Record Number Of African Migrants Reach US Border, But Trump's Rules Cause 70% Drop In Immigration
Record Number Of African Migrants Reach US Border, But Trump's Rules Cause 70% Drop In Immigration. The number of African migrants seeking asylum in the US has been steadily increasing since the number started being tracked in 2007.From 2018 to day the number has more than doubled at 5,800.But this raises several questionsAmid Trump's new rules on immigration the number of migrants both legal or otherwise has dropped by around 70%. Many people ordered to wait in Mexico gave up their refugee claims and returned home. Apprehensions under the Trump Administration also spiked recently.With all of these facts how could it be that more migrants from Africa are coming?The bigger question many have is why are these people taking an extremely dangerous journey and risking their families lives traveling half way around the world to come to the US border. They could certainly stay in any one of the countries they pass through if the goal truly is to escape some kind of hardship.The reality is that people just want to be in America.We are wealthy, we are free, and everyone knows we are better.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Record number of African migrants are arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Now, there's many reasons why this is kind of strange out of place.
First, with all of the changes Donald Trump has made to immigration, notably security, cost increases, and other rule changes like remain in Mexico, for instance, immigration is down across the board.
In fact, many of the people from Central America who came to the U.S.-Mexico border to seek asylum were told to remain in Mexico and then ultimately went home or just left.
Because they didn't want to.
Now we're hearing about refugees from Africa, places like Cameroon or Angola, flying across the Atlantic Ocean, traveling from South America through Central America and up to the U.S.-Mexico border to try and gain entry to the U.S.
It seems out of place because the journey is so arduous and long.
They're literally on the other side of the planet.
If it was truly about being a refugee, you'd think they'd go to any one of the safe and beautiful countries in South America instead of trying to make their way to the U.S.
border.
But I think there's one thing we can look at that, well, there's a couple things.
First, I mean, America's awesome.
Of course, they'd rather be here than, say, Mexico or Brazil.
But, I mean, Mexico's a pretty rad place.
Brazil's a pretty rad place.
But the big issue, I think, that is often overlooked, or maybe not, Is it the US?
The southern border was ignored and left porous for a very long time.
I think you can extrapolate from the data tracking immigration apprehensions that under Obama, it was extremely lax.
Perhaps it's not that we're facing a record number of African migrants now.
Perhaps the number is actually down.
Perhaps what we're really seeing is that with the increase in security, we can now track the number of migrants coming to the border.
And we were unable to in the past, which is kind of scary.
But again, that's my assumption.
So let's do this.
Let's start with the story from the LA Times of the record number of African migrants.
And then we'll move through here and look at how the Trump administration has actually won on the immigration front.
But we'll also take a look at how immigration was under Obama.
And I'll tell you what I think.
We'll expand upon this idea.
Of, we're actually just tracking these numbers now.
Maybe they're going down.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's several different options to support, but the best thing you can do is just share this video.
I'm competing with all these big networks right now.
They're screeching about impeachment, but you know what?
We're not learning anything new.
So if you think I do a good job, you like what I have to say, or you think there's value in other people hearing it, sharing this is one of the most effective ways to help me continue doing what I do.
But let's read.
The L.A.
Times reports the number of migrants from African countries in Mexico who have had contact with Mexican immigration officials has increased from 460 in 2007 to more than 5,800 in 2019.
Right there, we can see how we can explain this.
Who have had contact with Mexican immigration officials?
Perhaps the number is steady or going down.
And it's just that Mexico wasn't tracking these people before until Trump got serious.
Or these people were making it through the porous border and no one was tracking them.
And now that we have increased security, we can see these people are traveling halfway around the world to enter this country.
Let's read.
The number of African migrants heading to the U.S.
through Mexico has more than doubled this year, from roughly 2,700 in 2018 to 5,800 today, according to data from the federal government.
That figure has been steadily rising since 2007, the year the Mexican government began including migrants from African countries who have contact with immigration officials in their annual migration reports, when that number was 460.
And that dramatic increase has been mostly left out of the U.S.
immigration conversation, activists say.
Quote, Even with the immigration movement, you see a lack of visibility of Black narratives with what is happening at the border, said Gurleen Yosef, director and co-founder of the Haitian Bridge Alliance, an organization that helps Black migrants from all over the world.
Yosef was initially caught off guard by the number of Black migrants south of the border.
In 2016, she didn't know how to respond to a call she got about a group of Haitian migrants in Tijuana.
She couldn't understand why they were in Tijuana instead of in Florida, the more traditional migration route for Caribbean migrants.
Notably, Haitians are not African.
I'll make sure that point is clear.
At the time, honestly, I did not believe it, she said.
But she went anyway and met with 12 Haitian migrants.
She stayed a month and counted more than 400 black migrants from not just Haiti, but Congo, Cameroon, and Sierra Leone as well.
Now almost four years later, we have thousands and thousands of black migrants.
I'm going to stop here, and I'm going to paraphrase Bernie Sanders.
You see, earlier this year he was asked, If he would be for open borders, if he would open up the borders.
And Bernie Sanders said no.
The world has too many poor people.
We can't help them all.
Now he's flip-flopped a little bit, talking about deportations and more torment and such.
But that's what Bernie Sanders said.
And you know what?
He was right.
The United States cannot just allow every single person to come here.
We want to have a refugee process for people who truly are in need and need to be saved.
But I gotta tell ya, if you're from Congo, Cameroon, Angola, Sierra Leone, and you're traveling halfway around the world, With stopping over in many places that are safe and comfortable, I don't believe it's truly about escaping a crisis as opposed to coming to one of the wealthiest and most comfortable nations and one of the freest nations.
And so it's really interesting to hear all of these activists talk about the great problems the U.S.
faces, how bad Trump is, yet you still see people risking their lives, traveling the world, desperate to come here with all the stories about the migrant detention centers and how bad they are.
They are still trying to come here.
That says something.
Let's read on.
The overwhelming number of people who travel through Mexico to get to the US continue to be from Central America.
The journey isn't easy.
Many of them are robbed and beaten while traveling north.
On top of these dangers, African migrants face additional obstacles in terms of language and cultural barriers.
They also have less access to services from legal aid organizations who do not have staff who speak the same language as the migrants.
They also face racism and discrimination because of the color of their skin, Joseph added.
This summer, the migrants faced a new obstacle at the Mexico-Guatemala border.
They are being prevented from reaching the U.S.
border, according to activists on the ground.
In August, the Mexican government stopped issuing African migrants transit visas that allow them to travel north of the border with the United States.
Instead, Officials are asking migrants to apply for residency or a visa in Mexico, which advocates fear could potentially jeopardize future asylum claims in the United States.
I'm sorry, man.
Now, you may disagree, but I do not respect an asylum claim from someone who traveled halfway around the world and passed through several safe states, safe countries, to get here.
Mexico is nice.
There are dangerous parts, but it is a very nice country.
You've clearly never been there.
Like, the people who disagree, I'm saying.
Brazil is incredible!
Brazil is beautiful!
They got their problems, but Brazil really is pretty- there's amazing places.
In fact, I gotta say, there are some- you know, you've got Bolivia, you've got Colombia.
Not the wealthiest, not necessarily the safest, but safe.
Enjoyable?
Comfortable?
I'm sorry, if you're going to cross the Atlantic into Brazil and reject Brazil's hospitality, I'm not sure I believe you're truly trying to flee some kind of crisis.
I think it's just about improving your life, finding a wealthier nation.
And I can respect that.
But you're also going to have to respect that there are citizens here who contribute to our comfortable and wealthy nation, and that many people want to take advantage of that.
When you come here and claim it's about asylum, you are taking advantage of our hospitality, and you are displacing those who truly need our help.
That's the big problem, and why African migrants stand out so much more than anyone from Central America.
Because I'll tell you this, people come from Honduras, Guatemala, I'm listening.
You come to Mexico and say we can't stay here because the gangs operate here too?
I hear you.
You get to the US border?
Alright!
You're a neighbor to the South, you know.
But these people are coming from Africa, man.
I mean, Europe is closer than the United States, but for some reason they want to come here.
So let me show you this, because it's, you know, there's a lot of news around this that's kind of been neglected because impeachment, the impeachment insanity.
This story, lawmakers visit African migrants at US-Mexico border from November 26th, only got 46 shares.
So this is being covered, nobody's talking about it.
But I tell you now, I'm willing to bet this video gets substantially less views than impeachment nonsense, but you know what?
I've had enough!
This is important, okay?
When it comes to impeachment, they're telling us the same nonsense we've heard a million times.
I don't want to hear it, okay?
Let's see what's going on.
Now, the reason I highlight this is specifically for this passage.
Now, obviously, it's mostly Democrats and it's the Congressional Black Caucus who are meeting with these African migrants, but The Hill reports Most of the migrants stranded at the port of entry came from Cameroon, a majority French-speaking country where a simmering civil war in its English-speaking regions has forced more than half a million people from their homes, according to the International Crisis Group.
Mexico has long been a host to third-country migrants seeking entry to the U.S., but the number of African migrants in the country is growing as routes into Europe become more dangerous, according to multiple media reports.
They say.
Most of these migrants are coming from Cameroon.
So I decided to pulp a map.
And now I'm gonna show you just how far away it truly is.
So let me ask you.
What is the most dangerous?
Is it more dangerous to go to any one of these other countries in Africa nearby?
Or to travel across the Atlantic into Brazil to make your way up all the way through all of these other countries.
And I tell you this, the people who are coming here from Cameroon, I mean, maybe they fly to Mexico, but many of the stories that we've covered in the past, that I've covered in the past about, say, Angola, for instance, People coming from the Congo.
They're traveling from the Congo through Angola into Brazil and then up through South and Central America.
But these countries like Honduras and Guatemala have migrants fleeing their own countries there because it's dangerous.
So I tell you this, man.
These people who are claiming it's too dangerous to go to Europe, when they literally travel through countries where people are fleeing because it's too dangerous to then try and come here, I don't believe it.
I don't.
Now, it's not for me to decide.
It's for the U.S.
immigration system to decide.
But you know what?
They're telling these people they have to remain in Mexico because, unfortunately, they don't really believe it either.
And there's now a new rule being put in place by Trump that if you pass through a safe third country on your way here, you will be ineligible.
