Dave Chappelle Gets ZERO Percent On Rotten Tomatoes, Leftist Media Has Become Cultish And Humorless
Dave Chappelle Gets ZERO Percent On Rotten Tomatoes, Media Has Become Cultish And Humorless. His Netflix special was definitely pushing the line as far and as hard as it could. Many jokes seem to have been meant to target woke outrage from the far left.It seemed like a provocation, Dave Chappelle intentionally decided to cross the line with edgy humor, and we all predicted what would happen.Critics so far for Rotten Tomatoes have given his anti-woke special a whopping zero percent. Admittedly its only 5 reviews so far, but other reviews show the desperate attempts to reject his comedy and maintain their social justice narrative.Critics for the far left say hes old, tired, or lazy. They say the special is boring and predictable. But these criticisms don't pass muster. George Carlin for instance did a comedy special well into the end of his days so claims of Chappelle being too old are obviously absurd.The real issue is that conservatives know how to take a joke, for the most part. Even though Dave jokes on white people and American history, conservatives are seemingly fine with it if not ecstatic. Jokes bring us together, humor helps us seem past our differences and meet each other on a level playing field. But for the woke authoritarians of the far left humor breaks their hold on our culture. Jokes are forbidden, humorless cultish behavior must be pushed. In the end though, liberty wins. Hopefully Dave Chappelle's work will show the authoritarian leftists that most Americans would prefer to laugh and have a good time then live under their boot.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Dave Chappelle has a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes so far for his latest special.
Now I will admit, there's only 5 reviews in so far through Rotten Tomatoes, they have not yet released the audience score, but a 0% The reason that's so crazy is because there are other movies that are very controversial that don't even get a 0%.
It is one of the most insanely offensive things I have ever seen.
But of course, because of that, the left has been going after Dave Chappelle to try and, I guess, take him down.
Initially, the stories we saw were calling him out for being offensive and bigoted.
But they didn't work.
See, these media companies realized that the point of his special, it's literally called Sticks and Stones, a reference to words never hurting you.
In fact, one of the first things he does is points out that cancel culture is nuts and the audience is crazy and going after celebrities for anything they've ever done.
He effectively disarmed the woke cancel culture outrage nonsense before they could even get a word in edgewise.
And so some tried.
I mean, we saw the story from Vice saying, you should definitely skip the Dave Chappelle special.
But then they evolved their strategy.
And now we're seeing a few other techniques that they're trying to use against Dave Chappelle to knock him down.
But I feel like Dave did this on purpose.
I really did.
If you watch that special, it seems like he decided to go to war.
They're saying his writing was lazy.
It wasn't fully formed.
They're saying it's bored and tired and sad.
One even says, oof, it's so hard to be a comedian in your 40s.
Others call him scared and say he has a fragile ego.
So they're pulling out all the tactics to go after Dave.
Here's the problem.
He's funny, he's a legend, and people love his work.
Well, it's weird today that conservatives are praising him, but it kind of makes sense because he's defending comedy.
Let's do this.
Let's dig in, and I will continue to make these points and show you what's going on, and I want to talk about a ton of other comedians and tear down the arguments from the weird woke cultists who don't know how to laugh.
Before we get started, make sure you head over to TimCast.com.
Okay, it crashed.
TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
For whatever reason, the website barely works right now, but there's a monthly donation option via PayPal, a cryptocurrency option, a physical address.
But the best thing you can do is just share this video.
Look, the point of this video is that there is a weird, humorless, cultish group of writers that are outraged and driving an agenda.
I don't think it's necessarily on purpose.
It's a cultural shift, but it's a bad one.
Unfortunately for me, YouTube props up the corporate channels that support the fringe ideology when most people think Dave Chappelle is funny.
So if you like this video, please consider sharing it to help overcome that burden and push back on the outrage culture.
So let's do this.
Dave Chappelle's 0% because he has 5 reviews.
Naturally, you have Slate and Paste, The Ringer, Entertainment Voice.
But interestingly, even the National Review was a bit critical.
Which I find kind of strange because most people, as far as I know, really liked it.
And I do have some evidence.
So, Slate writes, like dropping in on a rascally uncle who doesn't know or doesn't care how much he's disappointing you.
Ah, a reference to bigotry.
Inflammatory coverage.
Okay, I'm not going to read through all the little stupid little splatter marks.
I'm going to show you some of the stories that have come out and how they're trying to go after Dave Chappelle.
Admittedly, It's going to be difficult for them.
Dave pushed that line really, really far back.
He's got a Netflix special literally titled Sticks and Stones, a reference to cancel culture, in which he opens the piece and then goes very hard on everybody being offensive as possible.
When the special first dropped, I made this video.
Dave Chappelle just dropped a nuke on the woke left.
Why, that's a lot of people who are really interested in seeing somebody finally push back on the insane humorless cultists that are trying to ruin society for everybody.
Listen, whether you're a conservative, whether you're a progressive or a liberal, the true sense of the word liberal, of liberty, that's what we are in this country.
That means we recognize comedians are offensive.
Look, we've got a bunch of offensive comedians, okay?
Ricky Gervais has been fairly offensive and he's pushing back.
Dave Chappelle, Need not say anything, this is one of the most offensive things I've ever seen.
And Joe Rogan, too.
They make jokes, and jokes are about things and ideas and can be offensive, but it seems like one of the strategies they seem to have is that all of these jokes must be literal.
Like when Dave Chappelle says that he did a thing with a trans woman, they say, I thought he was married.
Dude, it's a joke!
He didn't literally do it.
Why can't these people separate fact from humor?
I don't really know.
But I do want to highlight something, okay?
We're going to get through all these media stories, but Rotten Tomatoes is notorious for this, okay?
But let's take a look at, say, I don't know, Star Wars The Last Jedi, which the critics gave a 91%.
That just means 91% of the reviews are favorable, but the audience gave it a 44.
Now they'll tell you something, it's really weird.
They'll say, don't listen to the audience score, don't listen to the people, listen
to the elites in media.
They know better.
See, the people are bigots, and we know better than they do.
So don't you dare watch Dave Chappelle, or don't you dare watch Death Wish.
Why?
Well, one guy calls it a gun-nut self-gratify- I'm gonna- I have to paraphrase for the kids, um, are using you, I know.
Self-gratification film.
Death Wish came out a while ago, but it's got a 72% audience score, and I think that's spot on.
It was a mildly entertaining popcorn flick about a guy who gets revenge after his wife is murdered, and 18% of reviews were positive.
That's because the media have become arbiters of morality, which I now want to poke fun at vice.
Look, this is the story that initially came out following the release of the special.
You can definitely skip Dave Chappelle's new Netflix special, Sticks and Stones.
The comedian doubles down on misogyny and transphobia in both the special and the hidden bonus scene that follows.
I highlight this story, I know I already did in the past video, but to show you something interesting.
Did you ever notice that this company is called Vice?
Have you ever decided to Google what Vice means?
Well, I made a tweet about it, to help you out.
Vice made a wrong turn somewhere.
How weird that a brand that literally means wicked and immoral behavior turned into the arbiter of morality.
I kid you not.
Vice.
Here's the definition.
Not only does it mean immoral or wicked behavior, it means criminal activities... I'm not gonna read those words because YouTube's gonna get mad at me.
So I'll just back away slowly, and I've already... I probably already got demonetized now.
But take a look at what Vice is now doing.
Look, people have said, who cares about what one obscure writer thinks?
Look, the point is, Vice used to be edgy and offensive, like Dave Chappelle.
Vice used to agree with him.
Well, look.
This didn't work.
Nobody cares that you're offended.
It's literally the point of the special.
So they had to change tactics.
And that's what we can see now.
The fear in Dave Chappelle's new special from The Atlantic.
The comics Netflix show continues a chapter of work that whiffs less of irreverence than of irritation and unease.
Yes.
Dave Chappelle is scared.
He's scared of a changing world.
He's an old man.
Look.
George Carlin was making really offensive jokes till the day he died, and in my opinion, he is a legend and a hero and a great inspiration.
He showed us what it means to be truly free, to call out the bad, and even be bad yourself to make a point.
That there's a difference between saying a word and saying it intentionally within the context of attacking someone.
And Dave Chappelle is doing this.
But for some reason, I don't know why, we are seeing the emergence of this cultist, humorless culture.
They don't understand the difference between literal and figurative.
But this is a really important point.
Hear me out.
During Donald Trump's debate with Hillary Clinton, He said Hillary acid-washed her server.
And those of us who understand metaphors knew what he meant—that she deleted the data.
They said it was false because Hillary Clinton didn't use a corrosive substance on her server.
They took it literally?
This is a big component of the culture war, okay?
They were saying throughout 2016 that the left takes Trump literally, but not seriously, and the right takes him seriously, but not literally.
Well, of course, you have to understand when someone's being figurative or literal.
And for some reason now, the left in this country takes everything literally.
