Trump Has SURPASSED Obama Approval Despite 92% Negative Press, Democrats FLIPPING Republican. The latest polling aggregate has Trump above Obama for the same time in Obama's presidency.The most important factor, Obama won reelection.If Trump is doing BETTER than its just more evidence that Trump is on track to defeat the democrats come 2020.But why is Trump's approval going up? It is likely due to the far left push by Democrats and the more extreme positions being taken in an effort to one up each other. CNN reported that a democratic stronghold in Minnesota was flipping to republicans despite the town voting Democrat locally.The only thing I see that can cause such a dramatic circumstance, where locals vote Republican nationally and Democrat locally, is that the 2020 Democrats have embraced far left positions to an extreme degree. Locally moderates fared well in the midterms, its the national level politicians embracing the far left.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
According to Newsweek.com, Donald Trump's approval rating surpasses Obama's.
And get this, not just on Rasmussen reports.
There are a couple reasons this is significant.
For one, Rasmussen tends to be pretty favorable towards the president.
They show many polls that have him Just around 50%, sometimes over.
There's also Zogby, which recently had a poll showing Trump at 51% approval.
Most other polls show Trump below 50%.
Very different.
It's a strange contrast.
So Newsweek is highlighting it's not just Rasmussen, it's the aggregate.
The aggregate shows Trump above Obama for the same time period.
There's another really important reason this is so significant.
The negative press.
I've got some sources to go through, showing you that not only is Trump facing an uphill battle, but that Obama was facing a downhill battle.
The media really liked Obama, and I've got the stories to back it up.
I don't want to act like it's definitive.
It's just some references going to the past that show, to a certain extent, the media did like Obama.
We can see it in magazine covers.
And they really don't like Trump.
And the data does show it.
But before we get into all of this, what we're going to do, we're going to start with this story, look at the data, compare it to the past, and then we'll look at some more facts.
And I want to talk about why Trump's approval rating is going up.
CNN recently did a story about how Trump is flipping a Democratic stronghold to Republicans.
Get this.
These Democrats in this northern Minnesota town are still voting Democrat locally, but voting for Trump for president.
It's very strange, but there's good reason for it.
And we'll get to that.
But first, the story from Newsweek about Donald Trump's approval rating.
Before we read that, however, Go to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical laddress, but of course the best way to support me, subscribe to the channel, comment, or share this video.
YouTube de-ranks independent political commentary, although I think recently they kind of like me, but the data does suggest they're propping up CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and putting obstacles in the way of channels like mine.
I think the story is important.
A lot of people don't seem to understand this.
There are people who are trapped in this echo chamber of the mainstream media, you know, high profile, powerful digital outlets.
They don't seem to realize that Donald Trump does have legitimate support from people who are concerned about the economy.
But if you watch, if you read even Newsweek, I'm surprised Newsweek's running the story.
Newsweek is going to say, you know, orange man bad.
Look, I get it.
You know, going back in U.S.
history, people disagree with the other politician, but it's never been this bad, has it?
You don't gotta like the guy, but please base your thoughts in reality.
At least that's what I tried doing.
Not a big fan, but I'm trying to be honest.
Look, people like him.
There's the data.
More than Obama.
With an uphill battle.
I think that's significant.
Let's read.
Newsweek says, President Donald Trump's approval rating this week averaged across major polls surpassed that of his predecessor Barack Obama at the same time eight years ago, giving some actual good news to Trump, who is known to cite only conservative-leaning polls to bolster his image.
Trump's approval rating on Wednesday was 44.3 percent, according to the RealClearPolitics average of more than a half-dozen major polls.
That is higher than Obama's average approval rating of 43.9 percent on September 18, 2011, by the same measure.
The 45th president's average approval rating surpassed that of his predecessor on Monday and stayed on top for the next two days.
Trump's average approval rating on Monday was—we'll look at the chart, but I want to stress, this is so significant, it warranted an article from Newsweek.
I kid you not.
They're just as—you know, they're so shocked, like, whoa!
Trump?
Averaging higher than Obama?
We gotta write a story about this.
You'd think they wouldn't care.
You know, they love to talk about how Trump has never, you know, he's lower than all the other presidents.
They like to smear him and act like everybody hates the guy, but it's just not true.
I remember an anecdote.
There's this financial guy.
He's a TV host.
Him and his wife, I believe, were telling me that in Europe, all the news pointed to Trump being detested and everyone hated him.
And then when they finally came back to the States and saw all the signs everywhere, they realized something was wrong in the press.
And then Trump won.
This is significant because people, they expect the conservative media to prop Trump up, and for the legitimate mainstream press, which, come on, has a bias, we know it, is going to be honest.
But here we are.
Even with the aggregate, all of these polls that don't like him, he has just surpassed Obama.
Check this out.
For the past, uh, up until the 18th, two days ago, Trump was above Obama in the aggregate.
It's impressive.
Trump has not tweeted this week about achieving a higher average approval rating than Obama, whom he has continued to criticize.
But on Monday, the day after he came out ahead of Obama, Trump tweeted an image of himself with 50% approval rating attributed to the conservative Rasmussen reports, which consistently rates him higher than other major polls.
Yes, that's true.
However, I think we have to point out some details.
Now let's move on to some facts.
First, Rasmussen Reports nailed it in 2016.
They say Rasmussen Reports' final White House watch survey showed Democrat Hillary Clinton with a 2% popular vote lead over Trump.
That's what happened.
They were right.
Rasmussen's been wrong in the past.
I think we're seeing something interesting here.
I think Rasmussen has figured out how to find Trump's base, and everyone else hasn't.
It's also true that Rasmussen was the least accurate in 2018.
The reason for this, in my opinion, there was a New York Times story talking about how Trump's base did not show up in the midterms.
I think Rasmussen's figured out how to track Trump's base, but not core Republicans.
So what happens is, in the midterms, when Trump's base doesn't show up, they were wrong.
They thought Trump's base would.
They didn't get it right.
But when Trump is running, so this is why 2020 might, Trump is probably favored for that, at least in my opinion, they're probably tracking that correctly.
So I want to stress, Rasmussen has been, you know, good on some, bad on some.
And so they often show Trump favorably.
But even now, we can see the average 44.7.
There it is.
So let's talk about why it's so significant outside of the aggregate.
Because of this.
Here's a story from Investor's Business Daily.
Media Trump hatred shows in 92% negative coverage of his presidency.
You mean to tell me That Donald Trump has been able to surpass Barack Obama at the same time this year, facing 92% negative news?
That is impressive.
It's particularly impressive when you look at the stories of the past.
How about this one from 2013?
Why does the media go easy on Barack Obama?
Many conservatives think it's evidence of liberal bias.
But is it even true that conservatives are more willing to be adversarial on important topics?
This is a story from 2013 highlighting that Barack Obama Got a free pass, most of the time.
The media, you know, let him slide on a lot of issues.
There's a meme that goes around showing Time Magazine covers.
For Obama, it's all him standing there valiantly.
For Trump, it's like fires, it's criticism, it's negative, it's insulting.
In one of these stories, I think it might be this one right here.
Check this out.
This is a story called Ending the Media Romance with Obama.
Check this out.
Like any multi-headed beast, the press can fall in love.
But its love is difficult to measure and tends toward the fickle.
According to a Pew Research study of the 2008 general election, Obama coverage was somewhat more positive than negative, but not markedly so, while McCain coverage was heavily unfavorable, and became more unfavorable over time.
The two candidates received about the same amount of media attention in general, and Obama's support in the polls climbed steadily during the general campaign, even when the news turned negative against him, such as after the second presidential debate in early October.
I don't want to act like Obama only ever got a free ride.
I'm just pointing out that even Pew Research said after 2008 his positive was slightly more positive, and McCain, the Republican, was heavily negative.
The media bias exists.
In fact, there's a really funny story.
I didn't pull it up.
It talks about how Fox News acknowledged that Trump was doing things and they praised him, but they said, wouldn't we be ragging on Obama for doing the same thing?
And there it is.
We know Fox News is conservative.
They're going to favor the Republican and criticize the Democrat.
However, all of the other media does that in the inverse.
So that's why things are so, I don't know, scary to a certain extent, right?
Fox News is more than willing to prop up conservatives and defend them, but what about CNN, NBC, you know, HLN, whatever, MSNBC?
They don't.
They defend Obama, they put him on magazine covers, and they slam the president.
And this is what happens, right?
Conservative, Democrat, etc.
But this shows us the media bias.
It's real, okay?
I don't know how much more data you need to prove it.
This is a story from October 10th that 92% of the stories about Trump are negative.
And this is from Media Research Center, which I believe is conservative.
So again, take it all with a grain of salt.
But come on.
If even Newsweek thinks it's newsworthy that Donald Trump surpassed Obama, well, there you go.
So let's do this.
Well, so here's another source here.
I'm not going to get too much into it because I think I made that point already.
Just showing that candidates in 2012 did receive more negative than positive coverage.
I just want to highlight that Obama didn't get a completely free ride.
