Rachel Maddow's Fake News Reckoning is FINALLY Here Even Leftists Slam MSNBC Over FAKE NEWS And Bias
Rachel Maddow's Fake News Reckoning is FINALLY Here Even Leftists Slam MSNBC Over FAKE NEWS And Bias. Progressives, leftists, democrats, you were taken for a ride by a swindler who just wanted to reap the benefits of the "orange man bad" narrative.For years Rachel Maddow peddled absurd fake news about Russia and conveniently was no where in sight when the stories were ultimately proven false.No one has been more critical of Maddow than journalist Glenn Greenwald who has never stopped in calling out the absurdity of her talking points.But while conservatives and trump supporters completely expected her to be finally proven wrong (or to be proven wrong for the millionth time) many on the left are slamming her for pushing insane stories and also of propping up the DNC establishment.As more progressives reap the benefits of a corrupt media system they start to sound like Donald Trump. Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks slammed the New York Times over a smear against him, Bernie voters decry the media blackout against him, and Andrew Yang even boycotted MSNBC for a while over their bias.Its about time left and right stood hand in hand to call our the corrupt establishment in media and the democrats that seeks to exclude true populist voices, be it on the right or the left.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
For years, we were graced by Rachel Maddow's insane conspiracy peddling about Russiagate that turned out to be false.
First, it was the Mueller Report, and Rachel Maddow was nearly brought to tears.
Though she denies crying, it really does look like she's choking up when it turns out this whole Russiagate spy thriller narrative was nothing but, well, fake news.
And then the Inspector General's report came out, the Horwood's report came out, showing that the Steele dossier was largely complete BS, and once again, Rachel Maddow is left with egg on her face.
It would seem that finally, MSNBC and many cronies in the mainstream leftist establishment are facing a reckoning.
It's not just the right now that's calling out Rachel Maddow, but more people on the left are being critical of MSNBC and the insane narratives they peddle to try and prop up establishment crony candidates.
Now, I'll tell you this, man.
For the past several years, Trump has ragged on the media for being fake news.
And many of these progressives were more than happy to stand side by side with Rachel Maddow and other CNN-type media personalities and DNC cronies to claim, oh, Trump is attacking the free press.
Until primary season started, and they started to reap the benefits of a corrupt crony media.
Well, now we're seeing stories like this.
Rachel Maddow's Reckoning.
And boy, it's just too good.
Because, you know, people have called me essentially a media critic as I try to figure out exactly what I am.
Why is Tim so critical of the left and the Democrats?
Well, it's because their allies in media have been propping up their insane BS forever.
And you know what?
I really wish the Bernie supporters and the Yang supporters and the YoungTurk supporters were more on board with this from the get-go because now they are the one being hurt by it.
So thank you now for calling it out.
So here's what I say to the Trump supporters, man.
You know, it might be frustrating to finally see the young Turks come out and say, hey, the media's lying about us, but now's not the time for gloating.
Now's the time to shake their hand and say, welcome to the fight.
This is what the media does.
The media lies.
And I don't mean literally every journalist.
I mean the establishment corporate press is going to do whatever they can to protect their profit margin, even if it means propping up insane psychotic BS like Rachel Maddow.
But don't take it from me.
Take it from Mr. Glenn Greenwald, one of the fiercest critics of Rachel Maddow.
You know, I've never been a big, big fan of Glenn Greenwald.
I'm not saying I don't like the guy.
I'm critical of him in a lot of ways.
But I gotta love the fact that him and many others, like Michael Tracy and Aaron Maté, have been progressives calling out the insane, anti-Trump, Russiagate conspiracy nonsense.
Thank you for being there, and I mean that sincerely.
Glenn tweeted this.
There's no getting around the fact, no matter how much one wants to, that Rachel Maddow's performance on Russiagate was one of the most paranoid, unhinged, and fact-free debacles of sustained media propaganda, fear-mongering, conspiracy-mongering, and deceit in many years.
Spicy Mr. Greenwald.
Yikes.
That was harsh.
It almost reminds me of when Tulsi Gabbard called Hillary Clinton the personification of rot.
But anyway, let's actually start the story.
And I'll show you this from the National Review.
Rachel Maddow's reckoning highlighting the Washington Post's criticism of Rachel Maddow.
I kid you not.
I was shocked to see this.
Of all outlets, the Washington Post has a six-part series on the media's failure pertaining to the Steele dossier.
And boy, do I feel good.
I feel vindicated.
I know the Trump supporters do, but hey, come on, progressives, get on board with this.
The media ship is going down in flames, and it's about time someone called them out.
Let's get started with this story from the National Review.
Before we do, head over to TimCast.com slash doneit if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, the best thing you can do is share this video, and I'll tell you why.
This video is not just for those who like the president or those who necessarily just hate the president.
I'm going to show you Andrew Yang, Bernie Sanders, Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks.
I'm going to show you how the media targets them as well.
And we need to be calling out this system of corrupt fake news.
Now I get it, man.
You know, Trump comes out and says the fake news lies, and there are a lot of people like, you know, progressives at the Young Turks who absolutely want to jump on that anti-Trump train.
But I'll tell you this, man.
You gotta give Trump this one, because he's right.
I know, I know.
Trump's not the most honest guy in the world, or maybe he is, depending on which outlet you read, but the point is, the media does lie.
Look, you know, the way I've explained it, I don't care if you're a fan of Bernie, I don't care if you're a fan of Yang, I don't care if you're a fan of the Young Turks, but if the media comes out and lies about them, I will be the first in line to defend them because I cannot stand, I cannot stand for a world in which politics is determined by the uber-wealthy dumping money into advertisements, going on TV, and peddling this insane trash.
Okay, but let's read.
Otherwise... But anyway, the point is, I want to show you now how the progressives are getting on board with this.
And thank you.
Thank you for finally pointing this out.
Because to me, it was shocking.
You know, seven, eight years ago during Occupy Wall Street, everybody knew the media was corrupt for some reason.
The anger towards Trump was so thick and palpable that people on the left were willing to entertain the possibility the media was telling the truth.
Okay, again, not all in the media.
There are good news outlets.
You're obviously watching me.
You think I do a good job, and I'm a part of the media, too.
But for this one, we're gonna be calling out MSNBC and Rachel Maddow.
You may recall that back in March 2017, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow shocked the world by declaring, Then she later clarified she had obtained Donald Trump's 1040 form from 2005.
Those who tuned into her program that evening had to watch a meandering 19-minute soliloquy and a commercial break before Maddow showed anything from the tax return which wasn't much.
Her guest, David K. Johnson, speculated that Trump may have also leaked photos of Melania.
Okay.
That night was a massive letdown for those who believed Maddow's initial announcement, but it previewed what we could expect from Maddow for the next three years.
As the Washington Post's Eric Wempel lays out in exhaustive detail in a review of Maddow's reporting and discussion of the Steele dossier, his assessment is scathing.
He said, Let me stop real quick.
For those that aren't familiar, the Steele dossier is the infamous document full of internet rumor that was published by BuzzFeed.
And it was pretty much the basis for the RussiaGate investigation.
We now know that it is mostly bunk.
I believe it's almost entirely bunk.
But there's a lot of people who argue about it.
But the fact remains, the Steele dossier is trash.
Internet rumor nonsense.
And it was used to accuse Trump and some of his staff of being like Russian agents.
And some of these claims are so insane and ridiculous, I can't even say them.
Golden showers.
Women of the night in hotels in Russia.
Yeah, it was nuts!
So now that you know what it is, let's read.
When small bits of news arose in favor of the dossier, the franchise MSNBC host pumped air into them.
At least some of her many fans surely came away from her broadcast thinking the dossier was a serious piece of investigative research, not the flim-flam quick-twitch game of telephone outlined in the Horowitz report.
She seemed to be rooting for the document.
And when large bits of news arose against the dossier, Maddow found other topics more compelling.
She was there for the bunkings, absent for the debunkings, a pattern of misleading and dishonest asymmetry.
Bravo, good sir, at the Washington Post.
I was actually shocked to see that of all the outlets, the Washington Post actually ran a six-part series condemning the media over their failures.
And I'm actually very, very optimistic today.
I'm optimistic for two reasons.
To see that Washington Post actually come out, and for all their faults, and they've got them, To criticize the media?
Thank you.
Okay?
There's still a lot of problems in media.
There's still a lot of dishonesty.
But I'm glad to see that Rachel Maddow is getting comeuppance from the Washington Post of all places.
The National Review continues.
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horwitz issued his report earlier this month and concluded, much of the material in the Steele election reports, including allegations about Donald Trump and members of the Trump campaign relied upon in the Carter Page FISA applications, could not be corroborated.
That certain allegations were inaccurate or inconsistent with information gathered by the Crossfire Hurricane team.
And that the limited information that was corroborated related to time, location, and title information, much of which was publicly available.
The night Horwitz released his report, Maddow ignored that and emphasized other conclusions.
The Inspector General debunks that there was any anti-Trump political bias motivating these decisions.
They debunked the idea that Christopher Steele's dossier of opposition research against Trump was the basis for opening the FBI's Russia investigation.
Wemple writes, Asked to comment on how she approached the dossier, Maddow declined to provide an on-the-record response.
Like other primetime cable news hosts who receive much more criticism, Maddow shows up every weeknight and tells a devoted audience, quote, Trump is the worst.
He's committed many terrible crimes.
A reckoning is coming.
We will be vindicated.
Her audience is not interested in hearing the host or guests declare.
While we are vehemently opposed to Trump, but there is no evidence he's being blackmailed or controlled by the Russian government.
Her program includes bits of news and other substances that appear to be like news, but are not.
If it is too harsh to call it fake news, then it is news with artificial flavors and sweeteners designed to make it more exciting and appealing than it really is.
Did you know?
That Rachel Maddow accused a cable TV network called One America News of being Russian propaganda and was sued?
And I guess she won on the basis that what she says is not reality?
I'm not exaggerating.
Take a look at these stories.
This one from the AP September 10th.
One America News sues Rachel Maddow for $10 million.
A conservative television network sued Rachel Maddow for more than $10 million on Monday for calling it paid Russian propaganda.
One American news filed the federal defamation suit in San Diego.
They say the lawsuit contends that Maddow's comments on her July 22 MSNBC show were retaliation after OAN President Charles Herring accused cable television giant Comcast of censorship.
The suit contends that Comcast refused to carry the channel because it counters the liberal politics of Comcast's own news channel, MSNBC.
A week after Haring sent an email to a Comcast executive, Maddow opened her MSNBC show by referring to a report in the Daily Beast that said an OAN employee also worked for Sputnik News, which is linked to the Russian government.
In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right-wing news outlet in America really, literally is paid Russian propaganda, Rachel Maddow said.
Well, you know, that's a pretty definitive statement to go on your show and defame a news outlet like that.
I'm not saying you've got to be a fan of Trump or OAN, but at least be honest about it.
They're not paid propaganda.
They're just Trump supporters.
Rachel Maddow.
Russian propaganda, just opinions.
Defamation suit fails.
Why, yes.
On October 22nd, Rachel Maddow said what she's claiming isn't supposed to be taken as news or fact, it's just supposed to be her thoughts and opinions on the matter.
And I think that's, to an extent, fair.
The problem is when Rachel Maddow pretends that it's the news, as the National Review shows, it's news-like.
Fake news may be too harsh, but it's artificial flavors and sweeteners.
So there has been, for a long time, a reckoning coming.
But perhaps one of the most glorious would be, in my opinion, the fact that Jacobin Magazine, a socialist website, is, well, they're actively critical of Rachel Maddow, and I'm glad they are.
They're also praising Crystal Ball of The Hill, and I'm also glad they are as well.
Let me read some of this for you, because here's where I want to go with this.
Rachel Maddow certainly is getting defended from establishment media.
Look at this article from Columbia Journalism Review.
They say this.
MSNBC public editor.
What if Rachel Maddow is right?
Oh please, just stop.
She's not right.
She's ridiculous, crony, establishment nonsense, and even the progressive left and the socialists are not happy with her.
You know why?
We see the game being played with the media.
How they're with, they're, look, let me show you something.
First of all, Cenk Uygur slams unconscionable New York Times report suggesting he defended David Duke, calling it a lie.
