Democrats Are Now OPENLY CHEATING And Don't Care, Leftist Democrats TOO WEAK To Actually Stand Up
Democrats Are Now OPENLY CHEATING And Don't Care, Leftist Democrats TOO WEAK To Actually Stand Up. DNC members are now on record plotting rule changes to stop Bernie Sanders from being able to win the democratic nomination.While most of us know that the DNC was cheating in 2016 what they are doing now is the most brazen and overt cheating they have done yet.The Democratic National Committee is changing the rules for debate requirements to billionaire Mike Bloomberg can enter the race without having to qualify. In the past Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, Tom Steyer, and Cory Booker have all called for rule changes to support a more diverse debate but the DNC said no.Now that Mike Bloomberg needs help though, they come running. And more interestingly is how Bloomberg recently donated over a million dollars to the Democratic establishment and then all of a sudden they let him debate.Far Left democrats have failed to actually stand up for themselves for the most part with Bernie Sanders being relentlessly smeared in the media and cheated by the establishment. If they can't defend themselves why would I stand up for them?Republicans did not want Trump to win but conceded when it became clear he was the choice the American voters. Now the RNC is seeing record numbers and massive success.It seems clear that the Democrats will regret these ethical violations as this is going to backfire miserably against them
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Most of us who are paying attention know that the Democrats cheated Bernie Sanders in 2016.
This is not an issue of whether or not you like him, but we all get it.
There was a lot of things happening behind the scenes to give Hillary Clinton control.
They were feeding her questions in advance.
They wanted her to win.
And Bernie eventually bent the knee and endorsed her.
That was a major mistake.
It backfired.
But we'll get to all that.
Because now, the big story is the DNC is once again cheating.
And I've talked about them cheating all the time.
But now the cheating is so blatant and overt, I was actually shocked that they had the gall to do this.
Two big stories coming out showing the Democratic National Committee is overtly Cheating.
First, a story from Politico.
DNC members discuss rules change to stop Sanders at the convention.
The talks reveal rising anxiety over the Vermont senator's momentum on the eve of voting.
Now you may say, Tim, Whether or not they change the rules to private organization, they can do what they want, and they haven't actually done anything yet, fine, I'll stop you there.
Because now we see this story.
Democratic Party set to include Michael Bloomberg in debates with change to qualifying requirements.
Bravo, DNC!
You know what, man?
I was thinking about how blatantly overt this cheating is right now, and I was thinking about the impeachment of Donald Trump, and I thought to myself, you know, if they're willing to cheat, and they're so desperate they will cheat to such an extreme degree, why wouldn't they cheat in other ways?
Say, smearing Donald Trump with a faux impeachment and scandal after scandal?
I believe, when you look at it on the surface, it looks like Democrats could be incompetent.
I think no.
I think everything the establishment Democrats have been doing has been cheating the whole time.
You think about Ukrainegate, the whistleblower, all of these stories, and it just sounds like desperate attempts to win power.
And that's creepy.
You look at what Democrats did with witnesses for Republicans.
They denied the Republican witnesses in the House.
Then when the Democrats in the Senate, who don't have power, demanded witnesses, they cried foul and accused the GOP of subverting democracy, other nonsense.
They're cheating.
They're not being held to the same standards that they claim Republicans should be held to.
They deny witnesses, but then cry foul when Republicans do the same?
Yeah, that's called a tit-for-tat, right?
The Democrats don't care about what's fair, or the principle.
And I mean the real establishment Democrat types.
Now I'm gonna throw shade right at Bernie Sanders for not standing up for himself.
Because he's been getting torn to shreds.
A new story's coming out, Hillary Clinton smearing the guy again.
Rashida Tlaib apparently booed Hillary and now she's apologizing.
I'm sorry, man.
If you're not strong enough to stand up for yourself, why would you expect me to stand by you?
I am really close to saying, you know what?
I'm done with all of them forever.
Now admittedly, look, the people I like are Tulsi, Andrew Yang for the most part.
And they were the ones cheated.
Think about this.
The Democratic Party is going to change the rules for a white male billionaire, but they wouldn't for the Asian, for the woman of color, or for Cory Booker, a person of color.
We see how the game is played.
They act like they're woke and they care, but they don't.
They're cheating.
Let me stop ranting.
Let's get to the first story about how they're going to be sidelining Bernie Sanders, and let me stress for the umpteenth time, Bernie Sanders deserves this.
He couldn't stand up for himself to save his own campaign or career in 2016, nor today, so he doesn't deserve my support.
Why am I going to stand behind someone who can't stand up themselves?
I'm sorry.
I'll have to choose someone else, like Tulsi or Yang.
But before we get started, make sure you head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are several ways you can give, but the best thing you can do, share this video.
I'd hope that we can break some echo chambers by exposing more people to these ideas.
Maybe they don't want to hear them.
But the other big issue that I often talk about is...
I can really see it in the YouTube algorithm that they're stopping my channel from being recommended to anybody.
Now, you know what?
There's no obligation for YouTube to promote me.
Fine, I accept that.
They're a private business, right?
But if you share my video, that is ten times or more, much more powerful than YouTube's recommendation ever could be.
Word of mouth is the most powerful way to help my channel grow, so I appreciate it if you would share the video.
But let's read the first story, and let me just make one more point.
I can absolutely criticize the weakness of Sanders while recognizing they are cheating him.
Now, if people like Bernie and think he should be the nominee, then the Democrats should accept that, and Bernie should be the nominee.
I'm not going to vote for him.
But if people want to, you don't have to agree with me.
I can certainly see the Democrats are cheaters trying to keep out Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang, and others, Cory Booker, to prop up a billionaire of all people.
And here's the kicker.
Bloomberg a few months ago gave several hundred thousand dollars to the DNC.
Oh, lo and behold!
The game is rigged.
You see, Donald Trump wasn't supposed to win.
Donald Trump wasn't supposed to be the nominee for the Republicans.
But the Republicans didn't cheat.
The Republicans conceded when Trump took the nomination, and they've unified behind him, for better or worse.
Not the Democrats.
They are clinging to power in desperation like Bilbo Baggins trying to snatch that ring back from Frodo.
Let's read the story.
Politico reports, a small group of Democratic National Committee members has privately begun
gauging support for a plan to potentially weaken Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign
and head off a brokered convention. In conversations on the sidelines of a DNC
executive committee meeting and in telephone calls and texts in recent days, about a half
dozen members have discussed the possibility of a policy reversal to ensure that so-called
superdelegates can vote on the first ballot at the party's national convention.
Such a move would increase the influence of DNC members, members of Congress, and other top party officials, who now must wait until the second ballot to have their say if the convention is contested.
Quote, I do believe we should reopen the rules.
I hear it from others as well.
One DNC member said in a text message last week to William Owen, a DNC member from Tennessee who does not support reopening the rules.
Owen, who declined to identify the member, said the member added in a text that it would be hard though.
We could force a meeting or on the floor.
Sounds like this person is the one who leaked this information.
Even proponents of the change acknowledge it is all but certain not to gain enough support to move past these initial conversations.
But the talks reveal the extent of angst that many establishment Democrats are feeling on the eve of the Iowa caucuses.
Sanders is surging, and Joe Biden has maintained his lead nationally.
Well, not for long.
Bernie is taking over.
But at least three other candidates are widely seen as viable.
The cluster raises the specter of a convention requiring a second ballot.
If Sanders wins the Iowa caucuses on Monday and continues to gain momentum, it is possible he could arrive at the convention with the most delegates, but without enough to win the nomination on the first ballot.
It is also possible that he and Elizabeth Warren, a fellow progressive, could arrive at a convention in second and third place, but with more delegates combined than the frontrunner.
Found the second ballot.
Superdelegates were to throw their support to someone else, tipping the scales.
Many moderate Democrats fear the upheaval that would cause could weaken the eventual nominee.
Conversations about a potential rules change picked up as Sanders ascended in the primary.
But they have not gained traction to this point with the DNC.
So, it's fair to say that won't go anywhere.
But I also think it's extremely important to point out, they're still trying to cling on to that ring of power.
They won't give it up.
So they will cheat if they have to.
They will change the rules so Bernie can't win.
Bernie is not my candidate.
He was to a certain degree in 2016.
I lost a lot of faith in him based on a lot of pandering he's done and the things he's said since then is flip-flopping.
That's fine.
If you still like Bernie, more power to you.
I'm not saying don't vote for him.
I am saying, however, you expect me to participate in your primary and your voting process that's rigged the entire time?
Not gonna happen.
And you know what's funny?
I'm one of these people desperately trying to not vote Trump.
I'm ambivalent, for the most part, on Trump.
I don't think he's the end of the world.
I think he's got bad character, as I often say.
The economy's doing great, I can recognize that, but I'm looking for something else.
I think a Yang-Trump debate would greatly benefit this country, because they both talk about similar issues affecting the working class in America.
The DNC cheats.
They kept Yang out of a debate.
Oh, but they'll change the rules for Bloomberg, so this is where I get really angry.
They cheat and smear Tulsi.
They cheat and smear Yang.
The establishment media cheats and smears both of them.
And you want my support?
You come to me.
You look me in the eyes and say, vote Blue no matter who?
Nice try.
You'd prop up the billionaire who gave you a kickback several months ago, and I see the slime emerging from your eyes.
Not gonna happen.
Democratic Party set to include Michael Bloomberg in debates, with changes to qualifying requirements.
But when Andrew Yang asked not for a change of the rules, but for more polling, They said no.
When Tulsi said, lower the requirements, let more people on the stage, they said no.
When Cory Booker complained about a lack of diversity, they said no.
But lo and behold, the billionaire steps up, dumps a couple hundred grand in their pockets, and they say, you know what?
Maybe this does make sense.
We see how the game is played.
It's a two-tiered system.
The haves and the have-nots.
Now Bernie is surging and may very well win.
And I'll tell you this, as much as they're cheating with Bloomberg, I am excited to say, in all likelihood, it will backfire in their faces.
And I look forward to making a video titled, Democrats cheating backfires in their face.
Because Michael Bloomberg is a more moderate mainstream candidate.
You know what that means?
When it comes to the primary, He's gonna take votes away from Joe Biden.
And Bernie Sanders is taking the lead.
So you know what?
You deserve Bernie.
He's not my candidate, but I certainly think he deserves to win.
Because they've cheated every step of the way.
Now in my personal opinion, a 78-year-old socialist who had a heart attack can't win the presidency.
I'm not trying to be mean, that's just reality.
But it doesn't mean he shouldn't be the nominee if that's what the people have chosen.
So you can cheat all day and night, and you get what you deserve.
Everything the establishment Democrats have done so far has just backfired in their faces horribly.
Impeachment has empowered Trump, and the more Hillary tries to smear Bernie and Tulsi, the more powerful they become, you are losing.
You should have done what the Republican Party did and accept the change.
Trump won the nomination and they said, fine, and people changed their tune to recognize what the American people really wanted.
Democratic Party won't do it, but they'll get their comeuppance soon, because this will backfire.
Let's read the story from MarketWatch.