It just tended towards being better on him than otherwise.
I do want to highlight this.
Whenever I see a story talking about Trump's approval ratings or whatever, I definitely want to make sure I highlight the fact that there's averages here.
It's not all going to be skittles and rainbows just because they have his average now showing it's doing really, really well.
I want to fact check that.
What's different about this compared to what I normally do?
You know, you'll see a story from Rasmussen, Trump approval rating.
And then I'll basically give you my thoughts on why it's so great for Trump.
Look, all these other polls show him doing pretty bad.
This one for Rasmussen is probably the best he's ever had at 52%.
Normally I highlight the average to say, even with that really great single poll, let's look at what they all say.
Now I'm showing you this to kind of make the opposite point.
They're all saying he's doing well.
They still have him negative, for sure.
Minus 10, minus 12, minus 9.
But better than Obama.
I don't necessarily need to fact check the Newsweek here.
There it is.
Town Hall, which is conservative, wants to give some pushback.
And I think it's very important to kind of, you know... Look, if people get this idea in their head that their candidate is guaranteed to win, they get lazy.
If they think their candidate is guaranteed to lose, they get lazy.
Some people think Hillary Clinton lost because everyone was so sure she was going to win, they didn't even show up.
Maybe.
I just want to make sure we simmer down the arrogance.
It may be good news for Trump.
But, this story goes on to say that, yeah, sure, Trump may have surpassed Obama.
It was a rocky period in his presidency.
But Obama did resoundingly better across the board.
And it's the first time Trump has ever surpassed him, and it's never averaged above 50%.
Sure, you can cite Rasmussen, fine.
I think it's important to kind of, you know, pull back expectations.
A lot of people are going to jump up and down and cheer and say, ha, Trump's finally doing it.
But in the end, I want to make sure I point out, while it is significant that Trump is surpassing Obama with this negative press climbing uphill, it doesn't mean too much.
Comparing him to Obama, does it mean he'll win?
Not entirely sure.
I think Trump is on track to win 2020 for a lot of other reasons.
Notably that the Democrats are all kind of weak in terms of candidates.
Their policies are extreme.
If you watch my second channel, you'd have seen me talking about Beto O'Rourke's AMA on Reddit, where he just got slammed hard by people when talking about immigration and the Second Amendment.
People were not having it.
He stepped out into reality and they said, dude, you're nuts.
However, everybody thinks once the Democratic nominee wins, they'll walk everything back to the center.
I don't believe it.
Because progressives won't vote for a moderate.
So we'll see what happens.
I think this is interesting.
This says more about, you know, Trump overcoming negative press than it does about actual approval ratings, right?
You can say, look, all these polls have always been negative about Trump.
I don't trust them.
To an extent, I don't even trust Rasmussen.
Rasmussen got 2016 right, so maybe they understand the presidency better.
They got 2018 wrong.
So, I'm not a big fan of the polls.
I do think because of the economy, because of, you know, low unemployment, all of these factors, Trump is going to win.
And even CNN did a story.
But I've got a few things I want to go through.
So let's go to this story.
Newsweek says Fox News poll shows Trump losing to every Democratic frontrunner.
I want to highlight this because I want to say these polls must be wrong.
I don't know how we judge Obama vs Trump.
But how could you say in 2016 Trump was gonna lose, and now be saying the exact same thing when everything's better, when Trump's base is larger?
Trump is doing better than Obama in the aggregate, and you're still saying he's gonna lose?
Obama is the most popular, you know, Democratic president of this— I don't know what the timeframe is, but that's it.
He's the most popular Democratic president.
We'll leave it there.
Or he's still wildly popular.
Democrats love Obama.
Trump is doing better than Obama based, you know, where he was today.
And you think Trump is going to lose the Democrats?
This is why, in the end, the polls must be crazy.
You know, do we trust the aggregate polls?
The aggregate is probably going to be better than any individual poll, so why would I trust these?
I wouldn't.
But let's do this.
Let's move on.
Fox News poll from today.
Voters are frustrated with government and nervous about the economy.
Fox News reports.
They say, while 37% feel confident about the economy, 48% feel nervous.
That's up from a low of 43% nervous in March.
At the highest point, 70% felt nervous in 2010, when the question was first asked.
And it was 61% as recently as 2016.
I can't tell you.
I don't want to extrapolate too much.
I'm not a wizard or a psychic.
But I will say, in my personal opinion, if people are nervous about the economy, they're not going to vote out an incumbent.
They're going to vote for status quo.
So it's a minority, right?
It's not the majority of people who are scared.
But I believe these 48% are likely to say, don't rock the boat.
Changing presidents is going to rock the market, and it's going to be bad for a lot of people.
I bet this, in my opinion, this shows people are probably, this 48% are likely to vote for the president.
So he's got these advantages.
The economy is good, and people are nervous.
So they're probably going to say, just carry on.
Just go for it.
So now let's talk about, I guess we've gone through the polls.
I think we've kind of, I've made that point.
And I want to talk about why I think Trump's approval rating is going up.
For one, this is a good segue into that.
People are nervous about the economy, man.
It's kind of like, imagine you're at a casino and you keep betting it all on
black and you keep winning.
At a certain point, you're getting nervous.
Like, it can't keep coming up winners, right?
It's all sevens, all the way down.
It can't be that way.
Something bad's going to happen at some point.
People are getting nervous.
Well, they're not going to—the way I see it is they're not going to vote out Trump.
That's when we see this story, which I highlighted early on.
They say CNN's Mark Savage speaks with voters in a Democratic stronghold in Minnesota as local attitudes about politics begin to shift.
In this story, you hear a guy say that his, you know, his uncle, his brothers, whatever, were Union Democrats.
Not anymore.
Well, you know why?
Trump is defending the rural areas, the mining towns, the manufacturing, the tariffs.
People like this in these places.
Trump is talking about strengthening the economy and bringing back their jobs.
A lot of these small towns, and trust me, I've been looking for property, we're expanding, right?
And we're finding a lot of small towns with tragic Addiction.
I'll put it that way.
I'll try to be light.
I don't want to get too much into it because YouTube will punish me.
But yeah, things are bad in these small towns.
Jobs are drying up.
People are getting sick and addicted.
Trump is speaking to these places.
These places that used to be about Democrats and unions.
What are the Democrats offering?
Taxpayer health care to non-citizens?
Sorry, it's not going to work.
2A restrictions and confiscation?
These people live in rural areas.
They probably hunt.
They probably do all this.
The Democrats have gone so far off the rails that Trump is the closest they have, and they're flipping.
Check this out.
Politico.
Trump hopes to seize a core Democratic voting bloc.
The president's 2020 campaign wants to capitalize on discomfort among disaffected workers if they can look past a manufacturing slowdown under the weight of Trump's trade war.
You don't understand, you know?
I feel like these outlets don't get it.
Trump's trade war is on their behalf.
It might hurt some groups.
It may be bad.
There may be collateral damage or blowback for Trump.
But you have this story from CNN.
They mention in this story that the people in this town, they mine a core component for steel manufacturing.
And Trump's tariffs on steel, they like.
They don't care about... All they want to hear is Trump is fighting for them to bring back their jobs, to bring back their industry.
And he is.
Whatever the results may be is less important than someone saying, I'm here for you.
Look, I can't tell you exactly how these people think, but I think it's fair to say at least some of them are probably worried that Trump's trade war could be bad in the long run.
However, Trump is making that move to help them.
Trump may fail.
His policies might not work.
But they're sitting here, desperate, hearing that someone is trying.
And I'm sure that's enough.
Let's read a little bit.
Politico reports.
Chuck Nissel, a fourth-generation coal miner from small-town West Virginia, was dismayed when Hillary Clinton told a group of Ohio voters in 2016 she planned to, quote, "...to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business."
If elected president.
A comment Clinton later said she regretted more than any other on the campaign trail.
What was she thinking?
The Democrats, the party of ending jobs and taking away your career.
That's absurd.
Listen, we got to be real.
Some jobs will cease to exist.
Coal mining might go away.
But you've got to be out of your mind if you're going to go to West Virginia and say this.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I don't think she actually said it to them.
She said it to Ohio voters.
You know, she's trying to pander, and these people don't realize we're in the age of social media.
There were some instances where Hillary Clinton put on, like, a Southern drawl.
It's like, do you not realize these videos are going to go viral and everyone's going to see you pandering?
This is the problem Democrats face.
They used to be able to go wherever and say whatever they had to say to get the votes.
But now the videos go viral, and you hear Bernie Sanders saying things like, we gotta have secure borders, what, like four or five months ago?
Then you hear him saying we're gonna end all deportation.
Well, which is it, buddy?
Depending on who he's talking to, yeah, they're pandering.
It's what politicians have always done.
In the past.
A politician could say whatever they wanted in small-town Ohio, and no one would hear about it.
In the age of social media, we're going to find out, we're gonna see those clips, and we're gonna call you a hypocrite and a liar.
They say.