And you know what?
That makes sense.
It does not make sense for someone to come to Brazil.
I've been to Brazil several times, and I assure you, You should definitely go there.
It is awesome.
Brazil is an amazing place.
It's beautiful.
It's got amazing tourist spots.
I think the reason it's so crazy to me is because I would prefer to go there, right?
I would go vacation there.
And it's crazy that so many people would want to go to Rio, to Copacabana, Sao Paulo, and enjoy Brazil and their food.
And there are people going through there but then saying, this is not good enough for us.
Man, we want to go there!
I know Americans who move there permanently.
It's not the wealthiest nation, but Brazil's nice.
I mean, there's also Argentina, and Uruguay, and Paraguay.
There's places near Brazil, but for some reason, it's always the United States.
And I think it's obvious.
We're wealthy.
So let's do this.
I think you can see on the map, there's Cameroon highlighted in red.
It's a big journey.
Take a look at these numbers from the Texas Tribune, though.
They say apprehensions soared during the Clinton and Bush administrations, but fell under Obama.
Since 1999, the highest number of apprehensions recorded was in March 2000, during Bill Clinton's presidency, when 220,000 migrants were apprehended.
The surge in apprehensions in the summer of 2019 was much smaller, but it came close to spikes during George W. Bush's presidency.
Here's the big problem.
We track illegal immigration by how many people are apprehended.
That means, if someone says, don't apprehend them, or doesn't provide the resources to actually stop illegal immigration, the numbers will drop.
You see how this works?
There's a really funny shower thought, if you're familiar with shower thoughts.
It says, if we abolish all criminal law, the crime rate will drop to zero.
Yes, because if nothing is illegal, then you can't arrest anybody, and then the amount of arrests and crime will be nothing.
But there will certainly be horrible things happening to people.
Take a look at this.
During Bush and Clinton, major spikes in apprehensions.
During Obama, a major decline.
They do note that in 2014 there was an uptick.
The problem is this may be because migrants aren't coming or because Obama was not prioritizing apprehensions.
Now it's also true they called Obama the deporter-in-chief.
So maybe, I really doubt, excuse me.
That Obama wanted to take flak for deporting so many people.
If anything, he'd be better off stopping them at the border instead of deporting them because people are dragging Joe Biden over this.
But we can see it dropped to its lowest as we enter the Donald Trump era.
Just during Obama's administration, the number dips, Trump gets in, and the number spikes back to previous George W. Bush levels.
So again, I think what we're seeing here may be more easily explained in Obama not enforcing border security.
I almost want to say, you know, maybe not because I know many Democrats during the Obama administration had voted for border security, but it could just be that they were not apprehending people.
So you've got to make sure you're tracking that.
Is it possible that the number of apprehensions are going down now under Trump because they've stopped apprehending people?
I mean, does it mean people aren't coming?
So here's what I think.
I think for the longest time, Our government ignored African migrants.
And now that Trump is enforcing these stricter rules, and I'll show you the data, I mean, you know it, but I can show you it's working, we're now seeing those numbers for the first time, and it looks like they're much higher, may actually be lower.
But I will also, look, I understand it's really hard to extrapolate or to know for sure what the data means.
It's also entirely possible the spike is due.
To many of these migrants trying to get to Europe, but now Europe is cracking down with the rise of the right-wing populist movements.
People in, say, Italy and France saying no more to this immigration.
And with the slave trade in Libya, many of these people are saying you're better off going to the United States.
That may be as well.
But first, let me show you this.
In an article from the Huffington Post talking about how Trump really did get his wall, they
call it his figurative wall, they say, in the two years after Trump took office, denials for H-1B
visas, the most common form of visa for skilled workers, more than doubled. In the same period,
wait times for citizenship also doubled, while average processing processing times for all
kinds of visas jumped by 46 percent.
Even as the quantity of applications went down, in 2018, the United States added just 200,000 immigrants to the population, a startling 70% less than the year before.
You may have seen that the job numbers are really good.
It's also true that H-1B visas are being denied.
I believe there's a correlation there.
A lot of companies want to hire international skills.
I'm sorry, international talent.
The Trump administration is denying that, which means you gotta hire American.
The American unemployment goes down, the economy does well, consumer confidence surges.
That may be a result.
But let's check out, we got a story from just today, check this out.
Arrests and removals of illegal immigrants up under Trump, a majority, convicts.
So I don't need to get into too much about these details.
It's a very short story.
But the key takeaway is the people that Trump is targeting right now, they say, are majority convicted criminals.
Let's read.
They say, in comparing the targeting of illegal immigrants under Obama and President Trump, The government accountability office found that more were grabbed by the by the GOP administration and that a majority were convicted criminals.
The reason that that bit is important.
is because Joe Biden took flak, and he continues to take flak, over the Obama administration's
deportation of three million people. He says, don't compare what we did to Donald Trump.
Biden says, under me, we're going to be targeting criminals and we're going to prioritize this.
Well, at least according to the government accountability office, it seems like the GOP
may be targeting more convicted criminals than the Obama administration did. But it's not just
the hard security and rules Trump is implementing.
One of the big reasons people aren't coming is kind of obvious.
The consequences are scarier than the reality.
Check this out.
CBS News reports.
Take a look at this.
is causing major drop in number of migrant families and kids at border.
Perhaps the reason Donald Trump implemented these rules was not just because you could
actually enforce them, enforce the laws, and apprehend people, but that if people knew
the enforcement was happening, they would be disincentivized from taking dangerous journeys.
Take a look at this.
I now want to show you this map one more time.
Look how long this journey is.
From Cameroon to South America, up through all of these dangerous countries.
Now look, you've got Honduras, you've got Guatemala.
Even people who live there say it's dangerous, they want to come to the United States.
One of the smartest things we can do is disincentivize this behavior.
Now I don't necessarily agree with a lot of Trump's policies, and I really do not agree with the idea that cruelty would be a good way to demotivate people from coming here.
But I will say it seems to be the case.
Whether or not it was Trump's intention to create the press around squalor and these horrifying conditions, It exists.
And I assure you, with these stories about people not making it, you know, dying, and children, there's probably a lot of families that are now being disincentivized, saying the risk is greater than the reward.
You're not going to make it.
In which case, they don't.
But let me read a little bit here.
They say, CBS News says, U.S.
border officials in October apprehended more than 35,000 migrants, including nearly 10,000 families and 3,000 unaccompanied migrant children along the U.S.-Mexico border, marking the fifth consecutive monthly decline in arrests there.
CBP officials said Thursday, single adult migrants comprised the bulk of those apprehended at nearly 23,000 arrests in fiscal year 2019.
CBP officials said about 65% of migrants encountered at the southern border were families and unaccompanied children.
In October, those populations constituted about 35% of all apprehensions.
So now, the reason I highlight this is I want to compare it back to that chart I just showed you.
Right now, under Trump, there was a massive spike in apprehensions, but it's dropped in October.
They're saying, according to CBS, or the officials are saying, the reason it's dropped is not because they aren't enforcing, but because less people are coming over fear of the consequences.
And that was one of the major goals of the Trump administration, at least purportedly.
It's possible, during the Obama administration, they weren't apprehending anybody.
So not only are the numbers hard to track or extrapolate from, We're having a ton of migrants come in, less enforcement, more deportations.
It seems like it may be the case that we just weren't tracking these numbers properly.
Trump, according to every media outlet, is getting stricter on how they apprehend and the rules they're putting in place.
So it stands to reason that these may be the real numbers that we're now finally seeing with more security, with more ICE and CBP actually apprehending and tracking and talking to these people, we're getting a better view of what's happening.
And it may be that the Huffington Post is correct.
that Trump did get his wall with immigration down across all metrics, from illegal to even legal,
H-1B visas, et cetera. Trump really did get his wall. And I think that's the best way I can put
it. So let me wrap this up for you guys. I don't know why we're seeing a record number of African
migrants, but I think you would be unsurprised to find Americans maybe untrusting, not trusting of
These individuals coming here are claiming to be migrants because of how dangerous the trip is.
So I end by wrapping this all together.
If the consequences of the new administration are causing migrants to not want to come to this country, okay, but these people are still trying to come amid all of the dangers and amid these new rules, it stands to reason, in my opinion, they're not really refugees.
They're not people who know that if they stay... Look, listen, the trip here is so dangerous And the rules are so strict, they would probably be better off staying somewhere else.
So I guess it's fair to say maybe it's that bad in their country.
But here's why I don't believe that.
Because they could, like I said, Brazil is nice.
And I really mean that.
I love that place.
If they could stay in Brazil and avoid the perilous journey and the conflicts at home, you'd think that would make sense, but they don't do it.
So that's why I gotta say it.
In my opinion, I don't necessarily trust these people coming here claiming to be refugees, but you know what?
It doesn't matter.
My opinion is irrelevant.
What matters is what law enforcement officials determine.
And if they say they're not really migrants, they'll get rejected.
And if they're passing through safe third countries, where they could be safe but choose not to, then the administration's gonna turn them away.
So I'll leave it there.
You let me know what you think.
You know, I don't want to ascribe motives to a lot of these people.
I know America's nice.
I'm an American.
It's a great country.
And even with all of the negative press and the fear-mongering and the outrage from the left, these people are still desperate to come here.
You know what?
I can empathize with that.
I love this country too, man.
But we cannot take in everybody.
Just not possible.
Let me know what you think.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
at youtube.com slash timcastnews.
I will see you all then.
Fox News doesn't follow this trend, you know, for some reason, and they hate Fox News for this.
Fox is an outlier.
And now we can see how this actually trickles into social media, running in much the same way.
Fox and Friends host Pete Hegseth is banned from Twitter after sharing anti-American manifesto of the Pensacola shooter.
It goes beyond just Pete Hegseth because apparently shortly after, we have this one from the Post Millennial, Mike Cernovich and Andy Ngo were also suspended from Twitter.
Now Pete Hegseth said he was banned.
My understanding is that Hegseth was suspended and he was forced to delete this tweet.
Pete Hegseth, I wouldn't necessarily call a journalist, but he is a media, news, and politics personality.
He's one of the co-hosts of Fox & Friends.
So for him to use a high-profile account to share important information, I think, is warranted.
We're here.