They say, the Democratic Party's governing body said Friday that its presidential contenders won't have to attract a set number of donors in order to qualify for the February 19th debate in Nevada, in a move that helps billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who is self-funding his campaign.
Quote, to qualify for the Nevada debate stage, candidates may qualify either by 1.
Meeting a delegate threshold or 2.
Meeting a polling threshold, the DNC said in a statement.
For previous primary debates, White House hopefuls had to get both a particular number of donors and reach a set level of support in national or early state polls.
Those requirements have kept Bloomberg, the former mayor of NYC, from taking part in debates, since he is self-funding his presidential campaign and not accepting donations.
Under the new requirement, politicians can qualify by getting one pledged delegate from the upcoming voting in the Iowa caucuses, or the New Hampshire primary, or they can make the grade by scoring 10% support in four polls, either national or single state, or 12% in two single state polls.
Bloomberg has scored 10% in two national polls conducted in January, as well as gotten 11 and 12 in two other national surveys this month, according to the RealClearPolitics tracker.
Quote, We are thrilled that voters could soon have the chance to see Mike Bloomberg on the debate stage, hear his vision for the country, and see why he is the strongest candidate to defeat Donald Trump and bring our country together, said Bloomberg's campaign manager, Kevin Schicke, in a statement.
Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders' supporter and political commentator, Nomiki Kantz, suggested in Tweet Friday that people should voice outrage at DNC Chairman Tom Perez over the debate rules change.
The other billionaire Democratic presidential contender, Tom Steyer, said in a statement that changing the rules now to accommodate Mike Bloomberg and not changing them in the past to ensure a more diverse debate stage is just plain wrong.
And I agree with Steyer.
I don't agree with how Steyer and Bloomberg have dumped tons of money to enter the race in the first place.
To a certain degree, I can respect that they've earned that position within reason.
They built companies, they made money, and they can wield that as they see fit.
I do personally find it distasteful, and I would never vote for someone like Bloomberg or Steyer for that reason, but I respect the ability they have.
Personally, I'd prefer it if Bloomberg couldn't dump $200 million into his campaign and then just flood the airways with nonsense.
I'll also jokingly- I've also jokingly pointed out, he's not given any of that money to digital, which means I don't get any.
I'm kidding, by the way.
I would not appreciate Bloomberg funding any of my programming, but it's YouTube automated, so it is what it is.
I'm actually kidding, by the way.
No, I should say I'm a bit more agnostic on this.
Look, I get it.
Bloomberg has the ability, so I'm not gonna vote for him, and I'm gonna tell you that's exactly why.
So maybe you saw one of his ads play in front of one of my videos or something like that, but at least you got to hear me say, I am not gonna support someone who does this.
Now, Donald Trump didn't spend nearly as much money as most of the other candidates, and he earned a lot of his press.
I'm still critical of Donald Trump.
But this is a whole other level.
Trump took a loan out to fund his campaign, as far as I understand.
This is them using their personal cash and flooding the airwaves just to win.
And then here's the big kicker.
Check this out.
Daily Caller says, DNC rule change will make it easier for seven-figure DNC donor Bloomberg to qualify.
Here's the big kicker.
The DNC's filings show that Bloomberg contributed more than $1.1 million late in 2019 to the party and a joint fundraising committee the DNC operates.
To the party and a fundraising committee.
The records show that Bloomberg made three donations of $106,500 to the DNC itself.
And another 800,000 to the Democratic Grassroots Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee for the DNC and state Democratic parties.
And there it is.
Quid pro quo.
Let's see the outrage from the establishment resistance types.
Yeah, they're not going to say it.
I'll also point out I'm really frustrated by like, you know, people like David Pakman call them the centrist Democrats.
No, stop!
They've stolen our good name.
They're the establishment elitists.
Us here in the populist area range from left to right.
You've got Trump's right-wing populists, Bernie's left-wing populists, and the very few politically homeless populist types, but we're all rather anti-elitist and authoritarian.
These people like Bloomberg, they're authoritarians.
Bloomberg straight up said, there's a viral clip where he's like, we should tax the poor, otherwise they'll buy things that are bad for them.
What?
No.
Bloomberg tried taxing, I think it was Bloomberg, tried taxing soda because he thought Americans are eating fat.
Dude, you can't tell people they're not allowed to eat things or drink things or place a punitive tax on their, on that product to change their behavior.
That's creepy authoritarianism.
Please, call them what they are.
Now, I have ragged on the DNC establishment.
I have.
Heavily.
And I think it's fair, 100%.
I know I've said it, but I'm saying it again.
Bernie Sanders is being cheated and deserves that seat.
But you know what?
To a certain degree, I will say Sanders is deserving all of the flack and the cheating he's getting because he won't stand up for himself.
And he's at every opportunity.
Tulsi doesn't deserve it.
You know why?
Tulsi has stood on principle.
She stepped down from the DNC to endorse Bernie Sanders.
And they hate her for it.
And they tried to destroy her for it.
Now she's suing Hillary Clinton, who apparently refuses to be served, I'm hearing.
Look at this.
Another story from the New York Times just the other day.
Hillary Clinton slams Bernie Sanders for not working to unite Democrats in 2016.
There is no winning.
They will not concede.
They will not give you ground.
Stop playing their game.
But Bernie won't do it.
He apologized.
Joe Biden isn't corrupt.
I'm so sorry.
Okay.
In a podcast interview on Friday, Mrs. Clinton also described the caucuses in Iowa, where Mr. Sanders leads in some polls, as undemocratic.
They're cheating.
They cheated.
And they will cheat again.
And Bernie can't save his own skin.
In 2016, Bernie Sanders' hard fight for Hillary Clinton.
How'd that pay off, Bernie?
Did it earn you the respect from the establishment you were so desperately trying to receive?
No.
They're still coming after you.
Trump learned that lesson.
Trump knew.
Well, Trump's also pretty arrogant and thinks he knows better, so he just rejected everybody and yells.
He takes that microphone.
He seizes it.
And that's why he won.
Bernie doesn't have the strength.
So you look at Bernie, and he's a mirror image to Trump in a lot of ways.
They have similarities.
But what do you think it's going to look like when Bernie's debating Trump?
That's why the Democratic establishment is cheating so hard.
Well, too bad.
The people deserve to hear a debate between Bernie and Trump, if that's what the Democrat voters really want.
I have no faith in this system.
Now I'll tell you what really makes me angry.
Rashida Tlaib.
Basically apologized.
Because in an event they said, you know, don't burn, don't boo Hillary Clinton.
And Rashida Tlaib said, no I will.
And I was like, for once, Rashida Tlaib and I stand in complete agreement.
Absolutely boo Hillary Clinton.
An authoritarian warmonger who cheats the DNC and steals the democratic process.
There is no democratic election in this country if the DNC keeps cheating.
Cheating, cheating, cheating over and over and over again.
So why should I have faith in that system?
And why shouldn't I boo Hillary Clinton or any one of these crony establishment Democrats?
Even though I know I'm not a fan of Bernie.
I mean, look, I gotta be honest.
I don't even know if I want to vote for Yang in the primary anymore.
Maybe I should.
But the whole system is so corrupt, I don't know if it deserves my vote of confidence.
I've always felt That the best thing you can do is not vote because it sends a message of no confidence.
I feel like if I participate in their system, I'm acknowledging there's a chance that it might work.
I don't believe it will.
They've cheated Yang already.
They're going to cheat him again.
Why should I bother participating in their broken system where I know they're cheating?
Think about it this way.
Let's say you're sitting at a table with some friends.
You're playing Monopoly.
And you catch your friend repeatedly stealing money from the bank.
Are you going to keep playing?
You're going to be like, I know I'm not going to win.
I'm watching them cheat.
They won't stop.
So what's the point?
I'm going to walk away and go do my own thing.
It doesn't mean I'll vote for any of the Republicans.
It just means they don't deserve that number on their Democratic voter roll.
Because they're cheaters.
And I think at this point, enough is enough.
Rashida Tlaib, you should not have said this.
I respect you for booing Hillary Clinton.
I do.
I don't respect you for dancing around impeachment.
Fine.
But calling out Trump all day and night, I got no problem with.
You want to call him all the names in the book?
Hey, it's America.
It's free speech.
Fine.
I'll disagree.
I don't think he's that bad.
I think Hillary Clinton's way worse.
So I'm like, hey, if you boo, express yourself.
Don't apologize.
And she did.
Sort of.
She said, in this instance, I allowed my disappointment with Secretary Clinton's latest comments about Sanders and his supporters to get the best of me.
You all, my sisters in service on stage, and our movement deserve better.
Yeah, better than Clinton.
They deserve someone like you actually booing Clinton.
Get these crony types out.
I'll tell you this.
I can disagree with so much that Rashida and Omar the Squad stand for, but as long as they're playing by the rules and honestly representing what they believe, I'm cool with it.
We'll argue.
We'll debate.
I think AOC is more obsessed with celebrity.
Fine.
And I think they have some bad ideas, and I question some of their moral character.
Yes, I do.
But look at the establishment.
Look at what the establishment DNC types are doing.
They don't even care about the process.
They don't even care to try and convince you.
Listen, if Bernie comes out and whispers sweet nothings into your ears, at least he's giving you the benefit of lying to your face.
Okay, I think that's a little harsh, but the wealth tax makes no sense.
I'm sorry.
If Bernie really believes what he's saying, I can respect that.
Then I just think he's wrong.
And that's fine.
That's what we do in this country.
We debate, and sometimes people who are wrong win.
But we actually have the discussion.
What the establishment DNC does is they hide behind the scenes and subvert the entire process so you never mattered in the first place.
You know what, man?
I'll tell you this.
CNN's Toobin on how history will remember impeachment.
Trump won.
For all of their stupid games, they have lost every step of the way.
So I look forward to Democrat cheating backfires.
I am gonna make a thumbnail for that video and I'm going to mount it on my wall just waiting for the day I get to make the video where it says the Democrats cheated and it backfired.
I'm just waiting for it.
Because here's what's gonna happen.
Like I mentioned, Bloomberg will split the moderate votes, giving Bernie the win.
Congratulations.
That's what you have to look forward to.
And while all that is going on, the RNC closes out best ever non-presidential year with record numbers for December.
Well, you know what?
I think the Republicans are ineffective and weak.
I am sick and tired of hearing of these scandals.
I am sick and tired of Russiagate, Ukrainegate, whatever nonsense, impeachment or otherwise.
You see how they treat their own party, right?
You see how Hillary Clinton treats her own party, right?
Where are the Republicans to stop the insanity when it targets them?
They don't do it.
They should have called witnesses.
You know why?
Because they should have called Hunter Biden.
And so be it.
Bring them out.
If Trump did wrong, so be it.
But if you don't think Trump did, then I'd look forward to hearing from the people who can explain what Hunter Biden was doing.
Or how about Voldemort, as I call him, the man I'm not allowed to name, the whistleblower, and Adam Schiff's staff.
They could have.
They didn't want to.
So now they've given in to Schumer's demand, and come Wednesday they'll have the final vote, probably acquitting Trump.
