Trump Is Raising MILLIONS Over Impeachment Scandal, But Support For Impeachment Is GROWING
Trump Is Raising MILLIONS Over Impeachment Scandal, But Support For Impeachment Is GROWING. In the several days since Democrat Nancy pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry into Trump, his reelection campaign has raised over FIFTEEN Million dollars.Not only that, but Republicans have seen a 608% increase in donations for congressional campaigns and Trump saw $50,000 from NEW Donors.From the look of this how could we assume impeachment is bad for Trump? Even as polls being to show a major swing in favor of impeachment Trump's base seems mostly unwavering. His aggregate approval is relatively static and so is his favorability rating.Trump will not be impeached. Mitch McConnell would not allow it and there are not enough anti trump politicians in the Senate to reach a two thirds majority for conviction.In the end Trump will rally his base, accused the Democrats of being single minded, and raise millions of Dollars.Here is the catch, Democrats Are ALSO raising millions. While not as much as Trump they have still brought in around 4.6M dollars.But perhaps this too was part of Trump's plan. If his base gets too arrogant they may not show up on election day feeling that they can't lose.It's hard to know for sure but in the short term the cash is looking good for the President. And as for the far left, anything that could known out Joe Biden is beneficial as well. It seems like all sides might be very happy with this turn of events.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
We're starting to see the effect of the calls for impeachment against Donald Trump by the Democrats.
The story two days ago was that Trump raised $13 million after Pelosi made the announcement.
In actuality, the GOP raised $1 million in six hours, but we actually have an update from this story.
You know, this is one I see people sharing.
It's old.
It's old.
It's actually $15 million.
So here's the thing.
Nancy Pelosi said in her announcement, or at some point, that she believes Trump is trying to goad the Democrats into calling for his impeachment because it will rally his base.
And it will.
And it has.
Case in point, $15 million.
I think there's a lot of reasons why this is very, very good for Donald Trump and why it was a huge mistake.
However, polls are turning against Trump.
A Harris X poll and an NPR poll are both showing that support for impeachment is way, way up.
And this is mostly from people who are unsure.
Now this is bad, because these are polls I've cited before, and look, you can choose not to trust them.
I'm going to lean towards trusting these polls because I've cited them on many occasions, and look, the polls may or may not be wrong, but here's the point.
The people who are turning on Trump, or who are now joining in calls for impeachment, were those who were unsure before.
This is not Trump's base.
Trump's base is being fired up.
I believe the big strategy here might be To get people who Trump knows will support him.
And I've said this before, that Trump is willing to damage himself, like when he called out the Squad and made offensive comments.
It does hurt him among certain voters, but it does rally his base, and it causes more damage for the other side.
I believe the impeachment may hurt Trump in some respects, but as a whole it's going to be really, really good for Trump and his base.
Let me break it down.
Let's start by reading about the $15 million in donations as of today since they started this, and I want to look at the polls.
But here's the thing.
While the polls may show danger ahead for Trump and his supporters, I really do think it's exactly what Trump wanted, and I think these new polls are good news for Trump.
I mean it seriously.
It sounds weird, but trust me.
Let's get started.
Let's read this.
Before we do, 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, but of course, the best thing you can do is share this video.
I know, for the most part, it's just my opinion, but I want to highlight some of the bad news for Trump.
I also want to highlight why I think some of this is going to turn out well for him, and why.
But that means I'm going up against Fox, who has been in chaos, apparently, over the impeachment hearing, and other mainstream platforms that YouTube props up at the expense of independent political commentary.
So if you like this content, please consider sharing it, but let's read the news.
From Fox Business.
In the few days since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opened an impeachment inquiry into President Trump, Republicans have capitalized on conservative outrage, pulling in millions of dollars in donations.
As of Friday, Trump's 2020 re-election campaign received $15 million in small donations, including $50,000 from new donors, according to a tweet from Eric Trump.
Well, I know the left is going to say they're all crooks, but considering it's federal election law, I'm going to have to go ahead and say he's probably on the level.
$50,000 from new donors.
Is that $50,000 from new donors?
At the very least, this has rallied people to Trump, which is interesting, especially going into the polls.
Let's read on.
Unbelievable numbers, he tweeted.
Keep it going.
You and the Dems are handing real Donald Trump the win 2020.
Pelosi announced on Tuesday the House would launch a formal impeachment inquiry against the President, accusing him of betraying the oath of office by pressuring Ukraine to open investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden.
Technically.
It's hard to parse a lot of what Trump does because Trump is a savvy businessman.
The most important thing for his supporters and for his opponents is to realize Trump keeps things vague on purpose.
When they're vague, you can't necessarily accuse him of doing something he didn't say it overtly.
That's a clever strategy used by a lot of top business people.
Let the other people make the assumptions and only correct them if you have to.
In this instance, the assumption from the left is that Trump is trying to knock out a political opponent.
The assumption from the right is that Trump is simply looking into the corruption that's been going on, draining the swamp.
It's exactly what they want to see.
Everyone's going to have their bias.
But in the end, the question is, will this be good for Trump in the end?
My opinion, yes.
Absolutely.
Aside from the money.
Let's read on.
They say.
24 hours later, Trump's re-election campaign and the RNC raked in a combined $5 million, according to Trump's campaign manager Brad Parscale.
The National Republican Congressional Committee, meanwhile, said its online fundraising was up 608% on Friday.
Listen.
Nancy Pelosi.
Here's a story from The Caller, Daily Caller.
They say, Pelosi has said she believes Trump is goading Democrats to impeach him because he thinks it will help him fire up his base.
It did.
608% for the National Republican Congressional Committee.
This is to get House Republicans in Congress to displace the Democrat majority.
This is insanely good for Republicans.
State-level Republican groups are also fundraising off of Democrats' efforts to impeach Trump, with the Nevada Republican Party selling a shirt that says Impeach This over an image of the 2016 election map.
Of course, Democrats are also turning impeachment into a chance to raise money.
ActBlue, the company that processes a majority of Democratic online donations, said it brought in 4.6 million in donations on Tuesday, one of its largest fundraising days not tied to a Democratic debate or monthly deadline.
Less.
Less than the Republicans, but still a lot.
So, look, just because I'm talking about Trump doesn't mean there's not good news for Democrats in rallying up their base.
This has been good for them in a lot of ways.
For one, support for impeachment is up.
Oh, that's the wrong one.
We'll get to this story in a second.
I lined these up improperly.
Here you go.
Support for Trump impeachment rises 12 points in a new poll.
A new Hill-HarrisX survey on Friday found support for impeachment proceedings against Trump has risen 12 points compared to a similar poll conducted three months ago.
Now listen.
I know a lot of people challenge polls, but I have used the original Harris X poll in the past to show there isn't support for impeaching Trump.
Operating off that assumption from this other poll where I've shown it's not popular to impeach the president.
We can now see relative to this, it's becoming more so.
It's flipped.
You now have 47% supporting impeachment, 42% opposing impeachment, with 11% unsure.
Now here's what's significant.
This wasn't Trump's base.
These were unsure people.
People who may not have liked Trump in the first place, but didn't know.
Check this out.
They say, should Democrats in the House of Representatives begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump?
Unsure, don't know was 20%.
So about 9% of that 12-point gain came from those who were unsure.
And about 3% came from those who said no.
Trump may have soured the moderates with the moves he's making.
So the question I would have is, is Trump trying to get the moderates?
Now I gotta admit, I've repeatedly said I won't vote for Trump.
So perhaps people like me have sent a pretty strong message that we're not going to play the game even if... Look, look.
No matter how bad the Democrats get, I don't vote simply because one is better than the other.
If I don't like Trump, I'm not gonna vote for him, and if I don't like the Democrats, I won't vote for them either.
Now that's bad news for the Democrats, for the most part.
Moderates refusing, former Democrats leaving.
If Trump can't convince moderates to vote for him, but these are people he didn't capture in the first place, I don't think he cares.
And I think that's why this isn't the worst thing for him.
But I want to stress something else.
Actually, let me do this before I get into all that.
I want to show you this next, uh, we have another poll.
Public Opinion Poll shows shift toward impeaching Trump.
Now let me first say, uh, well, hold on, I'm sorry.
The latest NPR PBS NewsHour Mayor's Poll found 49% approval for impeachment against 46% who said they disapprove.
That's a 10-point jump in favor of impeachment over the same survey from April, around the same time that former special counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian election interference was released.
This is bad for Trump.
That's the first point.
If a lot of people support impeachment, that may actually make him look really, really bad.
Okay?
It's bad.
But here's the thing.
In the end, I don't think... I think it's going to be better for him for several reasons.
Listen.
The first thing is that will these people vote?
Just because some people are saying they want to impeach him doesn't mean they'll actually get up and vote come election time.
So you have to consider this.
If 49% according to PBS say that Trump should be impeached, how many of those are voters?
I'd have to imagine a decent amount are not.
But what about those who oppose impeachment?
But come election day, they're going to say whatever.
But what about those who oppose impeachment?
You are more likely to find that most of these people are Trump's base and are going to react
in a way where they're...
I think it's fair to point out those who oppose impeachment are more likely to go and vote
for the president than those who support it.
There are a lot of people who hate the president who don't vote.
There are a lot of orange men bad type opinions from people who in the end aren't going to show up.
So it's complicated.
I think on the surface, you have to recognize this is risky for Trump.
He's going to lose moderates.
That's what we're saying.
Those who are unsure about impeachment are now moving towards it.
Well, I will stress, many of those who are unsure may have been Democrats out, you know, because a lot of Democrats also oppose impeachment.
But now it's shifting against Trump.
But here's the thing.
There's other reasons this could be good.
