Trump's Approval Breaks ALL TIME High With Record High African American Support
Trump's Approval Breaks ALL TIME High, Record High African American Support As Well. The latest poll from Zogby shows Donald Trump's approval rating is at a record high of 51% with record high support from the African American community at 28%With an amazing economy, though not without hiccups, record low unemployment, and and increasing base Trump seems on track for a 2020 Landslide. Meanwhile 2020 Democrats seem to be floundering so much so that even Bill Maher says they are crazier than Trump and is calling for a recession to get Trump out. Maher knows the Democrats only hope is a recession which some predict may be coming.But so far Republicans are more than doubling fundraising relative to the Democrats. If Trump, the RNC, and Republicans in general are sitting on cash with no debt then they are very much favored to win come 2020.At the same time as all of this, however, a Fox News poll shows Trump near record high disapproval and losing to the Democrats in match up polls. The thumbnail and title were on purpose, to highlight the partisan view of news and politics. Though it was just one poll showing this all time high the important point is why I feel it is more likely to be correct compared to negative pollsSo then how could Trump simultaneously be at record high approval but near record high disapproval?The answer is in the wider data. With an increasing average favorability and an increasing average job approval, the polls from Fox News appear to be noise in the bigger picture.While Trump's average approval is still low, his favorability and approval are higher than where they were when he was elected. Based on his incumbent advantage, a soaring economy, and increasing approval it seems he is on track for 2020 victory.But the main point here is that you need to see the bigger picture.After watching this video check our David Pakman's inverse opinion, that Trump is doing bad.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
According to a new poll from Zogby, Donald Trump's approval rating smashes a record high at 51%, they say.
President Trump's job approval rating at its best since we've been tracking the figure.
And not only that, record support with African Americans at 28%.
While that number is very low, it's actually really high from where it's been.
And for a Republican president, it's very high.
We can see here, That the approval ratings are at 51% and disapproval at 47%, with around 2% not really sure.
All really, really great news for the president.
He's been doing great as the economy has improved.
You know, he's got record low unemployment in the black community, which probably contributes to the rise in his support.
You have prominent black conservatives like Candace Owens that is probably helping the president to a great degree.
Now here's the thing.
I'm a moderate.
I am not a fan of the orange man bad narrative that's being pushed by the fringe far left and the new weirdo Democrats who are promising health care to non-citizens.
I think that kind of rhetoric is outside American norms and it's getting worse in the Democratic Party.
Here's the thing.
The Democrats are fractured, according to the data.
Pew and Gallup.
And I've talked about this many, many times.
Which means I, as a moderate, am at war, not with Republicans, because the Republicans are engaging in somewhat normal Republican behavior that I'm used to, but with a new rising faction that is damaging my side of the argument.
Rational, reasonable, conversation, debate, and moving the country forward.
Instead, we're seeing Nancy Pelosi fight with the Squad, and we're seeing this collapse.
Because of this, And because I have a wider view of various news sources, I tend to err on the side of Trump is probably doing well.
These polls are probably good.
But I always look to the averages.
I always want to make sure that it's not just this one poll that I'm looking at when I'm trying to determine if the president is doing well.
This is President Trump's job approval.
And we can see it's actually at a high point.
It's not the highest it's been.
There were some peaks in the past couple months.
It's down from there.
It's gone up a little bit.
But here's the thing.
Trump's disapproval is actually up a little bit as well.
Not as high as it's ever been according to the polls.
I read various news sources, and I am not convinced a story about Trump's disapproval warrants a full video, for one reason.
It's been higher.
It's been substantially higher, and right now, based on the trends, the disapproval is actually kind of in line with where it's been, with its highest disapproval being, you know, what was this, back in 2017, and a huge peak back in January of 2019.
Trump's approval, however, has seen a slow curve incline.
Now, there are dips where it goes up and then it goes down, but they're not too dramatic.
So, for me, it's kind of like, well, if there is a big announcement in the average that it's higher than it's ever been, I'm willing to talk about it.
This brings me to my first point.
The initial study that I highlighted.
I did this on purpose.
Because, as I stated, The way I see things going, I see Trump as being kind of bad, but not that bad.
The media has gone nuts.
Of course, I've never, like, I've never been a Republican.
I'm not a fan of a lot of Trump's policies, but it's normal Republican stuff.
As a moderate, I see a base that is rallying behind Trump.
I see news saying Trump is doing better and better and better, and I am inclined to believe it, especially when I look at the averages, favorability, and the expansion of his base.
These factors lead me to conclude this is likely accurate that Trump's approval is very high.
But now let's get to the crux of the problem.
According to Fox News, Trump's disapproval rises to near record.
And this leaves me a bit confused.
Well, which is it?
Is it a 51% in favor of or a 56% against?
It's hard to know for sure.
I highlight this because we live in bubbles.
For me, I'm in a moderate bubble, which means I'm looking at—there's actually data for this, that liberals get their news from liberal sources and conservatives get their news from a mix, whereas moderates lean left but have a mix as well.
Republicans, I think it's like 60 to 70 percent in favor of conservative outlets, with around 25 to 30 liberal outlets.
Moderates are a little bit to the left.
Because of that, I see these polls that show Trump is doing well.
With African Americans, even.
I see stories saying his job approval rating, his favorability, his base are all expanding.
I see the economy doing really, really well.
But if you follow left-wing sources, you see the opposite.
Case in point, David Pakman's video recently.
Trump disapproval rating explodes.
And here's the problem.
David's right.
His disapproval did explode.
He's absolutely correct.
I will also point out, as an aside, I think David makes great content.
I disagree with him on a lot of issues.
But I do find it funny that his thumbnails are, like, the same as mine.
I really do feel that we have kind of a mirror image of each other in a certain sense, in that he's more progressive.
He's highlighting the disapproval of Trump.
I'm highlighting the approval.
But let me explain why.
And I want to get into a big issue.
I want to expand into the idea of whether or not Trump is actually going to win, whether or not he's actually doing well.
And I want to absolutely highlight the difference in our perspectives.
I don't know why David decides to highlight Trump's disapproval rating.
I can certainly point out that he's a progressive.
His audience doesn't like Trump.
And there's absolutely data.
And it's from a Fox News poll, nonetheless.
I think that's credible.
However, When I saw this publication, I thought to myself, whoa, did Trump's disapproval just skyrocket?
And I hopped over to The Average, and it's not really there.
I mean, it is up for sure, but it's not as high as it was in 2019.
The last time I made a video about Trump's approval, it was because it was kind of a shock to see his approval was almost higher than it's been in his entire presidency.
So that to me was kind of like, whoa, here's something.
Trump's approval rating is higher than it's ever been.
And this was back around this point where it was at, I believe, 45 or so, July 7th.
It was around there I made a video saying, near two year high.
When you look at Trump's job approval, it's actually been substantially higher, and has fluctuated and spiked, and as of right now, it's not the highest nor the lowest, which to me says, I don't know if it's really, like, there's anything significant here.
I think David's opinion is perfectly valid.
He highlighted a Fox News poll, a conservative outlet saying his approval is up, and that's why I did this in the beginning, showing this poll, because there absolutely is a confirmation bias at play.
I think I'm right, David thinks he's right, and we both have stats to back ourselves up.
I think I go one step further in showing Trump's favorability going up, showing his approval rating going up.
We can see that his favorability is down a little bit, and his unfavorability is up a little bit, but nowhere near a record, and to me, Look, his disapproval is not higher or lower than it's ever been.
His approval, his favorability is not necessarily higher or lower than it's ever been.
It's leaning a little bit higher.
So it's just what's there beyond, hey, a poll says Trump is doing great.
Simultaneously, a poll says he's doing wrong.
I'm sorry, he's doing bad.
But when you look at the actual aggregate, Is he worse off than he was a year ago?
Not really.
He is better off.
In terms of approval, he is better off than where he was a year ago.
In terms of disapproval, it's kind of static.
You could argue it's slightly static as well, and it really comes down to perspective.
So here's the big issue.
Is Trump actually doing well?
Well, take a look at this story from the New York Times.
Trump's electoral college edge could grow in 2020, rewarding polarizing campaign.
Re-election looks plausible even with a bigger loss in the popular vote.
Trump, his base is growing.
His approval is up.
His disapproval is up in some polls.
But his aggregate shows his approval is way up.
And this is why I take the position that Trump's approval is better than ever.
Because I look at all the stats.
The economy is great, unemployment is down, the labor force is going up, Trump's base is expanding, and he's at a near all-time high in terms of the curve, not near an all-time high in terms of disapproval, only by one poll.
Thus, I think the view that Trump is doing worse is not completely accurate.
Though I will highlight again, to stress, David's not wrong to highlight this and bring this up, especially when it's coming from Fox News.
But what that says to me, We are facing a polarized and fractured society.
If you watch my content, you're going to see a thumbnail that says Trump Record Approval, also among African Americans.
I think that's significant, and I think the average supports the assessment.
If you watch someone like David Pakman who's more progressive, you will see the inverse.
And because people tend to only watch those specific channels, that's what they get.
I will stress, the purpose of this video is to show that to you, so I hope I'm doing a good job, and I will recommend this to you too.
Go and check out David Pakman's assessment on Trump's disapproval rating, absolutely.
It's the healthiest thing you can do for trying to understand what's happening right now.
As I'm recording this video, videos are emerging and photos are emerging from Portland of a potential conflict that may emerge.
We don't know for sure, but you've got the left saying they're under attack and minorities are being attacked, which is absurd.
Look, the Proud Boys are going to march around with little American flags, and that's really it.
But then you have Antifa, who's acting like they're La Resistance, showing up, and so a conflict is possible.
This is the extreme end of this polarization.
I don't think it's wrong for David to highlight this video, but I do think our audiences will be polarized because his audience will only see his view, my audience will only see mine, and I don't know if the people watching me are going to get a mix.
I've found that my audience is fairly moderate.
It's almost entirely moderate.
And that's why it's not as big as a lot of other big conservative or moderate channels.
Well, there's a lot of... There's very few channels that take an Orange Man Not That Bad approach, okay?
So, there are very few moderates who are routinely successful.
I've appeared on Crowder and other channels like Rubin, and you're going to see a center-right kind of moderate view.
I have found that the very staunch Trump supporters like making fun of me and aren't big fans.
But they are willing to watch.
The same is not true for these staunch progressives.
So, you know, I've done stuff, videos, collaborations with David, and his audience is hostile towards me, mine is towards him.
But, you know, I don't want to stew on that.
Let's go back to the main point.
The New York Times says, Don't assume Trump's approval rating can't climb higher.
