Democrats TOO SMUG TO Admit They're Losing, Tulsi WARNS Impeachment Helps Trump But They Don't Care
Democrats TOO SMUG TO Admit They're Losing, Tulsi WARNS Impeachment Helps Trump But They Don't Care. By any metric impeachment is now an unmitigated disaster for Democrats.Call me biased, call me partisan, it doesn't matter.Trump has raised record cash, his approval is up, his polls are up, and support for impeachment has faltered.But for all her efforts and attempts to navigate impeachment correctly Tulsi Gabbard has been smeared and slammed by the establishment media and Democrats over her refusal to support impeachment.While she has flip flop and deserves criticism for doing so, she took a principled stance and refused to engage by voting present. She warned that impeachment will embolden trump and help him and republicans sweep 2020 but all her warnings fall on deaf ears.It's truly amazing to me, that the warning signs are so apparent yet Democrats are too smug to admit that they are losing and need to course correct.They are so concerned with pandering to the far left and leftist activist base that they ignore the will of actual Americans.If they can't recognize what is happening then they deserve to lose to trump in 2020.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Tulsi Gabbard says impeachment will only embolden Trump, increasing his re-election chances.
My word, Tulsi, you are 100% correct.
It's almost like hearing my own opinion spouted back at me.
But the reason why it feels that way is because it's the correct opinion.
I mean, look, any sane person who's followed the news over the past several months could clearly see the trajectory of impeachment and how it is, in fact, helping the president.
This is why I was upset.
When Tulsi, she flip-flopped.
See, when impeachment first started bumbling up in the news, she said, there's nothing here.
She was right!
She was 100% correct.
You see, the Democrats didn't even impeach Trump for any statutory crime.
There was nothing there.
Was the call inappropriate?
I actually think it was.
You know, Trump's call with Ukraine?
I know Trump says it's perfect.
I know he likes it.
I disagree.
But is it impeachable?
No.
Is it a criminal offense?
No.
And Gabbard was right in the first place.
But she flip-flopped.
I'm disappointed that she did.
She eventually ended up voting present on impeachment, making a bold stand, rejecting the partisanship of both sides.
Bravo.
Because for her efforts, well, she's being smeared relentlessly, and it's hurt her very much so and the Democratic base.
But she did the right thing.
Now, some people, the Trump supporters, argue the right thing would have been to vote no on impeachment, like Peterson and Van Drew.
Jeff Van Drew obviously switching to the Republican Party.
But no, I disagree.
I think Tulsi actually did the right thing in rejecting the partisanship, noting that she believes Trump did something wrong, but she refuses to play into this partisan game.
I actually think the right move would have been to have rejected impeachment from the get-go, but I can appreciate what she's doing with a protest vote, saying, I'm not going to play this game with you.
Now here's the big, I guess the funny thing about all this.
I love how there are so many active progressives and Democrats online who just hate my guts, and they're like, Tim Pool just attacks the left.
Yes, I'm very much so critical of the Democrats, and the way I've explained it before is I've never cared for the Republicans, never considered myself a Republican, and don't know or care about what they're doing for the most part, except when it's negative towards my positions.
Today, the problem is the Democrats are spiraling out of control and refusing to heed the warnings About impeachment.
I mean, even Tulsi Gabbard is telling them right now, and for her efforts, she is smeared and slammed and discredited.
But she was right.
You see, when I make a video saying, don't impeach the president, it will help him.
He will raise money.
The offense here is not impeachable, and the average person has no idea what you're talking about.
They say, Tim, why are you attacking the left?
Because you're wrong!
It's so amazing, isn't it?
That they refuse to hear criticism, their ship is sailing a course, and heaven forbid they find out they're on the wrong course.
And as such, Trump has been widely benefited by impeachment.
And now we have the next big story that I really want to cover.
So I want to talk to you about Tulsi Gabbard and her efforts, but I want to show you this story from Bloomberg.
If Trump's impeached, then why can't a Senate start trial now?
New theories on when impeachment happens make no sense when followed to their logical
constitutional conclusion. Yes, the Democrat witness who testified that Trump did commit
impeachable offenses is doubling down on the fact that Trump has not been impeached,
with the very sane and logical question, if Trump really was impeached, then why can't the Senate
start a trial?
Because the fact is, they didn't.
He makes a really great argument.
I want to read this for you.
But it says to me that not only are they refusing to heed the warnings of people like Tulsi and people like me who want to help them, They're getting nothing for their effort other than helping Trump and not even actually impeaching the guy!
I suppose though, when you look at the polls and you see how Tulsi has been negatively impacted by it, you can see that the Democrats are actually being led by the nose, not by what's right and what will help them with regular voters, but the activist base is yanking them forward and they have no choice but to support a losing position.
And for my efforts, I will be called right-wing for correctly pointing out every step of the way this has been good for Trump.
Sorry, it's just a fact.
And you know what's funny, man?
Months ago, I'm like, hey, if you impeach Trump, it'll be a bad move, and it'll help him.
And they say, why are you defending the president?
And now here we are with a Gallup poll like, Trump's approval is up, and his support for impeachment is down, and he's raised $5 million in a single day, shattering records.
You know what, man?
You get what you deserve, you know?
So let's read the story and see what Tulsi Gabbard has to say.
It's actually quite short, and I want to show you some data.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, The best thing you can do is share this video.
For whatever reason, hoping to, I guess, shatter some echo chambers, some bubbles, people might consider watching this video.
I know it's hard, because people live in echo chambers where they're inundated with fake news, and then they build a worldview based upon that fake news, so when confronted with, you know, a different perspective, they say, it must be wrong, I refuse to watch it.
But seriously, we have new data coming out.
I'll cover it later on my second channel, showing that YouTube took, you know, an axe to channels like mine.
They're hacking them down.
They're basically shutting us down, and it's bad, bad news.
If you like what I do, sharing this video can help overcome this, because word of mouth is and always will be the most powerful way to help someone grow a channel or a business.
Let's read the story from ABC News.
They say...
Hawaii Rep Tulsi Gabbard spoke candidly on Saturday about her controversial decision to vote present during last week's formal impeachment vote, adding she feared the impeachment of President Donald Trump would only embolden him and increase his chance for re-election.
Tulsi, I wish you heeded this advice beforehand.
I know no matter what you do, you're going to get smeared and slammed trying to do the right thing.
It's unfortunate.
But if you made this point a long time ago, if you took this position initially, perhaps it would have had a lot more power than only after the impeachment has already been voted on.
But Tulsi said, I think impeachment, unfortunately, will only further embolden Donald Trump, increase his support, and the likelihood that he'll have a better shot at getting elected, while also seeing the likelihood that the House will lose a lot of seats to Republicans.
Gabbard said in a one-on-one interview with ABC News in Hudson, New Hampshire.
And they go on to say this.
They say she told Gabbard, a 2020 presidential candidate, noted that the prospect of a second term for Trump and a Republican-controlled House is a serious concern of hers, adding that she's worried about the potential ramifications that will be left if Trump is acquitted.
She told ABC News that it could leave lasting damage on the country as a whole.
They say the Democratic Congresswoman, who is known to be an outspoken critic of her own party, was the lone lawmaker to not choose a side on impeachment, and has faced intense criticism for her choice.
Well, you know what?
I think I fall into a similar bracket as Tulsi, which is probably why I like her, and you guys know that I'm a fan of Gabbard when it comes to the presidential race.
Also, Andrew Yang, who seems to be kind of a maverick as well.
Yes, but for my efforts, we're also smeared.
I'll put it this way.
Ask any conservative, and they will laugh and say, Tulsi is such a lefty.
She's progressive.
Ask a Democrat, and they will say, Tulsi is such a conservative.
She's pretending to be a Democrat.
And I get the same thing.
So I totally get it.
Perhaps when you try and take a moderate and principled position, you'll be smeared for it.
Of course, there are conservatives who think I have bad ideas, and there are Democrats who think I have bad ideas.
But let me tell you something.
You know what's really weird?
Why is it that there are conservatives who will watch my channel and be like, I disagree with you, Tim, but I appreciate your perspective, and the left says that I'm, like, the worst, that I'm a grifter, and that I'm pure evil?
And I say the same thing with Tulsi.
Take a look at this story.
Tulsi Gabbard makes fans of Trump supporters in New Hampshire.
How is it?
There was a story from the American Conservative, I don't know if I pulled it, maybe I'll find it, saying Trump should trade John Bolton for Tulsi Gabbard.
I don't understand how we're in this position where you have this broad and welcoming Trump base that's like, we disagree with you, we think your ideas are bad, but as long as you're being fair, we'll listen to what you have to say.
And they actually are fans of Tulsi Gabbard coming out and defending her from the press.
It's such a strange, strange reality that the Democrats are throwing her under the bus when she's warning them and she's right.
Check this out.
Trump approval inches up while support for impeachment dips.
Trump re-election campaign bags $5 million on impeachment day.
Impeachment is helping Trump in three key battleground states.
I've been screeching into the wind and unfortunately the Trump supporters are kicking back with a beer laughing because they know it's true.
And they're like, whatever.
It's helping us, right?
And I'm sitting here looking at the Democrats being like, are you seeing what they're saying?
They're celebrating right now.
And they're like, why are you supporting them, Tim?
I'm not supporting them by pointing out they're celebrating.
I'm trying to tell you to do the right thing and to not play this games.
It's as the saying goes, you know, the eagle needs two strong wings to fly.
And the left right now is a fractured and shattered piece of garbage.
Here's what breaks my heart.
For her efforts, Gabbard is now the most disliked candidate after voting president on impeachment.
Well, I'll tell you what, man.
I'm not super concerned that Tulsi Gabbard is losing any sleep over this.
She stepped down from the DNC in 2016 over the Hillary Clinton nomination because she has principle and she's no stranger to taking an unpopular but principled position.
Much respect.
Unfortunately, according to a morning consult poll, I believe, they say a week prior to the impeachment vote, Gabbard's unfavorability rating stood at 23 percent.
According to a morning consult survey, however, just days after her present vote, that figure climbed to 30 percent, making her the field's most disliked candidate, Newsweek reported.
In a statement, Gabbard said that while she believes Trump is guilty of wrongdoing, she could not in good conscience vote against impeachment, and she could also not vote for it because it was a partisan play.
I disagree.
I don't believe Trump is guilty of wrongdoing.
I think Trump has very carefully, you know, been on the inside boundary of what is legal and acceptable while making me frown and many people go like, you know, you're getting pretty close, man.
Like Tucker Carlson even said Trump's phone call was inappropriate.
I think that's a fair point, man.
Trump shouldn't be calling Ukraine and saying like, or the president being like, you know, let me ask you about some investigations.
He should have just had the attorney general contact them about potential investigations.
Not just because you might think, you know, some people like, I'm thinking it's inappropriate because Trump's got to be really, really careful about how he uses the power of the executive branch, especially when it comes to people like Joe Biden, though I don't think Joe Biden is above the law.
It's also about the fact that there's a way to do things legitimately and politically that would also just protect Trump.
I want to see Joe Biden investigated.
I don't trust the guy.