One thing that many people attribute to Hillary Clinton's loss was arrogance.
Everyone was so sure she would win, they didn't show up.
Now you might actually have a fire under Trump's base.
Exactly the point Nancy Pelosi made.
Well, it was a mistake, Nancy.
Congratulations.
This may end up helping Trump by not just firing up his base to increase their donations, to increase by 608% donations to the National Republican Congressional Committee.
national, I'm sorry, to congressional Republicans, the National
Republican Congressional Committee, it may actually guarantee they go out and
vote out of fear. I've warned about this before, that if Trump really does claim
he's got this in the bag and he can't lose, Trump supporters might not show up.
That's what happened to Hillary Clinton, at least many people think.
This doubt is beneficial in some capacity.
Now again, I want to stress, I don't want to play this stupid game where it's like, no matter what happens, everything's good for Trump.
I think this impeachment stuff was risky, and he needs moderates.
And I've warned Republicans, be careful about losing those moderates, because it's those people in the middle you need.
If you get too many, you know, Union Democrats or Moderates who are now saying, you know what, I just can't deal with Trump anymore, they're out.
And the media is to blame a little bit for this.
But in the end, I weigh everything we've seen so far.
$15 million.
We've got 50,000 new donors.
We've got the National Republican Congressional Committee seeing massive fundraising increases.
That's all really, really good.
That even if Trump doesn't get re-elected, or even if he actually gets convicted after the impeachment is removed from office, you get Mike Pence.
And the Republicans as a whole will do better.
In the end, if Trump loses, you still have the NRCC making up a ton of donations and the Republicans are going to find a win from this.
But I really think it's important to stress arrogance and cockiness are a huge threat to Trump.
His base is bigger.
We're seeing a ton of people say, how can Trump lose even Michael Moore?
You might get complacent Trump voters.
So let's move on.
I always want to make sure I compare what we're seeing with polls to the job approval average.
Now, they're claiming 47 to 49 percent want to see—approve of Trump impeachment.
But this is actually confusing to me.
Trump's aggregate approval rating has actually taken a spike upward.
And it's dipped a little bit in the past few days, but it's higher than where it was—what?
What's the date on this one?
Back in August, his approval rating's gone up since then.
Curious.
I wonder who these people are who are in favor of impeachment.
Perhaps it's because they're doing voter polling instead of all Americans.
So maybe it's because they're doing all voters instead of all Americans, or vice versa.
We can see that some of these polls, more than half, took place during the Ukraine scandal.
So I think it's fair to say the news cycle about impeaching Trump was in full swing at least halfway through.
It's possible now, with this downturn, there could be bad news for Trump in terms of approval.
In terms of favorability, it's static.
Favorability is not job approval, it's do you feel favorably or unfavorably towards the president.
And it's been fairly static.
So all this talk about impeachment, I just don't see it in the aggregate polls.
More people support impeachment, but what does that really mean?
I don't know.
Because Trump won't be impeached.
That's the point.
So let's think about all of these factors and why it might actually turn out to be a net positive.
For one, as I've said before, Trump is absolutely willing to take some recoil damage to cite Pokemon, right?
If you get the reference.
He is willing to launch an attack that hurts him a little bit if it hurts them more.
So the impeachment can be bad for Trump in a lot of ways.
It could fire up moderates or it could cost him votes.
But if it guarantees those that got him elected in the first place show up, That may be what he's aiming for.
And look, they've raised a ton of money.
The polls and the favorable and unfavorable, it's not that bad.
So I really don't know what the outright negative is because Trump won't be impeached.
Take a look at this story.
How Mitch McConnell could give impeachment the Merrick Garland treatment.
It's entirely possible Mitch McConnell just tables impeachment.
Seriously, that's what Politico is saying in this story.
So think about this.
They go through all the motions.
You get 47, 49% supporting impeachment.
Makes Trump look bad.
But then it goes to the Senate.
Not only will the Senate not convict, okay?
You need, I think, a two-thirds majority to actually convict on impeachment.
Impeachment is basically like indictment, right?
So Trump can be impeached.
Then they'll actually look over the evidence and say, in favor or against.
The Senate's not going to impeach Trump.
That would be ridiculous.
But more importantly, Mitch McConnell could just stonewall it.
So what's the point of impeachment?
I honestly have no idea.
I really don't.
Virtue signaling?
Perhaps it's this simple.
The Democrats are using impeachment to rally their base just as much as Trump is using it to rally his base.
In the end, it will have no bearing on what comes next.
Now, I want to stress, I'm disappointed.
Tulsi Gabbard the other day, I praised her for rejecting the narrative.
I do not like the games being played.
I'm not a fan of anybody playing any games.
When Tulsi Gabbard came out and said there's no compelling evidence for impeachment, I was impressed.
She has continually pushed back on the establishment and the narrative and stood on her own two feet.
And I've supported her extensively with large donations and made many videos praising her.
I'm not saying she should be without criticism.
I've criticized her a lot as well.
We don't agree on most policy, but there's a lot of reasons why I do like Tulsi.
This is possibly the biggest disappointment for me.
I think impeachment was a bad idea.
I think it's playing right into Trump's hands.
I think we're seeing all the benefits he's getting.
I think they are smart.
The Democrats are playing checkers and Trump is playing chess.
You don't have to think Trump is playing 4D chess to see the Democrats keep stumbling over themselves and falling backwards.
Tulsi Gabbard flips to support impeachment inquiry into Trump.
Now this gave me pause because I like Tulsi.
I supported her.
Why would she do this?
I still believe in her integrity, but I believe she's absolutely wrong in this regard.
We can't do this.
Here's what she said.
However, after looking carefully at the transcript of the conversation with Ukraine's president, the whistleblower complaint, the Inspector General memo, and President Trump's comments about the issue, unfortunately, I believe that if we do not proceed with the inquiry, it will set a very dangerous precedent.
The 2020 Democratic presidential candidate said in a statement, future presidents, as well as anyone in positions of power in government, will conclude they can abuse their position for personal gain without fear of accountability or consequence.
I completely Disagree with the assessment of what Trump did.
I do not like his behavior.
I disagree with his stance on political issues.
I praise him for the economy doing better, fine.
I praise him for his work on foreign policy not going to war with Iran, hopefully.
He deployed troops to Saudi Arabia, so we'll see if I can disrespect in that regard.
But I don't think what Trump did, it was, would I say Trump pushes it?
Of course he pushes it.
Did he cross the line?
No, not really.
And Tulsi held that position originally, so now I'm just, I'm losing.
This is why I hate, I hate supporting candidates.
She added, if we allow the president to abuse his or her power, This is challenging for me because I understand and agree with the sentiment.
I actually have praised the massive pushback Trump has received in a lot of regards.
way down to the traffic cop, will feel it's okay to abuse their power with no consequences.
This is not the kind of country that any of us want to see.
This is challenging for me because I understand and agree with the sentiment.
I actually have praised the massive pushback Trump has received in a lot of regards.
It seems like for the first time in my life, the executive branch is getting a good hard
pie in the face.
But this is going a step too far.
Russiagate for three years, and now Ukrainegate?
Please, I'm done with it.
Criticize the president.
Hold him to, you know, to the flames, right?
Keep him on his toes.
Good.
The executive branch has expanded way too much for way too long, and I like, to an extent, that Trump is facing such intense scrutiny.
But the narrative isn't often about was it right for Trump to enter the DMZ.
My opinion was that it was a good thing.
It was a show of force and it put Trump at great risk, but it made a statement.
Many people disagree.
I believe that's the kind of conversation we should be having.
Trump calling off his attack on Iran.
Good conversation.
Let's talk policy.
Let's not talk orange men bad.
Joe Biden implicated in the scandal.
Okay.
It's a tough question, you know?
Are we going to launch an impeachment inquiry into this?
This is where it's starting to cross the line.
And I think it's one thing to talk about scrutinizing the powers of the executive branch.
It's another thing to have years-long controversies that are fruitless and do nothing but divide this country.
Look, I entertained Russiagate.
I said, hey, maybe something is here.
And we'll look into it.
I entertained it.
Enough!
Okay?
All that's happening now is extreme division.
So, look, I still respect Tulsi, but this was a huge letdown.
I'm disappointed, but we'll see what happens.
I've been more disappointed in Yang, okay?
You guys know that Tulsi and Yang were my big picks.
Yang has said many things that I felt were off, just bad.
Just bad.
You know, Yang, he made extremely derogatory comments about Trump being overweight and
some other absurd things.
So you know what?
This is disappointing.
The impeachment stuff to me is a big fat waste of time.
And look, I'll stress the point again.
While it is bad for Trump in a lot of ways, it is just marginally better for a lot of
I will stress the biggest thing I think Trump gains from this is he wants to make sure his base doesn't become complacent or, you know, just sitting around thinking they're gonna win.
He needs some fear and they're giving it to him.
Could Trump be impeached and removed?
15 million dollars in a couple days!
It's just, you know.
So CNN has this story talking about the phases of the coming impeachment proceedings.
They say there'll be an investigation, key votes in the House, the Senate takes over, and Trump awaits his fate, plus the impact on 2020.
I'm not going to read through all these.
I just thought it was actually a distant point made by CNN about what we can expect.
But I think we're going to stop here.
The Senate takes over.
Yeah, no, they're not going to convict Trump.
Trump may be impeached because the Democrats have the majority.
But we'll see what happens, because there have been a lot of Democrats, a decent amount, who have said no.
Now Tulsi Gabbard flipped.
I'm bummed, but there's still a lot of Democrats saying absolutely not.
But let's do this.
Because for whatever reason, Harris calls for Kavanaugh impeachment inquiry, impeachment inquiry, on anniversary of Ford testimony.
