Trump Has "Passed The Test" with TWO Republican Victories In North Carolina
Republican Victory In North Carolina Good News For Trump 2020 Reelection, But Democrats Making Gains.In a replacement election and a 'do over' two republicans won congressional districts. One easily defeated the Democratic contender while the other was narrow.In a narrow victory Dan Bishop won a do over election. While this is good news and considered to be Trump "passing a test" on whether he is going to do well in 2020, it was still ten points down from his lead in 2016.Democrats may be making gains, at least on the surface. But there may be another reason for the major drop in republican party support, Trump's base.Many voters came out in 2016 not to support the GOP but to support Trump himself. Democrats may noit actually have a strong lead at all, it may just be that Trump voters don't show up for anyone else. This means come 2020 Trump's base will check R across the board and sweep the house. While far left Democrats are causing a rift in the party moderates are feeling pushed away by the encroaching ideology and policies presented by 2020 Democrats. This may spell victory for Trump in 2020. At the very least the GOP held its own and its good news for republicans all around.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Two Republicans have won House seats in North Carolina.
One was a replacement vote.
One was a duo vote.
It's a little complicated.
We'll get into all the nitty-gritty.
But the big question is, was this good or bad for Republicans and Trump?
And there's actually a good argument that it could be bad news and that it could be good news.
Democrats thought they might be able to flip one of these seats because the margins and the polling showed it was getting narrow.
But in the end, the Republicans win.
Which could show that Trump will hold this space, and it's good news moving into 2020.
However, the Democrats did close a very wide gap from 12 points to 2 points, and so it could be good news that Democrats are gaining on Republicans, and the next year or so could make enough gains to start winning back seats in the House or defeating Donald Trump.
We'll read through all of this, and I'll give you the breakdown of what's going on with Dan Bishop narrowly winning that special election, but I also want to talk about polls.
Why are the polls so wrong?
This was considered to be a test for Donald Trump.
If the Republicans lost, it would have been very, very bad news, but they won, so there's a small sigh of relief.
However, there's other news coming out about polls showing that it should have gone the other way.
Trump then slams the polls.
Rasmussen put out something really interesting about Donald Trump, I believe Trump, Trump campaign, threatening legal action against ABC, causing them to reverse a poll and come back with an inverted result.
The reason this is interesting is that studies in the past have shown us that poll results can swing voters.
And if people believe their side can't win, they won't go out and vote.
Which is interesting, because all of these approval ratings and all of these polls keep showing Trump in the gutter, except Rasmussen.
And Rasmussen accurately predicted the popular vote.
Are they the only one telling the truth?
Or Are they biased in trying to support Donald Trump?
That's the big question.
I can't give you all the answers.
I can break things down for you and show you the research where they claim polls do this.
So, let's get started with the first big story.
The victory in North Carolina for Republicans and why people are saying it is good news for Republicans.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate to support my work.
There is a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical option.
But the best thing you can do, just share this video.
For a lot of reasons, YouTube deranks independent political commentary.
Which means I'm competing not only with the big giants like CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, but YouTube is helping them and hurting me.
It's unfortunate.
But if you think I do a good job and you like me better than them, just share this video to help overcome that obstacle.
With your support, I can continue to grow and do what I do.
Let's read.
Yes, yes, I chose CNN on purpose.
Don't worry, I've got the Daily Wire right here.
I want to show kind of a mixed view on things.
Republican Dan Bishop narrowly wins closely watched North Carolina special congressional
election.
CNN reports, they say in North Carolina's ninth district special congressional election,
this gave Republicans a narrow victory in the GOP leaning district where President Donald
Trump won by 12 points in 2016.
The race drew national attention as a potential 2020 bellwether.
In a district that stretched from the Charlotte suburbs to the military town of Fayetteville, Trump and Vice President Mike Pence both made 11th-hour trips to the district on Monday in an effort to bolster Bishop.
The do-over special election came after the State Board of Elections refused to certify the 2018 House race results in the district after fraud allegations ordering a new election.
Trump was not on the ballot.
This is significant.
I'll get to it.
But Bishop's narrow victory in a race widely viewed as a referendum on the White House will provide a small measure of comfort to Republicans in 2020.
Republicans normally would have expected to dominate in a district that Trump won, but data released to the public ahead of the Tuesday vote showed a close race, underscoring GOP troubles in the suburb during the Trump era.
The president's approval rating in a number of recent polls is approaching lows not seen since 2017.
I'm going to push back on this, but I want to show you this story from Politico, why Republicans shouldn't breathe a sigh of relief after a North Carolina win.
Now, I want to make sure I stress this is very fair criticism.
Do not underestimate the Democrats' gains in these places, but there is a potential explanation.
I'm not telling you which one you should pick, but I just want to provide that nuance.
They say, Republicans went all in to keep a hold of a key congressional district with a special election Tuesday, and they won, but they still have good reason to be concerned about the result.
While the GOP can celebrate the election of a new congressman, Dan Bishop, his two-point victory in a district President Donald Trump carried by 12 points, in 2016 continues a worrisome trend for the party, which suffered heavy losses in the 2018 midterms, and has not seen the political environment approve as Trump gears up for re-election.
They say Trump cannot win a second term without improving his political position, and Democrats know it.
Casting Bishop's narrow win is a sign of progress in North Carolina, but hold on there!
Well, you can fairly state that could be the case.
I also want to point something else out.
Trump was not on the ballot.
That's important because many people believe Trump has changed the Republican Party.
Old school GOP voters, some of them went to Hillary, some of them have left.
And Trump invigorated new voters.
That means the first time when Trump carries a 12 point lead in 2016, people are coming out for Trump.
When it's Dan Bishop, Trump supporters might not come out for this guy.
They don't know him.
They like Trump.
In which case, you don't see the support.
So while it's possible to say Democrats are making gains in this district, it's also fair to say that Trump's new voters, people who hadn't voted before or independents and moderates who don't care about Dan Bishop, didn't show up at the polls.
I read one piece of data.
I know I've referenced this a lot.
I don't have it pulled up.
They talk about how, I believe it was the New York Times, in 2018, Trump voters did not turn out.
And that's bad news for Trump.
They like the guy enough to come and vote for him.
But not enough to come out and vote for general Republicans.
Which means, in 2020, if Trump's base comes out, and I know I've said this a couple times in the past few days, they're gonna check the R box across the board, and that's really, really good news for Republicans.
That could be a reason why they may retake the House.
But it's also possible the polls are right.
Now, here's the thing.
It's a very, very complicated circumstance.
All the polls seem to show Trump underwater.
They claim the Democrats are going to win.
And it is a fact that when people see polls like this, they give up.
If they think they can't win, they don't bother.
Interestingly, many people believe Hillary Clinton lost because everyone was so sure she was going to win, they didn't bother.
Perhaps the extreme ends of either poll can be bad news for a candidate.
Showing a neck-and-neck race might be the most important thing.
But I will stress, in my opinion, I think Trump supporters don't care about polls.
That's why Trump won.
They claimed he was a loser, he couldn't win, but Trump voters don't care.
They're new voters.
They don't care for the establishment.
They came out to vote because they felt good.
Trump supporters have been having a big ol' party the whole time.
Now obviously they face, like, Orange man bad in the media non-stop.
But there's a viral video going around, again, I don't have this pulled up, you should check it out, where this dude got a massive MAGA hat and, like, filmed himself walking around.
It's going viral because they're having a good time.
They're proud, they like what they're doing, and they're gonna show up and vote regardless of what the media tells them.
But I want to highlight this.
The Daily Wire frames it more as good news.
And I don't want to just show these outlets saying it's bad news.
The Daily Wire, obviously being conservative, says Trump passes test in North Carolina.
Republicans win both congressional seats.
From this perspective, it's fair to say it doesn't matter what the margins are.
Republicans win.
And if Republicans can win even by these margins in 2020, it's good news for Trump.
That was the test.
How are people feeling in the suburbs?
Will people support Trump?
In my personal opinion, I think all of this is irrelevant.
I think Trump's voters, his supporters, don't vote, don't come out for Republicans.
Not many of them do.
Some don't.
Some just want to vote for Trump.
So they're not paying attention to this stuff.
2020 will be a different story.
The media is going to light up and it'll be really interesting.
Let's talk about polls.
Here's what I really want to get into.
Apparently, actually, I think it's here, or maybe, okay, there's a couple different stories.
Daily Y reports.
Want proof media polls are phony?
Look at what just happened in North Carolina.
And they highlight that Trump calls this out.
I think they have the tweets from it.
He said the other day, ABC Washington Post poll was the worst and most inaccurate poll of any taken prior to the 2016 election.
