All Episodes
Aug. 25, 2019 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:29:05
Leftist Journalist Admits Wokeness Is Just About Money And Clicks, Media Companies Purging Far Left

Leftist Journalist Admits Wokeness Is Just About Money And Clicks, Media Companies Purging Far Left. Amid the ongoing civil war in media between investors and woke journalists something amazing was published. A Former employee of a political sports website, Deadspin, admitted that the story here is not about idealistic journalists sticking to their integrity but in fact a staff that knows far left, woke, and social justice politics get more clicks than sports stories do.One would probably like to know, why does a sports website write about Trump, the Democrats, and social justice issues anyway? Well now we have our answer.Great Hill Partners bought the Gizmodo Media Group, which used to be led by Gawker. They now want the sports outlet Deadspin to "stick to sports" but the staff is convinced that woke outrage politics generates more traffic, and they are probably right.But in the long term we are seeing these companies collapse. perhaps the wokeness is a short term gain heading for a long term loss. Clicks and traffic is not an audience, its ragebait. A Company needs paying subscribers to continue existing and it seems the staff don't realize it. All they know is that politics plays better than sports.But if media companies wanted political content they could just launch a political website. Why have 7 political websites when you can just have one? Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants
Main voices
t
tim pool
01:28:52
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
tim pool
There's been an ongoing story involving the Gizmodo Media Network, or Gizmodo Media, whatever its name is.
This is formerly part of Gawker, a very storied media agency.
It was destroyed after a lawsuit by Hulk Hogan, financed by Peter Thiel.
Parts of it were sold to Univision.
Univision then mixed it around and sold it to a company called Great Hill Partners, and something truly profound has happened that has blown my mind completely and outright.
One of the former employees pushing back on the new owners openly admits they push woke politics specifically to make money.
I kid you not.
Saying it's not about editorial purity, it's about making money and growing the business.
To me, This is rather shocking, because you'd think most of these companies would try and claim they're sticking to their independent editorial standards.
No!
This woman, Megan Greenwell, in no uncertain terms, pushes back, saying it is absolutely not about idealistic journalists, unconcerned with profit, opposed against ruthless business-doers.
No, they say the real story is that journalists at Deadspin and its sister sites, like most journalists I know, are eager to do work that makes money.
And I kid you not, reading into the story really did blow my mind.
To see someone at one of these companies admit they're a sports website.
Deadspin is a sports website writing about politics and media.
Why?
And they openly admit it.
To make money.
To make money.
They don't care about this stuff.
They don't care about the ideas.
They don't care about the politics.
They care about making money.
And this is, as I've said, I got a bunch of stories I want to go through and I'll show
you this.
This is, this is, this, wow.
I gotta say wow.
I've talked about this for a while.
That companies would get on Facebook, figure out what worked, and turn it into a formula, it's called rage bait, to make people click.
What ends up happening on a website like Deadspin, sports news without access, favor, or discretion.
Major League Baseball, NFL, why your team sucks.
Why are they talking about sports?
Oh, it's interesting.
There are a bunch of websites that can talk about politics.
But what they've found is that instead of talking about sports, they can talk about politics and get a different audience.
Why do that?
Why not just make a political website?
Well, all of these companies have found that politics generates more traffic.
That's why we see Trump in the news all day every day.
This is why intersectional feminism is becoming so prominent.
Intersectional feminism stuffs all the keywords into a story.
So let me give you an example.
Granted, I will state.
This is my current working hypothesis, which is being researched.
But check it out.
If you make a story that has a keyword, say, I don't know, feminism.
That's an X. We'll call it variable X. Let's say you have, then, men's rights.
That's a Y. You could make an article about feminism and get X views.
or an article about men's rights and get Y views, or write about both in the same article and get X plus Y views.
Get it?
What that means is, if I write a story and post it to Facebook, the only people that are likely to see it are those that interact specifically with feminism.
If I write about men's rights, the only people who interact with men's rights are going to see it and click on it because the algorithm is feeding it to people who they think might most like it.
Combine the two, and you get both audiences.
Thus, woke media knows Intersectionality, combining every possible keyword into one story, you know, Black Lives Matter, police brutality, white black trans, etc., is going to get a bigger audience, and they want to make you angry because rage generates the most traffic.
And sure enough, we have this story, The Adults in the Room, where I've already showed you, they say, it's not about idealistic journalists.
Now check this out.
I'll do a search for editorial purity.
The numbers apparently do not matter to my ostensibly numbers-obsessed bosses, for reasons I can't quite understand.
When I have told them that the data show that non-sports content brings more traffic and more revenue opportunities, I have been ignored.
Maybe it's because there are websites for politics.
And there needs to be a place for sports.
Think about it this way.
If you make a politics website and put all of those articles on that website, you'll get the same traffic.
People who are looking for those stories will get it.
But what about the people who just want to hear about the latest MMA match?
Well, they're going to leave Deadspin.
So yes, Deadspin may get that traffic from politics, but what about the other market you're ignoring?
So it makes sense.
The bosses are like, stick to sports.
And that's what they're complaining about.
Let's read more.
Wait, what?
When I have told them that the data show that readers prefer publications with a distinctive
point of view, that Deadspin succeeds precisely because it doesn't try to be all things to
all people, wait, what?
You are.
I have been told that being all things to all people is in fact exactly the way to grow
page views.
Now you're confusing me, I gotta be honest.
Are you gonna talk about sports, or are you gonna try and do everything?
The reason my colleagues are not going to suddenly start sticking to sports is not about editorial purity.
It's about the opportunity to grow the audience and make more money for Great Hill Partners.
But the adults in the room know that we're wrong, despite all the evidence, because they just know.
And there it is.
And there it is.
Now, in the past, a hit piece came out about Deadspin's new bosses complaining about the white people being hired.
And everyone's immediate reaction was, they're trying to purge wokeness.
I mean, that was my interpretation, and I still believe that to be the case.
I would look at this from business, you know, if I were to look at this from a business point of view, here's what I see.
You have a company that can attract a major sports audience, which is massive, and they are not.
And you tell them, hey, leave the politics somewhere else.
Let's do sports.
They get angry.
Why?
Because politics content does better.
I agree.
Politics content does better than many sports articles.
Fantastic.
Great.
So we'll make a website for politics.
It doesn't mean they're, like, you know, it's like, imagine, let's do a restaurant analogy.
If you opened a Chinese food restaurant, and then somebody started selling pizza in the shop, and the pizza started selling really well, and then you say to them, hey, listen, stop selling pizza.
We're a Chinese food shop.
They'll say, hey, but pizza sells better.
That's great.
How about we open a pizza shop then?
There are people who specifically want one thing.
You are removing the people who want that product because you found one product that does better.
But here's the thing.
The owners already have a pizza shop.
They don't need seven.
What they need is a diversified market because I'll tell you this.
When Deadspin goes full-in for politics, and the politics change, they will fall, and then there will be no sports-affiliated website.
So it makes sense for the owners to say, stick to sports.
But here we can see it, in one of the most amazing things I've ever read.
Straight up saying, the reason they're not gonna stop talking about politics is not editorial purity, it's about growing the business and making money.
That's what it's all about, isn't it?
I love how they say that, you know, I do what I do to make money.
Well, first of all, don't we all?
We do things that are trying to make money.
But first and foremost, we're doing things that we are passionate about.
Now, I recognize you are passionate about politics.
I would recommend going to work for a political website, not a sports website.
My channel, on the other hand, has literally always been news and politics.
Always.
I haven't changed.
Could you imagine if my channel started off as sports commentary and then evolved to where it was today?
People might question why that was, when in reality, my channel and my work has always centered around cultural politics, conflict, crisis, etc.
And now the big story of these past few years has been the culture war, Trump, the presidency, etc.
And that's what I talk about.
And this.
But I've been on the ground at multiple culturally political events around the world.
That's what I do.
Check this out.
The reason this is fascinating is because we recently saw, well I shouldn't say recently, but there was a post from the outline, Mike's Drop, how Mike.com exploited social justice for clicks and then abandoned a staff that believed in it.
Check this out.
The Facebook-driven success was no accident.
Every time Mike had a hit, it would distill that success into a formula and then replicate it until it was dead.
Successful, quote, frameworks or headlines that went through this process includes, quote, science proves TK.
In one perfect tweet, TK.
TK reveals the one brutal truth about TK.
You know what that means.
And TK celebrity just said TK thing about TK issue.
Here's why that's important.
At one point, according to an early staffer who had since left, news writers had to follow a formula with bolded sections, which ensured their stories didn't leave readers with any questions.
The intro, the problem, the context, the takeaway.
They distilled everything down to a social justice formula.
Now, they were criticized for it.
Absolutely criticized for it.
And here we can see former employee of Deadspin.
I believe former.
I believe she's left.
That was the big story recently.
Straight up saying, that's what we do, and that's why we do it.
So what then happens to the Democratic Party?
What then happens to idealistic leftists who believe they're being told the truth?
Who believe they're getting honest opinions about politics, when in reality, they're going to a sports website, seeing something about a media company, and it's being shoveled down their throat in an attempt to get them to click, click, click.
We all know it.
Why should we trust the media?
Here's what's really amazing.
Earlier today I did a segment.
Donald Trump believes the media is trying to derail his presidency and stop him from getting re-elected.
They're pushing a recession.
I believe that is true in many circumstances.
It's not like every single media company does this, but there are certainly people who do it.
But what we can see here is that many of them are only doing it to make money.
We've known about the Trump bump.
But what's truly fascinating with this story is this woman is proud.
She's proud to say, we are doing this to make money.
Not because we care.
Not for editorial purity.
It's not about being independent.
It's about proving we can do business better than you.
I love this, because it falls into something I often see.
People who are too in the weeds to see what's actually going on around them.
You work for one site.
The bosses are looking at all of the sites, probably saying something like, we already sell pizza over here, we don't need you making pizza.
Our pizza business is doing great, in fact, all the pizza you're making, let's move it over.