What?
Can you, can you get... I don't even know what's going on anymore, man.
You want to impeach Kavanaugh again?
We were talking about Kavanaugh, then you know what?
This is all that needs to be said.
The Democrats are puppets on a string to the media.
The media puts out a story and the Democrats dance.
Trump tweets and the media dances.
We can see how the game is played.
What are you talking about?
Kamala Harris wants Kavanaugh?
What is this?
I'm just so... I don't even know.
I think they've lost the plot.
Kavanaugh impeachment.
You know, some people have said everything we're seeing now, it's a desperate attempt because they have to stop Trump by any means necessary.
And if that means it's going to be impeachment, they're all going to do it.
I'm curious as to why Tulsi flipped.
Because it's weird for her to come out and say it's not compelling enough.
I agree, it's not.
Trump saying, he said something like, could you look into Biden?
There's a lot of talk about him shutting down some investigation, you know, people are upset about.
I think it's terrible.
Okay.
They were already investigating Biden.
It wasn't Trump triggering the investigation.
It's just so absurd.
Does Trump push it?
Yes.
Did he cross the line?
No.
Well, here's the thing.
Impeachment is an act of desperation from the New York Times.
I'm, you know, you get the point.
I'm not going to read through this one.
It's just an op-ed, but it's an act of desperation.
Trump is going to win.
Let me stress, as of right now, Trump's approval is actually up, okay?
His favorability, static.
Your impeachment has done nothing but raise him money.
Raise money for Republicans.
And they are now rallying their base around impeachment in Wisconsin.
And then here's the one story I actually pulled up earlier.
Trump's gonna hold a campaign rally in Omar's district.
Listen, impeachment is bad, somewhat.
But if Trump's approval rating is up, if they're raising more money, if they're using this as a tool, he may sacrifice some moderates, but I think he knows what he's doing.
It's just, it can't be, it can't be that he keeps slipping on banana peels and pulling off perfect backflips, man.
I know it sounds, at this point, I'm even, I was thinking this, I'm like, is this really gonna be good for him?
I'm like, it is!
They're using it.
They're rallying their base.
Look, Trump will take some blowback on this, but it's going to work out for him in the end.
But hey, I could be wrong.
I'm not a psychic.
I'm not the smartest person in the world.
I'm a dude on the internet talking about his feelings and reading news stories.
That's the best I can give you.
I think it's going to work out for him.
I think Trump knows how to play this outrage.
We're in this weird world and Trump is playing his hand better than Democrats.
Democrats are bouncing back and forth.
What are they doing?
Are they talking about Kavanaugh again?
Come on, man.
Can you focus on one thing and actually do one thing?
No.
I'll stress one last point when it comes to Kamala Harris.
Trump raised $15 million in California in one day.
In one day!
Kamala Harris raised about $12 million in the entire country in the second quarter.
In three months, she raised $12 million.
In one day, Trump raised $15 million.
Now, I get it.
The Democratic donations are spread out.
But let me just make that clear.
That was her state.
That was California.
Trump is on top of this game.
The media bends over to whatever he tweets.
And the Democrats then bend over backwards, whatever the media says.
Get your act together.
There's like no strategy on the Democratic side.
But hey, I want to say, I could be wrong, you know?
I don't think I'm the smartest person in the world.
Trump might lose out real bad on this one, so... Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6pm.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see you all then.
The media industry is a swamp.
It is a swamp of cronies and friends, people who share journalists.
You know what a journalist is?
All these journalists are in private groups where they talk to each other, share the same stories, and that's why they so often get the same stories wrong.
I've sat at the picnic tables in Williamsburg with a group of a dozen or so journalists from all the different companies.
They all talk.
They go and bring their ideas back.
Most of them are based in New York.
That's where most high-profile journalists are.
And that's why they all believe the same things, think the same things, and it's why they don't fact-check.
They hear their buddy say it, they regurgitate it.
I've worked for these companies.
I've seen it.
Let me quickly give you the context, for those that aren't familiar, into the Bush Light Guy, Carson King.
Long story short, he held up a joke sign that was seen on ESPN.
He was asking for money for beer.
He ended up raising several hundred dollars, announced he'd give it to charity, ended up raising tens of thousands of dollars, it went viral, he's raised over a million.
This guy in this photo, Aaron Calvin, was a reporter at the Des Moines Register.
In Iowa, where the Carson King story was most prominent.
Well, he decided to dig up 8-year-old tweets about Carson King.
8-year-old off-color replies.
You see, Carson King, when he was 16 years old, was watching Tosh.0, apparently.
And he replied to one of his friends on Twitter with some racist jokes.
Well, for some reason, it's hard enough to find a reply, okay?
Like a public tweet, but a reply if you have to use, like, all my tweets or some kind of service.
It's not easy to find.
Well, this guy decided eight-year-old tweets that have nothing to do with anything are newsworthy.
And so he was gonna bring it up.
Asked Carson King about it.
Well, Carson was smart.
He preempted the story.
He came out and apologized and deleted the tweets and made a statement and everyone forgave him.
And then it turns out this guy had bad tweets of his own, and now we can confirm he has been fired.
Now here's the other- the other day, we were wondering if he was fired or not because he left the Des Moines Register.
Now we know he is.
But here's the big story, okay?
Apologies to everybody who already knew the story.
BuzzFeed is running a defense for him.
Remember two minutes ago when I said the media industry is a swamp?
Let me enlighten you as to the nature of the swamp.
Aaron Calvin, the reporter who dug up eight-year-old tweets to destroy a man who raised a million dollars for a children's hospital and works for the Des Moines Register, is being defended by BuzzFeed.
A company he used to work at.
I kid you not.
In the story, they actually point out Calvin worked as a BuzzFeed employee between 2013 and 2014.
If that is not evidence of the swamp, I don't know what else is.
Here's a guy who's at the Des Moines Register, won a local paper, but he was a BuzzFeed employee, too?
And now that he tried canceling somebody, BuzzFeed is running a defense for him, making him the victim?
This piece that BuzzFeed wrote plays all of the tropes you'd expect.
Right-wingers begin attacking him.
He was doxed and harassed.
This is how people of color must feel.
I'm not joking.
BuzzFeed is in the swamp, okay?
And you know what?
I've praised BuzzFeed a lot in the past, because I think they've done a better job, but this is as swampy as you get.
There should not be a profile on this guy.
He should not have been fired, but he was fired.
Let's read a little bit.
BuzzFeed News writes, The reporter fired in the Bush Light Guy scandal says he feels abandoned by the Des Moines Register, but not by BuzzFeed, a company he used to work for.
Quote, I still in a lot of ways support the Register, fired reporter Aaron Calvin told BuzzFeed News.
I just wished they had believed in me.
Yeah, you're pretty skeezy, dude.
I'll stop there before I get nastier.
The Des Moines Register reporter fired in the wake of a scandal involving offensive tweets posted by a viral star he interviewed and then his own, broke his silence Friday telling BuzzFeed News he had been abandoned by the newspaper after following standard editorial practice by performing a social media search on the person he was profiling.
Let me just stop here.
Hey, this is fantastic.
Thanks for confirming that it is standard editorial practice to destroy anyone's life over something they said in the past.
I really do appreciate it.
Never mind that there was, like, you know, the Joy Reid homophobia scandal and there's, you know, the blackface scandal with, you know, Northam.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it, we get it.
You're gonna dig up the old tweets of some dude who raised a million bucks for charity.
But when it comes to your allies in media, this is what they do.
This guy has offensive tweets.
And they run defense for it.
Swamp.
The event basically set my entire life on fire.
Oh, gee, Aaron!
Perhaps you might now know how people feel when you dig up eight-year-old tweets from them.
Delete your Twitter history now.
Delete your Facebook history.
Just purge everything.
Calvin27 was dismissed by the Iowa newspaper Thursday evening following criticism online in the wake of his article about Carson King.
So they go on to talk about Carson and what he did.
There's the sign.
We get it.
We're rehashing it.
Upon the fundraiser hitting the million-dollar mark, Calvin decided to profile King, whom he'd already covered in several stories.
But soon Calvin, who worked as a BuzzFeed employee between 2013 and 2014—don't you think the disclosure should have been at the top of the story, BuzzFeed?
It should have been—found two racist tweets King had posted when he was 16.
Calvin wrote that the tweets, which have since been deleted, were jokes that were very offensive.
I'm not going to read the content.
Calvin told BuzzFeed News it's standard practice at the Des Moines Register to background check people they profile through court records and social media.
Thank you.
We now know the media industry thinks it should be standard, or I'm sorry, at least at the Des Moines Register.
of money. I'd bet the camera I'm looking at right now, it's a nice camera, I'd bet my computer,
I'd bet my car, I'd bet my van. Every single person who works for BuzzFeed,
who watches this video, has said something offensive.
I guarantee it.
Because we're humans.
Sometimes you might say something that's offensive to one person or the other.
It doesn't matter.
The interesting thing about Twitter now is that the offensive thing is on the record.
What do you do about it?
It can never be deleted.
This is why, you know, I'm very wary of those who want blockchain social media.
Why?
So you can never delete anything you've ever regretted?
I don't know about that.
I think we need more privacy-focused media, self-destructing media.
Let's read.
So it's standard practice to dig up your history.
He says, I was reminded by an editor to background Carson, and I found a few tweets that he published in high school that were racist jokes.
How did you find them?
No, seriously.
You can't just scroll through what someone's profile for eight years.
Now, it's possible.
Carson King doesn't tweet that much.
Maybe he only tweets once a year, so he went back eight tweets and they were sitting right there.
However, eight-year-old tweets, and Carson is on Twitter and posting, you've got to use a service.
