We Are Trapped In Trump World, The Media OBSESSION Is Carrying Him To 2020 Reelection
We Are Trapped In Trump World, The Media OBSESSION Is Carrying Him To 2020 Reelection. They say that the media provided Donald Trump with billions in free press during the 2016 presidential election. People ragged on the media for constantly talking about him essentially propelling him to victory.The media hasn't changed one bit. Everyday all I see is Trump Trump Trump everywhere. I started to realize that this is not normal, we are trapped in Trump World.He baits the press and they take it, he calls out the far left democrats and the media runs full speed. Even The Simpsons made a terrible segment with Trump and the far left "squad" which is exactly what Trump wanted. Donald Trump's mentions in the press on average are higher than the highest point of Obama's presidency. Democrats can try all they want but the media's obsession is once again providing him a path to 2020 reelection. He plays to their ego and they can't stop.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Because the other day, a report was released showing that Facebook has made changes because, yeah, there was a bias against conservatives.
But those Trump stories never end.
Today, the big story that's trending on Twitter, Joe Walsh may run against the president.
And I thought, okay, I guess there's the big story.
Joe Walsh wants to primary challenge Trump.
And then I'm like, am I really gonna do another video on this guy?
Isn't there something else to talk about?
I guess I could talk about Joe Walsh, but the story is Joe Walsh to Trump.
And Joe Walsh will never win.
Everybody says it's a long shot, it's a waste of time.
And we can talk a little bit about this.
But first, we're gonna dive into the issue of the media obsession with Trump and how Trump, it plays to his advantage.
Now, I don't necessarily blame him for getting all the bad press.
The media is obsessed with the man.
Look, the guy was a celebrity before he became the president, so he knows how to get attention.
But for some reason, I just, I just, I imagine the American population is looking starry-eyed at Trump, half angry, half happy, saying, I just can't quit you.
And that's the fact.
And so I thought, am I going to make a video about Trump again?
You know what?
No.
I am, but I'm going to point out what's happening.
So let's do this.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, the best thing you can do is just share this video.
Help get me past that deranking.
YouTube deranks independent political commentary so that, you know, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC get propped up and I get knocked down.
More importantly, though, let's break some echo chambers.
By sharing this, people who might not see it may watch it.
Now, a lot of people probably won't, but hey.
Maybe, if it's a video talking about how the media is propping up Trump inadvertently because they're obsessed with them, people on the left might hear this.
You know?
I think that's the big issue.
Again, I don't blame Trump for the media wanting to rag on him.
They're chasing the ratings.
And because of this, Trump gets press.
So a lot of people who might disagree with him are tired, and they tune it out.
And the people who love him are talking more and more about it because the media won't stop.
Here we go.
The Hill.
Again.
The Hill is a political website.
I totally get it.
37 instances of the word Trump appearing on their front page.
Alright.
The Washington Post.
Okay.
Well, they talk about politics, but they talk about everything, right?
Florida and Fresno and apartheid.
20 instances of the word Trump on their front page.
Look at the yellow everywhere!
Now we have the Atlantic.
14 instances of the word Trump on their front page.
However, I will stress, they still have Proud Boys over here, there's Brexit.
It seems like there is a theme.
One of the biggest factors driving the culture war probably is the media's singular obsession with the same concepts.
Can we please As a media, talk about something else.
Why don't you guys pop over to youtube.com slash Subverse News?
Alright, we recently raised a million bucks.
Thank you all to everybody who invested.
And you will find not very much Trump talk.
Because one of the couple things we're trying to do over at Subverse, and again, it's being run by a separate editorial team.
I am in a different state right now.
is issues that people are ignoring and not talking about, and we recognize sometimes people won't watch it.
We did a video about Sudan internet censorship, because we thought it was important people knew this was
happening in this part of the world,
and we can look to how it affects their population, and how it might affect us if we allow censorship to
continue on a mass scale.
Not a lot of people want to watch it, but you will find a lot of news about science, technology,
social media issues.
Sometimes there's issues about the president, but we keep it tempered and rational.
14 instances of the word Trump on the front page of The Atlantic.
Next up, CNN.
11 instances of the word Trump on the front page of CNN.
Hey, CNN's doing better, right?
And they actually have way more stories.
That's surprising, right?
I know a lot of people want to rag on CNN, but hey, there's many more links And there's much less Trump.
In fact, it looks like in their political section, Trump doesn't appear in their breaking news and top stories, just in politics.
So I gotta say, good on you, CNN, for segmenting this, at least.
You know, Washington Post, not so much.
Then we have the New York Times, lastly.
And this may be the most impressive.
And it's because it's the New York Times.
Now, I disagree with a lot of the trend and how they're hiring, but look at this.
Five instances of the word Trump appearing on their front page.
Now, I will stress, it's not that the word Trump is going to tell you if the story is or is not about him.
It may be true that there are stories that are about Trump that don't use the word in the headline, which means we are actually drowning in Trump more than we realize.
In fact, in this story, it appears There's an instance of Trump that wasn't caught by the search.
Let's try this again.
Yeah, okay, so now it says six because it didn't catch that first one.
So six instances of the word Trump on the front page of the New York Times.
Not that bad, but I also want to stress that still seems kind of crazy to me.
Now here's the thing.
I have evidence.
I have proof.
This is crazy.
We are living in Trump's reality, and no one can escape it.
Which means the only thing you'll hear about is this man.
He has nearly infinite media value.
I read something once that in like 2016, Trump was given 5 billion dollars of free press.
I could be wrong on that, but it's been a while.
But because of the constant stories about him, it helped him get elected.
Listen, when you write a story saying, here we go, opinion, Trump, Greenland, Denmark, is this real life?
You will find a couple things.
Some people go, you're irrationally upset with the president and I'm so angry with you, screw it, and they go and vote for him anyway.
Some people see the story where you're trying to be negative and they laugh and say, hey, that's actually a cool thing.
You are giving, like, listen, I've explained this to so many people.
Everything I say is positive and negative depending on your tribe.
I could say something like, why is the media obsessed with Trump and talking about him all the time, and Trump supporters are probably happy about it, laughing, saying, the president's getting free press and it's gonna help him win.
And other people are saying, this is absurd, he's right, why are they doing this, it's a bad thing.
Different people will view the information positively or negatively.
So if I say, did you know Donald Trump was trying to buy Greenland?
What a fool!
Half of people might say, actually that's a pretty good idea.
There's a lot of resources in Greenland.
I like the idea of Trump trying to get us new territory in the Arctic Circle to compete with Russia.
Hey, even though the media's trying to be negative about it, they're still giving positive press.
There's no such thing as bad press.
So you look at all of these just, like, my mind is blown.
Look, look, I'll say it again.
I was going through my YouTube list, and I see, like, Three Trump pictures, then a picture of, you know, Ocasio-Cortez, then three Trump pictures, and I'm like, how come it's so much Trump?
And I had this moment where I was like, when I'm looking at the top trending news and some of the most important stories, birthright citizenship, you know, the border wall, Greenland, all the things that trend, I was like, I'm talking about this because I'm trying to make sure I cover the biggest news in politics for my main channel.
And then I realized, is that what everyone else is doing too?
Somewhat.
I'm sure, oh you can see, so the New York Times updates in real time, that's where the Trump story, that Trump story popped up as we were filming.
So there are people like at the New York Times that say, okay, we should talk about this, this is a big issue.
And it creates a never-ending cycle.
The more people talk about him, the more people talk about him.
And now, it's time for some data to prove it.
Check this out.
Measuring the media's obsession with Trump.
Now, this is from about nine months ago or so, they say.
Since he rode down the Trump Tower escalator in June 2015, Donald Trump has loomed large over the media landscape.
From the mail bomber to the Khashoggi slang to Bush 41's death, news outlets have organized their stories to emphasize Trump, while often undermining his legitimacy.
In doing so, the press has devoted so much attention to him that he has in some ways helped revive American journalism.
What?
It turns out that the media's obsession with the president is greater than one might imagine.
Recently, there was a story.
There was like a leaked chat log from the New York Times where they were saying something about how they dedicated the paper's coverage to Russiagate, talking about Trump.
And now they're switching To Trump and bigotry.
Why is your singular story Trump?
I don't care.
Now, I will stress, the New York Times' front page does way better than the other outlets I've pulled up.
Admittedly, Politico and The Hill are meant to be about politics in Washington, so of course Trump would appear a lot there.
But the Atlantic, CNN, they still have a lot of stories about Trump.
So, when the New York Times says in these leaked chats, I'm assuming they're real, we are going to focus on Trump.
And then when a story dies, they go, we're still going to focus on Trump.
I'm like, y'all are obsessed.
You are obsessed, dangerously obsessed.
And I'm getting angry about it.
Because I don't want to talk about Trump all day.
Trump goes on Twitter and says, I ate a cheeseburger.
And then all of a sudden, everyone's like, oh god, cheeseburgers.
And then you see a bunch of meme videos where they're like, cheeseburger.
I'll tell you this.
Who's the most influential person in the world right now?
Hands down, Donald Trump.
Hands down, Donald Trump.
Argue with me.
Change my mind.
I just do not see it.
You can talk about celebrities.
Kim Kardashian.
You know, you can talk about Bill Gates and their wealth.
Nah.
Not only is he the president, but they won't stop talking about the man.
And here I am, paradoxically talking about him while complaining about how everybody talks about him too much.
There's no escape.
We're in a whirlpool of Trump's world.
Check this out.
So this story is, I believe, from like December or so, but check this out.
The timeline below shows the total percentage of airtime, as measured in 15-second intervals, of the combined CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News daily coverage from June 09, the starting point of the data, to present that mentioned Trump or Obama, using data from the GDELT project's processing of the Internet Archive's Television News Archive.
Now, Trump got elected around this point, right?
Oh, I'm sorry, this is his campaign.
Here's, uh, getting close to his election.
Compare the red line to the blue line.
During Obama's presidency, his biggest spike was when he was up for re-election, when he was about to be re-elected.
And it does not compare to where Trump even is at today!
Obama's peak, the most coverage he ever got, is still lower than Trump's average.
Isn't that mind-blowing?
Why?
Why?
I don't get it!
Well, you know, the guy likes tweeting, the guy likes saying things, he's bombastic.
But I think it comes down to the Trump bump, for one.
And I'll admit it, check it out.
When I look at stories that I've covered, Trump stories do really, really well.
I wouldn't be surprised if this one does decently well, especially because the title is funny and it's a silly concept.
And certain stories, like about Rashida Tlaib, did not do nearly as well.
I get it.
But I don't judge my content.
Actually, I make a video, I publish it, I walk away.
I don't like looking at analytics.
You know, there's a lot of people in media who are obsessed with ratings.
This might be a factor.
Trump drives good ratings, right?
So people are gravitating towards stories that they think will do well because they want that high.
