Youtube Is Trying To FORCE Me To Social Engineer YOU, This Affects Almost ALL Political Channels
Youtube Is Trying To FORCE Me To Social Engineer YOU, This Affects Almost ALL Political Channels. Yesterday Youtube suppressed my video and I don't know why, I can only speculate. But the video was critical of the far left and Democrats and made reference to a certain undercover reporting group.But the message they sent me was clear. This subject, or combination is out of bounds. If you talk about these things you will make no money and no one will see your video.For me it was a challenge and I reject the premise outright. I will talk about what must be talked about. But the truth is that my content is rather tepid in the first place. Most of the videos and commentary I produce is just fine. In this moment, however, Youtube gave me a glimpse of how bad it really is.Think of it like a casino, the house always wins. So long as they win 51% of the time they win all of the time. Over a long enough period of time they make money.Now think about the whole of Youtube, who can succeed, what kind of content will be monetized, and we can see the layers. Over a long enough period of time we know that certain ideas will cease to exist or be seen, certain creators will be banned or go broke.Youtube, twitter, and Facebook have already stated they support far left and social justice based rules, they already have shown us that they will bend at the behest of fake news and far left wing media.Social media censorship is reaching a point of critical mass that will shape our political world for generations to come. Even now we see reports that the big social media companies will allow politicians to break the rules. This means that Incumbents will be allowed to speak freely but their challengers will not.The rules are being put in place so that we the creators fall in line to take the money and fame or we cease to exist at all.In the end the future will be shaped by massive multi national corporations with no allegiance to our country.Free speech will cease to exist and there will never be another Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump again. The establishment mass social engineering is happening right now and whether its intentional or not it will cause major problems for democracy.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yesterday, my video, launched at 4pm, was almost immediately suppressed.
I don't have a screenshot from that first hour, but you can see here on the screen, and for those that are listening, I'll describe it.
We can see something strange in the analytics.
The first blue bar, on the left, is the first hour of publication.
It drops very quickly, and then almost disappears entirely, until at some point, for some reason, it pops back up.
The reason it popped back up is that YouTube released the suppression.
And the reason they did this was because I went into the video, I changed the title, the description, I changed the information, and I blurred several components of the video.
Several hours later, YouTube removed that restriction, and as of this morning, this is what the analytics show.
On the right, you can see this number is in the past 60 minutes.
On the left, you can see the history of this video.
This is extremely abnormal.
It doesn't happen.
It never happens on my second channel at all.
Extremely, extremely rarely.
I think it happens maybe like one time I saw a video take a hit.
But I have seen videos outright deleted on my second channel, to which I've complained to a great deal.
And it was deleted because I was commenting on a certain...
A certain undercover reporter whose name I can't mention.
And the reason I can't mention it is because I don't know why yesterday's video was suppressed.
All I know is I had to go in and blur a ton of stuff and change everything around and hope that was enough.
And what this says to me was, you know, you know, listen.
My main channel is under intense scrutiny.
Every single video I make is manually reviewed by YouTube staff, including this one, regardless of whether I ask them to or not.
For most YouTube channels, you have to request a review if they demonetize.
For me, they just review literally all of them.
And there's some major benefits to this.
One of the major benefits is that this has effectively removed demonetization from my channel, which is incredible.
It used to be that every single video I would make would be demonetized, and I'd have no idea why, and couldn't do anything about it, and I'd... whatever.
But now, as most of you know, Tim Poole being the milquetoast fedsitter who just comments on mainstream media, most of my videos are fine for monetization.
I did discover something interesting.
At one point, They were now deranking and censoring my videos because of the articles and sources I show might have a different story in the background, which creates some kind of offensive statement or is shocking or whatever.
They don't even notice, right?
So if I pull up, for instance, the New York Post, you may have noticed that in some of the past videos I've done, I have blurred almost the entire website of certain news sources.
And it's because they cover certain topics I'm not allowed to talk about.
And this brings me to the main point of this video.
I was actually thinking about doing a video on this and talking about it a week or so ago.
And I decided, no, no, I want to keep this video to very important, big, breaking stories.
The election is now.
There are more important issues than this.
But then yesterday happened.
I talked about yesterday, the Democratic debates.
A particular instance that occurred with some Democrats and the things they've said that I cannot repeat because I don't know what got my video suppressed.
I ended up blurring a bunch of things.
The subject matter in the video had to do with the debates and had to do with why we're seeing the left go so far left.
Paradoxically, YouTube then took action against me, suppressing the video, demonetizing and deranking it so heavily you can actually see the results.
And then I said to myself, you know what?
This is enough.
Okay?
Well, for the most part, my content gets by just fine.
This is an example of them drawing that boundary and saying, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey.
Don't talk about this.
You know what you're allowed to talk about.
And that's a nightmarish future that we're walking towards.
This, directly.
Whether it's intentional or a byproduct of policies they don't quite understand, is the direct mass social engineering of our political world.
We've already seen many people banned outright, falsely accused of things.
Well now YouTube has just told me yesterday, this video you made, although you talked about many mainstream things and cited mainstream news sources that anyone can talk about, that anyone can read, local affiliates and CNN, We're telling you, this subject is out of bounds.
No one will see it and you will make no money.
Now the average person, the average grifter, might come out and say, oh golly gee, I better not talk about this again.
Well, I'm a bit of a milquetoast fetsitter.
I'm a bit in the middle, and I'll tell you why.
But I am going to do something important.
First, for obvious reasons, before we move on, you've got to go to TimCast.com if you want to support my work.
There's multiple ways you can do it.
The other thing is, share this video, because I'm going to explain how this system works and the nightmarish future we're walking towards.
It's also how we overcome suppression like this.
But the other thing I will say, The Tim Pool Daily Show includes all of my segments in an hour and a half on every podcast platform, Spotify, Apple, Google, wherever you go.
Check out my full podcast every day at 6.30 p.m.
Do not rely on YouTube.
It is unreliable.
And there may be circumstances where I will talk about things on the podcast I cannot say on YouTube because YouTube will shut me down and I know it.
Now let's talk about bending the knee versus acting defiantly.
I'm in the middle.
Because I'm not a crazy person.
I'm not here just to make a ton of money.
So I'm not going to bend the knee and just never talk about these things again.
But I will be very careful about how I broach these issues.
And you've noticed that.
It's not as simple as for me to say I'm either going to talk about it or not.
It's a complicated problem.
Here I realize something important.
If I choose to just say, you know what, I'm gonna go all out, upload the video a million times, just non-stop repeat uploading in different variations saying the same thing to prove how dare you censor me, well then I cease to exist.
And then I'm never allowed to talk about important things.
And I recognize this is a problem, and this is why I'm trying to be as transparent as possible about what you can expect going forward.
The other issue is, so I can be totally defined and watch everything burn down, or I can bend the knee and make all the money and get all the views and play the game exactly as they want, no, there will be a happy medium.
I am going to talk about what I think is important.
For the most part, it's usually within the boundaries that YouTube allows.
I recognize it's a serious problem for free speech and other people, and so I will highlight that.
And one of the main reasons that I don't want to just come out and say, you know what, screw you, and I'll burn it all down.
The reason I don't want to do that is because I want to be able to highlight videos like this.
So I might not be able to say a certain word or talk about a certain group, but at least I will be able to tell you when it's being blocked and where you can go and find out more information.
That is the most important thing to me.
But in the end, I do feel like no matter what happens, there's nothing we can do to stop the nightmarish future heading our way.
Let me show you some evidence and some more examples.
Take a look at this graph.
This is from a researcher named Mark Ledwich, who I've cited several times.
Change in impressions after a 4 April event.
Something happened in April that changed the views of everybody.
Upon the publication of this, I stopped saying in my promo in the beginning that YouTube was suppressing me or deranking me because it turns out the Tim Pool channel, as you can see, is actually moderately upranked, meaning my impressions have increased Since the change in this, you know, whatever happened, I'm above CNBC.
In fact, the Young Turks took a big hit.
All of this is still part of the problem.
And as you can see from the image I showed you yesterday, those analytics, I am not immune to this.
The reason why the Tim Pool channel is getting more impressions after this event is because my content is fairly milquetoast.
I'm a fence-sitter.
I cite NBC and the New York Times.
It is not particularly controversial, and that's why there's not very many hit pieces about me, though they do happen sometimes.
The impressions have gone up, because in whatever new system they've implemented, they have clearly defined what is acceptable and what isn't.
Fox News.
The reason they've taken the biggest impression bump is because most of the independent creators on YouTube are moderate to conservative, and because they've all been de-ranked, they have filled that gap with Fox News.
They are telling you what is acceptable is corporate mainstream news, and you cannot speak out of line.
The problem is, the suppression of my video yesterday was not out of line with any corporate mainstream news.
I cited local outlets, I used them as sources, and they still suppressed my content.
I don't know what the rules are.
All I know is they expect me to come out next and say, I'm sorry, oh great master, I'll never harm you again, I'll never, no, I'm gonna make a video about it, I'm gonna tell you what's happening.
This is very important, I've shown this before, but I wanna make sure I go through this, and I wanna show you, there's more evidence, check it out.
Timcast, my second channel, has been deranked.
The reason for this is because on my second channel, I care a lot less.
It's a second channel meant to talk about cultural issues, things like movies and video games.
I've done several videos about Joker and things like that.
And sometimes I talk about very serious issues that I know I can't talk about on this channel.
This is why I want to make sure you realize what's happening.
There are multiple platforms my content exists on.
I use Twitter.
I use Facebook.
I use Minds.com.
And I have the podcast.
So I'll stress it again.
Subscribe to my podcast.
It's the Tim Pool Daily Show.
It's on Apple.
It's actually decently ranked.
I'm really impressed and grateful because the podcast is doing well.
But it is an hour and a half of all of my content from the day.
It's six segments.
We can see here that by purposefully making sure my main channel content, this channel, falls in line with big stories, and it's the most important thing.
To be honest, I didn't intentionally start ignoring certain cultural issues.
It was kind of like, you know, I want to talk about, what is Elizabeth Warren saying?
What's going on with impeachment?
YouTube says all that talk is okay.
But what I talked about yesterday was not out of line.
I was talking about activists and the Democrats and why I think we see, you know, cancel culture and this stuff.
And I don't even know if there's something I'm saying here that may result in me getting this video suppressed.
All I know is I went in and I blurred a bunch of stuff and changed the title and the thumbnails and then they finally agreed to release it.
So what I'm telling you now is, if you want the full important news picture, it's going to be the podcast.
It really, really is.
So here's the thing.
CNN can talk about it.
YouTube says fine.