And then you've got to actually search for certain words.
And I think that's what this person did.
Because he wasn't looking to do a background check.
He was looking to destroy someone.
That's what they do at these media companies.
And he probably thought, oh boy, oh boy, I got me a scoop.
This story is going to be so big, everyone's favorite post child turns out to be a bigot.
But Carson was smart.
By preempting the story, he defanged the Viper.
He got in front of the story.
He addressed it.
So I always tell people, you know, when you're talking and you're presenting an argument, cite your opponent's argument first, okay?
So if someone wants to say, oh, but Tim, what about X?
Didn't you watch the video?
I already addressed X. Do you have an argument or not?
If you wait, then they come back and then everyone asks, yeah Tim, what about X?
In this instance, he said, so Carson, what about your racism?
So Carson got in front of the press and said, I want to let you guys know I have these offensive tweets, I'm shocked and I regret it, but I hope we can continue.
And Bush, Anheuser-Busch pulled out, screw them, I don't drink beer anyway.
But what happened now?
His scoop was gone.
They had nothing.
And everyone turned to them and said, this poor guy, what are you doing?
So BuzzFeed to the rescue!
Gotta make sure they protect their former employee.
Des Moines Register Executive Editor Carol Hunter declined to comment.
We get it.
She pointed to an op-ed where she says backgrounding is an essential part of reporting.
Oh, yes, yes, yes.
See, you know, whenever, like, there was a guy outside my house the other day.
Who was helping an old lady who had fallen down.
And I said, this is a really great story.
Let me dig up his Twitter history to see if he's a racist.
How does that have anything to do with the story?
It doesn't.
Carson King is a limited public figure.
I'm not trying to be a dick.
He's a cool dude.
But he's not, outside of this one incident, he's not going to have the nationwide exposure.
Here's a guy who did something great.
Carson will likely turn this into something smart, but it's not going to be a national-level incident moving forward.
Once the story dies out, it's 15 minutes.
Again, not trying to be mean.
It's just reality.
Carson's moment will pass.
And what he did eight years ago is completely irrelevant to the fact that he's raising a million bucks for a kids hospital.
Now, I hope he does.
I hope that he can take some of this money or get some support to start a foundation that continues to raise money for children's hospitals, and that's a great way to create something powerful from this.
But in the end, there's one moment.
It's an amazing moment.
It's 15 minutes.
We don't need to know about what he said eight years ago.
The dude's clearly doing the right thing.
Think about it.
I mean, there are so many people who are nasty people with nasty pasts, and yet they're propped up by the Democratic Party.
They're praised.
Look at all the things that Ilhan Omar has tweeted, and they don't care.
But they will destroy you.
They will rip your scalp off if you are a regular person and you are not part of their circle, of their agenda, if you're not someone who benefits them.
Ilhan Omar has gotten away with so much, it's mind-blowing to me, the things she's tweeted.
And a lot of people say, it's not, it's not, that effect, stop, stop.
So stop defending her.
You're not allowed to determine what is or isn't offensive.
If someone's offended by it, there you go.
And what she said offended a lot of people.
Now, if like one person came out and said, I'm offended that she said she likes pizza, I'd be like, shut up, dude.
But no, she actually had a lot of people, like both houses, you know, the Democrats and Republicans, expressed outrage, although the Democrats did nothing.
But here we go.
This is how they play it.
In writing his profile, Calvin said he decided to include just a brief mention of the tweets.
Uh, you know, at the bottom of his profile, yada yada.
The reporter said he felt an obligation to share the information he had uncovered with the public, but thought he did so in a thoughtful way.
He also maintained he did this with the full blessing and awareness of his editors throughout the entire process of the discovery.
So, so, you know, I have no problem saying it sounds like his company threw him under the bus, okay?
That the registrar was like, just fire him.
He goes on to say that they gave him the choice to resign or be fired.
But let me see if I can find—here we go.
Anheuser-Busch cut ties.
King said he did not blame Calvin.
Da-da-da-da-da-da.
Let me do this.
Yeah, he was making—so I went through all that stuff already.
Upon publishing the story, Calvin said he was immediately met with criticism from people across Iowa.
But any media ethics debate about the newsworthiness of tweets written by someone when they were a teenager was soon swept aside by a tidal wave of harassment, doxing, and death threats Calvin received.
Aw, is baby sad that you're getting mean people on the internet?
Look, man, I don't condone or appreciate, and I actually reject and denounce the harassment, doxing, and death threats.
You know why?
Because I get them 100 times more than you do.
Okay?
You are not special.
It is not a defense.
You can't come out and now be like, oh, woe is me.
You did something unethical and wrong, and you got called out for it.
I love how these people say cancel culture is just otherwise known as consequences.
Welcome, BuzzFeed, to the game you helped create.
This reporter who worked for BuzzFeed, welcome to the game.
You are now on the other end.
And boy, is it ironic.
I wonder how their own medicine tastes.
saying, but we're being harassed.
That's the defense they played.
He goes on to say something like, what does he say?
Like this is how women and people of color must feel.
What does he say?
What does he say?
Let me do it.
Let me do a search.
Okay, let's do this.
Here we go.
I recognize that I'm not the first person to be doxed like this.
This whole campaign was taken up by right-wing ideologues and largely driven by that force.
It was just a taste of what I assume that women and journalists of color suffer all the time.
But the kind of locality and regional virality of the story made it so intense.
You know what, men?
You reap what you sow.
You're a white dude, okay?
Working in media.
Used to work for BuzzFeed.
You're not a woman.
You're not a person of color.
Don't call to them.
And I will absolutely... Let me do this.
I am disgusted that you would dare say something like that You white male, because I am a journalist of color, a mixed race journalist, who deals with doxing and death threats and harassment, and I had some dude show up to my house in the wee hours of the morning, I had death threats, and someone tried, well someone, but a group of people, threatened to shut down my anti-racism event.
So the last thing I need to hear from you is, oh, the poor journalists of color.
You see why I don't like these people?
This dude is, in my opinion, a depiction of the depraved narcissism and sociopathy that infects media.
And the people at BuzzFeed defending him?
They're a part of that swamp.
There's no accountability.
I don't want to be in your tribe.
I never want to be in anyone's tribe.
I have no problem by myself in the middle of the woods, sitting back, you know, with a nice little campfire, minding my own business.
Almost got me to swear there.
And that's the thing.
Everybody has a tribe.
It's just, okay, it's human nature.
And the media is a tribe.
I'm in what's called a journo-list.
Journalists got their name when Ezra Klein called a, you know, it was a, it was a, um, like a, it's a message board, private.
It was journo-list.
And it was all these journalists talking about things and sharing stories and information.
I'm on one about technology.
It's really dull.
And all it really is is people being like, hey, there's a job posting.
But, the list exists, the journalists talk to each other, and I would be willing to bet this guy got onto one of these chats, one of these forums, and started lamenting, and, oh, woe is me, it's so, I didn't do anything wrong!
And all the journalists were like, aw, don't worry, we won't hold you accountable, we're gonna protect our disgusting swamp-filled industry.
And there you go.
You know, the issue is, I think, proximity.
Back in the day, newspapers competed with each other.
Today, they don't.
They all, I mean, they kind of do, but they all agree with each other, and they link to each other.
There used to be competition.
The papers would go to war against each other, trying to one-up each other, get a better scoop, and that competition was good and healthy.
Now all the journalists are friends.
This guy from the Des Moines Register worked for BuzzFeed, and BuzzFeed would defend the dude.
Making him a sympathetic figure.
This must be a small taste of what women and people of color go through.
You wanna talk about the slime in the swamp?
This dude represents it.
Calvin said he's still afraid to go out in public, and is still staying at his friend's house.
He isn't sure what he will do next, but he hopes he can keep reporting.
I'm just taking it day by day.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, okay, look, man.
You shouldn't have been fired.
That's ridiculous.
People need to calm down.
The doxxing, the death threats, the harassment is unacceptable, and anybody engaged in that behavior is no friend of mine and is a disgusting human being.
And let me stress, They're on par with what he is.
So you know what?
You're swimming in the muck you created.
You're... Listen, I get it.
The snowflake doesn't blame itself for the avalanche, but you're the avalanche, buddy.
You're a cog in the machine that created everything you're experiencing.
Perhaps it should be a learning moment for the journalists.
Instead, they fall back on their disgusting defense and BuzzFeed protects them.
I'm done.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
I'll see you all there.
Anti-racism event hosted by Edinburgh University bans white people from asking questions.
It's not the Onion, but it could be?
I'm willing to bet this story makes its way to Reddit in a non-ironic way on NotTheOnion and other...
You know, the funny thing about affirmative action is that I often hear people say it's like reverse racism, and that's just not the definition.
of a specific race from asking questions.
That's on anti-racism.
You know, the funny thing about affirmative action is that I often hear people say it's
like reverse racism, and that's just not the definition.
There's no such thing as reverse racism.
There's not.
There's just racism.
I mean, technically, reverse racism can be a thing if you, like, are anti-racist.
So if you were like, hey, we're gonna make sure everyone, regardless of their race, can speak, that would be, like, reverse racism?
Like, you know, turn it, like, you know?
So if, like, right now, they came out and said, we're gonna let you ask questions, that would be reversing racism.
No, this is just racism, okay?
Let's read the story from the Telegraph.
The University of Edinburgh has been criticized for hosting an anti-racism event in which white people were due to be banned from asking questions.
The conference has been organized by the Resisting Whiteness Group, which opposes racism.
You're called resisting whiteness.
You don't oppose racism.
You're a racist group.
And describes itself as QTPOC, Queer and Trans People of Color Organization.