I'm using the analogy again, politics.
You don't need politics in your video game content or in your sports content.
You don't.
You have a political site just for that reason.
Why are technology, gaming, and sporting websites talking about media companies and politics?
Well, yeah, we know it does better, but there's... Look, I know what food is the most popular.
You can look at Grubhub statistics, and they'll show you that, like, Pad Thai and pizza are some of the most popular things ordered.
Great!
But people still open sushi restaurants.
You can still make money selling a different product.
But imagine if every time you did, the woke brigade said, we'll make more money by doing woke politics.
Well, we don't need that!
We have that already!
And here they go admitting it.
Now, they absolutely still go into detail about too many white men and all that stuff.
At least that's my understanding.
We also have information about Gawker.
I'm not going to read too much into this story, but it's from the Daily Dot.
Interesting question, contrasted by the story we just saw.
Now, feminist is much more specific than general politics.
but it's from the Daily Dot.
Why can't independent feminist media websites stay afloat?
Interesting question, contrasted by the story we just saw.
Now, feminist is much more specific than general politics.
But I will stress, what if the people at Great Hill Partners
who bought these companies can see that there is a short-term gain from politics
and a long-term risk?
And they've seen stories like this from just the other day, where these websites can't keep themselves afloat.
Well, then they're probably going to say, we need to diversify.
But it's mind-blowing that they would come out and just say it.
It's not about editorial purity, it's about money, money, money.
But I got a few other stories that I definitely want to highlight.
First, the mic thing that I mentioned is not even old news.
This story is from July 23rd, 2019 that talks about the exact same thing.
They were talking about how these formulas for wokeness were being pushed, and in the end, it did not work.
Maybe Great Hill Partners saw this story and said, Your politics are a short-term gain.
And they said, Yeah, but we're making money.
We're getting clicks.
But for how long?
Mike collapsed.
We know that they were pushing these ridiculous formulas.
But I do have more I want to go through because there's been some amazing developments in media, notably how Tucker Carlson is handling his business in the wake of the loss of advertisers, and BuzzFeed and the New York Times as well.
Before we jump into that though, I'm going to end with one final point.
This woman who wrote about wanting to make money and not being about idealistic journalism or editorial purity is now going to work for Wired.
And we have this story from the other day from WWD, I'm not familiar with what it is, but they say, The Media Carousel, a roundup of who's been hired, fired, or maybe just jumped ship in the media land recently.
I highlight this because they show several people who have gone to other companies.
And I can tell you, with personal experience, there are people who fail up all the time in media.
They get fired from one job for doing miserably and get hired by another company.
Now, look, I get it's an industry, so there are only so many people working in it.
But there's a problem when you have a revolving door in these companies, and someone can fail miserably and then get hired by another company.
And I know people who have failed miserably who got hired by the Atlantic and the New York Times.
They're still failing miserably.
Why hire these people?
I don't get it.
Perhaps they just don't know better, or perhaps it's an ivory tower pool of nepotism.
They're all sitting up top in their infinity pool atop the ivory tower, and whenever one person gets up to leave, they say, you can come over on my side.
And then you see this story.
Someone absolutely willing to admit they're not being driven by idealistic journalism, they're literally being driven by generating money.
And that's why they will turn a sports website into a politics website, and then they go get hired by someone else.
Check this out.
From Bloomberg Businessweek, the sports news site haters love to dunk on keeps signing up subscribers.
The Athletic now has more than half a million readers, but can it turn a profit?
Perhaps the owners saw this and said, yes, we are getting views from politics, but look at these other companies that are sticking to sports.
There is a real business here that we need to go after.
They can't see it.
They're in the weeds, and they're swimming in politics, and they're gonna tell their bosses they know better.
Well, look, man, if you don't like it, you can leave.
But if somebody wants to launch a sports website, I'm not surprised.
The Athletic is doing ridiculously well, and this is from Bloomberg just, what, five days ago.
Five days ago.
Now here's what's interesting in the media landscape outside of all this.
We'll move into Tucker Carlson and something really, really fascinating.
I was recently watching Tucker's show.
Here's a story from the rap.
Tucker Carlson's ads are down after he said that the white nationalism stuff was a hoax, that it wasn't a real problem.
I understand the point he was trying to make.
I think he made it poorly.
It's not a hoax.
It is a serious problem, but it's being inflated by people who are crazy.
Case in point, we can look at who are sensationalizing on purpose or are agenda-driven.
Take a look at the Amazon rainforest stuff.
I covered this yesterday.
According to the New York Times, the fires are a normal part of agricultural cycles.
Been going on for 20-plus years.
It's not worse today than it was a few years ago, and it was substantially worse 10 years ago.
Is it bad?
Yeah.
We gotta stop the deforestation.
But everyone acting like it's the worst thing?
It's not true.
Tucker Carlson.
He says, you know, hoax and all that stuff, and the activists attack him.
He loses advertisers.
What does he do?
This blew my mind.
I was watching his show, and all of a sudden it cut to commercial, but the commercial was Tucker Carlson.
And he was saying, basically, go to Fox Nation and sign up.
And I said, it's really funny because that's literally what I do.
And I don't believe I've done it yet, but I'll do it now.
I say, 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 here's the thing.
I do that in every video.
That's my core promo.
If you like it, sign up.
And that's the support I need, and I'm extremely grateful.
But even Tucker Carlson is doing it now.
The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post are pushing heavily into a paywall subscription model.
Even BuzzFeed is asking for donations.
I think this is the direction we're going.
Because advertisers are pulling out, We want subscribers.
And this is where it all ties together.
Look, first I'll say the activists going after Tucker by all means.
He's just gonna keep pushing for subscriptions, and it's gonna work.
He's getting, what, 3 million?
What was last night?
Carlson got 3 million viewers, more than double.
MSNBC, more than double.
You get 1% to subscribe, and you're good for a while.
Now, Tucker's show probably requires a lot of money.
But here's where it all gets tied back together.
Tucker knows he can drive you to pay a subscription to Fox Nation to make up for the loss of ad revenue.
Check this out.
A sports news site has half a million readers, and they keep signing up subscribers.
Subscribers are paying members.
Right now, this Bloomberg is trying to get me to sign up, and they're not letting me read the whole story, but the headline's good enough.
So then we can see how it ties back into deadline.
We don't need rage bait.
We need a dedicated audience.
And that's what these people don't understand.
So we truly learned something profound from this article.
It's incredible.
Not only do they not understand business, they also...
Are not driven politically.
They want money and they don't get it.
I wonder if Great Hill Partners saw this story from Bloomberg and said, this proves our point.
We may lose overall numbers, but these people will pay us monthly.
If I made a video where it was like, you know, feminist does X, is someone going to contribute?
They might.
But what if I do like, you know, political coverage that helps explain the world?
It's longer.
I mean, we're at 20 minutes nearly already.
A lot more people are going to say, I want to pay for this premium kind of content that's very specific.
I'm not super concerned about whether or not my video is going to generate a million views.
Take a look at the video I did yesterday.
I talked about the health of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and I praised her for being, you know, an honorable member of the Supreme Court and wishing her well.
As she praised Brett Kavanaugh, I find that commendable.
I know that's not going to get me a million views.
I'm doing something I think is important, but it's also good business.
I'm not going to make nonsense content just in hopes that I get enough clicks to get ad revenue, no.
I'm going to make content in hopes that it's something truly valuable, and that you share it, and it grows from there.
You make a good product, the audience comes.
You make this woke, rage-bait nonsense, and eventually people, they'll click, but as I said last time, Traffic is not an audience.
This is.
Signing up subscribers, that's money in the bank.
Because you can go, you can go to your partners, you can go to the board of directors and say, we have a hundred thousand subscribers.
paying 10 bucks a month, we're good.
And then you can be truly independent and not worry about the rage bait.
But these people are stuck in the culture war.
I'll stress this point.
I know that my content is very culture war-ish, and I have a certain perspective.
I know you can go to my YouTube channel and see how I cover these stories.
The point is, that's literally what my channel has always been.
It's always been, in some form, cultural politics, traveling or talking about issues, The videos I started on this channel back in the day were me talking about top news.
I wasn't a gaming channel turned politics.
I wasn't a Magic the Gathering channel turned politics.
No, I've always done news, politics, culture, conflict, crisis, etc.
Sometimes I'll throw in something that's not super relevant.
I made a video about a motivational video in May because I felt like I needed to
do it. I needed to send out that message and it didn't do that well. Got like 50,000 views which is
really low for my channel but I thought it was something that was important I wanted to do. You can
take a look at what they do at these woke media outlets. They're trying to get rage bait views.
Well maybe people know the best thing you can do, what you can do watching this video is become a
subscriber of my channel so that I can look to my business and see I'm guaranteed x revenue every
month.
Or I can project.
I don't know if a video is going to get views or not.
I made a video about Ruth Bader Ginsburg and I said, I wonder if people care.
I really do.
I really wonder if people care.
And you know what?
It got less views than on average.
It got like half the views I normally get in the past month.
About 140,000 views relative to what I was normally getting, 300.
It teeters around there.
But it's fine.
It was important to talk about the issue.
And my channel is political.
Now I'll end with this point.
3,200 people have lost their jobs so far this year in media landslide from just a couple weeks, or from last month.
This is a story that's frequently updated.
But I will stress, the business models of yesterday don't work.
They don't work.
A company bought Gizmodo, a woke media company, and they have a staff who's living in 2013, obsessed with cultural politics, and they're saying it doesn't work.
You've got to move on.
We need subscribers.
We need sports.
We need to diversify our media network.
Gizmodo is all wokeness.
Like, every single site writes about the same crap.
So yeah, I'm not surprised they're saying stick to sports.
We need to protect our business in the event the political stuff doesn't work anymore.
And it probably won't.
And now we're seeing over and over again.
This is one of the worst years for media we've ever seen.