I think he's doing something shady.
We'll see.
I don't know.
He's not been convicted of a crime or anything.
There's some circumstantial evidence.
Trump's got to be very, very careful how he approaches these things.
All right?
I'm glad the Horrors Report is coming out.
I'm glad the Durham investigation is happening.
But yeah, I don't like the phone call.
Does it mean Trump should be impeached or convicted of a crime?
No.
And the Democrats don't even think so, because impeachment?
No statutory crime.
If the phone call was really a criminal effort and impeachable, then why didn't they—or, I'm sorry, if it was really criminal?
Impeachment is supposed to be about high crimes and misdemeanors.
Trump didn't commit any.
And they didn't accuse him of any.
And in turn, the American people are seeing what's happening.
And you know what?
The media establishment is so twisted and broken They say that everything I'm telling you now is a right-wing position.
It's quite literally not a political position.
I'm not advocating for or against certain schools or religion or anything like that.
I'm telling you impeachment will help the president.
And they say, well, you know, that's a right-wing position.
Sure, I guess, but I was right.
What do you want me to do?
You want me to lie about it?
You want me to come on YouTube and be like, Trump is losing, even though he's raising tons of money, his approval rating is up.
But I still think it's fair to- No, come on, man.
So dumb.
Look at this.
If Trump's impeached, then why can't a Senate trial start now?
It is also fair to point out Turley, who was the Republican witness, said no, Trump was impeached by the vote.
But Feldman, who is the Democrat witness, is saying that's not the case.
And I'm sorry, it's just my opinion that Feldman is likely correct in this instance.
However, I also recognize just stacking the impeachment hearing with a bunch of pro-impeachment academics doesn't mean they're all correct.
But I will defer to Noah Feldman.
He's the constitutional scholar, not me.
I personally think Trump didn't commit any crimes.
Whether or not he can or should be impeached is a different question.
I think he shouldn't be because it's bad politically.
It's helping Trump in the long run.
But even he is saying Trump has not been impeached.
And if that's the case, I once again will defer to the expert.
Plain and simple.
I think the Democrats overplayed their hand.
I think it's hurting them.
I think Tulsi's desperately trying to warn them.
They don't care.
This is really fascinating because it's really just a simple argument.
He says this, according to the longstanding understanding of impeachment, Pelosi has some
modest leverage over the Senate trial. With the authority the House has given to her,
she can control when impeachment officially occurs.
Constitutionally, the Senate can't try Trump until she triggers a trial by sending a message about
impeachment to the Senate.
The Constitution gives the House has the sole power of impeachment,
and impeachment means the power to initiate and conduct a prosecution in the Senate.
But if Trump has already been impeached by the House vote, then Pelosi has zero leverage, because the Senate can start the trial right away, without waiting for the House to initiate or conduct the prosecution.
After all, the House only has the power to impeach.
If it has already executed that power, then the ball is already in the Senate's court.
The Senate has the sole power to try the impeachment.
He says, sure, the Senate rules say the trial starts when the managers of an impeachment shall be introduced at the bar of the Senate.
But that's because the Senate rules understand impeachment in the traditional sense, to require communication from the House and commencement of a trial.
If the brand new theory is right, however, the Senate can just amend its rules and start the trial now.
McConnell, not Pelosi, would then control the trial's timing.
Evidence that official impeachment entails communication to the Senate can be found in every single historical source that discusses impeachment.
Here's Thomas Jefferson describing impeachment in England in the manual he created for the House of Representatives.
Quote, The general course is to pass a resolution containing a criminal charge against the supposed delinquent and then to direct some member to impeach him by oral accusation.
At the bar of the House of Lords in the name of the Commons.
Can I just stop right there and then say, Thomas Jefferson said criminal charge.
There is no criminal charge against the President.
He's the first President with no statutory crime against him.
So, whatever.
Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I can't find anything to the contrary.
Abuse of power is not a crime.
Obstruction of Congress, also not.
They had a chance to rectify that to the Supreme Court.
They didn't do it.
I think it's completely absurd that you have people today like Alan Dershowitz, okay?
This guy is a long-standing Democrat, Hillary supporter, Biden supporter, in every capacity, being called a Republican.
Barack Obama being called a Republican.
Okay, you know what?
Y'all have lost the plot.
I'm sorry.
I don't even know what's going on anymore.
My political positions are actually decently, you know, far left relative to American standards.
I've done the political compass test, man.
I run my business, admittedly, from a pretty lefty perspective.
But policy has nothing to do with the tribes of today.
If you accurately point out that a Democrat witness is saying criminal charge and passing the resolution off to the Senate, well then they say it's a right-wing talking point.
Even on the Democratic debate stage, when they were talking about immigration, they were like, that's a right-wing talking point.
Are you kidding me, dude?
It seems like there's just quite literally... I don't know, man.
I don't know what's left and right anymore.
You know, I have another segment planned for the next, coming up at 6pm, youtube.com slash timcast, which we'll be playing soon, for those that are listening on the podcast, where I'm just trying to figure out what left and right even means anymore.
Because I don't know.
Because you've got pro-Trump socialists.
You've got Jacobin Magazine praising a show hosted by a progressive and a conservative.
You've got people who are socialists who hate the Democrats and literally say the same things I do every day, but no one in their right mind would call them right-wing.
I don't even know what any of this is.
So look, the problem I see... I'm gonna go for it, okay?
I'm gonna show you the graphic again.
I show this graphic all the time.
Take a look at this.
They say, Democrats, Republicans, what you're seeing is a graph from The Economist tracking the political factions of Republicans and Democrats, the political leanings.
And you can see that since 1980, the Republicans have coalesced around a common ideology and belief structure.
They're unified.
Yeah, sure, it's a bell curve.
You've got this more centrist end and the more conservative end.
But for the most part, most conservatives fall right in the middle.
The Democrats are completely fractured, with the biggest faction being further left and then a dwindling faction moving towards the center.
There is no unified view of what Democrats are.
So you then end up with people like Tulsi who clearly don't fit and are warning the bulk, but because they're always, you know, so desperately trying to understand, or I'm sorry, desperately trying to stay within the tribe's boundaries, Which there aren't any, and there's conflicting views, none of it makes sense.
I think this graph explains more than just what I've used it for in the past, right?
That the liberals, the Democrats are fractured.
I think it also explains why you end up with so many Democrats fighting each other and accusing people on the left of being Republican.
And I think it easily explains why people like me or Tulsi will be smeared by the left, I'll be called right-wing or whatever because I'm critical of the Democrats.
Because as you can clearly see, there is no unified Democratic position.
The Republicans have theirs.
The Democrats do not.
And so there are bigger factions, right?
You can see here, further to the left of where the Democrats are, there is a bigger bump.
But then it trails off towards the center.
This is the Civil War happening on the Democratic base.
And because I'm clearly a more moderate actor in this, The bulk of the Democrats, which are further left, will look to me as on their right.
And here's how I've explained it before.
Imagine looking down the street, and you see a bunch of people waving American flags.
Behind them, you see a bunch of people waving, you know, like, Confederate flags.
When you're far away, it looks like they're in one group.
But if you actually go overhead and zoom out, you can see that the people with the American flags are in the middle, and off to the further right are the Confederate flags, and they're not even in the same rally.
But from far away, you see it because, you know, of depth perception.
That's kind of how it works.
Most of these Democrats look to their right, and they will see Trump supporters, and they'll see me first, and they'll say, aha, right winger.
Or fake left-winger or whatever.
As long as the Democrats are refusing to listen to this message, I think they're in for a world of trouble and I can't for the life of me figure out why there's no spine in any of these people to stand up and say no.
I mean, I get it.
You look at what happens with Tulsi.
She's to be made an example of.
The activist base, the Twitterati, the media, they do not represent America.
They represent their weird elitist faction.
And I've shown that article several times this week from Vox saying the Democratic Party is the party of the wealthy elites, or had become it.
And so anyone who dares step out of line and warn the Democrats they're spiraling out of control, they will make an example of you.
They will smear you as alt-right, as far-right, as all of the worst things in the book.
But there is something I do want to point out as I wind down on this one.
Politico reports impeachment trial will supercharge battle for the Senate.
Next year's trial threatens to yoke Senate races to the presidential election.
One of the things that's often overlooked is that what Democrats may be hoping for.
As they lose the impeachment fight, they know they will lose to Trump.
They're hoping they might win some Senate seats.
I disagree, though.
I really, really, really do.
That's one of the arguments.
The Democrats are thinking, because impeachment is so popular among Democrats, even though it has gone down a little bit, they can maybe rile up their base for a Senate victory and take some more of the upper chamber.
I don't think so, though, because the Senate races often reflect the presidential race.
I think Trump's base is going to come out heavily and checkmark every R across the board and, like Tulsi said, Trump's gonna be re-elected, and the House is gonna lose all their seats, because this is a last-ditch Hail Mary for the Democrats to try and get whatever they can.
But I tell you what, man, I'll say, I said it once, I'll say it again, if they just came out and conceded the fact that Trump was right about the economy, They'd win.
They can't do it, though.
Because you can see what happens to anyone who steps out of line.
And that's Tulsi Gabbard.
And even to an extent, you know, Bernie Sanders, Andrew Yang, or otherwise, the media cuts them out of the press.
They black out the candidacy because they don't want them to win.
They want that Buttigieg.
They want that Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren.
So if you dare step out of line and try to do anything that might unite this country, you'll be punished for it.
But I look at that Pew chart.
You may have seen it because PragerU shows it all the time.
In 1994, Republicans and Democrats almost entirely overlapped.
We were a unified nation for the most part.
Today?
Completely fractured.
But it's worse than just fractured.
Republicans are unified and know what they want.
They're actively recruiting.
They're supporting, to an extent, people like Tulsi Gabbard and people like me, even though we repeatedly reject them.
I think it's truly hilarious.
It shows that their Trump supporters are being savvy and the Democrats are being insane.
Because even though I can come on every day and say something like, I don't like Trump, I won't vote for him, and I don't like the guy.
Even though Tulsi Gabbard can come out and call the president unfit for office, accusing him of unconstitutional actions and foreign policy, Trump supporters will still say, come on over and have a beer, I'm listening.
And that position they have will, I guarantee you, convince many Democrats to actually make the leap.
Even though I'll say I never will.
They're not closing the door.
They're just sitting there, fingers crossed, laughing, making memes about me, saying, why won't you take the red pill, Tim?
Because I don't believe in the politics.
But who am I supposed to vote for?
I honestly have no idea.
Tulsi, right?
But we can just sit here in this corner of, you know, old school liberals who understand the power of concession and compromise.
That we're not always going to win every fight.
That we have to respect the views of our neighbors and brothers and sisters in the United States.
And that we're going to have a conversation and figure out where we can move forward together.
Give a little, get a little, right?
The Democrats seem to be playing this kamikaze game where they're just going to drive off the edge of the cliff.
It is what it is, man.
I'm just, you know, I'm so frustrated because there's so many people who, you know, they make the meme, they say, Tim, take the red pill, vote for Trump, all that stuff, and that's not gonna happen.
It's not.