We know, or at least we've seen, we've heard the anecdotes, that when social media producers don't get that many views, they start getting depressed.
They start getting angry.
Their views go down for one reason or another, and then they start, they feel like they're sinking in quicksand.
Why?
Why isn't it going up, up, up?
Growth should be there.
It should be indefinite.
So people in media probably react the same way.
How many views did my article get?
A million?
Wow!
I'm going to write about Trump tomorrow!
A lot of companies drive this because they know it makes them money.
Talk about Trump and we'll get paid.
So let's do this.
We'll come back to this story.
Check this out.
I pulled up some data.
Google Trends search terms.
Obama and Trump going back to January of 2004.
We can see here, in November 2008, Obama got his biggest spike in Google search.
And Trump was not even on, doesn't even register.
But we can see that Obama's biggest spike during his election is around half.
Actually, yeah, it's around half of what Trump's spike.
So this graph is a relative graph.
So the top is 100 and the bottom is 0.
Trump obviously has the 100 mark simply because he's searched for substantially more than Obama.
Relative to Trump's peak, Obama's first election was 54, I believe it was.
I can't.
It's so hard.
There we go.
56.
Obama's search was way, way lower than Trump.
Now, this is different from the media mentions of Trump.
And I stress this because it's not just that the media is obsessed with Trump.
The reality is The reason why I said this is Trump's world and we are just living in it is because even regular people are obsessed with searching for the president.
Look at this.
Obama's, what is the second term here?
November of 2012, when Obama was re-elected, a 26?
People didn't search that much.
They didn't care.
Now it could be that people are searching for Trump because the media won't stop.
Because you hear a story on TV about Trump, Trump, Trump, and then someone searches for it.
That means there's probably a lot of people who are searching for a fact check.
They're trying to fact check.
Is that real?
Can I read about this?
So take a look at, you know, Trump's first term and the relative traffic he's getting.
So, I'll just grab March of 2018.
Trump has a 22.
We can go back to March of... What's the right date?
March of 2009.
And... Oh, no, no.
2019, that doesn't make sense.
Let's do 2010.
Oh no, no, 2019, that doesn't make sense.
Let's do 2010.
So let's do March of 2010, and we have Obama, eight.
Eight, so nearly three times the search traffic.
This shows us that although it is the media that is absolutely obsessed with Trump, something is happening.
A correlation is not causation.
I don't know who started it.
It could be that because all of us search for Trump so much, the media chases after it.
It could be that because the media talks about it so much, we can't help but search for the man.
But they document this.
Let's read a little bit more of this story about the media obsession with Donald Trump.
This story is from December.
It's from last December.
They say Trump's first major bump came in spring 2011, when he publicly toyed with the idea of running for president.
The mere idea of Donald Trump in the Oval Office was enough to propel news interest in him to levels equal to those of then-President Obama.
Take a look at that!
When Trump announced he might run, his news coverage reached parity with Obama, who was the president and was running again.
The interest in Trump, it's palpable.
You know, I don't know why.
I'll say this.
I know there's probably a lot of Trump supporters watching, so comment.
Why?
You know, people just love it.
They love talking about the guy.
They don't want to let it go.
They mentioned that there were similar bumps.
In May 2012, a media obsessed with Trump's rising political clout.
Yet his meteoric rise to the stratosphere came about almost overnight when he announced his candidacy for president on June 16, 2015.
In the weeks after his announcement, the three television channels paid more attention to him than they did Obama's re-election race in all of 2012.
They said he's gonna win because he's got celebrity gravitas.
I get it.
You know, Trump is a celebrity too.
But what about Trump's announcement got more coverage than Obama's re-election?
Mind-blowing.
So, also consider, The things Obama did that were horrifying were ignored by the media.
That's a big point that needs to be stated.
A lot of what Obama did was ignored.
The disposition matrix, the NDAA, the authorization for use of military force in the Middle East, bolstering troops in the Middle East, secret wars in Yemen, however you want to describe it, I know it's contentious.
No coverage.
But now, the media obsession with Trump?
They're saying Trump's a liar.
Trump's a liar.
And I say, well, actually, I think Obama was a liar, too.
I think politicians are liars.
And I think the issue is, he just didn't care.
Now, it could be this.
It could be that the media liked Obama.
You know?
Check this out.
On the 30th of September 2016, the San Diego Union-Tribune made history.
For the first time in its 140-year history, it endorsed a Democrat candidate, Hillary Clinton.
It was also a first in the 126 years for the Arizona Republic.
Donald Trump was not popular with America's newspaper.
Of the top 100 circulation print newspapers, two endorsed him.
More than 200 papers supported Clinton, while Trump received the backing of fewer than 20.
You want to talk about a liberal media?
You want to talk about a bias in the press?
Come on!
More than 200 papers supported Clinton?
The top 100 papers, 98 supported Clinton?
They did not like this man, and they were obsessed with writing about him.
That says to me that the smears and everything we're hearing are just due to the fact that they hate him.
They're biased against him.
But in the end, as I stated earlier, if you write a story saying, Donald Trump wants to indefinitely detain migrants, which is a story going around right now, I hope you realize there are people who are gonna be like, well, let me look into that.
And they're gonna read about the rule and be like, okay.
And they might like it.
You might think it's a negative story because it's your political view.
You're not realizing that, what, listen, When someone who's a Democrat comes out and says Trump is a bad man for wanting to build the wall, the people who don't like Democrats are going to be like, well, if you hate it, I'm going to like it.
Other people are going to say, wait, wait, what was that?
Trump's going to build a wall?
Hey, I like that.
Just because you say it doesn't mean everyone will assume it's bad and they don't get it.
I don't think the media understands this.
There is no such thing as bad press.
All you do is guarantee that the people who might support the president will.
Okay, and yes, the people who won't support him already don't support him.
You know, when I talk to people who hate the president and say, I do not listen to the news, I can't stand hearing about him, I'm not gonna vote for him.
I say, okay.
Then I hear about other people and they're like, who say they're going to.
Some of them are saying it's because they're sick of hearing about him.
Okay, fine.
You know, you hate him so much, good, you get what you deserve.
But others are like, oh yeah, did you know that Trump was gonna do X?
I'm like, that was a hit piece about him.
They're like, oh yeah, but you know, I like it.
Look at this.
I did a story a couple days ago talking about how Trump fractured the Democratic Party.
It was a story about how a moderate was threatening to vote for Trump because of the far-left policies.
Here's a guy who heard all of the worst things about Trump, and he said, well, you know what?
Here's a guy who believes that Trump won't condemn the worst of the worst.
You know, the Charlottesville stuff.
And he said he was going to vote for the guy.
He was considering voting for the guy.
The media press attention did nothing.
The lie does nothing.
You hear it over and over again.
Joe Biden says Trump refused to condemn the groups in Charlottesville.
He did.
Trump said they should be condemned totally.
You know, they cut that context out because Trump was referring to people who wanted to pull a statue down, and then he said, but they should be condemned.
Criticize him for that.
You can.
You're allowed to.
But they ignore it.
So then what happens is even people who hear that awful smear Don't care!
And that's the big takeaway.
If a moderate can hear that Trump is a white nationalist and not care, you got bigger problems.
And no matter how much you talk about how the orange man is bad, you are helping him.
Isn't that mind-blowing?
Two of the top 100 circulation print papers, two endorsed him.
Go watch that Simpsons episode, it's a treehouse of horrors where the advertisements come to life.
And they start singing, just don't look, just don't, you know the episode I'm talking about?
I mean, Simpsons has really fallen from grace, but it's like a concept, it's a meme.
In this episode, they say if you just stop looking at it, it will die off.
But as long as you keep your focus on it, it will never go away.
There's a lot of reasons Trump is going to win, in my opinion.
I believe Trump has the economic advantage, the incumbent advantage.
Trump fatigue, I believe, will benefit Trump.
People are sick and tired of hearing about him, so that doesn't mean that they're going to not vote for him.
It means they're going to just say, I'm done, and they're going to stop listening.
And then when real bad news comes out, they're going, I don't want to hear it.
I'm tired of it.
Some people, they argue, have Trump fatigue, and so they're gonna vote against him.
I'm like, no, you don't understand.
When you're fatigued, you don't get out of bed to go vote.
You put a pillow over your face and turn the lights off and say, leave me alone.
The other thing is, it's free press.
And they always—it's—we know it.
There's no such thing as bad press.
So when we can talk about a strong economy, record low unemployment, the incumbent advantage, Trump's Republican Party support is over 80%, the highest Republican support has been for a long time for anybody, and then you hear these stories about, like, Joe Walsh wants to run a primary challenge, Bill Weld.
It's a waste of time.
Trump has the base, he has the Republicans, and he's got free press all day!
And you think it's bad?
You think saying Orange Man bad does anything for you?
I covered a story recently.
CNN is chasing after Fox News stories.
Apparently, what they'll do is they'll find a story and put a Fox emoji next to it because they know Fox's ratings are going up.
They know the website, foxnews.com, is doing better than ever.
They know that there is Trump fatigue, but it's not necessarily in the way you think.
While some of it is people saying, I'm tired of hearing about the orange man being bad.
Move on, please.
Look at this chart.
So they go to Fox News to get something different.
And as noted by, I think it was a Columbia Journalism Review, may have been, they said that Fox News covers anything of interest.
So maybe people are tired of going to the front page of a website and seeing 39 mentions of the word Trump.
Or, in this instance, let's, uh, 53.
On the front page of Politico.
Now again, again, again.
Politico is a political website.
I understand that.
But there's a lot of other things to talk about.
You know, when you look at the search results for Obama, it just wasn't there.
People didn't care as much.
So you know what?
We can talk about all of the things going on that Trump has done that's bad, and in the end, I believe Trump has all of these things in his favor.
I believe that the... Okay, I'll end with this point.
We're living in Trump world, baby.
You can't escape it.
There's nothing you can do to stop it.
I had to make a video about Trump talking about how we all won't stop talking about Trump because there's nothing you can do.
But I will stress, in 2016, people ragged on the media saying you gave him all of this free attention.
You know, was it $5 billion in free press or something?
He spent very little relative to the other candidates.
He didn't have to.
They wouldn't shut up.
Look at this!
It's on the screen!
Look how much they wouldn't shut up!
They just loved it so much they're addicted to the guy.
So how is it that we've known this?
We have known that this press helped Trump in 2016, and they have been completely oblivious to the fact that they are helping him again.
And they say things like, oh, you know, Trump's going to lose in every matchup.
Oh, you'd be surprised, buddy.
How many people, young people, are going to get up and vote Trump because they're just sick and tired of your BS?
It's a lot of people.
I've heard from a lot of people who say they want to vote for the president because they want to stick it to the media, and they want to stick it to the Democrats, and they want to stick it to the far left.
So that's what I see.
I could be wrong.
You'd think the negative press would hurt the guy, but his base is bigger than ever.