It already has.
Millions of Americans who did not like the president in 2016 now say they do.
Trump's favorability rating is higher than in 2016.
The New York Times takes the same position I do.
Or I should say I take the same position as him.
I guess what I'm trying to do with this video is break down how we'll see progressives act like Trump is the worst, everything's on fire, his disapproval rating is skyrocketing, but then I'm in the same position as the New York Times.
And I think it's because as much as I disagree with the Times, you know, especially with their op-eds, the New York Times is considered to be a moderate center-left paper, which is similar to my political stance.
We both look at the facts and we both draw a similar conclusion.
While Trump's approval rating in some polls is skyrocketing, his disapproval is skyrocketing in other polls, but when we look deep into the data, we find Trump is doing better than ever.
You know, it's not the peak of his campaign today.
Well, I guess Zogby says yes, but we can see his base is larger.
His favorability is up.
His new poll says with African Americans, higher than it's ever been.
I think all of these things together show us Trump is doing better than ever.
And his disapproval rating from one poll to me is just noise.
You will get these polls.
Fox News shows it's at 56%.
That's what the RCP average shows us.
But I think it's noise.
Because when you actually look at the aggregate, it's not statistically significant.
When you combine all of these other stories, the picture that's painted is that Trump is doing well.
In which case, why is it that everyone else, or progressives, are acting like it's the end of the world?
And why is it Fox News puts out another poll anti-Trump?
I think I have an idea.
I think I have an idea.
I don't think it's a conspiracy, but I will stress, this story, Fox News poll, Trump loses to every leading Democratic candidate, is extremely important and good news for Trump.
And I really do mean that.
You may be asking yourself, how is that possible?
How is this good news for Trump, saying he's going to lose?
It is.
But here's what I got to do.
Before we read through this, because I didn't do this earlier, 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 hope what you're getting out of this is an explanation of the bifurcated views and my perspective on the issue.
No fan of Trump, but I don't think he's as bad as the media claims he is.
He's just another Republican president doing what we expect Republicans to do.
Another day, same old story.
But the left is acting like the world is ending.
Hopefully, this breaks down a bit of why I think it's wrong to say Trump is doing bad.
If you agree, please share the video to help support it because YouTube is deranking us.
But let me tell you now why this is one of the best things for Donald Trump.
If Trump's base becomes arrogant and really does believe they can't lose, well then what happens?
People don't show up, they don't vote, and Trump loses.
If everyone really does believe that Trump is on track to win and can't be beat, then we're going to see what happened with Hillary.
I believe.
If the Democrats, the media, and the Clinton camp weren't so arrogant, they would have won.
Trump wasn't supposed to defeat Hillary in blue wall states, right?
These are, you know, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.
These were supposed to be Democrat.
And Hillary Clinton didn't do what she needed to do to win those voters over, but they were so—and I think it's because—they were so arrogant, they thought they couldn't lose.
So when we look at this new poll, what do we see?
The survey asks, if the 2020 presidential election were held today, how would you vote?
Joe Biden, 50 to Donald Trump's 38.
Bernie Sanders, 48 to Trump's 39.
Kamala Harris, 45 to Trump's 39.
Elizabeth Warren, 46 to Trump's 39.
Mala Harris, 45 to Trump's 39.
Elizabeth Warren, 46 to Trump's 39.
Here's my question.
How could that be possible if Trump's favorability is up, his base is expanded, the economy is
better than ever, he has the incumbent advantage, the good economy on his side?
None of this makes sense.
Unemployment is down.
African American support is up.
Another poll showing record approval.
One blip from Fox News, another blip from Fox News.
To me, statistical noise.
When you take all of these factors combined, Trump looks like he's on track to win.
But this is good news.
If Trump's base gets arrogant, like I said, then he doesn't win.
Which just makes me question, what is really going on?
And I've got a couple stories to highlight before we wrap up here.
Anthony Scaramucci says, Very clear that it's impossible for Trump to win.
Apparently, he said something like, look, you gotta see this.
Anthony Scaramucci, who was the White House communications director for 11 days, threw the latest punch in his internet feud with Donald Trump, predicting he will drop out of the 2020 presidential race by March in a no-holds-barred interview with Vanity Fair published Friday.
What reality do these people live in?
How does this make sense?
If we go back to the first poll, I will say this first and foremost.
It is one poll from Zogby.
One.
It may not be legit.
It may be noise.
But then I looked all the data like I mentioned, and it seems like the trend is there.
Even the New York Times saying the same thing as me.
We can see it's good news for Trump when you compare all of the data.
I hope it's a good thing being done by me explaining this.
But for some reason you have people who are so just what world do they live in that he thinks Trump's gonna drop out?
Why would Trump's doing all these rallies?
The Republicans have raised more than double the money of the Democrats with no debt.
All of this information just makes it seem like Trump is headed for a landslide.
I'll stress, incumbent advantage, strong economy.
And we've got the RNC and Trump's fundraising outpacing Democrats to an absurd degree.
And who are the Democrats?
Yet for some reason, all of this data combined, and we still see these polls.
Trump can't beat any Democrat.
How is it that they're pushing the same narrative?
How can it be that when you take all the different factors and all the different stats and put them together, it says Trump is doing well, and they tell me I'm wrong.
They tell me I'm catering to Trump supporters.
No, I'm looking at the New York Times, dude!
I'm not trying to make anything to make—like, I get accused of pandering.
No, I think I'm just a moderate, and I think the far left is nuts.
I think I've made my position on that very clear, and I think when the New York Times says Trump has a higher favorability today than before he was elected, the likelihood he loses an election with a strong economy and an incumbent advantage sounds nuts!
How does that make sense?
How could I put out a video saying Trump will lose, no one likes Trump, when I'm looking at the New York Times data, the RCP average, a strong economy, It makes no sense.
It makes no sense!
What world does Anthony Scaramucci live in that he believes this?
I just can't understand it.
He said, it's going to become very clear that it's impossible for him to win.
Why?
His base is bigger than it used to be.
His base is bigger now than when he actually won.
The economy is great.
GDP is up.
Unemployment is down.
The labor force is high.
A Zogby poll, higher than it's ever been among Americans, breaking 51% in African American support, and he thinks Trump can't win.
What world does he live in?
Perhaps.
As I've mentioned, the data shows liberals get their news only from liberal sources.
So if you are someone, and I hate using the word liberal, but if you're on the left, you're probably reading these things and going, wow, even if Scaramucci's saying it must be true, you're watching videos like David Pakman's and you're saying, whoa, Trump's disapproval is so high, but you're missing, you're missing the forest.
You're not seeing all of that data.
That's why I just don't understand.
I think it really does come down to the fact that moderates get their news from both sides, conservatives get their news from both sides, and liberals don't.
So liberals are living in a world where they're like, I can't imagine Trump winning.
And that's the same problem they had in 2016.
Listen.
The amount—like, if someone asked me, do I care that Trump will win re-election?
Honestly, not that much.
That's the point.
I think Republicans sometimes win.
I think George Bush was bad.
I think Trump was bad.
I think Obama was bad.
So I'm sitting here like, dude, I'm a moderate, okay?
I'd prefer someone like Tulsi Gabbard, but I'm not gonna run around shrieking, clawing my eyes out when Trump wins again.
I'm gonna be like, yeah, the data shows it, and his base is growing, it makes sense.
I'll see, you know, I'm gonna vote the way I vote, I'm gonna express my opinions, but welcome to politics.
He said, this is the kind of guy that's gonna want to be that humiliated and lose as a sitting president.
Oh, okay, he asked.
And is this the kind of guy that's gonna want to be that humiliated and lose as a sitting president?
He's got the self-worth, in terms of his self-esteem, of a small pigeon.
It's a very small pigeon.
Oh, please.
If Trump was worried about losing, he wouldn't have run in the first place.
He was mocked relentlessly in the media.
He is slammed all day and night.
You think he cares?
This is the insanity to me.
The narrative from the media has always been orange man bad.
Always.
How many moderate outlets do you have?
You have, like, Epoch Times.
There's a fairly moderate view of the president, and they get called Trump supporters because of it.
I have a very moderate view of the president.
I'm called right-wing because of it.
It's like, listen, man, if you look at all of the data from all of the sources, and you come to the conclusion that Trump is doing bad, you live in a weird world.
You do.
The data doesn't support this.
I can talk about Fox News predicting a defeat, but I feel like this is noise compared to literally every other metric.
So they say the comments come following a week of tweeting back and forth and derogatory statements to the press between the two men.
Why am I going to trust the word of a guy who got fired for going on a profanity-laced tirade against his fellow employees?
He worked for 11 days.
His opinion means very little to me.
He also apparently did this mass following campaign on Twitter to bolster his following.
It's a complicated thing, but it's absurd.
So let's move on because I want to make a couple other points.
Check this out.
Bill Maher stands by recession remarks very worth getting rid of Trump.
Are you kidding me, man?
The economy is better than it's been in a really long time, okay?
Labor force participation is way higher.
I can say that a million times in this video.
And you want a recession?
I like Bill Maher.
I love it when he does these segments calling out the regressive left.
It is amazing.
He recently did one where he said, stop blaming grandpa because, you know, you are not morally better than Joe Biden, than your grandparents, because people change, society changes.
And I thought it was fantastic.
He was calling out the regressive left and he does it a lot.
He had Milo on his show at one point.
But saying you want a recession, I'll admit, Maher is right.
If there's a recession, Trump is in trouble.
But guess what?
There isn't one.
Now, a lot of people have been saying perhaps there will be a recession, and that is disconcerting for the president and his supporters.
But for now, things are going really well.
Bill Maher knows this.
Bill Maher has called out the insane left.
He said the Democrats—oh, there's a really—oh my god, it's really amazing.
Bill Maher said, the Democrats just need to be less crazy than Trump, and they're blowing that too.
And he's right.
So Bill Maher knows his only hope is a recession, because it's the only thing they have.
Do they have any sane positions?
No.
What do they have?
Trump will win 2020 race if Dems focus only on free stuff.
I don't know what the this is, but the point stands.
I was talking to some middle Americans.
Look, I don't hang out in political bubbles.
I don't hang out with very many people at all.
So I went out recently and I was talking to some people and I asked them, how do you feel about the Democrats' position on giving healthcare to non-citizens?
And they were like, what is happening?
They were shocked.
Why?
Most Americans are slightly center-left.
That's the average.
It leans slightly center-left.
And that's historically normal.
Then you have this fringe faction of the far left on Twitter skewing the narrative and the Democrats chase after it.