I can't talk about it.
Fox News, the number one biggest upranked channel since these changes, can talk about whatever they want.
It's Fox News.
You know, they're called fake news conspiracy by CNN, but YouTube says it doesn't matter.
Fox News is socially acceptable no matter what they say.
However, when I talk about the same things, my video gets suppressed.
Now, I want to make sure you realize how dangerous this is.
David Pakman is on the derank list.
The Rubin Report, The Guardian, BBC News, Stephen Crowder, Joe Rogan Clips, and ABC News, the biggest loser of all.
What we're seeing here is that while certain corporate channels like Fox News and MSNBC are getting a very, very big uptick, it's because they are falling in line with what YouTube is saying is acceptable and what isn't.
And we can see YouTube doesn't care who you are.
Fox News Insider, Bloomberg, The Thinkery, or the New York Times even.
They don't want what you've got.
Now here's what I think.
I don't think that this is somebody who has an evil master plan at YouTube.
What I think is happening is that YouTube has determined certain things are taboo and controversial, and they won't allow it.
Fox News, for whatever reason, is substantially less taboo, so they get upranked heavily.
So Fox News may talk about things that are bad, but it's better than the rest.
This also means that ABC News can put out a story, whether it's real or not, we saw that whole fiasco with the fake news, with the fake video, and YouTube might tell ABC too bad.
We're going to derank that so no one can see it.
YouTube is even having an impact on mainstream journalism.
YouTube is telling me when they demonetize a video and derank it, that was out of bounds.
And the average person, or I should say at scale, think about it this way.
The reason casinos always win is because of the gambling margin.
If, on average, every game gives the casino a 50.1% chance of winning over a long enough period of time, the house always wins.
If YouTube institutes rules that force everyone to make a certain style of content or not talk about certain things, over time you will stop seeing those things.
And we know what this list includes, and I can't name them.
They're in the rules of YouTube, and if I name them, I will likely get this video suppressed as well.
YouTube says, you can't talk in certain ways about certain things.
And that includes ABC News.
YouTube is dictating journalism outside of independent creators.
They want me and everyone else to follow the path of least resistance towards a profit motive.
To say, this content makes money, therefore I will talk about it and not talk about this.
I'll tell you what.
On this channel, I actually do tend to do that.
If it's a mainstream news story that ignores particular issues, I will do it on this channel on purpose.
But, I have a second channel, specifically for content that is more cultural, and I am less concerned about getting demonetized.
I will fully admit, my second channel is almost entirely demonetized every single video.
If there is a news story that is going to be very serious and controversial, I will absolutely talk about it.
And it'll be on that channel.
This channel is going to be reserved for larger mainstream political news stories.
And, you know what?
I have a choice to make.
I can say, I'll just quit YouTube outright.
I just don't want to play that game, right?
Or I can say, I will have the podcast, I can promote the podcast, the podcast may have different content on it, and I will be doing content on other platforms, and YouTube will give you this specific bit of content.
I think that is the most reasonable approach, and I think it affords me the opportunity to tell you what YouTube is doing.
First of all, we've seen this, okay?
Reducing borderline content and raising up authoritative voices.
As we've seen from the data I've just shown you, that includes mainstream media.
If they talk about things that YouTube finds to be borderline because the news cover sensitive issues, then, well, there you go.
They're gonna get deranked.
But let me tell you now what this results in.
It results in the news cycle we see today.
Take a look at CNN and some of the information that was released over the past few days.
I can't reference because we have seen what happens when I talk about it.
This information release shows that CNN is driven by a profit motive.
Of course they are.
They're a business.
Now think about what happens.
CNN could talk about conflict and crisis.
Well, that's going to get deranked.
YouTube says, no, you can't talk about that.
So CNN then chooses, well, what's going to make us the most money?
The Orange Man.
And that's why they only talk about Trump.
Admittedly, this channel you're watching now primarily does talk about mainstream, top-level politics, like Ocasio-Cortez, Pelosi, and Donald Trump.
Because it is safe.
Because it is safe and YouTube won't delete my channel.
They won't suppress my content or take away monetization when I do it.
Again, my alternative is to make sure you go to the podcast, and I have a second channel for issues that I don't care if they're deranked or demonetized, I just talk about what I feel like talking about.
I will stress again, 99% of the content I make doesn't fall out of bounds, but when it does, rest assured, I will tell you, and that's why I'm doing this video.
Let's talk about the nightmarish future we're heading towards.
YouTube CEO.
Politicians can break our content rules.
Twitter explains when it will remove abusive tweets by world leaders.
Take a look at these two stories.
What they're telling you is that politicians can break the rules.
Now, many people will say, that's not fair.
Why are they allowed to break the rules?
No, I'll tell you what it really means.
It means that the language used by those politicians today will not be removed, but it means anybody, one of their supporters, will not be able to repeat it, will not be able to share it or comment on it.
Any one of their supporters will not be allowed to gain any prominence off of the ideas of certain political leaders.
Think about what that means.
YouTube has determined rules.
The house always wins.
If YouTube says, you can't say X, they want to avoid the controversy by allowing the politicians to say it, fine.
But that means going forward, from this point on, they have drawn a line in the sand and they are saying, no one will ever gain prominence again off of these ideas we have deemed it so.
I refuse to live in that world.
And you know what?
I'm gonna have to say it.
I think we're heading there no matter what anyone does.
I don't think I can stop it.
I don't think anyone can.
My choices right now are to defy and say no, I will not back down, and then I just won't be on YouTube at all.
And then, admittedly, that does sound pretty nice, I gotta admit.
I've talked about it over and over again.
I would love to take my van, it's got a bed, it's got all this, you know, equipment in it, and just go skate and just make vlogs and not care about politics or the world.
But I have to admit, I'm a fighter and I'm passionate about political issues and I won't back down.
This is the best I can do.
Do I go up against Google, who I know can just suppress my content and shut me down?
Or do I do my best to warn you about what's coming and show you the proof?
It's the best I can do.
It's what I have to accept.
Again, I will stress, most of my content I don't have to worry about.
But when it happens, I see it.
I feel like I'm on a racetrack and my race car grazes the edge and sparks go flying and I can see them wagging the finger at me saying, don't you do that again.
And so I want to make sure you know what's happening.
If Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are saying right now, you know, fine, we're going to allow Trump to tweet.
But, anybody who sounds like them, as of today, will not be allowed.
There's a YouTuber named Carl Benjamin, you might know.
He ran for political office, and Twitter suspended his campaign account.
They are telling you, they have a monopoly in this sector, okay?
Now, not all people are on these platforms, but they are slowly gaining more and more of this space.
Soon, they will control all of it.
So long as most journalists use Twitter, we are going to be beholden to what Twitter allows.
And that means if you're running for office and Twitter doesn't legitimize you, you will not win.
Don't take my word for it.
Here's a story from The Intercept from just a few days ago.
Twitter tips the scale toward incumbents by refusing to verify primary challengers.
Let me just stress, if you have a congressman who says offensive and wild things that is supported by his constituents, he will keep winning because Twitter and YouTube and Facebook will not suspend him when he says this.
But when his challenger steps up, YouTube will suspend them.
Facebook and Twitter will suspend them.
And they won't verify the primary challengers.
What this means?
The system is protecting the establishment and the status quo and is trying to resist, at all costs, another Trump.
I'm not saying it's on purpose.
It just seems like what the result is going to be.
I'll put it this way.
A lot of people are going to say it's on purpose.
I don't think that's the case.
I think this is that YouTube recoiling and saying, we don't care what you're talking about.
It must be safe.
It must be safe.
The reason they're allowing politicians to break the rules is because they garner controversy when they ban a politician.
They're trying to avoid controversy.
That means no one can talk like this except you're a politician.
Seemingly contradictory.
It should be one or the other, right?
Well, we're going to end up in a world where Trump can tweet all day and night these important things.
And people are going to keep supporting him and voting for him because no incumbent will be able to challenge him if their speech breaks the rules.
The incumbents are allowed to break the rules and the new up-and-comers are not.
Do you understand what world we are going to live in?
If the left doesn't get behind solving this problem, we are in serious trouble.
Elizabeth Warren has called out and said they should break up the big tech companies.
Maybe that's the answer, I don't know, but at least she's talking about it with much respect.
Ocasio-Cortez has talked about the surveillance machine, also a serious problem.
Andrew Yang said, you know, 21st century problems need 21st century solutions.
Agree?
Awesome.
Let's talk about this.
I do not want to live in this world.
I can't.
Look, if you want to know what my video was about yesterday, go to my video and check it out.
It's on this channel.
It's in the video section.
They have removed the suppression from it, because I went in and blurred some stuff.
And at least then the ideas can persist.
But I don't know.
It's not the first time they've done this.
When I launched my Timcast IRL channel, I launched it specifically in a sort of, I don't want to say panic, but I was alert.
I was like, there it is.
I better go out and make sure I have this new channel.
In that channel, I said we're going to do, you know, vans and trips and travel.
And admittedly, I am tied up with business stuff.
We've got a lot happening.
It's going to be epic.
Just wait and see.
Expanding, expanding, expanding.
But in that video I talked about how I did a story talking about the New York Times and some things they've said that I can't tell you, and they suppressed the video outright, and I had to go in and blur the proof, the source of the information, because YouTube wouldn't allow it.
And that means when the New York Times says something that's out of bounds and I want to make sure you know about it, YouTube told me, don't you dare.
Don't you dare.
And so I made a new channel and I said, it's the best I can do.
It's the best I can do.
Because admittedly, YouTube owns this space.
They own video and there's nothing I can do about it.
In the end, the future we're going to have is going to be establishment politicians controlling the narrative because the platforms will protect them and reject anyone else who's rising up.
That's the world being created.
They're going to censor the anti-war types, they're going to censor conservative types, and they're only going to allow crony establishment pro-big business.
Congratulations!
Social media is slowly taking over the economy.
They are controlling more and more of the space and something needs to be done about it.
Hopefully this video will provide some circumstantial evidence to show you what happens, to explain why the content goes in a direction it does.
But let me just remind you, Going forward on this channel, you're going to see more of what I've been doing.
Look, all of the videos I've done over the past several months, there's been no problems.
Because I'm talking about Trump and the inquiry and the investigations.
Very, very tepid, mainstream, milquetoast stuff.
But just don't be surprised if I can't talk about certain things like I did yesterday.
They didn't want to allow it.
Don't be surprised when you see news articles are heavily blurred and I only show you the direct sources because they won't allow it.
And I will stress then, you need to go to any podcast platform, Tim Pool Daily Show.