That's from the New York Times.
His approval rating is higher today than it's, you know, it's averaging around in the past month higher than it's been in the past two years, and his favorability is up.
It's not doing what you think you're doing.
It's free, free press.
It's good.
I'm gonna end with one thing, okay?
I'm sorry if I said... Listen.
Trump Derangement Syndrome has a Wikipedia entry.
There is a Wikipedia entry for Trump Derangement Syndrome.
So you know what?
When you have done something so much in the press that we now have to explain it to people, what's wrong with this country, You know, you've given him billions upon billions upon billions of dollars of free press, and as we have known for how long, where did the phrase come from?
There's no such thing as bad press.
So I hope you realize, media, the media that hates the man, that endorsed Hillary Clinton, you are securing his re-election.
Because we live in his world and you can't get away from it.
Because you don't want to get away from it.
Because you're addicted to a drug.
The Trump bump.
And we're all now stuck in this whirlpool.
It's hard to escape.
But there you go.
I'm sure all the Trump supporters are laughing all the way to the polls.
All the way to the polls knowing...
That other people are going to be so sick and tired of politics, they just ignore it.
They're going to turn off election night.
They're going to say, I am done.
I don't care.
Okay?
I know a lot of people who wanted Bernie.
And it was Bernie or bust.
And after that election, they said, I am out.
And they just haven't looked back since.
And these are my friends.
I talk to them.
I say, are you paying attention?
They say, I have no idea what you're talking about.
I don't care.
I am out.
And I don't blame them.
I was at the skate park.
Okay, I know I said, but I got, I got, this is such a profound issue.
I was at the skate park, right?
And there were some, like, 16-year-old kids skating.
And we were talking about, like, fake news and stuff, and then all of a sudden one kid goes, Why won't they stop talking about Trump?
And I was like, Yes!
That's the question!
Because we were talking about, like, how the media puts out fake stories and the narrative, and the kid said, like, I don't even watch TV anymore.
Like, my parents don't either.
Because they would just turn it on, and it's like, there's Trump again.
And so finally they were like, yeah, okay, and they just turn the TV off and walk away.
They turn the- look.
I turn the TV on to hear about an oil spill.
The Amazon rainforest fires.
Instead, the big breaking story, the trend everywhere is not a fire in the Amazon forest?
I have to talk about Trump again?
Because you won't stop?
No.
Listen.
I am conscious of this, and I assure you, I will make conscious decisions to avoid talking about what Trump wants me to talk about.
But I will stress this point as I leave.
They know it's a distraction.
Trump's trying to distract again.
It doesn't matter if Trump's trying to distract you.
President Trump's distraction strategy.
Donald Trump's bizarre theatrics are a brilliant tactic to distract.
Here's the final, final thought.
I know I kept saying one more point.
The last point.
Trump is pulling puppet strings.
You may claim it's not 4D chess.
You can call the man dumb.
But how many times do the media have to say he's distracting us on purpose and they won't stop?
They love it.
They know what Trump is doing.
They know he's doing it on purpose.
They don't care.
The money is too good!
Why stop now, baby, when the Trump bump is driving those ratings home?
As they said, uh, in the Real Clear Politics story, it's, uh, what is it?
It's, it's, it's, um, they say it's reviving American journalism.
I wouldn't call it journalism.
I would call it tabloid crap.
And it's getting pretty annoying.
But hey, you can't help it.
They can't help it.
And I bet Trump supporters are laughing because it's one of the reasons I probably supported the guy.
He has the ability to distract, control, manipulate, and his plan works.
There's the free press.
I think he's gonna win.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
Thanks for hanging out for this half an hour rant, and I will see you all then in the next segment.
Some of you may not know that an event was organized by my home that's going to bring people from the left, the right, the center to have a conversation, to have a conversation.
We hate racism, we hate violence, we hate authoritarianism, and the way we move forward as a country is to bring people together.
But far leftists from outside of this area where I live are threatening the event.
And here's the thing.
This makes sense, trust me.
The Daily Wire.
Young Turk's Hasan Piker says that America deserved 9-11 and mocks Dan Crenshaw's war injury, saying a brave soldier effed his eye hole.
Is that how he effing lost his dumbass eye?
Hasan Piker.
That's the kind of person I'd imagine they would want us to bring to our event.
Because I assure you, if we put on an event and we said it was gonna be Hasan Piker speaking there saying these things, they would clap for it.
But no.
We have Sargon of Akkad.
We have the guy who taught his dog to do a silly little paw movement to make fun of Nazis.
That's who we have.
And we wanted to talk to them about being offensive.
And we wanted to bring in people who find them offensive.
And talk about, even if you find them offensive, what's the best way forward if they have a right to their opinion.
So, now we have this story.
This is the main story.
And the reason I bring that up is because it is so damn frustrating and annoying that this is what they want us to talk about?
This is who they would be okay with?
Hasan Piker saying that Dan Crenshaw was effed in his eye hole?
Are you nuts?
I would never invite this guy to speak.
That's ridiculous.
Now, Hasan Piker is allowed to say it.
I'm glad he did.
I believe they should remain on Twitter and on YouTube and on Twitch and wherever else he put him.
I absolutely am thrilled that Hassan said all of these things.
You know why?
Now I know I don't want to associate with this guy.
Because we were talking about the possibility of putting on an event and having someone like him come.
But this is not what we want.
It's crossing the line.
Now, you might say, but Tim Sargon has said really offensive things.
He's used racial slurs.
You're right.
He has.
But saying some dude was effed in their eye hole is a whole step beyond that.
Now, let's be real.
Let's be real.
I do find this appalling, but no, I probably still would want to have someone like Hassan sit down because I'd love to challenge him on this.
And that's kind of the point.
I can express how offended I am.
I can say, I don't want to have anything to do with this guy.
I'm so angry.
And then stop and say, but you know what?
The principle after the emotion is we should sit him down.
We should talk about this.
And I want to know why he said it.
And I want to know if he feels remorse for targeting some dude who's just another guy.
Look, man, you can't claim to be on the left and champion people with disabilities and, you know, fight against ableism and then say something as disgusting as that.
And even though I am offended by it, and even though personally and emotionally I'm like, I don't have anything to do with this, good, I'm glad he said it so I can stay away from him, I recognize at the end of the day, if we're gonna have a solution to this conflict, it would be to talk with someone like Hassan.
And so then I realized by principle, I actually have to have him.
I do.
Someone as controversial as he is.
And that's, you know, it brings me to, you know, if you're familiar with Joey Salads.
I'm sorry, we'll get to this story.
We'll dive in a second.
Joey is a big YouTuber, but he was very controversial when he was caught staging very racist YouTube videos.
And my first reaction was emotional.
I'm glad we found out.
I don't want to talk to this guy.
He's a bad guy.
And then I realized, again, if I really want to change the world for the better, I have to sit down with him.
So I apologized.
I met up with him.
We did an interview.
He apologized.
And he said he's trying to do better.
And I said, that's the best way forward.
So the point I'm trying to make is, you can see the emotion.
You can see how angry someone like me would get over saying something like this.
And I'm sure many of you would be shocked.
It doesn't matter if you're left or right.
This is a shocking and disturbing thing to say about a veteran who lost an eye serving his country.
Whether you agree with the war or not, I'm not going to blame the people who decide to put their lives on the line to defend their country.
their family and their freedom.
I'll absolutely criticize the war machine and the politicians and the people who lied
to get us there.
Not Dan Crenshaw, though I do disagree with him a lot and that's what we'll talk about.
But in the end, I realize that even though I can be extremely angry about what Hasan
says, it probably does make more sense on principle to invite him specifically for this
reason and say, I want you to address everybody as to why you said what you said and if you
stand by it.
And then I want you to look this person, this veteran, in the eye and tell him it was a funny thing.
And I assure you, when they do that, that's when they tone things down.
It's really easy to say what Hassan said when he's behind a camera.
You know what I see right now?
I see a black rectangle in front of my face.
I'm not talking to a person.
It looks kind of like a robot looking at me.
There's no humanity in front of me.
So I try to recognize that I see all of you on the other side and that I'm looking at you when you hear me talk.
But it's so easy for most people to say this shocking, really offensive stuff because there's no one on the other side.
And for that, Just know, I've criticized Sargon in the past and he knows it.
I've said it several times, I've called him a dick before.
And it's part of the thing that we want to talk about.
Exactly this.
I'll admit, I know Sargon has said offensive things, but nothing like this far.
You know what I mean?
Making offensive jokes about people and being snarky and snide.
This is beyond even Ann Coulter level of bombastic.
So, let's read the story.
You know, I rant over, but there's a couple things we can go through.
And I do want to be fair to Hasan and provide the context of what he was saying about America deserving 9-11.
It's a bit out of context.
He phrased it very, very poorly.
Saying that, you know, Crenshaw got effed in his eye hole is just so far over the line, I can't even see the guy anymore.
But we'll talk about it before we get started.
Head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, the best thing you can do, share this video.
Share this video so we can break some echo chambers, but it also helps me overcome the hurdles put in front of me by YouTube.
They're propping up big corporate channels and deranking independent political commentary, and I see it.
I see the hit when the views go down, but let's read.
Review the clip of U.S.
military veteran Dan Crenshaw talking to Joe Rogan.
Hasan Piker of the Young Turks mocked Crenshaw's lost eye, a wartime injury, in vile fashion and said America deserved 9-11.
He said, this guy has the understanding of foreign policy of like a 12-year-old.
Well, hold on.
I disagree with Dan Crenshaw.
I watched, at least this part of the podcast, I haven't been able to sit through the whole two hours I've been working.
I disagree with him.
I don't think he has the foreign policy understanding of a 12-year-old.
I think he's looking, there's paths in front of us, and there's variables, and he's made a slightly different calculation.
I think he knows a lot about foreign policy.
I think he probably knows a lot More as it pertains to being on the ground in those places than I ever would.
But I do know a lot as well, and I've also been to several places, so I do disagree with him.
And that's about it.
I have absolute respect for the guy.
I think he's a good guy.
I think he's wrong in a lot of things.
And that's the way I wish America was.
You know, our political debate, you know, really being like a handshake to someone like Dan, you know, he talks about him and Tulsi are at odds.
And it ends with a handshake and a pat on the back and like, all right, you vote your way, we'll figure it out and we'll see what we can do.
And at the end of the day, we break bread together.
Let's read.
He said, what the eff, what the eff is wrong with this dude?
Didn't he go to war and like literally lose his eye because some Mujahideen, a brave effing soldier, effed his eye hole with their D?
Piker said, wow.
No, it was an explosion that almost blinded the man.
He added, isn't that how he effing lost his dumb, dumb A, oh my, come on, stop swearing, dude.
Because he got his effing eye hole effed by a brave soldier.
Wow.
God, man, that is too—you know, look, look, when I hear something like that, my natural reaction is like, I don't want that guy anywhere near my venue.