So when Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden declared at a primary debate this summer that he would eliminate fossil fuels, coal, and fracking as president, Nissel said, I was like, could you not see how devastating that was for Clinton?
It was an albatross that sealed the deal for anyone who had any questions about her.
That's from Nissl, a union officer for the United Mine Workers of America, who said he won't support Trump in 2020, but worries the current 2020 Democrats are repeating past mistakes.
They're pro-union, but anti-coal.
They say, we'll support you, but we'll just find you another occupation, and that's not going to happen.
Here's the best part.
They're not going to learn the code.
Okay.
No, no, no.
But here's the real best part.
Trump's approval rating can go up, not because he changes anything, but because the Democrats are freaking people out.
As Bill Maher said, if the Democrats want to win, they have to be less, they have to be less crazy than Trump.
And they're even screwing that up.
I kid you, he said twice, more than one occasion.
What do you think this is?
A union Democrat saying, I can't believe what I'm seeing.
Could they not see how devastating that was for Clinton?
So I'll tell you what, they might really hate Trump.
But then they look—it's all relative, right?
They look at the Democrats and they're like, that's crazy.
They look at Trump and they go, ugh, I guess.
I guess.
Because Trump is not as scary and crazy as the Democrats.
No matter what you want to believe.
You know, Trump's got really bad character defects.
I talk to people who are even Trump supporters who recognize he has character flaws.
But often I hear from the more moderate Republican types that they don't care.
Because they don't have to like the guy to recognize his policy is better.
And I think that's what's going to happen.
That's going to benefit Trump.
It doesn't matter if it's every Democrat.
It just matters that Democrats lose voters.
Trump can be the worst person in the world.
He might not gain a single vote.
But here we can see the Democrats are losing this base.
It's not just this one story from Politico.
It's CNN saying it too.
I mean, come on.
The warning signs are here, alarms are going off, and the Democrats don't get it.
Trump, as of right now, is an aggregate polling above Obama's.
Get your act together.
They're not going to, though.
The Democratic Party is fractured and weak.
So, I don't know, you know what?
You've got people like Tulsi.
Yang's been bothering me a bit lately.
I'm really upset with a lot of what Yang's been doing, but, you know, I'm not completely off the Yang track.
I still think he's doing a good job.
And he's speaking about things that are very important, especially to, you know, industries
in rural America, automation.
It's going to be taking out trucker jobs and delivery jobs.
So I think it's really important that Yang's talking about it.
But he's been, he's done some things.
I've been a bit let down.
It's sad to say.
But Tulsi Gabbard, I think, has actually done a lot better.
You know, going on the Rubin Report, talking about her positions.
The media hates her.
The DNC hates her.
You know what?
You get what you deserve, man.
They always do this.
There is a sane, rational group of politically active people that just want a calm and reasonable debate.
And just write down your plan.
Right?
It's that simple.
Write down something.
Talk to people and say, what if we do this?
Instead, we get platitudes, we get extreme positions, and we get the same mistakes repeated from 2016, to the point where a Union guy, a Union Democrat guy says, I can't believe what I'm seeing.
Well, you reap what you sow.
I don't know how many warning bells you need before you change course.
The Democrats aren't going to do it.
We'll see what happens.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you all there.
The other day, Democratic candidate Beto O'Rourke did an Ask Me Anything on Reddit, and I will say, much respect for him doing this, although it's kind of a wasted effort, and it seems like a lot of his responses are canned, generic, pre-written responses, and it probably wasn't really him doing this.
But by doing it in whatever capacity he did, he opened himself up to a lot of scrutiny, and that's what we're going to be looking at.
Because Beto O'Rourke got roasted!
Hard!
On two big issues.
On more than two issues.
But a couple issues that I really want to highlight.
For one, the confiscation of AR-15s and immigration.
Because people weren't having it.
But I gotta make a few points before we start off.
First...
You know why the title of this video says Democrat Gets Roasted or something to that effect?
Because if I put Beto O'Rourke in the title, nobody cares.
And I gotta be honest, I don't either.
I don't want to talk about this guy.
The last video I made about him was talking about how evil he was because he's calling on big tech duopolies to suspend the legal sales of a constitutionally protected product.
Beto O'Rourke, for those who don't know, called on credit card companies to suspend transactions related to products that are legally available and protected under 2A.
I have to be very careful about the language I use because YouTube will derank me.
You get it.
Actually, we'll do that now.
So look.
Beto talked about, what did he say?
He wants to confiscate everyone's ARs, and he gets downvoted ridiculously.
I know it's kind of hard to see, but he's got minus 8,296 votes.
This is significant because Reddit is very left-leaning.
The other issue, somebody asked him about immigration.
Minus 2,149, and there are other worse ones, but these are the ones I want to focus on.
Basically, in this instance, Beto gave a canned response and didn't even answer the question, pissing everybody off.
So, before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But the best thing you can do, share this video.
YouTube, like I mentioned, they're gonna derank this video because I'm talking about political issues.
Nothing I can do about it.
They derank independent political commentary.
The best thing you could all do is just share it, because, I mean, videos on this channel average around, like, 150,000 views.
If every single person shared it, it would actually quadruple or double or, I mean, a lot more views.
It'd be significant.
And that's kind of, you know, that definitely overcomes the obstacle that is YouTube's deranking of my commentary.
But I want to stress a few points as well moving forward.
We'll read this.
But there was a story from CNN recently, I may cover later on.
It's a video though, it's not an article, so I'm not gonna show you the video.
But they go to, I think it was northern Minnesota, a mining town, it's a steel mining or whatever, and it's a Democrat stronghold that's flipped for Trump.
These people all vote Democrat locally, but nationally are supporting Trump.
And CNN's kind of like, wow, why is this happening?
It's because of things like this.
Beto O'Rourke is chasing woke Twitter.
And I know it's said often, you probably hear me say it a lot, Bill Maher said, stand up to Twitter.
These people have lost their minds, okay?
Beto has lost his mind.
Polls show, just look at the polls, you've got to trust them, but they all show the same thing.
So at a certain point, they show that most Americans, the overwhelming majority, do not want confiscation.
The overwhelming majority do not want open borders or lax border policy when we already have some of the laxest immigration policies in the world.
Let's start with this.
Let's see what happens.
So, someone asked, how will you confiscate the millions of AR-15s?
Beta responded, Americans will comply with the law.
It will be a mandatory... Actually, you know what I'm going to do?
I'm going to refresh this just to see what happens.
I'm going to refresh this real quick, and it's at minus 11,600.
Okay, I just refreshed it.
I opened it a few hours ago.
He says it will be a mandatory buyback of AR and AKs, weapons designed for war.
They're not.
Because we understand that there's no reason for any of us to own a weapon that is designed to kill people on a battlefield.
This is Beto lying to you, okay?
The AR, again, I am not a gun person.
I just did some cursory Google searches.
It's so hard.
They are as a civilian variant.
Okay, civilian variant.
It is a semi-auto rifle.
It is not select fire.
It is not an assault rifle.
It is not designed for military use.
Although it's possible that there are some people out there who use it because it is a weapon.
There are people out there who use forks as weapons.
You get it?
He's trying to say weapons designed for war.
Okay, dude.
Like, weapons are designed for self-defense.
Whether that's war or otherwise.
We're not talking about someone getting a SCUD missile or setting up a SAM site on their house to fire at planes or something.
We're talking about somebody getting a gun.
But he says, that kind of weapon is so often used to kill and terrorize people throughout the country.
Wrong.
In their schools, grocery stores.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
And I'm not going to read his fake statement.
But anyway, he gets roasted.
Look at this.
Minus 11,000 points on left-leaning Reddit.
Check this out.
The top response, almost 5,000 upvotes, meaning people support this.
He says, America has 4.2 times as many guns as all of southern, eastern, western, and northern Europe combined, and less than 0.3 are registered.
How do you find these newly illegal guns?
Who pays for the buyback?
The taxpayers?
The taxpayers are the gun owners in America.
Even if you got them to foot the bill, it would still cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
And that's assuming the gun owners would relinquish their weapons without protest.
The reality is, they will fight tooth and nail, and if force is used, many lives will likely be lost on both sides of the process.
So now we've cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars, and lost thousands of lives.
Doesn't sound like a good alternative.
I assure you.
If you try to come for a constitutional right, keep in mind, when Beto talks about assault weapons, he likes using these buzz names, like these, the OAKs and ARs, yeah, but what he's actually said, assault weapons, all of them.
He tweeted it out.
Assault weapons include guns with magazines.
That's like handguns, okay?
It's very extensive.
Now, it depends on which bill gets passed.
These things do change.
So, fact-checked me on that one about a year ago.
So, I looked at the latest bill, and the language has changed.
They've added some caveats.
Probably because nobody would agree with it, but let's read on.
They said, Banning guns in the UK worked because there were a few hundred thousand registered guns in circulation.
In Australia, there were estimated to be less than 3 million.
This is why ban and buyback programs were expected to work, which they didn't.
There are 400 million guns in America.