This isn't MSNBC, but we can see how the progressive left is being ripped apart by the media now that they're actually trying to play the game of politics.
Check out this best of post from Reddit.
They say this user posts an image gallery showing how the Bernie blackout or Bernie blindness is very real.
Why, that's right.
Numerous outlets, left to right, top down, whatever, omit Bernie Sanders from the press.
They're now starting to call out CNN and MSNBC, CBS, even Fox, the LA Times, New York Times, etc.
The media is biased.
They don't want the progressive left to win, they don't want Trump to win, they want the crony establishment to win, and the worst of which, The visual history of the Yang media blackout.
Now, this is MSNBC, and they're one of the worst culprits.
Rachel Maddow exists to spin ridiculous stories about Russia trying to shut off the electricity in winter so that people freeze to death in Fargo.
I'm not making that up!
She literally did that!
It's crazy.
It's seriously crazy.
And then MSNBC goes out of their way to make sure that even when they list the number 10 candidates, there's a blank spot for no Andrew Yang.
Now look, I'm a fan of Tulsi Gabbard.
She's my preferred choice.
My second choice is Andrew Yang.
And so of course I'm mad at the press, and of course I've been one of the first in line because they get smeared relentlessly.
I'm glad to see Bernie Sanders supporters, Yang supporters, and even the Socialist Magazine calling out the absurdity.
So here's where I'm getting optimistic.
First, we have a series.
Check this out.
The story that stands.
McClatchy won't back off its Michael Cohen Prague reporting.
The Washington Post.
First in a series of how the media handled the Steele dossier.
Six different stories.
Horowitz's report confirms John Solomon's scoop on FBI's spreadsheet regarding Steele dossier.
Disinformation claim galls, dossier author Christopher Steele.
Here's another one.
CNN lands an interview with its own contributor.
Washington Post actually taking the other media outlets to task?
A much-cited defense of the Steele dossier has a problem.
Bravo, good sir Eric Wemple, for being one of the few people in media to call out the fake news that was propagated, because it was a no-holds-barred, by any means necessary, attempt to get rid of Donald Trump.
That's not how you win.
It didn't work.
Impeachment didn't work.
It has only made Trump stronger.
It has only caused a further collapse in trust in media.
And now, thankfully, I am very, very optimistic to see the populist left and right, whether or not they actually want to stand side by side and recognize this, they are now becoming more unified in their message that the media is trash.
This story from Jacobin warms my heart.
Of all of the political magazines or outlets to actually write something, you'd think I would not be a big fan of the socialists, but they're spot on 100% because my principles are as such.
You can disagree with the socialists, but if we're being honest with each other, we might actually find a solution to our problems.
I think the fact remains there are a lot of socialists who have some good ideas that might make our country better.
I tend to disagree with most of their ideas, but I'm not so stupid to think I'm smarter than everybody.
No, I think they probably see things I don't.
I tend to lean more towards a mixed economy, slightly center-left, but still capitalistic system.
But I think if we're being honest and acting in good faith, we're going to move forward very well.
So when they say this, Crystal Ball is the anti-Rachel Maddow Bernie fans have been waiting for, I saw this story and I laughed.
I love it.
Crystal Ball is amazing.
She's a fantastic host and she's very much a more populist left figure.
But she's also co-hosting a show with Sagar Anjeti, a conservative.
And this is where my heart is truly warmed.
Let me read you this passage.
They say this.
On Rising with Crystal and Cigar, Ball's political talk show at TheHill.com, it is always a good morning.
And Ball and her conservative co-host, Cigar and Jetty, are always happy to bring us an amazing show.
Wow.
Socialists praising a centrist outlet's show with a progressive and a conservative?
That's awesome.
That really is great.
I think, you know, when you watch The Hills Rising with Cigar and Crystal, they're honest.
They have different political views.
They're completely honest.
That's one of the reasons why I really do like both of them as hosts, because I don't completely agree with either.
But they approach issues like sane, rational, and real people, and even progressives and populists are recognizing they're doing a good job.
But you know who absolutely hates The Rising Show?
You should really check these guys out.
I shouldn't say these guys, okay?
Crystal and Cigar on The Hills Rising.
It's the establishment press that loves Elizabeth Warren, that loves Joe Biden.
Okay?
Whatever, man.
If you like them, fine.
But the point is, they get accused of being like Russian propaganda.
You can tell what's really happening here.
The old crony establishment, and look, I've got my qualms with the, you know, intersectional, weirdo, you know, kind of like religious types.
But if you're going to talk about the actual politics of the populist left and right, you know, American workers and things like that, I think there's a conversation to be had.
And if we're at least being honest, we can move forward.
But there's a guy named, I'm not going to name him because I don't think he deserves it, but he accused Trump Sort of.
You know, he said maybe Trump has been a Russian, you know, asset since the 1980s.
And Rachel Maddow actually has this guy on the TV.
Nobody wants to hear what these people have to say.
Whatever these weird people who live in Trump delusion world, you know, look, you don't gotta like the president like I've said a million times, but come on, man, that's a step too far.
But this guy also writes an article accusing Crystal and Cigar of being like, you know, Russian assets or something like that.
That's how desperate the machine has become.
I absolutely look forward to legitimate conversations between people who disagree with each other without the insane lies.
And I'm not saying the right and the left are perfect, not even the populist right and left, but this absolutely is a lie to the end of the tunnel.
You know, they're essentially saying, like, they rag on Rachel Maddow, and I don't need to read through the whole article because you get the point, but they basically say that Rachel Maddow exists to serve, you know, the Democratic establishment candidates.
You've got Joe Biden, you've got Pete Buttigieg, you've got Elizabeth Warren.
Now, Buttigieg isn't, like, the biggest, but what I think we see With, you know, the candidates they prop up, it's that while Joe Biden's clearly establishment, he's the VP, then you clearly have Elizabeth Warren, who, in my opinion, is Hillary Clinton wearing a Bernie Sanders mask, pretending to be this populist leader to try and attract those voters away, and then Pete Buttigieg, who is literally just a reincarnation of your establishment Democrat character.
That's what MSNBC is all about.
And you end up with this, like Andrew Yang actually boycotted MSNBC because they completely omit him.
It's funny, isn't it?
It's funny how for the longest time Donald Trump said the fake news, the fake news, the fake news.
And so many of these progressives were willing to say, oh, how dare Trump attack the press?
But now that it's really reached them, they're starting to say, OK, you know, maybe this is a real problem.
And my response to them is, hey, man, welcome to the fight.
If the New York Times wants to smear, you know, Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks, I absolutely made a video about it.
So people wonder why it is that my videos tend to flow in a certain direction.
It's because what the media is propping up.
These deceptions, like, look, man, Fox News is one channel, OK?
But I'll tell you this.
Shameless promotion.
Follow me on Instagram, at TimCast.
I showed a video where Fox News is covering protests, the weather over the holidays, Iran, you know, Mexico, Hong Kong, etc.
And CNN is just doing Orange Man bad all over again.
This is what the establishment press does.
They attacked the president.
They don't want him to win.
But when it comes to primaries, you better believe they're not going to allow the populist left a chance either.
So here's what I'm really hoping for.
And I'm not sure it's going to happen, but I'm really hoping for this.
I'm hoping that as we see bipartisan support from the populist sections for shows like Rising with Crystal and Cigar, it's truly a great show.
They're honest.
They're completely honest.
It's amazing.
Crystal Ball is a former MSNBC host, and they actually had me on, and it was a fair and rational discussion.
They weren't condescending or insulting.
It was like, let's talk about it.
And to see the socialists actually praise a conservative, I'm like, this is the unity we really need.
We need to get rid of the lying, like, fake news press.
We need to get rid of, you know, look at this.
Rachel Maddow, she's there for the bunking, absent for the debunking.
So we need to get rid of that, 100%.
And we need to challenge Donald Trump and we need to challenge Bernie Sanders on their political issues, okay?
What they stand for and why they think it will work.
Tear it down.
I mean, like, literally come up with an argument and tear it down and have a real discussion.
Because, yes, I'll tell you this.
You might be the staunchest Bernie Sanders supporter, but if you sit down and have a conversation and a Trump supporter explains why the idea works and it makes sense, you might have no choice but to be like, maybe that is a good idea.
Because no one's lying about it.
That's the problem.
They try and push this narrative about Trump working for Russia because they have no real arguments as to why his policies make no sense.
They say the border wall is immoral.
And again, a lot of the criticism will fall on the left for this too.
It doesn't matter if you're progressive or establishment.
I think the left has made the mistake of too often ignoring legitimate arguments and coming up with these more emotional reactions.
But I'll tell you this.
While I'm not entirely convinced many of these progressives will actually heed this warning and start ignoring the press, some of them are starting to get it, right?
We just saw Soledad O'Brien slam CNN for having liars on the air?
Okay.
I'm hoping we'll see some unity.
And at the very least, if you really do think the other side is evil and wrong, a Trump supporter, a Bernie supporter, or a Tulsi supporter, or a Warren supporter, whatever, we need to get rid of all that.
We need to get rid of all that and take a look at what the socialists have to say.
Because if they're willing to make the first step and say that a conservative co-host bringing us an amazing show, I'll be the first to say, absolutely.
100%.
Thank you.
Because what we need, you know, we have a show that's not crossfire.
Remember crossfire where they're like Democrat and conservative and they like argue with each other?
No, we quite literally have two hosts who respect each other with different opinions having a real show and a real conversation.
And you know what?
The establishment press has attacked and assailed The Hill and John Solomon, formerly of The Hill, for being, you know, fake news and Russian propaganda.
Nah, sorry.
This is a light at the end of the tunnel.
A light at the end of the tunnel.
I'm hoping that... You know, I'll definitely make sure I give a shoutout in the other side because I think Hannity, as well, has his faults.
Now, here's the thing.
Let me show you this.
Glenn Greenwald said, in response to that tweet about Rachel Maddow being nuts, By stark contrast, Matt Taibbi's new book, Hate Inc., is genuinely one of the best accounts written in years of how the U.S.
political media deceives, divides, and propagandizes.
It covers Russiagate, explains Trump, eviscerates Maddow and CNN, and much more.
And that's the thing you need to read.
I'll tell you this.
I'll tell you my thoughts.
I'm not trying to be someone who's going to be a tribalist, pointing at Maddow and being like, she's so evil and wrong, aha, we're winning.
No, I think Hannity is bad as well.
Here's the difference.
Hannity is bombastic, okay?
Hannity is tribal.
Hannity wasn't pushing insane nonsense, okay?
When he talks about the Ukrainian meddling, and he's been criticized by CNN for this, he's actually citing real articles.
He's just being hyperbolic.
But those stories are based in fact.
Rachel Maddow is there for the bunking, not for the debunking.
And now that the Mueller report has shown her to be wrong, yeah, she needs to come out and be like, okay, I was wrong about that.
I'm no fan of Hannity.
But I do think there is a slight difference.
Just because we can point out, you know, MedTiB can point out two different sides of this partisan bubble of shouting and attacking the other side, doesn't mean that they're equivalents.
I think Rachel Maddow is peddling insane conspiracy nonsense.
I think, you know, Sean Hannity is bombastic and exaggerates.
There's a big difference.
But I'll leave you with one final thought on this.
The main point I want to drive home is that the Washington Post launches this, right?
This six-part series saying, here's who was wrong.
And now we're actually seeing people on the left point out the media lies and everything like that.
And if the socialists are willing to contend that you have a show with a conservative that's actually good, I think we're heading down the right path.
But when it comes to the media, when it comes to what people consume, it's not just the press.
I want you to consider this.
According to Newswhip, a media analytics company, in 2018, conservatives got most of their news or engaged mostly on Facebook with Fox News.
Fox News is biased, sometimes wrong.
They do have a corrections policy and they do exaggerate, they do have a perspective.
I think there's a problem if you only get your news from Fox.
However, Democrats primarily engaged with and got information from Occupy Democrats, a conspiracy meme-generating Facebook page.
That is scary to me.
So if we can at least agree that The Hills Rising show is a good show with good hosts that are honest, that have a good debate, I think we're gonna be better off because we can get the left and the right to finally sit down and watch a show both can agree is being fair.
