CIA SLAMS CNN Over Publishing FAKE NEWS About Trump And A Russian Spy
Even The CIA Is Slamming CNN For Pushing FAKE NEWS About Trump And Russia. A bombshell report, yes another one, from CNN claimed that Trump may have compromised a CIA asset.It turns out the spy was living under his real name in the US peacefully and that Trump wasn't even in office when they started to extract him from Russia. The CIA called CNN's reporting "simple false" and said that the plan to get him out started in 2016 and had nothing to do with Trump.Once again fake news from the media gets shut down within a day. You have to wonder what these companies are doing to get it wrong so often and in such horrible ways.Recently the media claimed that Trump thought it was raining when it wasn't. Not only does it not matter at all if he thought it was raining, but apparently he said his supporters were soaking wet because of bad weather. Media pounced, said "ha! its not raining! Its actually sunny and 88 degrees!"Yes, because is hot sunny weather people get soaking wet from sweat.This is a good example of the absurd nonsense media tries to pass off as newsworthy and it also shows how they make assumptions about people without confirming key details.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I'm not going to tell you Trump said it was or wasn't raining.
I'm going to tell you that I can't find it.
And now they're desperately trying to defend themselves because apparently they don't realize that people sweat outside.
Some people are saying he was talking about rain, but this is the perfect example of one screen, two different movies.
As Scott Adams says, if you're not familiar, the general idea is we're all looking at the same thing, but seeing two different movies.
And I have tweets from people saying that Trump supporters are in a cult, and they believe it was raining.
Someone even tweeted, and this tweet's getting a ton of shares, where they're like, Trump tweeted that it was raining, but I live here and it's not raining, and these Trump people are crazy and believe it is.
And it's like, okay.
So I went to Trump's profile, I don't see any tweet from him saying that it was raining at his rally.
I went to the stories claiming it, and they don't even mention Trump saying it was raining.
Listen, at the very least, Trump is careful in how he phrases things to give himself wiggle room.
Maybe that's what happened.
But instead of ranting on this, let's break it down.
Excuse me.
We'll start with the actual serious and very important story of whether or not Trump is compromising intelligence assets.
Fox News, CIA slams CNN's misguided and simply false reporting on alleged CIA spies extraction from Kremlin.
But before we read this, head over to youtube.com slash timcast IRL.
I have a new channel.
I have a new video as well.
Van Tour.
I have completed the van, it's got the upgrades, and now you can get a tour of the van to see all the components and electronics.
More importantly, This channel is going to be behind the scenes, on the ground, and I'm getting there, you know, one step at a time.
The way you start something, just get into it.
Go do it.
So go to youtube.com slash TimCastIRL, subscribe, check out the latest video, and there will be more coming, but let's read the news.
From Fox News they say, The Central Intelligence Agency on Monday evening slammed what it called CNN's misguided and simply false reporting after the cable channel's chief national security correspondent authored a hole-filled piece claiming that the CIA had pulled a high-level spy out of Russia because President Trump had repeatedly mishandled classified intelligence and could contribute to exposing the covert source as a spy.
The extraordinary CIA rebuke came as the New York Times published a bombshell piece late in the evening, which largely contradicted CNN's reporting.
According to the Times, CIA officials made the arduous decision in late 2016 to offer to extract the source from Russia, weeks before Trump even took office.
Concerns about media reporting on Russian election interference drove the decision, according to the Times, which described the source as the American government's best insight into the thinking of and orders from Vladimir Putin.
Quote, former intelligence officials said there was no public evidence that Mr. Trump directly endangered the source, and other current American officials insisted that media scrutiny of the agency's sources alone was the impetus for the extraction, the Times wrote.
So it was the media's fault.
Trump wasn't even in office when they were beginning the extraction process.
But of course, the story runs rampant.
CNN reports it.
It gets picked up by Vox.
Everybody who doesn't like the orange man is gonna run wild.
Here's the original reporting from Vox.
The US reportedly had to remove a key spy from Russia over concerns that President Donald Trump's mishandling of the most sensitive intelligence might put the person in danger.
In a stunning Monday morning report, CNN's Jim Scudo Detailed how US intelligence officials were so worried that Trump might accidentally expose the covert S identity that they launched a secret mission to extract the person from Russia in 2017.
Well, not only is the CIA saying fake news, but apparently the New York Times largely contradicted CNN's reporting.
You want to know why?
CNN and many other outlets love taking their personal interpretation of events and announcing it as fact.
That's not how things work.
And I'm going to show you.
I'm going to show you some important points, but I want to end this story by simply highlighting Possible Russian spy for CIA now living in Washington area.
The former Russian government official who had a job with Access to Secrets was living openly under his true name.
Heavens!
He's chilling there under his real name?
What a big threat to this person's life he must be under because of Trump's naughty exposing of secrets.
Let me just say it one more time.
The media's scrutiny created the risk.
And you know what?
The media should do its job.
I'm not saying the media's at fault for reporting important things.
But it's not Trump's fault, at least according mostly to the New York Times and the CIA.
I'm not going to tell you that either are right or wrong.
I'm not going to pretend CNN's reporting is right or wrong, or the New York Times is right or wrong.
I'm going to tell you.
If the CIA is gonna come out and refute your story, how do you publish this?
Imagine if someone said, you know, Tim Pool secretly has, like, a red beanie, and they said it was true.
You'd think you would need me to confirm I had a red beanie when no one's ever seen me wearing it, right?
But they'll just report it and say, sources claim, and then sure enough, I come out and say, that's fake.
Listen, the CIA lies, okay?
The FBI lies.
They don't like Trump, so I'm not- so actually, I'll say this.
If the CIA doesn't like Trump, and they're gonna come out and say this is fake news, I kinda lean towards it being fake news.
But don't take my word on what's true or not.
The point is, there is reasonable doubt.
Journalists are supposed to have three different sources before confirming facts.
Who are their sources?
Now let's bring it to something a bit more irreverent.
Something, or I should say irreverent, really frustrating.
And it's this story here.
Trump says North Carolina rally attendees were soaking wet, waiting in line.
But it wasn't raining in Fayetteville.
Okay?
So what did he really mean?
Honestly, I don't know.
Maybe Trump really thought it was raining.
I am not going to run a big story saying Trump thought it was raining unless Trump says it's raining.
Trump said they're soaking wet.
There's a lot of reasons people can be wet.
What if Trump said, man, I saw a bunch of people outside the building and they're soaking wet because a dump truck full of water tipped over?
The point is, you don't know what he's talking about.
But CNN, USA Today, and these other outlets make the assumption he must be talking about rain, even though he never said rain.
Take a look at this story.
And it's going to get better, trust me, because we're going to get into CNN on this one.
As President Donald Trump departed on a campaign rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina Monday, he said that people were standing in line trying to get into the arena and are soaking wet.
So we now have people standing in line trying to get into the arena and I will tell you that they are soaking wet, Trump said, according to a media pool report during a briefing he received while aboard Air Force One.
Headed to North Carolina.
And I watched the video.
He doesn't say rain.
At least, I didn't see it.
Maybe he said it somewhere.
Maybe he said it at the rally.
I don't know.
I didn't see it.
I couldn't find it.
And it's not in the report, they say.
However, the weather in Fayetteville wasn't stormy leading up to the rally, according to reporters who were in attendance at the rally.
This is an excellent example of a couple different media phenomenon.
Phenomenons?
What's the plural of that?
Either they made the assumption Trump was talking about something when he wasn't or they have concluded something like, okay, I'm gonna give you an example.
I'm gonna stop here.
I'm gonna give you an example.
In the 2016 debate, Trump said Hillary Clinton acid-washed her server.
NBC, I believe it was, issued a fact check that said, false.
Hillary Clinton did not use a corrosive chemical on her server.
That's the other point.
Either they're going to assume he's talking about one thing, or they're going to purposefully mislead you without evidence.
They're going to use their personal interpretation on the events.
When Trump said Hillary Clinton acid-washed her server, was he implying that she used a corrosive chemical on a piece of electronics?
Of course not!
Think about it.
He's speaking figuratively.
She used something called Bleach Bit to purge the data, and the media acts like it was completely literal.
In this instance, he didn't even literally say it was raining.
At least to the best of my ability, I couldn't find it.
I'm not going to tell you he didn't say it, because I don't know.
I cannot confirm that he did.
But I got more, because trust me, CNN is involved.
During the rally, Trump also noted the poor weather in the state.
Right?
Because it was raining in other places.
Prior to the rally, Trump had to cancel plans to tour hurricane damage in Havelock, North Carolina, which is roughly 150 miles away from Fayetteville.
During the rally, Trump said that people told him, maybe we could skip North Carolina today, sir, but he responded, no thank you, which drew loud cheers from the audience.
Later in the stump speech, he told supporters that he sought a larger venue for his rally in support of Dan Bishop, the Republican who was running in a special election Tuesday for the North Carolina's 9th congressional district, and said, I was even willing to stand out in the rain and get my hair soaking wet, but they said it was a little bit out of your district.
