, youtube.com slash timcast.
It is different.
Maybe you didn't know.
But I hate to be, like, a doomsayer.
I don't want to be someone waving a sign saying the end is nigh, but come on, man.
We have photos of a bullet hole through a window and someone was injured somehow.
Like, not by the bullet, thank God.
But we're getting to that point.
Anyway, I'll see you in the next segment.
Alright, we got some more gossip and drama.
All the best that's fit to print.
And you know it.
I'm gonna bring you that juicy, sweet YouTuber gossip.
Actually, this story is a bit complicated and goes beyond YouTube.
I'm being a bit facetious.
Blair White.
YouTuber.
I believe it's fair to call Blair a Trump supporter.
Transgender.
Jessica Yaniv admitted on the phone last night that they doxed my address and obtained it illegally.
I recorded the call.
I will be calling the police today.
I want this pig arrested.
The story breaking from the post-millennial Blair White claims that Yaniv doxxed her and she is calling the police.
Now, I'll come back to the story, but to understand what's going on, I must go back in time.
This story from about a week ago.
Alleged predator Jessica Yaniv arrested and home-searched.
So this is where it all begins.
Blair White Tweeted, on August 4th, I will be debating Jessica Yaniv tomorrow at 2 p.m.
on my channel.
Jessica says, I'm going to get destroyed, so it should be fun.
Be there.
And the video apparently did really well.
In the video, Yaniv pulled out a taser, holds it to the camera, and clicks it.
My understanding, having a taser and pepper spray was illegal, because Yaniv's in Canada.
So let's read this, they say.
According to the National Post, after the Monday afternoon Blaire White livestream in which the prohibited weapon was brandished, Yaniv was arrested and brought to an RCMP holding cell.
Yaniv was released Tuesday morning.
Two stun guns, pepper spray and bear spray, were seized from Yaniv's apartment.
So the initial story before the update was that Yaniv's home was searched.
Apparently, admitting to having illegal weapons is not smart, but Yaniv claimed, essentially— Well, actually, let's read the story, and I'll give you some of the details, and then we'll see, like, what's going on.
Like, the lead story here is docs— I'm sorry, is Blair being doxed, which we'll get to, and there may be information coming out, but we'll do the context first.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work as a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, the best thing you can do, share this video!
Boy!
Are these controversial issues?
If you think this video is important and should be shared, then I rely on you to do it because YouTube is basically, you know, restricting my channel to an extent, deranking, demonetizing, so I appreciate it.
Let's read.
The Postmillennial has confirmed speculation that the Walnut Grove home of Jessica Yenov was raided by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police last night.
The raid follows Yenov's explosive live appearance on Blair White's YouTube channel, brandishing and demonstrating the functionality of a taser at one point in the debate.
And claiming to be fully aware of its illegality, Yaniv also claimed to possess pepper spray.
They say Yaniv's discussion of the weapons followed a lengthy racist rant disparaging the East Indian and immigrant communities of British Columbia, asserting, I'm not going to read her quote, but she said that they have effed up people who migrate here who think they can do whatever they want.
So, I don't want to waste too much of your time going over the past details, for those that may be familiar.
But, there it was.
She was arrested, apparently for having illegal weapons.
My understanding is that it's on par with a felony.
I don't know how the legal system in Canada works.
But then, for some reason, For some reason, allegedly, she doxed Blair White.
So let's read the latest update and we'll talk a bit about what's happening and why.
Post-millennial rights.
In a new twist to the Jessica Yaniv saga, American YouTuber Blair White has claimed that she received recorded confirmation from Yaniv that the Canadian leaked her personal address and phone number.
White's bombshell revelations come after yesterday's now-deleted tweet alleging Yaniv had doxed her and launching a YouTube livestream discussing the evidence she believed confirmed that Yaniv was the culprit.
So she said, found out that Jessica Yaniv, it was Jessica Yaniv who doxed me, let's talk.
So here's the thing.
This is the news, but I do have to give you more context, I guess.
Yaniv has been accused of being a predator, of targeting underage women with really gross requests I won't repeat.
They're allegations that I'm not going to say are true, but that's what's been going around the internet.
People are claiming that Yaniv is, you know, a predator.
I've seen some commentary, it may have been from Blair, but from some people saying that Yaniv is everything the trans community fears because, you know, Yaniv has photos posted where They're in a bathroom taking a selfie, clearly as a male with a bunch of young girls behind them.
And that's the kind of thing that conservatives have been railing about, and has actually made it harder for the trans community to get the laws passed they want.
This concern that men will pretend to be trans to go and prey on young girls, or people with weird and creepy fetishes will do this, and that's what people are scared about in references to Yaniv.
So I make no allegations against Yaniv myself.
I'm just trying to let you know what people are saying.
But let's read some of this and then we can take a look at some of the other things going on.