In reality, Bill—well, I'll say this.
Bill Maher knows.
He knows.
That's why he's called them out.
That's why he told the Democrats to stop doing this, and that's why he wants a recession.
But to me, that is dirty.
Look, Trump's gonna win.
Yeah, I think so.
He might lose.
You know, the polls have been wrong consistently.
Who knows if any of this matters.
But in the end, Trump is likely to win based on several factors, and I think that's fair.
And when you highlight the fact that his base is bigger, his approval rating is higher, then yeah.
Higher than when he got elected in the first place.
I think it's all pointing in one direction.
The fact that Bill Maher is saying a recession will get him out shows that even Bill Maher recognizes this.
My position, as a more moderate individual is, if Trump wins, he deserves to win.
Bill Maher's position, hope for a recession because it's the only way you're going to win because winning is more important.
I think the health of our country is more important.
One of the criticisms I have for Trump is that I think his rhetoric and his Twitter account and a lot of things he does is detrimental for this country.
But I have to admit, the economy and certain other factors are better.
And while his foreign policy is damn near just as bad as Barack Obama's, it is slightly better so far.
So, I can't say it's a good or bad thing, but it is a little... I'll say it is a little better.
It is a little bit good.
But it's still fairly bad, right?
And that's my position.
The orange man is bad, but come on, not that bad.
Like, you have MSNBC claiming he's trying to exterminate Latinos?
Are you nuts?
He's just a Republican!
Calm down!
Go home!
Have some ramen with your family and watch a movie!
Chill!
People need to calm down in this country.
And Tucker Carlson said the same thing, but boy, they come after that guy, right?
So let me wrap this up.
Not to make this too long.
I saw this poll.
And the fact that Zogby, which is a prominent source, said that his approval rating is a record high, I said, okay, but what about the average?
I know that Fox News also said his disapproval is a near record high, and I said, okay, what about the average?
And in the end, I believe that all metrics point towards Trump is actually doing better today than he was a year ago, which means the Fox News poll A blip.
Static.
The Zogby poll, more in line with the data from multiple sources.
So I'll end by saying one thing.
I really, really would like all of you to go check out David Pakman's video on Trump's disapproval ratings.
Because while I disagree with a lot of his politics, I think there are very few people who are trying to legitimately and honestly engage with opinions that are counter.
David's a progressive, but I certainly think he's a good dude.
I certainly think there are things I disagree with him on.
But, look, man, the best thing I can say is I don't want to perpetuate a narrative that is incorrect.
Absolutely not.
I think my opinions are right.
I think I'm doing the right thing, but I recognize I'm not the smartest person in the world.
And while I disagree with someone like Pac-Man, I would actually say, you guys should go check him out, and then you can decide.
And that's the main point.
And I think David would agree.
And that's one of the reasons why I think he's one of the better channels to watch.
I don't want you to come to my channel only and then, you know, pat each other on the back, shake each other's hands about how Trump is doing great.
You should challenge your biases.
And that's the best thing I can do to try and present some kind of sanity in this fractured reality.
Because if we only have people who are watching right-wing content and left-wing content, the moderates in between are destroyed.
And so, I know, you know, it's kind of crazy, but most of the people who watch me are moderate.
Almost all of the messages I get are moderates.
And so that's the thing.
If you find yourself being left, right, top, down, whatever, Watch other content.
Unfortunately, this new faction of aggressive left types, they don't.
And I'm not trying to be a dick, but that's the case.
Okay?
I can walk up to any conservative and say, would you want to do an interview?
They'll say yes.
And they'll talk to me on the spot.
The same is not true for the progressives.
It's even not necessarily true for people I find rational, like David Pakman, who they have fears.
I'm not saying specifically David.
I'm not trying to put words in his mouth.
No, I'm just saying even rational people I know on the left are worried about getting attacked.
Actually, I'll say this.
David and I actually did a video together, but David put out a video about how he can't say certain things out of fear of being attacked.
I don't really care, personally.
I'll say whatever I feel like saying, right?
I made a video completely opposing the death penalty, and I got slammed by people who watched it.
Don't care.
That's the truth.
And I have no problem making a video where I say things whether or not someone's going to like it.
So I'll end with one final thought, because this is long.
To those people who don't understand how this space works, no, I don't make content trying to pander to or attract an audience.
The audience is attracted to my opinion.
There's an inverted worldview.
I don't think David is trying to figure out the best way to get progressives to watch his content.
I think David has an opinion, and there's something he finds interesting, and he makes a video about it.
And the same is true for me.
Now, David has said on a video that he views me as an agitator of a laugh or something.
That's fine.
That's your opinion.
But let me just state this one final point.
I started making videos.
I find stories I think are interesting.
Sometimes it's like Star Wars.
I make a video about it.
It was getting like 50,000 views seven months ago.
Now they're getting hundreds of thousands of views.
Why?
Because people are gathering around the content I already made.
I already make.
My opinion is not changing.
It's rather the same.
It changes with new information.
But I hope this video kind of gives you a breakdown of why I think Trump is doing well.
That I'm not trying to pander to anybody.
I think the data supports it.
And why I disagree with progressives on the issue.
And I hope you all consider watching a progressive channel for a counterpoint, because maybe there's something I missed.
Thanks for hanging out.
This is a long video, but hey, it is what it is.
Next segment will be at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6pm, where I just talk about things that I want to talk about.
You could send me an article, and I might be like, I really don't know, right?
So I do.
I do what I do.
And then, if you like it, I appreciate it, share this video, and I will see you all in the next segment.
Epstein's death has officially been ruled a suicide by the medical examiner.
And as much as there are a lot of people who are gonna say, see, it's over, the story's done, it's actually not done.
It's not.
There's still a few things to consider.
Was he allowed to commit suicide, right?
So if it was just suicide, The question may be that the guards still screwed up, or maybe there still is a conspiracy in that somebody said, look the other way, let him end it.
So, there have been some speculation that he was simply allowed to commit suicide.
He was taken off suicide watch, the guard wasn't a real guard, they slept, they lied, and then they wake up to find he had done the deed.
However, the story's actually not done for a legitimate reason.
Epstein's lawyers are rejecting the findings of the medical examiner, saying they're going to be releasing a statement in the coming days, and all that really matters is that no one is buying it.
Take a look at this tweet from Peter Baker.
Medical Examiner rules Epstein death a suicide.
He appeared to have tied a bed sheet to the top of a set of bunk beds, then knelt toward the floor with enough force that he broke several bones in his neck, officials said.
Now I see a lot of people saying, how do you kneel with force?
And I guess you just kind of drop, I guess?
Or you lean forward?
I don't know, but I don't want to act like I know better than medical examiners.
I am not a doctor, or a nurse, or a medical professional.
And if the bones in your neck can be broken relatively easily, perhaps that's the case.
I think a lot of people are going to assume whatever the bone is, it's like your arm or your leg.
No, it's probably a small bone that is broken with not even that much force, right?
Here's the thing.
The first tweet underneath, yeah, right, well, we don't believe it.
Trump, Putin, and Barr did this guy in.
Well, you gotta love that there are people who believe either Trump did it or the Clintons did it because it's still 2016.
But let's jump over to the actual story and read about what's fascinating to me is the lawyers challenging the medical examiner's findings.
Now, before we get started, Make sure you head over to TimCast.com slash Donut if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, there's a crypto option, there's a physical address, but of course, the best thing you can do is just share this video because I assure you.
You know what, man?
There are a ton of really big stories lately dealing with immigration, dealing with Israel, dealing with suicide, and YouTube deranks, demonetizes, and pushes down this content.
Meanwhile, CNN and every other channel gets to talk about it all day and night.
Jimmy Kimmel can talk about it.
There's nothing we can really do.
The only thing you can do is share this video if you think it's important.
That's about it.
And that counteracts the deranking.
But let's read.
The New York Times reports the New York City Medical Examiner said on Friday that Jeffrey Epstein's death in a federal jail cell was a suicide, confirming he hanged himself.
Mr. Epstein's death had set off a wave of unfounded conspiracy theories as people speculated online without evidence.
Wait, wait, wait.
Hold on.
You see how they do this?
Why did you add that phrase?
There was evidence.
There is evidence.
There is.
Listen.
You know what evidence means?
Like, there seems to be this thing in the press where they think the word evidence means that there's like one little nugget that proves everything in the universe is true.
Now, I'll tell you about evidence to present you with not necessarily a founded conspiracy, but certainly not unfounded theories.
How about one of the guards wasn't a guard?
How about they were both sleeping?
How about he was just taken off suicide watch?
How about they removed his cellmate the day before?
Violations of protocol every step of the way.
And then you had a statement from multiple medical examiners to the Washington Post.
That the broken bones in the neck were more common in strangulation.
Those are not unfounded and without evidence.
A medical examiner could testify in a courtroom their professional expert opinion on strangulation.
Now, there are others who think it's more common in hanging.
Fine.
The point is, why are they... The New York Times is so annoying.
I'm so annoyed how journalists do this.
But let's read.
They say, as people speculated online without evidence, that he might have been killed to keep him from providing information to prosecutors about the others in his social circle, including President Trump, former President Bill Clinton, and Prince Andrew of Britain.
But the chief medical examiner in New York City, Dr. Barbara Sampson, ruled out foul play.
She released a terse statement, saying that after an autopsy and a careful review of all investigative information, she had determined the cause of Mr. Epstein's death was hanging and the manner was suicide.
Three of Mr. Epstein's lawyers, Martin G. Weinberg, Reid Weingarten, and Michael Miller challenged the findings and vowed to conduct their own investigation.
We are not satisfied with the conclusions of the medical examiners of the lawyers who had hired a private pathologist to observe the autopsy in a statement.
We will have a more complete response in the coming days.
Without evidence.
Are you kidding me?
Their lawyers don't even believe you.
God, it's so absurd.
The New York Times jumps the gun and says, we know for sure, period.
Remember the last time they did that?
Well, not the last time, but remember, remember like, you know, what was it, 18 years ago or so?
They were so damn sure that there were weapons of mass destruction.
Shut up, New York Times.
Without evidence.
The medical examiner's determination came six days after Mr. Epstein was found dead in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan, where he was awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.
Guards on their morning rounds found Epstein at about 6.30 a.m.
last Saturday, prison officials said.
He appeared to have tied a bedsheet to the top set of bunks, then knelt toward the floor with enough force that he broke several bones in his neck, officials said.
And maybe that's possible.
His suicide followed an apparent attempt to kill himself in late July, and came 12 days after prison staff had recommended he be removed from Suicide Watch and returned to the wing in which he had been housed before.
