Facebook Audit Proves Bias Against Conservatives, Company Makes Changes
Facebook Audit Proves Bias Against Conservatives, Company Makes Changes. After several years of complains from conservatives about a biases from the platform Facebook has officially announced changes to assuage the concerns from right wing groups and conservatives.One change seems inconsequential but will allow certain conservatives groups to finally advertise on Facebook. In the end though Facebook is reluctant to admit the bias exists or existed and many in media seem to as well.But based on the fact that several staff have confirmed the bias, facebook initiated an external audit, and then agreed to make several changes to their staff and policies after complaints we can see there was a bias. Whether it was intentional or not is another issue.The audit however did upset many on the left and far left who for some reason refuse to believe all the evidence that has existed for the past three years. Strangely the story itself was broken by Gizmodo.In the story I also discuss the work of Dr. Robert Epstein as he was recently smeared by Hillary Clinton in her row with Donald Trump over google's pro left wing biases.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Once again, I open a segment with this story from May of 2016.
Gizmodo.
Former Facebook workers, we routinely suppressed conservative news.
A story from Gizmodo with 2.7 million views, where they actually state it was an issue of biases from the staff members.
It's a fact.
We know it.
Staff members have come out and told us.
Well, here's the big update.
Since the complaints have been ever-increasing, and the issue has become very controversial with the left saying it doesn't exist and journalists repeatedly denying it exists even though it was Gizmodo that broke the story, Facebook conducted an independent review.
They brought on a third party to survey people to figure out what the problem was and why don't conservatives trust Facebook.
In the end, a report was published showing that there is a growing concern for specific reasons without overtly admitting Facebook has bias.
However, Facebook did make a change, according to the third-party reviewer, that could help pro-life ads be placed on the platform.
To me, this says at least To a small degree.
They have acknowledged the complaints were legitimate and changed the rules because of it.
They're going to be implementing changes to better accommodate conservatives.
I don't know how else you take this other than Facebook heard what they said and thought to ourselves, we need to change some of the things on this platform because of complaints from conservatives.
They are accommodating the conservatives after the conservatives complained, after news came out.
I'll tell you this.
To me, the change in advertising that benefits the pro-life advertisements, as they acknowledge, the independent reviewer acknowledges, is the tiniest morsel of proof that there was a bias.
One of the biggest complaints from organizations was that their political ads were being blocked, but pro-choice ads were allowed.
It was something about the format, so now it's weird, but I guess what they're going to allow is tubes.
But yes, it's even acknowledged by Wired the change was made because of conservative complaints, and this benefits pro-life ads.
Look, nobody wants to admit it.
They want to play a semantic game, but I have had enough of this, okay?
Gizmodo came out and said it first.
The staff said it was biased against conservatives.
I'm not saying that Facebook has staff members twirling their mustaches going, we're gonna block conservatives.
No, but there was a bias in the system for some reason and they're acting to rectify that problem.
The report and the changes put out by Facebook confirms that.
It provides proof that there was a bias and the system needed to be changed.
I want to stress, bias doesn't mean intention.
I believe the left interprets the word bias as though Facebook actively hates conservatives, when in reality, bias just means they can't see the systems they put in place are negatively affecting only one side.
I'm not talking about malicious intent.
I'm talking about if somebody is a liberal, they'll say, oh, we can't show that, it's bad.
Not realizing they have a bias.
Case in point, the first story.
Conservative news outlets were having their articles removed because the staffers assumed conservative news was fake news.
And so they published this story in Gizmodo.
So here's what we're going to do.
I've actually got a ton of news about censorship involving conservatives.
And I think this might end up being a really long video but we're going to go through it to the best of my abilities and as quickly as I can because not only has this Facebook report come out but we also have the story of Hillary Clinton claiming a Harvard PhD researcher's study was debunked when it wasn't and it's being featured.
We'll go through Dr. Robert Epstein's analysis where he's absolutely pushing back saying Hillary Clinton is wrong.
His study is legit.
And this story has to do with Google influencing elections, of which I've covered.
And we also have another story I'll get to in the end, where Breitbart Of all places, it's now being brought back onto an AT&T platform and has been certified as credible by NewsGuard.
But first, we'll start with why conservatives don't trust Facebook.
Before we dive in, 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 option.
But of course, the best thing you can do, just share this video.
We are dealing with issues of... It's controversial issues of censorship.
And so I'm here on platforms.
I'm on a platform that is Google, talking about Google censorship, talking about Facebook censorship.
So, yeah.
Help overcome any potential negative ramifications by sharing the video.
But let's read.
From the Wall Street Journal, written by former Senator John Keel, my independent team of investigators looked into the complaints and the company has taken action.
So let me just stress A story came out saying that the staff was biased, with staff members on record saying they're biased.
Conservatives complained to a former senator, and then Facebook took action and changed things.
If that's not evidence that Facebook has acknowledged their bias, I don't know what else is.
But you know what?
I'm not going to play a semantic game.
If you disagree with me, that's fine, but they've taken action that will benefit conservatives.
Let's read.
From the Ivy League to Hollywood and the mainstream media, Americans with traditional morals or conservative politics have felt excluded from the country's elite, culture-creating institutions.
Facebook offered an alternative, a place to express views and share news that you couldn't find in the New York Times.
Over time, however, many conservatives lost trust in Facebook, believing it discriminated against them.
The increasing scale and complexity of Facebook's content moderation practices made matters worse.
In 2016, Facebook employees were accused of suppressing conservative articles in the News Feed's now-discontinued Trending section.
In April 2018, Congress grilled Facebook's chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, about anti-conservative bias, from blocked content to suspended accounts.
We have seen many people banned and they haven't given legitimate reasons as to why some were banned and some aren't.
To this day, I actually have the tweets, Paul Joseph Watson is complaining because they refuse to provide data on why they suspended him or banned him outright.
Let's read on.
They say in response to the mounting criticism, Facebook asked me to conduct a survey to hear from conservatives directly.
Following substantial public interest in the project and in light of policy changes Facebook has recently made, we have decided to share our findings at this time.
They say Facebook placed no restrictions on how I could conduct the work.
My team at the law firm Covington & Burlington LLP began conducting interviews in May 2018.
We cast a wide net to include as many aspects of conservatism as possible.
I'll skip over this next part and get to the meat here.
Many of the changes made by Facebook are about transparency or attempts at it.
I don't trust Facebook, so we'll see what happens.
They've introduced these, uh, they say, we found conservatives, uh, conservative concerns generally fall within these following brackets, uh, buckets.
Content distribution and algorithms.
Conservatives have expressed concern that bias against their viewpoints may be baked in to Facebook's algorithms.
In addition, interviewees argue that Facebook shouldn't be in the business of separating fact from fiction in the news.
They shouldn't.
They shouldn't.
Absolutely not.
So Facebook then brings in these third-party fact-checkers, which is one of the complaints that It's somewhere there.
There's a lot of complaints.
I'm not going to go through literally all of them, but I want to highlight just a few.
They talk about hate speech, and how it's ever-changing, ever-evolving nature, and particularly subjective.
These are some things conservatives have complained about.
Now, here's the important one.
Ad policies.
They mentioned that ad policies are biased, ad enforcement biased, and this is where the main change came in.
One of the biggest complaints from some conservative groups was that pro-life ads were being restricted.
Hence, there is a bias against conservatives, and Facebook has.
Made a change.
From Wired.
Accused of liberal bias, Facebook allows ads with … tubes.
Yes, it sounds weird, right?
They say the seemingly inconsequential adjustment could affect the types of anti-abortion advertisements that users see in their feeds, and it speaks to the extent to which Facebook top brass is willing to go in response to allegations of political bias from the right with little supporting evidence.
Hold on.
There have been people who have tried to post ads that have been restricted, so Facebook changes their rules to allow these political ads, and you say there's little evidence.
How many times do I gotta mention, this all started with a Gizmodo article saying, it's a fact, there's bias.
I don't even understand how we're to this point where Wired's gonna say, little supporting evidence.
Fine.
One article to start everything off.
Leaked emails.
We have numerous staffers on record from various organizations talking about the weird things Facebook does that suppresses conservatives and restricts them.
Or certain views, I should say.
And we have the story that kicked the whole thing off.
How do we get to this point?
They say, that's because unlike many Facebook policy changes, the inspiration for this one was clear.
Complaints from anti-abortion groups and conservatives, according to a report released by Facebook on Tuesday, detailing the initial findings of the first-ever Facebook-sponsored review of the platform's alleged anti-conservative bias.
Let me stress one more time, please.
You want to talk about evidence?
Conservatives complained.
This is how you're biased.
Facebook changed their ad policies in a way that the average person finds inconsequential, but will allow pro-life advertisements.
They acknowledged this in the Wall Street Journal with the changes.
Let me find, uh, ad policies.
Facebook has changed its ad policies that prohibit images of patients with medical tubes as shocking and sensational content.
This will make it easier to promote certain pro-life ads.
A change made by Facebook acknowledging complaints from conservatives that will benefit pro-life ads.
Are we done here?
Can I go home now?
Can we just stop?
Facebook literally had a third-party audit and they made changes due to complaints from conservatives and now the ads from conservatives will be allowed.
Has Facebook come out and said we're biased?
No, of course not.
But listen, bias is not intent.
Bias is unintentional.
The people at Facebook didn't understand their rule against Tubes was biased predominantly against a group of people that were seeking to put up advertisements about pro-life.
So I will stress, Facebook hate conservatives.
We cannot extrapolate that from this.
We do know that some Facebook employees believed conservative news was fake news, and they were biased.
We do know that Facebook had an ad policy that prevented pro-life groups from running ads.
That is called a bias against pro-life groups, which fall under the umbrella of conservatism.
I don't need to make the argument to you because you get it.
I mean, you know, it's the left will make the claim or they'll twist the interpretation to make it seem like what everyone's been saying is that, well, look, there are conservatives who believe Mark Zuckerberg absolutely hates conservatives.
But please, for the sake of rationality, I am not saying that Facebook staffers are all laughing and smoking cigars, mocking conservatives.
I'm saying they don't see themselves as biased because they can't see out of their bubble, which means They're biased.
When they put rules in place that only impact one area and certain political ideas, that is called bias.
Confirmed.