When my lawyers protested, they took a 12 point down and brought it to almost even by election day.
It was a fake poll by two very bad and dangerous media outlets.
Sad.
One of the greatest and most powerful weapons used by the fake and corrupt news media is the phony polling information they put out.
Many of these polls are fixed or worked in such a way that a certain candidate will look good or bad.
Internal polling looks great, the best ever.
So here's the thing.
I'm not gonna agree with Trump on this one.
I don't think it's necessarily a conspiracy.
It could just be, very simply, they're bad at what they do.
Okay?
There's a thing I like talking about called the Gell-Man amnesia effect.
You read the news all day, every day, and you think, hey, these stories are really interesting.
I didn't know Trump did that.
I didn't know Trump said that.
Then all of a sudden you get to a story about you.
Maybe your profession.
Let's say you're a plumber.
You find a story that says plumbers outraged over new law proposed in Pennsylvania.
And you're like, wait a minute.
I'm a plumber.
I'm in Pennsylvania.
You read the story and go, what is this?
This is ridiculous.
It's wrong.
This happens to everyone when they read stories about something they're interested in or good at or themselves.
For the longest time, Wikipedia, my Wikipedia, claimed I invented a zeppelin.
No idea why!
It's so ridiculous and absurd.
The Gell-Mann amnesia effect refers to people seeing that story, assuming the news is true, until they see a story about them, realizing the news is fake news and it's bad at what they do, turning the page and completely forgetting.
The simple solution is thus.
These companies are polling wrong.
They are polling wrong, they're not calling the right households, they're not working with the internet, and they're ignoring the areas that Trump targets.
If Trump goes to one area and says, vote for me, and then they poll in a different area, it wouldn't make sense, would it?
Now, I'm using that as a metaphor.
What I mean is, when Trump goes online and rallies support across the country, where do you then call?
Who do you call?
What business?
What age group?
It seems to me that the polls are wrong.
Now, it's possible.
It is entirely possible.
There is a conspiracy.
I don't like to entertain that because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Regardless of that, however, it is true that polls do swing votes.
And that's what I was getting at earlier.
I will show some of this data coming up in a second.
But I want to make this point.
Rasmussen reports.
They typically show a more favorable outcome for Donald Trump.
The latest Rasmussen job approval, from the 8th to the 10th, has Trump at a 47% approval rating.
Not great.
You know, below 50, but way better than all these other polls.
Look at IBD tip.
At the end of August, had Trump at 39.
Politico morning consult, just a day earlier, on the 7th to the 8th, has Trump at a 43.
Here's what's interesting.
Rasmussen tweeted this out the other day, talking about the incorrect polls, responding to Donald Trump's tweets.
Let's read this.
Rasmussen said, We recently published some 2016 national polling comparative work for the final months of the election.
The ABC-Washington Post late 2016 polling track record, taken from RealClearPolitics, is one that we review.
What is new today is that we now know that the Trump campaign threatened legal action against ABC WaPo after their October 20th-23rd of 611 likely voters, D plus 12 poll.
Seven days later, they re-ran their survey, but this time with 1,125 likely voters yielding a Republican plus one result.
This was a 13-point flip in about one week towards candidate Trump, who had never led in their late 2016 national polling.
The almost double-sized sample, and likely other factors, apparently had a truly remarkable impact.
Now, you're gonna have to convince me that either the poll was wrong, or... Let me rephrase this, okay.
They're arguing that something happened, or I would say one of the arguments is that something happened in seven days that caused 13% of people decide to vote for Trump instead.
So either that poll was wrong, some profound, you know, moment happened that got Trump a huge surge in the polls, or the poll, like, when I say the polls are wrong, I should say it's either something happened or the polls are wrong.
Okay, that was terrible.
I apologize.
What I'm trying to say is, the way they conduct their polls was bad.
They changed what they did.
It clearly wasn't the result of some major news incident.
That would be absurd.
Rasmussen said, Not to be outdone, the Associated Press immediately followed the ABC WAPO D-plus-12 with its own October 20-24 survey of 1,212 likely voters showing D-plus-14.
D-plus-14 they say with an exclamation point.
No word as to whether they received a similar legal gram from the Trump campaign.
The AP then never released a final 2016 election poll, not an uncommon phenom from some of the media's most promoted gold-standard pollster names.
ABC WAPO did make a final popular vote margin election prediction, Hillary Clinton by 4.
Hillary Clinton then won the 2016 presidential popular vote by 2 points, precisely as we told our readers she would.
With all of this above as a subject update, here then is the link to our recent 2016 race polling analysis.
The point is, if they thought Democrats were going to flip this seat in North Carolina, if they thought Clinton was going to win by 4, if they thought Democrats initially would win by 14, but they were all wrong, and Rasmussen got the popular vote right, and Rasmussen currently holds Trump more favorably than any other poll, maybe Rasmussen is correct and everyone else is wrong.
Many people have stated, however, that Rasmussen is just biased, supporting Donald Trump and being more favorable to him.
But I gotta admit, if we're gonna avoid the conspiracies, okay, I'm not gonna pretend like CNN... Look, I think CNN doesn't like the president.
I think that's fair to say.
But I'm not going to pretend like all of these other polls are purposefully trying to manipulate popular opinion by convincing people Trump can't win.
I think they're just really, really bad at what they do.
I do think there are biased people at these companies, but for the most part, they're bad at what they do.
If we start from that standard, no conspiracies, no intent to deceive, then we're left with one conclusion.
Rasmussen was right in 2016, and so therefore, I would rather bet on Rasmussen being right today than any of these other polls that were wrong, especially ABC News Washington Post.
But here's what I want to show you.
Take a look at this.
This study right here looked at Canada in 1988.
This is just one bit of data, but there have been many other studies that have shown this to be the case.
They say, in this study, it's from University of Michigan.
We have assessed the impact of polls in the 1988 Canadian election through three different approaches.
First, a campaign pooled data analysis.
I'm not going to read you the nitty-gritty, I want to say.
The findings emerging from these three sets of analysis converge on four main conclusions.
Polls affected voters' perceptions of the various parties' chances of winning.
That one's obvious.
Polls affected the vote.
That's interesting.
Polls affected strategic voting, as some voters became less inclined to support a party whose chances of winning appeared slim.
Polls did not have a contagion effect, since voters did not come to evaluate the parties and leaders who were doing well in the polls more positively.
What we can see here The negative polls about Trump, at least according to this study, would likely make people not want to turn up and vote.
That could be a reason why they, you know, were seeing a 12-point lead from Trump in 2016 drop to a 2-point lead, a 2-point victory margin for the Republican.
But we also have a story from 2014 from the Washington Post.
Opinion polls can be self-fulfilling prophecies.
And it's not just about Trump.
It's about literally everything.
So when they come out and claim that everyone is supporting the Green New Deal, then apparently people will hold a bias and they'll support it because they want to be like everybody else.
But instead of taking my thoughts, let's just read this story from the Washington Post.
They say, Public opinion sometimes changes quickly over relatively short periods of time.
For instance, support for same-sex marriage has substantially increased to becoming a majority view over the past few years, while support for the death penalty has been steadily declining.
These rapid shifts are the product of people actually changing their views rather than just cohort replacement.
Younger people replacing older ones in the population.
What causes the opinion cascades?
Obviously, new information about policies and position taken by political elites play a role.
But people may also change their opinions by observing their fellow citizens.
When they learn from public opinion polls that majorities in favor of public policy are growing, they may jump on the bandwagon and also support these policies.
This could be because they want to feel liked or accepted.
They could be learning from the wisdom of crowds, or they may want to resolve cognitive dissonance by supporting what will most likely become the policy anyway.
In addition to polls, there are numerous other sources for people to learn about collective opinion, such as aggregated forecasts and prediction markets.
These recent phenomena have raised the question of whether the measurement of public opinion can itself influence public opinion.
So they go on to talk about a bunch of results.
But let's read this.
They say, The effect was not constant across issues.
We observed the highest effect for the free trade issue, 13.5 points.
So let's skip the nitty-gritty and read this.
We offer three related suggestive reasons why this is the case.
People are more likely to start out ambivalent on the issue of free trade, making them more susceptible to new information.
So I apologize.
They're talking about polling people on specific issues.
I jumped that because I just want to talk about the results.
So keep that in mind.
People were unsure of existing public opinion on free trade, meaning that the polling information had more of an opportunity to have an effect.
Free trade is not defined as much along partisan lines, and people have weaker partisan predispositions on the issue.