It's the safest way to get all of my content unfiltered because, I'll say this too, admittedly, even Apple and Google and other platforms have the same rules on those platforms too.
The thing is, you know what?
There's no winning, there really isn't.
I hate to be a pessimist, but I'm telling you now, we are here in the dystopia.
I can choose to have my channels deleted or I can choose to make videos like this and stay within those boundaries.
Because I'm 99% of the time within those boundaries, I'm not concerned and don't expect me to change my opinions because I'm worried about money.
That's not the case.
I will absolutely come out and tell you when something like this happens.
And you can go to my second channel which is youtube.com slash timcastnews and subscribe for many stories because I do five segments on that channel as well.
I guess that's it, man.
I think I showed you what I could show you.
They're gonna suppress even mainstream news, right?
Because they're drawing the lines.
And ABC fell out of bounds.
Sorry, you talk about things that are taboo, ABC, and so does the New York Times.
And it just means that people are gonna see these trends, they're gonna figure out what YouTube wants them to do, and they're going to do it.
And this is exactly the problem that YouTube is supposed to be solving.
Instead, they're drawing lines and forcing everyone into neat little boxes.
Our future is going to be a terrifying dystopia, where we're all going to be NPC-type creatures walking around believing what our Google overlords tell us to believe.
I'm sorry, I don't know what else I can do about it, but I'll do my best.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around, next segment's coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6pm, and I will see you all there.
Last night was the fourth Democratic debate, And it looks like people are kind of unhappy with the Democrats' performance.
Now, there's a lot of general, I guess, more professional assessment where people are saying things like, you know, Joe Biden had an interesting point and Warren did dodge that question.
Let's be real.
No standout performers.
Actually, I'll say this.
Yang did a pretty good job, but I don't think he did a good enough job to be a contender in 2020.
Let's be real.
There's so many reasons Trump is going to win, and I've got two stories from the past day or so showing this.
We don't need to look at the weak Democratic field to know this.
And it's a bummer.
I do really like Tulsi Gabbard.
I gotta admit, I'd give her a 6 out of 10 in terms of performance.
She hit some good points when she, last night during the debate, she called out CNN and the New York Times for their smear job on her and other veterans who want to end these wars, and that was fantastic.
Standout moment.
But I do think some of her responses were a bit too generic.
Not personable or charismatic enough.
Andrew Yang did a really, really good job.
In my opinion, he did the best job.
He had really great answers.
And everybody else was just, let's be real, it was all so generic.
And you know, this is one of the things I brought up before, uh, about, you know, Tulsi's performance.
I think one of the things you see Bernie do really well is he said, I wrote the damn bill!
And it's like, listen, man, that's very populist.
That's very, you know, Trump-esque.
Speaking off the cuff like a regular person, like, oh, tell me I wrote the damn bill!
And then people were like, yeah!
Like, we like that, right?
So there's a lot of people who give you this very presidential, very canned, listen, We must discuss- No, no, no, no.
None of that.
None of that.
We're beyond that at this point.
We're in the age of, you know, YouTube personalities and people who treat you like you're a friend sitting at a bar.
And that's what we need.
So take that advice, Democrats, moving forward.
You really got to step it up if you want to be strong enough to go up against Trump.
I don't think anybody will have that X Factor.
Let's be real.
Check out this story from the Daily Beast.
All of these Democratic debates, especially this one, just leave me thinking Trump is going to win in 2020.
None of them are top-drawer presidential candidates.
I don't say that with pleasure.
Quite the opposite.
I say it with regret.
But they aren't.
You know what, man?
I used to work in non-profit fundraising.
And as many of you may have noticed, I can talk a lot.
So when I watch these debates and I see these answers, I'm like, dude, do you people not understand the basics of communication?
Like, how you actually try to explain an idea politely and succinctly.
What was Elizabeth Warren thinking when they said, yes or no, will you raise taxes?
And she goes, well, let's be clear here.
I've always looked at the problem like, no, no, no, no, no, no.
And then Bernie comes out and says, very specifically, listen.
Premiums will be gone, okay?
These charges will disappear.
Your taxes will go up, but your costs will go down.
Thank you, Bernie!
Your taxes will go up.
Now, this is important, because a lot of people don't have very high healthcare costs, or their healthcare is provided by their employer, in which case the company is fronting the healthcare, which means your costs will go up.
Elizabeth Warren is playing this silly game, and Bernie isn't giving you the complete picture.
But let's be real.
Let's move on from this debate talk and stuff, because I want to talk about this.
First of all, I did highlight this yesterday.
I actually went into Moody's Analytics and showed that Trump might actually get nearly 400 electoral votes.
This is Moody's Analytics.
According to Newsweek, historically accurate election forecaster predicts Trump will win by even greater margin in 2020.
He won by nearly what?
70 electoral votes or more?
They're saying he's gonna win by more.
Moody's said with average turnout, he'll do a little better.
With low turnout, he's going to do remarkably well, sweeping with 380 electoral votes.
Democrats need a historical turnout in order to just barely get above 270.
Now here's what's really crazy.
We're hearing from the New York Times that we are expecting historical voter turnout, but it is also going to include Trump's base.
The largest group of people who support Trump, which I believe is white, working class, non-college educated, so trades people and rural Americans are expected to come out in big numbers too.
Now, Moody's says, regardless, historical average means, I'm sorry, historical turnout means he wins.
But historical average, I'm sorry, okay, let me start over.
Historical turnout means Democrats win.
But a historical average, Trump has that victory.
And a low turnout, he has that victory.
Let's read a little bit from this story, and guess what?
You've got someone saying straight up, the Democrats are poor performers, they don't stand out, they're not top-drawer candidates, Trump's gonna win, for that reason alone.
I agree.
I agree.
You know what, man?
When I watch, when I want to point out, like I did the fundraising stuff, it's because I'm watching these debates thinking to myself, like, you were all so bad at this, okay?
All of you.
No one gets any credit.
They're all terrible at speaking.
Now I go back to that old George Bush interview, the, you know, senior, where he said, do we want an order or do we want a president?
I can respect that.
But let's be real, man.
If you can't connect with voters, you can't win.
And when you all look stodgy with canned responses, Ain't nobody want to vote for that?
Bernie Sanders.
Good job.
You see why he was so popular?
It's not about what their plan is.
It's about they have a plan and they're saying it to you in a way that feels honest.
It feels... I'm not saying they're correct.
I'm saying it seems like they're really trying.
I don't think Bernie's trying to mislead anybody.
I think he's explaining it the way he sees it and he's trying to be straightforward for the most part.
I think Bernie's gone very heavy mainstream, so I'm like soured on him, but I really, really do respect that he was like, listen, your taxes will go up.
Let's be real.
I'm like, thank you.
Thank you for just saying it.
I really do respect it.
If you came to me and said, listen, man, I got, we got to raise taxes for these reasons.
You're going to get a lot of people who are going to begrudgingly be like, okay, well, I appreciate you just being straight with me.
And that's what Trump does.
Or whether you believe he does or not.
A lot of people, you know, the left will say he's a liar every single time.
But seriously, you watch Trump speak and you feel like he's not holding anything back.
The Interceptor wrote a story saying Trump is simultaneously the most deceptive as well as honest president we've ever had.
He was doing an interview About a weapons deal with Saudi Arabia, and he says, look, they pay really well.
We're going to do a great weapons deal for our weapons manufacturers.
It's going to be great for the economy.
And the anti-war left, their collective jaw just dropped, like, he just said it!
And they were shocked by that.
That's the kind of attitude where people are like, OK, I disagree, but now I get it.
Thank you for being honest.
That's why Bernie and Trump are so popular.
That's why they're populists.
Everybody else, OK?
Now, Tulsi did a pretty good job.
Not perfect, I think.
Some of her points were great.
Yang did a fantastic job.
But everybody's very, very candid.
I digress.
Let's read the story.
Newsweek says, though President Donald Trump currently trails several leading Democratic
candidates in early national polls, a research firm with a historically accurate model
has him winning the 2020 election by a wide margin. The Moody's model has predicted presidential
elections with success since 1980 until its first miss in 2016. Isn't that crazy?
Like so many others, they predicted a Hillary Clinton win.
In our post-mortem for the 2016 presidential election model, we determined that unexpected turnout patterns were one of the factors that contributed to the model's first incorrect election prediction, wrote Mark Zandi, Dan White, and Bernard Yerbos of Moody's Analytics.
Yes, Trump awoke a sleeping majority.
I shouldn't say sleeping majority, okay?
The silent majority is what they say, but to be less hyperbolic, Trump found people in this country who had never voted before, areas that were grey, they weren't blue or red, and he turned them red, he activated them.
I remember talking to somebody in California and they were like, there's an area in southeastern California that typically doesn't care to vote, and all of a sudden everyone's wearing Trump hats!
And that's what he did.
And that's what changed the Republican Party and angered a lot of establishment Republicans.
This new wave of former independent and moderate individuals who just came out for Trump.
New Republicans.
Some people said Trump reinvigorated and revived the Republican Party because they were shaky.
You know, they were where the Democrats are today.
The Democrats need some kind of resurgence.
They say the model did not account for the individual attributes of the candidates other than whether they belong to the incumbent political party.
In other words, it assumed Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were generic candidates, which they were not, the research firm concluded.
Yeah, Hillary was disliked even by Democrats, and Trump was liked by non-party-affiliated voters.
Moody's uses three models to come up with its forecast.
In each case, Trump gets at least 289 electoral college votes.
The pocketbook measure focuses on three economic variables.
The change in gas prices, the change in house prices, and changes in personal income.
This is where Trump shines brightest, grabbing a whopping 351 electoral votes.
Oh man, if that happens, there's going to be egg on the face of the Democrats.
If voters were to vote primarily on the base of their pocketbooks, the president would steamroll the competition.
But wait!
Warning to Democrats, this is from yesterday afternoon.
The economy points to a Trump win.
End of story.
Right?
Are we done?
Well, let's read a little bit more about the Moody's analysis, because I did show this the other day, but let's see what they say.
The stock market model relies on fewer economic variables than its pocketbook model and is the least favorable model for Trump, but it still currently predicts a victory for the president.
Meanwhile, the unemployment model predicts a more comfortable win for the president than the stock market model.
Moody's Analytics may have missed on the previous election, but an economic analysis released in 2016 by the research firm forecasting Trump's presidency has largely come true.
Amazing.
Broadly, Mr. Trump's economic proposals will result in a more isolated U.S.
economy, cross-border trade and immigration will be significantly diminished, and with less trade and immigration, foreign direct investment will also be reduced.
That's what they wrote in the report.