I certainly believe there are bad faith actors that are pretending to take things literally, But in one of these stories, I got to be careful because I'm going to get hard demonetized because these are offensive things he says.
Somebody... Okay, in the special, Dave Chappelle makes a joke about hooking up with a trans woman.
And people then say, but I thought he was married.
I don't understand.
Was he cheating on his wife?
No.
No, it's really simple.
It's a joke!
It's incredible.
Truly incredible.
I want to stress one more point.
We'll move into the next stories.
But After I did my video, which got 788,000 views as of right now, I got hit up by some other big comedians saying, you're spot on, man.
And so I want to return this to the comedians.
I want to respond in kind with a compliment.
Because I'm really grateful to people like Dave Chappelle, Ricky Gervais, Joe Rogan, and in the past, George Carlin.
for helping us be freer, for fighting for freedom, and pushing back on these moral ideologue
authoritarians. So long as they keep us laughing, they keep us together.
The other day, I was in a car with two infamous individuals.
It was Count Dankula and Sargon of Akkad.
Yes, controversial figures.
And Dank made a point about, he was talking about Scottish Gaelic, to which I asked if it was normal for people to speak that, and Sargon said no and Dankula said yes, and then they started playfully ribbing each other about the history of Scotland and England.
about how the Anglos, you know, essentially took away Gaelic, and they were laughing and poking fun.
And I was really impressed, because I was like, man, hundreds of years ago, that would have been serious, you know, real violence.
But today, you're good friends.
Scotland, England, how is that, you know, it's the humor that become, it diminishes the power of that anger.
And they laugh with each other about silliness.
That's the power of humor.
So when I go, you know, I went to Joe Roden's show last, end of last year, and he took jabs at Trump supporters and Hillary supporters.
It was amazing to hear everyone laughing.
Because when everyone is laughing, they feel like they're together, that we're in this together.
It brings people together.
You know, people are getting, are getting cutthroat angry and violent.
But when you sit in a room and everyone laughs with each other, you feel like you're part of the same tribe.
That's the importance of it.
And I think that's why they're so threatened by it.
So in this piece from The Root, they say, Sure!
Isn't it amazing that Dave Chappelle, who, in his special, is very critical of the white community's response to, say, like, the crack epidemic?
Or in his 2016 monologue on Saturday Night Live, where he said he would give Donald Trump a chance, he poked fun at white people?
That is really incredible to me.
Because he's doing comedy right.
Yeah, he's making fun of white people, but he's doing it in a way where he's like, I'm still here with you.
He made a point about racial justice.
He does that often.
But he does it right.
He makes you smile and laugh, and he invites you in.
He's not an authoritarian trying to bash you over the head, saying, you can't laugh, you can't have a good time.
He's doing the opposite.
He's saying, laugh with me about this.
And that, to me, is incredible.
And that's a threat to them, because their ideology is based off of authority.
Here's one.
Now one of the things they're trying to see is, just don't watch it.
Not because there's anything wrong with it, it's because other things are better.
Instead of Dave Chappelle's new comedy special, watch They Ready.
Well, watch them both!
What's the problem?
Watch them both.
Here's one.
This one I love, I love.
I love this one because I have a perfect rebuttal.
I get it, Dave Chappelle.
It's hard to be a comedian in your mid-40s.
And of course, you know, they go into this attack against Dave Chappelle that it's not that it was offensive, it was just the jokes were half-written and Dave's just lost his game.
No, Dave Chappelle is a funny, funny man.
I just re-watched his monologue from 2016 on Saturday Night Live after Trump won.
And he was critical.
And he made a lot of white jokes.
And in the end, though, he said, listen, I want, you know, he says he wishes Donald Trump the best of luck and he wants to give him a chance.
And he says that he and other marginalized communities demand he gives them a chance as well.
That's the point.
It's what he just did was an olive branch.
Hey, I'll give you a chance.
You give me one, too.
That's what it's supposed to be about.
That's why I think this man's truly insightful.
Listen, It takes a level of intellect and talent to become successful and wealthy, no matter what many of these socialists might want to tell you.
Hard work, there's a little bit of luck involved, let's be real.
Opportunity arises, you gotta know when to seize it.
But you gotta be smart.
What do they say?
That luck favors the prepared mind?
Chance favors the prepared?
Dave Chappelle is a very smart guy.
That's why he's able to tell these jokes the way he does.
But let me make a point about them saying it's hard to be a comedian in your 40s.
Check this out.
Jammin' in New York, George Carlin's 14th album and 8th HBO special, recorded on April 24 and 25, 1992.
I could be wrong about this, but it was my understanding, based on, you know, I did a little background on this.
George Carlin made extremely offensive jokes where he used racial slurs and referred to some comedians with a racial slur.
Everybody laughed.
George Carlton at the time, I believe, was 54 years old.
And this was, for me, a formative moment.
Watching George Carlton, the anti-war, hippy-dippy weatherman, fighting against censorship and being extremely offensive.
More offensive than Sargon or Dankula could ever be.
And everyone cheered for it.
Why?
Because that's when, maybe, we saw the peak of liberty.
That, yeah, there were a lot of offensive people out there.
Now, some would argue, his jokes are of a bygone era and we shouldn't do them anymore.
And actually, that's a fair argument.
There are a lot of bits of comedy we don't do anymore because we realized it was divisive.
It was actually bad for us as a society.
But I don't think that about George Carlin.
I think George Carlin wasn't doing that.
And, you know, we can talk about historical, you know, offensive and racist comedy.
There's a video from Looney Tunes where they say we're not going to censor this because to remove these cartoons would be to deny their existence.
And you should be able to look at that context.
But George Carlin was making a point about context when he used these slurs.
Context.
And we can see the danger of losing context today.
When someone like Dankula makes a joke clearly deriding bigots, and they claim he was supporting them.
That's insane.
The context was clear.
But they say context is irrelevant.
It doesn't matter.
That's what George Carlin was literally warning us about.
I mean literally.
He says, the context is important.
It's the person behind the words you need to be concerned about.
Dave Chappelle said something interesting in a similar vein in his special.
He said, I don't know why y'all are so concerned about the guy in the White House.
He's just playing poor white people's greatest hits.
Why aren't you concerned about all of the millions of people who voted for him?
And that's another similar point.
It's not Trump.
It's not the words.
It's the community and the people.
And I think what's disconcerting to me is when the people are divided.
And I think comedy is supposed to bring us together, but man, are these people trying their hardest.
So here's my rebuttal.
You want to make fun of Dave Chappelle and say it's hard to be a comedian in your 40s?
Sure.
George Carlin was 54, my understanding, when he did the Paramount Theater 14th album special, and boy, is it a classic.
It is a classic with millions and millions of views.
So I'll tell you what.
When people are this excited for Dave Chappelle, you can put out whatever hit piece you want.
You can give them a zero percent on Rotten Tomatoes.
It's not going to change the fact that you are on the wrong side of history.
I know they love saying it.
They love saying, you know, the conservatives are on the wrong side of history and all that stuff.
I'm sorry, man.
When you're up against Dave Chappelle, Ricky Gervais, and Joe Rogan, I'm gonna have to argue it's you who are the fringe weirdos not speaking to the American people anymore, or to the world for that matter.
But let's move on and look at some of those stories I've got, because I want to get through everything.
We have this story, What Bothers Me Most About Dave Chappelle's Sticks and Stones.
And of course, they just say it's being described as lazy.
I know, I'm just kind of rehashing a point that was already made, so let's just move on.
But I want to show you there's more stories than this.
This one's great.
Dave Chappelle's new Netflix special reminds us that the most successful comedians are also the most sensitive.
And they go on to make a point about how he has a fragile ego and he's so offended.
And I'm not sure if it's this story, but when people ask, I think it's actually this story.
They say, what will you do if Trump gets re-elected?
He says, probably get a big tax cut.
It's a joke.
It's supposed to be funny.
He's making a point.
It's just a joke.
It's not what he seriously thinks.
He actually gets into what he seriously thinks.
And I brought that up earlier.
You gotta be worried about the people who are voting for him.
And I don't mean worried as in, like, fearful.
I mean concerned about why this is happening to our country.
But they then go on to say he's so wealthy he's not truly concerned.
He doesn't really care.
He won't face the brunt of Donald Trump or something like that.
No.
I think Dave Chappelle really does get it.
But here's another great thing.
They do link to Ricky Gervais.
Ricky Gervais explores how thin-skinned one comedian can be in his embarrassing news special.
Who do these people actually laugh at?
No, seriously, who do they laugh at?
You're not going to laugh at Ricky Gervais, Dave Chappelle, or even Joe Rogan.
Then who are you laughing at?
Look, I understand Joe Rogan does a talk show, which can bring on controversial political figures, but a lot of the stuff he talks about isn't political.
And the meme is that he asks people out DMT, because it's an exploratory experience.
But Joe is a funny guy, and people love going to see him.