Hence, learning about majority opinion can cause attitude shifts, but the effects are strongest among people without well-defined prior support who are previously uninformed on public opinion and if the policy question is not highly partisan.
Take that data.
What does it mean?
Independent, uninitiated individuals.
People who don't care for any politics and don't watch are looking at the polls and seeing that everybody hates Trump and are likely to go, yeah, okay, I'll vote against him.
Maybe that's why people believe there is a conspiracy to put out fake polls to smear Trump.
And it's really strange that Trump threatened legal action and they changed by 13 points.
It could just be the companies are bad at what they do.
But in the end, I think one thing is there's only one thing that matters.
For some reason, even with this being true, even though we know polls can shift opinions, even though the polls say Trump is doing bad and they say Trump can't win, Trump still won.
He still won in 2016.
Something happened.
Apparently made a lot of people really, really angry.
I can only assume the same thing will happen again in 2020.
I mean, why wouldn't it?
Trump's base is growing, the economy is doing really great, and they keep saying all these really bad things.
But Rasmussen was right on the money with the popular vote.
So I'd bet on them.
And they have Trump's approval rating at 47 as of the past few days, just a couple days ago.
In which case, Trump's approval rating is much higher than many of the Democrats, and especially Congress.
So will Trump win?
Whether or not North Carolina is a real test of whether or not Trump can win, I think based on what we saw in 2016, based on everything I've just presented, I think the answer is yes.
So, the reason I highlight the polls and manipulating opinion is not to claim a conspiracy quite the opposite.
I don't think it's a conspiracy, but I do think it's fair to point out the ineptitude of media is misleading people.
Their failures to I'm done.
poll people and understand what's happening is misleading people and it's
swaying opinion and it is bad for our democratic constitutional republic. And I
mean democratic because we use democratic voting institutions to elect
officials to represent our republic. It's, I know, everyone's gonna get mad at me
for saying that. Okay, whatever. I'm done. You get the point. Republicans are
breathing a small sigh of relief in North Carolina.
So we'll see what happens.
I don't know if the test really mattered.
Trump voters are going to come out because they like Trump no matter what anyone else says.
And the Democrats, you better consider this.
Next segment will be coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6pm.
Thanks for hanging out and I will see you all there.
PewDiePie has made a terrible mistake.
In his video for his 100 million subscriber unboxing, he announced that he was going to donate to the Anti-Defamation League.
Now, there are two big conspiracy theories going around, but before I get into that, I want to talk about why it's controversial that he gave to the Anti-Defamation League, and why you should care as someone listening to this content.
The Anti-Defamation League helped get PewDiePie censored.
They helped damage his business.
The Anti-Defamation League has put out, you know, I don't want to say they've deliberately called for banning certain people, but they put out lists where they're like, these are people who haven't been banned.
And then those people get banned.
While I completely disagree with the ADL, I do want to stress I don't view them as this overarching evil organization of corruption.
I think they just have bad opinions, for the most part.
The Anti-Defamation League has favored censorship, they have run campaigns that have hurt the entirety of the YouTube community, which does include me, and it results in YouTube making changes that affect my content, your content, people we know and enjoy.
Small creators who barely crossed the threshold into making a living see their livelihoods destroyed and demonetization because of the efforts of the Anti-Defamation League.
But I want to make sure I say this because I always try to be fair.
The ADL has also criticized Ilhan Omar and far-left Democrats.
I don't think the ADL is mustache-twirling evil, I think they have bad opinions, and I think it's dangerous, and I am not a fan of theirs.
But I can respect, at least, that they've applied it to the far left as well, and it's not like one of these organizations that claims to be about hate speech but only targets conservatives.
Not a fan of the ADL, think they're causing problems for everybody on YouTube, but...
I can respect they've called out Ilhan Omar.
I can respect that while still criticizing them heavily.
PewDiePie giving them money isn't blackmail.
So the first conspiracy theory is that PewDiePie is being blackmailed by the Anti-Defamation League.
That is not true.
In this video, that was a big milestone for an individual YouTuber.
PewDiePie is the first individual to cross 100 million.
He ran an ad campaign for Honey.
It's an app.
It's like a browser extension.
Afterwards, he also announced $50,000 to the Anti-Defamation League.
This was likely due to Honey saying, we want to sponsor this video, but because of the controversy, we need a shield of some sort.
Why don't you give money to the ADL?
PewDiePie has displayed something deeply offensive to me here.
A few things.
First, he doesn't care about the community.
He doesn't care about the negative impacts.
He's literally handing resources to the organization that is damaging the livelihood of small creators and comedians on YouTube.
Look, I get it.
There's offensive politics.
They should have a right to free speech too.
But this will go towards small creators being swept up in collateral damage.
YouTube doesn't just take action against the offensive politics,
they do a sweeping broad change which deranked my content and I'm the milquetoast fence-sitter who doesn't even swear.
Yes, my videos get demonetized in part because of campaigns run by the ADL.
That's collateral damage they don't care about and PewDiePie doesn't care about.
PewDiePie is running a business.
I can respect that.
He wants to make money for himself and he's very wealthy.
I can also respect that as well.
However, I do think there is some responsibility to protect those... You know, look, with great power comes great responsibility.
PewDiePie has no obligation to try and defend smaller creators, but it is just so unfortunate that someone as wealthy and privileged as he, and I don't mean like social justice privilege, I mean literally the dude's extremely wealthy, and the only reason he crossed 100 million subscribers is because the YouTube community pushed a meme which got people to subscribe to PewDiePie.
Many people subscribed to his channel not because they were fans, but because other YouTubers they like said, hey, go do this thing for PewDiePie.
In response, what happens?
The first conspiracy theory, he's being blackmailed.
The second is that it's an alt-right campaign to, you know, brigade people and make them angry.
People are offended because with the support of YouTube, PewDiePie crossed this milestone and then turned around and gave money to those who would hurt YouTube and those same people.
Regular fans are offended.
Let me show you proof.
I'm not just making this up.
Check this out.
On the PewDiePie submission subreddit, they say regarding ADL, because it's very controversial, 4chan tried to rile you all up.
Felix is not being blackmailed or extorted.
They're acting like it's only 4chan.
Listen, 4chan certainly posted threads about it, but it's not like... they act like 4chan aren't people.
If people on 4chan genuinely believe this way and post something, well then there you go.
It doesn't matter if they're brigading, they feel that way.
More importantly, The fans are actually angry.
There's no conspiracy at all.
It's just offended people.
Think about all of the effort people put in.
I think I've even said, you know, subscribe to PewDiePie a couple times at one point.
And then what happens?
PewDiePie gives money to an organization which has negatively impacted me personally, as collateral damage.
Look, again, the ADL, you know, they did a story on the OK hand symbol, which was actually really fair.
When the controversy started, they said, it's just a troll.
Stop playing this game.
And they've updated it since with greater context.
Take a look at the top comments on Reddit.
The top post says, I severely doubt they are blackmailing him, but I don't like that he is funding their BS.
I agree.
Of course they aren't blackmailing him.
But the fact of the matter is, there are way better organizations to be donating to for this issue.
They classify Pepe the Frog as a hate symbol.
They even fueled a lot of the cancel PewDiePie movement in 2016.
This, to me, is deeply offensive because the people who helped promote PewDiePie are now, he's turning around and funding the people who are negatively impacting those who supported him.
The other issue that people are upset about, and this is less of an issue but I can understand it, it's that in this grand milestone video, 100 million subscribers, PewDiePie ran an ad.
And it was long, and I'm like skipping through like, seriously dude, it's like a minute and a half, two minutes.
I get it.
He probably got paid a ton of money to do that ad.
You'll notice that I don't do a lot of ads on my channel.
It's just the regular Google ones.
I sometimes do ad reads.
The difference with PewDiePie is that this was a fan milestone video.
It was for his community.
It's for everyone who helped him get to where he was.
And what did PewDiePie do?
He ran an ad.
Come on, man.
Make this one for everybody else.
But OK, you're allowed to run ads.
I'm not going to fault him too much.
But it's just like everybody who stood up and said, you go PewDiePie, we're here to defend you.
And then he turns around and says, thanks for the support.
Here's a wad of cash to those that damaged the community and even my personal business.
That's where the blackmail thing comes from.
When the ADL comes out, and I think I might have the story pulled up.
Yeah, actually, I have something I can show you here.
Here's what we see.
This is from TechCrunch.
YouTube claims it removed five times more hateful content.
17,000 channels were removed on September 3rd.
They say, this has resulted in what the U.S.
Anti-Defamation League in a recent report referred to as a significant number of channels that disseminate anti-Semitic and white supremacist content being left online following the June 2019 changes to the content policy.