It's just not possible.
So if a gun ban is not the solution, and is also logistically impossible, what is the solution?
The problem is systemic violence.
that thrives because of poverty, lack of social welfare, lack of mental health resources,
and widespread inequality. The solution is acknowledging these problems and addressing
them one by one through social policy change. If you take away law-abiding citizens' guns,
all you're doing is disarming them against the imminent threat that is posed by those
who are currently tangled in the web of violent crime and or mental instability.
Address the problem.
Don't strip law-abiding citizens' ability to defend themselves.
What a remarkably moderate democratic answer.
Social policy change.
You see, this is typically where I'm at, right?
I think there's a conversation to be had about guns themselves.
But look what this person is saying.
Poverty, inequality, mental health, social policy change doesn't sound very much like a conservative.
Surprise, surprise.
There are blue states, a lot of them on the east coast like Maine and Vermont for instance, where people are Democrats and own guns.
Beto is pandering to the woke of Los Angeles.
That's it.
So I know this has already gone on a little long on this one issue.
But there's tons of this.
Almost every response to Beto is slamming him with massive upvotes.
And this is Reddit.
Reddit?
Okay, the Donald is quarantined.
You can't find the Donald on the front page.
They say, harumph!
But you can find other far-left subreddits.
And the r slash politics subreddit posts left-wing activist websites as news.
That's Reddit.
So when you have something as woke and left as Reddit for their mainstream platform, and people are telling Beto to STFU, and they're downvoting him?
Beto, that should be a wake-up call, dude.
That should be a huge wake-up call.
Now check this out.
Somebody asked, I'm a liberal but don't fully understand decriminalizing border crossings.
If we want a welfare state, I would think that we would want to limit immigration because of the strains that too much would put on the welfare system.
If we make immigration too easy, do you think that it would lead to an increase in illegal border crossings?
Question 1.
Would you crack down on companies that hire illegal immigrants?
Question 2.
What is the number of immigrants you would allow into the country each year?
Those are three really great questions.
Thank you for those questions.
It's questions like that that help make America strong.
I appreciate you standing up and expressing your opinions.
Next question, please.
That's how politicians respond.
Annoying, isn't it?
Well, you want to know what Beto did?
Copy and paste!
And that's apparently what people are... This is great.
You're going to love this.
So Beto's response has nothing to do with any of the questions asked.
We should rewrite our immigration law so there is a safe, orderly, and quick path to this country.
Yada yada yada.
Didn't answer any of his questions.
Check this out.
I had this minimized.
Boom.
The same guy responds.
Beto, I do have tremendous respect for you as a person and as an individual.
I think you are passionate and I was struck by you during the debate with Ted Cruz and how well you did in your native Texas.
But this was a really s response and really didn't hit at the crux of my questions.
Yeah, he politicianed his way out of that one not successfully though.
I'm going to minimize this and say someone's response to Beto is, this is inane.
The U.S.
lets in the most immigrants of any country in the world at 1.1 million a year, and we've been at the top for decades.
We have over 20% of the entire world's immigrant population, four times more than the next country.
To say the U.S.
needs reform or to make it easier is so out of touch with U.S.
immigration.
Democrats should really reflect on how incredible our country actually is on the immigration front.
Yes, there are bad stories, but we do tremendous good, and you should start realizing it.
324 points, Beto O'Rourke.
124 points beta O'Rourke negative two hundred two thousand one hundred and forty nine
Beta O'Rourke is getting slammed hard by left-wing reddit What you need to realize, and someone pointed this out in the Reddit, is that when you see the negative votes, you have to realize the bias is towards the left.
It's actually worse than you realize.
If you corrected for bias, the votes would probably be way, way worse.
This is Beto on r slash IAMA.
This is one of the default subreddits and Reddit is left.
Go to r slash politics and you'll see it.
People have joked that r slash politics is basically the other, like the inverse of the Donald.
It's just a partisan biased platform and has nothing to do with politics other than activist leftism.
This is Beto getting roasted hard.
Some other people.
This is really funny.
Basically, look at everybody just railing on this dude.
And every comment telling Beto to SDFU does better and better.
Check this one out.
You've stated publicly that you expect gun owners to comply with your confiscation order.
This has got 6,395 upvotes.
And it basically goes into great detail about why he's wrong.
Saying, as far as I can tell, using actual data rather than just a few people you talk to at a gun show, there's no reason to believe you'll see people comply with your plan.
Since it seems clear that you'll need to step up enforcement attempts, what's your next step when nearly nobody complies?
You can't fine people because you don't know who to fine, and law enforcement refuses to help.
And then you go on and talk about positive commentators, yadda yadda yadda.
Okay, you get the point.
I'm gonna end this video by saying, well, hold on.
Let me just say this.
Beto O'Rourke stepped out of his Twitter bubble.
He walked into the real world, which still has a bias, and he got slammed.
I also think I might have something else to show you.
This image is of a woman who responded to Beto O'Rourke saying, hell no.
When he says, you know, hell yes, we'll take your guns, she said, hell no, you won't.
And I believe you can see she's actually armed.
She's armed here, telling him, no way.
This woman went on to say that she's five feet tall and weighs like a hundred pounds, and the only way she can defend herself against like a big guy who's trying to attack her or something is with a firearm.
And that is, to an extent, true.
Great equalizer.
Two people, no matter how big or small, and they have a firearm, they're They're rather equal on that battlefield.
Now, if she is on her own, she wants to defend herself, and she has the right to do it.
That's the point.
She told Beto O'Rourke, no.
So there are people standing up there, but the point is...
Beto's pushing policy people don't agree with.
Certainly people in this crowd were cheering for him and agreeing with him.
But in the end, when Beto steps out into the real world and talks to real people, they slam him on Reddit, they slam him in real life, his policies are extreme and insane, and even Democrats are ragging on him.
The last thing I think I have here is, what is this?
Oh yeah, Bill de Blasio's out.
I don't care.
I'm not going to dedicate a segment to talking about Bill de Blasio dropping out of the presidential race.
Next segment will be at 1 p.m., and I will see you all there.
It'll be on this channel.
For some reason, I've had to talk about Chick-fil-A quite a bit, and it's because protesters are outraged that a restaurant would dare sell chicken and that, like, seven years ago, some guy made a statement about gay marriage, and today, they donate to Christian organizations.
It's not like, I don't know, every other business makes political donations in some capacity.
But they strictly target Chick-fil-A.
Well, this video is going to be a bit of, I don't know, not necessarily spite, but kind of like, uh, I don't know how to describe it.
Let me just read you the headline.
Chick-fil-A has more than doubled sales since critics called for a boycott.
Now, I do have another story, because it is moving beyond just Chick-fil-A and into IKEA.
Apparently IKEA dared to sell jerk chicken, and that's offensive, because IKEA should only be allowed to sell food that's Swedish.
I kid you not.
They're mad that it's selling a Caribbean dish.
That's insane.
You know, there's a Chinese buffet nearby me, and they sell, okay, get this, pizza, and like, they have burgers, and like chicken breast, and other foods that are not Chinese.
In fact, I kid you not, Urban legend has it, Chinese food as we know it was actually made in the UK.
It's not even Chinese.
Like if you actually go to China, or actually here's a better example, I went to Thailand, and you know what they eat in Thailand?
They eat like regular food, like steamed chicken and rice.
Sure, they do have pad thai and like, you know, traditional dishes, but it's very different from what we eat here.
So they're complaining about cultural appropriation at IKEA.
Okay, all right.
Let's read this story and see just how Chick-fil-A is doing great amid all of the protestors and the boycott.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There are multiple ways you can give with the best thing you can do.
Share this video!
Uh, I don't know why you should share this video.
Man, I can't tell you what's going on or why it's happening.
Or, no, no, no, that's literally what I do, but I just mean, like, everything's getting so crazy, they're protesting Chick-fil-A, and here I am just giving you a report on the annual sales revenue of Chick-fil-A for some reason.
Isn't the world weird?
You'd think they'd protest the actual organizations, like the people who actually oppose gay marriage, but this is a chicken shop.
Well, they've doubled their revenue.
Just about doubled.
Let's read.
Chick-fil-A has more than doubled its annual sales since gay rights advocates called for a boycott of the Chicken Chain restaurant after it was revealed nearly a decade ago the company donated to organizations that oppose same-sex marriage.
In 2018, the company had $10.5 billion in total sales, becoming the third largest chain in the nation behind Starbucks and McDonald's.
It was a 16.7% increase in sales from the years prior.
An analysis credited the growth to a variety of factors, including the opening of nearly 700 more locations in recent years.
Low startup costs and digital sales via delivery apps.
Wow, interesting.
That's right.
Yeah, there's a thing called DoorDash that I can just order and the guy brings it.
It's like Uber for food.
They say there are now more than 2,400 locations nationwide, and the $10,000 in startup costs for an operator are significantly lower than the costs needed to open a McDonald's.
And not only that, apparently it's really difficult to open a Chick-fil-A.