And it's so annoying to me that if we invited him as our headliner, these leftists would be like, yay, they'd be clapping and cheering.
Are you—it's insanity.
But you know what?
Yeah, as much as emotionally, I would love to see this guy banned.
I would love to see him shut down for things like this.
Principles come first.
So I can get emotional, I can get angry, but I always stop myself.
It's kind of what I did in the beginning.
I'm like, why, you know, this guy?
And then I'm like, but here's the thing.
When you think about it for a few seconds, it's like, it's a good thing he said it.
It's a good thing he's allowed to say it.
Now I know not to associate with him, but I also recognize probably the best thing to do is to talk to him about it.
Daryl Davis.
You know, he sat down with Klansmen and de-radicalized them.
It's such a heartwarming story.
Let's read more.
Piker posted a series of tweets on Tuesday mocking Crenshaw for discussing Saturday Night Live's Pete Davidson joking with a Republican's injury, though Crenshaw swiftly accepted Davidson's apology and appeared alongside him on NSL.
So, Hasan says, Dan Crenshaw is crying on a comedian's podcast about how not offended he was about a joke made against him almost an entire year ago.
Right-wing victimhood is a brain disease, Piker said, crying from his remaining eye.
No, Dan Crenshaw was very stoic about the whole thing and said his attitude was kind of like, look, I get it.
Let's talk.
That's not victimhood.
That's not him crying.
That's him literally being like, OK, OK, let's be the adult in the room.
If we're going to talk about maturity, Dan Crenshaw is like a full order of magnitude above Hasan Piker.
They say Crenshaw, former Navy SEAL, lost his eye in an explosion during his third deployment in Afghanistan.
Crenshaw's campaign website describes the incident thusly.
I don't want to read through the whole thing, but essentially, he was caught by an explosion that destroyed one of his eyes, his right eye, and his left eye was severely damaged.
They thought he'd be blind forever.
And they said it was a miracle that after several surgeries, he gained sight back in his left eye.
During the same stream, Piker said the United States deserved to have the Twin Towers targeted by suicide bombers on September 11th.
If you don't know who Keemstar is, he hosts Drama Alert.
But, hey man, when you say America deserved 9-11, don't be surprised when you offend the sensibilities of the YouTube drama community.
You know, these are videos about Jake and Logan Paul.
But I gotta say, man, I can't believe this.
This is like...
This is the Young Turks saying America deserved 9-11, okay?
I want to be fair to Hasan, so I'll get to the context.
I think context is very important.
But you have to understand, you can't say something like that, okay?
Let me stress, you're allowed to.
But for your side, for your strategy, and for your point, people will stop listening when you do this.
That's kind of the point I was making about, you know, Sargon in the past, when I said he was being mean to people.
He's improved greatly, and I recognize that.
I'm not trying to drag him.
My position is, when you make videos being mean and mocking and insulting and degrading, people will turn off.
They're not going to listen to what you have to say.
So right now, Hasan, by saying this, whether he had the context behind him or not, has done something that's shut people out.
Now, it's interesting because Dankula's in a different space.
When Dankula did the joke with his dog, you know, where the dog raises his paw, Dankula was just—he didn't have any followers.
He had eight followers, some tiny amount.
It was just for him and his friends.
He wasn't trying to send it to anybody or target them or change their minds.
He was just being silly with his girlfriend's dog.
And it went viral.
And so it's not in the same space as what Hasan Piker has done, where he goes to his audience, intentionally says, we deserved it.
So he says this, we supplied arms to train Bin Laden, we destabilized the region long before 9-11,
and now we're stuck in perpetual war, which Dan Crenshaw was trying to justify in that clip.
It's exactly this kind of attitude that has sent thousands of young men and women overseas to die.
Completely agree.
Completely agree.
America did not deserve what happened to it.
But it is blowback, and that's from the CIA, that our operations in the Middle East resulted in blowback.
But Dan Crenshaw brings to the point, what did we really do to bin Laden?
And Joe Rogan says something like, we supported him, didn't we?
And the gist of it is like, yes, we supported, the CIA was supporting the Mujahideen, and then all of a sudden they turned and said, We don't like your ideology.
So they came for us.
But the CIA has called it blowback in the past.
Our operations in the Middle East resulted in these actions, and our continued operations absolutely will result in further.
Because we have drone strikes.
Blame Obama.
They called him Obama.
So here's what I'll point out.
So, Hasan Piker says, America's foreign policy decisions led to 9-11.
This would have been a controversial thing to say in 2011.
Stop being an effing idiot.
Someone said it was retreating to the Mott, and he responded, it's exactly what he said.
Weird that I said exactly these things in the extended clip, but got cut off.
So I believe it's fair to point out.
The clips that are circulating do cut off context.
It's fair to point out that when he was saying America deserved 9-11, it's not necessarily in the context where he's like, he hates America and wants it to happen.
It was more of a like, an emotional reaction of like, if you do this, that, and this, and you blow these people up, then you deserve it.
Right?
So I disagree with him on it.
I think you have to be more careful about how you approach very serious and sensitive subjects, especially when we just had a firefighter, a first responder die.
And we went through the victim's bill, and we had Jon Stewart, and this is a very serious and emotional time for Americans.
So you have to be more sensitive.
I get it.
You're allowed to say it.
You are.
I'm more shocked by saying someone was effing Dan Crenshaw's eye hole, to be honest, and that's way over the line.
I don't see how you can claim to be opposed to hate speech and then say something like that.
But you know what?
There it is.
I want to add one thing.
Hasan Piker has routinely called for extreme violent actions and insurrection, but says immediately afterwards in a video game.
So, there's been a couple clips I've seen where I'll say something like, we should do X at Y location.
In a video game.
The idea being that he can literally call and incite terror and violence, but by saying in a video game, it's somehow protected.
It's not.
So if Hasan ends up saying this, I hope you recognize you can't do that.
You can't say, hey, we should go do X in a video game because that's not a legal defense.
It's why we have judges.
So here's the way it works.
You say something, and you think you've qualified it by adding in a video game, they will arrest you for it, and a judge will interpret your intention and say your intent was X. Judges are there, I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is to interpret the law in a way that's, to the best of our ability, fair.
Because if we didn't have judges and went by literally the letter of the law, we wouldn't have Functioning laws.
Because then you'd have someone who'd make a joke and get arrested.
You'd have someone playing a video game and get arrested.
Or you'd have someone call for terror and then try and claim it's about a video game and not get arrested.
No, in reality, Hasan could very well be arrested for saying these things over and over again, so... There's a difference between making a threat and calling for action, and making a joke.
I believe... I believe Hasan Piker should have all of these videos remain up.
I don't believe he should be banned.
None of that.
Good.
Let him be on Twitter.
Let him be on YouTube.
I'd like to hear this.
And I'd like to know this.
However, I do think it's always important to investigate context.
In reality, his comments about America 9-11 aren't as bad as they seem from the get-go, but they're still kind of bad.
His comments about Dan Crenshaw are so far off the line, I don't even know he's gone.
He's not even in the field anymore.
It's like he's gone.
He just ran off.
I'm like, okay, dude, that's nuts.
But you know what?
I think it does warrant a sit-down.
It does warrant a sit-down and challenging.
So as much as I would emotionally react and say, I don't want this guy having anything to do with my events, this is too offensive, I can then check my own bias and say, well, you know, I'm not going to argue who's more offensive, him or Sargon, right?
I have a personal opinion about who's more offensive.
I think it's the son.
But it's unfair, because a lot of people would think Sargon is, and this was talking, you know, okay fine, okay fine.
We need to sit down and talk about it, if that's the case.
I recognize that you have a perspective, and the best thing we can do is talk about it.
But I will tell you this...
What were you thinking, dude?
Come on!
Wait, you're gonna lose, you lose support of everybody, and this makes the Young Turks look insane.
It doesn't matter what your intention or the context was when it comes to the consequences, right?
You're allowed to say it, and people take you out of context, and I think that's unfair, but I do think saying a brave soldier, a terrorist, F'ed this dude's eye hole.
That's so ridiculously over the top, dude.
That's insane.
And what's going to happen is, there's no real context for why you said that over and over again.
Like, we know why you said it and what you meant.
And you're going to see a lot of moderate people saying, I don't want to talk to you.
And they'll shut you out.
And that reflects in the Young Turks.
So, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 1pm on this channel.
And thanks for hanging out.
George Carlin was a prophet.
He talked about this.
Well, actually, he wasn't a prophet.
He was referring to a phenomenon that had been happening in our society for a really long time.
If you're not familiar with the bit, he talks about shell shock and how we changed the word to be something different over and over again until we got to post-traumatic stress disorder.
And he talks about how we keep making things longer.
Part of the bit is kind of going into how, at some point, a word means something, or a phrase, and then everyone gets offended because you say it, so they change the word to something else, and it's the most insane behavior I've ever seen.
And now, we are living this reality once again.
San Francisco Board of Supervisors sanitizes language of criminal justice system.
Do you know what they're going to- Justice- They're going to now refer to people as justice-involved person, or simply a, quote, returning resident.
I kid you not.
Going forward, what was once called a convicted felon, or an offender released from jail, a formerly incarcerated person, or a justice-involved person.
What does any of this mean, and why change it?
Who complained?
Nobody cares!
We have words for these things.
These words make sense.
They're dissecting words into these bigger and bigger phrases, and it's just making everything impossible.
But I'll tell you what.
Have you seen that viral video of the Democratic Socialists of America meeting, where the guy goes, point of personal privilege?
Point of personal privilege?
You don't need to say that!
We get it!
Just shut up!
What's your problem?
Speak words!
I think.
You know, I was watching the Joe Rogan podcast with Dan Crenshaw.
It's great, by the way.
I love it when Joe does the political stuff, I gotta admit.
I know he's not, you know, tearing up the hearts of his political rivals like everyone wants him to, but it's good to have these conversations.
It was cool to see them talk.
And Joe mentioned, you know, that meme, that it's soft times, man, it's making soft people.
Yeah.
You know, I had a conversation recently with somebody who told me that they'd experienced being held at gunpoint in a foreign country, and I laughed and said, oh man, yeah, I hear that.
I've been in places I've been shot at.
I had to, you know, I've been in dangerous places where I've seen APCs rolling in, that was Egypt, and they were gonna start shutting down the bridges, or, I mean, it's been a while, but that's my understanding, and so we had to GTFO as fast as possible before the bridges got shut down and we got stuck in this area.
It's been scary.
The last thing I care about is the word you use.
I'm more concerned with physical threats in real life.
But apparently there's a ton of soft people who have never experienced any hardship.
And to them, the most authoritarian thing they've ever experienced is someone saying naughty words.
Therefore, the naughty words must be fascism!
So I feel like this.
I feel, you know, I've been trying to think about what makes my, like what makes my audience, like who are you guys who watch me and why?