It's been confirmed since May, man.
I'm so sick of having this argument.
But we've got something else.
Paul Joseph Watson.
I don't care if you like the guy or not.
Listen.
He said, Facebook is refusing to hand over data on why it banned me nearly four months later.
This is in violation of GDPR laws, which is Europe.
They think I'm just going to drop it?
I won't.
Reinstate the accounts or hand over the data.
He added, They say, revealing why I was banned may enable other
people to avoid being banned.
That's their excuse, pathetic, unlawful, hand over the data or reinstate the accounts.
Continuing by saying, Also, they already publicly revealed why I was banned.
Interviewing a certain figure whose name- I kid you not, if I say this person's name, it will negatively impact my channel.
Not an exaggeration.
It's a certain individual who protests against Islamic extremism in the UK.
He says this excuse is particularly stupid.
So here's the thing.
Paul Joseph Watson routinely condemns violence, so I don't know why he was banned and apparently they're not going to reveal it.
But it seems there are many instances where Facebook bans some groups and not others.
So Facebook has also agreed to transparency.
types of transparency. They're going to explain to you why they're doing what
they're doing and they're going to commit to workforce viewpoint
diversity.
Several interviewees noted the overall lack of viewpoint diversity throughout
Facebook's workforce and senior management.
Facebook has made several changes that are responsive to our findings
and we understand more are being considered. For now, changes include
and then he goes on to make other things, an oversight board, etc. Listen, when a third
party says here are a bunch of complaints from conservatives and then
Facebook says we need to make some changes, it sounds like they acknowledged their bias.
Are we done?
I'm gonna move on from here, because we got a lot more to cover in Silicon Valley bias against conservatives.
Check this out.
Donald Trump tweeted, Wow, report just out Google manipulated from 2.6 million to 16 million votes for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.
This was put out by a Clinton supporter, not a Trump supporter.
Google should be sued.
My victory was even bigger than thought.
Hillary Clinton responded, The debunked study you're referring to was based on 21 undecided voters.
For context, that's about half the number of people associated with your campaign who have been indicted.
Wrong!
But you know what?
I don't care what Hillary Clinton has to say.
I defer to the expert, the Harvard PhD researcher Dr. Robert Epstein, who posted a photo of himself with Hillary Clinton, and he talks about how it brings him great pain because he is a tremendous supporter of the Clintons, and even has an autographed picture of something of Clinton.
This guy's not a Trump supporter.
And it wasn't just based off of 21 undecided voters.
Dr. Robert Epstein goes into great detail how Google has a disproportionate amount of power over our elections, stressing it is not about intent.
When Trump said Google manipulated these votes, a lot of people immediately assume what Trump is saying is that Google willfully manipulated them.
Google may have accidentally manipulated.
But I'll admit, it is fine to criticize Trump for his choice of words and clarify, which Dr. Robert Epstein does, saying it wasn't willful manipulation.
Whatever it is about Google's system has produced this effect.
Now, he's got on a great massive Twitter storm.
I'll read some of these.
It'll take a long time to go through this massive thread he wrote, but we'll start.
He says, I've been caught in the middle of an exchange of tweets between two media titans, Clinton and Trump.
Trump's tweet was slightly wrong.
Hillary's tweet was shameful.
Trump tweet point one.
I've never said Google deliberately manipulated the 2016 election.
I measured substantial pro-Hillary bias in Google search results by preserving and analyzing
13,207 election-related searches and the 98,044 web pages linked to those searches.
No, it's not based on 21 undecided voters.
It's based on a bunch of different reports and how they interact with each other, how
they intersect, if you would.
He says, point two, the level of pro-Hillary bias I found in Google search results, absent on Bing and Yahoo, was enough to convince me 2.6 and 10.4 million undecided voters to vote for Hillary.
Donald Trump said 16 million, that was wrong.
This bias is not present on Bing and Yahoo.
And Hillary Clinton is doing a disservice to what this problem finds.
He says it doesn't matter whether the bias in Google's search was deliberate or not.
Once it appeared, which it did at least six months before the election, it began shifting opinions and votes without people's knowledge and without leaving a paper trail.
He says, if you want the full story about my 2016 election monitoring project, read my essay, Taming Big Tech, The Case for Monitoring, published last year.
He adds a photo.
He says, this is going to hurt me to write because I and my whole extended family have been strong supporters of the Clintons for decades.
I have a framed signed letter from Bill on my wall near my desk, but Hillary should be ashamed of herself.
Hillary has long depended on Google for both money and votes.
Her largest donor in 2016 was Alphabet Google.
Her CTO during the campaign was Stephanie Hannon, a former Google exec.
And then there's Eric Schmidt, a longtime head of Google, the guy in the pic with Hillary Clinton.
He adds, a leaked email that in 2014, Schmidt offered to run Hillary's tech campaign.
In 2015, Schmidt in fact funded The Groundwork, a highly secretive tech company, the sole purpose of which to put Clinton into office.
He says about 96% of 2016 campaign donations from Google employees went to Hillary.
And Ellen Kriegel, Hillary's chief analytics officer, credits his 2012 tech team, informally supervised by Eric Schmidt, for half of Obama's win margin, nearly 2.5 million votes.
I believe the Harvard Ph.D.
has justified.
There is a bias baked into the system.
Facebook has made changes, finally.
And Dr. Robert Epstein is providing more evidence to break down what is happening and what the problem is.
He adds, If my work has been debunked, why was it included in a volume just published by Oxford University?
Why have I been invited to speak about it at prestigious venues worldwide, Stanford, Yale, where both you and Bill went, even our Senate, where you served?
He says, I know you're in Google's pocket, but for the sake of our democracy, I urge you to listen to my recent congressional testimony, and to scan the 58 essays and conference papers I list at the end of my written testimony.
Hillary, if you examine my work carefully, you will find that it adheres to the very highest standards of scientific integrity.
You will also conclude, I believe, that Google poses a serious threat to the free and fair election and to human autonomy.
And then he goes on to say, Google poses three serious threats to humanity.
An obscene level of surveillance across 200 plus platforms.
The power to undermine what content 2 billion can or cannot see.
And three, invisible manipulation on a massive scale.
He says, is that what you want your legacy to be?
Whistleblowers and leaks from Google have confirmed the company blacklists, re-ranks, and uses ephemeral experience, which I study, to control people worldwide.
Do you approve?
Well, perhaps he does.
I'm not going to carry on with the rest of his Twitter storm.
I'm going to point out the sad reality.
Dr. Robert Epstein, as far as I can tell, is a prestigious, intelligent man who has done a great amount of work digging into this issue, and I defer to the experts.
Now, some people disagree, and that's fine.
That's science.
But what do you think happened when Hillary Clinton said it was debunked?
Well, pop over to Google.
Experts claim Trump's voter manipulation based on flawed study.
From a Harvard PhD researcher, Then we have Clinton slams Trump for falsely claiming Google-manipulated elections.
Hillary Clinton zings Trump over new voter conspiracy.
Conspiracy, debunked, debunked conspiracy.
Sharing debunked conspiracy sp- Yeah, that's it.
That's the way the world works.
Hillary Clinton puts out her opinion.
And everyone runs with it.
And that's what people are going to take away.
And you know what's really funny?
Dr. Robert Epstein, if you wanted evidence of Google's bias, just do a search for Hillary Clinton Google and you will see everyone calling your study debunked.
And what do you think the average person will think when they just see that headline?
They will think it's debunked.
On the surface, I can form a hypothesis that will greatly influence the average person into believing something that is not true.
Epstein states it's being published in Oxford University.
He's speaking at events about this.
He testified to the Senate.
If you want to debunk it, provide your citation.
Dr. Epstein certainly has.
But that's all that matters.
The opinion of Hillary Clinton.
This is the problem we're facing, but I will stress, I believe these two circumstances absolutely prove the bias against conservatives.
The acknowledgement of Facebook and the changes they've made.
A Harvard PhD researcher saying the bias exists.
And you do a Google search for the story and you can see how it happens.
It doesn't mean someone wants it to happen.
It means it's just happening.
Bias doesn't mean intent.
I hope that's clear to everybody.
I'm gonna do a real quick wrap-up of the next story because I'm gonna reserve this next story for a greater in-depth view in my next segment at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
AT&T restored service to Breitbart after buying out Upstart Ad Company.
They say Breitbart inquired how it could return to our platform, satisfied our requirements, and is reinstated.
I'll go over to Breitbart.com and we can see now it is certified green checkmark by NewsGuard, which they state has improved its editorial standards.
And that's the update, but I'm going to carry on with this story, breaking down my view of Breitbart, what's happening.
I know that even though I've published this story, even though I've done other stories showing more data to prove the bias, I could have pulled up the all-sides report.
There's still gonna be people on the left saying there's no evidence.
Come on, man.
If Dr. Robert Epstein, PhD Harvard, isn't evidence, if his study isn't evidence, if Facebook changes isn't evidence, there's no such thing as evidence.
Period.
Because I don't know what else to tell you now.
If Gizmodo publishes a story two years ago, three years ago, over three years ago, saying there's bias, and you say it's not evidence, okay?
Well, how about Facebook acknowledging the bias and making changes?
That's not evidence either.
Okay, what about, I don't know, a PhD Harvard researcher producing a study?
Multiple studies.
Nope, nope, not evidence.
It's debunked.
Okay, I'm done.
I will see you at 6 p.m.
Well, I gotta say, I honestly didn't expect this to happen.
But it would seem that the event, of which I sponsored, Minds in Real Life, of which is being organized by the guys from Mythocyst, is in the news.
Because, as you may have heard, Antifa has been threatening the event, causing panic and chaos in the small town of Pitman, New Jersey, which is only about, I don't know, like 9,000 people?
I've heard 8,000.
But I want to address the first thing.
While you see the story here in front of you from the Philadelphia Inquirer, I do think they get some of the details wrong, but hey, it is what it is.
This is actually a fairly decent article, though maybe a little opinionated.
It says South Jersey theater cancels event about race relations amid threats from anti-fascist
protesters.
That is my understanding and the rumor circulating right now is that they threaten to burn it
So I don't have... There's pieces of the puzzle and there's certain things I'm not... I can't say.
But I'll go through the story and I'll read what they say.
But I want to make one thing clear.