They say, Among the evidence White shared in the livestream includes speculation that the users posting her personal information had similar to identical usernames to suspected sock puppet accounts belonging to Yenif on Twitter.
Today, White tweeted, Jessica Yenif admitted on the phone last night that they doxed my address and obtained it illegally.
I'm not sure how this will work.
calling the police today. I want this pig arrested." Well, Jessica Yeneth was already
arrested once. I'm not sure how this will work. I'm pretty sure Blair White's American
and lives in California. So assuming Blair's not Canadian, which I don't think she is,
I'm not sure how Canada will respond to a foreign citizen saying, hey, this person did
They might say it's not illegal for a citizen of Canada to do this to someone in America.
More importantly, it might be falling within American jurisdiction because Blair, in America, is the victim.
But I could be wrong.
At least I don't think Blair is Canadian.
Let's pop over to Blair's Twitter account.
Don't believe Blair is Canadian.
I actually have no idea where Blair lives anyway, but I think it was California.
I could be wrong.
I literally have no idea.
So let's just read.
This is the tweet from Blair.
And we'll take a look at some of the... Actually, let me pull up some of the responses, because this tweet has kind of gone viral.
And we'll read through some of the gossip, because we're doing the gossip.
So, they say doxing is the act of revealing private, identifying information about an individual with the intention of harming them.
Not necessarily, it's just releasing their information.
Doxing an individual with illegally obtained information is illegal in Canada, yes, but the victim, I'm assuming, is in America.
I'm assuming that because I've seen videos of Blair in California, and that's all I can really say.
Yaniv has announced a sudden break from social media saying, Hey friends, I'm going to be taking a little break off
Twitter for a few weeks, need to seriously focus on my health which is not good
right now. I will, however, be checking in on my DMs, media requests, etc. I will, however, be posting
tech content from my website. Love you all.
They say the post-millennial reached out to both Yaniv and White for comment.
Yaniv declined to provide anything on the nature of the allegations, instead insisting that this publication had been provided with a, quote, cease and desist, and, quote, if you contact me one more time, the cops will be called.
However, I believe the Postmillennial is based in the United States, and I really have no idea how this is going to work, because Yaniv is in Canada.
Blair White told us that, quote, I will be notifying the authorities in Yenev's area of the admission of doxing.
The police don't seem to care about the children at risk, but hopefully they care about a trans woman being doxed.
Unfortunately, I believe... I'm pretty sure Blair is American.
I mean, that's mostly based on the fact that Blair has, like, worn a MAGA hat in a video in California.
But I don't want to say for sure.
So, as of right now, as of filming, I don't think Blair has anything up on Twitter as of the past three hours.
Okay, never mind.
Blair White put up a new video.
Worse than Jessica Yaniv, she says, 52-year-old man identifies as 6-year-old girl and plays with children.
Let's drag another predator.
You can check that one out.
I think Blair is going to be doing an update at some point.
I watched Blair's live stream the other day where she talked a lot about this, and there's supposed to be, I guess, an update.
I don't know for sure, but we can see, you know, I want to go through some of Blair's responses.
Someone's saying, lock her up.
Blair says, I'm trying.
If the Canadian police don't care about the kids at risk, hopefully they care about a trans woman being doxxed.
Someone said, is California a two-party consent state when it comes to recording calls?
And Blair says, amazingly, I actually informed Chuka I had recorded the call and they didn't care.
In which case, it sounds like whether two-party or not, Blair has complete approval for the recording, which is weird.
One person specifically refers to Yaniv as he.
He will care once he goes to jail.
I'm surprised they don't get banned.
So I'll give you a little bit more background because I don't care too much about this.
If you're familiar with Lindsey Shepard and Megan Murphy, I think this was the person Megan Murphy got banned over.
A lot of people have made other allegations against Yaniv that, for instance, Yaniv's Twitter account is fake, completely fake.
You can see that, like, This tweet only has five retweets, very low engagement for having 149,000 followers, following around 40,000.
Some people have claimed, you can look at there's like almost no engagement, that the followers are fake.
You know, there's like one, three, and for the most part, Jessica Yaniv is getting flack.
I would say it's possible, again, I'm trying to avoid making any direct allegations, that Yaniv is simply trying to get press attention, so congratulations, here I am doing a video about it.
But Lindsey Shepard was briefly banned for engaging in an argument with Yaniv where she referred to Yaniv as an ugly fat man, I believe, which was misgendering.
And Megan Murphy, I believe, was banned partly because of suspensions due to arguing against Yaniv.
So now, the chaos continues.
Blair White apparently saying she has proof that, you know, Yen have admitted it.
We'll see if anything comes of it.
I'm gonna have to lean towards probably not, but hey, what do I know?
Kennedian law versus American law.
I gotta keep these videos short, so I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up tomorrow at 10 a.m.