Like, I've got this stuff pulled up for a later segment on how you define the left and the right.
It's allsides.com.
And I very clearly fall mostly in the left-wing camp.
Even Jeff Van Drew does.
And he's the perfect example of what's wrong with these people.
The Republicans are sitting back with their feet up saying, hey, Jeff.
Yeah, you're a Democrat.
Come on over.
Trump shakes his hand and endorses the guy.
And this is a guy who backed Nancy Pelosi nearly every step of the way.
A guy who wants to ban offshore drilling.
And Trump's like, don't care.
Come on to the party.
We'd love to have you.
And what that means is, I'll show you this graphic again.
The Republicans are unified.
And as they have a strong majority, they can gladly accept many refugees from the Democratic Party.
And they won't be conceding much ground.
But you know this?
There are people like me who are willing to concede if it means stability.
And that's the economy.
And Trump's giving it to them.
A lot of people are going to say, fine, you know what?
I disagree with the policy.
I disagree with the cultural issues.
But it's better than this.
So if they refuse to hear the warning, it doesn't even matter.
What's the point?
What's the point of trying?
Let the media spiral out of control and accuse us of being all of the worst things in the book.
They can accuse Tulsi of being an Assad apologist.
They can call me right-wing or whatever.
Fine.
You've lost a massive portion of people who want to be Democrats.
Tulsi Gabbard has hundreds of thousands of unique donors and has raised tons of money, okay?
She didn't qualify for the last debate, but she had a bigger run than most of these establishment Democrats.
She made it longer than Kamala Harris, right?
She's raised more money from more individual donors.
Think about all of those, you know, 100 to 200,000 people who actively support Tulsi Gabbard, who are not conservative, who are you telling, get out of here, we don't want you.
Well, where do you think they're gonna go, okay?
If Tulsi doesn't run, she said she's not gonna run third party, who do you think they're gonna vote for?
You think they're going to vote for you after everything you did and said?
Not likely.
But I'll say it again.
The Republicans are sitting there, the door of the bar is open, and they're fanning everybody over while holding up some beers and saying, we might disagree.
I think your ideas are dumb as heck, but come on into the party, man.
We're not going to kick you out and be mean to you about it.
And that's what you get.
Anyway, there you go.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
I'm Tim Castor, I'll see you next time.
If you went to his Twitter page, you would notice nothing out of the ordinary.
But if you were looking for specific tweets, they just weren't there.
Well, this is the official explanation we got the other day.
Brian Stalter of CNN tweeting, A Twitter spokesman confirms the platform has suspended some of the MAGA Sphere accounts that Trump retweeted in a tweet storm last night for unspecified violations of Twitter rules.
Some of the accounts looked very spammy and suspicious.
Okay, sure, whatever.
Donald Trump tweeted stuff.
That stuff just seemingly wasn't there, but you could still click the link and go to the tweet.
Many people said, well, this is shadow banning.
And yeah, it was.
However, it was just a glitch.
The president's tweets were invisible to anybody who would visit his page because it was an accident.
Right.
Seriously?
They want us to believe it was an accident?
These accidents happen all the time.
And why is it that they only ever happen in one direction?
Here's the story.
Trump retweet of alleged whistleblower name is back on Twitter.
Well, one of the tweets Trump put out was a retweet where someone said the name of the whistleblower that I'm not allowed to say even though the president himself has tweeted it.
How does that make sense?
I have no idea.
I reached out to YouTube for comment to see if we are now allowed to say the name of the whistleblower considering the president himself has retweeted out the guy's name.
Okay?
Surely that's grounds for us to say a name, right?
Man, YouTube is trash.
I'll tell you this.
But Bloomberg reports a retweet by President Donald Trump naming the alleged whistleblower whose complaint triggered the congressional inquiry that resulted in his impeachment this month was restored late Saturday night after being hidden for much of the day.
Hidden.
As in shadowbanned.
As in, okay, shadowbanning is when nobody knows, not even you, that your post is invisible.
So basically what happens is in most shadowbanning instances, you will see your tweet like normal.
No one else will.
And you don't know why that happened.
Facebook actually allows you to do this.
If someone comments on your post, you can click hide and only they can see it.
It's actually very clever.
The general idea is if the person sees their post removed, they might post again.
If they think their post is there but no one's engaging with it, then they might just think it was a bad post.
It is an attempt at socially engineering trolls and bad behavior on the internet.
But let me tell you, when you do it to the President, we got serious problems.
The post, originally from the handle SurferMom77, was retweeted by Trump around midnight Friday, and Saturday morning was no longer visible in the President's Twitter feed.
CNN reported late Saturday that the temporary removal followed a Twitter glitch that affected certain accounts, not deliberate action to delete the tweet by Trump or someone with access to his Twitter account.
You know what, man?
I just don't know if I should care anymore.
How about I just get in my van, finally drive off into the middle of the woods, go fishing.
How stupid do they think we are that this happens all the time?
How many videos have I made about this?
300 over the past several years?
I mean, I tell you what, I went on the Joe Rogan podcast talking just about stuff like this.
And they say, oh no, Tim, you're crazy.
It's just an accident.
It's a mistake.
And then it turns out you see people like Ronald McDaniel get shadow banned from search.
The president's own tweets are, by a glitch, removed.
And remember when that Twitter employee actually deleted Trump's account and there was like a big panic?
Yes, it's all just an accident.
Don't mind the man behind the curtain.
You're just crazy.
There's nobody at Twitter who's working on things that may have a potential bias, and whether it's intentional or not, it's just not happening.
You're all crazy.
You're all nuts.
It's not on purpose.
Here's the worst case scenario.
People at Twitter are twirling their mustache and laughing and typing away and banning the president and other conservative accounts or anti-establishment accounts.
I don't know.
What I think is more likely is that the system is built by people who are biased.
And so they view conservatives as others, and conservative behaviors as others.
And so when they say, we only ban hate, they don't care about people like Sarah Jong, for instance, who posts racist stuff for years, because to them, it's not racist.
But Learn to Code, you better believe it, you're out!
Let's read a little bit more.
In a statement to CNN, Twitter Inc.
said that due to an outage with one of its systems, tweets on account profiles were visible to some, but not to others.
On Saturday, The Washington Post reported that the outage affects tweets from millions of users.
Twitter didn't immediately respond to a Bloomberg News request for comment.
As of Sunday morning, the message was again visible to Trump's 68 million Twitter followers.
The tweet identifies a person it says is the whistleblower, the person who first alerted members of Congress to the president's conduct in his July 25th phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Bloomberg, I think you may have accidentally just confirmed the identity of the whistleblower.
Now I get what they're doing, but I'll tell you the mistake here.
It says the tweet identifies a person it says is the whistleblower.
It then goes on to say, the person who first alerted members of Congress, so while I don't think that was their intent, some people may look at it that way, and that's my warning to you.
Their clear intent is to explain what a whistleblower is, but it actually sounds like they're saying this person is the person who first did this, in which case they would be the whistleblower, which would be unconfirmed.
I can't say the name of this individual, even though the president himself retweeted it, and it's a subject of the story I'm reading to you, but hey, welcome to the future.
It's an amazing bit of irony, right, that I am doing a story about potential censorship and shadow banning, and in this exact segment where I'm telling you these platforms are doing this, it is happening.
Whether it's intentional or accidental, it is clearly happening.
And they would say, no, sir, it is just a glitch.
You are insane.
And I can't even say the name of the guy in the tweet.
So yeah, we're all crazy.
You know what, man?
I'm so over all this.
There is a beautiful lake somewhere in Minnesota full of fish just waiting for me to pull up that van, cast that line out, and say, this is your problem now.
But how amazing is it that every single time something like this happens, they say it was just an accident, and I literally can't say a name.
You think it was an accident?
I literally can't say the guy's name, okay?
Yeah, I know I'm driving that point home, but it's true.
Simultaneously, they're saying, Trump is being shadowbanned by mistake.
But you better not say that name, otherwise we'll ban you from YouTube.
That's right, I've had one video forced private for those that don't know.
If you say the whistleblower's name on YouTube, At any point, they will take your video and force it into private mode so that no one can see it.
Yep.
Welcome to the new world.
I mean, you know what's funny is that the censorship can't work, because you'd have to simultaneously censor every single person who tries talking about censorship, and you can't do it.
You're playing whack-a-mole with billions of accounts.
Okay, millions of accounts.
Yeah, probably billions, because people have multiple accounts, but you've got millions of accounts.
One of them says a naughty word, so you bop it out with the mallet, and then ten pop-ups saying censorship, and then you're like, So you can't hide it.
It's impossible to actually stop this.
In fact, by removing the tweet from Trump's account, whether it was intentional or not, you've only made the story much, much bigger.
unidentified
And now everyone's going to go to Trump's account to see what that tweet was.
Sorry, I can't tell you what the president said because we live in a nightmarish dystopia where people aren't allowed to talk about the words of our elected president.
The White House did not respond, oh so they say this, on Saturday afternoon the account, which posts a variety of pro-Trump and anti-democratic material, was shown on Twitter as having been temporarily restricted.
It's now been restored and carries Trump photo as its profile picture.
You know what's really funny?
What's really funny and frustrating is that like, They want me to say that it's fake news.
They want me to look you in the camera and tell you, none of this is real.
None of this is real.
And if I don't do that, they say I'm right-wing.
That's the world we live in today.
That I can say something like...
You know, my official position politically is like, not a fan of Republican policy or right-wing policy for the most part, but they're doing politics as they've always done it, and they're winning.
The Democrats, on the other hand, are playing ridiculous games, playing impeachment, and it's hurting them.
And if I say impeachment is a bad idea that will hurt Democrats, they say I'm right-wing.
If I tell you the truth, I'm right-wing.
That's the game.
So, I don't want to tell you, man.
It's almost impossible to actually talk about what's actually going on.
Well, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I was wrong.
It's literally impossible.
Because some subjects are so taboo, I can't even tell you what happened.
You know, there's a story about something in New York last night.
Horrifying tragedy.
Can't tell you about it.
I really can't.
Because YouTube will punish me for it.
They're already doing it.
We got new data.
I might do it for my main channel.
New data showing that basically they are punishing and trying to destroy independent commentary.
Yeah, well, welcome to the world.
You know, that's what they're doing.
So I don't know how long I am for this digital career.
Whatever.
What are you supposed to do about it?
The machine is the machine, and the establishment left, not even the progressive left, the establishment wants this.
They use the press, they lie, and they play games.
What good journalist would be like, Twitter is right, it was a glitch.
Do some legwork, man.
Do some actual groundwork.
Investigate what actually happened.
They say Trump has posted about the whistleblower dozens of times over the months, and also suggested in comments to reporters that he would like to unmask the face of the individual.
Like every American, I deserve to meet my accuser, Trump tweeted in September.
Well, look, I'll admit that I don't think.
You know, people have tried playing the whistleblower as the accuser, and it's like, not really.
I mean, kind of.
So it is a bit of a conundrum in that the whistleblower didn't accuse Trump.
Actually, no, take that back.
The whistleblower did accuse him of a crime, I suppose, but Congress didn't.