That's a very, very important step in the right direction.
I'll tell you this, man.
The Rising with The Hill is ten times better than anything I do when it comes to talking about politics and stuff like that.
I'm sure there's an argument to be made for me doing a bit more in-depth and research and stuff like that.
Fine.
But I think when it comes to actually having a political conversation, The Hill is better because it isn't just one person with a certain opinion, be it liberal, conservative, or otherwise.
It's literally a progressive and a conservative having a conversation with various hosts and being honest about it.
So, I know it's a really, really big shoutout for you guys over at The Hill.
You guys are awesome, by the way.
So, I'm glad to see that, you know, we can see socialists praising a conservative.
That's awesome.
And hopefully now, with people calling out Rachel Maddow and it becoming more acceptable to do so among left and right, perhaps we can get rid of the crony lying media machine and have a real conversation.
Bernie Sanders has done a lot of pandering I don't like, and it is what it is, okay?
But I want to have a real conversation about the issues, a real conversation.
I'd love to see Donald Trump go on the Joe Rogan podcast, same as Bernie Sanders did, and I want to see someone hold their feet to the fire, both Trump and Bernie.
I want to hear a real argument about why their ideas do or don't make sense, and I would like everyone to kind of calm down, because I look at the comment section on even my videos, and it's like, Chill, right?
Let's do our best to have a good faith conversation and win with the battle of ideas, right?
I can argue against you and say why you're wrong, and if we can leave with a handshake and I'll see you at the voting booth, we're better off.
The first thing we gotta do is get rid of the fear-monger conspiracy peddlers.
Alex Jones gets banned.
They go after him and say he's pushing nonsense.
What about Rachel Maddow?
Where's her reckoning?
Perhaps it's coming.
I certainly hope it is.
My favorite line from all of this, and this is the last thing I'll show you.
She's there for the bunkings, absent for the debunkings.
Social credit systems that give you a certain ranking based on doing good things, and you lose rank if you do bad things.
Now, my understanding is that the social credit systems in China were being, like, trialed.
They're not as widespread as a lot of people believed.
But, rest assured, it wouldn't stay confined to, you know, the nation of China and would eventually make its way over here in some capacity.
Now, we already have a kind of loose social credit system in that there's no hard number you receive, sort of, if you do something wrong, but you can be canceled on social media.
So, we are seeing the rise of this, like, I don't know, mob-like hive mind in the United States that isn't quantifying your bad behavior like they are in China.
So, let me try and rephrase this.
You say a naughty word on Twitter, they will cancel you.
You question whether or not biological sex is real, they will cancel you.
In China, they actually just assign a number to you, and it's kind of like that episode of Black Mirror.
Okay, well here's the actual story.
American universities are using social credit systems to track students.
I think the title is a little hyperbolic, but upon looking at the evidence, yeah, it is a low-grade form of social credit system.
It's an app called SpotterEDU.
Let me read you the opening paragraphs and I'll explain to you what these colleges are doing.
They say, A handful of U.S.
colleges are employing a type of social credit system through various technologies designed to track students as they attend courses and walk across campus.
Universities across the country are using the so-called SpotterEDU app to connect with apps on students' smartphones for the purpose of boosting their quote, attendance points.
The app also sees their absences and logs that information into a campus database that tracks them.
Quote, they want those points, Syracuse University professor Jeff Rubin, who teaches introduction to information technologies, told the Washington Post.
They know I'm watching and acting on it.
So behaviorally, behaviorally, they change.
He was referring to the app's ability to socially engineer his students.
So here's the app in question.
We'll come back to this.
They say, an automated attendance monitoring and early alerting platform.
Now, many of you may be saying, well, so what?
Kids should be attending class if they're paying for it, right?
Well, no, no, no.
College is a bit different.
You see, the rules towards colleges are, you know, you might show up, you might not.
Can you pass the exam?
They don't all function that way.
It really depends on if you're going to, like, a lecture hall or, you know, whatever, man.
I didn't go to college because, you know, there's a lot of reasons why.
I think I made the right choice.
A lot of people are in debt.
But because I felt like If you don't need to go to these classes, if you just need to pass a test to get a signed piece of paper, well, that's pointless.
What's the piece of paper going to do for you?
In my opinion, college degrees, outside of the ones you legally are required to have, like law or medicine or something, or if you want to work at the university, are just a crutch for people who aren't able to confidently sell their abilities or who actually never developed any abilities out in the real world.
Anyway, enough ragging on college.
The point is, There's a certain flexibility to the rules in our society.
You know, jaywalking is illegal, but for the most part, people jaywalk.
The reason the rule's there is because...
While we want to be like, hey man, this was a circumstance where you shouldn't have jaywalked, typically you can, especially in like New York, though you still might get a ticket if the cop's being like a dick.
The point is, don't show up to class, do what you need to do, solve the problems on your own, and pass the test.
But now they're creating hard rigidity through artificial intelligence and apps.
And apparently what you get, I suppose, is these points.
The points are apparently arbitrary, but based on how many points you have will be determined by the professor who thinks you may or may not be attending their class.
I'll tell you this.
I don't think it's that big of a deal, right?
It's like, so what if you have 50 points because you missed a class or two, right?
It's the implication.
It's the dominoes falling down, the path we're heading towards.
Eventually, everything's going to be tracked by apps, every business, and we are going to live in a world where we are completely controlled by programs and artificial intelligence.
The reason that's particularly scary, for one, Look, man, what if the app doesn't work?
I guarantee you the app will have errors.
Now you're going to be punished because a machine broke.
Now, I get it.
These things can happen.
But we're going to slowly start building up these walls around us, where eventually, before you even realize it, everything you do will be dictated based on a timer that pops up on your phone saying, time to do this.
And you won't even know why you're doing it.
But you're scared not to.
And everyone's going to be locked into these systems.
You take a look at what goes on with cancel culture on Twitter.
This is a precursor to a social credit system.
China's already tried it.
It's now going to be, you know, in some capacity rolled out.
But we're seeing it.
And we need to actively call this out, otherwise... Well, I'll tell you this.
We need to call it out, but I don't think anything's going to stop it.
I think the call for convenience is too easy.
These professors are like, what's the big deal?
It's just an attendance app, right?
And the next person says, what's the big deal?
It's just a grade tracking app, right?
What's the big deal?
It's just a social media account.
Now, we already have the issue where on social media your follower count is like a point system where people are assigning value to people based on how many followers they have.
Say you're a musician, you want to play a show, and it's been this way for a long time.
It used to be that you sent in a demo to the venue and they would listen to it and be like, Okay.
And they'd ask you, be like, you know, do you have a press kit?
Like, how big are your shows?
And they'd take your word for it.
And sometimes people wouldn't show up and, you know, that's the way it is.
Then we started seeing the rise of social media.
And then, if you wanted to get a show, you had to show them how many followers you had.
So people started buying fake followers.
We started building up this fake world and now you got all these Instagram influencers who buy fake followers and pretend like they're famous and then actually sell ads against it.
Yeah, we are seeing how technology is creating this quantified reality where people are just going to do and believe whatever the machine tells them.
So let me make sure I can make that point clear.
A booker at a venue would listen to the music.
They'd look at photos of past shows and decide whether or not they thought it was a good idea to have you play their venue.
I don't care what music you play if people show up and give me money, buy booze or whatever.
And that's where we're headed.
So don't be surprised if in the future music is complete garbage because people just buy fake followers to pretend like they're real and then no one shows up and venues do worse.
Let's read a little bit more about the story about this here university app.
They say, not every student is on board with the app and its implications.
Quote, where adults do we really need to be tracked?
Robbie Pfeiffer, a sophomore at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, told WAPO.
Why is this necessary?
How does this benefit us?
And is it just going to keep progressing until we're micromanaged every second of the day?
Yes!
Pfeiffer's campus recently began logging the attendance of students connected to the campus' Wi-Fi network, which empowers colleges to track hundreds of thousands of students more precisely than at any other time in American history.
SpotterEDU worked with about 40 schools, including Central Florida, Missouri, Indiana.
According to the company chief, Rick Carter, a former college basketball coach, he developed the app in 2015 to watch over his athletes as they navigated their respective campuses.
So basically, here's what's happening.
As the one professor already stated, these students know they're being watched.
It's beyond just their attendance, right?
The way the Washington Post kind of put it, colleges are turning students' phones into surveillance machines, tracking the locations of hundreds of thousands.
Now, it may just be when you walk into the class.
The story is, the way they say it is there's Bluetooth sensors.
and campus-wide Wi-Fi.
So they know where you are all the time.
You walk into class, the Bluetooth thing goes off, sees your phone, knows you're in the
classroom, tells the professor.
Man, think about the world that's being built.
It's literally the Panopticon.
It's Big Brother, okay?
One of the scariest aspects of the Big Brother dystopian future was that you could never be yourself because they were always watching.
You could never, you know, sit back, let your gut come out, stick your hands in your pants and crack a beer and watch TV and just have your own privacy.
Because, well, we're not there yet.
So they know you're in your bedroom watching TV shows.
But we will get to a point now where they're already putting cameras everywhere.
And it's beyond just whether or not they can see you.
They're going to know what you're doing.
You know that Facebook knows when you're going to go to the bathroom?
Facebook knows where you're going to eat.
This is the world that's being built, and once people realize they're being watched, it's going to put people in this really rigid, you know, tight space.
Could you imagine?
You look at the things that, like, Michael Bloomberg says.
He says we should tax sugary drinks because people are too stupid, and they'll buy them, and it's bad for them.
He said at a forum something about taxing the poor is a good thing, otherwise they'll have, you know, they'll have money to spend on things that hurt them.
That's the mentality of the people in power that have all this money.
And what's going to be built is we'll eventually come to a point where Facebook's going to start shaming you, sort of.
You know what I mean?
Surprisingly, people don't care that Zuckerberg knows when you're going to the bathroom.
I think at a certain point you probably should be worried about that, but fine, whatever.
But they're going to start being able to protect politics.
They're going to start being able to control industry.
We are entering a space of complete authoritarianism through capitulation.
The people who use these apps think it's not a big deal.
It's convenient.
But then they're eventually worried, as the story highlights, that the schools and the teachers know what they're doing, so they change their behavior accordingly.
Let me make sure I can make this point, drive it home.
In the beginning of the story, they say that, you know, these students want these points.
They know I'm watching and acting on it.
So behaviorally, they change.
Where do you think that's going to bring us in the future?
It's starting with the universities.
It's eventually going to be rolled out by jobs.
You know, in Europe they passed a law that said they can't email you after work.
I don't like the idea, but I think it's maybe a good thing, you know, when you look at this.
We're going to come to a point now Where you're going to have an app for your job that's going to track your location.
And they're going to say, hey, it's part of the contract you signed.
We want to know where you're at at all times.
They already do it to truck drivers.
They're doing it at schools.
What's to stop them from doing it at your job?
Knowing where you are and what you're doing.
And then they might see that you went and did something and they're going to say, you know, that's, you know, that's counterproductive or to make things, you know, better.
Let's say you work for a fast food restaurant and you are on call.
You know what on call means?
Basically means you're off, but if they need you, they'll call you in.
You got to come in.
Well, all of my friends usually ignore their phones.
You know?
They're like, I'm off today, but I'm on call.
Or this is how it used to be back when, you know, I hung out with people.
When we were younger and we worked at fast food kind of places.
And the phone would ring and they would ignore it.
It's my job.
If I answer it, they're going to make me come in.
I'm just going to tell them I was doing this.
I'll tell them I was out with my family.
Or they'll literally call and say I'm out with my family.
Something like that.
What happens when the job has an app?
So that you can check your schedule.
And that app also tracks your location.
Because if you want the job, we want to know where you're at.
So they can say something like this.
Say you apply at McDonald's.
They'll say... Okay, I won't use McDonald's as an example.
But say you apply at a fast food restaurant.
They say, as part of this job, you must have this app installed to track your pay, your hours, and your schedule.
Makes sense, right?
Easy.
They also say...
The app has location services so when we do on-call, we know if you're available.
And most people will just be like, oh, okay.
And this will get rid of that freedom to where you could be like, I can't work today.