This is referring to, they say, haphazardly attempting to draw a line, blah blah blah.
The point is, the ADL is, my understanding is, a trusted flagger, and they're leading the charge in no matter what happens saying more, more, more.
Even in a story about 17,000 channels being removed, the ADL says it's not enough.
Not directly, but that's the narrative that gets pushed.
When my channel gets demonetized, YouTube deranks my content.
It is because of organizations like the ADL.
PewDiePie turning around and funding that is like a slap in the face to everybody who said support PewDiePie.
Let's look at some more of these comments.
A comment below it says, Something is still incredibly wrong about this.
Him giving money to the ADL alone is shady.
But what's happening to the comment section is justifying people getting worried.
You can't just say alt-right trolls and finish the discussion.
That's the other conspiracy.
So here's what I posted.
Check this out.
I tweeted this.
An image of PewDiePie announcing the 50k and then over here is Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL saying, Thanks for severing ties with PewDiePie.
I'm highlighting this because It sounds like the mafia offering, you know, hey, if you give us money, we'll leave you alone.
It sounds like Antifa, you know, going around smashing windows, and then you put the sign for Antifa in your window and they leave you alone.
That's right, PewDiePie.
Good job giving money to those who threatened your business.
That's not blackmail, but it is almost like some kind of protection racket.
Again, let me just break down exactly why the ADL probably got money.
Not because PewDiePie cares.
He clearly doesn't care about us.
He doesn't care about the community.
He just cared about running a very, very high-profile ad, and one of the stipulations was likely, it's my opinion, that Honey said, we'll give you, you know, a million bucks, but you gotta give 50K to the ADL because of the negative press.
But here we can see the most important aspect of it.
Is that they're running damage control trying to make it seem like it's only the alt-right.
You know why this is so frustrating?
Really, really annoying, and why I'm even more offended at what's going on?
This is what the media does.
Whenever someone has a principled opposition to what's going on, they say it's the alt-right.
No, it's not.
Stop smearing everybody with concerns as the alt-right.
Sure, some alt-right people are angry.
Whatever.
Who cares?
They're allowed to be.
But you can't dismiss all of the fans who are saying... Lookit.
Removing comments pointing out how shady this is doesn't help your case, by the way.
Someone said... Here's a really... Here's a big comment.
I don't wanna read the whole thing.
They say, I'm usually not a fan of speculating without much to go off, but there really isn't much info present at the moment about the situation.
Speculation is really the only option.
If this gets deleted or classified as spam, so be it, but I'm just scared of my Swedish meatball man.
The sub is a place for discussion regarding Felix, so personally, I don't agree with dismissing an entire side of the ADL discussion prematurely.
If it turns out to be nothing and Felix himself comes out to clear the waters, great.
But until then, I'd say we have a right to be worried.
Let me put my tinfoil hat on for a minute and explain my observation.
I'm not going to read all that.
It's a very long comment.
I'm just going to show you more.
I honestly get why people are worried.
But don't just go straight to blackmailing without any evidence.
We don't want to end up like James Charles.
And I agree with that.
Stop the conspiracies.
He's not being blackmailed.
He's just disrespecting everybody.
PewDiePie is just being disrespectful.
You know what?
He doesn't have to do anything for anybody.
But maybe I'm wrong in saying that it's kind of offensive that somebody who only got to 100 million because of all these different YouTubers would turn around and give money to the organization that's hurting YouTube.
17,000 channels were deleted.
One of these channels that was deleted in the past is a channel called Mumkey Jones.
You may be familiar with him.
I always highlight him as one of the best examples of somebody who broke no rules engaged in no hate speech, it was edgy humor, and he did many of the same things many mainstream organizations did.
YouTube deleted all of his channels outright without warning.
We don't know why.
They just got rid of him.
They didn't like him.
That is terrifying.
It could happen to anybody.
It's partly due to efforts from organizations like the ADL.
I'm not saying they directly campaigned to get Mumkey removed, but YouTube only bans edgy humor.
Look, what Mumkey was doing was mocking Um, Elliot Rodger, okay?
Was it Santa Barbara guy?
He killed a bunch of people.
It's horrifying.
But a lot of what Monkey did was like an analysis of pop culture from an interesting lens.
Some of his videos were extremely edgy.
Very, very edgy.
But most of them weren't.
He did a lot of, like, facetious anime reviews where it's like Hank Hill, as if it's anime.
He made a really, really popular video about Diary of a Wimpy Kid.
It was viral.
Millions and millions of fits.
YouTube didn't say to him, hey man, you've got to take these videos down because they don't break the rules but it's crossing a line.
He would have said okay.
Instead, YouTube just snaps their fingers and purges him outright.
He's not the only one.
A lot of people have been hit like this.
So that's the big problem with PewDiePie turning around and doing something like this.
In the end, it means all of the little people who are having their livelihoods destroyed mean absolutely nothing.
All of the smaller accounts who subscribed to him, even.
All of the people who are saying things like, subscribe to PewDiePie, mean nothing because PewDiePie, in my opinion, again, he wanted to do the ad deal, he had to do the Anti-Defamation League, it says to me that PewDiePie, at the end of the day, is just making money and doesn't care about the community.
Maybe he'll address it, I think they already did, we'll see what happens, but I'll leave it there, stick around.
Next segment will be at 1pm on this channel.
It is what it is.
PewDiePie's allowed to do whatever he wants.
If he wants to make money, I see no problem with that.
But that's at least why people are upset.
I'll see you in the next segment.
Imagine you own a store and a homeless guy comes in.
He won't leave.
You try to get him out.
He starts, you know, fighting with your sister.
And then you grab him and he bites you.
And then imagine it happens again a few months later.
Imagine you own a shop and you come back to find your window's busted out or people sleeping in your doorway or in front of your store.
Your customers don't want to come.
You might consider shutting down your business.
Those were two different stories, right?
One story was about a woman who I believe did shut her business down in Sacramento because homeless people kept camping out in front, they were breaking in, and it was bad for business, so she just said, I'm done.
This story, the latest.
San Francisco shopkeeper considers closing his store after being bitten by a homeless person for the second time in four months.
Listen.
California has serious problems.
San Francisco is covered in poop.
I know it sounds funny, but It's the best way I could say it, and it's true.
California has, my understanding is there's a city job that's called Poop Patrol, where they travel around trying to pick up human waste from the streets.
What is happening in California?
I'm not gonna sit here and tell you I know everything and know exactly why this is happening, but it is.
And I gotta say, responsibility falls on leadership.
The people who are in charge of the state have to answer for all of these problems.
So here's what I wanna do.
Let's read this one particular story.
You know, I often don't do smaller stories like this about one guy in one shop, but I've got another story from Reason that says, this is from Scott Shackford.
It's not a mystery why America's biggest cities are losing population.
Mismanagement.
And you know what?
I'll say this.
I lived in California.
I left.
I lived in New York.
I also left.
I don't want to live in these cities anymore.
It is just claustrophobic, uncomfortable, filthy, and there is just a ton of problems.
I guess now, here's the thing though, with the internet and digital economies, it is There's now an opportunity to leave these big cities.
It used to be that you didn't have a choice.
People would move to cities because they needed the work.
Now you can work online.
So let's read.
Before we get started, check out my new channel, youtube.com slash timcastirl.
There are going to be videos popping up periodically, but it's a new channel, so subscribe if you want to see behind-the-scenes content.
The latest video is about my van.
Let's read the news.
A San Francisco shop owner who has been bitten by a homeless man for the second time in months says he will close his store rather than put up with the nuisance.
Oh, okay, so it sounds like he's actually going to close his store outright.
His name is, I believe it's pronounced Giles?
D'Saulnier, I'm probably pronouncing it wrong, but I'm trying, you see I'm trying, 67, said he was trying to subdue a homeless man who had pushed his sister after she tried to eject him for the second time that day from their South of Market store.
But while holding on to him, the man twisted his head and bit the shopkeeper's arm in an attempt to escape.
And there's an image.
Aw, man, that's brutal.
Police later arrested 29-year-old Adam Ashbrock for aggravated assault and battery.
It's just not worth it.
Yeah, you know we pay taxes to the city.
The police can't do anything.
The laws have changed.
That's what, uh, Mr. DeSaulnieres... I don't know how to pronounce it, sorry.
It was second time he had been bitten by a homeless person in four months and says homelessness and drug addiction in the area are fueling an increase in violence and crime.
Surveillance video from last week shows a clerk running after a shoplifter who the shopkeeper says pepper sprayed his employee.
The suspect was arrested not long after police arrived.