So I'll tell you this.
The Republicans deserve their record numbers.
They deserve to win on impeachment.
And they deserve to win on Russiagate.
But barely.
It's about time they stood up.
Because I don't care.
It's not about policy.
It's about your willingness to call out the cheaters who are subverting our system.
At the same time, they claim it's Trump who's doing that.
I don't care if Trump is or isn't.
I can see you doing it.
So how about all the Bernie supporters get behind Republicans launching an investigation of the establishment Democrats who are locking out your candidate?
If the progressive left could just get over the Orange Man Bad Trump Derangement Syndrome, they might actually get to see an investigation of the cronies who are stopping Sanders.
I wish that would happen.
I don't think it will.
So I'll leave it there.
You get the point.
The next segment is coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews starting at 6 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
The infamous Carlos Maza has just launched his own independent YouTube channel, which many people find hypocritical because he has routinely ragged on Google and YouTube and said all these things.
But he did give a statement recently and in his video explains that basically in his mind, he says there's no other game in town.
He's basically correct.
He says Google and YouTube are evil.
He's basically correct.
He says that they do damage to democracy.
Yeah, once again, Carlos Maza is correct.
And he says that for the time being, he will use the platform.
He might as well flood it with leftist propaganda and As far as his ideology goes, he's actually correct on that, too.
I mean, listen, I think his reasoning is totally sound, but I do think the YouTube community will not stand for this.
I'm not talking about YouTube politics.
I'm talking about every YouTuber that was freaking out when historical channels were getting purged because he started an adpocalypse against Steven Crowder.
But let me say one important thing first.
In an interview he just did, it is now, as far as I can tell, confirmed Carlos Maza got fired from Vox because of the fight he started with Steven Crowder.
Basically, the blowback was so bad on the rest of Vox's properties, they said, we're cancelling your show.
And he says as much.
I also want to add, I wish him the very best.
Absolutely.
I wish Carl Smaza the very best.
Look, you might not like the guy.
I think he's absolutely right for criticism, but I'm glad he's on YouTube, and I'm looking forward to seeing what he produces 100%.
I want to hear what the people I disagree with have to say, and more importantly, I think, with him on the platform, seeing how he's going to get affected by the things he's done will help open his eyes, and he will better understand.
And more importantly, he has friends in high places in media, and a lot of people follow him.
So I'm looking forward to him better understanding how YouTube will actually screw him over in all of these same circumstances, and perhaps if in the future he says, hey, this is actually a problem, this is hurting me and hurting my friends, you might actually see the other side come around a little bit.
More importantly, however...
I don't like petty games.
I almost didn't even want to do this video, but I think the news is actually just too important, because he basically says this is why I got, you know, fired from Vox.
No fan of Vox on my end, and I think, to an extent, well, look, I guess we'll throw the, it's a private company, they can do what they want argument.
But, at any rate, I don't like playing stupid YouTube versus YouTube games.
I really do hope he's successful on the platform, because as much as I may disagree with Carlos, and disagree with the content he's done, and how he used his platform at Vox to hurt the YouTube community in general, again, not politics, I'm talking about people who make, like, race car videos and video game videos.
I do think corporate media is substantially worse.
I think corporate media has special interests, and they will lie, cheat, and steal, and he was a part of that machine.
I'd much rather see him as another independent leftist creator on YouTube, for which we could debate.
Of course, then, if you debated Carlos Maza on YouTube, he would get roped into the network of evil, or whatever they call it.
Let's do this.
Let's jump over to this article from Vox, and I've got several points I want to make before I read this.
Julia Alexander over the Verge writes, Carlos Maza is back on YouTube and ready to fight.
Maza is leaving Vox to pursue being a full-time YouTube creator.
And they don't really talk about how he damaged What, thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of personal lives that have nothing to do with politics?
That his personal spat with Steven Crowder over Crowder's naughty words resulted in some people losing their jobs.
It resulted in some archival institutions losing access to archival historical footage.
I'm not exaggerating.
That all happened.
They try to deflect blame.
Here's the first point I want to make.
And I want to show you this part where he says, basically, here's why I got fired.
He says cancelled, but, you know, same thing.
When a leftist YouTuber...
Starts a channel, or starts doing well.
Their allies in media, at these large and powerful mainstream corporations, write puff pieces to promote their channels and boost their subscriber counts.
They've done it to many of them.
They get these long articles praising them, and because it's all positive, it allows them to use it as a source on Wikipedia to say all of these really great things about them, while simultaneously, they write fake news about me and other creators so that it can go into the Wikipedia record.
Insane nonsense.
They actively try to hurt people who disagree with the leftist narrative, especially liberals.
It's what a lot of conservatives don't believe.
They've always hated the conservatives, but they think liberals stand in their way because we're on the left, but stopping them from fomenting a revolution.
So they really, really don't like us.
People like Mazza will work at Vox.
He'll say all of these things that are entirely destructive to YouTube and the company he works for, resulting in his removal.
And The Verge, which is a Vox.com property, will then promote his channel after he's gone.
Now what ends up happening is when you look at the outrage campaigns, which for some reason work because Silicon Valley Venture Capital backs these media companies, you can see that on my channels, I no longer get recommended.
Straight up.
Recommendations are down 95%.
And then you look at these leftist YouTubers, who I don't want to call out because I don't have any personal beef with them necessarily, and their recommendations are down a little bit, but still maintaining themselves.
So a better example is, a better way to describe it, My channel almost exclusively redirects to Fox News.
Why?
I've had a lot of high-level conversations with YouTube and networks and I've asked.
When you watch Tucker Carlson and he talks about immigration and all these issues, he gives you a hard conservative perspective.
When you watch me, I'm actually to the left of Tucker.
I'm a moderate.
So why does it make sense to send my viewers to Fox News?
Are you trying to make them hear a more conservative perspective if they're interested in a more moderate perspective?
But better yet, why are you sending Jimmy Doors, Bernie Sanders-supporting followers, to Fox News as well?
And that's what they're doing, and it's the result of campaigns from people like Maza.
Now again, I'm not taking any personal swipes at Carlos.
I'm actually, I think his video is actually not too bad.
I don't think it was too good.
I'm not trying to, you know.
I think he launched his first video, and I really do mean it when I say I hope he does well, but I know this.
I know that the YouTube community is not going to stand for it.
This guy caused way too much damage.
He hurt way too many people.
He didn't seem to care, and now he comes to this platform expecting to use it, even though I understand it is basically the only game in town.
I think he made good points on that.
I just think you're going to see all of his videos brigaded, and they're going to push him off the platform.
Well, maybe he'll just stay on it, regardless of all the downvotes he ends up getting, but I can't imagine... Like, listen, I'm not talking about conservatives, I'm not talking about political commentary, I'm literally talking about, like, gaming YouTube channels that saw their revenue decline, and the fans of those channels, and those Minecraft channels, and they're gonna be like, this is the dude that tried to hurt all of us and the people we love has nothing to do with politics.
Let's read the story, though, just a little bit.
Because, admittedly, The Verge is giving him a puff piece since promoting his channel.
His channel isn't particularly big right now or anything, but because of what Carlos did with his platform at Vox, I think this is particularly news relevant.
But the most important thing, what we all speculated, that Carlos Maza was fired from Vox because of the fight he started with Steven Crowder, He now confirms this.
Carlos Maza himself confirms this.
Now, I will try and clarify because I do want to avoid being a bit hyperbolic.
I say Carlos Maza started the fight with Crowder because while Crowder can be bombastic or condescending or even mean, okay, someone responding to you when you make a YouTube video is not starting a fight with you.
It's a political argument.
Now, you can argue that Crowder used naughty words and all that stuff, but look, I looked at a bunch of Maza's videos.
He calls himself these names.
So if you're trying to play into the framework he's created, he's basically said, I'm gonna call myself this, and then if you respond in that way, he's then going to be like, oh no, look, he's calling me names.
Personally, I wouldn't say the things that Steven Crowder said.
He's also a comedian who says offensive things.
There is a line, and it's difficult to know where it is, but it's certainly not banning Crowder, and, you know, you wanna have a discussion about how we do back and forth between YouTubers, fine, but I think everything that happened was a ridiculous net negative for literally everybody, and the person who initiated the conflict, who went after advertisers, and launched the campaign, and would not relent, was Carlos Maza.
Now my speculation was that Karl Smaza got fired, not necessarily because he started the fight, you know, or escalated to an extreme degree, but because he would not stop.
When I saw every tweet he was putting out that was like, Crowder, Crowder, Crowder, Crowder, YouTube, Crowder, Crowder.
I can only imagine the higher-ups at Vox were like, dude, chill.
Calm down.
Stop talking about this.
You're becoming obsessed.
And he wouldn't do it.
So eventually they were like, enough.
Well, apparently what's happened is that the blowback, the people going to other Vox videos and just downvoting to Oblivion, had a serious impact on their network.
And they said, you're done.
We're getting rid of you.
So guess what?
Cancel culture worked, and Carlos Mazda got canceled.
That's actually what he says.
So The Verge writes, he's back on YouTube and ready to fight.
His video, if you watched it, is very similar to ContraPoints, where he has these multiple characters.
But it's really funny that he literally says centrists are basically fascists.
It's the weirdest thing, but he does.
But you know, hey, your opinion's your opinion.
So let's go down.
Let's go down.
Actually, let me just read, okay?
Here's a quote.
The YouTube situation that happened over the summer.
Before it happened, I think I made one video about YouTube I wasn't interested, Mazza says.
It just happened to become inevitable to talk about the platform as it existed because it effed with my ability to do my job.
Now YouTube is one of the biggest threats.
It's how a huge chunk of the public gets their news.
Threats.
I'll tell you the reality.
People choose what they want to see, there's no algorithmic nightmare, and he just doesn't like the fact that his ideas are substantially less popular.
He says, or they want to say, it's easy to question why Maza is moving to YouTube if he detests the company so much.
YouTube remains one of the few platforms for user-generated content in a video-on-demand format that allows creators to monetize their work and reach a massive audience.
Many popular YouTube creators have publicly spoken about being willing to leave YouTube for an alternative platform if there was an alternative, and Julia, I believe, got comments for me on this exact same issue, which I think is a good point to make.
This is why...
Look, you want to argue someone's opinions, absolutely.
I do not believe that, you know, Carlos Maza is worthy of insult or derision, to an extent, because of his opinions.
I think his opinions are worthy of criticism and debate.
I think if you want to be derisive over what he did to YouTube, it's an entirely different story, though.
I'm someone who tries to avoid that.
So, again, I will stress, I really do sincerely mean it.
I hope he does well on the platform.
I think a robust debate between various ideas is a good thing, and I think him getting a real perspective as to what YouTube does to his ideas will be good.
That being said, because of his allies in media, it's negatively impacting those who don't hold leftist views, so it could be a net detriment, but let's read on.
He says, I effing hate that I have to use this platform because there's nowhere else to go.
Not entirely true, okay?
There are many other platforms, but, you know, if you want to use YouTube.
YouTube is managed by bad people, and it's evil in ways that people don't recognize.