To all of these... It's the weirdest thing.
Pitman, New Jersey.
You ever heard of it?
Probably not.
It's a town of like 8 or 9,000 people.
I think in here they say it's 908,000, but I've heard other stories say 8,000.
Why would we want to do an event in a small town out, you know, in the south suburbs of Philly?
It's a little bit out of the way, but it's South Jersey.
I see so many people who are activists who are targeting the theater with this campaign.
What they're doing is they're calling non-stop and claiming we're all the worst things in the book and it's all fake.
You know, why would we book in a place like this?
Could it be?
Because I live here?
It's the craziest thing.
I'm seeing conspiracy theories from people saying, like, why are they targeting our town?
But it's, uh, Pitman's tiny, and there's a bunch of surrounding areas, and I live, like, technically walking distance to the town?
I mean, it's a couple miles, right?
You know, but I walk there.
I think that's fair to say walking distance.
Uh, so we decided to hold an event in my area.
Like, it's a local event, and activists targeted it, and now I see these progressive activist groups saying things like, we will not allow this hate to come to South Jersey.
I'm like, I live here.
No hate.
You're nuts.
It's really weird, and I noticed one thing, too, and you're gonna get a kick out of this one.
It's a lot of white people.
You know, there's certainly people of color who are protesting, but I've seen photos of some of these groups, and it's a bunch of middle-aged white people, and I'm like, Bro, why can't I have a conversation with conservatives and moderates and progressives about racism, violence, and authoritarianism?
Why is that not okay?
And the funny thing is, I kid you not, Antifa has threatened a theater for daring to host an event that is about ending racism, violence, and authoritarianism.
Now, you can criticize us because we couldn't get the best speakers in the world, you know?
Again, I'm not the one doing all that.
I'm admittedly just a speaker and I helped sponsor the event, and so they ended up doing it in my area because I was like, hey, convenient for me, right?
Well, that's the point!
You know, sit down for a peaceful conversation while everyone's all going crazy in Boston.
And Antifa decided, and these progressives decided, no one should be allowed to confront bigotry and racism.
No one should be allowed to have a conversation about it.
That's their opinion.
They don't believe that a mixed-race person should have the right to put on an event challenging these ideas.
You see why I don't like these people?
Because they don't see me as a human.
And neither do the alt-right types.
Now, I get it.
I mean, it's a little hyperbolic, but no, it's basically like, I'm the bad no matter what.
I'm either not white, or I am.
And because of that, I'm not allowed to talk about my experiences, and I'm not allowed to sponsor an event, and they'll come to where I live.
These people don't live here.
Some of them live further away than I do, and shut down my event.
The event isn't shut down, by the way, but they're trying to.
Uh, so I'll stress, the event is on.
Full steam.
Like, I don't, you know, forget what everyone's saying.
They're gonna try and claim, haha, it's cancelled.
It's not cancelled.
That's ridiculous.
Um, we have, we, we have, uh, we have a battle in front of us.
You know, it's surprising to me that this happened.
None of us thought it was gonna happen.
But, you know, I made a longer video about it.
Let's read the story.
Let's go through the story.
I don't wanna, I don't wanna dilly-dally, but, um, for those that are curious, IRL.minds.com is where you can find more information about the event and the agenda, things we're talking about like prohibition amplifies problems.
Corporate America and activism.
Comedy online.
How to admit when you're wrong.
Political violence.
Like, we're literally addressing these issues.
And boy, oh boy, do we have progressives!
We have people, part of the Young Turks Nation.
Oh, no!
They're calling it an alt-right event.
Oh, okay.
Just go ahead and drag the people who aren't white and the people who are literally progressives who host progressive events and shows.
And congratulations to all those people who are progressives.
This is the insanity of it.
The mayor of the town gave a statement where he said it does appear to be hosting both sides of the political debate and people from all walks of life.
So you literally have this instance where Antifa and other progressive groups are doing everything in their power to stop an eclectic group, a diverse group of people, from sitting down.
And that's what the mayor said.
The mayor said it was a diverse group.
I certainly think so.
You know, I gotta admit, it's really, really hard to book people You know, from the progressive side of things.
But there are good people on that side who are willing to have the conversation, and we found many of them.
And they have all of my respect for coming down to have the conversation.
Let's read the story.
The Philly Inquirer reports, following a social media firestorm and threatened protests, the Broadway theater in Pitman has canceled a controversial event about race relations that its organizers said was aimed at combating racism, violence, and authoritarianism.
Congratulations, Antifa!
You've stopped people who wanted to talk about how racism was bad.
Oh, are you upset that some of our speakers were controversial?
Yeah, because, you know, maybe whatever your opinion is, they should be challenged in front of others.
And we should come together into a room and say, I disagree.
And they'll say, I disagree back.
And we'll have a conversation about it.
Do we expect to change everyone's mind?
I don't know.
Not really.
People don't want to change their mind.
But I'll tell you this.
One thing you absolutely do break down is when people look into each other's eyes, it becomes increasingly difficult to actually hate that person.
I remember I was at one of their events in Milwaukee, and I was backstage, and I was talking to some people, and I didn't know they were social justice progressives.
And we had a great conversation.
And then I heard them on stage, and I was like, wow!
Yeah, we got along great!
And that's what it's all about, right?
It's really hard to be, like... I mentioned that Heineken commercial.
And everybody, like, went to go see it, I guess.
But it's where you have these two people who completely disagree, they work together, and in the end, they feel so bad.
So there's pre-recorded videos, and they say, like, disparaging things, like, ah, people who are conservative, bah!
And then all of a sudden they make this friend and they're drinking, you know, they're happy
with their accomplishment and then the video plays and it's like you made a friend and
you just insulted them to their face and like you feel bad.
So we're like, let's do this.
Let's bring some people in.
Let's read.
They say, the one day conference sponsored by Minds.com, a cryptocurrency social networking
site has been scheduled for August 31st at the nearly century old theater where Bob Hope
and Bing Crosby once played.
The lineup included 20 speakers, most of them white, yes, because most of this country is white, I might add.
Proportion of white to non-white is actually fairly close to representation of the country.
Although we definitely, you know, could have done better.
Don't get me wrong.
We had a lot of Asian people.
I don't know.
I don't know how that happens, but they say, and the organizer said it was designed to bring together
a diverse group of people with differing viewpoints.
An after party was also planned at another venue.
The event organizer said they hope to hold the forum at another location in the region.
No, my understanding is that even in this story, we are going to be holding the event at that theater.
And I assure you this, I live here, I will be in Pitman.
And I say this now to these groups, No matter what happens, first of all, on August 31st, we will be in Pitman.
That's a guarantee.
Absolutely.
Just trust me on that.
But I will say this.
I live here.
You want to come to my house?
You want to bring this to where I live?
I'm not going to your town.
They claim the Proud Boys are invading their space.
This is where I live.
You invaded my space.
You smeared us.
You're trying to shut down where I live, and where I want to speak, and who I want to speak to.
Yeah, you are the baddies, but I'll tell you this now.
I live here.
You know what that means?
It means no matter what happens, after August 31st, I will be in Pitman as frequently as possible.
And I look forward to making several announcements and letting everyone know I'm gonna invite my friends, and we're gonna mill about town, we're gonna eat there.
But these activists, they are insane, they are lying, they are smears, they are threats, and they won't win.
So I assure you, Pitman is now gonna be like, look, I live fairly close, and I found a new place to hang out.
I'm gonna be there and I'm gonna defend my right to be where I live.
I'm gonna defend my right to go somewhere that is close to where I live and enjoy the local businesses That represent my area.
So I'll be there.
All the time.
And I'll invite my friends.
And I'll let everyone know, every day, where I'm gonna be.
Cause I live here.
And I can't say that enough.
This is not an instance of someone just randomly showing up to this town.
This is me, trying to find something where I live, so we can have our own small town private thing, and these outside forces are trying to butt in.
Congratulations.
They claim they're only defending themselves from the Proud Boys.
But that surely must be a joke.
Threatening a venue where you don't live?
Where I live?
These people are full of it.
Let's read!
In recent days, controversy surrounding the event escalated, and its planners said they had received threats of violence from anti-fascist protesters known as Antifa.
NoHateNJ launched a telephone and social media campaign urging the theater to cancel the event.
The venue's Twitter account was hacked for several hours Friday, and a message was posted that it had been taken over and extorted the theater, saying, if you don't cancel this, we won't give your thing back.
Your Twitter account.
A theater official said Tuesday it was not known who was responsible for the hacking.
Uh, it said no ANJ on the hacked profile.
So, uh, we issued a statement, I made a video about it, where as, you know, um, let me just read this, cause you don't gotta get my state- I'll just read.
We had a discussion with the event organizer over the weekend, Darryl Blood, the theater's business manager, said on Tuesday, it was mutually decided that the Broadway Theater would no longer hold the event.
My interpretation is that is not correct.
Blood declined to further comment on why the event was scrapped.
Mayor Russ Johnson also confirmed that the gathering would not be held at the theater located in the borough's revitalized downtown district.
Well, Mayor Russ Johnson is completely wrong.
Completely wrong.
Because I assure you, we have plan B, plan C, plan D, plan E, etc, etc.
And then, you know, when I proposed plan B, they said, hmm, a B?
What about, like, plan 1 and plan A?
I'm kidding.
Johnson said he was working with the police department amid threats of violence and protests, including one to burn down the theater.
That's the stuff I won't tolerate, he said.
Bill Ottman, co-founder of Minds based in Wilton, Connecticut, said planners were considering their legal options to force the theater to live up to its agreement to host the gathering.
A party at the Human Village Brewing Co.
in Pitman will go on as planned on August 31st, he said.
We're gonna be in Pitman!
And if that means I will be standing outside by myself, so be it.
But we're gonna be there, and Human Village Brewing Co.
is one of the coolest fit places I've been to, and their attitude is remarkably... I'm trying to be careful because the Human Village people are amazingly good people.
They're smart, respectable, kind, understanding, and I don't want any undue...
You know, things thrown their way like the theater is getting.
But I will stress, one of the coolest places I've been to and some of the coolest places I've ever had the privilege of talking to, the Human Village Brewing Co.
So I've got a new place to hold my events.
And it's going to be a good time.