We're literally at the point where social media companies are banning journalists.
You might not like Andy Ngo or Mike Cernovich or Pete Hegseth, but come on.
They're disseminating factual information about relevant matters.
I can't say it's strange to me that we have a Saudi national who committed an act of terror, and now when people try to point that out, they get suspended for it.
It's very dangerous to the American war machine.
You see, it's not so difficult today to criticize the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, Syria.
Don't question Saudi Arabia, though.
My understanding, too, is that there's a Saudi prince who has a substantial investment into Twitter as well.
But I don't know.
I guess that doesn't matter, as people say.
So let me read you the story from the post-millennial.
And, man, I'll just tell you, you know, it's getting bad.
For those that didn't follow, after the whistleblower story from the Ukraine scandal, his name was going around, the name was dropped.
I had a video on YouTube deleted.
I should say it was forced private, meaning YouTube locks it so that no one can see it.
Can't do anything about it.
Video's gone.
Yeah, I can repost it, but the YouTube algorithm will punish me if I do.
So, no, that's not a good idea.
The video's gone.
It's on Bitchute, I'm pretty sure.
I also was suspended from Facebook for posting the Politico article that was saying straight up, it is a good thing that the New York Times outed the whistleblower.
We're at this point now where unless you're an establishment player in the press, they'll just ban you.
And Fox doesn't count, as we can see.
There's a lot more I want to cover, but I want to give you this important information first, and apologies again to everybody.
I know I said it several times, but it bears repeating.
I had a root canal recently, and painkillers don't seem to do anything.
So they say, following the Pensacola Navy Base shooting, having been deemed a terror attack, multiple journalists and media personalities have been suspended from Twitter for reporting details on the shooter.
Filmmaker Mike Cernovich, the post-millennial editor-at-large Andy Ngo, and Fox host Pete Hegseth are among those who have been suspended from Twitter for utilizing the manifesto.
That's not true.
My understanding is that Mike Cernovich and Andy Ngo tweeted links to stories about it.
They say both Cernovich and Hegseth were suspended for posting excerpts, okay so there you go, of his social media, which included disturbing posts indicating the shooting was motivated by anti-American and anti-Israel sentiments.
Now my understanding as well, This guy in Pensacola tweeted these things out.
So perhaps Twitter is terrified that people are going to find out this was hosted on their platform and they might get the gab treatment.
Andy Noah suspended, pending he delete a tweet which included a copy of the manifesto, the copy of which was made public by CITE, a non-governmental organization that monitors white supremacist and jihadist terror.
They say, while Cernovich's account was restored following the removal of the offending tweet, Pete Hegseth and Andy Ngo's accounts remain suspended, appeals unresponded to by Twitter as of yet.
According to the Twitter Terms of Service, promoting or providing media intended to further a terror organization's goals is a violation of the platform's policies, leading to an immediate permanent suspension, even for verified journalists.
Take that into consideration.
I'm going to show you just how bad things truly are.
However, the terms of service also state that discussion of terrorism for clearly educational or documentary purposes does not constitute a violation.
Why, then, did Twitter remove these journalists?
They say, update, a Twitter spokesperson responding to the Post Millennial advised that Cernovich, Noe, and Hegseth had been suspended for posting the manifesto.
However, neither Cernovich nor Hegseth's tweets included the manifesto.
Twitter declined to answer any further questions on the justification for their suspensions.
You know, I think I can tell you exactly why, you know, well, I can't tell you exactly why.
I'll tell you, I'll speculate.
For one, this guy used Twitter.
I think Twitter is terrified of the PR hit and the stock drop, so they're gonna ban journalists outright.
Welcome to our new future, man.
You're not, journalism is being strangled by these big networks, by Google, by Facebook, by Twitter, etc.
These companies are playing ball to get access.
And now we have, we have a media that I guess you could just call bought and paid for.
Not in the sense that someone from Twitter or the government walked into those news outlets and handed them cash or anything like that.
Although maybe, I don't know.
What we have is, if you tow the line of what the intelligence services and the establishment politicians want, you're good.
You're absolutely good.
When you challenge the machine, when you challenge the establishment, or when you threaten the bottom line, you're out.
I want to show you a post I made on Instagram.
If you're not following me on Instagram, go ahead and do it.
I don't post that often, but sometimes I do, and when I do, they're spicy!
Check this out.
Same screen, different movie.
I believe that is attributed to Scott Adams.
Very brilliant quote.
On the left, you can see a Benny Johnson tweet, as retweeted by Sebastian Gorka.
Benny Johnson is a conservative personality.
I believe he's a journalist.
I don't want to... I don't like giving people titles to try and describe people.
Sorry.
John Harwood, CNBC reporter.
You may have noticed, these two tweets are about the exact same thing.
The only problem?
They say exact opposite things.
This is very similar to another post that was going viral with the two TV screens where CBS said that Gordon Sondland confirms quid pro quo, which is factually wrong, and Fox News saying Sondland confirms no quid pro quo.
The reality is Gordon Sondland said he presumed one.
He did not confirm one.
Confirmation technically would require three sources, and just because one person says, I felt like it was, doesn't provide proof it was.
Chuck, Ukraine was trying to get Hillary Clinton elected, which is what the media wanted.
Ukraine meddling is inconvenient for your narrative.
Dems have no evidence of a crime.
Now you're working for Adam Schiff.
On the right is John Harwood of CNBC, which is supposed to be the trustworthy establishment press.
Ted Cruz disseminating propaganda fabricated by the Kremlin to weaken the United States.
Mainstream press, MSNBC, CNBC, and many other journalists, you know, CNN, are claiming the Ukraine narrative is Kremlin propaganda.
The only problem is, they wrote it.
They wrote it, now they regret it, and they've got to walk it back.
So look, I told you about what happened with Hegseth and, you know, Cernovich getting banned.
They are going to ban people because it is inconvenient for what they want.
The establishment, media, and Democrats seem to be one and the same.
Here's what I posted.
Journalists right now are literally screaming at us not to trust them.
The story about Ukraine meddling was from the New York Times.
Were they pushing Kremlin propaganda?
Or are they lying now?
Either way, these journalists are screaming in our faces, quote, do not trust the press.
Let me let me let me elaborate on this.
The New York Times reported in December of 2018 that a Ukraine court concluded ruled That Ukrainians were meddling in our election by releasing dirt on Trump campaigns, Paul Manafort forcing him to resign, ultimately resulting in him going to prison.
I believe he went to prison.
So this is the New York Times telling us this.
We all saw it.
Now they're trying to gaslight us.
They're trying to say, don't believe it, it's fake news.
But you were the one who told us this, man.
We can't go on this way.
We can't.
I tell you what.
Eventually, we are going to be in a world where only people like John Harwood, these deceitful liars, are confirmed press.
We're going to see people like even Fox News personalities like Pete Hexeth getting banned, suspended, for telling you what really happened.
See, I think the big problem with what Noe, Cernovich, and Hegseth posted, more importantly, was that this guy in Pensacola was a Saudi national.
I wouldn't be surprised if this video gets a strike on it.
They do not want to jeopardize our strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia.
You know, Trump comes out all day and night and says the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was a waste of money, and then what?
Gives money and weapons, troops, Saudi Arabia?
We can see how the game is played.
It is very, very important that the U.S.
remain allies with the Saudis.
And because of this, that's what happens.
They'll ban you when this information comes out.
Now, the problem is, we've still got to deal with these people.
You know, what happened in Florida was nightmarish.
And we've got to deal with him and his friends and the other people who are committing these atrocities.
If you're a journalist who wants to report on that, and it could be damaging to the war machine, they will pull out all stops.
But I will add, they are truly, truly becoming desperate.
You know, what we're seeing from Adam Schiff, and I'm not saying they're all one and the same, I'm just saying, the Democrats and the war machine have an aligned interest.
You know, it's the establishment.
And I think it's more like this, you know, you have people... Oh, M.I.I.
Sorry, Eilish.
You have people who just want the keys to the castle.
These are politicians who will do and say whatever it takes to win so they can sit in the comfy ivory tower, have that money, be in charge, and that means they don't want to rock the boat.
So when the military industrial complex, the intelligence agency says, we're going to do X, they go, yeah, yeah, yeah, do your thing, I don't care.
I'm not going to get involved in that.
But there are some people who say no, and that's wrong, and we're going to stop you.
There are some journalists who want to challenge that, put a stop to it.
Well, they'll block you.
They'll ban you.
They'll smear you.
They'll lie.
It's actually a shocking level of deceit we're seeing here.
It's remarkable to me in that the journalists themselves, Politico, The Hill, The Examiner, The New York Times, they've all repeated the Ukraine meddling narrative.
Now that Republicans are on board and saying, we gotta take care of this, and the Democrats and the media establishment are realizing it's hurting them, they flip.
They start claiming their own reporting is not true.
Politico has written two stories trying to debunk its own reporting, just retracted already.
They can't.
They can't because it's true.
And we all know it's true.
Now, did Ukraine engage in a top-down, systematic manipulation of the US elections?
Of course not.
But they're gonna strawman.
So this is what Chuck Todd does.
He says, you think that Ukraine meddled?
And Russia didn't.
You catch that last part, he goes, Russia, you think Ukraine was meddling?
And Russia wasn't.
That's the game they play.
Ukraine was meddling.
Russia was meddling to a much more substantive degree from a top-down approach.
And we know it.
We know it.
I would say it is, you know, I'm one to demand evidence from everybody, including the government.
But we have more than enough evidence from admitted hackers, private companies, and the government, as well as, you know, the news media, that shows in all likelihood, yeah, Russia was doing this, man.
It was.
Were they successful?
According to the Mueller report, not really.
They didn't have as big of an impact as many people want to believe they did.
Ukraine had an impact.
They got Paul Manafort locked up.
I believe he was locked up.
He got him removed from the Trump campaign.
So there was damage caused.
But to act like Ukraine was doing nothing now, you can clearly see that these, you know, Axios wrote the other day that Donald Trump is using this as a defense to claim there's corruption.
And it's like, but it was the press that said this.
So I'll tell you what, man.
I'm going to wrap this up.
We can't trust them anymore.
And I don't know where that leaves us.
The press is bought and paid for.
They're political operatives.