There will be two safe spaces at the event, one of which white people will be barred from entering.
I just... It's... It's... It's... How is this real life?
How is this not an Onion article?
I'm not even... Yeah, the onion's great.
They're funny.
The safe spaces are meant for those who feel overwhelmed, overstimulated, or uncomfortable.
A blurb for the conference talks and workshops at the city's Pleasance Theater, which aims
to amplify the voices of people of color, says, quote, we will therefore not be giving
the microphone to white people during the Q&As, not because we don't think white people
have anything to offer to the discussion, but because we want to amplify the voices
of people of color.
If you're a white person with a question, please share it with a member of the committee
or our speakers after the panel discussion.
I'd like to point out, you hear me reading these quotes, it's because I'm allowed to on YouTube.
Because they're targeting white people.
Isn't that funny?
If the quotes were framed against a different race, and I read to you these quotes, I'd probably get a channel strike.
I could probably get banned.
I wouldn't read the quote.
I'd definitely get demonetized.
But I can read to you this quote that says white people should not be allowed to speak, should not be given the microphone.
Isn't that funny?
Questions explored during the conference will include, What does it mean to be a queer and or trans person of color in a society that frequently does not want to see us?
However, Jane McCall, an anti-racism campaigner, said the event itself was blatantly racist.
Thank you, Jane.
Adding, It sets back the battle to achieve equality and fairness by decades, all because of the actions of a tiny group of extremists.
Bravo!
Thank you.
Whose perverse sense of logic has led them to belittle white people, not by who they are as individuals, but merely because of their skin color.
Imagine if this event was called resisting blackness, and non-white people were told they could not ask questions, nor access a room because they were the wrong color.
A spokesman for the university said tackling racism was an important topic for debate, but added that it placed great value on issues around equality and voice.
He said, Consequently, the university has met with the event
organizers to ensure the event is compliant with our values.
So are you saying that your values include excluding people based on race?
We expressed our concerns to them about the certain aspects of the format of the event,
and they are revising their safe space policy for the conference as a result.
But you didn't answer the question.
What about the policy that they're not going to let white people ask questions?
How weird is that?
You'd think if there was an issue with white people being ignorant, you would want them
to ask questions to you so that you could explain it to them.
This is quite literally just excising people from an event based on their race.
It's a strange argument.
They say white people don't understand privilege.
They attack Trump supporters and conservatives, moderates, people who aren't in their cult.
Well, why wouldn't you let them ask you the question?
I think the reality is their ideology makes no sense, and any rational person might ask some questions they can't answer.
In which case, they're only going to listen to those who would support their argument.
But there is other news.
Now, this was the main focus I wanted to do for this video.
There were two small stories that I didn't really want to talk about too much, but let's do this.
Racism doesn't care what color you are.
It doesn't matter if you're white, it doesn't matter if you're Asian or black or Hispanic, whatever.
It doesn't matter where you're from.
Racism is when someone believes they are better than you or someone is worse than someone else based on their race.
It's discrimination based on race, for the most part.
And so there's positive and there's negative.
When they say that all Asians are good at math, that's racist.
That's an assumption.
There are stereotypes, and there are trends based on culture.
And stereotypes emerge from trends, and then racism can emerge from stereotypes.
This is what anti-racism events should actually be discussing.
One of the problems I have with universities and issues like this is how Harvard University, for instance, is currently in a lawsuit because they're setting harder limits on Asians.
That's racist.
To assume that all Asians are smart and therefore should score higher on tests, That's not fair.
What they do is, they say, yes, but we already have too many Asians because they're scoring so high on tests.
Congratulations, you've found the small subsection of intelligent Asians and they've decided to go to Harvard.
Perhaps it's because they're smart and they know the opportunities they'll get from Harvard.
It's also probably because they're wealthy and can afford to.
The assumption, then, based on race, makes no sense.
Simply because you have found the smart wealthy subset doesn't mean all Asians are smart.
This is the exact same thing they're doing.
Simply because some white people have legacy income and go to these big universities doesn't mean every white person is going to be privileged or wealthy.
This is the problem I have with the concept of white privilege.
It is a surface-level argument.
It ignores the root causes, it ignores how humans function, and reduces everything to the cover of a book.
They say don't judge a book by its cover.
Now, admittedly, you can look at the cover of a book, and know a decent amount.
You might look at it and say, that book is Moby Dick.
I know a little bit.
That's about a guy hunting a whale, I think.
I've actually never read it.
So when you look to a certain individual and you notice they're a race, you might, you're
more likely to make some accurate assumptions.
If you see someone who is Asian, it is substantially more likely they speak a language from East Asia than if you saw a white person.
That's not an unfair assumption.
Now, it would be unfair to assume it's a 99% chance they speak it.
It's just more likely, and I'm not going to assign numbers because, honestly, there are a lot of American Asian people who don't speak a language, right?
You know, case in point me.
I know I'm not completely But I know a lot of Asian people who literally just speak English.
But I think it's fair to say, if you placed a white person and an Asian person next to each other and looked at the Asian person and said, they're more likely to know Japanese, it doesn't mean they're substantially more likely, or that you should bet on it.
It could be .01% more likely.
But the reality is, there are some things we can know.
This, I understand.
And this is what they use when they create events like this.
The problem is, if you actually want to have a discussion about ending racism, you have to set aside your prejudices and your stereotypes and your assumptions.
And that includes your assumptions about white people.
The most fascinating thing to me about these kind of, like, arguments and this ideology is that they don't understand that white trash, rednecks, hillbillies are a thing.
I mean, there's TV shows and movies.
Like, look, the movie Snatch, with Brad Pitt, he plays the pikeys.
They call them gypsies and other offensive words.
And they're poor white people who live in trailers.
We know the trope about the redneck trailer park people.
How do you then come to know this trope exists about white trash, and also know that there are urban successful Latinos, Asians, African-Americans, and then assume all white people are privileged?
Seriously, have this argument and you'll get nowhere.
They say it's because white people prefer whiteness.
Well, there are cultural norms, but those have been kind of bleeding away over the past several decades.
Right?
It is true.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the actor Kal Penn.
His name is actually Kal Penn, and I don't know his last name.
I can't... He doesn't use it.
But his full name, I believe, is... I believe he's Indian.
And he wasn't getting callbacks, so he changed his name to just Kal Penn, which is more anglicized, and he started getting more callbacks.
This, in my opinion, is a legitimate argument about culturalism.
Not racism.
Because they don't know what your race is.
They are just biased towards things they know that are familiar, whether it's intentional or not.
The left, these ideologues, take that and they pervert it to exclude and discriminate.
We should do better, to be open to different names and not stereotype people, and not judge an individual based on superficial characteristics.
Like, the point I was making earlier is that there are some things, you know, the point I make up is that when I went to Thailand, I was taller than everybody.
Like, that's not racist to point, I guess, I guess someone will accuse me of being a racist for pointing that out, but no, I went to Thailand and on average I was taller.
In Scandinavian countries, they're on average taller.
These things are real.
The problem is when you point the finger at the entirety of a group based on an assumption.
If you said all Thai people are shorter than us, that would be unfair.
So let me put it this way.
Imagine you said we're going to create a basketball team, and then you then heard there was a Thai guy who wanted to play, and you immediately dismissed him saying they're too short.
You don't know if the person's shorter.
You never met him.
That's where the line should be drawn.
Imagine this.
Imagine a university said, no East Asians should be allowed to play basketball because they're too short.
Well, that's absurd.
Yes, on average, people in some of these countries are on average shorter than people in other countries, but define too short.
Oh, for you and your team?
Well, what about... I'm forgetting the guy's name, but there's that famous Chinese basketball player, Super Tall.
I guess he's not playing anymore or something, I don't know.
You see, the point I'm trying to make is, you might look at a stereotype, and it's wrong, and that's what ending racism is supposed to be about.
When you then say that all white people are privileged, whether they realize it or not, or that all white people are racist, and therefore all white people shouldn't be allowed to ask questions, that's racist.
And that's what we're trying to end.
But this perpetuates it.
So, I was gonna mention another story, but, you know, I got carried away.
Basically, a Maryland delegate is proposing changing a hate crime law after a guy was attacked.
So, this older white guy, some young black kids came up to him and apparently asked for money, he refused, so they punched him in the face, he fell to the ground, and he died.
And they spat on him, and so now they want to change the hate crime law.
I highlight this story just to make the point I already did, that's why I'm kinda like, alright, we'll leave it there.
That racism, it affects everybody, okay?
People have inherent prejudices.
Some people are, you know, I think people often confuse culture with race.
Dave Chappelle's segment on Clayton Bigsby, the black white supremacist, is really important for one reason.
He's blind.
You've probably seen the sketch.
Clayton Bixby is a black man who's blind and doesn't realize he's black, so he joins the Klan.
He's actually a Klan leader.
He pulls up to a car full of people playing rap music, and he insults them and calls them the N-word.
But it's a bunch of white dudes!
That made a really interesting point.
That people are more offended about the cultural differences.
It's not about race.
I don't know if Dave Chappelle was planning on making that point, but I thought it was profound.
That here you have a guy who's blind who doesn't know he's black, who's racist against black people, and he doesn't even know what they look like!
And then he pulls up to the group of kids.
He was mad at the rap music.
He was mad at the way they were behaving.
He didn't like their culture.
It's culturalism.
Racism is different.
They try to lump it all together, but you know what?
You get the point.
I'll leave it there.
Edinburgh, what are you doing?
You know what, man?
And just lose a little bit of hope whenever stories like this come out.
Stick around.
Next segment is coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast, and I will see you all there.
What do you get when you have a society that enforces rules against one side and not the other?