And it's funny, they got Shane Smith, former CEO of Vice, in the front, who said, like, five years ago, there was going to be a bloodbath in digital media, and boy, was he right.
And it's only getting worse.
You need to change your business model, and you can't expect to ride this wave of rage bait forever.
I know that, but I make political content.
It's what I do.
I'll leave it there.
Truly, truly amazing, isn't it?
Let me know what you think in the comments.
Seriously, comment, let me know what you think, share this video if you like it, subscribe if you like it.
I'm gonna keep doing my thing for one reason.
I like talking about these issues.
I like finding a story and then being like, wow, I need to talk about this.
And it gives me a place to vent all these ideas.
And it happens to work well for a business.
And if at some point nobody cares to listen anymore, I'll probably still do it.
I just have fun doing it.
And you know what?
Subverse will grow, and that's a core business.
And that's not going to chase after this nonsense of, we're going to get rage-bait clicks.
Quite the opposite.
We're going to produce a premium content, on-the-ground reporting, legitimate news, and hope that people are willing to subscribe to it.
We're going to continue to do better and better, so that people subscribe for news.
Because a paying subscriber is better than a rage-bait click.
And maybe these woke journalists should recognize that.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews at 6 p.m.
It is a different channel, and I will see you all there.
Donald Trump has accused the media of trying to make his reelection more difficult, and many people have been saying for the past week or so that all of this news about a recession is intending to scare people into triggering a recession, because one of the only things that can stop Trump is probably a recession.
That's why Bill Maher has repeatedly called for it.
And in my opinion, it's gross.
But I do believe that at least some element of the media absolutely is trying to stop Donald Trump.
First, let me say this.
There are overtly partisan news outlets that clearly state they don't like the president.
So, of course, they're pushing a narrative.
That's just what they do.
There are left-wing sites.
There are even right-wing sites that don't like the president.
So when we see all of these outlets going recession, recession over and over again, a lot of it's coming from sites that say straight up they don't want Trump to be president.
There's an article from Salon talking about stuff like this, about how recession will hurt Trump, and of course they're going to push the narrative.
They're very pro-Bernie.
There's one story about how they're mad the Democrats are ragging on the far left.
But here's the thing.
So take a look at this story, right?
They're talking about Trump's tweets.
And if we head over to Google, we can see it's just been an endless barrage of recession over and over again.
But I want to show you something.
I want to show you some proof that I believe at least it provides some evidence that the media is... Well, they have an agenda.
You want to see some evidence?
Let me show you some evidence.
Check this out.
I tweeted this out a couple days ago.
Here we have two snippets from two stories.
I say above is a story from July 26th.
Below is a story from July 10th.
Both are from Vice.
The first story said, Gabbard's lawsuit is already exciting extremely online lefties,
like Tim Pool, a prolific YouTuber who routinely rails on the political establishment to his more
than 1 million followers across multiple channels. So listen, they know who I am.
This writer knows exactly who I am.
They've seen my videos.
They know I rag on the political establishment.
They know that I'm a fan of Gabbard.
And they called me a lefty.
But take a look at this story from Vice two weeks earlier.
Tim Poole, a right-wing media figure who once worked at Vice News, tweeted an identical invitation to the same White House summit that Mines received.
Now, you want to know why I think this is evidence the media is playing a dirty game?
For one, both stories, while they're written by different people, Both stories show context.
They know who I am, that I worked for Vice News, or that they've seen my YouTube channel.
So maybe it's possible it's just their personal interpretations, but here's the thing.
Why call me a lefty in the story about Gabbard?
Because this story is pro-Democrat.
Meaning, if my videos about Gabbard can entice moderates to vote for a Democrat, It's bad for Donald Trump.
Now, what about this other story, though?
Ah, I was invited to Donald Trump's White House summit.
And they certainly can't say an anti-establishment left-wing individual was invited to the summit, so they call me right-wing.
An outright lie.
Because it frames a narrative.
NBC, the Today Show, claimed that I was supporting the Seth Rich conspiracy theory.
Why?
Because I said that the Fox News story was likely not true?
I kid you not.
The mere act of talking about it, they claim, is pushing it.
And that's how the game is played.
It is dirty.
Look at this.
Two stories from Vice News.
Tim Poole's on the left.
Tim Poole's on the right.
Whichever one benefits their narrative.
You can't have... Oh, oh, oh!
Tim Poole's going to Trump's White House summit.
Trump certainly wouldn't invite someone who's an online lefty.
But then wait a minute.
Tim Poole is praising Gabbard.
Uh-oh!
That's actually good.
We better call him a lefty so people listen.
You know what?
It's a ridiculous game, and that's how the game is played.
Now, I don't want to act like... It may just be there's two different people with two different interpretations, but I gotta say, that doesn't seem like a simple solution to me.
For one, I have briefly been to the new Vice building.
But I don't know anything.
It's been years.
I work for Vice.
So if their offices are anything like how they used to be, these people, they know each other.
We all knew each other, right?
It doesn't matter if you're writing for a tech story or a politics story.
Everybody knows each other.
How could you watch my videos and then, like, both individuals come to a different conclusion when you're in the same office?
Perhaps.
It's possible.
But it doesn't seem like the simple solution.
If they watch my videos, they know I'm rather moderate, I guess.
But this is the time they decide to be fair?
Donald Trump tweeted.
Before I arrived in France, the fake and disgusting news was saying that relations with the six other countries in the G7 are very tense, and that the two days of meetings will be a disaster.
Just like they are trying to force a recession.
They are trying to will America into bad economic times.
The worse the better.
Anything to make my election more difficult to win.
Well, we're having very good meetings.
The leaders are getting along very well.
And our country, economically, is doing great.
The talk of the world.
It's true.
The economy is doing great.
So why is recession just everywhere?
You know, what's been really frustrating, and I made this video a few days ago talking about Trump world and how we're trapped in it.
The media is so obsessed.
Like, here I am, even now, doing a video about it.
This is what the news is.
You go to Google and it's like, every day for the past several days, recession over and over and over again, non-stop.
But there's no recession!
Nothing's happening!
Why are we talking about nothing happening?
Because they want it to happen.
In my opinion, I agree with Trump's assessment.
There are people in the media that want to push the narrative because they want a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If you get enough people scared and they take action, then the market can suffer.
And they know.
Bill Maher has said it.
He said it over and over again.
And to me, it's disgusting.
They hate the president so much, they're willing to tank the economy and hurt the working class.
Hurt the lower class.
That's insane.
The Hill writes, The comments from Trump came after a tumultuous week in which the tit-for-tat trade war between the U.S.
and China escalated further.
The president on Friday triggered a drop in U.S.
stock markets and ignited deeper concerns about an economic downturn after calling on American companies to stop doing business with China.
Now that's true.
And I do believe there are many fair assessments of the recession.
But there's a combination of Trump derangement syndrome, Like, active participants in politics pretending to be journalists, and yes, actual, you know, consideration for, you know, the trade war and what it might lead to.
But certainly this is all so ridiculously out of proportion for what's really happening.
Even, I can't remember which outlet talked about how even though the stock market was down amid talk of the trade war, it's still way, way, way, way up.
And then you hear people over and over again saying that the stock market doesn't matter for the American people, and it's like, uh, hold on, man.
Do you know how retirement accounts work?
Like, people have stocks.
People have 401ks.
They have things that are tied to the market.
And that is a massive, massive voting block.
So I want to look at a couple other stories.
Before we do that, I have to do the standard promo.
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, the best thing you can do, share this video because boy is it, it's been rough.
It is.
They're deranking independent political commentary and we'll see how long it lasts.
To be honest.
You know, we see the game Google plays.
I routinely rag on Google for their overt politics, their bias, the leaks that have come out.
And I gotta say, they're probably none too happy with me.
So they're propping up major corporate channels.
We'll see if we can pull through and this kind of content will survive.
But I'm leaning towards YouTube is gonna do what it can to stop this as we get into 2020.
They have no choice.
So if you want to help overcome that, share this video.
Otherwise, so be it.
But check out this story from BuzzFeed News.
Here's some actually useful information to help you prepare for a recession.
I think we're seeing something else that's not... I don't want to say like every single journalist or everyone in media is trying to trigger a recession.
I think what may be happening as well is that a few key people are trying to trigger a media sweep.
So basically, you write about a recession, somebody clicks it, then you start talking to people about it, more stories pop up, and you do everything in your power to shift the national conversation towards a recession to scare people.
And I think this may be one of the things we're seeing.
I believe a lot of it is a ripple effect.
Like, you get a few people who are overt activists who want to stop Trump, and they drop recession to the pool and the waves ripple outward.
And then everyone starts picking up the story and running with it.
But I'll just stress, I'll just stress, keep an eye out for stuff like this.
This is the biggest problem with media today.
What can you believe?
Who can you trust?
And I gotta say, man, now the day goes by, I don't know who the hell I can trust.
How is it that we've come to a point where Vice can write two stories within two weeks of each other calling me left-wing and right-wing?
You know what, man?
Whatever suits the agenda.
And that's why I don't trust the media.
And this is probably why many people don't trust the media.
Because of this.
So when Trump says the media doesn't like him, well I have to wonder why there's so much of this.
Check this out.
Six polls and more than 6,000 interviews show Trump's approval rating dropping.
Oh please, dude.
We always have to defer to the real clear politics average.
And while Trump's approval rating has gone down a bit from its peak at the end of July, it's still higher than it's been on average for his entire presidency.
Listen, you're not going to win.
It's like, I guess they have no faith in the Democratic voter base.
And I guess maybe I can't blame them, because look what's happening.
It's a complete civil war on the Democrat side with the left, with the moderate Democrats fighting with the far left Democrats.
And look, I mean, you've got this.
This is from, I believe it's from today.
Okay, it's from five hours ago.
They say, when establishment Democrats attack the hard left, what are they really afraid of?
I'm afraid of people who are so ridiculously out of touch with America, they're handing the election to the Republicans.
And I also think they have dangerous and insane ideas, and they're not Democrats.