I'm just too tired.
And they're going to try and call me and they're going to get mad at me.
So I just ignore it.
Nope, that'll be gone.
And it's going to be a bunch of little things.
Let me do this.
I'm going to spend the last bit of this segment to tell you about a vision I have of the future as this social credit system and artificial intelligence dictating our lives as it expands.
Imagine this.
You're sitting at a cafe with a friend and your phone vibrates and you look and it says, you know, user Timcast task, you know, task required.
And it says, it shows a picture of a weird object laying in the street.
It says, take this object, hand it to this person.
And it shows a picture of a random person.
And so I'm like, oh, I got to go to work.
I get up, I walk 10 feet, I pick up this weird, strange, twisted, you know, Is it the most efficient thing in the world for the contractor to go and actually hire someone to go and get the wood himself?
Technically, no.
I walk 100 feet and there's that person, I hand it to them, and they say thank you and
they walk away.
This is my vision of the future.
So bear with me, I'll explain this.
Is it the most efficient thing in the world for the contractor to go and actually hire
someone to go and get the wood himself?
Technically no.
If an artificial intelligence started taking over how the industry worked and completely
ran it, there would be jobs you just don't understand and never would because it doesn't
seem to make sense.
They don't need you to build the weird gearbox, go source the supplies, go find the supplies, build it, and then try and figure out who needs it.
The artificial intelligence already knows who needs it, it already knows who has the materials, it already knows who's close enough to pick it up and bring it to somebody else.
So you wouldn't have a schedule, you wouldn't have a boss, you'd have an AI telling you where to go and what to do.
Now admittedly, this would dramatically reduce the workload for everybody.
But it's also a really weird, passionless future.
And so I've talked to my friends about this, and they've said things like, no, but people want to do things.
No, no, no, no, man.
People want to do specific things based on, you know, how our society functions today.
They see an astronaut, they want to be an astronaut, right?
What about an app where you earn points for doing tasks you don't quite understand?
Yeah, you would do it.
And then you'd brag about how you're gold medal on the app and you're like rank 73 because you've carried out the most arbitrary tasks.
You don't quite understand.
But in the end, you know, when you zoom out of this individual, so let's go through this again.
You're sitting at a cafe.
Your phone vibrates.
It says, take this item to this man.
It tells you where to go.
You follow the arrow.
You don't even know what street you're on.
You do it.
You now have a rank of you're doing really, really well.
But you have no idea what the task was for.
You have no idea why it mattered.
And you'll never ask the question.
But now stop, imagine an overhead view, and zoom out all the way in outer space and look down at all of the people doing these little tasks all over the place, and it will be a substantially more efficient way to build something.
And this person didn't realize it, but they built a spaceship or something.
The big problem is that AI is created by people.
So this future of a completely decentralized, kind of like arbitrary work that results in a bigger picture is idealized.
This idea that we're going to have a future where we build spaceships and go to Mars and an AI is dictating it benevolently.
Here's one of the biggest mistakes people make when it comes to artificial intelligence.
The assumption that there's going to be some, like, humanistic, nefarious plot, right?
And trust me, this does tie into what's going on in these universities.
I'm roping it all together.
Stay tuned.
Here.
People imagine that the artificial intelligence will behave the way humans think it will behave, right?
So they think either you're going to see the Terminator scenario or the Ultron scenario where the AI realizes to make a peaceful world, we just wipe out humans.
Never going to happen.
That makes no sense.
That won't be within the parameters of what the AI has as possible, but very, very unlikely.
Other people think if we tell the AI we want to go to the moon then we'll have this future where the AI can accurately predict and build things and it becomes faster than itself so it keeps improving itself and we just get to live in like a WALL-E style paradise where we're all floating around in chairs and going off into outer space.
Not going to happen either.
Possible.
Not going to happen.
I'll tell you what's really going to happen.
The best example is to go look at the Elsagate conspiracy on YouTube.
For those that aren't familiar, this was a period where a couple of different things were happening on YouTube.
For one, you had all of these videos of people, of women who dressed up like Elsa from Frozen, Spider-Man, and the Joker, and they would do this, you know, dialogue-less, weird, like, slapstick comedy.
And these videos were everywhere, and they were getting ridiculous amounts of views.
But the other more important thing.
that happened was the weird finger family crisis.
This was when a whole bunch of really creepy, algorithmically generated videos started popping up of, like, the Incredible Hulk dancing with Hitler while some really crappy nursery rhyme plays.
There were videos popping up of, like, little kids drinking urine.
Just, like, really messed up stuff.
And it was because it was algorithmically generated.
This is what we are facing today, and it's what's going to happen in the future with this.
You think the app, right now, tracks your attendance.
And so the assumption from the people is, with this app, students will be more likely to go to school.
No.
The humans will find a more efficient path, a desire path.
A desire path is a path that deviates from the constructed path and goes a different direction to find its end result.
So what you'll likely see, the attendance app is probably light.
It's probably not the biggest deal in the world, but it is something we're heading towards.
You will likely end up seeing people find a different way to earn points.
Location spoofers?
Now they'll just stop going to class altogether because they can just spoof their location.
That'll work, right?
Well, not with the Bluetooth sensors.
Maybe they'll just hand their phone to someone and say, go to class for me.
There's ways around this.
It's not going to play out the way they think it is.
And that brings me to the main point about what our future will look like if we keep building apps like this that try to guide people through weird artificial intelligence systems.
You see, all of that stuff with Elsagate, it was designed by humans on purpose, but they didn't realize what was going to happen.
You see, YouTube wanted Game of Thrones.
Instead, what did they get?
They got weird, creepy videos of kids drinking urine and injecting themselves in the butts and, like, Spider-Man chasing Elsa and the Joker falling downstairs and someone singing Finger Family while Hitler danced to it.
It was insane.
It is psychotic.
And that was the result.
You see, the parameters programmed by YouTube These humans looked at Game of Thrones.
I'm using Game of Thrones as a hypothetical.
They looked at these TV shows and said, we want at least 10 minutes, we want long engagement, we want hot, you know, popular keywords, and we don't know what those keywords are because they change.
What did you get?
You got freaky nursery rhymes where the Incredible Hulk was dancing with skeletons in Spider-Man and kids were injecting themselves in the butt.
I kid you not, there were videos where a guy literally injects a kid with a syringe.
It's because the algorithm doesn't understand.
The humans do, but the humans couldn't program it properly.
So if you think we'll get a Terminator scenario, you're wrong.
If you think we're going to get this beautiful decentralized AI that's going to build up the path of the future, you're wrong.
We're going to get a freakish nightmare, and we're already living in it.
The way I described it, I was on Steven Crowder recently, and the way I described it was, YouTube programmed an algorithm because they wanted Game of Thrones.
Instead, they got some dude in his bedroom complaining about the Democrats all day.
And I'm making fun of myself.
And other people.
You get the point.
The video you're watching right now fits the specific parameters of what YouTube wanted in content, but it's not the content YouTube wanted, so they're angry about it.
So they're punishing us and trying to stop it somehow, but the machine has grown too large.
This will happen on a grander scale, and it will get worse.
YouTube wanted, you know, more than 10 minutes.
They want high retention rates.
They want popular words.
You're looking right at it.
We've got social credit system.
We've got university.
We've got now going on 20 minutes where I've been talking straight, and many of you have listened to the whole thing.
This fits all of those parameters, but this is not what they had in mind.
What they had in mind was an action-adventure movie.
You don't even need to watch the video.
Right now I'm just talking.
You could go to a different tab.
You could be playing video games and listening to what I'm saying.
It's like a podcast.
Not what YouTube wanted.
So they're actively trying to suppress it now because it was created on accident.
Think about that but at a massive scale as these schools and other outlets start using similar algorithmic programs to incentivize and disincentivize certain behaviors.
And you will end up... You will not be able to predict what the world will look like.
We're gonna end up with universities where no one goes to class anymore and no one knows why!
And they just take, you know, I mean, that's kind of a good thing.
I think college is terrible, but... So anyway, this is the main point, right?
It's not so much about social credit systems.
It is.
The issue is that the social credit system will not produce what you think it will produce.
You can design an algorithm to incentivize and disincentivize certain things, and what you will end up with is not Game of Thrones.
You will end up with Elsa chasing Spider-Man and falling down the stairs and kids drinking urine.
I'm not exaggerating.
That existed.
Google it.
I made several videos about it when the scandal broke out.
That's what's going to happen through all of these social tracking systems.
Facebook has been doing this worse than YouTube.
It's been a nightmare.
And I've explained this before, but I'll wrap it up with this one final point.
You need to check this out.
At the early dawn of Facebook, they started prioritizing buzzwords, keywords, because they wanted engaging content to surface.
This gave rise to intersectionality.
It makes sense, right?
If you read an article about racism, you will get a certain amount of people to watch because they care about racism.
If you write about sexism, then you'll get the people who care about sexism.
But what about both?
How do we write an article?
We write about racist sexism, hence intersectionality.
Now you see articles from Vice that say, like, trans women of color, you know, facing police brutality explains why Black Lives Matter was so important.
They cram as much as possible into a single article to get the biggest audience and the biggest algorithmic push on Facebook.
This has resulted in a massive explosion of certain terminology as I've shown this before.
There's a data set from LexisNexis showing how this happened.
Nobody wanted it to happen.
Facebook did not think they would give rise to a radical left that would destabilize the Democratic Party, but they did.
You can predict where it goes from here, sort of.
We don't know exactly what'll end up happening.
But as long as they keep implementing programs like this, not realizing that it's going to have... You know, so let me wrap this up.
He says they know I'm watching, acting on it, so behaviorally they change.
You don't know how they change.
You don't know what the response will be.
You think you know.
You think the simple solution is they'll just come to class.
No.
Someone will probably create a Bluetooth transponder that simulates someone's location and someone will probably hack a spoofing app and it will actually cause chaos and attendance might actually go down because now people realize you're not even looking for them anymore.
The teacher might even be like, I'm not going to bother taking attendance or looking for students because the app does it for me and now they're spoofing it and the end result could be the complete opposite of what you wanted.
I think we're doomed anyways or whatever.
I guess we'll figure it out, but my vision of the future is going to be people are going to be acting really weird, saying things that make no sense.
They're going to be screaming at each other all the time because these are the things the machine incentivizes.
I'll tell you what.
Go watch some Doctor Who about the AI that was supposed to protect that colony or whatever.
I can't remember what episode it was.
Whatever.
I'm done.
Long video.
Sorry.
I'll see you all in the next segment at 1 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out.
Soledad O'Brien slams Brian Stelter of CNN for booking guests who intentionally lie on air.
Soledad O'Brien is a former CNN anchor and broadcast journalist, so I'm glad to see somebody is finally calling out CNN for their pretend unbiased bias.
CNN is one of the worst actors when it comes to the Orange Man Bad narrative.
They have been accused of being the Orange Man Bad channel.
They're a trash network who routinely bring on the same people to make the same points, and now they're finally being called out for being... pro-Trump?
Yeah, see, when I first saw the story, I was like, thank you for finally calling out CNN's BS, but in reality, it turns out, the critique is actually that CNN is bringing on pro-Trump personalities to lie.
Okay, you know what?
On the surface, I'm fine with any critique of CNN, because it's true, they do have bad people on both sides, but come on, man, 90%, 95% of what they have on CNN is complete anti-Trump trash.
They also push insane narratives about independent and alternative media.
So yeah, trash.
So I can appreciate the sentiment, but I think you're going a little bit in the wrong direction.
But anyway, let's read what Soledad O'Brien had to say.
Fox News reports, Anchor-turned-media exec Soledad O'Brien blasted CNN and its chief media correspondent Brian Stelter for the network's practice of booking guests who intentionally lie on air.
The spat began when Stelter shared a piece about the significance of disinformation that has plagued social media.
You know, it was only three years of Russiagate propped up by outlets like CNN, but sure, thanks for uncritically parroting government talking points, not doing journalism, whatever.
Quote, we have this alternative media ecosystem that is driving a lot of disinformation.
It is not understood by journalists or anyone really beyond a very small group of people who are really engaged with it, Stelter tweeted.