Mr. Epstein's death is subject to four federal investigations, including by the Justice Department's Inspector General, And the FBI, the Attorney General, William P. Barr, said there were serious irregularities in how prison officials handled his supervision.
Without evidence!
When William Barr says serious irregularities, don't you know what evidence means?
Do you think that when someone is, like, somebody gets arrested, they're looking for one evidence?
Like, there's no such thing as evidence.
There's no plural here.
Evidence is a singular thing.
A singular thing that must prove everything in your theory is true.
I am no fan of conspiracy theories.
I believe Occam's Razor is, you know, the simple solution tends to be the correct one.
And here we have a guy who claimed to have dirt on people, who claimed to have a diary of secret information that would bring other people down as an insurance policy, or at least that was reported before by numerous outlets.
Stephen Crowder did a hilarious segment where he's like, every conspiracy theory starts with some kernel of truth and then trails off into like insane nonsense, but the kernel of truth here is pedophile island, okay?
So you want to talk about the simple solution.
A guy claims he has dirt on other people and will bring them down, and the day after documents are released in which people are testifying against powerful individuals, he turns up dead.
Evidence!
Okay, what does that mean?
One of the guards wasn't a guard.
That is circumstantial evidence.
Is it great?
No!
It is a grain of sand that on its own means nothing.
But you want to talk about why people are pushing conspiracy theories?
It's because there are a bunch of little grains of sand and eventually, they make a heap.
So if you want to have a theory as to what happened based on the existing evidence, that's literally what we do.
So here's what we know.
Guard wasn't a real guard.
He was transferred out for some reason and was there.
They apparently were asleep.
Falsified records.
He had been on suicide watch before they took him off.
They transferred out his cellmate.
Violations of protocol.
Now, do you want to theorize as to why all of those things happened?
Because those are all bits of evidence.
They say, on July 20—and, you know, the point is, look at all the investigations happening because of this.
Do you think that there's no probable cause to assume any of this?
Like, let's just read.
On July 23rd, Mr. Epstein was found on the floor of his cell with bruises on his neck and was placed in the prison's suicide prevention program, where he was under a 24-hour watch in a special cell in which there were no bedclothes or other material could be fashioned into a noose.
But six days later, prison officials determined he was no longer a threat to himself.
What?
Why?
And returned him to a cell in a special housing unit known as 9th Self.
He was supposed to have been housed by a cellmate and to have been monitored every half hour by the two guards who patrolled the wing.
Uh-oh, New York Times, did you just mention there's potential evidence that there are irregularities here?
Not all of the conspiracy theories are that a bunch of men in black in suits secretly broke into the jail and killed him.
Some of the conspiracy theories are that there was willful negligence, that they wanted these guys to look the other way.
Well, you just presented that.
He was supposed to be monitored.
These are not definitive pieces of proof, but they are circumstantial bits of evidence.
In a court, you can have circumstantial evidence and not convict because it's not enough.
The night before he was found, however, he had been left alone after his cellmate was transferred.
The two employees signed to guard him had not checked on him for about three hours before he was discovered.
Officials said the employees who have been placed on leave were sleeping for some or all of the time.
Mr. Epstein had pleaded not guilty and had been denied bail.
So my understanding now is that there's been some reporting, I could be wrong, that his lawyers thought he would appeal the bail decision and actually get a house arrest.
In which case, why would he kill himself?
But let's read on.
I will say this, too.
Look, if Epstein tried to kill himself or someone tried to kill him back in July, don't you think he would have said something?
Like, he lived through it.
Don't you think he would have told somebody, like, hey, they're trying to kill me?
Unless you think everyone involved everywhere is in on it, which I think is ridiculous.
They say, girls were paid hundreds of dollars in cash for the encounters and, once recruited, were asked to return to his home several times where they were abused again, the indictment against him said.
Well, are they adding the point that there are women who said that they were basically trapped there, held there?
They had their passports taken away?
The conspiracy theories surrounding Mr. Epstein's death were fueled, in part, by a paucity of information from Bureau of Prison Officials since his body was discovered.
And the Washington Post, I might add.
The Washington Post ran a story saying the bone break in his neck was more in line with strangulation.
So if we can't trust the Washington Post and that's not evidence, what do you want from us?
You people are insane, okay?
You think that, like, listen.
I read the news all day every day, but there are people who don't.
If the Washington Post can't be trusted, y'all can go... I'm not gonna swear.
But this is what the New York Times is doing.
They're mad.
They want to insult people for theorizing without evidence, speculating without evidence.
The Washington Post saying a bone break in his neck is more indicative of strangulation is evidence.
You know, I'll say one more thing.
I'm done with this story, okay?
Well, I'll follow any leads, I'll give you updates, but I am so sick of the snooty New York urban elite living in their ivory tower, looking down on the poor, ignorant townspeople who are too stupid to know what the hell's going on in the real world, who's sighting without evidence.
It's the Washington Post, dude!
If we can't trust that, and you're going to claim that we were speculating without evidence, well then what do you expect us to do?
I'm not going to trust you as far as I can trust the Washington Post, so y'all can go screw off.
Okay?
And no, I don't trust you one step of the way because you are trying to downplay the reporting of the Washington Post.
And I've got to make a choice.
Which paper is more credible?
The New York Times or the Washington Post?
Now listen, personally, I'm not a fan of the Washington Post.
But what do you think a regular American is supposed to believe when they read one paper saying this is more likely to have been strangulation?
They say, wow, that's circumstantial evidence, isn't it?
That's something that could be presented in court based on expert opinion and actually play into whether or not this is homicide.
No.
Speculated without evidence.
Thanks, New York Times.
Thanks for letting us know.
How is it up there in the clouds in your ivory tower?
Can you see everybody?
Can you see down here?
Yeah, you know what I'm really happy about?
The ivory tower is crumbling.
I hate... Like, listen, man.
I really mean it when I say I grew up far left, right?
I detest the establishment Uber snooty elites.
And I'll say this too.
Look, it's been the Republican Party.
It's been the Democratic Party.
They are the ivory tower elites.
Growing up, I had the industrialists on the right and the snooty urban intelligentsia of the left.
And now something's changed.
Donald Trump is not a snooty industrialist.
He's a crass, boorish man.
He is wealthy.
He is elite.
But he's not part of that Framework.
He's not the snooty I-know-better-than-you, kind of.
He's much more... I don't know.
I don't know how to describe it.
But, uh... It's... There's a thing about Trump that's very different, okay?
And I guess I'll put it this way.
He's the populist right.
Bernie Sanders was the populist left.
I was all for Bernie Sanders.
Now Bernie Sanders is another one of these ivory tower elites.
They can all go screw off.
So I'm not a fan of Trump, you guys know it, but I'm sick and tired of the urban ivory tower elites, and I am excited for the collapse of those who lord above us as though they're smarter than we are.
Because we, these simple townsfolk, couldn't possibly understand what's happening, could we?
Well, I'll tell you what.
You know what?
There's cracks in the foundation.
And part of those cracks are coming from the fact that the Washington Post is the one who reported the breaks were more likely to have been strangulation.
So that means, you New York Times, your foundation is cracking.
Good riddance, okay?
I think journalism is extremely important, but not from these snooty elites who, listen, Journalism is an industry fueled by wealthy individuals with wealthy kids who can afford to live in New York City and not have to make money.
And they're offered unpaid internships, and they live in their apartments in the Upper West Side or the Upper East Side or Williamsburg.
Their parents are paying for it.
And they work for free.
And that's how they get the jobs.
So poor people don't stand a chance.
Working class people don't stand a chance.
And then you get snooty ivory tower elites looking down on the poor folk.
The influencers.
Those who are shaping the conversation for us.
I don't want to hear it.
Take it without evidence and shove it.
I'll see you all at 1pm on this channel.
But apparently they haven't, and now they are sidelining or getting rid of outright.
We'll see what happens.
But I will stress, for those that aren't familiar, news outlets like CNN, Fox, MSNBC pay for contributorship and call you in when they need you, which means these people are getting paid for nothing.
So I can't say it's all bad.
Here's the other thing.
I have another story here.
Playboy White House correspondent says he'll sue over suspended credentials.
This guy, he's over here, it's Brian Karam.
He's also, I believe, a CNN contributor.
Yes, he's a contributor to CNN.
So we got a couple stories here, and there's a reason why I want to highlight this.
I think CNN would do good to bring on these voices, especially after something like this, okay?
Brian Karam yelling at Sebastian Gorka and other You know, Trump fans that were guests of the White House, and he's yelling at them.
Now, admittedly, the guests were yelling at the press first, I believe.
But the press should still not cross that line.
It's almost like a fourth wall break.
So, let's read this story, and you know, I started thinking about something funny as I was looking at this, and I'm like, why should I or anyone care?
But here, man, it's a really good question.
Why does anyone care about what CNN is doing?
Like, seriously, I was reading the story and I was just like...
Well, I guess I'll comment on it and talk about CNN, but do I care?
I mean, I do.
Here's what I'm trying to say.
CNN is a dumpster fire.
They're like on the verge of collapse.
There are much more important things to consider.
I'm not saying it's not important that the media is sidelining pro-Trump voices.
That's a very important issue to talk about.
What I don't care about is CNN.
Like, they're in a death spiral.
They just laid off a bunch of people, they're moving studios.
And so, yeah, they're desperately trying to latch onto what remains of the Trump bump, but they are scraping the bottle of the barrel so much, they're pulling up wood chips.
Like, so, in the end, I'm like, who really cares what CNN is doing?
They're paying some Trump supporters to do nothing, and their ratings are in the gutter.
But you know what?
The core idea is really important.
The fact that media is becoming increasingly polarized, and this is an example of that.
So that's the answer to the question of why should you care?
Because I was thinking about it, and I'm just like, I don't care what CNN's doing.
I get, like, admitted, like, well...
I'll say this.
CNN definitely gets more views than I do, but for an individual host who produces an hour of content, which is what I do, I get more views than they do.
It's a complicated, you know, breakdown because it's not one for one.
It's TV versus the internet.
CNN does great on the internet.
They get way more views than I do, but that's because they're being propped up by YouTube, which is a whole other point.
Which I'll actually now bring up, because before we get started, we'll read the story.
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, but of course, share this video if you like it, and that's exactly why.
CNN is being propped up by YouTube.
Why?
You know what CNN does?
They film their stupid TV segments and then chop them into bits and upload them.
They don't make content for YouTube, for YouTubers, designed for a YouTube audience.
Have you noticed that I'm in a little box in the bottom corner of the screen while the source material is the main page?