The company truly does not give a f about the damage it does to democracy.
Yeah, and for me, my perspective is, the damage you helped cause.
That's the damage you helped cause towards democracy.
He says, I'm kicking and screaming working with the company in that way, but it's only because there's absolutely nowhere else to go.
I mean, that's just absolutely not true.
There's Vimeo, there's BitChute, there's Minds, there's a bunch of other platforms you can use.
You could upload your videos to Facebook or Twitter.
The reality is, Mazza wants to make money.
That's why he uses YouTube.
Let me be honest.
I use YouTube because I'm running a business.
But I'm not a socialist.
I am unabashedly capitalist, knowing that YouTube, with all of its faults, is the best course to sustaining my business, growing an audience, and making money.
I'd prefer competition.
I'd like to see it emerge for the time being.
I have no problem saying that.
Hey, guess what?
YouTube makes money.
Now, Maza claims to be ideologically driven and hates the platform, but in the end, it's because it's the fastest way for him to get paid.
If he was truly, you know, wanting to use Patreon or other platforms, he could upload to anything else.
A lot of progressives and anti-war leftists use Mines, for instance, and BitChute is certainly available.
They say, "...monetization isn't simple on YouTube, though.
Certain subjects that aren't considered advertiser-friendly may not be able to run ads,
and creators have accused YouTube of suppressing views for videos that deal with sensitive subject matters.
YouTube executives have denied these allegations in the past.
I think it's extremely likely Mazza will be hard demonetized across the board."
Listen, in his introductory video, he says he's proud Antifa.
Okay, well that's not monetizable.
It's not.
I know for a fact.
Criticizing them is not monetizable.
Supporting them certainly won't be.
So I really doubt.
I think he might put out ideas that are gonna be really, really sensitive.
They say he doesn't expect to earn much money, but they go on to say he's gonna use Patreon like many other people.
If I thought that was the case, you know, sure.
I don't think so though.
I think he wants to be on YouTube for the ad revenue.
So let's get to the point where he got fired.
It's not because I want to be another Crowder on YouTube, but I think I'm better at my job being independent.
I do think YouTube is part of the future of political commentary and political debate.
There's good and bad to that.
That means someone like me could survive viably on YouTube.
It also means that complete A-hats, people with no research, and who are motivated by pure ideology can also do well on YouTube.
I mean, is that a... The ideology part, is that a reference to yourself?
Because Maza's driven by ideology.
I mean, he makes a video where he says centrists are basically fascists.
Or bootlickers.
And then he says, how could you be a centrist and a fascist?
And they go, hmm, hmm.
And he makes a point, like, he actually thinks that.
Like, you know, there's a whole other quadrant of the political compass.
So, he's absolutely driven by ideology.
And most people, to an extent, are.
Now, here we go.
Here's the juicy bits.
Mazif feels being independent offers him more trust from viewers as well.
He says he was frustrated during the Crowder controversy in part because much of the criticism he received was from people who considered him a cog in the NBCUniversal machine.
Well, how convenient that NBCUniversal got substantial damage to one of its major competitors, YouTube, when he was making these videos.
And unsurprisingly, when he started causing damage to them, which he then explains, they cut him loose.
He says there is no organizational or editorial overlap between the two companies, NBC and Vox.
People saw Crowder as an independent pundit, Mazza says, but he felt they couldn't see past Vox or NBCUniversal when looking at his criticism over YouTube's policies.
That's because you were funded and promoted by a massive $200 million investment.
Crowder had to build up his channel over time, Without that help from major networks.
I don't know if Crowder brought an investment, but he did gradually build up his channel over a very, very long period of time.
You, on the other hand, were given the megaphone by a megacorporation.
So yes, you were a cog in their machine.
Ultimately, they didn't like it though, and here's where it gets good.
Strikethrough, his show, was officially cancelled in July 2019.
Vox.com decided to end the show citing a lack of editorial support, Mazza says.
He added that Strikethrough was becoming, quote, too much of a logistical and resource investment, plus, blowback against Strikethrough was beginning to hit other parts of the team.
Every Vox.com producer, not just me, was getting their comments section wrecked and a lot of blowback in general, says Mazza.
As the situation escalated, Mazza felt like he put Vox.com in a tricky position.
He said, I'm a media critic and my job is to critique the media.
It's hard to do that while working with a corporate media company.
Going independent has always been a dream.
To criticize actors that you like, go beyond Fox News and the far right.
Ideally, you want to be a media critic without being penalized by your employer, so that's the goal.
It felt safer and smarter to go independent.
I absolutely applaud this, and I mean this sincerely.
Carlos Maza and the entrepreneurial spirit about why you should be your own boss.
You will always be accountable to somebody else, someone who will pay you for some reason.
You know, when I was younger, I always said, you know, I don't want, I want to be my own boss.
And my dad said to me, who's going to pay your bills?
Who's going to give you money?
I'm like, I don't know my customers.
And he's like, so if the customer tells you to do something and you don't do it, guess what?
You don't get paid.
Congratulations.
There's always someone you'll be accountable to.
It is different being your own boss though, especially on YouTube.
I can make the content I want now.
Let's take a look back at what he said. They say Strike Thru was officially cancelled in July of
2019. They decided to end the show citing lack of editorial support. Okay, maybe it's fair to say
they just wanted to cancel his show that got like a million views per video that the left really
loved because of editorial support. I would be surprised if they couldn't afford to do it.
But then he says they were getting blowback as the situation escalated Mazza felt like he put
Vox in a tricky position. It's clear as day. I'm going to give you my personal opinion based on
He did say, okay, in no uncertain terms, because of, you know, the escalation, the situation was escalating, all of these other Vox properties were getting blowback.
To me, that sounds like the real reason why he was terminated.
That's why they canceled the show.
Listen, too much of a logistical and resource investment.
What does that mean?
In my opinion, the damage done to the Vox.com YouTube channel and properties because of the blowback was costing too much money.
He was obsessed, he was relentless on Twitter, and he's basically said, at least in part, he's confirmed, The blowback against Strikethrough.
Okay.
He didn't come out and say, they fired me because of Crowder.
I want to make sure that's clear.
I want to be as fair as I can.
He did say, however, it was editorial support plus the blowback was beginning to hit other parts of the team.
There it is.
Maza couldn't let the fight go.
It was bad for Vox.com.
It was bad for YouTube.
And why would YouTube do a continued deal with Vox, which apparently they've done, if he's actively trashing the platform, causing YouTube serious harm?
Think about it simply.
It wasn't just the blowback to Vox, although Carlos Maza has confirmed that.
It was that YouTube was taking hits across the board.
Video game creators, celebrities, podcasts, literally everybody lost money.
Historical archives were shut down.
YouTube went in full panic mode, in my opinion, because they're spineless and terrified when they shouldn't be.
They have tremendous leverage, and it was because of one man, Carlos Maza.
That brings me to my final point.
Listen.
There is data published by a researcher named Mark Ledwich, and you can see everyone has taken an algorithmic hit.
YouTube is now promoting Fox News and MSNBC over most political commentary.
The leftists who do philosophy and talk about issues like socialism are fine, but the people who use political party references are having all of their audience members Pushed to Fox News and MSNBC.
Major podcasts have taken huge hits, even news organizations.
And it's all because of one man who was upset over the naughty words from one of his critics.
Now, of course, The Verge and all these other outlets will say Crowder was harassing him.
Very light definition of the phrase.
Steven Crowder used naughty words?
He was potentially mean-spirited, if that's what your interpretation, but grow up.
If you think it was bad then, wait till you see what happens now that you're coming to the platform you caused serious damage to.
Wait till you see what happens when the people who have lost their entire careers because of you see you now trying to use that platform on your own.
Personally, I'd like to see him do well.
I mean that for literally everybody.
If your ideas deserve to succeed, so be it.
But I will absolutely condemn and criticize his underhanded tactics, and I think he deserves harsh criticism for what he's done.
I do not play petty games, so I'm not gonna say, you know, I'm not gonna insult him.
No, I think it's fair that he wants to enter the fray and do what he's gonna do.
But don't be surprised when people start talking about what you've done, criticize you for doing it, and make videos like this over it.
I am probably not, you know, I'm not one of these people who finds a YouTube video from someone like, you know, Reuben or Hbomberguy and I'm like, look how dumb they are!
I don't do that.
I hate that.
And I think it's absolutely silly how many people take videos from me and then base their whole world on what some dude in his basement thinks when he talks on YouTube.
I get it.
We're all gaining influence.
Joe Rogan had a serious impact on the election and the news cycle.
He's the biggest in the world, okay?
So there's a difference between me and Carlos Maza and, you know, ContraPoints and David Pakman or Steven Crowder.
Crowder is particularly influential.
He is.
So if you're working for a major corporation like Vox, I think it's absolutely fair to criticize the major corporation.
It's the idea of punching up, right?
You'll never see me play a game going after silly little YouTubers.
I did a video criticizing Rogan when he had Jack Dorsey on, and that's because Joe Rogan's the biggest in the world.
But even when I do that, I try not to be, I don't know, mean about it for the most part?
So, for the time being, I know that doing this video will probably result in a lot of people being, you know, mad.
Please don't direct your ire to his channel.
Please don't do any of that stuff.
I can't stand that.
The only reason I wanted to do this story is because Carlos is extremely influential.
Even if his channel is small right now, he had a massive impact on the world, whether he wants to admit it or not.
And I think it was for the negative.
I think he hurt democracy very much so.
You're not going to see me make videos about tiny little YouTube creators or people who are even... You know, it's crazy to me that there could be somebody who has a similar sized channel to me.
I'm not going to make a criticism video going after them.
I've done one or two things like that in the past.
I'm just totally over it.
I want to talk about things that are important.
I want to talk about high-profile personalities and politicians, things that are impacting the world.
There may be some talk of YouTubers like this...
Carlos Maza coming from, you know, an NBC property, but I really, really can't stand how petty people can be on YouTube when they just love the TMZ style, like, there's one creator who just loves to, like, screen-grab my videos and then just make stupid commentary, and it works and he makes money.
I'm not going to play that game.
I want to talk specifically about what Carlos Maza did, the impact of his fight with Crowder, and I really do mean it when I say I wish nothing but the best for everybody.
I am, I, you know what it is, if your idea is good enough, then so be it.
But if Carlos Maza starts doing what he did at Vox and tries damaging people's livelihoods with deceit and misinformation or anything like that, I'll absolutely criticize the guy.
And it's not because he's on YouTube, it's because he literally is a personality with influence who has impacted the world.
I think it's fair to criticize anybody, so I'll leave it there.
As much as a lot of people are gonna get angry, they're like, stop defending him!
You know what, man?
You gotta be careful.
You gotta be tactful.
You have to approach your conflicts with poise and dignity and integrity.
And I very much so look forward to challenging his ideas when it's merited.
But I do not like derision and brigading and insulting.
I think that's pathetic.
Alright?
Let's see what Carlos Maza has to say.
Let's see how his opinions change now that he's on YouTube.
But I think it's fair to point out You don't gotta be like me.