You know, I was talking to someone I've known who's been a lifelong Democrat, and they said, these people like Cortez and Sanders are not Democrats.
They do not represent the Democratic Party.
And I agree.
Bernie Sanders has always been an independent and he's running as a Democrat because it's the party he's most likely to win over.
I think the same is true for Donald Trump.
I think Donald Trump could have run as a Democrat, as a moderate Democrat, but he's a billionaire.
Democrats are not going to elect a billionaire.
So he ran on the Republican ticket and then pushed more standard Republican fare to win over the voters.
But if you look at Donald Trump's history, he's always been kind of a moderate Democrat.
He's a New York liberal.
Now he's a businessman too, so he'll be more conservative.
But when you look at the New York Times data, you can see that under Trump, the Republican Party has shifted slightly to the left in the language they push, where the Democrats have gone nuts.
But here's the point.
You see all these stories, six polls and more than 6,000 interviews show Trump's approval is dropping.
Oh, no!
Yes.
And then you head over to the RealClearPolitics average, and it's actually, the last marker, it's up 0.4.
It is up .4 as of the 24th.
So, look, his approval rating goes up and down, and here's what CNN will do.
They'll wait for that one moment where it goes down a little bit and say, Donald Trump's approval rating takes sharp drop, blah, blah, blah.
I've talked about how I see things and why I frame things, and I think it's fair to point out why I think it's incorrect to do what they're doing.
Take a look at his disapproval.
Trump's disapproval is down from, what, 2017, December 30th, 2017, and it's averaged around the same place with some spikes and some drops.
But however, Trump's approval rating is averaging higher than ever.
I'm not super concerned with a disapproval rating that is averaging lower than it was two years ago, but I am interested in the fact that Trump's approval rating is averaging higher than it did two years ago.
Right?
So if I was going to talk about this, I'd say Trump's approval rating is higher, is averaging higher than two years ago.
That's really, really interesting as we go into an election.
And his disapproval is averaging lower than where it was two years ago, which is really, really interesting.
It is not interesting to me when his approval rating goes down a couple points, but the average is still high.
It's not interesting to me that his disapproval has gone up a little bit, but it's still averaging way below where he was when he started.
It's all improvements.
I'm not saying most people in this country like the guy.
It looks like, according to the averages, they don't.
But the point is, what story is there?
Is it every two seconds I'm going to come out and be like, Ha!
Trump's approval rating is down.
Yeah, and then it pops back up and it's averaging slowly up, up, up.
Look where it was.
His approval rating was 37 on December 14, 2017.
Let's go back to the beginning of September.
unidentified
It was 38.3.
tim pool
It is way higher.
His favorability is up.
So what news is that?
So this is why I think you see these stories, and I don't think Trump is wrong.
The media is just people in media.
I don't want to say the entirety of the media.
I'll walk back, you know, and push back on some of what Trump is saying.
But come on, man.
How much evidence do we need to see to know that the media hates the guy?
You know, I did a video a couple days ago talking about Trump World, and we can see that the amount of mentions in the press about Trump, it's like triple or quadruple where Obama was at the same time.
Why?
Well, the Trump bump, they want the ratings.
But I think the people in media, I mean, look, I gotta say this too.
CNN has hired a ton of former feds and CIA people who don't like the president and pushed Russiagate and all that other nonsense.
So yeah, they don't like Trump.
So when Trump comes out and says he believes the media is trying to make his re-election more difficult, yeah, I'm going to go ahead and say I believe him to be—it's my opinion.
It's just, when you look at the evidence, it seems like it doesn't really add up.
Now I don't think there's a conspiracy like people in media, but we do know that New York Times has talked about, we're going to talk about Trump and racism and all that.
It's like, why is that your lead?
Why can't the New York Times tell me about what's going on in Hong Kong?
I mean, they do, they do.
But why is their focus just Trump so much more than it was for Obama?
Why would an outlet like Vice call me left and right wing within two weeks of each other?
Because clearly you can see When it's talking about promoting a Democrat, even someone like Gabbard, you know, who's not favored by the establishment, it's still good news for them because it means moderate voters might vote Tulsi, because I probably will.
So they want to promote that and say, Timple's a lefty, that's right, you can trust him, especially when he talks about Tulsi Gabbard.
But then when I go to the President's White House summit to talk about the problems of social media, then they say, no, no, no, no, no, he's right-wing, he's right-wing.
And then two weeks later, he's a lefty, he's a lefty.
I love it.
It's a ridiculous game with no editorial standards, no fact-checking.
They have no idea what they're talking about.
It is fake news all the way down.
Thanks BuzzFeed.
Thanks for talking about a recession.
Thanks everybody else.
And you know what?
Don't be surprised then when the president says there's no way it's an accident that they do things like this.
I certainly don't think the majority of media is doing it, but I will stress, before signing off, certainly in some instances you can see some weird phenomenon where there's zero editorial standards.
So at the very least, we either have a completely inept media that has collapsed with no editorial standards, or we have people who know what they're doing on purpose, and they're playing a political game.
Stick around, next segment will be coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I'll see you all then.
I am very much so an environmentalist.
I worked for three, maybe four environmental organizations to help protect the environment.
I believe we do need to take action to reduce climate change.
And I believe you have people like the ones supporting Greta Thunberg who are disingenuous or just willfully ignorant of what they're doing and they're not solving any problems.
Nuclear energy, for instance, is a very smart way to reduce emissions.
But what do we get?
The Green New Deal wanted to ban nuclear energy because they're not actually thinking about what they're doing and where they move to.
I mean, like, what comes next?
I see this all the time from many of these left-wing activists, and it's frustrating.
It's like trying to herd cats.
I'm telling someone, listen, yes, we can reduce emissions, but if you do that, you will make it worse.
You are not solving the problem.
You are just preaching empty platitudes and engaging in something that feels good but does nothing.
Okay?
You know what's really frustrating?
So first, I will commend Greta Thunberg.
When I saw that she was going to be taking a sailboat instead of flying, I said, hey, put in your principles where your mouth is.
A lot of these celebrities will fly in private planes and yachts.
And so it makes, you know, so hey, you're willing to sail?
Hey, that's great.
Here's the thing, though.
It's going to produce more carbon emissions per trip than actually just taking a flight.
The thing about a plane is, you know, the problem is volume, not individual action.
A commercial plane is built, and it produces a ton of carbon building it.
But then it can ferry people back and forth with a relatively low carbon footprint.
I saw this photo from Greta, day 11, very bumpy and wet south of Newfoundland.
And I noticed that she's on this boat with a bunch of technology.
First of all, she's got plastics.
She's got, you know, synthetic materials.
The boat itself is carbon fiber and plastic.
She's got plastic buckets.
She's got ropes.
All of these things, even the clothing she's wearing, require a ridiculous amount of transportation.
So here's what people need to realize when we're talking about a carbon footprint.
Whatever this is, okay, I don't know what the tech is necessarily, but I saw this and I said, okay, the components for this tech were probably shipped via country on gigantic, you know, freighters, big boats, producing a ton of carbon.
The plastics, ton of carbon, carbon fiber, everything they did to produce, it's not just about producing the material, it's transporting it to the manufacturing plants.
All of this said to me, it is ridiculous excess.
This is still not a solution.
Listen, Not only that, but apparently they say that it's not going to save any emissions because a crew will have to fly back, fly to New York to sail it back.
A crew.
So she could have just taken a round-trip flight.
Listen, a system is in place.
It's not perfect.
We need to do things to make the system better.
That doesn't mean you go and take a massive, expensive boat trip, which will likely, in my opinion, produce more emissions, considering you're having a crew fly.
It's all just feel-good nonsense.
You can see everything she's got in this boat.
All catering for one person.
She's probably producing substantially more carbon emissions.
This says to me, the whole intent was a PR stunt to people who don't know how to add 1 plus 1.
You give them that feel good.
Conservatives complained they were on private planes, so Greta will sail.
And then you see all these people on the left going like, whoo, clapping and cheering.
And it's like, yeah, but come on, man.
Can we actually talk about the problems?
No, we can't, for two reasons.
One, here's what I tweeted.
I wonder how much carbon was produced in the crafting of all the tack used by Greta for this trip.
I spelled Greta wrong.
Seems like it might actually be more than the cost of a single flight.
As someone who is an environmentalist, and has worked for organizations, and is concerned about the environment, yes, I want to actually get to the root of the problem.
I've said nothing bad about Greta.
I've never tweeted and cheered on any of the people who are ragging on her.
I think it's commendable she wants to sail.
I just think it's silly, and it's fake, and it's a PR stunt, and it's worse for the environment.
And none of these people are willing to take two seconds to think about it.
Look at the first response.
From Greta, Militia 2 is fitted with solar panels and hydrogen arrays, making it one of the very few ships in the world allowing trips like this to be emission-free.
Did you read what I posted?
The crafting of the technology.
The transportation of the materials to various factories, because it's going to be imported and exported.
Someone's going to mine one material, it's going to be sent here, it's going to produce a ridiculous amount of carbon crafting this ship.
You want to talk about sailing and being emission-free?
I would have preferred to see her chop some trees down.
I'm not trying to be... I mean, seriously, this would be a great effort.
Chop down some trees, manual labor, and then, you know, make your own twine and everything, and make your own boat.
The problem is, it's too dangerous.
And if they want to be safe, they need modern technology, which produces a ton of carbon emissions.
So what's the solution?
Well, I would say for now, nuclear energy.
A lot of the energy that we can use for transporting and production of materials could come from wind, solar, but more likely nuclear, because the return on energy investment for nuclear energy is actually really, really high.
It's very valuable.
We do have a lot of older nuclear reactors, which are bad, could be dangerous, and we've got to retrofit, we've got to fix, or implement newer, later designs.
But to just see this stunt, and here's what bothers me.
All of the replies from people are like, I love this one, this comic that makes literally no sense.
They always share this.