This is a uniquely YouTube style of commentary, journalism, and content that doesn't exist on television.
CNN, Fox, MSNBC are being propped up and they don't even produce for the medium.
But let's get to the core of the story, the meat and potatoes, as it were.
Why is CNN sidelining two pro-Trump contributors?
The Examiner writes, CNN seems to have sidelined at least two pro-Trump contributors continuing a trend that critics say includes fewer appearances by conservative commentators on the network.
The Hollywood Reporter published comments from Sources Friday who said CNN had paused appearances by Trump surrogate Steve Cortez and Republican commentator Ben Ferguson.
Both men are paid by CNN, but Cortez has not appeared on the network in over a month, and Ferguson has been off the air for more than four months.
Listen, if CNN came to me and said, we want to put you on a contract as a contributor, and we're never going to call you in, Who would be crazy enough to say no to that?
Free money?
Don't do work?
Thanks, CNN!
So while it's bad for the discourse, CNN has its problems.
It would be good if they brought in a plethora of ideas and perspectives.
I don't know if they're sidelining all of their people.
But this, to me, says the discourse is getting more and more polarized.
Right now, in Portland, you know, I have no idea what's going to go on.
The Facebook banned an Antifa account.
People are bracing for the worst.
Starbucks is putting up signs.
Yeah, discourse is getting dangerous in this country.
That's why I care about this story.
That's why this is important.
CNN is the airport news network, so in the end, I'm not sure I care all that much specifically about CNN, but the core idea that without this, like, you know, CNN, again, for all its problems, it's still good they have these people on.
Well, they don't anymore.
So who is?
That's kind of worrying.
I think that's probably something we should do over at Subverse, actually do a crossfire kind of thing where we have like a left and a right person have a conversation with a moderator or maybe a centrist, but let's read on.
A former CNN contributor said the network would not fire Cortez in order to avoid an uproar.
They'll just pay him.
They won't fire him because that's just blatant.
But they won't book him.
And they'll tell all the producers not to book him.
That's free money!
Well, we call that golden handcuffs, actually, because it means he can't do anything, so it is pretty bad.
Cortez's absence from the network appears to follow an explosive segment on Anderson Cooper 360, during which he accused fellow CNN contributor Wajahat Ali of bigotry after Ali said Cortez was cozying up to white nationalists.
Oh, heavens.
Ferguson also appears to be on hiatus because of a hit from Media Matters, which accused the commentator of running a Facebook page full of bigotry and false information, including attacks on CNN.
Earlier this year, the network cut former Congressman Jack Kingston and former South Carolina Lt.
Gov.
Andre Bauer, who were both pro-Trump commentators on the network.
CNN said, at the time, it was the natural churn of contributors and that they usually do not make these changes public.
The lack of pro-Trump commentators has apparently garnered the attention of the Trump administration, too.
Even the White House has noticed it, a prominent member of the GOP told The Hollywood Reporter.
Now the next story is CNN and Playboy correspondent suing the White House.
So here's the... I'm connecting these, right?
There's a reason why I bring this together.
For one, CNN contributor, their contributors, this is the guy they keep on.
I don't know if they're booking him, but he's a contributor too.
So they're both being kept on for sure.
But this is a guy who's yelling at guests of the present, look man, it's one thing to say you're not going to book a Trump supporter.
There's a million reasons why that could be.
A Media Matters hit piece, or an explosive and offensive segment, and you're like, it's bad for business.
It's another thing to be like, we're keeping on a contributor who is yelling at the president's guests.
You see the difference here?
You've got one guy who made a political argument.
Let's ignore the media matters hit piece, because that's complicated.
You've got one guy who had an explosive argument that I haven't booked in for over a month.
And you've got this guy who's yelling at guests of the president.
One is absolutely worse than the other.
I offer no excuses for the guests of the White House who are heckling the press, which they were.
I got up, and I was there, okay, for those that aren't familiar.
No, I was invited to the White House.
I sat in the Rose Garden, and then within a few minutes, I'm like, I don't want to have anything.
I don't want to be here.
This is nuts.
And I got up, and I walked around to where the staff was standing, and I just sat up against the wall.
And then I actually started feeling a little sick because I hadn't eaten all day.
I actually don't eat until I'm done working.
It's amazing because I seem like I'm hopped up on something all the time, right?
I'm very excitable.
So I left.
I was like, look, the event is over.
Trump is going to be giving a presentation about something or another.
People were heckling.
The press was heckling back.
This fight breaks out.
So I'm out.
I left before the fight broke out, but I could see that there was like I'm like, man, it's not the place I want to be.
But the point is, look, the guests of the White House are rowdy, excited, having fun, and yeah, heckling the press.
The press essentially, uh, Carom specifically, pulls this, what I would say is akin to kind of like a fourth wall break, or a break of decorum, by heckling back and yelling at people, and then calling out to Gorka, and Gorka didn't start this, and that's the problem.
Brian Karam is suing, claiming that he shouldn't have been suspended.
You know what, man?
You heckled guests.
Imagine this.
Imagine a delegation from Saudi Arabia shows up, and they're sitting there, and they look over the press and start hollering things.
So this guy threatens one of the delegates, or a member of the delegation, like, do you have any idea how insane that would be?
There is no excuse for shouting at guests of the White House.
Period.
Like, that's dangerous.
And you know what this shows?
It shows that, for one, obviously Trump's people don't have respect for the journalists behind the line.
But that doesn't mean they were wrong to do it, but Brian Karam was way, way more in the wrong.
To tell Gorka we'll take it outside.
So, I guess the main point I'm trying to make is, because I'm kind of deviating off into this older story.
For one, the press shouldn't be playing this game of hollering at people just because someone was mean to them.
But I think about Brian Karam as a CNN contributor, right?
So, I want to make sure I make this clear.
They haven't fired him, and they also haven't fired these guys.
But it's interesting—and I'm not saying they've booked Karam, I don't know if he's been booked recently, so let's—I'm just pointing out, you've got three contributors.
The Trump supporters are not being booked, allegedly because of a hostile segment or because of a hit.
Brian Karam literally hollered at guests of—it's so much worse.
So, long story short, CNN is trash.
I'll throw back to the thing I said in the beginning.
Before I started recording, I was reading the story, and then I started laughing.
Seriously, I just started laughing.
And I was like, I don't care!
I really don't care what CNN is doing, because they're just in the gutter.
They're gone.
And so I was actually not going to record.
I was actually thinking, you know what, I'll pull up something else.
There's like a Hillary Clinton email thing, which I've been digging into.
We'll see if I get to it.
And then I thought, no, no, no, look.
The core idea is extremely important.
What we see from the White House event with Gorka and Karam, and Karam is suing.
Shows that CNN contributors are crossing this line and engaging in, like, this weird, unprofessional behavior.
And CNN is not even booking pro-Trump personalities anymore.
So look at it this way.
CNN isn't booking the pro-Trump people, has actually fired a couple, and they have this guy who's literally yelling at guests of the White House, and I'm just like, things are breaking down, man.
Like, things are breaking down in a weird way.
I'm not saying it's gonna completely collapse, I don't know.
You know, people have questioned me and said that they disagree on my bullishness for a coming civil conflict of some sort.
But I think the problem with that is people are assuming I'm saying it's gonna be like...
Armies forming and running through the streets.
I'm like dude.
It's it's what we're seeing now almost like we're in that we're in that when the openings You know volley or whatever you want to call it with these street battles, and it's not my opinion There's been numerous people left right and security professionals who have given statements saying like this is it the point I'm trying to make is I'm not saying the world is ending of course not but it does seem weird CNN's ratings are in the trash continually these weird things are happening.
They're not booking these people they're firing these people and it just seems like We are just moving in one direction.
Discourse is breaking down, fights are nearly breaking out, fights in Portland today, and everything just seems like insanity.
And this is actually the next segment I'm going to be doing, so stick around.
YouTube.com slash TimCast at 4 p.m.
Did you know Trump's approval rating is at a near all-time high and a record high in the African-American community?
And at the same time, his disapproval is at a near all-time high, and he's simultaneously being projected to win and lose.
So I'm just sitting here thinking, like, you know, depending on which source you're reading, you live in a different reality, and that's the craziness.
CNN's removal of these people shows the fracture is getting worse.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
Yes, it is a different channel from this.
Don't ask me why YouTube branded this one TimCast and the other one Tim Pool and the other one is actually YouTube.com slash TimCast.
I have no idea.
But I will see you there.
So thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
There's something really weird happening in politics, or it's been happening over the past several years.
The tribes that we once had were comprised of actually different groups.
The left today is a fracturing of what the left used to be, and I don't know where things are going to go.
I used to be a really big fan of Bill Maher.
Now I'm not as much of a big fan of him because he's a snooty, liberal, elite, ivory tower guy calling for a recession so that he can win.
And I think that's insane.
He wants to win so bad.
Orange Man is so bad, he would wish for the suffering of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
To me, that's mind-blowing.
The elitism, you can smell it.
It's palpable.
It's pungent.
But here's the thing.
Bill Maher also calls out the regressive left, and boy does he do it well.
Check out this story.
Maher rails against anti-Israel boycott movement, a BS purity test for Democrats.
And he goes on to say, these people don't know anything about history.
And I find myself clapping when watching this.
I'm like, thank you, Bill Maher.
So let's read the story.
But I'm not letting Bill Maher off the hook.
I will absolutely praise him for him calling out the BS wokeness of the Democrats over and over again.
And boy, do I love it.
But come on, man.
Doubling down on a recession because you don't like Trump?
The economy is doing great and people who are struggling are doing better.
So vote him out.
You're a high-profile individual with influence.
Vote.
Rally support.
Bill Maher, when you go up on stage and say things like this about the woke Democrats, I'm clapping.
I'm clapping.
When you then come out and wish for a recession, I'm booing.
And you know what's scarier to me?
You want to rag on the woke Purity Test Democrats, and I will laugh, and I appreciate that.
It's emotionally satisfying to hear you say.
But then you want to support candidates, and you are calling for a recession.
I will never vote for who you want me to.
You're insane!
The safety and security and well-being of our fellow Americans and our country is more important than making fun of woke Democrats.
Now, I get it.
It's political commentary that's important.
Making fun of the woke Democrats because they're nuts, ridicule is great because it can diminish their power, and they need to have their power taken away because they're crazy people.
But you're also a crazy person when you praise a recession.
So instead of ranting, let's read the news and go through what he says.
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, share this video.
If you support my work, I am going up against CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, who are being willfully promoted by YouTube, who then de-ranks my content.