Vice News announced they're hiring an Obama White House appointee to the press, a former Hillary Clinton staffer.
There you go, man.
It's depressing.
I'm gonna keep this one short.
I'll wrap it up here.
Man, I'll stress it again.
I know you guys probably don't care to hear this, but You know, I got a root canal a few days ago, and it has been brutal, and today is pretty bad, so we'll see if I can make it through.
The impeachment hearings are ongoing, and it is the stupidest waste of time I have ever seen.
They're basically just saying the same things over and over again.
Donald Trump was trying to get personal gain, and I'm like, none of this is established.
Then you got the Republicans trying to raise points of order, but I will say one thing before getting into the story.
Jerry Nadler got called out, okay?
Here's what happens.
They say a Republican raised a point of order, The individual, you know, said something about Trump's motives.
Strike it from the record.
Nadler goes, they're not witnesses.
They're just staffers giving, you know, I'm sorry, he said they're not, they're not, they're just here as witnesses.
They're not being held under the same rules as members.
So then Nadler bangs a gavel and he wins, right?
Later on, he's asked why he didn't put them under oath.
And he says, we will, but, you know, they're not witnesses, they're staffers.
And so then one Republican guy's all like, wait a minute, hold on.
You just said they weren't held to the same rules as members and staffers, but now you're saying they're staffers.
Which is it?
So he like bangs a gavel.
And of course they do a roll call vote.
All the Democrats are like, we're not gonna, we're not gonna follow the rules because they can just vote it out.
So it's complete and utter trash and nonsense.
And I'll tell you what, for 4 p.m., I ain't talking about... I'm not gonna be talking... I'm talking about immigration, alright?
But I gotta do it because J. Owen Schroyer, I believe I'm getting your name right, just started protesting and yelling about how they reject this and everything.
I find it funny because he's clearly protesting, but NBC calls him a heckler.
Okay, fine.
Technically the truth.
Owen Schroyer was clearly protesting the impeachment hearings.
Whether you want to appreciate or criticize him for that is irrelevant.
The fact is...
Protests like this happen.
But I will tell you this, Mr. Schreuer, it doesn't matter.
In fact, no, no, no, no.
You know what I'm gonna do?
I condemn.
I condemn, Schreuer, your protest.
And I'll tell you why.
I'm kidding, by the way.
But the joke is, polls are improving dramatically for Trump since the start of the impeachment process.
So there's no reason to protest.
I mean, it's literally helping your guy, right?
Check this out.
In the head-to-head, Biden versus Trump, Biden had the advantage until impeachment.
You know why?
Because the impeachment is centered around Joe Biden's corruption.
I mean, his son's corruption, but he's attached to this too.
So I'll tell you what, Democrats, all you did was strise and effect the Ukraine scandal.
So the story about Owen Schroer, you know, protesting, he got, I think he got arrested.
It's not that, it's not, I don't know why it warrants this huge, huge story, but I will, I will, for those that didn't see the video of him doing it, you should check it out.
And he said, uh, Jerry Nadler and the Democrat Party are committing treason against this country.
We voted for Donald Trump and they're simply removing him because they don't like him.
You're the ones committing treason, Schroyer yelled.
Trump is innocent.
Schroyer was escorted out of the hearing room by officers less than 40 seconds after his tirade began.
He had recorded the interruption and quickly uploaded it to Twitter after his removal.
So I don't think he was arrested if he was able to upload it to Twitter.
Oh, actually, I'm sorry.
No, he was streaming.
Obviously, I should have to remind everyone that the audience is here to observe and not to demonstrate.
Well, you know, I will say, First Amendment protest, you reap the consequences of your protest.
I don't care who you are, left or right, but I'm pretty much on board with civil disobedience.
Look, when the Extinction Rebellion people blocked intersections, my response was, I think it's ineffective and stupid, but I respect non-violent civil disobedience.
I really do, okay?
If you want to get out there and make sure that people hear who you are and what you're doing, Well, it worked.
Personally, I think it's ineffective because I actually worked for these non-profits and I figured out, you know, the best ways to actually convince people of these issues.
But I respect non-violent civil disobedience.
So in this regard, same as any other protest, hey man, more power to you.
They removed him.
There you go.
He got to say what he wanted to say.
They go on to then, I don't know, whatever, he's Alex Jones, Infowars, et cetera, et cetera.
They call him a heckler.
Okay, come on, man.
Dude's protesting, we get it.
But here's what's really, really funny about all this.
I'm sorry I have to say this to you guys again, because literally every day, I'm not exaggerating when I say literally every day, there is some new story about how Trump is improving due to impeachment.
Why, just a couple days ago, Andrew Yang Democratic presidential candidate.
Okay, he's actually doing pretty well.
I think he's pulling like six percent now.
He's doing great.
I like the guy.
I don't think he's perfect.
I think he's got some things wrong, you know.
I always say that because I want to make sure, you know, I'm not here to be a zealot.
But I got respect for Yang, and he's doing really, really well.
But he came unsaid.
It seems like we're throwing rocks at Trump, and all it's doing is leading him towards re-election.
And I'm like, bravo, brother!
That's exactly what they're doing!
Look at this.
So let me tell you something.
One thing they have not done in any of this impeachment process is actually speak to the motives of Donald Trump.
They haven't done it.
Did anybody at any point so far ask any of the witnesses Has Donald Trump ever expressed fear about losing to Biden?
That's a very broad question.
No, he hasn't.
Probably not because Trump's too arrogant.
Trump goes around bragging like, I'm not going to lose to sleepy, creepy Joe.
I'm the best.
You'd think Trump would sit there going like, oh geez, I'm going to lose to Biden.
No!
That's why they don't ask.
They know.
Trump isn't scared of losing to Biden.
Did they ask?
Did Trump ever look at the polls which show Biden doing better than him and express any fear or discontent or concern?
No!
Because Trump went out publicly and says, I beat Hillary, you think I'm scared of sleepy Joe Biden?
Everybody, like, look, man, I tell you what, in private, Trump's probably even worse than he is in public.
This is the funny thing.
They complain about Trump tweeting all this stuff.
What do you think he's saying privately?
You think he's scared of Biden?
Oh, no, you got another thing coming, man.
But I tell you what, there are real concerns about what happened with Hunter Biden and why he was getting $83,000 a month.
So originally they said it was $50,000, and then they found more payments, so then it was reported in $83,000.
And I guess Hunter's response when asked was, you know, oh, well, it's been reported, you can look.
And that's apparently substantially more, like 10 times more than what energy board members get in America.
So none of this adds up.
There's apparently some Ukrainian official who said that, you know, look, oh, no, no, I'm sorry.
I think it was the president of Poland.
I'm not sure who it was.
You got to fact check, man, this one, because I don't have that pulled up.
I want to talk about the polls, but, you know, apparently he was saying, listen, man, you hire Hunter Biden, you get access to the president.
That's what it's all about.
Everybody knows it.
And then Joe Biden comes in and saves the day when, you know, his son is in trouble.
That's how I see it, man.
Listen.
They're trying to gaslight.
The media's trying to gaslight the claim there was no Ukrainian meddling.
But the New York Times reported it.
So you gotta tell me, man, do I trust you or not?
Because if you tell me not to trust you, well then what am I supposed to do?
I'm not gonna believe you now, right?
Anyway, here's what happens.
Trump hears about Biden corruption, makes a phone call, says, you know, look into this, see what's going on.
That was it!
Nothing ever happened!
But the Democrats, in their desperation to impeach Trump, to get something, said, this is it, this is our chance.
And so what they did was they took this little tiny molehill that probably would have never gone anywhere, which didn't go anywhere so far, and they announced it to the world.
Joe Biden was accused of corruption by Donald Trump.
All of a sudden, Joe Biden's polls are tanking!
Look at this!
Since the start of impeachment from September to December, Trump now has the lead.
Isn't that amazing?
And we can see, and I'm sorry, these are swing states, right?
This is Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin.
These are very, very important 2020 states.
I gotta imagine, if Biden's a frontrunner, this will reflect in many of the polls.
Now, you know, Bernie Sanders supporters are staunch Sanders supporters.
They're there for Sanders.
A lot of people are there to vote for or against Republican or Democrat.
With this news, Joe Biden looking dirty, and he does.
Okay, let me tell you, man, it looks like Joe Biden was scared for his son.
And I understand that, but you got, you put country before family in some capacity, you know what I mean?
Like, I'll say this.
I know a lot of people will put family before anything.
I can respect that.
But don't be surprised when your community, your country comes to you and says, I can respect you, save your kid.
Now you're out.
Okay, you're done.
You know, we're gonna investigate this.
You can see that, you know, Biden's lead over Trump actually was diminishing up until September.
But boy, did it nosedive.
In fact, in Pennsylvania, it went up.
Bill Maher said, I love this quote.
He said, Do I want Biden to be president?
Not really.
But he's the only one who beats Trump in Ohio.
Okay, I hear you.
Ohio's not on this list.
But when it comes to Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, whoo boy, Impeachment just sacrificed the edge the Democrats had.
That's impressive.
They had an edge.
They gave it up.
And they're not going to impeach Trump.
It's not going to happen.
So what was this for?
That's mind-blowing to me.
Axios, who I'm mad at because he tried gaslighting us the other day, but I'll read it anyway.
Quarterly polling by the Republican firm Firehouse Strategies with Optimist had President Trump struggling in the mega battlegrounds of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
But in the newest edition, he beats every Democrat!
Wow.
The big picture.
Trump won by an average of six points in hypothetical matchups against all current Democratic candidates, including Joe Biden, who was performing well in head-to-head contests against Trump in polling conducted earlier in the year.
The poll found that a majority of likely 2020 voters surveyed do not support impeaching and removing Trump from office.
What they're saying?
Firehouse partner Alex Conant tells Axios, Democrats racing towards impeachment are at serious risk of leaving behind the voters they need to take the White House next year.
That's amazing.
Oh boy, you know what, man?
I'm just sitting back and I'm like, you know?
I love it when you get that chance to say, I told you so.
They lose every Democrat.
Trump beats every single Democrat in the latest poll.
That's what impeachment has wrought.
What's funny is Axios the other day was slamming Ted Cruz and Republicans for accurately reflecting stories from the press.
