Welcome To 2020, The Political Game is RIGGED Against You And Here Is The Proof
Welcome To 2020, The Political Game is RIGGED Against You And Here Is The Proof. As we enter the decade of 2020 many are making predictions and plans for the future.But one thing is certainThe game is rigged against youWhether you support Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump we can see the gears moving. As the media establishment ad political establishment struggle to cling to their losing system pressure is applied to major tech companies who then implement biased rule systems and unfair practices.Youtube is actively feeding mainstream media.Reddit is shadowbanning and quarantining political contentFacebook makes selective bansTwitter has just implement "shadowbanning" officiallyYoutube has, for the past year, been forcing my subscribers and others to mainstream media sources. MSNBC And Fox News are getting propped up for discussing politics and independent political commentary is getting knocked down.For years Rachel Maddow peddled lies and absurdity but she has been rewarded for it. Fox news certainly has its faults as well but at least they didn't fall for the Russiagate nonsense. Either way both channels are getting propped up by Youtube at our expense.While many note that social media is biased against conservatives, Jimmy Dore and David Pakman are examples of leftists who are being hit by the same algorithm change that I am. Both are progressives and both are having their viewers pushed to mainstream media. its soft social media censorship and its affecting anti establishment content.The game is rigged and social media censorship will play a huge role is shutting down the little guy, those who seek to challenge the status quo.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the year 2020, where I'm going to lay out some predictions and point out how the game is rigged against you.
I got this wonderful thread that Dave Rubin just posted.
Dave, I'm going to steal your thread and comment on it, because I think it was a pretty apt comment thread.
But I want to show you some examples of how the game is literally rigged against not just conservatives, but it's kind of strange.
I think what we're seeing is a desperate attempt to maintain the mainstream media.
I know I hate saying the mainstream media, but MSNBC and Fox News are being propped up to an absurd degree.
Fox News is very much so winning this fight.
But it seems to me that what we're seeing with social media is the quarantining of moderate, independent commentary.
I mean, look, for a long time, YouTube was laden with absurd nonsense, wild conspiracy channels.
I understand why YouTube might say, hey, we don't want to recommend this stuff anymore after they got smeared for it.
But the media, who are also rigged against you because they're the ones trying to maintain their establishment or their power structure, started attacking YouTube, and now YouTube is actually actively targeting political channels that don't fit the mainstream, even if our opinions are boring or moderate.
I've got data, new data I've talked about over the past few days.
It shows how political channels that don't talk electoral politics have been completely, or for the most part, unaffected.
But people who actually talk about the election, the candidates, those kinds of channels are being struck down hard.
We are being quarantined.
As is, I do want to highlight the Donald subreddit and talk to you about how social media is actively trying to quarantine alternative voices with rational politics.
So that means, you know, Bernie Sanders is going to get hit.
It means Donald Trump supporters are going to get hit.
Yang and Tulsi supporters are going to get hit.
But if you go on YouTube and say, Pete Buttigieg is the man, I'd be surprised if your videos got taken down at all.
They'd probably prop them up.
But let's do this.
This is going to be a special segment because we're now in the year 2020.
This will be the first segment for 2020.
And Dave Rubin posted an early morning thread about his predictions.
Let's read this and see what he says because I think he's mostly correct.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There are several different ways you can give.
The best thing you can do, share this video.
I'll tell you this, man.
There's going to be some changes.
I'm going to be moving.
You may have noticed my early morning segments are now appearing on this channel.
It's because of these algorithmic changes.
We must learn to improvise, adapt, and overcome.
Otherwise, we will all cease to exist.
So I'm going to be putting together a new show and I've got some strategies for ways to You know, I think that what they're doing to our channels is a whitelist, meaning they've specifically targeted us to knock down our content.
So I've got to make some changes.
I've got to try and figure it out.
But I'll go through all of that with you.
Basically, the point is, they can change the algorithm all they want, but I and some other, you know, even progressives, have broken no rules.
We're doing legitimate mainstream commentary, but we're a risk because they can't control us.
We have no boss.
There's no one saying, hey, don't say this, don't highlight this story.
So now they're restricting our channels.
So I'll just tell you right now, David Pakman, who's a progressive, he's getting hit the exact same as me, and I think it is targeted.
That being said, sharing this, sharing my videos, completely overcomes that attempt to shut us down.
Otherwise, you know, I guess, I think ultimately, long run, it means we won't survive.
Or, they will prop up other channels that push that mainstream, controlled narrative, channels like CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC, and we're gonna lose out.
But let's read Dave Rubin's predictions for 2020.
He said, Three years ago, I said 2017 would be the year of fake
outrage.
Two years ago, I said 2018 would be the year of unusual alliances.
Last year, I said 2019 would be the year it got weirder.
My prediction is that 2020 will be the implosion of the intersectional socialists.
What some of us started seeing and talking about five years ago has now burst forth into
the mainstream zeitgeist.
The depressing leftist view of the world where victimhood is virtue, where immutable characteristics matter more than personal choice, and where the collective is more important than the individual, is about to come to its inevitable conclusion.
It's a moment driven by faux outrage, which burns hot.
But unfortunately also burns out.
That's the stage we're going to hit in 2020.
It's a shiny package that has tricked many young people.
Now I'm going to stop here and interrupt this thread from Dave.
And I want to point out with what he just said, I have a different reason why I think this is going to burn out.
It's because the establishment Democrats do not want to lose control.
And it's why I think we're seeing a lot of changes to the media that negatively impact to social media that negatively impact me, as well as even some progressive traders, because they don't want us talking about it out of sight, out of mind.
They want the culture war to go away, but let's read on.
Dave says, That's the stage we're going to hit in 2020.
It's a shiny package that has tricked many young people into thinking that up is down, good is bad, men are women.
It's racism, sexism, and bigotry masked as tolerance and diversity.
But this oppression Olympics can't hold because competing interests of victimhood
don't make us stronger, they divide us.
It's a house of cards.
And it will come crashing down on itself in 2020 because emotion of the election will be too much for it to
bear.
It will be a spectacular overdue destruction and perhaps true liberalism will banish intersectional democratic socialism to the children's table where it belongs.
Now the fun part.
Alongside the meltdown, there's going to be a rebirth.
Many of you have seen it already taking place.
A new alliance of conservatives, libertarians, classical liberals, Trump supporters, and independents has been coming together.
They agree to disagree.
And honestly, fight for what they believe in.
They're proud of America, want to continue our great traditions of freedom and liberty.
Quote, journalists and activists have fueled outrage mobs to silence us.
This is the year that good people come out of the political closet.
A renewed American spirit is on the horizon, and there's nothing they can do to stop it.
It's based in personal responsibility, individual rights, and limited government.
It's your life.
Go get it.
The only question is, will you decide to get in the game?
Roaring 20s?
Here we go.
Dave then highlights.
Just a reminder that shadowbanning is officially in the Twitter terms of service as of today.
If you're a creator and you aren't protecting your digital assets, you're toast.
The fix is in.
Dave then links to Locals.com, which is his new venture, and he shows this from Twitter.
Limited distribution or visibility of any content on the surface.
Now, I saw this thread from Dave, and I thought it was an interesting prediction.
I'm not entirely convinced about the classical liberal message that it's going to be individual responsibility and things like that, like I said at the end, because I'm a social liberal, so we believe in almost the same things, but I'm not a, you know, fervent small government type person.
I do believe government programs are beneficial.
I think they just need to be cleaned, and that's an entirely different argument.
But I'm slightly to the left of where Dave is at on this argument, but he pointed out something at the end that's extremely important.
First, Twitter is going to start shadowbanning, okay?
This is what I'm talking about.
The game is rigged against you.
Twitter is not going to tell you when your posts upset delicate mainstream sensibilities.
They want to control the narrative.
They don't like the idea that the people can finally speak out unrestricted.
I worked for large mainstream media corporations.
They tried their best to rein me in and make me push a narrative.
I refused to do so.
Eventually, I tried quitting, and they tried offering me more money.
They just gave me more money.
And then I ultimately said, I'm ready to go.
You know, I was under contract.
My contract ended.
They said, have a nice day.
I started a YouTube channel, and things took off.
Well, they don't like that.
When I say they, I don't exactly know what this really refers to other than a collection of various corporations that feel threatened by outlier candidates.
It's not like a, you know, I want to make sure it's clear, it's not like a grand conspiracy or anything like that.
I think YouTube is self-interested.
I think Google is self-interested.
Google is scared of these woke, outraged journalists accusing them so they say, just push everybody towards the mainstream media because then no one can be mad at us because those are already, you know, dominant channels.
And then these dominant channels are also saying, like, let's not go too far out there.
Let's make sure our candidates are, you know, acceptable.
Otherwise, hmm, you know, I don't want to get people mad at me.
They look at Bernie Sanders and they don't like Bernie.
So they've removed him from several polls and much of the mainstream media.
They clearly don't like Donald Trump.
But they've done the same thing to Yang.
In response to Dave's thread, I said, Democrats are torn between out-of-touch corporate centrists and far-left ideological cultists.
There are some good people stuck in there, but this war on the American left will leave no victor.
Trump will sweep 2020.
David's Dave's thread I said Democrats are torn between out-of-touch corporate centrists.
I put in quotes and far-left ideological cultists There are some good people stuck in there, but this war on
the American left will leave no victor Trump will sweep 2020
Here's what I think is gonna happen the Biden regime
I'm saying that facetiously.
The Democratic establishment, you know, Pete Buttigieg, Biden, Klobuchar, these corporate centrist types that just say what needs to be said, are, they're being propped up.
Like, anybody acting like Amy Klobuchar has any, like, I'm not trying to be mean to Amy Klobuchar, but she is just not a standout character.
She is not a personality.
She is a boring, droll character.
And for some reason, they keep acting like her polls are on the rise.
Why?
Because she's this moderate puppet candidate.
Now, Pete Buttigieg is a bit better.
He's got that charisma, but look what he's doing.
He's doing the high-tier Wine Cave fundraisers.
You know what I mean?
He's playing the game.
He's refusing to stop taking money from the corporations, from the billionaires.
Even Donald Trump is getting a lot of his money from grassroots support, but Trump is also an outlier in that he does do really expensive fundraisers and somewhat questionable things like events at churches and stuff like that.
The point is, we know why they don't like Donald Trump, okay, regardless of what Trump is doing.
But you looked at the Democratic candidates, and you've got Bernie Sanders refusing to take, you know, billionaire and PAC funds.
You've got many Democrats who are standing up.
Look at what they do to Tulsi Gabbard.
Tulsi is probably the best, in my opinion, in recogni- like, she's got her opinions, man.
She really doesn't like Trump.
But you can see she's actually trying.
She put out a video recently saying, you know, if we don't respect Trump supporters, we're going to lose.
And you need to be a president who understands why they voted the way they did.
So here's what I see.
There's not going to be a victor in this, because social media has created this weird far-left cultist ideology, and it's also helped create the Trump base.
The old-school Republicans are completely purged and defeated.
Trump won.
But the Democrats, the establishment, maintained somewhat of a hold, and they're still holding on to it.
These social media companies don't like the threats from the press that will hurt their bottom line, and so they look at someone like Biden and say, well, Biden's not offensive, so they try to maintain that view.
Meanwhile, their platform creates a space for more far-left ideological cultists.
I'm not saying every Bernie supporter is a far-left ideological cultist.
There's a lot of good, decent Bernie supporters.
I believe Shoe-On-Head June, who is an anti-SJW YouTuber, however you want to call her, is a pretty pro-Bernie person.
There are a lot of good pro-Bernie people, and this is also characterized by the people who were Bernie supporters who were willing to vote for Trump because there were certain things they cared about and believed in.