The point is, between Gervais, Chappelle, and Rogan, if you're not laughing at them, then who are you laughing at?
What are these people, are they laughing at all?
I gotta admit, I don't think they are.
And I think it's one of the things that helped Donald Trump win.
As many of you probably know, the point has been made a million times, but the right seems to be having a party.
You know, I'm looking at two rooms, and the left is all like, harumph I say, mm, no, don't say those words, and the right's like, hey man, have a good time, chill, you trying DMT?
Just like, crazy exploratory stuff.
And the thing is, Joe Rogan's not right-wing.
Right?
It's just that whatever's going on with the conservatives, the conservatives have started a party, and they've invited everybody in, and it's almost like a recruiting tactic, but it works.
You're losing the comedians, okay?
That's my message to the left.
You're losing the comedians, and you don't seem to care.
You're losing pro-skateboarders.
I have pro-skateboarders who hit me up.
Dude, skateboarders are the most anti-authoritarian people on the planet.
They constantly fight with security guards.
They don't care about your world and your economy and your ecosystem for the most part.
They want to be left alone and skate.
They don't like cops, especially.
And I have several pro-skateboarders hit me up like, hey man, I really appreciate what you do.
And I'm surprised.
I'm like, I kind of thought I would have lost the skateboarding community.
No, man.
They want freedom.
And you're losing rock stars.
Seriously.
Look, I know there are creepy, cringey, woke, you know, Hollywood types in media.
They exist.
So it's a fracturing.
I don't want to act like...
It's all or nothing, like every rockstar comedian skateboarder is coming over here.
No, it's split.
But I gotta say, man, these are some of the biggest comedians in the world.
Dave Chappelle is a legend.
They paid him like $60 million or something.
I'm probably getting the number wrong.
Fact check me.
But for three specials, I think.
And you're acting like he's done and he's tired?
No, man.
They're following in the legacy of someone like George Carlin, who was arrest- Okay, I could be wrong, I kinda didn't pull it up, but I'm pretty sure he was arrested for saying offensive words.
He had that bit, the seven words you can't say on TV?
Bravo to that man.
He was Count Dankula before Count Dankula was born.
George Carlin, as a young man, hippy-dippy, all that stuff, said, I'm gonna say all these words they tell me I can't say, and I'm gonna get in trouble for it.
And look today, we have comedians who follow in their footsteps.
Dave Chappelle going as offensive as possible, and even throwing out a nod to Count Dankula.
I know it was just, he did a couple jokes like this.
Most of his videos aren't super political.
But they arrested him for it.
For a joke.
You know, that's the world they want to build, and I'm not looking forward to that.
So I'll keep pushing back.
But I got a couple more stories.
NBC News.
They had a Think Opinion piece, and I was actually really impressed.
This story praises Dave Chappelle.
It was one of the few that actually praises Dave Chappelle.
They say at the end of the story, American culture changed, so Dave changed too.
Adapting to poke at our soft spots.
And now in 2019, it's celebrity hunting season, as he dubbed it.
With so many elements looking for a single mistake in order to ruin and cancel, with
sticks and stones, Chappelle takes his 12-gauge shotgun and is fighting back.
No kill shot, though.
Just birdshot, singeing the skin, leaving us laughing with discomfort as only he can.
Not everyone has lost the plot.
This story specifically highlights why it's controversial, and they mention our culture has changed, and Dave's gonna push back on that.
Well, there you go.
This to me is the good news.
What an awful color this website is.
That's the good news.
But I want to give a shout out to Dave Chappelle for one more important point.
They can claim all the things they want about them.
But Dave Chappelle held a thank you event concert for a lot of people after a tragic event.
So Dave Chappelle is doing good, and he's doing right, and he's defending freedom and liberty, and he's not right-wing.
And so what if some people like him because he's pushing back on the authoritarianism?
It's what he should do.
I'll leave it there.
I think this is fantastic.
I think the special is great.
Go check it out.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Next segment will be YouTube.com slash TimCastNews starting at 6 p.m.
You know, I typically reserve my main channel for bigger political stuff like Democrats, but it's Labor Day weekend.
I'm forgetting what day it is.
But I decided to talk about some culture stuff, and I think this is an important story.
I will see you all in the next segment.
Thanks for hanging out.
I think the Electoral College is very smart.
It was an interesting way to make sure that people would, you would have different states in a union that felt like they at least had a chance to be represented.
Now, it's complicated, I'll admit.
I'm not a scholar or anything on the issue.
And I've read some interesting things about the Smithsonian and about the compromise that brought the Electoral College to existence.
And there are some legitimate criticisms and all that, of course.
But here's the thing.
MSNBC is trying to claim the Electoral College is racist, and so is Ocasio-Cortez, because they're manipulating and lying, and I think the Democrats are only concerned because they realize the Electoral College makes sure that rural areas in this country have representation.
They don't like it.
They don't like the fact that they can't win by the same rules that Trump won by.
I gotta say, I find that a little disconcerting, you know why?
What's the argument they have against just, I don't know, going to Iowa and campaigning and winning over hearts and minds?
They don't want to.
Perhaps there's an even easier way to explain this.
The Democrats have gone so far left, they know they can't simultaneously attract conservatives or moderates and the left, which means their only hope is to get the ultra-woke from the urban centers to vote for them and win a national popular vote.
But this is extremely dangerous for just that reason.
Imagine if the political ideology of those in the major urban centers went nuts and they started arguing for really, I don't know, truly insane things.
Well, you have three cities that basically would dictate what this country would be doing and who it would be electing.
With the electoral college system, yeah, there are people who live in rural areas who have slightly more weight per vote, but it's about counties.
More importantly, it's about states.
What MSNBC is doing, in my opinion, Trying to conflate... Look at the headline.
Electoral College would be unconstitutional if it wasn't specifically in the Constitution.
That is insane.
There's a lot of things that are unconstitutional specifically because they're not in the Constitution.
Namely, like, an infinite number of things that don't exist in the Constitution.
Now, let's be fair.
His argument is that there's an effective gerrymandering, as it were.
In this video, what he does is, he says, You have, you know, you see the three white people and the one black person.
He says, you can have a city that's 60% black, but you put all of the black, all the black votes go into one district, and you have three other districts that are really small, and then you create three assemblymen that are white and one that is black, even though the town is mostly black.
The reason why this makes no sense is that the Electoral College doesn't exist on a city level.
The Electoral College exists at a state level, and we don't redraw state lines.
Shifting demographics can cause changes, and if there is a population center that is densely black, there's a lot of reasons for why that might be.
Namely, white flight, which is one thing that the left often criticizes.
So let me add upon the absurdity that is Chris Hayes'... Well, let's address this.
So let's read a little bit first from the story and then I'll, you know, criticize it.
He says, but I think there is actually a deeper philosophical thing happening, which is a question of what exactly American democracy is for.
And the weirdest thing about the Electoral College is the fact that if it wasn't specifically in the Constitution for the presidency, it would be unconstitutional.
It would be unconstitutional for us to elect the president by, I don't know, American gladiatorial combat.
You know, President—what did they do in Black Panther?
The royal blood had to fight each other to see who would become king?
That's unconstitutional, too.
Could you imagine if Chris Hayes said, here's the thing about gladiatorial combat.
It's unconstitutional because it's not specifically in the Constitution.
What?
The Constitution lays out for how we elect the president.
So, yeah, anything else would be unconstitutional, and if it isn't in there, it's not—what is he trying to—oh, man.
They're trying to manipulate you by using race politics.
And, you know, it's because they lost?
They say… Let's read on.
The MSNBC host bases opinion off the Supreme Court having developed a jurisprudence of one person, one vote, which means each individual vote has to carry roughly the same amount of weight as each other individual vote.
There are all sorts of crazy representational systems that were created that would not give one person one vote and would disenfranchise certain minorities, said Hayes.
And that's when he gets into showing this, where he makes it seem like the Electoral College, like AOC said, is specifically designed to be racist.
No one's stopping non-white people from living in a rural area where they might have a higher density to their vote simply because of the Electoral College.
More importantly, And the way we divvy up electoral votes or congressional districts is based on population.
So yeah, gerrymandering is ridiculous.
Like, there are some of the weirdest districts you've ever seen that seem to make no sense.
But it's complicated.
It's not like everyone is evil.
Sometimes there's sneaky underhanded tactics.
But the most important thing, as I often stress, We are not the United Peoples of America.
We are the United States.
And the system we have is built upon sovereign states, at least I believe so, having a voice in a federal system, a union, which provides for, you know, federal law and common defense and things like that.
Which means Montana absolutely will never bow to Illinois.
But Illinois is Chicago.
So these people who want to move to the popular vote, I think, as I stated earlier, it's for one reason.
When you look at the shift in the left, I think the Democrats are starting to realize something very important.