And I find that it's not overwhelmingly, I don't know, like conservative necessarily.
It's liberty, I think is one of the big issues.
But I haven't really thought about it and I think it's, no, I think it's like grit.
It's like a degree of toughness.
Like, I feel like everybody who watches would have no problem being like, your words can't hurt me.
You know, there was an important lesson I was taught when I was a young child to help guide me through these kinds of stories.
And we'll read this, I'm sorry.
I'm just so frustrated with this nonsense.
It was, it's a really profound, I guess it's not a proverb, maybe an idiom, that teaches you how to overcome This kind of oppression of language.
And it goes something like this.
Sticks and stones will break my bones and words will never hurt me.
Yeah, not too profound.
It's not in the great documents of history.
No, it's a children's rhyme that you say to someone when someone calls you a booger face.
But apparently these kids were never called a booger face, or if they were, they broke down crying and their snowplow parents pushed the troubles away and said, I'm so sorry, my little baby snowflake.
Someone called you a booger face.
I don't care.
I don't.
You can literally call me whatever you want.
I don't care.
Now, I care about accurate definitions, like when people are like, Tim Pool is far right,
no Tim Pool is far left.
It's like, dude, listen, it's not hard to just say moderate.
Like I tweeted about this the other day.
Two vice stories were in the span of two weeks where one said I was an online lefty and the
other said I was right wing.
The important factor was that in both stories they had context in it explaining who I was, which means they did look into me and they know who I am.
But based on the narrative, they wanted to label me something.
So labels and definitions, I think, are important.
Which is why this partly bothers me.
Someone can be a felon, an offender, a convict, an addict, a juvenile delinquent, and I'll say whatever I want.
I'll call you a dirty convict if I feel like it.
Instead, they're going to change the language to person first.
Speaking of ad revenue, we will read a little bit more, but before we go in, go 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 sharing the video is the best thing you can do.
And as I mentioned, I've said a naughty word, and it's like the lightest of light naughty words that's said on TV, but sure enough, yes, you get penalized.
This is interesting in talking about the language debate.
YouTube, there was an analysis done of videos that used swears versus videos that didn't, and they tracked ad revenue rates and found, I believe it's a 30% decrease in ad revenue for saying words like damn.
I said it four times!
Alright, let's read, they say.
The words felon, offender, convict, addict, and juvenile delinquent would be part of the past in official San Francisco parlance under new person-first language guidelines adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
Going forward, what was once called a convicted felon or an offender released from jail will be a formerly incarcerated person, or a justice-involved person, or simply a returning resident.
Parolees and people on criminal probation will be referred to as a person on parole, Or person under supervision.
We live in a nightmarish dystopia that explains nothing.
It is an extremely long phrase that tells me literally nothing.
Delinquent isn't meant to be derogatory.
It is derogatory because it means you did something bad.
Saying a young person with justice system involvement tells me lit- Oh my god, it's worse.
Oh, I used the Lord's name in vain again.
I actually, believe it or not, I get religious people messaging me, so if you are religious,
I do my best not to...
Look, I gotta admit, you know that I'm leaning to the left, and I do try to avoid using offensive
language even if it's towards religious people, so there I go, I get it.
And I'll stress this too.
The reason why I'm careful with my language while mocking language is that I know the best way to convey ideas is to speak in a common way that reduces tensions.
So I recognize why some people are upset with me using the Lord's name in vain, and I would apologize for that.
I would also apologize for using slurs.
That's not me.
I don't use that language.
I do recognize the right of free speech, however.
So you can get mad at me all you want.
I'm going to talk how I talk.
But this is different, okay?
This is saying something that describes nothing.
Young person impacted by the juvenile justice system.
Impacted?
Well, now you're making an assumption about whether it impacted them or not.
And drug addicts or substance abusers will become a person with a history of substance abuse.
Are you serious?
I mean, I do think it's fair to say that... Well, no, you're talking about addicts.
You know, you could say user, I guess.
We don't want people to be forever labeled for the worst things that they have done.
It doesn't matter.
I can call them a delinquent all day and night.
You're doing nothing but making it harder to understand what the hell's really happening.
Haney was one of ten supervisors who voted for the new guidelines which Supervisor Sandra Lee Fuhrer proposed.
According to the resolution, one of five California residents has a criminal record.
And words like prisoner, convict, inmate, or felon only serve to obstruct and separate people from society and make the institutionalization of racism and supremacy!
Pure normal.
Wow!
This is an incredible story.
The people of California, what is going on with your state?
You're losing it.
It's like Joe Rogan was saying, soft times make soft people, yet you're a felon, bro.
You committed a felony.
Are we done here?
Look, I understand there's different felonies.
Like, if you commit a computer crime, it's like, yeah.
But if you commit, like, a sex offense, it's like, whoa, right?
But a felon is a felon, and it's a word that describes a certain person.
It's not derogatory, it's a descriptor, but it is used, it is felt to be derogatory because you did something bad.
I'm gonna call you a word that describes what you are.
If you're a prisoner, Or a convict.
You might not be the same thing.
So saying you're a justice-involved person doesn't tell me whether you're currently incarcerated, formerly incarcerated, and what crime you committed.
And that could be important when I'm trying to decide if you should be allowed near a school.
Where my kids go.
Okay?
You're a felon?
I'm gonna lean towards no, but I'm willing to hear you out.
You're a justice-involved person.
I have no idea what that means.
Are you a cop?
Are you a convict?
Are you a victim?
Are you a perpetrator?
You see the problem with playing this game?
We have words that mean things.
A convict is a person who was once convicted of a crime.
An inmate is a current incarcerated person.
A felon is someone who committed a felony, and they may be in prison or out of prison.
A prisoner is somebody in prison.
They say it only serves to obstruct an institutionalization of racism and supremacy.
They're words, dude.
They describe things.
Oh my, look at this.
Inaccurate information, unfounded assumptions, generalizations, and other negative predispositions associated with justice-involved individuals create societal stigmas, attitudinal barriers, and continued negative stereotypes.
Listen.
I've been privy to some stories where people were refused jobs because of silly crimes they committed.
Right?
I know people who have trespassing charges and it stopped them from getting a job.
I don't think it's silly, man.
You know, if somebody was arrested for a light thing, and you say that they were a convict, it's like, well, hold on.
So, I get the idea.
However, perhaps the argument is to remove the word convict because someone who was charged with jaywalking and convicted of a crime—well, jaywalking's a bit too loud.
It's a petty offense.
Let's say you committed simple assault because you got into a fight at a bar.
We call you a convict?
Well, hold on.
People usually describe a felon as a convict.
Okay, so how about we say, you know, we just mention that convicts aren't felons, or we create a word specifically to refer to lighter misdemeanor offenses.
However, what they're doing is they're lumping everything into one category, so now you might have someone who was a jaywalker being a justice-involved person standing next to, I don't know, a mass murderer.
They're both just justice-involved people.
No.
One dude's a jaywalker, one dude's a felon.
Words describe things.
You know what, man?
I'm not surprised it's San Francisco.
Perhaps if they focus on their poop problem instead of their words, it'd be a better place to live, but whatever.
I'll leave it there.
I think I can make fun of people's use of words all day and night, but I'm gonna throw it back to George Carlin, man.
Go watch that segment.
It's beautiful, where he talks about shell shock, post-traumatic stress disorder.
I love that, man.
I'm so sad, you know, but everybody has their time, and George Carlin was around for a while, and he's a big inspiration on my philosophy.
I grew up watching that guy.
And his ideas of context and comedy and freedom, challenging censorship.
Good man.
Absolutely good man.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
It is a different channel.
I will see you all there.
Donald Trump faces another primary challenger.
Well, there are a lot of people who want to challenge Trump, and it's an odd thing for someone to try and challenge an incumbent president.
They do two terms.
It's an odd thing.
There are a ton of people who are saying they want to run a primary against Trump, but most of them are, unfortunately, just not really—they don't really have anything behind them, so it's kind of just like a lot of random people here and there.
But there are two people so far that are actually getting media consideration.
First is Bill Weld.
I believe it's Bill Weld, who was the Libertarian vice-presidential candidate.
I'll pull it up.
We'll fact-check this stuff.
But the big story is Joe Walsh.
Here's the funniest thing about Joe Walsh announcing a primary candidacy.
And I'll read some of the story.
The dude is so much worse than Trump in terms of, like, his rhetoric.
Okay, here's the thing.
Walsh has tweets that are seriously ten times more offensive than anything Trump has ever said.
You want to know what people are mad about?
They say, oh, Trump says we have to institute a ban on, you know, Muslims.
And he said it, right?
So I'm talking about the initial announcement where it says Donald Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims, blah, blah, blah.
The actual ban that was implemented was seven nations that weren't all Muslim.
It's a complicated thing, right?
It's politics.
Well, that's offensive to a lot of people.
I get it.
I get it, right?
Trump is bombastic.
He's offensive.
Here's the thing.
Trump makes a statement about something and people call it offensive.
This dude, Joe Walsh, has literally tweeted a bunch of slurs and defended his use of the slurs and then decided it would be appropriate to announce a primary challenge to one of the most popular Republican presidents in decades, if not longer.
I don't know.
It's polling really, really high among Republicans.
He thought he would launch this, leaving all of his tweets up.
Here's the thing.
I can't show you his tweets.
I'm not kidding.
I could get banned from YouTube for showing you the things this guy has tweeted, and I have no idea how he hasn't been banned from Twitter for saying some of the things he's said.
Now, there are a few tweets I can show you.
Like, apparently last year, he referred to Obama as a Muslim.
What?
What?
And there are people cheering him on, on the left.
It's not like, you know, I don't want to act like I've seen a ton, but I've seen a few high-profile individuals saying, like, this is a guy who knows how to play the game, can really take on Trump.
I'm like, well, hold on, dude.
If you're mad at Trump for tweeting, you've got to be mad at this guy.
OK, well, let's read a little bit.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do Share the video.
You guys have probably learned it by now, I get deranked along with all the other independent commentators and journalists, so if you like the work I do, please share.
And I will stress this point too.
I get deranked.
I get demonetized.
Basically every video demonetized.
You know what?
It sucks.
So that's why I always say you can support me.
But there are journalists who do on-the-ground work who are totally shut off the partner program because they cover real life, and real life is, dare I say it, offensive.
Let's read a little bit about this.
The New York Times, it's more of a, you know, I'm gonna say it.
Based on the tweet history, I'm willing to bet this is a puff piece.
Joe Walsh, a conservative radio show host and former Republican congressman from Illinois, is expected to announce he is running for president as early as this weekend.
Presenting President Trump with a challenger from the right, his critics hope will weaken the president in the 2020 election.
It's a really weird thing to do, and I imagine there are going to be a lot of angry Republicans.
A lot of angry Republicans.
Because this is an attack that will only help Democrats.
This guy can never win.