The report also determined that Trump's plans would hit the middle class the hardest, while high-income earners would benefit the most from his tax breaks, including with a simplified overview.
Even allowing for some variability in the accuracy of the economic modeling, and underlying assumptions that drive the Trump analysis, four basic conclusions regarding the impact of Mr. Trump's economic proposals can be reached.
They will result in a less global U.S.
economy.
They will lead to larger government deficits and more debt.
They will largely benefit very high-income households, and they will result in a weaker U.S.
economy with fewer jobs and higher unemployment.
That was wrong, though.
What do you mean, Newsweek?
That analysis was wrong.
The authors of the report, however, warned that quantifying the real estate moguls' economic policies was complicated by their lack of specificity.
They say the chief economist for Moody's Analytics also acknowledged that sometimes numbers can't control the outcome.
It could be that this election may be so out of bounds with history that the models just aren't going to work.
It could turn out things run on a dynamic you just can't model.
Well, let's go back to the statement.
First of all, the middle class did get a tax break.
I believe they received around $2,000.
We do have a less global U.S.
economy to an extent, but it's hard to really quantify.
Trump's announced that China's going to be doing this big agricultural deal, $50 billion.
So there have been some pullbacks, but Will it be forever?
I don't know.
And how you quantify that, man, you'd have to track all of this stuff to give a definitive answer.
And I can't necessarily give you that answer.
They say it will largely benefit high-income households.
I believe, yes, a lot of people on the higher end got a big tax break, but Largely benefit.
It's not a bad thing.
So let me ask this.
I mean, just because the wealthy are doing well doesn't mean the poor are doing worse.
The middle class got a tax break, too.
Congratulations.
Maybe the higher income earners got more cash out of it.
Sure.
Is that a bad thing?
I mean, if you're jealous and you think the rich should be paying more in taxes, I don't see that as an actual problem.
Let me put it this way.
I don't care how much money Jeff Bezos has.
I literally don't.
It means nothing to me.
I'm not going to sit here and complain he has too much and it should be taken away.
That doesn't make any sense.
If you want to talk about taxing the wealthy to pay for programs for everybody else, that's different.
It's not about Bezos.
I'm listening.
But the idea that simply because high income earners are doing well, everyone is doing worse makes no sense.
Everybody is getting a tax break from this.
So you can be upset and think Trump is helping his rich buddies, Fine.
But, I guess you can argue that the deficit has gone up, and that is a bad thing.
Well, for complicated reasons.
Like, first and foremost, inflationary reasons.
But most people don't even understand how the national debt works and how it impacts us, and most people don't seem to care.
And they say it'll result in a weaker U.S.
economy.
We just had another record stock market and record low unemployment, so sorry, that's not the case.
When we turn over here to Politico, the other day we can see, economy points to a Trump win, man.
So, look, you know what, man?
The Democrats have spent so much time spinning in circles screeching about the orange, man, they've done nothing to propose anything.
But I'll tell you why they do it, and you've heard me say it before.
Trump's winning?
Well, let's be real, man.
The reason they do Ukrainegate, the reason they do Russiagate, is because Trump is winning.
And they go up on that debate stage, and they all say the same thing, save Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang.
And I was like, I want to pretend like I stood up in my bedroom and started clapping.
No, let's be real, I was sitting in my bed playing some, like, silly Tetris game on my phone, going like, yeah, you go, Tulsi, it's rad.
And, like, eating ice cream or something.
But Tulsi said, We have this partisan impeachment.
She supports the inquiry.
I think that's respectable.
I disagree.
But at least she's saying we can't be divisive.
And I really do feel, I gotta be honest, the only reason she supported impeachment is because the Democrats want it.
The Democrats are polled.
They overwhelmingly want impeachment.
And that's why I think she flipped on it.
Could you imagine?
If Tulsi wanted to stand out and she said, I do not support this impeachment inquiry, they would have went to her first and said, out of everyone on the stage, you're the only one and a member of the House not supporting this.
And she could have said straight up, listen, for years we have been told over and over again, there's scandal after scandal after scandal.
Look, Russiagate didn't turn out.
It turned out to be a big nothing burger.
You want to argue if Trump obstructed, well, you've got a problem.
A lot of people don't care.
They didn't care about Russiagate.
And then when Russiagate turned out to be nothing, now you're going after the minutiae of the investigation?
We can argue that Trump shouldn't have done it?
Fine.
But now the Ukrainegate thing.
This is a complicated, divisive, partisan issue that is not going to win us 2020.
Let's be real.
I know you don't like Trump.
I know you want that emotional vindication.
This is not how you get it.
You get it by saying, listen, here are the problems not being solved.
Here are the issues that he has not fulfilled his promise towards.
And here's what I'm going to do to fix these problems and help make things better for you.
But what do we get?
We all just support impeachment.
Well, at least Andrew Yang said, when we're talking about Trump, we're losing.
And that I was like, bravo, Andrew Yang.
Thank you.
We don't need to just talk about the man and his character and who he is and what he's and what he says.
And that is orange.
I don't care.
Look, man, this is WWE-style politics, and the Democrats don't know how to fight back.
They don't know how to play the game.
So Trump is in the hall... I could be wrong about this.
I'm pretty sure, though.
He's in the WWE Hall of Fame.
He knows how to go up in that ring and say, I am the greatest, the best, with the best proposals, and you will be no more.
And then everyone claps and cheers, and then they wrestle, and, you know, Trump hits somebody with a chair or whatever.
People get rallied by that.
Let me tell you a story.
During Occupy Wall Street, I'll give you two, I'll give you a perfect example of the Democrats and Trump.
During Occupy Wall Street, there was this emergency that happened, I believe it was October 14th, 2011, I could be getting the date wrong, where the city said they were going to shut down the protest, the occupation, because of sanitation issues.
So in the wee hours of the morning, like 2,000 people showed up and cleaned everything, and the city backed down.
With all these people standing around, a couple activists stood up on this elevated planter, because the Zuccotti goes downhill slightly, and so there's this planter, and one guy stands up and he says something like, Uh, you know, mic check.
And then everybody yells and he goes, should we march?
We have a lot of people.
And then everyone just mutters and then turns around and ignores him.
And then this woman yells mic check again.
And then she screams, we won!
Or something like that.
Everyone goes, rah!
And starts screaming back.
And then she goes, now we march!
And then everyone goes, won!
Screams and they all start marching and going wild.
That's called charisma.
And I watched it that day and I laughed because I knew exactly what was going on.
The Democrats are up on stage going, no, no, listen, I think, you know, Trump is, is really bad.
Okay.
And we need to be real about this.
And then Trump is sitting there with a grin on his face, all slick, like going like, look at these losers.
Hey guys, look, look at these losers.
They got no idea what they're talking about.
I got record low unemployment.
I got a booming stock market.
Things are better than ever.
And I've brought your jobs back.
Now, who stands with me?
And then everyone goes, what?
And wiggles their arms in the air.
You can, you know, it reminds me also of, like, I don't know if you watch the King of the Hill episode, where Bobby is trying to do, like, comedy, but nobody laughs.
So Peggy says, you've got to, like, tell people when to laugh.
Seriously.
That's why they have laugh tracks.
And then Bobby tells a joke, and then she laughs, and then spins some things and goes, and then everyone laughs, because they're like, now I know when I'm supposed to laugh.
If you don't have that, if you don't have that, like, cue point, this is why we rally, this is the energy I bring you, you got nothing, man.
And I'll say it for everyone across the board, Yang, Tulsi included, the Democrats don't have that rallying cry.
They don't have the strength and the charisma behind them that Trump has.
Trump goes up on stage and he says big, bold things and then people start clapping and cheering and he looks and he winks at you and he points at you and then people go, oh, and they faint.
Trump does it.
You might not like him.
The left doesn't like him.
It doesn't matter.
It matters that he has that star power.
That's why he has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.
He's a celebrity.
He knows how to play the game.
At the end of the day, you can throw everything aside and take this to the bank with you.
The economy is better than it's been in decades, and Trump has star power.
That's outside of Moody's analytics and the opinions of the pundits.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 PM on this channel, and I will see you all then.
The Democrats are not going to vote to authorize Trump impeachment inquiry, because everything's
a game.
Nothing makes sense.
They don't actually want to impeach the president.
I don't know what they want to do, or they can't.
Whatever the deal is, I am sick and tired of the scandal BS.
Andrew Yang at the debates last night said, when we talk about Trump, we lose.
Bravo, Mr. Yang.
Tulsi Gabbard said we cannot have this divisive, hyper-partisan impeachment inquiry.
She's right.
She should not be supporting it.
But Yang is a politician, so he kind of gets by.
But in the end, I think Yang said it the best.
Stop.
Just stop talking about the guy, man.
Listen, you can talk about him in the sense that things are being done, that there's actions being taken by the president, and we can assess them and be critical of them.
That's totally fair.
But that's not what they're doing.
And now they're not even going to vote on it.
What is this?
Politico.
Pelosi holds off on vote to authorize Trump impeachment inquiry.
And you want to know why?
Members of leadership and vulnerable Democrats were opposed to taking the vote.
Oh, is that it?
You see, there were many moderate Democrats.
They won in 2018 in places that Trump won in 2016.
You know why?
Because Trump did sour on some people.
Some people probably didn't vote.
Some people probably turned on the president.
And some people are probably new voters that have been litten up.
Lighted up?
Whatever the word.
Whatever.
They've lighted up in response to the news cycles and all this stuff.
Fine.
Whatever the reason.
People offered a different kind of politics, a moderate kind of politics.
We're going to talk about the issues.
We're not going to talk about the orange man.
Vote for us.
And so they did.
You know, there's that district in Minnesota I've talked about that's a Democrat stronghold.
They vote for Democrats locally, but they vote for Trump nationally.
And that's really interesting.
But what's interesting is now, They were forced into this impeachment, essentially.
You know, I look at Tulsi Gabbard.
Why she flipped on impeachment, in my opinion?
Because as a Democrat, you have no choice.
I would have much preferred to see her stand defiant and say, it is divisive rhetoric that will do nothing to serve the interests of the Democratic Party.
You can say whatever you want, but it will cost us for generations to come if Trump wins and gets more justices on the Supreme Court.
It's that simple, man.
Impeachment is a waste of time that says nothing to the American people.
Do you want to win?
Or do you want to lose?
Pick one.
Now, they'll say, yes, but Tim, it's not about winning.
It's about the principle and what comes after Trump.
Whatever, man.
Listen, what comes after Trump is going to be Trump Jr.
unless you learn how to actually address core issues and speak to the people.