I don't want to cause trouble, man, but this is where I live, you know what I mean?
If I want to hang out at a local business, I'm not going to let anybody stop me.
I am allowed to express that I want to go hang out in a place by my home and service local businesses.
He said the invited speakers represent a broad spectrum of political views.
I totally respect and understand if people disagree with some of the people's ideas.
No one is endorsing anyone's views.
Um, I guess you can just trust us that we have plan B, C, D, E, E, F. Uh, yeah.
We have, we have, we have, we have a plan Z. Like, it's, my, I can't, I can't explain it yet, unless I absolutely have to, but it would be probably the craziest and coolest thing ever.
Our worst case scenario is actually maybe one of the coolest things that would ever happen.
But it's like...
I have a plan that will end up being the coolest event ever.
And so many people would be upset if they missed out on it, if that's the case.
But I don't think it's gonna happen.
We're gonna say Plan Z. But it would be nuts if we did.
If we had to do it.
So here's the thing.
Our Plan Z can't be stopped.
Literally can't be stopped.
There's no cancellation.
It's completely within my personal control to make something like this happen.
And it would be hilarious.
But let's read on.
They say Daryl Jenkins, executive director of One People's Project, an activist group in New Brunswick, New Jersey, called the lineup of speakers the worst of the worst.
That's a joke, right?
You know the worst guy we have is Count Dankula.
And Count Dankula is so far from the worst of the worst, he's just an edgelord.
He made a silly YouTube video and everybody got mad, and most people liked it.
It's got millions of views.
It's been shown in comedy clubs.
Some people thought it was in poor taste, but for the most part, It went viral for a reason.
It was a funny joke.
You can find it in poor taste.
But you know this.
When it comes to someone like Dankula, he was just some dude who made a video for his friends.
It wasn't supposed to be an explosive public event.
And that's the worst we have is a guy who made an offensive joke, George Carlin.
Please.
They had Ann Coulter.
George Carlin performed at the theater 10 years ago.
Ann Coulter was there 10 months ago.
The worst of the worst.
You should listen to what Ann Coulter said in her presentation at the theater.
It's available.
You can download it.
I downloaded it.
Ann is bombastic.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful.
I disagree.
But she was so far beyond what we represent.
Among the announced speakers, some of whom come from Canada and Australia, are Tim Pool, who became known for his coverage of Occupy in 2011, but now describes himself as a disaffected liberal on Twitter.
Oh no!
Occupy Wall Street!
Lauren Chen, a contributor to conservative websites.
And Josephine Mathias, the only black speaker on the agenda, who has posted against the Philadelphia LGBTQ flag, saying, sexual orientation does not equal race or ethnicity.
But that's a true statement.
It is, right?
I mean, they're different things.
It's just a statement of fact.
Another speaker, conservative writer Andy Ngo, wrote in the Wall Street Journal in July that he suffered a brain hemorrhage after being beaten at an Antifa demonstration in Portland, Oregon.
Certainly a gay Vietnamese journalist who is beaten by far-left extremists should have a conversation and explain his experience to us, right?
He is a person of color, a minority, a child of immigrants.
He is part of the LGBT community.
Why was he not allowed to engage in this space?
Well, you want me to tell you who the bigots are?
They're alt-right bigots, they exist.
Certainly not us.
We're the people who are upset about that.
We're upset about the racial identitarians, and it was the racial pro-violence, pro-racist left that shut us down under the guise of fighting racism.
But I assure you, what they really did was stop people like Andy Ngo from explaining why getting beaten was a problem.
And the craziest thing about this, I'll stress again, is the mayor.
The mayor of the town saying the event was representing both sides.
Congratulations Antifa, congratulations democratic socialists, activists, and progressives from South Jersey.
You stopped a bunch of moderates, progressives, conservatives, and some controversial figures from sitting down to stop the violence.
And there you go.
It's what you wanted.
Congratulations.
There are no Proud Boys here.
We invited no white supremacists or white nationalists.
Oh, they'll lie and say, but they are.
Secretly.
Yeah, no, please.
Right?
You know, Sargon of Akkad is controversial and offensive, but the alt-right absolutely hates the guy.
Just completely.
Let's read.
They say, New Jersey doesn't tolerate this kind of activity, Jenkins said of the conference, which he said promotes intolerance.
These are not the ideas that are beneficial to our society.
Daryl, I don't know if you live here.
Maybe you do.
I think you're in, like, Camden, perhaps.
I live right by the venue.
So you want to talk about what New Jersey does and doesn't tolerate?
I live here.
I'll say it for the 50th time.
So please stay out of my neighborhood.
When I'm trying to engage in a conversation to simmer things down, and you come and claim my home doesn't tolerate me?
I take offense to that.
Our other civil rights and community groups also denounced plans for the gathering, saying it would promote hate and violence against minorities and gays.
Andy, no!
Our headlining presentation was going to be from David Pakman, but the final panel was literally a gay minority who was beaten, and he was going to be explaining his perspective.
Well, they don't like it, because it makes Antifa look bad.
So who do you think is trying to get the event shut down?
They even said it, that the police were talking about threats from Antifa to burn the theater down.
Minds.com was launched in protest of Facebook and has been sponsoring events it says are intended to create dialogue among those on left and right.
We don't want South Jersey being used as a platform for these far-right extremists, said Adam Sheridan of Cooper River Indivisible, a community group that helped lead the campaign against the event.
For us, this is about community self-defense.
Lies.
This is my neighborhood.
Mine.
You're not defending anybody.
You're attacking me.
You are on an offensive against me and where I live.
It is not self-defense.
It is offense.
You are coming at us with an attack.
I live here.
These people are detestable.
Ottman blamed the controversy on what he called misconceptions about Mines, which was started in 2011.
In July, the company was the only social media platform invited by Trump to the social media summit that excluded Facebook, Google, and Twitter.
Well, you could frame that a little bit better.
It wasn't so much that it excluded them, it's that he had a private meeting with many of those people before the event, and this was an event that was for people, not the companies.
But he didn't invite Mines, but admittedly, Mines isn't part of the big three, right?
I know what our mission is!
We haven't done anything wrong, Atman said.
The focus on the event is ending hate.
They say the event thrust Pitman, a community of about 9,800 residents, into the middle of a debate over free speech for a second time.
Because Ann Coulter was there, and they were protesters.
And guess what?
I live here, and I'll be in Pitman every day.
I will.
I could walk there.
Right now.
I can walk right over there, sit down at a table, and have a nice coffee.
And so, for anyone who's interested, I will stress again, while I don't live in Pitman proper, I am within walking distance of it.
It's small, it's like a really small area of space.
So, just so you know, I live here.
You want to talk about self-defense?
Well, what about my right to self-defense against you coming and invading where I live and shutting down the event I was sponsoring and going to speak at?
We're a small town.
We have other things to deal with, Johnson said Tuesday.
Well, Johnson, I live nearby.
It's one thing to be within the proper border of the place, but you have to understand, in these small jurisdictions, there are very few businesses, right?
So as far as I'm concerned, if I can walk there, it's part of my local area.
Would I want to walk there?
No, not really, because it's at that distance where it's like, Oh, man, you don't really want to walk that far, but, um, a five-minute drive, if that.
Uh, maybe, maybe, maybe more, maybe a little bit more, but it's close.
It's close.
They said the Broadway Theater opened in 1926, yadda yadda, it was reopened, yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it.
Wow, this video turned out to be longer than I expected it, but let me just say one more time.
Antifa, people who don't live here, are coming to my town and accusing, and then claiming self-defense.
Let me just end by saying this.
They said the Proud Boys come to their town, Portland, and cause problems.
We're not the Proud Boys.
I made a video criticizing the Proud Boys because they were convicted of that fight in New York City.
I'm not the Proud Boys.
Why is Antifa threatening to come to where I live and commit acts of violence against our event?
Yeah.
Keep your narrative.
Whatever.
I don't care.
I live here.
I'll be there.
I will be there every day.
I'll just walk outside.
I'll bring my camera.
I'll film it.
I'll do a change my mind in Pitman.
I'm, uh, actually, yeah.
I think I will.
Next segment will be at 1pm.
I will see you all shortly.
Ocasio-Cortez apparently does not like the Electoral College.
Color me surprised.
The Democrats have been railing on the Electoral College forever because of Hillary Clinton's defeat, even though everybody knows the rules of the election in the United States and the Electoral College serves a functional purpose.
Now, look, I'm not a historian.
There's, I've read some articles from, like, Smithsonian that have talked about whether or not it's outdated.
There's some interesting things to read about the Electoral College, but for the time being, I believe we, it's extremely important we keep it.
I believe without the Electoral College, that's when we start, without it, we start seeing the U.S.
break up into regional tribes that can become increasingly dangerous.
Imagine if Los Angeles, facing a drought, voted with all of their people California, with their 33 or so million people, voted to take water from a Great Lakes state because they outvote them.
That would lead to chaos.
Because I assure you, the Great Lakes Coalition wouldn't stand for it.
And we've seen things like that.
This is why the Electoral College exists, at least in part.
Because it's not about you as an individual, necessarily.
You know, your vote does count, but it's about communities that need to be bonded together.
And community resources vary by region.
Well, Ocasio-Cortez thinks it's racist, because she says it's white farmers versus urban minorities, and they're trying to disenfranchise brown people.
That's actually not the case.
You have every ability to move wherever you'd like in the country.
If you want to go be a farmer, go be a farmer.
And then go to a rural area and your vote is worth more.
Technically, it's worth more.
It's actually not.
When we do voting based by county, it actually makes a lot of sense.
Well, let's read what she had to say.
Now, before we get started, make sure you head over to timcast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, just share the video.
Share the video so that everyone can bask in the wonderful conversation that is Ocasio-Cortez.
I don't know.
It's been a hectic past week, I'll tell you that.
I've been following the news about the event.
So if you like it, just share the video.
Daily Wire writes, Ocasio-Cortez posted an Instagram live story on Monday mocking the U.S.
voting system and calling for the abolishment of the Electoral College.
We're coming to you live from the Electoral College, Ocasio-Cortez said, as she recorded an empty desert highway.
Many votes here, as you can see.
It's a very efficient way to choose leadership of the country.
I mean, I can't think of any other way, can you?