Trying to claim that Ted Cruz is pushing conspiracy theories about Ukraine.
Well, the polls don't lie.
I mean, I'm kidding.
The point is, though, the media wants us to trust them.
They try to gaslight us.
And now they have no choice but to report their own polling.
Uh-oh.
Trump is beating every Democrat in mega-battleground states.
You know what's really funny?
Is that in some of these states, Trump won by thin, thin margins against Hillary Clinton.
I kid you not.
We're talking, like, fractions of a percentage point.
We're talking, like, thousands of votes out of the millions there.
Now, 6 point lead in a hypothetical matchup against all current Democratic candidates, including Joe Biden, who before this, look at this, in March, 10 point lead over Trump.
I tell you what, man.
You reap what you sow, but I'm gonna keep this one short today It's gonna be a little bit shorter cuz boy am I am I am I hurting from this?
This root canal to say it for the billionth time, but you can probably tell I'll leave it there Stick around next segments coming up at 4 p.m.
And it won't be about impeachment today's main segment for those in the podcast who already heard it.
It's so insane what they're doing I swear to God, the Democrat council says the same, says, you know, Trump used the power of office to benefit himself, and then 10 minutes later, literally the same line.
And then they start running clips from the Adam Schiff hearings, and I'm like, dude, You know how these sitcoms would do a clip show, where it's like, at the end of the season, they would be like, remember that one time?
And it would do a flashback and show you something you already saw, but it's just like a funny part of the show, not the whole show.
It's literally what they're doing now.
But we're seriously only on like episode 7 of the impeachment process, and they're already doing clip shows?
It's because they're out of content!
Bad writers!
And I mean that literally, the people who are supposed to be writing the pitch, the narrative, are not doing it, because there's no evidence here!
Look man, there's conjecture, there's opinion, there's criticism of inappropriate actions, but is there hard evidence?
Let's do a clip show about the past seven episodes.
And then of course, because they're rehashing all the same old things, Republicans rehash the same old talking points to counter them.
I turned it off.
And so you know what?
I said, I'm just gonna, I'm gonna, I'm gonna go read something else.
I'm gonna block impeachment and read other news.
But I, but I will end, I will end, okay, I will end now.
By saying, it was at least entertaining to see Orrin Schroyer, you know, protest.
I, I, I, I feel, I feel you, man.
Like, I'm so sick of the, uh, of, of the BS.
I mean, you'll never see me do something like that.
You know, I'm not a protester kind of person.
But I can sympathize, I can empathize, man.
I'm so sick and tired of this.
They've got nothing, and now they're literally rehashing clips from the last hearings.
It's like, dude, if you got nothing else to say, but here's the problem.
As Professor, I believe Professor Turley was it?
This is like the shortest impeachment process in history, because there's nothing!
They're like, we found a piece of paper here!
And it's like, and?
And there's eight lines.
Trump said, do us a favor though, our country has been through a lot and we want to impeach him for that.
And?
That's it?
That's it?
There's nothing else?
Are you kidding?
You realize then it's going to turn back on you later if you try and do this.
They have nothing.
So now here we are.
Now Nadler.
I'm just so tired of it.
And you know what the worst part is?
Because of this, the Twitterati globo journalism sphere is sitting around twiddling their thumbs going like impeachment.
Impeachment.
And I'm like, dude, nothing is happening, man.
They're saying the same thing 50 million times.
You know what is happening, though?
Oh, insurers protesting.
But I tell you why you don't need to, buddy.
Because Trump is now beating every Democrat following the launch of the impeachment process.
You want to talk about backfiring?
I'll see you guys at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'm not gonna bury the lead.
I'm gonna cut to the chase right away.
At Art Basel in Miami, which is this foofy, wealthy art thing they do throughout the city, somebody stuck a banana on a wall with a piece of duct tape.
You probably heard this.
It sold for $120,000.
Somebody then came in, took the banana, and ate it!
This made a lot of people angry, but then someone else, but the artist said, no, no, no, it's the idea of the banana on the wall, and then said he was going to issue a certificate of authenticity to the buyer, and they put a different banana up on the wall.
Somebody else then came in, took the banana down, I guess they took the banana down, but then they took it with lipstick, and they wrote, Epstein didn't kill himself.
Then they got arrested, I guess.
Removed.
And security guards, in what may be the most epic real-life performance art I have ever seen, and I mean this with all sincerity, the security guards then came in and covered up Epstein didn't kill himself.
I'm sorry, you know, this whole thing with the banana, and the shock, and the press, it was truly one of the most epic and glorious moments in our generation, in our lives, in history, maybe.
It was just such a perfect storm!
There's very few perfor- Look, performance art, I'm usually like, yeah, whatever, I get it.
But this?
Wow.
Talk about an epic event.
Epic, epic, epic.
Let me show you a photo, because I said I'm not going to bear this lead, but I want to talk to you about art and the banana and all this stuff.
But wow, wow, wow, wow.
Check this out.
The duct-taped banana at Art Basel is gone and has been replaced with, quote, Epstein didn't kill himself, which security quickly covered up.
I don't think Giancarlo Soppo, this guy who tweeted it, Understood what he said when he said they were covering it up.
Oh my god, dude This is art that nearly brings me to tears.
I'm just I'm just took this out.
Here's a photo and they're like Oh, no, somebody wrote Epstein didn't kill himself and that's like, oh man, there's the art and there it is They're literally covering it up.
It's a cover-up.
This is incredible Dude, is this not the coolest thing you have ever seen if this wasn't planned?
Okay, I want to believe it was I absolutely want to believe the whole thing was meant to be a plan, because come on dude, like, duct tape a banana to the wall?
It's so shocking and stupid.
Somebody buying it, so shocking and much more stupid!
Somebody then eats it!
Then they write Epstein didn't kill himself, and then the guards covered it up!
The guards covered it up!
My mind exploded.
Wow!
Bravo!
I felt like I was watching an opera and that was like the crescendo and I'm just standing up like, amazing performance!
What an incredible!
Incredible!
Come on, man!
So I don't know if I have anything more to add to that story.
I want to talk to you about Art Basel and explain the whole banana thing.
Because I'll tell you this, man.
Everybody's had these theories about what it means that someone bought this banana for $120,000.
And I'll tell you what, a lot of people are saying it's a scheme, it's a scam, it's money laundering.
Yeah, you know, maybe, but no, probably not.
And I have friends.
We're down there.
They go to Art Basel.
I have friends who sell paintings, who are extremely rich, doing no work.
I am not kidding.
And I'm gonna enlighten you to this strange world of people with money who perpetuate having money.
It's called the nobility.
That's what I call it.
And I know that you can choose to live in the world of nobles.
You can choose.
It's not like you can just snap your fingers and walk in, but you kinda can.
But to a lot of these people, they will make something, assert its value, and because all of these people are rich, they just spend the money on nonsense.
So a man is arrested after scrawling Epstein didn't kill himself in red lipstick.
Somebody should put together a video outlining, it'd be great if there was footage of this.
So, I guess it's all just, you know, it all came together, right?
Somebody did the banana thing, somebody decided to buy it, this guy, you know, they were all capitalizing off of the moment.
And the real art isn't any of these one piece, not the banana, not the duct tape, not the money, not the eating it, none of that.
It is this moment in time.
Man.
So let's talk about it.
They say the banana was, in fact, a work of art by Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan, titled Comedian, and sold to a French collector for $120,000.
This is possibly one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.
It's literally a certificate about the... I guess it's... The certificate of authenticity says, like, Comedian on it, and that's what he's buying, and the guy signs it.
So if you really do want to own the concept of the art that was presented here, That's what it was sold for.
Now listen, first.
Some of you may think, that is so absurd and stupid, why would anyone spend that money on it?
And I can explain this to you, first.
Rich people ain't got nothing else to spend money on.
No, for real.
I've always thought about like, I know these rich people who buy ridiculous mansions and stuff, and I'm like, but why would you ever need any of that?
And they explained to me very simply, because I know people down here.
They've said things like, listen man, if you had a million dollars in cash in your hands right now, would you be worried at all about, I don't know, Calling an Uber luxury or whatever, or taking a limo that costs $100 instead of a cab that costs $30.
It's like, that's a good point.
To these super rich people who have ridiculous amounts of money, they don't care.
It's like, you know, you get paid.
Maybe the best way to explain it, because it's hard unless you really do have this kind of money.
You get paid on the weekend and you're like, eh, I got a couple hundred bucks for my paycheck.
I can go have a beer.
But then when you're broke, you're like, dude, I only got a hundred bucks.
I'm not buying a $5 beer.
That's exactly it.
If you have a hundred million dollars, you're like, I'm not spending $5 million on a beer.
But a $5 beer, you're like, I don't care.
A $50,000 beer, you might be like, must be a good beer.
There are places in California, for instance, that sell like $50,000 cheeseburgers.
This is a thing they do, and they'll put, like, edible gold on it, and it's so dumb, okay?
So first, why would someone buy a banana?
It's the certificate.
They probably have a ton of money, and they're bored, and they thought it was funny.
Or they liked the art, and they said, I want this artist to sign the proof that the concept of the art was sold to me, so I own it.
Basically, then, you can then sell that certificate as the proof of the concept and all that stuff.
But let me explain to you how art actually works.
See, here's the thing.
In one of these conversations I had with these very rich people, and some of the poorer people who are friends, like, I say poor, but they're still rich.
And I was like, why would someone buy a $50 million property or like a $10 million property?
Like, how could you live in that?
It's just, it seems like you'd get lost.
I'm kidding, but dude, Like, when you get older, you understand utility costs.
So these people buy in these like 30,000 square foot mansions for like 10, 20 million dollars.
I'm like, dude, how do you pay for the heat alone?
And it's simple.
They say, listen, you don't want liquid cash sitting around.
And if it comes to bankruptcy, they're not going to seize your home.
So if you file for bankruptcy, you keep your house.
Once everything's done, you still have all this wealth, right?
But more importantly, if you're sitting on a ton of cash, you've got to spend, invest it so that the value can be traded and passed on.
And there it is.
This explains paintings and their ever-increasing value in art.
And this is what was explained to me.
First, they're absolutely art collectors.
People who like art and like weird things, who are rich and buy weird things.
Fine, I get that.