It's a weird situation.
On Thursday, Trump also retweeted a link to a December 3rd article from the conservative Washington Examiner that carried the name of the alleged whistleblower.
Attorney Andrew Bakaj, who represents the whistleblower, lamented in a tweet on Saturday that U.S.
lawmakers who in the past have championed the rights of whistleblowers, including Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, have shown deafening silence recently.
This is a defining moment where legacies will either be solidified or destroyed.
Well, let me tell you something.
Brian Stelter of CNN will, of course, just toe the line whatever the corporate message is.
Brian Stelter is not somebody – look, I'm not saying this to be overtly disrespectful to the man, but he's not a journalist, right?
To an extent, I guess it's fair to say he is, in the same capacity I am.
But both Brian and I aren't doing groundwork journalism for the most part.
Sometimes.
But so does Hannity sometimes, you know what I mean?
Brian Souther goes on his show and he opines about the media and how these things work, and then he publishes comments.
I guess you could technically call that like the lowest tier of journalism, and I would put myself in the exact same camp.
For the most part, I'm commenting on various stories, giving you my thoughts and opinions, and every so often I'll actually do some groundwork.
I used to do almost all groundwork, but For a variety of reasons, I've moved away from it.
The most notable being it got too dangerous.
Too many people started recognizing me for the various content I was doing and I decided, you know, it became too dangerous and I started getting threats.
So here I am, sitting behind the camera, telling you how I think and trying to break down these stories, much similar to what Brian Stelter is doing in a variety of ways.
So, this is the big problem.
The big problem is, you know, my criticism of Stelter is he tells people not to listen to other people.
It's like, no, you should listen to Hannity.
I think he's bombastic.
You should listen to Maddow.
She's even worse.
And you should listen to Stelter.
You should listen to me and other people.
And you've got to fact check for yourself.
The problem now is that you have major corporate voices with massive followings just saying whatever the machine says to say uncritically.
You're not getting the truth when someone says, oh, by the way, Twitter says it was a glitch.
Don't worry about it.
No, that's not the truth, okay?
We don't know what the truth is.
I can't tell you the truth.
Twitter did it on purpose.
But I certainly would say it is dubious at best that it was an accident.
Because how many accidents need to keep happening before you've won the lottery?
That's what I always tell people.
When you buy a lotto ticket, you have five coincidences until you've actually won.
And the odds are astronomical, but I tell you this, you can win.
But how about this point?
If you can accurately get these five, or is it six numbers now, I don't know, whatever, depending on the lottery game you're playing, then you're just lucky, right?
And I don't mean like lucky in the magical sense, I mean it just like, well, the numbers came up, congratulations.
But, excuse me, the point is, when you win the lottery, I don't know, every month for three years, at some point, a commissioner's gonna come down and start doing an investigation.
You see what I mean?
There's a woman who won the lottery like six times, and yeah, people start to investigate.
And sometimes they find there's fraud, like somebody who works at the lotto or picking the numbers will rake it so their friends could win and try and do something illegal.
Point is, man, how is it that it was a left-wing outlet, Gizmodo, that broke the story, what, two years ago about conservative censorship on social media?
I say that.
They say Tim's conservative.
What, because I made a video about it?
You know, man, the problem now is that to be in the center, you would have to lie.
And I literally mean that.
You know, I have people asking me, like, why don't you make a video about Mitch McConnell and what he's doing?
Because I think Brian Stelter isn't giving you the full story.
Because I think it's insane to assume and do no digging To just assume the truth is that once again, for the 50 billionth time, these companies have accidentally censored somebody.
Yeah.
We have data now showing that mainstream media is receiving major boosts and independent commentary is being restricted.
And we've had the data for a while now, yet for some reason you will still hear the exact same lies.
YouTube radicalizes people to the alt-right.
It's fake, but the New York Times runs it on the front page.
If I call it out, right wing.
Okay, you know what, man?
Your words mean nothing to me.
I don't care.
I'll wrap it up there.
Trump is being censored, okay?
And I think the simple solution would be that because you have a company of so many biased individuals, they're building a structure based around their biases, and they don't quite understand, and it results in these things.
Learn to code got people banned.
That was in no way a violation of any rules at all.
Come on, it's so obvious what's happening.
Yeah, they will tell you time and time again, it was just a mistake.
Okay, I'm done.
I'll see you all at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
If I said the word apple to you, you can picture an apple in your head.
But what if the word to me meant something entirely different?
You would picture the wrong thing.
The idea I'm trying to convey would never reach you.
And that's what's happening as activists try to change the definition of words.
For whatever reason, or whether or not you think it's right or wrong, the fact remains.
It's happening, and we've got a media that loves playing the game because it makes a circus show.
And no, I'm not trying to be offensive to this family.
I'm trying to be offensive as possible to the media, who wants to use the spectacle, twist words, to make something shocking and unrecognizable, so that you go to the circus, and what do you see?
A big old sign reads, Man Eating Chicken.
And in your head, what do you picture?
Do you picture a gigantic chicken monster that's gonna eat a man?
Or do you picture a fat guy sitting in a chair eating chicken?
The point is, the phrase conveys nothing other than confusion, shock, and welcome to the Circus Show.
Take a look at this story.
Transgender man gives birth to non-binary partner's baby with female sperm donor.
Exclusive.
Proud dad Ruben Sharp has revealed how he gave birth to miracle baby Jamie with partner Jay in Britain's Most Modern Family.
And even the couple's doctor was transgender.
First, I have nothing against the family in no capacity.
I'm happy for them.
Congratulations.
I think it's actually kind of a nice story when you get past how the media weaponizes the nonsense for clickbait.
First, transgender man gives birth to non-binary partner's baby completely totally false with female sperm donor completely and totally false.
First of all, it's not the non-binary partner's baby in any logical sense of the word because the non-binary partner provided nothing towards the creation of the baby other than as a family they're having a baby.
A female sperm donor quite literally cannot exist because sex and gender are two different things, and female does not produce sperm.
You could say woman or trans woman.
You see, the fact is, they constructed a title that will trigger keyword search and pop-up.
It'll be clickbait, it'll be confusing, people will click it, and in no way will it convey any real idea.
The title may as well have said, Man Eating Chicken.
Come see in the shop. $5.
Let's read the story and I'll break down for you what actually happened.
Because if I wanted to convey to you the actual idea, the actual information using real words, I would say something like this.
Female receives sperm donation from trans woman and gives birth to baby.
That's probably the best way you could explain it.
And if you wanted to really, really be reductive and exclude identity, you could say female receives, you know, female gives birth to baby after receiving sperm donor from male.
That's it.
Instead, as words become meaningless and clickbait becomes all the rage with media, lo and behold, once again, welcome to the circus spectacle.
The Mirror reports.
Proud dad Ruben Sharp today tells how he gave birth to a miracle baby in Britain's most modern family.
The 39-year-old transitioned to a man 12 years ago.
But he still had maternal instincts and 6 years ago stopped taking testosterone in the hope of one day having a child.
And that dream came true when he and partner Jay had a bouncing baby.
Jay is non-binary.
So does not... So does not... There's no pronoun there.
So they do not... So they does not identify as male or female.
Let's be real.
Jay is a female.
There is nothing wrong with being female or male, and you can still be transgender, and we can point out what the word is supposed to convey.
The reason why they needed a donor is because Jay is biologically female, but doesn't identify as a specific gendered construct.
None of this makes sense.
I'll tell you what, man.
I don't care if you're offended or not.
I'm sick and tired of the insanity.
No one knows what is or isn't anymore because words are becoming meaningless.
How can I tell you what's happening if news outlets are going to claim that a female can produce sperm when they most certainly cannot?
Period.
Okay?
There are, there, for the most part, for the most part, I recognize, okay, nothing is absolute, but overwhelmingly female refers to the production of, you know, of ova, of eggs, and male to the production of sperm.
So no, female does not make sense.
They're simply trying to use a new understanding of what the word doesn't mean, but it does mean to some people when they're actually referencing a trans woman.
Let's read on.
I hope this is sufficiently confusing for all of you.
Notice when they talk about J, they don't even use a gender pronoun because they don't know what to say.
How can I convey to you an idea so you can understand the world if we can't even talk about it because people are offended by the words you use?
The sperm donor was a trans woman, and even the doctor was transgender.
Let me tell you something.
None of that matters.
The story here is the same old story, period.
Somebody wanted to have a family, they got a donor, they're having a family.
I don't see why it needs to be a spectacle, and why it needs to be propped up furthermore.
If we want this to be considered normal, then how can we have a media telling us it's not?
You see the problem?
I made this point at a YouTube meeting years ago when they were trying to talk about how we could normalize certain religions and get people to stop being so extreme.
And I said, the fact is, the more you try and bash into someone's head how something is normal, the more they feel it's not because you're telling them something different about it.
You're telling them this is not normal.
By literally going to someone and saying, look at this story, putting HE in all caps, not using pronouns, and trying to accentuate what is not normal about this, you are not normalizing it, you're doing the opposite.
You're making a spectacle of it.
This I find particularly offensive.
And if there was anything that was transphobic, it's quite literally this, okay?
You can explain to people, simply, non-offensively, May not?
I guess you can't.
Because everything's offensive.
Nothing makes sense.
The world is collapsing.
I hope whatever is going to happen in 2020, no one's going to be able to speak English anymore.
There's a really funny...
skit where it's like a school teaching people how to speak English and they're teaching them like
verbs and adverbs and they go now let's get to the pronoun section and they turn the other side of
the board and there's like 800 words of like zeezer, zimzam, you know, boof, borf, whatever
and the people trying to learn English are like what? Yeah, exactly.
Language is just a way to convey ideas.
And what we have now are people who for some reason want control over words.
The problem is people don't all agree on what words mean.
Look, I get it.
You might say to yourself, woman is an adult human female.
Hey, that's how the dictionary defines it.
That's how Wikipedia defines it.
I think it's fair to say.
But you go to certain progressive circles and you go to the media and they'll say, woman is just a representation of certain social constructs.
It's like, okay, then what?
Well, then they say female can literally be a man, a male.
I'm not kidding.
That's literally what's happening.
So long as, you know, look.
In the past, I feel like the world was—imagine two people.
You have a crazy leftist and you have a staunch conservative.
The leftist has a harness on and a rope, and the conservative is pulling that rope as the leftist slowly drags, marching forward to the left.
That's kind of how things went.
Conservatives held the left back from going too far, and the left constantly tried to push left, never knowing when to stop.
And thus, over the past hundred years, our society started drifting slowly in a leftward direction.
Something weird happened.
When social media emerged, and people started complaining about the conservatives holding the rope, social media companies snipped the rope.
And then the left just bolted off as fast as possible, and they're spinning out of control and crashing into walls, and conservatives are standing in the exact same spot they've always been.
That's kind of the way I view the world.
So now you have this, right?
There's a story from NBC News.
Man, I just, I don't even know anymore, man.
I'll probably get banned from YouTube.
I don't even care.
I'm so over this.
NBC News ran a story where they said children as young as five or whatever start to identify with their gender playing with toys and other things like this, and their gender identity is just as strong as a cisgendered child.