Like Andrew Yang said, once again, When we're talking about Trump, we're losing.
Bravo!
Because you can't beat Trump at this game.
Trump is probably, if Trump is good at anything, if you're gonna, if you had to pick one thing that you thought Trump was the best at, it is media.
It is the message.
He owns it.
He owns that.
You can't beat him at that game.
You can try, but you're not gonna, you can't play the game of Trump is a scandal, corrupt, don't care, nobody cares, we don't care, you can't beat him.
Trump is the man who brands you.
The best you can do is try and counteract that with personable populist positions and talk about what you don't like in a calm and reasonable way.
But when you get up on stage, start ranting about the end is nigh and Trump is evil bad man.
Sorry, dude.
You're gonna lose people.
Let's read this silly story now.
I mean no disrespect to Politico.
I think they're pretty good.
But it's absurd now that we're at this point where now the Democrats are like, oh no, now we're not gonna vote on impeachment.
Oh.
Okay.
Who saw that coming?
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leaders will hold off on a full House vote authorizing an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, according to multiple lawmakers and aides.
The move came amid opposition from key chairmen and members of leadership, as well as a number of centrist Democrats facing tough re-election bids.
Bravo!
If I thought you were actually interested in moving this country forward and not terrified you're going to lose re-election.
If you're scared of losing re-election and that's why you push policies, you don't deserve to be a politician.
Of course, that's the whole game, right?
Trump, White House officials, and Republicans on Capitol Hill have seized on the absence of such a vote as an unacceptable break with House precedent and have vowed to resist what they describe as an illegitimate probe.
Well, if you're not voting on it, there's no legal impeachment.
You can't just claim it exists, but you didn't vote on it.
Democrats defended their current impeachment process, which has multiple House committees interviewing witnesses in private and gathering evidence related to allegations that Trump and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, pressured Ukrainian officials to begin an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, potentially at the risk of losing U.S.
military aid.
No, not potentially.
That wasn't even a part of it.
Come on, man.
Let's just—it's just—enough with this.
They kicked out—who was it?
Was it Matt Gaetz?
They kicked him out of an interview saying, nope, you can't come in.
What?
It's so incredibly ridiculous that we're at a point now where the Democrats are conducting interviews in secret and our own representatives are being kicked out of these interviews.
This is not democracy.
I'm sorry, it's not a democratic institution of which our republic, you know, institutes.
But if you want to complain about Trump and the Constitution, fine, whatever, but you're going to point to these people having these hearings in secret and kicking out our own representatives?
It should be, Congress, anyone in Congress should have a right to hear what has to be said.
Nope, they're gonna kick you out.
They say there's no requirement that we have a vote at this time.
We will not have a vote, Pelosi told reporters Tuesday evening.
Well, there's no requirement for me to take you seriously, and there's no requirement for me to think you're doing anything other than politicking to try and win for the Democrats in 2020.
We're not here to call bluffs.
We're here to find the truth, to uphold the Constitution of the United States, Pelosi added.
This is not a game for us.
This is deadly serious.
You're lying.
You're a liar.
You're bad people.
You're desperate.
You have nothing to campaign on, and now you're floundering.
You don't like the President.
You don't like the Republicans.
Fine, whatever.
I get it.
There are things I don't like about them, too.
But this is absurd, insane, and is a violation of principles.
These people have widely been adopting the ends justify the means mentality.
There is no truth but power.
That's what they're using.
They don't care about what's fair and honest.
They don't care about principle or having integrity.
They care about winning.
By any means necessary.
And that means they are willing to institute insane policies.
Let me tell you this.
They argued last night at the debate.
They said, we've got to think about the presidency in this country after Trump leaves.
Because one way or another, he's going to leave.
That's true.
He either wins another term, and then he's out, and someone comes in.
Or he gets impeached, whatever.
Or he leaves this term, whatever.
Yeah, Trump will eventually leave.
We all think so.
Thank you.
Thank you, Democrats, for finally saying that.
Because so many people have said, oh, but what if Trump won't leave?
Stop.
We have to think about what's left after Congress pulls political stunts like this for years.
I want to talk about the country we live in now, not the one after Trump, but I'll entertain that idea too.
How about a country where the Democratic candidate wins, and then the Republicans launch a bunch of insane conspiracy investigations for years, and we have to endure the psychosis non-stop forever until it all comes tumbling down.
Russia-gate and now Ukraine-gate.
Enough.
Stop.
Talk about what the American people need.
Talk about the economy.
Stop playing these games.
I am not concerned about what comes next after Trump.
I am concerned about what comes next after all of these insane investigations and the psychotic media cycle.
They say.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters, the processes that are being pursued are consistent with the Constitution and the law.
And by the way, Republican rules.
And you know what?
Trump says the exact same thing about everything he does.
So why should I care what you have to say?
This is where I live, right?
I live in the space where I look to the left, I look to the right, and hear the exact same things in slightly different ways.
The right says the left is conspiracy nonsense, the left says the right is conspiracy nonsense, and you desperately try to figure out what's true and what's not.
I think it's fair to point out that moderates and conservatives have a tacit alignment right now, agreement, an alliance, because the left has gone truly nuts.
It wasn't always this way.
Remember, you know, Barack Obama, he compromised.
There was a sane middle of the road where you could have true leadership.
And Obama did a bunch of really bad things.
Sometimes compromise isn't the right answer.
Sometimes something is true and right and you have to hold your ground.
I get all that.
Sometimes you have a president who does really, really bad foreign policy.
But let's be honest.
You compare Obama to what we have on the stage the other night?
Nothing.
Sorry.
There are certain things that I like about some of those candidates, but in the end, what we have now is a left running wild and blaming the president.
And the worst thing Trump is guilty of is being boorish, crass, and acting inappropriately.
Okay.
You know, when it comes to the Biden-Ukraine stuff, they're like, oh, no, he wanted an investigation into a rival.
It's like, dude, running for president doesn't make you immune from scrutiny.
Enough.
Hunter Biden, he came on an interview and said he probably only got these jobs because he was his dad's son.
Oh, great.
That exonerates you.
Great.
You tell us straight up you're getting all this money because of nepotism.
No, no, we still don't like that.
And you know what?
If you have a sworn affidavit from a prosecutor saying you did something wrong, perhaps there should be an investigation.
We can't live in a world where the Democrats say, well, Trump should face investigation then if he's got nothing to hide, right?
Okay, great, then so should Joe Biden and all the other Democrats who were involved in the 2016 nonsense.
This is the game being played.
Trump wants to investigate Biden.
Fine, whatever.
Right?
Fine, do it.
They investigated Trump for three years, fine, whatever.
Investigate Trump, investigate Biden, great.
Just tell me what the truth is.
But the Democrats are playing the same game.
Or I should say, the Democrats started the game.
Where they're like, well, what's wrong with an impeachment inquiry?
It doesn't mean Trump did anything wrong.
We're just going to investigate.
This is why I really, really think the whole thing was a mistake.
I think Tulsi should not have endorsed this.
Because how can you stand on the side that refuses to actually hold a vote on whether or not this should be happening?
They try to say, oh, the polls show approval for impeachment is going up.
Yeah, whatever, dude.
The aggregate still shows that most people do not want this.
Moderates don't want it.
Republicans don't want it.
There are slightly more moderates now, according to these polls, who support it than don't.
Fine.
And Democrats, of course, support it because they've always supported it.
In the end, congratulations.
You have not held a vote.
You are acting on your own, taking executive action that I disagree with.
You are dividing the country.
You are addressing none of our problems because the orange man is bad.
Andrew Yang.
Man, he makes a lot of really, really important points.
He's a good dude.
He said, this impeachment process will do nothing to address the underlying issues that got Trump elected in the first place.
Thank you, Andrew Yang.
Thank you.
Man, I love that performance by Yang last night.
Let's be real, okay?
This is a game for you.
You're not talking about any of these issues.
And you know what's really funny?
The best they could offer up, Warren, was Trump's response.
Warren says, no, we're losing jobs because of bad trade deals.
I'm like, okay, great.
Well, Trump's already president.
So why should we vote for you?
Oh, because the orange man is bad and we're going to impeach him.
There it is.
Elizabeth Warren can't offer up anything other than what Trump has already said, bad trade deals, that he's going to renegotiate.
So you want to impeach him.
And that's why they won't hold the vote.
And that's why I'm grateful for people like Yang and Tulsi who at least get a glimpse of reality up there on that stage, I gotta admit.
I will say this, I think Tulsi could have done a better job, sure.
But Yang did fantastic.
And therein lies the point.
Pelosi privately told other Democrats she was agnostic on the issue, according to an aide.
And here we are.
Great.
Pelosi told her colleagues that she only has license this caucus gives me, meaning she wouldn't pressure her rank and file to hold the vote.
You know what, man?
It's a scam.
It's a game.
And that's it.
That's it.
They're not voting on it.
End of story.
They don't care.
All they want to do is dig up dirt.
I'll tell you what's going to happen.
They're not going to impeach.
They know they're not going to impeach.
The Senate's not going to convict.
It's never going to happen.
They want to dig up dirt.
They want to subpoena his tax returns.
And they want to use this faux impeachment as a guise to do it.
The Democrats... You know what, man?
I think the moderates are scared of losing their jobs.
I need to get re-elected!
And the other Democrats are like, let's just burn it all to the ground.
Listen, man.
I'll tell you this right now.
This is not a freebie to Republicans, okay?
Absolutely not.
Mitch McConnell, there's a lot to criticize the guy for.
Especially, it's all political.
For the time being, it's mostly the Democrats that are acting insane and falling for these traps.
And I have no problem calling them out, but we'll leave it where it is.
Impeachment, nonsense, I'm sick of it.
Next segment's coming up at 4pm on the main channel, youtube.com slash timcast.
And I've got a big, um...
We're gonna be talking about some very serious issues.
YouTube suppressed my video yesterday and I need to discuss what's going on and the mass social engineering that is going to be taking place.
And I'll tell you how it's coming down.
Stick around.
I'll see you at 4 p.m.
From Buzzfeed News, a British family say they're being detained in the U.S.
in disgusting conditions after accidentally crossing the border.
Quote, we are in disbelief that a government would do this to human beings, said the 24-year-old British woman who was being detained with her three-month-old baby.
Now, BuzzFeed certainly loves framing this story to benefit those who are being detained, using specific adjectives to refer to their conditions, disgusting, cold, and things of that nature.
If you want to just know the gist of the story without any of the fluff or patter, I'll tell you this.
A group of travelers were in Canada.
It was four people, I believe.