But I was willing to do that.
I would have taken it.
I would have been very proud to have done it.
It would have shown it's my real hair at least.
It's my hair.
It may not be great, but I will say it's better than most of my friends who are the same age."
He continued, prompting laughter from the audience.
The Trump campaign last week relocated Monday's rally from Fayetteville Regional Airport to the city's Crown Expo Center.
The Trump campaign told The Hill that the change was made because of logistical problems with flight times at the airport's hangar.
I'm sorry.
I read the story.
I didn't see Trump mention it was raining on his supporters.
Why are they conflating two different conversations as if it's one idea?
Why are they acting like you can only be wet if it rains?
So here's what happens.
Brian Stelter tweets yesterday evening.
Trump said there are people in line for his rally and they are soaking wet.
Per CNN's Betsy Klein, it's 88 degrees and sunny here in Fayetteville.
Full stop.
Just stop right there.
If you do, you're like, wow, they must be soaking wet.
If I was standing out waiting in line for a long time, I'd be soaking wet in that weather too.
Because people sweat.
But he then goes on to say, it has not rained here today.
And of course, someone says Trump lies about everything, cannot trust a word out of his lying mouth.
When did he say it was raining?
He just said they were wet.
So here's what happens.
Other journalists who are highlighting the story rush to defend this idea.
Let me stress, Trump knows how to speak.
He may sound silly, he may sound dumb, but he understands language, and it's a common thing we see with business people.
Trump didn't say it was raining.
He said they were wet, and he let you assume.
They made the assumption he's talking about rain, but Trump can easily come out and go, I never said it was raining.
It was hot out.
And it gives him wiggle room.
You made the mistake, not him.
So here's what happens.
This guy tweets.
Some Trump supporters are bashing reporters for correctly saying Trump was talking about non-existent rain.
Insisting he meant Fayetteville supporters were sweaty.
There is video.
He was talking about rain.
It had rained in the other NC place he visited.
Okay.
Then let's say this.
Perhaps Trump heard it was raining and then saw heard people were soaking wet and just said they were soaking wet.
Who cares?
Wow.
At the very worst case scenario, someone went to Trump and said, yeah, it's raining in North Carolina.
Wow.
And then someone else walked into the airplane and they're drenched.
And he was like, huh?
Why is that?
Why does that matter?
I ask you this, why is this news?
Why is Brian Stelter tweeting this out?
Trump thought it was raining because he saw wet people and someone said it was raining?
So what?
Unfortunately, in this video, let's pull it up, he doesn't even say rain!
Let me play the video for you.
unidentified
So we have now people standing in line trying to get into the arena and I will tell you that they are soaking wet because Roy and everybody just walked into the plane.
A few folks were wet.
There's bad weather out there, but we have a tremendous crowd and we're going to be there in a little while.
We're going over a little bit earlier than anticipated.
Yeah, when it's really hot, people say it's bad weather.
If it was 88 degrees and sunny, I wouldn't necessarily call that bad weather, but that's an opinion.
Now, I understand why you could hear that and think Trump was talking about rain.
But he didn't say rain.
Therein lies the big problem.
This is a really great example of what the media does.
Trump didn't say it was raining.
Who cares if he thought it was?
It's not news.
It's not relevant.
All he knew is that people come on the plane, were soaking wet, and that it was bad weather.
So that's all he said.
It's bad weather.
People are soaking wet.
For some reason, this becomes a news story.
I have no idea why.
And then here's what I do.
One of the points I've made in the past about stories like this CIA thing is that when these big bombshells drop, I don't talk about them.
I wait.
I wait to see when the dust settles.
And sure enough, it turns out it was fake news.
Or at the very least, just not proven and nothing for me to report on.
They say, Tim, why won't you report on the bad things Trump's doing?
Because it's this!
Every day!
The story comes out.
I say, OK, CNN's reported it.
What confirmation do we have?
Are other sources backing this up?
Well, Vox report on it, but they're not adding anything to the story.
They're citing CNN.
And then a day later, CIA says, not true.
Well, then it's done, and I'm not going to report on it.
And now we can see this story.
Whether or not Trump thought it was raining is completely irrelevant.
It's not even newsworthy.
Trump thought it was raining, but it wasn't.
I don't care!
So here's what happens.
I see this tweet from Brian Stelter, and I kinda chuckled.
I'm like, what do you mean they're soaking wet?
It's 88 and sunny, of course they're soaking wet.
I made a tweet about it.
I then start digging around, I find stories, and even in the story about what Trump said, they don't mention him saying specifically that it was rain that got people wet.
So at the very least, what do I tell you?
I can confirm nothing.
I can say, it kinda sounds like he's talking about rain, but I'm not going to decide, like, I can read minds.
Maybe, like, it's, hey, it's bad weather out today.
Yeah, 95 degrees and sunny.
Man, people are soaking wet out there.
Yes, if it's hot and humid.
Here's the thing, man.
I can't speak directly for North Carolina, but I have spent time in Virginia.
And I can tell you this.
Summertime, when it's hot, it is humid.
It is awful.
And when I would go out, because I was in the Hampton Roads area, I don't know if the weather is too similar, but when it's hot and humid out there on the East Coast, you go outside and you're soaking in minutes, even if it's only 88 degrees.
Maybe that's what Trump meant.
Listen.
I'm going to move on to another story that I want to highlight, but at the very worst case scenario.
So Trump thought that it was rain that got people wet.
Okay.
Trump was wrong.
Does it matter?
I just can't believe.
It's how the news operates.
Extrapolate from this.
Think about anything else Trump may have said.
The assumptions they make about his language, they jump the gun and assume he must be talking in the same way I do.
Here's what I think happens.
These journalists are all in a bubble.
They all think very similarly.
They read the same news.
They share the same stories.
And to them, in their perspective, they're like, bad weather is rain.
That's what they're used to.
They're not used to hot, humid weather on the East Coast in North Carolina.
So they make the assumption that they know exactly what Trump is thinking.
Take a look at this story.
I'll do a bigger breakdown on this for my second channel.
Liberals haunted by social media tactics they use against the right.
I'm not so concerned about that concept right here.
I want to highlight, they say this.
Many journalists are in the profession not to inform the public, but to gain the power to destroy people who question them.
And they don't like those tactics being turned against them.
Quote.
Using journalistic techniques to target journalists and news organizations is fundamentally different from the well-established role of the news media in scrutinizing people in positions of power.
The Times wrote in its article, which is of course labeled News, not Opinion.
Yes, the New York Times doesn't recognize they're in a position of power.
CNN.
CNN's a beautiful echo chamber.
That's what they do.
CNN brings on people to talk about things and never has any real challengers.
They get rid of people who challenge, you know, their narrative.
And this is what we get now.
Trump says something dumb, he must be wrong or lying.
Listen, every day I deal with this.
And then they get mad at me that I don't talk about how the orange man is bad.
Well, maybe if you reported something tangible.
Trump talked about rain.
Don't care.
I'm mad I have to talk about it at all.
Trump does something on the border.
Okay, let's look at the issues.
Oh, it's more nuanced than that?
And Democrats have done similar things?
But Trump wants to deport people.
Okay.
Oh wait, Obama deported more.
It's not so simple.
They call Trump all of the names in the book, and then it turns out he's doing very similar things to the other presidents.
It's business as usual.
So I'll end by saying this.
Journalists are not special.
They can be wrong, and they are.
Now people have the chance to fact-check the things being said.
Brian Stelter is upset because he's getting dragged and ratioed pretty hard.
10,000 replies, 6.5,000 retweets.
And you have a lot of people who are laughing and mocking him and a lot of people who are
agreeing.
In the end, it's just bad news for everybody.
The response to some of these tweets, let me see if I can find this tweet.
This woman said, wow, MAGAs are crazy.
I live in North Carolina, not too far from Fayetteville, where Trump tweeted that people
standing in line were drenched because of the rain.
We had no rain.
I'm not going to read the full tweet.
What I will say is I started digging.
I went to Trump's page.
I did not see one tweet from Trump where he said people are soaking wet because of rain.
Maybe he did and deleted it?
I doubt it.
Trump doesn't seem like the person who would do that.
What I think ended up happening is the media puts out this story.
Someone doesn't actually do any fact-checking.
They then look on their porch and say, Trump tweeted this.
He's wrong.
They tweet it out.
Someone like me fact-checks and says, well, here's the thing.
And this is the response you get.
Journalists are not special people.
They're just the same as anybody else on the internet, but I will tell you this.
Why is Brian Stelter tweeting this without confirmation?
If Trump said, quote, it's raining today, and it wasn't, okay, that's still kind of not newsworthy.
What's your story?
Trump was wrong about the weather because he wasn't there?
I'll end with this.
Vice Media Editor pleads guilty to conspiracy to import loads of cocaine.