But the biggest factions on the left we're seeing are out-of-touch corporate centrists and these weird, woke, you know, cultists, and they're duking it out.
I think part of what we're seeing on social media is the internet-born insanity versus the establishment.
But let's move on from this, because I want to talk to you about how the game is rigged, and I hope you're willing to stick through this one.
I bring you now to the ever-famous rslashthedonald, a home.
It is the place where most memes are created, or I should say some of the most prolific memes.
And there was a study actually done that found that the Donald creates many of the popular memes that we see go viral.
You may notice there is no special design to what this subreddit looks like.
If you're not familiar with Reddit, it is a massive social media platform where people post links and you can choose to give it an upvote or a downvote, whatever.
But Donald used to have a custom design.
It was removed.
You may notice on the right side it says...
Well, you can't really read it.
It's a bit cut off.
Just below it, you'll see this quote from the Reddit CEO.
Actually, let me just pull up the quote.
It's from the New Yorker.
reporting and addressing violations of Reddit's rules against violence and other aspects of
the content policy.
As a visitor or member, you can help moderators maintain the community by reporting and downvoting
rule-breaking.
Just below it, you'll see this quote from the Reddit CEO.
Actually, let me just pull up the quote.
It's from the New Yorker.
The CEO of Reddit said, Leftist communities on Reddit often implore the company to
ban the Donald.
So far, Huffman has demurred.
heard. Dimured. There are arguments on both sides, he said, but ultimately my view is
that their anger comes from feeling like they don't have a voice, so it won't solve anything
if I take away their voice. He thought of something else to say but decided against
it. Then he took a swig of a beer and said, said it anyway.
I'm confident that Reddit could sway elections.
We wouldn't do it, of course, and I don't know how many times we could get away with it, but if we really wanted to, I'm sure Reddit could have swayed at least this election this once.
That's a terrifying thought.
It's almost certainly true.
Now I'll explain to you how this is just another part of I'm not one to ever believe in conspiracies, but I think it's negative press.
The press is powerful.
The press influences culture.
And many of these digital media sites, which are collapsing by the way, have helped push this fear that you will lose money in advertisers if you support certain ideas.
For whatever reason, The Donald is quarantined on Reddit.
That means if you're on the mobile app, if you download the mobile app right now
and try and search The Donald, it will not appear.
If you try and link to it, it will tell you you can't go to The Donald.
You have to log into a browser, sign up, agree to subscribe to the community,
and then it will appear.
So you can see that at least one of the accounts, the account that I use for Reddit,
I have to have subscribed if I want to be able to see what's on The Donald.
Considering this is a major source for news pertaining to Trump fans and the Trump community, if I'm going to be accurately paying attention to what's going on with Trump supporters, his base, then you have to be able to see the content coming from the Donald.
But they will not let you do it.
Now here's where the paradox, not the paradox, but here's where the hypocrisy and the double standard comes in.
The reason the Donald was quarantined, they say, is because of threats made to police officers.
I'm going to stop you right there.
If there was ever a community that would support the police officers, even in the face of clear evidence of wrongdoing, it would be the Donald.
Not that they always do it.
I'm just saying, like, you could have a video that's questionable about, like, whether or not the police are doing something wrong.
The Donald is pro-cop!
The Donald is—the conservatives love police!
Like, it's an insane narrative.
And that's what they pushed.
But now I believe it's been months where the Donald has been quarantined and they still will not lift it, even though they've implemented stricter moderation policies.
I will tell you this right now.
There are a few other subreddits I cannot show you because the game is rigged.
If I show these subreddits on YouTube, this video will likely be shut down.
And in these subreddits, they say some of the, they say illegal, overtly illegal things.
They give instruction on how to commit crimes.
I kid you not, right now I've already pulled it up.
And this is why the game is rigged, okay?
Whether it's a concerted effort or just a series of coincidences where all these companies happen to be shutting down certain speech and certain political actors for whatever reason, it is negatively impacting my ability to share with you the truth.
There are many far-left subreddits, I know, now I'm offending the lefties, yes, where they give instruction on how to commit crimes.
I'm not exaggerating.
Right now, at this moment, and I can't open that tab for you, because this video would be removed.
It would be downvoted, it would be removed from recommendations.
In fact, I'll be surprised if this video doesn't get removed from recommendations as it is.
But let's move on.
I want to show you some data to prove, for one, Look, the reason why I don't think we're dealing with a conspiracy or anything, like people are meeting together and saying, how can we shut down Trump, is because it's happening differently across different platforms.
When I talk about this push towards mainstream media, I'm talking about YouTube.
When Facebook bans certain people, it's likely because of the press.
All of this is likely due to woke, outraged, insane, far-left ideological cultists in the media who lie.
Once again, offending the leftists, but I'm sorry, it's true!
I'll give you an example.
What you're looking at right now is called Reckfluence.
It tracked over the past year, and longer actually for other datasets, where recommendations on YouTube come from and where they go.
Meaning if you watch a video, what will you see?
And after you watch that video, what will you see?
This is because the media pushed a narrative about YouTube radicalization.
Many of you are probably familiar with it.
The narrative comes from an opinion Zeynep Tufekci wrote this op-ed, YouTube the Great Radicalizer.
The opinions of journalists that YouTube was doing this.
No data, no study, no evidence.
What did we see recently?
In the face of two academic studies providing evidence to the contrary, journalists on Twitter were actually saying, don't cover the story because the data is flawed.
And my question to them was, because I actually know one of these, I DMed this individual and I said, how can you justify all of the opinion pieces with no data and then claim you have the right to refute the story with data?
And that's because the game is rigged against you.
YouTube is an anti-establishment voice machine.
People can go there.
Ease of access.
So I show you this.
First, I will point out, congratulations, Tim Pool, you are now a right-winger.
My main channel, at least, because I talk top-level politics, and I call out exactly what I'm calling out right now.
But you can see something very, very important.
What feeds the Tim Pool channel?
Why, it's my other channel, Timcast, which is labeled as centrist.
But if you watch this channel, YouTube will send you to Fox News followed by Late Night with Seth Meyers.
Do my viewers want to watch Fox News segments?
Somewhat, probably.
Do they want to watch Late Night with Seth Meyers?
Probably not.
The fact is, most people don't want to watch mainstream media.
More importantly, if you like Tim Pool content, why wouldn't YouTube recommend you Tim Pool content?
Why Fox News?
And we can see this affects my second channel as well.
Timcast is a different channel.
So this channel is Tim Pool.
It's youtube.com slash timcast.
Don't ask me why YouTube does it this way.
I have no idea.
My second channel is youtube.com slash timcastnews is what you're looking at now.
Now this channel is labeled center, which I find really funny considering it's the exact same person with the same opinions making the same content, yet because I do more content on my second channel, they call it centrist.
Fine.
Whatever.
The point is, if you watch that channel, it's sending you to Fox News as well.
This is a quarantine.
You can see that Tim Pool isn't recommending me.
It's for the most part, the channel does recommend itself.
That's good, but then it pushes 2.4 million recommendations out of my channel towards Fox News.
This is a soft quarantining effect.
The idea is, it is much harder for people to find my content, and when they do, they're much more likely to be told to leave my content, meaning I have a much harder time surviving on the platform.
Let's see who I have next pulled up.
David Pakman.
I want to show you that this is not partisan.
It has something to do with the establishment.
I don't know why or for what reason.
It may be because YouTube is scared of the press, like I said.
But if you watch David Pakman's content, which is typically a more progressive, you know, it's like a progressive perspective on a lot of similar topics I cover.
So if like a poll comes out saying Trump has done well, I'll show you the aggregate.
I'll compare it.
David will say Trump is doing poorly.
He's a progressive.
I'm more of a moderate centrist type.
But David's viewers are being pushed towards MSNBC.
Once again, if you talk electoral politics, it seems you are being pushed towards the mainstream media.
Jimmy Dore's viewers, once again, very similar content to mine in certain ways, but he's a big Bernie supporter, more of a socialist.
I'm not trying to, you know, smear Jimmy Dore.
But, you know, I'm sorry it's all cut off.
You can't actually really see it too well.
But this actually is going to Fox News.
So you can see, I'm going to move the mouse over.
I'm sorry it's cut off.
It's the way I filmed it.
But Fox News is the biggest recipient of views.
The game is rigged against anybody talking about electoral politics, it would seem.
I don't want to say it's definitive because I'm only looking at a few of these channels.
But if you're a progressive Jimmy Dore viewer, you are then being recommended Fox News.
And now I want to show you this.
Joe Rogan.
Joe Rogan's a great dude.
Love his content.
Joe Rogan is unaffected by the changes.
You can see he does recommend MSNBC and his other channels, but for the most part, if you watch Joe Rogan's clips, you'll be recommended Joe Rogan, and Joe Rogan recommends Joe Rogan.
It makes sense.
If you like Joe Rogan, you see Joe Rogan content.
For some reason, the channels that are talking about the Democrats and the Republicans are having their viewers siphoned away and pushed towards mainstream media.
Now here's where it gets even more interesting.
This is the quartering.
The quartering is unaffected as well.
This is Sargon of Akkad, who is, for the most part, unaffected as well.
But Sargon does talk politics.
Perhaps it's because he doesn't talk U.S.
politics.
I don't know.
I can't tell you.
What I can say is, if you're in America, and you talk about the Democrats or the Republicans, the game is rigged against you.
Which is why we can see that my second channel is slightly less affected.
Because not all of my content talks about the Democrats.
But I think what you're seeing here, where TimCast does receive a million impressions, and Fox News receives about, you know, 2.4 million, so about 2.4 times, it's because that's the proportion of the content on my second channel that either deals with Democrats or doesn't.
A lot of the content on my second channel doesn't talk politics at all.
I talk about Star Wars.
And that's when it recommends myself.
I think if you're talking electoral politics, the game is rigged.
Now, Hsu is very, you know, pretty much pro-Bernie.
I believe also pro-Tulsi as well.
And you can see she is unaffected.
I think what we can see from this data is that what separates Jimmy Dore, David Pakman, and Tim Pool is that we say the word Democrat, we say the word Republican, we talk about impeachment, and they're trying to take away our voice in that matter.
They don't care if you're talking about Star Wars or BuzzFeed or otherwise.
So, you know, this segment's been pretty long for the morning, but I wanted to do kind of a Welcome to 2020 with Dave Rubin's predictions.
I know I may be—it's hard for me to, like, wrap this into a neat little ball and explain to you exactly what's going on.
I think most of it stems from the media.
The journalists who lie, who will push an opinion piece without fact-checking, then YouTube reacts by damaging channels that talk, you know, electoral politics.
And in the end, we can see that certain channels have remained unscathed.
So I'm going to leave you with this.
2020 is going to bring about some changes.
I know I talked about doing the Van channel, and that is just, it's proven to be insanely difficult.
Insanely, insanely difficult.
It may still happen.
I'm trying to figure it out.
But one thing I do want to do, for myself, and also in an effort to improvise, adapt, and overcome, is likely on my second channel, I'm going to start doing a new show, probably a livestream show, I'm going to be booking guests.
I have a new studio being set up.
It's going to be really beautiful.
We're going to build a bar and we're going to have, like, you know, my name and stuff.
And it's going to be only semi-political.
You'll notice my second channel is not, for the most part, political.
I'm going to actively, you know, keep politics, for the most part, to this channel.
But this channel is likely going to house all, you know, one hour and a half of my daily content.
No longer appearing at TimCast News.
But TimCast News will host clips of my live, you know, podcast show with guests.
I don't know what's going to happen, but I can tell you this.
If we stay on the path we're on, it's very clear that YouTube is trying to destroy my channel, that places like the Donald are being quarantined somewhat arbitrarily.