If you go to Iowa and say, you know, we've got moderates and you need to win them over, And then you start talking about non-citizens getting healthcare, you've lost literally everyone.
But go to an urban center, like, you know, New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, you'll probably find a lot of people who are just going to clap and cheer and, hey, it's great, yeah, we'll do that.
So they know in the urban centers, their far-left ideology will work.
And because the left and the right have moved so far away from each other, they're not going to be able to win over the rural states in doctoral college, which means I think Trump is going to win, like, just, he's going to win easily.
Now I don't, you know, that's my opinion.
I've seen a lot of people say that.
Apparently that Joe Walsh guy is talking about how he's like, the Republicans will lose.
It's like, why?
We have an electoral system that makes sure the fringe ideologies of major urban centers don't take over the country.
And it's working.
It is.
I mean, look, in 2016, you had Bernie Sanders, and admittedly, I like Bernie way more than I like Hillary Clinton, but I'm very critical of Bernie as of late because I feel like he's gone total establishment, albeit he still has a lot of his left-wing policies, but he started pushing the stupid woke nonsense, and I'm just, you know what, man?
And also, he called for the arrest of fossil fuel executives.
Chill, bro.
We don't need the gulags just yet.
I'm joking, by the way.
Gulags are bad.
But the point is, Hillary Clinton was not a centrist.
That's what everyone seems to be saying.
They're like, see, centrism lost.
No, Hillary Clinton was a crony capitalist elitist that nobody likes.
The union guys who vote, you know, the blue union, the blue state union Democrat guys, they don't want to vote for her.
They voted for Trump because they want someone to protect their jobs.
Now you have Green New Deal coming out saying, you know, we're going to shut down the fossil fuel industry.
And yeah, the unions are upset.
They know this.
They know they're not going to get Ohio or Pennsylvania.
And they need to.
So they're scared.
What are you going to do?
If we can focus on only the major cities, we win, right?
Therefore, change the rules that we can win.
Here's what I'm going to do.
First, let me just wrap up this point where you have AOC and now you have Chris Hayes trying to make it seem like the Electoral College is racist.
And there's only one thing you need to know to stop that stupid argument.
You, of any race, can move literally anywhere.
There's no one stopping a white person from moving to a black neighborhood, or a black person moving to a white neighborhood, or Latinos moving, you know what I mean?
Now costs, that's, you know, there is mobility issues, I get that, there's class issues, but if a bunch of people in Detroit move to like Montana, Well then, there you go.
Your argument is moot.
The point is, there are other states in the Union, and the Electoral College serves to protect smaller communities from bigger communities, and as we're seeing right now, it may very well protect this country from a rogue, runaway, fringe ideology that the left is just going insane.
You know what?
Look, man.
At the event we had the other day, we had one of those Media Matters people, and there was some concern that letting her in, she was going to smear everybody.
For those that aren't familiar, we had an event in Philadelphia Uh, called Ending Racism, Violence, and Authoritarianism.
We had a range of speakers.
Admittedly, a lot more speakers probably leaned to the right or libertarian because it's just so, it's much easier to confirm and get them.
Progressives are much harder to get, but much respect to all of the progressives.
We even had some self-described, like, social justice warriors who came and drank with us.
It was actually pretty awesome.
So, you know, I guess they were saying mean things about me, but while we were drinking, we were friends, right?
But anyway, she comes in and she's just It's all smears and it's all lies.
And I feel like that's the mentality these people have when they're trying to present this idea that the Electoral College is somehow bigoted or racist or something.
They come in and they start posting tweets about us, taking everything out of context, and I couldn't believe it.
I was like, look, we let them in because we're not hypocrites.
We believe in free speech and if you want to come and say, you know, fine, you know, you're press, fine.
Even though we don't necessarily trust you, I get it.
And, well, They smeared us and they lied to try and win.
That's what's really scary to me.
These people have an insane ideology that's getting crazier and crazier.
And they lie to win.
You know, one of the things I said on the stage was that I'm not willing to do that.
And that scares me.
You know why?
They are.
Chris Hayes has no problem coming out and conflating gerrymandering with the Electoral College, which doesn't quite make sense.
He has no problem lying so that people vote to change the rules so that a fringe runaway ideology can take over.
Well it can't.
I think Trump is going to sweep because I'm seeing more and more moderates freak out when they see this.
But I got one more important thing I want to highlight.
First...
This hasn't been updated in a while.
Congressional Democrats' job approval.
My understanding is this is Election 2018, but the polls are going into just earlier this year.
Unfortunately, there's only a small handful from earlier this year.
So going back to, there's about five, I believe.
So this is a very, very old poll.
It's probably very different today.
But we can see that Congressional Democrats' job approval was around 36.7.
In March, using an aggregate over three months.
It's probably wildly different today.
But Trump's job approval was still higher than that.
But let's not use this one because it hasn't been updated.
Let's move on.
Here we have the favorability ratings of political leaders.
Now, Trump's job approval is only a little bit higher than Nancy Pelosi's, but Nancy Pelosi is one of the, you know, House Democrats.
And here's the thing.
It doesn't matter what Trump's approval is on its own.
What matters is the Democrats' approval is lower.
Of all of Congress, including Mitch McConnell and the Republicans, 17.8%.
People are not happy with that.
Nancy Pelosi, 39.
Trump, 42.8.
So let's stop acting like Donald Trump's approval rating being in the 40s is a nightmare because it's all relative.
If no one likes the Democrats and they don't vote for them, Trump wins.
Let's put it this way.
Let's say Donald Trump had 99% disapproval and the Democrats had 100% disapproval and only one person went to vote because everyone hated them and said, I refuse to vote.
Trump would win with one vote.
You see what I'm trying to say?
The Democrats' approval rating is lower than the President's, which means when it comes time for that election, there are a lot of people who are going to be like, I disapprove of the Democrats, so I'm not going to vote for them.
And there are going to be a lot of people saying, I disapprove of Trump, I'm not going to vote for him.
But Trump will have more people who do approve of him.
In the end, Trump wins.
And this brings me back to the main point.
This is why they need to get rid of the Electoral College.
They're not going to be able to.
It's an insane argument that will never work.
It's going to have to be amending the Constitution with, you know, all these states.
And why, why would Wyoming, Montana, any of these states say, you know what, right, we're going to give up our ability to have a weighted vote in the presidential election for what?
They're not going to do it.
That makes no sense.
What these people need to understand is that it's not necessarily about one person, one vote.
Because we're talking about a republic electoral system.
We're talking about the states versus the states, not the individuals versus the individuals.
And we're talking about a system, as described, I believe it was Ben Franklin who said, democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for lunch.
A republic is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
The point is, We do not want a tyranny by majority.
That would be a freakish nightmare country.
All you have to do if you want to win is play by the same rules as everybody else, which means you can't leave the rural states behind.
They have a voice, too.
But listen, some of these states, they complain about the electoral college, but what?
How many electoral votes do they really get?
The rural states don't even have that many votes.
It's still California, I believe, with the most.
So, they're upset because they have too many people in California.
Well, you know what?
They're moving to Austin, alright?
Maybe you'll get Texas.
The point is, these shifts happen all the time.
And the Democrats right now, maybe they're short-sighted, maybe they're doing it on purpose, are trying to claim the Electoral College is racist to pander to the emotions of people who don't read the news.
Well, I'll tell you what.
Come election time.
I think the approval rating of Congress, of the Democrats, being lower than Trump's, their favorability being lower than Trump's, shows that Trump has a good chance of winning.
Because even though he has a low approval rating, it's higher than the other side.
So, you know, I think I made the point, so whatever.
I'll leave it there.
You know, they just don't want to accept that they lost.
We're stuck in 2016.
I'm not even, you know.
The other day I made a video about Trump masterfully trolling Hillary Clinton, and I'm like, why?
She's gone!
It's funny, you know what I mean?
But yeah, we're stuck in 2016.
They can't get over the fact they lost.
But I will end with that one point, you know, the point I made earlier.
I believe it's because the left has become so far left that the views of those in California Doesn't come anywhere close to the views of someone in, say, Iowa.
You know, you're going to find moderates in these red states.
Not people who are far-right moderates who are willing to entertain that argument, but the people in California are saying, bring on the non-citizens and give them health care.
People in Iowa are going to be like, wait, what?
So how do you win?
How do you win when you have... So let's do this.
Is there a map somewhere?
Look behind Chris.
Here's what they're trying to say.
Inside this country, this whole swath of land, you have, you know, outside of the major districts, 60-some-odd million voters, 62 maybe.
What they believe varies from region to region.
The people in Michigan are very concerned about, you know, free trade because they lost their manufacturing plants to foreign countries.
The people in Nebraska are probably concerned about farming.
They're probably concerned about China and not Mexico.
That means when Trump or anybody travels the country, they have to make sure that they're talking to multiple different groups who believe different things.
In these cities, their views are homogenous.
They agree on almost everything.
They don't leave their bubble.