But I knew somebody whose job was basically like once every other year, they would facilitate the sale of a painting.
So these super rich people will have, say, like a rare Manet or something.
I don't know.
I don't know anything about paintings.
Let's say it's worth 5 million bucks.
Why is it worth 5 million bucks?
It could be a really old, unique piece of art.
Fine.
The real reason is because it's a store of value for rich people.
So it's not absurd to put $5,000,000 into a painting that's been valued at $5,000,000 and appraisers will only ever say is going up.
If the painting can't be replicated and you bought it for $5,000,000 and you won't part with it unless you get a return, congratulations.
It is an object of extreme scarcity that can only go up in value because you refuse to let it go.
Now, in the event the market tanks and nobody has that money, you could argue the value would go down.
Not only that, if it does, you can depreciate your assets and claim you've lost this or saluted a loss.
It's complicated.
But I know some people make a phone call, say, you got any paintings you're trying to offload?
And the rich people have no time for this.
These CEOs, these executives, these nobles.
And they'll be like, yeah, I spent $500,000 on this painting.
If you can flip it for $7,000, I'll cut you $50,000.
And they go, OK.
Make a few more phone calls and say, I got a painting.
It was last sold for $5.
They're looking for $7.
And someone will be like, yeah, no problem.
Because they're looking for somewhere to store the value.
Because the US dollar will devalue over time.
The painting will not.
It's that simple.
And so then you have these low-tier nobles who act like brokers.
And they'll get paid $50,000 and just sit back and that's it.
You know, so in terms of, like, the do-it-once-every-other-year, it's because they'll facilitate a painting for a few million bucks and get a couple hundred grand off of that deal.
And then what happens is, I sell my painting for a million, you buy it for a million five, two years later you sell it from a million five to two, and you make five hundred thus.
All they're really doing is, it's handing a piece of paper back and forth that says, this holds X amount of dollars between us.
That's really all it is.
So, in this instance, with the banana thing, I think the 120k was legit.
Apparently this is a famous artist who hadn't worked in a really long time, I don't know too much about him, and this was like a big deal, because it was like, it was meant to be absurd.
It's absurd as what it is, right?
I'm not an art specialist, people are going to tell me I'm wrong about what kind of art it was, but no.
But it was like, this guy comes out of work and he's like, there you go, I put a banana on the wall, and it's like, I want that.
Because it's going to draw a lot of attention.
It's going to get a lot of press.
That, to me, has this much value.
And now that certificate can likely be sold or traded again.
I don't know.
But anyway, let me wrap this up.
I don't need to go on forever.
The Epstein.
Covering up the Epstein is the greatest art.
You know, the dude who wrote the Epstein thing?
I don't know who gets credit for that.
The security guards?
The exhibit?
That concept of what happened.
I'm not kidding when I was like, wow.
Bravo.
Seriously, bravo.
That was amazing.
Epstein didn't kill himself and the guards rushed to cover it up.
I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I will see you shortly.
I have a feeling this video is going to get in trouble on YouTube because we're talking about adult content.
Adult internet visual and content.
And there's been this big debate going on.
And the conservative free speech world is being torn asunder.
Where conservatives, moral activists, saying we must have a ban on adult content.
I can't say the P word.
It's censored here.
And there's been some back and forth with conservatives fighting with each other, fighting with libertarians, and it's a really complicated debate.
The general idea is adult content is bad for you, they say.
It causes, there was recently a study that came out that said it changes your prefrontal cortex, keeps humans in a juvenile state.
It harms the sanctity of love and things like this.
So it's a really complicated issue.
But I don't want to explain to you what adult content is or does.
I'm just going to talk to you strictly about my opinions and what's happening.
On the screen, we have a tweet from Joey Salads.
He's quoting Gab.
Now, Gab is a free speech website.
However, Gab has called for the banning of adult content sites.
Joey Sal's response was, social media website who faces massive censorship
believes in big government regulations and bans on the internet.
Gab responds, conservative candidate for Congress is actually just a cringe
YouTube e-celeb libertarian.
I'm laughing at the libertarian comment.
Like, you're not a conservative, you're just a libertarian!
Joey's response, why are you being a dick?
What I've ever done to you, you're seriously acting like a liberal.
Hey, Joey, full stop.
Liberal?
No, no, no, no, no.
A leftist, maybe, okay?
I'm a liberal.
Liberals believe in free speech and have a lot in common with libertarians.
He's right that Gab is acting more liberal because one of the big differences between a liberal and a libertarian is the extent to which government plays a role in protecting society.
However, this is socially conservative, not socially liberal.
So, he's not acting like a liberal, he's acting like a conservative, dude.
Liberal does not- I'm so tired of people conflating liberal and leftist.
Please don't.
Okay, leftists don't like liberals.
They hate us.
And liberals agree with you on free speech and these things.
Surprisingly, I'm more on the libertarian side of the adult content debate, but we'll get to this.
And, as always, I'm correct in my opinion, and I'm going to give you the correct opinion on the adult internet content debate, because Sargon has chimed in, taken over middle-of-the-road approach, saying it's a good argument, and then you've had some libertarian type saying, freedom for all, and conservative type saying, ban it and execute the pornography... Oh, I said the word.
YouTube's going to ban me.
Ban the people who make the content, or execute the people who make the content.
Let's read.
Gab says, truth hurts.
Joey's response.
If you only spent this time on your platform and not Twitter, you might actually stand a change at retaining a user or two.
Woo!
Now we got flame war between Joey and Gab.
What's happening?
Gab says this is marketing.
We added 4,000 users this weekend, 2.1 million unique users across our products last month.
How many donors did you get this weekend to your campaign?
Joey said, wow, 4K, the next Facebook is right around the corner.
Maybe one day you will make your crypto money back.
OK, OK, OK, enough flame war, guys.
Let's talk about the real issue.
First and foremost, adult content should not be banned.
Sorry, but that is the correct response.
Now before all the conservatives who are on the side of Gab or say Matt Walsh freak out, I want to be straight up front with you and tell you my opinion, but I have a lot of caveats.
See, I am a social liberal.
I'm not a classical liberal.
But classical liberals and social liberals are very, very close together.
Social liberals are more likely to believe that the government can be used as a tool for good for social issues.
And so there's actually a decent ideological connection between conservatives and social liberals that classical liberals don't share between the two.
It's interesting, right?
Here's the thing.
Social liberalism typically is more like, hey, racism is bad.
The government can play a role in correcting this.
And I think the answer is yes, they can.
It's very, very complex.
It's complicated, as I normally say.
It's a complicated issue, right?
When it comes to adult content, it should be legal, you should be allowed to produce it, but we should have restrictions on how kids can get to it.
Now, we do, right?
The problem is that, what do they do?
They say, you better put in your real age and confirm that this is the correct age, and kids can just do whatever they want.
So let me read you a Matt Walsh tweet.
Somebody said, if I film police abusing someone, the police abuse is not free speech, but my content is, right?
And so Matt's response was, you're saying that the content isn't the free speech, or I'm sorry, the content is, but the performers engaging in this act are not free speech.
It's a complicated problem.
Anyway, I wanted to highlight this because I thought it was an interesting thought.
There's a really, really good argument someone tweeted at me when I commented that it should be legal.
They said, We don't allow people to do these things in public, right?
Like in public you can't bang your girlfriend or whatever.
Yes, that's true.
So why on the internet, which is now a digital virtual town center where we can all freely mill about, should kids be able to just blindly walk into people doing these things in front of them?
And that's a really, really good point.
And I completely agree.
But I've always thought that was the case.
Me thinking that people should be allowed to produce it and people should be allowed to consume it has nothing to do with how we control for it.
As somebody who is liberal but not overly libertarian, I'm pretty libertarian to be honest.
But I'm on the left.
I believe the government can play a role in issuing certain kinds of protection.
It should not be criminal, nor should drug use, right?
Nor should alcohol consumption.
One of the biggest problems we have, and we got to think about this stuff, right?
There was a story that I read a while ago, because when I was in my early 20s, we'd be partying.
Apparently there was a college party, and these kids were drunk.
One kid died of alcohol poisoning.
He was 18.
And the reason they didn't call 911 is because they were worried they would get in trouble because it was illegal.
And that's sad.
But that's reality, man.
People will be overdosing on some drug and they'll be like, don't call for help because they'll punish us.
And that's, I have a huge problem with that.
Okay?
What we should do, if somebody's, like, OD'ing, they should be gr- like, somebody who is OD'ing should be granted immunity if they call 911 for- from possession.
Something like that.
I don't- I- I know that- that idea has to be fleshed out much, much better, but think about it this way.
Like, not protecting the dealers, not protecting the abusers.
If somebody is just self-administering, and then their friend is overdosing, they should both be immune from prosecution, but not from court-mandated rehabilitation.
Like, dude, the point is to help people, not freak them out.
And so I tell you what.
Any kind of repercussion on, like, drug use may stop someone from calling for help.
No, man, they'll make me stop.
Well, court-mandated treatment should be a thing.
And I don't think locking people up in prison really does much.
I mean, it forces detox, I guess.
It can help.
In some instances, yes.
But there's a lot of challenges, right?
Now, following on the libertarian side, I think what we need, regulated use of vices.
I think that's the way to do it.
Let me jump to Cassandra.
Someone asked, where do you stand on adult content?
She said, I'm not sure.
I don't think it's healthy, and I completely agree it's not.
ID verification should 100% be a thing at the very least.
I don't believe a ban would work, though, just like the drug warden.
I also think obscenity laws would be more likely used to go after people for hate speech.
That adult content.
Completely agree.
Completely agree with Cassandra on this one.
We do not want to empower people to determine what is degenerate or inappropriate because the SJWs have the exact same argument for hate speech.
It is not truly speech.
Now, I get it.
You know, Matt Walsh and others have a really great point about, like, dude, someone doing it isn't speaking.
They're engaging in an act.
Like, you punching someone isn't speaking.
We make certain actions illegal.
However, The difference there and the challenge, I've really thought about this, is that adult activities are consensual, but we still don't allow that to be displayed in public for a lot of reasons.
Decency laws, I guess?
Yeah, it's a challenge, man.
Why should we empower someone to tell us what is or isn't decent?
That's a rough point.