You've got to be dedicated to just being the sole operator of the Chick-fil-A.
So they don't want passive investors to buy in and then hire someone else to do the work.
They say the company's growth has happened despite the calls for boycott.
And there it is!
Ding, ding, ding.
Guess what?
The fringe minority does nothing when you ignore them.
First of all, Chick-fil-A has no choice but to ignore them.
They're nuts.
But how many stories have you heard about people freaking out because they're like, the Twitter mob is mad at me.
You know what happens when you ignore them?
Nothing.
Nothing happens, okay?
There was a story I covered the other day about, like, some teens at a high school who waved a Trump flag, and they got put on probation because of it, because of outrage on social media.
Do you know what would happen, school, if you just said, we don't care?
Nothing!
Nothing!
Life would go on, no one cares, dude.
And I'll tell you this, when we're talking about Chick-fil-A, I assure you, If you go to someone and say, you can choose to never eat Chick-fil-A again to join the protests, or go enjoy yourself a chicken sandwich and some waffle fries and that special dip and sauce, they're gonna go to Chick-fil-A, dude!
People don't put politics in front of, like, people's priority is typically themselves, their friends, and their families, for better or for worse.
They're focused on getting a job, getting their kids through school, and grabbing lunch on the go.
Well, admittedly, Chick-fil-A's lines are huge, so maybe not on the go, but it must be really good food.
I actually like it.
But you see, the thing is, when you start telling people that politics is everything and they have to get political, they're gonna be like, dude, I don't know, man, chicken tastes good.
The controversy began in 2011, when Towlerode, a blog focused on news about gay and transgender issues, posted the headline, If you're eating Chick-fil-A, you're eating anti-gay.
The headline was in response to the company's support of a seminar hosted by the Pennsylvania Family Institute, which opposes same-sex marriage.
Dan T. Cathy, the son of the founder of Chick-fil-A, said he was guilty as charged when asked about his opposition to gay marriage.
Years later, he said he regretted his comments, but that his views hadn't changed.
In response to the backlash, the company said it would stop donating to all political groups.
And those opposed to gay rights.
But critics say the company has broken that pledge by donating to groups such as the Fellowship
of Christian Athletes, whose student leadership application says,
neither heterosexual sex outside of marriage nor any homosexual act constitute an alternative
lifestyle acceptable to God. So that's what they're claiming.
So here's the gist of it as I can understand it.
Seven years ago, some dude made some offensive comments, and they made donations.
They stopped.
However, they still donate to some Christian organizations that tacitly are against gay rights.
I don't think these organizations directly campaign against gay rights.
Like this one, for instance, is about Christian athletes.
Still, they don't like Christianity as it is because Christianity disagrees with, you know, how they live.
So they're protesting a chicken sandwich.
You know what, man?
Protest this organization, okay?
Protest the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.
I don't see you outside of McDonald's and Wendy's, okay?
But I guess we do see them outside of Ikea.
You know what, man?
At a certain point, I feel like all of this is a big nothing burger, right?
These people are nuts.
Nothing happens.
Ignore it.
The problem is, When left alone, nothing happens.
People succeed.
No one cares about the outrage mob.
Chick-fil-A doubles its revenues.
Okay, the problem is people don't leave it alone.
People on Twitter... Ikea, I think... Ikea's actually pulling jerk chicken from the menu, are you nuts?
I can go down to a local restaurant, and I can get at a diner.
I kid you not.
They have burritos.
They have pizza.
They might even have, like, Chinese food.
I swear to God.
Local diners have a mix of all this different food.
Oh, heaven forbid somebody wants to sell... You know what, man?
They really don't like chicken.
I'll just say that.
They're protesting Chick-fil-A.
They're protesting jerk chicken.
I think they just don't like chicken.
Okay, I'm kidding.
Of course they like chicken.
They just want something to protest, I guess.
So here's the story from The Daily Wire.
IKEA, the Swedish furniture company famous for their affordable, assembly-required home goods, came under fire recently after adding jerk chicken to their cafe menu in some UK locations.
Jerk chicken is a Caribbean dish in which the meat has been dry-rubbed or marinated with a specific set of ingredients, including allspice, scotch bonnet peppers, brown sugar, and garlic, then grilled.
IKEA's jerk chicken was served with a side of white rice and peas, which caught the attention of some on social media who castigated the furniture giant because traditional rice and peas doesn't actually feature green peas but kidney beans or gungo peas steeped in coconut milk.
Are you kidding me?
Wow.
We are reaching peak insanity.
This is IKEA's jerk chicken and rice and peas and no, I'm not eating it.
Well then don't eat it!
Are you joking?
This is what we're so concerned about today, man?
You know what?
No matter what problems you solve, we could literally have a communist utopia like they claim they want and they would still complain about something.
It's just chicken, dude.
It is rice.
It is in the UK.
So they're not putting kidney beans on it.
Get it right.
What do they say?
This was as simple as googling a pic, but pretending to be a diverse company was more important than getting it right.
Are you nuts?
Yes, they're nuts.
This is yet another example of a brand with no diversity around the table.
It's a Swedish company, dude.
Wow.
Yeah, here's one.
It's literally white rice and garden peas.
Did you even Google it?
So what, man?
Dude, when I go to Taco Bell and they put that waxy cheddar cheese on my taco, do you know they don't use cheddar cheese in Mexico?
They use chihuahua cheese.
Well, I don't know exactly what cheese they use.
Don't take it from me.
But, typically, when you go to an actual Mexican restaurant, they, like, like Taco Bell.
Are you gonna protest Taco Bell for cultural appropriation?
My friend calls taco, tacos at Taco Bell, Americos.
Because they're not tacos.
There's no, like, my understanding is there's no hard-shell tacos.
It's soft-shell.
Hard-shell is an American thing.
And putting cheddar cheese is an American thing, too.
Okay?
They're not really tacos the way people in Mexico make them.
I don't see them protesting Taco Bell.
So why do they do this?
I have no idea.
Because they're bored?
A website called Fresh even published a short article about the dish titled, Ikea's jerk chicken with rice and peas is your cultural appropriation nightmare come to life.
IKEA apologized for forgetting the wrong peas in the rice.
Wow.
Could you imagine living under the boot of these lunatics?
Just angry, whiny losers who are complaining about green peas?
How dare you make a UK- You know what, man?
Cultural appropriation.
What a stupid concept.
And you know why it's really stupid and really offensive to me?
Because I come from a multi-heritage family.
What am I supposed to do?
Tell my dad he's not allowed to make my mom bulgogi?
Okay, so my mom wants Korean food.
Well, my parents are divorced, mind you.
But like, growing up, what do they think?
Like, my dad would make whatever he felt like making.
Is that wrong?
Oh, oh no!
Oh no, people are enjoying cultures from other places and they're getting it wrong.
Ah, you're not allowed.
You know what, man?
It's funny though, isn't it?
Just please, please, I hope and pray this doesn't become more prominent than it is.
But I gotta admit, I'm scared it's becoming more and more prominent.
Welcome to the insanity that is the culture war.
IKEA ACTUALLY ISSUED A FORMAL APOLOGY FOR SELLING THE WRONG KIND OF PEAS WITH THEIR CHICKEN.
What do they say?
Let's read this.
IKEA is a Swedish home furnishing company with a much-loved food offer.
We take inspiration from many countries around the world and have always worked to combine different flavors and ingredients to offer delicious, healthy, and affordable dishes.
We're aware that our new jerk chicken served with rice and peas has created some conversation and some, and in some cases, offense.
Our intention was to create a dish for many people to enjoy, but we appreciate that we may have got it wrong.
We apologize, and are now re-looking at the dish.
Are you insane, IKEA?
I demand, I am offended that you would remove this, and I demand you reinstate your mishmash jerk chicken meal at IKEA.
You know what?
I'm not going to go to IKEA if you're going to stop because, what, five people complained.
OK?
I don't know how many people complained, but seriously, enough.
If you're going to cater to these lunatics who aren't even buying your food, then why would I want to go service that?
I'm not going to support this weird culture you're making.
Congratulations.
You've canceled chicken and rice.
I'm done.
Next segment will be coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
Stick around.
I will see you all there.
Mark Zuckerberg himself has admitted there is bias at Facebook against conservatives, and it's something they've been struggling with for a long time.
Now, let's be clear.
He was specifically referring to the pro-life group Live Action, but he told Senator Josh Hawley there clearly was bias in the Live Action-Lila Grace Rose censorship, and said bias is an issue we've struggled with for a long time.
Please, digital media leftists, stop.
It was Gizmodo who broke the story.
We know it's true.
But you know what?
Tribalists don't want to concede that they are privileged.
What's the saying they like to push?
From a place of privilege, equality looks like oppression?
So all of these stories pop up claiming conservatives are lying to try and game the system.
Mark Zuckerberg himself is saying it.
Enough.
We're done.
I swear to God, if I see another story that pops up claiming there is no censorship, Well, I don't know what I'll do.
I'll probably do nothing.