That wouldn't work.
Let's throw out all the other electoral college arguments about resources and everything I made before, and I'll make it plain and simple.
From sea to shining sea, the inside of this country has Republicans of many different ideologies.
There are religious, there are non-religious, there are urban, there are suburban, there are rural, there are farmers, there are manufacturers.
There are some people who are very, very religious, and there are some people who are absolutely not religious at all.
A Republican has to make sure all of them can look to him for that vote.
That's very difficult to do.
In New York, LA, and Chicago, The Democrats mostly agree.
Mostly.
Now, there is a fracture in the Democratic Party between the moderates and the far left.
But you see what they want to do?
They're thinking, hey, we have an ideological supermajority in these major cities.
We wouldn't have to provide anything to any of these other groups.
It's not just about protecting small areas.
It's protecting a diversity of life, of perspective, of job and industry.
Well, without the Electoral College, they get rid of that.
And then instead of telling Michigan, we're going to save your car manufacturing, instead of telling Nebraska, we're going to work on farming, you just go to California and say, we're woke!
And then they go, yay!
And they vote.
That's not going to work.
You know why?
Because if you have a country taken over by just a fringe, far-left ideology, then everyone else disassociates from the system and starts to break apart.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
And I will see you all, I'll see you all then.
You know what worked really well from the years 1950 to 1954?
Falsely labeling people as communists so that they would lose their job.
In fact, that's something called McCarthyism.
And that's literally what it says.
It says, A vociferous campaign against alleged communists in the U.S.
government and other institutions carried out under Senator Joseph McCarthy in the period of 1950 to 1954.
Many of the accused were blacklisted or lost their job.
Although most did not, in fact, belong to the Communist Party.
And they say the definition is simply, a campaign or practice that endorses the use of unfair
allegations and investigations.
We are in that era.
And it's wonderful.
Isn't it amazing that we are in a position now where random people will place a phone call, accuse you of being a Nazi, and then try to get your event shut down?
Well, yesterday we put on an event.
And that's what they tried doing.
In fact, some people even showed up, one person, trying to do literally that.
It's so weird.
It's so weird how you have white progressive activists saying extremely racist things, you can see it on the screen, and then accusing everybody else of being racists.
What's happening right now in politics, as far as I, you know, I think there's like an overarching picture, is that the left is basically just become authoritarian.
No, that's it.
I mean, look, we can talk about ideology, regressive, whatever.
Take a look at this story.
Will and Grace star Deborah Messing is slammed for celebrating church sign describing black
Trump voters as mentally ill after co-star Eric McCormick called for the president's
Hollywood supporters to be blacklisted.
I believe Deborah Messing also made that insinuation that we should find out who these people are
so we don't work with them.
They're appealing straight to some kind of ideological authority.
It's like a purity system.
But here's the thing.
We can talk about how it's an ideology.
But it's kind of not, right?
Because, I mean, this woman, Deborah Messing, makes a very offensive statement and people get mad at her for it.
The rules seemingly don't make sense.
It is a nebulous faction of chaotic authoritarians.
Bend the knee to the mass, whatever it is.
Just submit.
Be it the FBI, when they're going up against Trump and his administration.
Be it the massive college institutions, which are, in my opinion, scams, ripping off young people.
All of these things that we can point to that are bad.
Like, come on, man.
How long ago was it that all the left-wing activists were like, hey, the FBI is violating the Constitution?
But now we're here.
What are the leftists becoming?
They have no problem making racist statements.
They have no problem being rich, wealthy, white people pointing the finger at poor brown people and calling them white supremacists.
And they have absolutely no problem falsely labeling people with things that don't actually, you can't, like, describing people in ways which we would call McCarthyism, right?
I'll just simplify it a bit.
Let's read this story, and I will continue whinging—or is that the right word?
Complaining—about the wealthy establishment types who are using authoritarian tactics to win.
But win what?
I guess at the end of the day, it's just bend to the authority, whatever it may be.
The Daily Mail says, Actress Debra Messing appears to have supported a sign at an Alabama church branding black Donald Trump supporters as mentally ill.
The Will and Grace star, 51, tweeted, Thank you, Alabama, on Saturday in response to a story about a Baptist church in Birmingham that displayed a sign reading, A black vote for Trump is mental illness.
The other side of the controversial sign, put on display outside the New Era Baptist, contains the message, A white vote for Trump is pure racism.
Well, I guess everybody has shifted to the left a little bit, even the people on the right.
But the left is adopting an authoritarian worldview, which isn't necessarily left or right.
They just want you to bend to the mob, regardless of what the mob believes.
Well, that's insane.
It's insane and dangerous.
But yeah, you know what?
It's the new era of McCarthyism.
And I think when you see, I think she did too, but her and the other guy Eric McCormick saying we're not going to work with people who are Trump supporters, they start pointing the finger and accusing people of being the other.
Same thing they were doing back then, right?
They say the Hollywood Reporter carried a story about tickets for September 17th fundraiser being sold for as much as $100,000 per couple as part of Trump's re-election campaign.
Wow!
That is insane.
The fundraiser is being hosted by Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, RNC Co-Chairman Tommy Hicks Jr., Campaign Manager Brad Parscale, and Trump Victory Finance Chairman Todd Ricketts.
So is that what they're... Okay, so Messing's tweet came a day after she expressed anger about a fundraiser being held for Donald Trump in Beverly Hills and claimed that a list of attendees should be made public.
So that's what happened.
So I think Eric McCormick, was he specifically talking about... What did they say about him?
The other guy from Will & Grace apparently was talking about people working on something.
Oh, no, no, no, okay.
Eric McCormick and Debra Messing were talking about a fundraiser.
Well, I will stress I am no fan of $100,000, you know, ticket fundraisers.
I think that's, you know, I mean, look, if you're rich, you can do what you want, I guess, but I still don't like that idea.
I think class issues are serious.
I think class is the real problem we face in this country, and it doesn't matter what the color of your skin is.
You can be poor.
You can be rich.
Dave Chappelle made that point.
I was just re-watching the monologue he did in 2016 after Trump got elected, and he said he decided to become a rich black man, and he saw all these changes were happening, and yeah, there are class issues, right?
The report stated that tickets start at $1,000 and cost up to $100,000 per couple for a VIP reception.
But Deborah Messing and her Will & Grace co-star Eric McCormick took issue with the fundraiser.
Please print a list of all attendees, please.
Okay, is that really what they said?
The public has a right to know.
Messing tweeted early Saturday.
She included a link to the Hollywood Reporter story.
Hey at THR, McCormick also tweeted, kindly report on everyone attending this event so the rest of us can be clear about who we don't want to work with.
You don't want to work with someone because of something they do in their personal life?
It's so, so weird.
I thought the idea was, you know, live and let live.
That you, what you do in the privacy of your own home and what you do, you know, that's you.
But now it's not.
Now it's an authoritarian faction emerging, demanding that you bend the knee to their mob, otherwise they will try to destroy you.
But I will say this.
Look, if Hollywood wasn't such a monoculture of fringe ideology, this probably would backfire on them in many ways, and it still might.
Imagine if, you know, a marketing company decides to do a commercial, and they say, hey, you know, we'd like to have you guys, and they bring in two people, and they go, hey, wait, that guy's a Trump supporter.
Well, you can leave then, right?
I'm saying it's possible there might be some companies that might say, listen, if you don't want to work with them, you can go.
We're not going to get rid of someone because you're complaining you have a right to leave.
Unfortunately, it doesn't really work that way.
So it may be the instance, but you know, I guess the problem is, in many circumstances, These companies just bend the knee and say, Oh, we don't want any trouble.
And now you have these, you have companies literally dedicated to watching.
Like I'm sure there's someone watching all of my videos, just waiting and waiting, waiting to capture some snippet out of context and then plaster all over the internet.
So they do.
Look, they do it more so to the more staunch conservative types.
But how do we function in a society when that's the goal?
Cancel culture is a sickness that needs to be stopped.
We can't allow these fringe weirdos to create these weird authoritarian... It's so creepy.
It's such a Stepford Wives kind of like, you know, robotic psychopathy.
Like, it's kind of crazy.
But you know what really scares me is that It seems like liberal society is actually being threatened right now.
You know, people have often said that, you know, the left always wins over time.
Well, it's liberty that always wins.
But what they're advocating now is authority.
I hope liberty wins in the end.
I think it might, especially with people like Dave Chappelle.
That special, wow, it really, you know, pushed the line back.
But it's hard to know for sure.
You know, they're calling for essentially new era McCarthyism.
So here's what I'm gonna do.
Did you know that the Dave Chappelle special has a zero on Rotten Tomatoes?
I think that's what I'm going to do.
We'll see what happens.
But the next segment, I think I'm going to go into a bigger, in-depth thing about cancel culture, politics, Dave Chappelle, and read over some of these reviews.
It's Labor Day weekend, so, you know, it's right Labor Day.