You end up with one side looking clean and presentable and the other side looking absolutely insane.
One of the things that I've highlighted quite often in the past several months or year is that they consistently enforce the rules more strictly against the anti-establishment right than they do against basically any other group.
There are certainly conservatives who get away with a lot of things.
But there are conspiracy types and, I don't know, just all around weird people with weird opinions.
I say weird because I want to encompass people who believe, you know, kind of nonsensical things that don't matter, all the way to the fringe crazy ideas.
It's a weird bunch that get banned.
Not all of them are weird.
Sometimes it's regular old Trump supporters.
But what ends up happening is, in our world, In our country, we now look to the right, and what do we see?
You know who I absolutely love using as a great example of a rising personality in the Trump sphere is Will Chamberlain.
I don't know if you're familiar with who he is.
He's a lawyer.
I've had him on my main channel several times.
He's just a conservative lawyer.
A suit-wearing, run-of-the-mill guy with conservative opinions.
Supports the president.
Nothing too outrageous or extreme.
It's like regular old American who supports the president.
That's what you get.
He's a rising star.
You end up with these kind of people and they look presentable, professional, and they have great arguments.
Will's a pretty smart guy.
I love using him as an example because some people have called him vanilla yogurt.
It's like, that's what you get, okay?
What happens on the left when you don't enforce the rules?
Well, now you have crazy people running around saying crazy things and Nobody stops it.
So the left is beginning to look crazier and crazier, and it's influencing other aspects of the left, and even reaching to the highest points of cable television.
Take a look at this tweet from The Daily Caller.
MSNBC's Katie Ter, a so-called journalist, they put in quotes, calls Ken Vogel's Politico report detailing how Ukrainian government officials coordinated with the DNC and Clinton campaign in 2016, Russian propaganda, in what may be one of the most amazing owns.
I'm not sure who this man is right here.
Excuse me.
But Katie Ter is talking to him and he mentions that Ukrainian government officials were working with the DNC and she says, that's Russian propaganda.
And he goes, no it's not, and holds up the report from Politico and says it's Ken Vogel's report who now works for the New York Times.
MSNBC has gotten away with the insanity.
Rachel Maddow for years pushing the most insane alarmist conspiracy nonsense.
Listen, man.
When Alex Jones comes out and says, people listen, the cell towers are going to mutate you into an animal hybrid and interdimensional aliens, people just go like, they laugh.
Come on.
I know some people end up believing that insane stuff when Alex Jones rants and raves, but most people understand it's entertaining to watch Jones go on the Joe Rogan podcast and start waving his arms and yelling, and you're like, Jones is nuts.
Now look, Alex Jones was right about a lot of things.
The big problem with Alex Jones is that he stretches things too far.
He jumps to conclusions.
That's what you would expect from a conspiracy theorist.
That's literally what the point is.
Jones sees things that are there, real things.
Case in point, Atrazine turning frogs into messing with our endocrine systems.
Some people have disputed this.
I don't want to get to that point.
The point is, he looks at a real report, but then all of a sudden he's, like, looking at a much bigger conspiracy that's not really there.
It doesn't mean he's always wrong, but he's wrong enough.
And he's reaped the, you know, to his detriment now.
He's been cancelled.
A lot of the things they accused him of was ridiculous and fake.
Never been a big fan of Alex Jones, okay?
But I don't think he should be banned.
And if you want to play the game that he should, then why isn't Katie Turr?
Why isn't Rachel Maddow?
Katie Turr, on the air, you know, the other day, made up a fake quote from Donald Trump.
And now they claim, oh, it was a joke.
I was just reading a line.
That's what Schiff said.
But that's not what people see when you say, he said, I want you to do me a favor.
I want you to dig up dirt on my political... He never said that.
It's not even in there.
And that's what they do.
Why is it that you can have MSNBC call mainstream political reporting from Politico and the New York Times, and they're gonna say it's Russian propaganda.
Have you lost it?
You are a conspiracy nut, okay?
Listen, I understand there are people that like Jones, But let's not throw around labels.
I will just say this.
Based on our standards, if Alex Jones is banned, why isn't MSNBC shut down too?
If Infowars is out, why isn't MSNBC out?
Why do they allow this?
Check this out.
Paul Krugman, op-ed columnist of the New York Times Opinion, You know what?
Maybe there's a good reason Katy Tur thinks New York Times is not credible.
Paul Krugman tweeted, What?!
starting to look like two possible outcomes.
Trump and a number of others end up in jail, or thousands of journalists end up in prison camps.
What?
Paul Krugman, you know what, man?
How is it that Alex Jones is banned, and he says the silliest stuff, and...
Animal-human hybrids, mutations from cell towers, interdimensional aliens, but Paul Krugman can actually claim... Journalists are gonna end up in prison camps!
You know what, man?
These people have lost it.
I don't understand how we can be at this point where MSNBC can actually claim that mainstream reporting is Russian propaganda.
I feel sorry for those who watch MSNBC.
I really, really do.
And now it brings me to a story from a couple weeks ago.
One American News is suing Rachel Maddow and MSNBC over Russian propaganda claim.
Alex Jones got sued for, you know, Sandy Hook stuff.
And MSNBC is getting sued over Russian propaganda stuff.
Huh.
Two of the biggest criticisms against these two networks.
Alex Jones was slammed, smeared, and berated over his Sandy Hook comments from years ago.
That was, like, the main justification, along with other... Jones made statements that they claim was, like, an incitement to violence, that he's, you know, he said something about grabbing your battle rifles and getting ready, and Jones really does cross the line with his hyperbole.
He's even caught himself a few times.
If you watched his stuff after the ban, he has to, like, stop and then try and rephrase and say, metaphorically, metaphorically.
Besides the point, Alex Jones was smeared over Sandy Hook.
Rachel Maddow has been smeared consistently over her Russian propaganda stuff.
Why is she still on the air?
It's because asymmetric enforcement exists.
Our society will not shut her down, and she caused nothing but crisis.
Like, she is one of the most divisive and destructive figures in this country.
MSNBC.
Crystal Ball.
That's her real name, Crystal Ball.
She had excellent commentary.
I really, really do respect her.
She was on Bill Maher, and she said, MSNBC has caused real damage to the left.
And I'm just, I'm so happy to hear that.
But you know, I'm not surprised that, you know, when I watch Bill Maher stuff, he gets it right.
And that's the next segment I'm going to do.
I want to talk about this though.
Crystal Ball, I believe, they've called her like a rising star over at The Hill, but The Hill has done a great job.
And she's a rather progressive, it would seem, the way she talks about Bernie and other candidates.
But calling out MSNBC is important.
The bigger problem I see is that there's not going to be a line drawn in the sand when the left continues to go insane.
MSNBC can claim it's Russian propaganda that Ukrainian governments were coordinating with the DNC.
It's not.
That's politico, okay?
That's mainstream news reporting.
But they live in a world where they refuse to accept the truth when it hits them in the face.
The funny thing is, they accuse Trump supporters of doing the same thing.
And to an extent, some of these Trump supporters, yeah, they'd be right.
There are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle that refuse to accept news if it goes against their worldview.
That's just confirmation bias.
It exists.
The problem I see is that, as we've known for a while, there's a bias against conservatives.
But I think, excuse me, It also has a lot to do with anti-establishment.
Something I've mentioned before.
Alex Jones is anti-establishment.
You know, he wants to... Well, I don't want to accuse him of what he... I don't want to say what he wants, but Alex Jones talks about the deep state, and, you know, the government, and the establishment, and control, and the DNC, and the cronies, and the crooks, and all that stuff.
Rachel Maddow is the establishment.
So you see how this works.
If you are outside the system, They'll come for you.
You know, I'll use a good example.
Earlier today, I made a point about BuzzFeed defending the reporter in the Carson King story.
I'll give you a really good example of how we define who's in and outside of the swamp.
Carl Benjamin, Sargon of Akkad, he made a joke.
You see, a while ago he tweeted to a female MP that he wouldn't even assault, adult assault, I gotta be careful about language, he wouldn't even do it.
And my understanding is the point he was making is that by even being negative, saying he wouldn't do it, they would claim he said he did.
And they have.
Well, the media has slammed and smeared him for it.
So finally, you know, there was one point recently where he made a joke where he said, people keep, you know, trying to criticize me for saying that he wouldn't do this, but, you know, because of the media pressure, you know, maybe the media pressure will actually... I think he said with enough... Okay, let me try and rephrase this.
I'm gonna kill the joke.
I'm sorry.
He said that there's been a lot of media pressure over his statement about not raping her, but with enough pressure, maybe he would.
Not that he was actually going to do it.
He wasn't joking about doing it.
He was saying he wouldn't.
Then he goes on to say there's not enough beer in the world.
The point he was making is that he said he wouldn't do a thing, and the media smeared him for it, so his joke was, I guess they must want him to, right?
In this story from Aaron Calvin, the guy who cancelled Carson Kane.
If you're not familiar, this guy raised a million bucks for charity and this journalist tried cancelling him, but they found negative tweets from him.
Long story short, there's two guys.
They both said offensive things.
Carl Benjamin, in the BuzzFeed story, they say that he talked about rape.
They don't tell you what his joke was or the context.
They don't talk about the media smears.
They just say he did it.
Aaron Calvin, on the other hand, gets a puff piece where they talk about how he's being harassed by the right and being smeared and how—you know, so that's the point.
I do—you get it.
If you're in the swamp, you're safe.
If you're outside, you're fair game.
And that's why Rachel Maddow gets away with this.
And that's why people like Paul Krugman believe there's a world where journalists are in prison camps, and why Katie Turd, MSNBC, thinks reporting from the politico is propaganda.