I'll just make another video and then complain about it, right?
That's probably what I'll do.
Anyway, let's read this story.
Facebook's Zuckerberg says there clearly was bias and controversy over censorship of pro-life group Live Action from Fox News.
Now before we get started, head over to simcast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course the best thing you can do Share this video!
I'm going to be talking about abortion and pro-life.
Only as an aside, because the core issue is censorship, but I assure you, simply saying the word abortion, pro-life, or pro-choice, YouTube is going to derank this video so hard it will never appear in your notifications, in your mentions, on the front page.
I can see it in the analytics.
It pops up and then goes, boo, because they stopped recommending it.
And then they say they stopped recommending it.
So, you know, there it is.
I'll tell you what.
If you think it's important to get out a video where Zuckerberg himself says they're biased, please consider sharing this video.
Fox News reports Zuckerberg says the company's handling of fact-checking controversy involving pro-life group LiveAction was biased.
The embattled tech executive discussed the issue during a meeting on Thursday with Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, a frequent critic of big tech.
Good on him.
On a host of topics, including privacy and allegations of anti-conservative discrimination.
I do want to make sure I point out Elizabeth Warren as well has called out Big Tech.
You do the right thing, you get respect and praise from me.
We can criticize whoever we want for everything else.
On this issue, however, anybody who's willing to call out Big Tech...
Go for it.
Admittedly, though, the Democrats tend to be on the side of censorship.
Zuckerberg admitted there clearly was bias.
Said bias is an issue we've struggled with for a long time, tweeted Hawley, one of several
senators who questioned the tech company's fact-checking system in a letter to Zuckerberg
last week.
Hawley also challenged Zuckerberg to sell off Instagram and WhatsApp.
Now that was bold!
Which the company owns, and submit to an independent third-party audit on censorship.
Zuckerberg declined on both accounts.
Yeah, I gotta say, ballsy of Hawley to ask Zuckerberg to sell off two of its biggest properties.
And I wanna make a, you know, um...
It's an important point.
Facebook is bleeding young users and Instagram is picking them up.
There's no way they would sell it off.
If anything, Facebook is going to be just a kind of a shell to Instagram.
Instagram's growing fast, Facebook's not.
The tech mogul's visit to Washington, D.C.
came as Facebook faces an antitrust probe being led by state attorneys general and a separate antitrust investigation by the Federal Trade Commission.
So perhaps that is why.
Mark Zuckerberg is finally starting to bend a little bit, saying there is bias.
It's coming.
You know, it's really funny, and I hate to bring this up.
People always cite the interview I did, or debate or whatever, with Jack Dorsey, Vijay Gade, Joe Rogan.
It was me and Joe having a conversation with Jack and Vijaya, and they didn't quite understand the concept of why they were biased.
But We see it.
We know what they're doing.
We know it's structured in this way.
But the most important issue, the reason I bring this up, is that Vijaya said she knows what DC wants and they're not going to come for it.
I said it's only a matter of time if you don't correct this that politicians are going to come knocking on your door and kicking it in.
And she said something like, well, I know what, you know, they want in Washington.
They like us.
And I'm like, well, here you go, man.
I was right.
I'll tell you what.
Take your bet, take your prediction, go to Vegas, put all your chips on it, and see how it plays out.
Because in the end, I'm the one who won.
They're coming for big tech.
Finally.
And now you're starting to see these companies start saying, oh, well, I mean, I guess, ooh, please don't hurt us too much.
You had a warning.
You had time.
You could have fixed this.
We'll see what happens, though.
Facebook's powerful.
I mean, as is YouTube and Twitter.
Last month, LiveAction was told by Facebook that its fact-checkers had marked two videos containing the statement, quote, abortion is never medically necessary as false.
The tech giant also said that LiveAction, its links, and Rose's page would now have reduced distribution and other restrictions because of repeatedly sharing false news.
One video titled, quote, The pro-life reply to Abortion Can Be Medically Necessary features neonatologist Dr. Kendra Kolb.
The second video, titled Abortion Is Never Medically Necessary, features a speech given by Rose.
Live action and Rose's Facebook page reach more than 3 million followers combined.
Well, not anymore they don't, because Facebook is biased against conservatives.
Facebook removed the strikes against live action last week, while the fact-checking organization known as Science Feedback conducts an internal review of what took place.
Oh!
Yeah, it's called political bias because you don't care about science.
You know what, man?
I'm not gonna take the word of any ideologue on a scientific issue.
The scientists I know are boring.
They're uninvolved.
They do the research, they say, this is what we found, that's it.
They don't talk about the politics.
Some are, and they're starting to, and it's creepy.
They say, in response to the comments from Zuckerberg, Live Action President Lila Rose said he needs to publicly apologize.
I would agree with that.
Facebook also needs to remove the inaccurate fact check, resend a notification to our followers who are notified by Facebook fact checkers that our posts were false, and fix their process so it never happens again to us or anyone else.
Hear, hear.
In a recent Washington Post op-ed, two of the doctors who fact-checked live action statement for science feedback defended their work, writing that medical misinformation harms patients and that Facebook's decision to remove the fact-check is dangerous.
Fox News has reached out to Facebook for a comment.
Well, look.
Set everything aside.
We're done here.
Okay?
There it is.
Zuckerberg says clear bias in censorship, controversy, pro-life, yada yada.
Does this mean that every single instance of censorship is biased against conservatives?
No.
Does it mean that Facebook has displayed a clear act of bias and owned up to it when it unfairly targeted a conservative position?
Yes.
Is Facebook biased against conservatives?
Some evidence would suggest they are.
The first story, actually, a lot of evidence would suggest that.
I'm trying to be careful because, you know, what they're going to do is they're going to say, there was one thing that happened.
You're highlighting an anomaly.
Okay, dude, chill.
It's one anomaly, 50 times.
It's the censorship that only ever flows in one direction.
We get it.
You know, I said before, the thing I say is, politics flows in one direction.
What I mean by that is, The left tells you, get out.
The right says, come over and have a beer.
It's so easy, okay?
It's so easy to have a conversation and a debate with a conservative.
They're welcoming the conversation.
They challenge debate.
If Facebook, instead of censoring live action, said, we want to host a debate, they'd be like, bring it on!
Not the other way around, though.
That's why the censorship impacts conservatives.
The left says, ban it, get rid of it.
The right says, we welcome it.
I don't care what your position is, it's a fact, okay?
Sure, there are many people on the left that are willing to have a conversation.
There are many people on the left that I think do a good job, although I disagree with them.
Kyle Kalinske's great.
Jimmy Dore, David Pakman, great channels.
ContraPoints, great channel.
But the overwhelming majority, I'll put it this way.
I can put out a request for comment to a police department.
You get a response.
Is it perfect?
No, sometimes it's annoying.
But sometimes it's okay.
I can put out a request.
I can walk up to a guy in a MAGA hat and say, I'd like to talk to you.
And he'd be like, sure, turn the camera on, let's go.
You walk up to someone on the left and they'll say, what for?
So the reason I'm highlighting this is that it's not just about the real world.
It's not just about trying to talk to people.
Politics only flows in one direction, on Facebook, on Twitter, on YouTube.
If you are a conservative, And you're a staunch conservative and you put out very conservative opinions and explain why?
Yeah, you'll get banned.
If you're a leftist and you advocate for violence like Antifa and praise and support an extremist group, you're fine.
It's a fact.
You can go on Twitter and see it.
Sometimes Twitter will enforce the rules against the left.
It happens.
I've covered it.
Typically, they don't.
They will ban a conservative for being mean, and they will allow digital journalists from like Vox or whoever to talk about throwing milkshakes at people, which is a crime!
You could have someone from Vox go up on Twitter and say, go commit a crime, and Twitter says, so what?
So what?
But you put out your own video talking about your own issues, Facebook will shut you down.
Bias exists.
And here we have Zuckerberg himself admitting it.
Take this one.
Take this video.
Or the article.
You know, you don't have to put my commentary in it.
And just share it with people and say, here you go!
The dude admitted it!
Can we not?
Can we please move on from here?
You don't have to like each other's opinions, man, but shutting them down is not the solution.
You're not going to solve any problems or win any votes by doing this.
So, you know what?
Good on Zuckerberg for admitting it, but I gotta say, he's probably just doing it because he's scared of the antitrust I've headed his way.
Stick around, I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Kind of a big story that I find rather surprising, Colt suspends production of rifles AR-15 for civilian market.
At this time, this timing, man, I do not trust why they're doing this, and it's kind of weird.
Colt suspending production of an AR-15 is going to be really, really, really bad for business, but I have some theories as to why they're doing it.
I have to imagine, anybody who wants to buy a gun from Colt, or 99% of them, ...are gonna be in favor of the Second Amendment and the right to own an AR-15.
So why would they stop production?
Well, according to them, it's about, you know, civilian capacity.
Oh, it's just that, you know, all the stores have them and we can sell, it's no big deal, and we're gonna do government contracts anyway.
However, experts disagree.