So, if you guys think my content is bad, by all means, don't share it, and no one should see it anyway, because it's bad.
But if you think it is good, sharing it helps me get over that bump of YouTube trying to effectively shut us down.
Admittedly, though, the future is looking bleak for new commentators, new creators, new YouTubers, as YouTube increasingly favors corporate players.
Let's read.
Corporate players like Bill Maher.
But let's read the news.
Liberal commentator Bill Maher on Friday night went after the international movement to boycott Israel, calling it a BS purity test for Democrats after the Israeli government said it would deny entry to two U.S.
Congresswomen because of their support for boycotts.
Maher drew applause in the studio on his HBO show after declaring the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, supported by some congressional Democrats, a BS purity test by people who want to appear woke but actually slept through history class.
You see, this is where liberals used to be.
Actually, no, no, no, hold on.
This is liberals!
These are liberals!
This is what the li—like, I hate using the word liberal in the American context, but this was the Democrats.
These were the liberals.
Those were the conservatives.
Now something's happened.
What's being called liberal is insane, and Bill Maher is like the last vestige of a dying rational thought process for what the left used to be.
unidentified
And then the progressives go, there is no left in America and the Democrats aren't left.
Barack Obama calling for universal healthcare is a left-wing position, period, no matter what country you're from.
Now, just because we don't have it doesn't mean Barack Obama wasn't pushing towards the left.
We had a rational conversation.
Work is being done.
It takes time.
Burning everything to the ground doesn't solve the problem.
And then one day you wake up with no food, and you say, blessed were those days we held in vain.
When we thought everything was so bad, and now we realize just how good we really had it.
It's predicated on this notion, I think.
It's very shallow thinking.
That the Jews in Israel, mostly white, and the Palestinians are browner, so they must be innocent and correct, and the Jews must be wrong.
As if the occupation came right out of the blue.
That this completely peaceful people found themselves occupied, he said.
The real-time host weighed in after Israel announced they were banning Omar and Tlaib.
He says, both lawmakers have ripped the decision, with Omar calling it an affront and arguing in a statement this week that Trump's Muslim ban is what Israel is implementing, this time against two duly elected members of Congress.
Quote, Denying entry into Israel not only limits our ability to learn from Israelis, but also to enter the Palestinian territories.
That I can respect and agree with.
Look, Israel should respect free speech.
But I understand, and Bill Maher brings this up, these people don't believe Israel should exist.
I don't want to slap that on top of Omar and Rashida Tlaib overtly because I don't think they've said anything specifically.
They've been very critical of Israel.
But behind the BDS movement, behind this anti-Israel sentiment, is a desire to not allow Israel to exist.
Now, I do think it's kind of screwed up they can't go to Palestine without going to Israel, but I also recognize it is a long-standing international conflict, and I don't know what to tell you.
Okay?
I don't mean that as dismissive.
I don't have a solution for how we deal with this.
Let's read on.
They say Israeli law prohibits those who support international calls to boycott Israel from entering the country.
So, do they have more of Bill Maher's statement?
Because Bill Maher basically says, I'll just say it, after he goes on that point, he says, I'm not surprised, something that I'm paraphrasing, that they were denied entry.
He reads a quote from the founder of the BDS movement who says, they will not accept a Jewish state.
Period.
Bill Maher then goes on to read all of the population of Jewish people throughout the Middle East and North Africa, and he was like, in one country, 100,000.
Today, 700.
In Iran, 300,000.
You know, today, 9,000.
Those numbers are off, right?
I'm just trying to give you the general idea.
But he goes and reads through all these stats where he's like, The people, the Jewish people in these countries were being killed and kicked out.
So, they have Israel.
You wanna talk about whether it should or shouldn't exist?
You know, that's a whole other debate.
It exists.
Period.
Now we gotta figure out how to solve these problems and don't look at me, I don't know.
But the main thing I want to bring up here that I really like is that Bill Maher is calling out the ignorant woke purity tests.
They don't actually know or care.
And the people who support them don't know or care either.
It's just winning.
But Bill Maher is guilty of the exact same thing.
So no free passes, Maher.
I don't know where I am on this political spectrum.
I don't know who my tribe is.
Rational thought, perhaps.
I am not conservative.
My politics are squarely left on the libertarian spectrum, like government programs, universal healthcare, all of that stuff.
Yet I don't agree with the insane ideology that's infected what is now called the far left.
Like, I was all for Bernie Sanders, and then he started playing this establishment insanity game about white people not being poor and all this other ridiculousness.
So I like Bill Maher when he calls that out.
I'm like, yes, please, purge the Democratic Party of these lunatics.
But I'm not giving a free pass to the elitists who are multi-millionaires who think we should have a recession just so you can win because you don't like the orange man.
Sorry, I don't like the orange man either, but I'm more concerned with people being able to eat food, have houses.
Maybe it's because I am more on the left than you, Bill Maher, I don't know.
But I think I am willing to entertain the orange man as president if it means people in this country can care for their children, can have a place to live, Do I like all of his policies?
No, I don't.
Do I want, and I'll quote you, do I want Joe Biden to be president?
Not really.
But he is the only one who beats Trump in Ohio.
Not that it really matters.
That's his point.
The point I'm saying is, here's what I'd love.
I'd love for there to be some kind of way to make sure we erase poverty.
And capitalism has done a fantastic job of erasing poverty.
But we're not quite where we need to be, which means we need technological development, we need energy reform, and, in my opinion, we do need government programs that have guarantees.
I don't know to what extent, and I do know most of the ones we have are becoming corrupt, and it is a problem.
I don't think we should have poor, homeless people on the streets of California dying, and people going into debt over small, minor healthcare issues because their insurance didn't cover it.
Something has to change.
But I'll tell you this.
Calling for a recession inverts that whole idea.
What can I do today to make sure that people who don't have health care are better off?
Calling for a recession is the opposite of that.
Period.
I want better for everyone in this country and the world.
I want people to have access to affordable health care, to good health care.
And I think in the long run, universal health care is the best thing we can do.
Now, there's a lot of hurdles along the way, and I don't think we're in a place where we can implement it with the next president or the next Congress.
It's not going to happen.
So we need to be reasonable and rational about where we can go.
A lot of people in this country have good health care.
Let us not threaten them because you want to overhaul the system overnight.
That's to Bernie Sanders and, you know, whoever else wants to abolish private health care.
So I don't know what the right thing to do is.
I know the best thing we can do, and it's certainly not calling for a recession.
Will that increase the amount of people in poverty?
Yes.
Will that increase suicides?
Yes.
Will that increase anxiety and depression?
Yes.
Those are all bad things.
So let's do what we can to slowly improve the situation.
And you know what we do?
You know what we do?
It's really, really simple.
We call out the insane woke people who are poisoning actual rational left-wing policy, and we let Trump We finish his term, and we advocate for policies that we think will be better.
And we tell that person who voted for the orange man, I understand why you like him.
I understand what he's done.
We want to improve on that.
That's my position.
Guess what?
We don't have it.
That's not what we get.
What do we get?
We get Bill Maher saying, bring on the recession, because winning is more important.
And we get a far left saying, we need to overhaul the entire government with a Green New Deal that's mostly about identitarian racial equity and free college.
And I'm like, I don't know where you guys are at on this one.
It's just pure insanity.
That's what I see all day and night.
So, you know what?
Bill Maher, thank you for calling out the woke insanity, but please get over yourself, man.
I understand you live in an ivory tower, but the rest of us poor folk down on the ground below aren't going to do well in a recession.
I don't know how many houses you have, or how many staff you have at your houses, maybe none, maybe you live in a penthouse or something, but yeah, you will do just fine, and I get it.
So you don't care.
You don't care about the rest of us.
Doesn't sound very left-wing.
But in the long run, I'm being very, very harsh.
I am a big fan of Bill Maher.
And I have no problem admitting it, because there are more segments about him calling out the insanity on the left than there are about him talking about the recession.
I think he's got Trump derangement syndrome, absolutely, if he's willing to call for a recession.
But we need that rational voice on the left calling out the woke BS purity tests.
We need it.
So Mar is not perfect, but hey man, I will take it.
A high-profile HBO host on the left who's saying these people are nuts?
Thank you.
I appreciate it, I really do.
But please get over your elitism.
That needs to be called out.
Populist-centrism?
I have no idea.
Anyway, stick around, I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
I have been covering protests and urban conflict for, what is it, 2019?
So, man, we're just about close to eight years now.
Starting with Occupy Wall Street is where I could officially say I was covering this stuff.
Although I've been on the ground at protests most of my life, since I was like a teenager.
And here's the thing.
We have this story from Business Insider.
I'm not super concerned with.
I just wanted to start somewhere.
Portland braces for protests and possible violence between far-right and Antifa.
The real problem.
The real problem is not the far right, because the far right is a nebulous term that refers to constitutionalists as well as the lunatics.
The people who are showing up aren't necessarily far right, they're like Trump supporters.
Organized ones.
Ones you can be critical of a lot, because like the Proud Boys have engaged in violence, like in New York City.
Things they shouldn't have done and things they've been charged with.
You can criticize them.
But I will tell you this.
It takes two to tango.
And I'm going to break down for you why the problem is the left.
Now, of course, there'll be people on the left who will say things like, we can't tolerate these right-wingers coming into our place, you know, our homes, and threatening minorities.
And that's literally not what's happening.
Now let me start by saying this.
I'm gonna get a bunch of people saying Tim's lying, which of course they do.
I don't care.
I've been on the ground.
Okay, please.
If you go to one of these events, you can walk right up to this man.
You see this man right here with the red hat and the American flag?
You could walk right up to him and say, I think X, Y, and Z, and A, B, and C, and he won't touch you.
For the most part.
For the most part, I'm not... You know, there have been instances of violence, for sure.
But for the most part, when people on the left go to the right-wing side, there is no violence.
Now, think about the inverse.
If people on the right or journalists go to the left-wing side, yeah, there will be.
And it's always been that way.
And anybody tells you otherwise is lying.
In 2012, at the No NATO protests, a group of black bloc anarchists linked arms and yelled, charge the press!
And attacked journalists.
They write on walls threats against liberals.
So yes, the problem is the left.
Now, they'll argue that's not true because the right is a growing intolerant faction.
Listen, if you ignore this guy, do you know what happens?
If the Proud Boys announce they're coming to your town, and look, you can criticize them all day and night, no problem with it.
They've done things worth criticizing.
But do you know what happens if you ignore them?
They stand around in a park, they walk around in circles, then they go to a bar, get drunk, and go home, and nothing happens.