They even say it.
Mr. Walsh stands virtually no chance of arresting the Republican presidential nomination from Trump, whose approval rating with Republican voters is consistently in the high 80s, and whose political aides have been aggressively moving to tighten their control over state parties to thwart primary challenges.
But those encouraging Mr. Walsh, a Tea Party conservative who served one term in the House and went from staunch Trump supporter to acerbic critic, hope he can appeal to reluctant Trump voters who are open to an alternative.
It's a waste of time.
However, I'm willing to bet Trump can pull more approval because of this.
I seriously mean this.
Now, I have a story.
We'll jump over here.
This is from Business Insider where they say, No sitting president has survived a serious primary challenge in the past 50 years.
Here's why Trump should be worried.
I don't think so.
I really don't.
Trump is a different player.
He changed the rules, and we know it.
Trump is boisterous, he's boorish, he will insult, he will demean.
He's not playing the same game.
He's not playing a game you think.
This might, and I will stress too, I was talking about this the other day, and again, I would call Trump a great man.
And I will preface this.
Now, all of a sudden, the left is going to say, Tim just said Trump was great.
No, no, no, no, listen.
Great doesn't mean good.
It means of tremendous power and, you know, force.
Great as in, like, a tremendous person.
You can rag on the guy all day and night.
You can make fun of the way he talks.
You can make fun of his hair.
I don't care.
That's fine.
You can say whatever you want about the president.
You can say orange man bad all day and night.
But you still have to recognize This guy controls the press.
He's got a building with his name stamped on it.
He did something right.
Okay?
He's worth billions of dollars.
They argue he's not really worth... Oh, come on.
Come on.
I don't wanna play that game.
Dude, the guy's rich.
And we know it.
You can call... Insult him.
I've criticized him for his representation of American culture, but you have to recognize there's strength within what Trump is, who he is, and he's playing a game, and he's playing it well.
If you think you can beat him—this is actually an old story, by the way—if you think you can beat Trump, listen.
You've got to make sure you have done every bit of strategy planning.
You know what you're doing.
Otherwise, you will embolden him.
This is the point I'm trying to make in referring to these challenges from Joe Walsh.
Look at this.
Will Chamberlain tweeted, Here's what I don't understand.
It's 2019.
Walsh Freedom has been talking with Bill Kristol and the rest of the Bulwark crowd about running for president.
He's had an NYT op-ed.
The news that he would run broke in the New York Times and no one told him to delete his old tweets?
That's exactly what I'm talking about.
These people don't understand the game they're playing.
They are kids trying to play, you know, Major League Baseball.
You can call Trump dumb.
I don't care.
I don't care.
The proof is in the pudding.
He is the president.
It's funny to me how they're, you know, They say Trump's an idiot.
Oh, he's so dumb.
And I'm like, he's the president.
You're not.
And yes, there is inherent wealth, his inheritance.
I don't want to argue whether it was enough or not enough.
The point is he comes from a wealthy family, so he's above the average person class-wise.
He's run successful businesses.
Many of them.
He's got his own bottled water.
I don't know.
Whatever you want to say.
But the dude wins.
And whether or not you want to credit him or the people who worked with him, the team pulled it together.
And then Walsh comes out thinking he's going to play this game and he's going to hurt Trump.
You didn't even delete your old tweets.
I can't show you the tweets he posted.
In fact, see down here?
I had to remove this image of his tweets that someone posted.
They said, here's a gem on 420.
I got to get rid of it.
You know why?
If I showed that tweet, I would get banned on YouTube.
So you want to talk about how they're ragging on Trump for being offensive?
Please, dude.
This guy, Walsh, did not prepare himself for a real fight with Trump.
And I don't know what you were thinking.
This is going to help Trump in a lot of ways.
It's going to show that even on the Republican side, those with Trump derangement syndrome are not prepared to take this man on.
And it's going to, in my opinion, at least show some Republicans, you are better off with Trump.
This guy is going to run on a primary?
I imagine the Republicans facepalming right now about how he didn't even monitor his Twitter account.
It's the first thing you should do!
We know the rules of the current outrage culture and you didn't get rid of your old tweets?
Now I think we're going to see.
Republicans saying, wow, if these are the best players to challenge Trump, you better be damn happy you've got him.
Because Walsh is basically playing on par with the 2020 Democrats.
A bunch of B-tier candidates.
And I'm not trying to be dick, because I do like Tulsi.
I would call Tulsi—I would give the exemption to Tulsi and Yang.
But come on, admit it.
We know a lot of these candidates are B-tier.
And, you know, Jay Inslee just dropped out.
They are B-tier.
And I'm not trying to be mean to them or disrespectful, but we know it.
You know, you're a senator.
You're a congressman.
You are not a president.
And they want to rag on Trump, right?
In 2016, saying he's a clown, he'll never win.
And a lot of people could see it.
I didn't believe he would win.
Here's what I thought.
I thought Trump could win, but I thought the establishment would never allow it.
I thought that the system in place with the media and everything would never allow it.
And hey, can't say they didn't try.
Can't say they didn't try, but Trump still won.
Trump has gravitas.
That's a fact.
And he had a team of smart people, and he won.
Hillary couldn't beat him.
Isn't that crazy?
And so what do they say?
The Electoral College, please.
You know, look, outside of that, Hillary knew the rules.
She knew the rules, same as Trump.
They both were playing chess, and Trump won.
And they say, it's not fair, Trump castled.
He castled his rook.
Well, that was one of the rules, yeah.
Well, we should get rid of that rule.
Wait, that's not fair!
Uh, well, you knew the rule beforehand.
Trump won.
Imagine, you know, it takes me back to my old Pokemon playing days, back when I was like 13.
20 years ago, I'd be playing, and some kid would get really angry because I won, and he'd be like, that's not fair!
That's not fair!
I'd be like...
I'm playing the same game you are, and I won.
And I played by the rules.
So here's what I see with the Walsh thing.
It's possible it could hurt him, right?
Because we have this old story from Business Insider that it's been bad for every president.
But I will stress, he's not playing the same game.
It's a different game with Trump.
And the Democrats need to understand this.
Everything we're seeing is weird.
Okay, the Democrats have this massive field.
No one's got strong support.
It's weird.
It is.
I mean, pundits have talked about how strange it is.
Obama hasn't even endorsed Biden, his vice president.
And a primary challenge up against Trump is weird.
Don't think you're going to know how to play this game, especially when we see this.
Will Chamberlain said, Apologies, have to update something.
Previously I said that Walsh Freedom had called Obama a Muslim as recently as 2016.
That was factually inaccurate.
He was doing it as late as 2018.
My bad folks.
Look at this.
Joe Walsh said, I have a right to pray to whatever God I want to pray to.
I have a right to call Obama a Muslim and call Trump a thin-skinned egomaniac.
So he was making a point, but I'm going to jump off this because there are some slurs.
I got to say, I can't even show some of his worst tweets.
So I'll stress this.
Look, I don't care if Joe Walsh runs a primary.
We got Bill Weld is going to launch a primary, I guess.
I think it's going to be good for Trump.
I do.
And I could be wrong.
You know what I mean?
I could be wrong because I thought the Republicans were going to sweep the midterms.
I was wrong.
New data I've looked at in a newer story.
Shows that Trump's base didn't vote in the midterms.
Most of them didn't go out and vote because a lot of his voters are new voters.
They voted for him.
They don't care about anything else.
So they didn't vote in the midterms and the Democrats were able to take the House.
2020 will be different.
And Trump is playing a different game.
Trump has changed the rules while you weren't paying attention.
And if you think you're going to come at him in this way, I think all this does, when you contrast, and I mean no disrespect, seriously, to Bill Weld, but when you contrast Bill Weld to Trump, when you contrast Joe Walsh to Trump, it makes, in my opinion, some people will see Trump as the best choice and why they need to get behind him or lose.
I think it's going to help him.
I don't know.
But again, I don't think I'm the smartest person in the world.
The other story says every president who's hit this has been negatively impacted.
They haven't survived it.
So, I don't know.
We'll see what happens.
Stick around.
A couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
As many of you know, Tim Pool is a left-leaning moderate, but I do staunchly believe in student loan forgiveness.
Donald Trump forgives $750 million in student loans for disabled vets.
That was the right decision.
Absolutely the right choice.
I applaud the president for making this choice, and I believe we will see similar things from Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats who also agree with forgiving student loan debt.
So, look, I'm not a Trump derangement syndrome person.
You guys know that.
It's probably why you watch me.
I can criticize the president, and I can praise him for doing the right thing.
If I say we need to forgive student loan debt, and the orange man comes out and does it, I know I'm right.
Period.
Actually, not period.
No, let's read on.
Let's read the news, and here's my thing about student loan debt.
Trump is doing it for veterans.
It's a bit different instead of doing it for everyone.
But I do need, we have to forgive student loan debt in some capacity.
I'm not saying just snap your fingers like Elizabeth Warren wants to do and say, you're free!
No, no, no, no, no, no.
I think it's something like freezing interest so that they can just start paying the principal down and be done with it, so you still have a responsibility for what you've, you know, the money you received and spent, you have a responsibility to pay that back.
However, a lot of these loans are extremely difficult to manage, especially when it's hard to work.
If Trump wants to improve the economy, one of the things he can do is create a student loan forgiveness plan that potentially, and look, I'm not an economist, so I'm going to get fact-checked on this one, but here's my thought, here's my idea.
By freezing interest, you will have all of these people in debt finally start paying down what they owe and having more money to put into the economy, buying houses, starting families, etc.
It's going to be a nightmare when millennials don't buy houses, they're buying vans.
I'm not exaggerating.
Like, you've got people who need the value of their homes to go up because it's their only equity, it's their only investment.
And that system is propped up by the fact that young people buy homes.
Well, young people don't have any money.
They're in massive debt.
The whole system is screwed up.
College is a bad idea.
Okay?
If you're a young person watching me, do not take out loans for college.
You want to go to college, work through it.
I would also recommend not going to college.
I'd recommend using the internet, starting a business, making connections.
But that's besides the point.
You want to go to college, do not take out loans.
It will destroy you.
So we need the system to be improved.
I blame our culture, as a whole.
Okay?
It was the TV, it was the adults, it was the boomers.
It was just so much of, you have to go to college, being berated over and over again.
And the colleges have become predatory.
And now young people are saddled with debt, and being told the solution is communism.
Okay!
Full stop!
That is not the solution.
Okay?
Elizabeth Warren wants to snap her fingers and wipe out debt.
I don't know about that.
Well, let's look at what Trump did.
Because if he did that, I'll be critical.
But I think this is the right path in the long run.
Listen, we need people engaging in the economy, not just sitting there confused about how they'll ever pay back loans they can't declare bankruptcy on.
Let's read.
From the American Military News.
President Donald Trump has signed an executive order on Wednesday afternoon to forgive disabled veterans' student loan debt to the tune of $750 million.