They create a lot of garbage.
There is feces on the sidewalk.
They'll Poo?
Oh, they'll pee on the back door.
I'm like, they've censored the word.
They'll pee on the back door.
It smells.
It's a public health nuisance, said Desaunier.
I think that's how you pronounce it.
I'm just gonna pronounce it that way from now on.
The public health department wants us to keep everything nice.
But when you walk outside the door, it's like the plague all over again.
The shop owner, who runs Harvest Urban Market, has taken pictures of homeless encampments near to his business and says his back door needs to be replaced because it's rusted from being urinated on.
There's also a homeless shelter called Sanctuary directly opposite his store.
About every half hour to hour, we have some kind of incident, other theft, violence, crazy people walking around who need mental health, he said.
Mayor London Breed responded to questions from several newspapers regarding the incident.
I would say to people who have had to just hold on, we are working towards solving the issue.
It will take some time, but we ask for patience.
Apparently, that's the end of the story.
Now, I don't normally – look, it's one shopkeeper, it's one store.
I did a video about the other shopkeeper in Sacramento who shut her business down.
Because that was like a viral political statement.
This one's just a guy who got bit again and said, we got a serious problem.
There's poop everywhere, there's pee everywhere, there's homeless people everywhere, and he's gonna shut his business down.
This is important to me at least, you know, because it shows it's not a one-off.
The other story is not a one-off.
It's happening again.
So we have this story from the other day from Reason.
It says, it's not a mystery why America's biggest cities are losing population.
Chicago, LA, and New York City all have some easily identifiable management problems.
Well, that's your opinion, and we'll check that opinion out, okay?
But I'll just say this.
All that really matters is that they are losing people.
Why?
What is happening?
That's going to drive property values down.
It's going to be bad for investments.
It's going to be bad for the local economy.
It may be better for the national economy that people are willing to move further and further away, maybe revitalize some old towns.
But something seems to be happening with government and these cities and who they've put in charge and what they're trying to do.
It's not working and they're not solving the problem.
I'll say this for Chicago.
You know, how many governors have we had that have gone to jail?
It's ridiculous.
Something's got to stop.
The machine just can't keep turning, doing the same thing.
Let's read.
Over at the Atlantic, Derek Thompson mulls over whether we're seeing a great metropolitan exodus because America's top cities have recently begun losing population.
Chicago has been losing people for years now, but LA and New York City have also found themselves on the decline.
Both cities had been seeing domestic out-migration, people moving out of the city to other parts of the country, for several years.
But foreign immigration into the two cities have long made up for it.
But new census data show that L.A.
County is seeing a net loss of about 13,000 folks and New York's Bronx, Kings, and Queens counties, all containing parts of New York City, have seen a combined net loss of about 40,000 people based on census data released back in April.
Thompson hits some of the big issues affecting these cities.
Housing problems in LA, crime and racism in Chicago.
But he does so in a vague, maybe-this-is-a-contributor fashion.
It's partly understandable because the trend is new, except in Chicago.
The full nature of this population drain isn't entirely clear, and it's too soon to give firm answers without falling into confirmation biases.
Even if they do have statistical support.
Still, each of these cities is facing some severe problems in the way they're managed, their uncertain financial situations, and general disregard for the welfare and liberty of the citizens who live there.
I'm going to read these problems, but I really want to make sure I clarify something that I think is, maybe he'll bring it up.
Back in the day, these cities still had problems.
But what was your choice?
If you were living in, you know, Michigan, in Detroit, and your factory shut down, your car plant shut down, the coal mine shut down, you gotta find work somewhere.
And cities have more, are more likely to have jobs.
Now a lot of work can be done remotely, through email, writing, digital, information tech, or just general technological work over networks.
You can set up remote offices in small towns for dirt cheap, and have a lot of people doing work remotely.
This creates the opportunity for people to finally get out of these cities.
I'll say this, I'll read through these stories, We'll see what problems he points out.
But in the end, maybe it's just that people are finally saying, I can leave now.
I don't have to be here anymore.
Maybe people don't want to be jammed in a tiny one-bedroom apartment that's ridiculously expensive.
Maybe they want to be in a bigger house with a yard and have a dog and not spend that much money.
I think all in all, it's a good thing, and I hope it happens faster.
Let's read. Chicago. What more is there to say about a city that is infamous for its corrupt
police department, not to mention the rest of its government, here here, as well as its growing
financial crisis? The city and state pension crises continue to escalate as city has for years
failed to properly fund the pensions of very well-paid employees. The city has responded.
We call it the Windy City because the politicians blow hot air.
It's a reference to corruption.
death spiral.
Given all the official city-sanctioned government pickpocketing, it's not surprising that people
are abandoning the Windy City.
We call it the Windy City because the politicians blow hot air.
It's a reference to corruption.
So there's one reason I left Chicago.
Los Angeles.
I don't think I need to read this.
Los Angeles is a disaster.
It is a mess.
There is a massive homelessness crisis.
There is disease and drugs.
They say, California gives its residents way too much power to attack and veto nearby housing developments by abusing state environmental regulations.
The California Environmental Quality Act is invoked regularly by wealthier NIMBY, not in my backyard types.
Who may fret in public about the homeless crisis, but will fight any solution that might bring more people to their neighborhood.
The California Environmental Quality Act is also regularly abused by construction unions to try to force developers to negotiate with them or risk long delays and court fights in order to build anything at all.
Okay, we know that about LA.
Let's see what he says about New York.
It's tempting to say Mayor Bill de Blasio as an explanation for what's happening.
Okay, just Bill de Blasio.
Now let's get to the specifics.
They say, de Blasio has pretty much no interest in what you as a resident of New York City would like to do with your property, your life, or your children's education.
He has said believes that the purpose of businesses and corporations are to serve the government and wants to seize and redistribute their profits if they make more money than he prefers.
He has said he would like to seize poorly maintained properties to hand them over to the city's housing authority, even though the agency has been ranked as the worst landlord in the Big Apple by the New York City Public Advocate, the city's elected ombudsman.
They say, despite de Blasio's vocal attacks against the wealthy and connected, as mayor, he's mostly served the entrenched city government power base at the expense of his own citizens.
And we see the same in LA and Chicago.
Is there any wonder people might be packing up and moving out?
There it is.
I made this point about California before.
People will point to the Democrats and say, aha, the Democrats.
I think it's actually a festering corruption within the Democratic Party.
People know that you've got very Democratic districts, so there's no competition.
The evil, corrupt people who want to serve their own interests can take over, and they don't want to help anybody.
They want to help their buddies.
I don't care if you're a Democrat or Republican.
If you're a wealthy elite, and you're going to get in power and help the wealthy elite, there you go.
That's what people are voting for.
You know, it's like they think it's about the party, and it's not.
It's about getting rid of the incumbent crony millionaires who always end up winning, and then just hook up their buddies.
I'm not saying they're doing it because they're evil, I'm saying it's because it's like out of sight, out of mind.
They don't see you, they don't know you, they don't care about you.
So, if they're not hearing to your complaints, whose complaints are they listening to?
Big business owners and city interests.
That's what they hear, that's what they focus on, and that's what you can expect when you keep voting for the same people.
I think it's a big city problem.
Maybe the solution is the internet economy and people moving out to smaller towns, but I will end by saying this.
I'm actually looking to small towns.
I would love to move out to a small town and revitalize it and bring jobs and create something new instead of moving into these cities that are run by corrupt, bad guys, I'll try and keep the language toned down a little bit, who have no interest in the small person.
And can they really?
Can Bill de Blasio really know everything?
No.
So he does what he thinks is right and it hurts, it doesn't work.
I can't tell you what the solution is, but I think it's about time people start moving out to smaller towns and starting companies and revitalizing rural America.
Next segment will be coming up at youtube.com slash timcast at 4pm.
It is a different channel.
I will see you all there.
Ocasio-Cortez is like mini-Trump.
That's what I call her.
Because she has many things in common with the great showman that is Donald Trump.
She loves putting on shows of her own.
Most recently, she apparently paid down her student loan debt while in a congressional committee hearing of some sort, House Financial Services Committee hearing, to like make a point about something.
She complains that she's got $20,000 in student loan debt, and she pays down $1,000, and then is talking about how the government won't do more to help alleviate people.
And you know what?
It's that kind of behavior that makes me really not want to push student loan debt forgiveness.
Here's the thing.
I begrudgingly believe we need to do some kind of program to help young people with their student loan debt.
While I certainly don't like the idea that at an individual level, someone like her received over $20,000 to get an education.
Someone lent you money.
It's a complicated system.
I don't like the idea that individuals can take advantage of that.