Yeah, everybody's, is it?
Yeah, I don't know.
Whatever.
Everybody's chilling.
I'm going to be chilling.
We'll take it easy.
We'll talk cancel culture.
Stick around.
Next segment will be at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast, and I will see you all there.
It is a different channel.
Kirsten Gillibrand is out.
And what's interesting about Gillibrand is that she tried the strategy of this ultra-woke, far-left, regressive.
She was literally the, like, intersectional feminist candidate.
I don't actually believe she holds many of those views.
And I think what we're seeing here is a rebuke of this ideology.
And in fact, it's a fringe, creepy ideology, if you were to ask me.
Earlier today I did a video on Dave Chappelle.
I think most people probably found his special funny, because most people don't pay attention to this stuff.
All of these Democratic candidates, right?
They have strategies.
How can they set themselves apart?
Well, I want to talk to you in this segment about not just Gillibrand, but also Beidou, who seems to have no idea what he's doing.
But the important thing here is... Well, I'll put it this way.
Politico says why Gillibrand crashed and burned.
We're going to read this, but I'm going to say she crashed and burned because she was catering to the fraction of the fraction.
Okay?
Listen.
You go over to the RCP average, she was polling at 0.1%.
That makes total sense when you realize she was pandering to a fraction of a fraction of the far left.
Not even just the far left.
So, let's dive right in and read this story from Politico.
They say why Gillibrand crashed and burned.
A last-minute spending push in Iowa wasn't enough.
Al Franken didn't help either.
On Tuesday night, Kirsten Gillibrand gathered her family and her campaign manager, Jess Fassler, at her home in Troy, New York, for a reality check.
The New York senator had barely registered in polls all year, despite burning through a $10 million campaign war chest.
Where'd that money come from?
That meant she was about to get shut out of future Democratic presidential debates if she didn't hit at least 2% in either of the two polls coming out on Wednesday.
Gillibrand couldn't carry out in the race.
They decided, yeah, but come on, man.
Tulsi Gabbard is getting the boot too, but she's got more than enough polls showing her over 2%.
It's just an arbitrary system set up by the Democrats to protect the Democratic establishment.
And I'm not even, like, look, that's typically something you hear from the progressives.
I actually think it's more of like a populist opinion.
Elitist Democrats are snooty and they rig the game.
The populist types, and yes, they are like, like, I guess it just means anti-elitist.
They're the far left, which tend to dominate the left.
And then you have the Trump populists, which tend to dominate the right.
But there are moderate people who don't like elitists too.
And I guess, boy, I must be in the tiniest of tiniest political spaces.
Politically homeless, as we like to say.
But let's read.
In August, Gillibrand made an all-out push to stay on the debate stage.
Dumping $1.5 million on TV and digital ads, blitzing through early voting states, and making the rounds on cable news.
But the big spending plan yielded a single 2% poll showing.
Tulsi did better.
Her Once Mighty campaign account dwindled to about $800,000, according to an aide familiar with the total.
The polls were released Wednesday.
The deadline to qualify for the next debate didn't help, so Gillibrand filmed a dropout
video that morning and delivered the news to her staff at headquarters by mid-afternoon.
It's important to know when it's not your time, Gillibrand said in the video.
Yet, well, the reality is, bad consultants.
Okay, I shouldn't say the reality.
My opinion is bad consultants.
I don't blame her for trying to chase woke Twitter.
They probably took a gamble on if we pander to the personalities on social media, they'll produce favorable content and that'll get us in the press.
Why would they think something like that?
Well, there's two reasons.
First, Twitter is dominated by either, like, the Trump conservatives or the woke left.
And then looking at what Trump does to dominate the press, she probably thought she needed to do the same thing, but play to the other side.
But I'll tell you what.
This country, and many of the people in the middle of the country, don't care for this fringe ideology.
The only reason, in my opinion, they think it's a...
It was the right move, is because Twitter doesn't ban the people who are saying to get violent, to support Antifa, and things like that.
So with Trump, and the people who pay attention to him, for one, he is the president, but you have regular conservatives supporting him.
The fringes of the far right have mostly been banned.
On the left, as we know, the fringes of the far left haven't, so she was chasing the wrong crowd.
And that's one thing I've said that, you know, it's not just her.
Obviously, all of the other 2020 Democrats have tried pushing these lines, giving health care to non-citizens and things like that.
This needs to be a wake-up call to the rest of the 2020 lineup.
If you follow in her footsteps, you will get knocked out of the race.
More people in the Democratic Party want moderate policy.
But not only that, it's just so obvious.
If you lose the moderates, they go to Trump, the next closest party.
Let's read on.
At one point, Gillibrand looked on paper like a legitimate, if not formidable, presidential candidate.
One with flaws, but also the pluses of a perfect electoral record and a distinctly feminist message that looked like a compelling counter to Donald Trump, exactly.
But Gillibrand, dogged by criticism for pushing for Sen.
Al Franken's resignation, never took flight.
It's a cautionary tale for the remaining low-polling candidates struggling to compete against the four or five leaders of the field.
Gillibrand was drowned out by the top tier, in the same way the rest of the candidates who are still in it and aren't in those top five are being drowned out, said Patty Solis Doyle, a Democratic strategist who managed Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential run.
It's a sign for all of them that they are probably not going to break out, either.
And that's true, too, and I get it, because I really like Tulsi Gabbard for, you know, there's one big reason.
You know, I appreciate her stance on war, but she is an actively serving National Guardsman, a major, and I think that's one of the most important things for our Commander-in-Chief, so I really do appreciate service.
I think I disagree with some of her politics, but in the end, look, Oh, I definitely disagree with some of her politics, but what I mean is, I didn't think she was going to win.
I'm not trying to be a dick.
Maybe I should have just pretended like, she's going to win, we're going to do it, to like rally support, but come on.
I'm a realist, not an idealist.
It was kind of obvious.
Now, Kirsten Gillibrand, on the other hand, we knew she was out.
But let's do this.
I'm not going to sit here and dawdle on this ridiculously long story to talk about why her politics were stupid.
But Beto O'Rourke is so desperate.
I want to talk about Beto O'Rourke next.
I think Beto will drop out at some point, and I think it's really stupid for him to be in the debates.
Because Beto is a plastic candidate.
He shouldn't have been a candidate in the first place.
In my opinion, I know I'm saying that a lot, the only reason Beto O'Rourke was even in the race was because the media wanted Ted Cruz to lose.
So they did everything in their power to make it seem like Beto had substance.
He doesn't.
People are calling him White Obama.
Well, as soon as he lost that race to Ted Cruz, the media's, their love affair with Beto, they were done.
This is another big problem the Democrats are facing.
The media doesn't care about you.
They are propping you up for the short-term gain, but it's a long-term loss.
And now they have someone like Beto in the field making them look nuts.
Listen.
After what happened in Odessa, Beto O'Rourke starts swearing, because Beto knows he doesn't stand out.
Beto knows he's generic, he's plastic.
No longer having the media support he expected, or he assumed he would have, he's desperately flailing about trying to make it seem like he's got something when he doesn't.
Let's read a little bit.
Not sure how many gunmen, not sure how many people have been shot, don't know how many people have been killed, the condition of those who've survived, don't know what the motivation is, do not yet know the firearms that were used or how to acquire them, O'Rourke said.
O'Rourke told a crowd of supporters during a campaign speech in Fairfax Station.
But we do know this is effed up.
We do know that this has to stop in this country.
There is no reason that we have to accept this as our fortune, as our future, as our fate, he continued.
Yeah, see, after El Paso, O'Rourke tried playing the same media game smearing Trump.
And then we started seeing Yang and other people start playing that, and I'm telling you, man, The Identitarian tactics is not going to work.
It's not going to work.
And if you don't pay attention, you will be Gillibrand.
Okay?
Can I just make it clear?
Where's O'Rourke on this thing, right?
Beta O'Rourke, 2.4%.
Okay, admittedly, that's a lot better than, you know, even Tulsi Gabbard by one point.
But Gillibrand was polling at 0.1%.
And here's why it's important.
O'Rourke is polling at 2.4% because he does have the media push.
He still has a little bit of fire, even though they mostly left him.
But he wasn't playing that game.
He decided to start playing the game.
After El Paso, O'Rourke started going nuts on this, you know, play insulting Trump, bigotry, etc.
Well, Gillibrand's played that game the whole time, and it didn't work for her.
Don't reverse course now when you're maintaining a polling average that gets you in the debates.
But for whatever reason, and Yang's making the same mistake, but admittedly Yang is doing better than O'Rourke, and Yang has qualified for the next debate, O'Rourke seems to be flailing his arms around, swearing, and trying to appear as bombastic as possible because he knows he's lost the narrative.
No one cares.
Beto O'Rourke is a generic nobody, and I'm surprised he's even in this race.
In fact, Gillibrand makes more sense because she embodies the woke leftist identitarianism.