The order applies to approximately 25,000 totally and permanently disabled veterans who were previously qualified but had not received a loan discharge, who each hold an average of $30,000 in student loans, according to a White House statement on Wednesday.
So I will stress First steps, baby steps.
These are veterans who are totally and permanently disabled.
A lot of these people, they can't work.
In which case, it makes sense to forgive the loan debt, because there's no reason to put them into undue stress, especially they're veterans, man.
I, as an American, and you know, it's crazy that liberals used to be there with me, like the left used to be there with me.
We love the troops.
That was always a thing I heard growing up was, we can criticize the war and support those who are willing to put their life on the line for our country.
And it's our criticism of the war that helps keep them safe.
Like, that's what I heard growing up.
These people who join the armed forces, whether they're doing it to find a job or they're doing it to serve their country, because let's be real, some people do it because it's a good job.
It's true.
I know many people who are veterans who've told me just that.
But these are people who are putting their lives on the line in many capacities to serve the nation, and if they're being misled by corrupt politicians or by bad policy, I will criticize that policy and make sure we are keeping our troops safe, and when they come back, we do right by them when they become disabled, serving our country to provide us the infrastructure and the security we need.
Admittedly, there's a lot of things done wrong by the armed forces, but I blame the policy and not the people.
Now, the individuals who commit crimes, well, they get charged and convicted, right?
So, I do like this idea, but I do think we need to expand upon this.
Today, I'm proud to announce that I'm taking executive action to ensure that our wounded warriors are not saddled with mountains of student debt, Trump said in a speech at the AMVETS National Convention in Kentucky, where he spoke ahead of the signing.
The announcement was met with a standing ovation.
I would be standing for it, too.
I completely agree.
I applaud this decision.
Because I also think about this.
You have a veteran who comes back totally and permanently disabled.
That doesn't mean they're quadriplegic or anything.
I don't know exactly how it works.
It's like a percentage rating.
But you have some people who might not be able to use their legs, for instance, or have trouble walking, and school can help find them a job that they can do with their mind or with what they have.
So, effectively saying, hey, You got hurt on our time.
We owe you.
Think about this.
If you work for a business and you get hurt, you know, you file a claim and sue the company, assuming they did something wrong.
And then, you know, you get taken care of in the event something happened.
In this instance, we have veterans who volunteer.
I think for the most part, I think they're all volunteers.
And when they end up in a position where they're struggling with their life because of
the position they took to our country, I believe that makes sense.
We pay it back. We take care of them. We make sure.
Look, man, you guys know I'm rather lefty. I fully believe in being responsible to those
who are there to provide a service to you.
Like, if anybody ever worked for me and got seriously hurt, I'd go above and beyond,
be, you know, to the greatest extent I could to make sure they were taken care of completely.
Let's read a little bit more.
This is just a little bit.
They say nobody can complain about that, right?
He asked the crowd.
Although tens of thousands of veterans have been declared disabled and unable to work, they were still being forced to repay their student loan debts.
The federal government was pursuing student debt payments totaling $1 billion for more than 40,000 disabled veterans who were unable to work, according to a CNBC report.
More than 25,000 of them are in default, and just 8,500 of them have applied for forgiveness.
The debt of these disabled veterans will be entirely erased.
It will be gone.
They can sleep well tonight.
Well, I'll say this.
The broader plan for the US?
I think that's a bad move.
For people who are struggling to work and they're veterans, I can understand it.
Now listen, a lot of people are like, you know, do I support the president or not?
That question means little to me.
It means absolutely little.
And the answer will always be a resounding no for one reason.
It's the position, not the person.
I think Trump has character defects I do not appreciate, reflect poorly on us.
I don't like a lot of his You know, I think character goes a long way, but foreign policy exists there too, and while I've still given him credit on a lot of the foreign policy things, I also think we should be paying attention to the deficit, and this may add to it.
So there's considerations, there are.
But I don't care about the idea of whether you support him or not, it's about the issue.
And on student loan forgiveness, bold move that I agree with.
Now, look, I'm not an expert.
Can we afford this?
Is there going to be an issue?
We should look into it.
But I will stress, if we have 25,000 people in default, we're wasting our time.
There's no reason to be chasing after somebody we're not gonna be able to get money from in the first place, especially if they're veterans.
So I do think this is the right move.
They go on to reiterate some of the points that were already made initially.
They say, in the order, Trump also directed the Departments of Education and Veterans Affairs to make it easier for disabled veterans to apply for student loan debt discharge.
The process by which our disabled veterans apply for federal student loan discharges is too burdensome.
I like it.
I love it.
The order will create a new—that was for me, by the way, not him.
The order will create a new expedited process to help totally and permanently disabled veterans have their federal loan debt discharged with minimal burdens, the statement said.
Here's the way I see it.
This is a step in the right direction.
I've seen a lot of people tweet that we shouldn't forgive student loan debt for Americans because it's their responsibility.
They chose to do this and now they have to pay back what they owe.
I completely agree with that sentiment.
But I think about the next move on the chessboard.
When you create millions upon millions of young people who are indebted to a degree that they can't pay it back, they become disheartened.
They lose passion.
They think there's no light at the end of the tunnel.
I know people who have been in debt for a decade plus, 15 years, and they're like, I barely paid it down.
The interest is just too burdensome and I can't make money.
So that's a problem.
I also think it's a problem to just forgive.
Just, oh, you're done, thanks, here's free money.
No, no, no, no, we can't do that.
But, that's what I said in the beginning, what we can do, freeze interest rates, stop the principal from growing, and just have them pay down what they currently owe so they assume their responsibility and we can be done with it.
I think we made a mistake as a society telling people to take on this debt.
And now we have a bunch of people who feel like there's no light at the end of the tunnel, and so they're voting for socialists.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Sometimes the solution to the puzzle is to give to get.
A Chinese finger trap.
We can pull as hard as we want.
Hey, the economy, these young people aren't buying houses.
Just pull harder until the whole thing snaps.
Bad idea.
You're going to have to give in.
It seems counterintuitive, I know.
Maybe we can't afford it.
We'll think, we'll have to work through this.
But I think ultimately, if we keep on the path we're on, we're gonna have a bunch of young people just with no purpose, with no passion, thinking there's no chance for progress, not advancing our economy, and not becoming adults.
So we gotta do something.
That's why I think student loan forgiveness is the right move.
That's why I think Trump was making this move for veterans, and I would like to see it expanded more.
Absolutely.
So, I will give a shout-out quick to the Democrats who are talking about it, because they're right about this.
Listen, you could be mad on principle, That people were not responsible.
You believe in personal responsibility, and I'm right there with you.
But I want to think about solutions, and sometimes there are hard decisions that hurt in the short term to make it right in the long term.
They say the night is always darkest before the dawn.
Forgiving student loan debt in whatever capacity may be burdensome, but I think about the awful ramifications of where we go if we don't do something about this now.
Perhaps, as I've heard other people say, the first step is to stop the predatory loans, period, and then work on those with debt.
The college system is trash and it needs to be reformed, and I think we can all agree on that.
If you're a young person, do not do this.
Okay?
So I have little sympathy for those who took out massive loans.
I'll be honest.
You know, when I see people say, hey, you took out a loan, you pay it back, I'm like, yup, that's your fault.
But, When I'm thinking about our moves in the chessboard, we want America to win.
We want to preserve freedom.
Being vindictive and saying, hey, you reap what you sow, is not the right solution.
Because these people can vote, and they're going to vote for the communists.
I don't like communism.
Let's give a little, so that we can, you know, sometimes you have to retreat to win the war.
It's a smart move.
Don't be obstinate and say, I refuse to retreat, when you know it's the strategic move.
It's the right move.
So that's where I'm at.
I'm not a fan of government handouts to a great extent.
I do believe government programs can be good, and this is a good example of Tim Pool being left on an issue.
I can say it all the time and people are like, no, no, no, stop, stop, stop.
The left hates it.
They try to claim I'm right-wing.
No, I'm right here with the Democrats talking about student loan forgiveness, and I'm really happy that Trump is in the conversation too.
That means we were right.
Trump can see it, at least for veterans, so he's at the table.
What's the right move?
I gotta say I don't know.
But doing nothing means a potential collapse of the housing market, the student loan bubble bursting, and a panic ensuing where everyone goes default.
We better get on this now, okay?
There's so much to consider.
The student loan bubble is ridiculous.
It's dangerous for everybody.
We need solutions.
Now, I do believe the Democrats are pandering by, like, looking at young people and saying, I'll make it.
I'll give you free money.
No, no, no.
None of that.
We just need sound plan.
And guess what?
Sometimes you have no choice but to pull over on the side of the road and help someone change their tire, even though they got a flat because they were driving like a jerk.
They were swerving around laughing with their buddies, hit a curb, popped a tire, and you're like, I shouldn't have to, but I'm gonna have to help out and change their tire.
So sometimes you accept a burden because other people are responsible.
It's true.
But I think one of the greatest things about America is that we have many people who recognize the responsibility to help those who made a mistake.
But we gotta figure out a way to do it right because we don't want it to keep happening.
I won't go long.
I gotta keep these short.
So stick around.
One more segment coming up in a few minutes.
I will see you all soon.
I see a lot of conservatives sharing this story right now and I wanted to talk about it.
It's about a woman who tried to buy a firearm from Walmart twice and was unable to.
Shock!
The most important thing to be said about this story is that a journalist didn't understand anything about firearms and thought it was a story to go to Walmart and try and buy one.
I'll tell you why it's significant.
It shows you the media doesn't understand conservatives.
That should be alarming.
This story would never exist in a conservative outlet.
Why would the Washington Examiner write a story about what conservatives know?
Buying a gun isn't always easy.
I shouldn't say always easy.
There are steps to be taken.
Easy or hard is an opinion, so it is not a simple process to just go and buy a gun.
Liberals don't get this, so they end up showing up to Walmart thinking they can just do it, and they think it's a news story to do it.
Here's the most important thing, however.
This woman did an incredible job, and I applaud her for this story, and it is extremely important that she did this story.
I don't like the fact that conservatives are dragging her for it, because this is what a journalist should do.
While it shows you they don't understand the perspective of conservatives, it shows you that somebody who doesn't understand this wants to make sure those who don't understand it understand it!
More liberals need to do this!
More Democrats, more people on the left, need to explain the process of buying a firearm.
Going and showing how it's done.
You know, people are saying, like, haha, you know, she thought she could buy a gun and she had no idea.
It's like, right.
So isn't it a good thing she took the time to learn and then shared that experience with the left?
One of the most annoying things to me in the gun debate, because I am a moderate on the issue, I understand the Second Amendment, I think it is very important, and it's a very powerful statement in and of itself.
Who's going to invade a country with four million guns in it?
Yeah, good point.
We are a strong nation because of it.