Okay, I have no problem with the research, fine.
Oh, what's that?
We're simultaneously being told that gender is a social construct and that boys and girls can both play with dolls or Legos?
And it's society making girls play with dolls?
Hold on.
If gender is a social construct, but then telling a little boy who plays a doll that he's trans is a scientific fact, then what is, or isn't, there is no understanding of truth anymore.
And that's the way it is.
You know, I'm going to do this.
I'm going to do a longer segment for my main channel.
For those listening on the podcast, you probably all heard it.
The reason this story about the trans family really triggered me, got me really angry, has nothing to do with the family.
They're very happy.
I'm very, you know, happy that they're happy.
I think we got more happiness in the world.
Hey man, more power to you.
You know, they're doing what they want with their freedom-loving lives.
And that's kind of the freedom-loving view of what, I don't know, my opinion.
They're in the UK, but I think that's what freedom's all about.
Look, they had a kid.
They went through a donor.
These are kind of normal things.
If they want to live their life a certain way, so be it.
That's not particularly a conservative view.
I think conservatives are more interested in traditional families and all that stuff, but I believe in individual freedom.
People pursuing things to make them happy, so long as we have certain protections on trying to cause harm to others.
The problem I have is almost always how the media weaponizes things, how they jump on board because it gets them the clicks they want.
And this story from just the other day, already from last night, 31,000 shares.
Bravo, good sir.
And where is the left to call out the spectacle?
Where is the left to criticize the media for saying something as silly as female sperm donor?
You know, there's nowhere in sight.
Because it's always been conservatives who have held back the left, with that tether being snipped.
Basically what that means is, social media companies will ban you if you criticize this.
But that's literally what we need, because we need to be able to figure out what the hell they're really talking about.
Great, now I said the H-word, and believe it or not, you can't say that on Twitter, on YouTube.
You see how crazy things have gotten?
I can't say certain words, I can't explain to you certain ideas, but they can certainly pump out this insane circus spectacle garbage.
And so they know writing this ridiculous headline that makes no sense is going to get them traffic.
And it does.
You know what, man?
I think we're doomed.
I think we're in serious trouble when it comes to the future of our politics because the right is being censored.
It's a fact.
And it's not just conservatives, it's any moderate who might recognize this and call it out too.
The earlier segment I did, Donald Trump's tweets were shadow banned and then Twitter said it was a glitch, but it keeps happening.
And when that keeps happening, when you ban people who say, hey, this is a bit too much, then all that can happen is the left will run away unchecked into absurdity.
To the point now where we simultaneously have, listen, I've talked about it in the past, where like if you said, they claimed the word women with an X, so it's W-O-M-X-N, Womxn, they said that was the right word to use because it's an inclusive word that encompasses all different kinds of women.
Well, then a bunch of other feminists got mad saying Womxn was exclusionary because it created a new word, and trans women are women, therefore you didn't need it.
The word was both simultaneously inclusive and exclusive at the same time, and no matter which word you used, you were going to get attacked on social media for using the wrong word.
There is no right way to do anything.
Perhaps what will really happen is because the left has run so far off the edge, they will spiral out of control and people will eventually give up trying to figure out what the hell they're really talking about.
But now we have this.
The gender binary social construct.
Paradox?
Where it's simultaneously true that females can produce sperm, but that gender is a social construct, but that little boys playing with dolls are in fact trans and should take hormones to biologically transition, but at the same time, a little girl who plays with Legos is not trans, she's just breaking gender norms.
There's no right answer.
There's literally no right answer.
I don't even know what the framing of this video is going to be other than everything's crazy and everything's falling apart.
There is no accurate way to describe what the hell any of this really means.
So you know what?
It comes to a point where people like me, who try to be reasonable, try to be kind of in the middle to understand what both sides are saying, I just say, I have no idea.
I really don't.
No, I mean this honestly, right?
Fine, by all means, flag my video and try and get me banned.
I don't care anymore, dude.
Listen.
When you say a kid playing with dolls is trans, but that a kid playing with dolls is breaking the binary, and that there is no gender binary, and biological sex doesn't exist, but that people can transition between biological sexes, dude, I'm just lost, okay?
And you know what's gonna happen?
People are gonna reject every last drop of it.
You do literally have people claiming that you can transition from male to female.
Jordan Peterson debated a professor who said biological sex doesn't exist.
If biological sex doesn't exist, then how are you transgender literally at all?
Both can't exist, right?
I've heard the argument from actual trans people.
I think ContraPoints brought this up, that with the binary, you have someone who is male wanting to transition to female.
Though they will never really be biologically female, they will take hormones to approximate it to the best of our scientific abilities.
But if there is no gender binary, and behaviors are social constructs, then there quite literally is no trans.
So I'll put it this way.
Why would a trans person, who is male, want a beard?
If women can have beards, and women literally can have beards.
It's rare, but it happens.
If a man can wear a dress and still be a man, at what point does that man become a woman?
You see the problem with both a simultaneously social construct but also biological sex things.
They don't coexist properly.
So I'll tell you what, here's my position.
I have no idea what you guys are talking about.
I'm more than interested in expanding the laws and helping and trying to protect people's civil rights, but not if there's two people of the same faction telling me two different things.
By all means, tell me I just don't understand, because I really don't, and I'm trying to tell you that.
So why don't you comment below and break this down.
First, I need you to define what the word woman is and what the word man is.
Define those for me.
After that, I want you to define what gender as a social construct is, and then I want you to define what biological sex is, assuming you believe or don't believe in it.
Assuming you don't believe in it, explain to me What you think the difference between a man and a trans man is, or a man and a trans woman, if there's no biological sex, then quite literally, two identical twins could both simultaneously be male and female at the same time.
Right?
Let's say you have two identical twins.
Both biologically male.
If gender is a social construct, and they're both wearing suits, could I call one of them a woman and female?
Because females have sperm.
I'm lost, man.
I'm just frustrated with all that.
Welcome to 2020.
Have a happy new year.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast, and I will see you there.
Well, lo and behold, BuzzFeed and Vox are sad that people know the name of the alleged whistleblower that the president retweeted a tweet with the guy's name in it, a name that everybody knows, a name that I cannot say on YouTube, which is the most insane, dystopian, nightmarish reality.
Think about it.
The president himself can say, here's the name, and then you can't repeat it because they will ban you and remove you from the infrastructure we use to communicate and sell things.
You see, in today's day and age, the storefront is closing.
Retail is dying as Amazon takes over.
The digital world is becoming everything.
Our economies are digitizing.
People can actually leave big cities.
It's a good thing.
Except for the fact that there are private corporations that can set arbitrary rules and restrict your rights.
Perhaps we need some kind of digital bill of rights.
People have proposed in the past, but maybe we do.
Especially as people now in rural areas are going to be entering the conversation as the internet expands.
But let me just stress, Here's a story from BuzzFeed.
Right-wing publishers have found a way to post the supposed Trump whistleblower's name to Facebook.
Facebook said that sharing URLs the name of the person believed to be the whistleblower is against their policies.
That hasn't stopped news sites from doing it.
At what point do you concede the name is public and people have a right to speak?
You'd think when the president himself tweeted something out with the name in it, we'd be allowed to say it.
But no.
The world we live in Is that politicians can say whatever they want, and you cannot.
It's not just BuzzFeed.
Surprise, surprise, Vox.
unidentified
Trump is trying to out the alleged Ukraine whistleblower on Twitter.
Dude, anyone and their mother can Google search it and see the dude's name.
I think at this point, it's the dude.
Let's see what BuzzFeed has to say.
They're so upset that people have figured out how to share a name that is already public and posted to numerous websites, has been said on numerous mainstream television programs.
I think it was said on CNN, maybe, maybe not.
It was said on Fox News.
You'd think at that point, we'd start talking about it.
Instead, it's being scrubbed from the Internet.
BuzzFeed writes, Facebook told BuzzFeed News in November that it would be removing content that featured the name of the CIA officer and former National Security Council staffer, whom prominent Republicans have claimed for months, is the whistleblower whose anonymous complaint sparked the president's impeachment.
Here's a question I have for you.
Any instance of the name?
Certainly he's not the only person in the world who has that name, okay?
We'll call it, I was gonna do a Simpsons joke, but I'll still get banned if I do it, so I'm not, I'll get the video banned.
So I'm not gonna say it, but the dude's got a decently common name.
It's not the most common name in the world, but I have to believe that there's at least a couple thousand people in the world who have this guy's name.
So what if you posted something on Facebook where you're like, I have a chiropractor.
He lives in Dubuque.
His name is, I can't say it, can't say it.
But what if you just posted that?
Would Facebook ban you?
I'm curious.
We'll see what happens.
BuzzFeed goes on to say, except the name is still all over the platform, so say it, dude.
It's not Voldemort.
What are you scared of?
Now, you're on BuzzFeed.
I can't say it because YouTube will take me down.
Fine.
But you can at least say it.
You're a news website.
The CIA's analyst's name is regularly shared to Facebook in headlines and URLs written by pro-Trump media outlets.
A Facebook spokesperson reiterated on Thursday that any mention of the name of the person believed to be the whistleblower violates its coordinating harm policy, which prohibits the outing of a witness, informant, or activist.
The spokesperson said that even including the name in a URL shared in the post violates the site's policies.
Boy, do I have an epic, paradoxical, conundrum idea.
What if you made a post about somebody you knew with the same name?
If Facebook is willing to take down any instance of the name, even if it's, you know, Joe Schmo from Dubuque, Iowa, who has nothing to do with anything political, and is a 50-year-old chiropractor who is a married father of four.
Let's say you post something about that.
If they took down that post, that would make a really weird statement about them knowing who the name is and actually saying that it's providing a weird situation, right?
Let's say you know nothing about politics.
You post the name of your friend who happens to have the same name.
What if Facebook took it down?
What would you say?
What if it's your name?
Are you gonna get banned from Facebook because it's your name?
What if everyone's, everyone changed their name?
What if people had accounts and this was their name?
I don't mean like, I mean like, yeah, what about the people who actually have this name?
Will Facebook ban them?
I did a search on Facebook.
I found many accounts of people who changed their name to the whistleblower's name, but I also did find a couple people who have this name.
Is Facebook going to ban them?
That's a tough call.
Are they going to request an ID from everybody who has the name?
We'll see what happens.
I go on to say that Facebook reiterated yada yada.
But content featuring the name of the CIA analyst continues to go viral on the platform.
When asked how Facebook planned to moderate the thousands of links containing the whistleblower's name posted to the platform, the spokesperson said they would be removed as the site identified them.
But there doesn't seem to be any moderation of URLs containing the CIA analyst's name.
Making matters worse, if a user were to search the name circulating in right-wing media currently, Facebook's search feature pulls up posts that include URLs that include the supposed whistleblower's name.
Why is Facebook— I'm sorry, why is BuzzFeed so adamant on censoring a name?
Why?
Who cares?
The name's public.
You know the name.
We all know the name.
That's it.
Why won't you just say it?
Isn't this weird?
Come on, man.
You gotta admit it's creepy, right?