Welcome to the media.
Regular people who do bad things.
They're not special, they're not a protected class, and they're frequently wrong.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6 p.m.
It is a different channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see you all there.
Not only did he destroy Star Wars.
Yes, single-handedly.
Okay, I'm being a bit harsh.
No, The Last Jedi was really, really bad.
It's not entirely his fault that Star Wars is crap.
There's a lot of things that happened around him.
But yeah, he played a big role in ruining Star Wars, at least for me.
Now here's the thing.
He's the guy who, I believe he made Looper, which was kind of good, but it was a weird movie that made no sense.
It wasn't bad, I'm not gonna act like it was that awful.
But the last shotout was Trash, and now he's got a new movie called Knives Out.
The trailer for which actually looks pretty good.
I've seen the trailer now several times.
However, as soon as it gets to the part where it's like, from the guy who made The Last Jedi, I'm like, there is no way I am going to see this movie.
Here's the best part.
Last Jedi director Rian Johnson's latest film is an F you to Trump voters and critics love it.
I, as most of you know, I'm not going to vote for Trump.
Tulsi Gabbard just did a sit-down with Dave Rubin, and I need to watch it because I've only seen some clips, but so far, incredible.
You know, she's talked about the problem of identity politics, like going too far and all that stuff.
So look, here's the thing.
I'm the kind of person who disagrees with a Trump voter, but I'm not insane.
Because we've been through this.
George W. Bush was called Hitler.
Obama was called Hitler.
Now Trump is called Hitler.
Who cares, man?
I'm not stupid.
Why are you going to make a movie intentionally disparaging half the country?
Shouldn't we be trying to bring people together?
Well, you know what?
That's the culture when that's what's happening.
So now apparently, Rian Johnson is... I don't know if he's saying that, but listen.
Knives Out has a 100% from 24 critics.
You know what that means?
Don't go and see the movie because it's probably really, really bad.
As evidenced by...
The Dave Chappelle ratings, which were now up to 15 reviews, and it's at a 27.
How insane.
Dave Chappelle really channeled his George Carlin with this one.
It was funny, it was offensive, and some of it was just shocking on purpose.
99% from 31,000 audience members.
Now, here's the thing.
A lot of people are going, Tim, we know it's a review bomb from people trying to act like Sticks and Stones is actually good.
Have you ever considered that a movie can be so bad, people want to go and give it a bad rating?
Or that a special or movie could be so good, people want to go and give it a good rating?
Review bomb doesn't even mean anything.
So now we have this.
I'm not gonna see Knives Out.
Apparently, like, one of the characters is literally Trump.
Jamie Lee Curtis built her own business.
She only needed a million-dollar loan from her daddy to do it.
Linda's husband, Rich, is cheating on her.
Even worse, he's a Trump supporter.
Who cares, man?
This dude's lost it.
Okay, so let's read this, and we'll read what the critics have to say about Knives Out, a film I will never see.
Before we get started, though, I'm gonna do a special announcement.
Go over to YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
I have a new video up.
It is the van tour for many of you who want to see it.
This is a new channel.
It's going to be on the ground.
It's going to be behind the scenes.
So go subscribe.
Check out the video if you want to see my van.
But even more importantly, I am looking for somebody who wants to be traveling and producing daily vlogs.
So hit me up if you want, if you're an editor.
And please be an editor, because I've got a ton of emails from people who aren't editors, and editing is the most important aspect of this.
We'll see what happens, but I'm looking, you know, send me some videos you've edited if you want to make vlogs and travel around and do crazy stuff, and that's going to be the goal of this channel.
Admittedly, I work non-stop all day every day, so I tried filming some stuff yesterday, and it's like, I work too much.
But let's read the news.
YouTube.com slash Timcast IRL.
They say.
After alienating a large portion of his audience with a thinly-veiled SJW sermonizing in The Last Jedi, Director Rian Johnson's latest film, Knives Out, makes its goal of taking direct aim at Trump supporters front and center.
According to Society Reviews, after debuting at Toronto International Film Festival, Rian Johnson's latest outing has garnered a certified fresh 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
With critics all over social media heaping praise upon it for having the not-so-courageous audacity to mock Trump supporters and white entitlement.
In a town packed with hardcore members of the anti-Trump resistance, I'd like to stress, it is not brave to make fun of Trump.
Literally every establishment media does.
Okay?
Even Fox News sometimes is critical of Trump.
You got Shep Smith, you got Donna Brazile.
So no, it is in no way brave to walk around shouting El Trumpo No Es Bueno.
But, if you walk around with a MAGA hat, someone might throw a drink in your face, throw a milkshake at you, knock the hat off your head, push you down, and I've seen all this stuff.
I don't think it's that bad.
I think if you put on a MAGA hat and go to a cafe, no one's gonna say anything.
But, I will make this bet.
If you go into, you know, some high-profile area, say New York, and wave a big Trump flag, someone's gonna come up and yell at you, and they're gonna be mean to you.
Granted that, you know, New York is a very, you know, blue area.
But if you go there and you wave a sign saying, you know, Trump is evil or whatever, people will cheer for you.
So no, it's not brave at all.
Now, as for The Last Jedi stuff, I don't want to play the game of like, SJW sermonizing, because I think there was some stuff in it.
The problem with The Last Jedi was it was a bad movie.
I don't care if you want to have a purple-haired General Holdo.
The problem was the plot.
Not that they had a female admiral.
Who cares?
Or, you know, a purple-haired one.
Look, you could have a female character berate the, you know, scrappy male character and it's fine.
I don't care.
The problem is it didn't make sense.
The whole story was absurd.
Like, the plot of The Last Jedi was literally like, we're gonna try and make sure the First Order doesn't look out their window.
I'm not even exaggerating.
It's like, they get the guy who's like, I've read it on you.
And they're like, oh no.
And then he points out the window and they're like, now we're looking at- Seriously, Rian Johnson, that was an awful film.
Knives Out is a fun FU to rich white Trump voters, wrapped in a crafty Agatha Christie package, very pro-immigration, and none of this is subtle.
Enjoy it in a crowd, said film critics Tomris Laughley.
Congrats to Rian Johnson for writing the most telenovela of films.
Knives Out is a total blast and a total takedown of privilege, gringos, and perceptions through a genre that's very missed.
You know, I'll make one important point.
It very well may be that Knives Out is a good movie.
I'm gonna go ahead and bet it's not.
Because most of these critics don't care about whether the movie is structured well, the lighting is good, and things make sense.
They care about whether or not their politics is reflected by it.
Case in point?
Dave Chappelle vs. Knives Out.
Or better yet, The Last Jedi.
A lot of people who didn't like it...
Like, look, I'm one of the people who didn't like The Last Jedi,
and I don't think those SJW...
I made several videos saying, no, no, no, I disagree.
And I feel like a lot of people were screaming SJW about Last Jedi
because it was a trendy thing to say.
No, it was just bad.
Like, it's literally just a bad movie.
Like, come on, the casino planet thing?
How does it make sense?
They're like, our big ship can't go fast enough, but our little ships can, so we're gonna go to a casino planet while a space chase?
Like, what is this?
None of it makes sense.
It's like the worst movie I've ever seen.
So, I'm gonna go ahead and bet Knives Out is terrible.
Just absolutely terrible.
And based on the fact That the critics are pandering to politics and not what's in the film.
I gotta say, that's probably the case.
We'll read a little bit more.
Knives Out is a ton of fun.
Slippery, stylized murder mystery.
Littered with zingers that also operates as a satire of Trump's America.
I also enjoyed the baby driver reference.
Why do I- Listen, man.
I understand if you want to make fun of Trump.
I really don't care.
You know, I routinely call him boorish and oafish and whatever.
Because everybody knows the guy's got a bad attitude.
Whatever.
I'm just, I don't care, you know?
I get people on the left saying, Tim, why don't you make more videos ragging on Trump?
And I'll be like, dude, I could.
But everybody's doing that, okay?
We get it.
We get it, the orange man is bad.
I don't care anymore.
You've beaten me over the head so much with an inflatable bad orange man, I'm just tired of hearing about it.
So I'll talk about something else.
And more importantly, when it comes to politics, there's very little happening on the right because Trump is the incumbent, and we have all of this fighting and all of these polls coming out about the Democrats.
So, for the time being, that's the focus.
And, yes, I've made videos about Trump and, like, you know, his, uh, um, the primary and stuff.
But it's just not substantive because everybody already knows what's gonna happen.
Okay?
Trump's gonna run as the incumbent.
There have been some updates, which I have highlighted, like the GOP getting rid of primaries.
But I'm not gonna make a video about Republicans when Trump... It's just Trump.
Here's the thing.
They wanna make a movie.
And they wanna make fun of Trump for it.
And they're acting like it's brave.
Come on, man.
Knives, uh, it's just the same thing everybody hears every single day.
So, you know what?