And I actually agree with the experts.
I think this is a PR stunt.
A pro-gun PR stunt.
But hear me out.
Let's read the news first and see what's going on.
But I have to do this.
Because I'm talking about guns, YouTube is going to derank this one into oblivion.
Go to TimCast.com slash Dunnit if you would like to support my work.
There are multiple ways that you can give.
PayPal, crypto, a physical address.
The best thing you can do, share this video, especially when talking about guns.
There was a point where Google Shopping banned any combination of gun.
So, the thing I like to cite which is so hilarious is an anime called Gundam Wing.
It's about giant robots.
But the word Gundam, just a Japanese name or whatever it means, wouldn't pop up.
You couldn't search for toys.
Because Google Blanket banned G-U-N in that order in any capacity.
That's what YouTube does when you talk about guns.
They actually have a special category where if you talk about guns, they say they'll remove your ads.
So anyway, that's a whole other issue.
Not a gun person!
You guys know this.
I don't own any guns.
I might in the future, though, because... well, I'm not gonna get into it.
But I believe the Constitution was written for a reason.
I believe.
It does make sense to update the Constitution in terms of, like, SCOTUS rulings, and a really good example of updating would be, like, digital technology.
Protecting the First Amendment on the Internet.
Protecting our search history from unlawful search and seizure, right?
That's what I mean.
Internet didn't exist back when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.
They couldn't have foreseen it.
We still have our right to privacy.
The same goes for 2A.
And I want to stress this before we read this.
The whole argument from Beto O'Rourke in seizing AR-15s is ridiculous considering you can 3D print a gun.
You can 3D... There's at-home machining tools now.
You can make ghost AR-15s.
They can't do anything about it.
The cat's out of the bag.
We need something else.
This is an archaic waste of time.
But let's read about why Colt is shutting down.
The Examiner reports...
Washington Examiner.
Gun manufacturer Colt announced that it would suspend the production of commercial rifles, including AR-15s.
Colt's chief executive officer, Dennis Vailou, said in a statement Thursday that the suspension doesn't mean the company would permanently halt the production of its rifles, but the market for the guns has experienced significant excess manufacturing capacity.
There is an adequate supply for modern sporting rifles for the foreseeable future, Colt said.
Colt said that it would continue producing rifles for the military and law enforcement
contracts and that high-level contracts have absorbed the company's manufacturing capacity
for rifles.
In terms of the civilian market, the company will continue to sell and expand its network
of dealers for its 1911s and revolvers.
At the end of the day, we believe it is good sense to follow consumer demand and to adjust
as market dynamics change.
Colt has been a stout supporter of the Second Amendment for over 180 years, remains so, and will continue to provide its customers with the finest quality firearms in the world.
Questionable timing, and Beto O'Rourke is capitalizing on this.
That, to me, is disgusting.
Colt, check yourself before you wreck yourself.
You are feeding into his hysteria.
Rifles do not account for the majority of gun violence at all, and they're playing this game.
Look, I have no problem talking about background checks or whatever.
I hear the arguments from the conservatives, I think we just have a conversation, and it might result in me being like, okay, okay, we'll protect 2A, you know, we'll walk away from it.
Beto O'Rourke is doing the opposite.
He's causing as much damage as possible.
Because I assure you, legal firearm owners probably know better than non-owners as to how you can help solve these problems.
It's mind-blowing to me that Beto doesn't understand what an AR-15 is.
And these news outlets are really annoying when they call it an automatic weapon.
It's not.
Let me tell you my theory as to what Colt may be doing.
There's a lot of heat.
There's a lot of heat from Beto, and he's calling out the AR-15.
This is bad, okay?
It's short-term bad.
But you know what's better?
Why don't you just make a new weapon?
Now, I'll say ultimately it's still bad because they're giving an inch.
And this is all they need to take a mile.
Beto, of course, now saying Colt Firearms has announced they're stopping production of AR-15s, and he's gonna use this to prove that even gun manufacturers are concerned about people holding weapons.
I assure you, you do not want to live in a society where the government is allowed weapons that you are not.
And I'll stress this point, too.
It's really annoying because, again, not a gun person.
I've lived in states where you can walk into a store and buy a gun, okay, with an ID, like Virginia.
Florida's pretty easy.
I've never bought one.
I had an air rifle, you know, and that was just for fun, right?
Shooting pellets, single load.
But, well, actually, let's read a little bit more, because I want to see what the experts have to say before I start getting into all of my thoughts and everything.
Otherwise, I'm going to end up ranting for ten minutes and not actually talk about the stories themselves.
So, from Time Magazine.
Colt will stop producing AR-15 rifles for consumers, the Connecticut-based gunmaker announced Thursday.
In a statement, Colt's CEO said, despite their statement, experts wonder whether the company made the decision with other factors in mind.
The public is getting very alarmed about what's happening with assault rifles.
No, they're not, because assault rifles aren't for sale, but anyway.
In the hands of potential mass shooters.
That's not true.
John Donohue, a Stanford law professor with expertise in gun policy, tells Time.
Colt may just be feeling better to get out of that particular market.
And they're offering this purely economic manufacturing argument, rather than addressing the political realities right now, as the justification for this decision.
And that really does seem like what's happening.
That's possible.
I wonder.
There are a lot of guns that are basically the same thing as an AR-15.
You know, magazine-fed, semi-automatic rifles.
They're not fully automatic.
They're not assault rifles.
There are many different kinds that do the same exact thing.
They're functionally the same.
But only the AR-15, Beto?
Only the AK-47 civilian variant, which is not automatic?
Okay.
I believe it's automatic.
So my question is, why couldn't someone just make another kind of gun that's not technically a rifle or an AR-15 and call it something else?
If there's already a ton of guns that do the same thing and function the same way... Now, admittedly, Colt's had rifles as well.
But if the left doesn't know anything about guns, Why not just change the name?
Like, oh, this is called the RA-51.
Don't ban that!
It's got a wooden stock.
You know, it makes me wonder.
Now, I get it, though.
You give an inch to take a mile.
When they come out and do this, the Democrats jump all over it, and it's bad news.
Colt should not have backed down.
But again, what I was saying earlier is, you don't want to live in a society where the government has access to things you don't.
Like, why shouldn't civilians have a right to protect themselves the same way politicians do?
There is a net benefit to, you know, being able to have weapons.
But, you know, the point I wanted to make earlier, and I kind of, I wanted to jump to this first, Not a gun person, as I was saying before.
One of the best points, when the left argues, but you can't own Scud missiles, you can't own a SAM site, blah blah blah, stupid argument.
You look at Afghanistan, you look at Vietnam, okay?
When the citizenry is armed, tyranny is impossible.
That's it.
End of story.
You cannot have a communist dictatorship, a fascist dictatorship with an armed population.
It just won't work.
It would destabilize too quickly.
The fire, look, you can't occupy streets with a fighter jet.
You can't, you know, occupy a government building with a scud missile, with a cruise missile.
The left likes to say, whoa, the right thinks they have a right to bear arms to protect themselves from the government, but the government has nukes.
Are you saying you're going to nuke your own country?
No, of course not.
That's stupid, but why are they saying it?
I have no idea.
The point is, a nuclear bomb cannot control territory.
The only thing that can are people with guns.
In my opinion, Second Amendment was not designed to allow the citizenry to fight against its own tyrannical government, as many people say.
It's actually much simpler than that.
It was to allow the citizenry to defend itself from anything and anyone.
So, listen.
2A says a well-regulated militia, being necessary, you know, for a freeze at yada yada, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
What I think that means is, no matter who the threat is, be it our own government, a foreign government, or otherwise, an armed population will not be oppressed by anyone.
That's it.
A lot of people like to say it's about, you know, preventing tyranny within our own government.
Some others say it's about protecting us from, you know, a foreign invasion.
And the left seems to think it means having an army, which they're wrong.
A militia is, my understanding, when the citizenry come up and band together with their own arms.
The government will never become tyrannical, and foreign governments can't invade because of the Second Amendment.
So, listen.
I think it's a problem that crazy people get access to high-powered rifles and go on rampages.
There's a lot of people who say mental health.
There's a lot of people who say ban guns.
Well, banning guns is wrong and mental health isn't a complete solution.
I think whatever is causing this is a combination of the media.
I don't want to make this video too long, so I apologize.
But it's a combination of the media, it's mental health, it's a breakdown of societal norms, It is a loss of purpose, it is complicated, and there may not be one solution to all of this.
Certainly one solution is, can we talk about preventing these crazy people from getting high-powered rifles?
Why we should punish law-abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong, it makes no sense.
But I think we can bring everyone together and have a conversation, but the left doesn't know anything about guns.
Beto's talking about weapons of war, the AR-15 isn't!
And I'm not even a gun person!
I'm preaching to the choir.
It's pointless.
Sorry.
You guys get it.
What's the point of me even talking about it?
I got another segment coming up for you in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I'll see you there.
Did you know that I am an environmentalist?
I am.
I used to work for Greenpeace.