It is all completely biased against not just conservatives, but mostly conservatives.
I know a lot of people on the left are going to say that's not fair, you know, Andrew Yang is censored.
I know Andrew Yang is censored.
I know they omit him from the press.
I know Bernie gets lied about.
I know Jen Guggert's lied about, okay?
But the Donald gets quarantined.
And, you know, we see people like certain Trump supporters banned from Facebook.
We don't see that the same on the left.
We see certain subreddits that are overtly illegal in nature with what they're promoting, like serious crimes.
I'm not exaggerating when I say this, telling people how to commit crimes and encouraging it.
And Reddit does nothing about this.
The Donald users have pointed this out.
So it heavily impacts those who, you know, are either Trump supporter or Trump ambivalent.
But it does impact anti-establishment voices that are talking about politics.
So I can't guarantee that after 2020, we all survive.
You know, a lot of these big donors and establishment cronies, the people who have money, the billionaires, they do not want a repeat of 2016.
It doesn't mean there's going to be a grand conspiracy, but it does mean there's going to be weight put on the scales where the direction of money flowing is negative.
So I'll put it this way.
The problem I have with conspiracy theories is that it means like Michael Bloomberg meets with, you know, Sergey Brin, and he sits there and says, how can we stop Trump?
Now we know sometimes things like that happens.
We've seen comments.
But you have to understand that sometimes these things are more of an amorphous blob and not a direct criminal conspiracy between people trying to plot something.
Let me explain this more simply.
Billionaire says, I want to buy ads on YouTube.
I want to promote my preferred candidate.
Well, then you end up with someone from the marketing department of YouTube saying, we'd love to take your money.
And they say, yeah, but you have all these channels that promote Trump.
And they say, ooh, yikes.
These people don't want to advertise with us anymore.
So then they start making restrictions to their business.
It is about the people who control the flow of money and power.
And I don't think it's really about a grand cabal trying to control things.
I think it's dominoes falling over, and it's actually quite predictable.
They didn't want Donald Trump to win.
That means all of these crony, wealthy, Democratic billionaire donor types, Tom Steyer and Bloomberg, are going to start flooding the whole system with money to oppose Trump.
That means all of these woke, outraged journalists are going to start writing articles to damage independent voices, and YouTube panics, reacts, and then rigs the game against us.
It may look like it's a conspiracy, but it's actually a standalone complex.
A series of events that occur at the same time in a similar direction that make it look like a concerted effort, when in reality, it's the flow of money, and it is factional outrage.
This does bode poorly for us, though.
It means my channel's in danger.
So I'm going to improvise, adapt, and overcome.
And also, I gotta admit, I've been planning this new show for a while where we talk about, like, aliens and ghosts and stuff.
You may have seen the pilot we launched on Subverse where we talked about ghosts in Walt Disney World.
Here's what I wanna do.
I want to do a show that does more of a higher-level conversation on general subjects, brings in guests, talks about certain issues, but kind of breaks away from the traditional news cycle and isn't overtly political.
Politics is downstream from culture, and I think just waking up every day and trying to read about what's going on with the latest bickering between Republicans and Democrats is too boring for me.
So, there's gonna be the same content I do every day on this channel, and then I'm gonna do a new show once the set is designed.
Trust me, like, the basement's done, okay?
So, like, the studio I'm building in my basement.
We've gotta, like, lay carpet, we've gotta build, uh, I'm gonna build a bar, and we've gotta build, you know, set up everything.
But we're close, we're a couple weeks out.
And that's gonna be a new show, and then I've gotta find, you know, like, someone to do bookings and stuff like that.
Schedule guests as regularly as possible.
That show is going to be...
Much much less political.
It's gonna be live too.
So it'll give people an opportunity to respond to these videos.
I'll wrap it up I don't want to make this one too long Welcome to 2020 everybody.
We got a lot to talk about I will see you on the next segment at youtube.com slash Tim cast news starting at 1 p.m Thanks for hanging out and I will see you there Take a look at the New York Times, read the Washington Post, watch CNN or MSNBC, and they will tell you Donald Trump is the greatest threat to press freedoms the United States has ever faced.
Shutting down White House press briefings, kicking journalists out, they will say the end is nigh.
Or as the New York Times claims, 2019 was the darkest yet for journalists in the Trump era.
This is a lie.
This is an absolute lie.
You see, the press is trash for many, many reasons.
Mostly because they're biased.
And I got a special gift for those on the left.
We know about the Bernie blackout.
We know about the Yang blackout.
We know how they smeared Tulsi Gabbard.
And they prop up Trump with negative stories.
They certainly don't like Trump.
I don't think they're trying to help him.
But they do love the Trump bump.
They will simultaneously run endless stories about the man, blacking out other candidates the Democratic establishment doesn't like, and then claim Trump is the worst thing ever.
Yeah, it's just not true.
But trust in media is on the decline.
There was a rebound in 2018 among basically all political factions.
Well, basically among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.
And now it's started to go down again throughout 2019.
And the reason, in my opinion, is likely due to the Mueller report, the Horowitz report, And the Bernie Sanders blackout and the Yang blackout.
It doesn't matter if you're left or right.
We know the media is full of it.
And now the New York Times is trying to run a story claiming that Trump is doing all of these awful things to the press when the press doesn't even give the left a real fair shake.
So no, Yang can vincent anybody.
Yet still, there are many mainstream Democrat types, people who probably don't pay attention, who think the media is trustworthy and that also is reflected in the press.
So today, let's take a look at what the New York Times has to say where they They claim Trump has been bad for the press, but he hasn't.
The Trump bump has been glorious and everyone knows it.
I'll tell you what's really been bad for the press.
It's been their own shortcomings.
First, technological development and methodology and internet technology has been really, really bad for the press.
But it's also their own fault.
Chasing after the Trump bump and censoring information on real progressive candidates has only resulted in their own downfall.
It's their own fault.
But of course, these stories fall perfectly in line with the orange man bad.
They don't want to praise Trump, but deep down, secretly, they're so happy he's here, and I assure you, they want him to win.
So let's get started and read this story.
I'm going to walk you through some of the polls about press freedom as well as trust in the press, which is down for the reasons I explained.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash Donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are several different ways you can give, but the best thing you can do, share this video.
Help break some echo chamber bubbles and help me reach more viewers.
Admittedly, the way most people grow on YouTube with content is that if the video is good, YouTube will recommend it.
Because I talk about electoral politics, it now seems that YouTube is soft quarantining my channel as well as other channels, not just conservative channels or moderate channels, but even progressive channels like David Pakman.
They are pushing all of our subs to mainstream media.
The best way to counteract that is if you really like this, you can do two things.
Share the video and Make sure to check out my podcast every day on all podcast platforms, the Tim Pool Daily Show.
Let's read what the New York Times has to say, and then get to the debunking.
They say, after another year of Trump attacks, ominous signs for the American press, threats of retribution, more accusations of fake news, and the end of the White House briefing made 2019 the darkest yet for journalists in the Trump era.
And my response to that is, oh please, I know the game you guys play.
Writer Michael M. Grinbaum says, on Twitter, President Trump deployed the phrase
fake news 273 times this year, 50% more often than he did in 2018.
He demanded retribution over a Saturday night live sketch, declared that Washington Post reporters, quote,
shouldn't even be allowed on the grounds of the White House, and accused the New York Times of treason.
And, so what?
The president also has a First Amendment right.
And you know what I can do in a country with a free press?
I can say the following.
Donald Trump is a boorish moron.
Okay?
I'm not... I actually don't think Trump's a moron.
The point is, I can say it.
I can say Trump is stupid.
What an idiot!
How could Trump say such dumb things?
And I hope he loses and he's the worst president ever.
Okay?
I'm not literally saying those things.
What I mean to say is, by expressing those thoughts, What's that?
No footsteps running up the stairs?
No door being kicked in?
No one coming and putting a black bag over my head and dragging me off to the gulags?
Yeah, no, you can say whatever you want about the president and the president can say it back.
I really don't think Trump's a moron.
I certainly think he's...
I don't know what the right word is.
I think he shoots from the knee.
You know what I mean?
He leaps before he looks.
That's the kind of person I think he is.
Certainly he's done a lot of things right.
He became the president.
The point is, you're allowed to disparage the man.
Ain't nobody gonna stop you.
So to act like we're facing a dark time in the press is absurd.
But let's read on.
Four American journalists were barred from covering the president's dinner with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
The administration argued in court that it had the right to ban a reporter from the White House.
The daily White House briefing ceased to exist.
And a new press secretary rarely spoke in public outside of Fox News.
So what?
Those aren't obligations of the administration.
Okay?
They say Mr. Trump's vilification of the news media is a hallmark of his tenure, and a jagged break from the norms of his predecessors.
That's not true!
Obama ragged on Fox News all the time.
Now you've got a media that's extremely hostile to the president, so it's no surprise he's hostile back.
They say this, For those who wondered if Mr. Trump might heed the concerns of historians and First Amendment advocates who say his actions have eroded public trust in journalism, and perhaps the very concept of empirical facts, 2019 provided a grim answer.
Quote, Intimidation and vilification of the press is now a global phenomenon, the former Fox News anchor Shep Smith, who quit the network this year after disagreements about its Trump coverage, said at a gala last month.
We don't have to look far for evidence of that.
Of all the Fox News personalities they could have picked, they picked Shep Smith.
I get it.
But I'd now like to point something out for you.
The Daily Caller made note of this.
There are zero journalists imprisoned in America, according to 2019 data from the Committee to Protect Journalists.
This information was not included in the New York Times write-up about the Trump administration causing, quote, the darkest year yet for American journalists.
Comparatively, there are 10 imprisoned journalists in Russia and 11 in Nigeria, Oman, and North Korea, among other countries.
In total, 250 journalists are reported to be in prison around the world in 2019, according to the data.
Now, I do want to stop and say the Committee to Protect Journalists isn't the most unbiased source, but they do a decent job.
There have been some journalists in the U.S.
who have been targeted.
It's a fact.
And certainly we're dealing with Julian Assange slowly rotting away in a prison for the crime of journalism that the United States and Europe did not like.
They say the amount of journalists in prison in other countries, as well as the total number in prison in 2019, was also not included in the Times write-up about attacks on the press in America.
I'd like to show you a simple Google search.
Because the fact is, the media loves the man.
Do a search for Trump Media Ratings Boost and what do you get?
Basically every year.
2015, Donald Trump keeps boosting TV news ratings.
2017, Trump gives cable news a ratings boost.
2018, the ratings bump of Donald Trump.
Yes, this is called the Trump Bump.
The media certainly doesn't give Trump positive coverage, as noted by, I think it was Nate Silver.
He's, you know, after Trump did that thing with al-Baghdadi, I gotta be careful how I phrase this, people were complaining about it, and Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, I believe it was him, Fact Check Man, this one, said that liberals wouldn't even give Trump one day.
But let me show you another chart that I absolutely love.
This is a chart from RealClearPolitics about a year ago, showing the coverage of Trump compared to Obama.
Now, if you're someone who finds yourself on the left, don't worry, I've got some stuff here for you too.
Let me just point out, one of the greatest assets that Donald Trump had in 2015-16 was the obsession from the media.
They gave him an estimated $5 billion in free press.
Now, a lot of it was negative.
But it allowed Trump to say what he wanted to say.
Today, they're playing the same game.
According to undercover recordings from Project Veritas, many employees at CNN believe Jeff Zucker, the president of CNN, is embarrassed.
That he gave Trump such coverage, and he's now trying to undo it.
I humbly disagree.
I think they love the Trump bump.
They love ragging on Trump.