It's not Voldemort.
According to social metrics website BuzzSumo, the four most shared public Facebook posts containing the supposed whistleblower's name, usually in the URL or headline of the third-party link, were all published by American conservative activist group Judicial Watch.
Their posts have been shared a collective of 25,000 times since November.
And they've also filed lawsuits about the name.
Think about how crazy this is.
There is a serious political effort happening to figure out who this person is because of perceived bias.
There is probable cause.
I'm not saying proof.
Probable cause to investigate the individual.
Activist groups are doing so.
Facebook, BuzzFeed wants these groups banned?
That's incredible, man.
What if there was somebody who, like, I don't know, was working in the government and, like, had information about something but you knew he was, like, you know, I don't know, a neo-Nazi?
And so we're, like, we need to figure out who this Nazi is who's working with the Trump campaign who blew the whistle on the whistleblower.
You're gonna be happy that Facebook is blocking this?
You people are nuts.
The right-wing media frenzy around the CIA analyst reached a fever pitch this week when Republican President Donald Trump retweeted a tweet Thursday containing the name.
The tweet was posted to the Trump forum, so here they are acknowledging the president himself has published the name.
You can't say it.
Can't say the name.
Welcome to... Serfdom, I guess?
There is an elite class of individuals who are allowed to do whatever they want, and it's not you.
And they want to make sure over at BuzzFeed that the authoritarians maintain their position.
Apparently that's a right-wing position now to criticize.
Here's a quote.
Let me read more.
Every time Trump's Twitter makes a move, Facebook traffic typically follows.
The Washington Examiner link that Trump retweeted has been shared 5,000 times on total.
Total on Facebook since it was published on December 3rd, according to Social Metric's
website CrowdTangle.
The story was largely dormant on Facebook as of December 12th, but recirculated among
right-wing groups and pages following Trump's retweet.
It's pretty simple.
The CIA whistleblower is not a real whistleblower, the tweet reads, along with a link to a Washington Examiner article that contained the name of the CIA analyst in the headline and URL.
The DC Examiner is a reputable newspaper.
It is not some fly-by-night clickbait blog that publishes fake news.
It's a legitimate newspaper talking about this individual.
Judicial Watch is a well-known activist group that files, you know, FOIA requests, same as any other left-winger news outlet would do, and they have all named the individual.
What is this freaky new reality we're living in where the name is being scrubbed and you can't say it?
I sent an email to YouTube asking, now that the president has said the name, technically, can I say it?
So far, no response.
I get it.
It's the holidays.
We'll see what happens.
But I'm willing to bet the answer is going to be no.
They're going to say, you're not allowed to say this name because, you know what, we the big tech monopoly can ban things arbitrarily even if the president is talking about it.
Welcome to the nightmare, man.
They say Twitter, however, allows you to say, they say Trump's war room tweet, including the name of the whistleblower, is not a violation of the Twitter rules.
Isn't it weird that BuzzFeed would then, like, even though the name's all over Twitter, BuzzFeed still won't say the name.
We all know the name.
It's in the newspaper.
It's in the press.
It was on Fox News.
Everybody said it.
The president has said it.
And here we are acting like Voldemort can't be named.
And they go, you know, whatever.
Matt Gaetz and Donald Trump have also named the analyst in tweets.
I guess they just post, what is this, Facebook's—oh, the whistleblower's lawyer is saying, you know, at risk of serious harm or whatever, you know what, man, everybody knows the name.
The only people who don't know the name are the left.
And the weird thing is, maybe if they knew the name, they would see the individual has potential biases against the president and worked with Joe Biden in some capacity.
So maybe that's the only real reason they're censoring the name, because conservatives all certainly know who this person is.
Conservatives know the person's bias.
But so long as they keep the name out of the press, guess who doesn't know about it?
The left.
Gotta make sure the regular folk who aren't paying attention can't learn things.
Remember when I think it was Jake Tapper said it was illegal, basically, for you to have the leaked documents from WikiLeaks?
Man.
They're trying so hard to keep a stranglehold on the narrative.
And now, you know, unsurprisingly, BuzzFeed and Vox are so outraged.
So outraged.
Anyway, I don't know what to tell you, man.
I kind of feel like it just doesn't matter at all because even though everyone knows, you know, anyone who wants to know can know, Vox won't tell you the truth.
Aren't journalists supposed to tell you what's going on?
Aren't journalists supposed to share all this information with you instead of withholding it?
Makes me wonder, huh?
Anyway, stick around, I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Because I think it deserves its own segment, a story that I talked about in my main segment.
If Trump's impeached, then why can't a Senate trial start now?
New theories on when Trump impeachment happens make no sense when followed to their logical constitutional conclusion.
I have another follow-up story of some criticism of Pelosi, but I wanted to give this its own segment and read through it because I don't think I did it justice in just mentioning it in my main segment.
The point is, Many people are arguing right now that Trump has been impeached.
That by simply voting, Trump has been impeached.
Noah Feldman is a constitutional scholar.
He was a witness for the Democrats and he has argued before that's not true.
Trump is impeached when the managers are sent to the Senate, when Pelosi announces the prosecution, the impeachment.
Because she has not done that, Trump can say, legally, he's not been impeached.
Now, the argument, then, from other people, including John Turley, the Republicans' witness, is that, no, Trump has been impeached because they voted to impeach.
The best argument in response to this from Noah Feldman, in this wild, weird whirlpool of politics, is that, okay, okay, then Pelosi has just lost all of her leverage.
Because if you're arguing Trump is impeached, the Senate can just start right now and scrub it all.
But no, Pelosi is refusing to turn over the documents, which means that he's not impeached.
Let's read the story, and then we'll talk a bit about Pelosi and having her teeth removed.
I mean that figuratively.
Feldman writes, called me old-fashioned or naive, but I think my job is to explain what the U.S.
Constitution actually means, no matter who likes it or doesn't.
That led me to explain recently that under the Constitution, as it was understood by the framers, and as it still should be understood today, impeachment isn't complete when the House of Representatives votes to impeach.
Constitutionally, impeachment becomes official when the House sends word of that impeachment to the Senate, triggering a Senate trial.
I want to stop here.
I'm going to point something out.
This process is likely due to the fact that there's no TV, you know, back when the Constitution was written.
And that means after they voted, somebody would have to send word of an official document saying it is done.
Because we have TV, everyone knows they voted for it, but there's no complete formal process.
So the easiest way to explain it is like, just because the police say they've decided to indict you, doesn't mean they did unless they actually filed paperwork to confirm all of this and move the machine forward.
You can't just have law enforcement or politicians coming out saying, I did this when they didn't actually do it.
Putting it this way, Imagine if someone said, I just bought a Ferrari, and the dealer is like, you've never actually given the cash to me, so no, you didn't.
You can't go to a dealership and say, I have decided to buy the car.
It's like, OK, now hand the cash to the dealer, and the car is yours.
No, I'm going to wait.
OK, well, they didn't buy anything.
Nothing has been filed.
Nothing has moved forward.
But by all means, the argument here is that, sure, claim you've impeached the president, because then you just officially announced the Senate now has the ball in their court.
He says this.
Impeachment was originally understood to take place when someone from the House formally impeached the President at the bar of the Senate, which meant a member of the House formally stated to the Senate that the President or judge or other officer was impeached.
This practice lasted from the late Middle Ages until 1912.
Since then, the House has instead sent a written message to the Senate stating that the House has impeached the defendant, a message that triggers the trial procedures in the Senate.
Both versions, old and new, depend on the House officially communicating the fact of impeachment to the Senate.
That communication has always taken place in short order after the House voted to impeach.
The reason lies in the core element of what impeachment is by its very nature, a prosecution by the House that takes place before the Senate.
If the message is not sent and the trial is not prosecuted, there is no genuine impeachment in the constitutional sense of the term.
It also creates, in my opinion, and I'm not a constitutional scholar, a kind of constitutional crisis in that you can't have the House claiming to be impeaching people and then not allowing the process to complete.
Trump has a right to, you know, defend himself to whatever capacity.
I mean, it's impeachment.
It's different.
But the Senate has a right to hold a trial.
If you are withholding that right, then we cannot say impeachment has occurred, otherwise you're creating a weird constitutional limbo.
So yeah, complete the process, file the papers, impeachment exists upon the filing.
Until a few weeks ago.
No one, to my knowledge, has ever suggested that impeachment could be complete even if there was no communication to the Senate.
And no historic example of this new idea has been brought forward in the current discussion.
The issue isn't merely theoretical or academic in the pejorative sense.
It has major political implications for the current standoff between Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
According to the longstanding understanding of impeachment, Pelosi has some modest leverage over the Senate trial.
With the authority the House has given to her, she can control when impeachment officially occurs.
Constitutionally, the Senate can't try Trump until she triggers the trial by sending a message about impeachment to the Senate.
The Constitution gives the House has the sole power of impeachment, and impeachment means the power to initiate and conduct a prosecution in the Senate.
But if Trump has already been impeached by House vote, then Pelosi has zero leverage, because Senate can start the trial right away, without waiting for the House to initiate or conduct the prosecution.
After all, the House only has the power to impeach.
If it has already executed that power, then the ball is already in the Senate's court.
The Senate has the sole power to try the impeachment.
So here's what I want to do.
I want to show you the... Let's go down to the Florida Supreme Court addressing... Actually, I want to read you this issue.
I do want to get to this story.
Pelosi has lost control of the Democratic Party to AOC and the lunatic left.
The reason I do is because I want to talk about why Pelosi is literally doing nothing, and this is the Republican criticism.
She is being basically forced into this, and she doesn't want to do it.
Let's read.
They say, the form of words used by the House is impeached doesn't redefine impeachment to make
communication to the Senate unnecessary. Impeachment is now and has always has been by definition,
a House led prosecution in the Senate. Whether in the old days or now impeachment happens when
the Senate is presented with the act of impeachment, which triggers the trial, as the Senate rules say.
Anything else would make no sense because it would allow the Senate to start without the House managers there to prosecute it.
Okay, so literally, think about this.
If Pelosi claims and the Democrats claim Trump is impeached, then the Senate can say, okay, we'll start a trial, but there's no prosecutors.
There's no one there to actually prosecute Trump, in which case it stands holding a trial with no prosecutorial management.
So there's no trial.
Literally makes no sense.
The only logical conclusion is that until the paperwork is filed, Trump has not been impeached.
But check it out.
He says, The Florida Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in 1868 after the governor was impeached and claimed he hadn't been because there was no quorum in the Senate.
Florida law doesn't control, of course, but the Florida court went through all the sources.
It concluded, and here's the quote, it thus appears by ample precedent and authority
that an impeachment is not simply the adoption of a resolution declaring that a party be impeached,
but that it is the actual announcement and declaration of impeachment by the House
through its committee at the bar of the Senate to the Senate that it does thereby impeach the
officer accused, which proceeding is at once recognized by the Senate.
I tell you what.
The Florida courts have already said it.
The president is already there.
But if you need a Supreme Court ruling, by all means file.
And they will likely follow suit with historical precedent.
Trump has not been impeached.