I worked for some other organizations.
I believe in reforestation, stopping deforestation, renewable energies, all of these really great things.
I think nuclear energy can be a good thing, though admittedly I'm not an expert on it.
I get a million emails whenever I talk about nuclear energy.
I get it, I get it.
But I would like to make sure we pay attention to the effects humans are having on the world.
I ask you, do one thing.
Look at a satellite image of the eastern seaboard.
From far away you see green.
What people don't realize, though, and this was news to me, is that you're not actually looking at trees.
You're looking at deforestation.
There are dark green patches and light green patches, and you can see the swaths of human development that have really altered the landscape.
To me, that's worrisome.
I don't know what our capacity is, but I would like to see some kind of reforestation, protecting of the wilds.
You know, we gotta figure it out, though.
We have a conversation about it.
I don't think the climate strike is the way to get things done.
This is what makes me so angry about the modern left.
This thread right here.
Robert Colville tweets, Today's Climate Strike Day.
Millions of people across the world, according to the organizers,
will be marching to save the planet.
But having dug into what they're actually marching for, I'm profoundly uneasy.
So uneasy, in fact, that it's time for a thread.
See, here's the thing.
The environment needs protecting.
You'll find a lot of conservatives saying similar things.
People who like hunting, for instance, don't want to see the woods torn down for a shopping mall if they like going hunting there.
Well, the wilds are important for, you know, biodiversity and things like that.
But the left is taking this in order to push socialism and identitarianism.
And I'm not exaggerating.
Reparations, right there in their demands, and that's what he's talking about.
They are manipulating our goodwill.
They saw an exploit.
They saw that we were willing to fight for the environment, so they took the cause, and now they're trying to say stupid things like, the real issue for climate change is reparations, which makes no sense at all.
None.
These people are sick and, in my opinion, evil.
Not the marchers.
The marchers are good people.
They don't realize they're being taken for a ride.
It's like the Women's March.
Anti-Semites running the thing.
Let's read.
Robert Colville says, one of the key demands of Greta Thunberg is that people respect the science and unite behind it.
I completely agree, but the manifesto for the climate strike movement isn't just unscientific, but actively anti-science, and hugely dangerous as a result.
Get these religious nuts out of there, man!
Come on!
Where's the atheism movement?
That's what's annoying to me.
If you go to the Global Climate Strike website and look under what we're asking for, you find these demands.
They're demanding climate justice.
Justice.
What does that mean?
Our hotter planet is already hurting millions of people.
If we don't act now to transition fairly and swiftly away from fossil fuels to 100% renewable energy for all, the injustice of the climate crisis will only get worse.
We need to act right now, stop burning fossil fuels, and ensure a rapid energy revolution with equity, reparations, and climate justice at its heart.
It's the most annoying thing in the world.
They have taken what I care about, and they've jammed their religion into it, and they've won.
And they now have all of these people who don't watch the news and don't pay attention marching behind them like puppets.
It's sickening.
He says, already then, this isn't just about saving the planet, it's about climate justice, including reparations.
This presumably means that since Britain invented the Industrial Revolution and has pumped X million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, it should pay Y percent of the cost.
China, seemingly omitted from all of the complaints, producing more emissions than every other country, and producing more than the US and Europe combined.
Are you going to see China doing anything?
No.
Is Greta going to China to complain to China?
No.
What is she doing?
She's a Swedish upper-class young white girl coming to the U.S.
to lecture us about how we've already reduced our emissions, dude.
Talk about China, man, or India.
They don't.
He says, if you then follow the link that defines climate justice, you get taken to the people's demands.
And these demands are really, really worth fisking, because if the millions of people marching were told about them, I suspect they'd have a very different take.
Let's start from the top.
Ban fossil fuels is an obvious place to start.
In 2011, the Climate Change Committee concluded that Britain might realistically get to 30-45% of all energy consumed being renewable by that point.
Since then, things have gone pretty well.
By 2025, half of the electricity produced in the UK will be from renewable sources.
Incredible.
Admittedly, this has been relatively low-hanging fruit, switching from coal to other sources.
The current target is to decarbonize the economy by 2050.
Philip Hammond has said this will cost 1 trillion pounds.
That equates to about 33 billion pounds, or 1.5% of the GDP.
billion pounds or 1.5% of the GDP per year I think he's saying.
I've tried to look up how much extra it would cost to bring that forward by 20 years to
2030 but there are no reliable estimates because it would be insanely expensive.
But it gets worse, because Greta and co.
want us to do this with our hands tied behind our back.
And here comes the anti-science left.
Not only are they anti-science in biology, they're anti-science in environment.
They are pushing a dogmatic religion that is insane, and you know what?
It's gonna take over.
You know, as an aside, you know that song, The Dawning of the Age of Aquarius?
There's this, uh, I don't know too much about anthropology, ancient religion, or anything like that, but in the Zeitgeist film, Peter Joseph, I don't know if you guys have ever seen this old stuff from like, you know, 10-15 years ago, he talks about how The, uh, Judaism was the age of Aries.
Because of the procession of the equinox, we move into the age of Pisces, which is the fish, which is Christianity.
And there would be a new religion emerging for the age of Aquarius.
I'm not saying it's true.
I just like the idea.
It's interesting, right?
If that pattern does follow, I always wondered, what would the new religion be?
I kind of thought it might have been Scientology.
Ah, but here we go!
Intersectionality, in my opinion, is going to be a dominating religion.
It's taken over.
It's trying to gobble up everybody else.
Let's read on, though.
You can ignore that or look into it.
It's a fun idea.
I'm not saying it's true or anything.
The next installment of demands urges us to reject false solutions.
These include geoengineering, carbon capture, techno-fixes, carbon trading, biofuels and bioenergy, smart agriculture.
In other words, we cannot use market mechanisms, economics, or technology to cut carbon emissions.
We need trees, not factory.
In fact, In Ocasio-Cortez's Message from the Future, she says that after we, like, started tearing down oil pipelines, native elders guided the way because we didn't have the expertise.
I'm sorry, dude.
I understand elders can know hidden truths and present us with secret meaning we weren't aware of.
But to act like a petroleum engineer or bio-agricultural specialists aren't gonna know how to like regrow forests and that a Native American wood is racist against Native Americans.
Don't give me that BS.
Acting like simply because they're the mysterious... That's a racist trope.
And that's what AOC presented in her stupid thing from the future.
Racism.
I'm not surprised.
Let's read on.
They claim to be fighting against it, but you know what they really want?
They want command.
They want control.
They want everyone to bend the knee.
He says, this position is made crystal clear in the next set of demands.
These reject the use of nuclear power, insist on non-market approaches, condemn corporations, and praise agroecology and food sovereignty.
Agroecology, when you look it up, involves an explicit focus on social and economic dimensions of food system and a strong focus on the rights of women, youth, and indigenous people.
Once again, there we go!
Left-wing identitarianism.
They don't care about the environment, man.
You know what?
These millions of people, they're good-natured, they have the right frame of mind, they want to do the right thing, and they are being led by evil, manipulative people.
And it's a shame.
The message is clear.
The best way to save the planet is to facilitate and support non-market approaches.
Support environmentally sound, socially acceptable, gender responsive, and equitable climate technologies.
I don't even... that doesn't mean anything.
It literally means nothing.
So here we go.
This is what we're being presented with.
A 16-year-old little girl from Sweden who is not an expert on anything, who skipped school, and is now encouraging other kids to skip school.
Fine.
I'm not a fan of school anyway.
But why is she here?
Look, I can applaud somebody for standing up and speaking out, and she's 16.
Good for her, man.
A lot of kids don't do anything.
They're playing Fortnite and Minecraft.
Who knows what they're playing?
So good on her for standing up for something.
But why are we acting like she has any idea what's actually going on?
She's 16, dude!
Could you imagine if your house was on fire, and you're in charge of the house, and you're like... Let's say you live in an apartment building in New York, and it bursts into flames.
And then all of a sudden, there's a 16-year-old saying, we have to panic and do this!
You're like, okay, let's panic and do what the kid is telling us to do.
Dude.
The 16-year-old got angry and freaked out and said, we gotta do something.
You need to say, I hear you, man.
I hear you, but don't panic.
You're not supposed to panic.
Calm down.
Let's find our way out safely and think about this, otherwise we can make it worse.
Instead, we're in a burning building where a 16-year-old walked out, and you've got people like me and other rational moderates being like, let's talk about this and propose plans, and they're going, You're not panicking!
I want you to feel the fear I fear!
And I'm like, dude, stop!
You sound crazy.
You don't know what you're talking about.
And those people standing next to you are pushing nonsense that has nothing to do with the environment and is asking for reparations.
Could you imagine if your house was burning down?
And you're like, what do we do?
And the 16-year-old kid was like, first you have to give the money you owe to John back.
It's like, no, we get out of the burning building.
No, you have to pay John.
You owe him money.
Oh, man.
I'm done.
Now the left is going to come at me and be like, why are you making fun of a child, Tim?