They were driving parallel to the U.S.
border and then drove through a ditch entering the U.S.
and were detained by immigration personnel, by border patrol, and then transferred to detention facilities facing deportation.
Canada refused them re-entry and they were unable to get a hold of the U.K.
to figure out what to do with those who illegally entered the U.S.
Now that being said, let's talk about the framing.
Well, BuzzFeed certainly says they say after being accidentally... Well, BuzzFeed, why would you go by what they say?
They're criminals, right?
Listen.
Innocent until proven guilty.
We don't know what happened, but we have a- He said, she said.
This is the problem.
Now, are we gonna pretend like people accidentally drove through a ditch into the US?
Come on, man.
But that's how BuzzFeed's gonna frame it, so let's play the game, and let me read- read you- read this for you, and try and break down the false framing, so we can try and figure out what's hidden beneath the surface of BuzzFeed, for some reason, trying to make these people seem like they didn't do anything wrong.
Okay, I'm biased, but let's play the game.
Let's read.
BuzzFeed says, A vacationing British family who said they made an unexpected detour at the U.S.-Canada border and were subsequently detained by U.S.
immigration authorities described it as the scariest experience of our entire lives, but border officials are disputing the family's account.
Eileen Connors, 24, said she was visiting Vancouver, Canada in early October with her 30-year-old husband and 3-month-old baby.
Connor said her husband's cousin was driving close to the US-Canada border when he made a brief detour on an unmarked road to avoid hitting an animal, entered the United States, and were detained by an officer.
Now, stop.
That's possible.
It makes sense.
You're driving down the road, and all of a sudden you see a dead moose chilling, and you're like, how do we get around this?
Let's just take this road on the side, and we'll go around.
And then, oops, you entered the US.
That's possible, right?
Well, let's read on.
When we said we did not even know, and we did not intend to cross, the officer said it did not make a difference, and we would all go into the custody of the United States, Conor said in a sworn statement.
This is how the scariest experience of our entire lives started.
It's already so frustrating how BuzzFeed's like, they're saying it was the scariest- Stop!
Stop.
That's not part of the story.
But the way they're setting this up, they want you to sympathize with those being detained.
And I'll prove it.
The statement, which was redacted, did not identify the family, but the Connors were named in multiple media reports.
Family's account of being held in cold and dirty U.S.
immigration detention facilities without enough food has since garnered international attention and echoed statements from immigrants, many of them from Central America, who have been held by U.S.
authorities.
What did the authorities say about that?
Why do we always play it like, you know, this is what BuzzFeed does.
And this is why AllSides.com recently shifted BuzzFeed to heavily left-wing bias, saying they frequently frame stories to benefit leftist perspectives.
Because, let's read.
Customs and Border Protection officials said in a statement Tuesday that the Connors vehicle was observed via a remote video camera traveling west on a road that runs parallel to the US-Canada at 9 p.m.
Okay.
Let me ask you a question.
Do you think the CBP is lying?
They said there's a video, right?
Okay, great.
So that means when they actually go to court, we're gonna have video of what happened?
I really... Look, man.
I have never been a big fan of law enforcement.
I'm very anti-authority, and I have numerous stories of cops abusing their power, but I really don't think they would claim to have a video unless they did.
Now, they'll claim evidence was destroyed.
I've seen claims, I didn't see anything, or who knows what really happened, but it's different when you claim to have something.
If a cop says, we witnessed nothing, I saw nothing, did you see nothing?
Let's say there's two cops, and one cop breaks the law.
The other cop can go, I didn't see anything, or they turn the cameras off.
In this instance, they're saying, we have a remote video camera showing them do this.
That's a pretty bold claim!
They're gonna have to show that video, aren't they?
Well, I, I, let's, let's, let's, let's keep reading.
The car, which was carrying four other British citizens, was pulled over by Border Patrol agents shortly after crossing the border, CBP said.
And all occupants were apprehended on suspicion of illegally entering the U.S.
without inspection.
The seven British citizens, four adults and three children, were processed by CBP and later handed over to ICE.
During processing, here we go, record checks revealed two of the adults were previously denied travel authorization to come to the United States, CBP said.
Attempts were made to return the individuals to Canada, however, Canada refused to allow their return and two attempts to contact the Consulate for the United Kingdom were unsuccessful.
Bridget Kambria, the Conor's attorney, said in a tweet that CBP's statement doesn't contradict what the family said other than the car entered the U.S.
deliberately.
So what?
They did enter deliberately under their own statement.
Now, you want to argue deliberate means they were trying to get into the U.S.?
No.
The law doesn't state you have to intend to come here.
No, no, no, no.
You come over the border bringing people who are denied entry.
Sorry, you broke the law.
Listen, if you go to a store and you take a big ol' box of candy bars and then forget to pay and walk out of the store, guess what's gonna happen?
You're gonna get arrested for shoplifting if they catch you, and they're not going to take your word for it that it was an accident.
That's not how things work.
Sure, you can have a jury trial or a judge, you know, but listen, man.
Do you know how often people enter, you know, people break the law and then go, I didn't mean to, or they say, those aren't mine.
And then you have to take into consideration that they had two people with them who were denied entry.
Now it sounds like a bunch of friends who wanted to come to the US and they were like, We can't because, you know, John and Jane can't get through the border.
Let's drive down this road and drive through the ditch.
And then when they got caught, they went, no, it was an accident.
Oh, you drove through a ditch on accident.
That's possible.
CBP is lying.
But I don't believe that.
You know why?
I have to imagine.
If they really did have on camera them doing all of these things, for one, they'd be telling the truth.
But think about this.
Let's say they accidentally drove down this dirt road and entered the U.S.
You think CBP just randomly wants to deal with all the paperwork and the work when they could be sitting in their car, chilling, watching funny videos on their phone?
Come on, man.
Look, I get it, there are overzealous law enforcement officers who want to just throw the book at people, but I'd have to bet, if somebody accidentally turned down a road, and for some reason CBP happened to be there to see them, they'd be like, turn around, what are you doing?
What?
And they said, oh, it was an accident, you'd be like, get out of here, turn around.
It's possible they might arrest him, but think about the circumstances.
Either CBP has them on camera doing it, and then said, hey, we got some guys on, you know, camera driving down, can you go apprehend them?
Or it just so happened that CBP was sitting right there when they crossed in.
Now, let's be real.
If they accidentally turned down this road, don't you think if they saw CBP right there, they'd have been like, that's American.
Like, maybe we shouldn't go down this road.
No.
What likely happened is, they had friends who couldn't get in, they took a turn down this road, drove through a ditch trying to illegally enter the U.S., CBP saw it on a remote cam, sent out patrol officers to go apprehend them, and then did.
Because again, I'll stress, what?
It's just like, there's a CBP officer right there watching them cross, and then they're like, aha!
So maybe they didn't drive through a ditch, but if their lawyer is saying the statement doesn't contradict what the family said, are you saying the family also claimed they drove through a ditch?
And all you're contesting is whether it was intentional or not?
Dude, the person had to choose to turn left and drive through that ditch.
But again, I'll defer back to the other argument.
If you accidentally commit a crime, no one's gonna believe it was an accident, okay?
There are certain circumstances, not all crime, it's not all black and white, but for the most part, dude, you illegally crossed a border with people who weren't allowed in.
I'm not gonna take your word for it.
They go on to say a bunch of things about they were being held in ice boxes, very cold detention centers.
And what's really annoying is like, listen, man, I get that you've described the detention center as cold, as very cold, fine.
But they keep doing things where they, like, check this out.
David, who was initially held in a cold cell for hours, whoa, whoa, whoa, stop.
I get it.
But why are you describing it as a cold cell?
Isn't that weird?
In the story, they say, where they dropped off David, who was initially held in a cold cell for hours.
Why do I care if the cell is hot or cold?
Was the light halogen or was it fluorescent?
I don't care!
But the lights were very yellow and it was annoying for me.
It was very uncomfortable.
So what?
The lights were green.
These are irrelevant points being made.
What BuzzFeed is doing, in my opinion, is what they always do.
They frame things one way and say, but we're telling the truth!
The room was cold!
It's like, I get it, man.
they're playing the dihydrogen monoxide hoax they use key details
to frame the story so you have an image in your mind of these british citizens
who are wearing nice suits, drinking their tea with pinkies out, driving in
their car and hitting a bump and then getting surrounded by evil red-eyed
CBP snarling with fangs and grabbing them and throwing them in a cell
when in reality it's probably a bunch of hippie kids
who knew what they were doing, came in and they're put in a cell like everybody else
dude when you're being detained for a crime it's not an obligation to give you a five-star hotel
now look man I'll be the first to say private prisons are bad
we need to have a better system for dealing with crime
and for dealing with illegal immigration and all these things
i think we can do better to make cells more comfortable i've been arrested
I've been in a jail cell, man.
It is un- it is not cool.
What they- you get like a concrete slab to lay on, and they never turn the lights off.
And I got to spend like, you know, 15 hours in a room with no windows, having no idea what was going on, and there was no one anywhere, and that is- that messes you up, especially after a long period of time.
I get it.
And I'll stress at this point, like, I did nothing wrong when I got arrested.
I was skateboarding and the judge got mad and threw it out.
It's a long story.
Skateboarders, you know what I'm talking about.
I was skating.
They tried charging me with a felony for riding my skateboard downtown Chicago because the ground is owned by the federal government.
And the judge got angry.
He was like, get out of here.
What are you doing?
And he yelled at the cops.
It was awesome.
It was awesome.
But I got to go to jail.
And that was not pleasant.
And I've been to other jails that are actually a bit more, I don't want to say pleasant, but not as bad.
We'll put it that way.
But come on, let's be real.
Right now you've got BuzzFeed trying to have a public trial.
They're trying to frame the story, and I'm not interested in that, okay?
These are people who did something wrong, that's admitted, and you're claiming it was an accident.
Okay, great.
They'll be locked up.
We'll have a court decide.
In fact, they're just trying to deport them.
But there you go.
BuzzFeed trying to frame it.
I'll leave it there because I do try to keep these short.
Stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes.
But I don't know.
Let me know what you think.
I think BuzzFeed's playing games.
I'll see you in a few minutes.
Well, he's finally come and done it.
Beto O'Rourke finally let the mask slip.
And that is, he is going to come to your house and seize your private property protected under the Second Amendment.
You see, Beto O'Rourke has repeatedly called for seizing AR-15s and AKs, etc.
Beto has also made nonsensical statements where he's like, we're not talking about shotguns or handguns.
These are weapons designed for war.
Hold on.
No, they're not, Beto.
You have no idea what you're talking about, and you are the worst.
You're absolute worst.