It boosts their ratings.
Rachel Maddow goes on a tirade of insane conspiracy nonsense for years, and their ratings go up.
I just showed you year after year, they say the ratings are up, the ratings are up.
They are obsessed with Donald Trump.
Now if you're a Trump supporter, you're angry because the obsession is nothing but negative press and they won't be honest about a lot of things he's done that have been good, notably the economy.
Many in the press have been fair on the economy, but certainly many establishment, you know, I'll say MSNBC, they don't want to admit it too much.
And the Democrats in the debate stage certainly act like it's not true.
But at the same time, they're not giving coverage to other candidates that the left actually does like.
The media is trash, let me just say it.
I want to make sure I highlight this.
A visual history of the Yang media blackout.
Andrew Yang is not the furthest left, and he's not an establishment Democrat, but he's widely popular.
His approval rating, his rating in the polls are going up.
The dude's confidence is building.
He's pushing forward some ideas that people really like.
I happen to appreciate a lot of what he's said on certain issues.
He's even come out and said the Democrats need to stop blaming all of their problems on Trump.
Trump is not causing all of these problems.
He is just a symptom.
That's true.
Well, you know what?
MSNBC certainly doesn't like the guy, so they've... Look at this.
I love this graphic.
Ten candidates on the debate stage in September.
And there's only nine names, notably a blank space.
They know what they're doing, okay?
And I think it's about time.
When we saw Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks get smeared, they're trying to make it seem like he was actually agreeing with, you know, David Duke.
You might not know who he is, but, you know, the point is, they smeared Cenk.
And I'm wondering at what point the progressives are going to finally agree with when Trump screams fake news.
Maybe they will, I don't know, maybe they won't.
But look, it's only in the past few days that progressive websites have started to note that the Bernie blackout is finally over.
Maybe the Democrats realized their best bet is to try and steer Bernie Sanders instead of putting a brick wall in front of him.
I'm not saying you're going to like him or anyone else.
I'm just pointing out I really don't like the press.
You see, they want to claim that Trump is the worst thing in the world, but guess what?
Most people see through it.
Most people do not trust the press.
Now, admittedly, most Republicans are, you know, they're tipping the scales because Republicans overwhelmingly don't trust the press.
But even trust among Democrats has gone down a little bit, at least according to some metrics.
For the longest time, Bernie has been pushed out of media They've omitted him from polls.
So I'm waiting now.
If you're on the left, if you're a progressive, are you gonna finally agree?
You don't have to like Trump or the Trump supporters, but we can all sit there and shake hands when we say the media is lying to everybody, right?
They love Trump, okay?
I know I said they hate him, but what I really mean to say is They love the Trump bump effect.
I'd be willing to bet the media is secretly hoping Trump wins.
And that's why they do these weird, obscene, absurd coverage stories like impeachment and Ukraine.
It's driving ratings for them.
They're making money and they're secretly hoping it gets him in again.
Check this out.
7,800 people have lost their jobs so far this year in a media landslide.
The last update was December 10th, so just a couple weeks ago.
The real threat to media has nothing to do with Donald Trump, okay?
And Trump is actually helping save the media.
The real issue What's happening is people have a choice.
They don't need to watch MSNBC or CNN or Fox News.
They can go watch whatever they want.
They can go to any YouTuber.
In response, we are seeing the mainstream, the establishment media desperately try to hold on to this.
If you are someone on the right, then you will be upset to find out that there are people like Steven Crowder who are having their recommendations stripped away.
But, if you're someone on the left, then you will be angry to find out that people like Jimmy Dore and David Pakman are having their recommendations stripped away for the mainstream media.
For Fox News.
They're pushing Jimmy Dore's viewers to Fox News.
Can you believe it?
And David Pakman's to MSNBC.
We get it.
The system is rigged.
I covered this on my earlier video.
I'm pointing it out now.
Because as the media collapses, and they try and create this narrative about how much they really hate Trump, but they won't cover real progressive candidates that the left likes, and they lie non-stop and are obsessed with every little thing Trump does, I think it's fair to point out there's the establishment, the elites, and the populists.
Because Yang and Bernie are populist left.
Tulsi as well.
And Donald Trump is populist, right?
And they're the ones getting the short end of the stick in different ways.
But I bring you now, let's move forward.
Trust in media from Gallup, a poll going back to September.
And as we can see, in 2018 there was a slight bump.
It still hasn't been overwhelmingly, you know, the media hasn't been overwhelmingly trusted since back in, you know, what, I don't know, 2005 was when it fell below 50%.
In 2016 it fell to an all-time low, or the lowest they tracked going back to 97, to 32% of people saying they trust media.
It spiked in 2018 at 45, and it's fallen down.
Now, for the most part, support from Democrats spiked in 2016, and it started to go down in 2018.
Republicans also went up in 2018, but both Republicans and Democrats, including independents, everyone went down across the board.
Most Democrats believe they trust the media.
But, Independents 36% and Republicans 15%.
I don't know what happened in 2018 when people started trusting the press, but it has since gone down.
Now we have this story from the Wall Street Journal, which I find particularly interesting.
We can see the same trend, that sometime after 2017, there was a spike in trust in the media, but then we can see a dramatic shift afterwards.
I think I know what caused it.
The Mueller report, followed by the Horowitz report.
You see, for years we were told by Rachel Maddow and CNN that Trump was a Russian asset, or that One American News was Russian propaganda.
And then it all turned out to be false.
And we actually had that video where Rachel Maddow was almost in tears over the fact that the Mueller report concluded Trump was, in fact, not a Russian asset.
We then saw Tulsi Gabbard come out and say, this is a good thing.
And what happens?
Establishment media and establishment Democrats then start attacking Tulsi.
And I know many people on the left, for whatever reason, they really hate Tulsi.
It's so strange.
But I think she has a decent coalition of people from across the spectrum, people who are paying attention to what she's actually talking about.
We can see this.
I think the establishment really desperately wants to cling to some kind of narrative, but as long as they're going to be shutting out the actual populist left and only ranting about how much they hate the orange man, I don't think they're going to hold on to much of anything because everyone is losing trust in them.
I'd be willing to bet Democrats lose trust in the press because of the blackout of Yang and Bernie and because of the smearing of Tulsi Gabbard.
However, I would be remiss if I didn't highlight the actual threats to journalism, as noted once again by the New York Times.
Hey, at least they have different writers.
Did Schiff poke a hole in the First Amendment?
We can't excuse an abuse of power just because it supports our side.
Let me ask you what the bigger threat to journalism is.
Donald Trump complaining and insulting people?
Or Adam Schiff publishing the private phone records Of an American journalist accused of no wrongdoing.
I'll save you the time.
The answer is obviously Adam Schiff.
He had no right to publish the private phone records of a journalist and their sources.
Okay?
He claims he didn't subpoena John Solomon's records.
Trump trolls fake news Chris Cuomo with claims he has information and dishonest interviews that could get him fired from CNN and jokes he will always be Fredo to us.
So when Trump insults the press and says things like this, naturally they don't like him and he creates this kind of split.
Where now the media wants to feel retribution, they feel like they're under attack, so they fire back.
And I believe it was Jon Stewart who pointed this out, that journalists are too egotistical, they're narcissistic, just like Trump.
Trump is a media personality, so when he points the finger at other media personalities, they get angry, and they passive-aggressively fire back, creating this anti-Trump feedback loop, which results in Trump actually being benefited in the long run, because trust in the press then goes down.
But I would be unfair if I didn't highlight some of the more current studies or polls.
This is from just a couple weeks ago as well, and they say more independent voters trusting of news stories.
The number of independents who trust what they read in the news has jumped eight points since November, according to a Hill-Harris X poll released Thursday.
The nationwide survey showed the number of respondents who believe most news stories but do not trust certain sources increased from 36 to 44 percent compared to the November 8th through 9th survey.
The poll also found an increase in trust among Democrats and Republicans alike.
28% of Republicans' respondents said they believed news stories for the most part, which marks a four-point increase, while 53% of Democrats said the same.
The ultimate point I want to make here is that Trump is not a threat to the press.
He's just someone who complains about the press.
Trump is not creating a dark year for journalism.
That's completely absurd.
I mean, look, I know there's a difference between cable TV news and the press, but ratings for all news outlets are reaping the benefits of Trump's bombastic nature, and they know it, and they love it.
They're driving subscribers off of this.
I'll tell you what's really happening, okay?
When we see... I don't know where we have the story, but when we see that these...
All of these people are being laid off.
7,800 people lost their jobs.
It's not because of Trump.
In fact, if anything, if it weren't for Trump, there would be many, many more people losing their jobs.
What we're seeing, it's more likely this, right?
This is a story from First Draft News.
I'm not super familiar with it.
Year in review.
The biggest threat is failing to address the reality of online alternative media ecosystems.
Yes, that would be me.
Well, Elliot Higgins of Bellingcat, he's actually correct.
I'm not going to read through his whole assessment because I know he's pointing in one direction for the most part.
What we're seeing now On the internet is a choice.
Trump can complain, his fans can rally around what he says, and they can find sources more than ever that align with their worldview.
There is a big net negative to this.
People won't hear anything that challenges their worldview.
There are people who watch David Pakman who think I'm literally the devil.
Because they don't trust me when I pull up sources.
Fine, whatever.
They're allowed to.
And thus they end up only getting their information from one source.
Not entirely, I'm just saying there are certain people who do.
And there are people who watch me who think negatively of David because I have information contrary to his.
The point is, I will always recommend someone like David because, and you may notice I do this a lot, good!
You need to hear what he's saying.
You need to hear what I'm saying.
You need to hear what Brian Stelter is saying.
You need to listen to as much as possible.
It's not a good thing that there's only one media source.
So these news industries, they're drying up because no longer do we need a centralized news hub.
I'm just a dude complaining about his feelings on the internet and I have bigger reach than some of these top cable channels.
They don't like the fact, so they're going to blame alternative media and try and shut us down.
As I pointed out in the earlier segment, where I said the game was rigged.
Because again, if you're a fan of David Pakman, they're driving you to Fox News and MSNBC.
And if you're a fan of mine, they're doing the same.
In fact, they're driving my viewers to Seth Meyers and Fox News for whatever reason.
But yeah, the game is rigged.
People have choices now.
My only advice to all of you is to watch channels like mine.
Seriously watch The Young Turks.
Seriously watch Sam Seder, David Patman.
Because I'd imagine if you're watching content like mine, you're probably a moderate in some fashion.
Maybe a little to the left, a little to the right.
Go watch The Progressives.
Go watch Steven Crowder.
Try and absorb as much as you can because it is a problem that there are alternative media ecosystems.
And you gotta make sure you aren't falling into a trap because we're not always correct.
I'm not always right.
And then people get mad at me like, Tim criticizes other people for being wrong when he's wrong too.
I've actually got a segment coming up for tomorrow.
It's gonna be a big correction.
You're gonna love to see it.
The fact is, We are better off today than we have a fractured media ecosystem.
It was worse when you only had one source, in a certain capacity.
The responsibility is going to come on us now to make sure we're doing our best to consume as much news as possible.
But I'll tell you what, the establishment media is not going to go down without a fight.
As they lay off thousands and thousands of people, they get angrier and angrier.
They keep yelling at the president to boost their ratings.
They don't want to talk about Bernie or Yang.
They want to talk about Orange Man.
Orange Man bad generates ratings.
And you get an inverse.
You get media bad channels.
And I recognize, you know, I fall into that to a certain extent, right?
This is a media rant video.
My channel is basically comprised of Blue Party Bad and, you know, Establishment Media Bad.
Actually, I can just say it's Establishment Bad.
So I rag on the establishment.
Fine, whatever.