But I do recognize we have problems, and we need to have a conversation about it.
That doesn't mean we ban weapons.
That doesn't mean we ban firearms.
It means we need to have a conversation, and we need to bring everyone to the table.
The most annoying thing to me, though, is that whenever I talk to people on the left, they don't know anything about guns, man.
And conservatives know it.
Absolutely know it.
There was a meme going around where Kamala Harris said she was going to ban the importation of AR-15s, and it's like, These weapons aren't imported, they're made in America.
And I'm pretty sure, like, is Armalite an American company?
I think she was talking about AR-15 specifically.
There are weapons that are, you know, firearms that are made in other countries, of course.
You know, Sweden exports a ton of weapons.
The point is, how are we supposed to have a debate on effective plans for stopping, you know, mass shootings and gun violence when one side of the coin doesn't even know how buying a gun works?
And that's why I applaud this woman.
It's an excellent story.
And it shows somebody who was ignorant of an issue, who wanted to figure it out and document her experience.
And she deserves tremendous credit for this, for challenging her assumptions, and learning something, acknowledging her mistake, and then sharing it with others who don't know.
We need more of this.
This is good journalism.
I applaud this.
Let's read the story.
Let's read the story.
Haley Peterson writes, I tried to buy a firearm at Walmart twice and roadblocks left me empty-handed both times.
She says, let me zoom in a little bit, the availability of firearms, I'm saying firearms on purpose because I don't want to say the G word because Google will derank me, at Walmart has become a hotly debated issue in the wake of two deadly events at its stores that killed 24 people.
More than 120,000 people have signed a petition urging Walmart to stop selling them and take a stronger stance against them since the events that we just saw.
The company said it has no plans to stop.
First, she says that she went to Walmart with the intention of buying a gun last week as part of an investigation into placement, selection, marketing, and security in Walmart stores, and learned more about the retailer's process governing gun sales.
My journey to bring a firearm home from Walmart turned out to be far more complicated than I expected.
Now, conservatives and moderates totally get it.
I know people who are very moderate and even left-wing.
I think Joe Rogan is like pro-gun, right?
So he's somebody who totally understands it's not that easy, but he's a very left-wing dude, right?
They exist.
And so there's misconceptions.
She thought she could just go get it?
Sorry.
First, she goes online and she couldn't even find if the store sold them or not.
Yeah, it's not that easy.
She says she searched walmart.com, and try and find out which of the 10 stores near her sold
them, and she couldn't come up with any answers.
She says that the only ones that were advertised are air guns.
I figured that employees at any one of Walmart stores near me would know which locations sold firearms.
I was wrong.
Over an hour and a half, I placed more than a dozen calls to multiple stores,
waited on hold for a combined 40 minutes, and got through to a human only three times.
Three Walmart employees told me they didn't know which stores sold guns in the area.
Ah, I said the G word, there it is.
Boom!
Video deranked, nobody will watch it.
Yeah, I swear to God, it's gonna happen.
So, if you'd like to support my work, because I didn't do the plug, share the video.
Just share this video because, listen, this is a story about a woman who didn't understand how firearm sales worked.
And she did the investigation, and she learned something.
Something very important for people on the left who don't understand this.
Share the video if you like it, because I'm getting deranked hard on this one for sure.
One person referred me to Walmart's main customer service line.
I called that number and spoke with someone who said he also couldn't help me.
When it comes to item availability, they don't want us to discuss that for various reasons.
Yup.
One of the reasons is because they are concerned about crazy people, you know, calling and trying to find something, and the Walmarts that do sell these are selling to their local community.
So the average person knows they have them and they don't need to call and ask about it.
The people who are asking are people who don't know where to get them and are trying to find it, and that's kind of odd.
Because for most people, you live in an area where your Walmart sells a firearm, Then likely you know somebody who owns firearms, and they'll say like, oh, you can just go down to the Walmart.
For somebody to call in, it's probably, it shouldn't be, but to Walmart at least, seems like it may be a red flag.
They say he declined to elaborate on this, and said he knew of at least one location near me that didn't sell guns.
I crossed that store off my list.
The customer service representative advised me to call each store individually and find out whether it did sell.
When I told him that I had spent more than an hour doing just that, and that several stores weren't answering their phone, He said I could file a report with him concerning problems with the specific locations.
It wasn't helpful.
After hours of googling and calling, I finally had a breakthrough and found a Walmart store that did sell firearms.
She couldn't even just go.
She had to call for hours.
That's crazy to me.
I think if you want to buy a product, you should be able to just call somebody and ask them.
She said, someone answered the phone at the Supercenter in Chesterfield, Virginia.
She transferred me to the sporting goods department, where a woman on the line confirmed she could buy one.
The store was 30 minutes away.
I got in the car and plugged the address for Chesterfield Walmart into my phone.
Later, when I contacted Walmart's media relations team about my difficulty, a spokesman pointed me to a website for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives, which maintains a list of all-gun retailers by state.
Oh, that's amazing!
See, I didn't know that.
And I bet a lot of conservatives and gun enthusiasts did know that.
You learn something new every day.
Isn't it important?
Isn't it great that a journalist is now revealing this to people who didn't know that?
Me?
I learned something.
She said she looked for the sporting goods department found about a hundred steps from the entrance to the store.
I spotted guns on display directly under a sign for the department.
A selection of about 20 rifles, ranging from 159 to 474.
The counter in front of the guns displayed pocket knives, binoculars, and digital night vision monoculars inside a locked case.
The selection of guns was limited compared with nearby stores, which offered dozens of different kinds of firearms, including handguns.
Walmart stopped selling them in the 90s, and they also removed the AR-15 in 2015.
In prepared remarks last week, I'm not concerned about that.
She says, there's a bunch of extra limitations that Walmart has, like you have to be 21, you need a green light background check, not just one void of red lights.
She says, we videotape the point of sale for firearms, only allow certain associates to sell them, and secure firearms in locking case with individual locks, among other measures.
I told an employee that I wanted to buy a gun, they called for a manager.
So this is the best part.
I want to just jump to the point she says that Walmart faced a backlash, yada yada.
They sell air weapons.
She was browsing the store.
They say Walmart said it accounted for about 2% of all gun sales and 20% of sales of ammunition in the U.S.
When it got time for her to buy the weapon, she said, I could not, because there were no authorized sellers scheduled to work.
You can't just walk in and get one.
A lot of people seem to think that's the case.
You can't.
The funny thing, too, is they don't sell AR-15s, but it's so silly, because I'm sure many of these are semi-auto.
It'd be absurd if they weren't.
I don't know a lot about guns, but I assume many of them are not, like, I'd be willing to bet they have semi-automatic rifles.
They're not all, like, you know, lever action or bolt action.
She said I could come back on Thursday, two days later.
Well, here's the best part.
She did come back.
And then when she went to fill out... She says, I drove another 30 minutes confident I would successfully buy a firearm.
She was wrong.
She arrived and she didn't realize the address on her ID did not match her actual address.
So she couldn't do it.
They asked her if, um, there's a bunch of stuff in here and I want to make sure I get to the point.
She says that, um, but I had only just finished printing my name when she stopped me and asked whether the address on my license matched my home address.
I had moved since I obtained my license, and they didn't match.
That was a problem.
In order to pass the background check, I would need to bring in a government-issued document with my correct address, such as a bill from a state-owned utility or car registration.
She apologized, told me the rules were strict, and asked me to come back another time.
I left the store empty-handed again.
At this point, I decided to give up!
Listen, in some states it is very easy.
And I talked to a police academy trainer and a national best in sports shooting.
I'm not sure with the terminology and everything, but it was a... This guy, he trains people, I got to sit in on a class, and we actually got to go shoot some various guns.
Um, some were like .22s up to like a .45 I think.
That was intimidating.
I'd only ever fired a 9mm before.
So I can't remember exactly what gun, I'm not a gun person, but I went through a range of I think six different handguns and there were some that were super easy to fire.
It was remarkably easy and I was so surprised that it felt light.
Um, I can't remember what it was.
I think it was a .22 of some sort.
And it was a handgun and it was really light and really easy.
And, um, my aim is like probably not that good, but not that bad.
Like, you know, I hit the target, right?
I was with Emily who's doing this other stuff and she's way, she's got way better aim than I do.
But we had to try it out and I talked to this guy and he said he thinks we do need to sit down and have a discussion
about reform.
Like some new laws because in some places it's way too easy and in some places it's way too strict.
And I said that's a good way I guess to look at it.
There's, you know, I heard stories from people who are driving across state lines moving from a legal place to a
legal place but not every state has an agreement.
And so they've gotten charged with crimes for having a dismantled, you know, weapon in their car.
I know somebody in Chicago, he was going from, like, L.A.
to some state, and he made that mistake.
You know, look, the responsibility was on him.
He should have known which states wouldn't permit it.
And he got in trouble.
So I think, you know, what he was saying is that it shouldn't be as easy as it is in some places and it shouldn't be as hard.
So there's got to be like a happy medium where we are able to make sure people don't go nuts and use these in bad ways.
The problem is criminal gonna criminal.
So I don't know what the solution is.
I think it's worth sitting down and I think everyone agrees.
And that's why I'm the Milk Toast Fence-sitter.
I don't think banning things ever solves the problem.
You know, like prohibition doesn't work.
It just creates a black market.
So what we need to do is figure out Perhaps, like, you know, I mentioned licensing before, some kind of, like, license or insurance, and then someone said, then why don't you get a license or insurance for your speech?
And I get the point.
It's a constitutional right.
You know, the right to bear arms will not be infringed, and I absolutely respect that, I do.
So I think a conversation can be had, and I think there's a reason for respecting the Constitution for what it is.
I do think a lot of the arguments I hear from the left are wrong.
They talk about, but it's for a militia.
No!
Militia means an armed population who can come together in a time of emergency.
Well, it's well regulated.
Right!
So when you have everyone on the block owning a firearm, nobody's going to invade you because you can snap your fingers and get them together and they'll have weapons.
That's the point.
I don't care what, you know, some people say it's to protect themselves from the government.
I don't, I don't think so.
I don't, I don't know if I'm right in my interpretation.
I think it's specifically about as long as every American is armed, nobody can invade this place.
It would be impossible.
I mean, maybe California, maybe New York, but look, the point is I'll wrap up.
I don't make this one super long.
I wanted to highlight that this is a really, really great piece of journalism.
Because people on the left need to hear this.
That you can't just walk in and snap your fingers and get a weapon.
They don't understand that.
They think it's so easy.
They talk about loopholes that don't exist.
It's not that easy.
Because even people who sell are skittish about who they sell to.
Excellent work by Haley Peterson.
This is what journalists should be doing.
Challenging misconceptions and informing their communities.
And I think if more people understood firearms, we'd have a real conversation about the problem.
Because maybe it is mental health.
But we're not going to be able to have that conversation until people on the left know the system.