Quoting Bellingcat Executive Director Elliot Higgins.
O'Brien, a former CNN anchor, took exception to Stelter's tweets.
Also, mainstream media outlets frequently book guests who lie intentionally on the air.
CNN is one such outlet.
Yes, they are.
O'Brien told Stelter, Instead of shunning those guests, they are booked again and again and again.
She then took aim at the media guru.
What, Stelter?
When CNN's media reporter pretends his own news org isn't part of this BS, it's a problem.
Here, here.
100%.
I don't think one side's perfect, one side's bad.
I think you've got bad media on the right.
I think there's a lot of pitfalls that all media organizations are plagued by.
The problem with most conservative media is that they're commentary factories and they're not actually doing journalism.
Not all of them, but a lot of the most prominent ones.
And I'll give a notable critique to the Daily Wire.
I think the Daily Wire actually does a fairly decent job, but they are mostly just a commentary website.
And that's fine.
You're allowed to do commentary.
I do commentary.
But it's still a problem for conservatives that one of the most prominent conservative outlets, the Daily Wire gets some of the most engagements on Facebook, is just, for the most part, commentary.
You don't have any real on-the-ground... Well, that's not fair.
There are some, you know, real reporters who work for The Daily Wire.
I'm not trying to drag The Daily Wire.
By all means, you know, you can do commentary.
But it's a big difference between actual field reporting, you know, digging up documents, and what The Daily Wire is doing.
Now, on the left, they have big organizations that actually have reporters, and the problem is they're left-biased.
They frame things in a way that benefits their narrative, and then the right responds to it.
So the left will put out fake news, CNN will put on people who lie, and they'll propagate a narrative that is just not true, and then instead of actually digging into, you know, the documents and coming out, for the most part, conservative outlets tend to just comment on it, on why they think it's not true or whatever.
And again, I think it's fine to do commentary, I'm just pointing out, it's gonna be a big problem in the media landscape that all of the news is being generated by, you know, the left, for the most part.
But let's go on, let's go on.
This is the first time O'Brien went after Stelter.
Last month, she ripped the CNN icon for his response when asked how networks can get Americans interested in the impeachment hearings.
I also think episode one, so to speak, matters a lot.
And I hate to say that because we're talking about basic democracy at risk here.
But from a television perspective, Democrats have to come out strong in that first episode, Stalter said during a CNN segment.
For the same reason when we're watching Netflix or listening to a new podcast, we only choose to keep listening if we're interested in episode one.
So then O'Brien said, Why is CNN so stupid about important s?
This is Saliza level insanity.
Brian should be ashamed of himself.
O'Brien reacted, referring the often mocked CNN political analyst Chris Saliza in the
process.
So look, here's what I want to show you.
This is the tweet from Soledad O'Brien and I want to show you what people are responding to because I do not believe that Soledad O'Brien is criticizing CNN for having a pro-left establishment narrative.
I think she's criticizing them for the very few people who come on to actually defend the president.
CNN has some people who have come on and actually defended the president.
And Republicans.
I mean, they have Rick Santorum, I believe, who actually did a fairly decent job of defending the Republican side of the argument on impeachment.
And it was a decent roundtable.
I don't think CNN's the worst, by far.
The problem I have with them is that they pretend like they're the best.
They pretend like they're not playing the same game as everybody else.
I'm not going to sit here and pretend like, you know, people like to say, oh, Jim Poole's unbiased and all that stuff.
I don't know, man.
I don't know about that.
I certainly have my bias against certain institutions.
But I will tell you this.
What really motivates me is coming from the media world itself and seeing how the whole machine is full of lies.
And it is.
So seeing Soledad O'Brien say this, good.
I'm glad.
I'm glad someone's finally calling it out and she's a former CNN anchor.
At least that's my understanding.
I'm pretty sure she was.
So when it comes to what we see in the press, Republican, Democrat, you know what I see?
I see Republicans saying things where I'm kind of like, okay, that's an opinion.
That's their faith.
That's what they think.
And then I see Brian Stelter, duplicitous, saying things like, don't listen to the spin.
I'm going to do a bigger segment coming up about, you know, the fake news and their reckoning and how the establishment plays this game.
But let's get to what these people are saying because now we get into a world of absurdity where it actually seems like they're saying CNN is pro-Trump, like they should be more anti-Trump.
You're like, man...
If CNN has a problem, it's that CNN props up crony establishment figures who push lies, okay?
Not pro-Trump lies.
But here we have Sherry Jacobus.
She is a never-Trumper.
She says, pizazz-free, never Trump pundit writer, RNC adjunct professor, executive producer, whatever.
She said, Zucker banned me for Trump.
After I brought up published reports, I'd confirmed that Trump had a super PAC and lied about it.
Zucker had CNN transcripts scrubbed of the segment.
The rest of the show was there, but not my segment.
When called by a reporter, they wouldn't comment.
Hey, man.
If you were gonna tell me that Zucker was scrubbing legitimate information that made Trump look bad, I'll believe it.
I absolutely will believe it.
Do I think CNN likes Trump?
No.
I think their motivation for this would be like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
We kinda need the guy.
We don't like him, but we definitely need him.
Think about what CNN's become.
Here's what I want you to do.
I'm gonna do a shameless promo.
Go to instagram.com slash timcast and you'll notice, aside from the cat picture, there's a couple videos.
I turned on Fox News.
What do I see?
Hong Kong protests, Iranian protests, severe weather over the holiday season.
I'm like, well, that's news.
And each time I turn this on, I would flip to CNN.
And what are they doing?
The orange man is bad.
But why?
Impeachment, impeachment, impeachment.
The orange man is bad.
Because let's be real.
Zucker loves Trump.
He does.
Now, all of you, you know, watching, or many of you watching are probably saying, no way, Tim, how dare you?
No, no, no, no, no, man.
It's a love-hate thing.
He absolutely hates the man, but he loves the sweet, juicy green he gets by pushing certain narratives.
So here's what I think.
Yeah, maybe this Jerry Jacobus had legit information that would make Trump look bad.
Look, Trump's no saint.
I don't think he's as bad as they try to paint him out to be on a lot of these channels.
But this might be real information that could hurt Trump.
You know what CNN wants, in my opinion?
They want Trump to win.
I would be willing to bet, if we had a mind-reading device, you would hear the mind of, you know, people like Brian Stelter and Don Lemon and Jeff Zucker, president of CNN, Saying, please Trump win, please Trump win.
They're crossing their fingers and hoping so bad that he wins.
Because a Trump bump is sweet, sweet cable TV gold.
And they don't want to give it up.
So I'll tell you this, I would agree.
You know, if there was some information that could legitimately hurt Trump, I bet CNN would be like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on.
Because the stuff that CNN puts out is insane tabloid trash that in no way helps the Democrats.
It makes them look nuts.
They can come out all day like impeachment, and impeachment makes them look nuts.
Think about it.
Impeachment has helped Trump across the board, okay?
His approval rating is up, he's raking in the donations, and CNN keeps playing this game.
I'm not trying to claim that CNN is black propaganda, but, like, I've talked about this before, and I think it's fair to say, a lot of people, you might agree with me.
The Trump bump is real.
The more these outlets get to hate on Trump, the better they are off financially.
So what do you think these businesses want?
Do you think they want to go back to the era of reporting on, like, black holes swallowing missing airplanes?
I kid you not, Don Lemon actually had a panel about that.
And the ratings are collapsing.
They need Trump.
It's an injection straight into the veins.
So I'll tell you this, CNN probably wants to maintain a very, very anti-Trump narrative while making sure that any real information that could really hurt the president is omitted.
I know, I know, there's probably a lot of Trump people who say, I don't believe it, man, they hate the guy, but nah, dude.
They hate him, but they need to hate him.
They need Trump to win so that all of these anti-Trump people are crying at home glued to CNN, something to watch.
Meanwhile, turn on Fox News and they're talking about, I don't know, Iranian protests?
Who cares about that, right?
Well, I mean, I do.
That's why I stopped watching CNN.
Check this out.
Here's another comment.
This guy says, NPR just now on the rise in homelessness.
The Trump administration is trying to figure out a way to deal with the problem,
but has yet to come up with a plan.
Spoiler alert NPR, no the Trump administration isn't.
They literally are.
Trump hates California.
Okay, he doesn't hate California, but he's ragged on California relentlessly over their homelessness problem, so yes, Trump wants to figure out how to deal with that problem.
It will make him look good.
Come on, man.
Let's not play any games.
This guy says, in short, throw a line, but epitomizes so many ways the media keeps failing in covering Trump.
How?
Without even an attribution, it pains the Trump admin as a normal admin trying earnestly to address a social problem that it in reality mocks and sneers at.
I disagree.
Look, man, whatever you think Trump's motives are, I think Trump wants to solve the homeless crisis.
Now, you can argue Trump's a narcissist and a bad guy, and he's only doing it because it'll make him look good.
Fine, whatever.
At least he's trying, I guess?
Why would you claim that NPR is wrong when the Trump administration has literally called out the homeless problem?
But anyway, I highlight these because they're literally trying to claim CNN is legit pro-Trump.
Look at this photo.
This person says, as long as Jeff Zucker has the job of running CNN, you will have as much adherence to truth as in reality TV.
Politics is only performative to him.
Corrosion of our democracy, be damned.
And here's a photo they posted of Jeff Zucker with Donald Trump.
I don't know who the other guy is, but I think they take it a little too far.
Jeff Zucker doesn't like Trump.
Jeff Zucker's embarrassed.
There was—when you look at, like, Project Veritas, the recordings, the consensus from a lot of—well, not the consensus, but a lot of people at CNN seem to think that Zucker is embarrassed that he ran so much of Trump rallies and, like, Trump commentary that it helped him, and now he's trying to be anti-Trump.
I think that's fair.
I think it's true.
I think Zucker is kind of embarrassed about it.
But I also think CNN has realized the power of the Trump bump.
And that's why a lot of, in these Veritas videos, you also see people saying, we used to go on the ground and do reporting, now we just, you know, do panels on Trump.
Yeah.
Come on, man.
Let me ask you this.
I know that CNN is the orange man bad channel.
They certainly hate the guy.
But do you really think CNN wants Trump out of office?
No way.
They need it.
They absolutely do.
Here's my prediction, man.
Trump's going to win 2020.
Republicans are going to sweep across the board.
We'll see what happens.
And CNN is going to be salivating.
Because it means four more years of the most insane and psychotic news cycle.
But I'll tell you this.
If they actually presented information that could hurt Trump, that would be bad for business.
So they have to be anti-Trump without crossing that line.
I know, I know.
It's speculation.
Some people think Zucker just wants Trump out.
Maybe that's the case.
I don't.
I think CNN wants money.
I think they want cold hard cash.
I think they found their base.
The CNN base is the anti-Trump, orange man, bad law resistance crowd.
And they feign objectivity while Don Lemon goes, are you crazy?
You posted a meme?
Don Lemon, you're not impartial.
We know what the game is.
But I will end this segment with one thing.
If you think So I know I said I predict a Trump victory, but I'm gonna walk that back.
I'm gonna walk that back.
If you think Trump's got this in the bag, you got another thing coming.
You need to realize, okay, whether on the left or the right, there's a lot of people on the left on MSNBC saying they think Trump's gonna win.
Michael Moore just said it.
Hold your horses, man.
There's a lot of Trump supporters who think they've got this victory.
I don't think so.
I really don't.
You know why?
But you have to realize that a lot of people who voted for Trump weren't really paying attention in the first place.
Some of these people just vote Republican.
Some of these people listen to what Trump said.
And some of these people today are living in a good economy and they're no longer focused on politics.
And I know this because I talk to people.
So I'll tell you this, I talk to at least a few people who have no idea that the economy is booming under Trump.
They just know that they're doing better.
They don't know anything about Trump's contributions.
They don't know anything about his policies or financials or the news.
They don't care.
You've got 63 million Trump voters, right?
But how many of them are actually ardent Trump supporters, and how many are passive Trump voters?
Those passive Trump voters went into election night thinking, Trump sounds good, I guess, and then they checked the box.
The Democrats are gonna come out in force, foaming at the mouth, because the orange man is bad, and they think he's literally, like, he's a fascistic dictator, because they're nuts.