The point is, Trump is not the threat to the press.
And anybody saying otherwise is lying to you.
And they know it because everyone knows the Trump bump is cash.
Everyone can see.
They could stop at any time.
They don't want to.
They don't want to stop.
They want to pretend like Trump is bad for them.
They want to write these stories and say, oh no, it's the darkest year ever and it's Trump's fault.
So that la resistance people will click the story, drive traffic, subscribe to the Times, give them the ratings, and provide eyeballs for their ad dollars.
Now, they love Trump, but they love to hate on him and simultaneously black out the progressive candidates because the reality is the establishment is against all of us.
Okay?
And what I mean, I'm not trying to be, I don't know, Maybe I was over the top.
Let me just say, they don't like the little people rising up.
They don't like the peasant revolt.
That's how I explained it before.
Bernie Sanders is the peasant revolt of the left.
Trump was the peasant revolt of the right.
Trump was the bull who kicked the door in and is stomping around through the ivory tower, and Bernie didn't make it in.
So they tried to keep him out, and maybe they're not recognizing, at least Bernie might be better than Trump, maybe?
But I think they're losing, and I think that's why they want to try to keep claiming this.
This is what's surprising to me, man.
I'll wrap it up with one final point.
I've said it before.
Why the progressives don't just say yes to Trump when he screams fake news?
I mean, they're literally smearing Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks.
It's like, we get it, man.
The machine is against all of you, be it Bernie or Trump.
By all means, rag on Trump all day and night.
Trump supporters, by all means, rag on AOC and Bernie Sanders supporters all night, but at least we can all agree, right?
The social media establishment, these big tech firms, and the mainstream media, they absolutely hate all of us.
And as they lose more and more jobs, they're gonna thrash about violently, and they're coming for all of us, be it left or right.
I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
It is a different channel.
There are going to be some changes coming in the next couple of weeks as I'm finishing out my set.
I mentioned this before, but I hope you're all excited for this.
I will see you all at 6 p.m.
Again, thanks for hanging out.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
A couple weeks ago, there were a few viral videos.
One showed activists cheering that a law was passed allowing illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses.
The next video showed a bunch of illegal immigrants lining up to get driver's licenses.
Well, now we have another update here.
Homeland Security Chief orders review of state laws allowing driver's license for illegal aliens.
One of the biggest concerns that conservatives have is that by placing these illegal immigrants on the DMV list, many will inadvertently end up on voter rolls and might accidentally end up voting illegally.
And that's actually happened in the past.
It's not particularly widespread.
NPR covered this story February 26.
Some non-citizens do wind up registered to vote, but usually not on purpose.
While now there is growing concern that all of these illegal immigrants are going to be applying for driver's licenses, this will result in illegal votes.
Now, I want to read you the story about what's going on at the DHS, but there's a point I should make before starting.
First, there's two things I want to say.
The first is a fair criticism.
By having illegal immigrants acquire driver's licenses, that means public services, public funding is now going towards people who may or may not be paying taxes or may be working under the table.
It's very likely many of these people are working under the table, though there is a bigger argument from the left and the right as to whether or not they do or don't.
I think it's fair to say public services should not be used on people, to an extent, who are not citizens.
Granted, there are some services that must go to non-citizens.
If you're a tourist, you still have constitutional rights.
I'm not saying we just say, hey, you're not a citizen for any reason.
No, I'm saying people enter the country illegally.
We have to be careful that if we're spending public funds, it's not going to be a drain on those who are actually spending that money.
Actually, let me just read the story, because I'll save the points afterwards.
I don't want to bury the lead on you guys.
We'll see what DHS has to say, and then I want to talk about illegal voting and some concerns that are there.
Daily Caller reports Chad Wolf, the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, ordered a review of states that allow illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses and restrict data sharing with federal immigration authorities.
Wolf on Tuesday ordered all of the components of DHS to conduct a department-wide review of the state laws to determine how they affect their day-to-day operations.
According to a memo obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation, the DHS Chief Directive indicates that he is prepared to take aim against state laws.
Accordingly, I am instructing each operational component to conduct an assessment of the impact of these laws so that the Department is prepared to deal with and counter these impacts as we protect the homeland, Wolf's Memo read.
The memo follows implementation of New York's Green Light Law and passage of a similar bill in New Jersey in December.
Both laws not only allow illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses, but also restrict DMV data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other agencies within the Department of Homeland Security.
In New York in particular, numerous county clerks have expressed reservation over the fact that illegal aliens can obtain a driver's license with foreign documentation, arguing that such a policy paves the way for voter fraud, identity theft, and even terrorism.
DHS has already voiced its opposition to a provision in the New York law that prohibits Homeland Security Investigations, a division of ICE, from accessing DMV information, even if the agency is investigating a serious crime.
At a certain point, the federal government needs to supersede state and city law, I'd imagine.
If you start having states Again, let me just point out, I've never been a big states rights guy.
I've always been kind of the liberal, you know, leaning more towards more moderate, not super libertarian, liberal, meaning I think the government should regulate this stuff.
If California says you can come here and get free health care, which they've done for people under 26, You're now providing taxpayer funds to people who can show up with foreign documentation.
People can come to New York with a document that can't be verified because we don't have the resources to prove if whatever country they came from, it's a legit document.
Now we're using taxpayer funds for illegal immigrants.
I understand there's a lot of arguments about the benefits of this, being better able to track some of these illegal immigrants.
Fine.
And the argument there is they're not going to provide the information to DHS.
Now you have Well, you're creating security exploits and holes in the American system.
And that's going to be, well, that's going to be ultimately bad across the board.
I don't think the benefits outweigh the detriment.
But I do, I got this quote here, I want to read it, but I want to make that point.
I wanted to make sure I got you the news about what they were saying first.
And I'll make this other point.
I constantly hear from Democrats that it's racist to implement voter ID laws.
And this is a point brought up by a lot of conservatives when this video went viral showing all these illegal immigrants lining up to get driver's licenses.
It's a very, very famous video, apparently.
You know, look, as somebody who does research and, like, studies this stuff, I know about the comments made on the right and the left, but too many left-wing journalists don't watch this stuff.
Ami Horowitz, okay, he's a conservative guy, it's my understanding.
He's appeared on Fox News.
He went around and asked students, I think it was at Berkeley, Or he just asked college students if voter ID was racist, and they said it was.
And they gave extremely racist answers as to why this is.
I get it.
It's an anecdote.
It's edited.
We don't have, like, statistical data.
The fact is, one of the biggest narratives from the left about voter ID is that, particularly the poor and black communities, they don't know where the DMV is.
They can't afford to get a license.
It will, you know, disenfranchise them and make it so they don't want to vote.
But that's kind of a bad argument when you then have illegal immigrants, people who aren't even from this country, lining up to get a driver's license.
I'm sorry, you can't reconcile the fact that people who live in America, you can't claim they don't know where the DMV is or can't afford it, and then simultaneously claim the poor illegal immigrants who haven't even been here that long know where the DMV is and can get a driver's license.
We've got a paradox here.
If you're not going to require an ID to vote, but you are going to give people licenses which can inadvertently put them on voter rolls, we got a bit of a weird paradoxical position by many of the Democrats.
I'm not entirely convinced voter ID is necessary, like the conservatives would be.
And the reason is I can show you the Heritage Foundation data showing that proven instances of voter fraud, 1,241.
There's been 1,071 criminal convictions and civil penalties.
I understand that just because we've proven these doesn't mean that's all of them.
There's probably likely many, many more.
But unfortunately, for the right, there isn't evidence of massive widespread voter fraud.
However, Being the moderate that I am, I still think it makes sense to, I don't know, not put people on voter rolls, make sure it doesn't happen.
And I do agree with cleaning voter rolls, especially when you see people who are deceased voting.
You can't just have, you know, look man, the left wants to ignore a lot of this data.
And I do see a lot of conservatives, you know, Trump was tweeting about, you know, potentially 3 million illegal immigrants voting.
I don't see the data for that.
Sure, you can believe it's an issue.
And if you do, I think it's important that we actually investigate.
But the Heritage Foundation is a bit conservative.
That's my understanding.
They're conservatives.
And they're saying they've got 1,241 proven instances.
Great.
Prosecute them.
You know, penalize these individuals.
There was one woman who was a legal resident in Texas.
Who voted because she got a voter card and she didn't know she couldn't vote.
She cast an illegal vote and she got in trouble for it.
I think she's facing prison time.
That's a little bit harsh, right?
Purge her vote from the system.
We should have election security.
I think, you know, I'm gonna have to say it, man.
And this is what this is what really, you know, bothers me about the whole arguments.
The left is just wrong on this one.
They're just plainly wrong.
Like I said, man, you can't simultaneously claim that it's unfair to have voter ID laws, but then actually implement ID laws to give illegal immigrants IDs, and then we can see them showing up to get them.
If you think people—it's one of the most racist things I've ever heard, that you have these white progressives claiming black people don't know how to get IDs.
I'm sorry, that's just not the case.
And that's what we saw from the Ami Horowitz video.
I get it.
It's anecdotal.
It's not statistical evidence.
But until someone wants to provide some evidence, you know, to the contrary, we have a serious conundrum.
You can't refute the argument from conservatives that it makes no sense, you need an ID to buy cigarettes and beer, and even go to a movie if you look like you're younger than 17, but not to vote?
Now that, to me, is just straight-up odd.
You add in the fact that now you're going to have illegal immigrants getting these IDs, getting driver's licenses, and the fact that, yes, even NPR said this is a problem, you are opening the door to more exploitation, and it's only fanning the flames of the conservative argument.
So there absolutely should be something done about it.
Let's go on.
I want to make sure I read this quote from DHS.
They say, Laws like New York's Green Light laws have dangerous consequences that have far reached beyond the DMV, DHS spokeswoman Heather Swift said Tuesday.
These types of laws make it easier for terrorists and criminals to obtain fraudulent documents and also prevent DHS investigators from accessing important records that help take down child Disgusting things.
And human trafficking rings and combat everything from terrorism to drug smuggling.
A total of 14 states allow illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses in the U.S.
Wolf's memo ordered DHS agencies to assess the following.
What DMV information is currently available and how is it accessed?
How is the DMV information used in day-to-day operations?
What are the security consequences and long-term impacts if information is limited?
The memo also directs agencies to seek solutions for any security consequence that arise from the state laws.
Quote, Never before in our history have we seen politicians make such rash and dangerous decisions to end all communication and cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security law enforcement.
The Secretary is prepared to take every measure necessary to ensure the safety and security of the homeland, and we look forward to the recommendations of our agents and officers in the field.
I am now going to make a seemingly non sequitur leap to gun control.
Being from Chicago, I've heard many a left-wing argument about the problems of all of these different state laws.
And let me tell you, in Chicago, many people drive to Indiana, where it's very easy to purchase a firearm, bring it illegally into Chicago, and then sell it, you know, in the black market.
Many people on the left point out the disparity between the states, you know, and these different laws.
And they make an argument that we need nationwide background checks to prevent these kinds of things from happening.
Well, I'll tell you this.
I'm not trying to make a gun control argument.
I'm going to make a point about state control and these laws.
But in terms of the gun control stuff, I think it's kind of a fair argument.
Now, the concern from conservatives has to do with, you know, red flag laws just showing up at someone's house and seizing the weapon and causing all sorts of chaos.
But it is true that people travel across state lines to buy a gun in an easier place, or someone from Indiana can much more easily buy a weapon and bring it to Chicago.
The point I'm making is, The left is arguing that we need national laws to ensure our safety.
At the same time, each individual state seems to be enacting laws to disregard the federal law.
Herein lies the big conundrum with the left's argument.