Apple AirPods cost $1.59, but they can't pay taxes They can't pay taxes or decent wages to their Chinese factory workers, post.
You said on an iPhone, ha, gotcha.
Cars should have seatbelts.
Yet you bought one, hypocrite.
Owned.
We should improve society somewhat.
Yet you participate in society.
Curious.
I am very intelligent.
They post this because they can't add 1 plus 1.
What I mean by that is they see an issue and they can't think what comes next.
Zero strategy.
It's like playing a game with someone and they put zero points into strategy.
Can you think about what comes next?
Because that's how you solve problems.
If you just go out and say, hey everybody, get on a boat, and then you take all of this ridiculously expensive tech, which produced way more carbon than a single flight would have cost, and the flight's still going to happen anyway.
So, you know what, you want to talk about carbon neutral?
Take the plane.
You know why?
The plane is going to fly back and forth whether you're on it or not.
and will produce carbon emissions.
So instead of buying all of this personal technology to cater to one person,
just take the flight and have a conversation about fixing planes,
not getting rid of them. We can't just snap our fingers.
Now, there is a problem. It's possible.
We are walking towards our doom.
But I think that humans will adapt.
And I think that, well, I'm concerned that we won't.
But I'm hoping we will.
That the market will change.
When things get bad, things will reverse.
But I don't know.
I don't know.
I really, really don't.
I think one of the answers to Fermi's paradox, as to why we haven't, for those that are familiar, means why haven't we discovered any intelligent life, may be that once life becomes intelligent, it separates itself from the system that created it.
Once humans started understanding how to make fire, how to build things, they started causing environmental damage.
It could disrupt a very delicate ecosystem.
It's possible humans could invent things to keep them alive, or it's possible that we've developed so quickly, beyond the ecosystem's ability to adapt, That the ecosystem itself may collapse.
So humans absolutely need to be paying attention to how they impact their environment.
The oceans are acidifying.
Acidifying fisheries are collapsing.
We've got serious problems.
Jellyfish are invading these now dying fisheries.
So people started eating jellyfish?
Maybe things will change in that direction.
I don't know.
But I do think we need to pay attention to the world we live in because people don't realize you are a part of the ecosystem.
You are breathing the air.
So I'm very much concerned about the environment.
What I'm not happy with is the people who can't seem to grasp a basic concept.
Crafting the tack.
Not sailing on an emission-free boat.
They can't think beyond.
They can't see patterns.
It is one of the most frustrating things in the world.
So I tweeted this.
The responses to this tweet are remarkable.
When creating the plastics, electronics, and shipping the parts to have it constructed, tons of CO2 is emitted.
Greta may have been better off just flying, but her fans don't seem to understand this.
Someone responded that CO2 is good because it's reversing desertification.
I'm not going to get into all that.
There's a lot of arguments to be made.
The point is, I'm not slamming Greta.
I think it's commendable that she's willing to sail to prove a point about flying.
But I also want to point out, it may be worse for the environment to have a personalized vessel for one person when you consider the plane was already going there.
You know, and then people are responding like, Tim would make fun of her if she took a plane.
No, I wouldn't.
I never even commented on Leonardo DiCaprio taking planes.
I may have mentioned something about Al Gore and oceanfront property, but that's different.
They're saying sea level's rising.
The thing about these celebrities on private planes is that they have security issues, for the most part.
Now, I personally think a lot of these people are just lazy and entitled and want to take their private plane.
Fine, whatever.
But it is important to point out When you're getting a bunch of really high-profile people, a private plane for several of them may make sense.
Now, I'm not gonna talk about their yachts and giant mansions in that regard.
I will criticize them for that, for sure.
But let's be real here.
If we want to reduce carbon emissions, there is a simple word we can say.
Nuclear.
Okay, getting on a personalized boat that may emit no emissions is fantastic.
But think about the amount of carbon that will be emitted if we gave everyone a boat like this.
Once again, all we see is the snooty, privileged elite giving us empty platitudes and tricking the masses into believing they're doing something noble.
This is the next level of a private plane.
It's a private boat with private tech.
Yes!
It is neutral.
But beyond the private plane that these celebrities take to these meetings, beyond like the carbon emitted from the fuel, think about everything they do.
The plane itself, its construction.
So yes, let's be real here.
Commercial planes are gonna fly no matter what.
You could just take that and the amount of carbon put into the world would stay the same.
People don't think.
And it's so, so frustrating that people are responding to my tweet being like, Tim doesn't understand, haha, he's making fun of somebody using an iPhone when making fun of Apple.
You don't have to buy an iPhone.
This is the funniest thing.
He says, but you participate in society.
This comic is just so, so vapid.
These people can't count to two.
Listen, you want to rag on Apple?
Buy a Samsung.
That's what I did.
And I totally understand that Samsung is still produced in Foxconn Laboratories.
I get it.
I get it.
But Apple is, I don't like them.
They're a bad company.
So I said, you know what?
I will take one step in one direction to back up what I believe is right.
And I switched to Samsung.
Not a perfect solution, but if I'm going to criticize Apple, I'm going to go with a company that has parts from multiple companies instead of Apple, which does everything, software, hardware, etc.
There's a lot of other problems with Apple.
Okay?
Beyond this, you know, making fun of Apple, AirPods, and all that stuff, and jacking up the prices.
There's things out there, software, I'm not going to get into it.
I've never been a fan.
So I have an iPhone, and I said, you know what?
I'm not going to use the iPhone anymore.
I'm going to upgrade and switch to Samsung to make a point.
I still participate in society.
I get it.
I still recognize that in these countries, people are working horrifying conditions to produce these phones.
But I also recognize you can do at least one thing, right?
You can take a step in a direction.
But this is not the point I'm making.
The point I'm making is that Greta is claiming she's in a carbon neutral ship when in reality the cost of that trip is so insanely expensive the average person would never be able to afford this.
So you want to talk about a solution to the problem, this ain't it.
This is not it.
Now hopping over here to this website, Clean Technica, they say, Greta Thunberg's transatlantic sailing trip is seriously carbon neutral, and they highlight the construction of the vessel.
They say, what about the carbon debt of the boat itself?
It's a 60-foot carbon fiber racing beast, after all.
Well, let's start with the reality that they bought the whole second hand.
Okay.
That's on par with my argument about the boat.
They didn't have the boat created.
So much respect in that direction.
That was the right thing to do.
And thus does, on their part, dramatically reduce the emissions.
The boat already existed.
You know, it's like a freegan argument.
Do you know what freegan is?
Freegan are people who don't eat meat unless it was going to be thrown away.
So it's like, it's better to just consume it.
It's not a health issue, it's more of an animal rights thing or environment thing.
So this is kind of a... this is the right approach.
I want to make sure I'm clear, okay?
The point I'm trying to make and why I'm showing you this, that it was a second-hand boat from a company that does try to reduce their carbon footprint, is that if every person was going to travel around the world the way Greta did, it would increase the CO2.
That's the point.
I understand she bought it second-hand.
I commend her for that.
She may still have been better off just flying.
But it's cool.
It's cool.
Hey, look, she deserves credit for doing this where all these other celebrities are flying, for sure.
But in the end, a simple flight for a couple hundred bucks may have been less, you know, emit less carbon emissions or hold a lower carbon debt than having a private boat.
In the end, what I think is the most important thing is that the average person can't do this.
You are rich.
You are funded.
I don't know if she's actually rich herself, but this is a very well-funded trip.
It's very annoying to me because it's always the rich people telling the poor people you are not allowed.
You shouldn't be flying.
You should be on a boat.
You can't afford a boat.
Who can afford a boat?
Boats are a nightmare to take care of.
People can't afford boats.
They gotta fly.
You wanna go visit Europe?
Couple hundred bucks.
I mean it.
You can get a flight to Europe for like four or five hundred bucks round trip.
It's tricky sometimes.
I think on average you'll find seven or eight hundred.
But it can be done.
And thus allows poor people to travel the world.
More importantly, the point, the CO2 emissions would be greater if everybody was riding around on their own little speedboats.
You know what, man?
I wish there could be an honest conversation about strategy with intelligent people who want to actually solve problems.
Instead, what we get are a bunch of people who don't understand anything.
And when I say something like, crafting the tech, what do they do?
Well, her trip is going to be carbon neutral.
Yeah, I assure you, producing all of this is ridiculously carbon dense.
It's all fake environmentalism.
Nobody actually cares.
You know, Obama buys oceanfront property.
Al Gore buys oceanfront property.
If they really cared about this stuff, you wouldn't see him buying condos in Miami Beach, where the water levels are rising.
They don't actually care about any of this.
It's just a big political con.
I do believe climate change is a serious problem.
I just think these people don't really care.
They're playing a game to them.
It's tribalism.
It's winning.
You want to talk about actually solving the problem?
We can start with one simple word, nuclear.
Let's talk about something truly carbon neutral.
Instead, what do they say?
They want to ban it!
The Green New Deal would... You know what?
You can tell I get really heated about this because I do care about the environment.
Absolutely.
I love nature.
I hate deforestation.
I'm gonna take my van and go drive off into the woods and kick back and just chill out by a pond.
And just be in nature, because I love it.
I love the outdoors.
And these people are supposed to be the ones defending it, and once again, it's just PR stunts.
It's PR stunts, no real plans, and then their fans just defend them for tribalism.
How many of you who are commenting on my post have ever actually done anything for an environmental organization?
Because I'm willing to bet the answer is a big zero, and I've worked for three, I say maybe four, because one of them was about helping people be more sustainable, and it wasn't, so it kind of was, right?
But I'll say that.
Three, maybe four.
One was about providing food to areas so that they can learn how to do... It was like food and sustainable education.
So it's sort of environmental.
If we can teach people how to do sustainable farming and better farming, it protects the environment in certain ways.
But three, absolutely.
So, I'll leave it there.
I'll leave it there, and these fake environmentalists who just want to clap and pat themselves on the back and act like they're doing something good, you can do whatever you want, fine.