How about I go to, I don't know, the forest preserve just south of Chicago and go, Look at all these trees!
Oh, man!
Why is anybody getting a vote?
It's like, dude, what you're doing makes no sense.
But you know what?
She's playing to the emotions of people, and she's playing the identity game.
Oh, but it's racist!
Nobody lives here!
Why does nothing get a vote?
That's not how it works!
But you know what?
I'm greatly concerned that there are a lot of people who fall for this insanity, and it's really, really dangerous.
The unity of this country requires that people who live in sparsely populated areas have a say.
And if they're consistently outvoted, then you start seeing problems arise with secession and fighting.
I mean, look, if you lived in Montana and they said, one person, one vote, abolish the Electoral College, Montana already does have less Congress people, less electoral votes, but now they're being told straight up, you're going to be outvoted no matter what you do.
Well, I'll tell you what, they're going to be like, then count us out.
If we have no say in the union, why would we want to be in it?
So that's what the Electoral College needs to do, because they are sovereign states.
Look, I really don't think Montana or Wyoming would secede.
But it's going to have devastating impacts on interstate trade and relations and local jurisdictions.
It would be chaos.
These farming states and less densely populated states would start putting ridiculous terms on goods and services, taxes.
We would see border protections emerging by state.
It would be nuts.
What we have is a system that guarantees they don't get trampled over by large cities.
Let's read.
The self-proclaimed radical congresswoman cited a March 2019 report from New York Magazine's Daily Intelligent titled, She subsequently noted that the report is for all the Republicans getting big mad because the Electoral College is in fact a scam.
It's so funny.
I don't know what world I live in or my friends who aren't Republicans and think the Electoral College makes a ton of sense, and if Hillary Clinton just campaigned better in the blue wall states, she would have won.
The problem was, she knew the rules and she didn't play the game properly.
Enough.
It doesn't matter that you want to strip the rights away from smaller states so they can be oppressed by big cities.
It matters that your candidate lost.
Grow up.
Move on.
You know what the rules are.
2020 is coming.
Play the damn game the same as Trump did.
Okay?
And that's coming from somebody who is looking forward to voting for Tulsi Gabbard.
But you know what?
That's why so many conservatives have said that Yang and Tulsi are the rational, sane Democrats.
It's because they are.
And they're not perfect people.
You know, I think we get that.
But the people like Ocasio-Cortez will either just be so unintelligent or willfully ignorant.
You know, I think she's trying to manipulate people on purpose because they want Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago to control who becomes the president.
That makes no sense!
Literally no sense.
Let's read on.
They say, Cortez touched on several intersecting points, all of which are based on the underlying idea that the American voting system is racist and therefore is discriminatory against minorities.
She said, the Electoral College is a racial injustice breakdown.
Due to severe racial disparities in certain states, the Electoral College effectively weighs white voters over voters of color, as opposed to a one-person, one-vote system where all are counted equally.
But let me remind you, These sparsely populated areas that are predominantly white are cheaper than living in a city.
So I'll tell you what, if you have a problem with minorities living in cities, they're free to move to a rural area and save money.
You gotta figure it out, I don't know.
Look, this idea that it's, you know, it's too expensive, they can't go in certain areas.
No, no, no, hold on, man.
Rural space is much cheaper.
Like, there are houses Not too far from me, that are really cheap.
And it's not even rural, it's suburban!
So, you know, look, if you want to move to the middle of nowhere, it can be done.
To act like these people don't choose to live where they are, or because historically demographics have formed the way they are, is racist.
I'm sorry, that's just called time and cultural development.
How about this?
How about you campaign for more liberals to go move to rural areas and start farms or something like that?
They say, you may have heard of this electoral college argument the most.
The families in suburbs and cities must have their votes suppressed in order to give rural votes a fair shake.
Could you imagine if we had this kind of democracy-altering fairness provision for literally any other group?
If we weighted, for example, black and indigenous voters more because of fairness, it's not about race, it's about location and resource.
Imagine this.
You live in a small town of 100 people.
You find oil on your land.
And all of you and your friends of whatever race are thinking, wow, together our community is going to be very valuable now.
We can sell the oil, we can build some, you know, I know I'm using oil, the environmentalists might get mad, but the point is, let's say you discover a resource on your land.
And then all of a sudden, you hear, a thousand miles away, a vote was passed.
The oil now belongs to them.
Sorry, your community gets stripped of its resources.
But let's get real.
Let's say you live in a rural area and you have water.
Because this is happening.
And a massive corporation goes to your state where you don't have electoral protections and says, give us the rights to that town's water.
And all of a sudden they scream, why is this company taking our spring water?
It's our water.
We need it to live.
We settled here on purpose.
Who cares?
You have no right.
You get one vote, same as everybody in the big city who wants your water.
The governor over in the capitol said, the water is going to be sold for profit for the state, and you have no say.
Now on a national level, that's much more difficult.
And this is a good example of why the electoral college is important.
Let's say you live in the middle of nowhere, and a big company comes to the federal government and says, I want that water.
I can't do that.
Because they have power over their community.
Their county's vote is weighed similarly to the counties of other people, regardless of how many people are in it, because there are resources that are protected and owned by the people, not some mass group far away.
How do you get a group of people arguing that Los Angeles has the right to strip the resources from poor people where they don't live?
You want to know a funny story?
There was a drought in California.
I'll give you my interpretation as I did some documentaries and mini-docs there.
There was a small poor town, and they ran out of water.
Poor people lost their water.
One of the reasons was because surface water was voted away to the cities.
Well, the cities need water more than the farms, so we'll take that water away.
And so the farmers then either let their crops go dry, damaging the economy of California, or they drill for groundwater.
And that meant homes with shallow wells could no longer reach the water table, and poor people went without.
Congratulations!
If they had a protection based on their community, they would have had more weight to vote against the big city who stripped them of their rights.
And guess what?
Those poor people were not white.
Ocasio-Cortez is a racist, and I mean that in the sense that there is nothing stopping any poor person from moving to a rural area and having votes that are weighted heavier in a certain capacity.
She says, that rural representation argument doesn't hold up either, as there are rural parts in virtually every state and popular vote elections show that candidates still visit center and rural communities.
Yes, but that's because states have a certain amount of electoral votes.
Illinois, for instance, has a lot, which means they need to win over the counties south of Chicago, not just the big city.
In a popular vote system, when it only falls to the cities, they need to visit not the counties around Chicago, just Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles.
You see what I'm saying?
If you want to win Illinois, you need to get Chicago and then key counties in certain areas.
When you want to win a national popular vote, you will visit some rural areas, but for the most part, you're going to hit big cities only.
And that is going to make a ridiculous democratic, you know, they'll be the only one, like cities tend to be democratic.
It's going to be the only place that politicians pander to.
And so you'll end up with politicians overwhelmingly pandering to wealthy urban centers.
But to win a state because of the electoral system?
It's so insane.
She's literally arguing that because the electoral system still requires people to visit rural areas in that state, that's proof that they shouldn't?
If someone goes to Illinois, they go to Chicago, then they go to other key areas to lock in the state.
Because, believe it or not, the city alone isn't enough necessarily for the whole state to win.
In a popular vote system, you don't have to go to rural areas because... I'll put it this way.
In Illinois, okay, you want to win that state, you want to win their votes.
Chicago is the big city.
Definitely got to go there.
But you'll probably win anyway because it's blue.
But there are smaller cities in Illinois you also need to get because while Chicago is the most dense area of the state, you will need to go to other small areas to make sure you get that advantage.
Now, take that model, Chicago and some smaller towns, and expand it to the US.
You know what that means?
It means they'll go to New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, and some smaller cities like Dallas, and Philadelphia, and Seattle.
You get the point?
They're going to small communities because it's part of the state they need to win.
But if you switch to a federal system, a non-electoral system, they're only going to go to, you know, 500,000 people or more, and that is, in their experience, the rural aspect.
Then you end up getting smaller communities and less densely populated states never having a seat at the table.
Well, guess what, right now?
Although, for the most part, there's not a lot of reason to visit certain places, These politicians still have to try and win that state over.
Now, some states are solid red, some are solid blue.
So even in that capacity, it's like, you know, you can expect it to go one way or the other.
But look what happens when Hillary doesn't campaign in blue wall states?
Trump wins.
And we don't know.
Texas might flip blue.
In which case, you have no idea what's going to happen.
The Electoral College is the... Look.
I've ranted about this a lot.
We'll just, I'll wrap it up with her final statement.
She says, Because of the core structure of ICE, I believe, and frankly, the entire Department of Homeland Security, this was established by George Bush right in the wake of 9-11, right as the Patriot Act and all these different institutions that were frankly very large threats to American civil liberties just got established.
Oh, okay, that's an old thing.
So, here.
Okay, so she just ends by saying, Facts are facts.
The Electoral College has got to go.
You clearly haven't read a book.
Um, I'm not gonna act like I know better than anybody else, but I will say, the arguments she puts forward are shallow.
And it's like, you have to- You know what, man?
The loss of the Electoral College will fracture this country into a million pieces.
You wanna switch to a national popular vote where only California matters?
Like, literally the state?
Yeah, you're asking for trouble.
Right now.
There is a bunch of counties and states that are held together by the system that is Electoral College.
Without it, it just becomes, who's the big urban center?
And you create the capital city, like the Hunger Games.
Not interested.
Not interested.
You're wrong, AOC.
It's not racist either.
Anybody can move wherever they want.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 4 p.m.
at youtube.com slash timcast.
It is a different channel and I will see you all there.
Breitbart has been unbanned or reinstated, whatever you want to call it.
Now here's the thing.
Breitbart is considered fringe far-right by most of the mainstream media and I mentioned this a couple times, but recently I noticed Breitbart has been officially certified as credible.
By NewsGuard.
And that means I am now more likely to be using them as sources.
Here's the thing.
You'll notice up here, well you can't really see it, but I'll pop it open.
In the top right we have this thing, it's called NewsGuard.
And they provide this little shield.
They give The Verge green checkmarks across the board, while Breitbart doesn't have all that.
But this is basically a third-party company that rates you based on these criteria.
It's actually not that difficult to meet their criteria, and I think, overall, it is a really good idea and a good thing.
And I'll explain why.
But first, we have this story.