I will say, during the debate, I'm very proud of my joke.
I said, I like it when they ask Beto questions, because then I can run to the kitchen and grab snacks.
That's how little I care about what you have to say, because you're an insane person who's trying to be bombastic.
Everybody knows it.
I was watching, it was like, first of all, I got a better story for you.
So we have this.
Beto finally said law enforcement will show up to your house.
You'll get a visit from law enforcement.
Fine.
But surprisingly, CNN host Allison Camerota pressed Beto O'Rourke and made him look like the fool he is.
But even better than that, I was watching, I believe it was a Fox News segment.
Where someone pointed out exactly what I was saying the other day, that Beto is trying to be bombastic and say the most insane, nonsensical things possible, like, we're gonna strip tax-exempt status from churches.
No, dude, that's called the First Amendment.
We're gonna come and take away all your guns.
No, dude, that's called the Second Amendment.
And Beto then says, we're not talking about handguns and shotguns.
Did you even read the law that's been promoted?
You know what, Beto?
You're either dumb as a box of rocks, or you're just a really bad person.
And I'm gonna have to go with the latter.
I'm not gonna sit here and pretend like Beto's the smartest guy in the world, but seriously, he is misleading people.
The assault weapons ban would include many handguns.
I think it may have been revised, fact check me on this one, but I did a big thing about it before where they're talking about...
The rules on assault guns are so broad that it would ban handguns, too, except for, like, revolvers.
So, yeah, Beto, you're wrong.
They're talking about showing up to your house and taking everything.
Okay, almost everything.
I'm being a little hyperbolic.
But here was the epic slam dunk.
CNN host, Allison Camerota, rips into Beto O'Rourke gun plan.
I did not see this coming from CNN of all places.
Beto was asked, how will you... Actually, let me just read this, because you're going to love it.
And you're going to say, CNN did that?
Really?
Oh yeah, CNN did that.
Check this out.
CNN morning anchor, Alison Camerota, pressed 2020 presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke on how he plans on implementing his gun confiscation proposal.
We now know he's going to go to your house, but let's read.
O'Rourke, who faced similar criticisms from fellow presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg during Tuesday's Democratic presidential primary debate, was interviewed on CNN the following morning by Camerota.
This was, I believe this was this morning.
Quote, how do you plan to get assault weapons away from people who don't want to give them up?
The host asked on Wednesday.
And Beto then says, as with any law in this country, we would expect our fellow Americans to follow the law.
The former Texas representative echoed his answer from the debate.
We're a nation of laws and no person is above the law, no matter how much they may disagree with a given law.
This is the right thing to do, and I fully expect my fellow Americans to follow the law.
He went on to bring up Australia's ban of automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, which went into effect after a mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania that left 35 people dead in 96.
And I will also stress, Australia has substantially less firearms and substantially less people, but I digress.
Let's read on.
And here's the quote, the slam dunk from CNN.
Seriously.
Quote, you expect mass shooters to follow the law?
Camerota pushed back.
Congressmen, mass shooters by definition, they don't follow the law.
Followed by stunned silence from Beto O'Rourke.
Now I'll be real, it's a little hyperbolic.
Many people tried playing this game, but in reality it wasn't stun silence, it was just satellite delay.
As much as we would like to pretend that beta was like, I can't answer the question, what do I do?
And that is, no, it's a satellite delay of a few seconds.
But I think it's funny to say.
So no, no, no, I was just being hyperbolic.
But we do see, or I should say I was exaggerating.
There are often times, I've seen people do this with Beto and others, where they're like shocked, they couldn't respond quickly enough.
It's like, no, it's because they're not using Skype.
It's because they're using satellite feeds with massive latency.
Uh, Beto did have a, you know, moderate response, but let's be real.
I'm gonna do a takedown of what Beto's been claiming, because Beto has no idea what he's talking about or he's lying to you.
O'Rourke responded by reiterating his claim that people will follow the law, but Camerota did not relent.
The former congressman continued, there are so many instances where the proposals that we've made, whether it is a universal background check or a red flag law or ending the sale of weapons of war or buying those that are out there back, would have stopped many of the shootings we've seen in a country that loses 40,000 people a year to gun violence.
Would it stop every single shooting?
No.
But that should be no excuse for not taking action now while we have the opportunity to do the right thing.
In another interview Wednesday morning, O'Rourke admitted that law enforcement officials would likely visit AR-15 owners who refuse to turn in their guns under his plan.
I'd like to stop real quick and tell you a quick story before I get into tearing down Beto O'Rourke's stupid comments and talking about why he's an awful, awful human being who should not be allowed at these debates.
There was an older gentleman.
Who expressed something at a dinner with his family.
And this is a true story.
And he said something that I believe it was his sister or someone thought was alarming.
So they called the police.
I believe this was Maryland.
The police responded under red flag laws to seize his firearms.
Well, this gentleman, not knowing who was coming to his door, answered the door with his firearm.
And when the police entered the door, he refused to give up his weapons because it's a constitutional right.
And you know what happened?
He was shot and killed.
Because I'll tell you this right now.
If you think gun owners will act in defiance of the Constitution because you passed a red flag law, you got another thing coming, Beto.
People will follow the law, like that guy did?
No.
That guy said, when an unjust law is brought to my door, then he will respond in an unjust way, or whatever.
I can't remember what the saying is.
But it's basically like, when you try and pass a law that is unjust, don't be surprised when people defy that law.
And if the Constitution says that rights shall not be infringed, and you show up to a person's house without warning, and they don't know why, and you say, give us your weapon, don't be surprised when they say, never gonna happen.
So Beto, why don't you take a look at what's actually happened in this country, and maybe take a step back and realize, you were wrong.
More importantly though, I can look at what he said about seizing weapons.
We can look at what he said about credit card companies cutting off legal businesses, calling on massive multinational corporations to do his bidding.
Beto is an evil, sick, disgusting person.
He is saying these things to get attention, okay?
He knows, but here's the funniest part, it ain't working.
And that's the worst part of it.
He is a slimy loser.
You guys know I rarely insult people, but Beto I see as being one of the most twisted and disgusting individuals.
He is capitalizing off of mass shootings and misrepresenting what's actually going on to benefit himself to get press attention on a debate stage that is slime, that is complete disgusting crust that grows in the underseat of a bus stop seat.
He is an evil, disgusting individual.
He is capitalizing off of the hurt, off of the victims, he is misrepresenting what's being said, he is not addressing the actual issues, and he is just saying the most insane, bombastic things possible to get attention.
You normally don't see me this angry.
But let me tell you something, Beto.
When you talk about the 40,000 people a year to gun violence, what he's not telling you is that a tiny, tiny fraction of that has anything to do with AR-15s.
He's not telling you that AR-15s are not weapons of war.
They are basically standard semi-auto rifles that exist in many forms in many ways.
And that's why you'll often hear people in the news say, AR-15 style rifle.
I'm not a gun person.
I can say that.
But I'll tell you this, those 40,000, most of which, suicide.
Tragedy.
It's just people taking the weapon and ending their own life.
And more importantly, you want to play this game by citing these people who lost their lives to push your insane agenda of going door to door and confiscating something protected under the Second Amendment?
You already have many restrictions on many of our constitutional rights.
There are speech restrictions.
I don't completely disagree.
There are restrictions on certain weapons.
Honestly, I don't completely disagree.
I am a rather, you know, leaning to the left person on this issue.
But you know what I do disagree with?
The ends justifying the means.
Lying and deceit.
You know what I would say to you?
Listen, there's a reason why we ban, for the most part, belt-fed, high-capacity, .50 caliber, whatever, right?
I don't mean all in one.
I mean, breaking those apart.
We don't ban all .50 caliber, actually.
There's a lot of weapons you can buy.
And admittedly, you can actually buy belt-fed under, I believe it's the National Firearms Act, you can get grandfathered in weapons and stuff like that.
So there are restrictions.
I understand them.
I disagree with some, I agree with some.
The point is, if I give you a good reason, and you understand that reason why we're going to implement something, that's how we move forward as a country.
If people in this country, the majority polled, believe that background checks make sense, then perhaps we go with background checks.
I mean, look, if most people like the majority, fine.
Red flag laws, on the other hand, are very, very controversial and misunderstood.
And Beto, wanting to get his agenda passed, has even threatened to use monopolistic authoritarian tactics using major corporations.
This dude is sick.
He is... this is the... as far authoritarian as you can go.
Now look, for me, I'm on the libertarian spectrum.
That means there's left and right libertarian.
You can be, believe it or not, libertarian communist really does exist.
A lot of people are like, that's not true, that's not a thing, because they think libertarian, and in the United States we have the Libertarian Party, it's the big L.
But I'll tell you an easy example.
Libertarian communism is like 12 hippies on a farm.
It's the easiest way to explain it.
They're sitting around and Jim goes, uh, hey, I grew a bunch of watermelons.
Do you guys want some?
Oh, thanks, Jim.
And then someone else says, like, would someone mind washing the ditches while I go walk the dog?
Oh, I'll do it.
That's how easy it is to have libertarian communism.
At any point, you can just leave.
The problem is you can't scale that up.
So, most people don't see that.
They ignore it because, in reality, it's not scalable.
I mean, it is to an extent.
Beto O'Rourke is the complete other end.
You cannot go further authoritarian than calling on massive tech finance monopolies like MasterCard and Visa to suspend a constitutional right that is literally as authoritarian as it comes.
This is why I think Beto is evil.
Because he's not doing it because he believes in it.
He's doing it to exploit the hurt and pain people are feeling with lies to gain political power.
This is a man who should never be allowed anywhere near a ballot box or whatever.
I'm done.
I got another segment coming up in a few minutes.
I'll see you all shortly.
So I'm just gonna go, I'm gonna talk pretty freely.
If you watched my main channel video today, it was about YouTube wanting me to social engineer you guys.
And I use this channel as kind of a, it separates the two.
Not for any rules reasons, it's actually for a very specific reason.
The first reason why I have this channel Is that I want the biggest stories to be for my main channel because my main channel was first, it's the flagship, and I decided to make more content.
So if I feel like doing something else I'll put it on here, but I always try to save the biggest stories for my main channel.
The other thing is I care a lot less about this channel so I don't mind talking about things.
I made a video talking about Antifa violence, and they hard suppressed the video.
Like, views were gone, if you didn't see the segment from earlier.
It was because I was talking about Antifa, Project Veritas, and CNN.
Using Veritas' reporting, which exposed CNN, as being very, very ratings-driven, where the president has no idea what's going on, and he's like, I don't care, just talk about impeachment, blah, it's money.