But sure, you're watching the world burn, and they're laughing the whole way, saying, we're doing good, meanwhile making things worse.
Whatever, I'm over it, stick around.
Next segment will be at 4pm, youtube.com slash timcast, it is a different channel, and can't you tell the environmentalism stuff gets me riled up?
I'll see you there.
It is now an incendiary comment to say that there are only two genders.
Now this debate is complicated, because there are honest people on the left side who will say the idea of gender is a social construct built around Biological sex.
Meaning, it is technically, you know, mutable.
That if it's something that we just developed over time, we can make gender norms whatever we want.
Women don't need to wear dresses, men don't need to wear suits, etc.
But then you start seeing the rise of Tumblr genders, where they literally just make up things that make no sense.
Well, in response to this debate, we see a lot of people on the right saying there are only two genders.
And this is coming from the perspective that gender and biological sex are intertwined completely, and so it is a complicated process.
But no, I wouldn't say it's Incendiary to make the claim, there are only two.
Because most people in this country would agree with that assessment.
Now there are a lot of people who want to claim that...
Like, there's a bunch of really weird stuff.
There are people who claim that biological sex doesn't exist.
I'm not exaggerating.
That's true.
There's a professor who was debating with Jordan Peterson who literally said... Okay, that's where you get nuts, alright?
But here's the thing.
You want to say that it's incendiary to say there's only two genders?
I'm not seeing it, because I understand what someone means by that.
But what about when Joe Biden says there are three genders?
Okay.
Now, this is a story from a couple weeks ago, and it's so incredibly wrong.
Because here's the thing.
Even if you want to approach this from a left-wing perspective, there are either infinity genders, meaning there's, like, none, or there are two, which is the right-wing side.
But who said three?
Joe Biden, who said there were three?
Okay, but here's what's getting really crazy, I gotta admit.
You can't assume the average person understands the argument you're making about gender, like the social constructs around the idea of gender.
You can't assume that.
But MSNBC absolutely does, and treats it as though most Americans believe there are more than two genders.
They don't.
So let's read this story and I got another really interesting post that I want to go through when talking about gender and how it's this this kind of rhetoric is being weaponized by the right to actually like look it's it's I guess you can say it's not really being weaponized but being highlighted so that moderates who are Democrats are gonna be like the left has gone crazy.
Before we get started head over to timcast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a bunch of ways you can contribute.
The best thing you can do is subscribe, like, comment, interact.
Share the video to overcome that, um, deranking.
Also, school is starting, so everybody's taking a big hit right now.
So, you know, it is what it is.
But here's the Washington Free Beacon.
MSNBC calls Republicans' belief in only two genders incendiary.
What world do you live on?
They say.
MSNBC anchor Chris Jansing referred to a Louisiana Republican's belief that there are only two genders as incendiary on Friday.
Jansing and her panel addressed the GOP's relationship with women and the LGBT community in the aftermath of the Log Cabin Republicans, a national LGBT group, endorsing Donald Trump for a second term.
We've got an important question now, Jansing told viewers.
What does it mean to be a mainstream Republican?
It is the question that some Republicans have been asking in the age of Donald Trump.
And increasingly, it seems the answer might be to make incendiary comments about women and members of the LGBT community.
Actually, Trump is the first president in U.S.
history to support gay marriage before getting elected.
Not even Obama.
It's true.
They say in Louisiana, the Republican candidate for governor, Ralph Abraham, is out with a new TV ad this week making incendiary comments about gender.
Oh heavens.
Ralph Abraham, who is seeking the GOP nomination to challenge Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards, released a TV ad where he laid out a series of his conservative positions.
Among them, his medical assertion there are only two genders.
Here's the truth, he said.
Life begins at conception.
Government is too big, our taxes are too high, and our car insurance is too expensive.
President Trump is doing a great job.
Facts matter more than feelings.
The Second Amendment is self-explanatory.
And as a doctor, I can assure you there are only two genders.
I got into an argument with a guy recently about biological sex.
Now listen, I understand the argument about gender in a social construct, but let's be real, biological sex is a thing.
It exists in almost every single life.
They're sexual, asexual, we get it.
So, I was talking to this guy and I said, There are two biological sexes.
And he got mad, started yelling at me, I kid you not.
And he says, no there's not, there's at least three.
And I said, wait, wait, wait, three?
What are you talking about three?
The components of biological life as we know them today, it's a sperm and an egg.
It's the sperm to fertilize the egg.
Look, I'm not a biologist, so I'm not going to get into great detail, but I'm pretty sure, maybe I'm wrong, My understanding is there are two components.
Like, could you imagine if the sperm went to the egg and then you waited for another thing?
I don't know what you'd call it.
Maybe that's true.
I'm not a scientist.
I'll just say this.
Based on my general understanding, there are two.
I don't know why that's controversial.
There's no third gender walking around, you know what I mean?
Like, there are men and there are women.
They both have two different types of genitalia and body and secondary sexual characteristics.
There's no three.
That's really weird and it's getting really confusing that people like Joe Biden and the media is claiming there's more when there's not.
There's not.
But MSNBC says it's controversial.
The notion that gender as opposed to sex exists on a spectrum has gained credence in recent years with progressives and many LGBT activists.
Now this is an idea that exists outside of biological sex, and I get it.
I get it, right?
But you have to understand we're in the territory now where even the left is acting like gender and sex are the same thing.
They've totally walked away from the core of what the argument used to be, and now they're literally saying there are more than three biological sexes, and I'm just like... What?
Some presidential candidates are even listing their preferred pronouns on their Twitter page.
Elizabeth Warren, for instance, identified as a cisgender female with the pronouns she-hers.
Cisgender refers to people identifying their gender with their birth sex.
A transgender person, on the other hand, identifies as the opposite sex from which they were born.
Well, hold on, hold on!
If there's three genders, then what do you mean opposite?
That makes no sense.
You're incorrect.
So I was talking to a more conservative-leaning trans individual and I asked them about this, and I was told that they find it disconcerting there's all these different Tumblr genders because someone who is transgender is literally trying to be the other gender, right?
So somebody who's born female and is transgender male wants to transition to being, you know, a man by taking hormones or getting surgery or something.
If there were infinite genders, then what are they transitioning to?
The other argument that's brought up often is If, you know, what makes someone a man or a woman is a social construct, then why would someone need any treatment at all to be trans?
They could literally, like a guy, could literally put on a dress and claim he's a woman, and wouldn't need any kind of treatment.
All of this, it makes no sense.
I have no idea what's going on anymore.
So, you know, we heard Biden.
I don't even know where he gets that number from, because in New York there's 32 or 31 genders.
I think it might be 32, maybe 31.
I don't know.
One of those.
But anyway, check this out.
This is from a post on reddit called r slash social engineering.
Number, don't pick three.
It's like, uh, three?
Like, are you guessing?
But anyway, check this out.
This is from a post on Reddit called r slash social engineering.
People think social engineering means, like, a government trying to manipulate the public.
It mostly does not.
Social engineering is like an individual manipulating the behaviors of another individual to like gain something or control them.
It's human hacking.
So you can technically refer to major, you know, massive population manipulation as social engineering, but for the most part, it refers to how you convince an individual to do a thing.
There's one really funny video they posted where these two guys say, if you're carrying a ladder, you can get in anywhere.
And so they walk into, like, movie theaters and museums, and people just open the door for, oh, you got a ladder, you must be working, you let them in.
They assume, like, you must be doing something.
So you can carry a ladder.
I always tell people, carry a bag of ice with a rag in your back pocket, and you'll get let in anywhere.
You wanna get into a bar or a club or a venue, you got a bag of ice over your shoulder and a rag in your pocket, you just, excuse me.
And if they try and stop you, you'll be like, what?
I'm working.
Seriously, nobody will stop you.
That's what social engineering usually refers to.
But check this out.
It's from 4chan.
It says, if we spread this image and similar messages around the internet and claim how horrible it is that the majority of straight men will not date trans people, They say, why?
To push normal moderates towards the right.
To get the leftist onions thrall that shall pass for men to start dating trans women for our own amusement.
Watch the media further damage their credibility trying to defend this.
And they say in the image, fight bigotry.
98% of straight men are unwilling to date trans women because of hatred.
This has to change.
It's actually true.
This is not made up.
Look at this from a year ago.
Researchers asked cis people if they would date trans people.
The results on this subject are bleak.
What?
Because they found that like 87-90% of people wouldn't date someone who's trans.
Yeah, I have a preference.
So do other straight men and other gay men and women and gay women.
People have a sexual preference.
How did we get from the point?
Where we were telling people that, you know, you're born that way.
You were born gay.
You know, a man is attracted to a man, a woman is attracted to a woman.
They were born that way.
We must accept them.
To now literally being like, it's bleak that straight men don't want to have a relationship with another biological male.
And they argue, but a trans woman is a woman, therefore... No, no, no, no, no.
Hold on.
Like, do people realize that men and women smell different?
And that some... like, attraction is heavily predicated on smell?
Now, it's true.
They argue that a straight guy might see a trans woman who's very, very attractive in passing And then feel like tricked or trapped when they realize it's actually a biological male.
You're not likely going to find most people, as they did, attracted to the same sex out of nowhere.
It would be like telling a gay man he should date a biological woman, otherwise he's a bigot.
It makes no sense.
So this is where it's like everything breaks down, right?
We're told throughout our whole lives we have to respect the LGBT community because they can't choose who they love.
And I say, okay, I agree with that.
I know people who are LGBT and all that.
But now they're telling straight people they need to date the same sex.
Otherwise, you're a bigot.
So, look, it's funny because this 4chan joke is trying to claim it's an operation, when in reality, you actually have Vice writing this article.
The study on the subject is bleak.
Bleak?
Who cares?
People love who they love.
Isn't everything getting nuts?
I'll tell you what, man.
This is gonna push moderates to the right.
Hands down.
Hands down.
Anyway, I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes.
Stick around, and I will see you all shortly.
Taylor Swift has been getting pretty political.