AT&T restores service to Breitbart after buying out Upstart Ad Company.
Breitbart inquired how it could return to our platform, satisfied our requirements, and is reinstated.
So this is big.
This is Breitbart's return to a more mainstream path.
Now, real quickly on the NewsGuard thing.
If you are not certified by them, it is not difficult to be if you are a legit news site.
For a long time, Breitbart was given a red X. And it was very easy for them to get certified by just responding to emails.
No, seriously.
And the reason I say it was easy is because Breitbart isn't writing fake news.
It's opinionated.
They're criticized for that, but for the most part, the issue is communication, and the most important thing about NewsGuard is that basically, when these activists come after you and try and claim your fake news or your all these bad things, you can show them, hey, a third-party agency has given us a green light, and that is a shield, to an extent, right?
You know, if it's too conservative or something, they might, you know, still, you might lose ads, but for the most part, It provides protection in which of which now Breitbart is earned.
But let's read this story before we get started.
Head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
It's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, I always say it, just share this video.
It's the best thing you can do to help support the channel because YouTube is deranking my content and other independent commentators.
But let's read.
They say in 2016.
The ad tech company AppNexus took a stand against hate speech.
Just two weeks after the election of Donald Trump, CEO Brian O'Kelley announced he was dropping service to Breitbart.
A string of articles on Muslim immigrants and female genital mutilation had been beyond the pale, O'Kelley said, leaving him no choice but to cut ties with the then-prominent right-wing site.
AppNexus specializes in technology for auctioning online ads, which helps websites make money targeting ads to specific audiences.
Cutting off that technology meant less money for Breitbart, a tangible cost for the site's controversial content, and for critics.
A minor but real check on online speech.
We do have a real obligation to use advertising to support some level of ethical media, O'Kelley told Business Insider in the wake of the decision.
I love the fact we can set an example.
But nearly three years later, that example isn't quite so firm.
No, wrong, Verge.
Breitbart made changes.
Respect that people will— You know what, man?
This is just the perfect example of everything going on with my event here.
I should say my, but I'm a sponsor, so yes.
They don't believe you can change.
They don't believe you can sit down and ask someone, please don't do this.
They believe that if you've ever done anything, burn the witch.
So, no.
They say the example isn't quite firm.
Well, what do you mean by that?
Okay, I get it.
You're, you're, it's, okay.
Point is, if Breitbart says, okay, we'll make some changes, and does, and AppNexus says thank you, we're done.
Good job, Breitbart, right?
AppNexus is new.
Here's the problem.
They don't, they tell you to change, and then when you do, they still whack you over the head.
It's like, what do you want Breitbart to do?
Just not exist anymore?
They're people who work there, and have a right to express themselves.
You don't gotta like them.
You can disagree with them.
But if you're mad about the content they present and they make the changes you want that certifies them as credible by a third-party agency and an advertising technology agency, why would you be mad?
At this point, it's like, hey, you won!
Breitbart cleaned up its act in a direction you liked.
They say AppNexus's new parent company, Xander, confirmed to The Verge that it has restored service to Breitbart as part of a reinstatement plan.
Breitbart inquired how it could return to our platform, satisfied our requirements, and is reinstated, a Xander representative said in a statement.
The representative declined to elaborate on the requirements Breitbart had fulfilled or its broader reinstatement plan.
Sources say InfoWars, which was blacklisted around the same time, has yet to return to the platform.
They say the change in policy may have to do with AppNexus's recent change in ownership.
May?
I don't think that's the case.
Perhaps they changed ownership so then, you know, the other guy was personal.
He didn't like Trump, maybe.
I don't know.
The point is, why are you speculating now?
They say in August, AppNexus was acquired by AT&T, which has incorporated the company under its Xander subsidiary.
That's meant a number of management changes as the company integrated into AT&T's broader ad tech holdings.
O'Kelly himself has taken a backseat in the wake of the sale, assisting with the transition but foregoing the CEO title in the new parent company.
On his LinkedIn profile, he lists himself as strategic advisor to Xander.
So the guy's still there?
It sounds like the sale had nothing to do with it.
Perhaps the new management was more interested in hearing what Breitbart had to say, or Occam's Razor would suggest they said Breitbart made changes.
I can confirm Breitbart did, because now even NewsGuard has certified them.
They've taken strides to correct the problems people had with them and improve their business.
Shouldn't everyone do that?
It's the craziest thing to me.
We want to put on an event where we can sit down with people and talk to them in this
way.
A really good example of why I think conversations are important is, it was like last year or
so, I criticized Sargon of Akkad.
I said he had been mean to some people.
And he said, yeah, okay, you know.
And I think, over the past several years, Sargon has done great to tone things down that were much more, like, bombastic and directed at individuals, and keep it more towards arguments.
And while he still retained his character, I think the point is, you can have a conversation with someone and say, you don't have to say it like that.
And then, if you talk to them, they might be willing to listen.
I think Carl over time has dramatically improved the quality of his content.
He did one, I've mentioned this before, it was like a long-form take on like communism, socialism, Venezuela, and it was amazing.
And it's like you compare that to his original videos where he's like making fun of a feminist and I'm like, you see?
You can talk to someone and you can help them be better in a lot of ways.
Because look, being mean doesn't convince anybody of an argument.
It's an emotional satisfaction.
Right?
So anyway, I'm not here to throw the thing at Sargon.
I think Sargon's done a tremendous job of making better, higher quality content.
And I think what we're seeing here is that Breitbart is saying, OK, I understand you guys don't like these aspects of what we do.
What can we do to fix it?
And they do.
And then you still get criticism.
Check this out.
So, NewsGuard says it's not responsible, they mix opinion with news, and they don't disclose ownership and financing, but they do not repeatedly publish false content, they avoid deceptive headlines, and they do correct and clarify errors.
They clearly label advertising, they show who the content creators are with contact information, and they reveal who's in charge.
Uh, and possible conflicts of interest.
That's actually quite incredible.
So they got, this website generally maintains basic standards of credibility and transparency with some significant exceptions.
I think that's fair to say.
And they say something like, um, let me see if I can find it.
In recent years, I should definitely zoom in so you can see it.
The site's editorial standards seem to have improved and the site has become less inflammatory.
Well, there you go.
I don't think NewsGuard is the arbiter of what is or isn't good news.
I think it's just a third-party agency that you don't have to take seriously, but this says, to me, good faith on the part of NewsGuard.
Now, there's a lot that I disagree with NewsGuard about, because they give, like, across-the-board green checkmarks to sites like The Verge, which they shouldn't, because The Verge has refused to correct stuff in the past.
I don't know how many, you know, stories you need to be corrected or not corrected until you give them a strike, but fine.
But at least, while they're critical and they probably have a more mainstream bias, at least you can reach out to them and they will change your rating based on you doing better.
So we can see that there's AppNexus willing to recognize people can change, a business can change, and say, we'll bring you back on.
And NewsGuard can say, well, you know what?
Breitbart's doing a good job.
But for whatever reason, the activists, they don't see it.
And I think it's because they don't want to admit, they don't want to admit the revolution is fake news.
That we don't need their revolution.
What we need is a calm conversation and we can reunite the people in this country and end the division.
But the division is good for these activists.
If they want a revolution, they got to make sure that divide gets worse and worse and worse.
The rest of us, normal people who live in sleepy towns, want to just say, hey man, I don't want to fight with you.
It's too stressful.
I'd rather just hang out with my friends, crack a beer, have a slice of pizza, and watch the game.
I don't want to think about why we're fighting.
Why don't we hash it out and carry on?
We'll figure out how we can work things out.
Isn't that the right thing you're supposed to do?
Forgive and forget?
Well, forget to an extent, right?
If it's a political difference, I'll meet you over a drink.
I don't really drink, but you know, I'll have a club soda with a splash of lemonade.
And we'll talk it out.
And if we can't come to a, you know, I've done this with many people I've had disagreements with.
And that's the right thing to do.
Because I believe people can be better.
I don't believe there's anyone who's too far gone.
I believe certainly people can go nuts, and certainly people have, you know, mental illnesses, so.
But in the end, to speculate that it's like a business move, oh, Breitbart shouldn't ever be returned from the dark side, no, no, no, man, look.
If you run a business and other businesses say, we won't partner with you, the appropriate adult thing to do is say, look, man, you got to fix these things and we're good.
And Breitbart said, okay, end of story.
And when it came to credibility in the news, they said, you got to fix these things.
And Breitbart came back and said, we'll issue a correction immediately.
So they, I'm not going to read through this whole thing that NewsGuard wrote about it, but they mentioned that they reached out to him and said, Hey, look at these stories.
They're incorrect.
And Breitbart immediately, you know, said like, we're on it and fixed it.
And so now they've been certified credible because they're willing to correct when it's pointed out and they don't publish fake news.
I know what's going to happen.
People are going to be like, Tim's defending Breitbart.
Oh, but Breitbart's far right.
It's like, dude, don't take my word for it.
I'm not talking about my opinion on Breitbart.
I still am reluctant to use them for sure, but you can't argue with me when a third party agency gives them the green light and they've been brought back to a tech company.
They're making strides to rebuild.
There you go.
The rest is on you.
Stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
Presidential candidate John Delaney says some Democrats are cheering on a recession to stick it to Trump.
John, do you watch my videos?
Because I gotta say, that's exactly how I feel.
I made a video about this, talking about—well, I've ranted about Bill Maher on this issue, but I want to expand on this idea.
John, it's not just that some Democrats are cheering on a recession.
Like, I would consider Bill Maher, I would say he's a Democrat.
I mean, he's not a politician, but you know, he's a Democratic voter, supporter, absolutely cheering on a recession.
And it's mind-blowing, because that's going to hurt poor people.
That's the opposite of what we should be trying to do.
The Democratic Party should be helping poor people at all costs, not cheering for a recession, because the orange man is bad.
So I'm glad you got someone like Delaney calling it out.
I mean, isn't he like a— John's like a moderate type, so I'm not surprised.
But let me ask you this.
Why is there any news about a recession?
I'll give you a second.
You know, one.
Just wait a second.
Okay, now, have you thought about it?
Why?
There's no recession.
Nothing's happening.
But I'm seeing it everywhere.
Oh, we know why.
Two things can happen.