I say things in certain videos where I'm like, hey, you know, I don't like the orange man, whatever.
But do you really need me to make six videos a day about it?
I also think it's unfair.
You'll see people on the left trying to act like Trump's doing bad.
And it's like, dude, there are things you can call him out for.
But what's the latest thing?
Like, dude, seriously, they claimed that Trump outed a CIA agent and then caused panic.
And then sure enough, a day later, no, that was actually fake news.
And this is why I avoid this stuff.
You're not being brave.
You're wasting everyone's time.
So for those that don't know, I might do a story on it later.
Like a big story came out and it said Trump accidentally gave intel to the Russians and then they scrambled to pull out a CIA agent that Donald Trump put in danger and I saw that story and I said I'm willing to bet it's fake news and there's more to the story and then sure enough like a day later we now have the new story and it's like apparently the CIA was going to extract him before Trump was even elected And it had nothing to do with Trump at all, and it's just the fake media once again.
They put out the fake news, a day later gets corrected, and no one shares the correction.
And that's another reason why you don't see me talking about these stories.
unidentified
Tim, why don't you talk about the negative things Trump's doing?
If you want to make a movie mocking, you know, white privilege and Trump supporters, I don't need to go see it.
Because I can just turn on MSNBC and hear about a crazy, dark conspiracy about Russians taking over the US elections!
And Mitch McConnell, Moscow Mitch!
You know what I mean?
Like, the conspiracy theories they push are already absurd and silly enough to be in the realm of fiction.
I don't need to spend money to go see your approved Orange Man bad movie.
So, the point I want to make is, the critics may actually hurt this movie.
I know, I kind of went off the tangent, but the critics might be hurting this movie.
Because maybe it is really well made, and maybe it is fun, and maybe it's a good mystery.
And because the critics for Rotten Tomatoes have such a bad history with propping up politics over structure, I see the 100%, and I think zero.
I think zero.
I look over at Dave Chappelle, and I see the 27%, and I think 73.
I think it's an inversion.
If the critics hate it because of the politics, it must be good.
And the audience score seems to reflect it.
And I'll end with one final point.
All these people are going, but it's a review bomb!
People were just trying to make it seem like Captain Marvel was bad.
Okay.
If someone doesn't like a movie, and they're inspired enough to come to a website and give it a bad rating, that's not a review bomb, dude.
That's just you making bad movies.
If Dave Chappelle's special was so good, it was being talked about all throughout the media, and being highlighted, then yeah, maybe at least 31,000, you know, 32,000 out of the millions of people decided to come to Rotten Tomatoes and give it a good rating.
If it was good enough to move people to take action, it's not a review bomb.
So we'll see what happens.
You know, the movie's not out yet.
It's coming out in November.
So it's still two months away.
But I will stress, Rian Johnson is a staunch Orange Man bad advocate, and The Last Jedi was trash, so I'm gonna go ahead and bet bad movie.
I'm also, however, curious about The Joker, because The Joker apparently is being universally praised as well.
But interestingly, a lot of the woke types are saying Joker is like an incel fantasy movie, so I'm really confused as to whether or not it'll actually be a good movie.
Or it's going—like, because the politics are clearly at odds with the woke brigade.
It's possible Knives Out—you know what, I'll say this.
It's possible Knives Out is not, you know, is being unfairly criticized for politics.
It may be that these critics view the world through a woke lens, so they interpret it this way.
But with Rian Johnson's Twitter history and with his, you know, with how bad The Last Jedi was?
Nah.
I will never see this movie.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
And I'll say it one more time for those that made it this far.
Go to youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
And if you're a video editor, send me an email.
Send me an email with videos so I can look at what you're editing.
I'll see you guys in the next segment.
Over time, I've grown to like Tulsi Gabbard more and more.
And I have to wonder if the people on her staff watch videos from disaffected liberals and moderates for whatever reason.
Now, initially, it was the anti-war thing.
That's really, really big for me.
I think it's a waste of money.
If you want to talk about universal healthcare and college, the first thing we should do is talk about re-appropriating, or I should say, fixing governmental problems and trying to spend money better.
Recently Tulsi Gabbard said it is not a conservative thing to get mad when the government spends money poorly and mismanages finances.
One of the biggest arguments I've made against many of these like left-wing activists has been, If you want these programs, the first thing we should do is like an audit of where we're spending all this money as a country, and then get rid of these programs that haven't worked.
We need a complete audit of the system in my opinion, right?
What government programs work and don't work?
How can we approve ones that are kind of working or aren't?
And can we stop some and restart some?
Anyway, long story short, war is bad for a lot of reasons, and I really like that.
But Tulsi recently did an interview with Dave Rubin, and I gotta admit, I haven't seen most of it.
I've just seen a lot of snippets, and already I'm greatly appreciating Dave Rubin for having this interview.
And it's very different from what she does with, say, Joe Rogan.
Dave is in the weeds.
He's in the politics.
He understands this lost liberal space.
And by sitting down with Tulsi, he actually got to talk about things that are extremely important to me and I know many of you.
First and foremost, Tulsi Gabbard slams Democrats over identity politics.
Now, she did do this with Michael Tracy.
So, another reason why I really appreciated it.
Appreciate her.
Check this out.
She also says in the interview that the Democrats are essentially pushing this kind of open borders and that we have to have borders if we're going to be a country.
That doesn't make you an overt, hardcore nationalist.
It just makes you a regular American who understands why we as a community protect our borders.
That's Tulsi Gabbard.
She's progressive on a lot of issues.
More importantly though, this warms my heart.
Listen.
Tulsi Gabbard said that she views abortion in a libertarian way, restricting what the government can and can't do.
I completely agree.
That's why I'm like, do they— I wonder if her staff, like, watches my videos, because one of her tweets went out saying the word smear merchant, which you know comes from Carl Benjamin.
But anyway, here's the thing.
I've always been on the side of begrudgingly accepting choice.
I would prefer it if abortions didn't have to happen, but I also recognize there should be limits on what the state can or can't do, and it gets into really murky ethical and moral territory.
And look, I've had really great conversations with Glenn Beck, Steven Crowder, for instance.
So I'm not going to act like my morality is right or wrong.
I'll completely admit it is one of the most difficult and challenging issues to even discuss.
But think about what Tulsi is saying when she says no third trimester abortion.
She's taking a pro-choice but not pro-abortion stance.
It's complicated.
Things have gotten really weird.
But I will stress this.
In my last conversation with Crowder, he said the Democrats are advocating for abortion up to the point of birth, which like, moderate, old, like, I don't know how you describe it.
People like me are like, that's too much!
You can't, you know, I don't want to get too much wrapped up on this.
I want to talk about identity politics.
But this shows Tulsi is in a sane and rational space.
The most important thing about all of this is not whether or not Tulsi is right or wrong on these issues, it's not whether or not the minimum wage should be increased or whatever her positions are, it's that you can see she's trying to find a space where she can bring people together.
I really do believe that.
And furthermore, the most important thing, I've had a lot of conversations about this, I really do prefer our Commander-in-Chief to have military experience.
There's Dan Crenshaw, there's Tulsi Gabbard.
Disagree with both of them on a lot of issues, tend to agree with more with Tulsi, but I really do respect and appreciate that a potential Commander-in-Chief, albeit long shot, we know how the game is played, but somebody with real military experience, to me, should be the one leading the military.
I get it though, I get it though.
There's a lot of other issues.
Trump is a trade man, right?
He's a businessman, so that is important as well.
I lean towards, if you're going to run the executive branch, law enforcement, DOJ, etc., I'd prefer somebody with military experience.
Well, let's read about what Tulsi Gabbard said about identity politics.
Before we do, head over to YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
I have a new channel, okay?
I just put out a video.
It's a van tour of my van.
If you want to see what the van is like and the components and everything, and I talk about it, TimCastIRL, subscribe, check out the video, and I'm also looking for somebody who wants to manage, like, A daily video series.
So I need somebody who can film and edit and, you know, if that's you, hit me up, send me an email.
But send me, like, things you've edited.
I can't just take on somebody who has no experience.
But let's, uh, let's read.
Tulsi Gabbard slams Democrats over identity politics' selfish political gain.
Daily Wire reports Tulsi Gabbard criticized members of her own party on Monday for using identity politics to advance their own political agenda over the unity of American citizens.
I think that the identity politics that are being used to further divide us, to further drive separations between us, are purely for selfish political gain is a real danger, Gabbard told Dave Rubin during an appearance on The Rubin Report.
It undermines that unity that we have that doesn't come with groupthink or saying, well, hey, we're all exactly the same.
We think the same way, she continued.
Not at all.
It's that unity we have in recognizing our diversity and our strength in who we are as Americans and the principles and freedoms that make up the bedrock of our country.
I want to make this point.
Diversity is a strength.
However, these fake social justice people have bastardized what it's supposed to mean.