And I think it's kind of sad.
It's really sad for a lot of reasons.
For one, Taylor Swift has no idea what she's talking about.
Don't listen to these celebrities, man.
I'm not a big fan of celebrity endorsements for the most part.
But, you know, it's a complicated issue.
Most celebrities, there's no reason their opinion should hold weight in news and politics.
They're just famous for pretending to be someone else on a screen or for singing.
Now, some of them might actually be smart, right?
Like the guy from The Offspring has got a PhD in, like, microbiology or something.
And I think the dude from Rage Against the Machine has, like, a political science degree or something.
So, that I understand, you know, when you're super into politics.
But Taylor Swift, what does she know, right?
Taylor Swift will, quote, do everything I can to end Donald Trump's autocracy.
The Lovers, Sing writer, regrets sitting out of the 2016 election.
Well, I'll say a few things.
First, how sad is it that you can't escape the culture war?
You know what, man?
This is why I keep saying that the escalation is inevitable.
That there will be conflict.
When Taylor Swift, someone as famous as her, gets involved in the culture war, there's no escape.
She's going to start radicalizing people.
And people are going to start going crazy.
But I want to stress this point.
Check out this story.
Stop sharing that Instagram hoax, celebrities fuel viral post that claims Instagram is changing
its rules.
Tell the site to use your photos, as Firm insists there's no truth to this post.
You may have seen this fake trash being shared around by celebrities.
Yes, it is fake.
They say, don't forget, tomorrow starts a new Instagram rule where they can use your photos.
Well, they can use your photos already!
Did you read the terms of service?
They use your photos for ads and things like that.
I haven't read through it, so don't quote me.
Fact check that, I may be wrong.
The point is, somebody shares this stupid chain letter, and then all of a sudden these celebrities start sharing it.
Why am I going to listen to anything you have to say about politics when you fall for these boomer memes?
I remember, like, they used to do chain letters in the mail.
Like, you'd get a letter in the mail, and it would say something like, if you don't share this, you'll, like, you'll lose money, you'll go bankrupt, and it's like, write this letter to ten people, otherwise you'll face misfortune.
And then people get all superstitious and do it.
It's like, come on, dude, just throw it in the trash.
Ignore it.
And then when email started, they kept going.
There were chain mail being like, you've received this email because X, Y, and Z, and if you don't send it, you'll face great misfortune.
Now we face the same thing.
None of, like, the world, this phenomenon is the same thing.
These celebrities sharing this fake news garbage, it's no different than any other chain letter, and Taylor Swift garbling out mangled talking points about how she doesn't like the Orange Man is the same trash.
Somebody goes around and says, you better say this or else, and then someone else does, and then finally it gets to Taylor Swift, and everything's just falling apart because people don't know how to separate fact from fiction.
Well, I don't blame them necessarily.
The media is trash.
But let's read the story about Taylor Swift.
Before we dive in, head over to TimCast.com slash Donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a Critical option.
I'm sorry, a crypto option, a physical address, but the best thing you can do is share this video to help overcome the deranking that YouTube is, you know, putting on independent political commentary.
They're propping up CNN and all those other big corporate players, so if you like me, please share.
Let's read.
No longer content.
Oh, they actually say the narrative.
Oh, that's really interesting because I'm trying to put on an event right now.
Well, I'm sponsoring an event, and it's actually left-wing activists who are trying to shut it down.
famous house.
We're a democracy, at least we're supposed to be.
Where you are allowed to disagree, dissent, and debate.
Oh, that's really interesting because I'm trying to put on an event right now.
Well, I'm sponsoring an event, and it's actually left-wing activists who are trying to shut
it down.
I thought, didn't Taylor say we're a democracy and we're allowed to disagree, dissent, and
debate?
Apparently not.
Now look, Taylor Swift is absolutely allowed to speak her mind.
intent to get more political in 2020. I really think that he thinks this is an autocracy. No,
I think you're a dumb young person who's sharing another stupid trash meme and you have no idea
what's going on. Now look, Taylor Swift is absolutely allowed to speak her mind. I'm not
saying she shouldn't, I'm just saying don't listen to them.
Don't listen to celebrities and actually to a great degree, don't even listen to me.
Fact check what I'm saying, and do the research for yourself, and make sure you're getting a healthy news diet, because everybody's slinging garbage all over the walls, and it's hard to know what the hell's even happening anymore.
They say, of course, of course, Swift's opposition to the Trump White House is no secret.
She's spoken out on a range of LGBTQ plus issues over the last few years, and openly admitted some regret with not publicly endorsing Hillary Clinton.
She confirms, I was just trying to protect my mental health, not read the news very much, go cast my vote, tell people to vote, she acknowledged.
A cancer relapse for her mother was reportedly weighing on her, among a range of other issues.
I just knew what I could handle, and I knew what I couldn't.
I was literally about to break.
Well, somebody gave you bad advice, Taylor, because I'll tell you what.
You have a lot of fans who are Trump supporters and conservatives, and now you're going to make them angry.
Get woke, go broke.
There was no reason to get political.
None!
I don't understand why these companies do this.
You have every reason to stay out of it.
Now, for me, I cover politics.
I talk about news, so of course I will be here, but why is Taylor Swift?
Look, ultimately the bad news is that Taylor is a high-profile individual, and this is going to radicalize a bunch of her fans, and now we're not going to be able to— Like, you know what?
I've talked about how this infects everything.
People say, like, you're woke or you're red-pilled.
And people will comment on my videos and be like, Tim's so close to getting red-pilled, duh, look what he's talking about.
No, no, no, no, listen.
When the culture war started, it was mostly about gaming issues and social justice.
But the social justice woke regressive stuff has been spreading to other industries.
And this is the best example of that.
It is at the top of music now.
Taylor Swift, one of the most famous celebrities in music, is now espousing culture war trash.
Which means there is no escape.
It's from the top down.
It has infected every layer of our culture, and it won't go away.
Trump is not the cause of this.
Trump is a symptom.
A lot of people voted for him because they were tired of the spread of political correctness, and it's only getting worse, which is why I believe Trump's gonna win.
Let's read a little bit more.
Swift believed her public image would have made her something of a hindrance, but she's gotten past that.
In the interview, she draws particular attention to a Republican-led effort to ban abortion in Tennessee by way of a bill that redefines fetal viability, which Swift vowed to fight.
Obviously, I'm pro-choice, she said.
She claimed her intent to do everything I can for 2020, adding, I just can't believe this is happening.
It happens all the time.
It's politics.
Back in June, Swift also published an open Instagram letter to Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander calling for U.S.
Senate passage of the Equality Act, which would protect LGBTQ people from discrimination in places of work, homes, schools, and other public accommodations.
And it will, and I agree with that, but people aren't paying attention to what it's also going to do.
It will also allow biological males to compete against biological females.
In which case, I gotta say, it's really weird.
Feminism was built upon biological females being held back because of stereotypes and discrimination, and in many ways, this has to do with the fact that men tend to be taller, stronger, and more aggressive, making it more difficult for biological females.
Now, all of a sudden, we have this law that's going to be passed that's going to reassert biological males' rights over biological females in certain circumstances.
I'm not arguing necessarily against it.
You know, maybe it should be, you know, revised to make sure there's a protection there.
But we absolutely will see more biological males being allowed to compete against biological females.
And you'll see a lot of people in the trans rights community argue that it's not true and it's fake.
No, no, no, no, no.
There are even scientists who are transgender saying that there is a massive advantage Biological males will have.
I don't even understand how it's up for a debate at this point.
The one thing everyone always says is, go into a room of people and tell everyone to line up from tallest to shortest and guess what you'll find.
Typically you'll find most men on one side and it goes down to most women because men tend to be taller.
But the Equality Act, something that clearly Taylor Swift doesn't know anything about, and she's just spewing empty platitudes, it's what I see so much on the left and it's annoying.
You know why?
Because I'm trying to advocate for a lot of these things, right?
I believe there are good social justice policies.
But when the people behind it, behind environmentalism, don't have any idea what they're talking about, well, what are we supposed to do?
How are we supposed to actually make progress when we have a vapid, unfunny, shallow, and ignorant activist group pushing the cause?
They say, the letter also contained her first major rebuke of Donald Trump, adding, I personally reject the president's stance that this administration supports equal treatment of all.
Wait, what?
You're saying Trump shouldn't do that, or you're saying you disagree that that's actually the case?
This time around, Swift seems more open to calling out the administration and its leader.
She accused Trump of gaslighting the American public image into being like, if you hate the president, you hate America.
Wow, she just lives in a weird, wacky, WALL-E world of sorts.
But listen, can I just stress this?
This has been going around from- I don't even know- I don't know who Taraji Fenton is, or, you know, I know who Pink is.
But I've seen people sharing this, even some- there was some, like, uh, politician who shared it.
It's just a boomer meme.
But these people fall for this stuff.
So I gotta stress, man.
Do you think Pink knows anything about politics?
No.
I really doubt it.
She probably knows some stuff.
Look at this.
There's Perez Hilton popping up saying this has been proven to be fake.
What makes you think publishing an image is a legal contract anyway?
Think about this.
Not only are they sharing a fake meme, which shows they don't do any research, they actually believe this is a binding contract which would protect you in terms of service in a lawsuit?
unidentified
Wow.
tim pool
And then they're gonna come and lecture us on politics?
This goes for everybody.
I don't care if you're on the left or the right, okay?
The point is, stop listening to celebrities.
I've got another story coming up in a few minutes about Brian Stelter, and I'll get into that too.
I can't tell you who to listen to, because I think everyone's gone off the deep end.
But I will at least say this.
The people who are pushing boomer memes and fake news are the last people you need to be getting your political advice from.
Oh, here we go.
What is this?
Governor Perry even shared it?
They say even U.S.
Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, who oversees the country's energy supply and nuclear safety, fell for it.
What?
You know, I'm losing faith in humanity.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I will see you there.