O'Rourke doesn't embody anything!
He's just like a stocky, boring guy who is wiggling his arms around and standing on countertops.
So I'll say this.
The main point I wanted to make with this segment was that, you know, Gillibrand is out.
And I've been saying it for a long time.
The far-left ideology stuff is not going to win you this race.
So, you know, Beto, I understand.
He's going to try and pick up what she had on it.
He's desperate.
But we can just look to see, you know, I'm surprised half these people are even in this race.
You know, I'll defend Delaney a little bit, because he's made some poignant claims.
But come on, man.
For most of these people, it's gonna be Biden.
You know what I mean?
Biden's gonna last throughout.
It might go to Sanders.
I don't see any of them winning.
And I'll say one last thing, because we all know it.
The progressives and the woke will not get behind a moderate.
So I think Gillibrand Her plan made sense, but in the end, there's a reason why Biden is the frontrunner.
The moderates still control the party.
So who knows how long that'll be, but I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
I have said for quite some time now, the government is going to start coming for big tech.
Now, I wish they would have done it a little sooner when we saw the warning signs and prevented these things from happening, but at least they're doing something.
In one of the latest stories, Google must pay up to $200 million to settle a Federal Trade Commission YouTube investigation because they were violating child privacy laws.
Now, I'll admit, man, there are a lot of problems on YouTube.
I absolutely respect the platform exists.
I think it is a net positive.
I am using it right now.
So listen, you're hearing me from the power of the internet.
But there are a lot of problems with social media, and the bias, and the narrative, and most importantly, beyond all of this, the most important thing.
We can put politics aside here.
Children's privacy and protections.
There have been a bunch of scandals involving kids getting fed freaky videos, and in this case, kids having their privacy violated by the platform that only responds to media.
That's about it.
Well, at least now they've got a pay-up, so let's read this story from Politico.
They say, Google has agreed to pay between $150 and $200 million to resolve an FTC investigation over alleged violations of a children's privacy law, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The FTC voted 3-2 along party lines.
Wow.
Which parties?
To approve the settlement, sending it over to the Justice Department as part of the review process, the person confirmed.
Details about other terms of the settlement were not immediately available.
The settlement is the latest move from the FTC meant to crack down on Silicon Valley privacy violations.
Facebook last month paid $5 billion to resolve an expansive agency probe into data practices.
And I want to make this point.
Look, I think privacy comes first.
I think censorship is an issue.
I think bias is an issue.
And I think we need to be calling out when people get unfairly taken down.
But I kind of feel like privacy comes first, and I'll tell you why.
These big platforms, by invading our privacy, can actually use data to manipulate our perceptions beyond this.
So in my opinion, the censorship comes after, sort of, the privacy stuff.
These big tech firms are probably already controlling our opinions and predicting our actions before we even realize it.
And going into our private data, selling our private data, is the first step to manipulating our behavior.
There are companies that sell the service of behavioral manipulation.
You know, I talked about this before.
And I think they got mad while they offered to do like an interview and explain it. But no, no,
listen, man, these tech companies want you on their platform. They want you on their app and
they want you addicted. That's why Twitter won't solve any problems. That's why these platforms
are biased. Think about it. They know that conservatives will make fun of offensive
content pointed their way.
If someone says something offensive, a conservative will make fun of them.
Hey, that means the left and the right are using the platform.
But if a conservative makes fun of someone on the left, that person on the left will leave, like Will Wheaton did, in outrage that Alex Jones is on the platform.
That's why they censor the right more than the left.
It's about what's going to keep people active.
Let's read a little bit more.
The industry has more broadly seen its fortune sour in Washington as President Donald Trump and associates, Democratic presidential candidates and lawmakers of both parties, have all pilloried tech for its perceived failures to stem hate speech, extremism, privacy flaps, alleged bias, and a wealth of other ills.
You see how there's a contradiction here?
Do we go after their bias?
Or their hate speech.
You can't do both.
And therein lies a big problem.
But I'll say this to the social network companies.
If you just held a free speech standard, you could at least have a legal defense.
But when you play both sides, you lose.
They say, many of those same critics dinged the FTC over the Facebook penalties, calling into question both the impact of the $5 billion sum on the moneyed social media giant and the efficacy of the settlement terms.
A coalition of privacy groups had complained to the FTC that YouTube violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act by collecting personal information about minors and using it to target advertisements without getting consent from the parents.
Nevertheless, several of the groups behind the original COPPA complaint against YouTube viewed the settlement skeptically.
They should levy a fine, which both levels the playing field and serves as a deterrent to future COPPA violations.
This fine would do neither.
Josh Golan, executive director of Coalition Leader the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, said in a statement, Noting that a fine in the $150 million to $200 million range is the equivalent of two to three months of YouTube ad revenue.
Is that how much they make every month?
Wow.
That's a lot of money.
My understanding, though, is that YouTube is a loss leader, meaning that YouTube wants to use it to dominate the market, but they subsidize it through other Google products because it's expensive to do video.
Well, I guess it's also this, too.
They're hoping that compression technology will make it much, much cheaper and then the profit will turn around in a few years.
The punishment should have been at least half a billion dollars, Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, told Politico.
It's scandalous.
It sends a signal that you, in fact, can break a privacy law and get away largely scot-free.
Well, you're asking for what?
To double the fine?
But it is true.
Typically when it comes to FTC violations, many of these companies will just pay the fine and laugh all the way to the bank.
There are companies that sell these really annoying things called like balance bracelets or something.
And they use an illusion, it's like a magician trick, called the center of gravity illusion to make it seem like it's got magical powers and you can't be knocked over if you're wearing it.
They get fined for basically, like, wide-scale fraud.
Every time the companies do this, the FTC will issue a fine, they'll pay a few million dollars, the company gets shut down, they rebrand and relaunch and do the same thing, rinse, repeat, etc.
Because they still make a ton of money, the government gets a cut, they get a cut, they defraud the clientele, and then they just make a new company and call it something slightly different.
They'll call it Copper or Quartz or whatever.
Meanwhile, Mark Rotenberg, president of Fellow Complaintant, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the key will be the terms the FTC imposes on YouTube under the settlement.
The critical challenge for the FTC is whether it has the ability to restrain business practices that violate privacy.
He said, Imposing large fines does not address that problem, especially when you consider Is YouTube making money on ads alone, or are they selling data to other advertisers?
Now, it's within their best interest to keep that data proprietary because they sell ads, but it also makes sense that Google uses that data across the various platforms, and they can track your behaviors and even manipulate your behaviors.
So there's a lot more money than just what YouTube makes in ad revenue.
Spokespeople for Google and the FTC declined to comment.
Bloomberg recently reported that YouTube is finalizing plans to end targeted advertisements on videos aimed at minors.
The Washington Post was first to report the party-line vote approving a multi-million dollar settlement last month.
And I'll make this point, too.
Remember when you were a kid, and you'd be watching cartoons, and it would do the song where, like, after these messages, we'll be right back?
Apparently, they had to tell you a commercial was coming because kids couldn't tell the difference.
So, there's no barrier like that online.
Kids are just inundated with whatever crap the companies want to sell, and these platforms are taking their data and then using it to target parents, because now they know about the kid, they can target the parents, say, by these specific things.
They go on to say, Reps David Cicilline and Jeffrey Fortenberry recently urged the FTC to require that videos directed at children can be moved off YouTube's main platform and onto YouTube Kids.
That's the company's dedicated service for kid-friendly videos, which YouTube just made available on the internet, after offering it through a mobile app and smart TVs for the last several years.
I also understand they started doing this really clever thing where they use basic multiplication to make sure you're the right age.
It's kind of sad, however.
I saw one that was like, hey, if you want to use this app, what's eight times three?
What's messed up is that, so what, if your parents homeschool you as a kid, you can use it earlier?
Actually, maybe it makes sense.
I don't know.
I thought it was a clever thing.
They say the lawmakers also want the FTC to mandate annual independent audits for YouTube to monitor compliance with the terms of the settlement and to block it from launching new children's services without outside review.
COPPA author said Ed Markey, who's made similar recommendations as to what the FTC should require of YouTube as part of the settlement, said in a statement that he's dubious the agency was tough on the company given the party line split.
Quote, I look forward to reviewing the requirements placed upon Google in this settlement, but I am disappointed that the Commission appears poised to once again come out with a partisan settlement that falls short of the Commission's responsibility to consumers and risks normalizing corporate bad behavior.
YouTube absolutely is guilty of bad behavior.
But what's disconcerting to me, and I'll stress, is the kids stuff.
You know, there was a big scandal where kids were being fed really creepy and weird videos and it was called Elsagate.
Now we have the kids being hit with privacy violations.
We also have this really weird thing, which I want to tread carefully on, where videos of kids in suggestive positions are being recommended to creepy, creepy, creepy people.
If you know what I'm trying to say.