Diversity is supposed to mean that if you were a mixed race person from Hawaii, say Tulsi Gabbard, you have a very different view of the world from a rural American white working class individual.
That's diversity.
It's not so much about the skin color.
It's about your experiences and your opinions.
It's very true that a white liberal in New York and a white farmer in, you know, Iowa are going to have very, very different opinions.
That is part of diversity as well.
What truly brings us together and what truly makes us strong Is that we have a massive competition of ideas.
However, these weird social justice types that have taken over what it's supposed to be are trying to homogenize everything, and that's the opposite of what diversity is.
To them, it's all about the color of your skin.
Wrong.
While I believe, I admit, right?
I think it's fair to say, if you have a different color skin, you'll have a different perspective on certain, you know, experiences because of being in a minority or majority position.
However, what's most important is that we talk about the ideas.
I'm absolutely willing to entertain the merits of, you know, intersectional feminism in a conversation and debate.
However, many of these people don't want to do it.
So, if you're going to talk about what diversity really means, you know, I'll throw it back to what I said about Tucker Carlson.
He did a segment where he said diversity isn't a strength.
Well, he was wrong.
And Tucker Carlson exemplifies why it is.
He's willing to have on different people of different backgrounds and different opinions to challenge those ideas.
It is that marketplace of ideas, the competition, that allows good ideas and bad ideas to grow or shrink or, you know, be dismissed.
Sometimes good ideas get trashed and sometimes bad ideas grow.
That's part of a marketplace of ideas.
And that's what diversity is supposed to mean.
That if you're like Tulsi or you're like me, we'll have different opinions based on our lives and that allows us to make a really strong and robust nation and culture.
Let's read a little bit more.
Gabbard's remarks came after she was asked about the first of the Democratic National Committee's debate series, where three of her presidential challengers spoke Spanish while appearing on the debate stage.
The move was largely seen as pandering to Spanish-speaking voters.
Tulsi goes on to mention the story.
She says that she was doing a 4th of July parade.
She said, we were at a 4th of July parade, a bunch of them actually.
It was right after that first set of debates and it made an impact on me.
There was a woman who was sitting with her family and friends at the end of one of the parades.
We stopped and we said hi, and she was from Central America, and she made it a point to pull me aside, and she put her hands on my arms, and she was very serious, and she said, whatever you do in a future debate, don't speak Spanish, Gabbard continued.
She found that to be so patronizing and blatantly so.
They say, while the Hawaii Congresswoman barely stood out amid the crowded stage during the first set of debates, she made waves during the second set of debates after she challenged Kamala Harris' record on criminal prosecutions.
Glorious.
Truly one of the most glorious things I have ever seen.
To see the establishment and their lies take a hit that bad on TV, it was trending, it was incredible.
They say it was largely considered to be one of the night's most critical moments and fruitful lines of attack.
In the aftermath, Harris took a significant hit in the polls.
And that is why Tulsi needed to be on that stage.
And that is why I think the DNC is full of it and not letting her on the debate stage in the coming debates.
Hopefully she'll be in the next set.
We'll see what happens.
However, Gabbard failed to qualify for the third debate in Houston, Texas.
While she was able to swiftly meet the fundraising threshold, she was ultimately two DNC-approved polls short of receiving an invitation to participate.
And that is BS.
It's so arbitrary.
What are the guidelines?
Look, she even says arbitrary.
Gabbard's campaign slammed the DNC for issuing arbitrary rules and further urged for transparency within the process, especially when it comes to which polls the organization considers to be certifiable.
Here's the thing.
I really, really like Tulsi Gabbard as a candidate.
I think she has a lot of charisma, I think she's tough, and I think she's being sane and rational and talking about what Americans actually care about, especially for the Democrats.
Unfortunately, the media does not like her.
And unfortunately, the activist base will do everything to smear her.
Just like Trump.
You know, Trump meets with bad people, you know, he meets with dictators or whatever, and the media cries foul and the resistance says he's ponying up the dictators.
Admittedly, Trump himself criticized Obama for many of the same things, but maybe he's learned an important lesson.
Maybe Trump was critical of Obama because he wasn't sitting in the hot seat, and maybe he's evolved on the issue, which is fair.
I think it's funny to point out the change, but at the same time, if Trump's now recognizing he needs to meet with these people, well, good.
The media doesn't care, though.
They'll smear him anyway.
Tulsi met with Assad.
Difficult choice, because leaders have to make difficult decisions.
She also, my understanding, has met with Trump.
Good.
Talking is better than fighting.
And if we can avoid fighting, we can maybe get through war and conflict and crisis with minimal collateral damage.
One of the biggest fears I have is that war will stop us from reaching the stars.
It's one of the answers to Fermi's Paradox.
If you're not familiar, it's the question of, you know, if the universe is so big, where is the other intelligent life?
And one of the proposed solutions is intelligent life destroys itself.
We are one planet, but we're divided up amongst many different cultures and nations, states, etc., countries.
And the prospect of war wiping us out is serious.
So when you have leaders who are willing to make difficult decisions and make concessions to bad people because it could prevent something worse, perhaps the right decision is a difficult one.
And not everybody will be completely happy, but it could prevent our total destruction.
I believe we're headed towards a one-world government.
I really do.
I know a lot of people don't like that, but listen, I'm not saying that we're going to have a one world government with like an authoritarian regime opening up all the borders and destroying everything.
I think it's going to be more so international trade lines.
There will probably still be borders to a great extent, but trade is going, you know, it's capitalism and trade and the market, which has pulled people out of poverty.
Once the rest of the world, you know, catches up in poverty, poverty is in rapid decline globally.
And that is going to drive us to a very I guess I can't really describe it the way I think it is, but look at Star Trek.
Once you get beyond scarcity, and technology makes, you know, for complete abundance, then things start to matter less and less in terms of, you know, an authoritarian regime dictating who can do or say what.
With, with... Okay, okay.
I better stop myself before I start getting into the sci-fi realm and bring it back to the point about Tulsi.
Look, I showed you three stories.
It was really, really great that you went on Dave Rubin.
And I'll make this point about Dave.
Joe Rogan does great conversations.
But Dave is political.
Like, wholly so.
So a conversation with Dave is going to be more fruitful for me when I'm trying to understand Tulsi's positions.
When it comes to life and choice, I believe Tulsi is absolutely in the right place.
Moderation.
Safe, rare, legal, you know, whatever the saying was.
And restrictions on third trimester.
Then she's got securing borders?
Identity politics is divisive?
Come on, man.
If you're a conservative, if you're a moderate, if you're a centrist, if you're a libertarian, and even to an extent if you're a Trump-loving MAGA guy or lady, or you're a leftist, I think you can understand why people like me like Tulsi Gabbard and think she's the right choice.
You know it'd be really epic.
And maybe it's naive, but if Trump replaced Bolton with Tulsi, And, you know, if Trump brought on somebody like Tulsi and Yang into his administration to fill in the gaps where moderates are upset, I think that would be like a groundbreaking historical thing.
I think I've said what I need to say on this video.
I don't want to just start reiterating myself, but the point is, I've donated to Tulsi, I've made many videos, you know I'm biased because of the politics she's holding, I've highlighted her in other videos, and there it is.
I think, you know, I rarely like making any kind of, you know, pushing any support for any kind of candidate.
But this is speaking to exactly what I've been saying for a long time.
So maybe, maybe Tulsi listens to Dave and she listens to, like, the lost liberals.
The people who are like, where did the Democrats go?
And she's the one with principles who stood up to the DNC and is now calling out the absurdity that is the Democratic pandering.
Okay.
Okay.
I'll stop here.
Next segment will be at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
Thanks for hanging out and I will see you all there.
It is a different channel.
Monopoly is kind of a fun game if you have several hours and want to lose a bunch of friends, because after you play you'll get so frustrated and angry with them you'll never want to play with them again.
Well, there's two new versions of Monopoly, and today we're going to be focusing on one, but I have to highlight the other.
Here's the story.
Miss Monopoly.
Why, it's the first game that pays women more than men.
It's a feminist version of Monopoly, apparently, but kind of not because why would you give female players more money?
Doesn't seem to make sense.
Now, look.
Apparently, the game highlights achievements women have made, which is okay, fine.
But it also gives women more starting cash, my understanding.
We'll read this.
We'll read through the benefits they're giving to women.
However, recently we saw socialism monopoly, which is very, I don't know, derisive?
Insulting towards socialists?
So naturally, if Hasbro is going to make a game that's political and makes fun of socialists, don't be surprised if they make a woke monopoly to also capitalize on the culture war.
Congratulations.
Truly, capitalism is the real winner here.
Sorry, socialists.
Okay, let's read about the feminist version of Monopoly, and why would anyone want to play it?
Before we do, head over to YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
I have a new channel.
Make sure you subscribe if you want to see on-the-ground reporting and just behind-the-scenes stuff.