But for the time being, I am not going to assert what I think should or shouldn't be in regards to what's decent or not.
Outside of, you know, like, political arguments are very different from engaging in adult acts.
I'll put it this way too, like, you can't take a dump in the middle of the street either, you know?
You can't even be naked, right?
And sometimes people do, anyway.
The point is, if you ban adult content, they will use the same logic to go after anybody else who says naughty words.
It's the same logic, and I don't think it's the right thing to do.
However, I like Cassandra's idea of ID verification.
She says, I use ID verification to order wine from Postmates.
Telling people they can't do something results in a black market and results in criminal abuse.
It's a fact.
So if you ban the people who make it, then people will only make it in dark, seedy corners of the world that can be really dangerous for a lot of people.
I don't think that's the answer.
I do think it's bad for people, but a lot of things are bad for people.
Man, like candy bars are bad for people.
So I understand the argument that Everything could be bad to a certain degree, and we decide as a community the threshold, so I respect the conservative argument in that regard, and I also respect the liberal argument in regards to speech.
Society determines what is or isn't acceptable.
However, as much as I understand the point you're trying to make, I fall on we gotta respect the individual's subjective, you know, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
That's what it's really all about.
And if somebody is happy sitting in a dark corner of their basement, cranking it to some nonsense, you know, about, I don't know, what was that Eichenwalde guy looking up, like octopuses or something?
Yes, I know, it's a weird concept.
But do your thing, man.
Do your thing.
I understand their lines.
I can respect the laws we have in place right now.
We've actually been really lax on women going topless and stuff, and I think that's a good thing.
I'm not even a big fan of, like, I personally find it kind of weird that we stigmatize the human body as much as we do.
I'm not all about this, like, body positivity, like, you should be able to be fit, no, be healthy.
But also kind of like, dude, we're all, like, clothes are a later in, like, evolution thing, you know?
I'm cool with wearing clothes and they look great.
But I personally find it kind of strange that it's like humans have bodies.
Men and women have these parts.
I don't really see the problem with knowing they exist and seeing them for me, you know.
But that's very different being nude from like engaging in adult acts in front of children and things like that.
I think there is an important aspect of controlling what children can get access to.
And that's very different from the freedom of an adult to choose for themselves.
So, there is no clean way to implement this, because let's be honest.
Cigarettes?
Kids find them.
Pot?
Kids find them.
Alcohol?
Kids find them, man.
But I certainly think we could do with some laws that control, like an ID verification.
I think that's probably the healthy compromise for everybody.
I've seen some pretty crazy conservative arguments about this, but in the end, It should be legal, free to consume, but I don't think we're doing enough to stop kids from getting it, and it's screwing up people's brains.
Like, I mean that.
There's a lot of good things from this kind of stuff that can help people who are really messed up.
Some people should be kept in the dark corner, cranking it to weird octopus stuff like that Eichenwalde guy.
Like, you know what, man?
You just go in the corner.
Just stay away from everybody else.
If that's what's keeping you there, and you're not hurting anybody, that's a good thing, right?
But, he could still get access to his octopus stuff, you know, Eichenwald could still get access to whatever that stuff he was watching was.
He just punches an ID, and does an ID verification, like, like Cassandra does for her wine.
Then the kids are gonna try and do it, and it's gonna be like, wah, you can't do it.
Sure, they'll buy fake IDs, but the point is, with security, you never expect a bulletproof vest to stop every single bullet.
You know, even, even with like, you know, level what, like 3A or 4 armor with like ceramic, ceramic plates, you're gonna take one shot from like a rifle round, and that's it.
So you know, first of all, it's only protecting, like, your real core vital organs, so you're still vulnerable everywhere else, and it's not perfect.
I think an ID check really does make the most sense.
I give to—I credit Cassandra on this one.
But, uh, I will warn the conservatives arguing for outright bans and more heavy-handed laws, like, dude, You can't take that approach, man.
That's gonna weaponize the SJWs, and guess what?
They've got the institutions.
They will turn that around on you so fast, you'll be spinning in circles as everything gets wrapped up tight, and you lose all your freedoms.
That's why we gotta respect the freedoms, but we do have to, as not a libertarian, as a social liberal, so I think, like, this is where the government comes in, and we do agree on a set of standards and rules to protect certain things.
I'm gonna end with one important point, though.
You don't have to agree with me, man.
I'm fine with not agreeing with anybody.
But the big difference that's very obvious here is we're seeing the moral foundation split between the liberty-minded individuals and the sanctity-minded individuals.
Now, a sixth foundation, liberty, was theorized by Jonathan Haidt in The Righteous Mind, Chapter 8, in response to the need to differentiate between proportionality, fairness, and the objections he had received from conservatives and libertarians.
This is a really, really interesting point, and the foundations are really fascinating to me.
I've got to keep this one short, so I'll wrap it up here and just say this.
I am a lib- I am- I am- My moral foundations, when I took a test, are care, fairness, and liberty.
Loyalty, authority, and sanctity were decently high, higher than the average liberal.
But that makes sense.
I'm socially liberal, kind of moderate.
Liberals tend to only be Karen fairness.
They don't care if they pin you down and force you to do what they want so long as it's balanced in the end.
It's very robotic and drone-like.
Conservatives follow all the foundations equally.
So, sanctity is much stronger among conservatives.
Abhorrence to disgusting things, foods, actions.
Opposite of degradation.
Degenerates.
And there it is.
They're very sanctity-minded.
And I can agree with that, too.
Because I can sympathize.
But liberty, to me, is one of the most important.
Honestly, though, I think liberty was my highest foundation.
I did a test on it.
I posted it.
But my care and fairness are really high.
And I think, as somebody who truly believes in care and fairness, for me, that extended to conservatives, to understand them, and that helped inform me.
You know what I'm gonna do?
This was supposed to be the second set for the 615 slot.
I'm gonna move this up so I can keep it a little longer, because I think this is really important stuff.
Libertarians are almost exclusively liberty-minded.
They don't care about fairness, care, loyalty, authority, relative to other, you know, other groups.
Liberty is across the board.
It's really amazing.
I was looking at a chart and, like, libertarians score really low on all foundations, but liberty is ridiculously high.
They're basically, like, telling the other person, you do what you want, just don't hurt somebody else.
And that, like, aligns perfectly, right?
For me, care and fairness, I look at people being abused, snake oil, I look at the media lying and manipulating, and so my care and fairness extends to conservatives, and I'm like, it's not fair, the media's lying about Trump and his supporters and everything, that's messed up.
And I also do have a decent amount of loyalty, authority, and sanctity, though not nearly as high as conservatives.
That means, when it comes to authority, I'm willing to respect, you know, somebody who's a leader, and gonna try and focus on doing something, you know, important, because of a position they're in, while still saying, I challenge you, and I've got my eye on you.
Loyalty extends so far as you're willing to be loyal back.
That's why I love dogs, though.
And sanctity, I truly understand, but try to balance with liberty.
Meaning, when it comes to the argument about adult content, maybe freedom's gotta be, you know, higher on the chart.
But I will end with one final thought.
Liberty, care, fairness, on their own, will cease to exist.
In my opinion, they only exist so long as loyalty, authority, and sanctity are held to a higher standard.
And this is the importance of conservatives in a society and the balance between them and those who seek freedom.
The freedom-minded individuals, the care and fairness-minded individuals will make things better over time so long as those who are loyal, respect authority, and understand the importance of sanctity and purity are there to defend the system that allows the progress.
This is the challenge.
Too much of this idea of fairness results in a collapse of the system.
Too much freedom, the system collapses.
I look at the conservatives and it's no wonder they're very pro-police and pro-military.
That's what's securing the system in the first place that allows the degenerates inside to be dancing around naked doing drugs and doing whatever they want.
It's only because we have a secured free society that respects and is loyal that we are able to have this freedom.
That's a big challenge.
It is.
You know, outside of this bubble we're in, it's not so great.
I'll wrap it up.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Next segment's gonna be tomorrow at 10 a.m., and I will see you all then.
The new Ghostbusters trailer dropped, and it was awesome.
Okay, I say awesome.
So I'll give it, like, a 7.5 out of 10.
Like, 8 may be too high, 7's too low.
But the new Ghostbusters trailer, it's Ghostbusters Afterlife.
Apparently, it is a direct sequel to Ghostbusters 2.
And if I- I'm pretty sure everyone got this from the- from, uh, it's, uh, Spanglers.
It's- it's Egon's kids and grandkids, I guess.
And they, like, Paul Rudd's in it.
Ghosts haven't been seen in 30 years, and then all of a sudden they're like, whoa, what's happening?
I am so excited for this.
This is the sequel we deserved.
Ghostbusters 2016 was a disaster.
And this dude, NME journalist James McMahon, says, F that Ghostbusters trailer.
You don't reward regressive fanboys.
Aww, poor baby.
unidentified
Are you mad they made a good Ghostbusters trailer because it doesn't fit your politics?
He says, You don't reward regressive fanboys, many of whom created an atmosphere of racist, misogynistic toxicity that led to a leading lady leaving this very platform by making the very film they wanted in the first place.
Oh, guess what?
Businesses make things to sell.
I love the ice cream analogy.
This guy is screaming, why are they making chocolate fudge ice cream?
Those people who wanted it are bad people.
Because the business doesn't care if you're a good or bad person, it cares if you want to buy a product.
We don't live in a moral capitalist system, we live in a capitalist system.
And the problem with you is that your morals and mine don't align.
I like this movie.
I actually thought 2016 Ghostbusters was really bad.
But I really like Kristen Wiig.
Kristen Wiig and I'm forgetting the... Kate McKinnon.
I think she's rad.
Melissa McCarthy's okay.
I'm not a huge fan.
And Leslie Jones is okay as well.
I've got nothing against them.
I think Kristen Wiig's pretty awesome.
I like the stuff that she tends to be in.
And she's going to be in another movie I'm ridiculously excited for.
The fact remains.
Let me tell you something in this strange world.
Ghostbusters 2016 was so bad.
There was too much girl power instead of just making the characters be strong.
That's my biggest problem, dude.
The problem with Ghostbusters wasn't that a bunch of misogynists just hate women.
Don't be stupid.
The reality was Ghostbusters 2016 was, uh, it was like...
A circle of people patting themselves on the back.