But then the left shows up, attacks journalists, they attack people they think are Nazis, because they're living in a delusional state.
So let's do this.
Here's what I tweeted.
On the right-wing side, you'll be safe and have a conversation.
Typically.
And on the left-wing side, you'll be harassed and possibly attacked.
Typically.
That's the point.
Of course, Twitter is a haven for absolutists, so they don't realize there are nuances in these conversations.
And then I mentioned the 2012 black bloc leftists attacking, yelling, charge the press.
And so here's what I've done.
I pulled up a story from January of 2012 from the Committee to Protect Journalists who wrote about me being physically attacked by these people.
And you know what's funny?
The left defended me and offered me private security.
What happened?
That's my question.
So let's read this story.
Before we jump into that, 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.
I am being deranked.
CNN, Fox News, MSNBC are propped up.
So I rely on you to share these videos if you think they're worth sharing.
So here's the point.
During Occupy Wall Street, I was physically attacked several times.
Let me read the section from 2012.
On January 29th, Tim Pool, founder of Timcast, a prominent live stream of the Occupy Wall Street movement, was attacked by a masked man in the streets of Manhattan.
The attack did not come as a complete surprise.
I've received veiled mafioso threats on Twitter, like if Tim Poole keeps filming, he better get security, he told the CPJ.
Most of the time, Poole documents dramatic events, such as marches and police action.
But by constantly filming, he sometimes captures deeds that some would rather he didn't, such as individuals vandalizing police cars.
His steadfast refusal to turn the camera away has earned him enemies in the Occupy movement.
In this video of the attack, he is repeatedly accused of being a snitch or a cop.
He tried to pull down the camera.
I thought it was an accident at first, that he got tangled in some wires.
But then he comes back again and smacked it out of my hand, Poole said, describing the incident.
One can watch as a person attempts to obscure the camera by directing a flashlight toward it, while the other comes from off-screen and strikes Poole.
They pointed a flashlight in my face to blind me, and then someone came up behind and judo-chopped me.
It was a team effort.
But there's more.
The attack succeeded in interrupting coverage only momentarily, as both man and camera were unscathed.
The loosely organized OWS movement has thrived on media coverage and mass marches and the police response.
And prior to the attack on Poole, had offered all live-streaming journalists protection details.
On the phone with CPJ, Poole said he rejected the offer and is confident of his safety,
stating, I think security makes you a target.
In an earlier interview with MSNBC, however, he had been less sanguine, saying,
Sanguine.
I probably will get severely injured in these next coming months.
I pretty much expect to wind up in the hospital.
I said that.
I also said that Occupy Wall Street offered me a security detail, which they did.
And I said no thank you.
I don't want to be affiliated, and I don't need your support, but I do appreciate the offer.
That the left-wing movement of Occupy Wall Street knew the violence was wrong, condemned it, and defended me, and offered me private security from the activists, who were my friends.
And I said no thank you.
If I end up in the hospital, so be it.
Today, it's very different.
Today, those people at Occupy, they're favoring the violence.
They're defending the violence.
The people that I once thought were defenders of free speech weren't.
And here's the reality.
I was confused as to how these people who used to stand by my side would now oppose free press and free expression.
The reality was, they've always opposed it.
They were just different tiers of whether or not what I was producing was beneficial enough.
See, the far-left black-masked individuals didn't want any of my footage.
They didn't care.
And the Occupy activists appreciated it because it gave them a benefit.
Today, many of these people, realizing my coverage isn't providing a benefit, threaten me.
Physically threaten me.
The same as they always have done.
And so it's funny when people say, Tim, you've changed.
Oh, have I?
Have you looked at my interviews?
You would think this statement I made about probably being in a hospital would have come from Andy Ngo today.
No.
That was Tim Pool in January of 2012 saying, The far-left, black-block individuals are threatening me and will likely put me in a hospital.
Today, it was actually Andy Ngo who ended up in a hospital.
I said as per that last line from an NBC interview, though.
I never did end up in a hospital.
But as the far left encroaches and former Occupy activists who opposed violence turn dark, we do see things escalating.
Andy Ngo did end up in the hospital.
And I'll give a shout-out to Mr. Henry Langston, who replied with, Henry, I don't live in the UK, nor am I making a point about the UK.
multiple times by right-wing protesters stop lying.
Henry, I don't live in the UK, nor am I making a point about the UK.
I'm talking about America, where I live.
And you live in a different country!
And yes, I have been targeted by right-wing people in the UK as well.
That's not the point!
I'm talking about the United States!
Where Antifa is running around, causing all of the problems.
So I have a couple videos.
This tweet was based on... I quote tweeted this.
This person here is challenging and, I don't know how you describe it, being very belligerent against this journalist right here, because there's a black and white American flag on his sleeve, saying, you don't know what that means?
Who are you?
What are you doing?
Well, as it turns out, this individual, I believe this is Julio Rosas, So here, was kicked out by these guys.
Who told him he wasn't allowed to be there, even though he's Hispanic.
Told him to leave, and this cop pulls him out.
Now, it's actually quite funny.
The cop who pulled him out, his last name is Poole.
And it's Poole with no E. That's hilarious.
Check it out.
Poole.
Let me pause it.
So Poole typically has an E at the end of it.
But you can see it's just Poole with no E. I just thought that was funny, because it's an uncommon spelling.
Here's the thing.
Julio filmed this man right here saying, we didn't come to talk, we came to like bust it out or something like that.
This guy has repeatedly said on camera, they are there to start violence.
And you know what?
Whatever your opinion is, on the far right, the left, whatever.
When you have people showing up saying they're there for violence, and the right is denying it, think about the optics.
What do you think people are going to say when they see a video of right-wing Trump supporters being like, we don't want to fight anybody.
We don't want violence.
And then you have this guy walking around threatening people and saying, we're here to fight.
We're not here to talk.
There's another video.
I think I have it pulled up.
This guy, I don't know who this guy is.
People are calling him a right-wing provocateur.
All I see is a video of a fat man with a GoPro being harassed, being threatened.
And then in the end, They pepper spray him in the face.
You know, you want to call someone a provocateur if he showed up wearing a shirt that said something like, you know, the helicopter meme or whatever.
Okay, maybe.
It's just a fat guy with a camera.
I'm not trying to be a dick to him.
He's wearing a Batman shirt.
And the funny thing about this video is while they're attacking him, there's another guy yelling, why do you hate us at him?
What, dude?
So let me point... So look.
Things may get worse tonight.
I don't know what's going to happen in Portland.
This stuff happens all the time.
It may be really, really bad.
It might not.
But when I tell you that in 2012, the very thing happened to me that happened to Andy Ngo, or it's worse now, the same thing happened to that guy.
You want to talk about who the big problem is?
It's not the silly bros who show up with Trump signs who walk around in circles.
And then go buy beer.
It's the crazy masked individuals who show up to start the fights.
And there's criticism to go around for the people on the right, too.
The challenge is they have a constitutional right to march.
You don't want them to show up?
That's too bad.
In this country, they have a right to do it.
Grow up and mind your own business and nothing happens.
If you leave them alone, and they do start fights, then you can show the videos and prove it, and the police can deal with it.
But when you show up to a legal, lawful march, protest, and threaten them, surprise, surprise, who's the bad guy?
I'll make one last point.
A right-wing group organized a free speech rally in D.C.
And they were challenging corporate censorship.
They were protesting against billion-dollar corporations.
The left showed up.
I shouldn't say the left, but Antifa and far-leftists, and threatened the people.
So here we have conservatives challenging massive corporations, punching up, and Antifa coming and punching down.
So who do you think is the bad guy in the long run?
Now, I can certainly say, in a lot of ways, they're both bad.
But you know what?
Antifa has routinely started the fight.
And I'll put it this way.
You want to praise them for challenging the far-right?
That's not the issue.
The issue is when, in 2012, they physically attacked me and I was doing nothing!
Look, this reporting from 2012, nobody would have ever called me a right-winger at the time.
Certainly I'm not one now.
But the psychotic faction of violent leftists has been expanding.
The left used to defend what I did.
Now they're angry about it, even though my opinion is the exact same.
Even though I'm calling out the exact same people.
What changed?
They did.
And you know what?
I don't know where we go from here, but hopefully things don't get crazier later in the day.
Admittedly, I'm recording this a couple hours before it airs, so we'll see what happens, but stick around.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you then.
Earlier today, I made a video talking about Trump's approval rating.
The core idea of the video was to show you these disparate views of the world.
Mine said Trump—my video says Trump has an all-time high record for approval.
But I showed David Pakman's video where he said Trump's disapproval is at a record high.
Both of us used legitimate polls, and both of us highlighted them.
However, the point of my video was kind of looking back at David Pakman's content and then explaining why I think I'm right.
I'm not saying he's wrong.
But I'm looking at a big picture, and as a moderate, not a progressive, I think it's possible Trump is doing well.
Well, in the course of producing this, I noticed that David Pakman had a video.
He said that New York Times proves that he's a progressive.
So, I was watching the video and he went to this story.
Opinion.
From the New York Times.
Quiz.
Let us predict whether you're a Democrat or a Republican.
I thought this sounded awesome.
Ooh, what will they find of me based on these questions?
And what are the questions?
Will it say I'm left?
Will it say I'm right?
I don't know.
I view myself as center-left.
Well, here's the problem.
I can't actually take the quiz.
There's no quiz for me to take.
Based on the questions they ask, and based on how they break down the political tribes, I literally can't take the test.
And this explains a few things about me.
For one, why I'm politically centrist.
For two, why I mention that I'm mixed race when I do.
And three, why I detest the regressive, identitarian left.
This story proves it.
Because the first question, I can't even answer.
The first question asks about race.
And there is no are you mixed race option.
There is only you are either white or you aren't, period.
Let's take a look.
And then I actually want to, you know, from this, I want to talk about why I absolutely detest the left-wing identitarianism, why I'm so angry at the Democrats, and why there is a tacit alliance between centrists and Republicans right now.
Now, for one, centrists and Republicans do work together.
Centrists work with everybody.
But right now, the center and the right are in opposition to the left, because the left is embracing a racist ideology that excludes me.
I don't like the alt-right, and they don't like me either.
They know I'm not white.
But the left says I am, and the left is embracing the ideology that conservatives are rejecting.
So tell me what I'm supposed to do and who I'm supposed to vote for.
I am completely left politically homeless.
Let's read.
They say, tell us a few details about you and we'll guess which political party you belong to.
It shouldn't be that simple, right?
We're all complex people with a multiplicity of identities and values.