There's a new video about my van, and if you want to see the van tour and see what we'll be doing, go check it out.
YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Let's read the story.
From Pluralist, Hasbro officially brought the gender pay gap to game night with its new feminist version of Monopoly called Miss Monopoly, not Mrs. The new version of the classic board game comes with new rules.
Women players will collect $240 in Monopoly money, while male players will only collect $200.
Women also collect $1,900 in Monopoly money from the banker player at the beginning of the game, while men collect $1,500.
Ah, yes.
So this person, Lisa Britton, says, Hasbro is perpetuating victimhood through a board game.
They're instilling in young girls that society views them as less than.
The pay gap comes from personal choices made by women.
I don't know or care, but I will say this.
Regular Monopoly is truly egalitarian.
Your race and gender are irrelevant.
The banker pays and the banker takes, no matter what.
The game is equal.
There's no card in Regular Monopoly where it's like, if you're a woman, lose money.
So why make a game that is purposefully gender imbalanced?
That's not feminist.
Unless...
You want to give ammo to the anti-feminists who believe that feminism is really about female privilege, and taking power, and not fighting for equality.
Now feminists will tell you feminism is all about equality, but at least not when it goes capitalist, you know?
When a board game wants to capitalize on feminism, they overtly make the game about giving women more power than men.
That's why I'm like, it's kind of not feminist, but at least by the supposed definition.
Let's read a little bit more.
But if men play their cards right, they can make more money too, the game-making company announced in a Monday press release.
Miss Monopoly will be the first ever game in the Monopoly franchise that celebrates women trailblazers.
Yes, by propping up female players because they clearly need help.
That's the joke.
According to Hasbro's press release, and will feature a new female character on the box cover instead of the game's original mustachioed mascot, Rich Uncle Pennybags.
Hasbro also announced a $20,580 real money donation to three girls ages 13 to 16 to fuel their inventive spirit and further their projects, which just so happens to be the same amount of Monopoly money featured in the game.
All of the young inventors come from very different backgrounds, but with a common goal to help others using their inventions.
Here we can see Carol Ross says, Yeah, nothing says empowering women like giving them special treatment instead of equal treatment based on biology.
We live in the dumbest time.
The greatest time, but also the dumbest time.
Quote, you can't win at something unless you get an unfair advantage.
And by the way, everyone is going to resent you for it.
Seems like an amazing lesson for young girls.
I have a question.
I'm gonna buy this, because I think it's great.
I don't, and I got a story for you, but first thing I wanna say is, I'm gonna buy this because can I just identify as a woman and then get the $240?
Is there an explicit rule saying if you're trans you're not allowed?
Or do you have to literally be trans in order to play the game and get the money you want?
I don't know.
Anyway, I'm just being a bit silly, but I will say I'll buy the game and play it to see what it's all about, to see what the mechanics are like.
But I want to make a point.
Recently I was playing Mario Kart, and here's why I think it's a good thing.
I was playing Mario Kart.
Actually, no, no, no, I wasn't playing Mario Kart.
We were gonna play Mario Kart, and I said, no, I hate Mario Kart.
Mario Kart 64, I'm really good at.
That game I like.
The later versions, I'm like, it's just so bad how, you know, if you turn items off, fine, the game's enjoyable, but like the basic iteration of it where The further back you go, the better items you get?
That's a terrible idea, and I called it communist propaganda.
Saying, you know, it's basically teaching people that you don't have to try hard to get ahead, and that's the way it should be.
Now, this idea comes from this viral post, where someone was explaining socialism, and they said, it's like Mario Kart.
The further back you are, you are given better advantages, and the people in the front who have privilege don't.
And they're like, wow!
That's a great way to explain it.
So I called it communist propaganda, but then somebody made a really interesting point.
No, it's anti-communist propaganda.
And I said, well, how is it anti-communist?
Like, you're in last place, you get a blue shell, and you blow up the guy in first, and then you can just speed ahead, or you get a star or a bullet bill or something?
It's like the worse you do, the more you're rewarded for it.
And that's when I was told, right, It is anti-communist propaganda.
You know why?
Think about the little kids who are playing that game, who get really good at it, and then get punished for being good.
What they learn is, in this system, you have to pretend to be worse than you are, and hide your abilities, and then take advantage later on.
If anything, it's teaching kids to be more opportunistic, and to resent communism.
And I went, that's a really good point.
So think about what this game will do.
As Carol Roth says, everyone's going to resent you for it.
If you get a game that gives women more money for nothing, people are going to really, really hate feminism.
Think about it.
This is Miss Monopoly.
I don't know if they're calling it feminist or whatever, but it's going to make men really, really resent women.
Listen, I know you might say yes, but the young men will say, wow, am I getting paid more than women?
Now I understand why women are frustrated.
No, that's not how people work.
They're not going to add things.
They're going to be like, this is dumb.
Why do women get free stuff?
Then all of a sudden you're going to have a door opened by MRAs.
Who point out things like ladies not at bars, where women get discounts or cheaper entry.
Men are supposed to buy women drink, pay for dinner.
All of these old archaic systems where it's supposed to be equal, but women still get the privilege.
So what do they do?
They make a game now that not only do we still exist in a society that is not entirely, you know, beyond gender norms.
So you still have the expectation the man is supposed to provide.
But now we're gonna make a game that punishes you for being a man.
Do you think that's feminist propaganda?
No.
It's not.
Now, there may be feminists who laugh at it and say, ha ha ha, now I'm getting more money.
Regular people are going to be like, this is dumb.
This is not fair.
And they're not going to think about privilege or anything like that.
They're just going to get angry about it.
Let's read a little bit more, see what else they have.
Hasbro Global Brand Strategy and Marketing Senior Director Jen Boswinkle said that though the new game, through the new game and the company's donation to three young women, Hasbro's goal is to recognize and celebrate the many contributions women have made to our society and continue to make on a daily basis.
We made sure that this felt authentic and was a fun game families could play and learn about these things that they love and are a part of their life that they didn't know were invented by women.
If they made a game called Miss Monopoly, And the buildings and properties or whatever were like famous things associated with females.
And it was the same game?
That's great.
But they've changed the rules and created identity-based resentment or advantages.
Washington Post reporter Dave Jorgensen noted on Twitter that the original patent for the first version of the game called The Landlord's Game was actually created by a woman named Lizzie Maggie in 1903.
He says, uh, she created the game, some dude showed up 30 years later, pretended he invented it, threw out one of the rulebooks, got the patent, and sold it to Parker Brothers.
Hey, good for him.
But however, I'm sorry, but however well-intentioned the purpose of the game is, its PayGap rule received some criticism on Twitter.
Michelle Malkin says, Okay, I think she's joking.
Is that real, though?
No, okay, I think that's a joke.
I don't think that's actually in the game.
to play put him in jail cards with false me too allegations against men then
collect multi-million dollar civil suits and book deals okay I think she's
joking is that real though no okay I think that's a joke I don't think that's
actually in the game so anyway we saw socialism Uh, I'm not gonna- I'm not- I'm not- I don't care.
It's a game.
When the Monopoly Socialism thing came out, all of these Socialists got really angry and go, Harumph, I say!
How dare you insult Socialism!
This game isn't real Socialism!
We're gonna play it.
It's gonna be fun.
And I'm sure Miss Mono- Miss- Miss Monopoly will be as well, because their gimmicks, the mechanics are probably not as good as, like, regular Monopoly.
I'm pretty sure regular Monopoly is a solved game, though, so whatever.
Anyway, there you go.
New feminist gaming brought to you by Hasbro.
But I guess they also have... The Socialists game apparently is, like, very insulting to actual socialists.
So, whatever, man.
At least they're playing both sides, insulting the feminists and making fun of socialism at the same time.
What more can you ask for?
Everybody deserves a pie in the face every now and then.
And if a comedian's gonna come out, make fun of everybody?
I'm all for it.
If they're gonna make games that make fun of everybody, sure, fine, whatever.
I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes.
Stick around, I will see you all shortly.
In my last segment, I talked about Miss Monopoly, a game for feminists.
It's feminist monopoly where women are given the advantage.
Well, not too unlike real life.
Wait, not too much unlike from real life?
Okay, I don't know what I'm saying.
The point is, life imitates art.
In this story from CNN Business, online harassment is the largest safety concern for female journalists, new study finds.
Now that, on its own, I have no problem with.
Right?
If a study finds that the largest safety concern is online harassment, that's good news.
It means physical threats and threats of physical violence is not the largest concern.
That's fantastic.
Good news.
Good job, everybody.
If the only thing we really have to be concerned about is people saying mean things on the internet, I think we've done a great job.
What a progressive society.
Women no longer have to be worried about being murdered or beaten in the streets.
They just got to be worried about being insulted on the internet.
Now the reason I mention the Miss Monopoly thing, for one, I just did a segment on it, but more importantly, why should we care what female journalists face?
Journalists in general face things.
Now, let's be real.