If you're going to argue that we should have national laws for gun control, And the right is going to argue that we have national laws for immigration.
But you are then going to support states basically passing laws saying we will not follow federal law.
What's to stop any state from saying we wouldn't follow federal law on gun control?
You see the paradox here?
I actually happen to think national standards for gun control would make sense.
I think the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
I think the Constitution is clear about that.
But I do think there are certain low-level things we can do.
I understand it is a very, very complicated argument, but let me just say there are speech regulations, okay?
There are certain things you can't say.
You can't incite violence.
So I think it's fair to have Some kind of gun control legislation.
Again, not trying to turn this video into a gun control thing.
I'm trying to point out the seeming double standards I see with the left argument.
Conservatives argue against these background checks for different reasons because of red flag laws.
And there have been many circumstances where people, you know, the cops have shown up and it's gotten violent and it's been lethal.
It's unfortunate.
But the left is simultaneously arguing for and against federal control.
You can't do that.
OK?
And I want to make sure it's clear.
Both sides have their faults on this one, okay?
It is true you will put non-citizens on voter rolls.
It is true that because of this, some people have accidentally voted.
Think about that little old lady, legal resident, didn't know she couldn't vote.
She got the voter card, she voted, now she's gonna go to prison, okay?
That's on you, left.
You're pushing these laws.
I also want to point out, man, I'll tell you what.
Go and tell the average American that we're going to take some of your tax money and give it to non-citizens because we're giving them driver's licenses.
You're going to find a lot of people saying, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, what?
Okay?
We can barely afford the programs we have now.
The national debt is spiking.
We've got quantitative easing.
We've got the government, like, listen, man, I'm not going to get into the economy stuff, but the point is, there's a limit to how much labor and energy can be spent where we're going to start seeing rapid inflation.
So, listen.
I'll throw it to the right and say, it's not as widespread as you think it is.
This is the Heritage Foundation.
We've seen the thousands.
I'll leave it at that.
But I do think it's hypocritical of the left to claim voter ID is racist or something, but then simultaneously implement IDs for people who aren't even citizens.
That's a complete inversion and all you're doing is fueling the conservative argument.
Dare I say, by pushing for this law while simultaneously maintaining the argument that it's racist, you have just opened the door for an investigation into voter fraud.
If we know from NPR that non-citizens vote and you just offered up licenses to non-citizens, don't be surprised when DHS comes a-knockin' and the FEC comes a-knockin' and we start doing investigations into the voter rolls and don't be surprised if this results in a larger targeting of the voter rolls.
The left tries to claim the Republicans cheat by purging poor people and people in the black community from voter rolls.
It absolutely does happen.
But I'll tell you this.
For one, the right is arguing the left cheats by putting non-citizens and deceased people on voter rolls and allowing them to vote, so they want to purge.
We do voter roll cleanups.
This is a normal thing.
The left, you know, accuses the right of wrongdoing, but I will tell you this.
Regardless of who you think is right or wrong, in the end, if you give driver's license to non-citizens, and even NPR is willing to admit it puts them on voter rolls, you will not have an argument against conservatives wanting to clean the voter rolls and investigate them.
I hope that's clear.
DHS is going to be looking into it.
We'll see what happens.
I think nothing.
I'll tell you this.
New York is going to allow non-citizens to come and do their thing.
And then, the point I was making with the gun control stuff, if they can come into California, and you won't do anything about it, you won't track them, and ICE can't get information, they can then go anywhere in the country because we don't have checkpoints between each state.
And therein lies one of the big problems.
Security exploits I'll leave it there, man.
I think you get the point.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
at youtube.com slash timcast, my main channel.
Happy New Year.
We're getting started.
It's a slow roll.
You know, everybody's still hungover, so I will see you at 4 p.m.
youtube.com slash timcast.
In a tremendous victory for straight rights, the first mixed-sex couple to be granted a civil partnership are being known.
Now, straight people have long since struggled with being married and getting approval from the world.
You know I'm kidding, right?
I have no idea what's going on.
I really don't.
Okay, I have a general idea, but this is one of the weirdest stories.
I haven't seen a lot of people talking about it.
But basically, what happened is, A heterosexual couple didn't want to be legally married because they felt marriage was archaic and, like, patriarchal or something.
They're feminists, I guess.
So they demanded a civil partnership.
This is in the UK, I believe.
And they had to sue to get it.
And now they're legally partnered but not married.
So I'm kidding about the tremendous gains for straight rights.
But it is becoming, like, a weird full circle kind of thing where, like, Civil partnerships, my understanding, I'm not from the UK, but my understanding it's for like same-sex couples, now being granted to mixed-sex couples.
Let's read the story, and you know, I gotta say, this may be a step towards, I guess, I don't know, it's kind of just a name change, I don't see, I don't know what the legal difference is, maybe there is one, but they, okay, maybe there's a legal difference, I don't know, let's just read, I'm sorry, I'm very confused.
The Daily Mail reports, Mixed-sex couple.
See, when I saw the headline, I didn't know what that meant.
A heterosexual couple who campaigned for mixed-sex civil partnerships have become one of the first couples to tie the knot in a ceremony today after winning a Supreme Court case to change the law.
This morning, Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keiden registered their quote, more modern partnership at Kensington and Chelsea Register.
They were pictured outside the building looking loved up as their two children stood by their side.
The change in the law will allow couples up and down the country to enter into civil partnerships rather than a marriage following a Supreme Court legal victory last year.
Ms.
Steinfeld today said that the union has allowed them to celebrate their love in a more modern way.
You know, there are legal differences.
I suppose she'll keep her name, and she won't be a missus, she'll be a miss.
And I think it's fair to point out that, you know, I understand the purpose of marriage, right?
It's basically, you know, back in the day, there was dowry and stuff, and the women were like, you'd go to the dad, and the dad would be like, I'll give you my daughter's hand.
And then we ended up, we developed a more modern, less patriarchal system, I guess, where it's like, the women marry whoever they want.
And marriage had a lot of tax benefits.
So then we got to this point where they were like, We want to have civil unions.
This was in the United States.
I can't speak for the UK.
And this made sense.
If there's two people who love each other, whether or not they have kids is irrelevant, in my opinion.
And they are deserving of the tax benefits, same as any other couple.
But now I think we're heading into a new territory where, while most people don't really want to get married for love and for family, and maybe they don't even actually care about each other, they want whatever tax benefits come with it, we're probably going to see a new kind of civil partnership That has nothing to do with love or marriage, and it's just like two people being like, I would like to partner with you in life.
And they might not even engage in romantic relations.
Because I'll tell you this, right?
One of the big arguments for trans rights is that, you know, you'll hear a conservative say something like, you know, women have babies and men don't, and then they'll say, but what about women who can't have babies, or menopausal women, or like, you know, hysterectomies.
So now the argument is, If what makes a marriage a marriage is that they're going to engage in lovemaking, what about couples that no longer engage in lovemaking, which is the standard trope?
Hence, I think the future is predictable.
Here's my bet.
We are going to see, like, two dudes, you know, Bill and Jim.
Bill and Ted.
Let's call it Bill and Ted.
And they're in no way homosexual.
They do not have relations.
They're just roommates.
And they think, you know, we'll get tax benefits if we're civilly partnered.
Well, what's the requirement to be in a civil partnership?
Do you have to prove you engage in adult relations?
No.
So what's to stop it?
I mean, they made that silly, it was like Adam Sandler movie, but I think it might actually become socially acceptable that two people just say, we share a house, and there's tax benefits to being partnered, and no, we're not in a homosexual relationship.
I think that's where it's headed.
When you look at how this is turning out, heterosexual couples, well, what's the difference, right?
I know a lot of conservatives are gonna freak out and get really angry about it.
I don't know, man.
Maybe there shouldn't be tax benefits at all and maybe everybody should be responsible for their own finances.
I have no idea.
I have no idea.
I don't know if I'm reading a social justice story or an anti-social justice story.
A straight couple who wants the benefit normally provided to homosexual couples now being granted... Whatever, man.
Let's read.
They won.
Congratulations, I guess.
The couple who met in 2010 and have two children said marriage treated women as property.
Speaking outside the Register office this morning, she added, Today, as one decade ends and another dawns, we become civil partners in law.
Our personal wish to form a civil partnership was rooted in our desire to formalize our relationship in a more modern way, focus on equality and mutual respect.
So today is a unique, special, and personal moment for us.
A moment that we've been able to affirm our love and commitment to one another in the company of our beautiful children, Eden and Ariel, and close friends.
And have that love and commitment given legal recognition in a way that best reflects who we are, what we love, and the life we value.
I'm gonna stop real quick.
There was an interesting argument back when gay marriage was a thing in the United States.
Now everybody basically just doesn't care.
But one of them was that marriage is an Abrahamic institution and that it should be a church function.
And I always disagreed with that because there are actual legal ramifications to being married.
And so back in the day, I remember Obama was for civil unions, but apparently civil unions didn't provide all the same protections.
And it was really weird to see that There are people on the left, like, you know, it was the progressives, who wanted marriage to recognize same-sex couples when marriage was religious.
And I think, you know, and then they were arguing against civil unions.
It was really weird to me because I'm like, why would you want a religious Abrahamic ceremony?
You know, it's like you're trying to be progressive, but you're engaging in a cultural tradition of religion, notably the Abrahamic ones.
I know there's marriage in other cultures, but specifically the way we do it in a church, you know, it's like part of Christianity or whatever.
And so that's why civil unions made sense, but I guess if they weren't going to grant all of the rights, that made sense.
But now we're at a point where there's actually the inverse argument.
They don't want to have marriage.
They don't want it to be part of the old religious ceremony.
So now they're walking away from the argument?
I'm confused.
I'm sorry.
I'm not trying to be a dick.
I'm just genuinely, I have no idea what's happening anymore.
Because like I said earlier, man, when the men's rights people are like, men deserve rights, or when they did like the straight pride parade, everyone called them white supremacists.
I don't know what the benefits are in the UK to being partnered anyway.
The Registrar, who united the pair, described today's moment as a simple but historic.
Is there no gay marriage in the UK?
Like, for real?
Is that the case?
Stephen Lord said it was a real honor to be part of a people's special day, especially when they had to fight for the legal right.
They had to fight for the legal right to get married.
Where is the social justice crowd screaming that they did not have to fight for any rights?
I mean, they did.
I have no... Okay.
The register of 12 years was also the register of the UK's first same-sex marriage at Camden's register office at midnight wedding on March 14th.
So they do have same-sex marriage.
He said it was a very simple signing of the register with a couple choosing one of our smallest rooms, but it was a very historic moment.
Ah yes, a historic moment indeed.
Straight couples fighting for their rights to be civilly partnered.
And it's a real honor to be part of People's Special Day, especially when they had to fight for that legal right.
Julie Thorpe, 61, and Keith Lomack, 70, from near Hebden Bridge, West Yorkshire, will also be having a civil partnership ceremony at a register office in Halifax.
This is while Jake Rayson and Emma Wilson from Newcastle, Emmaline, Carminthenshire, wow, UK, you got big words, also want to publicly pledge their love for each other as a man and woman without becoming a married Mr. and Mrs. I'm telling you, man, we are going to have a future where it's just no longer about family, love, or romance, with polyamory, with people going around and dating culture.
I'll tell you what's going to happen.
It's going to be someone being like, yo, you want to be my civil partner?
It's like, yeah, bro, I'm down.
Let's buy this house together.
My girlfriend's coming over later, that's cool.
And then later's like, I broke up with her.
That's basically all it is.
But like, what happens if you, like, divorce your civil partner?
Eh, it's gonna be a brave new world, huh?