You do you, okay?
I just prefer civility because I'm that enlightened centrist, aren't I?
But I'd prefer, you know, people not brigading and insulting.
However, it doesn't matter what I think.
I'm not the boss of you or anybody else.
So I think the YouTube community is gonna be furious that he is now trying to start a channel because he wants to make money.
If he didn't want to make money, he'd go launch a channel on any other platform.
Because there are other video hosting platforms.
I mean, Vimeo, obviously.
But there are smaller video hosting platforms he could easily go to, and there's a lot!
He doesn't want to.
He wants to use the YouTube platform to make money after he just ruined the careers of many, many people.
I don't think the YouTube community would stand for that.
That's just me.
Other than that, I'm gonna mind my own business.
I'm not gonna talk about the guy beyond, you know, this issue.
But I did think it was extremely important when we heard the blowback to Vox was so bad that he felt it contributed to his cancellation.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
Far-left protesters and anti-fascists stormed into Grand Central Station and protested, which is fine, but then started vandalizing public property, which is not fine.
And I find it particularly funny they're demanding that the MTA, the metro system in New York, be free when it's literally a publicly funded system.
I don't know what you think's gonna happen.
People are already paying taxes to support it.
But they don't want any fare at all because poor people can't use it.
And the primary reason for the protest is that people have been arrested for turnstile jumping because they can't afford the $2.75.
The response from Antifa was to open the emergency exits, chain them open, pour glue into the machines damaging public property.
Because, you know what I find so funny about this is, look, I get it if it was privately owned and you wanted to nationalize it, I disagree, but this is literally publicly owned.
It's like everybody uses it.
The penalties for skipping out on it is because we're all pitching in to support the system.
Oh heavens, Tim Pool, the liberal capitalist reformer.
But before we read the story and I show you all the vandalism and stupidity, I'll say a couple things.
First, apparently there's like a viral clip going around where the cops arrested one guy and he yells like, my dad works for the court.
Oh, go figure.
Yes, yell to daddy.
No, I'm sorry.
If you commit a crime, break the law, you get arrested.
And while I fully respect the right to protest, I'll shout out some criticism towards Rudy Giuliani.
He said this was the city I worked to reform, and the image he posted was just general uproarious protest.
Nah.
I am totally 100% in favor.
Of people getting signs and protesting and expressing their First Amendment rights.
And I fully recognize, as someone who worked for non-profits, sometimes you get arrested doing this.
Civil disobedience results in arrest, because we have laws.
If they're broken, you get arrested.
But through that process, we've actually reformed a lot of things.
So I think it's also fair that people get arrested when they obstruct public transit.
But I respect the protest.
I don't respect the vandalism.
But what you see on the screen is one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
I love it!
So Andy Ngo tweets, and the videographer is none other than Luke Rudkowski, we are change, who's like basically an anarchist.
He's like, I don't want to say he's like a total anarcho-capitalist, but he is like libertarian, far-left, bottom-center-right, super anti-government to a ridiculous degree, beyond libertarian.
And they're calling him a fascist.
Of all the people you're gonna surround and scream at, you pick the weird dude who wants to live in Mexico spending bitcoins.
Like, sorry man, there's a bunch of anarcho-communists and capitalists all living down there, and they pick out this guy?
Let me tell you something.
We'll jump over to the actual story here from the Daily Mail.
Let me give y'all some advice.
Luke, if you ever find yourself at a protest and a bunch of people start chanting fascist at you, here's what you don't do.
Don't look at them and yell, I'm not a fascist, because they don't know who you are.
What you do is you turn around and join them and start yelling fascist too, because these people don't know who they're yelling at.
You see, I was at an event at Columbia University in New York.
And some guy saw me filming.
Nobody knew who I was!
And he yells, Tim Pool is a fascist or something like that.
And a bunch of people start looking around, trying to figure out, who's Tim Pool?
So you know what I did?
I looked around too!
I was like, who are they talking about?
It's certainly not me.
And they couldn't figure it out.
And they eventually pointed to the wrong person, and some guy gets in the face of this journalist yelling out, he's the problem or something, and the guy's like, I don't understand what's happening, and then finally the dude goes, no, him!
And like, points to me, and I still tried playing it down, but then some other people recognized me, and they all started yelling at me.
It was really funny because some chick went up to the school administrator and started making up crazy lies about me, like literally off the top of her head, saying that I was a known provocateur who was, you know, secretly filming people and sending the information to violent groups.
It's like, just totally made up.
And when I say made up totally, Like, you can argue she was being hyperbolic or exaggerating to an extreme degree to try and make it seem like I was a bad person because I'm a journalist, but she didn't know who I was.
So she ended up standing there all confused, and no one else knew who I was, so they eventually just didn't care either.
When one person starts a chant, everyone just looks wherever they point and chants, and nobody knew who I was, so I actually had my press card, because this was, I think, was like shortly after I left ABC, and I had multiple press cards, and I just showed the administrator, and I'm like, I'm so sorry, I have no idea what they're talking about, I'm just a journalist.
And they were like, don't worry about it, you're cool.
These people are nuts, okay?
They're just angry people who have no idea what they're talking about.
And that brings me to the protest of the MTA.
You want to complain about the MTA and the problems it's facing?
Take your complaint to Ocasio-Cortez, who cost the city massive amounts of tax revenue by protesting against Amazon, and that money would have gone to fund the train system.
More importantly, I don't understand how they're going to pour glue into these turnstiles or complain about the cost when it's literally publicly funded.
You, as the public, are already taxpayer funding this, and they're already struggling to maintain it as it is.
If anything, they need to increase the cost.
The problem is, if they make it too expensive, then people can't use it.
The revenue goes down.
They're in a tight spot.
They need more money.
The MTA is failing.
Thank you, AOC, for taking those jobs away.
They're not getting it.
Making it free will just make it cease to exist.
These people don't seem to understand that.
The Daily Mail reports masked anti-cop protesters stormed Grand Central during rush hour and vandalized subway stations across New York in massive demonstration against $2.75 fares and police on trains.
They say roughly 500 protesters convened at Grand Central on Friday night, holding signs that read, Cops out of MTA.
$2.75 is not worth human life.
That's true.
And so there's a concern that I think the story actually has to do with someone actually getting... No, I don't think anybody died in New York City.
So here we go, here we go.
They say, early this month, New York's Attorney General Letitia James launched an investigation into whether the NYPD was targeting communities of color in fair evasion.
Let me just tell you right now, sometimes, yes, 100%.
There are cops that are racist.
They should be called out when they do that.
More importantly, however, they target high crime areas.
Poverty breeds crime.
So if you have historically impoverished communities, the police will police there because they're poor and it results in crime.
The problem I have with these people is they're surface-level activists.
They don't think about the real cause, so they do things like this.
But then you have the same problem with extremists on the other side who are racists, who think It's not poverty, it's literally race.
It's not.
It's poverty.
Period.
I know, because I grew up in a mixed area with white people who were crackheads too.
I got to see people of all races.
And on the other side, to the left, I also got to experience police abuse and brutality.
And how does that make sense?
Well, I guess technically I'm a minority.
But I had friends who were white, who dealt with police abuse.
It doesn't matter, okay?
Poverty doesn't know... Well, I should say, for the most part.
It's not about your race or gender.
It's about whether or not you live in a nice enough place with a fancy enough home and you have the means to defend yourself in court.
That's the sad reality.
Let's read.
They say...
New York police have made multiple arrests at Grand Central Terminal as droves of protesters took to the station to speak out against increased cop presence for the city's subway system.
Besides the action at Grand Central, protesters also vandalized station walls across the city and glued machines where commuters need to swipe their train cards to access turnstiles.
Turnstiles.
Protestors also put up locks on station doors, allowing multiple people access to train platforms without having to pay the $2.75 fare.
Various actions took place on Friday during the evening rush.
I can't show you some of the photos that have been published because they're really, really gross.
In fact, I probably can't even say them.
Let's just say that humans took some refuse from other humans and applied them quite liberally To vehicles of the NYPD, if you get my drift.
We can see here a bunch of photos.
I just gotta go back to how hilarious it is.
When I saw that video of Luke Rutkowski, like basically an anarchist, and they're surrounding him screaming fascist, which is the literal opposite of what the guy actually believes, it was just like watching a clown show.
It was just that funny.
They say some 1,400 police were dispatched to stations across the boroughs as a way to quell the protests.
CBS New York reports there have been no reports of NYPD officers getting injured in the protests.
Leaving Grand Central, protesters tried to continue their action at nearby Bryant Park, but police prevented the majority from entering the station there.
We can see some of these signs, police in the trains.
Still, some 100 activists managed to get access to the station at 6th Avenue and West 42nd Street and set off a green smoke bomb.
The massive group then made its way south along Broadway, indicating they would be ending at Restoration Plaza in Bedford-Stuyvesant in Brooklyn.
Protest group Decolonize This Place had taken to Twitter on Tuesday to share a warning about their protests.
The streets are ours.
The trains are ours.
The walls are ours.
The moment is ours, they said in the video.
How will you and your crew build an FS up for FTP3 on J31?
It's a mother effin' movement.
We got more.
Transit is a right.
Listen.
Transit isn't a private corporation, okay?
If they don't take fares, who will pay the people who maintain the system, build and repair the tracks, and control the trains?
Now perhaps we'll get to a point where we automate everything and those people lose their jobs, I guess, and then we can open the doors.
But the problem is the transit system is falling apart.
These people don't think about it.
They're mad that liberal reformers can't actually get the job done fast enough.
The solution is not to destroy the train system in response.
It's falling apart.
We actually need more money to fix it.
Unfortunately, thanks to Ocasio-Cortez, that tax revenue never came.
Carlos says, I'm really proud of this city.
Public transportation should be free, and cops should not be patrolling our trains and buses.
Well, interestingly, last time I was in L.A., I'm pretty sure they use an honor system for the train system.
I think D.C.
does.
A lot of places do the honor system.
So what happens is... It may have changed in Los Angeles.
I haven't been there.
I haven't lived there in a long time.
You just walk in.
There are turnstiles, but there's no... It's free.
You just walk past it.
You buy a ticket, put it in your pocket.
And then, when you'll get off the train, sometimes, There'll be cops waiting, and they want you to show their ticket.
There's a bunch of ways that people trick the cops.
They'll do things like, they'll get one of those charge cards, and then just, I don't know, maybe accidentally didn't swipe it or something.
What some people would do is they would put 20 bucks on those tap cards, and then when they left the train, the cop would ask you to scan it to see if you actually used it, and if it showed that you didn't, they'd say something like, look, there's money on it, I must have just missed, not, like, read it when I tapped it, I'm sorry, and the cops will let you go.
But oftentimes they catch people, they ticket them, they arrest them, and so what happens is people get off the train, or this is how it used to be, and one person would go scout, like look up the stairs, see if the cops were there, and then signal to their buddies who would jump back on the train to go to another train station where they can get off where there are no cops.
Anyway.
I think, I don't know how LA supports it, but I guess LA's transit system is very, very different.
I think New York has like 40-something train lines.