I think quantifying data is important.
If men and women face different things, great.
But should females receive special consideration in the workplace?
I believe the answer is no.
And I believe life is not fair and sometimes people say mean things.
I'm not trying to justify harassment in no way.
Quite the opposite.
It's wrong and it's bad.
But let me make this point.
I as a man.
You know, I've seen these feminist posts where they're like, you know, as a woman, when I go out, I'm scared someone will attack me.
And I'm like, yeah, me too.
Like, guys are more likely to be the victims of violent crimes.
And more likely to be victims of harassment on the internet.
So why do we act like it's a problem only for women?
I actually think it's because our society is sexist and feminism is overtly sexist.
I understand there's good feminism.
I don't want to say all feminism.
It's very complicated.
But the point I'm trying to make...
The reason our society, in my opinion, tolerates feminism is because of the assumption that women are weak and do need help.
Think about it.
If a guy comes out and says it's not fair that women win in divorce cases most of the time, they're insulted.
Men's rights activists are Insulted in the mainstream.
Why?
Our society still hold traditional gender values in that men are strong and can take care of themselves and women are weak.
Therefore, our society tolerates it when we say women are being harassed online.
You know, there was a story I did the other day.
Where it was, um, men are broke, uneducated, and failing, and the New York Post framed it as a woman's problem.
Saying, you know, men being broke is a problem for women, now they can't find husbands.
It also reminds me of that thing, I think it was Hillary Clinton, when she said women are the primary victims of war.
They lose their husbands, their fathers, their brothers, and sons, or whatever.
And it's like, pretty sure the dude who died was the victim of war, but sure, it's all about you.
So here's what happens.
In a society that inherently views women as weak, women will be handed all of the advantages, and every complaint they make will be treated as the most important thing ever.
Why?
Because people want to help those who are weak.
Therefore, we see stories like this.
Let's read this.
Online harassment.
is the largest safety concern for female journalists.
Now, again, I want to stress, if we're quantifying data, that's fine.
If women are concerned about their safety, and online harassment is the biggest issue, that's really good news.
It's really, really good news, and it's also fine, again, to check out the data, but my point, you know, still stands.
Let's read the story.
Before we get started, head over to youtube.com slash timcast IRL and subscribe to my new channel.
There's gonna be behind-the-scenes, on-the-ground stuff.
Look, it's not gonna be newsy, so be prepared.
For, like, I don't know, me talking about ordering pizza.
I have no idea.
But the goal is to travel on the road, meet people on the ground, have real conversations about politics to an extent.
So yes, YouTube.com slash TimCast IRL, subscribe, and let's get back to the story.
CNN reports, technology companies could be doing more to help ensure the safety of journalists who face online threats and harassment, according to a press freedom group.
Many journalists, especially female and gender non-conforming reporters, are familiar with receiving angry messages, threats, and taunts online in response to their reporting.
Because they don't have this context.
According to Pew Research, men are more likely to be harassed online.
Now, women are more likely to be stalked and sexually harassed, but across the board in terms of threats and general harassment and insults, men are the majority, and men still get stalked and sexually harassed, too.
It's only a little bit more for women.
Let's read.
Online harassment is the biggest safety concern facing many female journalists, according to Courtney Regge, advocacy director for the Committee to Protect Journalists.
Social media companies have a role to play in monitoring their platforms to mitigate this kind of behavior, she told CNN's Brian Stelter on Reliable Sources.
We don't want journalists to be fearful of reporting on issues.
It's not enough to mute or block somebody.
You need to know if those threats are coming through, and we need more proactive responses from the tech platforms.
Okay, wait, hold on.
If it's not enough to mute or block them, because you need to know if the threats are coming through, what do you think tech companies could be doing?
Are you saying tech companies should work with law enforcement?
Yeah.
Like if somebody sends you a threat online, that's a crime, call the police.
What should the tech company do about it?
I mean, archive the post and then call the police.
But also, I'm often reminded of that post, I think it was Tyler the Creator, I could be wrong, where he said, how is cyber bullying a thing?
Just close your eyes.
Just look away from the screen.
I have a great solution.
Look, I've talked with people who have been on the receiving end of online mobs, and it's really crazy how they freak out, and they're stressed, and they're having panic attacks, and I'm like, dude, dude, dude.
Seriously?
Just click the X, and it's all gone.
None of it matters.
It's not real life.
If someone sends a mean word to you, guess what?
Just click the X. You know how many followers?
Look, I got a ton of followers on Twitter.
I got 380-something thousand.
My notifications are permanently locked at 99+.
And while the majority of notifications I get are nice, a good portion are really, really, really awful.
Some of them are threats.
Some of them are really, really creepy.
You know what I do?
I just don't click them anymore.
And that's it.
And there's a big ol' smile on my face.
Out of sight, out of mind.
But not only that, when I do see them, I just don't care, man.
It's like being in high school.
It's like someone's whispering, like, you know what?
Maybe it's just me because I learned at a young age to not care.
But somebody would insult me behind my back and I'd be like, I don't care.
I just wonder why it matters.
If I report a story, guess what?
I do videos all the time.
I get people saying nasty things about me all day and night.
Why does it matter?
Why is it a concern for female journalists that people send them mean words?
Because it hurts their feelings?
Okay, well, grow up!
The problem I see with this is that when we look at Pew and we can see that men are more likely to receive harassment online, we don't hear men complaining about it.
So why are women complaining about it?
There are many reasons, you may state.
Maybe they're more sensitive.
Maybe they're more scared.
But this is a big problem for feminism in general.
If men receive more threats, but don't speak up about it, or it's ignored, either society is discriminating against men, or women can't handle the same level of stress men can, which creates a big problem.
What do you do?
Do you tell men to pretend to be stressed out more?
Do you censor people on the internet to benefit women because women can't handle what men can?
Are you implying then that women can't handle what men can handle?
Now you're sexist.
You see the problem here?
I get so much hate online, I just don't care, man.
Let's read a little bit more.
They go on and mention the survey.
Yeah, I get it.
It says the report highlights risks journalists face in two countries not often thought to be dangerous to the press.
How is it dangerous that someone calls you a mean word?
But where 85% of respondents say they feel less safe than they did five years ago.
Respondents said they faced worse harassment from covering key subjects such as local or national politics or extremism.
That harassment from readers and online trolls ranged from unsolicited sexual messages to threats of violence, rape, or death, and also included the publication of reporters' private information online.
I'm right there.
In fact, I get it worse than all of these people in the survey.
I'd be willing to bet That's an assumption, by the way.
But I'd be willing to bet I am getting way more threats, harassment, and have way worse security issues than every single person serving.
And you know what?
I empathize.
No one should be sending you threats.
Nobody should be saying they want to rape or kill you.
That's terrifying.
However, at a certain point, just call the cops.
I don't even do that.
Maybe I should.
I don't.
I don't care.
You want to kick my door in and come and whack me in the face with, I don't know, with a brick or something?
Whatever, man.
I'm just so over it.
So many messages every single day.
It's hollow, garbage nonsense.
And what if it's coming from Russia?
The point I'm making is, I don't know who these people are.
It could be one person with ten accounts.
It could be a Russian.
Someone in a foreign country.
But people are acting like it's the worst thing in the world.
You wanna know what concerns me?
What concerns me is, like, a random guy mugging me in the street.
No one's gonna, like, I'm not... Mean words on the internet is the last thing I'm concerned about.
And most of the threats I get, hollow.
And if I ever consider them to be real, I just call the cops.
And I haven't actually had to do that.
I mean, one guy did show up to my house.
It's a whole other issue.
But, um...
They say, harassment does not always simply remain online.
The survey found it quoted one respondent, one, a reporter who covers far-right extremism and technology who said men associated with a large white supremacist group once said on a radio show that if she attended an upcoming rally she would leave in a body bag.
Or how about Antifa who beats journalists?
Okay, you want to play these games?
I get it.
You report an extremist, extremists don't like it.
That's not news.
You're not special.
So look, look, I'm gonna end by saying this.
Nobody should be threatening you.
Nobody should be harassing you.
However, if men are getting more and don't care, answer me this.
Are we discriminating against men?
You might say no.
unidentified
Okay, if that's the case, then what's the problem?
Yet I don't see the stories lining up where they're like, oh, poor men.
Answer me why.
One more story coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all in a... in a... I will see you... I will see you all then!
From the Daily Mail, number of migrants stopped at the Mexican border so far this year reaches 811,000, a 13-year high, and already 300,000 more than 2018.
a 13-year high, and already 300,000 more than 2018.
It is September.
We're looking at around, what, like 90,000 people per month on average.
Certainly we're not deporting that many.
Do people believe that at that level we can accommodate government health care and environmental regulations and programs?
With more people coming to the U.S.
means more pollution and it means less resources for everybody else.
Tax revenue is finite.
Now you'll hear from the left saying, yes, but they'll pay taxes.