If you keep saying a recession will come, they're hoping it does.
Because that's what they need to beat Trump.
Because policy won't do it.
They can't convince his base.
They can't convince moderates.
They've gone nuts.
So they're like, I don't know, tank the economy.
There's no recession coming.
At least as far as I can tell.
But I certainly see these stories.
Check this out.
How bad would a recession be for Trump in 2020?
Eight experts weigh in.
An economic slowdown would hurt Trump's re-election chances, but partisanship might soften its impact.
I highlight this story to say two things.
They're talking about how a recession would impact Trump.
Okay, we get it.
But why is recession being talked about?
The more you talk about it, they're hoping for that self-fulfilling prophecy.
They want people to get scared, so they start selling.
Right?
And then the more people who sell, the more people get scared, and they want that run on the banks.
The figurative run.
They want more people to sell, so that the sell results in sell, and it results in a recession.
Which is bad for everybody.
Well, let's read what John Delaney has to say, and we'll talk a little bit more about why they keep running stories about a recession.
It's annoying, because there was a story like, a recession may be looming for this factor, and then all of a sudden everyone's like, we got it, and they wrote 50 million stories about it.
So let's jump in.
Before we do, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, you can just share this video.
It's the best way to help me overcome YouTube's deranking of independent political commentary.
But let's read.
Newsweek reports.
2020 presidential hopeful John Delaney accused his fellow Democrats of cheering on a recession in order to stick it to President Donald Trump, who has continued to claim his economy is the best ever even as experts warn of impending decline.
Delaney was campaigning in Altoona, Iowa on Wednesday when he was asked by reporters if he thought a recession was likely.
Financial experts and market indicators have recently signaled that an economic downturn may be coming sooner rather than later.
I hope it's not.
You know, it feels like some Democrats are cheering on a recession because they want to stick it to Trump.
CNN reporter DJ Judd immediately pushed Delaney on his accusation, asking him which Democratic candidates in particular are celebrating a possible recession.
I'm not going to name names, but you just get a sense, Delaney responded.
My position, if very clear, Is very clear?
Which is I hope a recession doesn't happen.
I believe Trump's economic policies in many ways are fraudulent, right?
He gave us sugar high in spending and tax cuts.
He didn't make good investments.
And he got us in a trade war.
So I believe that's going to end very badly.
Let me stop.
I'm not a politician.
Not an economist.
I can't really argue if he's right or wrong.
In my opinion, though, when you're looking at someone like me who is a moderate voter, and others, I hear that, and the first thing I think is, I have no idea, man.
All I know is the economy is a lot better, and labor participation is really, really high.
Unemployment in all demographics is down across the board for women, for the black community, for Latinos.
You can tell me it's a sugar high, but if you're saying it's a sugar high and Trump's saying it's his policies, the only thing I have to go on is, Trump is the president, the economy has improved, I don't know anything else.
Now by all means, if you think I'm wrong, if you know I'm wrong, comment and let me know why.
But I'm not trying to tell you I'm right.
I'm trying to tell you.
A moderate voter is going to hear that and think, I don't know, man.
You're claiming the economy is bad when it's good.
You know what I mean?
You're claiming Trump has done something wrong when the economy is good.
If the economy was bad, I'd be listening and saying, tell me why it's bad.
But it's not.
So if Trump says, here's a good economy and here's why, what am I supposed to do?
I don't know what to do.
I'm not an economist.
I didn't go to school for economy or anything like that.
So all I know is you have your opinion on it.
Unfortunately, your opinion isn't backed up by anything tangible.
Economy's great.
I don't know how you argue it.
Is it the congressman?
But at least, I will absolutely credit to Delaney for saying, I hope it doesn't happen, absolutely spot on correct response.
If he believes Trump's a sugar high, you know, is that what he called it, a sugar high?
If that's what he believes, you can have your opinion, man.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I don't know better.
But I really do respect and appreciate you calling these people out who are cheering for a recession.
That's just going to bring more suffering.
That's the last thing any of us should want.
So much respect.
Much respect.
See, they're good Democrats.
They can be wrong on policy.
I'm talking to conservatives on this one.
But there are people who know it's insane to cheer for a recession.
Come on.
It seems like Delaney's stance here is, I don't want a recession to happen, and I'm worried Trump's policies may lead to that, but let's hope it's not true.
It sounds like, in the end, it's a principled position where he's worried about the American people.
I believe it!
I don't believe people—well, actually, no, I believe Bill Maher.
I believe him when he says, I want a recession, bring it on.
It's like, dude, are you joking?
But I can't imagine you actually care about the American people if you would say something like that.
I cannot believe you actually care about policy.
I believe you just don't like the orange, man.
What Delaney said here may be wrong, I don't know, but it sounds like his concern is for the American people and not whether or not he can beat the Orange Man.
It's so frustrating.
But I appreciate this.
While I don't necessarily disagree, I just don't know better, I would say, that's kind of what I would like to hear.
Tell me why.
Tell me why.
And I'm listening.
And when the first thing he says to me is, we don't want a recession, I say, I agree.
And then he says, the thing is, we've got spending and tax cuts, it's not gonna last that long, and we're in a trade war, that's gonna end badly.
And I go, Interesting.
I don't know enough to refute that.
But I am listening.
You've said some things.
You've pointed to some specifics.
Tax cuts, spending, trade war.
I understand those concepts to a bit.
So now you've got my attention.
This is what we need from our Democratic leadership.
Do I think Delaney can beat Trump?
I really don't.
I really don't.
I'm not trying to be a dick.
I actually respect Delaney's approach to this.
This is kind of what I've been asking for.
Now, letting you know, as a moderate, I can't tell you those things.
That's true.
But I appreciate you saying, listen, this is why.
And now, you know what I'm going to do?
I'm going to start reading about it.
I'm going to go, I'm going to go.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
I appreciate it.
If only we can get more people to say, hey, poor people need help, right?
They act like they care about poor people.
They don't.
I'm digging this article and I'm digging this statement from Delaney, though I really don't think he'll win.
I don't think the Democrats have anybody, but at least there's someone I can find, you know, presenting a respectable statement.
He's also come out and criticized the Green, I think it was Delaney who said this, the Green New Deal has a bunch of stuff in it that has nothing to do with the environment.
I'm like, thank you!
I like this guy, right?
Again, I don't think he can win, but I'm not saying that to be mean, I just think Trump is...
There's an X factor, you know?
And a lot of people have said it like you can see it.
Admittedly, nobody thought Trump had it, but, you know, Ann Coulter called it out.
Trump does have that, I don't know, gravitas?
He's an imposing figure.
He stands there and his, whatever you want to call it, charisma?
I don't think charisma is the right word because he certainly, it's some kind of, you know, something exudes from him that puts pressure on other people.
It's a force.
So whether you like how he uses it or not, the point is, you can see that in Trump.
I don't see that in Delaney.
But I do see some principle and some respectable statements.
CNN's Judd continued to question Delaney on his allegation that Democrats are welcoming a recession in order to take down Trump in the general election.
Delaney repeatedly avoided the question.
Oh, come on, man.
I'm sorry, but just to bear down, you think members of the Democratic Party are actively hoping for a recession?
I didn't say that.
I didn't say that.
Delaney claimed he added that it's very important that the Democratic Party be very clear that they do not want a recession, even if it would be good politics.
The White House has continually downplayed growing concerns about a potent— Growing concerns from who?
The media?
Yeah, the media who doesn't want him to win.
Larry Kudlow, the Trump administration's chief economic advisor, told NBC that he doesn't see a recession happening and the country is doing pretty darn well, in my judgment.
That's all I know, man.
I've seen the numbers.
I'm not doing a deep dive into economy textbooks and meeting with all these economists to talk about what the potentials for the future are.
What I do know is Trump's staff and his administration have said we're doing this.
Things have improved.
I don't know if it's good or bad.
I'm not saying Trump is doing the right thing.
I hear Delaney, and I just think all I know is, hey man, if the economy is doing well, How do you convince a moderate to abandon Trump in 2020?
Look, you can come to him and say, the economy's only doing well because Trump cast a spell and sold his soul to Satan.
It's like, I don't care what you say, dude.
All I know is, moderates are gonna say, keep on keeping on.
Don't change it if it's good.
And you know what, Delaney might be right.
Trump may be giving us a sugar high, and there may be a crash, but that's not, I don't see how you get moderates, you know, or voters in general, past that hump, where they're gonna say they know for sure.
They mentioned that Trump has brushed off concerns.
I'll just talk about this a little bit.
But I've seen a ton of stories talking about the recession and the downplaying the recession and the potential recession.
And what they're doing now is they're making recession stories that have nothing to do with the experts.
Like this one.
How bad would a recession be for Trump in 2020?
8 experts weigh in.
I don't care.
Is it possible we're going to have a recession?
I don't know.
They take that one story and then they turn it into 50 stories so the word recession hits the news over and over and over again and starts scaring people.
I think that will backfire because everything they've done has backfired.
I don't think it's going to work out the way they think it will.
I think it's going to be bad for them.
Because you're scaring people.
And when people are scared, they vote Republican.
So I don't know if they're scared of... I don't know how economics plays, but when people have a fear... I could be wrong about this.
Fact check me.
I remember reading a study, multiple ones, talking about when people are scared about, you know, impending doom, they reach out to authoritarianism.
So, the study... I should state, they reach out to strong figures, is a better way to put it, right?
I don't want to play a political game over Trump and other... The point is, they look for strong figures if they're scared.
If you keep saying, it's coming for you, it's coming, they don't find strength in the Democrats.
At least that's not what I see.
They see Trump, and you can call Trump all of the names in the book.
You can call him a bully.
And that's strength to people.
There are people who look at Trump and say, he may be a bully, but he's bullying people for me.
And you know what?
You can choose not to like that.
That's fine.
Maybe you don't like it.
Maybe you find it gross.
But the point is, when people get scared, they look to someone who's tough.
And Trump may be boisterous and boorish, but that's a sign of strength to a lot of people.
You know, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
One more segment coming up in a few moments.
I will see you shortly.
No, I don't think that's accurate, though I am skeptical of a lot of Trump's policies and a lot of things he does.
birthright citizenship.
Trump is a hardcore nationalist.
Now the left likes to smear him as a white nationalist.