I'm being very, very hyperbolic.
He didn't say it's all about money.
He was saying, just talk about impeachment.
Well, the point I was making is that so long as CNN defends Antifa and props them up, people will be scared and will fall in line because it feels mainstream.
Antifa is not mainstream, they're fringe.
That was the point of the video and YouTube suppressed it.
It's kind of ironic, right?
The video where I was like, this is why!
And they suppressed the video most likely because of negative press and they're scared.
That's the world we live in and CNN plays that part.
Take a look at this story.
Jordan Peterson documentary screenings cancelled after reports of violent threats surfaced.
Why yes, this is why we can't have nice things.
A documentary about Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson has reportedly been cancelled in multiple locations amid complaints and threats of violence from left-wing activists.
Now I have to be careful even on this channel as to how I read this quote from Antifa because it doesn't matter what the context is.
They might actually delete this channel or give me a strike or whatever simply for showing you this story.
So I want to talk about two things.
I do want to give you the news on Jordan Peterson but I want to talk about the social engineering problem now that I can speak much more freely on this channel.
Fair warning, the threat stated, directed at the pastor.
It reads, several community organizations are planning to shut down your showing of the Jordan Peterson propaganda film.
While many of us aren't Christian, and some even flat out condemn the religion, we do not want any harm to come to your place of worship or those within.
They then go on to say that they can't allow fascism to continue, and they will not tolerate its presence in our city.
Peterson.
Fascist.
These people are psychotic.
Whether it is on the streets or on the waterfront or in the church, they said, do the right thing.
They then go on to make a point about how they're gonna start bringing out guillotines.
Guillotine?
Guillotine?
I don't know, whatever.
How do you pronounce it?
It's French.
So here's the thing.
On my main channel, I wanted to highlight what Antifa was doing.
YouTube told me that was unacceptable.
Think about what that means.
The story had to do with the executive director of the Oregon Democrats defending Antifa.
And I'll give you the gist.
Here we can see something that happened to me.
I was putting on an event near my own home, and Antifa sent threats to the theater, and the theater bent over backwards, and we are engaging in a legal battle with them.
I'll let you know what the developments are on that, but it may be a long fight, but we're not going to stop.
We'll never stop.
Because when these businesses bend over to these fringe lunatics, the problem expands and gets worse.
And it must be stopped.
The only way we know how to do it is legally, right?
Because we're not the activists.
I don't go on Twitter and say, hey everybody, call this place and tell them you're upset or something.
We don't do that.
We try to be amicable and we try to be fair.
Well, now Jordan Peterson's documentary is getting shut down due to these threats.
And so Peterson responded, I thought collaboration would be in our mutual interest.
Divinity schools are trying desperately hard in the modern world to retain their credibility, authority, and voice.
I don't think there is a phenomena comparable to what happened when I released my lectures on Genesis.
So there's a little bit more we can get into on the details of Jordan Peterson being shut down, but I want to talk about the social engineering a bit.
and how this plays into it and how this needs to be stopped or why this needs to be stopped.
It's a combination of things, right? In my video I basically said that when CNN defends Antifa,
probably because they're scared of Antifa, I don't know, because they don't like Trump,
whatever Trump says they oppose, then people like this pastor and this theater
see on the TV that someone praises Antifa.
And so they think, I mean, those people are nuts, but if I come out and say, you know, look, if I come out and denounce them, then the press is going to call me the bad guy.
That's right.
Because Antifa means anti-fascist.
Didn't you know this?
And they say over and over again, if you're against Antifa, you must be a fascist.
Isn't that funny how they play that game?
So if Antifa threatens your place of business or worship, and you say no, they'll say you're a fascist, right?
Why would anyone disagree with Antifa?
The point I made is, we put on our event, it was an anti-racism event, and I said, anyone protest, you know, I said, they say that Antifa means anti-fascist, so if you're against them, you must be a fascist, great.
Well, our event is anti-racism, so if you protest this, you must be pro-racism, right?
The threats continue.
The events continue.
I'm sorry, the events get shut down.
And this is the goal.
The goal is to increase the cost.
And it works twofold.
CNN, actually it's threefold now.
Let me go into detail.
CNN props them up in the mainstream.
So regular Americans feel like if you're on the wrong side, you're the outgroup.
Nobody wants to be the outgroup.
Antifa then can do whatever they want because CNN has praised them over and over again.
And these businesses are scared.
The TV said these are the good guys, right?
What am I going to do?
They're threatening to cause harm.
They must be the good guys, I guess.
No.
Everybody knows they're the bad guys.
Everybody knows the dude running around in a black mask threatening violence is the bad guy.
But CNN said they were the good guys.
So what happens?
They bend over backwards.
Now let me bring you to phase three of the problem we're facing.
When YouTube says, independent commentary criticizing these actions will not be tolerated.
And then my video gets suppressed because I was trying to show you what they had done.
Fortunately, they released the censorship and brought the video back, but the views were still slashed by two-thirds.
The video has substantially less views than videos I normally do.
Between 250 and 350, it's got 120.
It may have gone up by now.
Because after they release the suppression, people start seeing it again.
And people, guess what?
They expect to see my videos, so they're sitting there questioning me.
I'm getting emails saying, where's your video?
It's not popping up.
I can't find it.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I get it, man.
I'm sorry, guys.
YouTube's playing this game.
But if I can't come out and say, CNN needs to stop mainstreaming Antifa, then no one can.
And no one will.
And where do you think that leads us in the future?
CNN's quest for ratings and dramatic opposition to Trump will lead them to always be defending Antifa.
Now, they've been a little hard sometimes on them, but for the most part, nope.
Trump said they were bad, therefore they must be good.
And then you're going to find all of the small businesses, the Jordan Peterson documentary showings, seriously at a church, getting shut down.
Because the average person is being told by the mainstream establishment, this is what you must do or else.
To break down what I think came from Andrew Breitbart about... Actually, let me just stop.
This is something I've cited many, many times.
I think it's fantastic, and it came from Breitbart.
Something about how we're all standing on the other side of this fire, and everyone's scared of it.
And that when you walk through it, on the other side, you'll find people are living normal lives.
I don't know exactly what he said.
It was something about walking towards the fire and not being scared.
But the general idea is most people who do not engage in politics have no idea what's
going on.
And they see the TV showing you fire saying, fire good.
Do not question fire.
And the fire is destroying things around you and you're terrified of it.
If I challenge this and try and stop the flames from destroying the things around me, everyone's gonna get mad because the man on the TV said it was a good thing that I'm watching my house, you know, go up in flames.
But you can walk past it and you can come out to the outside where you're no longer surrounded by the violence and the insanity and everyone's living a fine and normal life.
That's the outgroup, though.
No one wants to be on the outgroup.
There's a lot of money inside those walls of fire, but there's freedom outside the walls of fire, and there's truth and there's justice.
Antifa are the bad guys.
The fire analogy is not all-encompassing.
There are certainly fires all over the place, and you'll never know if you're truly out.
Certainly the right is locked within their own biases, the same as the left in many ways.
In this particular instance, though, I think we can all agree.
Regular people don't like Antifa.
But I'll tell you this regular people, because the people who have come to me and told me they know Antifa's bad but won't say anything about it, listen, at a certain point, you don't deserve my sympathy.
I'm sorry.
If you're unwilling to stand up so that other people suffer, at a certain point, you have a responsibility too.
There are a lot of people who are willing to stand up and take the flak and take the risk and good on them.
There are people who are brave and lose their jobs blowing the whistle going to undercover journalists like Project Veritas.
They put their lives at risk, their livelihoods, it's not like they're going to die or anything, but their careers.
Because they have to do what's right.
But if all of these people at CNN who have been exposed, who we know don't believe in the mission, refuse to stand up and tell us and tell everyone else enough Then all that will happen is everyone will be stuck huddling behind the fire, terrified, while it burns down around them.
You know what, man?
Not me.
I would rather live in the middle of the woods in a mud hut than ever be told that I have to get on my knees.
It's not gonna happen.
It'll never, never happen.
Now, I will admit there's strategy involved, right?
Like I mentioned on my main channel.
I will.
I will blur, I will censor a little bit to the extent that I have to because for the most part my content is rather tepid and I rarely have to deal with this.
But it means that I can still communicate and sort of pass notes out from that side of the fire, right?
Imagine we're in this prison room and people are too scared to say anything.
Well, I'll slide those notes out and tell people what's really going on.
But the truth is the only real reason I have no fear is because I have multiple options and because I know what I'm doing.
So there's strategy involved.
While my main channel, I won't be able to talk about Antifa and Project Veritas and these things because they will suppress it, I can put it on this channel.
And this channel gets comparable viewership.
And it will appear in my podcast.
Make sure you check out the podcast.
Tim Pool Daily Show on all podcast platforms.
So as long as I'm still able to speak freely to the public, I'm not super concerned about it.
It's not black and white.
But I will stress, we are entering that world where eventually, I will get cut off all the same.
I've said it, the cliffs are eroding.
And you can see now they've come for my main channel, undue scrutiny, shutting me down and preventing me from telling you that Antifa was vandalizing Democrat HQ.
I wonder why?
Maybe it's because they don't want people to realize?
I can only assume it's a conspiracy to help Trump get elected, I have no idea.
Don't tell anybody the Democrats are supporting Antifa?
Why not?
Why not?
Maybe they want Antifa.
I don't know.
But I'll tell you what, man.
I'll say it a million times.
When I was younger, I was always confused about these complaints about wait staff getting paid too little.
And I was like, why don't they just all quit?
Just quit.
I had a friend who was a teacher.
And she said, we're not getting paid fairly.
And I said, so strike.
She said, I can't.
It's illegal.
That's right.
Public sector unions can't strike in many areas.
I don't know the full laws.
And I said, so why don't you all quit?
And then she was like, I don't know.
And I'm like, what do you think a strike was, dude?
Because the reality is they're scared and they don't want to strike.
A real strike is when you say, I've had enough.
You know, I'm angry and I can't take it anymore.
I'm out.
As long as they're willing to say, but the rules are supposed to protect us so we don't have to quit.
Okay, well then you're not really striking if you ask me.
There was a strike going on in Chicago for decades.
I don't even know it's still going on at this hotel.
Because they said enough.
And they don't work there anymore, basically.
But they still strike.
That's amazing.
You want to talk about, you know, a strike?
You want to talk about being brave?
Everyone needs to stand up.
Because I'll tell you this, if everyone stood up at the same time and said enough with the insanity, it would stop.
It would absolutely stop.
But so long as these people, like Antifa, I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see you guys tomorrow at 10am, podcast at 6.30.