The Daily Mail says, just moments before the protests took place, NYPD Chief of Department Terrence Monaghan shared that the stations had been vandalized and that police were anticipating the protests.
This morning a group of individuals vandalized subway stations, he said.
We believe the same individuals will attempt to disrupt the evening commute in the subway by causing disorder, endangering commuters, and even attempting to physically assault our officers.
It will not be tolerated.
A woman recently fell on the tracks and lost her legs.
The last thing we need are people running around vandalizing and spray painting.
The last thing New York needs, I don't live there anymore, is a tiny, tiny fraction of individuals who demand free stuff, disrupt life for everyone else and the people who are working.
Now I get it.
It is a challenge when you can't afford to take the train and you want to find a way to find a job.
It is rough, it is.
But you're not entitled to any of this, okay?
It's not a right.
You can't make tangible objects produced by other people and their labor a right.
Because then how do you give it to literally everyone?
If you need a doctor to save your life, and everyone has a right to that doctor, how is it possible that doctor can help everyone?
Even if you have 10,000 doctors, you'll still have more non-doctors.
How can those doctors literally service everyone and save their lives?
It can't be done.
So you want access to certain things as a right.
We'll have a discussion about it.
But the idea that all healthcare is a right is just absurd.
Healthcare, as much as I want to make sure, and I'm willing to sacrifice to save your or anyone else's life, we still have to recognize resources are finite.
So you take a look at even public systems.
Transit is a right.
But you still have to contribute to that system to keep it alive.
They can't tell you you're not allowed to use the transit system because of certain characteristics about you.
But you still gotta pay because someone's driving that train.
Someone's working that station.
The funniest thing about this protest is they're literally protesting a public service already.
And my understanding is that New York and many other cities have reduced fare options for people who can't afford it.
Unfortunately, everyone's gotta pitch in.
You know what I tell people?
I'll put it this way.
Imagine there's a creek behind your property and it's not comfortable to cross because you'll get wet.
It's wide enough.
Let's say it's 10 feet.
Nobody's going to jump it.
So you decide you will build a small bridge.
That bridge can hold several people's weight, and it allows you and your family to get across.
You built it, you paid for it, you did all that stuff.
All of a sudden, people find the convenience of your bridge and start going on your property and crossing over it.
So, now the bridge is facing wear and tear.
But they say, but so what?
The bridge is already here.
And you say, yes.
But now with everyone walking on it, it's slowly starting to fall apart.
I have to fix it.
They won't.
Once the bridge finally collapses, they say, oh, no more bridge, and they stop coming.
And now you have no bridge.
Should you have a right to secure what you made?
Let's say you and all of the people in your neighborhood built the bridge together, and every day you pitch in a little bit to make sure that bridge is there.
And then other people, not from your community, find the convenience of that bridge and start using it, demanding it be free because it exists.
And then the bridge collapses, and then they stop coming because it's not convenient anymore.
You can't let people steal from the public!
These Antifa protesters in the far left aren't talking about protecting the poor, they're talking about stealing from the public.
It's funny, it's paradoxical.
It should be free!
Why for you, while we pay for it?
We built this together, and we're even being nice to you when you don't pay taxes, to only pitch in $2.75.
If you can't do it, I'm sorry.
But if we let everyone come on, there would be no train for everybody.
Have you considered getting a bike?
You can get cheap bikes.
I know it's not easy either.
And I feel for people who are poor and can't afford it.
I absolutely do.
And I think the police should probably not be as heavy-handed as they've been.
That's fine and fair to say.
But instead, they come in and destroy property.
They threaten people, they insult them, and then they complain they're the victims.
Sorry.
I'm not interested in playing a game like this.
So, let's just wrap up and see what eventually happened.
We'll get the final thoughts on this.
Look, it says, poverty is not a crime.
Make the MTA free.
Listen.
Nothing's stopping you from walking across the free bridges in New York.
When I lived in Brooklyn, I would purposefully ride my bike or even walk several miles to Manhattan because it was good for me, it was healthy.
I'd get up early and be like, I really need to walk, so I'm gonna walk across the bridge.
And it was like a two or three mile walk.
And it would take me a little while, but it felt good to get exercise.
I didn't need to get on the L train.
I could just walk.
So you want to talk about people, you want to talk about, you know, what should be or
shouldn't be free.
The Manhattan Bridge, the Williamsburg Bridge, the Brooklyn Bridge, they are all free.
But if you want a magical machine to carry you from one point to another, the labor has
to be paid for.
So guess what?
The bridges exist, and even though it's the taxpayers repairing them, they still let you use it for free.
Isn't this system great?
You're standing on the shoulders of giants with roads beneath your feet that you don't have to pay for.
Congratulations!
You shouldn't get the trains for free.
The streets are available to you, and so are the bridges, and maybe you'll just have to walk.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around, next segment's coming up at 4pm, youtube.com slash timcast is my main channel, it's a different channel, and I will see you all there.
A case of a crazy lady or severe Trump derangement syndrome?
We don't know for sure, but a woman recently stormed through the barricades at Mar-a-Lago and Secret Service apparently were shooting to kill Fortunately, I think she survived.
Unfortunately, she went nuts and did this attack in the first place.
But they looked at her social media and found traditional resistance type memes.
It's hard to say definitively in any case like this whether there was a real motive.
They're saying it's not terrorism related.
I gotta say though.
When you have somebody who, even a little bit, is posting about how they don't like the president, saying, not my president, and posting about the women's march and stuff, and then of all the places they decide to ram their car through, it's Mar-a-Lago, I really do lean towards severe Trump derangement syndrome.
Listen, the Secret Service were shooting to kill.
That's how serious this was.
Now, before we pass judgment, you all, I think it's fair to say I should read the story and I've given you my opinion.
The Daily Mail reports, Opera singer who rammed through Mar-a-Lago security blockade and narrowly escaped Secret Service bullets refuses to appear in court as neighbors recall other bizarre episodes and say she snapped.
Look at this picture.
For those that are listening, she's doing the Peter Strzok face.
You know that face where you, like, you tilt your head forward and then look up, and then you make an evil grin?
And Christine Blasey Ford, there's also photos of her doing it.
I don't know if they're poetic context, but the point is, you see this weird face emerge, and typically people associate it with some kind of, like, malintent.
I'm not trying to just blame people for looking a certain way.
I'm just saying she's giving a creepy look at her mugshot.
They say the Connecticut opera singer, who was arrested following a police-involved shooting at Mar-a-Lago security checkpoints, has refused to appear in court.
Hannah Romehill, 30, was charged with two counts of aggravated assault on a police officer in Palm Beach, Florida, after the incident on Friday, and may also face federal charges.
Romehild had been scheduled to appear in court on Saturday morning, but the hearing was abruptly cancelled and rescheduled for Monday.
Courthouse sources say that she refused to appear.
Palm Beach Sheriff Rick Bradshaw said the incident was not a terror thing, and that Romehild was obviously impaired somehow, as she rammed through blockades and then fled as the Secret Service opened fire shooting to kill.
Now, neighbors from Romehild's hometown of Middletown, Connecticut have come forward to describe her history of bizarre behavior, saying they feared something like this would happen.
So let me just... let me just stop.
Maybe it's all a coincidence.
Maybe she just posted some anti-Trump stuff because people tend to.
Maybe she was just impaired because some people are impaired.
And then she decided of all places to drive her car through Mar-a-Lago.
I think she was clearly deranged in general, you know?
But I think Trump was a motivation.
Let's read on.
They say...
One day we started hearing yells and she was just acting really out of character and I guess just snapped, neighbor Kathy Russo told WFSB TV.
There were days when she had off days, let's put it that way.
I see her go out and I would worry if she would be okay.
However, Russo said she never imagined that Romhild would be involved in something as shocking as a confrontation with the Secret Service.
It's not the Hannah I knew, Russo said.
At Romhild's own home, the lights were on but nobody answered the door, the CBS affiliate reported.
Romhild is a talented professional opera singer who has performed in Europe as well as Carnegie Hall in New York.
It's not clear whether Romhild knew that she was approaching Mar-a-Lago as she wildly fled a state trooper who had initially sought to question her about why she was dancing on top of her SUV at an upscale hotel nearby.
However, The Soprano made her disgust with Trump apparent on Facebook, where one of her posts included a sign reading, Not My President.
The post, from two days after Trump's inauguration, shows the Women's March in D.C.
and a crowd of people wearing pink hats.
You know the kinds I'm talking about.
One protester's sign reads, Not My President and Love Trump's Hate.
Months later, in June 2017, Romild also posted an image to Facebook appearing to mock Trump by showing an image of cartoon character Donald Duck morphing into the president.
A lot of people post those things.
Maybe it's nothing.
Maybe it's just that she was acting nuts.
She snapped when the cops started chasing her.
She just so happened to end up at Mar-a-Lago.
It's also entirely possible she was really freaking out about something entirely else.
Maybe it wasn't Trump Derangement Syndrome, but maybe she just doesn't like Trump, and so something else drove her mad, and then she decided to go to Mar-a-Lago.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I can only speculate.
But this happened, okay?
They were shooting at her, trying to, well, end her life.
She's also tweeted pro-Bernie stuff.
Not that I think that as, you know, could necessarily be anti-Trump, but perhaps.
This is a video from NowThisPolitics.
They say, Let me just stop and say pro-choice.
registered to vote as a Democrat in Middletown, Connecticut, Public Records show.
During the 2016 presidential primaries, she expressed her support for Sanders with a post
praising the Vermont Democrats' pro-abortion positions using the hashtag FeelTheBern.
Let me just stop and say pro-choice.
Let's avoid the overly biased language.
According to her Instagram account, Rohmhild was in Palm Beach for a performance on January
28, fresh off appearances in Los Angeles and San Diego.
So what was this, on the 28th?
I mean, this is at the peak of, like, the impeachment stuff, so there's a lot of news happening.
Perhaps it just got to her?
I don't know, I don't know.
They say, according to her Instagram account, she was there, okay.
Police say that she has no criminal history that they can identify, either in Florida or her home state of Connecticut.
They say the incident on Friday unfolded after a Florida state trooper responded to reports of a white woman acting irrationally and dancing on the top of a car in the parking lot of a motel near Mar-a-Lago.
When the trooper arrived at the parking lot, Romild, who police say was impaired, got off the top of her car and into her black SUV.
Authorities say they approached her as she sat inside the SUV, but she would not respond when they tapped on the window.
The trooper smashed through the window glass when they saw her rifling through her glove box.
Rommel sped off and led police on a high-speed pursuit, at times driving on the wrong side of the road at speeds nearing 70 miles an hour.
I got a bunch of photos here.
We'll scroll through.
They say...
She crashed through two hours security checkpoints before authorities caught up to her and opened fire, according to police.
Romhild was speeding toward a third when Sheriff's deputies and Secret Service agents fired numerous rounds at her car.
She kept driving, and investigators believe she picked up a female relative before authorities located her car using a license plate reader.
That's nuts!
She got away?