They say rules were changed to extend civil partnerships available to same-sex couples since 2005 to everyone.
So I guess they made that before... Okay, so civil partnerships existed before marriage in 2014.
But Ms.
Thorpe said, it won't change our relationship one jot.
It will not make any difference to how we behave towards each other when we get up the next day.
What's the difference between a civil partnership and marriage?
A civil partnership involves one part of the couple signing the relevant document to make their union official in the eyes of the law.
A marriage is formed when a couple exchange spoken words or vows.
A civil partnership does not require a ceremony.
In the United States, marriage doesn't.
You can walk and just sign a form.
The union gives you the same pension rights as if you were married.
If one person in the union dies, the other is entitled to some of their pension pot.
You have to have been in the partnership for a year before you can become civil partners.
Oh wow, so there's restrictions.
Dissolving either partnership has to be done by a court.
Procedure for dissolution of civil partnership is two-stage.
Instead of Decree Nissi and Decree Absolute as in a divorce, there is first a conditional order and a final order.
Sounds like it's the same.
In a civil partnership, couples would be unable to rely on using adultery as a ground for the relationship being dissolved.
Interesting!
I guess if you're in a civil partnership, it has nothing to do with whether or not you're engaging in relations.
So it sounds like we're quite seeing now the structure of marriage being extended to literally people who aren't even in a relationship.
Technically, unless it's like a business relationship.
I guess it's not a romantic relationship, it's a civil relationship.
I have no idea.
Hey, you know what, man?
We'll figure it out as we go.
But I'll leave it there.
You tell me.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
One of the biggest aspects of, like, Gamergate or Comicsgate or whatever is this talk about toxic fandoms.
And they like to point the finger at more socially conservative individuals and claim that they're toxic fans simply when they're regular fans who are upset.
You see, there have been a few movies I've been upset about.
The Last Jedi.
Big fan of Star Wars.
More a fan of Star Trek, but I love Star Wars.
At least I did for a long time.
And now it's just Star Wars has become a mishmash of complete absurdity and insanity.
But I'll tell you this.
You see, when I complain about The Last Jedi being bad, having a plot that makes no sense, wiping out characters that never got resolved or explained, continuity errors and plot holes, it's not because I'm being toxic.
It's because I have legitimate criticisms for a bad film.
A film that most people, or I'm sorry, a lot of people panned.
I know some people happened to like it.
The story made no sense.
There's continuity errors.
What was that thing in that casino planet like never even mattered?
Man, Rian Johnson literally destroyed Star Wars for me.
But now we have a new Star Wars film, The Rise of Skywalker, and we are seeing a lot of people angry about certain choices in the film.
I don't want to bury the lead for you, so I'll just tell you what the gist is.
There are people literally posting death threats for J.J.
Abrams for his plot choices.
Like, they're seriously people threatening to kill a man because they don't like what he did to the movie.
The first story, Star Wars fans are furious that J.J.
Abrams gave role to Dominic Monaghan over a soccer bet.
I'll briefly go through this, but I really want to talk about, like, the political aspect.
I'm gonna make something clear.
Okay?
I was sad.
I said I wouldn't go see Star Wars ever again.
Admittedly, I was really bored and had nothing else to do, and it was playing right next to the restaurant I was eating at, and I said, eh, alright, I'll go see it.
Otherwise, I'm gonna be sitting around doing nothing, so I went and saw it, and I was sad.
I was really sad.
Because I could see how they could have made the sequel trilogy actually good, starting with The Force Awakens, and how Rian Johnson destroyed it.
I think he did it on purpose.
But in no way do I think anyone needs to die because they, say, killed Kylo Ren, and that's what's happening.
Okay, Kylo- oh, I'm sorry.
Spoiler alert.
Whatever man.
You should have seen the movie by now or not.
Okay, anyway I'll put a spoiler alert in the title so that you guys realize cuz that was it.
Alright, that's gonna be spoilers Anyway, the point is Kylo Ren dies and it's like I don't know bad and fans are literally saying that they want to kill JJ Abrams I can't I don't even think I can show you these tweets because if I zoom in then I'm gonna get in trouble on YouTube This person on Twitter, I don't know who this is, they
follow me, they said, Rilo fans are outraged that Kylo Ren dies in Rise of
Skywalker.
They're sending death threats and harassment to J.J. Abrams cast members and Lucasfilm employees.
The new fanbase Lucasfilms has catered to is providing their true toxic fans in Star Wars.
Let's talk about toxic fandom.
Is the Toxic Fandom the core fanbase of, you know, now middle-aged men who loved Star Wars in the 70s, 80s, and are now looking forward to a new, you know, where is Luke Skywalker?
They're maybe in their 50s or 60s and they're saying, I really want to see that story continued.
Those are not the toxic fans.
The people who are complaining that Luke became an ineffectual, you know, man-baby, crying about things he couldn't accomplish, that's not toxic fandom, okay?
That's a fan who's sad they destroyed the character of Luke Skywalker.
I mean, even Mark Hamill expressed he was upset about what they did to Luke Skywalker.
What ended up happening is Star Wars ended up catering, at least in the eyes of many people, to, I don't know, the social justice crowd with The Last Jedi.
I mean, The Force Awakens as a whole, people are like, oh no, the new Jedi is a woman, she's a Mary Sue or something.
And it seems like the big divide between whether or not The Last Jedi was good or bad is literally the critics loved it.
And the core fans hated it.
And the critics tended to be the woke media Twitter-outty types.
Well, congratulations, the new fanbase you've developed is posting death threats, too.
Because the core people who were called the toxic fans in the past, right?
People like me and other, like, anti-SJW types, they were called toxic fans.
Okay, I'll tell you this right now.
If those people don't like Star Wars, then the people posting right now are your people.
Congratulations.
All right, but I should do this, because I do have one more thing.
I have another story after this.
Let's read about what happened with this giving a role, because people are mad about this, but this is not even a big deal.
They say, much has been made of the presence or lack thereof of Kelly Marie Tran's Rose Tico in Star Wars The Rise of Skywalker.
Now, after Twitter users made their feelings felt about her screen time, another tidbit has been revealed around the choices with the cast.
Dominic Monaghan revealed that he got his Star Wars The Rise of Skywalker part in the strangest way possible.
When he won a football bet, he got written into the movie by his friend J.J.
Abrams.
In a conversation on an Inverse podcast, he explained how the entire situation went down.
Fans of the actress are none too pleased and letting their frustrations be known on Twitter.
Monaghan began at the start of the game because JJ is a mother effer in the best way possible
He emailed me and said I think I have a Star Wars part for you, and I wrote back and said brilliant
I won't bother you, but let me know if there's anything I can do or what I can say
He wrote back and said if England beat Colombia you're in Oh, so it's soccer.
I was like, oh mate, you be.
Screenwriter Chris Terrio tried to explain how some technical concerns led to the relatively small screen time for Rose in the latest film.
So here's why I bring this up in line with the death threats.
Rose Tico was a poorly written character but the diversity pro, you know, SAW type crowd were fawning over her because she's like a chubby Asian woman and that's like, you know, diversity.
I got no beef against, you know, Kelly Marie Tran.
I think she was fine.
I do think her role made no sense and The Last Jedi is one of the worst films ever made.
Believe it or not, I actually enjoyed Cats more than...
I'm sorry, it's true.
I enjoyed Cats more than I enjoyed The Last Jedi.
I'm not kidding.
Cats was something where I was just sitting there, and I'm like, you know, like, eh, whatever.
I mean, they're singing.
But The Last Jedi was infuriating.
Like, the plot holes where I was like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, what a minute?
Wait, wait, wait a minute.
What, what a minute.
Wait a minute, what was that?
That made no sense.
Like, literally, the plot of The Last Jedi is like, don't look out the window, and then look out the window, and they're like, oh no, there's ships outside.
Or, like, space fuel.
And, like, when they run out of fuel, the ship starts falling.
Or the gravity in space.
Like, the whole thing was just so dumb.
Anyway.
Kelly Marie Tran was kind of one of these diversity, you know, characters.
And I think it's stupid when you put so much weight on a diversity character, because this is what happens.
Because they were like, we have, you know, a short, chubby, you know, like, Asian female character who's like a lead.
Then when people realize she was poorly written and not popular, they act like it was the diversity was the reason they write her out.
So they say one of the reasons... Rose basically has nothing in the new film.
She has like, you know, a minute of screen time, I think.
So they said, one of the reasons that Rose has a few less scenes than we would like her to have has to do with the difficulty of using Carrie Fisher's footage in the way we wanted to.
Theriot explains to Awards Daily, We wanted Rose to be the anchor at the rebel base who was with Leia.
We thought we couldn't leave Leia at the base without any of the principals who we love.
This is such a lie.
Sorry.
It's not true.
They were writing out Rose Tico because she was a poorly written character and she was widely unpopular.
The new Star Wars crowd, the new fanbase they've courted, Tried making it seem like Kelly Marie Tran deleted her Instagram account because of harassment when in reality, apparently she only had the thing in the first place because of like it was a promotion for Star Wars.
The last thing we're doing was deliberately trying to sideline Rose.
Lies!
They desperately try to save this film.
We adore the character and we adore Kelly.
So much so that we anchored her with our favorite person in the galaxy, General Leia.
The use of Leia in that film was so terrible.
It was so obvious.
I'm sorry, man.
They should have opened the new movie with, like, a ship exploding and Leia not being able to marry Poppins, I guess.
But I guess they couldn't because The Last Jedi was so bad they made Leia, you know, like, fly through space.
They could have started the movie with Leia just, like, you know, sacrificing herself or something.
Instead, they did this weird thing where they took unused footage of Carrie Fisher where she says, like, one word and spliced it into random moments that literally made no sense.
Now they're trying to cover this all up.
I'll tell you this.
At least they're learning.
Ghostbusters 3?
I'm excited for that.
Okay?
Because Ghostbusters 2016 was a disaster.
But now, you reap what you sow, man.
Okay?
I don't, you know, look.
Rilo fans are going to therapy, not eating, and skipping work because their traumatized Kylo Ren died.
At the Rise of Skywalker premiere, one left hysterical, telling a SW actress to get hit by a car because the actress wouldn't yell at JJ in person.
All this over a fictional character.
Congratulations!
The toxic fans you were so angry about.
unidentified
The ones who were like, I wish Star Wars was more like it used to be.
Yet now you've got the people saying they wish you'd get hit by cars.
But I'm gonna leave you with one last tidbit.
Look, I think Star Wars is over.
Whatever.
Star Wars trilogy mocked by star John Boyega.
This is from the Daily Wire.
John Boyega's great.
I don't want to say he's, like, mocking it.
He's just having fun.
He's, like, poking fun at Star Wars.
Whatever.
They say on Wednesday, actor John Boyega, who played the character Finn, nearly broke the internet when he tweeted out a not-so-cryptic meme trashing the Disney trilogy for how it handled the supposed romance between Kylo Ren and Rey, an unlikely duo that superfans have since referred to by the moniker Reylo.
Take a look.
I gotta say, I don't know if they have the post.
I don't think they do.
Okay.
Daily Wire, you missed this one, or maybe it just didn't load, I don't know.
The best meme I've seen so far with John Boyega was apparently someone posted on Instagram that, you know, with John Boyega posting this stuff, he said, you know, my boy Finn realizing with Kylo Ren out of the picture, he's free to move in on Rey.
And then Boyega said something, cover your kid's ears right now, he said something like, it doesn't matter who's doing the romance, it matters who ends up laying the pipe or something.
Dude.
And then someone, I guess, insulted him and he was like, I got work, I don't care.
So he's making fun of this, I guess.
Dude, it was really bad.
Star Wars romance.