No, I don't think that's accurate, though I am skeptical of a lot of Trump's policies
and a lot of things he does.
You know, look man, you guys know I'm moderate, right?
So that means I'm not shrieking at the top of my lungs about Trump Derangement Syndrome.
It was funny, someone tweeted at me earlier saying I have a minor case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I was like, no, I literally have zero Trump Derangement Syndrome at all.
I have no problem, like, analyzing what Trump is doing and giving a fair shake.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is like, Trump could walk by and, like, brush his shirt, and then he starts shrieking about he was giving a secret hand sign to the Nazis.
It's like, no, no.
I look at what Trump is doing and I try and question it based on my perspective and my
research.
And that's why I'm moderate.
Because the orange man is bad in some ways, but he's not that bad.
I love that.
I'm going to give a shout out to Fleca every time because it's a great segment.
I don't know if you're familiar with Fleca's talks, but he walks around talking to people
and says, Trump's not that bad, right?
And there's a lot of people who go, yeah, he's not that bad.
It's like, right, right.
The media is saying all this stuff about him.
He's not that bad.
And case in point, it's like, it's not hard to say when you see a story that says Trump is talking about exterminating Latinos or whatever from the MSNBC lady.
It's like, dude, Trump is not that bad.
Come on.
Oh my god.
I'm not a fan of the guy.
Like, I don't approach my position on Trump as being, you know, one or all or nothing.
It's just like, I lean slightly away from him, his character, and some of his policies.
That's about it.
And then, at the end of the day, I think America's gonna do what America does.
They called George W. Bush a Nazi.
They called Obama a Nazi.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I get it.
It's worse than it's ever been, in my opinion.
But, uh, I'm starting to trail off.
I hate... You know, it happens.
I'll start talking about Trump and all this stuff.
I'm so tickin' tired of talking about this guy, you have no idea.
I was looking through my videos and I'm like, wow, I have so many pictures of Trump on my other channel.
But it's because every story is, look at this, 15,000 shares.
Now here's the thing about birthright citizenship.
This I find questionable.
And the reason I brought up the American nationalist thing and trailed off into that is because, when I read the story, I said, yes, Trump is hardcore pro-America nationalist.
It is not about race, as I see it.
I believe Trump is specifically like, America is the best, and we need to hunker down, secure our borders, bring back jobs, and make America strong.
It's literally his- He tells this to you!
He says, make America great again!
And for some reason the left injects race into it.
It's like, you see it everywhere.
Let me tell you this.
You want to know why I love saying Tim Pool is mixed race?
Because I am not somebody who is happy with the idea of white nationalist encroachment.
No, I'm actually quite fearful of it and detest these people.
And I don't see it in Trump!
Okay, my family has reason to be concerned about this.
They've dealt with this for two generations.
And Trump is just another president, and he's very much an American nationalist.
So maybe he's more about, I don't want to say isolationist, but more about doing more domestically than internationally than some of our past presidents.
Certainly Obama was very much in favor of free trade agreements and things like that.
But Trump is very much about preserving America, making it great.
I don't think make America great again means anything, to be honest.
I think it was just a callback to Ronald Reagan.
He wanted to inspire that idea, and now he's saying keep America great.
I think America was always great.
I think America was always great.
Always!
And I mean literally always, since its inception, and I'll explain.
When America first started, when we declared that independence, there was a lot wrong with this young, fledgling nation.
A lot wrong.
Slavery, number one.
But here's why I think this country was always great.
The foundation of this nation was a document, a constitution, that could be amended, and a Bill of Rights.
that broke down the prejudices over time.
Did this country do really awful things?
Absolutely.
Humans did.
Slavery was disgusting.
It wasn't until, I believe, 1967, miscegenation laws were dissolved.
The Supreme Court officially ruled you can be in a mixed-race relationship.
Isn't that crazy you couldn't cohabitate?
And the only reason that was possible was because at the inception of America, greatness was cast to document.
That's what I mean by this country was always great.
So, you have a lot of people saying America was never great.
Absolutely incorrect.
The foundation was laid by some brilliant men who were deeply flawed based on today's standard.
But we can't judge everyone based on how far we've progressed by today.
What we realize is that people like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, etc., all of these individuals who helped shape our nation, we're standing on their shoulders.
If it were not for them to lift us up, Then we wouldn't be in a place where we are today where someone like me can be successful and telling you why it's a good thing.
And telling you, I don't see white nationalism in the president.
And the left will call me stupid.
And it's mostly gonna be progressive white people telling me my experience doesn't matter.
And that's why I'm a moderate.
Do I think that the orange man is bad?
I do.
But he's not that bad.
I would just be like, well, you gotta vote, you know what I mean?
Like, I'm not gonna cry, I'm not gonna scream, I'm gonna chuckle and be like, You know, Trump won.
That's the way the Democrats should be acting.
Okay?
They're not.
So I was supposed to be reading about birthright citizenship.
Let's read it.
The Hill says, President Trump on Wednesday said his administration is once again seriously considering an executive order to end birthright citizenship months after several lawmakers cast doubt on his ability to take such action.
Yes, I don't believe he can do that, but it will go to the courts.
We're looking at that very seriously, Trump told reporters as he left the White House for Kentucky.
Birthright citizenship, where you have a baby on our land, walk over the border, have a baby, congratulations, the baby is now a U.S.
citizen.
We're looking at birthright citizenship very seriously, he added.
It's frankly ridiculous.
Well, hold on.
Milk Toast Tim Pool is going to make some points.
I think it's ridiculous that people know they can cross the border illegally, have their baby, and aha!
The child is protected.
That's kind of a way to exploit our good nature.
I do not like that.
However, there is the circumstance of people who are here legally who have a child.
And I think that makes sense.
It is interesting, though, why we would do that, because a lot of places don't.
I don't have the full numbers, but think about it.
Let's say you're a tourist from, you know, I don't know, Spain.
And you're here with your wife, and you don't expect her to be giving birth.
Or you are, as a female, pregnant, and you don't expect to be giving birth.
And the baby comes early, and you were like, we didn't think it was gonna happen, but now you have a kid in the U.S.
Should that kid be an American citizen?
I mean, you're a tourist here.
However, what if you're a permanent resident who isn't a citizen, but you're a permanent resident?
You live here, you have a green card, you work, and you have a kid.
Well, that kid's gonna grow up here, and that makes sense.
So the issue isn't just getting rid of it.
The issue is nuanced.
The issue is stop exploitation.
If somebody runs across the border to give birth so their kid can become an American citizen, that is, in my opinion, exploiting our good nature and providing an open door, essentially, for good faith.
If you are here as a worker, as a migrant, or whatever, legally, and you have a kid, we say, don't worry, your kid is now one of us.
Your kid is an American citizen.
Or I should say, now one of us.
Your kid, from the moment of their existence...
You know, or independent existence, I should say, because the baby exists in the womb.
But from the moment they were born, here in America, welcome to America, you can be raised, you can go to school here, and I think that makes sense.
When people come here illegally to exploit our system is where it doesn't make sense.
So throwing the whole thing out, I would say we need to have a conversation.
And the problem with a lot of our political discourse is it's always black or white.
They say, the president proposed ending the practice that grants citizenship to those born
in the United States during his 2016 presidential campaign.
He revived the idea last year, saying he would sign an executive order to enact the change.
Numerous lawmakers, including several Republicans, quickly pushed back on the idea and argued Trump
lacked the authority to make such a change using an executive order. They cited that birthright
citizenship is a right enshrined under the 14th Amendment.
And if you want to change it, you need, what is it, like two-thirds ratification from
every state or something?
Like it's really difficult to do. Trump responded to the criticism by saying
birthright citizenship would be ended one way or another.
The president has sought various ways to crack down on illegal and legal immigration throughout his presidency.
And I will say, crack down on legal immigration, in my opinion, is acting as though He's highlighting legal immigration as something incredibly bad.
But it is true that Trump has taken action to limit legal immigration.
You know, it's really difficult to try and be fair, I will admit, on a lot of issues.
The Hill is a relatively fair outlet, in my opinion.
And they're saying a crackdown on illegal and legal—oh, hold on.
Crackdown is typically like you're talking about discipline and enforcement.
You don't need to crack down on legal immigration.
It's legal.
They could say restrict or limit, so I think it's important to clarify.
They could say various ways to crack down on illegal immigration and restrict legal immigration would be a better way to phrase it.
You know, we're playing semantics, but in today's day and age, isn't it ridiculous that we have to?
Because if you're not absolutely precise in your language, they'll come for you.
Now you're gonna get people saying the hill's biased because, you know, the way they phrased it.
They say the Trump administration announced earlier Wednesday it would unveil a new rule that would allow migrant families to be held indefinitely, ending a procedure known as the Flores Settlement Agreement that requires children to be held no longer than 20 days.
It's a complicated thing.
I don't have it pulled up, so don't quote me.
But it's something having to do with kids and the families being detained.
But yeah, I'm not going to get into all that thing because I do not have it pulled up.
But I will stress, What I see as someone who has experience for two generations in a family that has dealt with issues of white nationalism and the laws that have been changed in the Supreme Court rulings, I see a president who wants to reinforce American culture and stop, you know, you know, I guess I could say it's to stop the globalization.
You know, we've heard a lot of the talk about, you know, the globalists and all that from, like, Alex Jones and everything.
I really don't like the meme version of what globalization is.
I think there's natural forces that push us towards ever-increasing open borders and trade and all these things, and Trump is trying to secure the United States so it can take care of itself.
He's a nationalist. It's not about race in my opinion. It's about him saying,
this country and this culture are good and I want to reinforce that. That's how I see it from him.
I actually lean more towards internationalism because I think ultimately a democratic form
of a globalist community is a really, really good thing.
But we need to recognize borders exist for a reason outside of, like, security.
You know, there's trade restrictions, there's resource restrictions.
We don't want people coming from one place to take from someone else's resources because it doesn't work.
If a community is built on a small lake and they have just enough water for them, and everyone says there's water and they rush in and take it, then everyone dies, okay?
So borders exist for reasons for protecting communities.
And that's how I view Trump.
He's focused on the United States.
You don't have to like him for it.
I just don't see the racial component that they try to inject into it.
And, you know, I don't want to hear it from the left.