As cops tracked her to a Studio 6 motel in West Palm Beach, she ran from her car outside a nearby motel and was tackled by a trooper.
So it sounds like she actually crashed through Mar-a-Lago and kept going.
So perhaps it's just a coincidence.
Although the rented SUV she was driving was riddled with bullet holes, it appears Rommel was completely unscathed.
Video of her arrest shows her being taken into custody in good condition with no apparent injuries.
The checkpoint that Romild crashed through, a series of concrete barriers and armed officers, is blocks away from the actual resort.
So, okay, okay, okay, now I'm gonna stop.
Perhaps it sounds like it's not really Trump Derangement Syndrome, because she didn't get anywhere near the actual resort.
But the Secret Service did fire us, this is crazy.
Sheriff Bradshaw said Romild wasn't even remotely close to getting into the inner perimeter of the resort in Palm Beach.
Romild is currently being held without bail at the Palm Beach County Jail.
It was not immediately clear if she had an attorney to speak on her behalf.
Trump was not at Mar-a-Lago at the time, but arrived at the resort with First Lady Melania Trump a few hours later at 727 on Friday.
President Trump and his wife are expected to spend some time at the weekend there.
Yada yada.
Oh, the Super Bowl.
That's right.
It's in Miami tomorrow.
January 5th, just hours after Trump and his family left the club following a two-week vacation, a Florida man who had been dishonorably discharged from the Marines for I'll just say it for sex offenses.
YouTube's gonna demonetize me.
They're gonna talk about a series of other things.
I'm not gonna get into the nitty-gritty details.
It seems like it's not Trump Derangement Syndrome.
It seems like...
She was already deranged, whatever it is she was doing, and she never really got close to the, you know, to Mar-a-Lago.
But the reason why it's so scary is because Trump Derangement Syndrome is real.
And I'm not joking.
They call it Trump Anxiety Disorder.
And we had a story recently where a dude and his girlfriend were watching Impeachment, and she apparently said it was boring and wanted to change it, so he started strangling her.
Okay?
Acute Trump Derangement Syndrome is a serious thing.
That being said, I think this is not that case.
It's possible.
It is.
Based on what we've read through, though, it's probably not.
And it seems like this is another case of a crazy lady.
And, I mean, you know, look, maybe Trump derangement syndrome adds to it?
But let me make a more important point.
If you have someone like her who is crazy, it's extremely dangerous to fill their minds with Trump-is-the-enemy rhetoric.
Like, a crazy person might go out and hurt themselves or others.
We want to prevent that.
We don't necessarily blame them if they're crazy and they have no idea what they're doing.
But don't give them, you know, a paranoid delusion.
And I think that's one of the craziest things we might be seeing.
Now, some people may be driven to crazy acts because of Trump derangement syndrome.
But there may be people who are already deranged, like this woman, who could be driven to particular acts against, say, the president and his family, because of the constant media barrage.
Now, I know many activists who absolutely are being driven to absurdity.
There are people I know who think the most insane things, and it's sad, really.
Kind of freaks me out.
Yet people like Rachel Maddow go nuts on TV, and they literally make people insane.
For whatever this story was, it may not be the case, but it still bears repeating, we shouldn't fill the minds of anyone with complete, insane, paranoid delusions.
Because one of these days, these stories will turn out to be legitimate and really dangerous, and then, you know, who knows what.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Well, well, well.
Mr. Mark Zuckerberg declares Facebook is going to stand up for free expression and allow people to post what they want, but the CEO admits the new move will piss off a lot of people.
You wanna know my theory?
Mark Zuckerberg doesn't care about free expression.
He cares about who's gonna win.
And back when the left was putting pressure campaigns on them, and the media was as well, Zuckerberg said, we'll do what the establishment wants.
We'll ban Milo Yiannopoulos and Laura Loomer and Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones.
And now he's saying, well, you know what?
Maybe we should just let him do it.
And you know why I think he's saying it?
I think it's become clear to everyone who's going to win, and who's bad side you don't want to be on.
And that would be Donald Trump.
Facebook banned some of the most prominent Trump supporters.
And now that Trump is still on track to win, I think Zuckerberg is hedging his bets.
Which is kind of funny.
Not just my opinion.
It may be that Zuckerberg realized it was bad for business to be overly censorious because people started leaving Facebook.
Maybe he realized if you take away what makes the platform fun and exciting, no one wants to be on that platform.
One of the big mistakes YouTube did was banning conspiracy content.
You know why?
Not everybody who watches it believes all the insane nonsense, for the same reason we watch ancient aliens.
It's fun to think the world can be magical, or that other things, you know, in the world that we don't know of yet exist.
Yeah, some people fall for it, that's unfortunate, but let people post what they want so we can hear things and be entertained.
Zuckerberg apparently learned the lesson the hard way.
And if it comes to the Republicans winning again, Trump's final term, we're gonna see some legislation to seriously, well, regulate these social media companies.
And you know Zuckerberg doesn't want that.
Especially with Elizabeth Warren coming out saying she'd regulate him.
Yeah, all of a sudden he changed his tune.
Wait, wait, wait!
No, no!
Protect the people who support Trump because the Democrats are coming for me!
Ah.
I don't trust Mark Zuckerberg anyway.
He can say whatever he wants.
Let me know when you reinstate the accounts of those individuals like Milo, Laura, and Paul and otherwise.
Otherwise, I don't think you're being serious.
Oh, you can change your tune now and leave everyone you've banned, banned.
But if you were serious, you would unban them.
Yeah, he's not gonna do it.
We'll see.
The Daily Mail says, Mark Zuckerberg has declared that Facebook is going to stand up for free expression in spite of the fact that it will piss off a lot of people.
The controversial CEO, 35, made the claim during a fiery appearance at the Silicon Slopes Tech Summit in Utah on Friday.
Full stop, though.
I was surprised to realize Mark Zuckerberg is like a year and a half older than me.
Anyway, Zuckerberg told the audience that Facebook had previously tried to resist moves that would be branded as too offensive, but says he now believes he is being asked to partake in excessive censorship.
Asked to?
You literally did!
And still do.
Increasingly, we're getting called to censor a lot of different kinds of content that makes me really uncomfortable.
What did every single one of us fighting for legit free expression say?
If you ban this, they will not stop demanding more get banned.
And you literally can't ban everything, can you?
Hop over to YouTube, where the once plethora of content has whittled down to basically a low-tier, you know, bargain bin version of Netflix.
I hopped over to YouTube search, and it was kind of shocking that all of the original YouTube content and the lower quality but personable style is gone.
They don't recommend my channel anymore, probably for that reason.
You do a search, what do you get?
You get a bunch of mainstream media and high-profile, plasticky, family-friendly garbage.
You know what's crazy to me?
It's when I watch podcasts and I watch shows, and they tell me my podcast can't be monetized because I talked about current events.
Are you nuts?
Every day on the TV, every single American hears about these events.
It is not taboo.
But YouTube is so scared in their boots, they're gonna strip away monetization and they're gonna ban people for talking about, I kid you not, news.
Yeah, okay, YouTube.
Well, let's see what Facebook ends up doing.
Admittedly, I do post my videos to Facebook, too.
But, you know, Facebook's not a great platform.
Well, let's read more.
Is it the Facebook founder went on to bemoan?
It kind of feels like the list of things that you're not allowed to say socially keeps growing, keeps on growing, and I'm not really okay with that.
Thank you!
Finally!
Look, man, I'm not ready to take Mark Zuckerberg's word for it, but at least he's saying it.
And I do try to give people the benefit of the doubt.
So instead of attacking him, or insulting him for doing the right thing or saying the right thing, I'm gonna let him do it.
I'm gonna see what he has to offer, and if he does the right thing and protects expression, well then, you know, everybody deserves a second chance.
He then declared, this new approach, free expression, this is the new approach, free expression, and I think it's going to piss off a lot of people, but frankly, the old approach was pissing off a lot of people too, so let's try something different.
Yes.
As you ban people, and then you have to ban more people, then eventually you've banned everyone from their platform.
And I pointed this out.
How can a social media platform exist when they're literally banning the thing that makes the social platform work?
Twitter purged a ton of the most interesting people.
Well, congratulations.
You made your platform crazier and much more boring.
Zuckerberg has been in the hot seat in recent months for refusing to ban political ads from Facebook, despite the fact fellow social media giant Twitter declared that they would stop sharing political advertisements.
The tech guru also stated that Facebook will not fact-check political ads, resulting in a highly publicized showdown on Capitol Hill with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Meanwhile, Zuckerberg's defiant appearance at the Utah Tech Summit came after Facebook disappointed Wall Street's expectations of fourth-quarter growth earlier this week.
The results reveal on Wednesday raised concerns that Facebook's days of astronomical growth were firmly in the rearview mirror, and shares of the world's biggest social network dropped 7.2% in extended trading.
And what could bring back content to Facebook?
Why?
Reinstating those you banned previously.
That'll bring the numbers back up.
Bring back those audiences you've chased away.
Well, that'll bring numbers up.
Maybe you shouldn't have chased them away in the first place.
And if you didn't do that, maybe your stock wouldn't have fallen.
Facebook reported its slowest ever revenue growth for the fourth quarter at 25%.
I'll also say, look man, at a certain point, Facebook saturates the market.
How much money can they really, really make?
You can't keep growing forever.
There is a plateau that everyone will reach simply on the basic fact that there's only so many people spending money in the world.
Unless Facebook starts, I don't know, making their own currency or something?
Elsewhere on Wednesday, the company pledged better protections for Facebook's users after the social media giant agreed to pay a $550 million settlement Wednesday over a lawsuit that claimed it illegally collected millions of users' biometric data without their consent.
Facebook did not admit wrongdoing in agreeing to the settlement, which requires court approval.
Zuckerberg has promised Facebook users privacy upgrades in light of the outcome of the suit, as the founder seeks to address the ongoing privacy concerns that have dogged the social media company.
Well, there's one more story on the other side, and I find it quite hilarious.
He's wrong.
Facebook hits back at George Soros after billionaire claimed the social media giant has a special relationship with Trump.
No, he doesn't.
He banned a bunch of Trump's most prominent supporters.
He's certainly negotiating with conservatives and other, you know, personalities in the Trump administration, and I believe the president himself.
But sure, I guess technically you could call it a special relationship, but in reality Zuckerberg's relationship is only with himself.
Okay?
What do I think he's motivated by?
benefiting his company, and that's it.
Now George Soros is mad because Mark Zuckerberg is flipping the script and now siding with the Trump narrative, defending the free expression, and the left is outraged.
So lo and behold, George Soros of all people is going to, excuse me, bemoan Zuckerberg, they say.
The liberal philanthropist made the comment in an op-ed published in the New York Times on Friday morning, arguing that Facebook would help Trump get re-elected in 2020.
On Friday afternoon, Facebook denied the allegations, saying that they are false.
While we respect Mr. Soros' right to voice his opinion, he's wrong, a spokesperson for Facebook said in a statement.
The notion that we are aligned with any one political figure or party runs counter to our values and the facts.
We continue making unprecedented investments to keep our platform safe, fight for interference in elections around the world, and commit misinformation.