In what may be one of the most insane things I've ever seen or heard on cable television, Brian Stelter had a man on his show who claimed that Trump may be responsible for many more million deaths than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
Wow.
And Stelter said nothing and just let him go on and say these things.
This comes not long after a woman on MSNBC claimed Trump was talking about exterminating Latinos.
These people have lost the plot.
They are so far beyond where Alex Jones even went to.
Now, look, I know Alex Jones talks about weird cell towers and animal-human hybrids and all that other stuff.
Like, yeah, okay, I get it.
But I'm talking politically.
So let me clarify that past statement.
Alex Jones has said some pretty wacky stuff, for sure.
In terms of his political rhetoric about Trump and globalists, I'm gonna have to lean towards this is at least on par with the absurdity and the conspiracy nonsense they claim Alex Jones is guilty of.
So Julio Rojas highlights this.
He does show Stelter's response.
I'll get to that.
But I want to go through the news of what's happening first.
So, Will Chamberlain's response was, 15 years ago, Brian Stelter would have been fired on the spot for this stunt.
Would he have?
Well, here's the thing.
From Yahoo News, they say, CNN's Brian Stelter, we can't tiptoe around Trump's mental instability anymore.
Brian, that was a terrible segment.
I understand you addressed it.
But seriously, dude?
The CNN and MSNBC are so far off, like, they've lost the plot completely.
I don't even know where they've gone at this point.
Is that a joke?
What has Trump done?
No, for real, like, you can call it bad, fine, but he's on track to, like, do the same things Obama did.
These people have lost it.
Why are you entertaining these guests at all?
How are you gonna say that you can't tiptoe around Trump's mental instability anymore, and then have this guy on the air who completely Look, Trump hasn't done anything like this.
Man, the media is real trash, I gotta say, and we all know it.
There's a story going around where it says, like, six-month-old girl in critical condition after being apprehended by CBP, and it's like, yeah, but she's in critical condition because of the trip, not because of CBP.
And then we have an irresponsible media that doesn't care.
They just don't care at all.
Look, Earlier today, my segment was about this woman who worked for a woke media company saying, We're doing this for clicks.
We're doing it for money.
We're not doing it for editorial purity.
They said it wasn't a story of idealistic journalists.
No!
They're injecting these weird political stories because it makes money!
It's business!
But it's insane and irresponsible to have an MSNBC woman claim Trump is talking about exterminating Latinos and then bring a guy on TV who claims Trump may be responsible for more deaths than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
Are you nuts?
The combined totals are like 200 million people!
What is- You know what?
CNN.
They've jumped the shark to such a ridiculous degree.
Well, let's read a little bit about this and then I do want to show Seltzer's response.
They write, the former chairman of the psychiatry department at Duke University claimed on CNN that Trump is as bad as the worst dictators of the 20th century and that his presidency might lead to even more deaths than they did.
Look, man, I'm not going to act like it's not in the realm of possibility in the sense that it's like based in the physical world.
But what are we talking about?
Like a 0.00000000001% chance Trump ever becomes anything like those people?
It's ridiculous.
The worst things about Trump is that he's a bloviating, boorish blowhard.
That's really it.
He's got a bad attitude.
And he's sometimes wishy-washy.
Whatever.
You know, you can vote.
2020's around the corner.
You're allowed to vote.
Will he win?
Well, that's your own fault for propping up this insanity.
You know, people talk about Trump's approval rating being really low.
Yeah, well, where are the Democrats at, man?
Because I don't think their approval rating is higher than Trump's.
And that's the thing.
They'll point to Trump's approval rating and be like, ah, look how low it is.
He can't win.
If the Democrats' approval rating is lower than Trump's, yeah, he can.
Let's read more.
While debating the merits of having psychiatrists come out with possible mental health diagnosis on Trump, Dr. Alan Francis said it was an insult to the mentally ill to compare them to him.
Yeah.
I'm not going to read his quotes, but he said it's wrong to do it because it will stigmatize the mentally ill and it ignores the fact that everyone in this country is just as crazy for voting for him.
Now that I can get behind.
You know, everyone in this country, it's not that they're crazy, it's that we're reaching this fervent point where people absolutely are saying they're going to vote for Trump as an FU to the system.
Michael Moore said it, and he was spot on when he said, people are going to rise up and vote for Trump in 2016 as the biggest FU to the establishment.
He was right.
Now, I think Michael Moore knows his base is split, which is really interesting.
Michael Moore's base was like white working class people.
Well, the unions don't like the Green New Deal for the most part, and the unions don't like the abolishing private health care.
So now you're losing your base.
So Michael Moore's now pandering to the far left.
I don't even know what's going on with that guy.
But anyway, many people know they're not voting for normalcy, they're voting for something else.
You can call it crazy in sort of like a hyperbolic sense, like not literal, like figurative, you know, like everyone's just gone so nuts that they're like, we're pulling all the stops.
I just don't see, you know, first of all, this is incorrect.
It's ridiculous how they'll go up on TV and say, oh, Trump's nuts, and they ignore Hillary Clinton being sick, right?
They'll say, Donald Trump is mentally ill.
We can't ignore his mental instability.
And when people make comments about Joe Biden, it's like, oh, come on.
Oh, he just slurred.
It was a slip of the tongue.
No, Joe Biden's out there, man.
And when people were noticing that Hillary Clinton kept coughing and falling, they said, she's not sick.
What do you mean?
And then finally admitted it.
You can see how the media plays a double standard.
Well, let's jump over to how Brian Seltzer responded.
So Julio Rosa says, Stelter responds to people asking why he did not interrupt Francis after the line.
And I gotta say, it's, um, oof.
So the Reagan battalion says, how didn't you fact check him right then and there, Brian Stelter?
Trump may have killed more people than Hitler and Mao.
20 to 45 million people were killed in the Mao regime.
Hitler was responsible for the deaths of more than 20 million people.
This segment is shameful.
Stelter responded, I agree that I should have interrupted after that line.
I wish I had heard him say it, but I was distracted by tech difficulties.
That's why the show opened didn't look the way it normally does.
I had two computers at the table, etc.
Not hearing the comment is my fault.
I gotta say, it's a coin toss for me on this one.
I don't think Brian is a bad guy, but I think his segments are becoming increasingly unhinged, as we've seen here.
He had on April, uh, April Ryan, I think her name is?
She's the woman whose bodyguard assaulted that journalist.
Okay, let's talk about the narrative we hear from cable TV, the anti-Trump orange man bad stuff, that Trump rallies are becoming increasingly dangerous for journalists.
Um, have we seen, like what have we seen, like Jim Acosta getting flipped off?
Some people yelling at journalists?
Yeah, you shouldn't do that.
What have we seen from CNN?
Uh, the bodyguard of a CNN contributor actually physically grabbed a guy, like stole his stuff, and then he had to go get it back, I think the guy was charged with theft, and then physically removes him from a building.
You want to talk about who's creating a danger to the press?
There's more evidence CNN is doing that.
Look, man, I think Brian Stelter is willing to engage in an honest conversation, and I'm glad he addressed this.
But I think it's time to take a deep look within.
And when you're doing segments tiptoeing around Trump's instability, I gotta say, When you don't do that for Hillary, or when you dismiss it, it's painfully obvious what you're doing.
CNN is so desperate for ratings.
It's just, it's plain as day.
There was a story I covered not too long ago, a couple days ago, about how Fox News Online is gaining on CNN.
About how Fox News dominates cable ratings.
So CNN has begun sharing stories they think Fox viewers like, and putting a Fox emoji next to it.
Because they know.
When you start doing that, I'll say this.
Good on CNN for recognizing that they've gone off the deep end.
But then when you see, like, you've got to pull yourselves back from the edge, man.
Because that's where you are.
I love how people say that, like, I've changed and that my content is, like, pandering.
It's like, well, hold on.
Talking about I changed.
I show all the graphs, all the charts on the left going off the deep end.
And there are quotes from me in 2012 saying the exact same thing I say today.
I've always been critical of the media.
I've always been critical of the black bloc far left, you know, extremists.
And I still am today.
My opinion hasn't changed.
The only thing is, those crazy people are now working for CNN.
They're working for the New York Times.
They're being praised and promoted by CNN staff.
CNN is standing on the edge.
After I got attacked during Occupy Wall Street, MSNBC invited me on the air to talk about it and condemn the violence.
Today, you have people at CNN acting like anti-f- you know, what was it, Chris Cuomo posted an image where it said, you know, anti-fascist storming the beach, and it was World War II soldiers.
Freedom Tunes has a great cartoon that shows- makes the point.
If you took soldiers from World War II and brought them to today, they would be freaked out.
In fact, the left would call them Nazis.
So here's the point I'm trying to make about what Brian Seltzer is saying, about the people he's having on the air.
I don't, I lean towards not believing his statement about tech difficulties.
It seems strange.
Because CNN increasingly is embracing this insane rhetoric.
Insane.
And MSNBC did basically the same thing.
They're standing up on TV screeching as hard as they can that the Orange Man is worse than Hitler.
I kid you not.
They say he may be responsible for more deaths than Hitler.
CNN literally ran that segment.
They've lost it.
They've absolutely lost the plot.
So I can only say this, when I see all of this rhetoric, I can't imagine Trump losing.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe I'm wrong.
But if the ratings desperation is there and it's that bad, the media is in serious trouble.
They're scraping the bottom of the barrel so hard they're pulling up wood chips.
That's how insane things have gotten.
And you know what this is going to lead to?
Escalation.
Because people believe this stuff.
Stelter didn't address it on the air.
He didn't call this out.
He admits he should have, but too bad!
You didn't do it.
You let this rhetoric go.
The same thing for the MSNBC woman.
She apologizes later, but so what?
It already went out.
And people are gonna believe the insanity.
And then we see... What do you think we're gonna see?
We're gonna see violence because of this.
So, you know what?
I do keep these segments short.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be tomorrow at 10 a.m.
Podcast every day at 6.30 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out.
Export Selection