I know people, when I was college age, that were partying and going to bars.
And you gotta pay that money back.
Here's the thing, though.
As a whole, for our society, we have a serious problem.
Young people don't buy houses, they don't get married, they're going and living in vans.
Now, here's the thing.
I have a van, okay?
Yeah.
But I also own my own home, right?
So, granted, I should be married by 33.
That's a whole other millennial issue.
But at the very least, There is a big factor preventing young people from becoming adults, and it's being burdened with debt.
So, I don't believe in just snapping our fingers and wiping everyone's slate clean, but I do believe we need to stop the predatory system that colleges, you know, are... You know, these young people don't know better, they have predatory loans, they're being told all of these fancy things, and more importantly, the college education system is becoming extremely corrupt in a lot of ways.
Let's stop it here.
Let's figure out something.
I have proposed maybe like freezing interest rates.
Or like, I don't mean freezing interest rates, but like, no more interest.
Your principle is you gotta pay down, pay the money back, it won't accrue.
It's one thing to be like, AOC got $20,000 to spend and now she's gotta pay back $100,000 over 20 years or whatever.
So, I understand the point of interest, like the point of having interest on the loans, but we've got to do something to fix this problem and get these kids out of debt.
I shouldn't even call them kids, they're adults.
But I will stress, I have very little sympathy for AOC's theatrics when she's making $174,000 per year, more than $10,000 per month.
So, you want to pay off your loans?
Yeah dude, you could do it pretty darn quickly if you really wanted to.
So when she goes up there and says, I've got $20,000 in debt and I'm paying it down, I wonder, did she have way more than that?
Is she being responsible with her congressional salary?
I understand she needs a residence in New York in her home district as well as in DC, so it doesn't need to be super fancy, but that is an expense people should pay attention to.
But still, six figures, be responsible, save your income, pay off your loans.
Let's read the story from the Daily Wire.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate.
If you'd like to support my work, there's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address you can send to, but the best thing you can do, just share this video.
Apparently these videos are on Facebook now, so trying to make sure I'm off all of these platforms.
I typically talk about YouTube and deranking, but I think no matter where you find this video, Helping share the content is the best way you can support
my work if you think I'm worthy of you know you telling people
But you know it's like when you share something you're saying hey this guy Tim pool is pretty cool if that's the
case I appreciate Let's read the Daily Wire says
New York rep AOC claimed to have made a payment on her student loans during a house financial services committee
hearing Tuesday and attempts to Highlight the widespread burden of student debt although. I
think that's not what she did Quote I literally made a student loan payment while I was
sitting here at this chair And I looked at my balance, and it was twenty thousand two
hundred and thirty seven dollars and sixteen cents AOC said on Tuesday in the middle of a hearing
I just made a payment that took me down to $19,000, so I feel really accomplished right now.
Okay.
Congratulations.
I wonder what you did with that loan money in the first place, and you're paying it back.
That's responsible and respectable.
Thank you.
Should I feel bad or anything?
Is that in any way supposed to make me feel like I should now do something different?
You've paid off your loans.
Cool.
Anyway, moving on, what's your point?
Ocasio-Cortez, who was known for her theatrics during committee hearings, criticized her Republican colleagues for not doing enough to relieve the estimated $1.5 trillion in student debt owed to the United States.
I'm hearing people on this committee say it's not our job, she said.
This is our job.
Interestingly, Ocasio-Cortez reported a wage of $26,581 in 2017, While her salary has grown more than 550% since she was elected to the United States Congress, the self-proclaimed radical congresswoman has apparently still not paid down her student loans.
Now, hold on!
You're making me defend AOC here, okay?
Because rational thought is important.
For all we know, she owed, I don't know, $50,000 when she first got the job, and she has been aggressively paying it down.
I gotta admit, she paid down $1,237 in her principal at this event.
That's a lot of money.
Sounds like she really is trying to get rid of her student loans.
But it also sound... Here's the more important thing.
Well, I can absolutely respect she's gonna, you know, pay more than the minimum payment, and she's gonna try and actually pay it down.
If she's trying to make it seem like her paying $1,200 towards her student loans should garner sympathy, you're doing what you're supposed to do when you get a job you can pay your loans back on.
And this is coming from somebody who thinks we should do it.
Now, I will stress, too, Donald Trump also forgave disabled veterans student loan debt.
So, at least on a certain level, he agrees.
I see a lot of Republicans, a lot of conservatives saying things like, you took out the loan, you signed on the dotted line, that's your responsibility.
I completely agree with that sentiment.
I also think we've got a suffering millennial generation and we may have to bite the bullet on this one in some capacity.
I don't like Warren's plan of like, we're going to wipe the slate clean.
No, no, no, no, no.
No.
The last thing I want to do is send a message to all these people.
You got free money.
Congratulations.
Who cares if it was partly your fault?
No, it is partly your fault.
You spent the money.
You got to pay it back.
But what a lot of people don't seem to understand is that these student loans, the interest rates accrue, and people end up owing more money than they've actually spent.
Now, I get it.
Loans are structured that way on purpose.
There's a risk taken, and that's what the interest is for, so you can make money on top.
But if we've got a widespread problem with millennials, not buying cars, not buying houses, buying old beater vans and then, like, living in them, maybe we need to figure out a way to get more money through the economy and have, like, look at it this way.
If someone like AOC puts $1,200 towards her student loans, I understand we're kicking the can down the road.
Like, when she was in college, she spent that money.
It went to the economy.
But it would be nice if more of this money wasn't going to interest and was going into the economy.
A lot of people don't seem to understand how an economy works.
Notably people like AOC, but that's besides the point.
I mean things like, I take a look at like this room I'm in and I'm like, you know, it'd be really cool if I had this thing here, like if I could build a shelf.
I need to hire someone to build a shelf.
I take money and I hand it to that carpenter who builds a shelf.
That's money moving through the economy.
I get a shelf, he pays his rent.
The landlord takes that money, They pay for utilities, they fix up the building, the building is maintained.
That's how things work.
Imagine if I said I'd like to get a shelf, but, you know, 400 bucks of the money I would spend towards the shelf has to go to interest.
Well, now the economy isn't necessarily moving in the same way.
Admittedly, the interest goes somewhere.
It's not like no one spends that money.
But more importantly, I think, is if young people are renting apartments, if they're buying homes, if they're saving so they can buy homes, and if they're having families.
And I think one of the big factors is people feel burdened.
There's no freedom.
When you're sitting under crippling debt, I'm sure there's probably many of you watching who have student loan debt, you feel like you can't move.
And you're like, I'd like to get out there.
I'd like to take a risk on a career.
I'd like to maybe start a YouTube channel.
I gotta pay off these student loans though.
And so you feel constrained.
And there's a lot of people who are bad, who abuse the system, don't get, you know, for sure, but there are a lot of people I think we can help and open up this door.
I am a bit more moderate on the cause, but admittedly it's kind of a progressive stance.
I'm looking at the bigger picture for the United States.
I think it was a mistake to put all these kids in college for more than one reason.
You've got indoctrination, stupid ideas, and now you've got young people who are saddled with debt, and they're being told communism is the answer.
We should have never had these kids go to college.
Trade school, entrepreneurship.
These kids should have grown up learning a trade, learning a skill, and applying it.
Not everyone should have gone to college.
We need to figure out how to solve this problem.
Kids shouldn't—we had a whole generation told, you have to go to college or else.
So they took out loans they couldn't afford because they were told by literally everyone.
At least that's what it was like for me growing up in the city.
No matter where I went, it was saying, are you stupid?
You're not going to go to college?
And I would laugh and be like, I do what I want.
But so many others were like, they were scared.
I have to do it.
And now we're in this problem.
So, you know, look, you're making me defend AOC, but I'm willing, look, I'll put Principal before, you know, if she's aggressively paying down her student loans, good for her.
But we shouldn't get to the point where we're going to snap our fingers and just wipe the slate clean.
That's not fair either.
So, you know, fairness means give, you know, give a little, get a little.
We're not going to just let you spend tens of thousands of dollars and walk away from it, but maybe we can make it easier and get rid of the interest that's making it so hard to pay down your loans.
They go on to say that she's outspoken about eliminating student loan debt for the majority of Americans, including her own.
And I think it's so funny that a year ago I was waiting tables in a restaurant and it was literally easier for me to become the youngest woman in American history elected to Congress than it is to pay off my student loan debt.
I'm not saying that it's going to make everyone feel better.
I'm not saying that You know, Second Amendment advocates are going to come out being happy because you might have to give a little.
And Alyssa Milano will have to give a little as well.