He's not that bad, but I'll tell you this, if you think you're gonna win, You got another thing coming.
Now, I do think if someone put a gun to my head, I'd say, yeah, Trump's probably gonna win.
But you know what's gonna, the biggest mistake Trump supporters are gonna make is?
It's gonna be hubris.
With this roaring economy, there's gonna be a lot of people thinking they don't gotta go out and vote, and they're not.
And that's the advantage for the left.
That's what they have.
So while Jeff Zucker might not really want Trump to get to leave, that constant narrative is gonna rile up a lot of people to go out and vote against Trump.
It could also be something else.
In this critique, and I'll be fair, she says that Zucker basically killed a segment because she found out Trump had a super PAC.
That might be because the Democrats do the same thing.
And the concern is, if we call out Trump, then they're going to call out us.
So rather just complain about Trump's behavior and say the orange man is bad than actually highlight the real corruption of our political system.
Now that, I think, makes more sense.
Zucker does hate Trump.
Zucker loves the sweet, sweet anti-Trump money.
But Zucker ain't willing to call out what the Democrats be doing, too, because it'll hurt him in the long run.
It's how the game is played.
I'll leave it there.
Let me know what you think.
Fun segment.
But I am gonna do, the next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
and it's about Rachel Maddow's reckoning because now I got a bunch of stuff popping up.
They're finally calling her out.
Well, they've been calling her out, but we'll see what happens.
Stick around.
It'll be at 4 p.m.
youtube.com slash timcast and I will see you all there.
The poll did not ask whether or not people liked Donald Trump.
It did not ask whether or not they would vote for Donald Trump or whether or not they would vote for any of the Democrats.
The poll asks, do you think your life will get better?
And 80% of respondents said yes.
And there was one big reason.
The economy.
People are actually projecting in the next year things are going to go really well for them.
I certainly feel it.
2019 was a good year, and I fully expect 2020 to be an amazing year.
Beyond that, when asked about the economy, what did they say?
Donald Trump.
And this brings me to the second story I want to highlight, from the American Enterprise Institute, an op-ed.
Trump's economy keeps tripping up Democrats.
The biggest challenge facing the Democrats is they're going to have to convince Americans who overwhelmingly believe their life is getting better because of the economy and many of them praising Trump.
The Democrats have to convince them to kick that man out of office.
Good luck.
Seriously, good luck.
If all you've got is the guy's got bad character, then I say good luck to you.
But let's read this poll and see how people really feel.
I think this is kind of a shocking poll because it inadvertently is predicting a Trump 2020 victory.
Will it be a happy new year?
Sure, in our own lives.
For the country?
Poll says that's tougher.
USA Today reports.
Americans feel sunny about the new year, at least when it comes to their own lives.
What about the nation as a whole?
There are more clouds in the sky on that.
A USA Today, Suffolk University poll this month asked Americans if they thought things would get better or worse in their own lives in 2020 by an overwhelming 80% to 11%.
They predicted their lives would be better.
That optimism stretched across demographic lines.
Although men had a more positive outlook than women, and Southerners had a more positive outlook than Midwesterners.
Why, they ask?
The economy.
And as the saying goes, it's the economy, stupid.
I mean, that's your ability to access resources.
Are your kids going to school?
Are you getting the medicine you need?
Can you pay off your bills?
Can you save for a car?
Can you get a new house?
It's the economy, stupid.
In follow-up interviews, those surveyed often mentioned the strong economy when asked what's ahead for them personally.
My life's going pretty well, said Alex Foss, 28, a construction inspector from Lakeland, Florida.
I'm under 30 and I'm making more money each year. Bravo, good sir, I'm glad to hear it.
He sees fellow millennials in his neighborhood buying homes and starting families.
By about a 3 to 1 ratio, those surveyed also predicted things would get better next year for their communities.
But as for the nation as a whole, optimism was more tempered, and attitudes more divided by partisanship.
By a wide 72% to 16%, Republicans expected things to get better in the United States.
By double digits, 54% to 37%, Democrats said things would get worse.
Overall, 54 predicted better times, while 34 predicted worse.
12% weren't sure.
And I blame the lies.
I really do.
We heard it from Vox's Matthew Iglesias, that progressives messaging on taxes convinced the middle class they did not get a tax cut, and he called it a victory.
We saw it again from Matthew Iglesias, that Democrats are lying about the economy on the debate stage.
So I'm not surprised that Democrats are pessimistic and worried, while Republicans are cheering.
But when it comes to the individual, the individual doesn't deny it.
Life is good.
By 80% people say, my life is going to get better.
Get off the glass is half empty narrative, man.
The glass is half full.
And it's only getting more and more full.
Now check this out, the Trump factor.
Asked about the country's prospects, respondents tended to mention President Donald Trump.
Amy Locklear, 45, a retired teacher and Army veteran from Maxton, North Carolina, said she's optimistic as long as Trump stays in office.
Democrats, you've got to talk about kitchen table issues.
You are not listening to the American people on this one.
They are telling you they want him to stay in office?
Their lives are getting better?
You know what?
She said he gets things done, she said.
I just want someone who does what they've promised.
But Yotam Schachter, 34, a leadership development consultant in Boston, worries about what he sees as Trump's inaction on climate change and his impact on national unity.
This campaign is going to further escalate the polarization, divisiveness, and enmity in our country.
I think it's going to be a good year for my life and for my family.
I don't think it's going to be a good year for this country.
The poll of 1,000 registered voters taken by landline and cell phone December 10-14
has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.
I'd like to point something out.
Am I surprised that someone in Boston is concerned about climate change?
Of course not.
I think they're very seriously concerned about it, but I'll tell you this.
What do you think matters more to people?
Their concern about climate change or the fact that they admit their lives are going to get better?
I'll tell you this, man.
I hate to say it, and this may be a bit pessimistic on my part, but I think people lean towards selfishness.
Not always.
And not in every aspect.
But when someone goes in that voting booth, they're going to look over their shoulder, they're going to make sure no one's watching, and they are going to check Donald J. Trump.
That Boston man.
He's going to go to all his friends and say, oof, Trump and that climate change, she won't get the job done.
Yeah, I know things are good, but I'm telling you what, man, we need someone who can solve these climate change problems.
And the friends are gonna high-five him, he's gonna call Trump a bigot, and then he's gonna look at his pocketbook, and he's gonna see that big, fat number, and he's gonna talk to his wife about it, she's gonna be like, things are going real good, and he's gonna think to himself, ooh, man, if we bring in someone who's gonna dramatically change the economy and things are going so well, I tell you this, I'd be willing to bet that man walks into the voting booth, looks over his shoulder, and then covers his hand as he presses that Donald J. Trump button because he doesn't want to risk his security.
I'll tell you what, man, They say that people need food.
What is the hierarchy of needs?
You know, it's like food, water, and security, I guess.
And when people lose these, they start to panic.
I'll tell you what.
When you poll people about what they really, really need, like if you really were talking to someone, what do you need right now?
Do you think they're going to say climate change?
Some people might, but I tell you what, most people will not.
Now if you ask someone on the street, are you concerned about climate change?
They'll probably tell you yes.
Would you like a president to take action on this?
Yes.
What do you need absolutely right now?
And they're going to be like, I need to pay my rent.
I need to pay my rent.
I tell you, I tell you this, I say that again.
When it comes time to vote, they're going to be thinking about rent, food, their bills, their insulin, whatever they might need.
Those immediate costs to their person, secondary to that will be climate change.
Now it breaks my heart to see the pessimists that are the Democrats because Look, man, there are real reasons to present an opponent to Donald Trump.
The Democrats aren't offering somebody who can actually bring about a message, a populist message, that Americans will get behind.
They bring about Democrats who lie about the economy.
People know that it's going well.
They know their lives are getting better.
Let me stress, the poll showed 80% of people thinking their lives are going to get better next year.
And you're going to try and convince them the economy is bad?
Sorry, dude.
It's just not going to fly.
Like I said time and time again, if you want to defeat Donald Trump, if you think Trump's bad on climate change, the argument is not the economy is bad.
No, the argument is I command Donald Trump on his efforts with the economy, and we will do everything to maintain that economy.
We will, however, be better on climate change.
We're going to make sure you at home can still expect that better life for you and your family moving forward, and we'll do our best to implement programs that will alleviate climate change, that will work towards better social programs, towards Medicare for all, without disrupting the economy.
That's the message.
The message is Donald Trump did it.
It worked, right?
But the other message is that Donald Trump has done things that are bad on foreign policy, especially on foreign policy.
And I'll say it a million times, missile strike in Syria.
I know, I know.
It's like beating a dead horse.
I get it.
The point is, you don't lie about Trump's success to try and win.
You've got to talk about his shortcomings.
They don't.
Look at this.
Written, this is by Bloomberg Opinion.
Who's writing this?
We got Ramesh Panuru.
Democrats are facing a challenge they haven't confronted since the 1988 presidential election.
They are trying to persuade enough Americans to kick a Republican out of the White House, even though the economy is doing well.
They failed that year.
And as their latest presidential debate showed, so far they haven't figured out how to meet their challenge this time either.
You know what, man?
I've tried.
I think I'm a sensible individual.
I think you have to point out that Trump's policies worked.
Period.
Now, I've heard from a lot of people, they say, yeah, yeah, yeah, but what about Obama's policies, right?
This economic expansion started under Obama.
Absolutely fair.
I think Obama contributed somewhat to the economic expansion.
It'd be stupid to say he didn't because it happened under him.
I don't like the arguments everyone always makes where they're like, If the economy does bad, they blame the previous administration, but if it does good, then other people try to take credit from the previous administration?
No, no, sorry, man.
The president in charge is the one who gets the credit, period.
No games.
Donald Trump made a ton of changes in terms of taxes, in terms of immigration, and yes, the economy is doing better.
So the Democrats, if you want to win, you come in and you say, Donald Trump, these policies worked.
I commend you for it.
I think you're a potty mouth.
I think you're doing wrong by our allies.
I think you're a risk to us in foreign policy, and that's why I would run against you.
Are the Democrats offering anyone that solution?
No.
So I have people say to me, like, Tim, why won't you complain about Mitch McConnell blocking legislation?
And it's like, what?
The Democrats don't even care about that.
They're complaining about Trump's potty mouth all day and night.
So yes, I will highlight things like that.
But I'll point out right now, the bigger problem I see that the Democrats want to win is to admit it.
Finally admit you were wrong.
They won't do it.
They can't.
You admit you were wrong, you get respect from people.
They say earlier in the debate, moderator Judy Woodruff of PBS noted the overall U.S.
economy right now looks strong and asked the candidates what they would say to voters who may not like everything President Trump does, but they really like this economy.
Each of the candidates who responded denied her premise.
You know what, man?
You deserve to lose.
They call me biased.
They say Tim Pool is a grifter just trying to pony up to Trump supporters.
Are you kidding me?
The PBS moderator told them the economy was good.
How many times do I have to say it?
They deny the premise.
Congratulations.
Go tell that dude, you know, that construction worker, No, no, no, no, no.
If most people think the economy is good, who are you gambling on voting for you?
The smaller faction of people whose lives aren't improving?
The 11% who said their lives will get worse?
Check this out.
That poll shows 80% saying their lives are getting better.
So I tell you this.
If 11% of the population say their lives will get worse tomorrow, is that who the Democrats are targeting?
Man.
I'm just sick of it.
I'm sick of it because I feel like every time I come on, you know, to talk about something, I'm kind of doing this, hey Democrats, here's how you can beat Trump.
And they say, no, we won't do that, thank you very much.
And I'm like, what are you doing?
Even Bernie Sanders pretended like the economy's not doing well.
One of their tracks was to bring up specific shortcomings of the economy.
Bernie Sanders of Vermont said we have the highest child poverty rate of almost any major country on earth.
Who are you kidding?
And wage growth over the past year at 1.1% after inflation has been not great.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Many of these specific complaints are false or overstated.
America's child poverty rate looks bad in international comparisons only if you're looking at relative poverty, the fraction of children in households making less than half the median income.
That's actually a measure of inequality.
Look instead at levels of material deprivation among children, and the U.S.
is in line with other countries.