I'll try to keep this one family-friendly considering the content.
It's all of these feminists patting each other on the back.
No, it's like Jerry from Rick and Morty all shaking each other's hands.
And it's like, dude, that's not interesting.
The characters make no sense.
They're not strong simply because they're like, yeah!
Like, no, no, no, no, no.
Just have them do their thing.
Kind of like another movie.
Wonder Woman.
So there's been a bunch of other tweets.
They say, They say McMahon would not be alone in his opinion.
Matthew Rodriguez, the editor of The Body, stated, LMAO, of course Ghostbusters Afterlife is about family and
lineage and legacy and all these other effing white patriarchal American
values.
It's literally a reaction to the idea of four women including one black woman.
I was upset when Captain Marvel was announced and when they were doing this stuff with Brie Larson because Brie Larson is... Look, man.
It is what it is.
She's snooty.
You know, she was talking on TV about having a list of people she hated or something, like she was texting another actor about how they hate people, and it was really controversial.
She is just a mean girl, okay?
She is like mean... Rachel McAdams in Mean Girls, okay?
And Rachel McAdams is actually a really nice person, I hear.
And so, but that character where she's like, you are such a fugly, you know, slut.
I'm gonna get in trouble for saying slut.
But yeah, like Brie Larson was just snooty, man.
The Black Widow trailer drops.
Look at that.
1.4 million likes to 38,000 dislikes.
Who disliked this trailer?
It's epic.
Now, I can concede.
Okay?
I'm upset it's a prequel.
This movie should have come out a long, long time ago.
I mean a long time ago.
I mean, like, phase one.
Okay?
Like...
They introduced Black Widow and Iron Man.
That should have been her launching off point for a movie on her own.
She's Scarlett Johansson, dude.
She's not like some bit part actor.
She is a top tier A-list celebrity.
In fact, I think she was like the highest paid celebrity.
Or one of them.
So give her her own movie, man!
Black Widow's awesome!
And this trailer looks amazing.
I was stoked to see, um, what is it, Redguard?
The dude from Stranger Things and he's like out of shape and old.
I'm like, dude, she looks awesome.
I'm stoked for this.
Okay, I'm a fan of Black Widow in the movies.
I think she adds to all of these super-powered people or people in crazy suits.
It's rad to have her and Hawkeye as, like, regular people with high skill.
I love that.
Interestingly, though, in a lot of the Marvel movies, um, The characters don't have innate superpowers, right?
It's like, you know, you've got Falcon, who's wearing a suit.
You've got Iron Man, War Machine, wearing suits.
You've got Captain... Well, I guess Captain America has innate superpowers, to an extent.
But there's very little of, like, actual superpowers.
They've been adding more to it.
But it's funny, you know, Family Guy made fun of Black Widow.
They were like, what's your power?
You kick?
And then they're all like, we can do that too.
It's like, no, no, no, no, no.
Master Assassin, please.
Like, it's cool to have superheroes mixing between, like, psychological thrillers with action and secret agents, as well as superpowers.
It's one of the things they did really well in Winter Soldier.
But I gotta move on.
Because I'm gonna shatter that narrative!
Okay?
Did you see the Wonder Woman 1984 trailer?
This trailer deserves an award.
This is one of the best trailers I have ever seen.
Dude, do not under... I'm not exaggerating.
The remix of Blue Monday... You guys know the song Blue Monday, right?
They have, like, orchestral composition interlacing with Blue Monday.
They have gunshots to the beat, and then it's slow motion and she hits the bullet, and I'm just like, this is awesome!
Max Lord, when he's, like, walking and smiling, and it's like... I'm like, dude, this is so cool.
My only disappointment is that I know, okay, this trailer is cut, like, a music video to the beat.
Lookit, she's wearing the Golden Eagle armor.
So amazing.
And I know that the movie's not going to be nearly as, like, fun and bouncy with the song.
But, dude, the 80s style, the music, the composition... I'm really... This trailer is epic.
And look at this.
362,000 likes, 11,000 dislikes.
It's number one on trending, was released just yesterday.
It's already got 7.5 million views.
Black Widow was a week ago with 33 million views.
Uh-oh!
The narrative, I can hear it falling apart.
Why?
Because the fans love Wonder Woman and the fans love Black Widow.
Oh, snap!
How can that be if these misogynists just hate women?
No.
Let me tell you, man.
Ghostbusters was too busy patting itself on the back.
They tried creating this, like, caricature of Hemsworth as, like, this moron.
You don't need to do that!
Check out Wonder Woman, dude.
Chris Pine, badass.
Wonder Woman, badass.
And Wonder Woman is the lead, the hero, the strength.
And Chris Pine is the support behind her, but still a badass.
That's what's... It's like, dude, I don't care if Chris Pine was a bumbling fool or not.
The point is, write good characters, write a good story, make it compelling.
Make real motivations.
You know what's awesome about the first Wonder Woman?
I've said this before.
Dyetta is an idealist.
Chris Pine is Steve, whatever his last name is, a realist.
And they were juxtaposed where he's like, no, people can be bad.
And she's like, no, people are good.
We gotta stop war.
And I'm like, that was awesome.
They were both really strong in their own right.
This dude, a gritty soldier, fighting for what he believes in.
You know, Diana of Themyscira, a demi-god, half-god, or whatever you wanna, you know, whatever it is.
And she's the hero fighting for her idealistic world, coming to terms with the fact that the world is more complicated than she thought.
I'm like, oh, that's amazing!
It made her growth legitimate.
It justified her strength.
It showed her challenges, the realization of her power.
It was really well done.
Not a perfect movie, no, but it was a great job.
This trailer, bam!
Ah, amazing.
You know what, man?
The fans deserve this.
Look, I have no respect, okay, for the people who go on Twitter and just harass and insult like Brie Larson and other people.
I get it, man.
I think Brie Larson is snooty.
I think she's condescending.
And I think that really turned people off.
I think she was not... You know, my first criticism for her in Captain Marvel was not that, like, oh, no, feminism.
I was like, no, no, no, she's the wrong choice, dude.
Like, Robin Wright would have been way better for Captain Marvel, okay?
And that could have... And Robin Wright being older, and I mean that with no disrespect, you know, she's an older actress, but she's established, she would have been a way much, much better Captain Marvel, in my opinion.
She's tougher, grittier, stronger, taller even.
Brie Larson is a small, frail, squeaky woman.
I don't mean that disrespectfully.
I mean, I'm just describing her as, like, she's got a higher-pitched voice.
She's much, much smaller.
She's not, like, physically built or anything.
Robin Wright is commanding.
You know, so I don't know if that was the perfect choice.
I just thought, off the top of my head, she was a bad fit for this.
The whole thing felt shoehorned and political, and they tried capitalizing off of girl power.
The commercial said, with her, and then an A and an O appear, so it says, a hero, and it's like, dude, we get it, man.
Okay?
We like movies with good characters, with good stories, that make us feel emotion.
You know, like, in this trailer, you see, somehow, she's reunited with Chris Pine's character, and you're like, whoa, how does that happen?
You see that evil grin from Max Thor, what's he doing?
And they got Kristen Wiig in this!
That's the point I wanted to end with.
You wanna rag on Ghostbusters.
The trailer was awesome.
Okay?
The Wonder Woman trailer I've watched like 15 times, I kid you not.
I am stoked on this.
I love the Blue Monday remix.
Kristen Wiig is in this movie.
And she's great in the trailer.
And she's gonna play Cheetah, Cheetara.
I'm not... I gotta admit, I'm much bigger on Marvel.
But I'm a big fan of DC Comics, but...
I grew up on Marvel.
I actually do like DC more, but um... But yeah, Kristen Wiig is in it.
And she's great in the trailer.
And I'm stoked she's in this.
Uh-oh.
Are they gonna come out and try claiming that the misogynists are gonna hate on Kristen Wiig?
No, the reality is Ghostbusters was bad.
It was really bad.
Okay?
And Wonder Woman was great.
And Hunger Games was great.
And Alien was great.
And there's all these movies with women- female leads that are great.
And now we got Black Widow.
Fans love it.
And we got Wonder Woman.
Fans love it.
Uh-oh.
I'll say uh-oh a few more times.
Wired staff producer Adam Lance Garcia would note, he's intrigued by the first trailer, but would have to justify that opinion by writing.
This, of course, is not to discount Ghostbusters 2016.
A film that was unfairly attacked by the worst kind of humans.
No!
It's a bad movie!
Alright.
The Verge's Julie Alexander made it clear she disliked the trailer.
What?! !
The new Ghostbusters trailer looks awful.
No, it doesn't!
And I'm sorry that we keep making Finn Wolfhard play Finn Wolfhard.
That I agree with.
Only way I can imagine enjoying this is if I imagine Paul Rudd is Scott Lang and Ant-Man is just like, F it, time travel's real, why not ghosts?
I disagree.
The trailer was great.
Not nearly as good as Wonder Woman or Black Widow, but I enjoyed it.
I was like, cool, man, cool, you know, nostalgia, woohoo, Ghostbusters!
Um, but yeah.
This person says, The reason Ghostbusters 2020 looks better than 2016 isn't about politics or gender, it's about the fact the new film seems like a love letter made by a group of fans, and the 2016 film felt like something they made because they all had a free summer.
I agree.
Look at this.
Wonder Woman, Ghostbusters, Black Widow trailers all in a few days?
The common thread.
Studios are learning from the disastrous 2017 and 18 experiments.
Don't screw with franchises.
Don't mess with tone.
Please customers, not critics, they're catching on.
I'm so excited for all of these movies.
I will dare say...
You don't understand.
This Wonder Woman trailer deserves an award.
This is one of the best trailers for a movie I've ever seen.
I am scared that the movie won't be as nearly as fun and paced the same way as with the music, but I'm hoping it is.
This trailer deserves an award.
This may be the movie I am looking forward to in 2020 more than any other movie.
Hands down.
And so let that shatter the stupid narrative of making a bad movie.
I don't see articles where they're like, this is an amazing win for women and stuff.
Nope!
Okay, you can take credit!
I'm okay with it!
Please, feminists, tell me how awesome this movie is, how they did it right, they made a great character who's strong, and how everyone loves it, and I'm gonna shake your hand and be like, high five!