They've lost it because no one will tell them enough.
And they run defense for each other.
Stick around, I got more segments coming up in a few minutes.
The next one's great, we're gonna talk about Bill Maher.
Alt-right Bill Maher, huh?
I'll see you in a few minutes.
Bill Maher has made a lot of statements recently that sound an awful lot like the intellectual dark web.
And I gotta admit, I used to watch a lot of Real Time with Bill Maher, so you can probably see where the alignment is on what used to be liberal.
Here's the thing.
Bill Maher and I often say the same things.
You know, we talk about different issues a lot.
He's much more orange man bad than I am.
But for the most part, we kind of agree on a lot of things.
I wonder how long it'll take until Bill Maher is slammed as a fake liberal or a conservative.
For the time being, he still has a lot of support as a liberal, and he's one of the few people who's aligned with the left, and has been for a long time.
Or, they'll claim he's not really left.
That's the point, right?
But he's a Democrat.
He doesn't like Trump, okay?
And he's been talking since, but he's one of the last people doing it.
I got a couple stories.
Because his segment the other day actually talked about two hilarious things.
For one, Tedious virtue-signaling anti-white liberals.
Their weird self-loathing is not helping anyone.
But, you know, another really great bit was this.
He blasts Hunter Biden's Ukraine ties.
If Don Jr.
did it, Rachel Maddow would be all over it.
So here's what we're gonna do.
We're going to read a little bit about Bill Maher's commentary, because I think they're great points.
But in the end, what I really want to focus on is, they'll come for Bill Maher.
He is very, very much just like an intellectual dark web personality.
Fortunately for him, he's been grandfathered in, as they say.
For Dave Rubin, though, no, they can't allow that.
Dave Rubin's a comedian.
He does political talk show and interviews.
Nope, sorry, he's out.
But Bill Maher can say the same thing and get away with it.
Let's read the first story from the Daily Caller.
They say Bill Maher mocks tedious virtue signaling anti-white liberals.
HBO host Bill Maher mocked the tedious, virtuous — oh, we get it, you gotta say it twice.
Maher began his Friday night Real Time with Bill Maher New Rule segment by poking fun at liberals upset about Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang's argument that comedian Shane Gillis should have kept his job at Saturday Night Live.
Gillis was fired after backlash surrounding jokes he made about Asian people that some considered racist.
And, uh, here's the — okay, I'm just gonna read this quote.
He said, That's when the internet did what it does best and deemed Yang, a racist, for not being offended.
Because if he wasn't offended, well, someone had to be.
White liberals have to start listening to me when I tell them, you can't be any more offended than the victim.
I think he said, you can't be more offended than the victim.
I don't know.
Did he say anymore?
That sounds very different.
Anyway, the point is, You know what I've seen a lot of?
Is that somebody will make an offensive comment, but it's offensive to the white progressives and not the minorities.
Was I offended by Shane Gillis?
No.
I get it.
I'm not Chinese.
Andrew Yang is Taiwanese.
Was he offended?
No.
He said he shouldn't be fired, and it's a conversation starter.
I don't think most people cared.
There are some people who pretend to care, and most of the people who seem to care are not even the group being targeted, which Bill Maher accurately points out.
He says, White liberals were the only group that is a bias against themselves, and I've shown the studies.
So, you know what?
I think the problem with what's going on right now is that Bill is just behind the curve.
And I don't mean this disrespectfully.
I covered that study, what, a month ago?
And now he's referencing it.
Well, good for him.
Good for him.
I'm glad it's in the mainstream.
But you can't get mad at me because I'm ahead of the curve.
He says white liberals were the only group that has a bias against themselves.
They want to hang out only with people who are not them.
That's like your mother preferring the neighbor's kids.
There's a weird self-loathing going on among white liberals and it's not helping anyone.
Lifting up those whose society has cheated or forsaken, that's liberalism.
Hating all things white is just tedious virtue signaling.
Bravo.
You know, so here's the thing.
You guys know, because I've mentioned it more than enough times, that I come from a mixed-race family.
And I always have to stress, because people think it's funny, and they're like, haha, Tim said it, and they're like, but this is why, okay?
I'm sitting here from a perspective that has been on the other end of white supremacy, and I'm sick and tired of this fake anti-racism.
When a bunch of white people come out, who have college degrees and their families make more than $100,000 a year, and they start preaching to lower-income people about how they're wrong and bad and racist, I don't want to hear it.
You're not solving the problem.
You're making it worse for me.
As Bill Maher points out, you're making it worse.
You're making it awkward.
The HBO host explained that the answer to mass incarceration is to stop putting undeserving blacks in prison, not to put more white people in Twitter jail.
Amazing.
Calling white privilege real, Marr explained that there were some disadvantages, such as many whites being born with a terrible personality.
But the joke is delivered much better by Marr, you have to trust me.
He says something like, White privilege is real, but there are real disadvantages to being white.
Some of you were born with terrible personality.
And everyone claps, thank you.
Mar mocked the I'm embarrassed to be white subgenre on the internet,
specifically pointing out actress Rosanna Arquette, who tweeted,
I'm sorry I was born white and privileged, it disgusts me and I feel so much shame.
Oh, that is the cringiest trash I have ever heard in my life.
You have to be one of, like, the... You know what, man?
I would not open my door for that person.
If someone wanted to come to my house, could you imagine, like, social justice door-to-door evangelizing?
Like, you see the Seventh-Day Adventists and, you know, Mormons.
They knock on your door and they try and talk to you.
Could you imagine social justice people knocking on your door and being like, Hi, we're white and we're so ashamed.
You should be shamed, too.
I'd be like, I'm not opening the door, you nut!
Exactly, Mar said.
You think it's hard being a black man in a white man's world?
Try being a white woman who feels bad about you being a black man in a white man's world.
So, uh, we get it.
I thought it was hilarious.
I just wanted to read those commentary.
But there's a bigger issue here, right?
This commentary right here, Mar blasts Hunter Biden.
The commentary is pretty simple.
Mar began by questioning whether former Vice President Joe Biden would benefit from the impeachment inquiry into Trump since he is elevated above the other 2020 candidates.
The more I read about this, no.
I don't think he was doing something terrible in Ukraine, but it's just, why can't politicians tell their effing kids, get a job, get a goddamn job, Marr told the panel.
This kid was paid $600,000 because his name is Biden by a gas company in Ukraine.
This super corrupt country that just had a revolution to get rid of corruption, it just looks bad.
Thank you!
Bill Maher is not a conservative.
Dave Chappelle is not a conservative.
And neither am I. But hey, it's really weird how we're all saying the same things, isn't it?
Maybe it's about time.
Well, no.
You know what?
It's a civil war on the left.
What was once the reasonable left is being destroyed.
I'm grateful to Dave Chappelle, Bill Burr, Joe Rogan, Ricky Gervais.
This high-profile comedy, they're pushing back on it.
And Bill Maher.
Pushing back on it.
I hope, I hope they can win.
You know, I'm not a big high-profile comedian like these guys are.
They're speaking to the establishment, okay?
I'm on YouTube.
I hope they can... Well, so was Joe Rogan, okay?
But that Netflix special from Dave Chappelle...
The HBO star commended genius Republicans for muddying the waters, predicting that their argument to defend Trump will be, you did this in Ukraine, while Joe Biden did this.
He's right.
But it's not genius.
It's pointing at a double standard.
Oh, Trump did this?
Yeah, well, so did you.
Can we move on?
He then mentioned Trump's eldest son, Trump Jr., who was famously entangled in the Russia investigation.
It sounds like something Don Jr.
would do.
And if Don Jr.
did it, Rachel Maddow would—it would be all Rachel Maddow was talking about.
You know what, man?
Love him or hate him.
You could disagree with Bill Maher.
You could be annoyed by him.
But, listen.
Dave Rubin pointed this out.
Don't come after Bill Maher.
He said this to conservatives.
He was like, don't get mad at him.
He makes offensive comments.
You know, talking about the recession.
I've criticized.
But he is the last good liberal in mainstream television.
And he gets 1.5 million viewers per episode.
That's my understanding.
Without him, you know what we'll get?
This.
Jezebel.
Bill Maher is a monster.
Why?
This is a story from back in 2017 when Bill Maher had on Milo Yiannopoulos.
And Bill Maher made a very important point.
Let me zoom in.
They say, Nominally liberal comedian Bill Maher finally followed through on his irresistible urge to discuss the beauty of laughter with far-right troll Milo Yiannopoulos on his show Realtime.
It went just as poorly as people familiar with the work of Maher and Yiannopoulos expected it to.
They go on to mention, Jeremy Scahill announced he would decline the invitation.
I like Jeremy Scahill, but that, to me, is pathetic.
Stand up for what you believe in.
Confront it.
Instead, he cancelled his appearance because Milo's going to be on it?
Oh, please.
You're worried about Milo?
I'm sorry.
You not showing up?
Listen.
Scahill pulled out of the show.
All that does is help Milo.
You want to challenge him?
You don't like his ideas?
Show up and be the pushback.
But when you walk away, now he's got an open platform and nothing else.
But Bill Maher pointed this out.
Bill Maher said something.
If he's really—what does he say?
If he really is the monster that people think him to be, then the best thing for liberals is to confront it.
So I don't want to go digging through it, because I'm going to keep this one short.
He says it right here, if Mr. Yiannopoulos is indeed the monster Scale claims, and he
might be, nothing could serve the liberal cause better than having him exposed on Friday
night.
But it's too bad, because Scale backed away.
Now here's the best part.
This Bill Maher's a monster, it's got 400,000 views.
So you get rid of Bill Maher, this is what replaces him.
The woke outrage that demands censorship.