Child poverty rates have also been declining.
I gotta keep these segments short, but you get the point.
All we need is a Democrat to admit it.
Seriously, get on stage and say, Donald Trump did right by the economy.
End of story.
End of story.
But not everybody has succeeded.
While most people see their lives improving, there are some who are still hurting.
We'll be there for you, too.
For those of you that are happy with the economy, we'll do everything in our power to stay the course and make sure nothing disrupts what you're experiencing.
We will make your life even better.
At the same time, we will address serious social issues, Climate change, social programs, homelessness, etc.
Things that Donald Trump may be falling short on.
That's a message that just might work.
That's not the message they're proposing.
They're just lying.
So you know what, man?
I think I'm sane and rational.
I think I'm offering real solutions.
But far be it from me to tell you what to do!
By all means, continue to lie to the American people, pretend like the economy is bad, And then you lose, and so be it.
You deserve to.
The liars don't deserve to win.
And Trump might be bad and have many, many faults, but if they refuse to accept that he's done some things well, then they deserve to lose.
Stick around, I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes.
I will see you all shortly.
Unsurprisingly, Joe Biden says he will not comply with potential Senate impeachment trial subpoena, and he has no grounds to refuse.
Trump did have grounds to refuse subpoenas to his staff, and Joe Biden doesn't.
And once again, we can see the glorious double standard from the Democrats.
Yes, I know, it tends to be the case.
But let me try and explain this in a way that makes sense.
First of all, by all means, go ahead and call me biased.
That's fine.
Here's the thing.
When the Democrats subpoenaed Trump's staff, he cited executive privilege.
It's a legitimate thing.
It states that he has a right to withhold information within the executive branch if he deems as such.
So he didn't want people testifying.
Well, maybe Trump was wrong on that and they should have testified.
Well, the House Democrats have a solution.
It's called going to the Supreme Court.
It's called checks and balances.
Trump has a legitimate claim of executive privilege.
They're equal in, you know, opposing branches of the government.
And then, well, not necessarily opposing, but, you know, checks and balances.
And then the House can say, Supreme Court, how do you find?
And if they were in the right and Trump still refused, then you can impeach him for obstruction of SCOTUS.
They didn't do that.
They claimed Trump was obstructing.
Well, now Joe Biden, with no legal grounds, is claiming he will deny and refuse the subpoenas.
Where is the media outrage that Joe Biden is obstructing or announcing his intent?
Okay, I know we're not there yet.
But he's announcing his intent to obstruct the Senate.
Yeah, nobody cares.
Because here's what happens to Joe Biden.
Joe Biden has some crazy scheme with this kid over in Ukraine.
I don't know what they were doing.
All I know is it sounds fishy.
Hunter Biden is on the board of a gas company he has no business being on the board of, getting paid between $50,000 and $83,000 a month.
Some people in Ukraine have alleged, in sworn statements, that Joe Biden was actually on the take as well, but it's all accusation.
It's accusation from a country that apparently was, you know, to some capacity, some people meddling in our election, trying to interfere.
So do I trust them?
Of course not.
I don't trust them.
But think about what Joe Biden did.
It is accused, or he was accused, that he intervened in the Burisma, you know, the prosecutor getting him fired because the prosecutor was investigating Burisma and it could have, you know, blown back on his son.
We don't really have any proof for the most part.
It's true, we do have circumstantial evidence to suggest potential probable cause.
But I think we've got to be careful because we are dealing with international relations and of course they want to smear Joe Biden.
What is Donald Trump accused of?
A quid pro quo to investigate Joe Biden?
Look man, on the surface we can say they're literally the same things, but for some reason the left and the media act like Joe Biden can do these things and it's no big deal.
I'll tell you what.
If it comes to a Senate trial and Joe Biden refuses a subpoena, he will be in contempt of the Senate.
I guess it's contempt of Congress.
It's still the same thing.
And then he should probably be, you know, compelled to come in.
It's not the same thing as executive privilege claims.
He is just going to be a private citizen at that point.
Do I think Joe Biden should be called in?
Personally, I do.
If Joe Biden has nothing to hide, then he should testify, right?
Now, I don't really mean that.
Joe Biden's innocent until proven guilty.
But if they want to claim that if we've got a conflict between whether Trump was in the right to call for an investigation and Joe Biden did nothing wrong, well, then I think we should clear things up.
How does that sound?
Let's read the story.
Daily Caller reports.
And boy, do I have a good one.
I got another one for you.
Former Vice President Joe Biden told reporters again that he would not comply if the Senate issues a subpoena to testify in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
Speaking at the Des Moines Register editorial board on Friday, the Democratic presidential frontrunner doubled down after being asked about a similar contention he made to NPR early December.
Do you stand by your earlier statements that you wouldn't comply if you were subpoenaed to testify in an impeachment trial before the Senate?
Correct.
And this is so good.
You're gonna love this one.
Correct.
And the reason I wouldn't is because it's all designed to deal with Trump doing what he's done his whole life, trying to take the focus off of him.
When I read that, I yelled, I pounded on the table.
Lies.
Donald Trump trying to take the focus off himself?
Please dude, that is the worst attempt at deflecting I have ever seen in my life.
No one, not the staunchest Trump supporter to the staunchest Trump opponent, would ever try to claim Trump doesn't want attention or wants to shift focus away from him.
The man literally puts his name in gigantic two-story tall letters on the tops of buildings around the world.
It's the opposite.
Trump is desperately trying to do everything in his power to make everything about him.
And if you would try to claim otherwise, I would say you are desperate.
You must truly be desperate to try and claim Donald Trump does this.
He's always done this.
He's trying to take the focus off himself.
This is the most insane argument ever made.
Not only is he claiming that right now, that Trump would subpoena him to get the focus off himself, he's also claiming Trump's done that his whole life?
Are you nuts?
Now how many buildings have Trump's name on it?
How many brands have his name on it?
How many companies has he made where he literally stamps his name on every company?
I've got a couple companies.
Guess how many are called Tim Pool?
Okay, I have two and one of them is called Timcast.
The point is, Most people, when they have multiple companies, they think of brand names.
Saudi Arabia is doing this big weapons deal with us.
We don't want to lose that.
China wanted it.
Russia wanted it.
We got it.
We're getting that money.
It's great.
When asked, you know, why we were supporting Saudi Arabia, somebody in the White House said, because they pay cash.
Yeah, the Trump administration is not about diversions.
I mean, somewhat.
Trump seems to lie about, like, the stupidest things, you know?
Like, you know, he said at a rally that we're building a border wall around Colorado.
He clearly misspoke, and all he had to do was say, I misspoke.
He tweeted kafifi, and he could have just said it was a typo, and instead he said, some people will figure out what it means.
What does it do?
But when it comes to, like, foreign policy, he's like, well, I mean, they're giving us billions of dollars.
So, look, I get it, man.
Sometimes Trump deflects, of course he does.
Sometimes he changes subject and he dangles keys in front of the media.
I get that.
But it's never been about taking the heat off of him.
When Trump tweeted that stuff about the squad going back to their countries, it was putting more attention on himself.
During the Yovanovitch testimony, Trump tweeted about her putting more attention on himself.
Joe Biden's excuse is that Trump wants to take the focus off of him?
You know what, man?
You've triggered me.
I am triggered.
Okay?
I have never been more triggered in my life.
Lies.
I'd be willing to hear many arguments about why you wouldn't want to testify, but not this one.
Because I don't think any sane human being would ever believe Trump wants less attention.
Sorry.
Doesn't that position you as if you're defying a subpoena, putting yourself above the law?
Biden says, well look, the grounds for them to calm you would be overwhelmingly specious.
Does that matter?
No.
If they file a subpoena, then challenge it or otherwise.
So I don't anticipate that happening anyway.
But what would it do if I voluntarily just said, let me go and make my case?
What are you going to cover?
You guys are going to cover for three weeks anything that I said.
And he's going to get away.
You guys buy into it all the time.
Not a joke.
Doesn't mean I shouldn't testify if you thought I should.
But think what it's about.
It's all about what he does all the time, his entire career.
Take the focus off.
The guy violated the Constitution.
He said it in the driveway of the White House.
He's acknowledged he asked for help.
Oh, please, Joe Biden.
Trump can't help himself.
Take the focus off.
Get out of here, dude.
There's the door.
That is the most blatant lie.
Okay, the reality is Joe Biden is deflecting.
Off of him potentially being subpoenaed because of what his kid did.
Remember when that guy at the town hall said, what about you peddling influence?
And Joe Biden said, you're a liar.
You're a liar.
And he got all angry.
He got all triggered and mad.
Yeah, Joe Biden's trying to take the focus off of him because the reality is Trump didn't ask for help with the election.
He asked for help investigating the crony BS happening from Biden and his kid.
I'll tell you what my opinion is.
Look, You want to argue that Trump was seeking help in the 2020 election?
Trump never said anything about the election.
No one ever testified Trump was worried about losing to Biden.
Not one person in impeachment said, Donald Trump said, I'm scared of losing to Biden.
Not one person even asked about it.
So if you want to jump to conclusions and claim that Trump is worried about losing in 2020, by all means, go ahead and do it, but you've got not even an attempt to prove it.
Now, when it comes to Hunter Biden, you've got widespread conservative concern about what Hunter was doing and why he was getting paid for it and Joe Biden coming and bragging about getting the prosecutor fired.
I'm not saying it's true.
I'm saying Trump's base was fired up.
At the very least, you could argue Trump's base was fired up, so Trump said, I'll ask about it.
Trump isn't trying to get the heat off him.
Trump published the transcript.
I tell you what, man, it is insane to me that you would ever try to make that argument.
They say while the Democratic-led House of Representative Reps passed two articles of impeachment against the President, they have yet to send them over to the Republican-led Senate for trial.
When and if they do, Republicans have raised the possibility of interviewing witnesses previously denied by House Democratic leadership, such as Biden and Hassan Hunter.
Well, I'll tell you what.
So far now, it seems like they won't do that.
Lindsey Graham said he won't do that, and I hate to say it, it's the right thing to do.
Look, you know, people get mad that I'm not constantly mocking, you know, I don't know, Marco Rubio or Lindsey Graham.
I said before, okay, before Lindsey Graham announced he wasn't gonna subpoena or didn't want to, they shouldn't do it.
It was wrong for them to subpoena the phone records.
And a tit-for-tat is not the right way to go.
And then sure enough, Lindsey Graham comes out and says, I'm not playing this game.
And I said, you know, you're going to lose because of this.
You will lose if you don't engage in these tactics.
And the Republicans were like, we're not going to do it.
And so I'll give them credit.
Give them credit.
I'm critical of Mitch McConnell's political strategies, holding up Merrick Garland and holding up all these bills passed by the House.
But that's a political argument.
It's political gamesmanship.
It's annoying crap.
I hate from all of them.
And I tweeted, get rid of everybody!
I don't care if it's Graham McConnell, Rubio Cruz, I don't care.
I don't care if it's Schumer, Pelosi, AOC, whatever.
I'm just so sick of all of these people in Congress, across the board.
But I'll tell you this right now.
The impeachment?
No statutory crimes.
No attempt at alleviating, you know, the executive privilege claimed by Trump.
And then we get this nonsense.
It's duplicitous, it's deceitful, and I cannot believe... I cannot believe, Joe, you would ever try to claim Trump wants less attention.
Oh, please.
Oh, please, dude.
The guy's got his name stamped on buildings across the world.
The dude is desperate for attention.
How can the left simultaneously say that Trump is a narcissist, Who has daddy issues and wants to make sure everybody loves him and knows his name and then have this guy go on TV or go on, you know, go on the internet and say, well, Trump's doing what he's always done.
I got another segment coming up in a few minutes and I'll see you all shortly.
This article is about two months old, but it was recently posted by Market Watch.
More than a third of millennials polled approve of communism.
Wow.
That says one thing to me.
Our school system has completely, not only failed, communism has failed across the board.
It's resulted in tens of millions of deaths, and I ask you, go find someone who lived under a communist regime or system, and ask them how I feel about it.
Now, I think it's fair to point out, there are some people who probably thought it was fine, but I'd be willing to bet most of those people are not happy with it, and unfortunately, most of the people who died under it can't tell you how they felt because they're no longer alive.