But more importantly, I truly believe people like Alyssa Milano, who advocate for gun control, don't know enough about guns.
That means, if she sat down with Ted Cruz, I'm willing to bet Ted Cruz gave her important information she didn't understand.
And it's also important that Ted Cruz gets to hear the perspective of someone like Alyssa Milano, because she represents a very large community.
I have to say, when it comes to the 2A stuff, too many people on the gun control side don't know anything, and that makes it really hard to understand how there could be two sides to this.
When I went to the March for Our Life thing, people were talking about how they wanted assault rifles banned, and I'm like, congratulations!
You've won!
Because they were never illegal!
They don't seem to understand that an AR-15 is just a standard semi-auto rifle.
They don't know anything about this.
And when I would ask them things like, do you think handguns should be banned?
Do you think standard semi-auto rifles should be banned?
They'd say, no!
And I'd be like, then what are you advocating for here?
It sounds like many of these people standing in crowds and voting don't understand.
They're actually voting against their own interests.
But if Ted Cruz can sit down with Alyssa Milano, it says something more important.
Two different sides of a political debate meeting and hugging is exactly what this country needs.
There have been many things I've disagreed with Alyssa Milano on, and there's a lot of things I've praised her for.
I have.
I think she took a principled stance on like Aja Argento.
It's been a while.
I can't remember.
Like the Me Too stuff.
Like, I don't agree with her going to the Kavanaugh thing and saying what she said.
But to see them both come together, That, to me, it's hopeful.
Or I'm hopeful when I see that.
Because if this is happening, it means we can actually make progress.
Progress might not mean everybody gets happy, but it means we can learn to live with one another in a way where we're satisfied, at least.
Let's read the story.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate in order to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But the best thing you can do is just share this video To help overcome, you know, on YouTube I'm deranked, but I'm trying to, you know, mention Facebook now because these videos do pop up on Facebook.
Just in general, for whatever the reason, if you think what I do is good, and you're willing to share with people, I'm eternally grateful for that, and it's really one of the best things you can do.
But let's read on.
They say.
Actress Alyssa Milano has said that her civil conversation with U.S.
Senator Ted Cruz has left her cautiously optimistic about gun reform.
This is good news.
Let's simmer things down.
No more fighting, chilling, hugging, conversations.
Meeting at the Republicans' Washington, D.C., office, the pair went back and forth on the partisan topic, debating whether any common ground could be found for over an hour.
And as they stood up to leave at the end of the meeting, Milano even chose to embrace Cruz in a hug and as a show of goodwill.
Ted Cruz also talked with Ocasio-Cortez about coming together to end, like, revolving door policies of some sort.
It's been a while.
But I have tremendous respect for Ted Cruz.
For repeatedly being willing to do this, to simmer things down, to stop the tension and say, I'm gonna meet you and we're gonna figure this out.
Ted Cruz, I have tremendous respect for him doing that.
And it's true for Ocasio-Cortez and also Milano.
I'm not gonna downplay their role in coming together as well.
But this is not the first time Ted Cruz has done this.
I think it's important.
They were joined by Fred Guttenberg, whose 14-year-old daughter Jamie was killed in Parkland in 2018.
So we have several photos.
There you can see the powerful embrace.
This is a great photo, man.
Can I just say this seriously?
I want to see people come together and have conversations.
I want to see the left and the right.
I want to see an end to the violence, an end to the anger, and this is a step in the right direction.
Because they fight on Twitter all the time.
They criticize each other, they're mean, and here they are now doing literally the opposite?
This is a sign of something good.
More of this, less bickering.
They say, uh, oh listen Milano, quote, oh no I'm sorry this is Gutenberg.
I'm walking out of this hopeful that we can find a way to save lives, Gutenberg told Cruz in a live stream of the conversation.
Milano and Cruz have previously clashed over the issue of the Second Amendment, with the actress even slamming Cruz as being owned by the gun lobby.
What people don't seem to understand about the NRA is that it's made up of people.
It is funded by citizens who want to support their rights.
It's not a massive gun company.
It is an organization meant to protect Second Amendment rights, for the most part.
Milano and Cruz have been a leading voice for expansive Second Amendment rights, and a few days after the mass event in West Texas on August 31st, Milano called his advocacy BS.
However, the comments didn't put him off accepting her proposal to meet for a discussion on the contentious issue.
That is very respectable.
More people should do this.
When you send out social media tweets, I just want you to be mindful of not creating more of a divide.
And just be mindful that this government has to function, she said.
We have to do something.
We cannot not do something anymore because too many people are dying.
Now, I want to stop here and say, sometimes doing something is the wrong thing.
There have been incidents in the past where, I can't remember which country, I think it was like Denmark.
Did nothing.
They accepted that sometimes crazy people will do crazy things that hurt a lot of people.
And if that's the case, we do seek to minimize that, but we also have to recognize sometimes there's nothing you can do.
Sometimes when we accept that we are a free and open society, people can break the law.
Right now, somebody could walk up to somebody else right outside this window and kill somebody.
And there's nothing anyone can do to stop it.
The police can come and investigate and arrest that person eventually, but the crime has already been committed.
It was illegal, it still happened.
The problem is, there are a lot of ways to hurt people.
And sometimes people will do it.
Now, the argument from the gun control people is, guns make it easier to kill people.
If it's not guns, it'll be bombs.
It'll be grenades.
In Sweden, they have a grenade problem.
In the UK, they have a knife problem.
So they're banning knives and screwdrivers.
It just never ends.
Yes, you can start to save more lives when you ban literally everything, but then someone's gonna start throwing rocks at somebody else.
You know, and so maybe that's what they're saying.
Everybody should walk around wearing mittens and big foam suits.
But at a certain point, we have to recognize the freer you are, the more risk there is.
Mr. Gutenberg also laid in on Cruz, showing him pictures of his daughter one day before her death on February 14th, and saying, this is the last photo I will see of her.
He then attacked the senator for making the gun debate partisan, saying, your decision to do this really pissed me off.
To what have this event?
That's no.
Absolutely not.
Alyssa Milano tweeted, I just left.
He was gracious.
I'm unsure if it changes anything, but appreciative for the opportunity to bridge the divide with civil, meaningful discussion.
Link to the entire meeting below.
Thank you, Alyssa Milano.
Absolutely, I agree with you.
I cannot stress how much I respect you so much for doing this, even though I disagree with you on a lot of things.
And we've agreed on some things.
That is a statement that warms my heart.
And I want to give everybody a hug and have meetings like this and simmer things down.
I think if that's what we can leave with, we might not change anything, but at least we had meaningful discussions.
Yes!
Yes!
Understanding other people.
Like Daryl Davis.
The guy who de-radicalized clan members.
He met with them.
He talked with them.
And that's the first step.
Absolutely.
Bravo.
Milano asked Cruz to encourage Senate Republicans to debate measures such as universal background checks for firearm purchases.
Fred Guttenberg even said, Thank you, Senator Ted Cruz, for inviting Alyssa Milano, dad of the decade, and I today.
You were gracious with the 90 minutes you took for our very candid conversation.
I look forward to continuing with it.
This is fantastic.
After concluding the meeting, Milano tweeted, I just left.
Speaking later to Chris Cuomo on Fox News, she added, I'm cautiously optimistic that he knows the issue and hopeful, I guess, that he's willing to do something about it.
He takes a lot of money from the NRA.
He has been on the wrong side of this issue, but I do understand how fossilized we are as far as parties.
I disagree with Melissa Milano.
I'm not a gun nut.
Never been a gun person.
But I also think too many Democrats have no idea what they're talking about.
I don't think Ted Cruz is on the wrong side of the issue.
I think Ted Cruz has a voter base that knows how guns work and knows what they're talking about.
And Democrats know too little.
I don't understand how we can have a real argument about gun control if Democrats think semi-automatic means it's fully automatic.
We've seen this, was it CNN or something, where the guy said fully semi-automatic?
Like, they don't know what these words mean!
What's important about this is the civility.
What's important about this is that Ted Cruz can actually provide that context to her because she probably wouldn't hear that normally.
This is why conversation is so important.
And seeing her perspective, Ted Cruz might actually think about a real solution that would help them in the way they see things.
That's about it.
Cruz tweeted, Always grateful for the opportunity to engage in positive civil discussion on substantive issues.
Today's meeting with Alyssa Milano and Fred Guttenberg was productive and respectful, and I appreciate their willingness to come here with an open mind.
Fantastic.
I got one more segment coming up in a couple minutes and I will see you all there.
It has been a very bad past couple of months for the New York Times.