Not all of them and not right away.
So, perhaps something needs to be done about this.
A 13-year high, 811,000 people so far.
Well, let's read the story from the Daily Mail.
They say, the number of migrants... Oh, oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I need to stress.
These are just the people stopped at the Mexican border.
How many people didn't?
Could we say the average is actually closer to a million people so far this year coming through?
How many people made it through without being stopped at all?
The number of migrants stopped at the Mexican border so far this year has reached a record 811,000, already 300,000 more than 2018.
111,000, already 300,000 more than 2018.
Illegal crossings are now at a 13-year high, and that's coming from CBP data.
If the current numbers continue, they are on track to surpass levels in 2005, which
saw more than 1 million people stopped, according to figures from CBP.
Despite the record numbers, the Trump administration on Monday credited Mexico and Central American countries with helping to cut border arrests by nearly 60% over the past few months.
Now let's check this out.
Look at this.
A massive spike happened at the beginning of the year, probably as it was starting to get warmer, and we see May with a massive peak.
It was about 144,000 people.
Now, in the past few months, it's gone down dramatically.
Because the weather has been, like, nice, like not freezing, I can only imagine this is due to arrangements with Mexico and security issues.
Now, before we read on, I'm going to promote my new channel.
Go to YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
I'm going to have on-the-ground reporting.
There's a plan to go to the border, but admittedly it is harder than it seems to get in a van and drive to Texas while trying to do the same workload.
But I have a new video up.
It's a van tour.
Subscribe to the new channel.
Check out the video if you're into it.
YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
But let's get back to the news about immigration.
They say, The number of migrants stopped at the border in May rose to the highest levels since 2006, with 132,887 detained, including 11,507 unaccompanied children.
It was the first time the detentions had exceeded 100,000 since April.
In February, Trump declared the crisis a national emergency.
During his first year as president in 2017, the number of migrants apprehended fell dramatically, at just 303,000, but has risen steadily since.
They say, a decade ago migrants were mostly Mexican, but in recent years they have been overtaken by Central Americans, mostly from the so-called Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.
On Monday, Mark Morgan, the acting commissioner of USCBP, said that 64,000 people were detained or turned back at the southwest border in August.
That was down 22% from July and 56% from a high mark in May.
So I want to make a couple points here.
Before we go on, there's been a lot of criticism about Trump's border wall because he's only refurbishing old barriers and not building new wall.
What people want is for Trump to expand this big, beautiful barrier from sea to shining sea.
Instead, what's happening, Trump is replacing old border walls with new ones.
However, that makes the most sense.
I'm really confused by this, the conservative criticism.
I've seen conservatives criticize the president.
First, the government has to acquire the land rights, building permits to actually build new border wall.
Some of the walls can't be built because of the terrain, like rivers or something.
But more importantly, the first thing Trump should be doing is reinforcing the barriers we already have.
Why?
The barriers were put in these places specifically because they're high-trafficked areas.
Which means people, over time, will break them down and break through them.
And that's most of the photos we see.
People climbing over walls or going through or under them.
In which case, reinforcing the highly-trafficked areas makes more sense than just building walls in the middle of nowhere.
Now, Trump made big promises.
You know, what was it?
What was the original saying?
Like a big, beautiful, 30-foot concrete barrier, and now it's bollard fencing.
But that also makes more sense.
CBP needs to be able to see through the fence, right?
So the other issue I want to bring up is the amount of apprehensions going down.
There's a few things here.
Perhaps the apprehensions are going down because the reinforced fencing works.
There was a photo I showed in a video from a couple weeks ago where I was talking exactly about this, and you could see in the video from the Daily Mail published, people were jumping over the wall.
The new wall was very high and three layers thick.
No people anymore.
In which case, less people illegally entering the U.S.
means less apprehensions.
There's also an alternative.
If people are not being stopped, it may just mean they're getting away with it, and perhaps CBP isn't doing a good enough job, or perhaps resources are constrained because of the high number of people already at facilities, and even if they could stop them, they have nowhere to put them anymore.
In which case, the number may be down.
That may be a bad thing.
The number being up is technically a good thing, but there's a lot to consider.
Look at May, this massive spike in apprehensions.
For all we know, the same amount of people come through every month.
But CBP only apprehended the bulk of them in one month.
The number going down may mean that people are just freely entering the country and not being stopped at all.
This data doesn't necessarily mean anything.
A lot of people, you know, will look at the numbers of apprehensions and say, oh, this proves there's a crisis at the border.
Look how many people are being caught.
Or it could just mean that Trump has increased enforcement and is catching more of the people, and it makes it seem like more people are coming when they're not.
Let's read on, though, however.
They say, Even so, the total was the highest for any month of August in more than a decade.
As Central American migrants have headed north in record numbers, many seeking asylum from impoverished countries with some of the highest murder rates in the world, the Trump administration has been pressuring all of those countries to do more to keep people from reaching the U.S.
border.
Threatening Mexico with tariffs unless it complied.
Now, I think that makes the most sense.
Why are the apprehensions down?
Think about this.
The less people that come, the higher density of apprehensions.
So basically, if 300,000 people try to come in, and we only have, over a certain amount of time, and we have a finite amount of CBP and ICE agents, we can only capture so many.
If the number of migrants trying to enter go way, way down, we still have the same number of CBP, they can apprehend a higher percentage.
In this case, it does seem like what Mexico is doing on the southern border and the northern border has had an impact on the amount of migrants that are getting through, in which case, it may be that less and less migrants are coming.
The US has persuaded Guatemala to become a so-called safe third country that would accept asylum seekers.
Though the deal has yet to be ratified by its government, in a bid to reduce the strain on the US, Washington is working with Honduras on a similar agreement.
The United States has failed to persuade Mexico to do the same.
Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard reiterated their country's rejection of the status on Monday after Morgan said talks were ongoing for a cooperative agreement to help stem the tide of migrants.
In the meantime, Mexico has agreed to keep Central American asylum seekers just south of the U.S.
border pending their U.S.
court appointments and has deployed National Guard officers to halt them.
Ebrard is to meet with U.S.
officials on Tuesday to discuss Mexico's efforts.
He said last week that Mexico does not expect the U.S.
to threaten tariffs at this time.
Earlier on Monday, a U.S.
Mexico has been doing a great job for us, and frankly, we're very appreciative.
But we've also been very, pretty rapidly changing the regulations, the rules," Trump
told reporters at the White House.
Earlier on Monday, a U.S. judge dealt Trump a setback, ruling that an injunction against
a restrictive rule on asylum seekers should apply nationwide.
The rule, unveiled on July 15th, requires most migrants who want asylum in the United
States to seek asylum first in a third country they had traversed on their way.
Now, specifically, the argument is, we have people coming from Angola, okay, in Africa.
They fly to Brazil and then make their way all the way to the U.S.
and ask for asylum.
That seems a bit disingenuous.
Certainly, if you wanted to get out of your country because you were unsafe, you could stay in any one of these other places.
People on the left then argue, well, it's not safe there either.
So what?
Does the U.S.
bring in literally every single person in the world into just the U.S.
so it's safer?
Well, then it wouldn't be safe, would it?
If every single person is fearing some kind of violence, so they come here, well, then... we can't keep people safe, can we?
It seems like, for the most part, though...
The argument for the left is purely tribal.
Trump made a promise.
They don't want him to keep his promise.
They don't have any consideration towards, you know, how the economy is going to function.
And if you haven't already, check out my video from the other day about Democrats losing their polling advantage.
It's over at youtube.com slash timcast.
Yes, it's a different channel.
I specifically highlight The issue of Democrats offering to decriminalize illegal border crossings being extremely unpopular, okay?
When Trump pushes for immigration, it's because most people agree we can't just let in a million people every year.
We don't have the infrastructure.
And I'll give you a really simple breakdown.
Some people say, that when immigrants come in, illegal or otherwise,
they will provide for the economy.
Okay, but first, you have to understand that even if they're not going to use benefits,
they're still walking on the roads.
The roads are paid for by the taxpayer.
Roads can handle so much wear and tear.
More?
So the example I gave a while ago is like, imagine you built a bridge over a little stream towards your property, and then somebody uses it, and you say, hey, like, please don't use my bridge, it can't support that much weight.
And then one day you notice everybody's crossing that bridge, and the bridge starts falling apart because so many people are walking across it.
Who's gonna fix it?
The people who crossed it are just gonna leave.
So it's gonna have to be you.
That's the problem.
That's why legal immigration for everyone.
Everybody can come legally, but then we actually have people monitoring and maintaining the infrastructure so it doesn't become, you know, burdensome.
I'm not gonna rant on this.
I'm gonna leave it there.
So, you get the point, right?
That's basically the gist of the story.
We're at a near 13-year high, a 13-year high, and potentially the highest in a longer period of time, over a million, if things don't change.
Next segment will be tomorrow at 10am, podcast every day at 6.30pm.