But the reality is that in America today, how you answer a handful of questions is very likely to determine how you vote.
This quiz, based on recent surveys with more than 140,000 responses, presents a series of yes-or-no questions to predict whether someone is more likely to identify as a Democrat or a Republican.
It captures divisions that should make you worried about the future of American democracy.
Now, they talk about how race is the biggest divider, and that is scary.
I completely agree.
Well, here's the first question.
Are you Black, Hispanic, or Asian?
I am.
I'm a quarter Korean.
Yes.
Are you black?
I am not.
Are you protestant?
Certainly not.
Have you or a family member served in the military?
Actually, my dad, my brother, my grandfather.
Yes.
Are you married?
I am not.
You are plus 48 democratic.
Here's the problem.
When they ask whether or not you're Asian, they don't take into consideration the fact that I'm part white.
That I am mixed.
And so this is why I bring it up.
It's first a point about the lies of the left where they claim to oppose racism, but all they really care about is whether or not you're not white.
They don't care about the experiences I've had.
Here's the problem with this.
Let's restart.
Are you Black, Hispanic, or Asian?
Well, when they ask this question, is the assumption that I'm 100% Asian?
Because if that's the case, the answer is no.
But that's not true either.
I do not have a traditional white American experience or identity, and never have.
So I can't say yes or no to this question.
In reality, I can only really say yes.
Because I am Asian.
And I'm not black.
But therein lies the big problem.
Neither of those gives me a choice to actually explain my experiences.
To actually break it down.
Now they go into this.
They say, the first question is the most important.
It's about race.
Asking whether someone is Black, Hispanic, or Asian cleaves the electorate into two groups.
What about mixed?
Where do the mixed-race Americans go?
And I know it's a funny meme because I mention it fairly often.
Not that often, but it does come up, you know, once a month at least.
Where's my choice?
So let's break this down and go back and let me get all social justice-y on ya.
I completely understand the idea of representation.
I completely understand the idea that for someone who is not white, to only ever see billboards with white people gives you a sense of the world that you are not involved in that world.
I have never really identified as necessarily white, because my mom is Korean, she made Korean food, and we had a mixed culture.
Mostly American culture.
American culture is fairly mixed anyway.
You know, you eat burritos, and we're not, you know, Mexican.
But my mom would cook Korean food, and she would say Korean words, and that gave me a much more unique experience relative to your average, you know, WASP family.
Your White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant.
So the way we vote has always leaned Democratic.
Perhaps you might argue, That's the perfect reason why you are Democrat.
Because you are Asian, right?
Here's the thing.
This is my experience in life.
When it comes to these questions, when it comes to these debates, I stop right here.
And this should give you an example of my politics today.
I don't.
Look, I know a bunch of conservatives.
Their response to my points on this is, for all we care, you're Tim.
And I greatly respect that.
The Democrats used to feel the same way.
My friends on the left used to say, you're just Tim.
And I said, thank you, because that's all I've ever been.
I don't know what I am beyond who I am as a person and my character.
Today, conservatives, for the most part, have retained that value.
They've denounced the alt-right, they've denounced Steve King multiple times, but the left is embracing a worldview that puts me at an impasse.
The New York Times publishes a story, and this is my experience.
I'm stopped dead in my tracks saying, I can't answer this.
It's not a yes or no question.
I am both Asian and white at the same time, meaning I'm not Asian and Asian, and my experience falls in between.
So here's what we get.
We get someone like me saying, I understand this is how you break up voters, but you are not giving me a chance to experience whatever this is.
And I understand there are a lot of people who are not white who feel that way about a lot of things in this world.
And that's why I have always been on the left and in favor of social justice.
And I've always been someone who recognized you don't solve these problems by bashing people over the head or being a racist.
So here's the problem.
Do I want equality for everybody?
100%.
Do I think women should be CEOs?
Absolutely.
I believe everyone should have equal opportunity and a chance to choose and live the life they want.
Are there systems in place that inadvertently exclude people?
100% you are staring at it for me.
I don't know how to engage with the New York Times article.
Do I think yelling at white people and bashing them over the head and screaming about privilege is going to get me what I want?
Of course not!
Why would I do that?
Well...
I will stress, they certainly get their way a lot of the times, but no, that's not a future I want.
I'm not mad that I don't really know how to engage with this piece of content, though I do experience things like this all the time.
I'm not salty about it.
I am me.
This is the world I live in.
I have a responsibility to myself, to my friends, to my family, and to the greater world.
I try to balance that responsibility to make sure life is improved for everybody, recognizing Hey man, at least I wasn't born missing legs.
No, I was just born in between races.
And that's fine.
So I look for people who say, we don't care about who or what you are, Tim.
And guess what?
The left is increasingly leaving that behind.
The first time I experienced this was during Occupy Wall Street.
When the leftists at Occupy told me I was white.
Well, that's not an experience I've ever had, because white people tend to think I'm Hispanic or Puerto Rican.
And my family was actually attacked.
Well, I shouldn't say attacked, but our home was vandalized by white supremacists when I was a kid.
So certainly, I don't have an experience of a white identity.
No, we were always in a controversial position, I suppose.
But the Democrats were the ones who were saying, don't worry man, we're cool.
Now they're increasingly embracing an ideology that, Tim, you're passing, therefore you don't get it.
So my experience is thrown in the trash by the mainstream left, and they're encroaching, and they're becoming more powerful, and it freaks me out.
Because during Occupy Wall Street, they told me I couldn't speak because I looked too white.
They said, you look too much like that person, therefore your experiences are invalid.
You know who else told me that?
White supremacists.
So it's no wonder why my politics are where they are.
Because this is what I get.
Now, what do you think's gonna happen when I say to the left, when I go to the left and say, hey, this is not cool.
Like, how am I supposed to engage with this?
I don't get to play the same game as you.
They say something to the effect of, you're passing, so what?
That's what I get.
During Occupy Wall Street, I was told I wasn't allowed to join any groups, the minority groups, because I looked too white.
And the white people thought I wasn't white.
So there it was.
Depending on the race, because here's the thing, listen.
Typically, a white person who grows up in a white suburb, always exposed to white people, sees my face and my beard and everything, and it's not the same as the people they grew up with.
To them, I look different.
And they note, for the most part, that I am not, you know, I am not white.
These other people, who are not white, tend to grow up in urban areas, where they're surrounded by a bunch of people, and to them, I am white.
It was funny because someone recently told me that I was lucky.
I could play either side.
And I said, you don't get it.
I can't play either side.
I'm, for the most part, safe with moderates and conservatives, but if there was ever truly a racial conflict, I'm on neither side.
I'm too white and not white at all at the exact same time.
This is the problem with identitarianism.
It's the problem with the alt-right and the left.
And I will make my final point, because, you know, I don't know if you actually care to hear me talk about this stuff, but this was the perfect example of me... I laugh about it.
I'm like, I get it, man.
I get I'm not a part of your world.
You know?
And I'm talking about the regressive left, the editarians.
That's okay.
I don't care.
I'm gonna go grow my own food, I'm gonna take care of myself, and guess what?
I've succeeded in this country, this great country with freedom called America.
Hey, you'd think I was a Bernie supporter, wouldn't you?
But here's what happens.
I talk to people on the left, and what do they say?
They say offensive things about white people.
Well, I don't accept that.
My dad's white.
I will not sit here and tolerate offensive speech about my family and a part of me.
You're a racist.
I've had conversations with the alt-right, and while the conversations I've had with the alt-right have been calm, I don't want to imply that they've been violent in any way, they've been very dismissive and negative towards race-mixing and who I am.
And I've been told disparaging things in a calm way, though I don't take, you know, it's fine, you can insult me, I'm not going to get angry.
The private conversations that have been leaked about me from the alt-right have been extremely negative and have been extremely racist.
But it's fine.
You're allowed to be a racist.
I don't care.
I'm not going to associate with you.
I can take care of myself.
I have found my own way.
That's why I love this country.
And after we deal with the extreme factions, I end up with either liberals who just don't care and aren't political, and that's fine.
They're most of my friends, and that's cool.
They're the cool ones.
And politically active conservatives who tell me, you're just Tim.
I don't care about your race.
And I say, thank you.
So here I am, someone who disagrees for the most part with conservatives, with Trump, don't like Trump's character, And the Trump supporters are the ones who are telling me that they don't care that I'm mixed and they didn't make any assumptions about me.
Why is that the case?
And then it's the Trump's base that are called the racists.
It's a really... And you know what the left says?
They say, Tim, it's because you're passing.
Oh, please, dude!
Please!
I've been to the rallies.
I've been called Puerto Rican, Hispanic, Latino.
I have been asked if, you know, at a Trump rally, as a Latino, how do I feel about the president?
And I'm like, I'm not Latino.
I had somebody come up to me at a Trump rally and start speaking Spanish to me.
It was, it was, it was, uh, I think it was Telemundo.
It was actually funny.
A Telemundo guy came up to me and started going, he said something like, hello my friend, can I, you know, I want to ask you some questions, and he assumed I was Hispanic.
Hispanic guy assumed I was Hispanic.
He thought I was a Latino.
I'm not.
So, the funny thing is, the assumptions made about me are not coming from—I'm sorry, conservatives and Trump supporters make assumptions about my race, but they don't judge me, blame me, or criticize me because of it.
They don't assume—they might assume what my race is, but they don't assume anything about my character, they don't assume anything about my job, or how much money I have, or whether I'm a good or bad person.
Not all of them, but overwhelmingly.
There are good liberals, and I think most of them are.
The problem is they've bowed out of the fight.
There are a lot of moderates who are active and watching, but they're being silent and they're not paying attention.
And I know it because I talk to them.
All of my friends are, like, center leftists, love Bernie Sanders, hate racism, and they agree with me on these points.
But the conversation is drowned out by the regressive identitarians who tell me, I'm passing, you're white, white people are bad.
Okay, great.
Well, congratulations, you've lost me.
That heavily influences my politics.
So maybe this is a good breakdown of it.
I sit here looking at this question thinking, well, I am Asian, but I mean, that's not necessarily fair because they're putting me in the same group as people who are literally 100% Asian.
That can't be right, can it?
Well, here we go.
Tim Pool is mixed race.
I made a whole video about it.
I hope you're happy, guys.
I hope it was fun for you.
But I just thought this would be a good explanation of why I'm really concerned about the changes happening to the Democrats, and why I'm politically homeless, and why I'm not conservative, but I will never bend the knee to your psychotic racist religion to the regressive left.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see you guys tomorrow at 10 a.m., podcast at 6.30 p.m.