You know, they had a bunch of their staff members outed as being really offensive and posting anti-Semitic things, or it was like one guy, and then they published this story about how Trump supporters are coming after him, and then everyone slammed the New York Times saying, dude, it's called journalism, and yes, people can investigate you guys, same as anybody else.
And now this.
The New York Times actually tweeted out praise of Mao Zedong.
What?!
It was hilarious.
Nightmarishly.
New York Times deletes tweet downplaying Mao Zedong's murder of 45 million people.
Oh man, talk about crazy.
New York Times, what are you doing?
Well, I'll tell you what you're doing.
They're also tweeting that airplanes took aim at the buildings on 9-11.
Here's the tweet the New York Times deleted this morning.
I almost had to take my glasses off when I saw this.
18 years have passed since airplanes took aim and brought down the World Trade Center.
Today, families will once again gather and grieve at the site where more than 2,000 people died.
Oh, they deleted that.
Because it wasn't planes that took aim.
It was people.
It was extremists.
It was dangerous ideology.
And let's never forget that.
Now, a lot of people want to point the finger at the entirety of a religion.
No.
We don't blame calm, peaceful individuals for the crazies.
It doesn't matter what your race is, your religion is.
Crazies exist.
And yes, we need to talk about it.
And yes, some groups have more crazies than others.
That's fine.
We prevent the violent crime.
Even if you actually are an extremist and you believe crazy things like you're an authoritarian communist, just as long as you play by the same rules of respectable civil liberties, you know, and don't get violent, well, you're allowed to believe that stuff.
Let's start with the first story about the New York Times and Mao.
Before we get started, check out TimCast.com slash Donut if you would like to support my work.
There are multiple ways you can do it, or you can just share this video.
That's the best way you can help.
If you think what I do is good, sharing it on Facebook, YouTube, whatever, it helps me grow my channel and all that stuff.
Whatever, let's read.
The Daily Caller reports, The New York Times deleted a tweet that downplayed Chinese dictator Mao Zedong's mass murder of at least 45 million people on the anniversary of his death Monday.
The New York Times Archive Twitter account reposted the paper's 1976 obituary of Chairman Mao, which called him a, quote, great revolutionary, and referred to the policies that resulted in mass starvation as sometimes convulsive.
The Times later deleted the tweet after widespread criticism, releasing a statement saying it lacked critical historical context.
Here's what they tweeted.
Mao Zedong died on this day in 1976.
The Times said he began as an obscure peasant and died one of history's great revolutionary figures.
Yes, the context in question was the mass death of 45 million people.
You know, it's the same story we hear all the time.
Basically, some dictator thinks landlords shouldn't be allowed to own land, so they take all the land from the farmers and give it to peasants, who don't know how to farm, who then can't farm, or they tell everybody to melt down their tools because they need the metal, and then there's no food, or they tell everybody to go in their fields and start killing all of a certain animal.
It's a complicated story.
Let's read.
So there are the tweets.
Anders Hengström, Mao kills 45 million people, New York Times.
His rule was sometimes convulsive.
Mao Zedong, who began as an obscure peasant, died one of history's great revolutionary figures.
After establishing the Chinese People's Republic, Mao launched a series of sweeping, sometimes convulsive campaigns to transform a semi-feudal largely illiterate, and predominantly agriculture country,
encompassing almost 4 million square miles into a modern industrialized socialist state. The obituary
goes on to praise Mao for leading his country to develop its own nuclear bombs
and guided missiles, as well as becoming an oil producer. The deaths caused by
Chairman Mao's Great Leap Forward from 1958 to 1962 are difficult to quantify, but Frank Decoder,
author of Mao's Great Famine, estimates that at least 45 million innocents perished,
blowing earlier estimates out of the the water.
Quote, It is not merely the extent of the catastrophe that dwarfs earlier estimates, but also the manner in which many people died.
Between two and three million victims were tortured to death or summarily killed, often for the slightest infraction.
When a boy stole a handful of grain in a Hunan village, local boss Zhang Dechang forced his father to bury him alive.
Dakota wrote in History Today, the father died of grief a few days later.
The case of Wang Ziyu was reported to the central leadership.
One of his ears was chopped off, his legs were tied with iron wire, a 10-kilogram stone was dropped on his back, and then he was branded with a sizzling tool punishment for digging up a potato.
Yes, great revolutionary figure.
Not someone we should ever, ever want to praise.
And we need to make sure we highlight all of these things.
You know, we can talk about all the great evils, okay?
But when you forget, that's when we're doomed.
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
Well, here's the New York Times, again, on 9-11.
Listen, today's the anniversary of 9-11.
I remember waking up on the futon in my living room and seeing the news, and it was terrifying, and it was horrifying, and it's something we all experienced, and I can only imagine what it must have been like to actually be in New York.
I was on a couch, far away, safe, and I watched it happen, and to the best of my recollection, I believe it's been a long time.
I remember sitting on my couch when the second plane hit live on television.
My friends were listening to Man Cow's Morning Madhouse, and they thought it was all a joke, laughing in the car until a few minutes passed and they were like, this guy's not joking, man.
One of the most horrific days in our history, period.
3,000 people.
And all of the horrifying things that came after it.
War, death, and so much more.
And the New York Times blamed the airplanes.
Okay, let's read.
Eighteen years to the day radical Islamic terrorists killed 2,977 innocents on American soil.
The New York Times posted an inaccurate tweet that earned the left leaning out of a flood of criticism and prompted a quick deletion and correction.
It was radical Islamic terrorists from several different countries.
I don't want to get super complicated on which countries did what, because it is complicated, but Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Afghanistan.
18 years have passed since airplanes took aim and brought down the World Trade Center.
Today, families will once again gather and grieve at the site where more than 2,000 people died.
The Times posted in what was supposed to be a memorial post for 9-11, and they deleted it.
It was quickly pointed out to the Times that airplanes were not responsible for taking the lives of nearly 3,000, a great deal more than 2,000, innocent Americans but the radical Islamic terrorists who were flying the planes.
The tweet was quickly deleted and the story amended.
We've deleted an earlier tweet to this story and have edited for clarity.
The story has also been updated, the Times wrote in a reply to that tweet.
This is why political correctness is scary.
They didn't want to play—the New York Times, apparently, didn't want to point out radical Islam, I guess.
They were probably worried the woke brigade would come for them.
But that's the truth.
That's what happened.
And we know it.
They say, 18 years after nearly 3,000 people were lost, families of those killed in the terror attacks will gather at the 9-11 memorial.
There will be a moment of silence at 8.46 AM.
The names of the dead, one by one, will be recited.
And that's the new tweet.
They mentioned they deleted it.
Just two days ago, the Times... Here we go.
They mentioned the Mao thing.
I'm not going to rehash the Mao stuff.
We'll scroll down.
The Times was thoroughly ripped for their mistakes, which noticeably all take place in one direction, as highlighted by Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro.
He said, In the last two days, New York Times Twitter account has had to delete unmitigated praise of Mao and this crap too.
These were mistakes, yes.
But it's pretty telling that every mistake the New York Times makes is in the same direction.
Ab-so-lutely.
Politics today flows in one direction.
Everybody wants to bend the knee to the far left.
That's exactly why we're seeing what we see.
The left will come, they will attack.
Not all of the left, but there are elements of the left that will insult, degrade, and try to destroy your business.
That's what the New York Times was scared of.
The ACLU, what did they get slammed for?
They raised a ton of money off of challenging Trump's moratorium on travel, and then everyone got really outraged when they defended Charlottesville.
They started bleeding subscribers and money and they caved.
And now the ACLU pushes woke politics.
Congratulations.
You are now the opposition to civil liberties.
It is ridiculous.
Politics flows in one direction.
The left will attack you and the right will welcome you.
If Republicans are sitting there, and trust me, I know so many Trump supporters that even the rude ones will fan you over and offer you a beer.
And the left will say, get out and go sit with them.
And what do you think moderates do?
They go, fine, I'll go and do it.
And when you see this, I got to say, it is so angering.
First, what the New York Times would have said, airplanes took aim.
Are you kidding me?
We know who did it.
We know why they did it.
And we're not going to fault every person on the planet.
We're not going to fault the entirety of a religion.
We're going to fault the extremists and the ideology and those, first and foremost, who perpetrated it.
But because they're scared of the woke brigade, they'll bend the knee.
A slap in the face to Americans, to the victims, to the family members, to the survivors, to the first responders, to those who fight every day still because they're sick after what, you know, after what they were breathing in on the ground.
People rushed in to save lives.
They did.
And today, many of them are still sick.
And that's why I'm glad Jon Stewart does what he does.