Kylo Ren creepily, like, kidnapping Rey.
She fights him, stabs him in the gut, fights him again, then they kiss for some reason, then the dude dies.
The new Toxic fanbase... I don't want to have anything to do with that stuff, you know what I mean?
Like, you want to talk about... Dude, I can't zoom in on this stuff, but YouTube would probably ban me.
But you get the point.
It's sad to say that the toxic fans like me, who didn't like the Star Wars, who didn't like The Last Jedi, are moving on!
But you go ahead and keep the new ones you've curated.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around, I got one more segment coming up for you in just a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
A viral post from the DC Bureau Chief of the Intercept, Ryan Grimm, shows me that the Left doesn't truly understand how, like, things work and exist, and how labor works.
But I do think it's fair to give some credit to Mr. Ryan Grimm.
He makes a good point about the cost of medicine, but fundamentally misunderstands market economics.
We have serious problems with medicine in the United States, don't get me wrong, but I've got to point out some economic principles to these individuals.
I also want to point out that... Actually, let me read this tweet for you so I can start explaining to you what's going on.
Ryan Grimm tweeted, 5-year-old woke up with a fever.
CVS Minute Clinic says she has the flu.
Prescribes Tamiflu.
It's the new year, so the new deductible kicks in.
Pharmacy wants $198 for the Tamiflu.
If we didn't have it, like millions don't, she would go without it, putting her life at risk.
Barbaric.
He then shows the post. $198.82.
No, it's not barbaric.
I'm sorry.
It's not.
Tamiflu in the past has been price gouged.
I'll show you this in a minute.
I want to make sure I give credit to Ryan Grimm.
I understand.
I understand the point.
It's horrifying that your kid could be sick and they're going to be like, if you can't afford it, your kid dies.
What's the cost of a human life versus the medicine required to give the kid that medicine, right?
There's also a problem of Some things don't exist.
Like what if your kid woke up and had spinal viral meningitis?
And you went and they were like, kids got spiral meningitis.
You need like an interferon treatment.
It's gonna cost you a lot of money.
Well, there's no pill you can take to cure that.
Is it barbaric that the medicine doesn't exist?
And it doesn't.
So we'll go through this.
But I also want to point out something else.
I'm not surprised Anna Kasparian of the Young Turks says, Oh my God, this system is disgusting.
Hope she gets well soon.
Happy New Year.
I'm also not surprised that a bunch of journalists are also chiming in with a left-wing narrative.
Dave Weigel of the Washington Post, I believe he's still at the Washington Post.
Yeah, he is.
Says, Why do you hate choice and freedom?
Sarcastic, right?
And there's a few other, you know, journalists, you know, who are chiming in.
It's no surprise because we know journalists are left.
That's just the majority of them.
So it's no surprise they don't understand the function of market economics.
If you own your own business, and you sell widgets, it's a fictional object, and a widget costs $10, and you sell it for $20, you make a $10 profit for yourself.
That pays you.
That I get.
But there is a different perception when it comes to corporate profits because the CEO's salaries are guaranteed with or without profits.
Now, profits do get split up for shareholders and there's a lot of things like that.
I kind of think we shouldn't do that.
I really don't.
I think we should try and minimize the costs to the best of our abilities.
The challenge then becomes, and I recognize this even though I am a little left on this situation of, you know, medicine, the challenge becomes how do you invest, how do you convince people to invest capital into the development of new treatments, cures, et cetera?
If there's not going to be a profit for the shareholders, people aren't going to want to engage with it for the most part.
But there's probably still a solution here.
I have a concern that Ryan's Kid was facing a price gouging situation.
Tamiflu can be bought online, a generic version, for a lot less.
And I looked this up.
So the generic version is Oseltamivir, generic Tamiflu, and presumably I think you can get it cheaper.
I don't know how you buy it on the internet, I don't know if you can, but there's seriously cheaper versions of it than just getting the name brand version.
I think it's fair to point out, price gouging is real, and if that's their focus, then I give it to them.
You know, you are correct.
It is barbaric.
However, what people don't seem to realize in this healthcare debate... Actually, you know, I'll talk about healthcare in a second.
I do want to be fair as possible and point this out.
Just cursory research, antiviral Tamiflu drug price varies wildly.
Back in 2009, it was reported that there was massive price gouging of Tamiflu.
So I'm not trying to be mean to Grim.
I feel for his kid and I think he's got a good point to make.
But I'm only using this as an example to talk about the cost of healthcare, technology, advancement, development, investment, and the problems of Medicare for All, which we'll get to in a second.
In response to this story of these massively varying prices, which people said was price gouging, we saw this.
I don't know what the source is.
This is from 2009 Consumerist.
CVS and Walgreens dropped Tamiflu prices after AG sends nasty letter.
They ask, are CVS and Walgreens price gouging on liquid Tamiflu?
The Attorney General of Connecticut's office says the AG Richard Blumenthal has received information suggesting that some pharmacies have charged substantially increased out-of-pocket prices for Tamiflu, in some cases as high as $130 or more.
Now I want to point something out.
Based on the prices I found online, I think you're going to pay a brand premium.
Okay?
Yeah, if there's a company doing advertisements for the antiviral, you're going to pay a premium for that company.
They got employees, right?
You've also got to pay for the overhead of the store.
So yes, online prices and generic prices will be cheaper.
It doesn't seem to me that what we're facing is price gouging.
The prices ten years ago were half this.
You've got to account for inflation.
And this is what brings me to the bigger point about how the left doesn't understand how things are made.
Listen.
I don't want your kid to die.
And I think, to a certain degree, the $198 Tamiflu, if it's gonna save your life, is worth substantially, like, it's worth it.
Okay, we gotta figure out how we can solve this problem.
The problem is supply and demand and access to resources.
If your kid comes in, I'm sick, I have the flu, I'm gonna die, seriously, give him the medicine, okay?
The life of a human being is priceless.
There's no value to it.
I mean, I guess if you're going by black market prices, it's something like, depending on the ethnicity, between like a hundred grand to even like a million dollars.
But that's not the point I'm making.
The point I'm making is, you know, I'll quote Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen.
When he, uh, the Watchmen comic, when he says that of all of the things in the universe, of all the probabilistic chains, everything finally led to one thing.
You.
And he was talking to, I can't remember the woman's name.
He's basically saying that the likelihood that you exist is astronomical.
It's winning 50 million lottery tickets all back to back to back.
You are unique beyond, you know, anything.
So if we can take 200 bucks, save your life, I think we should do it.
However, I always, I always got to throw that however in.
First, the store has employees.
Someone had to manufacture the drug.
Someone had to invest in making the drug.
Someone had to think, I'm going to be rewarded by society for making this drug, thus I will do it.
Some people, like, you know, Saul, who did the polio vaccine, didn't patent it because his reward was, you know, I guess society loving him.
But we've got a serious problem as our trust in each other and our culture breaks down.
With no shared culture, the only thing that drives people is money, and there's actually Pew data to show this.
I was going to show it in my earlier segment.
It didn't come up.
But people are more, are being more and more driven by money.
So how do we, how do we develop a literal, you know, maybe, maybe you have the flu?
We want to cure it outright.
We want to literally find a cure for the virus, which I believe we don't really have.
We have cures for bacterial infections, not viral infections.
How do we do that?
Well, somebody wants to know that if they invest their time and energy, something will come back.
We can actually make this sustainable.
Not just that, but sometimes when there's profit, that money goes into a savings or into investment funds so that it can either be saved for a rainy day so your company doesn't go under, or so that, you know, you can develop new drugs.
Price gouging exists.
But there's a big difference between medicine being expensive and barbaric price gouging.
So, I'll put it this way.
This is the way I've explained it before.
Imagine there's literally no cure for a disease.
Are you going to complain?
Are you gonna call it barbaric?
Let's say they went into the store and says, my kid has, you know, Florbo disease.
And they're gonna be like, well, no one's ever cured Florbo disease, so I'm sorry, your kid's going to die.
Are they gonna say, barbaric!
I blame the store!
No.
The medicine's not available, it's no one's fault.
So this is the problem when it comes to Medicare for All.
What people don't seem to understand is that certain treatments will never be available to the general population because they're rare, new, hard to make, expensive.
Perhaps there is a rare flower that grows only in the deserts of the lost city of, you know, Florbo, to use the word again.
Like, I'm just saying a hypothetical city.
And they find this new, rare, endangered plant, and it has these properties, they try to replicate in a lab, and it costs tens of millions of dollars, and they finally synthesize just ten cures for Florbo disease.
Who's going to get it?
Who's going to be able to pay the $20 million or whatever it costs to make this?
That's the problem.
Just like any other technology, there has to be development towards mass production to reduce costs in medication.
And because the demand only circles around people who actually have the disease, you're not going to see mass production in the hopes people can sell the product.
Not only that, there's shelf life to medication.
People know there's a demand for TVs, so they just keep on making TVs, but the demand for the drug only exists so long as someone has the disease or the symptoms.
In which case, we're not gonna see a dramatic mass production of a medication which can expire if, you know, one in a hundred million people end up getting the disease.
That's the challenge.
So if you end up getting an extremely rare disease that only one in a hundred million people get, no one's invested in developing that because nobody really gets it.
This is the challenge, man.
I think what we can do when it comes to Medicare for All or some kind of universal healthcare is base level.
If you break your arm, if you break your leg, if you slip a disc, if there are simple surgical procedures for curing you, stitches and other things like that, I think that's fair.
I think even to a certain extent when it comes to things like the flu.
But what about when you get cancer or some really rare degenerative disease, things start getting much more difficult because the medication and the treatments just literally don't exist.
It's not about being barbaric.
It's about making sure you're not literally enslaving people.
So I'll tell you this.
A lot of people seem to think healthcare is a human right.
I'm sorry, it's not.
Because healthcare requires someone else to perform a job.
Period.
We do get base-level care when it comes to the fire department, the police department, so I think there's a way to implement base-level care with, you know, medical treatment, but not to a certain degree.
You break your leg, you wait in line, and maybe in a few hours someone will treat you.
But if you get a rare disease that requires CAT scans and MRIs, the line would be just out the door and no one would be treated, and you'd be on a six-month wait list suffering with the disease.
Perhaps that's what the left wants.
Okay?
I know the left really wants everyone to be treated.
I'm just saying.
You have to recognize there will be lines.
Not everybody can be cured.
There's not enough MRI machines for literally everybody who needs it.
It sounds cold.
It sounds callous.
We don't want people to die.
But guess what?
We haven't conquered death yet.
And that means until we do, it takes someone else's time, energy, and labor to implement cures and medication.
I don't think the left gets it.
I think the left has this vision of, like, the movie Elysium.
You ever see that movie?
Where, like, the rich people had a cure for literally everything, but just never shared it with the poor people for literally no reason.
That's not how it works.
And then they, like, invade the space station and just start putting people in the machines, like, everybody could have been cured if the rich people just let them.
No!
It's finite resources, man.
Finite access.
And somebody has to do the labor.
You can't force someone at gunpoint to work for you.
Healthcare can't be a human right if that's the case.
But we can provide communal base-level coverage for simple things.
Perhaps if you're sick, you should be able to go to the doctor without worrying about a bill.
Now, whether or not they can treat you and cure you is a different story.
Base-level coverage.
Maybe it's something like this.
You wake up, your kid's sick, you bring them to the doctor, and they say, your kid's got the flu.
No charge.
The medication, there will be a charge.
I don't know.
You get the point.
I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up tomorrow at 10 a.m.
at youtube.com slash timcast.
I may only have one segment because I gotta fly, but I'll do my best.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all tomorrow at 10am, youtube.com slash timcast, or podcast every day at 6.30 on all podcast platforms.