The left that refuses to confront people like Milo Yiannopoulos.
To refuse to hear the debate.
I disagree with Bill Maher.
He's a super rich dude who doesn't understand the plight of poor people.
Calling for a recession is terrifying.
Please empathize with those who don't live in New York City.
People were killing themselves, okay?
That's not funny.
But I really, really do appreciate, at least we have this.
This is like the 12th video I've made about Bill Maher, talking about him hitting the nail on the head with a hammer.
Stick around, I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes.
I will see you all shortly.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may have to appear in court over blocking people on Twitter from newsbusters.
Judge demands AOC appear in court over this issue.
Now, here's the thing.
A bunch of leftists, a bunch of, you know, lefty resistance types, sued Donald Trump for blocking them.
And guess what?
They won.
And I believe they won an appeal, too.
Trump is not allowed to block people, but precedent was set.
The courts ruled public officials, even on personal accounts, cannot block people.
But Ocasio-Cortez didn't get the memo.
Actually, she did.
And she's really avoiding the issue because she blocks a ton of people.
Well, too bad.
Unblock them.
Play by the rules you helped create.
Well, she refused.
She refused to unblock people.
Now, there's a couple people of prominence who are suing her.
Notably, it's this guy, what's his name?
Hiskins.
He's a Democrat.
And Joey Salads, who's running for Congress in Staten Island.
He's also a YouTuber.
He's a Democrat and a Republican.
She claims, oh, but they're harassing me.
They have no right.
So you're saying Trump should be allowed to block people?
The Knight Foundation First Amendment Institute or something like that.
The Knight First Amendment Foundation.
I don't know what it's called.
It's a journalism and First Amendment organization called on her To unblock people.
She refused.
Well, now the courts are saying they want her to explain why she's defying the law.
Let's read.
When a federal judge declared that Trump, as a politician, could not block his Twitter followers, the ruling applied to other politicians as well.
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is being sued by former Brooklyn Assemblyman Dove Hyken.
That's what it is.
For blocking him on Twitter.
After Cortez tried to get the case dismissed, a judge demanded on September 27th that she appear in court to explain why she blocked Hicken and 19 other individuals.
Now, one of the people she blocked is Joey Salads.
I reached out for comment, and he just said something to the effect that he was glad it's being taken seriously.
He's glad the suit isn't being dismissed.
Well, you don't get special privileges.
The law is the law.
If Trump can't do it, neither can you.
You're not special.
But she's refusing to obey the law in violation of the First Amendment.
So yeah, maybe she should show up in court and explain to a judge why she's violating law.
Cortez's aide explained in court that the congresswoman blocked people if their commentary was not constructive.
Define constructive.
This was not enough for Brooklyn Judge Frederick Block.
What a convenient name.
Is that really his name?
He demanded that Ocasio-Cortez come to court herself to explain her reason for blocking people.
A tweet from Ocasio-Cortez in August offered an explanation.
Harassment.
She tweeted, harassment is not a viewpoint, no one is entitled to abuse.
This was in response to a letter from the Columbia Knight First Amendment Institute, there you go, which asked why Ocasio-Cortez was blocking people on Twitter in the first place.
Democrat Dove Hickand took issue with Ocasio-Cortez's approach to describing immigration law enforcement.
He tweeted at her in June about her comparison of migrant centers to concentration camps.
Hickand describes himself on Twitter as a proud Jewish American and a staunch supporter of Israel.
Ocasio-Cortez blocked him.
He tweeted on September 26, looking forward to seeing her in court.
Now, here's my question.
Where's the left?
I appreciate the Columbia Night First Amendment Institute coming out, calling her out, but where is everyone else?
All of the people who danced around laughing that they defeated Trump in court.
Why aren't you talking about Cortez?
I cannot!
They cannot stand politics.
It is such obvious deceit, manipulation for political power.
They didn't sue Trump because they wanted to engage in conversation.
They did it to push him back and gain power.
And the proof is they won't come out and say the same thing about Cortez.
I'm not talking about the Columbia Night First Amendment people.
They have.
That's great.
But they're a First Amendment institute.
They're not Democrats.
They're not resistant.
They're not anti-Trump.
Where is the high-profile article?
Where's NBC, BuzzFeed, Vox, The Verge?
Where's their article saying Ocasio-Cortez is breaking the law and needs to stop?
Okay, look, maybe they've written some stuff.
The point is, it's not the big news.
It's right-leaning outlets.
It's media critics.
It's conservative outlets that are highlighting this.
They won against Trump, and then they zipped their mouths shut when Ocasio-Cortez entered the crosshairs.
Rules for me— Rules for thee, but not for me.
That's the motto they're playing by.
They go on to say, According to the New York Post, Judge Block stated, I think she has to testify.
Her point is that this was an A-OK thing to do.
Excuse me.
She has to explain.
The congresswoman initially tried to have the case dismissed, saying that Hicken lacked standing to bring the action.
However, in 2018, Judge Naomi Race Buchwald stated that President Trump was violating the Constitution by blocking people online.
Twitter was described as a designated public forum on which the president could not block people.
This definition is being upheld in court as well for Ocasio-Cortez.
If Twitter is ruled again to be a designated public forum, this might mean that the company would have to reinstate banned accounts under First Amendment principles.
Well, I don't know about all that!
The argument that Twitter has is they are under no obligation, because of the First Amendment, to host your speech.
It's a publisher argument.
If they were a platform, they'd be saying, you can say whatever you want, we can't stop you.
So I'll give you a real example.
If there is a park, a privately owned space that's open to the public, you're allowed
to stand there and preach and they can't remove you based on the subject of your speech, even
if it's private.
This was a big fight back during Occupy Wall Street.
Twitter is claiming Facebook and YouTube that they're publishers and platforms, whenever
it's convenient.
Now, legally, there's no real distinction.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects any online service, which is really strange, because I'm trying to get clarification.
I ask, then, could the New York Times not be sued?
You have to sue the individual reporter, and it appears that's the case, even though the New York Times chooses who appears on the front page.
There's no distinction.
Perhaps there needs to be.
Seriously, what ends up happening?
As a platform, this service would just be giving you a place to stand and not telling you what you can or can't say.
As a publisher, they are choosing just like a newspaper, right?
I'm just trying to clarify the point.
I don't know if the ruling against Cortez would change that, but I do think it needs to be changed.
Outside of whatever that argument is, it's time for a change.
Pick one.
Let's set the legal distinction between a publisher and a platform.
The New York Times is liable if they choose to publish something.
Why not Facebook?
Why is Facebook protected?
In reality, I think the New York Times might actually be protected too.
This can't function.
Now, Will Chamberlain over at Human Events, I could be getting his position wrong, so I'll just preface this, I could be wrong.
But he argued overturning Times v. Sullivan, which basically created, my understanding is that it created a bigger, a harder standard for public figures.
So here's the thing.
In the Covington case, these kids were standing around doing nothing.
They were not public figures.
They were just kids.
The argument against them was that they became public figures.
This precedent is dangerous because it means anyone at any time can become a public figure if someone else posts a video of you on the internet.
Okay, well, we need some guidelines here, man.
Let me just stress, whatever is going on, Ocasio-Cortez should probably testify, but more importantly, the law needs to be updated.
Whatever your argument is, should she block—look, a lot of conservatives have said the ruling was bad, and that it was a bad ruling against Trump, and it's a bad ruling against Cortez.
Okay, great.
Let's update the laws.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is archaic and makes no sense.
Section 230 is archaic and makes no sense.
And for the time being, Ocasio-Cortez is refusing to abide by the law.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump has to?
Let's get some consistency, please?
Listen, Cortez should be allowed to block people, and so should Trump.
Okay, fine, whatever.
If the courts want to rule, they can't.
This situation is so complicated, because I would have to agree.
If Trump can't block people, we've got a serious problem.
They're arguing there is an extremely important function of these social media platforms and public discourse, but they're ignoring the fact that they can just remove whoever they want.
The analogy I often give.
Imagine there's a big airplane hangar where Trump likes to have his rallies, and Ocasio-Cortez shows up and they say, you can't come in to hear the president.
But that's not fair.
That's the President.
Now listen, there are instances where people are blocked, right?
Space is an issue.
There's only so much space in the building, we're not gonna let you in.
But imagine the building is capable of holding everybody, and they hold their hand out and block you, but let only Trump supporters in.
We can't function that way.
People need to know what he's saying.
That's the world we're creating right now.
So listen, whatever the ruling ends up, I don't think it matters, okay?
I do think there's a bit of a catharsis, there's an emotional release in seeing a judge tell her she needs to testify.
Seeing some reciprocity—well, I shouldn't say reciprocity, but some, like, you know, standards being upheld.
If they're going to go after Trump, go after Cortez, too.
But in the end, it's not the point.
The point is that social media is where we discuss politics.
And that's why they can't block people.
Because Cortez and Trump talk about policy and plans.
And people are allowed to interact with that.
It's important for democracy.
Why, then, does Twitter have the right to supersede the politician?
Think about it.
Trump can't block you, so Twitter can intervene on his behalf and block you?
That makes no sense.
If the courts believe people need access to Trump's public forum, then why should a private company kick you out?
So, you know what?
I'll wrap up by saying, double standard, Ocasio-Cortez What do you expect?
Okay?
This is what the left has done.
They've advocated for these things, and now you have to play by the same rules as everybody else.
We'll see what happens.
I think it'll be hilarious to see her in court.
But for the time being, I somehow doubt anything will happen.
And she's going to continue to be in violation of the law.
I really doubt there will even be any penalties against her for it.
Stick around.
Next segment will be tomorrow at 10 a.m., podcast 6.30 p.m.