It's such a weird attempt at, like, a semantic victory.
I think it's fair to say, for all intents and purposes, Trump is impeached.
But I think, legally speaking, it's important if the Democrats want to maintain their leverage.
And the point is, Nancy Pelosi needs to put the documents forward.
And I'll tell you why.
The longer she drags her feet, the worse it will hurt the outsider Democratic candidates.
And maybe that's the game.
Maybe Pelosi is at war with the insane far left of her party.
And this brings me to the main point.
Not that I necessarily need to rehash the impeachment argument, but take a look at this.
Steve Scalise, is it Steve?
Am I getting his name wrong?
Am I, am I, am I?
Yeah, Steve Scalise, said Pelosi has lost control of the Democratic Party to AOC and the lunatic left.
Why would, why would Nancy Pelosi withhold the articles of impeachment?
Well, as I've stated before, if she withholds them until early next year, Bernie Sanders will be forced to step off the campaign trail.
Other outsider Democrats and Senate candidates and Senators will also be forced to.
You know who won't?
Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden.
This may be a play to regain control of the party.
The party is fractured.
It's fallen apart.
And the establishment refuses to lose.
This is an establishment play.
If you were to ask me, I think this makes the most sense.
I think they're making a play against Bernie Sanders.
I think this is an attempt to stop Bernie's revolution or whatever it is.
But I'll tell you this, man.
I disagree with Bernie on policy.
I used to be a big fan of him because of his sincerity.
I think he's given that up to pander.
I think he's playing the game.
But I will tell you, first and foremost, I will defend Bernie Sanders' right to campaign and preach his message to the American people, whether it's right or wrong, and it is the job of the Republicans, moderates or otherwise, to counter that narrative.
And if you can't do it, then you lose.
Welcome to, you know, a constitutional republic which is run through democratic institutions.
Bernie can preach his message, and if it works, he wins.
You know what?
If he's got a cheap message, like free stuff, that's what you think, well then, then you're at a disadvantage, but you've got to fight hard for it.
I certainly don't think shady underhanded games is the way to win.
So I would rather see a legitimate campaign held by Bernie, Tulsi, and other outsider candidates, Yang.
Yang's also not going to get held up in the Senate.
I'd rather see a legit argument between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump as opposed to him being forced out of the race due to Nancy Pelosi playing games.
I think that's what we're looking at.
And I think, I think, you know, Maybe there are a lot of, you know, right-wingers and, you know, Hillary fans who are laughing because it works out for them.
But I think it's really funny when I see people like Kyle Kalinske, you know, I think he's a good dude, but he says stuff like Pelosi should absolutely withhold the documents.
No, dude, if you like Bernie, this is going to backfire on him.
So no, it's a bad idea.
I think it is a fair point to make that whether it's intentional or not, Nancy Pelosi is doing nothing to hurt Trump at all.
But everything she's doing will end up hurting Bernie and other senators who are running for president.
Keep that in mind.
That they're scared of AOC.
She didn't want impeachment.
Ask yourself why they did it in the first place.
Pelosi resisted.
They're not gonna win.
It's helping Trump.
Maybe.
Just maybe.
It's this.
So I think this is a good addendum, but I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in just a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
A new report from researcher Mark Ledwich once again provides evidence debunking the myth of YouTube radicalization.
But while I want to highlight some of his work, what I really want to focus on is the meaning of left and right, because it doesn't seem to make sense anymore and everything's kind of falling apart.
We no longer have a shared reality in trying to define what is or isn't.
So let me point something out to you.
Mark Ledwich actually collected data disproving the YouTube radicalization narrative.
For one, he mentions the New York Times piece written by Kevin Roos that claims that this guy was radicalized to the alt-right.
In fact, the story presents the complete opposite.
The New York Times wrote a story about a conservative who was exposed to the intellectual dark web and then became a progressive.
Yet for some reason, the New York Times wrote the opposite.
Now most of you who are watching this know that radicalization is a myth, and I'll tell you why in very simple terms.
I don't need to actually go through his data, but bless his heart for actually producing it with a researcher from Berkeley, of all places.
The reality is, YouTube radicalization makes literally no sense.
There is a gigantic logical leap That these people in the media, the Daily Beast, NBC, BuzzFeed, Columbia Journalism Review, the New York Times, they make this dramatic leap that makes no sense.
At what point did they decide that YouTube understands the political difference between pro and anti-immigration?
They don't.
YouTube doesn't.
Let me explain something to you.
The argument presented by the media is that if you watch, say, a video about immigration, you'll be fed more videos about immigration, thus radicalizing you to the far right.
You know why that makes no sense?
YouTube doesn't grade, doesn't have an extremism gradient.
YouTube doesn't say immigration is minus one, immigration bad is minus two, immigration really bad minus three, and then actually walk you down a path.
It makes no sense.
If you watch a video about immigration, you are equally likely to receive mainstream media or alternative, you know, or YouTube creators.
It could be pro or anti.
YouTube doesn't know the difference of whether or not something is good or bad.
Now, there are certain keywords that can exist and certain channels that can exist.
So if you naturally choose To watch a specific channel, you will get more of it.
To that extent, there is, to some degree, a rabbit hole in that you might become a fan of a particular channel or creator, but if you choose to start hating on a group of people, it's a choice you made.
Because people have their own minds.
Perhaps you watch a video about immigration.
You then see a video that says, immigration good, immigration bad.
So no, YouTube isn't this great radicalization engine.
It's an engine of anything.
And I'll give you a better example.
Do you know anybody who's become, say, like a Spider-Man extremist?
Anybody who's, like, running around believing they're Spider-Man and obsessed?
They got everything as Spider-Man now?
They become extremists?
No!
Just because you watch Spider-Man videos doesn't mean YouTube will specifically feed you crazy extremist content about Spider-Man.
They're gonna feed you general cartoons about Spider-Man.
It won't be better or worse.
YouTube doesn't know the difference.
No one's become a Dragon Ball Z extremist.
Now you might argue, yes, but they're fans of Dragon Ball Z. Right!
Because they liked it, they chose to watch it, and they watch more of it.
So what you're really saying is not that YouTube radicalizes people, but that people who already have a set of beliefs will watch more of the content in which they already believe.
The fact of the matter is, it is possible to a certain degree.
But they make it seem like people are being trapped by this, when in reality, it's people choosing to watch the content they already agree with.
And if you disagree with it, you will leave.
In fact, the New York Times story shows the opposite.
But here's the main point, okay?
I don't want to rant on this.
The point is, you'll notice that these sources claiming that there's a radicalization engine are all left-wing.
Why, yes.
Simply by saying the engine doesn't exist, Mark Ledwich is now right-wing.
I'm not kidding.
Let me show you something.
What really blows my mind with all of this is that you have people constantly trying to debunk something without evidence.
Mark Ledwich produced a dataset.
He's got graphs and graphics showing you the flow of media where Armored Skeptic will send you if you watch his content, notably to more Armored Skeptic.
And he is a YouTube creator.
Let's do the standard group.
He is a center, centrist, I suppose they put him as.
That means if you watch him, here's what you're gonna get.
You're gonna get a variety of content.
You're gonna get Last Week Tonight at some point.
That's who he feeds into.
He has actual data, yet people try to claim he doesn't.
But here's what happens.
Because Mark Ledwich accurately called out the media for pushing, without evidence, a narrative, a narrative, This guy who's trying to debunk the actual... Look at this.
This is an actual academic Cornell University paper published by a few people.
Academics.
I believe Anna has a PhD.
I could be wrong.
But he tries claiming it's bunk.
He's a Princeton professor.
Okay.
Arvind, I request that you humbly provide evidence debunking the narrative instead of making a claim without evidence.
Because as all of you know about Hitchens Razor, that which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
But notice he says this.
The first author has been on a diatribe about the media, even in the thread introducing the paper.
It doesn't undermine the paper by itself, but given that they disingenuously exclude how radicalization might work, it raises questions.
Already, he's trying to lightly poison the well.
If you oppose the media narrative, you must be... I don't know, right-wing?
Here's the point.
What I find particularly interesting with the assessment by Mark—I don't blame him for this.
I don't know how else to put it.
Looking up Tim Pool, you get right.
Anti-SJW, AIN.
I think anti-SJW and AIN—AIN is arbitrary.
It was made by that one researcher.
You can also see how almost all of my content feeds to Fox News.
Which is complete BS.
And then last night with Seth Meyers.
Why is it that if you watch my content you go to Fox News?
Why should Fox News be promoted?
First of all, my opinions are fairly moderate.
The reason he lumps me in with the right-wing group is because of the way he categorizes left and right.
And this presents a fundamental problem for his study and basically any other study.
Do I have it?
I thought I had it pulled up already.
Anyway.
Here we go.
Partisan right.
Our channels mainly focus on politics and exclusively critical of the Democrats and supporting Trump.
I tacitly, I would say, I would say I don't really provide support for Trump other than I don't think he, I don't think he's like the reincarnation of Hitler.
I think he's a bad guy but I think he was right on the economy and you have to admit when he's right because all the press says it.
Am I supposed to lie?
Am I supposed to say no the economy is bad and just side with the Democrats and even disagree with left-wing Vox?
But it is true that I'm also almost entirely critical of Democrats.
But he says this.
The partisan left is focused on politics exclusively critical of Republicans.
The problem is, it doesn't work.
Jimmy Dore says a lot of the same things I do, except he's pretty pro-Bernie.
If you look at Jimmy Dore's channel, I think I have it pulled up.
And Jimmy Dore's awesome, by the way.
I mean, obviously, we agree on a lot of things.
You can see impeachment helps Trump and Dems don't care, Jake Tapper blames the media, Trump not legally impeached, a lot of the same things I say, and a lot of support for Tulsi Gabbard.
The problem comes not because he's wrong to say that, he says my main channel is right-wing, but he says that this channel is actually centrist.
The problem comes, it's based on like perception I guess, no sane person is gonna call Jimmy Dore right-wing, right?
But me and Jimmy say the exact same things for the most part.
I guess Jimmy's much more anti-Trump.
I wouldn't say I've never directly supported him.
I've expressed my intent to vote against him.
I've expressed my support for Tulsi.
So here's what I want to make clear.
Two things.
My criticism is not about his classification of me.
I think he did his best.
Mark and Anna, they did their best to classify individuals.
And I honestly don't care what you call me.
The problem is that even Mark himself is right-wing simply for pushing back against the mainstream media narrative.
So right now, you have a problem.
I've said over and over again, impeachment will help Trump.
I was correct.
It did.
I've said Trump's approval rating will go up.
And it has.
I've said, you know, Trump is going to raise record money.
He did.
Is it right-wing to claim that it is?
The answer is yes.
And therein lies the big problem.
There's no political understanding of what left and right really means anymore.
So I can show you this.
Here's AllSides.com.
They've tried to quantify what left and right really means.
The reason I think this is important is because me and Jimmy Dore can agree on 90% of everything and produce 90% of the same content with the same framing, criticizing the Democrats, saying impeachment is helping Trump, praising Tulsi Gabbard, etc.