YouTube has an obligation, first and foremost, in my opinion, to kids.
And it's not just about Should the government be involved in fighting fake news?
it is about the bias. What are they showing to kids and are they manipulating their behavior?
I'm going to leave it there. I do try to keep these segments a little bit shorter, so stick
around. One more segment coming up in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
Should the government be involved in fighting fake news? I'm going to have to say no. And
it's a really weird position to be in because Mitch McConnell apparently agrees.
Well, I don't know his exact position.
We have this story from Bloomberg.
U.S.
unleashes military to fight fake news and disinformation.
How?
That's the big question.
We have a First Amendment.
Yes, you have a right to publish nonsense.
You have your opinion.
It kinda sucks.
We just got lied about at our event the other day by some far-left, you know, media hit person.
Whatever.
But hey, that's part of the First Amendment.
As much as it sucks, that's the game we're all playing.
I am worried that people who make fake news and biased media are cheating, and because those of us in the principled space, whatever you want to call it, are refusing to cheat, we're likely to lose.
But here's a bigger problem.
Should the military be involved in fighting disinformation?
Well, what makes them right?
Are we making, like, a branch of journalism in the government?
That doesn't make sense.
Let's read a little bit about this story.
Now, before we get started, head over to Tim... This website is broken.
It's Brave, I'm sorry.
I like Brave, man, but... 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, just share this video.
We're talking about fake news and disinformation, and if we can break echo chambers, that's a great thing.
I also want to stress, man...
I was up all day yesterday for the event.
Got to bed very late.
You can tell I'm ridiculously tired, but I'm still gonna produce some videos.
I will never break schedule.
Let's just read.
And you get what you get.
They say fake news and social media posts are such a threat to U.S.
security, the Defense Department is launching a project to repel large-scale automated disinformation attacks as the top Republican in Congress blocks efforts to protect the integrity of elections.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, that's DARPA, wants custom software that can unearth fakes hidden among the more than 500,000 stories, photos, videos, and audio clips.
If successful, the system, after four years of trials, may expand to detect malicious intent and prevent viral fake news from polarizing society.
You can't do that!
Look, I get you can stop foreign actors, but people in this country can speak whatever they want.
You can't block their stories.
They say a decade ago, today's state-of-the-art would have registered as sci-fi.
That's how fast the improvements have come, said Andrew Grotto at the Center for International Security at Stanford University.
There is no reason to think the pace of innovation will slow any time soon.
officials have been working on plans to prevent outside hackers from flooding social channels with false information ahead of the 2020 election.
The drive has been hindered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's refusal to consider election security legislation.
This feels like a complete manipulation, I have to stress.
Critics have labeled him Moscow Mitch, saying he left the U.S.
vulnerable to meddling by Russia, prompting his retort of modern-day McCarthyism.
Russia spent very little money and had very little reach.
I have more reach in a single tweet than basically everything Russia did.
Did Russia try to meddle?
They did.
Well, no, hold on.
It was people in Russia.
The point is, it's not that big of an impact.
So are we going to hand over control of our informational infrastructure to the government to restrict and monitor?
That doesn't even make sense.
We have a First Amendment.
Let's read, though.
They say President Donald Trump has repeatedly rejected allegations that dubious content on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Google aided his election win.
And that's probably true.
It's been divisive, but we know that according to the stories, the Russian elements were propping up the right and the left, trying to make people fight.
I wouldn't say that necessarily helped Trump.
Hillary Clinton supporters claimed a flood of fake items may have helped sway the results in 2016.
And no, that makes no sense because the polls showed Hillary was going to dominate.
What happened is that the media, the American press, they were wrong.
And they're wrong today.
It's really interesting that DARPA is trying to create these detection systems, but good luck is what I say.
It won't be anywhere near perfect until there is legislative oversight.
Grigiel said in a telephone interview, It's really interesting that DARPA is trying to create
these detection systems, but good luck is what I say.
It won't be anywhere near perfect until there is legislative oversight. There's a huge gap and that's a
concern.
You know, I don't know what the answer is to like fake news and meddling.
Mm.
People have a right to anonymity, you know, have a right to free speech, and that means the system will be exploited.
How we track that, I really have no idea.
Maybe it's a hybrid anonymity, like you have to verify yourself with the platform, but you can have your profile be anonymous.
But I guess then the government might know who you are.
But if you do something that breaks the law, they can file a subpoena anyway.
So to clarify, imagine if when you signed up, you had to confirm your identity.
But you could use a fake name and a fake image.
I don't know.
Just a thought.
Maybe it's not going to work.
They say false news stories and so-called deepfakes are increasingly sophisticated and making it more difficult for data-driven software to spot.
A.I.
imagery has advanced in recent years and is now used by Hollywood, the fashion industry, and facial recognition systems.
Researchers have shown that these generative adversarial networks, or GANs, can be used to create fake videos.
And that's going to be scary.
I think maybe Joe Rogan as well as Glenn Beck asked me about deepfakes.
And I'm not super concerned.
Well, I'll put it this way.
At a certain point, people will stop believing videos.
That's a good thing.
People need to stop believing this insanity from the woke, outraged people in Antifa when they make a phone call and complain, because that's what they were doing at my event.
We need to stop believing the fake nonsense.
So maybe once deepfakes become prolific, people will be like, I'm just not going to believe it.
And that could be a good thing.
They say, famously, Oscar-winning filmmaker Jordan Peele created a fake video of former President Barack Obama talking about the Black Panthers, Ben Carson, and making an alleged slur against Trump to highlight the risk of trusting material online.
After the 2016 election, Facebook Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg played down fake news as a challenge for the world's biggest social media platform.
He later signaled that he took the problem seriously and would let users flag content
However!
and enable fact-checkers to label stories in dispute.
These judgments subsequently prevented stories being turned into paid advertisements, which
were one key avenue towards viral promotion.
However, however, Facebook then had to make some changes when an audit found they were
biased against conservatives.
Now, although they didn't admit it because of they're trying to save face, they did concede to making changes at the request of conservatives, like allowing tubes in advertisements.
The more you try and control it, the less you actually do.
They say in June, Zuckerberg said Facebook made an execution mistake when it didn't act fast enough to identify a doctored video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in which her speech was slurred and distorted.
But it was a joke.
It was a meme.
And they took it down.
This is a problem.
Why can't someone make a silly video making fun of a politician?
It's selective.
They do the same thing to Trump all the time.
They say by increasing the number of algorithm checks, the military research agency hopes it can spot fake news with malicious intent before going viral.
Now, perhaps there's an argument to say we need to be able to get rid of deepfakes as quickly as possible.
Okay, alright.
If people don't become resilient to deepfakes, maybe then we do need Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, whatever, to pull it down immediately.
But I'll tell you what.
I don't know how you actually do that, especially when you can do audio-only deepfakes.
It seems like we're going to enter a world of complete confusion, as some people call it a post-fact society.
Quote, a comprehensive suite of semantic inconsistency detectors would dramatically increase the burden on media falsifiers, requiring the creators of falsified media to get every semantic detail correct, while defenders only need to find one or a very few inconsistencies, the agency said in its August 23 concept document for the Semantic Forensics Program.
So I want to stress, it sounds like they're talking about deepfakes, and they're not necessarily talking about just someone writing a fake story.
But they do have this year, so.
They say, the agency added, these Semaphore technologies will help identify, deter, and understand adversary disinformation campaigns.
Well, you know what, man?
I'm gonna leave it here.
I'll read the conclusion, cuz I guess we're getting close to the end.
Cuz I wanna make a bigger point about the American press.
They say, with a four-year project scale for Semaphore, the next election will have come and gone before the system is operational.
This timeline is too slow, and I wonder if it is a bit of PR.
Educating the public on media literacy along with legislation is what is important, but election officials lack motivation themselves for change, and there is a conflict of interest as they are using these very platforms to get elected.
The bigger problem in our culture is not a deepfake.
It's just fake news.
I mean, Trump says things, and they lie about what he says anyway, and people believe it.
So what?
Are you going to track NBC's fake story and take it down?
You can't.
NBC is a large news organization, and they're protected.
I do try to keep these short, so I'll just skip a little bit, but the point is, beyond this issue of foreign actors, which the left is obsessed with because of Russia, Russia, Russia, I don't think people are paying attention to the problem of partisan news and fake news.
The left says, you know, Breitbart's fake.
Breitbart says the mainstream media is fake.
In my opinion, I find there's a little bit of fakeness everywhere, but we do have serious problems with the mainstream media when they're purposefully trying to misframe things.
Now look, I think you see the same thing from NBC you see from Breitbart.
That's a fact.
The problem is, a lot of people view Breitbart as, you know, a blog and not a mainstream publication.
Like, I'm not trying to disparage Breitbart.
But NBC News is definitely held to a higher standard and trustworthiness.
That's the problem.
So I don't know if this matters, but I will say I think bringing the government in to track fake news is a really bad idea.