Yet, just the other day, he said he's going to bring back free expression.
Well, we'll see what Zuckerberg actually wants to do.
But I do always try to keep these short, but I want to wrap up with something simple.
I know it doesn't matter for me to say for the most part, but I know a lot of people talk about YouTubers trying to hit a certain number.
I hope it's clear to everybody when you watch my earlier videos that are always like 20 or 30 minutes.
I can seriously talk forever, and I try to actually keep things down.
But some people don't like that, you know, when I talk about these stories, I don't say the general idea immediately.
Okay, let me tell you something.
I always try to make sure I open every video telling you exactly what happened.
And the reason why I might go over details you already know is because most people don't watch these things.
Most people who watch this probably don't know Elizabeth Warren said she would break up Facebook.
So I have to say all of this as I go, and it can be quite frustrating.
When I get a mix of comments from people who are saying, I have no idea what you're talking about, you need to explain this better, and the other side saying, we know this already, just move on.
Okay.
I can't do both.
But whatever.
To those of you who watch and appreciate what I do, thank you so much for watching, and I can only do what I do.
That's it.
So, in the spirit of stopping now and keeping these shorter, I'm going to do that.
Okay, no, I'm not.
I'm actually going to make this point.
It is true that YouTube heavily prioritizes videos that are over 10 minutes.
It's a whole part of the whole censorship argument.
That's why I'm doing this at the end of this video.
I don't do that.
I do not—well, maybe like 99% of the videos I do, I won't be like, oh no, I'm not gonna—you know, it's like, typically I can talk forever.
These videos, the ones I publish at 6.15 and 6.30, are all kept between 10 and 15 minutes on purpose, meaning I shorten them.
Otherwise, if a video comes out at 6, and you're still watching by 6.15, then you're not going to be able to catch the next segment.
I do, so it's supposed to be a continuous spot.
While some people catch these videos and they don't like the fact that it functions that way, I don't know, and they assume I'm keeping them, you know, I'm desperately trying to reach 10 minutes, it's not true.
I can talk forever.
Case in point, I'm literally doing another podcast Monday through Friday, so if you don't like what I have to say, don't watch.
To everyone else, thanks for hanging out.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all then.
Welcome to the nightmare future, where a virus is spreading rapidly, infecting tens of thousands of people with hundreds dead, and in response, the authoritarian government of China not only arrests the whistleblowers who are telling us the truth, but deploys giant drones to spray the city with unknown chemicals.
We've done it, everybody.
We have entered the sci-fi future, and boy, am I excited.
I can't wait till the United States deploys giant drones to police the streets and make sure, I don't know, Chemicals, drugs, crime, whatever it may be, I look forward to the giant Skynet Terminators policing our streets to keep us safe, while we cower in our residences, terrified that a virus will eventually wipe us out.
Or whatever boogeyman they decide to put forth.
But, um...
No, actually, yeah, the story is true.
Coronavirus drone army deployed to spray disinfectant across China cities.
This is one of, I'm actually gonna say, the coolest stories I've ever seen.
Now, I know, it's nightmarish and horrifying.
But you gotta admit, it's kinda cool, right?
Look, life is boring.
Many people jokingly say they wish for a zombie apocalypse because they're so excited and we love it.
Well, hey!
We're getting techno-censorship nightmare dystopia with drones flying around spraying chemicals on us!
That's cool, right?
It's almost like being in a movie.
At least life won't be boring when we all go up and... smoke.
China has deployed an army of drones to disperse disinfectant over villages and cities in the latest attempt to combat the spread of coronavirus.
I also gotta say, man, when you cross the threshold from arrest the whistleblowers into deploy the giant drone army, is it fair to say the coronavirus is a lot worse than they're telling us?
This is a whole new level of, dear lord, what is happening in China.
With tens of millions quarantined, and they're claiming it's only a 10 or so, you know, tens of thousands, maybe 10, 20,000 infected.
But they're quarantining tens of millions and deploying a drone army?
It sounds like the apocalypse, man.
They say at least 213 people have died from the killer disease since it was first contracted.
From a market in the city of Wuhan.
Full stop!
That's not confirmed.
Star, do your research.
The World Health Organization has since declared the outbreak a global emergency, with Brits trapped in the regions being evacuated on emergency flights.
Every region across the country has reported cases of coronavirus, and China has now taken to using drones to prevent the spread.
These are massive.
Footage posted to social media in the coastal provinces of Jilin, Shandong, and Zhejiang Shows drones hovering in the air as disinfectant liquid is sprayed from the underside.
Yikes!
What is this?
This is nuts!
Is that the only photo they have?
So that's it.
But there are other photos popping up and videos where you can see them spraying.
Boy, is this creepy.
They say one of the objects is seen being led along a street by its operator behind, also spraying a liquid onto the ground.
Aw, man, I thought they were autonomous Skynet-like drones being commanded remotely.
If there's people on the ground using remote control, that's just like, that's as boring as watching Casey Neistat film a vlog.
Sorry, I know, I'm kidding.
But here's where it gets more serious.
We can be funny all day and night, but check this out.
The Trump administration just declared coronavirus a public health emergency in the United States.
Something tells me they don't want us to panic, and it may be worse than it really is.
The challenge right now is, as I stated the other night, it's better to overreact than underreact.
A lot of people were concerned that there was an underreaction to SARS and MERS and these other flus.
And so it got worse.
And by overreacting to a simple coronavirus, we could actually prevent it.
Tell people it's, you know, make it seem worse than it is, so everyone overreacts, or overreact yourself, and you're more likely to prevent it, right?
Makes sense?
Let's read.
Buzzfeed reports.
A White House task force announced a nationwide public health emergency over the coronavirus outbreak Friday, triggering mandatory quarantines for U.S.
citizens traveling from the epicenter of the disease in China's Hubei province.
In a presidential proclamation, the task force also announced that President Trump would be barring foreign nationals from traveling from China From entering the U.S., relatives of U.S.
citizens would be allowed entry.
The orders will take effect on Sunday at 5 p.m.
Eastern Time.
It really is intended to stop the spread of this virus, CDC Director Robert Redfield said at a White House briefing on the NOW announcement.
He added that the current risk of the virus for people in the U.S.
is low.
I actually interviewed someone from the CDC a while ago about, I think it was Zika, and they have this really cool thing at the CDC.
It's this giant screen with a picture, like a map, a satellite map of the Earth, and they show, like, virus outbreaks.
Dude, it seriously looks like, you know, high-definition Plague Inc.
Have you ever played that game?
It was cool because they would highlight a country and it would show us all of the diseases they've tracked there.
It actually was pretty amazing.
So I gotta say, I got some good confidence in the CDC.
I can't speak for China, especially with this story.
China is begging Europe for help.
Premier Li Keqiang asks EU for medicine supplies to battle coronavirus outbreak.
Now that's freaking me out, man.
The World Health Organization says emergency, they've deployed the drones, and they're asking for foreign aid.
Look man, China is no, you know, tiny, weak country.
China is arguably a global superpower, with a massive economy, lots of resources, and they're asking Europe for help.
The Daily Mail reports.
China's Premier Li Keqiang has asked the European Union for medical supplies to help battle the coronavirus outbreak.
It comes as the number of deaths from coronavirus epidemic in China rose to 259, as the United States and other nations announced new border curbs on foreigners who have been in China.
Li spoke to the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen on the phone, a statement said.
You ever play Plague Inc., that mobile game?
It's good fun.
But this is kind of how things go.
The infection starts spreading, and then borders start getting shut down, and travel starts getting restricted.
One of the jokes going around is that whoever's playing the game better get to Greenland before they close their seaport.
They say it was revealed that he is hoping to buy the medical supplies from EU member countries through commercial channels.
And we are willing to strengthen information, policy, and technical exchanges, and to cooperate with international communities, including the EU.
He said according to the statement.
The central province of Hubei, the center of the epidemic, is under a virtual quarantine with roads sealed off and public transport shut down.
Elsewhere in China, authorities have placed restrictions on travel and business activity in a bid to contain the spread of the virus.
In its latest figures, China's National Health Commission said there were 2,102 new confirmed infections in China on Friday, bringing the cumulative total to 11,791.
Important fact.
The rate is actually decreasing, so the initial transmission, as reported, assuming they're telling the truth, and they probably aren't, was like sixty something percent the next day it was like forty something percent and thirty it's going down it seems like these measures are working to curb the spread of the virus and for the most part if you are my average viewer a male between the ages of eighteen and fifty four you are probably fine even if you do get it you'll get sick it'll be bad now there are some concerns about permanent damage to lungs so you know we'll see what happens but i think i think
You know, humanity has evolved enough technologically to stop something like this.
Fingers crossed.
But don't bet on somebody else.
Expect the worst, hope for the best, and always prepare.
Amid growing international concern, Singapore and the United States announced measures on Friday to restrict entry to foreign nationals who have recently been in China.
Australia followed suit, with Prime Minister Scott Morrison saying the country will deny entry to all foreign nationals traveling from mainland China from Saturday.
Quote, We are in fact operating with an abundance of caution in these circumstances, Morrison told reporters in Sydney, so Australians can go about their daily lives with confidence.
However, the World Health Organization, which this week declared the outbreak a public health emergency of international concern, reiterated global trade and travel restrictions were not needed.
We would want countries to focus on the mitigation efforts of identifying the possible importation of cases and responding to any domestic outbreak, China Hu representative Gordon Galea said today.
Qantas Airways, LTD and Air New Zealand said international travel bans had forced them to suspend their direct flights to China from February 9th.
All three major U.S.
airlines said on Friday they would cancel flights to mainland China.
Nearly 10,000 flights have been suspended since the outbreak of the new coronavirus, according to travel and data analytics firm Sirium, illustrating concerns about a slowdown in economic activity in China and elsewhere.
And I will mention as well, it's not just about flying to China, it's about connecting in China to fly to other areas, right?
So when I flew to Thailand, we stopped in Hong Kong.
That's not technically mainland China.
They might consider it because it is, you know, it is a land barrier.
As my understanding, it's like right there.
So there are probably a lot of flights that will stop at an airport somewhere traveling to, say, you know, Thailand or Vietnam.
This is going to impact everybody.
And so this is why we've seen people in, you know, the market has kind of panicked.
People have started selling off.
We'll see what happens.
They are talking about doing special charter flights, so I think you get the point.
Now, as I stated previously in the last segment, I try to keep these videos short, so I'm going to conclude this story.
They say, although the WHO has praised China's efforts to contain the virus, the U.S.-based China Human Rights Defenders urged Beijing to ease restrictions on movement and counter-discrimination against residents of Wuhan and Hubei.
Human rights must not be a casualty of the government's work to contain the coronavirus outbreak that has killed nearly 200 people and affected millions, the group said.
I'm less concerned, to be honest, about the virus coming where I live.
I'm more concerned about the various resources and products through international trade that are going to either become more scarce, more expensive, or potentially even cease for a while because of all of these restrictions.
That being said, welcome to the nightmare dystopia of giant drones flying around spraying chemicals on people.