I don't know, like 20 some odd years ago or no, like 30 years ago?
The fall of the Soviet Union.
Yeah, the biggest block of communists whatever gone and now I'm not saying it's related, but we're having the best decade in human history.
I'll tell you this.
We've lifted out a tremendous number of people from poverty.
It's capitalism that did that.
Not the corrupt, crony, BS capitalism.
It's this general idea of free market, free trade, with regulations, that has resulted in a very, very prosperous world.
Okay, so let's first read about why millennials are communists, and then we'll talk about the greatest decade of human history.
Somewhere, Bernie Sanders is smiling.
Now, that's not fair.
That's not fair.
I know Bernie has been bullish on communism a little bit, but Bernie is about free markets.
Okay, Bernie's sort of.
He's pretty socialist-y, and he gets close, but Bernie Sanders, whether or not you trust him, isn't calling for You know, public ownership of the means of production.
He's calling for, like, a 20% ownership of employees in major corporations.
It's different.
It's close.
Closer than it's been in a long time.
So, by all means, criticize Bernie for being close to a socialist, but he's not a socialist.
Let's be real.
Bernie Sanders calls Denmark socialist.
Denmark then rags on him.
Bernie is pretty far left.
But to actually get to the threshold of socialist, you have to be like, white, you know, like, I think it's unfair to... No, no, no, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Bernie is pretty socialistic, but the communist thing, I'm not happy with.
Anyway, let's read.
A new survey released by the Washington, D.C.
nonprofit Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation reflects that if the younger generation gets out and votes in 2020, those running for office on the far left have reason to be hopeful.
According to YouGov, which conducted the poll, capitalism, amid a widening divide between the haves and have-nots, has plunged in popularity from a year ago, with one out of every two millennials ages 23 to 38 supporting it.
Meanwhile, 36% of millennials polled say they approve of communism, which is up significantly from 28% in 2018.
Excuse me.
70% of millennials say they are likely to vote socialist.
And this is because they've never read a book about socialism.
Is Bernie Sanders a socialist?
Technically, he's not, okay?
I understand it's fair to point out there are degrees of an economy like America as a mixed economy.
We have a free market with regulation and publicly funded programs.
But that is not socialism.
Socialism at its core is when the public controls the means of production, and capitalism at its core is when a free market, you know, controls things.
So I'll put it this way.
If all of the factories and all of the businesses and everything were controlled and owned by the government, to varying degrees, you could choose what job you did.
You'd be in a socialist system.
You can have a socialist dictatorship where you can't work a job unless the machine tells you and you go to re-education camps.
And you can have a more freer labor style of socialism where everything is controlled and owned by the government.
But you can, you know, fill out a form and say, I no longer want to be a shoemaker.
Here's my case for why I should go and work this job.
But you wouldn't be able to control what's produced.
In our system, we have a mixed economy.
We do have some of the money in the free market gets absorbed through taxes.
And yes, we can talk about tax all day and night.
And then it funds programs.
Admittedly, I'm not an expert on economics, but the difference is Denmark Has a very heavy tax.
They have a very heavy, you know, social program system.
But even they admit they are based on a free market.
What these people are saying when they want to vote for socialists is they're talking about Scandinavian style social democracy.
Where you can choose to open a business, choose to run that business, and then you pay taxes.
A portion.
It is leaning towards socialism, but it's still a market system.
Socialism is not.
It is command economies.
I understand there's a bunch of different forms, that's the point.
But these millennials don't understand that.
And I know because I've talked to so many, they say, socialism's not bad.
Like, look at Norway.
And I'm like, what do you mean?
Like, people in Norway open up their own business and choose what they sell and how to sell it.
There are regulations, but it is still, you know, a capitalist system where, listen, In Norway, you can save up money and invest in a business and make money off your money.
Hence, capitalism.
You see how it kind of breaks down?
One of the biggest criticisms that the real socialists have of capitalism is that you can make money off money.
Yes, most of these countries in Europe with social programs still allow you to make money simply for being rich.
Sorry, not socialist.
So these millennials who say they are likely to vote socialist think they're voting for, you know, social programs.
But what they're really voting for is that you'll be told where to work and when to work and how to work and after you're done working, you get nothing but access to the pantry.
And then when the pantry dries up because a centralized economy seems to fail every single time, you'll be waiting in a bread line.
Alright, let's read a little bit more.
Socialism is a dirty word to the president and many of his supporters.
Socialism has shown a decrease in favorability in all age groups except the silent generation.
Shown a decrease in favorability?
Wait, wait, what?
I thought they're saying... Okay.
And millennials.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Silent generation likes socials?
That's weird.
And millennials of which 70% say they'd be likely to vote for a socialist candidate.
Here's the question I have for you.
First of all, I understand there's a bunch of different ways we can discuss what socialism versus capitalism means, but the core, the means of production, would be owned by the public.
Define means of production.
What's the scale?
What's the capacity?
Do you take away my hammer because the hammer is means of production or the hammer is too small?
What if I have a gigantic industrial hammer, a gigantic industrial press that can smash things?
Is that now too big to be owned by a person?
You see where the lines get murky?
And then let's say I make something.
Who gets to have that?
You know, the socialists argue, well, personal property is different from private property.
Okay, to what scale?
If I build a small little wheel that runs, that gets, you know, the water pushes it and it spins around and then grinds grain up for me, that's personal because it's small, what if I make a really, really big one and it starts grinding up grains very, very quickly, much more than I could possibly eat?
Is that when you come and take it away from me?
Those are the questions I have for the socialists.
And I'll tell you this.
Most of these young people who believe in socialism have no idea what socialism is, and that's the main takeaway.
They don't realize that, no, you would not get an iPhone.
You will get a $20 Samsung Galaxy A7 or something with dual SIM and an old, you know, 240p screen.
Because, no, not everybody can have the top-tier, high-end stuff.
And it's really funny that most of these young people who believe in this have... they buy MacBooks.
It's like, of all the computers you're gonna buy, why would you buy the overpriced brand instead of the functional tool?
That's what's mind-blowing to me about these people.
They're wholly ignorant.
Take a look at this.
We just hit the best decade in human history.
Seriously.
They say this.
Extreme poverty has fallen below 10% of the world's population for the first time.
It was 60% when I was born.
Global inequality has been plunging as Africa and Asia experience faster economic growth than Europe and North America.
Child mortality has fallen to record low levels.
Famine virtually went extinct.
Malaria, polio, and heart disease are all in decline.
You know what?
I figured it out.
Yin Yang, man.
Light and dark.
For the day cannot exist without the night.
Prosperity, it's been too good.
The market's been booming.
The longest economic expansion in U.S.
history.
Things are just too good!
There must be the shadow emerging.
And that's it.
You see, the economy tends to go up really well and then we get hit with a recession and it goes back up in waves.
But the day cannot exist without the night, right?
So if things are going too well, eventually you will get people who will rise up thinking the system is wrong because, I don't know, they're crazy or stupid.
And then they'll cause those problems because there's always going to be some kind of balance, I suppose.
I mean, I'm half kidding.
I don't think it's a philosophical, religious, spiritual thing where the universe must be balanced.
But I'll put it this way.
Things are going really well.
We can see it, man.
Poverty is way, way down.
But poverty is relative.
So as you get wealth inequality, you get socialists.
And this is why I've been very much like Lefty in saying, like, we should pay off student loans.
Because these people are jealous.
And people will always be jealous.
It's unfortunate.
We can do a lot culturally to teach people how to build your own stuff.
But then they say, it's not fair that I don't own a factory that makes iPhones.
Yeah, well, like, nobody does.
Like, Apple is a publicly traded company, and the publicly traded company owns the factory that makes the iPhones.
So great!
The public owns the means of production.
What's your point?
Oh, they want the government to intervene and basically give them a share of the company?
You know, it doesn't make sense.
Literally doesn't make sense.
They're just jealous.
I'll tell you this, though.
I recognize that sometimes hard decisions have to be made, and you have to recognize that sometimes you don't win.
You don't win them all.
Principally, it may feel better to say, look, man, you made your bed taking these student loans out and going to school, and now you owe that debt.
Pay it back!
Yeah, it might feel good to tell them they have to do this, and it might feel bad to actually pitch in to alleviate the debt.
I'll tell you what happens if you don't alleviate the debt.
The people just lose sight of the light.
There's no light at the end of the tunnel.
So they light up a pitchfork, and they go, and they burn it all down.
Now you can say, well, that's wrong, and they shouldn't do that.
What's your solution?
Send out the police to quell the riots as the peasants revolt?
Not gonna work.
I'm sorry.
So I think there's got to be some kind of compromise.
You've got to recognize that there can only be a certain gap between the haves and the have-nots.
Otherwise, you end up with a ton of young people who just go around with pitchforks trying to burn the whole thing down and taking it away from everybody.
So maybe the solution is, if you've got a growing class of individuals laden with debt, they can't pay off so they're negative, and they can't find a way to build a home or to start a business because they're in too much debt, perhaps we need to give them that fishing pole so they can teach themselves how to fish.
Hence me being slightly on the left.
And I know conservatives don't like to hear it.
Because the way they say it is, you made your bed.
Okay, great.
You go tell the angry people with no vision of a future they've made their own bed.
I get it.
I think they can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, assuming they have bootstraps.
I'm also willing to hook them up some boots if I can.
But what happens when you have too many people who feel like it's impossible to succeed?
That too many people are living in luxury and they will never make it there?
They get angry.
And angry people become irrational and irrational people burn it all down.
So you know what?
It might not be morally right.
It might not be ethically right.
But sometimes you have to recognize... Listen, I'll put it this way.
Let's say you're on a boat, right?
And on that boat is a crazy guy who's screaming and waving knives in the air.
And he's demanding you give him more food.
And you're like, man, we're stuck on a boat with this guy.
You might have to give a little.
You might have to give a little because you recognize sometimes people are crazy.
Now, you can't give too much, right?
I recognize this.
At some point, you got to tie that guy up and say, he's nuts, okay?
He's swinging a knife around.
But at a certain point, you have to do enough to avoid a mutiny, because it'll happen.
So if we want to keep this ship sailing, we've got to recognize we concede on some points.
We really, really do.
So for the time being, things are going really, really great.
The best decade in human history, seriously.
But why are we seeing so many young people become socialists?
I'm going to tell you right now.
They were told by everyone to go to college.
They were.
I experienced it.
I said, F you.
I'm not doing it.
I'm not stupid.
You want me to take out how much money in debt?
I did the simple math.
If after four years, I spend $20,000 a year, I'll be $80,000 in debt, and I'll have no job.
How will I pay that back?
I have no idea.
But if I go and work at McDonald's for four years, I'll make, you know, $20,000 the first year, $22,000 the next year, $24,000, $25,000.
Hey, maybe by the fourth year, Working at McDonald's, I'll actually have a surplus of cash in the bank, plus I might be a manager at that point, hiring those college grads.
We were all told this.
I did my research and said, no way.
Many of these young people didn't.
So now they're laden with debt that they were told they had to get, and they're being told it's their own fault when they're too stupid to figure it for themselves.
So you know what?
I sympathize.
I empathize.
And I think if you've got young people who feel like they can't succeed, they'll give up.
They'll vote for a socialist to come in and wipe their debt clean, or we can concede we've gotta figure out how to solve that problem.
I don't think we wipe their debt away 100%.
I think we do something lighter, like we freeze the interest rates.
Like, seriously, no more.
Pay off the principal.
No more interest, pay off the principal of what you owe, and then you're clear here.
I think that's the right thing to do.
Otherwise, you'll end up with a communist president who's gonna give him more.
I'm telling you, you gotta give a little.
You really do.
If the Democrats could learn that lesson, then they might actually win, but they won't, right?
If you concede a little bit to those Trump supporters, recognize Trump was right on the economy, you might actually win some of them over.
Instead, they just screech that Trump is a bad man.
The same can be true for conservatives.
You are going to continually see the Democrats go insane.
Hey, it may work out for you in the end.
Until you recognize you've got to give a little.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I will see you all tomorrow at 10 a.m., podcast at 6.30.