Yet there is a perceptual difference as to why he would be considered left-wing by the mainstream media and I would be considered right-wing.
It makes no sense.
It's all about framing, I guess?
I don't know.
The reason I bring this up is because I've tried to figure out, you know, what would I have to do to convince someone I'm not a Republican or a conservative?
I'm very critical of the Democrats, almost entirely so, because I think the Republicans are doing what they've always done and it's boring to me.
I'll put it this way.
I grew up in Chicago, surrounded by Democrats who were lying and cheating, and I can't stand them when they do it.
I've also seen what they did to Bernie Sanders.
I now see Bernie Sanders pandering.
It all makes me very angry.
I don't feel betrayed by the Republicans.
I feel betrayed by the Democrats.
Naturally, I'm going to criticize them, and I'm also going to try and make them course-correct.
How do I then tell people my political positions align with the all-sides left?
It doesn't matter.
And that's when I realized, and I realized a long time ago, like, this is why I ultimately don't care, you can call me whatever you want.
I think it was funny because one researcher said, whatever Tim Pool is, that's how she described me, fine.
But when we're trying to figure out what the left and the right is in the United States, I think it's fair to say there isn't one anymore.
Barack Obama voters who voted for Trump, Bernie voters who voted for Trump, Are they right-wing?
I don't know.
I don't think it matters anymore.
I don't think the word's meant anything.
Mark Ledwich is not a political actor.
He's a researcher.
But his narrative aligns with the right.
Does that make him right-wing?
I have no idea.
Here's what they say.
Check this out.
Government services.
Do you believe in it?
I do.
That's a left-wing.
Federal laws to protect consumers?
I agree.
Federal laws protecting equal rights?
I agree.
I'm only critical when they overstep or dissolve those rights.
As I've pointed out in most of the videos about the expansion of trans laws, is that they're ill-defined.
A belief in the role of government to provide for its people, end suffering, and contribute to human prosperity?
I don't know about that, I guess, to a certain degree.
Oh, whatever.
Anyway, you get the point.
I don't want to read through all this.
They do add a few things I disagree with, like banning hate speech.
But when you go to the right-wing side, I don't line up with most of this stuff.
I agree with freedom of speech, personal responsibility, but not with, you know, government should be small and unobtrusive.
No, not really.
I'm a social liberal.
So then we have, I guess, a political problem.
Look, take a look at this.
This is Democratic Fund Voter Study Group, and we can see the social identity dimension versus the economic dimension.
And you can see that Trump's voters are split economically.
This is what I want to highlight.
There is no longer a shared reality of what left and right really is.
People watch my videos.
They think I'm a liberal.
Some of them think I'm centrist.
Some of them demand that I take the red pill.
Some say I'm more conservative than I really am.
Here's what it really comes down to, and why I want to do this video.
For one, I really wanted to highlight that the radicalization engine stuff is all bunk.
But I want to point out this.
Everybody watches someone they think is trustworthy.
The people who watch me will believe me on my opinions, and they'll understand why I view the world the way that I do.
I believe that I show, you know, credible sources and back up all of my opinions.
But take a look at this.
This is a post from David Pakman.
Six months ago.
I'm sorry, not from Pakman himself, from his subreddit.
Someone asked, six months ago, can we just admit that Jimmy Dore is a toxic, useful idiot for the alt-right at this point?
He even says this.
At this point, I gotta say that he's literally destroying the left and kind of turned into a Junior Tim Pool.
Boy, do David Pakman's fans hate me.
And I typically recommend David, even though I think he's wrong on a lot of things, and I think it's important to get a balanced view.
Don't just watch my content.
Yeah, that's not good enough for them.
Fine, I don't care.
What I really started to see is that from a mainstream political perspective, if you oppose the mainstream media, you're right-wing.
That's one of the principal positions I have.
If you're critical of Democrats, you're right-wing, even if you don't like the Republicans.
Initially, when Mark did his first round of research, he published it with, there was a left-wing, there were the centrists, there was the right-wing, but there was also a category called exclusively critical of left.
And I was initially in that, and I disagreed.
And I said, well, I've actually praised a lot of the left.
I actually made a video praising Ocasio-Cortez's initial campaign platform, just because most of my content is.
But if you actually watch the videos, you'll see I have praise for a lot of left-wing ideas.
So we eventually got rid of it.
But even David Pakman's people are targeting Jimmy Dore, accusing him of being a junior Tim Pool.
Now, they go on to defend Jimmy, and then they go on to really excoriate me.
Okay, fine.
I don't care.
Here's what the thing is.
Underneath where I am is a mountain of news stories I've read that I believe are credible.
This forms the basis of my worldview.
The same is true for everyone else.
If you watch my content, you've seen me show you the facts, the proof, the evidence, and so you believe it.
Then when someone comes to you and says, here's evidence proving what you believe is wrong, you say, no way, I refuse, because I remember the 50 stories Tim Poole showed me disproving that narrative.
It makes sense, right?
You'd be stupid to just blindly believe one story after seeing 50 contradicting it.
Herein lies the big problem.
Take a look at this.
This is a video from David Pakman.
He says, crowd laughs at Ted Cruz conspiracy theory.
In the video David Pakman uncritically parrots the MSNBC narrative that there was no Ukraine meddling.
Ted Cruz was actually correct.
And I can prove it.
Here's at least one article.
Ukraine court rules Manafort disclosure caused meddling in U.S.
election.
If you believe the New York Times is pushing out factual information, then you would have to agree that a court in Ukraine itself said that officials meddled in the U.S.
election.
And this is just one story of many.
David Pakman then publishes this story, where he calls it a conspiracy theory, and Chuck Todd's audience laughs at Ted Cruz.
The problem is, David Pakman just believed MSNBC was correct, and he believed the narrative about the conspiracy theory.
I'm not blaming him.
He has a worldview built upon all of the articles he reads and trusts.
I think David Pakman is wrong.
This is why I recommend you go and watch David Pakman.
I also think he's wrong, but you shouldn't just take my word for it.
Sometimes he's right as well.
I think he does a pretty good job, actually.
He's actually also agreed with Mark Lightwhich's research, and so I think there are instances where I'm wrong and David is wrong as well.
But here's the point.
David Pakman's followers will accuse me of being a grifter and of being right-wing.
It means nothing.
I was correct.
I was absolutely correct when I said Ted Cruz was correct.
Simply because Ted Cruz is correct doesn't mean that I'm right-wing.
And therein lies the main problem.
MSNBC is lying.
Jacobin Magazine has criticized Rachel Maddow.
Glenn Greenwald has criticized Rachel Maddow.
The reason I'm bringing this up is, you know, honestly, I don't know too much about where we go from here and what the point will ultimately be.
So I'll wrap this one up to keep it short.
But the point is, the rabbit hole stuff is fake.
That's the most important bit.
But what I want to get to is that I don't think there's a left and a right wing anymore.
I really, really don't.
I think people who watch me trust me and think I'm, you know, a moderate liberal.
People who watch David Pakman believe David and think I'm an alt-right grifter or something.
It doesn't matter.
There's no mainstream understanding of what I am, of what David Pakman is.
Of what Jimmy Dore is.
Jimmy Dore, no one in their right mind would call right-wing.
I mean, the dude's basically a socialist.
And I don't mean that as a pejorative.
I mean, he's actually pretty socialistic.
Big fan of Bernie.
No one in their right mind would call him right-wing, but he has the same criticisms of the Democrats that I do.
That they're crony establishment elites.
I just happen to be more of a centrist and want a more populist, moderate individual to try and bridge the divide.
I think Tulsi has tried to do that.
But Jimmy Dore also supports Tulsi Gabbard.
So there is no understanding of who anyone really is.
Left and right is meaningless.
From this, I have no idea what to tell you other than call yourself whatever you want.
Nothing matters.
Politics are fractured in a million different ways and I have no idea anymore.
I really, really don't.
I think it's fair to say I'm a centrist, or at least heterodox, because while I'm exclusively critical of the left, my political positions align with the left.
But I don't know.
I don't know.
And I don't care.
I literally don't care.
I have no idea what's going on.
Everybody's lost their minds.
People have a worldview built upon reading fake news.
The media is pumping out fake garbage.
Let me show you my favorite fake garbage from BuzzFeed.
A man was stabbed to death in a fight over a Popeyes chicken sandwich.
Literally never happened.
A guy died, for sure.
Chicken sandwich fight?
Sorry, never happened.
It was a fight over someone cutting in line.
That's about it.
The family came out and said the chicken sandwich thing never happened, but BuzzFeed's a credible source, apparently.
If I disagree with that, they'll say I'm right-wing.
Why?
Because BuzzFeed is left-wing.
That's where we're at right now.
There is no center.
I'll tell you one more thing, too, I love.
Let me pull up one other channel that I really do like.
Ms.
June Schuonhead is a centrist anti-SJW.
June?
She's super pro-Bernie!
She's a democratic socialist.
She's left.
Schu, if you're not a democratic socialist, forgive me for calling you one.
My understanding, though, is she's very pro-left in her policies, but anti-SJW because she's anti-authoritarian.
She criticizes the authoritarian left, and she supports an anti-authoritarian left.
But she's a centrist because of it.
You see, the point is, if you take someone like Hsu, who criticizes social justice, which is predominantly perceived as left, combined with politics that are overwhelmingly left, the only choice is that if you oppose authoritarianism, you're right-wing, nothing makes sense anymore.
And that's really what I want to talk about.
Because I'm trying to wrap my head around all this.
And again, I don't know what the point is, other than to say, no offense to Mark.
I think he did a better job as he did.
The fact is, there is no way to quantify the political leanings of most people because it makes no sense to call someone traditionally right-wing if all of their policies are progressive.
They just disagree with the crony establishment Democrats and the social justice crowd.
So here's what we get.
I'll put it this way.
I think you can easily quantify my main channel as Tim Pool for one reason.
Perceivably, the Democrats are left-wing and the Republicans are right-wing.
However, because I'm anti-SJW, even though I support literal social justice and left-wing policies, because I'm criticizing the Democrats and social justice, therefore it makes me right-wing?
I guess.
But June of Schoenhead similarly does the same.
I guess then the only real issue is not that I am actually right-wing, but that because my channel particularly focuses on mainstream politics, that must be the case?
No idea.
No idea.
So again, I want to say this.
It's not to criticize Mark Ledwich.
It's to point out the impossible task of trying to quantify what someone's political affiliation really is.
I don't have to tell you.
I will tell you this though.
If you watch my channel, Tim Pool, YouTube is sending you to Fox News.
Sure, you want to talk about radicalization?
I'll blame YouTube for that one.
Because my opinions are to the left of Fox News, but we talk about the same thing.
This disproves the radicalization narrative.
To an extent.
My opinions are not identical, they're to the left of Fox News, but YouTube doesn't know anything about direction.
Whatever.
I'll leave it there.
20-minute rant over.
You figure it out.
The main point of this segment is I have no idea what's going on, other than the fact that the media often pushes a narrative without evidence, then claims you are a conspiracy theorist or right-wing if you push back on their fake news.
Your only choice?
Agree with the establishment press or be called right-wing.
